לקוטי שיחות חלק לט - ואתחנן א

In the verse "Then Moses set aside three cities on the side of the Jordan..." Rashi comments, "Then Moses set aside — he set his heart to be diligent in setting them aside, even though they would not provide refuge..." (as will be explained further in section B).

The commentators have written that the reason Rashi interprets "Then Moses set aside" as referring to the intention to set them aside, "he set his heart to be diligent in setting them aside," and not to the actual act of setting them aside, is due to the words "Then Moses set aside." The word "then" indicates past tense, and following this, it should have said "(then) set aside," in past tense, not "will set aside" in future tense. Therefore, Rashi explains that "Then Moses set aside" refers to the intention to set them aside ("he set his heart..."), similar to his explanation of the verse "Then Moses will sing" — "Then, when he saw the miracle, it arose in his heart to sing a song, and similarly, 'Then Joshua will speak' and 'a house will be built for Pharaoh's daughter' — he thought in his heart to do so, and here too, his heart told him to sing, and so he did... We learn that the 'yud' indicates intention." Similarly, in our case, the use of "then" in past tense and "will set aside" in future tense is because it refers to the intention to set them aside, which precedes (and is the reason for) the actual act of setting them aside.

We need to understand: if the intention is only about the thought, Rashi should have written "he set his heart to set them aside" or something similar. Why does he emphasize "he set his heart to be diligent in the matter"?

Additionally, it requires explanation: what is the precision in "Then Moses set aside," which implies that a special event occurred here that caused "he set his heart... to set them aside".

Rashi continues: "Even though they would not provide refuge until those in the land of Canaan were set aside, Moses said, 'A commandment that can be fulfilled, I will fulfill.'"

It is necessary to analyze — why did Rashi bring this matter ("Even though they would not provide refuge...") in the same comment, unlike his usual practice in most places to write each matter in a separate comment? At first glance, Rashi explains two different things here: a) the interpretation of the words "Then Moses set aside," b) the explanation of the matter that Moses set aside these cities "even though they would not provide refuge..." — so why did Rashi combine them in one comment?

Some commentators explain that Rashi's continuation "Even though they would not provide refuge..." is the explanation and answer to why it says "Then Moses set aside" — in future tense, because since they would not provide refuge then, it is not appropriate to say "set aside" (in past tense). However, this explanation requires clarification, because even though they would not provide refuge, the setting aside of these cities had already occurred, and therefore "set aside" is in past tense.

The explanation is as follows:

The first time the matter of setting aside cities of refuge is mentioned in the Torah is in Parshas Masei, where it states, "For you are crossing the Jordan to the land of Canaan, and you shall designate cities for yourselves, cities of refuge they shall be for you... and the cities that you shall give shall be six cities of refuge, three cities you shall give on the other side of the Jordan and three cities you shall give in the land of Canaan, cities of refuge they shall be." This indicates that the designation and setting aside of cities of refuge (including those on the other side of the Jordan) is after "you are crossing the Jordan."

This implies that the mitzvah of cities of refuge is something dependent on the land of Israel, similar to a mitzvah dependent on the land, and therefore the obligation and mitzvah only apply after they have crossed the Jordan and are in the land of Israel. However, since the other side of the Jordan was also inherited by the children of Israel and they dwell there, cities of refuge are also established (in a secondary manner) on the other side of the Jordan.

The novelty introduced in the plain meaning of the verses in Parshas Va'eschanan is that until then, Moses was still hoping that perhaps he would be allowed to enter the land (especially after the conquest of Sihon and Og, when "I thought perhaps the vow was annulled"), but in our Parsha, it is already stated to Moses (after "And I pleaded with the L‑rd... Let me cross over... — and the L‑rd said to me, 'Enough for you, do not speak to Me further about this matter, go up to the top of the Pisgah...') that you will not cross this Jordan."

This is what Rashi explains here on the verse "Then Moses set aside" — that the matter discussed is after the Israelites are already prepared to enter the land [as explicitly stated in the previous verse, "to drive out nations... to bring you to give you their land as an inheritance as it is today," and in Rashi's commentary, "as you see today"], and it is already known that Moses will not enter with them. Thus, "then" — "he set his heart to be anxious about the matter of setting them aside."

The simple explanation of this anxiety is a fear arising from the concern whether his actions in this matter are as required and appropriate. This is why Moses "set his heart to be anxious about the matter of setting them aside — even though they do not provide refuge until those in the land of Canaan are set aside." Since it is a mitzvah dependent on the land, and the entire concept of cities of refuge is after they cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, he was concerned that perhaps the designation and setting aside of the cities should only occur after their entry into the land of Israel, and there is no place for Moses to set them aside beforehand.

Moreover, it can be said that this "anxiety" is about whether it is in accordance with the will of G‑d. Just as it is G‑d's will that Moses not enter the land, so too perhaps it is His will that mitzvos dependent on the land not be performed by him. This is the reason for Moses' anxiety — not only whether there is any validity in his designation, but whether his designation is in accordance with the will of G‑d.

[Based on this, it can be said that Rashi's intention here is not only to explain the words "then Moses set aside" as a future tense referring to the thought before the action (as he explains in the verse "then Moses sang"), but also that Moses' entire action here is in a manner of "set aside," being anxious in the act of designation. The reason for this is — "then," since they are about to enter the land, and he is not entering with them (and thus it is something not related to him), as mentioned above. This is "set aside" in the future tense, because it was a kind of designation concerning the act of designation itself.]

We can explain the matter according to halacha, beginning with the words of the Rambam in the laws of Murder and Preservation of Life:

"It is a positive commandment to set aside cities of refuge, as it is stated, 'Three cities you shall set aside for yourself,' and cities of refuge only apply in the land of Israel." And in the subsequent halacha: "There were six cities, three set aside by Moses our teacher on the other side of the Jordan and three set aside by Joshua in the land of Canaan," and in the following halacha: "None of the cities of refuge provides refuge until all are set aside, as it is stated, 'Six cities of refuge shall be for you,' and Moses our teacher informed us that the three on the other side of the Jordan do not provide refuge until the three in the land of Canaan are set aside. Why did he set them aside? He said, since the mitzvah has come to my hand, I will fulfill it."

This requires explanation:

a) Why does he bring in the first halacha "It is a positive commandment to set aside cities of refuge" from the verse "Three cities you shall set aside for yourself," when in the subsequent halacha it is stated explicitly "There were six cities"? Why not bring the verse where it is explicitly stated that there are six cities of refuge, as it is written in the third halacha "Six cities of refuge shall be for you," or the preceding verse "And you shall designate cities for yourselves, cities of refuge shall be for you."

b) In the second halacha — what is the meaning of "There were six cities" — a narrative form, when it seemingly should have been in the form of a commandment and obligation.

c) In the third halacha it is written "And Moses our teacher informed us that the three on the other side of the Jordan do not provide refuge until the three in the land of Canaan are set aside," and seemingly this halacha is already included in what is stated at the beginning of the halacha that "None of the cities of refuge provides refuge until all are set aside, as it is stated 'Six cities of refuge shall be for you.'" Especially, what is added by "And Moses our teacher informed us," which implies that this is an additional law not included in the words of the verse "Six cities of refuge shall be for you."

In general, it is puzzling what the Rambam writes "(And Moses our teacher informed us...) and why did he set them aside? He said, since the mitzvah has come to my hand, I will fulfill it" — for a) the Rambam is a book of "laws, laws," b) what is the practical halachic relevance of the discussion why Moses our teacher set aside the three cities on the other side of the Jordan.

It seems that these are indeed the matters:

In the Rambam's opening statement in the laws of the mitzvah of the cities of refuge, "It is a positive commandment to set aside cities of refuge, as it is stated, 'Three cities you shall set aside for yourself,' and the cities of refuge apply only in the Land of Israel," the Rambam informs us that this mitzvah is a land-dependent mitzvah. Therefore, the foundation of the mitzvah of the cities of refuge is what is stated, "Three cities you shall set aside for yourself," because the primary obligation and mitzvah of setting aside cities of refuge is on the three cities in the Land of Israel. He then continues (in a separate halacha), "And there were six cities, etc.," meaning that although the foundation of the obligation and the positive commandment is the setting aside of three cities in the Land of Israel, nevertheless, "there were six cities," indicating that the halacha is that in practice there should be six cities of refuge that provide refuge for the murderer (including the three on the other side of the Jordan), and the laws of the cities of refuge apply to all six cities.

The Rambam reiterates and emphasizes this point in the third halacha: just as it is with the positive commandment of setting aside cities of refuge, where the mitzvah is specifically in the Land of Israel (and the setting aside of the three cities on the other side of the Jordan is secondary and additional), so too we find in the law of their providing refuge — "Moses our teacher informed us that the three on the other side of the Jordan do not provide refuge until the three in the land of Canaan are set aside." This law is not included in the teaching at the beginning of the halacha, "Six cities of refuge shall be for you," which states that none of the six cities of refuge provides refuge until all are set aside — rather, it is a specific law regarding the cities of refuge on the other side of the Jordan.

In other words, the first law in this halacha — "None of the cities of refuge provides refuge until all are set aside" — means that the law of the cities of refuge providing refuge is only when all six cities of refuge exist, as all six cities of refuge are considered as one entity. Therefore, if one of them is missing, the law of providing refuge does not apply to any of them, and this law is the same for all six cities of refuge, both those in the land of Canaan and those on the other side of the Jordan.

Afterwards, the Rambam adds another law — "And Moses our teacher informed us that the three on the other side of the Jordan do not provide refuge until the three in the land of Canaan are set aside" — because the primary mitzvah of setting aside cities of refuge applies only in the Land of Israel (and it is one of the land-dependent mitzvos), therefore, the law of the cities of refuge cannot apply to those on the other side of the Jordan until the three in the land of Canaan are set aside (whose setting aside is the essence of the mitzvah, "Three cities you shall set aside for yourself"). This is also the novelty in this law regarding the interdependence of all six cities of refuge, where they are interdependent only concerning the law of their providing refuge, unlike those on the other side of the Jordan, where the intention is not only regarding the law of their providing refuge, but that there is no establishment of the status of cities of refuge as long as those in the land of Canaan are not set aside.

It could be said that there is a practical difference regarding one who vows "from the cities of refuge that were before they entered the land."

Based on the above — that before the setting aside of those in the land of Canaan, the status of a city of refuge does not apply — it is worth examining what the content of Moses' action was in setting aside the cities of refuge on the other side of the Jordan.

This can be explained in two ways:

a) The setting aside was merely a preparation (choosing the cities and their boundaries, and perhaps also directing the roads), for although there was no fulfillment of a mitzvah or establishment of the status of a city of refuge, it was still a preparation and a means for fulfilling the mitzvah of the cities of refuge afterwards.

b) Although before the setting aside of those in the land of Canaan, the status of a city of refuge did not apply, after Joshua set aside the three in the land of Canaan, the status of a city of refuge automatically applied to those on the other side of the Jordan due to Moses' setting aside. Thus, Moses' action caused them to be set aside as cities of refuge, but the actualization of this status did not occur until after Joshua's time. [Perhaps it could be said even more — that after Joshua set aside the three in the land of Canaan, the status of a city of refuge applied to the three on the other side of the Jordan retroactively, from the time of Moses' setting aside.]

The practical difference between these two approaches: according to the first approach, Joshua would have needed to...

...set aside the cities on the other side of the Jordan after he had set aside those in the land of Canaan, for only then did they acquire the status of a city of refuge. This is also how some commentators interpret the words of the Sifrei, "How do we know that Moses commanded Joshua to designate cities of refuge, etc.?" meaning "that Moses commanded Joshua that he himself should designate all six cities, for even those on the other side of the Jordan did not provide refuge until Joshua designated all six cities." However, according to the second approach, there was no need for Joshua to designate them again; rather, after Joshua's designation, the status of a city of refuge applied to them (retroactively?) through Moses' designation.

It can be said that Rashi and the Rambam disagree on this matter, and this is preceded by the difference in language between the Rambam and Rashi: In the Rambam, the language is "He said, since the mitzvah has come to my hand, I will fulfill it," which is the language of the Gemara in Makkos. However, Rashi changes from the language of the Talmud and writes, "A mitzvah that can be fulfilled, I will fulfill."

The difference between these two expressions is that the phrase "the mitzvah has come to my hand" emphasizes the possibility of fulfilling the mitzvah from the perspective of the person ("has come... to my hand"), whereas the phrase "a mitzvah that can be fulfilled" speaks about the possibility from the perspective of the object, "a mitzvah that can be fulfilled." This is the essence of the difference between the two approaches mentioned above: According to the first approach, Moses' action was merely a preparation, and his action is called a "mitzvah" only from the perspective of the person, as he was engaged in (preparing for) a mitzvah. However, from the perspective of the object, it did not yet constitute a mitzvah. In contrast, according to the second approach, the designation of the cities by Moses was considered a "mitzvah" also from the perspective of the object, since he designated these cities as cities of refuge.

And in this, Rashi and the Rambam disagree — Rashi holds that Moses' action caused the status of a city of refuge to apply to them, and therefore he writes, "A mitzvah that can be fulfilled, I will fulfill." In contrast, the Rambam holds that it was merely a preparation, and therefore he uses the expression "since the mitzvah has come to my hand, I will fulfill it."

From the "wine of Torah" in Rashi's commentary:

The fact that the three cities on the other side of the Jordan did not provide refuge until those in the land of Canaan were designated requires explanation. Seemingly, since the tribes of Gad, Reuben, and half of the tribe of Manasseh had already settled on the other side of the Jordan, why were they not immediately granted the protection of the cities of refuge?

[And even though "all the armed men" crossed with the other tribes to conquer the land of Canaan — (a) the Israelites did not cross the Jordan until several months later, and during this time, the tribes of Gad, Reuben, and half of Manasseh resided in their cities on the other side of the Jordan, (b) and primarily: even afterwards, the men who were under twenty and over sixty, as well as the women and children, remained there.]

Perhaps it can be said that the inner reason for this is that they did not need the cities of refuge, as Moses said, "But you who cleave to the L‑rd your G‑d are alive, all of you, today," indicating that the Israelites were so attached to the Divine that they were not at all connected to the opposite of life, G‑d forbid [and even one who kills unintentionally requires atonement, which implies a deficiency in their attachment to the Divine].

It can be said that this elevated state of the Israelites was achieved through Moses, who elevated them to such a high level of attachment to the Divine that "you are all alive today." However, after Moses' passing, they descended from their level, and consequently, they needed the cities of refuge.

Based on this, we can explain the difference between the two approaches regarding Moses' action in designating the cities of refuge on the other side of the Jordan — whether it was merely a preparation or whether his designation caused the status of a city of refuge to take effect — according to the inner dimensions of the matter:

The concept of the cities of refuge is not only about negation — protection from the avenger of blood — but also involves a positive aspect — "and he shall flee to one of these cities and live." In the inner dimension, the unintentional killing of a person indicates the dominance of the evil inclination, which is the Satan and the Angel of Death. In the language of the Tanya, it receives its vitality from "the place of death and impurity," whereas in the city of refuge, he receives vitality from the side of holiness — "and he shall flee... and live," with true life, a life of holiness that comes from the source of life, "the L‑rd G‑d is true, He is the living G‑d."

Therefore, the mitzvah of designating the cities of refuge had to involve Moses' action, because through him, the concept of "you who cleave to the L‑rd your G‑d are alive, all of you, today" was drawn down to the Jewish people, including the drawing down of vitality through the cities of refuge for one who kills unintentionally.

This is the essence of the two aforementioned perspectives regarding Moses' action:

According to the first perspective, Moses' action was merely a preparation and did not actually effectuate the designation of the cities of refuge. This was to emphasize and demonstrate that from Moses' level, the entire concept of unintentional killing is irrelevant, and there is no need for cities of refuge, as mentioned earlier. This means that even the concept of drawing down vitality to one who kills unintentionally is below Moses' level.

[It can be said that according to this perspective, the very fact that Moses only made a mere preparation for the cities of refuge (without it resulting in the actual designation of the cities of refuge) was because he wanted to effect that even afterwards, there would be less need for the cities of refuge, by reducing the number of those who would need them.]

However, according to the second perspective, Moses did effectuate the designation of the cities of refuge. For although Moses himself is above any concept of unintentional killing (even the drawing down of vitality to such a person), nevertheless, as a faithful shepherd, he lowered himself to draw down vitality even to the Jewish people who would need the cities of refuge (after some time).

This is why Rashi writes, "He set his heart to be anxious about the matter of designating them," because the designation of the cities of refuge by Moses is connected with his descent from his level, to draw down vitality even to one who has fallen to "the place of death and impurity, may G‑d protect us," and therefore, it caused him anxiety (which removes the blood).

On the other hand, "He set his heart to be anxious about the matter of designating them," not only did he do so in practice, but he set his heart on it, because this is the role of a faithful shepherd, who sacrifices himself for his flock, and draws down vitality even to one who needs to go into exile, "and he shall flee... and live," until he too is elevated to be among "you who cleave to the L‑rd your G‑d are alive, all of you, today."

And so it will be for us, in this bitter exile, that not only does the exile have no control, G‑d forbid, over Israel, because there is the spiritual protection of the cities of refuge — the words of Torah provide refuge — but furthermore, "and he shall flee... and live," that the matter of life, true life, is drawn to each and every Jew, until the fulfillment of the promise "He will revive us after two days; on the third day, He will raise us up, and we will live before Him," with eternal life, in the true and complete redemption through our righteous Moshiach, immediately and without delay.

Although according to Rashi, the land of Sihon and Og (across the Jordan) was also given to Abraham, the mitzvos that depend on the land apply only to "this land which shall fall to you as an inheritance, the land of Canaan according to its borders." This is because the mitzvos are specifically tied to the land of Canaan, as explained in the simple meaning of the text at the end of Parshas Matos. Similarly, with regard to the mitzvah of the cities of refuge, their primary existence is in the land of Canaan, and only secondarily are there cities of refuge across the Jordan. It is noteworthy that in the future, the three cities across the Jordan will be nullified "because Israel will not dwell there."

Regarding the inheritance of the children of Gad and Reuven (and the conquest of the land of Sihon and Og in general), it became part of the inheritance of Israel as an addition (and secondary) to the inheritance of the land of Canaan. This is similar to the mitzvah of the cities of refuge, where their main existence is in the land of Canaan, and only secondarily are there cities of refuge across the Jordan. It is worth noting from the Alshich in Parshas Shoftim that in the future, the three cities across the Jordan will be nullified "because Israel will not dwell there."

The simple interpretation of "and you shall designate", which was said to Moshe, is "and you shall prepare". Subsequently, it further explains the matter of "and the cities which you shall give... three cities you shall give across the Jordan... three cities you shall give in the land of Canaan." Refer to the Sifrei Devei Rav on Sifrei at the beginning of Parshas Masei and Chasdei David on Tosefta Makkos, chapter 2.

This was not merely an action but a legal definition. Accordingly, one could explain that the comparison in Devarim Rabbah to David's preparation is in that David also sanctified the courtyard. However, this is difficult, because in Devarim Rabbah, only the verse regarding the preparation of the gold, etc., is mentioned.

It is noteworthy that according to the Tosefta and Yerushalmi Makkos there, Yehoshua also designated the three cities in the land of Canaan immediately upon entering the land, but they did not provide refuge until after the inheritance and settlement. See the references mentioned in note 30 and note 34.

See Tzafnas Paneach on the Torah, our Parsha, Devarim 3:25 at the end.

It is noteworthy that according to Tzafnas Paneach (as referenced above at the end of note 27), even before all six cities provided refuge, the mere designation of the cities in the land of Israel caused those across the Jordan to provide refuge, at least to the extent of being like the camp of Levi, which provides refuge knowingly. See there.

One could say that there is a practical difference if Moshe measured between each city. According to the first approach, it could be said that this was not necessary because there was no legal requirement for designation. However, according to the second approach, see Rambam there, chapter 7, "and they also anoint between each city of refuge at the beginning of their designation, etc.". Not like the opinion that the designation of the cities of refuge by Yehoshua was after fourteen years of conquest and division (as the simple reading of the verses in Yehoshua there).

See Toldos Adam on Sifrei.

Beginning of Parshas Masei.

Accordingly, it seems one could simply interpret the verses in Yehoshua, that the designation of the cities across the Jordan as cities of refuge was done by Yehoshua.

Perhaps one could say that the practical difference is for someone who was found in one of these cities beforehand. If we say that the refuge is not from being there but from entering there, then it could be said that if the status of a city of refuge retroactively applies, it is considered as if he entered a city of refuge.

Rabbi Simlai expounded on the verse, "Then Moshe set aside..." The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moshe, "Let the sun shine for the murderers... you have let the sun shine for the murderers." See the commentary of Maharsha there. Based on the above, it can be said that the intention is not merely that "the murderers will see and rejoice in their separation (the cities of refuge)," but that this is their healing and salvation from the place of death, akin to the concept of the sun's rising.

It can be said that this is the distinction between the two expressions in Makkos there, whether the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "Let the sun shine for the murderers" or "You have let the sun shine for the murderers." Simply put, the difference is whether G‑d commanded him regarding this or Moshe himself set them aside. Based on the above, it can be said that since Moshe on his own is above this (as in the first manner), it is stated "You have let the sun shine"; and in order to draw life even to one who kills unintentionally, there needed to be a special command and empowerment — "Let the sun shine, etc."

This is the language of the Tanya mentioned above in note 51.

See Niddah 39a and elsewhere.

See Makkos there. And see above note 53 that this is learned from our Parsha there.

Hosea 6:2. See Rashi and Metzudos there.

See Radak on the verse (at its end). Metzudos there. And in Tana Devei Eliyahu Rabbah, chapter 5, "on the third day" refers to the World to Come, and see Ohr HaTorah on the verse, beginning with "He will revive us" 5659 — that it refers to the World of Resurrection, where there will be eternal life.