Masei: The Release of Unintentional Killers

Synopsis: This is the audio version of the 2-page article I wrote and published on rabbischneeweiss.substack.com/ on 7/9/26 (a revised version of an article originally published on 7/25/14) titled: Masei: The Release of Unintentional Killers. 
Why are the unintentional killers exiled to the cities of refuge released when the Kohen Gadol dies? Here are two answers, from the Bechor Shor and Rambam.

-----

The Torah Content for the month of Tammuz is sponsored by Yael Weiss. Thank you, Yael, for your support! It’s people like you who make it possible for me to continue doing what I do.

-----

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider supporting my work via Patreon, Venmo, Zelle, or PayPal — links below. Even a small contribution helps cover production costs and gives me the freedom to create more Torah content. To sponsor a day's or week's worth of content, or to inquire about tutoring or teaching, reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail. Thank you for listening, reading, and supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.

Patreon | [Venmo: @Matt-Schneeweiss] | [Zelle/PayPal: mattschneeweiss at gmail]

Substack | YouTube | YUTorah | Instagram

Podcasts: The Stoic Jew | Machshavah Lab | The Mishlei Podcast | Rambam Bekius | The Tefilah Podcast

WhatsApp Content Hub | Old Blog | Amazon Wishlist

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:08

Hello, I'm Rabbi Matt Schneewiss, and this is the audio version of the two-page article I wrote and published on my Substack at rabbi Schneewiss.substack.com on July 7th, 2026, which is a revised version of an article I originally wrote on July 25th, 2014. And the article is titled Masay, The Release of Unintentional Killers. The Facts. One of the final topics in Saver Bamidbar is the mitzvah of setting up Are Miklat, Cities of Refuge. Quote, when you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, you shall prepare cities for yourselves. Cities of refuge shall they be for you, that a killer may flee there, one who smites a person unintentionally. End quote from Bamidbar 35, 10 through 11. These Are Miklat serve a dual purpose. Prior to the murder trial, they function as sanctuaries for the unintentional killer, offering him protection from the Goel Hadam, the blood avenger, who is a relative of the victim. Quote, from Bamidbar 35, 12, the cities shall be for you a refuge from the Avenger, that the killer may not die before he stands in front of the assembly for judgment. End quote. Quote, from Bamidbara 35, 25, and 28, the assembly shall rescue the killer from the hand of the Gol Hadam, and the assembly shall return him to his city of refuge where he had fled, and he shall dwell there until the death of the Koengudal. And after the death of the Koengudel, the killer shall return to the land of his possession. End quote. The questions. The law that the killer is released upon the death of the Kohen Guttal raises two difficulties. One, why is the death of the Kohen Guttal the trigger for the unintentional killer's release? What does the Kohen Guttle's life or death have to do with the crime of manslaughter? Two, the length of the unintentional killer's sentence in the ear miclat seems arbitrary. Practically speaking, the killer might be in the ear miclat for any amount of time, from one day to one hundred years. Most prison systems and punishments are designed with an eye toward uniformity. Everyone who commits a given crime receives the same punishment. Here, the penalty of exile is subject to chance and can result in a wide variety of outcomes. Why did the Torah structure the Halacha with this element of randomness? There are many answers to these questions. Here are two of my favorite approaches. Now I have a footnote here that says, Chazal in Mako's 11b answer, that, quote, the death of the Koengudel atones, end quote, for the sin of manslaughter. This raises a whole host of new problems. Rather than take them up in this article, I refer the reader to my article, Hukas, how the deaths of Tsadigim Atone. I believe the Tort Mima and Rafkuk paved the way for an approach to citing to understanding Chazal's explanation. Okay, back to our article. Bukorshore. The Bukorshore on Bhavidbar 3525 offers the following answer to both questions. Quote, we do not know how long the victim would have lived had he not been killed by this unintentional murderer. We therefore estimate based this based on the Kohen Guddle, who is Chashuv, distinguished. We assume that in general he would not outlive the Kohen Guddle who serves before Hashem. And for the amount of time by which he shortened the years of this one, the victim, he shall be in exile. This is the reason why the Torah designates the span of his penalty based on the Kohen Gudal. And even if he was young and the Kohen Guddle was old, or vice versa, the Torah does differentiate. However it falls out, it falls out. End quote from the Bohor Shore, and I have a footnote on the word penalty. Chat GPT thinks it means a proxy or substitute measure after the Romance French form of vicaire or vicarius, vicarious, and Claude thinks uh that thinks that's a possibility, but is skeptical enough to leave it untranslated. Okay, back to the main body of the article. According to the Bakor Shore, the time period that the unintentional murderer spends in Gullus should ideally be determined by the number of years he quote unquote stole from the person he killed. For example, if the victim was 50 years old and would have lived to the age of 80, then the murderer should receive an exile sentence of 30 years, since that is the number of years he robbed from his victim. The problem is that a human court has no way of making this calculation, since it is impossible for us to know how long a person would have lived. To compensate for this lack of knowledge on our part, the Halacha makes an estimation based on the lifespan of the most distinguished member of society, the coin goddle. As someone whose life is dedicated to serving God, the coin goddle represents the paradigmatic human being. Thus, he is a fitting representative of the potentially full human life that was squandered through the negligent actions of the unintentional killer. Although this solution may not correspond with absolute justice, it does make us aware of that ideal and of the potential that was lost. When the killer thinks about the indeterminate duration of his prison term, this will bring to mind the indeterminate length of the life he cut short. Rambam. Rambam in the Morhavuchim 340 begins with a statement about the purpose of the gallus penalty. Quote, the commandment that a person who killed another unintentionally must go into exile is imposed with a view to calming the anger of the Goa Hadam so that he should not see the man who brought about this misfortune. End quote. Gallus is intended to achieve a practical outcome, calming the anger of the Goa Hadam by removing from society the person who caused their suffering. It is not clear whether this is intended for the sake of the unintentional killer, i.e., so that the Goa Hadam won't kill him, or whether it is for the sake of the victim's family members, i.e., so that they won't, they don't have to be aggrieved upon seeing the killer walking around town, or whether it is for some other reason, for example, to prevent endless blood feuds. Rahm explains the halach about the death of the Kohen Gudal as a further development of his theory. Quote, the unintentional murderer's return from exile is made contingent upon the death of the Kohen Guddle, the most honored of men, and the one most beloved in Israel. By his death, the relative of the slain person becomes reconciled, for it is a natural phenomenon that we find consolation in our misfortune when the same misfortune or greater one has befallen another person. No death causes more grief among us than that of the Koingdal. End quote. The Koinguddle's death may be likened to the death of a beloved leader, for example, FDR, JFK, Martin Luther King Jr., or a widely admired public figure, for example, Michael Jackson, Princess Diana, Kobe Bryant. When such individuals die, the whole country falls into a state of collective mourning. Rama maintains that in this emotional state, the Goa Hadam is in the best position to finally let go and move on, especially if the death of the Kohen Goddle happens many years after the killing. Understanding the disagreement. These approaches reflect two completely different frameworks. The Bahorashore sees the penalty of gullus as a form of retributive justice. The killer must pay for the years he stole from the victim, and since we can't know how many years were lost, we use the Kohen Guttle as the benchmark for a full life. This is the best form of Mita Kenegamita, measure for a measure, punishment that human courts can muster. In contrast, Ramam does not see Gullus as a matter of justice, but as a means of preventing the tragedy of manslaughter from engendering further suffering. In this framework, the objection, how is it fair that different unintentional killers receive different sentences is irrelevant. The objective of Gullus is not fairness, but the amelioration of the Golhadam's anger. The collective grieving occasioned by the Kohen Gottl's death makes it easier for the Golhadam to let go of that anger and will come whenever it comes.