This is a 'reprint' of sorts. It's the more formal version of the d'var Torah I gave on July 6th, my final Shabbat at West End Synagogue. If you were there, then you know I was not in great voice. (That's something of an understatement; I had no voice!) So this, then, is a more complete, more thoughtful version of my thoughts.
On June 29th we read Parshat Pinhas, the parsha with the greatest number of named women in the Torah. When the daughters of Zelophechad step up to claim the right to inherit property, we see the first legal ruling giving women property rights. The ruling from God, that these five women were correct, is followed by another statement:
And not only in this case, but in all situations when a man dies without a male heir.
So the Torah teaches us by means of the fifth hermeneutic principle of Rabbi Ishmael: A specific term followed by a general ruling is expanded to include all that is implied by that rule. That is, God creates legal precedent in this ruling.
On July 6th we read the double portion of Matot and Masei, and because we read the tri-ennial, we focused on another issue of law; the establishment of cities of refuge for one who unintentionally causes a death. It's interesting to really examine what the Torah says concerning "accidental manslaughter." Yes, the slayer can run to one of 48 cities of refuge, but then he is not 'home free' because "the community examines his statement." That is, for want of a better word, a jury of his peers decides if his intention was to harm, or if the death was the result of unforeseen circumstances. Was it premeditated? Did he strike with some implement that could reasonably be expected to cause death, or was he just throwing a rock behind him and it struck someone by accident. What was his intent? If he is cleared of murder, but he leaves the city of refuge, he may be killed by a relative of the person he killed, and there are no penalties for the "go-el ha-dahm" -- the avenger of blood.
There are two cases in the news that speak to the issues of intent and of refuge, sanctuary. In Florida, George Zimmerman is trying to convince a jury that the death of Trayvon Martin was not intentional, could not have been foreseen, was not his fault. At the end of this process, Zimmerman will either be judged guilty of having the intent to kill, or he will be found to have acted out of some other impulse. I don't claim to know what was in his mind. Perhaps even he doesn't know what was his intent. (I know that I have been 'guilty' of compulsively eating chocolate, and I have no idea why!) But the community, or at least a small segment of it, will come to some consensus on the matter. Just as they would have almost 3,000 years ago.
In the case of Edward Snowden, the biblical notion of sanctuary is being turned on its head. Instead of trying to find a place where his actions can be examined and judged, Edward Snowden is seeking a get-out-of-jail-free card. He doesn't want to face a jury. He doesn't want to explain his intentions and have them judged. Again, I don't claim to know what his intentions were, and I don't even know how I feel about the substance of his revelations. I only know that if he receives "sanctuary" -- a word that means sacred space -- we will never have the opportunity to examine his intent. It will be true that, if he leaves the country that gives him a place, he will be fair game. He's probably not going to have a great life, but he will never have to clarify this issue of intent.
Since this is my final Shabbat, I need to stand here, before the community that I have served, and admit that I have made mistakes. Lots of mistakes! But it was never my intent to harm, and if I have ever hurt someone by my words or my actions, I humbly apologize to you for my actions. I will remember you all, and I will carry you in my heart. Shabbat shalom.
