The Torah provides a fascinating and compassionate solution: cities of refuge, places where an unintentional manslayer could flee and find sanctuary. But how did these cities work, and where exactly were they located?
The Yalkut Shimoni, a compilation of Midrashic teachings, sheds light on this intriguing topic. In Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 787, we find a discussion on the verses about these special cities. When the Torah says "and you shall give the cities," does it mean to include the first set of cities chosen, or exclude them? The Yalkut Shimoni explains that the phrase "and you shall give the cities" implies giving the three cities – those east of the Jordan, along with their pasturelands.
Why the emphasis on "and the cities, along with their pasturelands?" It's because this teaches us the precise location of these havens: three on the eastern side of the Jordan River and three in the land of Canaan, just as we read in the verse, "You shall give beyond the Jordan, etc."
Here's a crucial point: The three cities east of the Jordan didn't fully function as cities of refuge until the three in Canaan were also designated. It was an all-or-nothing situation. As the verse states, "Six cities of refuge shall you have." Only when all six were ready to accept fugitives did the system function as a whole.
A Baraita (a teaching from the Tannaitic period not included in the Mishnah) tells us that Moses designated the three cities on the east side of the Jordan, and Joshua, correspondingly, designated three in the land of Canaan. And here’s a remarkable detail: these cities were aligned like two rows.
Imagine this: Hebron in Judah corresponded to Bezer in the wilderness. Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim corresponded to Ramoth in Gilead. And Kedesh in the hill country of Naphtali corresponded to Golan in Bashan.
The ideal arrangement, according to this tradition, was a triangle. You could theoretically draw a straight line from the south of Hebron, through Hebron itself, then on to Shechem, and finally to Kedesh in the north. Three cities east of the Jordan, three in the land of Israel, forming a network of protection.
Now, Abaye, a renowned Talmudic scholar, offers an interesting observation. He notes that Gilead was known for its violence. He points to the verse in Hosea (6:8): "Gilead, a city of workers of mischief, is stained with blood," suggesting that people there were prone to lying in wait to kill.
And Shechem wasn't much better, according to Abaye. He cites another verse in Hosea (6:9): "The company of priests shed blood on the way to Shechem," implying that they too were known for banding together to kill, just as they would join forces to distribute the terumah (priestly offering) in the granary. It’s a chilling thought, isn't it? The very places designated for refuge were, in some ways, associated with violence.
Furthermore, the verse states, "And you shall give them forty-two cities" (Numbers 35:7). Abaye clarifies that these 42 cities accepted unintentional manslayers whether they were aware of their status or not. The six main cities of refuge, however, only accepted them if they were aware. It's a subtle but significant distinction.
And just to confirm, Hebron is indeed a city of refuge, as the verse states, "They gave to Caleb Hebron" (Joshua 14:13). However, Abaye notes that this is a separate matter, as it is also written, "They gave the fields of the city and its villages to Caleb" (Joshua 21:12). Similarly, Kedesh is confirmed as a city of refuge by the verse "Rekem and Kinneret, Kedesh" (Joshua 19:37).
A Baraita teaches us something about the size of these cities: they weren't small villages or sprawling metropolises, but rather medium-sized towns, Goldilocks towns, you might say – not too big, not too small, just right.
Finally, Rav Yosef suggests that there were actually two cities named Kedesh! Rav Ashi adds to this, saying they were like Salka and Akra, which also served as Kedesh cities. It seems the system was more complex and nuanced than we might initially assume.
So, what does all this tell us? The cities of refuge weren't just about physical locations. They represented a deeply ingrained sense of justice and compassion within Jewish tradition. They offered a chance for redemption, a path away from the cycle of violence, and a reminder that even in the darkest of times, there is always a place for refuge and hope. Aren't you glad we have that?