|
Parashat Shoftim
Authority: Between
Belonging and Freedom
Translated
from Hebrew by S. NAthan
l'ilui nishmat Esther bat mordechai
No one disputes the fact that authority – in itself, authority per se` –
is an expression of belonging, of being attached. Authority is always
expressed in relation to someone, to the one who is accepting the
authority.
For some reason, the phenomenon of authority frequently encounters
resistance. This is especially true in our era of liberalism, which
preaches a selfish individualism that is specifically anti-authority. For
some reason, this particular form of individualism entails undermining all
relationships of belonging to others. It’s every man for himself, and no
one has the right to interfere in another person’s affairs. From this
perspective, authority is viewed as an attempt to dominate by force; it is
a menace, it is to be condemned in every respect.
Liberalism and the condemnation of authority tend to negate any
relationship to any person, in any form. Selfishness, wrapped in
glittering cellophane, is the most acceptable moral value. “Live and let
live:” One’s fellow has the “right” to behave in any way he sees fit, as
long as his behavior contains no direct and immediate harm to others.
The negation of authority includes as well the negation of those values
that derive from prior values that demanded an obligation of some kind,
because any obligation entails accepting the authority of the principle
that demanded the obligation. Here we see that the negation of authority
is accompanied by a negation of values, and more importantly, it is
accompanied by the negation of the need to educate for values. “Every man
shall do what is right in his eyes.”
Authority of Responsibility
AS Opposed To
Authority of Brute Force
It is not without reason that authority is given an attitude of “respect
it but suspect it”, in that it tends toward brute force by its very
nature. Power corrupts. Shoftim is the parasha that deals with
authority.
One of the topics that takes up a significant amount of space in our
parasha is the subject of the king, for the king is the prime
representation of the authority of government, and indeed the Torah places
many very direct limitations on the power of the king. These are not
limitations of an external, social, active sort, but rather mainly of an
educational nature – the monarch is perpetually bound by limitations that
penetrate to the very infrastructure of his being. A sefer Torah must
accompany him wherever he turns, including the private intimate space.
“And he shall read from it all his days, in order for him to learn to fear
God…and to keep all the words of the Torah…and these hukim, in
order to do them.”
A supreme authority, deriving from the source of absolute authority,
legislates his behavior and obligates him in all areas of activity, both
public and private.
The Torah deals directly and unhesitatingly with the ruling authority’s
tendency to degenerate: “Let him not have many wives and let him not have
many horses, and silver and gold let him not have in very great
abundance…so that his heart will not grow haughty over his brothers.”
To counteract arrogance: A radical demand to separate the king’s royal
authority from his personal attitude, which must be free of authority, and
based upon reciprocity toward the citizens of his kingdom.
A Sense of One’s Own Selfish Authority is Arrogance.
The Only Form of Authority that is Necessary and Positive is Functional
Authority.
A total negation of authority brings with it a low self-image and a lack
of personal initiative. It hurts free choice. The result of the negative
feelings that result from a negative self-concept is the elimination of
the very basis of morality: The sense of personal responsibility toward
others.
Here we see that a feeling of authority is vital to the development of a
basis of self-respect, and in fact a basis of respect in general. A
culture that has totally negated authority is indeed characterized by a
lack of respectful attitude.
This is expressed by clothing of a neglected and ragged nature.
Supposedly civilized people are not embarrassed by their ostentatiously
neglected appearance, or by their own absence of manners, or by their lack
of appreciation for the qualities, and the qualitative differences that
are inherent in individuals. Every man is my…instrument. All eyes are
on functional achievements, and all eyes are
closed to the human being behind the act.
In the absence of any sense of the worth of one’s own humanness, a man
casts the burden of his existence on instrumental efficacy and on
professionalistic expertise. Thus with medicine, which concentrates on
the disease and ignores the patient, and thus with social activity, where
the emphasis is on politically correct behavior and the norms of
politeness, instead of empathetically identifying with another person’s
feelings. Thus too relying on the system, “grabbing hold of the altar” of
the system while ignoring the human element that is – that has ever been
and that will ever be – the essential component of any system.
A sense of selfish authority is the extreme opposite of the absence of
authority. This is a sense of selfish importance – the granting of
preference to one's own quality as opposed to and at the expense of the
qualities of the other. It is an appreciation of one’s own selfish
identity, which does not derive from any awareness of one’s own objective
substantive quality but derives rather from a never-ending comparison of
oneself with others.
It is an approach from the outside, rather than from within, which
necessarily emphasizes “doing” and ignores “being”. It is selfishness
incarnate. In order to guard his selfish sense of existence, the egoist
is obliged to fight for his existence. After all, a contemptuous, brute
force attitude toward others provokes a similar attitude in the others.
Competition then rules with a high hand: Slander and other indicators of
brute force turn a selfish society into a jungle, which makes the natural
jungle, populated by beasts only, appear a paradise in contrast to the
human hell. One climbs the ladder by humiliating others, by ignoring or
distorting their achievements. I exist. But me there is no other.
Of this one, it is written: “The haughty of heart I shall hate. I and he
cannot dwell together.” The Holy One does not hate the sinner as He hates
the arrogant one, regardless of his objective achievements.
The Torah educates for functional authority. Functional authority derives
from a sense of responsibility toward one’s Godly duty in a world that
belongs to the Holy One. Such authority dwells together in one space with
humility, ve’ish lirayayhu yomar hazak, and each reinforces and
encourages the other.
Humility, which transfers one’s sense of existence from a basis of brute
force animalistic survival, to a new direction, to a value-based goal, has
the effect of activating the anav’s qualities of creativity. This
is because the humble person does not waste his time cultivating his ego,
but is all entirely given over to cultivating the object, the other, the
duty, and all this without falling into the trap of feeling there is a
conflict between what is happening to him and what is taking place in the
field.
Human quality, moving perpetually between the survival axis and the
creative self’s axis, opens one up to a new ability: The ability to
simultaneously function out of a feeling of responsibility towards the
other (a responsibility that entails authority, as mentioned) and a
feeling of bitul hayesh (self-nullification, meaning
selfishness-nullification, i.e. ego-nullification; bitul hayesh is
not a nullification of the inner authentic self but of the ego) at the
same time.
In this way, the anav is capable of focusing on the situation that
requires his involvement, and to judge it with full objectivity, without
becoming entangled in conflicts of interest between himself and the
other. Thus “the judge who will be in those days” will be capable of
judging his fellow justly, by using the same yardstick with which he is
required to judge himself.
“Justice, justice, shall you pursue.” It is one justice, whether
for oneself or for one’s fellow. There is no double standard. When
there is no ego to muddle one’s line of reasoning, the humble person is
immunized against the temptations of bribery, favoritism, bending the law,
and all other distortions that come in the wake of the blurring of
boundaries between ego and self.
Judgment that is free of personal involvement is capable of making
distinctions between the different values that comprise a given
situation. It can distinguish between form and content, between outer
impression and real substance, between esthetics and meaningful content.
“Do not plant an ashera for yourself” is a prohibition against
placing the emphasis on esthetics, as all the other religions do,
according to the explanation of the Ramban.
the need for objective components in
order to build authority
The need for the authority of the court, for the authority of the judge –
is a need for an authority that is supported by the yardstick of
objectivity: “By the testimony of two witnesses.” By the court: “And you
will get up and go forth to the place that God shall choose.” This is
God’s own authority.
Yet still, it is an authority that keeps its own independence: “Not in
heaven is it.” Not in heaven is the Torah, but rather right here in the
court of halachic debate. Yet still, the fragrance of humility permeates
it: “ ‘To the judge who will be in those days.’ You have no one else
except the judge who is in your own days. Yiftah in his generation is
like Shmuel in his generation.” Meaning, equally authoritative in
relation to his contemporaries, his spiritual stature in comparison with
his predecessors notwithsanding.
The mitsva of lo tasur, “you must not stray from everything that
they instruct you – neither to the right nor to the left” applies in every
generation. It is the Divine authority.
From the point of view of authority, the greatest test for both sides (for
both the wielder of authority and for the obeyer of authority) is actually
the relationship to the priest. On the one hand, “you shall come to the
priests, the Levites.” On the other hand, “the priests, the Levites will
not have a portion and a landholding with Yisrael.”
The authority that draws its value from its Godly origins, finds
paradoxically that its own existence is dependent upon the priestly gifts;
it has no hold on the solid ground of reality. “And no landholding shall
he have, within the midst of his brothers. God is his holding.”
If a corollary of this statement would have been that God also supports
him, it might be understandable. However, if his existence within
physical reality is dependent upon the priestly gifts, and if we remember
the halacha that enables landowners to choose the priest according to
their own liking, this means that considerable emotional and intellectual
effort is demanded of both sides, in order to control midot,
personality tendencies that must simultaneously serve in two opposite
roles.
On the one hand we find the cohen’s dependency upon the landowners’
gifts, and on the other hand we find that the landowners are expected to
submit absolutely to the judgment of the cohen and to his
authority.
It would seem that this avodat hamidot, this effort of character
refinement is a spiritual achievement of humility, for in order to
succeed, it must draft into its service the most sensitive and most
profound discernment ever needed by a human being:
Maximal self-awareness of the most sensitive and human sort. A
recognition of the value of objective qualities, and a creation of new
yardsticks for the evaluation of every new situation. One cannot lean on
any fixed or pre-determined rules or behavioral models – for there are
none: This encounter between opposites must be newly adjusted for every
new human situation, for each is different from any other. “Just as their
faces are dissimilar, so are their opinions dissimilar.”
Sorcery:
Authority’s Exploitation of Brute
Force,
drawing upon an Alien Source –
A Sign of deviation from one’s Godly
Source.
“There should not be found in you…any reader of omens…any magician, any
fortune teller, any raiser of the dead, any procurer of voices by
witchcraft, any inquirer of the dead or consulter of bones, for it is
God’s disgust – all who do these. Be innocently whole with God your
Lord…”
Rashi: “Walk with Him in innocent wholeness, and hope to Him, and do not
seek after investigations of the future. Rather, everything that comes
upon you, accept in innocent wholeness.”
Yet we find a tale in Tractate Brachot 18B which appears on the surface of
things to prove the exact opposite: In continuation of a dispute between
Rabi Hia and Rabi Yonatan as to whether the dead know what is taking place
in the world, the Gemara brings the story of a certain devout Jew who was
miserably poor yet nevertheless never refrained from giving a whole
dinar to the poor on the eve of Rosh Hashana.
His wife tormented him. In order to prevent himself from being dragged
into an quarrel with his wife, he went to lodge in the graveyard,
apparently in order to be certain that his wife would refrain from
pursuing him there, out of fear of the dead.
During the course of the night, he heard two spirits telling of what they
had seen while roaming through the world. He heard them telling of the
secrets that are aharei hapargod, behind the veil – hidden from
mortals – such as the plans for the coming year.
According to what he had heard, he then knew which season would be
auspicious for planting. He went and sowed in the correct season
according to the forecast rather than according to when people normally
plant. The whole world’s crop was ruined and his crop succeeded.
The year after, he went again to lodge in the graveyard. This time the
Gemara does not specify whether his going again was in order to avoid
entering into a quarrel with his wife, or whether this time he went
deliberately in order to determine his good fortune. Again he heard, and
again he arranged the sowing of his field according to what he had heard.
The whole world’s crop was damaged and his crop succeeded.
His wife succeeded in extracting his secret from him. The spirits
realized this, and stopped chatting among one another, and thus ended this
precious source of information.
The Gemara emphasizes his devoutness – the term hasid is used – yet
nevertheless he seems to have transgressed an isur di’oraita, a
Torah prohibition against inquiring of the dead, and making use of them
for personal needs. The first time it had been acceptable, because it had
occurred through coincidence and compulsion, but the second time he had
done what he had done knowingly and with premeditated intention.
A one-time only event, done unintentionally, should not be viewed as
attributing power to omens, witchcraft, etc. However, it is acceptable to
interpret the event as a hint from heaven, sent in order to assist or to
warn a devout Jew who has been privileged to merit hashgaha pratit,
personal Divine Providence.
However, his making use of this method becomes a prohibited use after he
repeats it twice and thrice. It is the repeated use that testifies that
he is attributing power, attributing the importance of a segula to
this phenomon, believing in it its own unique efficacy as an autonomous
source of power or information.
This is not comparable to the custom of praying at the graves of
tsadikim, in which we request of the tsadik that he intercede
before God on our behalf, that he speak well of us in heaven, that he make
a personal effort to defend our case. Only the very finest line
differentiates this pure and kosher intention from the mistaken
attribution of autonomous power to the tsadik.
This distinction seems indicated here, by the hasid’s repeated use
of the source of information. If it had been a single incident, it could
have been attributed to the abovementioned: That Divine Providence had
made use of this incident in order to transmit a message to a person who
has merited the privilege of hashgaha pratit. However, once he
attempts to re-enact the incident, it is a sign that he is attributing
autonomous power to the incident, rather than to his own dependency upon
the heavenly source.
Such a thing is prohibited; it is the prohibition of idolatry, i.e.
attributing a power of influence to any source other than the Godly
source.
One should perhaps judge this Jew lecaf zchut, in a favorable
light, and understand that he fell into a trap by marriage to a
quarrelsome wife. The proof for this is that his wife does not refrain
from quarreling with her neighbors as well.
The hasid’s refraining from being dragged into quarrel with his wife, in
order to keep shlom bayit, the peace of the home, by giving up the
safe and comfortable lodgings of his own home – the emphasis on his
preference for lodging in the graveyard, comes not only to show how much
he wished to keep shlom bayit, which Hazal mention as being the key
to Heaven’s generous bounty, but rather also to symbolize the sufferings
that he had endured, which reached such a point that he finally viewed
lodging with the dead as being preferable to lodging in the same space
with his wife. Meaning that death was more to be found in his own home
than in the graveyard.
We are not able to assume that his wife repented. She may have continued
to torment him until he was compelled – and he did not choose; he had no
choice but – to repeat his first action and to lodge once again in the
graveyard. He did not do so in order to inquire of the dead…“and may a
redeemer come to Zion”.
“The Neck-Broken Calf”
“Our hands have not spilt this blood.” “The elders of the city who are
closest to the deceased must wash their hands over the neck-broken calf at
the river.”
From here we derive the expression “in cleanliness he washes his hands.”
This is a popular term borrowed from this text, to convey an opposite
meaning; it hides criticism behind euphemism. It refers to the attempt to
appear innocent and to cover over guilt.
Yet, here in the law of egla arufa – are we actually saying that
the elders are guilty? The authority of the z’kainim is an
authority through responsibility. Responsibility for what? Are the
leaders really expected to take the blame for a chance crime? Are they
“in place of God?”
We have here a category of authority that functions as the axis connecting
the supreme source of authority to man, who is subject to this authority.
The one who wields such authority is responsible for maintaining the
connection between both ends of the axis. The elder’s authority is in
that he represents both sides. He represents Creator as well as created.
This authority is one that derives from and also belongs to a source. It
is functional – fulfilling the function of furthering the aims of its
source – and it has no selfish independent existence as an expression of
ego.
As Moshe said to the elders: “I am giving you ruling power? I am giving
you enslavement.” Whoever represents such authority ultimately finds his
shoulders bowing beneath the burden of responsibility – of a
responsibility that draws from the reciprocal commitment of col Yisrael
arevim zeh lazeh, “all of Israel are each other’s guarantors”, and
from the principle of responsibility for all those people subject to one’s
authority.
Such authority rides two horses, each one galloping in the opposite
direction. A relationship of belonging and participation, based upon
reciprocity, based on government’s identifying with the citizen, on the
one hand, and the use of authority in order to force the connection upon
the people – the connection that joins the supreme source of authority and
the creature who is subject to It.
The secret key to unlocking this tangle of contradiction is – reverence
for the human being, for the noble stature of man. No absolute dividing
line here, that runs between authority and the people who are subject to
the authority. Rather, we have here only an exchange of functional roles,
among princes, all of whom are equally crowned with the crown of reverence
for man.
It is no game here, no competition between powers. Rather, there is
cooperation, and the role divisions are determined only by real
substance. No role distribution here by vested powers of social games of
role-simulation that reflect only the most external plane. Rather, a
reverence for man unites and bridges all polarities.
Rambam, Hilchot Sanhedrin, Chapter 23, halacha 8: “Let the judge forever
view himself as though a sword were placed upon his neck, and as though
hell had opened under him, and let him know Who he is judging, and before
Whom he is judging, and Who will ultimately extract payment from him if he
strays from the line of truth, as it is said: ‘God stands firmly in the
Lord’s congregation.’ And it says: ‘Watch what you are doing, because it
is not for man that you will judge, but for God.’”
Go To Top
|