Question VII. What, and for what, [were] the spaces around those cities given to the Levites?

Together with the already-enumerated cities, [there] were — by the Lord’s prescription — spaces around them attributed to the Levites. These [spaces], here and elsewhere, are always called in Hebrew the “migraschim” of those cities — that is, [the spaces] which [are] placed outside them, and, as [it were], cast farther out, expelled, and extended. In the 70, here sometimes “τὰ περισπόρια αὐτῶν [ta perispória autōn]” [“their surrounding-sowing-lands”]; but sometimes “τὰ ἀφορισμένα αὐτῶν, τὰ ὅμορα & προάστεια [ta aphōrismena autōn, ta homora & proasteia]” [“their set-apart [lands], the bordering [lands] & the suburbs”]; but somewhere “τὰ ἀφορίσματα αὐτῶν, τὰ συγκυροῦντα, τὰ περιπόλια [ta aphorismata autōn, ta synkyrounta, ta peripolia]” [“their separated [portions], the adjoining [lands], the surrounding-districts”]. But by all these [terms] are signified the spaces adhering to the cities themselves — the circum-sown [lands], or sowing-[lands]; the separated or set-apart [lands]; the co-bordering, suburban, and circum-urban [lands], or amburbial [= around-the-city]. But the Rabbis in the Talmud (tractate “Eruvin,” ch. 5) will [have it that] those [spaces were] given [extending] “to four limits” [in four directions]. The first [purpose] is, that in them sheep, oxen, [and] beasts of burden could be pastured. The second, lest the pleasantness of suburban gardens and orchards be lacking to the Levites. The third, that space might also suffice for that walking-about which [was] permitted on the sabbaths [the sabbath day’s journey]. The fourth, that [there] be not lacking places which might serve for carrying out and discharging the various filth from the city. But out of these four, the scripture hands down only the first end and use (Num. 35:3): “Let the Levites themselves abide in the towns, and let the suburbs be for the cattle and beasts of burden.” And here (v. 2) the Levites themselves say: “The Lord commanded by the hand of Moses that cities be given to us to dwell in, and their suburbs to feed [our] beasts of burden.” Whence Abulensis writes (Num. 35, q. 3) [that], if [there] had perhaps been anything previously in these spaces which were given — of cultivated fields, vineyards, gardens, [or] arboreta — that [was] to be wholly converted into pastures. And Arias (on ch. 14): “Nowhere do we read of another use than of habitation within, and of domestic and cattle-rearing matters outside the city.” And the other ends which are brought forward either were not necessary, or indeed could be supplied from elsewhere. For, first, [the first-fruits etc.] supplied to the Levites fruit, and every kind of produce — even vegetables — from the first-fruits, the tithes, [and] the voluntary oblations (Matt. 23:23, where the Lord says [that] these [things], though small and minute, ought not to have been omitted). But because [there] seems to have been nothing of command concerning cumin, dill, and similar herbs and vegetables — and even if any such [things] were offered in the temple, they could not conveniently be brought into the Levitic cities; and truly because [there] is a great, and almost necessary, use of pot-herbs and herbs in the household, and [because it] is fitting [that] those things, sometimes also (on account of the sick), be by no means stale — [therefore] I would not think gardens [were] to be denied to the Levites; and indeed also, that [they] might somewhat relax [their] minds, wearied at times, with better pursuits. But [these gardens] could be within the cities, in the very grounds of the dwellings, as we see everywhere. But the walking-about could be had also in the pastures; nor, I think, would [it] ever have been denied in the roads, fields, and mountains of the neighboring tribes too. Finally, for the filth, a place could not be lacking — either in the cities, or in the pastures themselves. For the excremental [refuse] was either stored in sewers and consumed by the subterranean channels of waters or rains or others, or, by the very long duration of time, was turned into earth. But if, outside, in the spaces of the pastures, pits were made for receiving them, [there] the grass grew more luxuriantly, and more pleasant to the cattle — and [so too] the size and pleasantness of the trees — as Philo explains (bk. 2 On Monarchy), where he gives the causes why a grove was absent from the temple. But the other urban filth — such as some rubble and soot — is easily scattered and trodden down somewhere. Therefore [there] was only one, or at least the chief, end of those suburbs: pasturage.