Pensamento Judaico sobre II Samuel 16:19

This reasoning is based on Kohelet 10,17. "hail to the country whose king is truly free," meaning that the king is obedient to the Torah's commandments, and humbles himself before G'd, as is explicitly required of him. (Deut. 17,18-19) "When he sits on the throne, he must write for himself a copy of the Torah, which shall reside with him, and in which he shall read throughout his lifetime in order to revere the Lord His G'd, to keep all the commandments of this Torah and all its statutes to carry them out, so that his heart shall not become haughty above his brethren and so that he will not depart from the commandments of this Torah either to the right or to the left; in order that his reign should be long; both his and that of his sons." In other words, the Torah tells us that the king is truly free when he does not give in to the temptation to amass women, money and horses. His freedom is due to his attitude towards his Master (G'd) being similar to the attitude of his subjects towards him. We find throughout the Bible that ministers are referred to as "servants of the king." The more dedicated to the service of the king, the more truly free is the minister in question. For this reason, alternate descriptions of such ministers are chorey Yehudah, "the freemen of Yehudah." (compare Jeremiah 27,20) This is also the meaning of Psalms 116,16, "G'd, when I am Your servant, I Your servant, the son of Your handmaid, then You have truly loosened my bonds." David says that his bonds have been loosened by his having become G'ds servant. The Jewish nation's stature as a princess amongst the nations of the world, flows directly from its subservience to its G'd. (Deut. 26, 17-18) "You have acknowledged G'd this day...and the Lord in turn has acknowledged you." Our greatness is due to our having enthroned G'd as our Sovereign. There are four areas in which subservience to G'd has to express itself. 1) Since everyone has a tendency to want to be his own master, irrespective of the benevolence of any authority he may find himself under, the Torah states that "you have expressed the wish that the Lord be with you." (26,17) 2) Man does not like to be thought of as a carbon copy of someone else, nor to imitate someone else, robot like. He feels that by doing that he deprives himself of all originality and that he will never be thought of as an independent individual. Man desires to receive credit for action stemming from his own initiative. The book of Kohelet is full of emphasis of the originality of its author's thinking. "I thought," "I did," I concluded" etc. The desire to "do one's own thing," is so natural that already the Torah refers to it. (Deut 29,18) "For in the autonomy of my heart I will walk." When these tendencies are given up voluntarily by our following the ways of the Lord, (26,17) this is a further expression of the true freedom found in disciplining oneself by recognising the superior wisdom of the Lord. It is not our task to boast about our own way of life, but we are to pursue a way of life in accordance with G'ds instructions. When we read in Genesis 18,18, about Abraham commanding his descendants to perform acts of righteousness, this transforms what would otherwise have been a spontaneous act, an impulsive gesture, into a way of life that serves as a model for the Jew. Denying oneself pork should not stem from a distaste for the product, but should be rooted in G'ds injunction. (Torat Kohanim 9, Parshat Kedoshim) Similarly, in the confession we recite when we offer the tithes for the poor, (Deut 26,14) we emphasize "I have hearkened to the voice of the Lord my G'd, and have done all You have commanded me." 3) It is natural for man not to accept suggestions, instructions etc., when these suggestions do not make sense to him. A classic example is that of Yoav, David's commander-in-chief, who was ordered to conduct a headcount of men eligible for army service. He reacted by demanding a reason for this order, (seeing it was contrary to Torah law) Yoav never carried out the full task, and was involved in what must be considered intentional inaccuracies, (compare different results given in Samuel II chapter 24 and Chronicles I chapter 21) Yoav also failed to count the tribes of Levi and Benjamin. Presumably, lack of adequate performance stemmed from lack of interest in a task that seemed senseless and even counterproductive in Yoav's eyes. When the Torah demands obedience also to statutes that defy our understanding, it says "and to observe His statutes, commandments and social laws," to emphasize that it is the source of the instructions that matter, not their content. 4) Lastly, there are things which run counter to human instinct, and which if performed are seen as inviting hazards to one's health or one's property. A case in point, is the outrage expressed by Navot, when king Achav wants him to trade his ancestral vineyard. In all such situations, the Torah stresses "and listen to His voice," meaning that even when the instructions are completely contrary to our instincts, our freedom expresses itself when we discipline ourselves to listen to G'ds wishes. In these four ways we crown G'd as king over ourselves. But, more than anything, in this way G'd crowns us as king over the remainder of the nations. "To place you supreme over all the nations." (26,17) This latter promise goes beyond the one when Israel became the Lord's "precious nation and holy people" at Mount Sinai. The part of the verse saying "to walk in His ways and to observe His statutes," is part of the covenant in return for which Israel was promised to be the highest ranking nation. This makes the Jewish people custodian of "the way of the Lord,," something not entrusted to anyone else. In Psalms 147,19, G'd is described as "He reveals His words to Jacob, His statutes and social laws to Israel,...He has not done so to any other nation." David described the nature of the mutual covenant there.

At this point, the Torah proceeds to detail a list of laws dealing with human relationships in commerce etc., the first group containing relationships entered into willingly and openly which for some reason have gone sour. Afterwards the Torah deals with borrowings, exchanges etc. The second group deals with relationships not entered into through mutual consent. Theft, robbery, destruction of property,etc., including murder. These again can be subdivided into different groups, some involving violence, others merely subterfuge. Offences such as violence perpetrated on a fellow human being resulting in death, are listed first. If the death did not occur through premeditation, the penalty is exile. Similarly, violence resulting in death, deserves the death penalty. Anyone who smites a person causing death shall be executed, regardless of the circumstances. (21, 12) There are differences, however, in the way the penalty is administered, i.e. through a blood relation of the deceased victim, through heavenly tribunal, or through human Courts. The Talmud tells us that even though Jewish Courts may no longer have jurisdiction to apply the death penalty, death as a prerequisite for eventual atonement of the crime has not been abolished. G-d has His own ways of enforcing that the guilty does not go scot free. The classic example is found in Makkot 10. There are even different degrees of premeditation. When such premeditation is minimal,- according to the plain meaning of the passage,- the altar does protect the perpetrator from the ultimate penalty. When, however, there has clearly been cold blooded premeditation, then even the sanctuary itself is no refuge for the murderer. The Talmud in Makkot 12, explains the error made by Yoav concerning the function of the altar as a place of refuge. (4) Kidnapping is less serious than murder, since the victim may be freed at some future date. Cursing parents leaves even less in the way of visible damage, but the audacity is equal to or even greater than killing a human being that is not related to one. Next in line are the physical injuries not intended,- such as hurting unborn babies,- when the death penalty would at best have been incurred through a contingent liability. Therefore the fines imposed are monetary. Survivors of assaults are categorised according to the length of time the victims have survived. In any event, unless proper warning had been given to the perpetrator, the offender cannot be held liable by a human Court. Next comes violence perpetrated on one's own property, (slaves). People who treat other human beings like chattel, are themselves not fit members of society at all. If the Talmud (Shabbat 105) teaches that someone who smashes his own belongings in a fit of anger deserves to be ostracised, excommunicated,- surely he who does so to his slave deserves to be excommunicated even more. David's answer to the parable the prophet Nathan told him is instructive. In that parable we encounter both greed and lack of compassion. (Samuel II, chapter 12) Therefore, the rich man deserves the death penalty. In cases where the death of the victim is delayed by a day or more, the assault is no longer categorised as cruel, but as punitive in nature, i.e. the owner had wanted to teach the recalcitrant slave a lesson, and that is why he had beaten him. Just as we do not penalise someone who smashes his own belongings thinking thereby to accomplish something, so also with the slave, who is treated like property in this respect. After all, one does not direct one's cruelty at objects. Teachers who flog pupils with fatal results, are not accountable for murder, neither are doctors whose patients die through malpractice, since they had not planned to kill. (5) The slave is viewed both as an object and as a human being in Jewish law. (6) In the case of injury resulting during a fight, compensation is called for. In the event of an unborn baby being killed, the law is similar to the case of someone who had intended to kill A, and had killed B, instead, by mistake. He pays compensation to the heirs, and is himself not subject to an administered death penalty. (The laws about warning a prospective offender make this impossible anyways) The rule of not accepting kopher, conscience money in lieu of the death penalty is suspended in such a case. When our sages decided that the meaning of "an eye for an eye" is that this legislation has to be expressed in terms of financial compensation, they did so in order that the principle of "as he has done to him, so shall be done to him” can also be carried out at the same time. Removing the eye of a blind man who destroyed the eye of a seeing man, would hardly be justice. A priest who, as a result of losing one eye would no longer be able to perform service in the temple, is certainly more affected by the loss of such an eye than his counterpart who is a member of any other tribe. Minor variations, such as the difference in the quality of one's eyesight, social standing of either the injured or the offending party etc. are numerous, and all suggest that only by applying monetary compensation can the objective "as he has done so shall be done to him," be achieved in reasonable measure. (Leviticus 24, 19)