Mattos-Masei 5785: A Remote Scapegoat

GOOD MORNING! Several weeks ago, I attended the wedding a close friend’s son. At the reception I happened to sit next to another friend whose father was the Secular Studies Principal of our childhood school. I do not recall exactly how we got onto the topic, but he began to recount all the abuse he took from the students who didn’t like his father. He even surmised that some of his teachers took out their frustrations on him.

Although my father was the Rosh HaYeshiva – head of school – I did not recall having a similar experience. I suspect that it might have been more directly related to the fact that he, like many children of school principals, was a bit of a smart-aleck. I distinctly remember the time we were in class and the concept of the health benefits of milk came up for discussion.

He blurted out, “I have no idea what the big fuss is about milk. After all, it’s just cow urine!” Well, as you might imagine, that created a rather awkward silence in the classroom. Our classmates might not have ever been to a farm, but we did know the difference between milk and urine.

Our science teacher, a middle-aged woman, looked at him rather shocked and said, “You actually think that milk is cow urine?” Realizing that he must have erred, he became embarrassed and did not reply. She assigned him a two-hundred-word essay on the origin of milk.

She then, very unwisely, decided that this might be a good time to teach basic farm principles to us “city boys.” In a most patronizing voice, she asked, “From chickens we get what?” The class muttered, “Eggs.” “From sheep we get what?” “Wool,” we mumbled. Triumphantly, she then asked, “And from cows we get what?” All the students glanced at our embarrassed friend. But he was not done, “From cows we get homework!” In a parting kindness, he did not wait to be asked to leave.

Sometimes we forget what we’d rather not remember. Perhaps he had suffered some abuse because his father was a principal, but there were definitely other contributing factors. We see a similar lesson in this week’s Torah portion.

“You shall not take a ransom for a person who murders, who is wicked [and deserving] of death, for he shall certainly die” (Numbers 35:31).

In this verse, the Torah prohibits a court from accepting a monetary payment from a convicted murderer to exempt him from the death penalty. We can certainly understand the logic behind this law; after all, Maimonides states (Yad Hilchos Rotzeach 4:9) that murder is considered the most heinous of all sins. But the very fact that it is a quite logical law also makes this verse problematic.

The implication is that if this verse had not appeared in the Torah, we would indeed have accepted a ransom payment in place of the death sentence for a murderer. Yet, if we could logically arrive at this conclusion, there would be no reason to include this law in the Torah. But what would be the rationale for allowing a murderer to go free in exchange for money?

Furthermore, the Torah makes this statement only with regard to a murderer, but it says nothing about a person convicted of any other crime. Can a person who has committed a less severe sin escape punishment by making a payment?

The answer is no. A person who commits any other sin cannot substitute a monetary payment for his punishment. However, if a person takes the life of another human being, there is reason to believe that a payment might justify sparing him from death – if the victim’s family chooses to accept it. In fact, this exact situation happened in Miami Beach about a 15 years ago.

In the early morning hours of March 14, 2009, Donte Stallworth, a star NFL wide receiver, left a club on South Beach and was driving on the McArthur Causeway. His black Bentley struck and killed Mario Reyes, a 59-year-old construction worker who was crossing the causeway to catch a bus after finishing his shift. Stallworth’s blood alcohol measured 0.126, significantly above Florida’s legal limit of 0.08. He was arrested and charged with DUI manslaughter, a second-degree felony in Florida.

Of course, the case drew national attention due to Stallworth’s status as a professional athlete, and the circumstances involving alcohol and a pedestrian fatality. Shockingly, Stallworth reached a plea agreement with prosecutors; he pleaded guilty to DUI manslaughter. But, he only served 30 days in jail (he also had two years of house arrest, 1,000 hours of community service, and a lifetime suspension of his driver’s license – though later modified).

The key? He showed genuine remorse and, probably far more importantly, he reached a confidential financial settlement with the Reyes family. It was reported that he had a five million dollar umbrella insurance policy. Additionally, it was speculated that he also gave the Reyes family his entire recent signing bonus of over 4 million dollars. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Reyes family wholeheartedly supported the plea agreement and, somehow, both the state attorney and the judge on the case considered the matter properly adjudicated.

(To put this ruling in perspective: Plaxico Burress – another NFL player – accidentally shot himself in the leg at a club in NY and was sentenced to two years in jail for firearm offenses and “reckless endangerment.”)

Of course, Stallworth’s very short jail sentence sparked national controversy and public debate. Some critics argued that Stallworth’s plea deal and settlement reflected the influence of wealth and fame in the legal system. Prosecutors and Reyes’ family, however, stated that Stallworth took full responsibility, showed genuine remorse, and acted appropriately after the accident.

Here we see exactly what the Torah is trying to prevent. The execution of a murderer restores the victim’s honor and dignity and removes a menace from society. However, as we saw in the Stallworth case, the family of a murder victim might sometimes prefer to receive monetary compensation rather than to see the killer punished. The death of a family member, especially a breadwinner, can have serious financial repercussions on the family, and they might actually prefer to accept a payment for financial security reasons.

If the family chooses to receive money in place of restoring the victim’s dignity, logic may seem to dictate that their wish should be granted. Thus, while a murderer certainly cannot force his sentence to be commuted by making a payment, there is ample reason to believe that the victim’s family may weigh in and choose to allow him to avoid capital punishment in exchange for money.

But if this is actually a logical approach, then why does the Torah rule that it’s not a viable alternative to the death sentence? If a victim’s family prefers to receive money from the killer, why shouldn’t their wishes be honored?

The Ten Commandments were given on two tablets and the sages explain that not only can they be read vertically, but horizontally as well. Meaning, the first commandment is connected to the sixth, and the second to seventh, and so on. This means that each of the commandments on the second tablet is aligned with – and a continuation of – the corresponding commandment on the first tablet.

The very first of the Ten Commandments, “I am Hashem your God,” continues directly into the sixth commandment, “You shall not murder.” This teaches us that murder is not only an act against the victim, but against the Almighty Himself. When one human being takes the life of another, he is also acting against God in whose image man was created. Therefore, a murderer’s punishment cannot EVER be waived, even if the victim’s family chooses to allow him to live, for his crime has repercussions vis-à-vis the Almighty as well.

This concept is clearly manifested in the very first act of murder. Cain and Abel, the sons of Adam and Eve, both brought offerings to the Almighty. In fact, it was Cain’s idea. But Cain (a farmer) chose some inferior produce as his offering, while Abel (a shepherd) brought from the finest of his flock. God rejected Cain’s offering and accepted Abel’s.

God then confronted Cain and said, “Why are you so furious, and why are you depressed?” (Genesis 4:6). As my brilliant brother Rabbi Akiva Zweig points out, Cain’s emotional reaction does not seem to make sense. The Torah states that he was both enraged and depressed, yet these two emotions do not seem likely to occur in tandem. A person may be either despondent or angry, but not both. How do we understand this? Furthermore, Cain, as we know, killed Abel. But this is illogical, after all what did Abel do to him?

The answer is, Cain is furious with God for rejecting him. But he has no recourse to act against God and felt impotent that he could not do anything about it. That was why he was depressed. He then took his anger out on his brother Abel and killed him as a way of getting back at the Almighty. This is also why he answered God with such insolence, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” He’s implying that God Himself should have protected His favorite.

This may also be one answer to the age-old question about antisemitism; “Why the Jews?” If we truly represent the Almighty in this world, being known as “God’s people,” that makes us a target for every person who is unhappy with his lot in life. We will discuss this topic a bit more next week when learn about the saddest day on the Jewish calendar – Tisha B’Av.

Mattos-Masei, Numbers 30:2 – 36:13

Mattos includes the laws of making and annulling vows, the surprise attack on Midian (the 1967 War wasn’t the Jewish people’s first surprise attack!) in retribution for the devastation the Midianites wreaked upon the Jewish people, the purification after the war of people and vessels, dedicating a portion of the spoils to the communal good (perhaps the first Federation campaign), the request of the tribes of Reuben and Gad for their portion of land to be east of the Jordan river (yes, Trans-Jordan/Jordan is also part of the Biblical Land of Israel). Moses objects to the request because he thinks the tribes will not take part in the conquering of the Land of Israel; the tribes clarify that they will be the advance troops in the attack and thus receive permission.

Masei includes the complete list of journeys in the desert (the name of each stop hints at a deeper meaning and a lesson learned there). God commands the Jewish people to drive out the land’s inhabitants, to destroy their idols, and to divide the land by a lottery system. God establishes the borders of the Land of Israel. New leadership is appointed, Levite cities and Cities of Refuge (where an accidental murderer may seek asylum) are designated. Lastly, the laws are set forth regarding accidental and willful murder as well as inheritance laws only for that generation regarding property of a couple where each came from a different tribe.