Matot-Ma’asei

This week has a double portion; Matot and Ma’asei.  We will be reading in Synagogue from Parashat Ma’asei – Numbers chapter 35 – about the cities of refuge.  God commands six cities to be set aside for the Levites to live in.  The tribe of Levi did not inherit land themselves as they, were needed throughout the land to act as the religious agents for the people.  Long before the city of Jerusalem was captured, sanctuaries were set up across the country where sacrifices could be made.  They were offered by the Cohanim, the descendents of Aharon also of the tribe of Levi, and were assisted in the ritual by the reset of the Levites.

Six cities were appointed for their exclusive use – but it was also to these six cities that those who may have killed a person unwittingly could flee. The ‘manslayer’ could be victim, under early Israelite law, to a revenge attack by the ‘go’el ha-dam’ – the blood avenger, a relative of the deceased whose right it was to take a life in place of that of the victim.  When the death was unintentional, it would be unjust to take the manslayer’s life.  However, punishment must be meted out somehow. So it was that the manslayer was condemned to exile in one of the refuge cities until such time as the High Priest died. Thus the cities of refuge, were part haven, part punishment since the manslayer was destined to remain there if he wished to save is life.

Rabbi Danny Burkman in an article last year drew attention to a piece written by the French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas. Entitled ‘Cities of Refuge,’ Levinas characterised the inhabitants of these cities as half-innocent and half-guilty parties. These people are not full murderers, he said, but they are not completely innocent of any crime. Levinas concluded that today we are all living in cities of refuge. For us, it is to live in our comfortable western society while others are suffering and dying so that we will have cheap food, clothes, oil, etc. We are not directly guilty for the murders and abuse, but we are not completely innocent. Levinas’ startling accusation is that ‘There are cities of refuge because we have enough conscience to have good intentions, but not enough to betray them by our acts’.

Thus Burkman concludes, rather than cities of refuge being something other and outside ourselves, pertaining to a different time and a different place, Levinas suggests that the cities of refuge may be read as a warning about how we live our lives and the impact which it can have on others.