A Look at Parashat Shofetim

Shofetim

פרשת שפטים

דברים Deuteronomy 16:18 to 21:9

Chapter 16, Verses 18 through 22 – Appointing judges

Shofetim (שפטים) translates as judges.

Basic rules for setting up an orderly settled (perhaps semi-urbanized) society, including the appointment of trustworthy judges (שפטים) and law enforcement officers (שטרים) in all the settlements. The Hebrew words used translate as “at all your gates” (בכל שעריך). That is, they are accessible locally in each settlement, and they are located at the focal point of village life, not tucked away in a remote courthouse.

There is an injunction for impartiality and a caution not to take bribes, so as to assure fair judgment. Note the famous quote in verse 20: ” Justice Justice shall you pursue (צדק צדק תרדף)”. Why is “Justice” repeated? Unfortunately, the Hebrew of the Torah is written without any punctuation marks. If there were, possibly it would have been written “Justice. Justice shall you pursue”. Perhaps the intent is to first present justice as an ideal, and then that it must be pursued. The Hebrew תרדף suggests that a stronger term, perhaps relentless pursuit, is a better translation. A midrash (Devarim Rabbah) teaches that pursuit of justice is more important than prayers or even temple sacrifices.

The appointments of judges and magistrates are by the people in their localities, not by the king or priests. The Torah does not detail the methodologies to be used to seek out and appoint suitable judges, or whether there is a mechanism to remove judges that turn out to be lacking.

In verses 21 and 22, the people are ordered not to set up alternative worship spaces aside from the central (as yet unnamed) a l t e r ( to be designated by G-d at a future time).

Chapter 17, Verses 1 through 7 – Constraints on judgement

Verse 1 instructs that an animal with a blemish (מום) must not be offered as a sacrifice. Perhaps the intention is that a sacrifice must be wholehearted, not begrudged as would be apparent if a lesser valued animal is sacrificed. An alternative interpretation is that an animal procured with ill-gotten gains is considered “blemished”.

On one hand, we have a call for vigilante justice in cases of blasphemy and apostasy (as in the previous parashah). On the other hand, here we have restraining requirements: the need for at least two witnesses, thorough inquiry, and also the stipulation that witnesses are to throw the first stones, followed by the rest of the community. Requiring the accusers to throw the first stones may serve as a deterrent against false or overzealous accusations. The blood of the accused is thus on the head of the accusers first, and then the entire community.

Verses 8 through 13 – Bringing a case to the High Priest

A case, either civil or criminal in nature that is too complex to be handled at the local level is to be brought before the Priests (Cohanim) in Jerusalem (not mentioned by name) for judgment. It is not clear if it is mandatory that a case be presented to a local judge or priest before seeking a higher authority. Their decision is beyond appeal. Sort of a “Supreme Court”. In Second Temple times, this will evolve to be the seventy-one member Grand Sanhedrin.

Verses 14 through 20 – If you must appoint a king

Note: The Hebrew text seems to imply that appointment of a king is not obligatory. Most Rabbinic commentators are in agreement that the appointment of a king is probably not recommended, as G-d is the supreme king. However, if they really want a king in order to be like the other peoples, it is permitted, albeit, reluctantly. The medieval commentator Abravanel argued that a king is not necessary or even preferable, and that governance by a committee chosen for a limited period of time is preferable, In either event, the Torah lays down the rules if the people decide on having one (as they Inevitably will). Kingship is by appointment, not automatic inheritance (quite a novel concept in the ancient world!). True, Solomon was David’s son, but that did not end well. While deciding on a king is at Israel’s discretion, the selection is G-d’s, His choice to be made known through prophecy. From this passage, one gets the European concept of the “Divine Right of Kings” that was not seriously challenged until the eighteenth-century Enlightenment and the American and French revolutions.

Notice (verses 16 and 17) the implied rebuke o f the presumed excesses of King Solomon (who had quite an eye for the ladies and accumulated great wealth). The admonition not to be haughty (verse 20) may be a rebuke of the sense of entitlement and arrogance of King David. We are reminded of the cautionary message of the 19^th century British politician Lord Acton: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. And indeed, the unified kingdom did not last long after the death of King Solomon.

Verse 18 decrees that the reigning monarch should always have a copy of the torah, as prepared by the Levite priests. Perhaps the intention of the Hebrew משנה התורה is the teaching, possibly the book of Deuteronomy, and not the entire Torah.

Chapter 18, Verses 1 through 8 – Duties and portions due the Levites and the Priests

Following the instructions regarding the appointment of, and conduct of a King, now comes the turn of the Levites. As previously noted, they have no land allotment, and subsist off of their portions of the animal and produce offerings. Each priest is entitled to pack up and move to the place of sacrifices if he so chooses, and is entitled to share in the duties and privileges.

Verses 9 through 14 – Stay away from the practices of the Cananites

The people are to abstain from the abhorrent practices of the inhabitants of Canaan, including witchcraft.

Verses 15 through 22 – How we can recognize a true prophet

Moses promises that G-d will appoint another prophet to take the place of him. Who is that, and how will the people recognize him?

If a prophet’s prediction does not come true, that is the proof that he is a false prophet, worthy of divine retribution. This presents a conundrum. Under that definition, wasn’t Jonah a false prophet? Definition of the fulfillment of prophecy as proof of its veracity seems to contradict the role of prophets to deliver dire warnings to the people of the consequences if they do not change their ways. Under that definition, the success of a prophet is if his prophecy does not come to pass, that is, the people heeded his dire warnings. Is that sort of a “Catch 22” situation? Perhaps not. If the people heeded his words and change their ways, and as a result they averted the severe decree that he prophesied (such as the people of Nineveh in the story of Jonah), would he really be seen as a false prophet?

Chapter 19, Verses 1 through 13 – Cities of refuge

Command to establish three cities of refuge (chapter 4, verses 41 to 43 called for three cities west of the Jordan River and three east of the Jordan) for persons that unwittingly caused someone’s death, not for crimes of intent.

Note verses 8 and 9 – One orthodox interpretation of the command for three additional cities for “when G-d enlarges the territory” is that the land will be expanded in Messianic times so an additional three cities of refuge will be needed. Does this beg the question as to why cities of refuge would still be needed in Messianic times?

Refuge will not be granted for intentional homicide.

There is no historical or archeological evidence that such cities of refuge were ever established. The Book of Kings does refer to altars, in the presence of which an unintentional slayer would (perhaps) be granted refuge.

Verses 14 through 21 – More laws

Command to respect property demarcations.

The requirement for at least two witnesses to ascertain guilt. Penalty for bearing false wit ness.

Lex Talionis: an eye for an eye – עין תחת עין (Talmudic interpretation is that intent is for monetary damages.)

Chapter 20, Verses 1 through 9 – Preparing the army; who is entitled to exemption

Preparing the army mentally and physically to go out for battle. Pragmatic reasons to discharge Individuals from military service. Note that conscientious objection is not one of them, nor does the Torah recognize being a full time yeshivah student as a valid excuse. Later Rabbis declared that these rules only applied t o an “optional war” (מלחמת רשות) and not to an “obligatory war” (מלחמת מצוה). For the later, even a bridegroom must be summoned from under his huppah. How do the majority of haredim in Israel reconcile this with their almost complete across the board refusal to do any form of national or military service?

Verses 10 thrugh 18 – Laying siege to a town

Before attacking or laying siege to a town, a call to surrender must be issued. If terms of surrender are accepted and the army enters peacefully, the inhabitants will be spared, subject to pay taxes and a level of servitude or slavery. Only if the terms of surrender are refused shall the Israelites engage in combat. That is, war is a last resort to resolve a conflict. However; warfare in this age, once engaged upon, was extremely brutal. No quarter was given. All enemy men were to be killed. Women and children, as well as loot, are the legitimate spoils of war, for the soldiers to enjoy (“Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war” – Shakespeare, Julius Ceasar Act 3 Scene 1).

While the above apparently seeks to assure that the Israelites maintain at least a basic level of humanity in the conducting of war, the above refers to the outlaying towns. As for the Canaanite cities and towns, that is another story entirely. They are prescribed for utter elimination. Nobody was to be left alive, period, end of discussion. As we read in the Tanakh, this rule was not carried out in the conquest of Canaan and as a result, the Israelites were continuously coming under the influence of the forbidden practices and gods of the conquered peoples.

Verses 19 and 20 – Preventing needless destruction and desecration

Injunction to spare fruit giving trees. That is, prohibition of scorched earth policy. Other, non-fruit bearing trees may be felled if needed for constructing siege works, but wonton destruction was not permitted. The Rabbis later expanded this prohibition into a general o ne (בל תשחית), not restricted just to times of war. All needless desecration, destruction or waste of resources is to be avoided. For example, diverting a river or stream away from an enemy city was also not permitted.

Chapter 21, Verses 1 through 9 – An unsolved murder, and community responsibility

This section deals with the case of an unsolved murder. The entire community nearest the incident must give repentance. A Rabbinic reason is that the townspeople should have been more caring and looking out for the welfare of either a resident or a stranger in their midst and thus possibly preventing the murder.