929 (Tanakh) · Expert – Beit Midrash Analysis · Standard
Joshua 20
Sugya Map
The establishment of the Arei Miklat (Cities of Refuge) in Joshua 20 presents a complex halachic and conceptual grid. The primary issues, practical differences (nafka minas), and foundational sources break down as follows:
- The Core Issue: Is the protective status of an Ir Miklat an objective sanctity inherent to the physical space (a cheftza of refuge), or is it a subjective legal exemption granted to the individual slayer (a gavra of exclusion from the blood avenger's reach)? A secondary, interlocking issue is the temporal mechanics of activation: does a city acquire "refuge status" immediately upon its designation (haphrashah), or does its efficacy depend on the complete nationwide network being established?
- The Nafka Minas (Practical Halachic Differences):
- The Status of the Transjordanian Cities: If a slayer fled to Bezer, Ramoth, or Golan after Moses designated them but before Joshua designated the West Bank cities, was he protected from the Goel HaDam (blood avenger)?
- The Levite Cities (Arei Levi'im): Do the forty-two additional Levite cities protect inherently (shelo l'da'ato—without the slayer's intent), or do they require the slayer's conscious intent to seek refuge (l'da'ato)?
- Exile for a Scholar: If a student is exiled, his teacher must be exiled with him Makkot 10a. If the refuge is a localized cheftza of Torah, the teacher’s presence is an essential element of the city's structure. If it is merely a gavra protection, the teacher's presence is an external obligation of welfare.
- Primary Sources: Numbers 35:9-34, Deuteronomy 19:1-13, Joshua 20:1-9, Makkot 9b-13a, Eruvin 52b-53a.
Full Experience in the App
Listen. Chat. Go deeper.
Audio playback, interactive chevruta, Hebrew tools, and every daily learning track — only in Derekh Learning.
Text Snapshot
וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר ה' אֶל־יְהוֹשֻׁ֖עַ לֵאמֹֽר׃ דַּבֵּ֞ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֧י יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל לֵאמֹ֖ר תְּנוּ לָכֶם֙ אֶת־עָרֵ֣י הַמִּקְלָ֔ט אֲשֶׁר־דִּבַּ֥רְתִּי אֲלֵיכֶ֖ם בְּיַד־מֹשֶֽׁה׃ לָנ֥וּס שָׁ֙מָּה֙ רוֹצֵ֔חַ מַכֵּה־נֶ֥פֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָ֖ה בִּבְלִי־דָ֑עַת וְהָי֕וּ לָכֶם֙ לְמִקְלָ֔ט מִגֹּאֵ֖ל הַדָּֽם׃
(Joshua 20:1-3)
Grammatical and Lexical Nuances
- "וַיְדַבֵּר" vs. "וַיֹּאמֶר": Throughout the Book of Joshua, the standard divine communication is introduced with "וַיֹּאמֶר" (and He said). Here, the text shifts to the harsher "וַיְדַבֵּר" (and He spoke). The Minchat Shai Minchat Shai on Joshua 20:1:1, drawing from the Gemara Makkot 10a, notes:
"בכל ספר יהושע כתיב ויאמר ה' וכאן נאמר וידבר. ודבור לשון עזה הוא... מפני מה נאמרה פרשת רוצחים בלשון עזה מפני שהם של תורה."
(Translation: "In the entire Book of Joshua it is written 'And the Lord said,' but here it is said 'And the Lord spoke.' And 'Dibur' is a harsh language... Why was the section of murderers said in a harsh language? Because they are words of Torah.")
This shift signals a structural transition from the descriptive conquest narrative to the prescriptive, demanding realm of Sinaitic law. - "תְּנוּ לָכֶם": The Metzudat David Metzudat David on Joshua 20:2:1 glosses "לכם" as "להנאתכם" (for your benefit). This matches the classic talmudic read of "unto you"—the establishment of these cities is not a punitive burden but a national act of restorative justice.
- "הַמִּקְלָט": The Metzudat Zion Metzudat Zion on Joshua 20:2:1 analyzes the etymology:
"על שם שקולטת את הרוצחים, שאין מדרך עיר אחרת להניח להרוצחים לדור בה."
(Translation: "Named because it absorbs [koleit] the murderers, for it is not the way of any other city to allow murderers to dwell therein.")
The root ק-ל-ט (to absorb/contain) implies a physical change in the city's legal landscape: it becomes a space that legally neutralizes outside jurisdictions.
Readings
1. The Malbim and Radak: The Temporal Trigger of "Yerusah v'Yishivah"
The Malbim and the Radak address a glaring structural question: why did Joshua wait until the very end of the conquest and division of the land to designate the West Bank Arei Miklat?
The Radak Radak on Joshua 20:2:1 points to the biblical text:
"אחר שנאמר ויכלו מחלק את הארץ צום על ערי המקלט שלא נצטוו בה על ידי משה גם כן אלא אחר ירושה וישיבה שנאמר כי יכרית ה' אלהיך וגו'."
(Translation: "After it is said 'And they finished dividing the land,' He commanded them concerning the cities of refuge, which they were not commanded to establish through Moses either except after inheritance and dwelling, as it is said: 'When the Lord your God cuts off [the nations]...'")
The Malbim Malbim on Joshua 20:2:1 grounds this in the Sifrei:
"מבואר בספרי (פ' מסעי) כי לא נתחייבו בהפרשת ערי מקלט עד אחר ירושה וישיבה, דכתיב (דברים יט, א) כי יכרית ה' אלהיך את הגוים כו' וירשתם וכו', ולכן לא צוהו עד גמר חילוק הארץ."
(Translation: "It is explained in the Sifrei [Parashat Masei] that they were not obligated in the designation of the cities of refuge until after inheritance and dwelling, as it is written 'When the Lord your God cuts off... and you inherit them...' Therefore, He did not command him until the completion of the division of the land.")
The Brisker Formulation of the Malbim's Position
To understand this conceptually, we must ask: is Yerusah v'Yishivah (inheritance and settlement) merely a technical prerequisite (tenai) for the obligation to designate the cities, or is it an essential element of the mitzvah itself?
If it is a technical prerequisite, the land is theoretically ready for Arei Miklat beforehand, but the obligation is deferred until the conquest is over.
If it is an essential element, the legal concept of Miklat cannot exist in a land that is not fully settled. The Arei Miklat require a functioning social ecology—complete with elders (Ziknei HaIr), a local court, and established tribal boundaries—to execute their legal duties.
Before the final division of the land, the territory of Israel was a military camp (Machaneh). In a military camp, the camp itself protects the slayer Makkot 12b. Only when the camp dissolves into a settled land can the specific points of Arei Miklat be carved out.
Thus, Joshua's delay was not a failure of execution, but a halachic necessity. The Cheftza of an Ir Miklat can only exist within a settled, structured commonwealth.
2. The Mei HaShiloach: The Mystical Entanglement of Moshe and Joshua
The Izhbitzer Rebbe, in his Mei HaShiloach Mei HaShiloach, Volume I, Prophets, Joshua 20:1, offers a psychological and kabbalistic analysis of the transition of leadership from Moses to Joshua through the prism of the Arei Miklat.
הענין שנשנו ערי המקלט בספר יהושע, כי משה רבינו לקח מחלקו של יהושע במה שכבש ארץ סיחון ועוג והנחיל ארצם לישראל שזה שייך ליהושע הכיבוש והחילוק, ונגד זה השיג יהושע מחלק מרע"ה... וידבר ה' אל יהושע לאמור. וזה ענין שמבאר הגמ' בפרק כיצד מעברין (עירובין נ"ב:) בית נכנס בית יוצא, פגום נכנס פגום יוצא, שזה מדבר בהתקשרות נפשות...
(Translation: "The matter of the cities of refuge being repeated in the Book of Joshua is because Moses our Teacher took from the portion of Joshua when he conquered the land of Sihon and Og and inherited their land to Israel, which belonged to Joshua—the conquest and the division. In contrast to this, Joshua attained from the portion of Moses... 'And the Lord spoke to Joshua, saying.' And this is the matter that the Gemara explains in chapter 'Keitzad Me'avrin' Eruvin 52b: 'An entering house, an exiting house; a damaged entering, a damaged exiting,' which speaks of the interlinking of souls...")
The Mei HaShiloach continues with a daring claim:
וגם יהושע היה קרוב לאביזריהו דהורג נפש בשגגה, לאשר חשק תמיד להשיג עומק בד"ת ולעומק האמיתי שהשיג לא היה באפשר שישיג בחיי מרע"ה, וע"י גודל התאמצותו בחשקו ותפלתו היה יכול לפעול מיתת מרע"ה...
(Translation: "And Joshua was also close to the dust of an accidental killer [shogeg], because he always desired to attain depth in the words of Torah, and the true depth he attained was impossible to attain during the lifetime of Moses. Through the greatness of his effort, his desire, and his prayer, he was able to cause the death of Moses [unintentionally]...")
Unpacking the Izhbitzer's Concept
The Izhbitzer uses the talmudic discussion of architectural boundaries in Eruvin 52b—where projecting houses (bayit nichnas v'yotzei) determine the boundaries of a city for Shabbat—as a metaphor for the interpenetration of souls (hitkashrut nefashot).
Moses’s conquest of the Transjordan was an encroachment into Joshua’s historical domain (conquest and settlement). Conversely, Joshua’s ascent to leadership required the departure of Moses.
In the Izhbitzer's worldview, Joshua's intense spiritual desire to grasp the ultimate depth of the Torah—which could only be revealed through his own leadership—subconsciously accelerated Moses's death.
This is the ultimate spiritual shegagah (unintentional act). Joshua did not sin, yet his desire had real-world consequences.
Therefore, the commandment to establish the Arei Miklat is given specifically to Joshua using the rare "וידבר" (the language of Moses's own prophetic standard). Joshua must build the physical refuges for accidental killers because he, on a cosmic level, understands the burden of the shogeg—the individual whose holy intentions yield tragic, unintended consequences.
Connection to Rosh Chodesh Tamuz
This theme of sight, desire, and boundaries connects directly to the spiritual character of the month of Tamuz.
Tamuz is the month of Re'iyah (sight), historically marked by the visual failures of the Spies and the eventual breach of the walls of Jerusalem.
In Tamuz, the summer heat intensifies, and with it, the emotional temperature of the Goel HaDam (the blood avenger).
The Arei Miklat serve as visual boundaries across the country, marked with clear road signs reading "Miklat, Miklat" Makkot 10b, to guide the straying eye and provide physical refuge from the heat of judgment.
Just as the Arei Miklat protect the shogeg from the avenger's sight, the boundaries established in the month of Tamuz are meant to steady our vision, converting impulsive reactions into reflective, structured spaces of teshuvah.
Friction
The Great Transjordanian Contradiction
The primary logical tension in the laws of Arei Miklat centers on the three cities designated by Moses in the Transjordan (Ever HaYarden): Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan Deuteronomy 4:41-43.
The Gemara in Makkot 9b states:
"שלוש ערים הבדיל משה בעבר הירדן וכנגדן הבדיל יהושע בארץ כנען... ואינן קולטות עד שיובדלו שלוש שבארץ כנען."
(Translation: "Moses set aside three cities in the Transjordan, and corresponding to them, Joshua set aside three in the Land of Canaan... and they do not absorb [protect] until the three in the Land of Canaan are set aside.")
This leads to a strong legal question: If the Transjordanian cities could not protect anyone until Joshua designated the West Bank cities decades later, what was the legal status of Moses's act of designation?
Why would Moses perform a halachic action that remained completely dormant? The Gemara answers: "מצוה שבאה לידי אקימנה" (A mitzvah that comes to my hand, I will fulfill).
But this answer is homiletical. What is the precise halachic mechanism at play? How can a city have the shem (status) of an Ir Miklat without the pe'ulah (function) of klitah (absorption)?
MOSES'S DESIGNATION (Ever HaYarden)
[Bezer, Ramoth, Golan]
│
▼
┌──────────────────────────────┐
│ Are they active refuge │
│ cities? │
└──────────────┬───────────────┘
│
NO (Makkot 9b)│
▼
┌──────────────────────────────┐
│ If not, what did Moses │
│ actually accomplish? │
└──────────────┬───────────────┘
│
┌────────────────┴────────────────┐
▼ ▼
┌─────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────┐
│ THE BRISKER APPROACH │ │ THE ROGATCHOVER VIEW │
│ (R' Chaim Soloveitchik)│ │ (Tzofnat Paneach) │
│ │ │ │
│ • Separates "Cheftza" │ │ • "Koleit" vs. │
│ from "Klitah" │ │ "Metzuyan" │
│ • Moses created the │ │ • Moses created the │
│ status of the city. │ │ physical boundaries. │
│ • Activation requires │ │ • Joshua's act │
│ the full six-city │ │ legislated the │
│ national network. │ │ exile penalty. │
└─────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────┘
Terutz A: The Brisker Analysis (Separation of Cheftza and Klitah)
To resolve this, Rav Chaim Soloveitchik Chiddushei Rabbeinu Chaim HaLevi, Rotzeach 8:1 introduces a fundamental distinction between the creation of the object's status (Yisud HaCheftza) and the activation of its function (Kiyum HaMitzvah).
When Moses designated the three Transjordanian cities, his act was not legally void. It fully established those cities as Arei Miklat in terms of their physical identity (Cheftza).
However, the Torah links the functional law of absorption (Klitah) to the collective land of Israel, requiring a balanced, national network of refuge.
The six cities must work as a single, coordinated system, with equal distances between them Makkot 9b.
Therefore, the legal power of Klitah is a collective mechanism (Chovat HaTzibbur). It cannot be activated until the entire network is complete.
Moses created the Cheftza of the three eastern cities, but the Klitah mechanism remained locked until Joshua created the matching western Cheftza.
This explains why a slayer who fled to Bezer during the wilderness years was not protected there: the city was legally an Ir Miklat, but its protective field was not yet active.
Terutz B: The Rogatchover Gaon (The Dual Nature of Miklat)
The Rogatchover Gaon, in his Tzofnat Paneach Tzofnat Paneach on Rambam, Hilchot Rotzeach 8:2, offers an alternative perspective by dividing the status of Miklat into two distinct legal concepts:
- Metzuyan (Marked/Set Aside): The city's status as a designated sanctuary.
- Koleit (Absorbing): The legal power to bar the Goel HaDam from entry and to confine the slayer.
The Rogatchover argues that Moses’s designation immediately established the cities as Metzuyan. This status had a practical halachic effect: it prohibited these cities from being converted into cemeteries or industrial zones, preserving their municipal purity.
However, the legal power of Klitah—which legally binds the slayer to the city and suspends the avenger's right to kill—is a judicial decree (Gzeirat HaKatuv) that requires the presence of the High Priest and the active jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin Numbers 35:25.
Since there was no permanent High Priest in his proper sanctuary nor a settled Sanhedrin in the Land of Israel during the conquest, the judicial power of Klitah could not function.
Moses set up the municipal framework, while Joshua established the judicial reality.
Intertext
1. The Levite Cities vs. The Dedicated Cities of Refuge
A key parallel to the six primary Arei Miklat is the forty-two Levite cities, which also offered protection to accidental slayers Numbers 35:6. The Gemara in Makkot 13a contrasts their legal mechanisms:
"מה בין שלוש של עבר הירדן ושלוש שבארץ כנען לשאר ערי הלוים? שערים שבארץ כנען ושבעבר הירדן קולטות בין לדעת בין שלא לדעת, ערי הלוים אינן קולטות אלא לדעת."
(Translation: "What is the difference between the three of the Transjordan and the three of the Land of Canaan, and the other Levite cities? The cities in Canaan and the Transjordan absorb whether with the slayer's knowledge or without his knowledge, whereas the Levite cities only absorb with his knowledge.")
Halachic Analysis of the Dispute
What is the root of this distinction? It lies in the difference between the two types of cities:
TYPES OF REFUGE CITIES
│
┌──────────────────────┴──────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
┌──────────────────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────────────────┐
│ DEDICATED CITIES (6 Cities) │ │ LEVITE CITIES (42 Cities) │
├──────────────────────────────┤ ├──────────────────────────────┤
│ • Pure "Cheftza" of Refuge │ │ • Sanctity of the Levites │
│ • Protection is objective │ │ • Protection is a secondary │
│ • Absorbs "Shelo L'da'at" │ │ byproduct of holiness │
│ (even without intent) │ │ • Requires "L'da'at" │
│ │ │ (active intent to seek) │
└──────────────────────────────┘ └──────────────────────────────┘
- The Six Dedicated Cities: These were designed solely for refuge. Their protection is objective and spatial. If a slayer enters their boundaries—even by accident, or while asleep (shelo l'da'at)—he is instantly protected. The space itself neutralizes the avenger.
- The Forty-Two Levite Cities: These cities were primarily holy spaces dedicated to the tribe of Levi Ralbag on Joshua 20:2:1. Their protective power is a secondary byproduct of their holiness. Because the refuge is a byproduct, it does not apply automatically. The slayer must actively choose to use the city's holiness as a sanctuary (l'da'at). If he enters without that intent, the city does not protect him.
This distinction shows that the Torah uses two different paths for rescue: a dedicated, objective space of safety (the six cities), and a broad, spiritual sanctuary that must be chosen with intent (the Levite cities).
2. The Halachic Status of Refuge Today
In contemporary halachic literature, the question arises: what happened to the law of Arei Miklat after the destruction of the Temple? The Rambam Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Rotzeach uShmirat Nefesh 8:1 rules:
"ערי מקלט אינן נוהגות אלא בארץ ישראל, ובזמן שהיובל נוהג."
(Translation: "The cities of refuge only apply in the Land of Israel, and only during the time when the Jubilee [Yovel] is observed.")
Because the Jubilee requires all twelve tribes to live on their ancestral lands Mishneh Torah, Shemitah V'Yovel 10:8, the physical law of Arei Miklat has been inactive since the exile of the Transjordanian tribes by Assyria.
The Spiritual Equivalent: Torah as a Sanctuary
However, the Gemara in Makkot 10a provides a spiritual equivalent that remains active:
"אמר ריש לקיש: דברי תורה קולטין... שנאמר: 'את בצר במדבר בארץ המישור...'"
(Translation: "Resh Lakish said: The words of Torah absorb [protect]... as it is said: 'Bezer in the wilderness on the plain...'")
This is not merely homiletical; it has practical halachic applications:
- The Student’s Exile: If a student is exiled to an Ir Miklat, his teacher must go with him Makkot 10a. The Rambam Mishneh Torah, Rotzeach 7:1 explains: "כי החיים בלא תלמוד תורה כמיתה חשובים" (For life without Torah study is considered like death). The physical refuge is incomplete without the spiritual sanctuary of Torah.
- Protection from Spiritual Harm: Just as the physical city protects the body of the shogeg from the Goel HaDam, the study of Torah protects the soul from the spiritual damage of sin. The Maharsha Chiddushei Aggadot, Makkot 10a notes that the three physical cities of Ever HaYarden correspond to three levels of Torah study: Mikra, Mishnah, and Talmud.
Psak/Practice
How does the law of Arei Miklat apply to modern halachic decision-making?
1. The Right of Self-Defense vs. The Blood Avenger
In modern halachic rulings, the concept of the Goel HaDam (blood avenger) is obsolete. The Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 425 rules that today, any act of extrajudicial killing—even by a relative of a victim—is treated as murder.
The Chazon Ish Chajon Ish, Sanhedrin 20 explains that without a functioning Sanhedrin to verify the accidental nature of the killing, no relative can claim the legal status of Goel HaDam.
The state's justice system has exclusive jurisdiction over manslaughter and homicide.
2. The Halachic Definition of Negligence (Shogeg vs. Ones)
The definitions of Shogeg (negligence) and Ones (unavoidable accident) developed in the laws of Arei Miklat Makkot 7b remain central to modern civil and criminal halacha:
SPECTRUM OF RESPONSIBILITY
│
┌──────────────────────┼──────────────────────┐
▼ ▼ ▼
┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐
│ ONES │ │ SHOGEG │ │ MESSID │
│ (Accid.) │ │ (Neglig.)│ │ (Intent.)│
└────┬─────┘ └────┬─────┘ └────┬─────┘
│ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼
No Exile or Exile to Ir Punishable
Punishment Miklat Required by Court
- Ones (Unavoidable Accident): If a driver strikes a pedestrian who ran into the highway from behind a barrier, it is an Ones. The driver is completely exempt from both civil damages and exile.
- Shogeg (Negligence with an element of accident): If a driver strikes a pedestrian because he was driving slightly above the speed limit in a residential area, this is a Shogeg. Under biblical law, this driver would be exiled to an Ir Miklat. Today, this category requires extensive repentance (teshuvat mishkal) and civil compensation, as outlined by the Chafetz Chaim in his Be'er Mayim Chayim.
- Karov L'Meizid (Gross Negligence): If a driver kills someone while driving drunk or texting, this is Karov L'Meizid (close to intentional). In biblical law, such a person could not use the Ir Miklat because his negligence was too high Makkot 9a. Today, halacha views this as a severe crime that warrants state imprisonment under the principle of Dina D'Malchuta Dina (the law of the land is the law).
Takeaway
The Arei Miklat established by Joshua show that justice requires both a physical space of safety and a spiritual sanctuary. While the physical cities are dormant today, the protective sanctuary of Torah remains open to anyone seeking refuge and rehabilitation.
derekhlearning.com