49: Ki Teitzei
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 Ki Teitzei (Deuteronomy 21:10 - 25:19)
TLDR:
Last week the Torah gave us the heady, Lord of the Rings-style political philosophy of kings, judges, prophets and priests. This week, we descend into the messy, Game of Thrones-style particulars of 13th century BCE life.
Here’s what you can expect:
The first law addresses how to treat a female captive taken as a temporary wife following a war.
The second law enforces inheritance to the firstborn son, even if the second born son is better-liked.
The third law considers a “wayward and rebellious son” who ignores his parents and consequently gets stoned to death.
Aside from becoming the premise of Kansas’ hit song, the wayward son was the subject of 2 months of memorable discussion in grade school despite the fact that the Rabbis made sure that the wayward son never actually existed. How’d they do that? By placing creative restrictions that rendered the situation impossible (e.g. the son has to sound exactly like his parents).
The Rabbis did that again with another law that comes later in the parsha concerning a virgin engaging in premarital sex (nearly impossible to prove if you need two witnesses).
Many of the laws focus on enforcing the continued separation of seemingly binary natural things; wool (animal-based) and linen (plant-based) shouldn’t be mixed, men and women shouldn’t cross-dress, and donkey and oxen shouldn’t be on the same yoke. There’s no specific explanation for this.
A smattering of laws covers the prohibition against prostitution and charging interest (with conditions), and positive commandments to support the poor and marry your brother’s wife in the event your brother passes away with no sons (Yibbum).
Among the specific laws is a radical general principal; “Each man shall be put to death for his own offense.”
Question:
The Torah issues two conflicting perspectives. On the one hand, we’re told that individuals have personal responsibility. You are responsible for your own offenses. The son cannot be held accountable for the actions of his father, and vice versa. And yet, in the last few lines of the parsha the Israelites are told to pursue Amalek because of what the Amalek did after they left Egypt. Are not the descendants held accountable for the actions of their fathers? Maybe you can explain this away by saying that Amalek is emblematic of a people who act like Amalek, so the current generation is also personally responsible. But too many other times, the Israelites are told to act a certain way in the future towards another nation based on what that nation did in the past. Does the concept of personal responsibility extend to national responsibility?