In Joshua 20, no sooner had Joshua completed dividing up the Holy Land to the twelve tribes (Joshua 19)
than God bid the Hebrew leader to designate and activate the country’s six cities of refuge –
three on the west bank of the Jordan River and three on the east bank. These six cities of
refuge, plus forty-two Levitical cities dotting the map, played a crucial role in the Hebrews’
criminal code of justice. Specifically, a man who killed another ran to the closest refuge.
“And the LORD spoke unto Joshua, saying: Speak to the Children of Israel,
saying: Assign you the cities of refuge, whereof I spoke unto you by the hand of
Moses.”
Abravanel explains more about how these cities worked and about the legal proceedings. “That
the manslayer that kills any person through error and unawares may flee thither; and they shall
be unto you for a refuge from the avenger of blood.”
“And the LORD spoke unto Joshua saying: Speak to the Children of Israel saying: Assign you the
cities of refuge…” Of course, at the time of the homicide, it is premature to pass judgement;
facts have yet to be ascertained. Was the murder accidental or intentional?
Pending trial, the killer sought protective custody in a city of refuge. There, the victim’s family
could not do “popular justice” by taking revenge. At the city’s entrance, magistrates sat. They
asked the killer to tell his version of the story. If the judges felt they couldn’t determine where
the truth lay with the refugee’s testimony, they would allow him to remain in protective
custody. This allowed time for the victim’s family members to arrive and tell the judges their
version of the tragic events.
For the killer, two possible outcomes availed themselves. One was a full-blown court
proceeding. That resulted when the victim’s family demanded a legal hearing. Publicly, In the
presence of peers, they claimed that the death had been a result of foul play, subterfuge and
ambush. “And he shall dwell in that city, until he stand before the congregation for judgment…”
Members of the court deliberated. If they found the killer guilty of intentional homicide, he
received capital punishment. If, on the other hand, the judges accepted the refugee’s version,
they would return him to the city of refuge. And there he remained, safe in custody.
That was one possible outcome. What was the second one? The refugee, not permitted to
leave the city’s confines, stayed put in the city of refuge until further notice. That is, “until the
death of the high priest.” Upon the death of the high priest, “then may the manslayer return,
and come unto his own city, and unto his own house, unto the city from whence he fled.”
Legitimately, Bible students ask: What does the death of the high priest have to do with freeing
inadvertent killers from custody, essentially a pardon? Abravanel addresses this in his
commentary on Numbers 35. Our comments are culled from the bigger discussion in
Abravanel’s World: Bamidbar vol. II.
For holiness and piety, the high priest rated second to none among the Hebrews. When he
passes away, a pall of dread debilitates the congregation. Broken, the people begin
introspection. How fleeting is life, they internalize. How misplaced are thoughts of revenge!
Tomorrow will bring death to those seeking revenge for a family member. A fresh perspective
and lease on life permeates. Gone is yesterday’s churning, inner turmoil. No longer distraught
and crazed, he forgets his former rage. Gone, too, are passions set ablaze. Thus, “he stays there
until the death of the high priest.” By the priest’s death, the dead man’s surviving family
experience a change of heart, attain inner calm. Healing begins for all concerned.