Shoftim: Choices

 

The parsha  starts by instructing the people to choose judges and officers. I have a sense that the meaning of choice has changed over the centuries. The chapter does not make it clear who the choosers are or how the choices are made.

 I am familiar with my own era. I live in a time when people believe that they make individual choices based upon their reason and their feelings. There is a large industry  that works to manipulate those thoughts and feelings and generate consensus that is most advantageous for the manipulators.  Their methods are very careful to maintain a sense of individual choice. The sense of individual choice is very important in this society. It is probably the most fundamental aspect of what we call liberty. In American schools we learn the quote from Patrick Henry: Give me liberty or give me death.

When people discuss choice the common ground is rationality. Over the last several centuries, the belief: that a set of understandable laws drive the events of the world, has led to the idea that compliance with those laws, the laws of nature and the laws of mathematics, are the only valid bases on which to make public decisions. Although Gödel’s theorem proves that there is a flaw in this approach( that not every truth can be derived rationally and or some statements that are rationally derived are false) rationality has certainly been a strong tool and has garnered almost universal credibility.

 

When the Torah asks that we choose judges and officers , and requires them to be: impartial, people who do not accept bribes, people who pursue Tzedek ( justice), everything feels right. It is completely compatible with a rational worldview. Then, the prohibition of a nearby tree appears.

 Sifrei  (quoted by Rashi) relates the prohibition to planting an asheira, a tree that was part of some local system of idol worship. Based upon the additional word  kol, all, this is expanded to any tree. Prohibiting a competing belief system works within a rational framework. On a deeper level, this is a warning against attempting to beautify the surroundings even if  the beautification expressing some hidden set of beliefs. It is a demand that the rules be followed rather than aesthetics. It tells us to be careful of what we call aesthetics. It certainly calls into question the line from Keats's  Ode on a Grecian Urn

  "Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all

                Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

 

I am very interested in the prohibition of idolatry and magic. Much of our modern world would have seemed magical to a person even a century ago, all the more so to a person who lived millennia in the past. To communicate by whispering into a box and include both audio and video is magical. There are few people who deeply understand exactly how those systems work. But we believe that they work through the universal laws that have been discovered and are independent of belief systems. This system of laws of physics is accepted as God's work. It is the appeal to forces outside of this system that constitutes prohibited magic and associated idolatry.

 

When I was growing up, many small superstitions were preserved by my parents. I remember the prohibition on walking over another child because it would stop them from growing. The preservation of these superstitions is not a simple matter. There is an element admitting to  not knowing what is real. Regardless of the potential of rationality, no one has command of enough knowledge to know how the world works for sure.

 

Maimonides held that magic and witchcraft are totally false

רמב׳ם הל עבודה זרה 11:15

 
 וּדְבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ כֻּלָּן דִּבְרֵי שֶׁקֶר וְכָזָב הֵן

All the above matters are falsehood and lies

A statement like this reflects a very deep respect for rationality. This level of respect for rationality could make it a competitor with the strict interpretation of the words of the Torah. Operationally, we consider the words of  the Torah subject  to interpretation, even requiring interpretation.

Ramban Holds that there are hidden forces in the world that could be subject to human manipulation but only at God's discretion.  On the pasuk:

לֹֽא־תִלְמַ֣ד לַעֲשׂ֔וֹת כְּתוֹעֲבֹ֖ת הַגּוֹיִ֥ם הָהֵֽם׃

you shall not learn to imitate the abhorrent practices of those nations.

 

Ramban comments:

 וְעַתָּה דַּע וְהָבֵן בְּעִנְיְנֵי הַכְּשָׁפִים,כִּי הַבּוֹרֵא יִתְבָּרַךְ כַּאֲשֶׁר בָּרָא הַכֹּל מֵאַיִן עָשָׂה הָעֶלְיוֹנִים מַנְהִיגֵי הַתַּחְתּוֹנִים אֲשֶׁר לְמַטָּה מֵהֶן, וְנָתַן כֹּחַ הָאָרֶץ וְכָל אֲשֶׁר עָלֶיהָ בַּכּוֹכָבִים וּבַמַּזָּלוֹת לְפִי הַנְהָגָתָם וּמַבָּטָם בָּהֶם, כַּאֲשֶׁר הוּא מְנֻסֶּה בְּחָכְמַת הָאִצְטַגְנִינוּת, וְעָשָׂה עוֹד עַל הַכּוֹכָבִים וְהַמַּזָּלוֹת מַנְהִיגִים מַלְאָכִים וְשָׂרִים שֶׁהֵם נֶפֶשׁ לָהֶם.

And now, know and understand concerning the subject of sorcery, that when the Creator, blessed be He, created everything from nothing, He made the higher powers to be guides for those below them. …  one of His mighty wonders that within the power of these higher forces, He put configurations and capacities to alter the behavior of those under them.

The Ramban’s Position respects the simple meaning of the text. It also reflects a combination of humility, an admission of an incomplete understanding of how the world works, and an acceptance of the prevalent model of his time.

No one knows what can be done and what powers can be unleashed. In our world, we will consider those powers to be tapping nature and we would call the utilization  of those powers science.

I do not think that the limits of rationality have been reached. Great things remain to be discovered, explained, and utilized. But rationality is not enough to give me direction in this world. The Torah asks  that my opinions, that I consider rational, sometimes be abandoned. When the chapter talks about going to war, it instructs that the soldier not to consider  the relative strength of the opposing force but to believe that God will help him. I need that principle to guide many decisions.

Above all, I do not understand the world

 

 

 

 Re'eh: the vision of society

 The fifth book of the bible. Devarim, is Moshe's speech to the Israelites as the are about to enter the Promised Land.  The nation is about transition into a settled life.  Gd's promise is about to be fulfilled. Moshe's mission will end.  The nation is entering a land that Moshe will only see from a distance. 

As the book continues, the descriptions and instructions become more concrete.  The people are instructed in what may be done and what should not be done. In this week's parsha many of the instructions involve building and maintaining a unified people. 

I grew up balancing my Jewishness with being American. In the 1970's, until the ascendancy of America First in 2016, American values were close to universal values. The US stood for liberty for all; it was the country that did not tolerate  oppression; it offered refuge to the desperate; it fought against hunger and disease everywhere. The US was the capital of divine justice through kindness.  The institution that acted on these values, the American government , had rescued my parents from the holocaust, allowed them to rise from penniless poverty to middle class home-ownership and  retirement in Florida.  These were values I could not  reject.  Then came America first.  

America was spending more on European  military defense and the benefits were vague.  Why did the burdens of world hunger and disease fall (disproportionately) on Americans?  Cheaper (exploited) foreign labor was filling jobs that people (legitimately) born in this country could (theoretically) fill. All true. I question the need to look at it that way. But the questioning opened my eyes to some of the propaganda that substituted for truth in the descriptions of wars against communism in Asia and Latin America. I also saw the "rescue" of my parents in a new light: they were the fortunate exceptions. 

Jet travel and the internet created  markets  with billions of consumers and allowed the emergence of monopolies that could supply the whole world.  The (inevitable) Markov process that concentrates all wealth into one entity began. It is a process that is aided by nationalism of the rich and fought with the nationalism of the poor. 

And it all begins with our parsha. 

The parsha includes a dream of a centralized society, built around a capital city

The parsha imagines a society that merits the blessing of Gd. It cares for those who are excluded from economic opportunity because of circumstances (the widow, the orphan) or privilege ( the Levite). There is a great , centralized capital

Much of the parsha is deals with poverty. At one point we are presented with a contradiction:

אֶ֕פֶס כִּ֛י לֹ֥א יִֽהְיֶה־בְּךָ֖ אֶבְי֑וֹן There shall be no needy among you in 15;4 and

כִּ֛י לֹא־יֶחְדַּ֥ל אֶבְי֖וֹן מִקֶּ֣רֶב הָאָ֑רֶץ For there will never cease to be needy ones in your land, in 15;11

I do not want to resolve the contradiction by emphasizing the "among you," (Ibn Ezra's solution)  On can live in a neighborhood where the poor are banned, hence not visible (re'eh). This solution is an efes, a zero.

The subsequent verses state that the absence of the poor is predicated on adhering to the commandments. The commandments demand helping with the poor with loans, fair employment and support.  Fulfillment of these statutes would minimize the number of poor people.

I think that he word evyon is related to the word for stone, even. (Hebrew has strong letters that are full consonants and weaker letters, like yad and vav that are really vowels and thus, subject to omission. Omitting these letters from Evyon yields even - stone) There is an aspect of poverty that is stone-like: A degradation of worth, not meriting consideration, a fungible existence. These are the people stepped over (or stepped on).

Contrast this with another word for the poor: ani. This is a word that conveys the idea of begging. A merchant is sometimes called a canaani , perhaps because he entreats the purchaser. There are circumstances when people beg although they are not degraded; and there are certainly people in great need who do not beg. Both should be in our field of vision.

The word dal (which appears as part of the word yechdal in the second sentence) also means poor. Its fundamental meaning is lacking. It is the objective aspect of poverty.

In many parts of the world, starvation is limited to behaviors that seem volitional (although they are usually driven by psychiatric disease).  In my rich, American, world anyone who is starving and asks (begs) for food will be fed. In this sense, perhaps, there are no needy. The Utopian statement: there shall be no needy among you is fulfilled. But that does not seem sufficient. There is still lack (dal) and disrespect for the less fortunate and, perhaps worst of all, a failure to see the needs of the needy.

I enjoy the wealth of America. It allows me to feel generous.  I have enough that I can comfortably give. Perhaps this is not a sustainable situation, and fewer people will have "enough." There are also major problems with philanthropy: the voluntary (and arbitrary) distribution of (excess) wealth. The donor decides on the recipient(s). Some of the richest people in the world support exploration of Mars and beyond for eventual human settlement.  Maybe I cannot see far enough. Maybe they are too rich to see the needs of ordinary  contemporary earthlings. 

In all this, where does that Capital for the Jewish people sit.  I have been to the new Jerusalem. Those visits make me wonder what the prayer for "rebuilding Jerusalem" means.  I am not sure, but I still say it and I am glad.

Eikev: Entitlement

 Eikev: Entitlement

What is this chapter really about? It starts with the complex sentence: 

וְהָיָ֣ה ׀ עֵ֣קֶב תִּשְׁמְע֗וּן אֵ֤ת הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים֙ הָאֵ֔לֶּה וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֥ם וַעֲשִׂיתֶ֖ם אֹתָ֑ם וְשָׁמַר֩ יְ

יךָ לְךָ֗ אֶֽת־הַבְּרִית֙ וְאֶת־הַחֶ֔סֶד אֲשֶׁ֥ר נִשְׁבַּ֖ע לַאֲבֹתֶֽיךָ׃

And if (aikev, in exchange for ) you do obey these rules and observe them carefully, the ETERNAL your God will maintain faithfully for you the covenant made on oath with your ancestors:

Gd had made a promise to the ancestors, but there is a (new?) stipulation added to the agreement: the heirs must obey a (complex) set of rules to the satisfaction of the donor. 

Near the end of the parsha, we have the second paragraph of the "shema," one of the three sections of the Torah that are recited at least twice daily.  The section in Aikev, similar to the section in last week's parsha, contains the phrase: 

וְלִמַּדְתֶּ֥ם אֹתָ֛ם אֶת־בְּנֵיכֶ֖ם לְדַבֵּ֣ר בָּ֑ם בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ֤ בְּבֵיתֶ֙ךָ֙ וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ֣ בַדֶּ֔רֶךְ וּֽבְשׇׁכְבְּךָ֖ וּבְקוּמֶֽךָ׃ 

and teach them to your children—reciting them when you stay at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up;

The text asks for its repetition "when you lie down and when you get up;" Thus , it is recited in the morning and evening service (at least). 

This paragraph makes  the stipulation that opens this week's parsha explicit: 

וְהָיָ֗ה אִם־שָׁמֹ֤עַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ֙ אֶל־מִצְוֺתַ֔י אֲשֶׁ֧ר אָנֹכִ֛י מְצַוֶּ֥ה אֶתְכֶ֖ם הַיּ֑וֹם 

If, then, you obey the commandments that I enjoin upon you this day, 

...

וְנָתַתִּ֛י עֵ֥שֶׂב בְּשָׂדְךָ֖ לִבְהֶמְתֶּ֑ךָ וְאָכַלְתָּ֖ וְשָׂבָֽעְתָּ׃ 

I will also provide grass in the fields for your cattle—and thus you shall eat your fill.

But if you do not, the rains will not come and you will be destroyed.

The first chapter of the shema (last week's parsha) commanded that the supplicant love Gd 

בְּכָל֯־לְ֯בָבְ֒ךָ וּבְכָל־נַפְשְׁ֒ךָ וּבְכָל־מְאֹדֶֽךָ

all your heart and with all your soul and with all your possessions.

This week's paragraph goes into the practicalities. The seasonal rains are a manifestation of Gd's love.  Their absence and the consequent drought comes from Gd's anger at failure to (adequately) keep the commandment(s).   

All of this surrounds the core issue: What entitles the Israelites to the good life and the land? There is a telling sentence (9;4) 

בְּצִדְקָתִי֙ הֱבִיאַ֣נִי יְ

 לָרֶ֖שֶׁת אֶת־הָאָ֣רֶץ הַזֹּ֑את וּבְרִשְׁעַת֙ הַגּוֹיִ֣ם הָאֵ֔לֶּה יְ

 מוֹרִישָׁ֥ם מִפָּנֶֽיךָ׃

And when the ETERNAL your God has thrust them from your path, say not to yourselves, “GOD has enabled us to possess this land because of our virtues”(; it is rather because of)/ and  the wickedness of those nations that GOD is dispossessing them before you.

There is controversy over the proper translation of this sentence. Is  the combination of Israel's  inflated idea of their righteousness AND  the exaggerated perception of the evil of the "those nations" insufficient to prompt Gd to favor Israel (Rashi)? In that case, certainly Gd's anger with the nations that will be dispossessed is not sufficient to allow the Israelites entry into the holy land.  Or is it, indeed, the evil of the current inhabitants of the land that justifies Gd evicting them, not the  righteousness of Israel ( Ramban)? Blaming the dispossession on the bad tenants forces the awkward translation of vav ( and ) as "rather." Regardless, the righteousness of Israel is certainly not the reason for their entitlement to the land and all its goodness. 

Inheritance, Jewish privilege,  seems to be the major component of Israel's entitlement.  Gd loved the patriarchs and matriarchs; and Gd made them suffer. They ( and the generations that followed them) suffered and succeeded in their trials. They merited rewards that exceeded mortal capacity.  Gd Promised goodness to their offspring but the generations receiving the reward would need to deserve it. 

 The justice of  inheritance is not simple.  Ecclesiastes 2;22

י־יֵ֣שׁ אָדָ֗ם שֶׁעֲמָל֛וֹ בְּחׇכְמָ֥ה וּבְדַ֖עַת וּבְכִשְׁר֑וֹן וּלְאָדָ֞ם שֶׁלֹּ֤א עָֽמַל־בּוֹ֙ יִתְּנֶ֣נּוּ חֶלְק֔וֹ גַּם־זֶ֥ה הֶ֖בֶל וְרָעָ֥ה רַבָּֽה׃ 

For sometimes a person whose fortune was made with wisdom, knowledge, and skill must hand it on to be the portion of somebody who did not toil for it. That too is futile, and a grave evil.

The material inheritance that offspring receive is not entirely just, sensible or beneficial. The tradition and values that prepare children for the tests that life will bring are a more valuable inheritance

I live in a world that is confused about entitlement. I want to be rewarded for my efforts by passing a level of security and comfort to my children. I want that for myself and I justify it by wanting it for everyone. 

I have been taught that toil and suffering should be compensated. People are paid for work. People are paid for damages inflicted by others. 

In Gd's world of universals, good is rewarded  for one thousand generations. The downtrodden are lifted up from the ash heaps, regardless of  how they got there. 

I was brought up to believe that I do not deserve the good that Gd shows me. That is my real inheritance. It is an approach of constant improvement.  

There is no Yiddish word for fun. 

 Ve'Ethchanan: The days after

Every week, I review the parsha, the chapter of the Torah we will read on the ensuing Shabbath.  I take a few minutes each day, mostly during the repetition parts of the prayer service, and generally finish by Thursday evening, so I can write something on Friday morning (now). This week's parsha is especially rich and going over it is especially difficult.  It is the parsha that is always read on the Shabbath after Tisha Ba'Av, called Shabbat Nachamu, the Sabbath of Consolation. 

Tisha Ba'av, the ninth day of the month of Av, is the worst day of the year.  It is the anniversary of the destruction of the Temples: the first Temple Built Circa 966–959 BCE by King Solomon.Destroyed 586 BCE by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II; and the second:  Construction began circa 538 BCE after the return from Babylonian exile and Destroyed 70 CE by the Roman army led by Titus.  It is also the day the Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492. The day becomes the repository for memorializing tragedies including the Crusades, the Holocaust, etc.  It is a day of deep mourning, a fast day, the only day of the year on which it is customary not to study Torah.  That adds to my personal difficulty in going over the parsha, but I generally overcome this problem. 

My mother told me that she fasted  on the Tisha Ba'av 1944.  I think she was telling me that somehow that fast (in the midst of ongoing near-starvation  while living in a pit in the forest) helped turn the tide that led to her liberation. Gd was finally convinced! Perhaps it was not my mother's fast, by itself, that started the redemption, but the fast was her vote, her individual contribution. 

For me, that is a foundational story. My mother invested, through her fast, in her identity as a Jew. She saw that: even in the most dire and difficult circumstance, a person can have faith in a better, more normal, future. The story gives me a perspective in why Ve'Ethchanan is studied during the week leading up to Tish BA'Av and publicly  read on the Shabbath after it. 

On Tisha Ba'Av, the Orthodox service  is dominated by a body of Hebrew poetry called Kinoth: elegies about the various destructions , especially the destructions of the Temples. They are elaborate, stylized poems that are somewhat difficult for me to understand in the original Hebrew. But I understand enough of the Hebrew to appreciate that a great deal is lost (and misinterpreted) in the translation. From the combination of Hebrew and English, I can appreciate that some  these elegies can be interpreted as the poet questioning Gd's absence in allowing the tragedies to occur. Usually, the existence of Gd, despite the catastrophe, is justified by blaming the horrors on the sins of the Jewish people that "forces" Gd to punish the people based upon the principle of consistency.  Gd must do what Gd said Gd would do. This is an aspect of Unity ( Hear Isreael...Gd s One). But the poets, even Eleazar beRabbi Qallir (c. 570 – c. 640), the author of most of the Kinoth, has moments of questioning the severity and consequences of the punishments. The answer is in the fact that we recite the poems and fast. 

Irony is a core principle in the Judaism that I know. I see it in Ve'ethchanan. The parsha opens with Moses praying ( the usual translation of ethchanan) that he be allowed to enter the Promised Land. Request denied! Moshe goes on to remind  the Israelites of their perpetual contract, the ten commandments; and writes a "pledge of allegiance", the Shema.  Moses concentrates on all the tomorrows of the people who will have tomorrows: the Israelites that Joshua ( not Moshe) will lead into the land, and all of their future generations. On the week of Tisha Ba'Av we read about unanswered prayers... and the response to that disappointed state. What a resilient religion. 

Look with hope to tomorrow.  Do what needs to be done today. 

Dvarim: Shared decisions

In Cancer  Medicine, we have a concept of "Shared Decision." A shared decision arises when the doctor cannot make a clear recommendation for a course of action.  Treating bacterial pneumonia with antibiotics is not  a shared  decision. It is virtually certain that the appropriate antibiotics will help the patient and the probability of harm is very small. Taking toxic chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer is (supposed to be) a shared decision.  The chance that it will prolong life are well under 50% and the chance that it will have unpleasant side effects approaches or exceeds 50% . These decisions may be shared, but the votes are not equal. The doctor is guiding the conversation and comes with credentials that the patient is paying for. 

In Dvarim,  Moshe recalls important decisions that seem to be shared. The complex introduction to the chapter  is explicit

וָאֹמַ֣ר אֲלֵכֶ֔ם בָּעֵ֥ת הַהִ֖וא לֵאמֹ֑ר לֹא־אוּכַ֥ל לְבַדִּ֖י שְׂאֵ֥ת אֶתְכֶֽם׃ 

Thereupon I said to you, “I cannot bear the burden of you by myself.

A system of judges is established. Presumably, these judges also advised Moshe. 

When the nation approached the promised land, before the 40 years in the desert, Moshe characterizes the interaction as a request from the people: 

וַתִּקְרְב֣וּן אֵלַי֮ כֻּלְּכֶם֒ וַתֹּאמְר֗וּ נִשְׁלְחָ֤ה אֲנָשִׁים֙ לְפָנֵ֔ינוּ וְיַחְפְּרוּ־לָ֖נוּ אֶת־הָאָ֑רֶץ וְיָשִׁ֤בוּ אֹתָ֙נוּ֙ דָּבָ֔ר אֶת־הַדֶּ֙רֶךְ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר נַעֲלֶה־בָּ֔הּ וְאֵת֙ הֶֽעָרִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָבֹ֖א אֲלֵיהֶֽן׃ 

Then all of you came to me and said, “Let us send agents ahead to reconnoiter the land for us and bring back word on the route we shall follow and the cities we shall come to.”  

Moshe admits that he endorsed the plan.

וַיִּיטַ֥ב בְּעֵינַ֖י הַדָּבָ֑ר וָאֶקַּ֤ח מִכֶּם֙ שְׁנֵ֣ים עָשָׂ֣ר אֲנָשִׁ֔ים אִ֥ישׁ אֶחָ֖ד לַשָּֽׁבֶט׃ 

I approved of the plan, and so I selected twelve of you, one representative from each tribe.

This was a shared decision. It appeared to be a wise and prudent idea. There was a plan for conquest.  Tactics and strategy would be employed.  The armies  needed information to make the most effective plans. 

 The consequences of that decision were disastrous. The spies told truths about what they had seen: fortified cities, strong champions, a dug-in population. The probability of victory by the Israelites was small.  The nation heard these practical truths and cried. The Powers (through Moshe) was telling them to enter into a hopeless battle. Hearing their despair, Gd declared that they would not conquer the land... now. That generation would die in the wilderness and their children would conquer the land. 

Gd knew that people were terrified of war. When the Exodus is described in Beshalach:

וַיְהִ֗י בְּשַׁלַּ֣ח פַּרְעֹה֮ אֶת־הָעָם֒ וְלֹא־נָחָ֣ם אֱ

 דֶּ֚רֶךְ אֶ֣רֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּ֔ים כִּ֥י קָר֖וֹב ה֑וּא כִּ֣י ׀ אָמַ֣ר אֱ

 פֶּֽן־יִנָּחֵ֥ם הָעָ֛ם בִּרְאֹתָ֥ם מִלְחָמָ֖ה וְשָׁ֥בוּ מִצְרָֽיְמָה׃ 

Now when Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although it was nearer; for God said, “The people may have a change of heart when they see war, and return to Egypt.”

The Israelites had been supported by miracles, they had been guided by a cloud and a pillar of fire.  The decision to send the spies was a practical human decision, an abandonment of the miracle-guidance. The reaction to the spies' report  meant that future events  would take place in a miracle-free world.  Human action, predictable forces, laws of probability would determine outcomes. They would not follow the order to ascend to the Promised Land because it violated their world-view.   

The contrite nation proved the truth of their logical conclusion. They attempted to enter the land, after Gd had forbidden it to them.  They were sorely defeated by the Amorites

Timothy Snyder (in Black Earth)  proposes that Hitler waged his war based on the belief that the earth's resources could not sustain the growing population. He would assure that the German people survived while others starved.  The supply of fertilizer was limiting and running out. The invention of fertilizer synthesized from air, creating a (near) limitless supply  of organic nitrogen (the invention of Fritz Haber, his own chief chemist) did not enter his world view. Limited vision can be very costly. 

The chapter goes on to describe attempts to reach the land  by passing through the lands of Esau and Moab. These (privileged) tribes refused to allow the Israelites passage. We are reminded that these peoples had conquered lands once held by Titans. Their successful replacement of the  Aymim (by Moab) and the Chorim ( by Esau)  indicated the possibility of victory over a strong nation of giants.  Those colonizations  rationalize the acts that Israel is now told to do: displace indigenous peoples. 

The Promised Land that is conquered in this chapter  has (recently?) been taken from the last conquistador.  Sichon had acquired his rule over Cheshvon  by victory over the Moabites.  ( Numbers 21;26)

כִּ֣י חֶשְׁבּ֔וֹן עִ֗יר סִיחֹ֛ן מֶ֥לֶךְ הָאֱמֹרִ֖י הִ֑וא וְה֣וּא נִלְחַ֗ם בְּמֶ֤לֶךְ מוֹאָב֙ הָֽרִאשׁ֔וֹן וַיִּקַּ֧ח אֶת־כׇּל־אַרְצ֛וֹ מִיָּד֖וֹ עַד־אַרְנֹֽן׃ 

Now Heshbon was the city of Sihon king of the Amorites, who had fought against a former king of Moab and taken all his land from him as far as the Arnon.

Thus, when Moses sends messengers to Sichon, asking to cross his territory, and reminds him of Israel's behavior with Esau and Maob, perhaps he was pointing out the distinction. Sichon had usurped power from Moab. Attacking  Cheshvon was  an act of liberation as well as conquest. When Sichon was offered a peaceful solution (allowing the Israelites to pass), he responded by amassing his troops and declaring war. That is how the conquest began. 

I have come to believe that our decisions do not change history. Human world view is too narrow for that. Our decisions determine our place in history; and no one, not even Moses, is right all the time. 

 Matoth-Massei: Boundaries

There are two subjects in these two parshaioth: oaths and boundaries. They are related concepts. An oath is a boundary: it defines a class of situations that constitute compliance ("inside") and a class of situations (every other state) that are out of compliance (outside).  All land boundaries  constitute a threat to prosecute (one way or another) any violator; it rests on a promise, an oath. The parsha also contains the principles of contracts, complex mutual oaths. A contract, by Talmudic standards, must explicitly state the consequences of compliance and the consequences of non-compliance for all parties to the contract. The validity of an oath or a boundary or a contract depended on the credibility of the enforcer. Can the statement be backed up with action.

The boundaries of the Promised Land are stated in this week's reading. These are lines established by conquest, deadly force. Israel will settle this land, and the current inhabitants will either leave or be killed. Of course, the current inhabitants defend their homes with all their means, including their lives.  This is the most extreme enforcement of statement: war. 

The second chapter that we read, Masei, starts by enumerating the stations of travel through the wilderness. Most of the 42 journeys taken by the Israelites after the Exodus from Egypt are relatively uneventful. The first few involve moves that entrap the Egyptian army in the Sea of Reeds. Toward the end, there are confrontations with larger nations, culminating in the conquest of Sichon and Og and the acquisition of this previously Moabite land that had been annexed by these Amorite kings. The bland travels, place names without events, reflect a peaceful, but unsustainable time, in the wilderness. The people needed the land for ongoing sustenance.  Gd needed to give them the land to fulfill the oath made to Abraham; and Gd would show that the necessary force was available. That people, Israel, would eventually survive for millennia  without a land of their own. In my lifetime, we are learning how to integrate the return to that land and dealing with the powers that enforce and threaten the dream of resettlement.

Talmudic contract law is based upon a story in this week's reading. That story begins by telling us that the Reubenites (the replaced first born)  and the Gadites were exceedingly wealthy. They owned a great deal of portable capital, cattle. 

וּמִקְנֶ֣ה ׀ רַ֗ב הָיָ֞ה לִבְנֵ֧י רְאוּבֵ֛ן וְלִבְנֵי־גָ֖ד עָצ֣וּם מְאֹ֑ד וַיִּרְא֞וּ אֶת־אֶ֤רֶץ יַעְזֵר֙ וְאֶת־אֶ֣רֶץ גִּלְעָ֔ד וְהִנֵּ֥ה הַמָּק֖וֹם מְק֥וֹם מִקְנֶֽה׃ 

The Reubenites and the Gadites owned cattle in very great numbers. Noting that the lands of Jazer and Gilead were a region suitable for cattle. 

They offered to take this land as their portion of the Promised Land. But the land was to be divided according to a lottery, so how could they claim this land? One possible answer: this was their lottery assigned land. A second possibility is that these lands, conquered from Og and Sichon, were not part of the Promise, they were extra, open  to be used at the discretion of Moses and the people. A third possibility: the tribes of Reuben and Gad were going to take this land, whether it came by lot or they would trade with other tribes to get it because it was the best resource for their cattle... and their wealth would enforce their decision. 

Regardless, these tribes made an offer to settle this land, which was most suitable for their cattle and probably less desirable for other tribes. Moses observes that this would diminish the army; if they did not fight for the land with the other Israelites, they were re-enacting the sin of the spies which relegated the Israelites to the 40 years of exile that were now ending. They made a contract: If they stayed with the Israelite army until the conquest was complete, they could get the land they desired. If they failed in this condition, they would lose this land and receive some lottery assigned land. This becomes the model contract: Reward, conditions for compliance,  consequence of non compliance. In this case Gd is  the agent of enforcement. 

Near the end of chapter Masei there is a discussion of the cities of refuge. These (originally six) Levite (tribeless) cities rescued the unintentional murderer from being (legally)  killed  by the Avenger of Blood (goayl hadam), a relative of the murdered person pursuing the killer. I can imagine this process in the context of the land-based economy of the time. 

The first exiled murder was Cain. He killed his brother Abel. Unpunished, that act would have made Cain the master of all the earth. Instead, the earth was made refractory.  He was banished and so he founded a city, he became urban, the city was his refuge

וַיֵּ֤דַע קַ֙יִן֙ אֶת־אִשְׁתּ֔וֹ וַתַּ֖הַר וַתֵּ֣לֶד אֶת־חֲנ֑וֹךְ וַֽיְהִי֙ בֹּ֣נֶה עִ֔יר וַיִּקְרָא֙ שֵׁ֣ם הָעִ֔יר כְּשֵׁ֖ם בְּנ֥וֹ חֲנֽוֹךְ׃ 

Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he then founded a city, and named the city after his son Enoch.

The section of cities of refuge is full of details of killings that qualify for refuge and those that do not. What motivated those killings? Enforcement of land possession? The desire to possess additional land? Probably, sometimes.

The redeemer (goayl) is mentioned in the book of Ruth. The context of redemption in Ruth is not murder, but the Levirate marriage (marrying the childless widow of a close relative).  Boaz, who ultimately rescues the situation, must eliminate a closer relative who has the right of redemption 

 יֹּ֣אמֶר בֹּ֔עַז בְּיוֹם־קְנוֹתְךָ֥ הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה מִיַּ֣ד נׇעֳמִ֑י וּ֠מֵאֵ֠ת ר֣וּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּ֤ה אֵֽשֶׁת־הַמֵּת֙ (קניתי) [קָנִ֔יתָ] לְהָקִ֥ים שֵׁם־הַמֵּ֖ת עַל־נַחֲלָתֽוֹ׃ 

Boaz continued, “When you acquire the property from Naomi and from Ruth the Moabite, you must also acquire the wife of the deceased, so as to perpetuate the name of the deceased upon his estate.”

Redeemer (goayl) status includes a claim to property. I think this can be extrapolated to the goayl hadam, the Blood redeemer. This suggests an underlying economic motive for this system , now mollified by the Cities of Refuge.  The city of refuge has the state intervening in this process; becoming the enforcer of boundaries and, eventually, contracts. 

Many principles that govern the modern world evolved from the laws and stories in these chapters of the Torah. That process continues to evolve  through both compliance and rebellion. 

 

Pinchas: America

I grew up in the United States of America. I was circumcised as a Jew at 8 days. Is this an identity problem? For all of my life, I have been taught that it is not. 

Today is American Independence Day, the most significant national holiday in America. The holiday celebrates the declaration of independence from England. Thirteen (now, former) colonies of the greatest colonial power in the world declared that they would no longer be subject to the governance of the king and his parliament. This amounted to an act of rebellion. It set up a new economic order in the New World, forcing self reliance for all goods. The celebrated Declaration  contained new principles that justified the  the defection of the colonies; human equality and  government by consent.  These ideas  were latent in ancient literature, especially and  including the Torah (which was familiar to all the signers and  the vast majority of the colonists) and evolved into talking points that justified rebellion. 

The high school  understanding of the break between England and the nascent United States emphasizes the human rights aspect; it implies that the fight for human rights motivated independence and justified the war that followed. Having lived through the evolution of the United States up to the present, I think that economic considerations were foremost. It is, however, very pleasing that human equality and self governance were the rallying cry. 

One of the highlights in parshath Pinchas is the statement of inheritance law that follows the request of the daughters of Zelophehad: that women be granted inheritance rights. Zelophehad  had no sons, but he had five outstanding daughters. These women 

וַֽתַּעֲמֹ֜דְנָה לִפְנֵ֣י מֹשֶׁ֗ה וְלִפְנֵי֙ אֶלְעָזָ֣ר הַכֹּהֵ֔ן וְלִפְנֵ֥י הַנְּשִׂיאִ֖ם וְכׇל־הָעֵדָ֑ה פֶּ֥תַח אֹֽהֶל־מוֹעֵ֖ד לֵאמֹֽר׃ 

They stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the chieftains, and the whole assembly, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and they said

Stop! These women (the verb is overtly feminine) stood before this assembly of every source of  male power  and governance. There is an implication of political power coming from various sources.  They did not go to Moses alone, they needed the buy-in of the sacred (Elazar, the High Priest [supreme court?]) and the princes (the Lords or the Senate) and the whole assembly ( the Commons or Congress). The Torah stated this presentation in a way that implies a distribution of power. This principle of distributed power had evolved in England, but the American constitution codified it and took it further.  The constitution allowed for evolution depending upon circumstances. We are watching that now. 

לָ֣מָּה יִגָּרַ֤ע שֵׁם־אָבִ֙ינוּ֙ מִתּ֣וֹךְ מִשְׁפַּחְתּ֔וֹ כִּ֛י אֵ֥ין ל֖וֹ בֵּ֑ן תְּנָה־לָּ֣נוּ אֲחֻזָּ֔ה בְּת֖וֹךְ אֲחֵ֥י אָבִֽינוּ׃ 

Let not our father’s name be lost to his clan just because he had no son! Give us a holding among our father’s kinsmen!”

These women made a novel suggestion: Women could inherit land. Women are not specifically mentioned in terms of property law. Actually, up until this point, the laws of inheritance are not defined. 

Moses, and presumably this entire assembly, does not know what to answer. 

וַיַּקְרֵ֥ב מֹשֶׁ֛ה אֶת־מִשְׁפָּטָ֖ן לִפְנֵ֥י יְ  Moses brought their case before GD

(I love that long, feminizing nun)

Gd answers

כֵּ֗ן בְּנ֣וֹת צְלׇפְחָד֮ דֹּבְרֹת֒ נָתֹ֨ן תִּתֵּ֤ן לָהֶם֙ אֲחֻזַּ֣ת נַחֲלָ֔ה בְּת֖וֹךְ אֲחֵ֣י אֲבִיהֶ֑ם וְהַֽעֲבַרְתָּ֛ אֶת־נַחֲלַ֥ת אֲבִיהֶ֖ן לָהֶֽן׃ 

“The plea of Zelophehad’s daughters is just: you should give them a hereditary holding among their father’s kinsmen; transfer their father’s share to them.

In the Declaration of Independence it is written: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

The use of the word "men"  seems to exclude women. In our times, 250 years later, we would insist on a more inclusive noun. We do, however, know that these "men" did not include male (or female) slaves. I take that to mean that slaves (and women) were so far from the "men" referred to in the declaration, that there is no need to mention  beings that certainly have no rights. Slaves (and women) are simply not people. They are outside the scope of the document. 

The story of Zelophehad’s daughters is revolutionary. I could easily believe that it formed one of the foundations for women's suffrage in the US and elsewhere. The most significant part is that women are noticed. And Gd asserts that the women are correct. 

The United States was formed as  a rebellion of the (relatively) disinherited subsequent sons after the first born inherited the land. This practice, Primogeniture,  was  repealed during the revolution. Nobility was abolished. America was the land of opportunity Anyone could rise, regardless of birth status... unless you were  Black, Italian, a woman, etc. America was a place where prejudices were nurtured at home. The public requirements for equality were, nevertheless, a leap forward.  For a long time, the principle of equal opportunity was a serious consideration. Currently, it is undergoing a challenging redefinition. 

When I was a child, I watched  Howdy Doody,  a television show that taught young children how to be American. The villain of the show was the mayor of Doodyville, the opponent of fun: Phineas T Bluster. This was the first Pinchas character I met (Phineas is the English translation of Pinchas). What is the relationship between this Phineas and the Pinchas of our parsha? 

Phineas Bluster is portrayed as a conservative character.  His dress is 19th century.  He is resistant to change. While the other characters want to improve the town, Phineas wants things to stay the way they are. Pinchas seems to have the same values, but for Pinchas, the change, promiscuity with the Midianites and Moabites is portrayed as destructive to the nation; in Howdy Doody (America) change is improvement. 

Phineas Bluster has always been the mayor. We do not know how Phineas rose to his status, but presumably he inherited wealth and position -  since his own schemes always fail. His aristocracy is part of his villainy. Pinchas was an outcast, the son of a Midianite who was not anointed a priest. By his action, he is granted status....and legacy. Pinchas lives the American dream. 

The selection of Joshua as the next leader of the people is an abandonment of nepotism. Caleb, already singled out as a loyal scout who encouraged proceeding into the Promised Land when the others (except, eventually, Joshua) bemoaned the apparent impossibility, was (according to the Midrash) married to Miriam, Moshe’s sister.  He was from the overwhelmingly largest tribe. Joshua was chosen. Joshua was not a member of the family  and he was from the tribe of Ephraim. His choice was more inclusive, more diverse. 

As a Jew, I want to preserve my heritage and pass it along. As an American ( as I understood it until recently) I want to respect and  benefit all people - like emigrating to this country benefited my parents and then me. Those values do not seem to conflict, and perhaps they need not. 

Then there are the details.