“And you should seek from
all of the nation men of valor, who fear Hashem, men of the truth, those who
hate improper gain. And you should
appoint them over the people as leaders of thousands, leaders of hundreds,
leaders of fifties and leaders of tens.”
(Shemot 18:21) Sometimes it is just
wonderful to take a single passage of the Torah and consider the wonderful and
exacting manner in which our Sages analyze its content. Every passage must make sense in all of its
details. It must be internally
coherent. It must be contextually
consistent. It must correspond with
established halachic principles. Let us consider one passage from our parasha and the manner in which our
Sages analyze it.
Moshe and Bnai Yisrael are joined in the wilderness
by Yitro – Moshe’s father-in-law. Yitro
observes Moshe judging and teaching the people. Moshe is fulfilling the role of judge and teacher without
assistance. Yitro concludes that no
single person can fulfill the role of serving as sole judge and teacher. He advises Moshe to recruit other leaders
who will share his burden. Yitro
describes the characteristics that Moshe should seek in these leaders. He also advises Moshe to appoint these leaders
as leaders of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens. Moshe will continue to serve as the highest judicial and
governmental authority. Moshe accepts
Yito’s counsel and creates the system he has proposed.
Our Sages disagree as to the meaning of this last
instruction. What is a leader of
thousands, hundreds, fifties or tens?
Rashi’s explanation is well-know.
His explanation is based upon the comments of the Talmud in Mesechet
Sanhedrin. According to Rashi, Moshe
was to create a multileveled judiciary.
Each of the lowest judges would be responsible for a group of ten
people. Above these judges would be
appointed a second level of judges.
Each judge would be charged with the responsibility of leading fifty
people. The leaders of the hundreds
would each care for the affairs of one hundred people. Those appointed over the thousands would
each have one thousand people assigned to his care. Rashi continues to explain that the nation numbered six hundred
thousand men. This means there were six
hundred judges appointed at the highest level.
At the next level, there were six thousand judges. The next level required twelve thousand
judges. The lowest level required sixty
thousand appointments.[1] The table below represents Rashi’s
explanation of the system Moshe was to create.
As the table indicates, Moshe was to appoint a total of 78,600 leaders –
representing slightly more than 13% of the total adult male population.
|
Judges of Thousands |
600 |
|
Judges of Hundreds |
6,000 |
|
Judges of Fifties |
12,000 |
|
Judges of Tens |
60,000 |
|
Total Appointments |
78,600
|
|
Total Adult
Male Population |
600,000 |
|
Percentage of Population Serving in Leadership |
13% |
Ibn Ezra questions Rashi’s explanation. He argues that Yitro and Moshe set very high
standards for the leaders Moshe would appoint.
The qualities that each and every leader was required to posses are not
common, easily acquired traits. These
leaders were to be morally and spiritually beyond reproach. It is difficult to imagine that Moshe would
find close to 79,000 people possessing this unusual combination of traits. Ibn Ezra also questions the need for
appointing close to one eighth of the nation as leaders. This seems to be the beginnings of the
greatest bureaucracy in recorded history!
Based on these objections, Ibn Ezra suggests and
alternative explanation of our passage.
According to Ibn Ezra, a judge of thousands was not charged with judging
one thousand people. Instead, the
meaning of the passage is that the highest judges were to be selected from most
powerful and influential elite. In
order to qualify for this position, the candidate was required to be master of
a household of at least one thousand individuals. In other words, he must have at least one thousand servants and
assistants and others under his control.
Leaders for each of the subsequent levels were chosen from a group of
candidates who led proportionately smaller households. At the lowest level, a candidate was
required to be master over a household of ten people. According to this explanation, the pasuk is not indicating the number of leaders appointed or the
number of people each was required to lead.
Instead, the passage describes the number of servants and assistants a
candidate must command to qualify for each level of leadership.[2]
Abravanel objects to Ibn Ezra’s interpretation on
both practical and philosophical grounds.
From a practical perspective, he argues that Bnai Yisrael had just
escaped from slavery in Egypt. It is
hard to imagine that any of these former slaves were masters over the large
households that Ibn Ezra describes as a requirement. From a philosophical perspective, he objects to the idea that
wealth and power should be a criterion for selection.[3]
In addition to these objections, Ralbag points out
that Ibn Ezra’s interpretation of the passage is textually difficult to
accept. Returning to the passage, it is
clear that the passage is composed of two elements. The first portion of the passage describes the qualifications
required of each judge. The second half
of the passage describes the appointment of the judges. In other words, first Yitro suggests who
should be selected and then how these leaders should be appointed. According to Ibn Ezra’s interpretation, the
passage looses its coherency. The
second portion of the passage first describes the appointment of the leaders
and then returns to the theme of the first potion of the passage; an additional
qualification is described. If Ibn
Ezra’s interpretation were correct, the passage should read “And you should
seek from all of the nation men of valor, who fear Hashem, men of the truth,
those who hate improper gain. They
should be leaders of thousands, leaders of hundreds, leaders of fifties and
leaders of tens. And you should appoint them over the people.”
This analysis leaves Ralbag with a perplexing
problem. On the one hand he agrees with
Ibn Ezra’s critique of Rashi’s explanation of the passage. However on the other hand, he does not feel
that Ibn Ezra’s explanation is much better.
In order to resolve this dilemma, Ralbag develops a
third interpretation of the passage.
Now, Ralbag must offer an explanation that responds to all of the
questions that he has asked on Rashi and Ibn Ezra. And ideally, it should also respond to Abravanel’s
objections. This is quite a task! In order to avoid the questions on Rashi,
Ralbag takes an approach similar to Ibn Ezra’s. The passage is not describing the number of people placed under
the authority of each leader. Neither
does the pasuk indicate the number of
judges to be appointed. But unlike Ibn
Ezra, Ralbag maintains that the pasuk
is divided into two clear portions and the second portion of the passage does
not deal with selection criteria; it deals with the process of
appointment. According to Ralbag, Moshe
was to assign to each judge the resources he would need to enforce his
decisions. The highest judges were to
be assigned one thousand subordinates; each judge at the lowest level was to be
assigned ten subordinates. Each judge
was to be given the authority and the resources he would need to carry out his
decisions. With this explanation
Ralbag, responds to all of the objections he has raised against Rashi and Ibn
Ezra.[4]
“And these are the laws
that you should place before them.” (Shemot 21:1)
One of the most interesting elements of Ralbag’s
explanation is that it is reflected in normative halacha. This above pasuk is the opening passage of Parshat
Mishpatim. In Mesechet Sanhedrin, the
Talmud asks why the passage does not read, “These are the laws you should teach
them?” What is the meaning of placing
the laws before them? The Talmud
suggests that the meaning of the passage is that before judging a case a judge
must have placed before him the “tools of the judge.” What are these tools? The
Talmud explains that they include a staff with which to lead, a strap with
which to administer lashes, and a shofar with which to announce
excommunication.[5] This text from the Talmud is quoted by Tur
and based on the authority of Rav Hai Gaon, he codifies this requirement into
law.[6]
It is interesting the Tur places this law in the
first chapter of Choshen Mishpat. The
chapter deals primarily with the appointment of judges and their
authority. Why does Tur include a
detail regarding the physical organization of the courtroom?
According to Ralbag, Tur’s organizational scheme
makes perfect sense. Yitro and Moshe
agreed that in appointing judges, each judge must be assigned the means for
carrying out his decisions. This
assignment of resources is part of the process of appointment. The appointment is meaningless if it is only
ceremonial and does not include authority and the resources to carry out
justice. Tur’s organization of this
first chapter of Choshen Mishpat reflects this same consideration. As part of his discussion of the appointment
of judges and the extent of their authority, Tur includes the requirement that
the judge have before him his tools – the tools used to carry out his
decisions. Why must these tools be
present? Consistent with Ralbag’s
reasoning, Tur is suggesting that the placement of these tools before the judge
is part of the process of appointment.
Without these resources at his disposal, his appointment and status as a
judge is incomplete.
[1] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 18:21.
[2] Rabbaynu Avraham ibn Ezra, Commentary on Sefer Shemot, 18:21.
[3] Don Yitzchak Abravanel, Commentary on Sefer Sehmot, p 156.
[4] Rabbaynu Levi ben Gershon (Ralbag / Gershonides), Commentary on Sefer Shemot, (Mosad HaRav Kook, 1994), p 134.
[5] Mesechet Sanhedrin 7a.
[6] Rabbaynu Yaakov ben HaRash, Tur Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 1.