IF SOMEONE SLAIN IS FOUND IN THE

LAND THAT THE LORD YOUR GOD IS ASSIGNING TO YOU TO POSSESS, LYING OUT IN THE

OPEN, THE IDENTITY OF THE SLAYER NOT BEING KNOWN…

(Devarim 21:1)

If

someone slain is found:

"But not in times when [murder] is commonplace" (Sifri).

This commandment is observed in times when laws are enforced and murder and

killing are rare, when a slain body on the ground is something "found"

– something that arouses attention. In contrast, when the law loses its power

and murder becomes an everyday occurrence – as in the eve of the destruction of

the Second Temple – this commandment is not observed: "When murderers

became numerous, the eglah arufah [ceremony of the broken-necked calf] was

discontinued" (Sotah 47a)… that the Lord

your God is assigning to you to possess – God gives you this land so that you can take the place of

its previous inhabitants. He does this so that His Torah will be observed by

you throughout the area of your habitations. The law court of each area is

responsible for the doings within its area, and they are responsible for that

to you, i.e., to the highest representatives of your national collective.

(Rabbi

S.R. Hirsch on Devarim 21:1)

That

the Lord your God is assigning to you to possess

– [The law court of] Jerusalem does not bring an eglah

arufah, because Scripture says to

possess, and "Jerusalem was not

apportioned to the tribes."

(Sotah 45b)

Rather, every Israelite owns a

portion of it [Jerusalem].

(R.

Barukh HaLevy Epstein, Torah

Temimah)

This

article is dedicated to the memory of my firstborn son,

Amit Yitzhak. If he had not left us ten years ago, this Shabbat

we would have celebrated his thirtieth birthday.

For man is a

tree of the field

Esther

Alexander

Hanokh,

Now,

between the final class trip and the first trip, after all of the tasks and

shows, I sit down for a moment to write something to you. How can I move on

without thanking the person who toiled and invested in me for such a long time?

I

tried a few times to begin something, but it always turned into a boring speech

just like all of the boring speeches at graduation. So, I decided to write

something different – a "composition." While it is not as good as the

compositions of my "childhood" (since in order to write a really good

composition, one must be inspired by an atmosphere of punishment hovering over the

page), I hope that it will end up being reasonable (there is no need to correct

and grade it).

The

man and the sapling

Once

upon a time there was a man who raised a potted sapling in his home. The man

did not raise the sapling for decorative purposes, as does everyone else with

their potted plants. The man we are dealing with had a much more important

reason for growing the sapling. He raised it so that it might flourish and

become a tree, a tree that would join the rest of the trees of the world in

performing the crucial process of photosynthesis, without which the oxygen balance

of the atmosphere would be disrupted. Of course, raising a plant for such an

important purpose requires much work and investment on the part of the gardener.

Indeed, the man threw all of his time and energy into the sapling's

cultivation.

The

first day that the man had the sapling, he saw that it could grow perfectly

well by itself. It seemed that it could grow up to be a large tree without any

serious investment on his part. However, the man knew that no matter what its

size, not every tree can photosynthesize efficiently. That would require broad

green leaves, a sufficient number of pores, and many various additional actors

whose absence could reduce the efficiency of the process.

The

sapling could grow in any shape or direction it chose, which created a few

problems. One morning, for instance, the sapling decided that red leaves would

suit it much better than green leaves. It started assiduously sprouting red

leaves instead of its old green ones. Of course, he man did not agree to that;

everyone knows that red leaves do not perform photosynthesis. Without

hesitation, the man took a pair of scissors and cut all the red leaves off of the

sapling. It was furious and screamed: "You are supposed to help me grow,

not cut off my leaves!" The man explained to it simply that as long as it sprouts

red leaves he would remove them, because his job was to raise it for the sake

of photosynthesis, in contrast to other people who raise potted plants for decoration.

He further explained that photosynthesis was crucial not only for the rest of

the world, but also for the sapling itself – that is how it creates the sugars

necessary for its own development. The sapling was left without any choice in

the matter. It returned to sprouting green leaves. Here and there it would

sprout a few red leaves just to make trouble, or in order to prove that it

still grew as it wished. With time, these

problems were solved and the sapling understood the purpose and great

importance of its growth. However, the arguments did not come to an end – they only

changed. The sapling claimed that it should concentrate its pores on the top

part of its leaves, where they could better absorb CO₂, while the

man said that the pores should be concentrated on the bottom part of the leaves

in order to avoid excess transpiration, which could lead to the sapling's

dehydration.

The

sapling concentrated its pores in the top part of its leaves, but the man

scraped off the epidermal layer, destroying the pores. "I don't

understand!" screamed the sapling "I grew those pores for the sake of

the goal you raised me to realize. True, they are not located where you wanted

them, but their purpose was photosynthesis." The man explained to the

sapling that as long as he was raising it in his home, he would determine the

positioning of its pores. The sapling did not agree and continued to

concentrate its pores on the top side of the leaves, despite the pain of having

its epidermis scraped off. In the period before the sapling was to be taken

outside the man granted it more freedom to grow as it pleased and was not so

strict with it, as long as it continued to grow in accordance with its original

goal.

The

time came to take the sapling out of its flowerpot and plant it outside in the

ground. Now it was all up to the sapling; if it wanted to, it could grow as the

man wished, becoming a large tree which, together with the other trees, would

supply the world with oxygen. If it did not want to, it could grow as an

ornamental tree, just like the other plants that people raise in flowerpots.

The

man no longer made decisions for the sapling about how it would grow. He was

already busy raising a new young sapling. Still, there was no doubt that the

man left his mark all over the mature sapling and would continue to influence

it for the rest of its life.

For man is a tree of the field

(Do

you think that after all of those Bible quizzes I am going to cite the chapter

and verse? Forget it.)

With thanks and friendship,

Amit

Our

son Amit, z"l, wrote

these words to his teacher at the completion of his studies, two years before

he was cut down from among us.

The parasha of Shoftim opens with the

duty of establishing a clear and orderly judicial system. That system works in

accordance with very clear and well-defined rules; rules in black and white. Expectations

and demands are very clear.

You shall appoint magistrates

justice you shall pursue…

and towards the end of the parasha we are commanded not to cut down fruit trees in

time of war

For man is a tree of the field.

The

comparison between man and the tree of the field which Amit related to in his letter may form the foundations for

the development of the individual as a condition for the existence of a just

and moral society, a society which requires a judicial system that works in

accordance with standards of justice and honesty.

True,

a judicial system is a necessary condition for the existence of a moral

society, but it is not a sufficient condition.

An

honest and just judicial system can only survive as long as long as it is

grounded in a stable world of values and a high quality educational system. The

responsibility of the city elders, which finds it expression in the law of the eglah arufah, also belongs

to the meta-legal dimension to which a moral society must relate.

We now

find ourselves at the beginning of a new school year. The educational system is

a cornerstone of any human society. Today's children are tomorrow's citizens.

The difficulties

expected in education are greater than those expected in the judicial system

because education involves more complex and ambiguous issues. That creates much

greater expectations from teachers and educators, a point I would like to focus

upon.

a) Tractate Ta'anit

24a tells us of a unique teacher of young children:

Rav happened to visit a certain

place. He proclaimed a fast, but the rain did not come. The leader of the

prayers began praying before him; when he said "Who makes the wind blow"

the wind began to blow. When he said "Who brings down the rain" it

started raining. He [Rav] said to him: "What do

you do?" He told him: "I am a teacher of young children. I teach

Scripture to the children of the poor as I do to the children of the wealthy,

and if anyone cannot pay, I do not take anything from them. If anyone is lazy

I send [fish] to him and appease him until he comes and reads.

Why were

the teacher's prayers answered? What was his advantage?

The

Holy One blessed be He made a decree and Rav (the first Amora of

Babylonia, founder of the yeshiva of Sura) follows

His lead and makes his own decree. Rav proceeds

according to the accepted halakhah, but in fact he is

strengthening God's own decree. We are being told about a rabbi who happened to

come across the place; is he acquainted with the local population? Does he know

its strengths and weaknesses? Did he attempt other means before declaring the

fast? On the other hand, we have the teacher, who chooses a different path. He

is involved in local life and allows each and every child to learn Torah. He

does not distinguish between rich and poor or between the talented and the challenged.

Going beyond that, he gives to each according to their personality, according

to what is proper for them and unique about them ("bribing them with fish").

He is not pedantic and forgives the children for their mischief (appeases

them).

Then

the Holy One blessed be He acts like the teacher. He

stops being strict and is instead forgiving and appeasing, granting wind and

rain to the local people according to their needs. (This interpretation follows

Ruth Kaldron's discussion in her HaShuk/Ha

Bayit/HaLev).

b) Tractate Yevamot

62b tells us about Rabbi Akiva's students:

They

said: Rabbi Akiva had twelve thousand pairs of students

from Gevat to Antiparas,

and all of them died during the same stretch of time – between Pesah and Shavu'ot – because they

did not show each other respect. The world became barren until R. Akiva came to our Rabbis in the south and taught Torah to

R. Meir and R. Yehudah and

R. Yossi and R. Shimon and R. Elazar

ben Shamu'a. He told them:

The first [students] died only because they were envious of each other's

filled all of the Land of Israel with Torah. [This telling of the story follows

Sefer Ha'Agadah's version]

Here

we have two stories about R. Akiva: one reports on a failure, the other on a success.

I

shall begin with the failure: R. Akiva, whose motto

is "Love your neighbor as yourself – that is the great principle of

the Torah," manages to raise up intelligent and

knowledgeable students, but they are completely unskilled in matters of

interpersonal behavior. They never internalized the main point; their self-love

remained greater than their love for others. Their death teaches us that a

person whose wisdom does affect the way he relates to other people cannot

endure. However, I find the Rabbi more troubling than his students. How was it

that of all people, R. Akiva did not manage to

inculcate his own view of the Torah's priorities to his students? The number of

his students and their scholarship is most impressive, but none of that had any

right to exist without their internalizing the principle of love for one's

fellowman. And why was it that R. Akiva – who had

failed in his role – was then chosen to repair the breach and redeem the world

from its desolation ("…until R. Akiva came…)?

Apparently,

R. Akiva learned his lesson and changed his way of

teaching. Earlier, R. Akiva had invested in teaching

large numbers of students (twelve thousand pairs) strewn across a large

geographical area (from Givat to Antiparas).

This method of instruction made it impossible to reach each student individually.

Heart-to-heart talks could not take place. Students could never really get to

know their teacher and his family, making it impossible for him to serve as a personal

example. Indeed, R. Akiva changed his approach

significantly and avoided repeating his mistakes. He concentrated upon a small

group of students, allowing him to offer them all of the advantages of a

personal connection that go beyond formal Torah instruction. He taught in one

area – in the south – and he focused on just five students, whom he knew by

name. We may assume that the listing of their names marks a deeper, richer

acquaintance with them. The change allowed all of the Land of Israel to become

filled with Torah. That fullness was not the result of numbers and quantities,

but rather of personal qualities and interpersonal connections. Only the

personal connection, intimacy between teacher and student, can allow us to act

in accordance with the instructions of the wisest of men: Train

a youth according to his own path, he will not swerve from it even

in old age (Mishlei 22:6).

Regarding

that verse, HaRav Klonimos

mi'Pazienza,

HaYaD (the "Aish

Kodesh") wrote in his Hovat

HaTalmidim:

King

Solomon did not only tell us the goal of education, which is to bring the youth

to a state where he will not swerve from it even in old age. With the

words Train a youth according to his own path, he also told us how and

with what tools we can reach it – that is the main point… he must stoop

himself down to the [level] of the one he teaches, to penetrate into his

smallness and short-stature until he reaches the hidden, even invisible, spark

of his [the student's] soul, to draw it out, to cultivate it and let it grow.

A tree

of the field requires proper conditions in order to grow. Amit z'l's letter shows that he

was blessed with a teacher who understood that. We are grieved that we did not

get to see his growth continue.

Esther

Alexander is an educational counselor

Readers

respond

In his letter (Mase'ei issue of Shabbat Shalom), Rabbi Hanokh Goldberg compares refusal to serve in the occupation

with refusal to evict residents from settlements and condemns them both. It is

clear from his letter that he is trying to establish a responsible moral

position that is moderate and balances right and left. However, his moral

position is not logical.

The State of Israel is a

democratic state of law. Therefore, claims Rabbi Goldberg, its citizens possess

sufficient legal means to oppose their government's injustices. Truth be told,

that claim is not accurate when we consider military orders rather than laws. When

an immoral order is given to a soldier, he does not necessarily have any means

to oppose it other than refusal. However, here I would like to concentrate on

another problem with his claim. The essence of democracy is the protection of

the individual from the government; in some countries the individual enjoys no

protection at all from government actions. The United States offered a good

example of this in the days when slavery was legal. It was impossible to put an

end to the injustices of slavery through democratic means – not by those

citizens opposed to slavery, and certainly not by the slaves themselves. As we

all know, only a bloody war ended slavery. Abolitionists

knowingly broke the law requiring slaves to be returned to their masters and

instead helped them to escape. Thus they acted in accordance with morality, with

their conscience, and also, by the way, in accordance with the Torah – but

against Rabbi Goldberg's position. Does he condemn them?

The doubling of legal systems is

the essence of the occupation. Israeli citizens (settlers) are subject to civil

law, while Palestinians are subject to military law. As was the case with

slavery, this doubling is entirely unjust, and Rabbi Goldberg's claim regarding

refusal to participate in it is invalid. The colonel who said that every

soldier must obey his conscience was correct. Could it be that Rabbi Goldberg

is not subject to the authority of his own conscience?

Daniel Rorlich,

Jerusalem

Editor's

note: The above

letter continues an important debate going on within Israeli society in general

and the Religious Zionist community in particular regarding the State of Israel's

identity as Jewish and democratic, and regarding the connection between policy,

law, morality, and Torah. We invite readers to join this debate, while

remaining respectful towards the various positions.

If

you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its

publication and distribution.

·       

Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $700

·       

English edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues

may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha,

etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10

days in advance to appear in the English email.

In Israel, checks made out to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B.

4433, Jerusalem 91043. Unfortunately there is no Israeli tax-exemption for

local donations.

US and British tax

exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made

through:

New

Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, Great Britain

PLEASE

NOTE THAT THE NEW ISRAEL FUND IS NO LONGER ACCEPTING DONATIONS UNDER $100.

PEF will also channel donations and provide a

tax-exemption. Donations should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds,

Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

All contributions

should be marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the

Shabbat Shalom project.

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the

advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the

ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts which have always been

central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the

land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It

believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to

support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us

to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs

is not an option but an imperative.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom's

programs include both educational and protest activities. Seminars, lectures,

workshops, conferences and weekend programs are held for students, educators

and families, as well as joint seminars for Jews, Israeli Arabs and

Palestinians. Protest activities focus on issues of human rights, co-existence

between Jews and Arabs, and responses to issues of particular religious

relevance.

5,000

copies of a 4 page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are

written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom

and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas

via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom's

educational forums draw people of different backgrounds, secular and religious,

who are keen to deepen their Jewish knowledge and to hear an alternative

religious standpoint on the subjects of peace and social issues.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom fills an ideological vacuum in

Israel's society. Committed both to Jewish tradition and observance, and to the

furthering of peace and coexistence, the movement is in a unique position to

engage in dialogue with the secular left and the religious right, with Israeli

Arabs and with Palestinians.