No, this isn't Parashas Mishpatim, and no, this is NOT a complete dvar Torah. I've been working on this question for two weeks, and I decided to present it, even though I don't yet have the answers.
The Torah content for this week has been sponsored by Sarah and Moshe Eisen, with the following message: "Dedicated in honor of Popo, who shined bright and brought joy to so many of us. And to Rabbi Matt Schneeweiss who shared her with us and continues to share thoughts, insights, and Torah."
Click here for a printer-friendly 1-page version of this article, and click here for the podcast version.
Mishpatim: The Sanctuary-Altar Sanctuary (or Mizbeach as Refuge for Killers)
Parashas Mishpatim presents an encapsulation of the laws of homicide in three short verses:
He who strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death. He who did not act with premeditation, but God caused it to come about by his hand, I will make for you a place to which he might flee. But if a man will act willfully against his fellow to kill him with cunning, from My altar you shall take him to die. (Shemos 21:12-14)
Murder (i.e. intentional killing) is liable for the death penalty. Manslaughter (i.e. negligent unintentional killing) is liable for galus – exile into one of the Arei Miklat (Sanctuary Cities) until the death of Kohen Gadol. The goel ha’dam (the “blood redeemer” who is a family member of the slain) may kill the unintentional murderer outside his sanctuary without penalty, but if he kills him within the sanctuary, the goel ha’dam himself is liable for murder.
What about “from My altar you shall take him to die”? According to the straightforward reading, the Written Torah states that if a person commits premeditated murder, the Mizbeach (altar) will not provide sanctuary. The implication is that if a person killed unintentionally, then the Mizbeach will provide sanctuary in the same way as the Arei Miklat. However, the Oral Torah supplies three important qualifications, as the Rambam codifies:
The Mizbeach provides sanctuary ... but only the top of the Mizbeach in the Eternal Temple, and it only provides sanctuary for a Kohen who is engaged in avodah (divine service). But if he is a non-Kohen, or a Kohen who is not engaged in avodah at the time he is killed [by the goel ha'dam], or he is engaged in avodah and is not on top of the Mizbeach but near it or grasping its horns, then [the Mizbeach] does not provide sanctuary. (Rotzeach u’Shmiras ha’Nefesh 5:12-13)
R’ Avraham ben ha’Rambam (Shemos 21:14) maintains that the Torah is alluding to the fatal errors made by Yoav who unsuccessfully sought sanctuary upon hearing that Shlomo ha’Melech ordered his execution: “Yoav fled to the Tent of Hashem and grabbed onto the corners of the altar” (I Melachim 2:28). Yoav was mistaken on four counts: (a) the Mizbeach only provides sanctuary for manslaughter – but he killed intentionally; (b) only the top of the Mizbeach provides sanctuary – but he grabbed the corners; (c) only the Mizbeach in the Beis ha’Mikdash provides sanctuary – but he fled to the Mizbeach in “the Tent of Hashem”; and (d) the Mizbeach only provides sanctuary for a Kohen doing avodah – but Yoav wasn’t a Kohen, and wasn’t doing avodah.
The main question is: What is the deal with this halacha? The institution of Arei Miklat was designed with practicality in mind. The six cities designated as Arei Miklat were equidistantly spaced throughout the Land of Israel, with clear signage pointing the way for those seeking refuge. Not only these six, but all 48 Levite cities provided sanctuary, making it relatively easy for the unintentional killer to find a haven. In contrast, the institution of Mizbeach as sanctuary has such narrow parameters that one can’t help but wonder whether this halacha was ever implemented in practice. It seems more akin to the mitzvah of ben sorer u’moreh (the wayward and rebellious son), which the Sages teach us “never happened and never will happen” but “was written that we may expound and receive reward” (Sanhedrin 71a) – that is, it was written primarily to teach us Torah ideas and values.
Moreover, the Mizbeach halacha is in Parashas Mishpatim, which was given to Israel at Sinai. The details laws of homicide and Arei Miklat aren’t presented until Parashas Masei at the end of Bamidbar and Parashas Shoftim in Devarim, 40 years later. It makes sense for those laws to be deferred until the conquest of the Land, and for Misphatim to feature only the headings. Yet, upon consideration, we realize that the law of the Mizbeach as sanctuary didn’t apply in the Wilderness at all! The Mizbeach in the Mishkan can’t provide sanctuary, nor did it need to, since the entire Levite camp had the status of the Arei Miklat. Thus, it would seem that this halacha was included primarily to teach us some other lesson. The question is: What do we learn from this vexing halacha?
If you’re interested in a full-length shiur on this topic, in which I attempt to develop several approaches, check out the video version or the audio version of the shiur I gave on 2/23/23 entitled: “Mishpatim: The Sanctuary-Altar Sanctuary.”
If you would like to sponsor a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment