Parashat Shoftim begins with laws referring to judges, that the people need to appoint judges and the judges are to judge righteously, 16:18-20. The word tsedek, righteously, appears in 16:18 and 16:20 (twice) to frame 16:19, and the word tsadikim, the righteous, appears in the end of 16:19. These verses begin a section which runs through chapter 18 that deals with the leadership roles (political, theological and judicial) of the people, and seems to be necessary with the impending death of Moshe.
Tigay (1996, p. 453) suggests that maybe this administrative section is recorded at this point since some of the laws in the section refer to the chosen place, 17:8,10 and 18:6, which relate to laws from chapters 12, 14:22-27, and 15:19-16:17. Other possible connections just with reference to 16:18-20 are that 16:18 refers to shaarecha, your gates, and this word appears in 15:22, 16:5,11,14. Also, 16:18, 20 have the phrase, that G-d gave you, noten lecha/ natan lach, and the same phrase appears in the last verse of parashat Re’eh, the previous verse, 16:17, natan lach, and in 16:5. In addition, 16:19 refers to bribes that blind the judge, ye-aver, and this relatively rare word in the Torah (8 times) appears by the law of the firstborn animal, 15:21, e-ver. Note, 15:21 refers to two specific types of disabilities to the firstborn animal that make the animal inadmissible as a sacrifice, and the first type connects the law of firstborn animal to the law of the korban pesach in the beginning of chapter 16, peseach (see Tigay, 1996, p. 453) and the second type, e-ver, the blind animal, connects the law of the firstborn animal to the laws in reference to judges, the end of chapter 16.
Another more distant connection is that 16:18-20 might refer back to the laws of idolatry in chapter 13. The prime idea in 16:18-20 is to pursue justice, and by the last case in chapter 13 to kill the inhabitants of the wayward city, the Torah stresses that one must make a thorough investigation, 13:15. This thorough investigation must be based on the principle of pursing justice, as stressed in 16:18-20, and not by falsifying the evidence. Going even further back, the end of 16:20, refers to the people inheriting the land and this idea appears in 12:1 and 12:29(?).
The next laws in parashat Shoftim, 16:21,22 record the prohibitions of asherot and matzevot. What is the connection between 16:18-20 and 16:21,22? Why are the prohibitions of asherot and matzevot recorded after the injunctions to appoint judges and for judges to judge objectively?
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 7b) quotes Resh Lakish that the conjunction of 16:18-20 with 16:21 teaches us that whoever appoints a judge who is unworthy is like one who planted an ashera. The Abravanel (1999, p. 59) extends this idea, and claims that 16:21,22 and 17:1, all teach lessons concerning the appointment of judges.
Ibn Ezra (on 16:21) suggests that the conjunction of the verses is because a judge’s first job is to eliminate public idolatry. Similarly, Bekhor Shor (on 16:21) notes that Gideon (Shoftim 6:28) destroyed the pagan altar and asherot when he became a judge.
Dennis Olsen (1994, pp. 81,82) argues that all of the laws of Deuteronomy (chapters 12-26) are based on the order of the Decalogue. In this case, he argues that the appointment of judges relates to the fourth commandment concerning parents and authority, and the conjunction of the law of appointing judges with the laws prohibiting asherot and matzevah is join the first commandment not to have other gods with the fourth commandment. He writes, “One can properly understand the issue of honoring authorities and leaders only in conjunction with the laws prohibiting false worship of other gods… no human leader is infallible and worthy of worship.”
In class, Meir Mor Yosef suggested that the laws by not making an asherah and matzevah, 16:21,22, were akin to not giving bribes by the judges, 16:19, since the asherah and matzevah can be considered as an attempt to bribe G-d.
Rofe makes the striking literary point that by the instructions to the judges to judge righteously, 16:19 records three prohibitions, lo tateh, lo takir, and lo tikah and then 16:21,22, by the asherot and matsevot, and 17:1, the next law not to sacrifice an animal with a blemish, have a similar pattern and almost identical language, lo titah, lo takim and lo tizbah. This suggests that the conjunction of the verses 16:12,22 and 17:1 with the appointment of the judges is due to this triple association of words. However, Rofe himself argues that this association is insufficient to explain the conjunction of verses since he believes that 16:21,22 and 17:1 should really have been recorded in the end of chapter 12.
The connections between 16:21,22 and 17:1 and chapter 12, the beginning of the law section, is that 16:21,22 is similar to the law in 12:3, which records the requirement to destroy the pagan matzevot and asherot. In addition, 12:31 has the word saneh, which appears in 16:22, and 17:1 (and 17:4) has the word toevah, which also appears in 12:31. However, the matzevot and asherot referred to in chapter 12 are not the same matzevot and asherot referred to in chapter 17. 12:3 refers to matzevot and asherot that were used for idolatry, while 16:21,22 refer to matzevot and asherot in reference to worshipping G-d (also prohibited). This difference might be why the two sets of laws were not recorded together (to answer Rofe’s question).
The next set of laws in parashat Shoftim, 17:2-7, record laws about punishing a person who does idolatry, and is associated with 17:1 since both sections have the phrase, davar ra (17:1,5) and toevah (17:1,4), see Tigay (1996, p. 453). 17:2-7 is also connected with 16:18-20 since 17:2,5 have the word shaarecha, which appears in 16:18, and this word connects 17:2-7 to the laws starting from the firstborn animal, 15:22. Also, 17:2 has the phrase noten lach as in 16:18,20. In addition, 17:2-7 discusses judging and investigating people, which is thematically connected to the laws by the justices of 16:18-20 based on the goal of arriving at a correct judgement. Going further back, 17:2-7 is also similar to the laws of chapter 13, which also has laws relating to idolatry through the similar verses 17:4 and 13:15, the phrase u-berata hara mi-kirbecha in 17:7 and 13:6, the phrase u-sekaltem ba-avanim va-metu in 17:5 and 13:11 (in the singular), the phrase tehiyeh bo barishonah in 17:7 and 13:10.
The ensuing section, 17:8-13, record laws about the high court, which continues with the judicial theme of 17:2-7, and has several similar words with 17:2-7, drashata, 17:4,9; al pi, 17:6(2),10,11, u-bearta hara, 17:7,12, and shaarecha, 17:2,5,8. (This last literary connection connects 17:8-13 to all the previous laws going back to the firstborn animal). In addition, both sections refer to capital punishment, 17:5 and 17:12. Also, 17:9,12 have the word shofet, judge, which appears in 16:18 and 17:9,11 have the word mishpat and this word appears in 16:18,19. Again, 17:8,10 refer to the chosen place, which associates with the references to the chosen place in chapters 12, 15 and 16. Also, the end of this section, 17:13, concludes the section with the words, yishmiu ve-yirau, and this phrase appears in 13:12. Finally, 17:8-13, also points forward to the ensuing leadership section by referring to national judges of the people, 17:9.
The next set of laws, 17:14-20, record laws relating to kings, and these laws continue the section on leadership that previously was focused on the judges. This section is connected with the previous section, 17:8-13, since that section refers to the necessity of people to listen to judicial authorities, which is also a form of leadership. In addition, there is the connecting word, sur, in 17:11 and in 17:17,20, and the connecting phrase, yamin or semol in 17:11 and 17:20. Also, 17:8 and 17:15 have the same phrase, asher yivchar Hashem your G-d bo. Furthermore, 17:18 has the phrase ha-cohanim ha-Leviiim and this phrase appears in 17:9 by the section on the high court. In addition, 17:14, the first verse in this section about kings, has the phrase, noten lach as in 17:2 (the first verse in the section on idolatry) and in 16:5,17,18, 20. Also, 17:14 has the word, ve-rishtaha, which is similar to the word, ve-yarashata in 16:20.
The following section, 18:1-8, refers to laws about the priests and Levites since they were also leaders in reference to the work in the mishkan/ ohel moed. Note the word helek appears both in reference to the priests, 18:1 and in reference to the Levites, 18:8 (twice). Ibn Ezra (on 18:1) suggests that this section follows the section on kings since the king is a judge (not mentioned in the Torah) and the priests are the teachers of the Torah. Alter (2004, p. 968) varies this slightly that the king is required to write a Torah, 17:18, and the priests and the Levites are to teach the Torah.
18:1-8 also have a literary connection with the previous section through the phrase cohanim ha-Leviim that appears in 17:18 and in 18:1 (and 17:9). Also, the ending phrase in the sections concerning the kings and the priests is hu u-banav, 17:20 and 18:5. In addition, this section connects with the section 17:8-13, through the words le-sheret and omed in 17:12 and 18:5, and the word mishpat, 17:9,11 and 18:3. Furthermore, the phrase bachar Hashem your G-d, appears in 18:5, similar to, but in a different word order, to 17:8,15.
The next section, 18:9-14, is that one is not to listen to various magicians, and this means that they are not to be considered as leaders. The beginning of 18:9 is almost identical with the beginning section by the laws with regard to kings, 17:14, and the word ba, appears in 18:6 by the Levi and in 18:9. In addition, 18:8 ends the section on the priests and the Levites by using the word avot, fathers, and 18:10 refers to (horrible) actions by a parent in reference to their son or daughter. Also, a little further back, 18:9 has the phrase noten lach and 18:14 has the similar phrase natan lecha, which corresponds to 17:2, 14; 16:5, 17, 18 and 20.
The following law is that one is to listen to proper prophets, 18:15-22, since they are true religious leaders. This section connects thematically with the previous section through the contrast of not listening to magician/ false prophets but yes listening to true prophets. The end of the section, 18:19-22 refers directly to this contrast. Some literary connections of this section with previous sections are that the last verse of this section, 18:22, has the word ya-ba which appears in 18:6,9, the two previous sections. Also, in this section the word dibber figures prominently, 18:17,18(twice), 19(twice), 20(three), 21(three) and the word appears in 18:2. There is also a literary connection between 18:22 and 17:12,13 through the word zadon.
Chapter 19 records laws that relate to the functioning of the law system. The first set of laws is the establishment of cities of refuge, 19:1-13. This section is connected with chapter 18 based on the words, goyim, 18:9, and 19:1 and the phrase noten lach, in 18:9,14 and 19:1,2,10. Again this phrase noten lach also appears in 17:2, 14; 16:5, 17, 18 and 20. The phrase noten lecha in 19:2 continues with the word le-rishtaha, and this word also appears in 17:14.
The next section is just one verse, 19:14, the law of moving a boundary marker. Why is the law of moving landmarks recorded at this particular place in the Torah?
Ibn Ezra (on 19:14) suggests that the law relates to the ensuing law of witnesses since moving landmarks will lead to fights and the claimant will need to bring witnesses to support his claim. In addition, the ensuing law of witness ends with a reference to violence, "an eye for an eye."
Tigay (1996, p. 454) quotes three possible reasons for the placement of 19:14. One, the law relates to the division of land, which is also mentioned in 19:3. Two (see Rofe, 1988, p. 271), the word gevul, boundary, appears in 19:14 and twice in the previous section, 19:3,8. Three, the moving landmarks is a way to steal land and hence there is a law of murder (the city of refuge), theft (moving landmarks) and perjury (witnesses) which corresponds to the order of these laws in the Decalogue.
Abravanel (1999, p. 309) suggests two other reasons for the placement of the law of not moving landmarks. One, the possibility of moving landmarks necessitates judges who know the division of land and are able to ensure that people do not lose their land. The law then relates to both the city of refuge (the previous section, 19:1-13) and laws concerning witnesses (the following section, 19:15-21) since these laws also necessitate judges. Two, by the city of refuge, there was a danger that a person would move the landmarks of the city of refuge to steal "public land" or that after the designation of the city of refuge, the public would steal land from individuals.
One could vary Abravanel's first reason from judges to the legal system. The landmarks were a proof of ownership of land in ancient times, and a person who moved landmarks destroyed the way society documented ownership of the land. The landmarks were part of the formal property system of society, which allows for legally enforceable transactions with regard to property, and hence the landmarks were elements of the legal system. Similarly, the city of refuge and laws concerning witnesses were also part of the legal system of the Torah.
Other literary connections, beside the word gevul, between 19:14 and the previous section is the phrase noten lach le-rishtah in 19:2 and 19:14. Also the word nachlah in 19:10 is similar to the words nachlatcha and tinchal in 19:14.
The third section in chapter 19 records laws concerning false testimony, 19:15-21. This relates to the law of the city of refugee through the words, lo tachos in 19:13,21, and the word u-bearta, 19:13,19. Also, the word three, shalosh, in 19:15 and 19:2,7,9 (2). A further back reference is the word ha-riv in 19:17 and rivot in 17:8, and the phrase yishmioo ve-yiraoo in 19:20 and 17:13 (and 13:12). Also, 19:17,18 have the word shoftim, which re-calls the first word of the parasha, shoftim (in 16:18 and in the singular in 17:8,12).
The next section, 20:1 through 21:14 records laws relating to war. Both 20:1, by the beginning of the section of warfare, and 21:10, the first verse by the last set of laws on warfare, begin with the same words, ki tezet la-milchama al ovecha, when you go out to war with your enemy. Also, 20:1 and 21:11, the second verse is the last set of laws of the war section, both have the word ve-raita, “and when you see.”
Why is this section on laws relating to wars recorded after the laws of witnesses, 19:15-21? Rashi (on 20:1) suggests two reasons for the connection between chapters 19 and 20. One reason is that the end of chapter 19, 19:21, records that if a person maimed somebody so then the person is also maimed, “an eye for an eye.” The juxtaposition of this law with the drafting of soldiers is then to tell us that a person missing a limb does not go out to fight. The second reason is that the act of maiming the guilty person is part of the execution of justice, and the juxtaposition of two sections teaches us that if a person executes just judgments, then he will be victorious in war.
Ibn Ezra suggests a different reason based on the same law as mentioned by Rashi. 19:21 records that a person must not take pity on the guilty person, but must punish the person. This is juxtaposed with the drafting of soldiers to teach us that one should not take pity on somebody who is supposed to go fight and exempt the person from being a soldier.
Tigay (1996, p. 454) suggests three reasons for the connection between the section of warfare and the previous sections. One, war involves military leadership, and this is a primary role of government along with judging, chapter 19. Two, 19:12, refers to capital punishment, and war is another case where the taking of human life is permitted. Three, the law of the cities of refugee refers to cutting down trees with an axe, 19:5, and within the war section, there is the prohibition of cutting down trees with an axe during a siege, 20:19.
There is also an association of words between the first set of laws relating to warfare and the laws of a false witness, the previous section. 19:20 records that people should not continue (yosefu) to do evil and 20:8 records that shotrim will continue (yasfu) to speak to the people. Also, 19:20 has the word, yiraoo and the word appears in 20:2, tiraoo. Furthermore, 19:16 refers to a fight (riv) between people, and this is what happens on a larger scale when two nations fight.
In addition, the first set of laws relating to warfare, the drafting of soldiers, connects to the beginning of parashat Shoftim, as within the drafting of soldiers, a priest and certain officials, shotrim, had to make pronouncements to the people, 20:8,9, and these shotrim are referred to in 16:18. After the drafting of the soldiers, 20:9 records that officers were appointed to command the soldiers. The priest, shotrim and officers were assuming some of the leadership roles of the people, and then the war section, also relates to the leadership section in 16:18-18:22.
The laws of the war section follows the order of conducting a war. First, the troops are mustered, 20:1-9, and then there are laws to offer or not to offer peace before beginning the battles, 20:10-18. Afterwards, there are laws how to act during the battles, a siege, 20:19,20, and then there are laws after the battle is over, 21:10-14 (in parashat Ki Teitzei). Yet, breaking up this section on war, 21:1-9 records the ceremony of the broken neck heifer, eglah arufa.
Why is the law of eglah arufa recorded within the laws of warfare? Tigay (1996, p. 534) quotes Rofe that there is a literary connection between the word sadeh (field) in 20:19 and in 21:1. This connection is not just that the word appears in both verses, but 20:19 refers to cutting down the tree in the sadeh and 21:1 refers to the dead person who fell in the sadeh. Tigay also quotes a person, C. Carr that both verses have similar sounds, 20:19, ki ha-adam etz ha-sadeh and 21:1, ki…ba-adamah...nofel ba-sadeh.
My thought is that the connection between the laws of eglah arufa and warfare is conceptual. War entails killing, which sometimes is necessary, but other times is just murder. The case of eglah arufa, where the murderer is unknown and the body is found in the field, is similar to many of the deaths that occur in wartime. At the end of the law of eglah arufa the people call upon G-d to punish the murderer, 21:9, and this law then serves as a warning to soldiers that even in wars one can only kill when it is necessary. With this understanding, the laws of eglah arufa accord with the order of conducting a war as recorded in the laws of the war section, as after a siege, 20:19,20, there is the actual fighting, 21:1-9, and then 21:10-14 records laws after the fighting is over.
Note this connection between 21:10-14 and parashat Shoftim raises the question why 21:10-14 was not included in parashat Shoftim. Possibly the answer is that Chazal based the division of the parashot on the drasha quoted by Rashi on 21:11. Now (2024) think that more likely it was desired to end the parasha on the very nice phrase, ki ta’aseh ha-yashar be-enyei Hashem, for we will do what is right in the eyes of G-d. Two very similar phrases are also the end of the second and third aliyot of parashat Re’eh, 12:28 and 13:19.
Abarbanel, Yitzhak (1437-1508), 1999, Commentary on Devarim, Jerusalem: Horev Publishing.
Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1973, Biblical and oriental studies, vol. 1, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, pp. 1-6. Initially printed in Hebrew in 1952, Connections of sections and their order in Tanakh, World Congress of Jewish Studies, vol. 1, pp. 165-169.
Olsen, Dennis, 1994, Deuteronomy and the death of Moses, Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Rofe, Alexander, 1988a, Introduction to Deuteronomy, Hebrew, Jerusalem: Akademon Publishing House.
-----, 1988b, The arrangement of the laws in Deuteronomy, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 64:4, December, pp. 265-287.
-----, Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation, London: T & T Clark, 2002.
Tigay, Jeffrey H. 1996, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1973, Biblical and oriental studies, vol. 1, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, pp. 1-6. Initially printed in Hebrew in 1952, Connections of sections and their order in Tanakh, World Congress of Jewish Studies, vol. 1, pp. 165-169.
Olsen, Dennis, 1994, Deuteronomy and the death of Moses, Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Rofe, Alexander, 1988a, Introduction to Deuteronomy, Hebrew, Jerusalem: Akademon Publishing House.
-----, 1988b, The arrangement of the laws in Deuteronomy, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 64:4, December, pp. 265-287.
-----, Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation, London: T & T Clark, 2002.
Tigay, Jeffrey H. 1996, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.