ייִדישער מחשבֿה אויף דברים 16:18

שֹׁפְטִ֣ים וְשֹֽׁטְרִ֗ים תִּֽתֶּן־לְךָ֙ בְּכָל־שְׁעָרֶ֔יךָ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְהוָ֧ה אֱלֹהֶ֛יךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לְךָ֖ לִשְׁבָטֶ֑יךָ וְשָׁפְט֥וּ אֶת־הָעָ֖ם מִשְׁפַּט־צֶֽדֶק׃

ריכטער און אױפֿזעער זאָלסטו דיר מאַכן אין אַלע דײַנע טױערן, װאָס ה׳ דײַן גאָט גיט דיר, לױט דײַנע שבֿטים; און זײ זאָלן משפּטן דאָס פֿאָלק מיט אַ גערעכטן משפּט.

Derush Chiddushei HaLevanah

Instead, according to my humble understanding, the apparent contradiction stems from a fundamental question: Why did the verse use the terms “the great luminaries,” “the great luminary,” and “the small luminary,” which require explanation? It is true, the explanation is obvious, but still the verse could have been worded in a manner which did not require any explanation. Scripture could have simply referred to the luminaries by name, i.e., Scripture could have referred to the luminaries as “the sun” and “the moon,” as Yosef did, in the verse:1Bereishis 37:9. “Behold, the sun and the moon bowed to me,” and as Moshe Rabbeinu did in Parshas Va’Eschanan, in the verse:2Devarim 4:19. “and you see the sun and the moon,” and in Parshas Shoftim, which speaks of serving other gods including3Ibid. 17:3. “the sun or the moon.” Similarly, here, the narrative should have stated, “God made the sun and the moon, the sun to rule during the day and the moon to rule during the night.” It cannot be said that Scripture intends to teach the concept that the light of the sun and the moon is greater than that of the other luminaries, and that the light of one is greater than the other. That would certainly be of no purpose. Why would Scripture need to tell us something that is obvious?
פֿרעגט אַ רבֿBookmarkShareCopy

Akeidat Yitzchak

Bereshit Rabbah 50 discusses that the decision of the Sodomites to rob and rape every stranger was designed to establish a reputation that would keep strangers away. Their main concern was only their unwillingness to share their wealth. Their chet, criminal act, as distinct from their wickedness ra, namely the raping of strangers, was only incidental, not basic to their character. We can now understand Ezekiel who pronounced that the sin of Sodom was that they would not help the poor or destitute. When Jeremiah proclaims, "The iniquity of my people was greater than the chet of Sodom,” he refers to that failing of the Sodomites that was merely incidental, namely their immorality (Lamentations 4,6). Ezekiel does not bother to mention that sin, since it was not endemic to their character, could have been atoned for. The Talmud Sanhedrin 109 lists numerous examples of the Sodomites' misdeeds, all of which reflect the perverted monetary judgments that were the vogue there. On the evening when the angels arrived, the Sodomites merely behaved in a time honored fashion, not aware that the measure of their guilt had reached a state which called for Divine retribution. The men of Givah however, were quite different. Their laws were perfectly good, they only failed occasionally to live up to the standards of these laws and gave vent to their passions. For that reason, they did not deserve a rain of sulphur and brimstone. The leaders of the city should have punished the perpetrators of the crime. Since they neither interfered nor brought the rapists to justice for publicly committed crimes of the most vulgar kind, it became the duty of the other tribes to discipline the tribe of Benjamin (At this point the author criticizes leaders of his own generation for failing to deal with prostitutes and on occasion even harboring them and providing them with food and shelter, under the pretext that their plying their trade diminished the incidence of adultery). Any relatively insignificant sin, when committed in public and condoned by silent tolerance, becomes a big sin and threatens to assume the dimension of the sins committed by the people of Sodom who had hallowed their practices by enshrining them in law. Concerning the tribes who attacked Benjamin and initially suffered heavy defeats, our sages in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 38 tell us that these same tribes had been guilty of allowing the idolatrous image of Michah to flourish, without troubling themselves over G-d’s honor which was constantly being insulted thereby. They therefore had to pay the price when they showed that they considered the honor of the slain concubine and that of her husband as more deserving to be upheld than the honor of G-d. Altogether, before attacking their brother tribe, they should have undertaken to purge themselves of any wrongdoing, in order to be in a position to carry out a punitive expedition with a minimum of casualties. Our sages in Sotah 40 tell us that even when proceeding against pagans the verse, "He who is afraid must withdraw from battle” (Deut 20,8), refers to someone who feels he is guilty of some sin. If one goes to war against fellow Jews, one must most certainly purify oneself from sin before engaging in such an undertaking. Also, it would have been proper to obtain permission from G-d first to wage such a campaign. Even after their initial failure, when the tribes asked G-d if they should continue the war with "my brother Benjamin" (Judges 20,23), their philosophical concern was with the permissibility of engaging in civil war, not with their worthiness to conduct a punitive campaign without being free from guilt themselves. Only after having suffered the second defeat, having lost another eighteen thousand dead and a session of fasting, contrition sacrifice, and prayer, did the tribes receive the assurance of success of their efforts on the third attempt. Having seen how the attitude of "What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours" can reduce people to the level which borders on "What is mine is mine and what is yours is mine also," i.e. an attitude which once brought about the destruction of mankind at the time of the deluge, it is obvious that this must not be an attitude to be adopted. In his dealings with Avimelech, Abraham demonstrated that it is perfectly all right to share one's possessions, and when the need arises to accept help from one's fellow human being.
פֿרעגט אַ רבֿBookmarkShareCopy

Akeidat Yitzchak

Since man survives only as a species, not as an individual, he is in an inferior category to the aforementioned. Nevertheless, performing just deeds, or dispensing justice has the advantage over the other speculative activities, since 1) it enables civilisation to function, removes violence and prevents warfare by the strong against the weak. This brings in its wake the harmony that is the task of the Messiah to establish, as outlined in the book of Isaiah, (chapter 11) It even leads to peaceful relations in the animal kingdom. 2) It also leads to the perfection of man's character traits. We see therefore, that although the Torah contains elements of all the higher disciplines mentioned before, if man is to achieve his purpose to qualify as a partner to G-d in administering the earth, then he must establish just laws on earth based on the revealed wisdom of the Torah.
פֿרעגט אַ רבֿBookmarkShareCopy