May 7th: Behar-Bechukotai
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich
In most cases of communication from God, Moses is told simply to repeat mitzvot to the Children of Israel. However, in the opening passage of Parshat Kedoshim (Leviticus 19.1-2), God adds the distinctive word Adat / Congregation: “Speak to the whole congregation of the Children of Israel and say to them: You shall be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy.” Professor Devorah Weiss of the Hebrew Union College suggests that “whole congregation” is invoked because much of the work of holiness is communal. These are not just personal mitzvot; our whole community is commanded to establish a holy society.
This is a noble aspiration, but a variety of passages indicate the challenges of getting everyone “on the same page.” Throughout the legal and ritual sections of the Torah, we find instructions which would only have been necessary because of a lack of unanimity in moral, ritual, and aesthetic judgment. Wrangling the Israelites to do things properly was and is a continuing effort.
Then there is the issue of non-Israelites. At least the Children of Israel can be presumed to be under the authority of God’s covenant. Gentiles, on the other hand, may subscribe to any number of other religious or cultural traditions. It is one thing to insist that they refrain from murdering and stealing, but what about their religious practices. Should it be prohibited for Gentiles to have their own gods and worship them? (When King Solomon welcomed his 300 wives and 700 concubines to Jerusalem, he allowed many of them to bring their religions with them, building temples for their gods and supporting their priestly attendants. As you might imagine, this policy was quite controversial…)
Though the Torah seems to assume that Israelites are in charge—that we ruled the land and allowed Gentiles to be present if they behaved according to our laws, many other passages indicate that this was never the case. There have always been non-Israelites living in close proximity, and the various rules for God’s righteous society have had to be mediated through the eyes and practices of people who are not part of the covenant.
This question comes into play in this week’s Torah portion when we consider the utopian visions of the Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee Year. The first involves the right of redemption—that, in the 50th year, all property goes back to the original families that owned it. As the Torah explains in Leviticus 25.23: “The Land must not be sold beyond redemption, for the land is Mine. Throughout the land that you hold, you must provide for the redemption of the land.” This means that all real-estate transactions are really leases and only provide “ownership” by the purchaser for the years remaining in the fifty-year Jubilee cycle. Even then, there is a right of redemption in which relatives of the owner/seller have the right to swoop in before the jubilee and forcibly re-buy the land from the purchasers. This applies to both Jewish and Gentile purchasers. “If your kinsman is in straits and has to sell part of his holding, his nearest redeemer shall come and redeem what his kinsman has sold…he shall compute the years since its sale, refund the difference to the purchaser…If he lacks sufficient means to recover it, what he sold shall remain with the purchaser until the jubilee; in the jubilee year it shall be released, and he shall return to his holding.” (Leviticus 25.25-28)
The same principle holds in regard to debt slavery. In Biblical days, in lieu of institutions like loan companies or credit cards, individuals unable to pay their debts could “sell themselves” into temporary servitude. It was not exactly slavery: “If your kinsman, being in straits, comes under your authority…do not subject him to the treatment of a slave.” The Torah explains a historical and theological reason: “For they are My servants, whom I freed from the land of Egypt; they may not give themselves over into (permanent) servitude.” (Leviticus 25.42) Note the word for the person in straits: kinsman. Inasmuch as all the Israelites were redeemed by God from slavery in Egypt, any debt slavery must be temporary—only until the jubilee year—and involve kind, respectful treatment. And, as in the case of real estate transaction, Israelites under debt slavery to Gentiles can be redeemed by an Israelite relative. The Gentile must be fairly paid, but the law of redemption applies to all owners of debt slavery. “You shall have one standard of justice for stranger and citizen alike; for I the Lord am your God.” (Leviticus 24.22)
However, in one rather shocking passage, there seems to be a very different standard. While Israelites can never be permanently enslaved, Gentiles can be subject to chattel slavery. “The male and female slaves you are permitted to own must come from the nations round about you; from them you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also buy them from among the children of aliens resident among you…these shall become your property: you may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property for all time. Such you may treat as slaves. But as for your Israelite kinsmen, no one shall rule ruthlessly over the other.” (Leviticus 25.44-46)
What do we do with such verses? While one can see a perverse logic in it—given that these Gentiles were not part of the covenant community freed from Egyptian slavery, the very idea of human chattel is anathema to anyone who reads the Exodus narrative seriously. It violates any number of Biblical principles about justice and human dignity. What do we do with it?!
When confronted with an offensive or morally unacceptable Biblical passage, our Tradition has developed a number of strategies. Sometimes, the Rabbis add on so many qualifications that the rule is effectively nullified: this passage (which we find offensive) did not refer to all Gentiles, but just to the enemies of our people whom God expelled from the Land; no one in that category exists today. Sometimes, the Tradition “walks back” such passages—neglecting a direct disavowal, but dismissing the rule with remarks like, But we do not do that anymore. Thus ancient laws that contradict God’s principles are de facto rejected. Then, of course, there is the modern approach in which we admit that our ancestors were not immune to the barbarity of the world around them—that such passages reflect time-bound and culture-bound attitudes that we reject today. Thanks be to God that our moral sensibilities have improved over time.
A final thought: It is interesting to consider our American quest to form a holy and righteous society. Operating under the First Amendment’s prohibition of government “establishing religion,” we balance the religious sensibilities of many different groups as we try to cobble together a values-oriented society. It is quite a challenge, but one well worth the effort.