Liberal Judaism - Written Word - Thought for the Week

For an archive of
'Thought for the Week',
click here

To see the Liberal Judaism Lectionary for 5767 - 5768,

Ki-Tetze contains a final collection of laws in Deuteronomy and is more concerned with the conduct of individuals in the private or domestic spheres as opposed to political or ritual settings. This large group of miscellaneous laws concerns the following subjects (in order): marrying a female war captive; inheritance rights for a first born son in a polygamous family; punishing a recalcitrant son; burying the corpse of an executed criminal; returning stray farm animals; helping a fallen beast of burden; cross dressing; not taking the mother bird along with her nestlings; building a parapet on the roof of a house; not combining different species of seed for planting crops nor animals for ploughing and not combining wool and linen together in the same cloth; attaching tassels onto garments; sexual crimes such as premarital relations, adultery and rape; forbidden marital relationships; individuals excluded from membership in the community or citizenship; the special status with regard to a military camp and ritual cleanliness; asylum for slaves who have escaped from foreign lands; prohibition of prostitution; prohibition of charging interest on loans; fulfilling vows; the right of a hungry person to eat from the not yet harvested crops owned by someone else; forbidden marriages after divorce; deferring military service for a recently married man; limiting the right of creditors in seizing a debtor’s property; kidnapping; treatment of leprosy; more restraints concerning the seizure of a debtor’s property; paying wages without delay; not punishing a child for the sins of a parent and vice-versa; rights of aliens, orphans, and widows; leaving some crops not harvested for the poor to take; excessive physical punishment; not muzzling an ox while it is used for threshing grain; levirate marriage; fighting fairly in an altercation; and the honest usage of weights and measures when trading.

Immediately after the end of this long series of laws, there is a passionate exhortation never to forget the enemy tribe known as the Amalekites.

One characteristic common to most if not all of these laws is restraint based on honouring the dignity of another human being or an animal. In Deuteronomy, ‘might does not always make right’ in family relationships or mundane activities. Nor does ‘anything go’ even in a very stressful or highly charged situation, such as in a battle. As in other collections of laws in the Torah, there is a sense that moral idealism and realism are fused together. (Much has also been noted regarding the linkages between the different laws in order to try to make sense of the order and contents.)

What seems out of place, however, are the verses at the end concerning Amalek: ‘…you shall blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven [meaning ‘destroy them completely’]. Do not forget!’ Is this merely some kind of bitter grudge-bearing or, perhaps, chauvinistic hyperbole meaning something along the lines of ‘don’t act like them’?

The Amalekites, we are told, represent the antithesis of the spirit of this collection of ethical laws. Showing no mercy or compassion, they targeted and slaughtered the vulnerable - the hungry and the exhausted - among the Israelites who had fled from slavery in Egypt. My sense of the intended juxtaposition of this exhortation with the collection of humane laws is that the Israelites must be prepared to fight forcefully for their values against such a brutal and unethical enemy. But for us today doesn’t this rhetoric sound rather grotesque?

I remember from my childhood –and not merely today-- the patriotic phrase, ‘Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.’ used as a justification for making questionable wars abroad and conducting unduly harsh if not illegal practices at home. Yes, a society’s humane values are worth defending with force, if absolutely necessary. But what constitutes ‘necessity’ and ‘survival’ and who does the deciding? What happens when, in the heat of battle or some other trauma, one’s own side often badly betrays those very values that are supposedly being defended? Is survival for mere survival’s sake good enough? But, then again, if the enemy may actually be fairly characterised as utterly ruthless and hateful, what choice does one really have but to go and fight with all one’s might? How much time and effort really can be spent on what could well be fruitless diplomatic efforts? Or, how might it be possible, given the willingness or ability, to attempt to turn hatred and conflict into understanding through non-violent and non-dominating means? The commitment to ‘love righteousness’ - even on an individual level - raises exceedingly awkward questions that a tribe or nation cannot ever ignore.

Parashat Ki-Tetze (Deuteronomy: 21:10 - 25:19)

by Rabbi Frank Dabba Smith