Our Torah portion, Shoftim, ends on a strange hypothetical situation. A person is slain and found lying in the open with the slayer unknown. In such a situation, the elders and magistrates were commanded to go out to measure the distance from the corpse to the nearby towns. Then they took a heifer, which had never worked and brought it to an everflowing wadi, which had never been tilled or sown. There they broke the heifer’s neck. All the elders of the town nearest to the corpse washed their hands over the heifer and declared, “Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it done. Absolve, O God, Your people Israel whom You redeemed, and do not let guilt for the blood of the innocent remain among your people Israel.” Those elders were then absolved for the death of the corpse in their midst.^[1]

         These 9 verses are very mystifying. Why did this ritual of the eglah arufah, the calf with the broken neck, have to be done? How did the killing of an animal in such a vicious fashion expiate for the killing of a person? Why were the elders of the nearest town, which might be quite a distance away, presumed to be at fault for the death of an unknown individual?

         The rabbis of Talmud Sotah were perplexed by the last question. They asked, “How would it rise on our hearts that the elders of the court are bloodshedders?!” The answer given is that the elders asserted that they did not see a stranger walking alone and not offer him an escort.^[2] That by itself makes sense. What is perplexing is that 8 folio pages later, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, “a man who no is walking on the road and does not have an escort should occupy himself with Torah.”^[3] Does that mean that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi considered the deceased to not have been studying Torah? What hutzpah to presume this and what nivul hameit, desecration of the dead!

         But wait-there’s more! Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Meir, “Anyone who does not accompany another or who does not permit himself to be accompanied is as if he spills blood. For if indeed the men of Jericho had accompanied Elisha (the prophet), he would not have incited the bears against the children. As it is said, ‘From there he went up to Beitel. As he was going up the road, some little boys came out of the town and jeered at him saying ‘Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!’”^[4] That’s boys being boys right? Not from Elisha’s perspective. He did not take kindly to being insulted by these youths, and he cursed them in God’s name. Two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled 24 of the children. Rabbi Meir opines that Elisha’s wrath would have been averted if there had been someone going with him who would have stayed his hand.

         What lesson do we take from these texts as we enter the month of Elul? This is a time to be mindful of our actions, especially those which lead to bad habits and destructive outcomes. Are there modifications we can make so that the outcome might be different? Perhaps we are going it alone in a difficult moment and could turn to someone to accompany us. Maybe we habitually respond out of accusation or out of anger like Elisha did and can engage help to become more skillful. One of life’s greatest challenges is to recognize that how we react and what we do is far more in our control than we think. It is easier said than done, yet by taking small steps throughout this month, we can gradually change for the better and influence the outcome. Above all, let us strive that no negligence occurs on our account, like the situation in our portion that led to the death of a man and a calf being killed to make atonement for it. While we thankfully do not sacrifice animals in this way today, we still need to compensate to rectify damage which was done on our watch. May we learn from this lesson and make it our own as we approach new year 5787.

---

^[1] Deuteronomy 21:1-9

^[2] Bavli Sotah 38a

^[3] Bavli Sotah 46b

^[4] 2 Kings 2:23