Mitzvot and Obligation

D’varim

Deuteronomy 1:1 - 3:22

Précis: The Book of Deuteronomy (D’varim – “words”) takes the form of a series of lectures by Moses to the People as they prepare to enter the Land. Together, these instructions constitute Moses’ farewell address. D’varim is sometimes called the “Mishneh Torah”, literally, the “second teaching of the Torah” (this is where we get the Greek name of the Book) because it contains repetitions of previously enunciated laws. The Book has a strong focus on the centrality of the Temple in the Promised Land, as well as many of other rituals found at the center of Jewish life: recitation of the Sh’ma, Birkat Hamazon, Shabbat observance, wearing tallit and tefillin, reciting kiddush on Shabbat, and placing mezuzot on doorposts.

            The Book is in part about a spiritual journey. On another level, we can look at this as a kind of a homecoming saga. Like the Odyssey, the Gilgamesh epic, or The Wizard of Oz, much of this Book is about “getting home.” What distinguishes this Book are the detailed instructions about how to create a civil society after we get “home,” how we should relate to each other, especially to the most vulnerable in our society, and how we should relate to God and to the Land.

            The first parasha recounts the four decades of travel through the wilderness, repeats the story of the spies, deals with the appointment of judges, victories in the wilderness against enemies, and how the conquered land is to be divided. This parasha is read every year on Shabbat Hazon, the Shabbat prior to the fast of Tisha B’Av. Since looking at history is a major theme of the parasha, it is certainly an appropriate reading prior to this holiday.

Deut. 1:18 "And I commanded you, at that time, about the various the things you should do."

           

            The Book of Deuteronomy tells us, again and again, that the reason we observe commandments (mitzvot) is because God has commanded us to do so. That’s what the text says. Whether Jews of all modern “persuasions” react to this concept in the same way defines the differences among the various branches of Judaism today.

            The most traditional would simply agree with the text: we “do mitzvahs” because God has commanded us to do them. No discussion, subject closed. They believe in what the Sages called “the yoke of mitzvot.” We are to feel burdened by the commandments because God expects us to live by them.

            Others, myself included, adopt a “who am I” response, as in “who am I to break a 3,000 year old chain of continuity?" This we might call a historical imperative.

            Others adopt the “bubbie” rationale, as in, “my bubbie would turn over in her grave if I served pork for dinner.”

            Some Jews today perform ancient commandments because they feel the peer pressure of the communities in which they live; others observe mitzvot because they sense an ethical imperative that resonates with their own souls. Regardless of the rationale one adopts, performance of mitzvot needs to be mindful: mitzvot need to be observed with knowledge about what they mean, whether they have a purpose we can understand, or whether we are performing (or abstaining) for a reason which satisfies our own spiritual and communal needs.

Revenge and Redeeming

Masei

Numbers 33:1-36:13

Précis:  The Book of Numbers ends with this parasha. “These are the stages (masei) of the journey” which the Israelites made through the desert. In what amounts to a recapitulation, all of the stops along the way are identified. The Israelites are reminded to drive the Canaanites from the Land. Most of the parasha outlines the Israelites' entry to the Promised Land and sets out the first steps to be taken as they establish their national home, including the distribution of land among the tribes. The Levitical cities are described, as well as the cities of refuge. Just prior to their invasion of the land, the laws differentiating between murder and killing are repeated. The parasha ends with a summary of the commandments and ordinances. 

Num. 35:9-10 “The Lord spoke further to Moses: ‘Speak to the Israelite people and say to them, ‘When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, you shall provide yourselves with places to serve as cities of refuge to which a manslayer who has killed a person unintentionally may flee. The cities shall serve you as a refuge from the avenger so that the manslayer may be brought before a tribunal…”

            The concept of cities of refuge (“arei miklat”) was developed for a society in which revenge was the usual reaction to a murder, whether intentional or unintentional. Even today, there remain cultures in which physical revenge is used in reaction to a range of “insults” (from “improper” relations with a female relative to the killing of a relative). While the concept of a city of refuge was probably not a creation of the Israelites (there were similar concepts known in neighboring cultures of that era), it was a mark of a society in while the rule of law was to be supported. The Hebrew word we translate here as “avenger” (go'el) literally means “redeemer,” as in one who redeems the honor of his clan. This shows just how important this concept of honor was in this society.

            The Torah rejects revenge and an avenger, and instead demands a system of tribunals to protect the accused from the vengeance of others. If found innocent of intentional killing, the accused would be permitted to live in the city, isolated from the community where he had committed the non-willful slaying. For a civilization which had yet to invent prisons, this was an important development.

            There is a second interesting point to consider. Among the tribes, the Levites were not provided with a portion of the land; their “income” was to be derived from contributions to the Temple from the other tribes. An exception was made, however, for the designated refuge cities. These were under the control of the Levites. Thus, the role of the Levites as envisioned in the Torah was to serve as both the ritual leaders of the People, and as the civil protectors of society. This union of religious and social leadership may well have been a unique contribution of the Torah. It may give one some insight into today’s debate about the role of church and state, and I would certainly appreciate hearing from others what the connection might be.

Collateral Damage?

Matot

Numbers 30:2 - 33:42

Précis: The parasha begins with a speech to the heads (matot) of the tribes concerning the importance and sacredness of vows. The parasha then returns to the war with the Midianites, including the purification of the warriors and division of the booty. The tribes of Reuben, Gad and half of Manasseh express their desire to dwell east of the Jordon, and are permitted to do so, after promising to enter the Land to help the rest of the People defeat the Canaanites.

Num. 31:17-18: “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”

            This parasha relates the history of a war with the Midianites shortly before the Israelites enter the Land. All of the adult men are slain, including the King, and all of the adult women are slain. Only virgin females survive. Even the male children are to be killed.

            We cannot read these verses without a sense of horror, particularly with the atrocities of recent weeks. This story has all too many connections with the idea of jihad, genocide, and revenge.

            Is our lack of comfort  with this Divine command based on a misplaced imposition of our “modern” sense of morality on a situation 3,000 years ago? I would answer “no.” The 20^th century was perhaps the bloodiest century humanity has experienced. Can we so-called “modern” people look down upon these events and ignore the horrors of trench warfare, the Holocaust, and Hiroshima?   

            We should understand that the battle described here was the final struggle in a protracted war, and we know that protracted war takes a toll on the morality of most combatants. This being the case, the IDF’s record is truly remarkable during the decades-long struggle with its enemies, so many of whom take pride in their ability to target innocent civilians with the most heinous disregard for life – including their own. They glorify the killers of innocents, naming streets and squares in their honor. They cheer and give gifts of candy when innocent Israeli blood is shed.

            Based on the human experience of the 20^th century, we should understand that our claim to moral superiority over our ancient ancestors is misplaced and undeserved. Having said this, we can take justifiable pride in the efforts the IDF and the United States military take in investigating allegations of violations of the strict rules of engagement each nation has. These rules are aimed at containing and limiting the instances of civilian collateral damage. Even during war, we  (Americans and Israelis) both aim for a level of morality which other nations should envy.

Leadership in Transition

Pinchas

Numbers 25:10 - 30:1

Précis: This parasha begins with a reward for Pinchas’ zealotry in slaying the offending adulterers at the conclusion of the previous parasha. His reward is the hereditary High Priesthood for his family. The parasha continues with a second census conducted by Moses, with war being declared against Midian. The laws of inheritance are amended to provide, at least in certain cases, for daughters to inherit their fathers’ estates. Joshua is appointed the successor to Moses as leader of the People. The parasha then shifts to details of daily sacrifices, offerings for the new moon, and Festivals.

27:15 -16 “And Moses spoke to Adonai saying, ‘Let Adonai, God of the spirit of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation who will go in front of them and who will bring them out and who will bring them in, so that Adonai’s congregation won’t be like sheep without a shepherd.…’”

The text displays Moses’ role in finding his successor to be named once he (Moses) finally comes to terms with the fact that he will not personally lead the people into the Promised Land. His transfer of authority to Joshua, including his laying of his hands on Joshua, seems to be generous and gracious, which is particularly striking since we know that Moses is bitterly disappointed. The Sages help us understand Moses’ actions.

            A midrash relates that Moses enters the Tent of Meeting one last time to negotiate with God, knowing that Abraham has successfully negotiated with God over the destruction of Sodom. Moses opens with a suggestion that Joshua should in fact take over the leadership, but that Moses will remain around as a sort of senior counsel. The midrash continues that God seems willing, and then calls Joshua into the Tent (as Moses departs and waits outside). When Joshua comes out, Moses asks what God had told him. Joshua responds that on previous occasions when Moses had gone into the Tent, Moses would not tell Joshua what the conversation inside with God had been about. Now the roles are reversed, and Joshua will not speak to Moses about his conversation with God. The midrash concludes with Moses saying, “Better that I should die than I should live and envy Joshua.”

            Here is a key lesson in leadership: transition is inevitable, and it is up to the departing leader (executive director, rabbi, or president) to do so graciously and helpfully.