@@@@@@
The Law Of Death
An accidental killer is provided with an escape: the urei miklat. A real murderer is spared no quarter; ‘even from My altar take him to die!’
Actually, punishment for NO crime is deferred by the perp serving on the mizbeach. Why is murder singled out?
Perhaps this pasuk contrasts providing accidental murderers with refuge. We explain that we are not being soft on murder: for a real murderer, no consideration whatever is given.
Another thought is that Pirkei Avos relates that Hillel saw a skull floating upon the water and commented ‘As you drowned others, so were you drowned. And those who drowned you, will drown too’. What’s the idea? Hillel was teaching a principle; killers don’t die a natural death. They die by violence.
(Witness Mexico’s history; until recently, almost every president killed to reach his position. And each was killed in turn, either during presidency or even years later. The law is inescapable!)
This is the intention here: the Torah says that anyone who kills cannot live. He must die, no matter what – even from the altar take him to die!
***
@@@@@@
Passive Partnerships
The Torah uses the plural when forbidding hurting a widow or orphan; ‘lo taanun’. The Torah switches back to the singular tense in the next pasuk. Why?
The Ibn Ezra explains that that when a widow or orphan are abused, often others know of it and don’t step in. They aren’t doing evil themselves, why get their hands dirty? Why make enemies? Why interfere? Sometimes bystanders even second guess themselves, thinking perhaps the victim deserves – or needs – this treatment!
The Torah lays it down: if you do not protect the victim, you are party to crime. The Torah uses the plural tense because we are all accountable. Scary.
And remember: there are four types of orphan; those with no father, mother, neither father or mother… and then those orphans who have two parents….
***
@@@@@@
Bribery
‘Bribery blinds clear-headed men’. It is prohibited to accept a bribe even to rule fairly. Not only is giving cash bribery, but even unusual benefit from a litigant clouds a judge’s judgment. The Gemarah illustrates; if one of the litigants dusts feathers off the Judge’s robe he disqualifies him!
The Chazon Ish speaks of a common scenario; a godol opines on who ought to be chosen as rav. What do people say? ‘The candidate is a pupil of that gadol so he has a vested interest in him. Therefore this gadol cannot rule about the issue. It’s Shochad!’
Basically, per this theory, gedolim are disqualified to speak on any issue, for there is always some connection and interest between the gadol and the issue. (The man on the street, however, IS impartial. Particularly if he is a macher…) So why heed gedolim?
‘Bribery’ is a legal term, with halachik parameters. Some bribes disqualify a judge, others don’t. And sometimes his rulings are binding despite his bias, but he ought not to rule on the case. A judge who received a gift from a litigator which had not been linked to the case explicitly or implicitly, may rule, so long as he feels no obvious bias. Bribery is payment for judgment. All else does not disqualify a judge. Even a judge with a clear preference for one side may rule (although recommended not to take the case).
The logic is clear; we ask the top surgeon if we should operate or not and follow his advice even if we suspect that he, as a surgeon, has interests in doing surgery. He is the authority, assumed to give us his honest opinion.
So too, follow the judge and the gadol despite their (potential) bias; they are our authorities. That’s real life.
Do we really think our own partialities stop us from making ethical decisions? Why would others’ do so?
***
@@@@@@
Why Me?
‘If a fire goes out, and finds thorns, and a grain-pile or wheat field has been burnt …’ Chazal explain the interesting phraseology here to hint that disaster strikes when thorns – sinners – lie around. When disaster happens, however, it hits good people – grain-piles and wheat. And it hits them first, as it states ‘…has been burnt’; i.e. they have already burnt early on. (Baba Kama 60A)
The Meiri explains that the Gemara is telling us a tzaddik ought to care about turning sinners to good, for he stands to suffer the consequences of their actions first.
Why indeed? Don’t troublemakers ought to be licked first, not tzaddikkim?!
Tzaddikim are close to Hashem. They live in Hashem’s orbit, under His watch. Therefore Hashem’s anger affects them immediately. Other people, more removed from Hashem and His direct influence, are affected slower.
So while this spurs tzaddikim to be mekarev sinners, it also expresses their closeness to Hashem; how they are in close contact with Him.
Another thought is that Hashem is quick to chasten tzaddikkim, who respond readily. Sinners respond rarely and slowly, so Hashem prefers not wasting His reproof upon them.
Again, a statement to how beloved tzaddikim are to Hashem.
In addition, Hashem tends to the Tzaddik first, prodding him to repent, because He cares about him more. A parent will smack their child faster than a teacher will hit a pupil, (even in the old days, when smacking was common), because he cares more about the child keeping straight.
Another idea: if the tzaddik wasn’t impacted first, the rasha getting punished will not be helped by the tzaddik, for he will think ‘That sinner had it coming to him!’.
Only by being in the same boat will the righteous help the sinners!
Why do the righteous suffer? Here is an armful of reasons!
***
@@@@@@
Neither Black Nor White
An ox kills another for the first time. The law is to split the goring ox and the dead one between the two owners. This is not always literally true; if the dead body is worth more than the live ox, does the gorer’s owner profit? No, but when the two oxen were of equal value before death, then both are split.
Why is this appropriate? Why doesn’t the gorer’s owner need to pay up?
Many things in life are grey in nature. There is great ambiguity here: a fellow takes his ox for a walk, – entirely appropriate, it had always been docile – and ended up with a debacle.
Yet this was no accident; rather the ox had attacked. It may not be the owner’s fault, but the other was targeted and hurt.
The Torah says that we cannot ask the owner to pay in full, nor must the victim absorb the loss. We share the loss and remaining money, all are partner to this sad episode. This settles all the issues fairest overall, while taking into account the grey, dappled nature of the matter.
Humans like things black or white. Reality, however, is usually a bit grey…
***
@@@@@@
Who Dunnit?
‘If he did not ambush his fellow man, rather Hashem caused [the murder] to be by his hand, then I will set a place for him to run…’
This verse reads as if Hashem Himself provides refuge for the murderer. Yet Hashem told US to create cities of refuge. Why attribute it to Him?
The Torah says that ‘Hashem caused it to be by his hand’: Hashem sort of brought about the incident. Sometimes, in Hashem’s stewardship of this world, He sets someone up. The murderer needs to answer for his actions, for they were his choice, but he had also been stood up.
Hashem says ‘Yes, I orchestrated it, and therefore I will provide him refuge’. As the murder is His, so is the refuge.
What’s the lesson here? Perhaps that Hashem guides history, and takes responsibility for it as well, ensuring that accounts are righted in the end.
***
@@@@@@
Limits To Activism
‘Do not lend your hand to a wicked man to be a wrongful witness’.
Many opinions explain this as prohibiting joining up with false witness.
The situation? I see a thief stealing a cellphone, but I’m only a single witness and Bes Din requires two. The victim proposes hiring another witness to claim he too saw the theft, so that justice be done. I may not be party to this deception by attesting together with the false witness.
Why? Isn’t it correct to help return stolen property?
One idea is that if people take the law into their own hands and engineer matters like this, anarchy ensues. Anyone will feel entitled to manipulate testimony. So the Torah banned this behaviour, even where justified.
Here is another thought: although returning stolen property is just, you and I are not enfranchised to dispense justice. It’s not our responsibility. We wish fairness dearly, but the task is the judges’. Jurists are tasked with enforcing justice, not the man on the street.
The thief stole, but I have no mandate to return it. I need to testify before court, that’s it. Intervention causing the court to judge the thief guilty is criminal. If the court did not hear genuine testimony, they have taken money unlawfully.
Enforcing justice is a specialized activity. If someone steals from us we may not go into his house and take it back unless there is no option. And if someone steals from another one may not interfere at all.
***
@@@@@@
Stale Old Sins
The midrash says (on the pasuk Im Kessef Talveh) an unusual idea: we are all in Hashem’s debt. Sometimes Hashem looks at his subjects and sees that they are not going to do tshuvah for their sins. So he just writes the sins off.
It’s like a lender that has a customer come to him and ask for a loan. And he reminds the lender that he has an old unpaid debt. The lender says “Silly you. I had forgotten that one. Why did you remind me??”
So too, Hashem does not want to be reminded of old sins. When we come to do t’shuva he tells us ‘al tizkaru rishonos’ – don’t remind me of those!
This Midrash runs counter to much of what we have heard on t’shuva and keeping one’s sins always in mind, even those old sins we have done t’shuva for.
What does it mean??
***
@@@@@@
Don’t Laugh!
The Torah warns that if one hurts an orphan or widow Hashem will heed their cry, and kill the oppressor. Then HIS children will be orphans and HIS wife a widow.
Will that help matters for the poor orphan or widow? Will the person even care that his family be orphans after his passing? Why not punish the offender, not his family?
The principle here is that looking down on others boomerangs. Someone who laughs at a widow will suffer widowhod himself. If not personally, then his wife, This is the Law Of Scorn: Scorn someone (or even something) and you experience it yourself.
It need not be effective. But that’s the way things are. As the pasuk in Mishley says: Baz l’davar y’chavel lo. Despise something, and it will yet return to haunt you…