Shoftim: Law enforcement

Shoftim: Law enforcement

Law enforcement ( the police?) permeates the parsha. It starts with the commandment to appoint judges and enforcers שֹׁפְטִ֣ים וְשֹֽׁטְרִ֗ים תִּֽתֶּן־לְךָ֙.  Who is the appointer?  presumably , the reader. This implies a  democratic process of election, a meritocracy - at least as it is perceived by the electors. 

The judges are instructed to show no prejudice. There is a specific prohibition on bias based upon appearance לֹ֥א תַכִּ֖יר פָּנִ֑ים, a concept that is strongly emphasized today.  Its mention in the ancient text attests to the chronicity  of the problem of caste. 

Only by pursuing righteousness can a claim to authority be substantiated.   צֶ֥דֶק צֶ֖דֶק תִּרְדֹּ֑ף לְמַ֤עַן תִּֽחְיֶה֙ The societies that abandon the meek  in their laws are disavowed  by history.  

The law that is to be enforced is what Moshe has recorded, based upon his communications with Gd.  Moshe recognized that time would necessitate interpretation of the law. He established a system for the Cohanim (priests) and judges to (re)interpret the law and demanded that their decisions be followed. וּבָאתָ֗ אֶל־הַכֹּהֲנִים֙ הַלְוִיִּ֔ם וְאֶל־הַשֹּׁפֵ֔ט אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִהְיֶ֖ה בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֑ם וְדָרַשְׁתָּ֙ וְהִגִּ֣ידוּ לְךָ֔ אֵ֖ת דְּבַ֥ר הַמִּשְׁפָּֽט׃

וְשָׁמַרְתָּ֣ לַעֲשׂ֔וֹת כְּכֹ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר יוֹרֽוּךָ׃ The rule of law surpasses the letter of the law. 

Grudging permission is give to the establishment of a parallel system of legislation: the king.  Like the judges and constabulary , the king is elected  אָשִׂ֤ימָה עָלַי֙ מֶ֔לֶךְ you decide, “I will set a king over me,( although it is not specified by whom). The requirements include a limitation of  greed and a familiarity  with the law. 

A third system of rule is defined in the parsha: the navi, usually translated as "prophet".  This person is not elected.  She is chosen by Gd to arise among the people.  The claim  of this special conduit of information is dangerous.  It can be faked, it can be hacked.  The navi carries a special set of difficult, often obscure messages.  Generally , their power comes only in their message. 

In time, the king and the prophets  lost their positions with exile.  Exile meant that the laws of a foreign kings and peoples required attention. Under that circumstance, the law evolved into a debate based upon scriptural references and logic.  Today's daf yomi ( talmud page  of the day) [Eruvin 13] includes key insights into the process of legal interpretation.  It tells of how the fundamental differences between the  Shamai party and the Hillel party were resolved. אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל, הַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים: הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתֵנוּ, וְהַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים: הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתֵנוּ. Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. 

The arguments of each group were incontrovertible There was no way a human could decide.  The talmud tells us that a heavenly voice declared the validity of both sides, but  that the law follows the opinion of the House of Hillel. יָצְאָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי אֱ  חַיִּים הֵן, וַהֲלָכָה כְּבֵית הִלֵּל. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living Gd. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

More importantly, it tells us why. וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים, מִפְּנֵי מָה זָכוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לִקְבּוֹעַ הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתָן? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנּוֹחִין וַעֲלוּבִין הָיוּ, וְשׁוֹנִין דִּבְרֵיהֶן וְדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁמַּקְדִּימִין דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְדִבְרֵיהֶן.The Gemara asks: Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai. It was the respect for the other side, for the opinion that they disagreed with, that validated the opinion of Hillelites. 

The parsha ends with the ritual of the beheaded calf. The ritual involved identifying the city closest to an unsolved murder and the elders of that city seeking expiation through the rite.  The clear implication is these elders have some responsibility for the murder, even though they cannot even identify the perpetrator. Their responsibility was for the societal conditions that make murders possible.  

Lives matter