Parshat Vayigash
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Shortly after revealing himself to his brothers, Yosef tells them that “It has already been two years of famine throughout the land, but there will be five more years where there will be no plowing and [no] harvest.” (45:6)
Why doesn’t he just say there will be no food? Ramban translates Yosef’s statement here to mean exactly that. But if that’s what Yosef meant, why didn’t he just say it? Furthermore, why mention both? Isn’t it obvious that if you’re not plowing, you won’t be harvesting?
Showing posts with label interpretation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label interpretation. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Friday, December 12, 2014
Of Butler(s) and Baker(s)
Parshat Vayeshev
by Rabbi Avi Billet
After
discovering questions that never bothered me before, and using certain learning
skills acquired in classes taught by the late Rabbi Mordechai Breuer, a new
approach to the tale of the dreams Yosef interprets at the end of our parsha became
apparent. Wonderfully, some of these ideas are also shared by Abravanel and Alshikh
(and others) – both of whose interpretations of chapter 40 are essential.
When
the Torah describes for us the circumstances surrounding Pharaoh’s sending his
servants into prison, the verses become inexplicably repetitive.
1.
The king of Egypt’s butler
and the baker sin to their master, the king of Egypt.
2.
Pharaoh gets angry at his
two officers: the officer of the butlers, and the officer of the bakers.
3.
He placed them in the
holding cell (mishmar) of the officer of butchers, to the prison (beit hasohar)
where Yosef is imprisoned.
4.
The officer of butchers
appointed Yosef [to be] with them, and he served them, while they spent days
[yamim] in the holding cell [mishmar]
5.
The two of them dreamed a
dream, each his own dream, and each his interpretation, the butler and the baker
of the king of Egypt, who are imprisoned in the prison (beit hasohar).
6.
Yosef came to them in the
morning and saw they were perturbed.
7.
And he asked the officers
of Pharaoh, that were with him in the holding cell (mishmar) of the house of
his master saying, “Why are your faces so upset today?”
The
most notable changes in the text from verse to verse are a. the difference
between referring to the singular baker and butler (verses 1,5) and the “officers
over many” (verses 2,7), b. the sin (verse 1) vs. Pharaoh’s anger (verse 2), c.
the location of imprisonment – a beit hasohar (2nd half of 3, 5) vs.
a mishmar (1st half of 3, 4, 7), d. the nature of the prison
location – beit hasohar is where Yosef was at the end of chapter 39, while the
mishmar seems to be a private prison in the house of the officer of butchers –
Yosef’s former master, e. those who work for the king of Egypt (verses 1,5) vs.
those who have a relationship with Pharaoh (verses 2,7).
I am
unfamiliar with Rabbi Breuer’s teachings on this chapter. But I would imagine
his either saying there are two aspects (shtei bechinot) to what is going on
here or two different strings of action. If two aspects – one is on the micro
level in terms of what happened to two specific workers, while the macro is the
significance for the future of the nation of Israel, when Yosef, who is
destined to be king, approaches people who are light years ahead of him
politically, but who will be serving him (if they survive) within a short time.
If
there are two different strings of action, there is a single butler and a
single baker, each from a full team of butlers and bakers, who sinned in some
manner against the king. They are thrown into a prison for political prisoners,
one from which there is theoretically no escape. Their overseers, officers, are
also punished (after all, they bear responsibility for the flaws of their
underlings), but are sent to a minimum security place called a mishmar. Because
the mishmar is in Yosef’s master’s home, and because the officers were high
ranking, the officer of butchers wants them to be pampered while in prison, so
he takes Yosef out of the inescapable jail (beit hasohar) in order to be in the
minimum security place (mishmar) from which cases are heard and people are
given a chance at being reinstated to their former positions.
There
are certainly commentators who will suggest this whole exercise is a waste of
time because the butler and the baker are the same persons as the Officer of
the Butlers and the Officer of the Bakers.
And yet
a careful study of the verses does leave one wondering why there is so much
repetition. Was Yosef wrong, and therefore punished by God, on account of
asking the Officer of Butlers to remember him to Pharaoh? Or was his request
reasonable, and the Officer of Butlers forgot (as people often do) in the heat
of the moment? Was the timing perhaps not right for Yosef to get out of prison?
Had he gone out then, what options would have been before him? To work for
Potiphar (not great, on numerous levels), to work for someone else (also not
great), to go home (??? – what makes him think Pharaoh would ever send him
home?). All options would have played against his getting a direct audience
with Pharaoh and being subsequently appointed as viceroy. And remember that the
main reason he gets that audience is because the officer of Butlers remembers
him to Pharaoh.
Whether
there are two aspects to the tale, or two strings of action, the consideration
that Yosef did everything correctly and that he was not a victim of
circumstance any more than he was a tool in God’s Divine Plan needs revisiting.
We don’t necessarily know why Yosef is thrown in a pit by his brothers and
later into a prison-pit. But all of his adventures were meant to harden him and
train him to be capable of rising to the position of viceroy when he was ready.
This is the story of our people. Sometimes we look at events in our lives, and they don’t make sense. Or on our own micro level, they are difficult to comprehend. But if we can recall that we are all pieces of a much more macro image of the story of the Jewish people, perhaps we can sense that our lives matter, and that all the pitfalls and trials we undergo are cogs in the great wheel that will ultimately make our people ready to embrace the Final Redemption.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Shelo Asani Ishah Part I - Needing Better Hasbara
This is the first of two essays on this topic. Part II can be found here
In Israel, the term "hasbara" refers to "Good P.R." (Public Relations). When something looks bad to skeptical observers, good "hasbara" explains the rationale behind decisions and actions taken.
In essence, hasbara is a form of being a spinmeister - either to explain the unexplainable or to clarify a major misunderstanding.
Judaism has a lot of explaining to do. Not because our religion or its practices need defense (maybe it does, sometimes), but because there is a tremendous amount of misunderstanding. People may read a passage, in context, and even moreso out of context, and draw their own conclusions about what things mean.
The Talmud (and other Jewish books) were burned in 1242 because of misunderstandings in the Talmud (this is a very simple explanation, I know), causing the loss of hundreds of years of scholarship. Remember that pre-printing press all copies of books were hand copied, with no typeset and molds to reprint lost editions.
She'lo Asani Isha
I know this is a loaded topic. But I am going to give a new stab at it. With no apologetics.
A number of years ago I came across Joel Wolowelsky's book about women in Jewish life (I don't have the book, but I imagine it was probably "Women, Jewish Law and Modernity: New Opportunities in a Post-Feminist Age"). He has a section in the book entitled "The Silent Bracha" in which he argues that the blessing recited in the morning prayers "Blessed are you God... that He did not make me a woman" should be recited silently in the synagogue.
The crux of the argument included the idea that since more and more women attend the synagogue, when they are present they are forced to answer Amen to such an insensitive denigrating blessing. To affirm that they are inferior. (I am not quoting verbatim - just as memory serves me, or perhaps as my own interpretation is taking the argument.)
This, of course, is more than insensitive - it is offensive.
An Impossibility
Is it really possible that the authors of such a blessing were unaware that half of the population are women? Can we accept the premise that the rabbis who put together the prayer book were so dumb they wouldn't realize women would read and understand this blessing and become incensed? Can you imagine them going home to their wives that evening
- "Honey, what did you do today?"
- "It was incredible. We composed the opening blessings of the prayer book. We bless God for the most incredible gifts He has given us. For giving us the ability to see, to wake up, to stand, for shoes, clothing etc."
- "Sounds really nice, dear."
- "Oh. And..."
- "Was there another blessing?"
- "Uhhhhh...."
- "Come on! You can tell me. I promise I won't get upset!"
- "Thank you for not making me a woman! You understand, honey. I don't want to be what you are. You repulse me! That's why we made such a blessing."
- she hits him over the head with a vase
Seems ludicrous! And yet I still remember the anger of the woman who said to me, "I will never forgive a religion that has such a blessing in its liturgy" (OK. Those weren't her exact words - but that was her point.)
As such, I feel this bracha needs better hasbara. It really gets a bad rap.
The Drama Man inside of me
As an actor, I often question what is the correct "dramatic reading" of statements which are supposed to be spoken. I ask this question when characters in the Bible speak, and I ask it here as well. What is the intention of the speaker? What information does the speaker have? What influences what the speaker says?
To put it a different way, the blessing could have just as easily read "She'asani Ish" - for having made me a man.
The fact that it is written in the negative, blessing for "not being a woman," is suggestive, and requires of us to think why these words were chosen and what was their original intention.
Blessing, not "Thank you"
We give blessings for all kinds of things, whether we appreciate them or not. It is the way of a Jew to bless God.
But this is not "thank you." This statement in thanks form could be offensive - "Thank GOD that I am not a woman." But that is not the blessing. The blessing is "Blessed are you God, that He did not make me a woman."
Bad Hasbara
The first interpretation of this blessing I ever heard was this: (Warning, if you are easily offended, skip to the next subtitle.)
"Women do things that men are not capable of doing. For example, childbirth. Men thank God for not having given them this responsibility, for having spared them this difficulty and painful experience."
What a pathetic explanation! I could go on a whole tirade of how the birth experience is something many women would not trade in for the world. The fact that birthing has become a medical procedure in this country (USA) (emergencies not withstanding) is a stain on the natural birth process that women could be experiencing.
Besides, how lame is a man for thinking such a thing, and even more so for saying such a thing.
Those men among us who are married and have children know all too well (and if not, here is your
wake up call) of how amazing our wives are for going through this, so we can share in parenthood. We know we could never do it. But we don't bless God for not putting us through labor. We thank God for giving us our wives.
The Apologist Answer
A different approach is the apologetic one. "The female is the stronger sex. They can handle being female. I could never handle being female. I couldn't live up to it. Bless God for not having made me a woman. I would be the most pathetic woman."
I don't think I could find a bigger loser than the person who reads the blessing this way. Be a man! Be proud of who you are and of what you are!
A Better Approach
Up until recently, this next approach was the one I favored. I heard it first from Rabbi Ephraim Z. Buchwald, the founder of the National Jewish Outreach Program, and then saw a similar explanation in the Artscroll siddur.
Look at the blessing in context. It appears as the climax of three blessings that are worded in a similar way: "Blessed are you, Lord, our God, king of the Universe, that He did not make me a..." The three blessings conclude, in this order: a gentile, a servant/slave, a woman. As the three blessings are worded the same way, they are now poetry, and not meant to be viewed in an offensive manner.
The nice interpretation is that these are a progression. Each has a different level of obligations in Judaism - the gentile has 7 commandments, the servant/slave has more, and the Jewish woman still has even more. But even the Jewish woman is not obligated in all of the commandments. So the man blesses "For that He did not make me a woman" who is not obligated in as many commandments.
In other words, I am commanded to manifest my relationship with God through the active role I take in physically fulfilling commandments.
Some will argue women are naturally more spiritual (which is probably true). Some will say women should have equal obligations (to fulfill time-bound commandments) as men. Maybe they should. This is not the platform for having that discussion right now. The point is that in the status quo, a man is blessing God for having given him the opportunity to have obligations and to be able to fulfill commandments through his actions.
The Artscroll siddur takes it a step further in defining natural impulses of men as being negative, and the natural impulses of women as being positive, leaving a fairly logical explanation in its wake, which the reader may take or leave. (see the commentary on page 19 and 20, in the standard Hebrew English edition of the Artscroll siddur)
One More Stab At It
Up until now, every interpretation has started with the explanation "I am thanking God for not having been made a woman who is..." the stronger sex, the better sex, the less obligated sex.
The Talmud Brachot (33b, 54a, 60b) says "a person must make a blessing over bad things, just as one makes a blessing over good things..."
Hold that thought a moment...
The fact of the matter is that there is a set blessing for both men and women. Women say "Blessed are you, Lord our God, King of the Universe, that He made me according to His will."
If I were to make something "according to my will," the object I would make would be the absolute best, the most perfect, without flaw and error. Everyone would look upon this and say "Wow you really put a lot of work and love into this. You wanted this to be perfect." And I would say "You're right."
In other words, this blessing sounds like women are made perfect.
As a mohel, one of the reasons I give for why women are not circumcised (aside from the obvious reason), is because God wanted man to "correct himself" in order to become "Tamim" - complete, perfect. God told Abraham when he commanded him regarding circumcision, "Walk before Me and become תמים - perfect/complete."
As a woman was never given this commandment, obviously she does not need correction, she is already complete. In other words, she is perfect. (Meaning, with all the flaws that humans have, but nonetheless - there is an element of perfection in her creation.)
So what is the man saying?
A New Hasbara
"God, you did not make me a woman. You made me something else, and there are all kinds of things that I need to do to overcome desires and to correct and improve myself. Sometimes I need commandments to help me do this. I need to pray harder and I need to work harder because spirituality and a connection to You does not come as easily as it does to a woman. This is hard. This is rough. But this is the way You made it. And so I bless You, for Your eternal wisdom. You know there need to be men on this earth as well - and so You made me - just not a female, Your vision of perfection."
I am not suggesting that being a male is a bad thing. But I am saying that whether a person is male or female, we might bless God for what we are, or for what we are not.
And if we can walk around without a chip on our shoulders, and make a conscious effort to find better hasbara, we may find that those old rabbis had a little more sense than we sometimes give them credit for.
We just have to learn to think as they did.
Shelo Asani Ishah Part II is here
In Israel, the term "hasbara" refers to "Good P.R." (Public Relations). When something looks bad to skeptical observers, good "hasbara" explains the rationale behind decisions and actions taken.
In essence, hasbara is a form of being a spinmeister - either to explain the unexplainable or to clarify a major misunderstanding.
Judaism has a lot of explaining to do. Not because our religion or its practices need defense (maybe it does, sometimes), but because there is a tremendous amount of misunderstanding. People may read a passage, in context, and even moreso out of context, and draw their own conclusions about what things mean.
The Talmud (and other Jewish books) were burned in 1242 because of misunderstandings in the Talmud (this is a very simple explanation, I know), causing the loss of hundreds of years of scholarship. Remember that pre-printing press all copies of books were hand copied, with no typeset and molds to reprint lost editions.
She'lo Asani Isha
I know this is a loaded topic. But I am going to give a new stab at it. With no apologetics.
A number of years ago I came across Joel Wolowelsky's book about women in Jewish life (I don't have the book, but I imagine it was probably "Women, Jewish Law and Modernity: New Opportunities in a Post-Feminist Age"). He has a section in the book entitled "The Silent Bracha" in which he argues that the blessing recited in the morning prayers "Blessed are you God... that He did not make me a woman" should be recited silently in the synagogue.
The crux of the argument included the idea that since more and more women attend the synagogue, when they are present they are forced to answer Amen to such an insensitive denigrating blessing. To affirm that they are inferior. (I am not quoting verbatim - just as memory serves me, or perhaps as my own interpretation is taking the argument.)
This, of course, is more than insensitive - it is offensive.
An Impossibility
Is it really possible that the authors of such a blessing were unaware that half of the population are women? Can we accept the premise that the rabbis who put together the prayer book were so dumb they wouldn't realize women would read and understand this blessing and become incensed? Can you imagine them going home to their wives that evening
- "Honey, what did you do today?"
- "It was incredible. We composed the opening blessings of the prayer book. We bless God for the most incredible gifts He has given us. For giving us the ability to see, to wake up, to stand, for shoes, clothing etc."
- "Sounds really nice, dear."
- "Oh. And..."
- "Was there another blessing?"
- "Uhhhhh...."
- "Come on! You can tell me. I promise I won't get upset!"
- "Thank you for not making me a woman! You understand, honey. I don't want to be what you are. You repulse me! That's why we made such a blessing."
- she hits him over the head with a vase
Seems ludicrous! And yet I still remember the anger of the woman who said to me, "I will never forgive a religion that has such a blessing in its liturgy" (OK. Those weren't her exact words - but that was her point.)
As such, I feel this bracha needs better hasbara. It really gets a bad rap.
The Drama Man inside of me
As an actor, I often question what is the correct "dramatic reading" of statements which are supposed to be spoken. I ask this question when characters in the Bible speak, and I ask it here as well. What is the intention of the speaker? What information does the speaker have? What influences what the speaker says?
To put it a different way, the blessing could have just as easily read "She'asani Ish" - for having made me a man.
The fact that it is written in the negative, blessing for "not being a woman," is suggestive, and requires of us to think why these words were chosen and what was their original intention.
Blessing, not "Thank you"
We give blessings for all kinds of things, whether we appreciate them or not. It is the way of a Jew to bless God.
But this is not "thank you." This statement in thanks form could be offensive - "Thank GOD that I am not a woman." But that is not the blessing. The blessing is "Blessed are you God, that He did not make me a woman."
Bad Hasbara
The first interpretation of this blessing I ever heard was this: (Warning, if you are easily offended, skip to the next subtitle.)
"Women do things that men are not capable of doing. For example, childbirth. Men thank God for not having given them this responsibility, for having spared them this difficulty and painful experience."
What a pathetic explanation! I could go on a whole tirade of how the birth experience is something many women would not trade in for the world. The fact that birthing has become a medical procedure in this country (USA) (emergencies not withstanding) is a stain on the natural birth process that women could be experiencing.
Besides, how lame is a man for thinking such a thing, and even more so for saying such a thing.
Those men among us who are married and have children know all too well (and if not, here is your
wake up call) of how amazing our wives are for going through this, so we can share in parenthood. We know we could never do it. But we don't bless God for not putting us through labor. We thank God for giving us our wives.
The Apologist Answer
A different approach is the apologetic one. "The female is the stronger sex. They can handle being female. I could never handle being female. I couldn't live up to it. Bless God for not having made me a woman. I would be the most pathetic woman."
I don't think I could find a bigger loser than the person who reads the blessing this way. Be a man! Be proud of who you are and of what you are!
A Better Approach
Up until recently, this next approach was the one I favored. I heard it first from Rabbi Ephraim Z. Buchwald, the founder of the National Jewish Outreach Program, and then saw a similar explanation in the Artscroll siddur.
Look at the blessing in context. It appears as the climax of three blessings that are worded in a similar way: "Blessed are you, Lord, our God, king of the Universe, that He did not make me a..." The three blessings conclude, in this order: a gentile, a servant/slave, a woman. As the three blessings are worded the same way, they are now poetry, and not meant to be viewed in an offensive manner.
The nice interpretation is that these are a progression. Each has a different level of obligations in Judaism - the gentile has 7 commandments, the servant/slave has more, and the Jewish woman still has even more. But even the Jewish woman is not obligated in all of the commandments. So the man blesses "For that He did not make me a woman" who is not obligated in as many commandments.
In other words, I am commanded to manifest my relationship with God through the active role I take in physically fulfilling commandments.
Some will argue women are naturally more spiritual (which is probably true). Some will say women should have equal obligations (to fulfill time-bound commandments) as men. Maybe they should. This is not the platform for having that discussion right now. The point is that in the status quo, a man is blessing God for having given him the opportunity to have obligations and to be able to fulfill commandments through his actions.
The Artscroll siddur takes it a step further in defining natural impulses of men as being negative, and the natural impulses of women as being positive, leaving a fairly logical explanation in its wake, which the reader may take or leave. (see the commentary on page 19 and 20, in the standard Hebrew English edition of the Artscroll siddur)
One More Stab At It
Up until now, every interpretation has started with the explanation "I am thanking God for not having been made a woman who is..." the stronger sex, the better sex, the less obligated sex.
The Talmud Brachot (33b, 54a, 60b) says "a person must make a blessing over bad things, just as one makes a blessing over good things..."
Hold that thought a moment...
The fact of the matter is that there is a set blessing for both men and women. Women say "Blessed are you, Lord our God, King of the Universe, that He made me according to His will."
If I were to make something "according to my will," the object I would make would be the absolute best, the most perfect, without flaw and error. Everyone would look upon this and say "Wow you really put a lot of work and love into this. You wanted this to be perfect." And I would say "You're right."
In other words, this blessing sounds like women are made perfect.
As a mohel, one of the reasons I give for why women are not circumcised (aside from the obvious reason), is because God wanted man to "correct himself" in order to become "Tamim" - complete, perfect. God told Abraham when he commanded him regarding circumcision, "Walk before Me and become תמים - perfect/complete."
As a woman was never given this commandment, obviously she does not need correction, she is already complete. In other words, she is perfect. (Meaning, with all the flaws that humans have, but nonetheless - there is an element of perfection in her creation.)
So what is the man saying?
A New Hasbara
"God, you did not make me a woman. You made me something else, and there are all kinds of things that I need to do to overcome desires and to correct and improve myself. Sometimes I need commandments to help me do this. I need to pray harder and I need to work harder because spirituality and a connection to You does not come as easily as it does to a woman. This is hard. This is rough. But this is the way You made it. And so I bless You, for Your eternal wisdom. You know there need to be men on this earth as well - and so You made me - just not a female, Your vision of perfection."
I am not suggesting that being a male is a bad thing. But I am saying that whether a person is male or female, we might bless God for what we are, or for what we are not.
And if we can walk around without a chip on our shoulders, and make a conscious effort to find better hasbara, we may find that those old rabbis had a little more sense than we sometimes give them credit for.
We just have to learn to think as they did.
Shelo Asani Ishah Part II is here
Monday, August 24, 2009
It's Good to Be the King
Thursday night's class was hosted by one of our regular attendees - Jon G. A new host is always a welcome addition to our list of sponsors. Thanks to all who attended and continue to attend our "Beer and Shiur, + Cholent!"
The Torah gives every indication that the commandment to appoint a king is a secondary one - in other words, if there comes a point when you really need a king, this is how you appoint him. Towards the end of our discussion we raised a number of other commandments that fit this category - they come about based on a personal decision.
[To bring this home through a very topical current event discussion, we can relate this to the suggestion that a man (for example) who chooses to smoke should be obligated to pay for his own health care. He doesn't have to take care of his problems, but now that his choice to smoke has given him lung cancer, here is how he can personally go about getting the care he needs.]
Included in that portion of the discussion were how to bring certain voluntary offerings (korbanos) (Vayikra 1:2-3; 22:18-19); How to deal with a wife suspeted of infidelity (Bamidbar 5); How to become close to God through asceticism as a Nazir (Bamidbar 6); to remember it is God who grants you wealth and success - in case you forget (Devarim 8); how to eat meat, should you desire to (Devarim 12:20-21); What to do when a person finds an abandoned maiden on the enemy battlefield (Devarim 21:10-14); How to end a marriage through divorce (Devarim 24:1).
There are more, of course, and they all differ from regularly "commanded" mitzvos, in that the persons are given instructions how to proceed in the event they choose to follow through a form of action. Is a man required to turn his wife into a Sotah? Is there a command to become a Nazir? Must a person eat meat? Does a man have to bring a maiden home from battle? Is there a requirement for all marriages to end in divorce?
Clearly the answer to all of these question is NO. And the same applies to the question of appointing a king. It is not required, but there are rules should the nation choose to go in that direction.
Devarim 17
14 When you come to the land that God your Lord is giving you, so that you have occupied it and settled it, you will eventually say, 'We would like to appoint a king upon us, just like all the nations around us.' 15 You must then appoint the king
a. whom God your Lord shall choose. You must appoint a king
b. from among your brethren; you may not appoint a foreigner who is not one of your brethren. 16 [The king,] however,
c. must not accumulate many horses, so as not to bring the people back to Egypt to get more horses. God has told you that you must never again return on that path. 17 He [also]
d. must not have many wives, so that they not make his heart go astray.
e. He shall likewise not accumulate very much silver and gold. 18 When [the king] is established on his royal throne,
f. he must write a copy of this Torah as a scroll edited by the Leviticus priests. 19 [This scroll] must always be with him, and he shall read from it all the days of his life. He will then learn to be in awe of God his Lord, and carefully keep every word of this Torah and these rules.
The Torah gives every indication that the commandment to appoint a king is a secondary one - in other words, if there comes a point when you really need a king, this is how you appoint him. Towards the end of our discussion we raised a number of other commandments that fit this category - they come about based on a personal decision.
[To bring this home through a very topical current event discussion, we can relate this to the suggestion that a man (for example) who chooses to smoke should be obligated to pay for his own health care. He doesn't have to take care of his problems, but now that his choice to smoke has given him lung cancer, here is how he can personally go about getting the care he needs.]
Included in that portion of the discussion were how to bring certain voluntary offerings (korbanos) (Vayikra 1:2-3; 22:18-19); How to deal with a wife suspeted of infidelity (Bamidbar 5); How to become close to God through asceticism as a Nazir (Bamidbar 6); to remember it is God who grants you wealth and success - in case you forget (Devarim 8); how to eat meat, should you desire to (Devarim 12:20-21); What to do when a person finds an abandoned maiden on the enemy battlefield (Devarim 21:10-14); How to end a marriage through divorce (Devarim 24:1).
There are more, of course, and they all differ from regularly "commanded" mitzvos, in that the persons are given instructions how to proceed in the event they choose to follow through a form of action. Is a man required to turn his wife into a Sotah? Is there a command to become a Nazir? Must a person eat meat? Does a man have to bring a maiden home from battle? Is there a requirement for all marriages to end in divorce?
Clearly the answer to all of these question is NO. And the same applies to the question of appointing a king. It is not required, but there are rules should the nation choose to go in that direction.
Devarim 17
14 When you come to the land that God your Lord is giving you, so that you have occupied it and settled it, you will eventually say, 'We would like to appoint a king upon us, just like all the nations around us.' 15 You must then appoint the king
a. whom God your Lord shall choose. You must appoint a king
b. from among your brethren; you may not appoint a foreigner who is not one of your brethren. 16 [The king,] however,
c. must not accumulate many horses, so as not to bring the people back to Egypt to get more horses. God has told you that you must never again return on that path. 17 He [also]
d. must not have many wives, so that they not make his heart go astray.
e. He shall likewise not accumulate very much silver and gold. 18 When [the king] is established on his royal throne,
f. he must write a copy of this Torah as a scroll edited by the Leviticus priests. 19 [This scroll] must always be with him, and he shall read from it all the days of his life. He will then learn to be in awe of God his Lord, and carefully keep every word of this Torah and these rules.
f1. 20 He will then [also] not begin to feel superior to his brethren, and
f2. he will not stray from the mandate to the right or the left. He and his descendants will thus have a long reign in the midst of Israel.
[More on the way this is divided at the end]
The first phrase "We would like to appoint a king upon us, just like all the nations around us" reads in Hebrew אשימה עלי מלך. The good translation indicates a subservience to the king, that the people are, in some way, to be under his dominion. However, they are equivalent to him in their relationhip to God.
The problem comes up in the first encounter leadership has with the people who are looking to appoint a king.
In Samuel I 8, the people ask for a king לנו - for us - which indicates a desire to have a puppet regime. There are other indicators over the next few chapters (Sam. I 9-12) that this is what they saught - not for someone to rule over them, but to be of use for them, to fight wars and to solve all problems.
The Jewish way always was for the king to keep a careful balance between being king, while being subject to the same king of the Jewish people, namely God. We can never put all our hopes in one man. Even one great man is merely a tool of the Almighty.
When you look at the seven rules of kingship highlighted above, an examination of Samuel I Chapter 9 gives an indication that Saul had most of the qualities. That he did not posess all of them suggests he may have been good, but not perfect. Destined for greatness, yet doomed to fail.
f2. he will not stray from the mandate to the right or the left. He and his descendants will thus have a long reign in the midst of Israel.
[More on the way this is divided at the end]
The first phrase "We would like to appoint a king upon us, just like all the nations around us" reads in Hebrew אשימה עלי מלך. The good translation indicates a subservience to the king, that the people are, in some way, to be under his dominion. However, they are equivalent to him in their relationhip to God.
The problem comes up in the first encounter leadership has with the people who are looking to appoint a king.
In Samuel I 8, the people ask for a king לנו - for us - which indicates a desire to have a puppet regime. There are other indicators over the next few chapters (Sam. I 9-12) that this is what they saught - not for someone to rule over them, but to be of use for them, to fight wars and to solve all problems.
The Jewish way always was for the king to keep a careful balance between being king, while being subject to the same king of the Jewish people, namely God. We can never put all our hopes in one man. Even one great man is merely a tool of the Almighty.
When you look at the seven rules of kingship highlighted above, an examination of Samuel I Chapter 9 gives an indication that Saul had most of the qualities. That he did not posess all of them suggests he may have been good, but not perfect. Destined for greatness, yet doomed to fail.
Examining them more carefully in the context of the parsha, however, we see that of the three items the king may not gather in excess, horses, wives and money, only the latter is not given a specific reason directly in the text. Rabbenu Bachye says the statement categorized as "f1"(above) is the reason why he may not have too much money: to prevent him from feeling superior to his brethren - לבלתי רום לבבו מאחיו.
How does a king become wealthy? Through taxation. If he is not meant to have too much money, perhaps the message to the king is one of the following:
A. If you do tax your brethren, the children of Israel, you must deliver it back to them so you do not feel superior, or have your heart flutter away from their plights.
B. You may not overtax them, because the money they have is the money they have earned. Obviously you will tax them to support the lifestyle you are entitled to live as a king, and to protect them militarily, but you may not be spendthrift with their money.
Isn't the Torah beautiful? Of the last two interpretations offered, the former suggests the monarchy of the Israelite king had to run a government with socialist economics, spreading the wealth around and making everyone equal.
The latter interpretation suggests the monarchy ran a capitalist economy, with small government and lower taxes, to boost the economy. While it gave the king wealth, he was held in check from beoming an autocrat or a pompous dictator, due to the divine limitations set on the position.
Which economic system did they employ?
I wonder...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)