Three of the six arei miklat were located in Eiver haYarden. Rashi (35:14) asks: given that the majority of Bn"Y lived in Eretz Yisrael, wouldn't it make sense for a majority of the arei miklat to be located there? Why should fully half of the arei milkat be located in Eiver haYarden when far less than half the population was located there?
Rashi answers that even though Eiver haYarden contained a minority of the population, it contained a greater number of murderers than elsewhere:
אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן תִּשְׁעָה שְׁבָטִים וְכָאן אֵינָן אֶלָּא שְׁנַיִם וָחֵצִי, הִשְׁוָה מִנְיַן עָרֵי הַמִּקְלָט שֶׁלָּהֶם, מִשּׁוּם דִּבְגִלְעָד נְפִישֵׁי רוֹצְחִים, דִּכְתִיב (הושע ו') גִּלְעָד קִרְיַת פֹּעֲלֵי אָוֶן עֲקֻבָּה מִדָּם
Ramban questions how this makes sense. Arei miklat are meant only for those who kill b'shogeg, not for actual murder. If there were more criminal murderers in Eiver haYarden, why would that necessitate more arei miklat?
He answers that although they were killing with intent, the criminals tried to pass themselves off as mere shogegim and ran to the arei miklat for refuge. היו שופכי דמים במרמה ומראין עצמן כשוגגין והוצרך להרבות להם ערי מקלט לקלוט את כולן שלא נודע מי המזיד. Therefore, a greater number of cities were needed.
Maharal does not like this answer. If Ramban is right, adding arei miklat only incentivizes the criminals because now they have a place to turn for refuge to escape. Were there fewer or even no arei miklat, the murder rate would drop, as the criminals, having no place to run, would think twice before acting. It's like providing benefits to illegal aliens. The more you give, the more illegals will enter the country because you are incentivizing the bad behavior.
To explain Rashi, let's backtrack for a moment and define what shogeg means. It does not mean "accident." That would be ones, and a person does not go to miklat for an accident. I don't know if we have a single word in English that captures just what shogeg is. Unintentional or inadvertent is part of it. It is a situation where a person is at least partially at fault, whether due to negligence, not taking proper precaution, or directly through their action, but it does not rise to the same degree of fault as a deliberate, willful act. This is why a person must bring a korban chatas for certain shogeg violations, e.g. a person ate what he thought was kosher meat and it turned out to be cheilev. The Rishonim explain that had the person been more careful, he would have realized the meat is cheilev and not eaten it. The violation was not deliberate, but it was borne out of carelessness and inattention that a persons bears responsibility for and deserves some punishment for. The same is true for cases of dea by shogeg. In those cases, the punishment is banishment to one of the arei miklat.
Maharal says a yesod: a culture of wrongdoing will breed wrongdoing. Because גִּלְעָד קִרְיַת פֹּעֲלֵי אָוֶן עֲקֻבָּה מִדָּם, there was a culture of criminal activity, a culture of murder, human life was cheapened. Even if one is not a crim inal and would not r"l dream of committing murder, a person immersed in that culture inevitably will become careless and callous when it comes even to matters of human life. That is precisely the climate in which shogeg can thrive. That's why more arei miklat were needed.
2) The gemara (Makos 10a) darshes from pesukim later in Devarim that just as the arei miklat are koleit, so too are divrei Torah koltim:
א"ר יוחנן הרב שגלה מגלין ישיבתו עמו איני והא א"ר יוחנן מנין לדברי תורה שהן קולטין שנאמר את בצר במדבר וגו' [וכתיב בתריה] וזאת התורה לא קשיא הא בעידנא דעסיק בה הא בעידנא דלא עסיק בה ואי בעית אימא מאי קולטין ממלאך המות כי הא דרב חסדא הוה יתיב וגריס בבי רב ולא הוה קא יכול שליחא [דמלאכא דמותא] למיקרב לגביה דלא הוה שתיק פומיה מגירסא סליק ויתיב אארזא דבי רב פקע ארזא ושתיק ויכיל ליה
The gemara illustrates the point with a story about the malach ha'maves' inability to touch Rav Chisda so long as he was learning.
R' Akiva Eiger in the gilyos sends you to a gemara in Shabbos 30b about David haMelech, who was told he would die on Shabbos but was also immune from the malach ha'maves so long as he was learning:
כל יומא דשבתא הוה יתיב וגריס כולי יומא ההוא יומא דבעי למינח נפשיה קם מלאך המות קמיה ולא יכיל ליה דלא הוה פסק פומיה מגירסא אמר מאי אעביד ליה הוה ליה בוסתנא אחורי ביתיה אתא מלאך המות סליק ובחיש באילני נפק למיחזי הוה סליק בדרגא איפחית דרגא מתותיה אישתיק ונח נפשיה
RAK"E give you the mareh makom because he is prodding you to ask a question. Why does the gemara in makkos need to illustrate the point with a story about an amora Rav Chisda when it could illustrate the same point from this story with David that happened much earlier?
Maharasha in makkos comments: וה"נ ה"מ לאתויי מהך עובדא דפ' ב"מ דוד כל יומא דשבתא הוה יתיב וגריס כולי יומא כו' ולא יכיל ליה דלא הוה פסק פומיה מגירסא You're right. The gemara could have just as well quoted the story about David haMelech, but it arbitrarily chose the episode with Rav Chisda.
Maharasha does not see any distinction between the stories, but R' Eliyahu Baruch from the Mir suggested that there is a distinction, one that is also suggested by R' Bakst, and which Rav Shach was so impressed with that he was kicking himself for not thinking of it.
The Midrash tells us that Adam haRishon was shown the entire history of humankind. In that vision, he saw the soul of David haMelech, who was destined to come down to the world for just a few hours and then die as a baby. Adam was so moved by the lost potential of David not having the opportunity to leave any mark on the world that he donated 70 years of his life to David. This is why Adam lived only 930 years instead of an even 1000 (my wife makes fun of me because I like round numbers, but here's a Midrash that takes my side. It should be 1000 -- what's with 930?).
When Hashem told David that his time was up on that Shabbos, it was not because David had done anything wrong, certainly nothing that would make him deserving of death. David was on borrowed, undeserved time from day 1 of his life. It just so happened that those 70 years that he had been given as a gift were up on that Shabbos.
The same is obviously not true of Rav Chisda, who lived a normal life and whose death came about based on his own merits/demerits in shamayim.
This is why the gemara uses the story of Rav Chisda, and not David, as its proof. The gemara is establishing that just like the ir miklat affords refuge and protection for someone who has done wrong, so too Torah. That lesson cannot be learned from David, who died only because his 70 year gift was up, not because of any wrongdoing. That lesson can only be learned when speaking about a "normal" person.
R' Elya Baruch proves his sevara from a beautiful diyuk in Rashi, who comments on the gemara in Shabbos:
הוה יתיב וגריס - שלא יקרב מלאך המות אליו שהתורה מגינה ממות כדאמרינן בסוטה (דף כא.)
The gemara in Sotah writes that the protection of Torah exceeds that of mitzvos:
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מִצְוָה, בְּעִידָּנָא דְּעָסֵיק בָּהּ — מַגְּנָא וּמַצְּלָא, בְּעִידָּנָא דְּלָא עָסֵיק בָּהּ — אַגּוֹנֵי מַגְּנָא, אַצּוֹלֵי לָא מַצְּלָא. תּוֹרָה, בֵּין בְּעִידָּנָא דְּעָסֵיק בָּהּ וּבֵין בְּעִידָּנָא דְּלָא עָסֵיק בָּהּ — מַגְּנָא וּמַצְּלָא
But why would Rashi send you to that gemara and not to the sugya in Makkos where the gemara spells out clearly, based on what happened to Rav Chisda, that Torah protects even from the malach ha'maves? Isn't that sugya a perfect fit to what the gemara in Shabbos is talking about?
It must be that there is a distinction between the sugyos. The protection the gemara in Makkos is speaking about is a different type of protection than the one in the sugya in Shabbos.
There is another distinction that is meduyak in the gemara. When speaking about Rav Chisda, the gemara states that the malach ha'maves distracted him for a moment so he stopped learning, and was then able to take him on the spot, he dropped dead right by his shtender. The gemara in Shabbos writes that the malach ha'maves drew David haMelech *away* from his shtender and into the garden and then was able to take him. Apparently the protection afforded David enveloped and sanctified even the spot in which he was learning, so it was only after he moved away from that area, away from his shtender, that the malach ha'maves had power.
We are approaching chodesh Av. "Al mah avdah ha'aretz?" Chazal tell us that the churban happened because Bn"Y did not recite birchas haTorah. The Ran explains that there was a deficiency in their learning lishma. Torah is our shield and protection. Of course we need hishtadlus in all the normal ways, but above and beyond that, we need to envelop ourselves in the great power מַגְּנָא וּמַצְּלָא of Torah.
No comments:
Post a Comment