Q&A: Which They Already Ate in the Days of Hezekiah
Which They Already Ate in the Days of Hezekiah
Question
“And if the Lord your God enlarges your border, then you shall add three more cities to these three.”
Maimonides learns from this that there will be redemption.
For the Torah would not speak for nothing…
I learned in Rabbi Professor Elitzur’s weekly portion essay on Matot-Masei that he discusses whether only 6 cities serve as refuge cities [the plain meaning of the verses in the Torah, in Joshua, and in Chronicles; and the initial assumption of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds and of Nachmanides] or whether all 48 serve as refuge cities [the conclusion of the Babylonian Talmud and Maimonides]. Practically speaking, he brings evidence that the Hasmoneans expanded and included Kiryat Yearim and Gamla [temporarily?], and maybe another place too.
If so, then Maimonides’ whole basis falls apart…
Answer
Indeed. He writes explicitly that such a thing never happened. So what is the question? If Elitzur is right, then Maimonides was mistaken. But even if he was mistaken, only one of many proofs has fallen here (according to his approach), not “the whole basis.” Not to mention that Maimonides’ assumption is itself very questionable (what about the wayward and rebellious son and the idolatrous city? They never were and never will be.)
Discussion on Answer
The idolatrous city and the wayward and rebellious son, like many other commandments (the Jubilee, the Sabbatical year, interest, an eye for an eye), are not observed.
And therefore the Jewish people are punished.
“Expound and receive punishment.”
On Saturday night I went to the home of my teacher and master, Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl, and asked him the question asked here, and he answered:
A. Herod was not authorized to add refuge cities, so it has no significance…[?]
Maybe the Sanhedrin agreed with him about adding them temporarily? [And in any case that would make it authorized and valid.] Answer: no.
B. Regarding the wayward and rebellious son and the idolatrous city, there is an opinion among the Sages that it is “expound it and receive reward,” unlike “And if the Lord enlarges your border, then you shall add three more cities to these three.”
And perhaps the reason is that in those cases it depends on circumstances developing [through free choice?], whereas “you shall add” is a promise that things will be good and successful in the future, and a command how to act then.
Have a good week, honorable Rabbi.
Sorry about the weird name because of the errand I ran on Saturday night.
The herring from Sabbath just went to my head…
And in general, during the Nine Days, fish are first-rate.
Oh, of course…
The herring and the gefilte together…
What about the carrot?
Every little detail of your menu is of very great interest to all of us.
Galilee man,
There was carrot, but it was nullified in a ratio of 1 to 200 by the heaps of herring and gefilte…
On a calmer look, Elitzur does not contradict Maimonides.
Maimonides was speaking about some utopian reality that appears in the verse, “And if the Lord your God enlarges your border.” That implies we have finished conquering what we are obligated to conquer, and we are expanding into new territories, so then there is a law of three new refuge cities.
But Elitzur describes almost the opposite reality: the Hasmonean kingdom managing to recover a few additional districts [but not all of them…] that had once been in our hands and then slipped from our control. And now the question is: where is the regional refuge city? So they establish an alternative refuge city beyond what is stated in the Torah, either because the original territory of the Torah’s refuge city had still not been conquered or because it was not possible to invest in settling it, so they establish a substitute.
But this is not a case of extraordinary expansion into far-off and new territories, which is what the Torah is talking about. That would require sanctifying three cities in addition to the existing ones: “you shall add three more cities to these three.” In Herod’s case, it is not three cities on top of the three; rather, sadly, it is three [or maybe only two?] in place of the original three, since they were not under their control or were in ruins. So there is no extraordinary expansion of rule beyond the borders of the commandment to conquer.
Though Rabbi’s question still stands: what is different about “you shall add three more cities” from the idolatrous city and the wayward and rebellious son, where “expound it and receive reward” is considered a legitimate possibility…