Parshat Va'era
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Shmot Chapter 6 contains within it a family tree that seems to quickly plow through the families of Reuven and Shimon to get to the great detail which describes the family of Levi. It is important to know, for example, that Moshe is a human being, born of human parents, and to see his “yichus” (genealogy) in the context of seeing how he descended from Yaakov.
But there is one verse which stands out because it is a little odd.
"And Amram took Yocheved, his aunt, to be his wife." (6:20)
Considering a later verse in the Torah that Moshe would eventually teach to the Jewish people, how could Moshe record this little fact (which was also mentioned – though not as clearly – in 2:1) in the same Torah in which he’d declare “Do not commit incest with your father's sister, since she is your father's blood relative.” (Vayikra 18:12)?
Showing posts with label Judging. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judging. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
Friday, August 29, 2014
On the Blindness of Justice and Morality
Parshat Shoftim
by Rabbi Avi Billet
On July 25, Brett Stevens (not to be confused with Bret Stephens) wrote on amerika.org that the Israel-Hamas conflict shows the true nature of liberalism.
Some of his points suggested that liberalism focuses on appearance and nothing more, arguing for the moral high ground. However, he contends, that supporting the weaker party in a struggle does not automatically translate to being in that moral high ground. Supporting a militarily weaker group whose ideology is irrational, destructive, and murder-focused does not bode well for those who claim morals drive them.
In Stevens’ view, “Conservatism thinks about results, so it picks the action which will bring best results. Liberals think about appearances, and so choose whatever option makes them look good, and then ignore the consequences [until after] disaster unfolds.”
His conclusion: “[W]e have people out of their heads on the drug of artificially boosted self-esteem that liberalism provides, cheering for the genocide of the group that the last world war was fought in part to protect.”
Political ideologies aside, in light of the opening of our parsha, Mr. Stevens couldn’t be more correct. The Torah tells us, “Do not bend justice and do not give special consideration [to anyone]. Do not take bribes, since bribery makes the wise blind and perverts the words of the righteous.” (16:19) With reference to inter-human dealings, the Torah, from which only truth emerges, couldn’t come up with a truer insight into human nature.
It’s not that the liberal media (i.e. The New York Times) takes bribes. Nor is it the case that all of the protestors in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, and all over Europe are taking bribes.
But they have been made blind because, as Dennis Prager has put it, were the two sides of the conflict described as neutral parties – group A and group B – every sensible person in the world would side with the group that describes Israel’s perspective. However, since one of these groups is called “Israel,” a word which triggers the most irrational form of judgment, it is automatically painted as the guilty party by bigots and anti-Semites who refuse to acknowledge their bigotry and anti-Semitic natures. We have all seen videos of protests, with horrific small-scale or larger-scale violence, profanity, despicable name-calling (“Nazis,” “baby killers”) aimed at those who present Israel’s rights to live peacefully, and to defend itself when attacked by rockets and terrorists (excuse me, “freedom fighters.”)
Before he was President, John Adams defended the British soldiers who had fired on civilians at the so-called “Boston Massacre.” Adams won the case. Did it matter that the soldiers were trained fighters, better armed, and in a place where some (ignorants) might have called them “occupiers?” No! Because justice is supposed to be blind. And the judges who judge cannot be blinded by greed. The soldiers in that case had been provoked and were fearful for their lives. They fired in self-defense. And just because someone dies in a shooting does not mean the dead was the innocent party.
Even President Obama, whose support for Israel is suspect, declared years ago that "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing." I think he has less of a problem with Israeli shooting down missiles (which is why he supports Iron Dome), and much more of a problem with Israel actually attacking the source of the missiles. Stop the rockets once they’re mid-air, yes. But don't allow them to be shot from the ground, because if you attack the rocket-launcher, people will die. Sigh.
Targum Yonatan explains what bribes do to judges: “It causes utter stupidity to happen upon them.” It doesn’t matter if the person is judging correctly in the case, or judging incorrectly. The judge who takes a bribe becomes blind to realities and justifies things that are unjustifiable.
And so it is with those who judge with pre-conceived notions. Those who believe that Jews whose “genocide the last world war was fought to prevent” (as Stevens put it - though that was really an outcome and not purpose for fighting - FDR was no tzaddik -) are the bad guys are buying into the oldest bribe in the world, the worst stereotype to plague the history of humanity, that the evils of the world are the fault of the Jews.
The Ro”sh on this verse puts it rather succinctly: “Bribery (however defined) causes the judge to become evil,” for not seeing the case for the sides it truly presents. When it comes to defense and preservation of self, John Adams got it right. If the soldiers who were threatened and who caused the deaths of “civilians” in self-defense could be acquitted, a Jewish State which defends itself (while suffering deaths of civilians, including children) and causes the unfortunate death of civilians in the process is completely in the right.
Those who see it otherwise, don’t understand what Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple, had to say in his recent visit to Israel. “Had a good time visiting Jerusalem and Gaza Strip today. If Israel did not react, the rockets would continue anyway. If Hamas halted rockets, Israel would not attack them. Peace.”
When the world ceases to be morally blind (instead of taking the liberal “moral highground), and will judge a case based on merits without pre-conceived notions, maybe there will be Peace indeed.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
On July 25, Brett Stevens (not to be confused with Bret Stephens) wrote on amerika.org that the Israel-Hamas conflict shows the true nature of liberalism.
Some of his points suggested that liberalism focuses on appearance and nothing more, arguing for the moral high ground. However, he contends, that supporting the weaker party in a struggle does not automatically translate to being in that moral high ground. Supporting a militarily weaker group whose ideology is irrational, destructive, and murder-focused does not bode well for those who claim morals drive them.
In Stevens’ view, “Conservatism thinks about results, so it picks the action which will bring best results. Liberals think about appearances, and so choose whatever option makes them look good, and then ignore the consequences [until after] disaster unfolds.”
His conclusion: “[W]e have people out of their heads on the drug of artificially boosted self-esteem that liberalism provides, cheering for the genocide of the group that the last world war was fought in part to protect.”
Political ideologies aside, in light of the opening of our parsha, Mr. Stevens couldn’t be more correct. The Torah tells us, “Do not bend justice and do not give special consideration [to anyone]. Do not take bribes, since bribery makes the wise blind and perverts the words of the righteous.” (16:19) With reference to inter-human dealings, the Torah, from which only truth emerges, couldn’t come up with a truer insight into human nature.
It’s not that the liberal media (i.e. The New York Times) takes bribes. Nor is it the case that all of the protestors in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, and all over Europe are taking bribes.
But they have been made blind because, as Dennis Prager has put it, were the two sides of the conflict described as neutral parties – group A and group B – every sensible person in the world would side with the group that describes Israel’s perspective. However, since one of these groups is called “Israel,” a word which triggers the most irrational form of judgment, it is automatically painted as the guilty party by bigots and anti-Semites who refuse to acknowledge their bigotry and anti-Semitic natures. We have all seen videos of protests, with horrific small-scale or larger-scale violence, profanity, despicable name-calling (“Nazis,” “baby killers”) aimed at those who present Israel’s rights to live peacefully, and to defend itself when attacked by rockets and terrorists (excuse me, “freedom fighters.”)
Before he was President, John Adams defended the British soldiers who had fired on civilians at the so-called “Boston Massacre.” Adams won the case. Did it matter that the soldiers were trained fighters, better armed, and in a place where some (ignorants) might have called them “occupiers?” No! Because justice is supposed to be blind. And the judges who judge cannot be blinded by greed. The soldiers in that case had been provoked and were fearful for their lives. They fired in self-defense. And just because someone dies in a shooting does not mean the dead was the innocent party.
Even President Obama, whose support for Israel is suspect, declared years ago that "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing." I think he has less of a problem with Israeli shooting down missiles (which is why he supports Iron Dome), and much more of a problem with Israel actually attacking the source of the missiles. Stop the rockets once they’re mid-air, yes. But don't allow them to be shot from the ground, because if you attack the rocket-launcher, people will die. Sigh.
Targum Yonatan explains what bribes do to judges: “It causes utter stupidity to happen upon them.” It doesn’t matter if the person is judging correctly in the case, or judging incorrectly. The judge who takes a bribe becomes blind to realities and justifies things that are unjustifiable.
And so it is with those who judge with pre-conceived notions. Those who believe that Jews whose “genocide the last world war was fought to prevent” (as Stevens put it - though that was really an outcome and not purpose for fighting - FDR was no tzaddik -) are the bad guys are buying into the oldest bribe in the world, the worst stereotype to plague the history of humanity, that the evils of the world are the fault of the Jews.
The Ro”sh on this verse puts it rather succinctly: “Bribery (however defined) causes the judge to become evil,” for not seeing the case for the sides it truly presents. When it comes to defense and preservation of self, John Adams got it right. If the soldiers who were threatened and who caused the deaths of “civilians” in self-defense could be acquitted, a Jewish State which defends itself (while suffering deaths of civilians, including children) and causes the unfortunate death of civilians in the process is completely in the right.
Those who see it otherwise, don’t understand what Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple, had to say in his recent visit to Israel. “Had a good time visiting Jerusalem and Gaza Strip today. If Israel did not react, the rockets would continue anyway. If Hamas halted rockets, Israel would not attack them. Peace.”
When the world ceases to be morally blind (instead of taking the liberal “moral highground), and will judge a case based on merits without pre-conceived notions, maybe there will be Peace indeed.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Shimon – A View of a Flawed (Member of the) Tribe
Parshat Vaychi (also good for Vayetze, Vayishlach, Vayeshev, Miketz)
by Rabbi Avi Billet
By and large, the tribe of Shimon does not fare well in the Biblical story. The second of Yaakov's sons is completely bypassed for any leadership role.
The Yalkut Shimoni notes (Shoftim 42) that the tribe of Shimon, "Never had a judge nor a king, on account of the sin of Zimri."
In our parsha, Shimon and Levi are grouped together in Yaakov's blessing – though theirs is hardly a blessing – when he says, "Shimon and Levi are a pair… they have killed men with anger, maimed bulls with will. Cursed be their rage, for it is fierce, and their fury, for it is cruel. I will disperse them in Jacob, scatter them in Israel."
Their having killed men with anger refers to their decimation of the city of Shechem. Otherwise the blessing is cryptic until the end, which predicts their portions in the Land of Israel: Levi gets none – only cities, while Shimon's portion is within that of the tribe of Yehuda.
At the end of the Torah (Devarim 33), Shimon is the only tribe not blessed by Moshe, which Ibn Ezra blames on the Baal Pe'or incident (Bamidbar 25). Ramban rejects this notion, suggesting it is disgraceful to think Moshe did not bless a tribe. It is only because Moshe mentioned Yosef as Ephraim and Menashe, and had achieved the magic number of 12 tribes, that the smallest tribe (Shimon) was left out of the Torah's account of the blessings – more for practical reasons than as punishment.
When one looks into Shimon – the man and the tribe – as depicted in the Torah and Midrash, the picture is far less than flattering – quite reproving, in fact.
His role in wiping out the city of Shechem (along with Levi) is criticized. He and Levi are credited with having the discussion to kill Yosef (37:19-20 – many midrashim and Targum Yonatan), while Shimon is identified as the one who threw Yosef in the pit (Bereshit Raba 84:16). We know Levi is exonerated, on account of the status Shevet Levi carries until today – having Moshe and Aharon and all those who did not participate in the Golden Calf as their forebears establishes Levi's status as the tribe of holiness forever.
Like Cham, son of Noach, who is eternally linked with his son Canaan (and cursed in this manner by his father), Shimon is also linked with Canaan in his lineage. Of all the descendants of Yaakov who descended to Egypt, only one (other than the tribes themselves) has a depiction of his mother attached to his name: Shaul ben HaCanaanit, apparent son of Shimon.
What was his story? Why was he singled out in this way?
The Midrash (Rabati) presents three options: Shimon was the only one of the brothers to marry a Canaanite (otherwise, according to Ramban, they married Egyptians, Amonites, Moabites, Yishmaelites, and Bnei Keturah following Avraham's and Yitzchak's rule of avoiding girls from the cursed nation); 'The Canaanite' refers to Dinah, on account of her encounter with Shechem – Shimon had one child with her (as an accession to her concern that she'd never marry), and then ended their union; Shaul was later Zimri.
With reference to his being Zimri (or the ancestor of Zimri), the Talmud in Sanhedrin 82b explains his name being Shaul ("lend") "because he lent himself [easily] to commit a sin," and Ben HaCanaanit, "because he engaged in a Canaanite act of licentiousness." (How he lived for 250 years is a different question.)
According to those who suggest he was the son of Dinah, either Shimon was the father (see above), or Shechem was the father (Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch). [Some say Yosef's wife was the product of Dinah and Shechem – Targum Yonatan 41:45] Rav Hirsch credits Shimon with raising Shaul, noting a precedent that a Jewish mother (Dinah the "Canaanit") establishes her child's acceptance into her family as he receives her status. That Shimon is listed as his father must then follow the Talmudic ruling (Sanhedrin 19b) that one who raises a child in his home is as if he fathered him.
The Tzror Hamor (R. Abraham ben Jacob Saba) presents a fascinating insight to Shimon, from the moment he was born. Leah saw all that would transpire with Shimon in a prophetic vision – the Zimri/Kozbi story, the union with a Canaanite that would produce Shaul, and therefore the proclivity Shimon has for "zimah." (licentiousness). This is why when she names him (29:33) she says "God heard I am hated," as if to say, "God heard, and got angry." He gave me "this," meaning "If only he hadn't given me 'this' because he is destined for sin…"
His name can be read "Sham Avon" - sin is on him. The natural proclivity for sin was punished when most of those who died at Baal Pe'or were of the tribe of Shimon. The Malbim explains (Bamidbar 26:12) that the entire family of Ohad (son of Shimon) was wiped out, and that Yemuel and Tzochar changed their tribal family names to Nemuel and Zerach to avoid a similar fate – all results of the Baal Peor story.
This portrayal of the destiny of the tribe of Shimon is very depressing. When we consider that the sons of Yaakov are all considered holy, how do we reconcile Shimon's unenviable status of being the worst of the lot?
We see that no one is perfect. Some people have devils in them from the moment they are born. For some people it comes out in spurts, for some it lays dormant, and for some it comes out in later generations – after all, it seems to be embedded in the genetic code.
For those who are preprogrammed this way, their challenge is to overcome their proclivities as best as possible. It's not easy – it never is – but with recognition of the problem, and properly seeking help and guidance, a person has a fighting chance of living a productive life.
For those on the outside, we need to be as helpful as we can, reserve judgment until such time that judgment is fairly warranted, and give the benefit of the doubt as much as possible. Those who say Shimon did a kindness in taking Dinah when she thought noone ever would are clearly judging Shimon favorably.
Living amongst flawed people is a challenge. But we dare not play God with their destiny – some will do bad and will always be bad, some will challenge their nature and be amazing people, and some will recognize their errors and do teshuvah.
How we choose to view and accept or reject them is our challenge – to be fair and honest with all the information we can gather.
Good luck to us all.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
How to Judge
Parshat Devarim
by Rabbi Avi Billet
The book of Devarim begins (1:12-18) with Moshe reminding the people of how when the Law was first given he was unable to personally deal with every dispute. At the time, he appointed a tier system of judges over specific population sizes to work with the people. Moshe would serve, in a sense, as the equivalent of the Supreme Court (sans the politics), as the highest arbiter of the law, whose decisions are final.
It is worth noting that the way Moshe describes what he did at the time is mostly a reflection of the steps he took following the advice given to him by his father-in-law Yitro in Shmot 18. The Or HaChaim uses that story to indicate the Torah's approach to learning from anyone who has wisdom to share – Yitro being a model non-Jew who was able to teach Moshe organizational skills.
In his recounting of those early days of appointing judges, Moshe recalls the instructions that were given to the initial appointees: "Listen to every dispute among your brethren, and judge honestly between each man and his brother [or] his 'ger.'" (1:16) He continues to describe how favoritism is to be avoided, whether based on wealth, looks, or some other criteria. Just judge by the book, based on the evidence presented.
In order to understand what this form of judging means, we need to understand what the term "ger" means in this context. While "ger" sometimes means "convert" or "proselyte," the fact is that one who has converted to Judaism is really supposed to be referred to as a convert for one second – at the moment of conversion. Afterwards, the person is meant to be included in the term "his brother" – because one who has joined the Jewish people is a full Jew (with a few restrictions on certain positions they may hold, which do not transfer to their children).
It could be referring to a "ger toshav" – what we might call a "righteous gentile" or a non-Jew who has opted to live with the Jewish people, abide by the 7 Noahide Laws, and accept Jewish sovereignty. This category would clearly be distinct from "his brother."
Rashi offers two interpretations. The first focuses on the word "his" (which is a one-letter suffix in Hebrew), which Rashi explains to mean "his litigant." Rashi comes to this interpretation from a play on words from the word "agur," which means one who "collects arguments" to present against him in court. This likely refers to a litigant who is classified differently than a "brother" – who comes to court to settle a friendly dispute – particularly one who comes as an adversary.
Rashi's second interpretation is that the word "ger" is a play on words on a similar word which means "where one lives" (think "gur ba'aretz"), referring to people who are dividing property, such as siblings who are splitting physical objects they inherited together.
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch expands the sphere, saying "his ger" may refer to a neighbor, or one who lives under the same roof (think apartment buildings or condo units).
What is clear from these commentaries, the 'ger' in this context seems to refer to anything but a convert.
I think the message of "his ger" is that disputes – some may be civil, some uncivil – come up with those who are fairly close to you and they should be brought before the magistrate and adjudicated.
While this may be informative as to when or in what circumstance a case is to be brought before the court, it does not instruct us as to how to go about presenting the cases best so they can be judged properly.
Which leaves us with the tale Rabbi Hertz shares in his Chumash. It is a Chassidic tale of a rabbi's wife who has a dispute with her "ozeret" (helper), who decides to present her case to a court. As she leaves the house, her husband rushes to accompany her, and when she asks him why he is coming, he says, "To provide a defense for the other woman, who will otherwise not have an advocate before the court."
The word "ger" can mean "stranger," and it can also mean "other." And the message of this tale is the message of how to judge others.
Maybe the best way to judge others is really not to judge others. But human nature is such that we always see ourselves as being right and the other person as being wrong. And we do rush to judge. And while some cases are black and white (like the shooter apprehended inColorado in the aftermath of
his horrific act), most cases between people are gray and have two sides to the
story.
And it does not matter who the other side is – whether the person is wealthy, poor, a prominent person in a community, a maid, or even a derelict. Every person has a story, every perspective should have a chance to be heard, and after all sides are presented and defended, a judgment can be made.
As we come to Tisha B'Av once again, we are reminded of the kinds of behavior that Chazal tell us brought about the destruction ofJerusalem Holy Temple Temple
by Rabbi Avi Billet
The book of Devarim begins (1:12-18) with Moshe reminding the people of how when the Law was first given he was unable to personally deal with every dispute. At the time, he appointed a tier system of judges over specific population sizes to work with the people. Moshe would serve, in a sense, as the equivalent of the Supreme Court (sans the politics), as the highest arbiter of the law, whose decisions are final.
It is worth noting that the way Moshe describes what he did at the time is mostly a reflection of the steps he took following the advice given to him by his father-in-law Yitro in Shmot 18. The Or HaChaim uses that story to indicate the Torah's approach to learning from anyone who has wisdom to share – Yitro being a model non-Jew who was able to teach Moshe organizational skills.
In his recounting of those early days of appointing judges, Moshe recalls the instructions that were given to the initial appointees: "Listen to every dispute among your brethren, and judge honestly between each man and his brother [or] his 'ger.'" (1:16) He continues to describe how favoritism is to be avoided, whether based on wealth, looks, or some other criteria. Just judge by the book, based on the evidence presented.
In order to understand what this form of judging means, we need to understand what the term "ger" means in this context. While "ger" sometimes means "convert" or "proselyte," the fact is that one who has converted to Judaism is really supposed to be referred to as a convert for one second – at the moment of conversion. Afterwards, the person is meant to be included in the term "his brother" – because one who has joined the Jewish people is a full Jew (with a few restrictions on certain positions they may hold, which do not transfer to their children).
It could be referring to a "ger toshav" – what we might call a "righteous gentile" or a non-Jew who has opted to live with the Jewish people, abide by the 7 Noahide Laws, and accept Jewish sovereignty. This category would clearly be distinct from "his brother."
Rashi offers two interpretations. The first focuses on the word "his" (which is a one-letter suffix in Hebrew), which Rashi explains to mean "his litigant." Rashi comes to this interpretation from a play on words from the word "agur," which means one who "collects arguments" to present against him in court. This likely refers to a litigant who is classified differently than a "brother" – who comes to court to settle a friendly dispute – particularly one who comes as an adversary.
Rashi's second interpretation is that the word "ger" is a play on words on a similar word which means "where one lives" (think "gur ba'aretz"), referring to people who are dividing property, such as siblings who are splitting physical objects they inherited together.
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch expands the sphere, saying "his ger" may refer to a neighbor, or one who lives under the same roof (think apartment buildings or condo units).
What is clear from these commentaries, the 'ger' in this context seems to refer to anything but a convert.
I think the message of "his ger" is that disputes – some may be civil, some uncivil – come up with those who are fairly close to you and they should be brought before the magistrate and adjudicated.
While this may be informative as to when or in what circumstance a case is to be brought before the court, it does not instruct us as to how to go about presenting the cases best so they can be judged properly.
Which leaves us with the tale Rabbi Hertz shares in his Chumash. It is a Chassidic tale of a rabbi's wife who has a dispute with her "ozeret" (helper), who decides to present her case to a court. As she leaves the house, her husband rushes to accompany her, and when she asks him why he is coming, he says, "To provide a defense for the other woman, who will otherwise not have an advocate before the court."
The word "ger" can mean "stranger," and it can also mean "other." And the message of this tale is the message of how to judge others.
Maybe the best way to judge others is really not to judge others. But human nature is such that we always see ourselves as being right and the other person as being wrong. And we do rush to judge. And while some cases are black and white (like the shooter apprehended in
And it does not matter who the other side is – whether the person is wealthy, poor, a prominent person in a community, a maid, or even a derelict. Every person has a story, every perspective should have a chance to be heard, and after all sides are presented and defended, a judgment can be made.
As we come to Tisha B'Av once again, we are reminded of the kinds of behavior that Chazal tell us brought about the destruction of
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)