1. This paper will not discuss the pericope on the cities of refuge in Joshua 20:1–9, or the designation of the altar as a place of refuge in Exodus 21:12–14. I wish to thank my colleagues Dr. Shimon Gesundheit and Dr. Jonathan Grossman for their comments.

2. This is the position of Knohl, Israel, Mikdash ha-demamah:‘Iyyun be-rovde ha-yeẓirah ha-kohanit she-ba-Torah (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1993), 24Google Scholar. See the evidence he presents there. Jacob Milgrom and Baruch Schwartz have accepted his opinion, in Milgrom, Jacob, Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 2444Google Scholar; and Schwartz, Baruch Yaakov, Torat ha-kedushah: ‘Iyyunim ba-ḥukah ha-kohanit she-ba-Torah (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999), 116Google Scholar n. 67.

3. Rofé, Alexander, “Le-toledotehen shel ‘are ha-miklat ba-mishpat ha-mikra'i,” Bet Mikra’ 31, no. 2 (1996): 111–12Google Scholar. Rofé reviews the various positions taken on the issue of why the sanctuary (in Exodus) is replaced by the cities of refuge (in Numbers and Deuteronomy). On one hand, he presents the position of Wellhausen (Rofé, “Le-toledotehen,” 110 n. 4), who considers this a result of the cultic centralization in Deuteronomy, because it facilitates having more places of refuge, while also presenting those who disagree with this position and assign the cities of refuge to different historical periods. Rofé leans towards agreeing with Wellhausen's explanation (Rofé, 115). See Stackert, Jeffrey, “Why Does Deuteronomy Legislate Cities of Refuge? Asylum in the Covenant Collection (Exodus 21:12–14) and Deuteronomy (19:1–13),” Journal of Biblical Literature 125, no. 1 (2006): 23–49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Stackert analyzes the relationship between Deuteronomy and Exodus, and concludes that the transition from asylum in the sanctuary in Exodus to the cities of refuge in Deuteronomy is the result of cultic centralization, on one hand, and a new interpretation given to the term makom, on the other hand. Cultic centralization does not permit the existence of multiple places of cultic refuge, forcing reinterpretation of the plural mekomot to include nonsacral sites.

4. Moshe Greenberg also claims the independence of pentateuchal sources relating to the cities of refuge and attributes this law to the principle of the sanctity of human life, which was prevalent in ancient Israel. See Greenberg, , “The Biblical Conception of Asylum,” Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959): 125–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Greenberg, , “‘Are miklat,” in ’Enẓiklopediyah mikra'it (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 2011), 6:385Google Scholar. My attempt to demonstrate the internal coherence of each pericope is an extension of this line of thought.

5. In this, I follow in the footsteps of my master and teacher Rabbi Mordechai Breuer, OBM, who transformed the documentary hypothesis of biblical criticism into the “aspects approach.” He accepted the literary distinctions between different parts of the Pentateuch but explained them using a synchronic approach, as differing “aspects.” According to the methodology of Rabbi Breuer, it is necessary to differentiate the aspect of Deuteronomy from the aspects of Leviticus and Numbers, which he calls “the name of God aspect” and the “holiness aspect.” See Ofer, Yosef, ed., Shitat ha-behinot shel Ha-rav Mordechai Breuer: Koveẓ ma'amarim ve-teguvot (Alon Shevut: Tevunot, 2005)Google Scholar.

6. This can be demonstrated by comparing it to the expression “there is no bloodguilt in his case” in Exodus 22:1, where the pronoun “his” must refer to the thief, since only he is mentioned in the verse, not the person who struck him. (“If the thief is seized while tunneling, and he is beaten to death.”) Rashi indeed interprets the pronoun in this verse as referring to the unintentional manslayer, “who is one who has no blood,” and he interprets Exodus 22:1 the same way, “It is as though he (the thief) has been dead from the beginning” (trans. M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann [New York: Hebrew Publishing Company, 1984]).

7. See T. Makkot 3:7 and Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon Bar Yoḥai 22:1 (ed. Melamed, p. 192), which state that his blood is permitted to any person. On this basis Maimonides rules that the text likely mentions only the blood-avenger because that was the reality of its time. Mishneh Torah, hilkhot roẓeaḥ 5:10 and hilkhot genevah 9:7 (ed. Makbili, Y. [Haifa: ’Or Ve-yeshu‘a, 2006])Google Scholar.

8. B. Makkot 10b presents a disagreement between tannaitic authorities about whether the text refers to the manslayer or to the blood-avenger, but rules decisively that it relates to the manslayer. The position that the pronoun refers to the blood-avenger seems to be an attempt to bridge the gap between the two pericopes.

9. See Rivlin, Ram, “‘Iyyun be-parshiyot shefikhut damim: ‘Are miklat ve-‘eglah ‘arufah,” Megadim 28 (1998): 19–21 Google Scholar. Rivlin distinguishes between two purposes for the cities of refuge in Numbers and Deuteronomy, protecting the manslayer or exiling him, respectively, but does not attribute this to the more fundamental disagreement, whether the manslayer is guilty or innocent. As is his custom, he mixes the two pericopes, and the Pentateuch with the rabbinic tradition (see his first footnote and throughout the article), unlike my method, which is to keep them distinct. According to Licht, Jacob, “The main distinction between the two pericopes relates to their reasoning: according to Deuteronomy the goal is ‘Thus blood of the innocent will not be shed’ (verse 10) meaning that this is a general ethical principle, one that can be comprehended intellectually, and is similar to modern thought, while the concept of defiling the land in this pericope sounds strange to us, primeval and bound to the concretization of moral intuitions.” Perush ‘al sefer Bamidbar 22–36 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995), 182Google Scholar.

10. The English translation does not capture the element of “coincidence” that is present in the original Hebrew verb. The verb used in Numbers, vi-hikiriytem, may be derived from the noun kiryah (city). If so, it would mean “build cities” but this explanation seems improbable.

11. The classical commentaries interpreted this expression as derived from language of “preparation” or “foundation,” but it is likely that it is an expression of counting, as in “but you must produce your quota of bricks!” (Exodus 5:18). Rashi calls this “language of arithmetic” (in his commentary on Exodus 5:18). For similar usage, see also “they apportion what they have brought in” (Exodus 16:5).

12. See Rofé, “Le-toledotehen,” 116–19. He contends that this usage is dependent on cultic centralization rather than internal concerns of the pericope.

13. See Rofé, “Le-toledotehen,” 122 and Zakovitz, Yair, “‘Leshakhen shemo sham’—‘lasum shemo sham,’” Tarbiz 41, no. 3 (1983): 339Google Scholar. Some consider this a secondary addition intended to make the number of the cities of refuge in Deuteronomy (three) the same as that in Numbers (six), but the internal logic of the pericope, as explained, leads to the addition of these cities. Moreover, this adjustment is already provided in Deuteronomy 4:41–43. (Rofé, 121, attributes this to a later author.) See Rashbam on Deuteronomy 4:41 (ed. Torat Ḥayim [Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1993]), who explains these verses according to his method of foreshadowing. Zakovitch does not distinguish between the expression “as He swore to your fathers” that appears in this verse and the phrase “as He has promised you” (Deuteronomy 12:20) and considers them identical. However, see Naḥmanides (ed. Torat Ḥayim [Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1993]), who is precise in making this distinction, and proves from this verse that the expansion refers to the promise to the patriarchs, which includes ten nations, not seven. Rashbam understands this verse similarly.

14. See Rofé, “Le-toledotehen,” 125–27, who has difficulty with the legal process in Deuteronomy; see also Joshua 20:4, where the unintentional manslayer remains at the gate and does not enter the city until the process, which is absent in Deuteronomy, is complete. See Aḥituv, Shmuel, “Ha-ḥukim ‘al ‘are ha-miklat,” Ha-mikra’ ve-ha-mizraḥ ha-kadum 10 (1984–89): 14Google Scholar. He claims, based on the combined language, that Joshua integrated the demands of Numbers and Deuteronomy.

15. According to the simple meaning of the text, this does not refer to the size of the stone but rather to a stone that is held in the hand, and the wooden tool is also one that is held in the hand.

16. Translation adapted to match the interpretation.

17. See Rashbam's Commentary on Deuteronomy, ed. trans., and Martin I. Lockshin (Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2004), 19:5Google Scholar: “[The phrase in our verse means] that the ax dislodges a chip from the wood that it is chopping.” In M. Makkot 2:1 (ed. Danziger, p. 41), the rabbis are divided in their understanding of the case. “Should the iron fly off its handle and kill – Rebbi says: He is not exiled; but the Sages say: He is exiled. From the tree that is being chopped – Rebbi says: He is exiled; but the Sages say: He is not exiled.” Based on the parallel passage in Deuteronomy 7, “and He dislodges many nations before you” (verse 1) and “The Lord your God will dislodge those peoples before you” (verse 22), it seems that the verb nashal (dislodge) is transitive and ha-barzel (lit. “iron”) is the subject of the sentence, not its object, as Rabbi and Rashbam also interpreted. Similarly, according to this interpretation, the word ‘eẓ (lit. “wood”), which appears twice in the verse, keeps its meaning throughout, rather than referring once to the wood being cut and once to the ax handle, as the other interpretation requires. Ibn Ezra on this verse (ed. Torat Ḥayim [Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1993]) raises the possibility that the verb nashal can be either intransitive or transitive, but appears to reject this idea, assuming that his concluding remark, “in my opinion, they are both transitive” refers to nashal.

18. Two examples of unwitting killers are given: the one who strikes another and the woodcutter, each with its own introductory phrase “one who has killed … For instance, a man goes …” The centrality of the emotional, psychological dimension is especially conspicuous in Deuteronomy. The commandments to love God (with all the heart and soul), to revere Him and be joyful in His presence, to know God and keep these things in mind are unique to Deuteronomy, and have no parallels in other books of the Pentateuch.

19. See Rofé, “Le-toledotehen,” 110, who places this prohibition against the background of both an existing custom and Exodus. His reading invites the question of why Deuteronomy does not mention this.

20. The use of the root r-ẓ-ḥ in reference to someone killed legally is exceptional. It would seem that this is consistent with the law in the Numbers pericope that does not make a principled distinction between different type of bloodshed; see below.

21. See Weinfeld, Moshe, “Ha-mifne be-tefisat ha-’elohut ve-ha-pulḥan be-sefer Devarim,” in Tarbiz: mikra’ be-ḥeker ha-mikra’ (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1979), 7Google Scholar.

22. See Schwartz, Torat ha-kedushah, 112–16. In his review of the research findings on the verb kipper, Schwartz explains that it encompasses two etymological strands, “ransom” and “purification/disinfection” (but never “covering”). When used in combination with nefesh, it always means “ransom.” In the current verse, the verb has a double meaning; the blood is both a ransom for the blood that was spilled but also purifies the land from its defilement. In his opinion, the holiness aspect reinterpreted the priestly idea of kaparah by blood on the altar, considering it a ransom rather than a purification (Schwartz, 119–20).

23. Milgrom, Jacob, “Tafkid korban he-ḥatat,” Tarbiz 40, no. 1 (1971): 1–8 Google Scholar. See Licht, Perush ‘al sefer Bamidbar, 199. He considers this impurity metaphorical (“similar to impurity”), and thinks that it cannot to purified.

24. But see chapter 6 of Gane, Roy, Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005)Google Scholar and Gane, , “Privative Preposition min in Purification Offering Pericopes and the Changing Face of ‘Dorian Gray,’” Journal of Biblical Literature 127 (2008): 209–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Gane shows that the sprinkling of the blood also atones for the sinner. I thank the anonymous reader for these references.

25. The root sh-g-g appears in the Pentateuch seventeen times, all in Leviticus and Numbers. Other than the two appearances in the pericope on the cities of refuge in Numbers, all uses are in texts concerning sacrifices. In addition, it appears twice more in Joshua in the pericope on the cities of refuge, but one of the uses in Joshua combines the two phrases: “unintentionally and unwittingly” (Joshua 20:3). See Paran, Meir, Darkhe ha-signon ha-kohani ba-Torah: Degamim, shimushe lashon, mivnim (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989), 107Google Scholar n. 42, 304.

26. See Paran, Darkhe ha-signon, 264–65. Regarding the meaning of the expression, see Greenberg, “‘Are miklat,” 383. The word is interpreted in many ways, as language referring to designation, escape or haven, rescue, or absorption. See Rofé, “Le-toledotehen,” 127, who prefers the meaning “rescue” and Milgrom, Jacob, ‘Olam ha-Tanakh le-sefer Bamidbar (Tel Aviv: Davidson-Ati, 1993), 205Google Scholar. Milgrom contrasts the root k-l-t with the root s-r-’ (based on Leviticus 22:23; 21:18; and Isaiah 28:20), and interprets these phrases as meaning “to close, to constrict, to shorten steps”—accordingly, the meaning of the term miklat is “remand.” Based on our analysis of the pericope in Numbers, the language of “rescue” is inappropriate, rather it should be “absorption” or “remand.” This also emerges from the rabbinic language that speaks of the cities “absorbing.”

27. See Greenberg, “‘Are miklat,” 235: “The cities of refuge should be understood as a differentiated area that is able to accept blood without it being on the entire land of Israel.” Knohl (Mikdash ha-demamah, 169) and Rivlin (“‘Iyyun be-parshiyot shefikhut damim,” 23–24) derive this from other sources in the Bible, also considering rabbinic sources about the Levitical cities.

28. See Breuer, Yohanan, “’Issur tuma'ah ba-Torah,” Megadim 2 (1986): 45–53 Google Scholar. See Halevi, Yehuda, Ha-kuzari 2:60–61, 3:48–49, trans. Shmuel, Yehuda Even (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1973)Google Scholar. According to Halevi's interpretation, the foundation of all impurities is their relationship to death. Thus, there is common ground between the prohibition of murder and its impurity, and impurities in general.

29. Deuteronomy 4:36: “From the heavens He let you hear His voice.” Deuteronomy 26:15: “Look down from Your holy abode, from heaven.” See Weinfeld, “Ha-mifne be-tefisat ha-’elohut ve-ha-pulḥan,” 33–38.

30. See Maimonides, , Moreh nevukhim 3:32, trans. Schartz, Michael (Ramat Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 2002)Google Scholar; Naḥmanides, , Introduction to Deuteronomy, ed. Ḥayim, Torat (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1993)Google Scholar.

31. Deuteronomy 4:29–30; 26:12–15; 30:1–10. See Weinfeld, “Ha-mifne,” 24–25.

32. Weinfeld, “Ha-mifne,” 25. He emphasizes that the purging is effected by the Lord and not by the priest, as per the sacrificial sections of Leviticus.

33. See Weinfeld, “Ha-mifne,” 31. He distinguishes between the holiness of the people, which is emphasized in Deuteronomy, and the holiness of the land, which is emphasized in Leviticus and Numbers.

34. See Rofé, “Le-toledotehen,” 114, who connects this verse with Deuteronomy 12:29 to support his opinion that the allocation of the cities is the result of the cultic centralization in the chosen place. See his speculative explanations there regarding Kaufmann's claim that there is no mention that the temple served as a sanctuary for murderers.

35. B. Makkot 10a (ed. Schottenstein): “R’ Simai expounded: What is the meaning of the verse: A lover of silver shall not be satisfied with silver, and whoever loves a multitude has no produce (Eccl. 5:9)? A lover of silver shall not be satisfied with silver—this is our master, who knew that the three cities across the Jordan would not provide refuge as long as the three in the land of Canaan were not chosen, but he nonetheless said: ‘The mitzvah that has come my way I shall fulfill.’” See also Rashi on Deuteronomy 4:41.

36. See Nun, Yoel Bin, “Ha-’areẓ ve-’ereẓ Kana‘an ba-Torah,” Megadim 17 (1992): 46–49 Google Scholar. Despite the distinction Numbers makes between the “land of Canaan” and Transjordan, it remains necessary to distinguish between Transjordan and the rest of the world.

37. See the explanation given by Rabba in B. Makkot 11a (ed. Schottenstein), “because they should have beseeched God for mercy for their generation, but they did not beseech Him,” and Sifre Bamidbar, par. Masei, pis. 160, to Numbers 35:25 (ed. Horovitz, p. 220).

38. See Greenberg, “‘Are miklat,” 128–30; Milgrom, Numbers, 294; Knohl, , ’Emunot ha-mikra’: Gevulot ha-mahapekhah ha-mikra'it (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2007), 7Google Scholar, 136, who considers it the germ of the idea that the suffering of the righteous is redemptive; but the issue here is the purification of blood by blood, not suffering.

39. See Rofé, “Le-toledotehen,” 130; Stackert claims that Deuteronomy does not relate to the time of departure because this was already mentioned in Numbers (“Why Does Deuteronomy Legislate,” 30 n. 18), but we have shown that there is an explanation of principle.

40. Rashi on Exodus 22:20 (trans. M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann): “Wherever ger occurs in Scriptures it signifies a person who not been born in that land (where he is living) but has come from another country to sojourn there.” See Zeligman, Y. A., “Ger” in ’Enẓiklopediyah mikra'it (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1978), 2:546Google Scholar. For a solitary opposing opinion see Cohen, Matityahu, “ʿIyyun diʾakhroni ve-sinkhroni ba-musag ‘ger’ ba-mikraʾ,” in Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress for Jewish Studies (1990), 1:11–18Google Scholar. In his opinion gerim in the Bible are Israelites from the northern tribes living in the territory of Judah.

41. For the rabbinic debate on this issue, see M. Makkot 2:3 (ed. Danziger, p. 45): “All are exiled as a result of an Israelite, and Israelites are exiled as a result of them, with the exception of a resident alien. A resident alien is exiled only as a result of a resident alien.” See B. Makkot 9a and the debate between Maimonides and Ravad on Yad ḥa-zakah, hilkhot roẓeaḥ 5:3. Similarly, the ger mentioned in the final section of the sexual prohibitions is a foreigner dwelling among the Israelites, whom the rabbis called a “resident alien” (see Ibn Ezra on Leviticus 18:26, Exodus 22:20), and his equivalence to the citizen, based on his obligation to protect the holiness of the land because he resides there, as Leviticus states “So let not the land spew you out for defiling it” (18:28).

42. Weinfeld, “Ha-mifne,” 31. In his opinion, this obligation is limited to the commandments related to the holiness of the assembly, see Weinfeld, Moshe, “Zeramim te'ologiyim ba-sifrut ha-Torah,” Bet Ha-mikra’ 16, no. 1 (1971): 21–22Google Scholar. In Milgrom's opinion, these are limited to negative commandments only, see Milgrom, Jacob, “Religious Conversion and the Revolt Model for the Reformation of Israel,” Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982): 170–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Knohl, Mikdash ha-demamah, 176; Milgrom, Leviticus, 1404–5.

43. Also Numbers 9:14, 15:15–16, to which Exodus 12:29, also part of this aspect, could be added (Schwartz, Torat ha-kedushah, 358–61). The nonpriestly sources state the Israelites’ obligation to the alien apodictically, while the priestly sources use a casuistic formulation. Only this aspect expresses the idea that the alien is “like you.” Despite the overall equality of the alien and the citizen, it seems that we should interpret this language in a limited manner to include only the specific law, statute, or instruction mentioned, rather than all of the commandments to which the citizen is obligated. Zer-Kavod, Mordechai, “Ha-nokhri ve-ha-ger ba-mikra’,” in ‘Oz le-David: Koveẓ meḥkarim ba-Tanakh mugash le-David Ben-Gurion be-mal'ot lo shivi‘im va-sheva’ shanim, ed. Kaufmann, Yeḥezkel (Jerusalem: He-ḥevrah Le-ḥeker Ha-mikra’ be-Yisra'el, 1974), 565Google Scholar n. 47a.

44. These terms are not mentioned anywhere in Deuteronomy. For the uniqueness of “resident alien” as priestly language, see Paran, Darkhe ha-signon, 243–44. The term “citizen” is used eleven times in Leviticus and Numbers and another three times in Exodus 12 (which is also part of this aspect), but never in Deuteronomy (Paran, 299). See Weinfeld, “Ha-mifne,” 9 n. 24. For the language used in Deuteronomy, see below. The fundamental distinction between the ger in Leviticus and Numbers and the ger in Deuteronomy is evident in the law of eating an improperly killed animal, which Deuteronomy forbids to the Israelite but permits to the ger, while Leviticus permits both the Israelite and the ger to eat it but states that this makes them impure (unlike either, the priest is forbidden to eat carrion). See Schwartz, Torat ha-kedushah, 126–28 and Knohl, ’Emunot ha-mikra’, 116–17. Knohl believes that the priestly prohibition originated in their independent holiness, but it seems that the immediate reason is that they eat sacrifices.

45. Morag, Shlomo, “U-mita'arah ke-’eẓraḥ ra‘anan,” Tarbiz 41, no. 1 (1978): 6–8 Google Scholar.

46. Melamed, Ezra Z., “Keniyat ma‘arat ha-makhpelah” Tarbiz 14, no. 1 (1943): 12Google Scholar, based on the verse “for the land is Mine; you are but strangers resident with Me” (Leviticus 25:23).

47. Deuteronomy 14:1.

48. Weinfeld, “Ha-mifne,” 32.