Running commentary on parashat Shofetim, part i

The parasha begins in perek 16:

יח  שֹׁפְטִים וְשֹׁטְרִים, תִּתֶּן-לְךָ בְּכָל-שְׁעָרֶיךָ, אֲשֶׁר ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ, לִשְׁבָטֶיךָ; וְשָׁפְטוּ אֶת-הָעָם, מִשְׁפַּט-צֶדֶק.

18 Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, tribe by tribe; and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment.

שֹׁפְטִים  -- means different things in different contexts. In sefer Shofetim, it almost always means a savior or a local ruler of some sort, rather than a judge. So too in Akkadian. Our parsha deals with judges in courts as well as with kings.

וְשֹׁטְרִים -- Many meforshim take these as enforcers of bet din. Ibn Ezra takes it as a sort of enforcer, though he knows it has the sense of moshel:

ושוטרים -הם המושלים מגזרת שוטר ומושל. 
וכן משטרו בארץ. 
והטעם: כי השופט ישפוט והשוטר יכריח המעוות.

It is left a little unclear. See Shadal who more forcefully puts forth that it means a ruler.

והנה השופטים היו דנים במה שבין אדם לחברו או בבוא עדים על איש שחטא, והשוטרים היו משגיחים על שלום המדינה וגוזרים גזרות והנהגות על העם.

תִּתֶּן-לְךָ -- this is your requirement, matching the situation that Hashem was נֹתֵן לְךָ

בְּכָל-שְׁעָרֶיךָ -- the gate is generally the place of judgement.

אֲשֶׁר ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ לִשְׁבָטֶיךָ -- the idea is akin to "ואם ירחיב ה' אלוהיך את גבולך". See Ibn Ezra (and not Baal HaTurim) who speaks of a quasi-derash of semichut parshiyot; what connects this section to the previous, about aliyah leregel? The answer is that you might think that, with everyone going to the central location, you would have a centralized government. Therefore we find out that this is not so.

Ibn Ezra writes:
לשבטיך -בכל שער שבט ושבט.

but I am not convinced that this needs to be on a tribal level. Rather, this is describing the distributed nature of this government. For each and every shevet. Rashi uses Sifrei and parses the pasuk to grant us judges at the tribal and city level:

in all your cities: Heb. בְּכָל-שְׁעָרֶיךָ‏, in every city.		בכל שעריך: בכל עיר ועיר:
for your tribes: [This phrase] refers back to “You shall set up… for yourself.” Thus, the understanding of the verse is “You shall set up judges and law-enforcement officials for yourself, for your tribes, in all your cities that the Lord, your God, is giving you.”		לשבטיך: מוסב על תתן לך. שופטים ושוטרים תתן לך לשבטיך בכל שעריך אשר ה' אלהיך נותן לך:
for your tribes: This teaches us that judges must be appointed for every tribe, and for every city. — [Sifrei, San. 16b]		לשבטיך: מלמד שמושיבין דיינין לכל שבט ושבט ובכל עיר ועיר:

The first two comments of Rashi seems to me to work well as peshat. See Ramban who grapples with the last. He ends with:

ועל דרך הפשט שיעור הכתוב, שופטים ושוטרים תתן לך לשבטיך בכל שעריך, יאמר שיתנו שופטים לשבטיהם והם ישפטו בכל שעריהם, ושופט השבט ישפוט בכל שעריו:

which seems to mean a single group of tribal-appointed judges, who judge throughout its gates. I am not so convinced. See also here, where Shadal explains how he and Rashi are deviating from trup in parsing this.

Next pasuk:

יט  לֹא-תַטֶּה מִשְׁפָּט, לֹא תַכִּיר פָּנִים; וְלֹא-תִקַּח שֹׁחַד--כִּי הַשֹּׁחַד יְעַוֵּר עֵינֵי חֲכָמִים, וִיסַלֵּף דִּבְרֵי צַדִּיקִם.

19 Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons; neither shalt thou take a gift; for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.

לֹא-תַטֶּה מִשְׁפָּט -- Don't incline it against what it should be.

לֹא תַכִּיר פָּנִים -- Rashi takes it as showing favoritism even throughout the court proceedings. Ibn Ezra refers to his explanation in Devarim perek 1, where it meant deciding the law in accordance with the one he recognizes.

וְלֹא-תִקַּח שֹׁחַד -- what is shochad? In Akkadian, it is not a bribe, but a mere gift. Albeit one with an expectation of seeing favor in return. Rashi writes:

and you shall not take a bribe: Even [if you intend] to judge justly - [from Sifrei].

ולא תקח שחד: אפילו לשפוט צדק:

More generally, especially if we take these shofetim or shoterim to be government officials, in general, they should not accept gifts. Because later on, you will be expected to act equitably to all parties, whether as a judge in some later court case or as a mayor in some official business. By not taking "honest" gifts in general, you will be less inclined to unwittingly show favoritism to one of the two parties.

כִּי הַשֹּׁחַד יְעַוֵּר עֵינֵי חֲכָמִים, וִיסַלֵּף דִּבְרֵי צַדִּיקִם -- There is a "famous" question of how he can be called a tzadik if he takes a bribe. (And a famous, quasi-humorous answer about someone, under the influence of a bribe, misinterpreting the words of the various Chachamim and Tzaddikim is a twisted manner.)

But if shochad just means a gift, and it refers to creating conflicts of interest and prior favorable relationships, then this part of the pasuk is explaining how the shochad of earlier is not a good idea, since it will lead to an unwitting, subconscious,  תַכִּיר פָּנִים and  תַטֶּה מִשְׁפָּט.

Midrashically, Yaakov's eyes were blinded by the shochad of Esav, such that he could not see Esav's true nature. Not only midrashically. He loved him because tzayid befiv.

Next pasuk:

כ  צֶדֶק צֶדֶק, תִּרְדֹּף--לְמַעַן תִּחְיֶה וְיָרַשְׁתָּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר-ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ.  {ס}

20 Justice, justice shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. {S}

צֶדֶק צֶדֶק -- The duplication for the sake of stress and chizuk.

Ibn Ezra writes that it is either for chizuk, or to tell the litigants to tell the truth in court.
צדק צדק -עם בעלי הריב ידבר וטעם שני פעמים, לדבר צדק שירויח בו או יפסיד, או פעם אחר, פעם כל ימי היותך, או לחיזוק.

Thus, Ibn Ezra and Chizkuni think it is directed towards the litigants. I agree with Ramban that it is directed towards the judges (and officials) rather than the litigants. It is a restatement, for the sake of framing, of the earlier directive in pasuk 18 of וְשָׁפְטוּ אֶת-הָעָם, מִשְׁפַּט-צֶדֶק.

Or else,  צֶדֶק צֶדֶק תִּרְדֹּף is directed at klal Yisrael in general, to set up righteous courts, with these rules, in general. Again, as a repetition and framing from pasuk 18.

See also my discussion of the Sifrei and double jeopardy, from צֶדֶק צֶדֶק תִּרְדֹּף .

לְמַעַן תִּחְיֶה וְיָרַשְׁתָּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר-ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ -- Earlier we saw Hashem had given you this spacious land, to all your tribes. Deserve it in this manner.

Next pasuk:

כא  לֹא-תִטַּע לְךָ אֲשֵׁרָה, כָּל-עֵץ:  אֵצֶל, מִזְבַּח ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ--אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה-לָּךְ.

21 Thou shalt not plant thee an Asherah of any kind of tree beside the altar of the LORD thy God, which thou shalt make thee.

I don't know enough about idolatry to fully understand these pesukim. See Chazal who discuss whether the Ashera was a decoration for an altar, or an idol itself. There were inscriptions discovered referring to "YKVK and His Asherah", causing some to consider it to be the male YKVK's female consort.

Some Biblical scholars try to emend Hosheah perek 8:

ט  אֶפְרַיִם, מַה-לִּי עוֹד לָעֲצַבִּים; אֲנִי עָנִיתִי וַאֲשׁוּרֶנּוּ, אֲנִי כִּבְרוֹשׁ רַעֲנָן--מִמֶּנִּי, פֶּרְיְךָ נִמְצָא.

9 Ephraim [shall say]: 'What have I to do any more with idols?' As for Me, I respond and look on him; I am like a leafy cypress-tree; from Me is thy fruit found.

to "I am his Anat and his Ashera".

Ibn Ezra sees this as not following other religions in their manner of worship, such that it is not an idol in and of itself.

לא תטע לך אשרה, כי כן משפט ע"ג אחר אחת בַּתָוֶךְ.

The context of matzeivah makes us think that it should be of similar nature.

Next pasuk:

כב  וְלֹא-תָקִים לְךָ, מַצֵּבָה, אֲשֶׁר שָׂנֵא, ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ.  {ס}

22 Neither shalt thou set thee up a pillar, which the LORD thy God hateth. {S}

אֲשֶׁר -- Does this mean "because" (/ "which") or "that"?

Rashi brings up the point that the avos had a matzeivah. And through use by Canaanites, it became detested by Hashem. Thus, "because".

Ibn Ezra surprisingly takes as a modification, "that", so only idolatrous matzeivot are permitted. Case in point, Yaakov's matzeiva proves matzeivos are permitted. See here for greater discussion of this point.

What is the reason for the juxtaposition of this section to the preceding? Perhaps the point is one of uncompromising fealty to tradition, in like manner to unadulterated tzedek which they had to pursue.

Next pasuk, in the next perek:

א  לֹא-תִזְבַּח לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ שׁוֹר וָשֶׂה, אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בוֹ מוּם--כֹּל, דָּבָר רָע:  כִּי תוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, הוּא.  {ס}

1 Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the LORD thy God an ox, or a sheep, wherein is a blemish, even any evil thing; for that is an abomination unto the LORD thy God. {S}

This was common across other religions. It is not that other religions wanted specifically blemished animals. Thus:

The requirement that priests and sacrifices should be without blemish was common to all the ancient civilizations, and there is evidence of this from Egypt, Mesopotamia, Ḫatti (the land of the Hittites), Greece, and Rome. Egyptian documents state that candidates for the priesthood were examined for blemishes, and that the sacrifices were examined in the same way, marking animals fit for sacrifice. Documents from Mesopotamia state that priests and the sacrifices had to be perfect, without any blemish. The Hittites also regarded the presence at the ceremonial ritual of those blemished as an affront to the gods. The requirement that both priests and sacrifices be without blemish is also known from Greece and Rome.

This does not mean that Hashem detests those people and animals with blemishes as freaks of nature, chas veshalom. From a psychological perspective, however, think of the intent of the person offering a blemished animal. From his perspective, it is not the best, and is not so useful for secular purposes. Hashem's table is not for scraps.

Next,

ב  כִּי-יִמָּצֵא בְקִרְבְּךָ בְּאַחַד שְׁעָרֶיךָ, אֲשֶׁר-ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ:  אִישׁ אוֹ-אִשָּׁה, אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֶת-הָרַע בְּעֵינֵי ה-אֱלֹהֶיךָ--לַעֲבֹר בְּרִיתוֹ.

2 If there be found in the midst of thee, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that doeth that which is evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing His covenant,

כִּי-יִמָּצֵא בְקִרְבְּךָ -- The parallel discussion is in perek 13 in parashat Re'eh, where there was first the navi sheker of idolatry and then the enticer. There as well is the language of כִּי-יָקוּם בְּקִרְבְּךָ.

Perhaps this is to bring up the idea of divided loyalties, of כִּי יְסִיתְךָ אָחִיךָ בֶן-אִמֶּךָ אוֹ-בִנְךָ אוֹ-בִתְּךָ אוֹ אֵשֶׁת חֵיקֶךָ, אוֹ רֵעֲךָ אֲשֶׁר כְּנַפְשְׁךָ, as discussed in Reeh.

Ibn Ezra sees a bridge from the previous section, in transitioning between public improper worship to that which happens in private.

 בְּאַחַד שְׁעָרֶיךָ -- again, perhaps the distance from the religious center will cause people to stray.

אֲשֶׁר-ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ -- but don't forget Hashem's claim on you, that this land was given to you by Hashem.

אִישׁ אוֹ-אִשָּׁה -- this is again stressed below in pasuk 5. Perhaps the point is to overcome any mercy that might come to be by virtue of it being a woman who has done this.

לַעֲבֹר בְּרִיתוֹ -- in a specific manner, as in the next pasuk. This is not just any random sin, but a violation of the covenant in which we are God's people.

Next pasuk:

ג  וַיֵּלֶךְ, וַיַּעֲבֹד אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים, וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ, לָהֶם; וְלַשֶּׁמֶשׁ אוֹ לַיָּרֵחַ, אוֹ לְכָל-צְבָא הַשָּׁמַיִם--אֲשֶׁר לֹא-צִוִּיתִי.

3 and hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, or the sun, or the moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have commanded not;

 אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים -- are these the shemesh, yareach, etc., from later in the pasuk, or are they deities in general. Ibn Ezra interprets them as man-made idols.

אֲשֶׁר לֹא-צִוִּיתִי -- Ibn Ezra stresses that Hashem created them but did not command that we worship them. Shadal says it is a sort of understatement. Of course Hashem did not command to worship idols! It is a way of saying that it is the opposite of what Hashem commanded. In the midrash describing the changes the 70 elders made in translating the Torah into Greek, one change was clarifying by adding "which I have not commanded to worship them."

See also here.

Next:

ד  וְהֻגַּד-לְךָ, וְשָׁמָעְתָּ; וְדָרַשְׁתָּ הֵיטֵב--וְהִנֵּה אֱמֶת נָכוֹן הַדָּבָר, נֶעֶשְׂתָה הַתּוֹעֵבָה הַזֹּאת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.

4 and it be told thee, and thou hear it, then shalt thou inquire diligently, and, behold, if it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel;

This section would presumably then be directed to the shofetim and shoterim of the particular area.

 וְדָרַשְׁתָּ הֵיטֵב -- a mere rumor is insufficient to condemn a person for this. This involves the witnesses mentioned a bit later in this section.

ה  וְהוֹצֵאתָ אֶת-הָאִישׁ הַהוּא אוֹ אֶת-הָאִשָּׁה הַהִוא אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ אֶת-הַדָּבָר הָרָע הַזֶּה, אֶל-שְׁעָרֶיךָ--אֶת-הָאִישׁ, אוֹ אֶת-הָאִשָּׁה; וּסְקַלְתָּם בָּאֲבָנִים, וָמֵתוּ.

5 then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, who have done this evil thing, unto thy gates, even the man or the woman; and thou shalt stone them with stones, that they die.

אֶל-שְׁעָרֶיךָ -- Chizkuni says that the peshat is to the place of judgement, at your gates. Rashi takes pains to reject the idea that it means your gates, but rather, it means the city where he worshiped. He claims that the correct Targum is therefore לְקִרְוָיךְ, to your cities.

The Teimanim, and our Mikraot Gedolot, have the "incorrect" Targum. Targum Yonasan translates likewise:

יז,ה וְהוֹצֵאתָ אֶת-הָאִישׁ הַהוּא אוֹ אֶת-הָאִשָּׁה הַהִוא אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ אֶת-הַדָּבָר הָרָע הַזֶּה, אֶל-שְׁעָרֶיךָ--אֶת-הָאִישׁ, אוֹ אֶת-הָאִשָּׁה; וּסְקַלְתָּם בָּאֲבָנִים, וָמֵתוּ.

וְתַפֵּיק יָת גֻּבְרָא הַהוּא אוֹ יָת אִתְּתָא הַהִיא דַּעֲבַדוּ יָת פִּתְגָמָא בִּישָׁא הָדֵין, לִתְרַע בֵּית דִּינָךְ--יָת גֻּבְרָא, אוֹ יָת אִתְּתָא; וְתִרְגְּמִנּוּן בְּאַבְנַיָּא, וִימוּתוּן.

In Ohev Ger, Shadal is surprised that the printers do not correct the Targum to match that of Rashi, is as their usual approach. He gives a defense of the Targum as לִתְרַע בֵּית דִּינָךְ.