Revenge and Redeeming

Masei

Numbers 33:1-36:13

Précis:  The Book of Numbers ends with this parasha. “These are the stages (masei) of the journey” which the Israelites made through the desert. In what amounts to a recapitulation, all of the stops along the way are identified. The Israelites are reminded to drive the Canaanites from the Land. Most of the parasha outlines the Israelites' entry to the Promised Land and sets out the first steps to be taken as they establish their national home, including the distribution of land among the tribes. The Levitical cities are described, as well as the cities of refuge. Just prior to their invasion of the land, the laws differentiating between murder and killing are repeated. The parasha ends with a summary of the commandments and ordinances. 

Num. 35:9-10 “The Lord spoke further to Moses: ‘Speak to the Israelite people and say to them, ‘When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, you shall provide yourselves with places to serve as cities of refuge to which a manslayer who has killed a person unintentionally may flee. The cities shall serve you as a refuge from the avenger so that the manslayer may be brought before a tribunal…”

            The concept of cities of refuge (“arei miklat”) was developed for a society in which revenge was the usual reaction to a murder, whether intentional or unintentional. Even today, there remain cultures in which physical revenge is used in reaction to a range of “insults” (from “improper” relations with a female relative to the killing of a relative). While the concept of a city of refuge was probably not a creation of the Israelites (there were similar concepts known in neighboring cultures of that era), it was a mark of a society in while the rule of law was to be supported. The Hebrew word we translate here as “avenger” (go'el) literally means “redeemer,” as in one who redeems the honor of his clan. This shows just how important this concept of honor was in this society.

            The Torah rejects revenge and an avenger, and instead demands a system of tribunals to protect the accused from the vengeance of others. If found innocent of intentional killing, the accused would be permitted to live in the city, isolated from the community where he had committed the non-willful slaying. For a civilization which had yet to invent prisons, this was an important development.

            There is a second interesting point to consider. Among the tribes, the Levites were not provided with a portion of the land; their “income” was to be derived from contributions to the Temple from the other tribes. An exception was made, however, for the designated refuge cities. These were under the control of the Levites. Thus, the role of the Levites as envisioned in the Torah was to serve as both the ritual leaders of the People, and as the civil protectors of society. This union of religious and social leadership may well have been a unique contribution of the Torah. It may give one some insight into today’s debate about the role of church and state, and I would certainly appreciate hearing from others what the connection might be.