I. On the commandment to listen to the teachings and rulings of the leaders
Devarim/Deuteronomy 17:8-11 tells us that when a person is unclear of the Torah's ruling on a matter, the person should go to the place God has chosen - namely the High Court in Jerusalem, located at the Temple. Once there, when matters have been laid out before the judges, they will determine an appropriate ruling, as per their understanding of the law, based on their tremendous foundation of Torah knowledge which helped them achieve their appointment in the first place. It seems very clear from the words "You shall do according to the word they will tell you from that place that God will choose, and you should be careful to do according to the judgement that they will say to you" that this commandment only applies in a time when the Temple is standing, and the rabbinical court sits in that place.
Meaning, not in our days.
And the Sefer HaChinukh even supports this idea. (Commandment 495)
And yet.
Afterwards, at the very end of 495 and on into 496, the Sefer HaChinukh pulls out his rabbinical membership card, saying that verse 11 is what is most applicable in our days, the mitzvah to listen to the "Torah" of the teachers of each generation, based on how they understand and apply the law.
This led us into an important discussion as to who are modern day leaders? What is the difference between a community rabbi, a rosh yeshiva (head of a theological seminary), and a "gadol hador" (Torah sage)? With no real organized community, how do we determine who is the "leader" or the "teacher" that must be listened to as per this commandment?
In a world in which attitudes toward rabbis span the full gamut of possibilities, how does one keep this commandment?
For example, I know different kinds of people who have different attitudes toward rabbis, from total reverence to complete irreverence.
a. "I love the rabbi and will listen to his teachings and be inspired to act based on his instruction."
b. "I love the rabbi and I will listen to his teachings and do my best to follow his example."
c. " I like the rabbi and I will listen to him - but to a point. Let him give a nice sermon, but don't tell me how to be a better Jew."
d. "The rabbi is a nice guy, but that's where it ends."
e. "The rabbi? Feh!"
Where is the shortfall? In the rabbi, or in the people who couldn't care less?
There is a tremendous challenge that our generation and general communities face. How do we create faith in our rabbis to trust their judgement and to follow their rulings? Even more importantly, how can our generation create rabbinic leaders who have the respect of the global community? Where are the Rabbi Moshe Feinsteins, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbachs, etc?
We had a very nice two-part discussion about a. how we determine who these judges and leaders are and b. how the Jewish community has been reinventing the wheel over the last two or three generations. It will appear in a separate post.
II. On the command to appoint a king
In the same chapter (17:14-20), the Torah describes the laws surrounding appointing a king. We decided it is one of the commandments in the Torah that are optional. In other words, there is no obligation to appoint a king, but were the need to arise, the Torah gives us instructions how to do it. Another example is divorce. Dissolving a marriage is not ideal, but when it needs to happen, the Torah gives us instructions for how to do it. (A note of irony: many people who claim to keep all the mitzvot that apply in our days have never fulfilled the "mitzvah" to divorce - and hopefully they will never have a need to do so.)
The king has three negative commandments, the first two are given reasons in the Torah: do not have too many horses [they'll bring you back to Egypt (or cause you to go back to Egypt to buy more)]; do not have too many wives [they'll cause the king to turn away from God]; do not amass too much silver and gold.
Why not too much money? Is it because "money is the root of all evil" (or the "love of money..." - but that's New Testament)?
Rabbi JH Hertz writes in his commentary that this was meant to be an internal check against Jewish kings becoming tyrannical despots.
But Rabbenu B'chaye says the reason actually is listed two verses later, when it says "So that his heart not become haughty over his brothers."
As Monica said, "It's to remind the king that he has a king above him as well - God."
And that while the king may take whatever taxes he pleases, he too has a responsibility to consider the financial state of his subjects. They are not "his people" as much as they are "his brethren" and he is to respect their earnings and take care of them as he would his own family.
III. On going to war
In Deuteronomy 20:5-8, the Torah tells us of how they would weed out those who were not ready to go to war. The one who'd built but not dedicated his home, the one who'd planted but not begun to use his vineyard, and the one who'd betrothed but not married a woman were all told to return home, lest another man come along and take all these from him in his absence, or in the case of his death. In other words, he is meant to begin to utilize these new features of his life before he lays his life on the line. Finally, the person who is afraid is sent home.
Except for the last one, this list is odd. Nowadays, those who go to war are more often people who have not yet begun life, who - other than their entire future - do not have much to lose in the case of their death. No wife, no children, no amassed fortune. Hypothetically speaking, wouldn't it be more advisable (once we're risking lives) to put those lives on the line, than those who have a potential of losing everything - their families, their possessions, their careers?
[Don't get me wrong - I hope no one has to go to war, but we live in a crazy world.]
Maybe it is better for those who have a need to protect something to be out there on the front lines. The best fighters are those who know exactly what stands behind them. Remember this image:
Having said that, perhaps another idea is that the person who is sent home can't fight simply because he has too many unfulfilled feelings gnawing at him: would I have enjoyed my new home? Would my vineyard have produced pleasant fruit? Would I have loved my wife? I wonder what it would have been like to have been a homeowner, a farmer, a husband, a dad...
So he is told to go home. To get a flavor. To begin his life. To learn about what he has to protect.
Only then will he be ready to go out to war.
Let "nation not take up sword against nation, and they will study war no more." (Isaiah 2:4)
Peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment