Shoftim | Balanced Independence

 

Parashat Shoftim introduces the various public offices to be established in the Land of Israel: judges and officers, a king, priests, Levites, and a prophet.

These multiple offices form a complex and branched system of leadership. What is the function of each office? How does the Torah see the relationship between the various offices? Why did the Torah divide leadership between so many offices to begin with; why couldn’t the various functions be united in one grand governing body? 

1. Periphery and Center

When we examine the parasha, we see that the various offices can be divided between those located throughout the country and those located in the center.

First, we find that the basic institution of leadership in each town or city consists of judges (shoftim) and officers (shotrim):

Judges and officers shall you make yourself in all your gates, which the Lord your God gives you, tribe by tribe.  (Devarim 16:18)

These leaders are "in all your gates" and thus serve to impose discipline among the various tribes throughout the country.

Attention should be paid to an important phrase in this verse: "shall you make yourself." In this command, Moshe is turning to the people and charging them with appointing the judges and officers. These are leaders who rise up from below, chosen and sent by the people; they are not imposed from above by God. This stands in contrast to the judges who served in the wilderness, who were appointed by Moshe alone (as mentioned at the beginning of Devarim – 1:15). This charge to the people created a model according to which the people are responsible for themselves and for maintaining order throughout the land. We can find the same theme in the passage that follows almost immediately, which addresses consequences for idol worship:

If there be found in the midst of you, within any of your gates… man or woman, that does that which is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing His covenant… and it be told you, and you hear it, then shall you inquire diligently, and behold, if it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; then shall you bring forth that man or that woman, who have done this evil thing, to your gates… and you shall stone them with stones, that they die… The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from the midst of you. (17:2-6)

This command is entirely addressed to the people, not to the judges! The people are supposed to hear about the sinner, check the truth of the rumor, and carry out his sentence. The Torah even emphasizes that those who stone him should be the witnesses who testified against him, along with the rest of the people. It is clear that things will not proceed precisely this way in practice; a professional judicial system is necessary to investigate and carry out the punishment efficiently and professionally. However, the very act of commanding the people to do so shows that the basic duty falls upon them. The judges and the officers only serve as agents of the people.

Immediately afterwards, we hear about a different kind of leadership:

If there arise a matter too hard for you in judgment… then shall you arise, and get you up to the place which the Lord your God shall choose. And you shall come to the priests the Levites, and to the judge that shall be in those days; and you shall inquire; and they shall declare to you the sentence of judgment. And you shall do according to the tenor of the sentence, which they shall declare to you from that place which the Lord shall choose. (17:8-10)

Local leadership, run by the people, does not suffice on its own. Sometimes it doesn't know how to act, and must turn to a different kind of leadership – located in the center, in the place that God shall choose. This leadership consists of the priests and the Levites, who we now understand have a role that had not been mentioned before: their job includes teaching the people and deciding complex questions.

Alongside them sits "the judge that shall be in those days." The reference here is not to the "judges" mentioned at the beginning of the parasha, for they sit "at your gates." It stands to reason that in addition to the judges scattered throughout the country, who are appointed by the people, there is also one central judge. Unlike the other judges, he is not appointed by the people. His appointment takes place in a different way, directly from God, and therefore he sits in His holy place.[1] The teaching of the Torah spreads to the whole country from that holy center, through this judge and through the priests:

According to the law which they shall teach you, and according to the judgment which they shall tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare to you, to the right hand, nor to the left. (17:11)

II. King

Next, we must explore the roles of the two other offices mentioned in the parasha – king and prophet.

There is a long-standing dispute between various commentators and thinkers on the question of the Torah's attitude toward monarchy. This discussion begins already in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 20b), where we find the view that there is an obligatory mitzva to appoint a king upon entering the Land of Israel. This is how the Rambam rules (Hilkhot Melakhim 1:1). Others in the Gemara, however, maintain that "this passage was stated only to counter [Israel's] complaints" – that is to say, the monarchy was established because of Israel's (problematic) desire for a king.

God's response to the people's request for a king, in the book of Shmuel, offers one of the most striking proofs that the Torah view of kingship is negative:

And the Lord said to Shmuel: Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not be king over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt to this day, in that they have forsaken Me, and served other gods, so do they also to you. (II Shmuel 8:7-8)

The negative attitude stems from the fact that the people want to rely on flesh and blood, instead of the true King. This opposition is reminiscent of the Torah's opposition to slavery, on the grounds that the people of Israel should be slaves to God and not to flesh and blood (Vayikra 25:42). On the other hand, God understands the need to rely on an authority such as a king and therefore allows this as a non-ideal solution, similar to the idea that "the Torah provided for human passions" (Kiddushin 21b). 

It seems that the verses in our parasha also incline toward the view that the Torah's attitude toward monarchy is negative, or at least hesitant:

When you come into the land which the Lord your God gives you, and shall possess it, and shall dwell therein, and shall say: I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me; you shall in any wise set him king over you, whom the Lord your God shall choose. (Devarim 17:14-15)

It is enough to compare this passage to those about the other offices to see the difference between the imperatives. Regarding judges and officers, the commandment is straightforward: "Judges and officers shall you make yourself in all your gates." The priests, the Levites, and the central judge are found in the central sanctified place as a matter of course. On the other hand, the king is anointed only after the fact, in light of a request from the people: "And you shall say: I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me." Only then, "you shall in any wise set him king over you." It is also impossible to ignore the location of the command to appoint a king – only after the description of the judges and officers in the periphery and the priests, the Levites, and the judge in the center. If the monarchy were a desirable and important institution, the Torah should undoubtedly have opened with the king, since he holds the highest office in the nation.

Moreover, if we examine the section about the king, we do not find a commandment regarding his appointment, or any discussion about its importance! The entire section deals exclusively with restrictions and commands applying to the king: not to accumulate excessive gold, silver, wives, or horses, and the command to write a Torah scroll. Even the verse that calls for the appointment of a king is part of the restrictions:

You shall in any wise set him king over you, whom the Lord your God shall choose; one from among your brothers shall you set king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. (17:15)

There is no actual command here to appoint a king – only a restriction, to appoint a certain king "whom the Lord your God shall choose." What emerges from the section is admittedly an approval of the people's request for a king, but mainly in the form of restrictions on who can be appointed king as well as limitations on his power.

In my opinion, we are forced to conclude that the Torah conveys an ideal in which the people exist tribe by tribe, without a king, led only by the institutions described earlier: judges and officers in the periphery, and priests, Levites, and a judge in the center. In this way, the people would be led by God in the best possible way. The judges and officers, who apply the Torah, would rule across the country. They would not constitute a supreme power over the people, but derive their capacity to act from the people. If necessary, they could appeal to the holy center, to God, through His representatives.

The king's entry into the picture upsets this balance. A great deal of power passes to the king, and now he constitutes the center. The Torah therefore tries to limit the king's power and demands that he write for himself a Torah scroll to keep with him all the days of his life (17:19).

Indeed, we see that after the death of Yehoshua, no king was appointed to lead the people in his place. Those who led the people were the local judges, in accordance with the instructions given by Moshe in this parasha. From time to time, a stronger local judge would arise who would manage to garner more power and thus fight against Israel's enemies. However, the basis of leadership was still local.[2]

III. Prophet

Where does the prophet fit into the web of leadership that we have described? Surprisingly, prophecy as well seems to be perceived as a less than ideal institution. Unlike the previous institutions, the prophet is mentioned only in passing – in the context of the prohibition against divination and sorcery, arts practiced by the surrounding nations:

When you come into the land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that makes his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, one that uses divination, a soothsayer, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer… For whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord; and because of these abominations, the Lord your God is driving them out from before you. You shall be whole-hearted with the Lord your God. (18:9-13)

Human life can be scary, full of ambiguity and doubt. The future is uncertain and it is difficult to know what the right choice is. As a response to this, the nations developed soothsayers, magicians, and sorcerers, who try to connect to and activate higher powers to help man see into the future and make decisions based thereon. This is a psychological need that follows from man's weakness, which leads him to rely on forces stronger than him.

In the first stage, the Torah says to completely avoid these techniques and remain "whole-hearted" with God. Relying on these forces is similar to idolatry and causes a person to distance himself from relying on God. The path of Torah should suffice for a person's guidance, with no need for additional supports. However, a compromise is then offered with respect to the psychological need, in the form of the prophet:

For these nations, that you are to dispossess, hearken to soothsayers, and to diviners; but as for you, the Lord your God has not suffered you so to do. A prophet will the Lord your God raise up to you, from the midst of you, of your brothers, like to me; to him you shall hearken. (18:14-15)

The prophet appears as a figure designed to address the human need to appeal to higher powers. It would be better to avoid turning to any such figure, but it can be done through God because of necessity. Like the king, the prophet as well is presented as a less-than-ideal fulfilment of a human need, who enters the picture due to the influence of other nations. In both cases, the Torah reaches a compromise, but under limitations.

So far, the prophet has appeared as a figure who responds to human needs, similar to magicians and diviners. Indeed, we find that people in the Bible turned to prophets for miraculous answers to various needs that arose.[3]

Moshe adds that the prophet is also related to another need – the continued teaching of God's word even after the giving of the Torah. This need stems from the people’s request during the assembly at Mount Sinai:

According to all that you desired of the Lord your God in Chorev in the day of the assembly, saying: Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the Lord said to me: They have well said that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a prophet from among their brothers, like to you; and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. (18:16-18) 

However, this need for a prophet is also presented as a non-ideal situation. The people were supposed to have heard the word of God directly,[4] but fear took hold of them at the revelation at Mount Sinai and they asked for Moshe to serve from then on as a mediator for their receiving the Torah. Here we learn that God’s directives to the people will not end with Moshe; there will thus be other prophets whose role will also be to mediate His words to the people, due to their fear of hearing directly from Him.[5]

Both functions of the prophet – to serve as an alternative to the magicians and to deliver the word of God – are presented as a compromise. It appears from Scripture that at the desired level, there was no need for a prophet at all. It would have been better had they not needed to know the future, and had they heard God’s guiding words directly from Him. The prophet enters the picture as a figure with centralized power, who relieves the people of Israel of the responsibility to conduct their own lives while maintaining a direct relationship with God.

IV. Growing Stronger in the Land of Israel

In light of the above, it seems the ideal is to have judges and officers located throughout the country, as well as priests, Levites, and a judge located in the center. This model of establishing the people independently throughout the country, while maintaining contact with the center, is reminiscent of the model described in the previous parasha regarding the service of God. As discussed in the shiur on Parashat Re’eh, Moshe conveys the idea that the people of Israel are reaching a stage of maturity and can therefore create a degree of separation between themselves and God. The people can conduct their lives safely throughout the country and eat meat without bringing it to the Temple, and they do not need bamot in every locale to support service of God. They are mature enough to respect God and come to His chosen place several times a year. In this way, a balance is maintained between independence and maturity, on the one hand, and maintaining a connection with God’s presence in the sacred center, on the other.

The same idea seems to be found in our parasha as well, regarding the relationship between the various public institutions. The ideal is for the people of Israel to live securely in their cities, ensuring in each area that justice is executed and order is preserved through the judges and officers whom they appoint. On the other hand, there will be instances of confusion about matters of law; therefore, they must maintain a connection with the center, so they can turn there for help. But even while this ideal balance is not reached, administrative independence should be preserved throughout the country, in which the people manage their affairs in accordance with the Torah’s directives without some other force separating them from God. Even those in the sacred center only direct the people to the right path, and do not create excessive dependence. There is a delicate balance to reach between the periphery and the center, which allows the people to enjoy as much independence as possible while maintaining a connection with God.

Toward the end of the parasha, the Torah returns to the desired institutions with which it opened, and illustrates the delicate relationship between the periphery and the center through two mitzvot.

V. Going Out to War

Chapter 20 describes the preparations for going out to war:

And it shall be, when you draw near to the battle, that the priest shall approach and speak to the people, and shall say to them: Hear, O Israel, you draw near this day to battle against your enemies; let not your heart faint; fear not, nor be alarmed, neither be you afraid of them. (20:2-3)

These verses describe the first of two stages: the priest, a representative of the holy place, encourages the people to trust in God and not to fear their enemies. In the second stage come the officers, who are associated with the governance of the people throughout the country. They release from the coming war anyone who recently built a house, married, or planted a vineyard (20:5-7). The division of roles is evident: the priest, as God's representative, encourages the people to trust in Him and overcome their natural fears. The officers, on the other hand, as the people’s representatives, represent and express their human needs that allow exemption from the fighting. Moreover, the officers continue:

And the officers shall speak further to the people, and they shall say: What man is there that is fearful and faint-hearted? let him go and return to his house, lest his brothers’ heart melt as his heart. (20:8)

A moment ago, the priest called out: "Let not your heart faint!" The officers, on the other hand, release "the fearful and faint-hearted." There is a striking gap between the different functionaries here: the priest is trying to push the people toward an ideal in which they are connected to God and thus filled with courage. The officers, on the other hand, are more realistic and know the psyche of the people. They know that despite the priest's fiery speech, there are still those who quite naturally fear war, and thus they free those who suffer from that fear.

This gap relates to their different roles. As stated, the priest comes as God's representative, from the sanctified center, and therefore focuses on the ideal situation. The officers, however, come as representatives of the people and are therefore concerned with the actual situation.[6] A delicate balance is necessary between these two forces – the aspiration to move forward, together with acknowledgment of the current reality. Together, the priest and the officers create a fitting combination for preparing for war.

VI. Egla Arufa

The rite of egla arufa is performed when a corpse is found in the field, and it is not known how the person died (21:1). This terrible situation requires an atonement ceremony, which also has two stages. The first stage involves the judges, who constitute the local leadership:

Then your elders and your judges shall come forth, and they shall measure to the cities which are round about him that is slain. And it shall be, that the city which is nearest to the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take a heifer of the herd… And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer to a rough valley… and shall break the heifer's neck there in the valley. (2:2-4)

Once again, we see that local judges represent the people in everything related to order and justice.[7] Responsibility for atonement rests with the people of the city, and the judges perform the ceremony on their behalf. But then, suddenly, a representative from the center appears:

And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near, for them the Lord your God has chosen to minister to Him, and to bless in the name of the Lord; and according to their word shall every controversy and every stroke be. (21:5) 

The description of the priests here corresponds to their description at the beginning of the parasha. There, we may remember, the Torah said one should turn to them when "there arise a matter too hard for you in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, even matters of controversy within your gates." The Torah connects the two things here: the priests resolve problems of controversy and stroke, and also appear when there is a dire need for atonement. However, their role in this story is not clear. Immediately after they appear on the scene, the Torah continues to describe the egla arufa ceremony conducted by the elders of the city:

And all the elders of that city, who are nearest to the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley. And they shall speak and say: Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Forgive, O Lord, Your people Israel…. (20:6-8)

If the elders are responsible for the entire ceremony, what is the role of the priests who came from the Temple?

It seems that the presence of the priests indicates that the ceremony of the city’s elders was held before them. The elders of the city wash their hands and say "our hands have not shed this blood" in front of the priests. What we have here is essentially a reckoning given by the elders of the city to the representatives of God who are based in the sacred center.[8]

Once again, we see the need for balance between the various institutions. Normally, the city’s judges act on behalf of the people and manage their affairs. However, serious cases require assistance from the priests in the center. They go out into the city, as God's representatives, to enable the atonement before Him.[9] The beginning of the parasha describes how, in complex cases, the judges of the periphery turn to the priests. Here, we learn that there is also an opposite movement – when difficult events occur, the priests come to the periphery and support the atonement process.

The path outlined by the Torah pulls in the direction of responsibility and self-management as much as possible, while turning to God's representatives at the center when needed. In this way, a delicate balance is maintained between the periphery and the center, between independence and dependence on God, and between personal responsibility and reliance on Him.

(Translated by David Strauss)