Going back a few weeks--Balak!

This is a guest post.  Over the summer, we were privileged to hear from congregants.  Mark Lewis shared with me the Torah he taught.  If you weren't around to hear it the first time, I think you will be moved by his words on the prophet, Micah.

WHEN I FIRST LOOKED AT THIS MORNING’S PARSHAH, I THOUGHT “THIS IS GOING TO BE EASY- THIS IS THE ONE WITH THE TALKING DONKEY. SURELY I CAN GET FIVE OR SIX MINUTES OF MATERIAL FOR A SEMONETTE FROM THIS. IN FACT, I CAN PROBABLY CREATE A FIFTEEN TO TWENTY MINUTE STAND-UP COMEDY ROUTINE FROM IT.”


BUT I KEPT ON READING, AND I CAME TO THE VERY END OF THE HAFTORAH, WHERE MICAH SETS OUT THE PRESCRIPTION FOR A HOLY LIFE: “AND WHAT DOES THE LORD REQUIRE OF THEE: ONLY TO DO JUSTLY, AND TO LOVE MERCY, AND TO WALK HUMBLY WITH YOUR GOD.” ETZ HAYIM HAS A LITTLE DIFFERENT TRANSLATION, BUT THIS IS THE ONE THAT IS MOST FAMILIAR.

WELL, THAT SEEMS EVEN EASIER, AS EASY AS 1-2-3: JUSTICE, MERCY, AND HUMILITY. MICAH SEEMS TO HAVE SUMMED IT ALL UP IN THREE WORDS. NOT TOO SHABBY FOR A MINOR PROPHET. IF HE WAS A RECORDING ARTIST, HE MIGHT BE CONSIDERED A “ONE-HIT WONDER.” AND WHAT A HIT IT WAS. THIS SERMON WAS GOING TO BE EVEN EASIER THAN I FIRST THOUGHT.

LIKE MOST MEANINGFUL THINGS IN LIFE, HOWEVER, IT IS NOT SO SIMPLE. LET’S START WITH THE DEFINITION OF “JUSTICE”, A WORD THAT IS OFTEN DEFINED IN A CIRCULAR MANNER, OR BY THE USE OF SYNONYMS. ALTHOUGH OVER A HALF-CENTURY HAS PASSED, I STILL RECALL WRESTLING WITH THE IDEA OF JUSTICE WHILE STUDYING PLATO’S REPUBLIC FOR MY POLITICAL THEORY CLASS. JUST WHEN YOU THINK YOU HAVE A SIMPLE DEFINITION DOWN, A “WHAT IF” QUESTION IS RAISED TO CHALLENGE YOUR CONCLUSION. WHAT MIGHT BE JUSTICE IN ONE SITUATION DOES NOT FIT IN ANOTHER. AS MY FAVORITE LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR OFTEN SAID, “THE FACTS MAKE THE LAW.

A MODERN DAY EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATES THIS POINT. LET’S SAY JUSTICE IS DEFINED AS FOLLOWING THE LAW. THAT SEEMS REASONABLE. BUT WHAT IF THAT LAW CALLS FOR THE EXTERMINATION OF A CLASS OF PEOPLE BASED ON THEIR RELIGION? THE NAZIS DISCOVERED THAT THEY COULD NOT USE THEIR STATE-SANCTIONED DEFINTION OF JUSTICE AS A DEFENSE AT THE NUREMBERG TRIALS.

LIKEWISE, IN HIS BOOK “JUSTICE: WHAT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO”, WHICH IS BASED ON HIS COURSE OF THE SAME NAME, HARVARD PROFESSOR MICHAEL SANDEL POSITS A SERIES OF SITUATIONS THAT RAISE THE QUESTION OF WHAT IS THE JUST SOLUTION, AND COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT “JUSTICE IS INESCAPABLY JUDGMENTAL.”

ESTABLISHING A WORKABLE DEFINITION OF JUSTICE CAN BE A LIFE-LONG TASK THAT MAY NEVER BE ACCOMPLISHED. LET ME SUGGEST ONE WAY TO LOOK AT THIS ISSUE USING A TACTIC THAT WAS EMPLOYED BY U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE POTTER STEWART WHEN THE COURT WAS EMBROILED WITH TRYING TO FIND A MEANING OF “OBSCENITY”. IN AN OFT-QUOTED CONCURRING OPINION, STEWART STATED THAT PERHAPS HE “COULD NEVER SUCCEED IN INTELLIGENTLY” FRAMING SUCH A DEFINITION, BUT “I KNOW IT WHEN I SEE IT.” 

DURING MY CAREER AS A PROSECUTOR, ONE OF MY JOBS WAS MAKING FILING DECISIONS. OFTEN THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CHARGING A PERSON WITH A PARTICULAR OFFENSE. YET THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES DID NOT PASS WHAT WE CALLED THE “SMELL TEST”- IT JUST DIDN’T SEEM RIGHT. UNKNOWINGLY, I WAS USING JUSTICE STEWART’S GUIDELINES. HOWEVER, BEFORE ADOPTING THIS FRAMEWORK, IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT SUCH INSTINCTS NEED TO BE BASED ON YEARS OF PRACTICE. AS JUSTICE OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES STATED, “THE LIFE OF LAW HAS NOT BEEN LOGIC; IT HAS BEEN EXPERIENCE.”

THE TERM “MERCY” IS MUCH EASIER TO DEFINE, PERHAPS BEING MOST CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONCEPTS OF “EMPATHY” AND “KINDNESS”. BUT WHAT IF JUSTICE AND MERCY CAN’T COINCIDE? THIS ARISES OFTEN IN AN AREA WITH WHICH I AM QUITE FAMILIAR, THE SENTENCING OF CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS. ADMITTEDLY, IN MANY CASES, MERCY IS NOT AN ISSUE, AS THE CRIMES WERE SO HEINOUS AS TO FORESTALL ANY IDEA OF LENIENCY. BUT LET ME SHARE WITH YOU ONE SITUATION IN WHICH I WAS PERSONALLY INVOLVED AS THE PROSECUTOR.

A GROUP OF YOUNG ADULTS WERE GATHERED ONE EVENING AT THE APARTMENT OF THE DEFENDANT. AT ONE POINT HE GOES INTO HIS BEDROOM AND COMES BACK, PROUDLY SHOWING OFF THE REVOLVER THAT HE HAD RECENTLY PURCHASED. ONE MEMBER OF THE GROUP TELLS HIM TO BE CAREFUL. “DON’T WORRY”, THE DEFENDANT SAID,”IT’S NOT LOADED.” AS AN AMATEUR IN HANDLING FIREARMS, HE FORGOT TO CHECK THE ROUND THAT WAS STILL IN THE CHAMBER BEFORE HE PULLED THE TRIGGER, FATALLY INJURING ONE OF THE YOUNG WOMEN IN THE GROUP. THE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, AND PLEAD TO, MANSLAUGHTER WITH A WEAPON, A CRIME THAT DID NOT REQUIRE THE SHOWING OF CRIMINAL INTENT.

TO THE GIRL’S FAMILY, JUSTICE WOULD BE THE IMPOSITION OF THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE ALLOWED BY LAW. IN FACT, THAT WAS PROBABLY NOT ENOUGH FOR THEM. THE DEFENDANT WAS A YOUNG MAN WITH NO CRIMINAL HISTORY, WHO WAS GUILTY OF WHAT WE IN THE BUSINESS OFTEN REFERRED TO AS “FELONY STUPID.” AS SUCH, YOU COULD ARGUE THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO SOME MERCY FROM THE COURT, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE, THROUGH HIS PLEA, HE HAD SPARED THE FAMILY THE AGONY OF GOING THROUGH A TRIAL. HOW CAN THESE TWO CONCEPTS, JUSTICE AND MERCY, BE RECONCILED IN THIS SITUATION? I’M NOT SURE THEY CAN, OR WERE.

FINALLY, WE ADDRESS THE THIRD PRONG OF MICAH’S FORMULA, WALKING HUMBLY, OR THE CONCEPT OF HUMILITY. LIKE “MERCY”, THIS IS A FAIRLY EASY TERM TO GRASP- NO BRAGGING, NO “IN YOUR FACE” CELEBRATIONS WHEN YOUR TEAM IS VICTORIOUS. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD HERE IS THAT YOU CAN’T CONSIDER YOURSELF AS HUMBLE UNLESS YOU HAVE DONE SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD BRAG ABOUT, OR AT THE VERY LEAST BE PROUD OF. YOU CANNOT TAKE THE ATTITUDE “WHAT COULD I HAVE DONE- I’M ONLY ONE PERSON?” INDIFFERENCE IS NOT HUMILITY. HUMILITY IS NOT LIVING UNDER THE RADAR. YOU CANNOT WALK HUMBLY UNLESS YOU HAVE DONE JUSTLY. 

RABBI JOSEPH TELUSHKIN, IN HIS “BOOK OF JEWISH VALUES”, OBSERVES THAT THE BIBLE SPEAKS OF THREE ACTIONS THAT MOSES TOOK BEFORE HE WAS SELECTED TO LEAD THE JEWISH PEOPLE: THE STOPPING OF THE WHIPPING OF A JEWISH SLAVE, INTERVENING WHEN HE SAW TWO HEBREWS FIGHTING, AND HELPING THE FEMALE SHEPHERDS WHO WERE BEING ACCOSTED BY THEIR MALE COUNTERPARTS. RABBI TELUSHKIN NOTES THAT THESE THREE INCIDENTS, WHICH ALL DEAL WITH FIGHTING INJUSTICE, ARE “PERHAPS THE STRONGEST PROOF THAT JUDAISM FORBIDS US TO STAND BY INDIFFERENT OR SILENT WHEN AN INJUSTICE IS COMMITTED. “

LET ME GIVE YOU TWO EXAMPLES OF TRUE HUMILITY, THE FIRST OF WHICH MIGHT SURPRISE YOU. TED WILLIAMS, PROBABLY THE GREATEST BASEBALL HITTER OF OUR TIME, HAD A LESS THAN FRIENDLY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PRESS AND WITH MANY BOSTON FANS. HOWEVER, PEOPLE LATER FOUND OUT THAT HE HAD MADE MANY SPECIAL TRIPS TO VISIT SICK CHILDREN IN THE HOSPITAL. WHY WAS THIS NOT KNOWN? WILLIAMS HAD TOLD THE PRESS THAT, IF THEY PRINTED STORIES ABOUT IT, HE WOULD STOP MAKING THE VISITS. IT WASN’T “ABOUT HIM”.

BUT I THINK THE BEST STORY OF WALKING HUMBLY IS ONE I FREQUENTLY TELL HOLOCAUST MUSEUM VISITORS, THE TALE OF NICHOLAS WINTON, WHO, AS A YOUNG BRITISH STOCKBROKER, WENT TO CZECKOSLOVAKIA IN 1938 AND, THROUGH BRIBERY, FORGERY, AND OTHER SUCH TACTICS, RESCUED OVER 600 JEWISH CHILDREN FROM THE HOLOCAUST BY CREATING HIS OWN KINDERTRANSPORT. NO ONE KNEW OF HIS EXPLOITS FOR OVER FIFTY YEARS, UNTIL HIS WIFE FOUND A SCRAPBOOK IN THE ATTIC. WHEN BOB SIMON ON SIXTY MINUTES ASKED HIM WHY IT WAS A SECRET, WINTON REPLIED “IT WASN’T A SECRET. I JUST DIDN’T TALK ABOUT IT.” WINTON WAS LATER HONORED BY BEING KNIGHTED BY THE QUEEN. HE DIED AT THE AGE OF 106. I LIKE TO THINK THAT HIS GOOD ACTS AND HUMILITY HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH HIS LONGEVITY.

JUSTICE, MERCY, HUMILITY- THREE NOBLE IDEAS THAT ARE NOT AS SIMPLE AS THEY FIRST LOOK. ACHIEVING THESE GOALS MAY NOT ALWAYS BE EASY, OR EVEN POSSIBLE. BUT AS THE TALMUD TEACHES, “DO JUSTLY, NOW. LOVE MERCY, NOW. WALK HUMBLY, NOW. YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO COMPLETE THE WORK, BUT NEITHER ARE YOU FREE TO ABANDON IT.” IN THAT LIGHT, I WILL LEAVE YOU TO PONDER THE WORDS OF THE GREAT MODERN PHILOSOPHER, THE JEDI WARRIOR YODA, WHO PERHAPS SAID IT BEST: “DO OR DO NOT. THERE IS NO TRY.”

Comments