tzedek tzedek tirdof
Aug. 24th, 2006 08:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioThis week's torah portion contains the directive "justice, justice you shall pursue". My rabbi had an interesting comment on this tonight, not about "tzedek, tzedek" but about "tirdof". Why does the torah say "pursue" instead of, say, "establish"? Isn't establishing justice a goal, moreso than just running after it?
He suggests that we are commanded to pursue justice precisely because we can never fully achieve it -- pursue, meaning never let up. There is always more to do. I see shades of eilu d'varim here -- these are the obligations without measure.
The rest of this entry is me talking, inspired by that.
If the commandment were to "establish" justice, we might delude ourselves into thinking we'd achieved the goal. Most of the western world has a pretty reasonable judicial system, at least in the abstract. But the abstract isn't good enough; there's a big gulf between, say, the idea of defendants having competent legal representation and all of them actually having it, or between fair rules of evidence and what actually happens. And it's not only about formal systems of justice; we must pursue justice on a personal level, in the ways we interact with other people and the world at large -- the kinds of "tzedek" that are fully ours to control.
"Establish" sounds like something that can be checked off -- yup, did that, on to the next commandment. "Pursue" does not have that connotation -- we can get closer, but we can't fully get there. Pursuit is an ongoing task.
"Pursuit" raises another issue in my mind, one that seems less positive: when we pursue something, don't we usually do it at the expense of something else? Pursuing an educational or career goal usually comes at the expense of time and comfort; pursuing a person comes at the expense of attention to other people. What does pursuing justice come at the expense of? If complacency, well and good -- but is that it?
He suggests that we are commanded to pursue justice precisely because we can never fully achieve it -- pursue, meaning never let up. There is always more to do. I see shades of eilu d'varim here -- these are the obligations without measure.
The rest of this entry is me talking, inspired by that.
If the commandment were to "establish" justice, we might delude ourselves into thinking we'd achieved the goal. Most of the western world has a pretty reasonable judicial system, at least in the abstract. But the abstract isn't good enough; there's a big gulf between, say, the idea of defendants having competent legal representation and all of them actually having it, or between fair rules of evidence and what actually happens. And it's not only about formal systems of justice; we must pursue justice on a personal level, in the ways we interact with other people and the world at large -- the kinds of "tzedek" that are fully ours to control.
"Establish" sounds like something that can be checked off -- yup, did that, on to the next commandment. "Pursue" does not have that connotation -- we can get closer, but we can't fully get there. Pursuit is an ongoing task.
"Pursuit" raises another issue in my mind, one that seems less positive: when we pursue something, don't we usually do it at the expense of something else? Pursuing an educational or career goal usually comes at the expense of time and comfort; pursuing a person comes at the expense of attention to other people. What does pursuing justice come at the expense of? If complacency, well and good -- but is that it?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-25 01:39 pm (UTC)(I'm not even sure this is true in English for an ideal. Does my right to the pursuit of happiness come at the expense of life or liberty?)
I must also disagree with the posters who suggest that justice comes at the expense of mercy. As Ovadiah states, God intends us to "do justice" and "love mercy." The torah explicitly warns us, however, not to "pervert" justice by favoring the cause of the poor over that of the wealthy. I do not see these as antagonistic, but rather a command to keep them distinct. It is not appropriate to use justice as a vehicle for you to show mercy to another. If I sit in judgment between a rich man and a poor, I have an obligation to fulfill my task and render a just verdict under the law. Justice may require I decide a civil case for the wealthy employer over the poor employee. Mercy lies in my making a personal sacrifice to assist the poor rather than deciding it is better that the wealthy employer lose the judgment. (Note also that there is a difference between "mercy", which is not part of justice, and "equity," which is part of justice.