- 1. a) RaMBaM: The perpetrator of the manslaughter by consigning him to a city of refuge is out of sight of the Goel HaDam which in turn will help the latter assuage his feelings of anger and revenge.
- b) Sefer HaChinuch:
- i. Exile to a city of refuge is an atonement for the perpetrator who after all caused a death. Therefore he should suffer extreme discomfort and disorientation, but short of his own death.
- ii. Society is better off when there is less murder, so by exiling the perpetrator, the possibility for the GHD taking revenge by killing him is eliminated.
- iii. The relatives of the victim will not be reminded of what took place if the perpetrator is removed from their midst.
- iv. Overarching principle: another example of the principle enunciated in Mishlei 3:17 “It’s ways are ways of pleasantness and all of its paths are for peace.”
- c) Rabbeinu Bachaye:
- i. The basis for determining reward for Mitzvot and punishment for Aveirot is the heart. If the perpetrator did not mean to kill the victim, his treatment is different (exile) than if he had intention to do so (death). A person whose heart is not involved in the performance of a Mitzva has not fulfilled the Commandment as was intended and therefore will receive less reward, if any.
- ii. The paradigm for Ihr Miklat is established in the primordial story of the exile from the Garden of Eden. Although Adam was guilty of a transgression that resulted in death not only for himself but also all members of the human race,1 yet because this was not done deliberately, he is only exiled from the Garden as opposed to suffering immediate death, so too those that come after him who cause death, but not deliberately.
- c) ShaDaL:
- i. The Tora tried to civilize society by removing the responsibility for avenging the death of a relative from the family, and transferring responsibility for adjudication to the legal system in general and the judges in particular. Premeditated murder could be responded to in a satisfactory fashion from the point of view of the family of the victim, but not so manslaughter. Were the perpetrator to have nothing happen to him, the GHD would feel that he has let the victim down, or others might perceive that the GHD did not care that much about the victim. The Tora’s goal is to turn humanity away from this primitive system, but there was recognition that such a paradigm shift could not be accomplished “overnight.”
- ii. No change would take place were the GHD to kill the perpetrator and then in turn be punished himself. He would see his punishment as a necessary price to pay in order to avenge the victim and would sacrifice himself to achieve such an end, despite the fact that this would in effect increase the number of “victims” from a single family, i.e., he now could be considered collateral damage to the initial manslaughter.
- iii. Another possible outcome should the perpetrator not suffer any consequence is that the judges will be attacked by family members for letting him off the hook.
- iv. Therefore in the interests to achieve a type of balance that will eventually result in the institution of the GHD becoming less and less relevant, the Tora requires the perpetrator to endure exile, appoints a single GHD, but in effect makes it virtually impossible for the latter to carry out an attack on the perpetrator, certainly as long as he resides in the Ihr Miklat.2
“Flee”—RaMBaM; Chinuch ii; ShaDaL.
“Exile”—Chinuch i, iii; Rabbeinu Bachaye.
3. The Gemora discusses three distinct stages in the process:
תלמוד בבלי מסכת מכות דף י עמוד ב
תניא, ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר: (1) בתחלה אחד שוגג ואחד מזיד מקדימין לערי מקלט,
(2) וב"ד שולחין ומביאין אותם משם,
מי שנתחייב מיתה - הרגוהו, שנאמר: (דברים יט:יב) "ושלחו זקני עירו ולקחו אותו משם ונתנו אותו ביד גואל הדם ומת,"
מי שלא נתחייב - פטרוהו, שנאמר: (במדבר לה:כה) "והצילו העדה את הרוצח מיד גואל הדם",
(3) מי שנתחייב גלות - מחזירין אותו למקומו, שנא': (שם) "והשיבו אותו העדה אל עיר מקלטו אשר נס שמה"
1) After the death of the victim, all murderers flee to an Ihr Miklat.2) The Beit Din extradites the perpetrator and conducts a trial.
- 3) In the event that the Beit Din finds that the perpetrator was an inadvertent murderer, he is returned to the Ihr Miklat.
- These stages can be detected within the various verses:
- a) The deliberate murderer runs to Ihr Miklat. The Rabbis determine that he is not entitled to asylum, and hand him over for execution.
דברים פרק יט
(יא) וכי יהיה איש שנא לרעהו וארב לו וקם עליו והכהו נפש ומת ונס אל אחת הערים האל:
(יב) ושלחו זקני עירו ולקחו אתו משם ונתנו אתו ביד גאל הדם ומת:
(יג) לא תחוס עינך עליו ובערת דם הנקי מישראל וטוב לך:
במדבר פרק לה
(יא) והקריתם לכם ערים ערי מקלט תהיינה לכם ונס שמה רצח מכה נפש בשגגה:
(יב) והיו לכם הערים למקלט מגאל ולא ימות הרצח עד עמדו לפני העדה למשפט:
- b) Along with the deliberate murderer, the inadvertent murderer flees to Ihr Miklat immediately after the loss of life, to await determination by Beit Din regarding his status.
(טז) ואם בכלי ברזל הכהו וימת רצח הוא מות יומת הרצח:
(יז) ואם באבן יד אשר ימות בה הכהו וימת רצח הוא מות יומת הרצח:
(יח) או בכלי עץ יד אשר ימות בו הכהו וימת רצח הוא מות יומת הרצח:
(יט) גאל הדם הוא ימית את הרצח בפגעו בו הוא ימיתנו:
(כ) ואם בשנאה יהדפנו או השליך עליו בצדיה וימת:
(כא) או באיבה הכהו בידו וימת מות יומת המכה רצח הוא גאל הדם ימית את הרצח בפגעו בו:
- a’) If the evidence indicates that there was premeditated murder, the perpetrator is worthy of execution. (Whether the sentence is actually carried out depends upon witnesses, warning, etc.)
(כב) ואם בפתע בלא איבה הדפו או השליך עליו כל כלי בלא צדיה:
(כג) או בכל אבן אשר ימות בה בלא ראות ויפל עליו וימת והוא לא אויב לו ולא מבקש רעתו:
(כד) ושפטו העדה בין המכה ובין גאל הדם על המשפטים האלה:
(כה) והצילו העדה את הרצח מיד גאל הדם והשיבו אתו העדה אל עיר מקלטו אשר נס שמה וישב בה עד מות הכהן הגדל אשר משח אתו בשמן הקדש:
- c) If it is determined that manslaughter was committed, the Beit Din will see the perpetator safely back to the Ihr Miklat where he is to remain until the death of the Kohen Gadol.
- Consequently, the term “flee” applies to stage 1), while the term “exile” applies to stage 3).
- a) Ihr Miklat: The blood avenger as well as other members of the victim’s family can’t get over their animus in the event that nothing would happen to an individual guilty of manslaughter. (They should—the perpetrator only did something inadvertently—but they can’t. So something has to be put into place that shows that the perpetrator is subject to consequence in order to avoid further deaths arising from this situation.
- b) Eishet Yefrat Toar: The victorious soldier ideally should leave the female war captive alone. But if he cannot overcome his physical desires, a means for channeling these desires into marriage is constructed. RaShI does add that probably, no good will come to a man’s family when he has married for such reasons; nevertheless this is considered better than were he to rape the woman and then walk away.
- c) Melech: The people will only request a king to be like everyone else. Nevertheless, rules will be in place when this occurs that will control the situation at least to some extent so that they will not get their way completely, but will have to incorporate God’s Rules into this institution. (The most fundamental indication that this idea was wrongheaded is that the overwhelming majority of kings were corrupt and refused to comply with God’s Law.)
- d) Basar Ta’ava: The eating of meat is an indication of a lowly ethical level that perhaps eventually will be improved, but for the time being, is not. Yet there are restrictions with regard to how meat is prepared and consumed and these serve to put reins upon man’s tendency to indulge his baser instincts.
Ki Tetze 5702 http://www.nechama.org.il/cgi-
Shoftim 5707 http://www.nechama.org.il/cgi-
Re’eh 5705 http://www.nechama.org.il/cgi-
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment