Numbers 35:9-36:13 Chavurah Shalom Saturday 3/24/18

Numbers 35:9-15 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then you shall select for yourselves cities to be your cities of refuge, that the manslayer who has killed any person unintentionally may flee there. ‘The cities shall be to you as a refuge from the avenger, so that the manslayer will not die until he stands before the congregation for trial. ‘The cities which you are to give shall be your six cities of refuge. ‘You shall give three cities across the Jor- dan and three cities in the land of Canaan; they are to be cities of refuge. ‘These six cities shall be for refuge for the sons of Israel, and for the alien and for the sojourner among them; that anyone who kills a person unintentionally may flee there. Other passages dealing with accidental homicide and the cities of refuge are found at Exodus 21:12-14; Deuteronomy 4:41-43; 19:1-13; and Joshua 20:1-9. The principle of asylum is an ancient one found in many and varied cultures. N. H. Snaith (343) cites evidence to the effect that it is still operative among the Marsh Arabs of Mesopotamia. The custom of blood vengeance enshrined the duty of the next of kin of a murdered man to shed blood for blood. This was a deeply rooted principle, and a time of respite would obviously be required if dis- tinctions between murder and manslaughter were to be made effective.--Word Biblical Commentary, p. 383. The cities of refuge are referred to in Numbers 35, Joshua 20-21 and 1 Chronicles 6. The idea is one of Asylum until a judgment can be made concerning motive, to determine whether or not this was murder or manslaughter. There are a few words which mean to take a life in Hebrew: ratzach, to murder; harag, to kill or slaugh- ter; nagaf, to smite; nachah, to smite; halam, to smite; shachat, which means to slaughter an animal, but which is sometimes translated "kill;" mut, to kill; chalal, slain, defiled; qatal, to slay; chanaq, to strangle; tavach, to slaughter; zavach, to sacrifice which means to slaughter an animal for a sacrifice; makka, to slaughter, the word typically used of the slaughter of men or army; maggefah, plague or slaughter. While this list is by no means exhaustive, it does illustrate the Hebrew language has much capacity for expressing means, method, or results of killing

- 1 - whether a premeditated murder, an act of war, war crimes, sacrifices to God or to a false god, etc. רָצַח ,As we noted in our drash, the two basic words occuring in our text is ratzach A very literal translation of v. 11 would be: "the murderer who .נָכַה and nachah killed unintentionally." Our text is consistent throughout, translating either mur- derer or manslayer depending upon the intent of the one who has killed. Obvious- ly, if it was not premeditated, then it was not murder. However, this term is consis- tent. The word "to kill" is also consistent throughout our text, sometimes נָכַה translated "kill" and sometimes translated "struck." The most basic meaning of once again is "to smite," or "to strike." In other words, it is to deal the death blow to a fellow human being in our present text. Albeit not of a hatred nor of a premed- itated nature. -of the blood avenger. We are most fa ,גֹּאֵל We also find used throughout the word miliar with this term in connection with Yeshua as our "Kinsman Redeemer." The גָּאַל concept is that of "The Next of Kin," or the closest of kin to us. The basic verb means "to redeem." However, we find the following definition: redeem, avenge, revenge, ransom, do the part of a kinsman. The primary meaning of this root is to do the part of a kinsman and thus to redeem his kin from difficulty or danger, It is used with its derivatives 118 times. One difference between this root and the on גָּ אַל redeem,” is that there is usually an emphasis in“ פָּדָה very similar root the redemption being the privilege or duty of a near relative.--Theological Word- book of the Old Testament. Other responsibilities were the contracting of a levirate marriage (Ruth 3:13), the redemption of a kinsman from slavery (Lev 25:47–49), and duties in relation to property (Lev 25:25; Ruth 4:1–6; Jer 32:8–12). The role of “avenger” is thought of as a duty in the interests of justice, not as a manifestation of anger or blood lust.--Word Biblical Commentary, p. 383. The action of the next of kin is not foreign to our way of thinking in America, how- ever, the concept of such action being that of justice and not vengeance is some- what foreign. We are more used to "The Hatfields and McCoys" mentality. We find a biblical account similar to this mentality in the story of Abner and Joab, 2 Samuel 2:8-28; 3:19-34. The irony is that Hebron was one of the cities of refuge, and no refuge was awarded to Abner. This concept of Kinsman Redeemer is here extended to the redemption of the innocent blood slain. This is accomplished by

- 2 - shedding the blood of the murderer. While this may sound harsh in our ears, it is exactly the depiction of the shed blood ADONAI gives in Genesis 9:6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man. -Goel HaDam, re ,גֹּאֵ֣ל הַדָּ֔ם The most interesting aspect of these Mitzvot is that the ferred to as the Blood Avenger (more literally "The Redeemer of the Blood"), has the right to kill the guilty party if he does not flee to the city of refuge, or is found outside of that city of refuge for any reason prior to the death of the Cohen Gadol. The cities of refuge do not abrogate the rights of the blood redeemer but make him an agent of the state; that is, he becomes the state’s executioner (see Excur- sus 75). Thus, the goʾel, as exemplified in the above cases, restores the equilibri- um—by delivering a descendant to the deceased, the slave to freedom, the land to its rightful owner. The same holds true for murder. Bloodshed pollutes the land (v. 33), and the land becomes barren. With the blood of the slayer, the goʾel neu- tralizes the deleterious effect of the blood of the slain, restoring the ecological balance. The earth again yields its fruit. Israel’s laws of homicide and its system of asylum cities presuppose the following basic modifications in the prevailing practice: (1) Only the guilty party is in- volved; thus, no other member of his family may be slain. (2) Guilt is determined by the slayer’s intention: The involuntary homicide is not put to death. (3) No ransom is acceptable in place of the death of the murderer. (4) The verdict of de- liberate or involuntary homicide is made by the state and not by the bereaved kinsman, and to this end asylum cities for the homicide are established. (5) His trial is by a national tribunal and not by the kinsmen of either party. (6) The de- liberate homicide is executed by the goʾel, and the involuntary homicide is ban- ished to the asylum until the death of the High Priest.--JPS Torah Commentary, p. 292. and the ,גֵּר ,We quickly note also that these same Mitzvot apply also to the Ger the resident alien and the sojourner among you. Most scholars see ,תּוֹשָׁב ,Toshav these two terms used together here in what is called a hendiadys, meaning that they are here used synonymously. These two terms are not always used in such a mann- er, nor are they always synonymous. The Ger is more of a permanent participant among a people not his kin, while the Toshav is a more temporary resident, here for the duration of a business venture or some other reason. The bottom line is that

- 3 - the same kind of asylum is provided for the Non-Israelite as for the Israelite. There is One Torah for all people. Shedding of innocent blood polluted the Land no mat- ter what nationality, and thus all life is here protected. We mentioned briefly in the Drash that many regard the actual Beit Din to involve most basically means "assembly" or ,עֵדָה ,a national court. The Hebrew Edah meaning "to ,יָעַד ,congregation," and comes from the basic Hebrew verb Ya-ad" appoint," and the word from which we get Moed, or Divine Appointments. Most for the congregation of Israel. “Theעֵדָה characteristic of the OT is the use of .occurs seventy-seven times in Ex, Lev, Num, and Josh (הָעֵדָה) ”congregation We also have “the congregation of the Lord” (Num 27:17; 31:16; Josh 22:16– 17); “the congregation of Israel” (Ex 12:3; Josh 22:20); and “all the congrega- ,קְהַ ל עֲדַ ת יִשְׂרָ אֵ ל) ”tion.” There is the “assembly of the congregation of Israel קְהַל) ”Ex 12:6) and the “assembly of the congregation of the children of Israel .Num 14:5).--Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament ,עֲדַ ת בְּ נֵי יִשְׂרָ אֵ ל While it is by no means crystal clear, our present text with this language could well point towards a national group of judges by which the manslayer or murderer was arraigned and judgment carried out. Deuteronomy 16:18; and 19:11-12 seem to indicate a court made up of the city of refuge. Deuteronomy 17:8 however, clearly refers to a future Sanhedrin, a national Beit Din, to be found in Jerusalem. Deuteronomy 16:18 “You shall appoint for yourself judges and officers in all your towns which the LORD your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. Deuteronomy 19:11-12 “But if there is a man who hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him and rises up against him and strikes him so that he dies, and he flees to one of these cities, then the elders of his city shall send and take him from there and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. Deuteronomy 17:8 “If any case is too difficult for you to decide, between one kind of homicide or another, between one kind of lawsuit or another, and be- tween one kind of assault or another, being cases of dispute in your courts, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the LORD your God chooses.

- 4 - Our text calls for a total of six cities of refuge, three on one side of the Yarden and three on the other side. The cities are named in Joshua 20:7-8: Kedesh in Galilee, Shechem in Ephraim, Hebron in Judah, Bezer in Reuben, Ramoth in Gilead of Gad, and Golan in Bashan of Mannaseh.

Deuteronomy 19:8-10 mentions the addition of three more cities of refuge in the event that ADONAI blesses Israel with a broadening of their borders. This howev- er, has not yet occured. This is believed to be in conjunction with the borders of Is- rael extending up to the Euphrates in the North, requiring additionaly cities so that the manslayer might not be caught too distant from a city of refuge to be able to make it there before being overcome by the Goel HaDam. Full possession of the Land was to come gradually, Deuteronomy 7:22. Joshua 11:16-17; 13:1-6 indi- cates that Joshua conquered the Land from the Negev to Mount Hermon. Numbers 35:16-24 Distinctions between Intentional and Unintentional One of our most common things we hear is that there is no sacrifice for sin with a high hand. We then understand that to mean intentional sin, or defiant sin. But just what does that mean? We come to a big deliberation over intentional and uninten- tional sins. ‘But if he struck him down with an iron object, so that he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. ‘If he struck him down with a stone in the hand, by which he will die, and as a result he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. ‘Or if he struck him with a wooden object in the hand, by which he might die, and as a result he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. ‘The blood avenger himself shall put the

- 5 - murderer to death; he shall put him to death when he meets him. ‘If he pushed him of hatred, or threw something at him lying in wait and as a result he died, or if he struck him down with his hand in enmity, and as a result he died, the one who struck him shall surely be put to death, he is a murderer; the blood avenger shall put the murderer to death when he meets him. ‘But if he pushed him suddenly without enmity, or threw something at him without lying in wait, or with any deadly object of stone, and without seeing it dropped on him so that he died, while he was not his enemy nor seeking his injury, then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the blood avenger according to these ordinances. The distinction is one of intention, evidence for which is the nature of the instru- ment and the manslayer’s state of mind. The distinction is made not by abstract definition but by concrete examples, six for deliberate homicide (vv. 16–18,20– 21) and three for involuntary homicide (vv. 22–23). Their arrangement is chias- tic, ABB’A’ as follows: Intentional—Implements (vv. 16–18), Intentional (vv. 20– 22); Unintentional (v. 22), Unintentional—Implements (v. 23). The words that recur in AA’ are “stone that could cause death” and in BB’, “hate, hurled, on purpose, pushed.” The burden of proof is always on the slayer. If, for example, he uses a murderous instrument, he must prove his lack of intention (see the Comment to v. 23). The instrument is categorized by its material: iron, stone, or wood. The latter two must be capable of producing death. In addition to inten- tion, Deuteronomy 19:4–5 adds two other criteria: prior enmity between the slay- er and slain and the circumstances of the murder. Iron of any size can cause death, perhaps reflecting the very beginnings of the Iron Age, when it was used exclusively for weapons. Because they were instru- ments of death, iron tools were forbidden in the building of the altar and Temple (Exod. 20:25; 1 Kings 6:7). (And to this day, the knife is covered during the rec- itation of grace in the observant Jewish home.) That the iron object is in a class by itself is shown grammatically by the use of veʾim, here rendered “anyone, however, who . . .” in this and the following verse describing the stone tool, whereas the wooden tool that follows (v. 18) is introduced by ʾo.--JPS Torah Commentary, p. 292-293. I find intriguing this argument concerning an implement of iron reflecting intent to kill. Truly the word used for "tool" in Exodus 20:25 is the typical word for sword, however, similar instructions such as Deuteronomy 27:5-6; 1 Kings 6:7 mention

- 6 - iron or iron tool. Perhaps this is a stylistic issue, since cutting of stones was a par- ticular spiritual gift of ADONAI for His Chosen People, Exodus 31:5, and swords are used to cut, hack or hew. All of these terms are also used concerning stone: to cut, hack, or hew. I can remember a court case years ago in Florida where a young man cut an older man with a pocket knife. The lawyer asked my brother, "why do you think that ______was carrying a knife on that day? Do you think he expected to come upon ______and intended to cut him?" This concept is wildly promoted in our time. Why would you be carrying a knife or a gun unless you intended upon harming someone? so the thinking goes! However, for my brother and I, whose family was in the citrus industry, the knife was a common tool used every day in the field. We have carried pocket knives since we were 5 years old and have never used them to cut another person! This concept is clearly seen in the Jewish traditions concerning these verses as re- flected in the Mishnah, and recorded by The JPS Torah Commentary on the Exo- dus passage: This is undefined, but Deuteronomy 27:5 and 1 Kings 6:7 specify iron. Mishnah Middot 3:4 explains the prohibition as follows: “Iron was created to shorten man’s days [it being used to fashion weapons of destruction], while the altar was created to prolong man’s days [by effecting reconciliation with God]. It is unseemly that that which shortens [life] should be wielded against that which prolongs [it].” Put another way, it means that it is illegitimate to pro- mote spiritual ends by violent means. Rashbam suggests that the ban on the use of a tool blunted the temptation to decorate the altar stones with images.--p. 116.

You can no doubt see from this whole note that not all Jewish scholars agree on this assessment. The following assessments of the stone and wood depict a stone or piece of wood large enough to inflict death. In the case of both the stone and the wood, it is an "object of the hand." All three of these objects are noted for their ability to kill, and thus result in the one implementing such a tool as being guilty of murder. There is no distinction in our present text of the iron being more an instrument of death than the other objects of stone or of wood. In the real world more people are killed by claw hammers, iron frying pans, baseball bats, etc. than from guns or knives every year. The point is that of intent, implied with the use of

- 7 - an instrument in the hand. This is then followed by the agent of justice, the Blood Avenger, Goel HaDam, putting the murderer to death. The exact mode of this process is not given. Following these concrete examples of murder by implement, we then move onto motive. We find first mentioned the emotion of hate, that resulted in a push. It is generally assumed that the victim was pushed from a roof, a cliff, etc. Secondly there is the lying in wait for a specific person or situation to pass by, and a deadly object is hurled at the victim. Lastly there is the striking with the fist, or literally hand, in enmity. The two ideas of hate and enmity are closely related, and often treated synonymously in translation. Enmity is most often understood to be hostility. We are considering here a settled attitude towards one another. Galatians 5:16-21 outlines the deeds of the flesh including hatred and enmity. There is a progression of anger to hate to enmity to murder that is widely recognized in our time. Finally, in v. 22-23 we come to the actions that are spontaneous, impulsive but without forethought or settled emotional opposition. This is extended to even using a deadly object or instrument, albeit here limited to one of stone. It was interesting that the JPS Torah Commentary made such an issue of Jewish tradition concerning an implement of iron, yet in the summary of instruments that can cause death, simply make a blanket statement concerning "an murderous implement" yet the perpetrator either did not see the victim or bore no grudge. Keil & Delitzsch point us to Deuteronomy 19:4-5 which gives us a picture from real life: “Now this is the case of the manslayer who may flee there and live: when he kills his friend unintentionally, not hating him previously — as when a man goes into the forest with his friend to cut wood, and his hand swings the axe to cut down the tree, and the iron head slips off the handle and strikes his friend so that he dies — he may flee to one of these cities and live. Through the course of history, axes, hatchets, and clubs of various kinds have served as instruments of war, even if altered from their more mundane kin used for regular chores around the home. Deuteronomy 19:11-12 indicate that in our foregoing passage, the fact that the Goel HaDam would carry out justice upon the perpetrator when he meets or sees him, is because the Elders of the City of Refuge would put the one obviously guilty out for such justice. Only for the ones who seem to be innocent, or are able to convince the Elders of the City of Refuge, does the following procedure apply.

- 8 - Vv. 25-29 The Judgment for the Manslayer ‘The congregation shall deliver the manslayer from the hand of the blood avenger, and the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge to which he fled; and he shall live in it until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the holy oil. ‘But if the manslayer at any time goes beyond the border of his city of refuge to which he may flee, and the blood avenger finds him outside the border of his city of refuge, and the blood avenger kills the manslayer, he will not be guilty of blood because he should have remained in his city of refuge until the death of the high priest. But after the death of the high priest the manslayer shall return to the land of his possession. ‘These things shall be for a statutory ordinance to you throughout your generations in all your dwellings. Our present text does not deal as such with one guilty of murder, nonetheless, the Manslayer must stand before the Beit Din before sentencing is carried out. The Beit Din judges between the Manslayer and the Goel HaDam. It would seem that the Beit Din occurred somewhere other than the City of Refuge since the Manslayer is to be "returned" there after the Court proceedings. The actual word is ,to return." This is the word from which we get Repentance, Teshuvah" ,שׁוּב ,Shuv to return to God. And this man shall then dwell there until the death of the High means ,יָשַׁב ,Priest. Our text translates "live" there, though the Hebrew verb Yashav to sit, settle, or reside. This is obviously a judgment of one who takes the life of another human being, since he is liable to the actions of the Goel HaDam if he dares venture outside of the City of Refuge. It is only after the death of the High Priest that the perpetrator is allowed to return to his inheritance. One who had committed unintentional manslaughter was protected from the avenger of blood, although his freedom was removed (28, 32). Conversely, no murderer was allowed to live (21, 31). There was no ransom for the life of a murderer, just as there was no atonement for deliberate sin (15:30-31). The law did not prevent the kinsman from taking vengeance where it was lawful. Indeed, in the case of widows who had no kinsman, God himself took that role (Ex. 22:22-24). The NT commands believers not to avenge themselves but to leave it to the Lord (Rom. 12:19), who will avenge them (Lk. 18:7-8; Rev. 6:10; 19:2).-- The New Bible Commentary, p. 196. The idea of the death of the Cohen Gadol begs the picture of Yeshua our Messiah.

- 9 - I found quite beautiful the description given by Keil & Delitzsch. This becomes quite the bone of contention with modern Jewish anti-missionaries, many of whom claim there is no teaching concerning an innocent dying to atone for the guilty. However, note the following: The term kohen gadol, “High Priest,” is found in Leviticus 21:10 and Joshua 20:6 (also 2 Kings 2:11; 22:4; Hag. 1:1,12; Zech. 3:1; Neh. 3:1). As the High Priest atones for Israel’s sins through his cultic service in his lifetime (Exod. 28:36; Lev. 16:16,21), so he atones for homicide through his death. Since the blood of the slain, although spilled accidentally, cannot be avenged through the death of the slayer, it is ransomed through the death of the High Priest, which releases all homicides from their cities of refuge. That it is not the exile of the manslayer but the death of the High Priest that expiates his crime is confirmed by the Mishnah: “If, after the slayer has been sentenced as an accidental homicide, the High Priest dies, he need not go into exile.” The Talmud, in turn, comments thereon: “But is it not the exile that expiates? It is not the exile that expiates, but the death of the High Priest.”--JPS Torah Commentary, p. 294. It was interesting that this commentary affirmed the death of the High Priest that atones for the Manslayer. This is an amazing picture of the life and death of Yeshua the Messiah. The atoning power of the death of the righteous, of the High Priest for the ransom, the expiation of the sin of the manslayer is a powerful portrayal of the death of our Messiah in behalf of our sins. In these regulations “all the rigour of the divine justice is manifested in the most beautiful concord with His compassionate mercy. Through the destruction of life, even when not wilful, human blood had been shed, and demanded expiation. Yet this expiation did not consist in the death of the offender himself, because he had not sinned wilfully.” Hence an asylum was provided for him in the free city, to which he might escape, and where he would lie concealed. This sojourn in the free city was not to be regarded as banishment, although separation from house, home, and family was certainly a punishment; but it was a concealment under “the protection of the mercy of God, which opened places of escape in the cities of refuge from the carnal ardour of the avenger of blood, where the slayer remained concealed until his sin was expiated by the death of the high priest.” For the fact, that the death of the high priest was hereby regarded as expiatory, as many of the Rabbins, fathers, and earlier commentators maintain (see my Comm. on Joshua, p. 448), is unmistakeably evident from the addition of the

- 10 - clause, “who has been anointed with the holy oil,” which would appear unmeaning and superfluous on any other view. This clause points to the inward connection between the return of the slayer and the death of the high priest. “The anointing with the holy oil was a symbol of the communication of the Holy Ghost, by which the high priest was empowered to act as mediator and representative of the nation before God, so that he alone could carry out the yearly and general expiation for the whole nation, on the great day of atonement. But as his life and work acquired a representative signification through this anointing with the Holy Ghost, his death might also be regarded as a death for the sins of the people, by virtue of the Holy Ghost imparted to him, through which the unintentional manslayer received the benefits of the propitiation for his sin before God, so that he could return cleansed to his native town, without further exposure to the vengeance of the avenger of blood” (Comm. on Joshua, p. 448). But inasmuch as, according to this view, the death of the high priest had the same result in a certain sense, in relation to his time of office, as his function on the day of atonement had had every year, “the death of the earthly high priest became thereby a type of that of the heavenly One, who, through the eternal (holy) Spirit, offered Himself without spot to God, that we might be redeemed from our transgressions, and receive the promised eternal inheritance (Heb. 9:14, 15). Just as the blood of Christ wrought out eternal redemption, only because through the eternal Spirit He offered Himself without spot to God, so the death of the high priest of the Old Testament secured the complete deliverance of the manslayer form his sin, only because he had been anointed with the holy oil, the symbol of the Holy Ghost” (p. 449).--Keil & Delitzsch. Now where Keil & Delitzsch merely alluded to rabbinic material, I include here Hegg since he laid out some of the Jewish concept of the innocent dying for the guilty. Hegg also noted that this is the death of one person could affect the legal situation of another. Though Modern Judaism maintains that no such teaching ever obtained among the ancient rabbis, our parashah with historical data, speak otherwise. In the same way that the death of the Cohen Gadol effected a change in the legal status of the manslayer, so the ancient rabbis taught that the sacrifice of Isaac atones for the sins of Israel. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Genesis 22 emphasizes the fact that Isaac offered

- 11 - himself up willingly: And Abraham stretched out his hand, and took the knife to slay Izhak his son. Izhak answered and said to Abraham his father, My father, bind my hands rightly, lest in the hour of my affliction I tremble and confuse you, and your offering be found profane, and I be cast into the pit of destruction in the world to come. (Now) the eyes of Abraham reached unto the eyes of Izhak; but the eyes of Izhak reached to the angels on high. And Izhak beheld them, but Abraham saw them not. In that hour came forth the angels, and said to each other,"Come, behold two righteous ones alone in the midst of the world: the one slays, the other is slain. He who slays defers not, and he who is to be slain stretches out his neck." It was reckoned by the Sages that even though Isaac was not actually sacrifice (the ram being given in his place), his willingness to be sacrificed was accredited by God as though he had been. Indeed the Midrash takes the position that all subsequent sacrifices in the Tabernacle and the Temple were done in order to recall the willlingness of Isaac and subsequently the merits of his sacrifice: Concerning the ram it is said: And he shall slaughter it on the side of the Altar northward before the Lord. It is taught: When Abraham our father bound Isaac his son, the Holy One, Blessed be He, instituted (the sacrifice) of two lambs, one in the morning, and the other in the evening. What is the purpose of this? It is in order that when Israel offers up the perpetual sacrifice upon the Altar, and reads this scriptural text, Northward before the Lord, the Holy One, Blessed be He, may remember the binding of Isaac (Midrash Rabbah Leviticus 2.11 commenting on Leviticus 1:5, 11). This motif, the merit of Abraham's obedience and Isaac's willing sacrifice to atone for the sins of Israel, was so central in the teaching of the Sages that it became part of the Rosh Hashanah liturgy: O our God, God of our fathers, remember us with a remembrance for good. Visit us with a visitation for salvation and mercy from the everlasting heavens. Remember on our behalf, O Lord our God, the Covenant, and the loving kindness, and the oath which you swore to Abraham our father on Mount Moriah. May the binding with which Abraham our father bound Isaac his son upon the altar be seen before You, and the manner in which he overcame his

- 12 - love in order to do Your will with a perfect heart. Thus may Your love overcome Your wrath against us. Through Your great goodness may Your anger turn away from Your people, Your City, and Your inheritance.....Remember today the Binding of Isaac with mercy to his descendants. (The Authorized Daily Prayer Book, London, 1956, pp. 251-252. And Rashi (quoting Midrash Rabbah Genesis 56.9) writes in his commentary on Genesis 22:14: The Lord will see this binding to forgive Israel every year and to save them from retribution, in order that it will be said, "on this day" in all future generations: On the mountain of the Lord, Isaac's ashes shall be seen, heaped up and standing for atonement. It was with this idea in mind (the meritorious nature of the binding of Isaac) that the Sages taught regarding the blowing of the Shofar on Rosh HaShanah: "Why do they blow the ram's horn? So that I should remember the binding of Isaac, son of Abraham." (b. Rosh Hashanah 16.a). Note also the words of Mechilta on Exodus 12:13: "'And when I see the blood I will pass over you.' - I see the blood of the binding of Isaac." (Mechilta 1.57, 88). It is seen then, that the ancient Sages did indeed hold to the idea that the sacrifice of an innocent victim could be the basis upon which God grants forgiveness of sins for Israel. What is more, they likewise interpreted the perpetual sacrifices of Israel to be reminders of that one, perfect sacrifice which effected God's mercy towards Israel. That this teaching was extant in 1st Century CE is clear (note the words of Caiphas, the High Priest, recorded in John 11:49-53), and there is little doubt that it had some part to play in the Apostolic understanding of the efficacy of Yeshua's death. Contrary to the rabbinic teaching that God reckoned the sacrifice of Isaac as atonement for Israel, the Apostles came to see that Isaac was himself a foreshadowing of the ultimate and eternal sacrifice of Messiah Yeshua. Thus Paul was most likely alluding to the Akedah when he wrote: "He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?" Romans 8:32.--pp. 2-3, Parashah 125. I apologize for the long notes, but they relate clearly that the Rabbinic literature does indeed accomodate the concept of the innocent dying for the guilty, and this is important for Messianic Apologetics today.

- 13 - Vv. 30-34 Last Judgments ‘If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death at the evidence of witnesses, but no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness. ‘Moreover, you shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death. ‘You shall not take ransom for him who has fled to his city of refuge, that he may return to live in the land before the death of the priest. ‘So you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it. ‘You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell; for I the LORD am dwelling in the midst of the sons of Israel.’” Here we learn that the Land itself becomes polluted not only by the shedding of blood at the hand of a murderer, but the shedding of human blood by any means! Even the manslayer, though it was not a premeditated murder, pollutes the Holy Land if the matter is not dealt with justly. Justice demands the death of the murderer and the incarceration of the Manslayer until the death of the High Priest. No murderer is to be ransomed, but must be slain as an act of ADONAI's justice. Our difficulty is mostly in the manner in which the murderer is to be dispatched - by the hand of the Goel HaDam, the Redeemer of Blood. Neither shall a ransom be paid to allow the Manslayer to return to his inheritance prior to the death of the Cohen Gadol. He must also pay the price of the shedding of blood, his incarceration. The carrying out of this justice is dependent upon the "mouth of witnesses." Our text says that no one shall be put to death at the mouth of only one witness. Justice was strengthened by the requirement for two or more witnesses (30; see Dt. 17:6; 19:15; Mt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1; Heb. 10:28). This was an enduring principle to which Christ appealed (Jn. 8:16-18; 5:32-41; 1 Jn. 5:6-8). This must have been the reason why the apostles did not go alone but in pairs, since they were Christ’s witnesses and their testimony had to be legally valid (Lk. 10:1; Acts 13:2; note the plurality in Acts 2:32; 10:23; and the pairing of the disciples in Mt. 10:1-4).-- The New Bible Commentary, p. 196. The pollution of the Land by the blood of man defiles the very place the Holy One of Israel dwells. The result is that neither God nor Israel will be able to abide in that place, Leviticus 18:24-28; Jeremiah 3:1-9; Psalm 106:38; Ezekiel 36:16-21.

- 14 - Numbers 36:1-13 Zelophehad's Daughters And the heads of the fathers’ households of the family of the sons of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near and spoke before Moses and before the leaders, the heads of the fathers’ households of the sons of Israel, and they said, “The LORD commanded my lord to give the land by lot to the sons of Israel as an inheritance, and my lord was commanded by the LORD to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother to his daughters. “But if they marry one of the sons of the other tribes of the sons of Israel, their inheritance will be withdrawn from the inheritance of our fathers and will be added to the inheritance of the tribe to which they belong; thus it will be withdrawn from our allotted inheritance. “When the jubilee of the sons of Israel comes, then their inheritance will be added to the inheritance of the tribe to which they belong; so their inheritance will be withdrawn from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers.” Then Moses commanded the sons of Israel according to the word of the LORD, saying, “The tribe of the sons of Joseph are right in their statements. “This is what the LORD has commanded concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, ‘Let them marry whom they wish; only they must marry within the family of the tribe of their father.’ “Thus no inheritance of the sons of Israel shall be transferred from tribe to tribe, for the sons of Israel shall each hold to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. “Every daughter who comes into possession of an inheritance of any tribe of the sons of Israel shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father, so that the sons of Israel each may possess the inheritance of his fathers. “Thus no inheritance shall be transferred from one tribe to another tribe, for the tribes of the sons of Israel shall each hold to his own inheritance.” Just as the LORD had commanded Moses, so the daughters of Zelophehad did: Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad married their uncles’ sons. They married those from the families of the sons of Manasseh the son of Joseph, and their inheritance remained with the tribe of the family of their father. These are the commandments and the ordinances which the LORD commanded to the sons of Israel through Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan opposite Jericho. The final commandment of the Book of Numbers, Sefer B'Midbar, concerns the inheritance of the Land. The Torah takes great pains to ensure that each tribe of Israel is able to maintain their own inheritance for the future. We first dealt with

- 15 - this issue back in Numbers 27:1-11, where there is no male child to receive the inheritance of Zelophehad so ADONAI commands that his daughters are indeed to receive the inheritance of the Land. At this point, the concern is the intermarriage of these women into the other tribes and so depleting the inheritance promised to Manasseh. Thus it was determined that they must marry within the tribe of Manasseh. Our text indicates that they married their first cousins. The general principle that is then applied across the board is that no tribe is to inherit that which is promised and given to another tribe. That the inheritance is to be guaranteed forever gives rise to the concept of a future in eternity with ADONAI in the midst of His Chosen People. Notice that the concern of Manasseh looks forward to the Jubilee, or in Hebrew, the Yovel. Of prime importance in the Yovel is the restoration of all of Israel to their ancestral Land. The Land, a place where ADONAI will dwell in the midst of His Chosen People, is of vital importance to each of the tribes of Israel. This picture of restoration extends to a future restoration of all things, Acts 3:21;Romans 8:18-25. Why was this chapter placed at the end of the book and not where it belongs contextually, after 27:1–11? Most critics would answer that this chapter was composed after the Book of Numbers was completed (see Excursus 77). Another possibility is that this chapter “may reflect the Torah’s pervasive genealogical interest: there are ten generations from Adam to Noah; ten generations from Noah to Terah (Abraham’s father); and ten generations from Abraham to the daughters of Zelophehad. The end of the wanderings is thus related to creation, and Genesis and Numbers are placed in a unified structure.” A literary explanation also bears merit: “The accounts of the daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers 27 and 36 . . . form an inclusio for the events and organization of the new generation whose emergence is marked by the second census list in chapter 26.”--JPS Torah Commentary, p. 296. The final note of our text indicates the location from which Moshe spoke again all of the Torah to the Children of Israel before they crossed over the Yarden to inherit the Promised Land. They are poised just across the Yarden from Jericho, in the desert of Moab. There are 5 of the traditional 613 Mitzvot that are taken from this week's parashah: 35:12 Negative Commandment 292 You shall not kill a murderer without trial

- 16 - 35:24 Postivice Commandment 225 Law of a Manslaughter 35:30 Negative Commandment 291 Not to kill a murderer on one witness 35:31 Negative Commandment 295 Not to accept a ransom from murderer 35:32 Negative Commandment 296 Not to accept a ransom from manslayer

- 17 -