The Newly Liberated Israelites Were Commanded to Live in a Just, Holy Society

By BRENT CHAIM SPODEK

Parashat Shoftim (Deuteronomy 16:18-21:9)

Looking back on their oppression at the hands of the Egyptians, the newly liberated Israelites might have said, "Never again should anyone suffer slavery and oppression at the hands of another nation." Alternately, they might have said, "Never again should we suffer slavery and oppression at the hands of another nation."

The Torah was well aware of the risk that the Israelites, preparing to take control of the Land of Israel, would simply replicate the Egyptian society under which they suffered, shifting only their place in the hierarchy from the bottom to the top. Speaking almost directly to this concern, the Torah demands that the Israelite people see the Land of Israel not as a reward, but as a proving ground. Israel is not the end of the road for them, but the beginning of the difficult work of self-governance. The Land of Israel will be the place where the Jews pursue their fundamental goal—establishing a holy society, built on justice.

In Parashat Shoftim, there are three major developments which work to mitigate the sense of complacent self-indulgence the Israelites might have felt upon reaching the Promised Land. First is the injunction to appoint magistrates and officials who will govern with justice. The rabbis understood this to mean finding a balance between following the strict interpretation of the law and approaching each individual case with openness to its particular circumstances. (Deuteronomy 16:18; Sanhedrin 32b) The pursuit of justice is a necessary condition under which the Israelites will thrive in the land. If they simply occupy it with brute force, they have achieved nothing, because the goal is to govern the Land of Israel with justice.

Beyond that, the Torah reiterates its ambition for a just society in the Land of Israel by defining the circumstances under which the Israelites might appoint a king. While the Torah acknowledges that the Israelites might wish to be like all other sovereign nations and have a king, it rejects this nationalistic mimicry, in which the goal is to have Jews in power, regardless of whether they replicate the evils of other nations. The Torah demands that the king of the Israelites be modest in his possessions and that he have a copy of the Torah with him at all times, from which he will neither deviate to the left nor to the right, so that his subservience to the law will be clear. The Torah recognizes that any petty dictator can establish power by force, but it is the rare leader than can unfailingly govern within the bounds of justice. In practical terms, the Torah's vision of human leadership might seem naively idealistic, but it makes clear the critical importance of humility for leaders who aspire to righteousness.

Finally, Parashat Shoftim demands a strange ritual to attend to a met mitzvah—the body of a murder victim found slain in the open. (Deuteronomy 21) After sacrificing a heifer, the elders of the town nearest the corpse are to declare, "Our hands did not shed the blood of this man, nor did our eyes see it done." (Deuteronomy 21:7) Although there is no suspicion that the elders of the town actually perpetrated the murder, they still must ritually proclaim they are innocent of turning this person away. Had they looked the other way and left this man to the elements, they would be as guilty as if they had committed the act themselves. (Sotah 38b, 45b) The leaders of the Land of Israel cannot simply avoid overt wrongdoing. They must also take responsibility for the unintended consequences of their actions. They are not leaders in order to govern well enough, but to do all that is necessary to create a just society.

Were it simply the Torah's goal that the Israelites be a free people in their land, there would be no need for these superogatory demands. The Israelite people could simply inhabit the land and govern as they see fit. But for the Torah, the goal of the Jewish people taking control of the Land of Israel was never simply to be free, but to prove they could live within the demands of justice. Anything less would be a failure.

Questions for Discussion

• What are some historical instances in which victims later become perpetrators? What do you think causes this? Aside from establishing laws like those in Parashat Shoftim, what are some ways to mitigate it?
• In the case of the met mitzvah, the Torah suggests that crimes of commission—actively harming someone—and crimes of omission—failing to protect someone—are in some ways equivalent. What do you think are the qualitative differences, if any, between these kinds of crimes?

Reprinted with permission from American Jewish World Service.