"Aggadot from Hamivtar" by Rav Yitzchak Blau
Inadvertent Crimes
Our Rabbis Taught: Moses had set apart three cities
[of refuge] on the other side of the Jordan and
corresponding to them, Joshua set apart [others] in
the land of Canaan. Were three cities [necessary] in
Trans-Jordan [the same as] three cities for the
[whole] land of Israel (as there were many more
tribes in Canaan, why would both areas require the
same number of cities of refuge)? Said Abaye: By
reason that murder was rife in Gilead (Makkot 9b).
Many commentaries object that Abaye’s answer misses
the mark. The cities of refuge serve as a home for
those guilty of inadvertent murder so the mere fact
that one city across the Jordan contained a more
murderous society should not necessarily create a
greater need for cities of refuge. Intentional
murder is a capital crime and its frequency should
not influence the number of people migrating to the
cities of refuge. Thus, Abaye’s focus on intentional
murder seems beside the point. Commentators offer
various answers to this problem. Ritva suggests that
intentional murderers pretended that their acts were
accidental and they fled to cities of refuge until
the courts could sort out who belonged where. Thus,
a more murderous society does require more cities of
refuge.
Maharal suggests a more powerful answer. A society
with many murderers clearly does not value human
life nor recoil at the idea of causing a person’s
demise. Such a society will also have more
inadvertent murder because it will not take the
precautions that would limit such occurrences.
Trans-Jordan needs more cities of refuge not because
the intentional criminals will find their way there.
Rather, crimes of both intentionality and negligence
stem from the same root, and a society with more of
one will also have more of the other.
The relationship between negligence and willful
misbehavior is a point of broad educational
significance. Moral and religious success mandates
internalizing the notion that "I didn’t mean it"
often fails to excuse. Among the many examples that
come to mind, the most obvious may be the
responsibilities inherent in driving a car
Maharal's analysis help to remind us that reckless
driving can not be excused with the thought that the
driver has no intent to harm. Without minimizing
the diffrence between willful and inadvertent
misbehavior, let us do our utmost to prevent both
kinds of wrongdoing.
Return to Aggadot Home
|
