Ki Theitzei: Calculus

This parsha feels like a rain of blows. Short passages prescribe behavior in a wide variety of circumstances.  The opening set of passages are interpreted  in the Midrash Tanchuma ( alluded to by Rashi)  in a causal manner.  Referring to the irresistible captive:

 אִם נְשָׂאָהּ סוֹפוֹ לִהְיוֹת שׂוֹנְאָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אַחֲרָיו "כִּי תִהְיֶיןָ לְאִישׁ וְגוֹ'", וְסוֹפוֹ לְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, לְכָךְ נִסְמְכוּ פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת הַלָּלוּ

if he does marry her, in the end he will hate her, for Scripture writes immediately afterwards, (v. 15) “If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, etc.” and ultimately he will beget a refractory and rebellious son by her (v. 18). It is for this reason that these sections are put in juxtaposition (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Teitzei 1) 

The Midrash relates that Avshalom, the son of David who attempted a coup [ and was caught by his hair ( an echo of the hair that the captive woman must shave off)] was the son of Maacah,  whom David had taken as a wife as a spoil of war. Was Absalom's rebellion a  defense of his mother's honor? [ He named his daughter Maacah]

 I imagine that the conquering soldier is the most overbearing possible person. This soldier has risked life to achieve victory, and has demonstrated the willingness to take the lives of the vanquished people. What power he imagines he wields over them. She can take whatever she wants. The Torah, here, draws a limit to that power.  The vanquished people cannot be treated as chattel, they cannot be sold as slaves. Even though they were mortal enemies yesterday, now they may be your spouse... for better or worse.  And they must be treated like others to whom you have commitments and attachments. 

The theme of power, and the attempt to control its abuse, runs through the parsha.  The worker must be paid in a timely manner; the debtor cannot be made destitute by compound interest, the pawn shop client deserves dignity.  Power over others leads to consequences, and the human  lord is not omniscient, the unexpected will happen. 

Adherence to the rules set forth can avoid the downfall. The rules are inconvenient, they can be expensive, they can be obscure. Do the rational edicts, the ones that seem kind and respectful, justify the commandments that seem out of date?

The parsha contains the commandment prohibiting the mixture of wool and linen in clothing. Chizkuni explains that it is a reminder of the conflict between Cain ( tiller of the soil, who may have offered flax as  an oblation to Gd) and Abel (who tended sheep, the source of wool). There are too many explanations for this law, which is stated without explanation It is stated  in the context of other prohibited mixtures: grapes and wheat, donkey and ox. In another worldview, even the prohibition of mixed species may have  an element of controlling domination: the greedier vine cannot suck nutrition from the grain, the wool cannot shame the linen with its superior warming.  

The exercise of power effects change, sometimes progress.  One person becomes richer, more powerful, than another. The entitlement that results from this difference in wealth is not intentional. It is taken as a reward by the winner  and the provider of the reward was not a party to the contract.  The assumption that domination can be valid reveals a system whereby the grace granted by Gd creates victims: a competitive world.  Can there be progress without reward? Does the reward need to be domination? 

The parsha begins with military victory:  instructing a degree of compassion toward the captured enemy.  It ends with the unfinished battle against the embodiment of cruelty. Were it not for the Nazis, I would not have believed in such an agent of insatiable evil; I would not  have believed in Amalek. Were it not for recent events in American and world history, I would not have any concept of how the Nazis came to power.  The trade is not worth it.  Some things are better left a mystery.