Sep 5, 2024
by R. Gidon Rothstein
Parshat Shofetim
The Possible Kapparah of the Eglah Arufah
The end of the parsha introduces the eglah arufah, a ceremony to address the tragedy of a murder victim, found between cities, whose killer is unknown. The elders of the closest city must bring a calf to a place that has never been worked or planted, declare their innocence of guilt regarding this victim’s death (presumably, that they had policed the roads, offered guidance and accompaniment to people, etc.).
When they do all this, the Torah says, 21;8, they will be absolved of the blood, except the verb for absolve appears in an unusual form, ve-nikaper. HaKetav VeHaKabbalah thinks the word combines the nif’al form, where an action occurs to an object, with the hitpa’el, which we usually think speaks of a self-reflexive action, but he will read differently. Pure nif’al would say ve-nikhpar, where pure hitpa’el would have ve-nitkaper.
He explains the combination with a fact of the eglah arufah ceremony: should the murderer be found afterwards, the court must still fully judge him or her. The eglah arufah atones only if the killer is never found, as long as no new information comes to light.
The hitpa’el, R. Mecklenburg says, indicates an assumed action that did not yet come to pass (he gives examples, someone who pretends to be wealthy is a mit’asher, makes him/herself as if rich). Here, the allusion to this form of the verb means to tell us it might sometimes turn out they thought they were done with the incident, only to find out they had to do more, to judge and properly punish the murderer (perhaps with his/her blood, as the verse also says).
He shares all this and tells us it was the view of Naftali Hirsch Wessely (an early maskil, figure of the Jewish Enlightenment, the early generations of which were not yet clearly out of the pale of Orthodox thought and belief). For contrast, he adds that R. Ovadyah Seforno (whose commentary we will study next year in this space, God willing) had instead held the true atonement would come with the punishment of the murderer (whether or not the community finds him/her, I think Seforno means), so it will look like the atonement just happened, without them meaningfully addressing the actual killing.
The Kohen’s Role in Battle
Chapter twenty of Devarim starts with the procedure for going to war, and early on a kohen addresses the nation, to reassure them they go to battle with God’s aid, and therefore need not fear the enemy. R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, verse two, clarifies the halachic status of this kohen. He is specially anointed for this role, is called a mashuach milchamah, an anointee of war. During the war, it seems, he wears the eight garments of the High Priest, and must henceforth observe special rules of a High Priest in terms of mourning and marriage.
In the Temple, although the matter is debated in Yoma, Rambam, Kelei HaMikdash 4;21, held he serves with only four garments, as a regular kohen. His elevated status on the battlefield allows him, a servant of the Temple of the Torah (R. Hirsch says; he’s said it before, the sanctity of the Temple extends from its hosting the Luchot, the core and stand-in for all of Torah given by God).
He thus embodies the nation’s highest ethical ideals, and is therefore the one to accompany the nation and assure them of their victory. When we go to war, our confidence in victory does not (and should not, I think he means), depend on military skill or expertise, it comes from the Torah, whose ethical dictates for individuals and communities lead to overall peace, and are therefore what will win in war [an interesting idea, that God helps those win whose ultimate goal is peace; those whose goal is war, as we see sadly today, will not win, because God wants a world of peace].
War is to ensure the representatives of the worldview of peace have where to live and function. A valuable reminder for what leads to true victory, how Jews earn the right to Hashem’s assistance in vanquishing our enemies.
The Go’el Ha-Dam’s Rights
Chapter nineteen of Devarim reviews the rules for a rotzeach be-shogeg, someone who kills unintentionally. Verse six explains why the previous verse had said the murderer should flee to a city of refuge, lest the go’el ha-dam, the blood avenger (the family member who is supposed to ensure a relative’s killing is addressed properly), chase and capture the murderer. And the murderer, the verse adds, does not have a capital liability, because he had not intended to kill the victim (had no hatred for him, the Torah says).
Malbim reminds us the Torah has no problem with the go’el running after the murderer, since R. Yose HaGelili held it is his obligation (others thought the go’el is allowed to chase the murderer, but need not), to ensure the murderer goes to the city of refuge and be judged. Our verse wants to be sure the go’el not kill the murderer until a determination is made about his/her status.
The idea the killer bore no hatred has been said before. It is repeated here—Malbim says—to emphasize the court’s responsibilities, their need to step in, see to it that the killer is brought to whatever is the correct justice in his case.
The Levi’im and the Land
The beginning of chapter eighteen denies the Levi’im any share of the Land of Israel, R. David Tzvi Hoffmann points out that here it adds a reason, Hashem is their nachalah, their inheritance. Sifrei infers from here that Levi’im have no share anywhere in the Land [their forty-two cities, plus the six arei miklat, cities of refuge, are really the local tribe’s, just they let the Levi’im use it for their purposes].
R. Hoffmann knew different versions of Sifrei, and adopted that of Ramban, Shemot 13;5, the verse says they have no nachalah to indicate the Land of Israel on the west of the Jordan, and “among his friends” means the two nations on the east side of the Jordan. R. Hoffmann notes Mechilta adds that even after the two and a half tribes took possession of it, they should not/will not give any of as nachalah, as inheritance, to the Levi’im.
One way to know it wasn’t theirs, he says (based on another Sifrei), is that they were not the sole residents even of their “own” cities, they just got the houses and pastures needed for their living circumstances. All the rest remained the property of the tribe.
He doesn’t go further, to explain why this should be; I think he thought it was all part of “Hashem hu nachalato,” the tribe of Levi took their “inheritance” when they took God’s side, as it were, at the Golden Calf, and have followed that path ever since.
Slotting in various roles in a full Jewish society, the eglah arufah, the role of peace and war, the Kohen anointee of war, and the Levi’im, all parts of a glorious whole.
