During my wonderful years in the Greater Washington area, I always enjoyed guiding guests around our nation’s capital. Over the years, I became familiar with the Metro and gained expertise as a driver, navigating the streets around monuments, VIP entourages and security closures. I learned the parking situation and knew the legal and inexpensive spots. I always showed my guests the Israeli Embassy, off Connecticut Avenue, going in our out of downtown. The building’s Jerusalem stone lovingly reminded me of the origin of those minerals. Once inside the embassy for an event, I remember humorously asking someone if we were bound there to the special mitzvos associated with the Land of Israel, since technically we were on Israeli soil (of course we were not, since we were legally on Israeli soil, not halachically).

As I would drive down Van Ness Street showing various nations’ embassies on the left and right, I’d ask my guests to identify the Israeli embassy. Anyone who had ever been in Israel – especially Israelis – would get excited when they would indeed find it. I would then stop briefly and point to the infamous gate.

It was at that gate on November 21, 1985 where now-freed Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard fled when he realized the FBI was about to arrest him for espionage. He had hoped that the gate would open and he would be absorbed by his patron, the Israeli government. But, alas, the gate never opened, and Pollard would spend the next 3 decades behind bars.

The complicated issue of sanctuary has exploded into the news recently, within the greater context of the immigration debate raging in our country. Particularly as Jews, we need to empathize with those fleeing oppression and seeking refuge; we too are, or descend from, immigrants blessed to live in the United States. We must also responsibly protect our citizens from danger and criminal elements who do not advance our society, and be mindful of resources. It is a thorny issue with a wide range of opinions being proposed.

Parshas Mishpatim represents the first mention of arei miklat in the Torah, cities of refuge.

"מכה איש ומת מות יומת. ואשר לא צדה והאלקים אנה לידו, ושמתי לך מקום אשר ינוס שמה. וכי יזיד איש על רעהו להרגו בערמה, מעם מזבחי תקחנו למות"

(שמות כ"א: י"ב-י"ד)

“He who strikes a man, so that he dies, shall be surely put to death. And if a man lies not in wait, but God delivers him into his hand; then I will appoint you a place where he shall flee. But if a man comes willfully upon his neighbor, to slay him treacherously; you shall take him from my altar, that he may die” (Shmos 21:12-14).

These 3 verses addresses 3 areas of Jewish law: murder, accidental murder, and sanctuary for accidental murders.

Maimonides’ Halachic Code (Mishnah Torah, laws of Murder and Preservation of Life) devotes chapter five to the Biblical concept of arei miklat, cities of refuge which protect one who killed accidentally (and offers definitions and limitations on what exactly that means). In halachos 12-14, Maimonides addresses the parameters of the altar serving as an additional source of refuge, citing the end of the Biblical quotation above. In halacha 12 the Rambam equates the altar with the city of refuge in terms of function. In halacha 13 he limits it however to the ‘roof’ of the altar in Jerusalem (excluding other altars erected around Israel which functioned prior to the construction of the Temple). He also limited it to kohanim in the midst of their ritual service. He added that one near the altar or grabbing on to its corners, is not granted sanctuary; he must be on its ‘roof’. In the last halacha, the Rambam declares that once someone is granted sanctuary, they are escorted to a city of refuge (the altar is akin to an embassy of said city of refuge). However, “if one fears that he will be executed by the king using his regal powers of life and death, or a court will execute him in a temporary legal extra-judicial action (hora’as sha’ah), in these cases even a non-Kohen who can grab the corner of the altar is saved, unless this individual has been sentenced to death by a court, which would necessitate warnings and witnesss.”

Perphaps the most germane case of this in Tanach revolves around a nephew of King David named Yoav, the son of Tzruyah. His resume included serving as a trusted advisor to the king and a successful and brave general of David’s army. Yoav’s tragic demise and betrayal of his king directly relate to the verses above.

 Throughout the valor of his tenure, he killed two men in questionable circumstances: Shaul’s general Avner, and another military leader Amasa ben Yesser, the chief of staff to Avshalom. In King David’s final will to his son and successor Shlomo, he asked that Yoav pay the ultimate price for his actions (Kings I 2:5-6).

Avner killed Yoav’s brother Asa’el in self-defense. Avner approached David after the demise of Ish Boshes’ (Shaul’s son) claim to the kingdom, to strike a peace deal. Unbeknownst to the king, Yoav summoned him back and killed him in private. Yoav’s motives could have been vengeance for his brother (somewhat alluded to in the text), fear that Avner would replace him as head of the army of a new unity government, or a genuine fear of Avner’s loyalty, i.e. national interest. What is known is King David led Avner’s funeral procession, cursed Yoav and made it clear he was a victim of murder.

We find a somewhat parallel case with the killing of Amasa ben Yesser. The latter served as military chief to Avshalom’s army. Avshalom, King David’s son, mounted a failed coup against his father and ultimately died. In an act of national reconciliation, King David appointed Amasa as head of the army. Again, on his own, Yoav approached Amasa, grabbed his beard as if to embrace him, and stabbed him to death.

The common denominator of these stories are one high-level man’s attempt to thwart the king’s (and his boss’) attempts at national reconciliation. These episodes about Yoav are

undoubtedly the paradigm of future characters (real and fictional) who serve in the highest levels of government, have the leader’s confidence and ultimately betray the king, desiring to seek more hawkish policies.

The new king Shlomo, heeded his father’s request to execute Yoav and dispatches his general,  B’nayahu, to kill Yoav. Prior to King David’s death, Yoav joined Adoniyahu’s renegade campaign to seize the kingdom from his brother Shlomo. In Chapter two of Kings I, we read that Yoav ran to the altar and grasped its corners, seeking refuge from B’nayahu’s orders. Clearly it was known during Biblical times that altars represented atonement, and, in certain cases, sanctuary. “Right of Asylum” became Church policy many years later (I learned that from a fascinating shiur by Rabbi Alex Israel on the topic of Yoav. You can read the shiur here.). The Torah rejects this arrangement. No one is above the law and no place is above the law.

Although I seek to look at this episode in a non-halachic direction, we can spend a great deal of time analyzing the status of Yoav’s killings of Avner and Amasa,  Yoav’s decision to seek sanctuary at the corners of the altar and pondering if B’nayahu was justified in removing Yoav from the altar and killing him. ** I look at the law of the corners of the alter with amazement. Our Torah tells us that no one is above the law. You cannot escape Torah justice by cloaking yourself in some lofty position or gaining access to reverent sites.

Reading through Parshas Mishpatim, I am literally amazed reminding myself that the Almighty taught these laws to Moshe 3,328 years ago. Just as Moshe taught these laws to the nation, I too try to relate them to my own small children. One could think that issues like these would be ancient and irrelevant. But when I discuss with my kids the 5 types of financial responsibility, the status of watchmen, how we assess damage, people’s culpability in damages performed by their animals, my children not only understand the rationales, but embrace the values. They are at ages where they are trying to absorb the notion of personal responsibility. These Torah laws help inculcate those virtues in them.

These halachos must also remind us that while leaders must be honored and given the benefit of the doubt, in no way should they be unmonitored or, God forbid, allowed to abuse their power or authority. Balancing these competing principles – respecting and trusting leaders while assuring no abuse or corruption – is extremely challenging. But jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions can destroy a leader and his family; turning a blind eye violates standing idly by the blood of our fellows and shatters our covenant with God and our bond one to another.

The civil code is placed in between Biblical narratives about the Divine Revelation. Ethics of the Fathers was placed in the section dealing with civil and business law. The supreme Jewish legislative and judicial body sat meters away from the altar and ark in the Temple. We must see our behavior towards God and that towards our fellow man as helping us transcend our mortality for a life of purpose.

**(See Makkos 12a; Jerusalem Talmud Makkos 2:7; Sanhedrin 49a; the aforementioned Rambam and Aruch Laner who points out that while he was ultimately executed, when Adoniyahu grabbed hold of the corners of the altar, he was indeed spared. Yoav therefore saw that it may have worked for Adoniyahu. See M’lachim I 1:50-51.)