This week’s potion – “Shoftim,” literally Judges – is a wonderful potion. It is wonderful because it still sounds fresh after thousands of years; it is wonderful because it contains many useful lessons – even today, in the age of ipad and i-can’t-get-any-advice-over-three-seconds-long; and it is wonderful because it shows us, as Kohelet observed later, that “nothing is new under the sun.”
Of the many issues that the Portion deals with, I want to focus on four: The Judges; the Police Officers; the Law of the King; and the “Green Heritage” of the bible. I will take those in turn.
1. The Judges
The portion begins with both a descriptive and prescriptive role of Judges in the community. First, they should judge according to “the law of justice.” (Deut. 16:18) Then, they are ordered not to be biased; not to recognize one party over the other; and not to take bribes. While the first two orders are (apparently) self-explanatory, the last one – about bribes – receives a special, short-but-sweet explanation: “For the bribe will blind they eye of the wise,” and would “twist” (or “take out of context”) the “words of the just.” This is a wonderful analysis of the effect of bribe; until today, it is of full force and effect. This part ends with the wonderful order: “Justice, Justice you shall pursue.” (16:20) – Indeed, the quest for justice is never-ending; but still, this ideal state should always be pursued, despite all the hardships.
This section is one of the eloquent ever written about the judges’ role. Many judges – all around the world, from Israel to the U.S. and anywhere in between – have quotes from this passage hung in their chambers. And for good reasons; the more you think about it, the better judge you are. It not for nothing that judges of the Supreme Court are called “Justices”; now you also know why.
2. The Police Officers
Though the translation of the term from Hebrew – Shotrim – is straight-forward (police officers), the true meaning of the term is far from clear. These biblical office holders are probably not precisely the “policemen” of today, although it seems clear from the context that they are an arm of the executive branch (as they are today). Be it as it may, I want to focus today on a unique moment – in which those police officers are in charge – and that is the moment before setting out to war. The text begins with a description of what the spiritual authority – the Chief Priest (Cohen) – would tell the people (a form of religious pep-talk, if you will; see Deut. 20:2-4). But now comes the time of the “police officers.” They would stand before the people and start to provide “waivers” for all of those who would not be required to go to war: First, “He who just built anew house, but have yet to dedicate it.” He may go back home, “lest he would fall in battle and another man would dedicate his home.” Second, and very similar, “He who planted a vineyard but has never harvested it.” He, too, may go back home, for the exact same reason. In similar form “He who was engaged to a woman, but has yet to marry her,” may return home. Generally speaking, therefore, the bible recognizes (through the police officers) that for those who the war comes at a very bad timing, perhaps their heart would not be with the war but elsewhere; these people should be let go. But then comes a surprise: “And the police officers continued to speak to the people and said: Who is the man who is afraid, that his heart is soft (disheartened) – he should go back home.” But why? Why would the cowardly-acting warrior allowed to go back home? He has no home to dedicate, no vineyard to harvest, to wife to take – nothing, in fact, to wait for. So why? In one of my favorite movies, A Few Good Men (already known to loyal readers of this blog), Col. Nathan Jessop – played by Jack Nicholson in a career-defining role – comes face to face with the same exact question. In the movie, a failing Marine – Private William Santiago – is asking to a transfer from Gitmo, where he is currently stationed under the command of Jessop, primarily due to poor performance (a “sub-standard marine,” in Jessop’s language). Jessop, in turn, is consulting with two of his officers about the request. The two provide opposite solutions - one (Kiefer Sutherland) suggests he stays and be “re-educated,” while the other (J.T. Walsh) recommends he would be transferred as requested, as he simply is not fit to be a part of the team. Upon hearing that, Col. Jessup’s response is memorable:
Col. Jessep: Hmmmm... transfer Santiago. Yes, I'm sure you're right. I'm sure that's the thing to do. Wait a minute, I have a better idea. Let's transfer the whole squad off the base. Let's... On second thought, Windward! Let's transfer the whole Windward Division off the base. John, go on out there get those boys down off the fence, they're packing their bags. Tom!
Tom: Yes, sir!
Tom: Yes, sir!
Col. Jessep: Get me the President on the phone right away. We're surrendering our position in Cuba!
Tom: Yes, sir.
Col. Jessep: Wait a minute, Tom, don't get the President just yet. Maybe we should consider this a second. Dismissed, Tom. Maybe, and I'm just spit balling here, maybe, we have a responsibility as officers to train young William. Maybe we as officers have a responsibility to this country to see to it that the men and women charged with its security are trained professionals. Yes, I'm certain I remember reading that somewhere once. And now I'm thinking, Col. Markinson, that your suggestion of transferring Santiago, while expeditious and certainly painless, might not be, in a matter of speaking, the American way. Santiago stays where he is. We're gonna train the lad!
The biblical solution, however, is different. The bible suggests to release the “William Santyago’s” of the world, and to enable them to go back home prior to the war. But why? The answer is striking: “For he shall not melt his brethren’s heart as his own,” meaning – that his cowardness (and, in modern terms, “sub-standard performance”) would not be infectious. The interesting point here is on the focus: While Col. Jessup is focusing on “Young William” himself, the biblical text is more concerned with the effect such soldiers may have on their brothers-in-arms. Who is more right?
3. The Law of the King
This point is interesting only because of the striking contrast between the biblical Order (T’zivuy, like “Mitzvah”), and biblical Reality. Long before Shaul, our first King (and the tension that that institution created with Shmu’el, the head of the religious establishment at the time), the biblical text warns the people of Israel from an opulent king, who would be extremely extravert about his status. But reality, as it happens, is quite the contrast. Let us compare the writings here with the story of King Shlomo (Salomon):
Deut. 17:16: “(The King) should not have many horses… “
King Shlomo (Kings I, 5:6): “And King Shlomo had forty thousands stalls of horses, for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.”
Deut.: “And he (The King) should not many women…”
King Shlomo: “And he (King Shlomo) had seven hundred (primary) wives, and three hundred concubines…” (King I, 11:4)
Deut.: “And he (The King) should not amass silver and gold….”
King Shlomo: “And all King Shlomo’s drinking vessels were of gold, and all the vessels of the house of the forest of Levanon were of pure gold; none were of silver – that was considered nothing gin the days of Shlomo… “
You get the idea.
4. Biblical “Green Heritage”?
Finally, a very interesting note – or warning, perhaps – appears in an unexpected place in the text. The subject of the discussion is the law of siege – what should you do while besieging a city “for many days.” And while we may expect the text to suggest to perhaps spare the lives of the women and children in the city, the text suddenly turn to discuss something completely different: the lives of the trees near the city. And here is what the bible tells us: “When in your war against a city you have to besiege it for many days in order to fight and capture it, you shall not destroy its trees or wield an ax over them, for you shall eat from that tree and you shall not cut it for a man is merely a tree in the field.” (Deut. 20:19) This last sentence, by the way, is the title of a beautiful poem by Nathan Zach, where he compares the growing of a tree to that of a human. (For a wonderful rendition, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiswDU4JZSY).
Importantly, this shows us the great “green heritage” of the bible – which considers the lives of the trees in general, and in particular in times of war.
Shabbat Shalom,
Doron
No comments:
Post a Comment