Interfaith Shoftim

[dauer]

Dondi, according to one interpretation, "and you shall abolish [the shedding of] innocent blood..." could mean that if the murderer is found, the murder is still held accountable according to the law. For me, that's not satisfying enough of an answer, and I think it's a really good question you asked. Rambam suggests that the whole ritual will make noise and attract people, such that they'll be able to question them about the murder. This feels like it's worth getting deeper into.

Quahom,

I think one reason I would not call it a qorban, is because it never calls itself a qorban. It also does seem very ritualized, with specific guidelines for how it is to be done. Wait... Idea... This whole issue involves a dead person... Kohanim cannot come into contact with the dead. They find a corpse, so the kohanim just stand behind and monitor. They can't come close, because they don't want to be rendered tamei by the dead body. The elders wash their hands clean of the affair onto the animal and then kill it, but the kohanim don't because of the risk of becoming tamei.

This might be a type of lie detector. It seems to me at least like a way of removing communal guilt. According to Fox in some ancient societies, unsolved murders were thought to be a burden on the whole community (instead of a source of gossip or entertainment as we might use it today) so that this might have been a sort of stop valve to release that weight. I can't tell you if you're right or wrong though. Some things may become more apparent through discussion, but then again, those things that become apparent could still be incorrect. Everything you have said so far has been very insightful.

Dauer

[Quahom1]

As of now, I stand corrected.


v/r

Q

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by dauer

They find a corpse, so the kohanim just stand behind and monitor. They can't come close, because they don't want to be rendered tamei by the dead body. The elders wash their hands clean of the affair onto the animal and then kill it, but the kohanim don't because of the risk of becoming tamei.

This might be a type of lie detector. It seems to me at least like a way of removing communal guilt. According to Fox in some ancient societies, unsolved murders were thought to be a burden on the whole community (instead of a source of gossip or entertainment as we might use it today) so that this might have been a sort of stop valve to release that weight. I can't tell you if you're right or wrong though. Some things may become more apparent through discussion, but then again, those things that become apparent could still be incorrect. Everything you have said so far has been very insightful.

Dauer

Dauer, I don't know my ass from a hole in the ground.

I simply am a student, and grateful to be here.

v/r

Q

[Faithfulservant]

Same.. I really appreciate this chance to learn.

[dauer]

I'm in the same boat as the two of you. That's why I wanted to start this project. I think it's a great opportunity to learn from each other in a way that usually doesn't happen. I especially am appreciating those moments when our own personal revelations (which are precious in their own right) give way to rich dialogue, which I'm hoping will only gain in its richness and depth as the weeks pass. The most basic Jewish model of study is to have two people looking over a text together; discussing, debating back and forth. When one gets stuck on something, it is more likely the other can fill in the blank. And vice versa. Based on my own experience I would actually suggest that even if someone says something that seems like it's fitting all of the pieces together, to be open to the possibility that it is still only one possible explanation. I only say this because I have heard some very, very good drashes, which are exegetical, homiletical explanations of the text. Upon looking at the text with the drash in mind, it might appear that the drash is actually the true meaning of the text, but in reality it's very likely not because the text itself, due to its nature (many gaps and such), often leaves room for many possible explanations to be found. I think my explanation about the kohanim being worried about becoming tamei (ritually impure is the usual translation) is a good explanation, but Quahom, I also think that your explanation is possible. Personally, I'm often less interested in finding "the" original meaning of the text than I am in finding meaning in the text, which is exactly what faithful servant did. And I would argue it's exactly what most people do, because most of us end up seeing the text through our own eyes. So then I start to ask myself, what have I gained by coming to an understanding that kohanim did not take part in this act because of the laws of tumah? I'm not sure. Tumah is usually a hard one. But I think I have learned something about the seriousness of unsolved murders. Sorry. I'm ranting.

I want to take a step backwards now to an earlier section of the text. From Chapt 20.

"19. When you besiege a city for many days to wage war against it to capture it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an ax against them, 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. However, a tree you know is not a food tree, you may destroy and cut down, and you shall build bulwarks against the city that makes war with you, until its submission."

Yes, the little dirty hippy in me picked this one.

[pohaikawahine]

this all reminds me of deuteronomy 6:10 "and it shall come about when the lord your god brings you to the land he swore to your fathers .... great and goodly towns that you did not build, and houses filled with all good that you did not fill, and hewn cisterns that you did not hew, vineyards and olive groves that you did not plant, you will eat and be sated" which follows deuteronomy 6:4-9 which is enclosed in the 'tefillin' (which you wear like a sign upon they hand and a memorial between thein eyes) ...


and now we have "crimes that you did not see" etc.... as far as I can tell the above reference, to me, has always been symbolic of solomon's temple, the human head (yes, I'm back to the head and the brain) .... the temple not built with human hands and a paradise filled with houses, hewn cisterns, vineyards and olive groves that you do not build, hew, or plant ..... so what is crime that one does not see ....

the elders still make me think of the circle of twelve (in the brain) .... if you love the tales of king arthur and the knights of the round table, it would be the twelve knights ..... there are several ways to look at the concept of sacrafice (one I already mentioned having to do with and eye for an eye or atoning and letting go), the other has to do with the constellations of the ancient world .... whenever a constellation sets or falls below the horizon it is symbolized in myth as a "death" or a "sacrafice" .... so we have the elders and we have the "calf" and we have the "cities" (we look for the closest city) .... from which to choose the "calf" to be "sacraficed" ....

the ancient astrolgers of babylon used triads, for sixes and for twelves, or three worlds .... if we take the sky circle and use our current measurement of 360 degrees, and divide it into twelve chief parts, each having three sections marked into tenths .... thirty degrees to each.... with the movement of the constellations we would look for the closest "city" (assuming you might call each section a city or something) in marking time and myth .... so we divide the territory into three, and again later we add another three ....

well, the night sky is also a symbol for the inner night sky (if you were to look upward within your own head) .... as above, so below .... and we mark time, ritual and myth both externally and internally ....(in the ancient way of hawaii we use a term meaning 'the night rainbow') ....

to me the use of words such as the "elders" and the "calf" and "sacrafice" can all be related to the inner world of the mind and its markings .... the "slain lamb at passover" is a similar use of words to describe the movement of a constellation at a particular juncture in the year (or the setting of a constellation) .... yet even with a description of the constellations there is still a deeper meaning related to the world of spirituality and the movement of energy within the human body ....

in the south pacific you might hear a legend like this ".... the warrior from anguar, who went to save the people of peleliu, pretended to be washing his wounds in the ocean .... his lance would be hidden just beneath the water level .... and then the seven warriors in canoes from whevever appear on the horizon .... the story will go on until he slays all seven warriors and the people are saved .... this tells me that the star system of the "pleiades" (the seven stars) was rising (when the seven warriors appear) and is setting (when they are slain) ..... much of this type of knowledge was used in navigation and the night sky was superimposed on the dome of the inner sky, the skull ..... so you can see how I see the parallels in words that speak of twelve, sacrafice, etc..... the question I can't answer yet is what constellation or star system was symbolized in the "calf" .... then the next question will be how does this system in space relate to our inner world ..... he hawai'i au, pohaikawahine

[pohaikawahine]

one more small post, then I have to leave for work or I'll be late ....


i'm going to take you outside to another "santuary" .... that of the sanctuary of apollo at delphi .... from all over the ancient world kings and commoners traveled to delphi to ask the oracle of apollo about the right course of action .... they brought offerings to the god and were sent on their way by the priests with riddling answers .... yet over the entrance to the sanctuary was this statement "know thyself" .... the answers are found inside of each of us .... in a statement that I saw it said that the "Hebraic Talmud says 'we do not see things the way they are, we see things the way we are' " .... (it didn't give the exact reference) .... so again we have a sanctuary, we have offerings, but it all takes us back to an inner aspect of who we are .... each perspective is right, but together we can begin to see the whole puzzle and perhaps be able to understand the riddling answers ..... and then dauer we might find the one answer that brings it all together .... aloha nui, pohaikawahine

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by dauer

..."19. When you besiege a city for many days to wage war against it to capture it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an ax against them, 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. However, a tree you know is not a food tree, you may destroy and cut down, and you shall build bulwarks against the city that makes war with you, until its submission."

Yes, the little dirty hippy in me picked this one.

From a military perspective (from which I am borne), this passage has an obvious lesson. However from a personal perspective the lesson here holds equally true.

1. In order to lay siege to a city, the army must sustain itself, while draining the resources of the enemy. This is the battle of attritian. Laying siege to the enemy's city is a better way to beat the enemy than pitting force against force. However in order to sustain one's own army requires a steady supply line, or a readily available source of supply at hand. The latter is preferred. To use resources available for the wrong reasons or wrong goals, is a waste and places the besieger in roughly the same predicament as the besieged. In otherwords, use the right tools for the right job. Trees that bear fruit will sustain the army indefinitely, while the enemy behind walls starves and weakens. Trees that do not bear fruit are the right material for constructing mechanisms of battle in order to easily overcome the weakened defenses of the enemy.

2. In everyday life, we find people, who are against us, but that we find by what ever circumstances, that we have them corralled. Now we have resources available to us that will allow us to be victorious over our opponent. But that victory depends on how wisely we use those resources. For example: People that are on our side, or sympathetic to us, are like trees that bear fruit. They back us, they agree with us, in short, they sustain us. But we would be most unwise to use them to go after the enemy. It would result in killing that sympathy or alliance, which in turn would weaken us, which levels the battle field, instead of allowing us to keep the advantage. Trees that do not bear fruit are neutral people, but usually in authority or in positions of power. (non-fruit bearing trees have the stronger wood). After sufficient time, and with the backing of the alliances we have (and after letting the our opponent weaken through a lack of resources), we then make use of those with authority or power to aid us in defeating our enemy.

Personal experience: While serving at a unit as a division head, a supervisor and I had among other things, a personality conflict. I recognized this and had the advantage of being at the unit much longer than the supervisor, and had established my work ethic and competence at my job. However the supervisor immediately began to complain of my incompetence (because I would not comply with the demands which were ludicrous and unreasonable, as well as needlessly dangerous in certain cases). I did have sympathetic and understanding personnel both above and below my rank, however I never brought them into the fray. As days, weeks and months went by, the sympathy grew to the point were I was asked point blank "when are you going to do something about this?" I replied, when evaluation time came, and the supervisor showed the cards in hand, is when I would act (when it was all on paper).

When that day came, the marks I recieved were not only substandard, they were so low that there was reason to have me forced from the service for gross incompetence. However, those in sympathy with me, quietly provided information on every job, every deed, every good thing I had done on and off duty. They provided information on things I'd never thought twice about (but they'd never forgot).

When I went before the commanding officer to contest my low marks, the supervisor was there with a 3x4 inch memo pad, with things I did wrong. I had three folders 4 inches thick, with everything that I had accomplished within the marking period. The commanding officer took one look at the supervisor's evidence, then at mine. He asked me to leave, and the supervisor...he ordered to stay...

An hour later a new evaluation sheet was presented to me (by the commanding officer). Out of 22 areas for marking, 20 were raised to the top. The commanding officer asked if I would accept this. I agreed. He apologized, and the supervisor was replaced by another one by the end of the day.

That is why this passage Dauer, hit so close to home. Though I knew this passage, I never really thought about it, but subconsciously I must have taken its lesson to heart.

Sorry for the long windedness.

v/r

Q

[dauer]

I like that. One more example of why as many perspectives as possible is beneficial. I was wondering why the law stood for a siege specifically, because I had thought it was simply so that the fruit would be available once the battling was over. There is one odd statement:

"Is the tree of the field a man, to go into the siege before you?"

On one level it could be said that this is Moses speaking and so his words are going to be like the words of a man. But on another level, these words are included in the Torah. So why is this sentence included if its basic meaning seems to have already been conveyed by the text? What meaning is contained within this extra sentence that would otherwise leave this passage incomplete?

From where I am right now, I would actually say that this is the heart of the passage. Not only is it central in its placement, but it is the only phrase out of the entire passage that has any heart at all. The rest of it is technical, but this one is crying from the parchment. The rest of it is commanding, lecturing. But this engages: it questions. Fox renders it, "for are the trees of the field human beings, (able) to come against you in a seige?"

And it raises another question too! Is the tree of the field like an "Adam", that it is (able) to come against us in a seige? I don't think it is, but if we come against the trees in a siege, against everything connected to Adamah, then the seige against mankind begins.

Dauer

[Dondi]

Funny you should mention Adam. I was thinking in term of the garden of Eden when I read this section. Perhaps the Promised Land that the Israelites are entering is a metaphor for the garden of Eden. Maybe God wants to preserve the good (fruitful trees) and rid of the bad (non-fruitful trees). It is as if God is wanting Israel to claim back that which was lost in the fall. The fields are virgin, pure, eden like. the non-fruitbearing trees are like the briars and thorns that Adam had to tend to after the fall.

[dauer]

Dondi, I had considered the possibility that Adam might be a reference to Gan Eden but I didn't follow that thought fully. Well done.

I think now, as it is Thursday evening and some of you all may have specific things in the parsha you wanted to bring up -- questions to raise or points to make -- seems like a good time to declare free swim. *blows whistle.* So feel free to find whatever you'd like to bring to the table.

Dauer

[Faithfulservant]

19. When you besiege a city for many days to wage war against it to capture it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an ax against them, 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. However, a tree you know is not a food tree, you may destroy and cut down, and you shall build bulwarks against the city that makes war with you, until its submission."

I actually want to respond to this one.. I dont know if I would call myself a hippie but I have a great love for Gods creation.. and find myself depressed if Im in a city too long. I agree with the interpretations that were made about this one but I would also like to add that God certainly does seem to take care of His people in every aspect and Im appreciating it more as we study it. Here He gave an instruction manuel or at times even a survival guide that is so very detailed that Im in awe. How very blessed to be one of the people that God calls His own..

I see the Father again.. teaching His son how to survive a war in the feilds. Interesting also is that He said until its submission.. not giving the option of failure.. see the faith He had in Israel?

[Faithfulservant]

18:15 "The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear,

Who do the Jews believe this refers to? Does this translate correctly? a Prophet like me from your midst? Is it referring to HaShem? am I spelling that correctly? If not I apologize.

18:18 I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. 18:19 And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him. 18:20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.' 18:21 And if you say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?'-- 18:22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

This is a section of Deuteronomy I know well.. Its a test of a whether a prophet is from God and in this day and age I think I use it a lot.. lol.



20:4 for the Lord your God is He who goes with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you.'

I love this promise.

[dauer]

Faithfulservant,

Well, I'm a Jew and I reject prophecy. But it could refer to Joshua (who was a lot like Moses) or to any prophet that rises up at any given time to lead. The one correction I would make with your translation is that there are no capitals in Hebrew (although there are some final letters) so I wouldn't see anything to indicate that prophet should be capitalized. Muslims sometimes point to this passage as a reference to Muhammad, and I believe in Christianity it's used to indicate Jesus. So there's a lot of variation in interpretation of this one among different religions.

I like the last quote you posted too, especially as it refers to internal enemies, that God is always present to help with those internal struggles too. It's very true in my experience, although I know for some it's not the case, and I want to honor that experience as well.

Peace and blessings.

Dauer

[Faithfulservant]

Thanks Dauer for the heads up on caps.. I didnt know that.

As for prophecy.. you will probably see me refer to what I believe is prophetic in these scriptures.. will make sure not to ask you what you believe the prophecy refers to.. I did know about Muhammed to Islam.. and I knew about Jesus I just wasnt sure who the Jews believe it referred to.. Joshua makes sense to me though.