NUM415 See [[NUM417]] Numbers 35:30 murderer SPERO 239-40

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM416 Homicide is never less than serious in Jewish law. But there is a fundamental difference between murder--deliberate killing--and manslaughter, accidental death. To kill someone who is not guilty of murder as an act of revenge, someone who is responsible for the accidental death, is not justice but further bloodshed; this must be prevented--hence the need for safe havens where people at risk could be protected. The prevention of unjust violence is fundamental to the Torah. God's covenant with Noah and humankind after the Flood identifies murder as the ultimate crime: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man" (Genesis 9:6). Blood wrongly shed cries to Heaven itself. God said to Cain after he murdered Abel, "Your brother's blood is crying to Me from the ground" (Genesis 4:10). Here in Numbers we hear a similar sentiment: "You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and the blood can have no expiation for blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it" (Numbers 35:33). The verb H-N-F, which appears twice in this verse and nowhere else in the Mosaic books, means to pollute, to soil, to dirty, to defile. There is something fundamentally blemished about a world in which murder goes unpunished. Human life is sacred. Even justified acts of bloodshed, as in the case of war, communicate impurity. A priest who has shed blood does not bless the people (Berakhot 32b; Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Tefilla 15:3). David is told that he may not build the Temple "because you shed much blood" (I. Chr. 22:8). Death defiles. ... However, not all acts of killing are murder. Some are bishgaga, that is, unintentional, accidental, or inadvertent. These are the acts that lead to exile in the cities of refuge. Yet there is an ambiguity about this law. Was exile to the cities of refuge considered a way of protecting the accidental killer, or was it itself a form of punishment--not the death sentence that would have applied to one guilty of murder, but punishment nonetheless? Recall that exile is a biblical form of punishment. Adam and Eve, after their sin, were exiled from Eden. Cain, after killing Abel, was told he would be "a restless wanderer on the face of the earth" (Genesis 4:12). ... In truth both elements are present. On the one hand the Torah says, "The assembly must protect the one accused of murder from the redeemer of blood and send the accused back to the city of refuge to which he fled" (Numbers 35:25). Here the emphasis is on protection. But on the other hand, we read that if the exiled person "ever goes outside the limits of the city of refuge to which he fled and the redeemer of blood finds him outside the city, the redeemer of blood may kill the accused without being guilty of murder" (Numbers 35:26–27). Here an element of guilt is presumed; otherwise, why would the blood-redeemer be innocent of murder? (See Amnon Bazak, Cities of Refuge and Cities of Flight," in Torah MiEtzion, Devarim (Jerusalem, Maggid, 2012), 229-236.) … The desire for revenge is basic. It exists in all societies. It leads to cycles of retaliation… that have no natural end. Wars of the clans were capable of destroying all societies. The Torah, understanding that the desire for revenge is natural, tames it by translating it into something else altogether. It recognizes the pain, the loss, and the moral indignation of the victim's family. That is the meaning of the phrase goel hadam, the blood-redeemer, the figure who represents that instinct for revenge.… Yet the Torah inserts one vital element between the killer and the victim's family: the principle of justice. There must be no direct act of revenge. The killer must be protected until his case has been heard in a court of law. If found guilty, he must pay the price. If found innocent, he must be given refuge. This single act turns revenge into retribution. This makes all the difference. People often find it difficult to distinguish between retribution and revenge, yet they are completely different concepts. Revenge is an I-Thou relationship. You killed a member of my family so I will kill you. It is intrinsically personal. Retribution, by contrast, is impersonal. ... Indeed the best definition of the society the Torah seeks to create is nomocracy: the rule of laws, not men. Retribution is the principled rejection of revenge. It says that we are not free to take the law into our own hands. Passion may not override the due process of the law, for that is a sure route to anarchy and bloodshed.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM417 Some specific laws of the Torah distinguish sharply between intentional and unintentional acts. When there is evidence of intention such as prior enmity, lying in ambush, or other signs of premeditation, such as if there are two witnesses to the act, we have a case of murder and the penalty is death (this verse). For an act of unintentional manslaughter, the Torah prescribed the penalty of exile in one of the cities of refuge. This was a rather unusual institution, consisting of a group of six easily accessible cities settled by the Levites, where the hapless manslayer could live in comfortable and sympathetic surroundings "until the death of the high priest." [Numbers 35:25, 28; Deuteronomy 19:4-7). The system of "cities of refuge" seems to have served several different purposes. First, it was clearly a protective measure designed to guard against the blood-avenger (See Ramban and Sforno). According to S. D. Luzzatto, at this point in history, the blood feud was considered a sacred obligation by every family and clan. This procedure, by placing the manslayer into protective custody, assuaged the outraged feelings of the family of the victim with the thought that the slayer of their kinsman was being "punished." Others saw in the exile an expiation or therapeutic purpose to ease the burden of guilt from the shoulders of one who, after all, had been instrumental in the death of a human being.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM418 A witness who testifies in a capital case may not play the role of judge. See [[NUM405]] Numbers 35:12 trial CHINUCH 261-2

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM419 See [[NUM431]] Numbers 35:34 defile OXFORD 476

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM420 From Judaism's perspective, no one can forgive a crime committed against another. Only the victim of the crime can grant forgiveness. Since he or she is no longer able to do so, that means that murder is, by definition, an unforgivable act (see pages 184–185). Judaism's perspective on not forgiving murderers has long distinguished it from many of the societies among whom the Jews have lived. In the ancient world, for example, it was common for a murderer to pay a ransom to the victim's family, in return for which the family granted absolution. In repudiating this practice, the Torah ruled, "You may not except ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of a capital crime; he must be put to death" [this verse]. As Maimonides explains, "The soul of the victim is not the property [of his family members] but the property of God" ("Laws of Murder and Preservation of Life" 1:4). Thus, from Judaism's perspective, parents who forgive their child's murderer are behaving as if the child were their property. Just as they have the right to forgive a thief for stealing their television, so too, they imply, they have the right to forgive another for stealing their child's life; according to the Torah and Jewish law, however, they do not. ... The Jewish view can be summed up as follows: forgiveness is almost always a virtue, but the taking of an innocent life is an unforgivable offense.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM421 See [[EXOD592]] Exodus 21:24 eye BLOCH 66-7

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM422 When someone is found guilty of murder, do not accept a money payment in exchange for the death penalty. If it were permitted to accept ransom and thereby exempt murderers from the death penalty, men of wealth in moments of anger would kill people and later would use their money to save themselves from the punishment. The swords of the wealthy would drip with blood, and social order would be destroyed.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM423 The simple reading of this source is that the City of Refuge is just that, a safe haven for one who kills unintentionally. The source Numbers places a statute of limitations on the killer’s stay there, tying it to the death of the High Priest. It is thus not clear if, according to Numbers, staying in the City of Fefuge is a matter of protecting the unintentional killer, equivalent to a prison term, or a matter of atonement, as the Rabbis of the Talmud would seem to understand it. If so, this would be the closest the Jewish tradition comes to the notion of a jail term. (By Uzi Weingarten and the Editors)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM424 When someone is found guilty of unintentional manslaughter, do not accept a money payment to exempt him from exile. See [[NUM422]] Numbers 35:31 ransom CHINUCH 263

SHOW FULL EXCERPT