Reconcile the stories

D’varim

Deut. 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. The Book is also sometimes referred to as the “Priestly Code” by those who ascribe its origin to the Priests of the First Temple era.

           

Deut. 1:22-26 “Then all of you came to me and said, ‘Let us send men to reconnoiter the land for us and bring back word on the route we shall follow and the cities we shall come to. It looked good in my eyes, and so I selected twelve men, one from each tribe… and they gave us this report: ‘It is a good land that the Lord our God is giving to us.’ Yet you refused to go up and…you sulked in your tents.”

Matt Plen, writing in Torah Sparks (8/12/16) notes that Moses’ account of the story of the spies differs from the version we read in B’midbar (chapter 13).  There God commanded Moses to send princes from each of the tribes, and here, Moses states that the idea came from the people. In B’midbar most of the spies return with a negative view of the Land, and actively spread pessimism among the Israelites.  In this telling, Moses states that the spies brought a short, positive report about the land, but the people sulked in their tents.  

            How to reconcile these two different versions? Nahama Leibowitz’s argues that rather than seeing these stories as contradictory, we should think of them in terms of chronology.  Moses' speech in D’varim comes 38 years after the sin of the spies, when the people of Israel are ready to take possession of the land. The first time, the people failed. Moses wants to make sure that they succeed this time. So he doesn't stress the sin of the various tribal leaders, but rather the personal responsibility of every member of the community. “The listener,” says Leibowitz, “has the choice of turning a deaf ear to evil words or of allowing himself to be misled by them.  It is his duty to resist.” 

Asylum Cities - and Sactuary Cities

Matot- Masei

Num. 30:2 - 36:13

Précis: Matot 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.

            The Book of Numbers ends with Masei. “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 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.

            Today, we have an on-going debate about the modern form of cities of refuge, more commonly referred to as “sanctuary cities.” The cause is certainly different (an escaped accused murderer on the one hand and a seeker of asylum on the other) but a common concept remains: the need for a system of law which recognize the need for justice. How we go about finding justice in the modern context is certainly an important is to consider. I personally am guided in this issue by our tradition which requires us to care for the orphan, the widow, and the stranger among us.