THE IMPORTANCE OF ONE
INTRODUCTION TO PARASHAT
HASHAVUA
**************************************************************
In memory of
Yakov Yehuda ben Pinchas Wallach
and Miriam Wallach bat Tzvi
Donner
**************************************************************
In loving memory of
Yaacov Ben Yitzchak (AH),
beloved father and grandfather,
whose
yahrzeit is the 25th of Tammuz.
Dedicated by: Stanley & Ellen Stone
and their children, Jacob, Zack, Ezra, Yoni, Eliana and
Gabi.
**************************************************************
In memory of Rabbi
Aaron M. Wise z"l
on the occasion of
his 10th yahrzeit on 21 Tamuz.
By the Etshalom and
Wise
families
**************************************************************
PARASHAT
MATOT-MASEI
THE IMPORTANCE
OF ONE
By Rabbi Yaakov
Beasley
A.
INTRODUCTION
Our double parashiyot,
Matot-Masei, signify the conclusion of Moshe Rabbeinus practical
leadership over the people. Next
week, we begin reading his valedictory address to Bnei Yisrael,
Sefer Devarim, which provides the Jewish People with the spiritual
guidance they need before crossing the
Among the details that Moshe involves
himself with is the establishment of cities of refuge, arei miklat. These cities, which will be given to the
Levites, provide sanctuary to anyone who inadvertently kills another from the
victims relatives. Once a court
delivers a verdict of manslaughter, the culprit heads for one of these cities,
where he will dwell until the death of the Kohen Gadol; the Kohen
Gadols death leads to his sentence being commuted. In our parasha, Moshe establishes
three of these cities on the east side of the Jordan River. Yehoshua will
similarly establish three cities in Eretz Yisrael when the conquest is
complete.
B. THE
LAW OF ONE
This week, we will
concentrate upon one particularly fascinating detail in the legislation about
the cities of refuge. In his
codification of the laws of the murderer and the inadvertent murderer,
Maimonides brings the following ruling:
One who has been
exiled does not leave the city of refuge at all, even to perform a
mitzvah, to give evidence in a monetary or capital case, to save someone
by his testimony, or to rescue someone from a non-Jew or a river or a fire or a
collapsed building. Even if all
Contained within this
law is a principle that exemplifies the Torahs system of values. If found
wandering outside the city of refuge, the person found guilty of manslaughter
can be killed by the blood avenger:
But
if the accused ever goes outside the limits of the city of refuge to which he
has fled, and the avenger of blood finds him outside the city, the avenger of
blood may kill the accused without being guilty of murder.
(Bamidbar
35: 26-27)
His
safety is guaranteed only within the city of
refuge. What makes this law
fascinating is that it applies even if the person could save another. Leaving the city of refuge means risking
ones life, and Jewish law does not command anyone to risk his life to save
another - even to save the entire Jewish people ("even if all Israel needs his
help")! Although we tend to view Judaism as an intensely communal faith,
nonetheless, according to this law, the individuals safety takes priority over
the communitys needs.
We find this principle
expounded in several other places in Maimonides code:
If idol-worshippers
say to a group of women, Give us one of your women for immoral purposes, or we
will violate you all, they must all allow themselves to be violated rather than
hand over one Jewish soul. Similarly, if idol-worshippers say, Give us one of
you and we shall kill him, or else we will kill you all, they must all allow
themselves to be killed rather than hand over one Jewish soul. Even if they single out a single
person A
if A is not deserving of the death-penalty, they must all allow
themselves to be killed rather than hand over one Jewish soul. (Yesodei Ha-Torah
5: 5)
Prima facie, the law appears
completely illogical. Refusing to
collaborate with the aggressor and not handing over a victim will not save the
victim. He will be killed or she will be violated in any case, whatever path the
group chooses. Why, then, must they all allow themselves to be mistreated, even
killed? The fundamental difference between their options is the difference
between active involvement in the victims fate and passive non-compliance,
between what a person does and what is done to him. Rather than actively
sacrifice a single one of their number, a group must passively allow itself to
be assaulted. Once again, the rights of the individual take extreme priority
over the welfare of the group.
C.
JUDAISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL
What is the source for
this groundbreaking emphasis on the person, even at the expense of the
group? One modern thinker who
contemplated this issue was R. Moshe Avigdor Amiel (1882-1945), the late Chief
Rabbi of
Clearly, the supreme
and unique importance of the individual was unknown in the pagan world. Instead,
they viewed the significance of the individual solely through the lens of the
individuals relationship to his/her value to society as a whole. A worthwhile point of comparison is
between our ethics, as expounded in Tanakh, and those of ancient
We can best
demonstrate this point, which is the fundamental difference between Greek and
Jewish ethics, with the case of exemption from military service. (Note that
these rules refer to a case of a milchemet reshut, a non-obligatory war;
the exemptions listed below do not apply in the case of a milchemet
mitzva, a war of self-defense):
The
officers shall say to the people: "Has anyone built a new house and not
dedicated it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else may
dedicate it. Has anyone planted a vineyard and not begun to enjoy it? Let him go
home, or he may die in battle and someone else enjoy it. Has anyone become
pledged to a woman and not married her? Let him go home, or he may die in battle
and someone else marry her
(Devarim
20: 5-7)
Gone is the glory and
heroism of the Greeks and Romans.
Even though the war was fought for the sake of the nation as a whole, the
commanders are asked to stand before the people and plead with them if there
is someone who has a new wife, house, or vineyard - please go home! The exempt categories refer to
individuals who have not yet had the chance to enjoy something important to
them. Here again, we see that the public need does not abrogate the private
good.
R. Amiel points out
two consequences of the Jewish emphasis on the individual, one positive and one
negative. On the one hand, this emphasis on the individual was vital to Jewish
survival in exile. As the Jewish People were the minority wherever they lived,
they were able to maintain their separate identity and not conform to the
majority. Had this not been the case, there would be no Judaism today. However, suggests R. Amiel, this
emphasis on the individual also weakened the governmental structure that
arose. He argues that, in fact, it
eventually caused the disintegration of the monarchy. The institution of kingship, based on
the idea that the individual exists for the sake of the community, would
ultimately be incompatible with a society led by priests and prophets who taught
the exact opposite. Todays
challenge is creating a government that simultaneously recognizes the
individuals supreme significance while maintaining a collective entity capable
of self-government.