47 & 48: Re'eh & Shoftim
Welcome to TLDR Torah: a synopsis of the weekly parsha based on Robert Alter’s translation, plus a question to spur your Shabbat dinner (or any!) conversation.
Parsha Re’eh & Shoftim (Deuteronomy 11:26-16:17; 16:18-21:9)
TLDR:
We kick off September with another double header and only a half dozen parshas to go before we start the Torah over again.
Moses continues to speak with the Israelites, and in Re’eh he starts with a directive to “utterly destroy” all of the foreign cultic sites that the people will encounter when they enter Canaan. [The intention is twofold; to prevent “syncretism”, or the mingling of pagan and one-God worship and to centralize functions under the eventual Temple.]
Moses issues a prohibition against eating blood and following false prophets who correctly predict future events [is this an acknowledgement that other people can have supernatural powers?]
Moses turns to the Kosher laws again, and the prohibition against making a bald spot on the front of your head. The laws appear random, but they’re specifically designed to mark the Israelites as separate from the local inhabitants.
One benefit of centralization is control for the priestly class. Another is trade. Because the people could not have brought their harvest long distances for the festival pilgrimages, Moses makes an exception and allows them to trade their silver instead. Ethereum was considered but lacked proof of work.
Moses declares, “You shall lend to many nations but you yourself shall not borrow.” There’s a strong aversion to borrowing from other nations since it’s viewed as a threat to their economic security.
Re’eh concludes with a review of the main pilgrimage festivals. This time, both sheep and cattle are presented as sacrificial options, reflecting their new sedentary lifestyle.
In Shoftim, Moses addresses due process, from witness management (you need at least two, and the witness carries out the punishment) to jurisdiction (closest town gets to try the case) to the trial process (Supreme Court has ultimate authority).
Most of the parsha is about leadership and organizational management through the lens of four leaders: judges, kings, Levites (priests), and prophets.
Judges receive the most airtime and adjudicate the laws of God and the King.
The King is chosen by God (i.e. not necessarily descendant-based), and must write a copy of the Torah.
The Priests help the people (and King) live by that Torah. They also support the people with sacrifices and Temple duties.
Lastly, the Prophet will be “raised up” by God when the Israelites start transgressing and God will need a way to communicate with them.
The parsha concludes with army organization and the laws of war (sue for peace first, then besiege the enemy), including the appointment of commanders.
Question:
Alter describes the “government” as a constitutional monarchy with theocratic authority. The King is constrained by the Torah (constitution), Judges (interpretation of the constitution), and Priests (stewards of the spirit of the constitution). But there’s an override; if all else fails, there’s the Prophet who will rise from the people and express the word of God. The recognition that institutional government might fail and the Prophet will be needed in the future is appropriate; of course the government might fail! People are people! On the one hand, it leaves open the possibility of false prophets who can rail against the King and claim they are the canary in the coal mine. On the other hand, it gives hope when times are bad that perhaps there’s a “secret way out”, a hack via the Prophet. All else equal, do you think the Prophet is a stabilizing or de-stabilizing force? In theory? And in practice?
Do you agree with Alter’s description of the government as a constitutional monarchy with theocratic authority? If not, how would you describe it employing political philosophy terminology?