42 Levite Cities as Cities of Refuge

Question

Bamidbar 35 discusses the cities that are to be given to the Leviem, and says that in addition to the 6 cities of refuge they are to be given 42 cities.
Numbers 35:6

וְאֵ֣ת הֶֽעָרִ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֤ר תִּתְּנוּ֙ לַלְוִיִּ֔ם אֵ֚ת שֵׁשׁ־עָרֵ֣י הַמִּקְלָ֔ט אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּתְּנ֔וּ לָנֻ֥ס שָׁ֖מָּה הָרֹצֵ֑חַ וַעֲלֵיהֶ֣ם תִּתְּנ֔וּ אַרְבָּעִ֥ים וּשְׁתַּ֖יִם עִֽיר׃ The towns that you assign to the Levites shall comprise the six cities of refuge that you are to designate for a manslayer to flee to, to which you shall add forty-two towns.

The stam, and then Abaye in BT Makos take for granted that these 42 additional cities also serve as cities of refuge.

Makos 10A

ותו ליכא והא כתיב (במדבר לה, ו) ועליהם תתנו ארבעים ושתים עיר אמר אביי הללו קולטות בין לדעת בין שלא לדעת הללו לדעת קולטות שלא לדעת אינן קולטות The Gemara asks: And are there no more cities of refuge beyond these six? But isn’t it written: “And the cities that you shall give to the Levites: The six cities of refuge you shall give for the murderer to flee there, and beyond them you shall give forty-two cities” (Numbers 35:6), indicating that the status of all the Levite cities is that of cities of refuge? Abaye said: With regard to these six cities designated specifically for this purpose, unintentional murderers in need of refuge are admitted there whether they entered the cities deliberately, aware that they are cities of refuge, or whether they entered inadvertently. By contrast, with regard to those forty-two Levite cities, unintentional murderers are admitted only if they entered the cities deliberately, but if they entered the cities inadvertently, they are not admitted to the cities.

However I could locate not any prior source that hinted at such a reading of the pesukim. I am looking for any biblical or taanitic source that might indicate such an understanding. (looked at Bamidbar 35, Devarim 19, Yehoshua 20, Mishna, Tosefta, Midrash, Yerushalmi makos.) Although the Talmud's question above quotes ועליהם תתנו ארבעים ושתים עיר that pasuk does not show that those 42 have the same function-- the section is discussion the territory to be given to the Leveim. Answers that distinguish drash from pshat here should please explain a compelling reason to have the drash diverge in this way. I am more interested in precedent than the drasha itself as the Talmud takes it as a given rather than asking it as a contradiction between some other source that makes such a drasha, indicating that it was accepted and clear that the 42 serve as cities of refuge.

Answer 1

According to Rabbi Prof. Yoel Elitzur in his essay on this question, the Bavli's understanding seems to come from the list of cities in Divrei Hayamim, where it says, for example (1:6:42):

"וְלִבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן נָתְנוּ אֶת עָרֵי הַמִּקְלָט אֶת חֶבְרוֹן וְאֶת לִבְנָה וְאֶת מִגְרָשֶׁיהָ וְאֶת יַתִּר וְאֶת אֶשְׁתְּמֹעַ וְאֶת מִגְרָשֶׁיהָ"

While in Yehoshua it says (Yehoshua 21:13):

"וְלִבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן נָתְנוּ אֶת עִיר מִקְלַט הָרֹצֵחַ אֶת חֶבְרוֹן וְאֶת מִגְרָשֶׁהָ וְאֶת לִבְנָה וְאֶת מִגְרָשֶׁהָ"

The key difference being that in Yehoshua only the chosen six cities are referred to as a "city of refuge", while the phrase "cities of refuge" in Divrei Hayamim seems to refer also to the rest of the cities, and not only the original six.

However, he also explains that this view was not widely-accepted, neither in the Bavli - the previous sugiya hinges on the understanding that there are only six cities - nor in the Yerushalmi (Makkot 7b), where they go to great lengths to explain that in the future there will be at most 15 cities of refuge.

Answer 2

It seems perfectly reasonable to read the passuk as saying the 42 cities should serve the same function as the six cities mentioned in the beginning of the verse. The Torah went out of its way to mention that these six cities are for refuge specifically in this verse.

The Ramban does imply that this is not the only way to read the verse, as he writes

ואני תמה כי על דעת רז"ל (מכות י) הכתוב שאמר (במדבר ל״ה:ו׳) ועליהם תתנו ארבעים ושתים עיר כולם למקלט צוה בהם

which implies that this is not obvious from the verses, but something we learn from Chazal. However, it seems to me that this interpretation is consistent with Chazal always paying close attention to how things are grouped together in the parsha. If the Torah was just teaching us that the six cities are the same ones that protect, it should have mentioned that detail in the next parsha that describes Cities of Refuge. Since this detail is mentioned here next to the 42 cities, it seems that the Torah is making a היקש, just as these six protect, so do the next 42.