You shall separate three cities for yourself in the midst of your land,

which the Lord, your God, is giving you to possess. Prepare the road for yourself

there.

(Devarim 19:2-3)

And direct roads were leading from one to the other, as it is said, Prepare the road for yourself and divide into three parts,

etc. And two scholars were delegated to escort the manslayer in case

anyone attempted to slay him on the way, and that they might speak to him. R.

Meir says: He may even plead his cause himself, as it is written, and this

is the d'var [matter, literally "word"] of the manslayer.

(Mishnah Makot 2:5, based on

Soncino translation)

These cities [of

refuge] are to be made neither into small forts nor large walled cities, but medium-sized boroughs;

they are to be established only in the vicinity of a water supply and where

there is no water at hand it is to be brought thither; they are to be

established only in marketing districts; they are to be established only in

populous districts, and

if the population has fallen off others are to be brought into the neighborhood,

and if the residents [of any one place] have fallen off, others are brought

thither, priests, Levites and Israelites. There should be traffic neither in arms nor in trap-

gear there: these are

the words of R. Nehemiah; but the Sages permit. They, however, agree that no

traps may be set there nor may ropes be left dangling about in the place so

that the blood avenger may have no occasion to come visiting there.' R. Isaac

asked: What is the Scriptural authority [for all these provisions]? – The

verse, and that fleeing unto one of these cities he might live, which means – provide him

with whatever he needs so that he may live. A Tanna taught: A disciple who goes

into banishment is joined in exile by his master, in accordance with the text,

and that fleeing unto one of these cities he might live, which means – provide him with whatever he

needs to live.

(Makot 10a, Soncino translation)

Prepare for yourself the way: "Refuge! Refuge!" was inscribed at each crossroads.

(Rashi Devarim 19:3, Judaica

Press translation)

Prepare for yourself the way: That

the way should be wide and paved and marked, so that he should not err from

going to the refuge. R. Abin said in the name of R. Yaakov: Each and every mile

there was a wayfarer's shelter, and on each shelter a statue, and the statue's

hand would point towards the city of refuge. That is [how the verse was

observed]: He shows the way to sinners (Psalms 25:8).

(Hizkuni

ad loc)

On Charisma and Institutions

Yehonatan Chipman

Over

a hundred years ago, the German sociologist Max Weber, generally considered the

father of modern sociology, wrote about a basic tension between two kinds of

human leadership: charisma and institution.¹ Charismatic leadership

is based upon the personality of the leader himself: it is in no way embedded

in fixed institutions, but is rather a function of the leader's unique personal

qualities, which make people wish to follow him; in religious terms, he may be

seen as someone who speaks in God's name or has the Holy Spirit. Institutional

leadership, by contrast, is based upon fixed institutions of society, an

established system of government with fixed officers: a duly-elected leader – a

president or prime minister – or, in a monarchy, a hereditary king or queen;

parliament or legislature; judges and courts; various governmental ministries

or bureaus; etc. Those filling these offices derive their power and authority from

the office itself; not from any special quality, but from the office itself: they

may be drab, colorless figures, mediocre, incompetent, or worse – it doesn't

matter.

In

this week's Torah reading, Shoftim, one of a series of parshiyot said by Moses

prior to his death in anticipation of the people crossing the Jordan into the

Land and beginning their life as a nation, we have in brief, succinct terms, an

outline of the basic institutions of the future Israelite state: judges and

magistrates, a king, the priestly-Levite judges who are charged with resolving

those problems that "are too difficult for you," the priests and

Levites who perform the Divine service in the Temple, the army with its

officers and commanders, and the prophet.

Until

this point, Moses had functioned as the leader of the people in the desert; his

own leadership was based upon charisma; he was "Moses the man of God,"

the prophet, the teacher, the lawgiver, the redeemer, the intermediary between

the people and God, who at times seemed more at home in the transcendent realm

of the Godhead than among his fellow human beings. He was a unique,

irreplaceable figure.

The

essential question I would like to ask is: what kind of governmental structure

does the Torah envision for Israel?

Is to be based upon charisma and the holy spirit, upon fixed, mundane

institutions, or on some mixture of the two?

Offhand,

it would appear that, in creating the structures for a nation living in its own

land, the Torah is concerned with creating lasting offices and institutions

independent of the personality or capabilities of the one filling them. Moses

was a unique figure, not a model for future generations. Of course, in every

system one hopes that the best possible people fill the crucial offices of

leadership, but in the final analysis authority derives from the office itself.

As the Sages themselves put it, "Jephthah in his generation was like

Samuel in his generation: you have no one but the judge [or other leader] who

is in your generation" (b. Rosh Hashanah 25b).

Applying this yardstick to our chapter, it seems clear that the judges and

magistrates mentioned at the beginning are clearly "institutional"

officeholders. Similarly – and perhaps surprisingly – the king is more a

hereditary officeholder, a living symbol of the monarchy of the Davidic

dynasty, a "branch of the stock of Jesse," and not a magnetic

personality in his own right. The Chapter of the King emphasizes the

proscriptions and limitations placed upon the king, and not his prerogatives or

powers.²

On

the other hand, there was great ambivalence abut the institutionalization of a

monarchy in Israel; Martin Buber has argued convincingly in many of his

writings,³ that during the earliest period of Israel's life in the

land there was a strong tendency towards preferring direct theocracy, channeled

through the emergence of occasional charismatic leaders – judges and "seers"

– who led the people in the name of God. Thus, the prophet Samuel exhibits

great ambivalence towards the people's request for a king, in general, and

about the specific fitness of Saul, in particular. (See

esp. I Samuel 8; 11:14-12:25, and the entire sequence of narratives regarding

Samuel, Saul and David.)

What

about the Sanhedrin or, in the language of our portion, "the priest and

Levites, and the judge who shall be shall be in those days" (Deut 17:9)? On the face of it, the Torah seems

to be speaking of a known, fixed institution: whatever judges (including priestly teacher-judges; cf. Mal 2:7)

happen to hold judicial office at that time. Indeed, as noted earlier: "Jephthah

in his day is like Samuel in his day." But note an interesting nuance in

this passage: not only are these judges/priests found adjacent to the Temple,

in the "place which the Lord your God shall choose" (v. 8) (again, in Second Temple times we know

that the Sanhedrin or High Court sat in the Chamber of Hewn Stone – that is to

say, in one of the side rooms, adjacent to the Temple courtyard with its

sacrificial altar); when stipulating their authority "you shall do act in

accordance with the thing that they shall tell you," it adds the phrase "from

that place" – as if to say, the High Court derives its inspiration, its

wisdom, its ability to judge correctly, in an almost mystical way, from it connection

to the Temple, and from the Presence of God who is in some way indwelling in

the Temple. (This fact is also shown by the fact that the original,

proto-Sanhedrin, the seventy elders mentioned in Numbers

11:15 ff., were infused with the Spirit that had rested upon Moses (ואצלתי

מן הרוח אשר עליך ושמתי עליהם; v. 17); a fact rather pointedly mentioned

by Rambam in his Laws of Sanhedrin 4.1 ("the

Shekhinah rested upon them"). Infusion of the spirit appears in the

appointment of Joshua as successor to Moses ("place

your glory upon him"; ונתת

מהודך עליו  – Num 27:20), and among various other leaders

as well – notably, Samson, Saul, David; but we cannot discuss this point in

detail here). This might suggest that the Sanhedrin, in addition to judging by

purely` rational considerations – by interpretation of the sources and

examination of precedents based upon oral traditions, as well as by their own

evaluation of the needs of society and the nature of the specific situation

encountered – was somehow empowered by the Divine spirit.

But

perhaps most significant is the last "institution" presented in the parasha:

that of the prophet. Following an admonition "not to learn from the

abominations of those nations" (Deut 18:9),

we are told that, "The Lord your God shall raise up a prophet from among,

from your brethren, who shall be like me" (15;

cf. 18). In other words, following the death of Moses, while there shall

never again be a revelation in which the people shall hear the voice of God or

see "that great fire," they shall still have direct access to the

Divine word through the medium of the prophets – and by listening to his words,

they shall know what God wishes of them in difficult situations and at dramatic

junctures and crossroads in their history. Surely, a note of charisma par excellence!

 (There is more than a little difficulty with

this: how does one distinguish a between a false prophet and true prophet? Just

a few chapters earlier [Deut 13:2-6; cf.

18:20-22], the people are warned not to obey a prophet, even if he

performs signs and wonders, if he tells them to worship idols or otherwise says

that which God surely has not commanded or would not want. Again, we cannot

elaborate upon this point and its ramifications in the little space available

here.)

After

the Destruction of the First

Temple, prophecy began to

decline. There were three last prophets during the interim period leading to

the Return to Zion

– Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi – and then there were no more. Thereafter, we

turn to the age of the Rabbis and Sages – men of learning, of great intellect

and erudition, of human wisdom and understanding – but their authority was not

based upon supernatural connections or pneumatic charisma, but upon their

abilities and knowledge as human beings. "A sage is preferable to a prophet,"

our Rabbis say. The famous Talmudic story of the Oven of Akhnai (b. Bava Metzi'a 59b), may be read as marking

the death knell of authority based upon charisma. Rabbi Eliezer invoked a

series of signs and wonders to prove that the halakhah was in accordance with

his view, in the end even bringing a Heavenly Voice which proclaimed in his

favor. All in vain: Rabbi Joshua adamantly counters by saying "It is not

in the Heavens." Once the Torah was given over to human beings, it is

theirs to stay, and there is naught to go on but our own human intellect. And

the process of decision-making within the Sanhedrin is based upon a democratic

process of voting among its members, and in the end ruling according to the

majority view.

The

Talmud also includes stories of miracle workers who were far less knowledgeable

than the great rabbis and Sages, and yet seemed to "have God's ear." The

third chapter of Ta'anit brings a whole series of stories in which there is a

drought, the people pray for rain, the prayers of even the most learned rabbis

are in vain, until a relative ignorant man but one of deep piety, sincerity and

simple faith (i.e., charismatic power) says "he makes the winds to blow

and brings down the rain" –  and

immediately the sky clouds over and the rain falls. Similarly, Honi the Circle

Drawer told God, "I will not move from this circle until You bring rain"

– and God was, so to speak, forced to answer (m.

Ta'anit 3.8).

This

tension between charisma and religious institutions continued through later

periods in Jewish history, in the medieval period and down to modernity. In the

Zohar and in other Kabbalistic books we read about the small circle of

initiates who seek to learn the "mysteries of Torah" concealed deep

within the text. One might argue that the great debate between Hasidism and

Mitnaggedism revolves around this issue. Is the leadership of Jewish people in

the hands of people who are learned in Torah and Talmud and poskim, or in that

of individuals of lesser learning, but of great spiritual power, who may pray

with great intensity and ecstasy, and who possess that intangible quality known

as charisma – and whose followers see in them their own soul root?

A

concluding word about our own generation. We live in an age when many young

(and older) people seem to be fleeing from what thy see as a dry, arid

rationalism, seeking a measure of greater emotion, of joy, a sense of real

relation with the transcendent, even religious ecstasy. It is easy to criticize

these movements; to warn of the dangers of abandoning all reason and common

sense, of falling into a potentially cruel fanaticism, of succumbing to

charlatans and demagogues, of leaders who may cynically exploit the thirst for

holiness and purity to their own personal ends. But having said all that, the

desire for charisma, for some sort of genuine emotion and spiritual uplift in

the religious life, beyond arid scholasticism and dry obedience to the mitzvot

of the halakhah, is an authentic and legitimate human need. We need to learn

how to walk the narrow path between seeking the spirit and being led astray

into "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

(Macbeth, 5.5).

1. Max Weber, On Charisma and Institution Building;

Selected Papers, ed. S. N. Eisenstadt. Chicago–London, 1968.

2. See Yair Lorberbaum's recent book, Melekh Evyon:

(Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan

University, 2008; forthcoming in

English translation, tentatively titled Beggar King: On the Monarchy in

Classical Jewish Literature, by Continuum Press, New York. Here, he studies the development

of these laws and the attitude towards the king and monarchy in Talmudic

literature.

3. See especially M. Buber, The Kingship of God

(New York, 1967) [Königtum Gottes (Berlin,

1936)];

Rabbi Yehonatan Chipman is a translator by profession,

specializing in Jewish studies. He writes a weekly sheet (in English) on the

portion of the week and the haftara, titled "Hitsei Yehonatan".

(Anyone interested in ordering a sample of subscription can write via email to:

yonarand@internet-zahav.net.

Midrashei Tzafon – From the pen of our

member, Ronen Ahituv

For you may eat from them, but you shall not

cut them down. Is the tree of the field a man, to go into the siege before you?

(20:19)

Why not cut them down? Because it does

not go into the siege before you, that you are not at war with the tree,

rather you are obliged to preserve it, for it is said: to work and guard

it (Bereishit

2:15). Man is but a salaried guard in the world of the Holy One, blessed

be He.

Another idea. Why not cut down? Because

you eat from it and need it. Know that if it bears no fruit you are permitted

to destroy it, for it is said: you may destroy and cut down (20:20). And He also

says: Fill the earth and conquer it (Bereishit 1:28). For man is like the owner of

his world, and it is said, and He gave the earth to humans (Psalms 115:16). The

Omnipresent has given us good advice, that we should preserve the world for

posterity.

The Torah

prohibits soldiers from cutting down fruit trees in order to lay siege in times

of war. Two explanations of this prohibition are presented:

Rashi reads Is

the tree of the field a man as a rhetorical question: Is the tree of the

field a man, to go into the siege before you? This expresses the claim

that a tree is not an enemy and therefore it cannot be destroyed and

incorporated into the siege. It has rights that derive from its very existence

and go beyond its connection to the human enemy. This explanation assumes that

the tree has its own inalienable and intrinsic right to exist, and therefore

its destruction is prohibited. A similar story can be found in the story of the

Garden of Eden in the second chapter of Bereishit, according to which it is

man's role to preserve creation.

The explanation For

you may eat from them, but you shall not cut them down expresses the

claim that fruit trees are properly exploited by eating their fruit, and their

destruction is a waste that will eventually harm the troops themselves which

are laying siege. This explanation views the prohibition as deriving from the

fighting man himself. It accommodates the anthropocentric approach found in the

first chapter of Bereishit, where man is granted both dominion over creation

and the right to exploit it to fulfill his needs. This approach also obligates

us to protect natural resources for future generations.

Thus, we see how a single verse contains

two different rationales for humanity's ecological responsibility.

We need your support in order that the voice of a religious Zionism

uninterrupted distribution of Shabbat Shalom

in hundreds of synagogues, on the Internet and via email in both

Hebrew and English.

In Israel, checks

payable to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B. 4433, Jerusalem 91043.

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 NIF 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 to either the NIF or PEF should be marked as

to NIF, please mention that Oz veShalom is registered as no. 5708.

If you wish to subscribe to the email English editions of Shabbat

please call +972-52-3920206 or at ozshalom@netvision.net.il

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.

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 that 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.

4,500 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.

Shabbat Shalom is available on our website: www.netivot-shalom.org.il