Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Torah

AND OPEN LAND — “a space [consisting of] open land outside and around the city, in order to make the city pleasant; and they [the Levites] are not permitted to build any building there or to plant a vineyard, or to sow any crop. 4. A THOUSAND CUBITS ROUND ABOUT. But afterwards [in Verse 5] it says [that it should be] two thousand cubits! How can we explain this? He assigned two thousand cubits for them around [the cities], of which the inner [area with a radius of a] thousand [cubits, as mentioned in Verse 4] was to be free [open] space, and the outer [area of a thousand cubits] was to be for fields and vineyards round about.” This is Rashi’s language taken from the words of our Rabbis. thousand served as the open space, and the outermost was for fields and vineyards. Thus the two verses are harmonized. It will be noted though that Rashi did not assign any dimensions for the city proper. This will be one of the major contentions of Ramban, from which will follow important conclusions (see Note 59). The correct interpretation according to the plain meaning of Scripture seems to be that Scripture [in Verse 4] is stating that they should assign as open space a thousand cubits directly round about the city, meaning that [the combined open space of both sides of the city] should be a thousand cubits long, five hundred on each side, and similarly [the open space of both sides together] of the width, should be a thousand cubits, five hundred cubits on each side. After this He stated [in Verse 5] that they should make a square [the dimension of which to be] two thousand cubits by two thousand cubits, and the city should be situated in the center of the square. He thus added to them [the dimensions — in Verse 5] an open space not directly facing the city, equal to the measurement directly in front of the city, so that you find when leaving a thousand cubits as open space round about the city as He assigned at first [in Verse 4], the city, a thousand by a thousand cubits, will be in [the center of] the square. (open space) of five hundred by a thousand extends in each direction directly facing the city, there still remains a space of five hundred by five hundred above and below these migrashim, near the corners of the outer square. These remaining spaces, Ramban will suggest, were to be designated for fields and vineyards. [In a drawing of Ramban’s design of the Levite city, found in my Hebrew commentary, p. 336, there will be noticed a circle encompassing all these four migrashim directly facing the city up to the walls of the outer-square. The circle naturally cuts down somewhat on the space allotted for the fields and vineyards. I based this upon the Gemara in Erubin ibid., as interpreted by the commentators, especially the Ritba, in order to bring Ramban’s words into consonance with the text there. Ramban’s general concept though of the Levite city and its environs as presented here, according to the plain meaning of Scripture, is clear.] Thus the city given to the Levites was in the form of a square. Know that the term pei’ah [in Verse 5] signifies “a whole side” [i.e., the whole length of the distance of any of the four sides of the outer square, and not merely any point along that side]. (for the east ‘side’ two thousand cubits) as any point on that eastern side of the circle, located two thousand cubits away from the city (see Note 57), Ramban applies it to the whole length of that eastern side alongside the city [of which a thousand cubits were directly opposite the city, and five hundred were above and below the city, as explained]. Similarly the expression, a hundred cubits long ‘lapei’ah ha’echath’ means “for the whole ‘one’ side,” and so also similar expressions mentioned there [with reference to the dimensions of the Tabernacle]. This is also true of the term pei’ah at the end of the Book of Ezekiel [with reference to the dimensions of the city of Jerusalem and the Sanctuary of the future]. Moreover, if the intent of the verse was to have been [as Rashi interpreted] that they were to assign two thousand cubits round about the city in each direction, He would have said, “And you shall measure without the city ‘l’pe’ath keidmah (‘to’ the east side — two thousand cubits) etc.;” but instead He says [in Verse 5] And you shall measure without the city ‘eth’ pe’ath keidmah, which means “the measure of that [whole] side” [i.e., the whole distance along the eastern side of the outer square area, and also on each of the other outer sides, as the verse continues]. Such a four-sided plane figure having all its sides equal [and all its angles, right angles] is indeed a pleasingly suitable appearance for cities to have, not that they should measure two thousand cubits around the city in all directions [as explained by Rashi], thus eliminating the corners. A similar case is the expression, It shall be eighteen thousand reeds round about,, Verse 35. which means that the city [of Jerusalem] will measure on all of its four sides together eighteen thousand reeds, since he [Ezekiel] assigned there for each of the four sides four thousand and five hundred [reeds]. Now it is correct to say that the thousand cubits which He assigned [in Verse 4] as open space directly round about the city that it is not to be planted, and the thousand cubits He added in the second verse at each of the outer sides [not directly opposite the city] be used for fields and vineyards, as our Rabbis have received by tradition. But the term migrash (open space) in Scriptural language applies to both, but in the one case [in the remote corners, not directly opposite the city] it may be cultivated and sown, whereas in the other case [in the migrash facing directly the city] it may neither be plowed nor sown. That is why Scripture separated them from each other [by giving two commands, in Verse 4 and in Verse 5, and not commanding both of them together]. as consisting of a thousand cubits and Verse 5 which assigns it to be two thousand. Ramban’s answer is that the term migrash applies to both — open space, and land for planting. Thus Verse 4 addresses itself to that migrash which was for open space, while Verse 5 speaks of the overall concept of migrash which includes both the thousand cubits of open space directly opposite the city, and the five hundred cubits above and below the city for planting, which total altogether two thousand cubits.

FROM THE MANY YE SHALL TAKE MANY, AND FROM THE FEW YE SHALL TAKE FEW. Here too, in the opinion of our Rabbis [the meaning is that] from the paternal families which received a large amount as their inheritance, they should take many [cities], as He mentioned according to your families, while each tribe received exactly the same amount of land [and therefore had to provide an equal number of cities for the Levites]. And although you will find in the Book of Joshua that the number of cities which they gave to the Levites was not equal, equal” is thus clear, as is proven in the cases of Judah, Shimon, and Naphtali. according to the number of tribes, that was because of the [different] value of the particular cities, since some were more important than the others, for the Land was divided according to its value.). A proof to this is the fact that from [the tribes of] Judah, Shimon and Benjamin they gave thirteen cities [to the Levites], and from the tribes of Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and the half-tribe of Menasheh, [also] thirteen [cities were given], and yet these [latter tribes] were larger than the former ones in their population.), Shimon (Verse 14), and Benjamin (Verse 41) totalled 144,300. Issachar (Verse 25), Asher (Verse 47), and Naphtali (Verse 50) totalled 163,100. The complete tribe of Menasheh (Verse 34) totalled 52,700. Assuming that the half-tribe of Menasheh mentioned in Joshua was exact half [i.e., 26,350] we have a total for the latter group mentioned of 189,450, which is far more than the 144,300 of the first group. And from the tribe of Ephraim they gave four cities [to the Levites], and from the tribe of Dan four cities,, Verses 23-24. and yet the children of Dan were double [the population] of the children of Ephraim., Verse 43)! Thus we must say that the cities were not given in proportion to the population of the tribes, but according to the appraised value of the city.

YE SHALL GIVE THREE CITIES BEYOND THE JORDAN. “And even though in the land of Canaan there were nine tribes, and here [on the east side of the Jordan] there were only two [and a half], Scripture gave them an equal number of cities of refuge, because in Gilead [on the east side of the Jordan] murderers were numerous, as it is written, Gilead is a city of wrong-doers; it is covered with footprints of blood.” This is Rashi’s language, based on the words of our Rabbis. Now even though the [cities of] refuge were only for those who killed in error [and these murderers of Gilead killed deliberately], they would kill in treachery and make themselves appear as if they had done it in error, and therefore it was necessary to increase [proportionately] the number of their cities of refuge, in order to be able to take in all of them, since one could not tell who had killed deliberately. If so, [we must say that] the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded this on account of the future [since He knew that murderers in Gilead would be numerous], similar to that which it says [of the future generations], and this people will rise up, and go astray. Or perhaps the Rabbis will say that the climate of the land of Gilead was conducive to producing murderers since it became a nation. But I wonder! For in the opinion of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, the [cities mentioned in the] verse which says, and beside them [i.e., apart from the six cities of refuge], ye shall give [to the Levites] forty and two cities, were all commanded as cities of refuge, and thus there were thirty-six of them in the land of Canaan, and six beyond the Jordan, which, as clearly stated in Joshua Chapter 21 (see Note 68), were in the land of Canaan, we must now deduct the three main cities of refuge, leaving us a total of thirty-five additional cities of the Levites in the land of Canaan – and consequently a total of seven such additional cities for beyond the Jordan to complete the total of forty-two — we must perforce understand Ramban’s language in speaking of thirty-six cities for the land of Canaan and six for beyond the Jordan as based on the theory mentioned above in the text that the factor of appraised value was also taken into consideration, and hence the seven cities on the eastern side of the Jordan were regarded as six, thus leaving a total of thirty-six for the land of Canaan. and they all offered protection, in the opinion of our Rabbis, of blessed memory! Thus the cities of refuge throughout the Land of Israel were [distributed] justly and equally, for each of the [twelve] tribes received four cities of refuge. He also counted the tribe of Menasheh in the land of Canaan, because the majority of it was there [thus the nine tribes in the land of Canaan together with Menasheh were given thirty-six cities of refuge, i.e., those which constituted the cities of the Levites, plus the original three cities of refuge, making a total of thirty-nine]. Perhaps in [the proportion of] the [six] appointed cities G-d increased [the number of these cities] beyond the Jordan, in honor of Moses, so that he would set aside half of that number [since he could not enter the land of Canaan], but in their totality [of forty-eight cities] they were all divided up by measure and according to proportion [each tribe receiving four cities]. According to the simple meaning of Scripture, it appears to me that the land on the [east] side of the Jordan was very large, for it contained [the kingdom of] the two great Amorite kings [Sihon and Og], about whose might the verses speak in superlative terms, and [this kingdom became] even greater when Ammon and Moab became a legitimate [conquest for Israel] through them [i.e., through Sihon and Og who captured the lands of Ammon and Moab, and from whom Israel subsequently took them by the right of conquest], whereas the kings of the land of Canaan were merely kings of cities, and every ruler of a city was called a “king,” as you see [from the verse]: the king of Jerusalem, one; the king of Hebron, one,, Verses 9 and 16. although between them [these two cities] there is a distance of [only] half a day’s walk. Similarly the Sages mention that between Beth-el and Ai is a distance of [only] four miles, and yet each of these cities had its own king., Verses 9 and 16. It is possible that it was the custom in those generations to call every ruler of a city “king,” or perhaps [this was only in the Land of Israel] in honor of the Land of Israel, as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, explained. In any case, they were not kings of countries, but only kings of particular cities. And thus it is written, [And Adoni-bezek said], ‘Threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered food under my table.’ Thus the land on the [east] side of the Jordan was a very large land, and required three cities of refuge just as the whole of the Land of Israel on the [west] side of the Jordan did, and only these six cities offered refuge [to unwitting murderers], and the forty-two cities [set aside] were for the open lands of the Levites and not for refuge.

IN ALL YOUR HABITATIONS. “This teaches us that a Sanhedrin may function outside the Land [of Israel] as long as one functions in the Land of Israel itself.” This is Rashi’s language. This is indeed correct, because after the destruction [of the Temple] the Sanhedrin cannot function in the Land of Israel nor outside it, just as our Rabbis have said in the Chapter Arba Mithoth Beth Din: “And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days — when there is a priest [performing the Divine Service in the Sanctuary] there is [execution of] judgment; when there is no priest [at the Sanctuary] there is no judgment.” And we have been taught in the Mechilta: “Whence do we know that judicial execution can take place only during the existence of the Sanctuary? Because it says, From Mine altar, thou shalt take him, that he may die. If you have an altar, you may render capital punishment, and if not, you may not do so.” But I have nowhere found in connection with a commandment which is limited to the [duration of the] existence of the Sanctuary that Scripture should say about it, throughout your generations in all your habitations [as it does here], because this [expression] indicates [the contrary, namely that it is binding] even during the exile, outside the Land. Thus [it uses this expression] in connection with [the obligation of] abstaining from work on the Festival of Shavuoth,. and in connection with the prohibition of [eating from] the new crop [before bringing the omer on the sixteenth day of Nisan],, Verse 14. For the explanation of the word omer, see Vol. III, p. 368, Note 243. in order to make [these laws] obligatory even outside the Land [of Israel] and even nowadays [when the Temple is destroyed], so that we should not [think that the prohibition against eating of the new crop is] dependent upon [the actual offering of] the omer, and [so that we should not make the commandment to abstain from work on Shavuoth dependent] upon the offering of the new meal-offering, Verse 16. [on that day]. Likewise [the expression throughout your generations in all your habitations is used] in connection with [the prohibition against eating certain] fats, 3:17. so that we should not think that it is dependent upon the offerings. [And so here too the expression throughout your generations in all your dwellings would indicate that the execution of judgment including the death-penalty, applies at all times, and is not dependent upon the existence of the Sanctuary!] Perhaps the Rabbis interpreted the words [in our verse here]: And these things shall be for a statute of judgment [as referring not to the criminal cases mentioned in this section, but] to [the general law of] the Sanhedrin mentioned continually in this section, as it is said, [until he stand] before ‘the congregation’ for judgment; then ‘the congregation’ shall judge,, Verse 24. and Scripture is thus saying that we should always have, throughout all generations, and even after the destruction [of the Sanctuary], “a congregation that judges” [i.e., a Sanhedrin, or court] in order to adjudicate upon the laws of fines, robberies, personal injury, and all monetary matters, and to deal with the law of forty stripes.

AND YE SHALL TAKE NO RANSOM FOR THE LIFE OF A MURDERER etc. The correct interpretation of [the repetition of the phrase ye shall take no ransom in Verses 31-32] that at first [i.e., in the verse before us] He warned us against [pardoning] a deliberate murderer, [stating]: And ye shall take no ransom of monetary payment for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death, for he shall under all circumstances be put to death, and shall not be saved from death by any means, neither by exile nor by stripes nor by any other punishment. And afterwards [in Verse 32] He stated, And ye shall take no ransom to allow him to flee [from the city of refuge] and return to live in the Land, until the death of the priest, and the verse thus refers back to those liable to exile [for unwitting murder] which He had [previously] mentioned, who are the main subject of this section. It is thus as if He would have said: And similarly you shall take no ransom from a murderer [who killed unwittingly] in order that he should flee [from his city of refuge] and return to live in the Land, before the death of the [High] Priest.” It was unnecessary to say that we should take no ransom from him [to free him] altogether from fleeing to the city of refuge, because anyone who kills somebody unwittingly is afraid at first that the avenger of blood might kill him in the heat of his anger, or [might kill him] because he suspected him of deliberate murder [and therefore he will always want at first to flee to the city of refuge]. Scripture, therefore, did not have to speak about [not taking] a ransom to free him altogether, but speaks only about [the prohibition against taking] a ransom after he has fled there, to enable him to return to his land, and so that he should not have to stay there [in the city of refuge] as long as the [High] Priest is alive. For[it is likely that he may desire to leave it, since] after he has fled [there] and stood [trial] before the congregation for judgment and has been acquitted by them [of the charge of deliberate murder], he will no longer be afraid of the avenger of blood, and so he will want to return to his house before the due time [i.e., before the death of the High Priest]. Therefore Scripture warned us against [accepting from him a ransom or bribe for] this [purpose]. Or [it may be] that there is a letter vav “missing” from the word lashuv [in Verse 32 — so that it is as if it said v’lashuv] meaning “or to abide.” to his land before the death of the High Priest. This interpretation is to be preferred apparently because it does not necessitate the introduction of a missing letter into the verse, as mentioned in the text. But the first interpretation appears to me to be the correct one.

V’LO TACHANIPHU’ (AND YE SHALL NOT POLLUTE) THE LAND. Because He had said at the beginning: And these things shall be for a statute of judgment unto you throughout your generations in all your habitations, meaning that these judgments apply also outside the Land [of Israel], therefore He mentioned additional stringencies applying to the inhabitants of the Land [of Israel], in honor of the Divine Presence which is [especially] present there, and He warned us not to pollute it and not to defile it. And the meaning of the term chanuphah [mentioned here, which literally means: “flattery,” or “pollution”] is that which is said with reference to the imprecations: Thou shalt carry out much into the field, and shalt gather in little; Thou shalt plant vineyards and dress them, but thou shalt neither drink of the wine;, Verse 39. Thou shalt have olive-trees throughout all thy borders, but thou shalt not anoint thyself with oil;, Verse 40. All thy trees and the fruit of thy land shall the locust make bare,, Verse 42. for all expressions of chanuphah indicate doing the opposite of that which is seen by or appears to the eyes. This is the punishment [which will come] to the Land because of idolatry, bloodshed, and immorality, just as it is said, will not the Land ‘chanoph techenaph’ (become polluted)?; the earth also ‘chanepha’ (is polluted) under the inhabitants thereof; ‘vatachniphi’ (and thou hast polluted) the Land with thy harlotries. (polluted)” because of the sins of its inhabitants, which means, according to Ramban, that it will do the opposite of that which is its nature, for it will be planted and cultivated but not produce fruit. And the meaning of the term “defilement” [used in the next verse — And thou shalt not ‘defile’ the Land] is that the Land will become defiled so that the Glory of G-d will not dwell therein if there is innocent blood [shed] in it which has not been atoned for by the blood of him that shed it. Thus the Rabbis have said in the Sifre: 161. “‘V’lo tachaniphu’ the Land — this is an admonition against flatterers.” For at first [in Verses 31-32] He warned us against taking a bribe from murderers, and then [in Verse 33 here] He warned us against flattering them because of their high position or their power, or the honor of their family, even without taking a bribe, because if we flatter them, we will thereby cause the Land to “betray” its inhabitants [as explained above].