As I’ve said more times than you probaly remember, it is important
to read the Torah in the context of its time and setting. Otherwise, it is often difficult to
understand where it is ‘coming from.’
Specific pronouncements in the Torah can, and often do, seem unnecessary
or perhaps unnecessarily harsh to our ears.
But if we understand the Torah’s context, then it becomes much clearer
why things are stated the way they are.
Note that I didn’t
say the Torah’s wisdom is only applicable to its time and setting. There are those who will offer you this
argument. Because the Torah was
talking about a specific condition existing in a specific time, it isn’t
necessary for us to worry about it. That’s
not my argument. Even when the
specific conditions being addressed no longer exist, the principle holds.
This helps explain
the Torah’s ‘obsession’ with widows and orphans. The Torah tells us repeatedly not to oppress them. One of those instances is found in this week’s
Torah reading, from Parshat Mishpatim.
It is clear that the condition of widows and orphans in the ancient
world, was particularly onerous.
Otherwise, why would the Torah constantly harp on condition of these
classes of people, and instruct us to take such care not to oppress them?
In the Torah’s law,
mirroring the laws generally in effect among the peoples of the ancient Near
East, inheritance was through the male.
Male children inherited their father’s estate, with the firstborn son
getting a double share. Female children
had no inheritance, because it was assumed that they would marry and share in
their husband’s inheritance. Through
their marriage, they and their children would benefit from property of various
kinds. Because of this, a wife if
widowed, and her children would become immediately destitute according to the
societal norms then held.
As one can see when
one reads with an open eye, the Torah is a ‘conservative’ document. It addresses the various ills of the
societies among which the Israelites lived by attempting to ameliorate
them. It does not prescribe radical
solutions. Rather, it seems to recognise
the very human need for continuity. It
therefore attempts to lessen the negative impact of various institutions and
practices, but not to do away with them.
Take slavery. The Torah does not prohibit slavery, which
was of course a common institution in the ancient world. But it places limits upon it. It’s specific limitations, make slavery a
less onerous condition. Less permanent. Less open to the abuse of the slave. But it doesn’t eliminate it.
Likewise, the
passing of all inheritance to the male offspring. The Torah recognises the disadvantage this
creates to a female, especially when widowed.
So it addresses this disadvantage rather than prescribe a radical change
to the social order.
Really, the only ‘radical’
change in societal norms among the peoples of the area, which the Torah prescribes,
is the worship of One God, the invisible Adonai. That innovation, to the ancient man, is a
radical departure from the continuity of the givens of life. The elimination of the various deities – and the
worship of them, which often included practices we now consider abhorrent such
as ritual prostitution and child sacrifice – was a big change. So big, that the Israelites often backslid to
the previous ways at the slightest excuse! So perhaps, the Torah’s reluctance to
prescribe radical phases shifts from the assumptions of life in other areas,
represents God’s desire to keep the Torah from being onerous to the People
Israel. At least, that’s what I think.
Let me be clear that
I am not advocating the reactivation of slavery in lands where it is
prohibited, because the Torah does not forbid it! I advocate that the Torah’s purpose was to ameliorate
the onus of various institutions. If so,
then why on earth would one want to use the Torah as a rationale to make things
worse? It defies reason.
In some ways, widow
or orphan-hood today is not the onus it was in the ancient world. After all, a man’s widow and their children
are assumed to have the right of inheritance. When there’s no will, the property goes
automatically to the widow and children. Even if there’s a will stating the deceased’s
wishes as otherwise, a widow and children often successfully sue for the lion’s
share of the deceased’s estate. There is
little fear of the widow’s brothers-in-law pre-empting the deceased man’s property.
And there’s also life insurance,
something unknown in ancient Israel. A
generous insurance policy makes some men worth…more dead than alive, so to
speak. And even when there is no private
life insurance, there are features in the government’s social safety net that
specifically address the widow and the orphan.
But while all the
above lessen the onerous conditions of widowhood and orphan-hood, they do
not eliminate them. It is still
difficult for a woman to carry on after the death of her husband. (The truth is, it is also difficult for a man
after the death of his wife, but probably not as difficult.) Difficult
emotionally, of course. Women who become
widowed, often find that their network of friends evaporates, or at least
weakens. But also substantively. Poverty rates are considerably higher for
single parent women and their children, and a widow is the consummate single
parent.
So, despite that
widows and orphans are not as likely to be destitute as they were in ancient
Israel, they still need special consideration.
When the Torah tells us, do not oppress the widow and the orphan, we
should read, go out of your way to show extra consideration for the widow
and the orphan. Because widow and
orphan-hood are still onerous. While we
are never promised a fair world, we still can, and should, work to make it
fairer. Let’s always keep that in
mind. Shabbat shalom.
No comments:
Post a Comment