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 in Colorado 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 of Jerusalem and the Holy Temple. May our shift to reserving judgment until after we've heard both sides serve as a merit for us to let us see the Temple rebuilt, speedily in our days.

A Holy Nation

Parshat Yitro

by Rabbi Avi Billet


In their fundamental theology, untainted by modern, liberal thinking (the good kind), other major religions of the world claim that those who do not subscribe to their belief system, who do not accept their version of "faith," have no share in the world to come.

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life published interesting findings at the end of 2008. The subtitle of the survey results reads "Most Christians Say Non-Christian Faiths Can Lead to Salvation." While the "salvation" term does not speak of any understanding of Judaism, it is the belief in the soul's final resting place which is intriguing, for in a sense, those surveyed are using their hearts and minds to challenge their religion's dogma.

There is a debate amongst responders, however, insofar as what element of different religions brings about this heavenly result. Is it based on one's actions or one's beliefs? For those surveyed, it seems the jury is still out.

With this background, Judaism seems to be light years ahead in forward thinking, as the question of belief versus actions is no question whatsoever.

The original source (to the best of my knowledge) is the Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:1, which says "The righteous of the nations have a share in the world to come." While I don't believe the Tosefta coined the phrase "Chasidei umot ha'olam yesh lahem chelek l'olam haba" in that exact language, the term is used across the spectrum of commentators, including rishonim and acharonim, to indicate its intent regarding those people Yad Vashem honors, for example, the so-called "righteous gentiles."

Some contend that the true "righteous gentile" is a non-Jew who has accepted and lives according to the seven Noahide laws. Others suggest their righteous deeds alone are merit enough.

While I do not want to enter the discussion of "who is better?" simply because I believe no one is, I do believe our actions, most importantly, play a role in defining one's "righteousness." Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel teaches in Avot 3:17, "Study or discussions need not be the focus, because action is the focus."

In the verses leading up the spectacle of the Sinai Revelation, God tells Moshe to tell the people, "Now if you obey Me and keep My covenant, you shall be My special treasure among all nations, for all the world is Mine ('ki li kol ha'aretz'). You will be to Me ('v'atem tih'yu li') a kingdom of priests and a holy nation..."

There are two entities that "belong to God:" All of the world, and this Israelite nation. As a result of being a "special treasure," Israel has the opportunity to become a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. The implication is, however, that other nations are also considered a treasure.

Every religion has their own version of their own exceptionalism. Some ignore others' claims, and some choose to be offended by others' claims to be God's Favorite. Does it really matter, in the scheme of things, if everyone wants to think they're the best? As long as people allow others to believe as they want, to practice as they want, and to live in harmony, I don't see the harm of each group thinking they are God's chosen people.

Rabbi Obadiah Seforno writes on these verses, "You will be my special treasure, and that will distinguish you from the rest. As all the world is mine, and there is no doubt that the righteous of the nations of the world are very precious to me, your becoming a kingdom of priests is what will put you ahead of the pack. You do this through understanding and teaching every sect of mankind to call out in God's name... The Talmud (Sanhedrin 92a) says 'Just as holiness lasts forever, the nation of Israel, which is also holy, will last forever.'"

Godweb.org (a Christian website) succinctly states what prominent Christian theologians have stated in the last century about Judaism: "As the first of the world's great monotheistic traditions and the source from which the others have sprung, Judaism has an importance that far exceeds what is suggested by mere numbers… Christians have much to learn from Jews, as the Hebrew Bible is the foundational document for their own faith."

We will continue to tout the moniker that God gave us. At the same time, we must act in a manner that helps us earn the title of "Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation." The key lies in the actions we partake of, which stand as testimony to the world of what kind of people we are.

Shammai says in Avot 1:15 (two mishnehs before Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamaliel quoted above), "Say little and do much." Actions do indeed speak louder than words.

If we are to serve God and humanity in the role of this kingdom of priests we must continue to do more to deserve the title. As Rabbi Morris Joseph wrote in "Judaism as Creed and Life," "We therefore affirm, not that we are better, but that we ought to be better." This is our duty and mission, and the goal we must continue to set for ourselves.

Midwives, and how they relate to Hebrews

You can also see this in the Jewish Star

Parsha: Midwives of the Hebrews
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Issue of January 8 2010/ 22 Tevet 5770

The first major attempt to stem the tide of Israelite growth consisted of Paroh ordering midwives to kill male babies at birth. Commentators identify the two midwives with whom he shares his nefarious plot as the “heads of the Department of Midwifery.”

“The king of Egypt said to the [Hebrew] midwives [of the Hebrews], whose names were Shifra and Puah.” (1:15) Whether they are Hebrew midwives — themselves Israelites, or midwives of the Hebrews — themselves Egyptians, depends on how one defines the term “M’yaldot ha’Ivriyot.”

In “The Living Torah,” Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan summarizes the two possibilities: “Some say that these midwives were Israelites (Rashbam), and Talmudic tradition associates them with Yocheved [Moshe’s mother] and Miriam or Elisheva (Sotah 11b). Others say that the midwives were Egyptian (Malbim; Josephus)…”

Abravanel and Kli Yakar also define them as Egyptians, and Kli Yakar supports his assessment with the depiction of their actions in 1:17: “The midwives feared G-d, and did not do as the Egyptian king had ordered them. They allowed the infant boys to live.” He asks, rhetorically, were they Israelites, would the Torah have to tell us they feared G-d?

More to the point, and using logic, Rabbi J.H. Hertz writes in his commentary, “It is hardly probable that the king would have expected Hebrew women to slay the children of their own people.”

As many authorities define these midwives as the “chief midwives,” it is hard to understand, in a practical sense, how Miriam, Moshe’s older sister, or Elisheva, Aharon’s wife, could have been one of the chief midwives. According to the Pesikta Rabati 43, Miriam was 6 years old at the time her parents reunited, which would make her anywhere between age 3 and age 6 or 7 when she spoke to Paroh. Aharon was 3 years older than Moshe; so saying that his wife, Yocheved’s daughter-in-law, is working alongside her is also very difficult to accept as the reality [though, I guess, as Yocheved married her nephew Amram, and was presumably significantly older than him, who is to say that Elisheva might not have similarly robbed the cradle?].

According to those who identify Shifrah and Puah as Yocheved and Miriam, there are debates as to why they took on these second names, what the names mean, and which one was actually Shifrah and which one was Puah. Suffice to say, the entire re-identification of these two women leaves much unanswered.

Perhaps the approach of Kli Yakar, Abravanel and Malbim is the most logical. It is very likely that women who became and become midwives do so because of their desire to participate in creation on a regular basis. A person who is so in tune to the miracle of childbirth cannot help becoming G-d-fearing.

Is it the least bit surprising that midwives, who have devoted their lives and careers to bringing life into the world, would do anything but preserve it? Do they need to be Hebrew midwives in order to do that? Or might they just have a monopoly on servicing the Jewish community, because word gets around about how good they are?

Using a contemporary example, from the depths of the horrors of the Holocaust, Yad Vashem has made extreme efforts to find and showcase the “righteous gentiles” who put their lives at risk to save Jewish people during the Second World War. Not every person living in a culture of depravity is automatically as bad as the majority.

If Shifrah and Puah were Egyptians who feared G-d, we need not “cover” for their righteous actions by claiming them to be two of our own. They were women who loved babies, cared deeply about their clients and their profession, and would not give in to the awful demands of a totalitarian ruler — who was not monitoring their activities anyway.

Rabbi Kaplan concludes with a third opinion: “One source states that the midwives were proselytes (Midrash Tadshe 21).” While the premise still finds a need to claim Shifrah and Puah as “two of our own,” so to speak, this Midrash unpacks a greater message than the one which identifies the midwives as the mother and sister of the human deliverer.

The prophet Zechariah (8:23) prophesies of a day when “Ten men of all the languages of the earth will grab hold of the cloak of a Jew and say ‘We will go with you, for we have heard G-d is with you.’”

The prophet Micha (4:2) prophesied along similar lines “When many nations will say, ‘Let us go up to the House of Hashem and the house of the G-d of Jacob. Let Him show us his ways, so we may follow His path. From Zion will Torah go forth, and the word of Hashem from Jerusalem.’”

If we conduct ourselves correctly, based on the teachings of the Torah and our ancestors, others will come to recognize the beauty of our G-d and our religion on their own and may even join our ranks of their own volition.