You
shall also seek out from among all the people capable men who fear God,
trustworthy men, who spurn ill-gotten gain. Set these over them as chiefs of
thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, and let them judge the people at all
times. Every great matter they shall bring before you, but every small matter
they shall judge by themselves. Make it easier for yourself by letting them
share the burden with you.

 (Shemot
18:21-22)

WHAT IS A  "GREAT MATTER"?

 
"Every
great matter they shall bring before you." Great matters shall they bring before you, small
matters they shall judge; is this the correct interpretation, or is it that
matters of little men they shall judge themselves? When Scripture
[elsewhere] relates that  "the
difficult matters they would bring before Moshe," it is
certainly not referring to the persons, it is referring to the great
matters.

 (Mekhilta Yithro, Massechet Amalek, Parasha 2)

A king is to be appointed only by a Beth Din
[court of law] of seventy-one; and a minor Sanhedrin is established for every
tribe and every town only by a Beth Din of seventy-one; the cases of a tribe
which has been banished, and that of a false prophet and that of a High Priest
tried on capital charges are adjucated only before the Great Beth Din. But
monetary issues [of the high priest, are judged] before three. One is declared
to be a rebellious elder, and a city is to be declared a banished town, and the
sotah is to be given to drink [the bitter waters] only by the Great Beth
Din. And the expansion of the city and the Temple courts, and the waging of optional
war, and the measurement of the distance of the cadaver [from the nearest
town] are to be done only by the Great Beth Din, as is written:  "Every great matter shall they
bring before you."

 (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sanhedrin 5:1)

FROM
'WHERE?' WILL MY HELP COME

Daniel Rohrlich

Concerning the first
two Commandments, our Sages wrote: "We heard 'I…' and 'You shall have
no…' directly from the mouth of God." It is true that the first two
Commandments present God in the first person – "I the Lord am…" and
"You shall have no other gods besides Me" – whereas the subsequent
Commandments present God in the third person. But how can we understand the
notion of hearing "directly from the mouth of God"?

One way to
understand these words "directly from the mouth of God" is to limit
them to the unique events of Mount Sinai. The Israelites heard these two
Commandments directly, immediately, while for all other mitsvot Moses served as
an intermediary between them and the Lord. In contrast to this understanding of
"directly from the mouth of God" as a one-time phenomenon, Maimonides
greatly expanded the meaning of the words (Mishne Torah, Hilkhot Yesode
haTorah, I:1): "To know that there is a first Being, and that all beings
can be only through this Being,… 
is the basis of all bases and the pedestal of wisdom…. And to know it
is a positive mitsva, as it is written, 'I the Lord am your God…'"
Anyone, by the application of human powers, and especially the power

of the intellect –
the power of knowing – can "hear" the first two Commandments
"directly from the mouth of God". Or as Maimonides put it in The
Guide of the Perplexed (II:33), "The intention [of the Sages]  was that they [the first two
Commandments] reached them [the Israelites] just as they reached our teacher
Moses – Moses was not an intermediary; for these two fundamental principles,
namely the existence and the unity of the Lord, are grasped only by the human
intellect."

Yet the language of
these two Commandments is hard to reconcile with Maimonides' approach. If the
existence of God is an inherent truth, independent of any historical event,
what is the significance of the clause, "…who brought you out of the
land of Egypt, the house of bondage"? Furthermore, if God is one, who are
these "other gods beside Me"? Maimonides explained the
anthropomorphism "beside Me" (a literal translation of the Hebrew is
"on My face") as an expression of direct encounter, as in "Face
to face the Lord spoke to you on the mountain out of the fire…" (Deut.
5:4) "Other gods," then, are "on God's face" in the sense
that they interrupt and prevent the direct and unmediated knowledge of God's
existence. But who are these "other gods"?

Following the
Mekhilta (halakhic midrash on Exodus), let us note shades of meaning in the
language of the second Commandment, "You shall have no other gods…"
vs. "You shall not make for yourself a sculptured image, or any
likeness…" It is not enough if we merely do not m a k e a sculpture or
picture; sometimes we have sculptures and pictures that we didn't make – idols
and images that we inherit from our parents or others, and that we are apt to
pass on to our children. For this reason the Commandment goes on to speak of
"…an impassioned God, visiting the guilt of fathers upon the children…"
Together with the idols and images that we inherit and pass on, there are
idolatrous habits and practices, opinions and beliefs – and all of these are
"other gods" that prevent us from seeing God's face. Even attributes
by which we describe God are idolatrous beliefs, and to Maimonides they are no
different from idolatry. (See The Guide of the Perplexed I:36). Maimonides
denied the possibility of describing God; God has no attributes, beyond the
description of the world, which is God's world. We can describe only what
belongs to the world, but God does not belong to the world.

The rejection of attribution and anthropomorphism
makes up much of The Guide of the Perplexed, especially of part I. It is
theology by negation, and hard to understand. Maimonides' language is hard,
too: How is possible "to know that that there is a first Being," when
that Being has no attributes? Indeed, how can "to know" be a mitsva
(commandment)? How can anyone be commanded to know what he doesn't know? And if
he does know, what is there to command?

Maimonides himself
recognized that the language was problematic. In Eight Chapters (his
introduction to Tractate Avot) he wrote, "There is confusion about role of
the intellect [in the observance of mitsvot]. I claim that that the intellect,
too, is responsible for observance, via correct or incorrect beliefs; yet it is
not responsible for any particular actions that correspond to mitsvot or
sins." Yeshayahu Leibowitz explained this "confusion" as the
typical confusion of philosophers of the medieval period, who "did not
distinguish between information and meaning…. Today we extract meaningless
information from science and do not have to attribute cognitive content to
religious thought." (Y. Leibowitz: Judaism, Human Values and the
Jewish State, p. 136) That is, "to know" as used by Maimonides does not correspond
to "to know" as we use it today, (Today, everyone understands
that science does not supply meaning, but many still do not understand that
religion does not supply information.) and must be exchanged for another word such
as "to recognize". Yet the mere exchange of one word for another does
not remove the difficulty in grasping the negative theology of Maimonides.
Negation is hard; and yet it contains something positive. Sylvia Boorstein, an
observant Jew and teacher of Zen meditation, expressed it well. We are used to
reading the first verse in Psalm 121 as a question: "I raise my eyes to
the mountains; from where will my help come?" Yet the Hebrew for
"from where" also has the literal translation "from
nothing". Thus in Boorstein's reading, it becomes a declaration: "My
help will come from emptiness!" Emptiness is not empty – it is full! Or as
Steven Mitchell, also experienced in Zen meditation, made clear in his
beautiful translation of the book of Job: Job does not receive any answer from
God; in the end, nothing remains of his claims and demands of God beyond a
description of the world – God's world. Yet the negation of all his claims is
precisely what comforts Job in his mourning and suffering: "Therefore I
will be quiet, comforted that I am dust."

The book
"Discussions of Maimonides' 'Eight Chapters'" contains a fascinating
exchange between Yeshayahu Leibowitz and one of his students/friends, who asks,
"Can we say that knowing God is not so much a matter of affirmation as of
negation?" To which Leibowitz replies, "Yes, that is negative
theology! True knowledge of God consists in liberation from all conceptions of
God." [Editor's note: compare "They conceived of You, but not as You
are, and described You by Your actions" in the Hymn of Glory.]

Indeed, in the negative theology of Maimonides we
find a priceless positive content: liberation. And perhaps that explains the
language of the first Commandment: "I the Lord am your God who brought you
out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage." Recognizing God is the supreme
liberation.

Dr. Daniel Rohrlich
is a physicist.

"You shall also seek out
from among all the people capable men who fear God, trustworthy men, who spurn
ill-gotten gain"

THE ATTRIBUTES REQUIRED OF A JUDGE

A Beth Din of three judges, even though we do
not insist that they possess all of these [attributes required of judges of the
Great Beth Din], each one must have the following virtues: Wisdom, humility,
awe, disdain for wealth, love of truth, public esteem, and a good reputation.
All these are mentioned explicitly in the Torah, for it is written:  "Men wise, understanding and
knowledgeable" – these are the wise of whom we spoke;  "and knowledgeable to your
tribes" – these are those who find favor in the public's eyes. How
will they earn public esteem? When they will be generous, humble, keeping good
company, speaking quietly with the people. Later on it says  "Men of caliber" – these
are those who are courageous in observance of commandments, and are strict with
themselves and control their inclinations, to the point where even as they
reach old age, their lifetime reputation is untarnished. Included in the
category of  "Men of
caliber" are those who are brave enough to save the oppressed from
the hands of their oppressor, as is written,  "And Moshe rose up and delivered them," and
just as Moshe our teacher was humble, so must every judge be humble.  "Men who fear God" – in
its simplest sense;  "who
spurn ill-gotten gain" – they are not fearful even for their own
property, and they are not keen on accumulation of wealth, realizing that loss
will overtake it.  "Men
of truth" – who willingly pursue justice, love truth, despise
corruption and avoid iniquity of any sort.

 (Rambam, Mishneh Torah,  "Laws of Sanhedrin", 2:7)

It is told that at
the time of the establishment of the State, Rabbi Yehuda Leib Maimon, z"l,
first Minister of Religions of the State of Israel, proposed to Ben Gurion the
reestablishment of the Sanhedrin. Ben Gurion's reply was:  "Let's assume that you will be
able to find among the Jewish people seventy men who are  "men of caliber" and
also  "God-fearing and men
of truth." But  "men
who spurn ill-gotten gain"?!!

Replied Rabbi
Maimon:  "For money you can
get that too."

"By Wielding
Your Sword Upon Them You Will Have Profaned Them" – Altar and Sword are
Antithetical

… And so it is
written [regarding the stones of the altar] (Devarim 27):  "Do not wield an iron tool over
them" and elsewhere (Shemot 20:21) it is written:  "By wielding your sword upon them you will have profaned
them"; in what way does
iron differ from other metals? It is because the sword is symbolic of curse,
whereas the altar symbolizes atonement; the logic of kal va'chomer
dictates that a symbol of curse must make way for an object of atonement; if an
altar constructed of stones which neither see nor speak nor eat nor drink – and
because they make peace between Israel and their father in heaven, the Torah
says  "Do not wield an iron
tool over them" – then certainly Torah students, who are an atonement
for the world, all the more so! And similarly (Devarim 27):  "You must build the
altar of the Lord your God of whole stones" – Stones which bring
peace to the world. We learn a kal va'chomer: If such be the case
with stones which do not see nor hear nor speak nor eat nor drink, but make
peace between Israel and their father in heaven – if they must be whole before
Me, Torah students, who are an atonement for the world, certainly they must be
whole before The Holy One, Blessed Be He.

 (Tractate Semachot 8b)