The six primary cities of refuge housed fleeing accidental murderers. Conceptually, the cities are a mix of atonement, punishment and protection from their inadvertent victim’s family.

Yet despite the larger Jewish population in mainland Israel there were an equal number of cities of refuge in Israel and Transjordan — three in each. Why? The Gemara answers that “in Transjordan there are many murderers” (Makkot).

The fact that certain locations produce certain energies, auras and influences is a well-worn Jewish concept. The 13th-century Sefer Hachinuch speaks in these terms about the Torah prohibition on living in Egypt and certain holy places in Israel carry spiritual susceptibility.

The Gemara speaks about Israel’s ability to foster wisdom. Anecdotally, certain parts of the world seem to cultivate certain types of attitudes, sensitivities and characters. Jewish practice of yekkish German origin in various ways is unlike that produced in Poland, which in turn is dissimilar to that of Morocco — not just regarding customs, but elements of mindsets and attitudes too.

Yet though Transjordan may produce intentional killers, why does that necessitate cities of refuge, which are meant for accidental killers?

The Maharal, Rabbi Jehuda Loew ben Bezael (died 1609), explains that being around intentional killers rubs off on people’s sensitivities. A person used to seeing intentional murder will take less precautions and will be more likely to commit accidental murder, for they have been desensitised to the cruelty of loss of life and will sadly regard it as less of an anathema. Thus, more intentional killers equal more unintentional killers too.

This message is so pertinent for a generation in which we are exposed so often to so many media channels, reels and footage. We must be ultra-careful not to dull our sensitivities and regard cruelty (verbal or physical) as a norm.

Deeper still, it is important to recognise beneath-the-surface attitudes and blockages. Suppose a shul is recovering from a pandemic-catalysed loss of engagement. Without dealing with the underlying concepts of why a person may not be interested in shul, the shul’s progress will be hindered.

In the 1980s and 1990s the societal environment was fertile ground for Jewish engagement; people were asking real existential questions, thirsty for challenge and core Jewish family values and respect for religion abounded.

Nowadays the climate of reflex decisions and moral relativism, where every person’s subjective view carries weight, means “truth” can sound almost archaic and dictatorial. All these issues and more must be taken into account in creating an environment to foster Jewish renaissance and renewed engagement.