Ki Theitze: domination

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  a measure of dignity.  Power over others leads to consequences, and the human lord is not omniscient. Every act has thousands of consequences. Some of them must be considered; and their unfathomable number should be appreciated

This is a parsha of obligations. People perform  acts and situations arise   and here are instructions for handling them.  Some obligations devolve from previous decisions: marriage, hiring workers, etc. Others devolve from circumstances: lost objects, disease. Many of these duties are consequences of previous decisions.

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 taken as a ( Divine)  reward by the winner.   The proximate providers of the reward, the people who enriched the entrepreneur, were not a party to the contract. They deserve consideration.

Can there be progress without reward? Does the reward need to include domination? These questions are not addressed here . Does that mean that the answer is assumed?

Sometimes, the power position seems accidental

לֹֽא־תִרְאֶה֩ אֶת־שׁ֨וֹר אָחִ֜יךָ א֤וֹ אֶת־שֵׂיוֹ֙ נִדָּחִ֔ים וְהִתְעַלַּמְתָּ֖ מֵהֶ֑ם הָשֵׁ֥ב תְּשִׁיבֵ֖ם לְאָחִֽיךָ׃

If you see your fellow’s ox or sheep gone astray, do not ignore it; you must take it back to your peer.

The extra  וְהִתְעַלַּמְתָּ֖ מֵהֶ֑ם  [do not] ignore it;  evokes the possibility of simply not getting involved. The stray animal was lost before, why change its status? Maybe one should treat this situation like the seductress [ whose capture in war opens the parsha] best to ignore it. The Torah says otherwise. Do not overlook doing the right thing: attempt to return the stray. The correct reaction is hidden in confusion and conflicting tasks and interests. This sentence is training for making the best choice.

The right choice can be buried in a mass of conflicting interests. The details of the law identifies lost objects that can be kept, andcircumstances in which it is best to leave things as they are.

Are the rational laws seducing us  into the belief that the following laws, like shatnez (the prohibition of wearing wool and linen together) also contain a hidden core of rectitude. Maybe. Many of the rules in the parsha are reasonable and kind. Others are not. Certain mixtures are prohibited: grapes and grain, donkeys and oxen, wool and linen. Do the rational edicts, the ones that seem kind and respectful, justify adherence to the commandments that seem bizarre? Perhaps the irrational rules are training for following rules and asking questions later… and not, necessarily expecting an answer.

I remember being in first or second grade, learning about the  North American colonies. I was learning how to read, but there was also an intention to form some identification with the colonists who later came to found the US. We learned that their clothes were made from linsey woolsey, wool and linen woven together. The fabric forbidden in the parsha. The realization that they wore clothes that are forbidden to me broke some of that identification. I could never be a true, dyed in the wool (and linen) American. That was an early introduction into the reality of my relationship with the dominant culture. Shatnez had served a function.

Our actions and temptations are too complex to understand. The Torah offers guidelines. Thinking about them is not simple.