Vol.

21 Issue #1 Parashas Shofetim

Solving a Cold Case

Rabbi Eli Cohn

(YUHSB 00, YC 05, RIETS 08)
9th Grade Dean/Mashgiach, Maggid Shiur- MTA

The closing section of this weeks parashah presents

to us the mitzvah of eglah arufah. When an unclaimed corpse
is found discarded between two cities and the murderer
cannot be found, the Torah prescribes for us a process of
measuring the location of the corpse to the closest city, having
the elders of that city declare they are not responsible for the
murder, and then having them axe a young heifer as an
offering.
The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim sees this mitzvah as
a means to bringing the killer to justice. When the case turns
cold and the detectives can find no leads, the next step is to
perform the mitzvah of eglah arufah. The very nature of the
mitzvah is a public spectacle. As they measure the distance
from the body to the closest city, those traveling along the
route will gather to see what is occurring. As the elders march
from their city to the site of the forsaken body, the population
will follow them to witness their declaration. Finally, the
peculiar form of offering with a myriad of strange and
intricate details will inspire even more curiosity in the events
unfolding. In short, a brouhaha is created and everyone and
anyone in the surrounding area will be talking about it.
Additionally, the land on which the mitsvah is performed
becomes off limits for any future activity. It must remain
fallow as a means of publicizing the crime long after the initial
excitement of the mitzvah. As such, it will only be a matter
of time that someone will come forward with details about
the murder. Perhaps even the murderer himself will feel the
pressure of the entire region talking about his crime and will
make a mistake in covering his tracks. Either way, in the
Rambams perspective, the mitsvah of eglah arufah is a last
ditch effort to solve the crime when normal procedures have
failed to yield results. Rabbi Gideon Rothsteins novel Murder
in the Mikdash offers a creative fictional depiction of the
Rambams eglah arufah.
From an investigative or forensic perspective, the
methodology of the Rambams eglah arufah is perhaps flawed.
The closest city may have something to do with the murder,

7 Elul 5776

or it may not. You may create a ruckus by marching the elders

of that city to the site of the crime, but at the same time you
may be missing those with the real information in a city just a
few kilometers further down the road. The spectacle may
cause those with evidence to come forward, or perhaps it will
lead them to assume that the Beit Din has acted and there is
nothing left to be done. The Ramban highlights that the
Torahs demand that the calf be killed in a nachal eitan would
run contrary to the Rambams theory; why choose a
discarded desolate area if youre trying to raise awareness?
Better to choose fertile territory that onlookers will notice
more. The Ramban himself argues that this mitzvah is better
viewed as a chok.
The Ibn Ezra, however, takes a very different view
of eglah arufah. He argues that we are not concerned with
finding the actual perpetrator of this heinous act. Rather, our
concern is to find those who are spiritually accountable for
this tragedy. There must be some type of sin in their midst
for such a terrible occurrence to happen in their vicinity. If
the people of the closest city were acting in ways that were in
accordance with hayashar beeinei Hashem it is inconceivable
that a grave sin would be connected in any way to their town;
hence, the need for a public ritual of atonement. The elders
of that city really do need to declare that they are not directly
guilty of this crime, for in a certain sense they are truly guilty.
A murder that happens in your backyard reflects something
spiritually rotten in your essence.
In his introductory shiurim (Elul 5763) to masechet
Sanhedrin, Rabbi Michael Rosensweig highlighted a Tosafot
in
Bava
Batra
that
seems
to
echo
this
sentiment. Tosafot on Bava Basra 23b note that when
determining which city is responsible to bring the eglah
arufah you dont measure to the nearest metropolis per se,
rather to the nearest city that contains a functioning Beit
Din. Tosafot note that if your working logic is that the closest
city performed the crime, or has knowledge of the crime, it
makes little sense to bypass a city just because they do not
have a Beit Din. Rather, it seems that we are looking for
spiritual accountability. Indeed, it is the responsibility of the
nearest Beit Din, which is tasked with teaching and enforcing
the Torah and is held accountable for the troubling events that
occur in its surroundings. Rabbi Rosensweig argued that this

Page 2

insight should have significant impact on how you understand

the opening lines of parashat Shofetim and the mitsvah to
appoint judges in every city; it is not merely about creating
an efficient system of justice, but attempting to create an ideal
atmosphere of kedushah in every city.
Perhaps, as we
begin the month of Elul and the process of readying ourselves
for the Yamim Noraim, both of these understandings of eglah
arufah can inform our teshuvah process. On the one hand, we
are in the midst of performingteshuvah for defined sins and
transgressions. In this sense, we are like those trying to catch
the actual criminal: looking carefully at the evidence and
doing everything we can to determine what was done wrong
and how best to atone. However, the Ibn Ezras view of eglah
arufah can challenge us to perform a different type of teshuvah.
There is a more subtle repentance that must be done, one that
may not be for any particular action or sin. Rather we must
evaluate how our actions have influenced those around us; if
there are negative things occurring in our backyard, then we
have to take ourselves to task. We have to hold ourselves
spiritually accountable for our environmentonly then can
there beshalom al Yisraeil.
Axe-idental Murderers

Yehuda Snow (18)

In this weeks parashah, parashas Shofetim, the Torah
discusses the laws of two different types of murderers:
murderers who kill intentionally and murderers who kill
unintentionally (they should have been more careful, but
werent). The Torah confers many laws about an
unintentional murderer; for example: the Torah states that
the goeil hadam, a close relative of the person who was
murdered unintentionally, may kill the murderer, and the
murderer can flee to a city of refuge, a place where the goeil
hadam cant kill him.
The question is, why would Hashem make the
unintentional murderer, murder at all? What did he do wrong
to deserve blood on his hands? It is true that the murderer
should have been more careful, but is being a bit less careful
than he should have been, reason enough for Hashem to make
him kill? Is it so egregious a mistake that he should have to
leave his home town and go into exile to a city of refuge until
the kohen gadol dies? Furthermore, what did the person who
was killed do wrong? Why is he punished because someone
else was a bit less careful than he should have been?
I believe the answers to all of these questions can be
found in two different pieces of gemara in maseches Makkos.
The gemara on daf yud amud beis states that whenever Rabbi
Shimon ben Lakish would start talking about theparashah of

Vol. 21 Issue #1

murderers, his opening statement would always be the same;

he would start off by explaining the pessukimof vaasher lo
tsadah vehaelokim innah leyado, But one who did not stalk
[him], but God brought [it] about into his hand, I will make a
place for you to which he shall flee (Exodus 21:13) and
kaasher yomar meshal hakkadmoni meireshaim yeitsei resha, As
says the proverb of the ancient one; 'From the wicked comes
forth wickedness,' (Samuel I
24:14). He explains that
these pessukim are referring to a
case in which there are two
different people. One killed
intentionally without witnesses,
and
the
other
killed
unintentionally without witnesses.
Hashem arranged for them to be at
one innthe person who killed
unintentionally was going down a
ladder and the person who killed
intentionally was standing at the
bottom. Hashem caused the
person who killed unintentionally
to slip off of the ladder and kill the
person who killed intentionally
while there were two witnesses
watching. In this way Hashem
caused both of them to get what
they deserved.
This gemara seemingly answers why Hashem would
cause someone to be killed (because he was deserving of
death) but the question of why Hashem causes someone else
to kill unintentionally and go into exile, remains. The
solution to this question lies on daf yud amud aleph. The Torah
in Deuteronomy 4:42 commands the accidental killer: venas
el achas min hearim haeil vachai, and by fleeing to one of these
cities he might live, The gemara renders thispassuk to mean
that we have to do things for the person who killed
unintentionally so that he wont have a horrible life. One of
the kindnesses performed for the murderer is, when he goes
down into exile to the cities of refuge, his Rebbe must to go
down into exile with him. Rav Zeira says from here we learn
that a Rebbe should not teach "letalmud sheeino hagun, to an
improper student. We can infer from here, that if someone
acts improperly he can end up killing someone
unintentionally, going into exile, and leaving his home town.
One can glean a very powerful message from this: we need to
be very careful to act properly and not do aveiros. May we all
be zokhe to act properly, do mitsvos, and succeed in all of our
endeavors, speedily ushering in the mashiakh.