klahr@csd2.UUCP (08/27/85)
DVAR TORAH: PARSHAS SHOFTIM
or
WHOSE TREE IS IT ANYWAY?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Parsha concludes with two very different and unusual laws.
The first is the law of the surrounded city. When the Jewish people are at war
and are laying siege to a city, they are specifically commanded to avoid the
wanton destruction of any fruit-bearing trees outside of the city. Only if the
military stategy dictates that it is absolutely necessary can such a tree be
cut down. The second is the law of the calf whose neck is broken. If a body
of a person who has been stabbed to death is found in an area between several
cities, and the identity of the murderer is unknown, then members of the
Sanhedrin(the High Court) must measure which city the body is closest to. The
leaders of the court of that city must then take a calf to a valley with a
rocky and hard terrain, and there kill it by breaking its neck. Afterwards,
these leaders declare "Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes
see it". Finally, the Cohanim recite a prayer in which they ask G-d to
forgive His nation Israel for this iniquity that occurred in their midst.
What is the significance of these two laws? And why does the Torah
juxtapose these two laws together? What is their relation to each other?
If we look at the first law mentioned, the key verse seems to be:
when you lay siege to a city for many days, to battle against it so as to
conquer it, you should not destroy its trees, to wield an axe against them;
for you should eat from the trees and not cut them down, KI haADOM AITZ
haSADEH laVO MIPANECHA baMATZOR (literally: FOR THE MAN IS THE TREE OF THE
TREE OF THE FIELD FOR YOU TO LAY SIEGE TO IT).
How is that last transliterated phrase to be translated? Rashi interprets
it rhetorically: Is the tree of the field a person, that you should lay siege
to it? Why should you destroy it?
Ibn Ezra translates it differently: For the life of Man, his nourishment
and sustenance, comes from the tree. To destroy the tree is to lay siege to
your very source of life.
As Nechama Lebowitz points out, there is a subtle difference in
connotation between the two translations. Rashi's seems to be an expression of
concern and protection for nature and G-d's creations as entities unto them-
selves, while Ibn Ezra's seems more involved with nature vis a vis its usefull-
ness for Man. Nevertheless, what can be seen in either case is the general
principle of not using (or abusing) nature gratuitously. From this law is
extrapolated the general principle of "Bal Tashchis", not to waste anything
needlessly. As Rambam (Maimonides) writes (Laws of Kings, Chap.6 Law 10):
...and this law does not apply to trees alone. Whoever breaks utensils, or
tears clothing, destroys buildings, stops up springs, or wastes food wantonly,
violates the prohibition "you shall not destroy".
"The heavens are G-d's, and the earth He gave to Man" is a passage from
Tehillim(Psalms) that we say in the Hallel prayer. The prohibition "not to
destroy"(Bal Tashchis) is telling us that thhe "earth He gave to Man" is not
an absolute gift- it is still G-d's, but He gives it to us to use in a
constructive manner, as a vehicle to raise ourselves and those around us. This
is reflected in the explanation given in Gemora Brachos to the apparent
contradiction between the verse in Tehillim quoted above, and another verse in
Tehillim, "To G-d is the land and all that fills it, the earth and its
inhabitants". The Gemora says "the latter verse refers to before the blessing
(that one makes on food), the former refers to after the blessing.
However, both the interpretations of Rashi and Ibn Ezra have some
difficulties. The punctuation of the verse does not support the idea that it
should be read as a rhetorical question(in that case, there should be a Chataf
Patach under the Hey of haAdom, instead of a Kamatz). And although Ibn Ezra
cites a parallel example, the "missing words" that he feels must be read into
the actual words of the verse also makes his reading less than straightforward.
The Kli Yakar suggests a different way of reading the verse. To understand
it, we must look at a statement in Gemora Sotah(46a) concerning Egla 'Arufa,
the calf whose neck is broken:
Rabbi Yosi ben Shaul learned: Why did the Torah say to bring the calf to the
(rocky)valley? G-d said "Bring the calf, which is too young to bear fruit, and
break its neck in an area that is too rocky to yield fruit, so as to atone for
the death of this dead victim who was not allowed to bear fruit.
(The Gemora asks) What does it mean that the victim was not able to bear fruit?
If it means the physical bearing of children, that would imply that the
Egla 'Arufa procedure would not be carried out if the victim was sterile or
too old to have children, and clearly that is not the case? Rather, the
bearing of fruit refers to the ability to perform Mitzvos, the commandments of
the Torah.
With this in mind, the Kli Yakar (as well as haAmek Davar) translates the
verse KI haADOM AITZ haSADEH literally as "For Man IS the tree of the field"-
Man is compared to the tree of the field. We are not supposed to waste the
fruit-bearing tree because we are supposed to recognize our role in life as
being akin to the tree-just as trees are continuously involved in the process
of growing, developing, and bearing fruit, so we all should be constantly
experiencing personal and collective growth and development, as reflected in
our performance of G-d's Mitzvos, be they interpersonal or between man and
G-d in nature.
This then, provides us with our link between the laws of Lo Sashchis(not to
destroy the tree) and Egla 'Arufa(the calf whose neck is to be broken). Just
as by sparing the tree we are recognizing the importance of growth and
potential accomplishment, so when someone is killed we cannot remain
indifferent and go about our daily routines. Rather, by bringing the Egla
'Arufa we must shock ourselves out of our complacency to appreciate the loss-
and the value- of a human life.
The MaHaRal, in his commentary on the Gemora in Sotah cited above
(Chiddushei Agados, Sotah 46a), explains that a person is called Odom(or Adam)
in Hebrew because of the word's relation to Adamah, the Hebrew word for
ground. Why, he then asks, is a person called Odom- if anything, animals are
of an even more corporeal nature than people, why aren't animals instead given
the appelation "Odom"?
Maharal answers that a person is called Odom, and thereby compared to
Adamah, the ground, not merely because Man is a physical creature, but because
a similarity exists between Man and the ground: just as the ground has the
potential ability to bring forth fruit, if it is properly primed, so every
person has the potential to accomplish G-d's Torah and Mitzvos. This says
Maharal, is why when the portion of Egla 'Arufa begins, it describes the
finding of the dead man in the land using the word Adamah-ground, and not
Aretz, the more conventional term for "the land"- to emphasize the similarity
between the ground, with its potential creativity, and the unfortunate
victim, whose continued potential was snuffed out.
Let us just look at one more aspect of the law of Egla 'Arufa. As we said
above, the leaders of the court of the city closest to the site where the body
was found must bring the calf to the infertile valley and break its neck. They
then symbolically wash their hands and proclaim: Our hands did not shed this
blood, nor did our eyes see it.
Rashi, quoting the Gemora in Sotah, asks:
Why do the judges make this proclamation? Do we really suspect the chief
judges of the city of having committed the murder? Rather, what they mean to
say is "that we did not see him and allow him to leave without food,accompani-
ment, and guidance out of the city".
Who are these pronouns referring to? Who is the "him" in their
declaration? The Jerusalem Talmud(Sotah, Chap.9, Law 6) cites two opinions,
those of the scholars of Babylon, and those of the scholars of Israel. The
scholars of Babylon said that it referred to the victim. Had we supplied
him with food and guidance, the victim might not have gotten lost and fallen
prey to wandering bandits and highwaymen. The scholars of Israel said that
the "him" referred to is the murderer. Perhaps if we had seen him and took
a regard for his welfare, the judges say, he might not have turned to a life
of crime that culminated with this murder.
Avi Ezri, a commentary on Ibn Ezra, is quick to point out that this
argument is not a replay of the old philosophic debate of determinism versus
free will. The idea of free will, that man has the ability to make his own
choices, is necessarily presupposed by the Torah, which speaks of reward and
punishment for adherence to, or violation of, the commandments. Both sides
agree with the implication of the last verse of the Parsha("and you should
eliminate the innocent blood from your midst, when you do what is just in the
eyes of G-d"), that if the murderer is subsequently found and judged guilty he
is to be executed. What both opinions are expressing is what Baal haTurim
succinctly derives from the prayer the Cohanim recite-"Forgive Your people
Israel,...". From here, Baal haTurim says, we see the principle that all the
Jewish people are responsible for each other(Kol Yisrael 'Arayvim Zeh Lozeh).
Even if individual guilt does exist, on another level, we are still
collectively to blame. Just as the individual limbs and organs relate to
the body as a whole, or as the individual ants relate to the "superorganism"
of the ant colony, the Jewish people as a whole comprise a distinct and single
entity at a higher level. To quote Avi Ezri:
...but in truth, if the Jews are in the state of complete perfection of
brotherhood and friendship, they are all as one person...and just as they will
join to physically help each other, so will their intellects and spirits join
together to rescue the life of the one who was killed as well as to rescue
the thoughts of the murderer, that it should never occur to him to commit a
murder...
More than just telling us of how precious each life is, the law of Egla
'Arufa is telling us of the responsibility the entire society bears for all
its members.
It is no accident that we read this Parsha during the month of Elul, which
has historically been the month of self-contemplation and introspection
leading up to the "Ten Days of Penitence" that begin with Rosh haShana and
culminate in Yom Kippur("Elul" is related to the Aramaic word for searching,
spying out-see Targum Unkeless on Bamidbar 13:21). A significant part of this
process is to see the essential unity in all of creation. Just as "G-d is One"
, we are supposed to rectify the wrongs we have done towards each other, and
identify with each other, so that we achieve the state achieved by the Jewish
people at Mount Sinai- "and Israel camped there opposite the mountain". As
the Talmud points out, the noun "Israel" and the verb "camped" are in the
singular form, to show that the people were unified, "as one man with one
spirit".
This idea, that we all influence and are effected by each other, is not
limited to the Jewish people alone. Rabbi E.E. Dessler, in his Michtav
meEliyahu(vol.1,p.250), quotes Rabbi Yerucham of Mir as offering this
principle as one explanation for a prayer we add into the 'Amidah(the
"Shemona Esray"-the prayer with eighteen blessings that we recite while
standing) on Rosh haShana and Yom Kippur. Before concluding the blessing in
which we recognize G-d as "the Holy King"(haMelech haKadosh), we insert a
prayer asking G-d to
"Put Your fear on all You have made, and on all Your creations. Let them
fear You, and bow to You, and they will all be as one group to do Your will
with a complete heart..."
One reason for putting this prayer right before our blessing recognizing
G-d's sovereignty over the world, says Rabbi Yerucham, is that our recognition
of G-d is incomplete as long as even one person in the world's recognition
of G-d is incomplete- because ultimately, "we are all interdependent on each
other".
Good Shabbos
Pinchus Klahr {allegra,ihnp4} cmcl2!csd2!klahr
klahr@nyu.ARPA