BH Questions & Answers for Parshas Shoftim
1) Who in the Torah had horses? Why would having many horses bring the people back too Egypt? (Chapter 17, verse 16)
Horses in the Torah seem to always be associated with kings and rulers. Pharoh had many horses. Yosef had chariots at his disposal. They do not appear in the list of possessions of Avraham, Yitzchak or Ya’akov, nor of the Jewish people as they left Egypt. Horses were used by kings primarily as a force in battle (see further in our parsha (20, 1. See also Parshas Beshalach where Pharoh chases the Jews with horses; & the book of Shoftim (4, 3) where Devorah and Barak overcome the chariots of Sisra). as well as for entertainment purposes. A Jewish king was only allowed to have as many horses as was necessary for his personal chariot but no more than that. Some commentaries understand this to mean that the Jews were not even supposed to use horses in battle! Perhaps this is meant to ensure that we go to battle trusting on Hashem, not on our own strength. (See Aznayim Latorah).
On a peshat level, the connection to Egypt is that historically Egypt was the primary exporter of horses. It would be a chilul hashem for the Jews to return to the land from whence Hashem redeemed them. (See Rashi, Ramban & Ibn Ezra. That Egypt was the exported of horses can be seen from the account in Melachim-1 10, 29. See also Melachim-2 18, 24. Yeshaya 31, 1 & 3). However, on a deeper level it is transgressing the word of Hashem (Sifri), the distraction from Torah study (Targum Yonasson) or forgetting that Hashem is the one who fights our wars that bring about return to ‘Egypt’, namely, to be exiled from our land.
2) In the laws of Eidim Zomemin (chapter 19 verse 15), why does the Torah accept the testimony of the second witnesses over that of the first?
The scenario is that ‘Witnesses A’ claim to have witnessed a certain crime, while ‘Witnesses B’ claim that at the time the alleged crime took place, ‘Witnesses A’ were spotted far away from the location of the alleged crime. The Torah tells us to believe the testimony of ‘Witnesses B’ over ‘Witnesses A’. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 27a) tells us that this is a novelty because logically there is no reason to trust the 2nd set of witnesses over the 1st. However, some commentaries do give rationale for favoring the testimony of ‘Witnesses B’.
Ran (Derashos Haran #11) explains that people are unlikely to lie if they are likely to be exposed. The more verifiable the truth is, the more likely it is for a lie to be exposed, and thus less likely for someone to lie. In our case, ‘Witnesses A’ are more likely to take the risk and lie, because they may well have thought that no one saw them in another place at the time about which they are testifying. However, ‘Witnesses B’, if they are not telling the truth that ‘Witnesses A’ were not in the place of the alleged incident at the time how could they not fear that ‘Witnesses A’, who themselves obviously know the truth that they were where thQWey claim to have been, may have ample other people who saw them at the crime scene? If ‘Witnesses B’ were lying they would be taking a much bigger risk of implicating themselves than ‘Witnesses A’ would be taking if they were lying. It follows then that we ought to believe them. (See the Artscroll edition of Drashos Haran footnotes 139, 140 & 141) for further detail and alternative explanations).
3) Look at the source of the haftara of this week and next week. Does anything strike you as noteworthy?
To Christians lehavdil the 53rd chapter of Yeshaya is important as they misinterpret it to be referring to their leader… Some proselytizers take it a step further by making the claim that we Jews know of the significance of this chapter and that we intentionally refuse to read it. Now of course this is ridiculous, Yeshaya 53 is found in every Nach, however it is technically true that on this shabbos (Parshas Shoftim) we read Yeshaya 51 & 52 and next week we read Yeshaya 54. This is of course irrelevant to their claim as we don't go through the haftoros in any particular order.
So, do 'we read Isaiah 52, stop in the middle, and the week after jump straight to Isaiah 54’? Yes. But did 'the rabbis decide to skip and remove Isaiah 53’? Not at all. In fact, the minhag to read 7 haftoros of Yeshaya’s comforting prophesies developed in Eretz Yisrael and spread and took hold circa 500-1000. According to some early variations of the minhag chapters 51 & 52 didn't immediately precede Isaiah 54.[1] Why then do we 'skip' Isaiah 53? Simply put, there are no words of comfort for the Jewish people in it! [2]
Parenthetically, in Rome the minhag of reading haftoros of comfort was only adopted for the 3 weeks following Tisha B’av. Subsequently they restart reading haftoros related to the parsha, beginning this week with the story of the Jewish people asking Shmuel Hanavi to appoint a king.
4) When are the forefathers not actually the forefathers?
The word אבות in 18, 8 does not refer to Avraham, Yitzchak & Yaakov. It refers either to the ancestors of the kohanim in the days of Dovid & Shmuel (Rashi) or to Elazar & Isamar (Targum Yonasan). In general, this pasuk is one that has numerous interpretations; almost no two commentaries understand it the same way (see Sha’arei Aron for a summary).
[1] To quote Rabbi Homnick, “the notion that rabbis would be 'wrestling' with the implications of Isaiah 53 feels more suited to the medieval period, when Christian pressure was strong, and Jews were expected to engage with the polemical arguments advanced by their Christian neighbors. 'Dark ages'-era Jewish intellectual activity and practice in Israel do not strike me as sharing these characteristics, and while a midrash on a verse may pack an implicit barb at Christianity, it doesn't seem like a matter that was keeping them up at night”.
[2][2] “Furthermore, even were we to suspect a deliberate omission, this is hardly the damning gotcha that it's made out to be. The Talmud doesn't lack for explicit instances in which parts of the Torah were deemed to be best left out of the spotlight (e.g. Brachot 12a; Megillah 4:10). This doesn't mean that these are felt to 'pose a threat' to Judaism (Brachot ibid. concerns the Ten Commandments!). But choosing to give something the spotlight, emphasizing it relative to other things, is a choice, and various considerations go into that. Not a conspiracy!