The final section of this Parasha focuses on murder. The corpse from an unwitnessed killing is found lying in the open. The Torah requires the elders of the town nearest to the corpse to undergo a public ceremony in which they declare that they had no responsibility for the murder, and they pray for the forgiveness of the people. The actual ceremony is the 'egla ha-arufa' - the 'calf whose neck is broken' - which is beheaded by the elders of the city in an 'infertile valley' (21:4). The Talmud (Sotah 46a) explains: let the young calf, who has not borne fruit, be broken in an infertile valley (21:6) which does not bear fruit, - and atone for the person who did not 'bear fruit' - i.e. complete his life. Ibn Ezra suggests that the elders of the city performed the ceremony because they were to some extent suspected as being background cause of the murder: had they successfully led the city according to the Torah's strict moral standards such a murder would have never happened in the first place.

Nevertheless, the question remains. Why should the elders have to declare that their 'hands did not spill this blood?' The Talmud (ibid. 45b) explains that they were not suspected of murder, but of knowing of the traveler, and allowing him to go on his lonely way without food or escort… or in the time-honored words of the British passport, to fail to 'offer the… protection and assistance as… necessary.' The Maharal (1526-1609) notes that this declaration implies that the murder might not have happened if the victim had been escorted as required; but he raises the following issue: surely there is no obligation to accompany a wayfarer all the way to the next city? Couldn't the killing have taken place even if the townsfolk had showed exemplary hospitality to the victim?

The Maharal resolves this difficulty in the following way. When a host takes the trouble to escort a stranger part of the way, he shows that he feels solidarity with him. When people have such positive feelings towards one another, G-d responds by providing an extra measure of protection. If, however, they had, in effect, written the traveler out of the community, he does not have this protection.

In addition, it could be suggested that a person's ability to cope with an attacker (both physical and verbal) greatly depends on his or her state of mind at the time. Applied to the above situation, when a person has been made to feel welcome in a strange town, he leaves feeling good about himself. He has the self-respect to face trouble with maximum advantage, which may well give him the strength to fight off the attacker. When he travels with a sense of being anonymous, unwanted, and vaguely resentful towards an inhospitable community, he has lost some of his self-respect and may become depressed, feeling worthless - becoming easy prey for a violent criminal - who will have sensed his poor self-image before deciding to attack. Thus the attitude of the community towards the stranger directly influences the extent of his being vulnerable after leaving them.

The same applies to much broader issues. In 1941, few doubted that it would be only a matter of days until Britain would fall to Nazi Germany. Yet Prime Minister Winston Churchill raised the morale of his people with the sincerity of his famous speeches - "We shall fight them on the beaches, we shall fight them on the hills, we shall fight them in the cities - we shall never surrender" - with the honest conviction that galvanized the population to put their maximum into the war effort. Historians recognize that high morale was a key element in Britain's survival of the Battle of Britain of 1941.

This principle is also implied in the following verse, earlier in this Parasha, in the context of going into war:

The officers shall continue speaking to the people and say, "Who is the man who is fearful and fainthearted? Let him go and return to his house, and let him not melt the heart of his fellows…" (20:8).

This is vital, because, as the Talmud (Sotah 44a) explains:

Running away from the enemy is the beginning of being defeated.

Thus the Torah recognizes that despair not only makes individuals vulnerable, but that it can spread like wildfire in the battle situation, and by extension, in a situation when whole communities lose hope in being able to defend themselves against attack from factions within the geographical boundaries of their own people.

The Prophets showed true spiritual leadership. No Prophet ever completely despaired. True, many conveyed the threats of utter doom, but that was always accompanied with a message of hope should the Israelites repent.

We learn from this discussion of the importance of showing a positive interest in visitors - both expected and unexpected, to the community: irrespective of level of learning and observance, and socio-economic status. He or she should not feel anonymous. (Indeed, the Bedouin hospitality extends to providing the guest with board and lodging, and ensuring he is escorted in safety towards his next destination.) And on the greater scale, we see the importance of leading the community - and the nation - with the conviction that a forward-looking and confident outlook can give the nation the necessary psyche and motivation to face even the most implacable enemies to maximum advantage.

As a postscript… after many years and three test failures I virtually gave up hope of ever learning to drive. My teacher was a young man with endless patience, but he begged me to postpone the date of my test because he was sure I would fail once more, and at the same time he expressed the view that I belonged to the class of people that didn't have the necessary aptitude to drive at all. Before I could do so, he had to suddenly leave for another part of the country. His place was taken by an elderly man who watched my driving and said: "Nonsense! You can learn to drive! You have the latent ability - it just needs to be brought out of you! And yes… thanks to him I did get through on the fourth attempt.

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT AND COMMENTARIES ON PARASHAT SHOFTIM.

1. How are the commands of having to 'appoint judges and officers' and 'they shall judge the people with righteous judgment' (16:18) linked, according to the Ohr Hachayim?

2. The Torah states that justice against the convicted idolator is executed at the gate of the city where that pagan worship took place (17:5 and Rashi ad loc). Why does it take place at that specific location, according to the S'forno?

3. The Torah states that a person who 'does not listen to the priest… or the judge… he shall die' (17:12). Who, specifically, is that 'person', following the tradition recorded in the Talmud: Sanhedrin 86b?

4. Which laws on the Torah-ordained king's prerogatives (17:14-20) is King Solomon recorded not to have kept, and with what consequences?

5. How is the commandment of having to be 'wholehearted with… G-d' (18:13) explained by (a) Rashi and (b) the Ohr Hachaim?

6. What is the connection between the section on the false prophet and the one on the cities of refuge, according to the Alshich?

7. What are 'plotting witnesses', according to the text and Rashi's commentary, and how is the guilty party dealt with?

8. Why should a person who has not realized the benefits of his having planted a vineyard, built a house, or betrothed a woman not take part in the war - according to Ibn Ezra?

9. With whom were the Israelites required to make peace before going to war, according to (a) Rashi and (b) the Ramban?

10. In ceremony of the 'axed calf', why are the elders required to declare 'our hands have not shed this blood and our eyes did not see' (21:7) - according to (a) Rashi and (b) the S'forno?

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT AND COMMENTARIES ON PARASHAT SHOFTIM.

1. The connection between having to 'appoint judges and officers' and 'they shall judge the people with righteous judgment' is to teach by implication that if the community appoints inappropriate judges, all responsible are reckoned by G-d as liable for their perversions of justice.

2. This is to impress the public that the very idol of that very city is incapable of preventing its server from the justice imposed by the Torah.

3. That is understood by the Talmud to refer to the 'rebellious elder' (Sanhedrin 86b). He must be an acknowledged and ordained sage, who is qualified to sit as judge on the Sanhedrin, but defies their ruling, claiming that it is permitted to act contrary to it.

4. Though King Solomon is recorded as being the wisest of people (Kings I 5:10), he was confident that he would be above the pitfalls (listed in 17:16-17,20) that happen to those kings who break some of the guidelines in this Parasha. However, his large stables did bring his people back to Egypt (Kings I 10:22-29), his many wives did affect him (ibid. 11:1-10), and his heavy taxes on the people for his treasury caused deep and bitter resentment amongst his people (ibid. 12:4), causing the Israelite nation to split after his death (12:16-19).

5. Being 'wholehearted with… G-d' according to Rashi, means that one's faith in G-d must be of the degree that one should trust Him in that all He does is for the ultimate best, without needing to know what will happen in the future. The Ohr Hachaim takes this further. The sayings of magicians and false prophets should be meaningless to a person of faith, as He has the power to nullify them.

6. Alschich makes the following connection. As the Torah established that Israel is not subject to various supernatural powers, a murderer may not justify his act by claiming that he was forced to kill by the influence of supernatural spirits.

7. 'Plotting witnesses' are those who testified that a person did a certain act, and then a second pair of witnesses testify that the first pair were 'removed' (19:16, see Rashi ad loc). This means that they could not have seen the act as they were 'with us' in a different place at the time they claimed in their testimony that the act took place. Such false testimony imposes the same penalty on those first witnesses as they conspired to impose (19:19) on the original defendant.

8. According to Ibn Ezra, a person in any of those situations will be too pre-occupied to be of real use to the fighting army.

9. According to Rashi, the Israelites only had to attempt to make peace with nations other than the Seven Canaanite ones, whom they were to utterly destroy (20:17) - understood to mean whether they were to make peace or not. The Ramban understands the Torah's injunction to make peace rather than war to even include the Canaanite nations (with total rather than partial annihilation to follow if they refused), so long as they paid taxes, served the Israelites, and accepted the Seven Noachite Laws.

10. According to both commentaries, there is no question that the elders of the community were directly responsible for the unidentified corpse. However, by the virtue of their office, they have to state that they were not even indirectly liable. According to Rashi, they have to declare that they had no part in letting him go without the hospitality of the town, and according to the S'forno, that they did not let a known murderer roam the land.

ADDITIONAL QUESTION ON PARASHAT SHOFTIM.

'If a matter of judgment is too difficult for you to resolve…You shall approach the Priests, the Levites, and the judge of the time… You shall inquire and they will tell you the words of the judgment…You shall be careful to do according to everything that they will teach you.' (17:8-10)

The above states that the contemporary leading religious authorities are the final arbiters in Halachic disputes. The expression the judge of that time is understood by the Talmud to include judges of lesser caliber than those of previous generations. 'Jephtah in his generation is as Samuel in his generation' (Rosh Hashannah 25b).

Why were those two judges in particular specified as the extremes of superior and inferior arbiters?

My attempts to answer the above may be found on the Shema Yisrael website under Shoftim for 5760

Written by Jacob Solomon. Tel 02 673 7998. E-mail: jacobsol@netvision.net.il for any points you wish to raise and/or to join those that receive this Parasha sheet every week.

e-mail: jacobsol@netvision.net.il

This article is provided as part of Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Permission is granted to redistribute electronically or on paper,
provided that this notice is included intact.

For information on subscriptions, archives, and
other Shema Yisrael
Classes, send mail to parsha@shemayisrael.co.il

http://www.shemayisrael.co.il

Jerusalem, Israel

732-370-3344