 One of the great tragedies of Jewish history is the exile and subsequent dispersion of the Ten Lost Tribes. Originally consisting of the tribes that composed the Northern Kingdom, or Kingdom of Israel, they had chosen to follow the leadership of kings descended from Joseph as opposed to the Davidic line of royalty descending from Judah that
reigned over the Southern Kingdom, or Kingdom of Judah. The Northern Kingdom and its ten tribes were eventually exiled by Sancheriv, King of Assyria, and they have long since vanished from the Jewish nation that continues to survive until this day.
What does the Talmud tell us about the permanent fate of the Ten Lost Tribes?
Actually, it offers mixed signals.
The Talmud in Sanhedrin 110b says:
The Ten Lost Tribes will not return in the future.
But other sages and several passages in the Tanach clearly disagree with this bleak assessment, and the Talmud itself, in Bava Batra 122a, says:
In the future, the Land of Israel will be divided among 13 tribes.
This certainly suggests an eventual return of the tribes that went lost.
So what is the truth? And why does the Talmud fail to give us a clear response? I believe a solid answer to this question begins in this week’s parsha.
“If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and then slaughters or sells it, he must pay five oxen for each ox and four sheep for each sheep.” [Shemot 22:37]
On the basis of this Torah statute, King David condemns the lamb thief of the Prophet Nathan’s parable to “a fourfold payment”. As Nathan continues, David discovers that he is the criminal – with his taking of Bat-Sheva away from Uriah – and indeed the Talmud in Yoma 22b goes on to inform us that David DID receive this fourfold penalty in losing four children of his own (the infant born to Bat-Sheva, Amnon, Tamar, and Avshalom).
But this ought to strike us as surprising. The thief in the parable did steal a sheep, but David did not. All David did was take a person the verse COMPARES to a sheep. And nevertheless, he pays fourfold.
It stands to reason, then, that if one were to steal and sell a person the verse compares to an ox, he would have to pay fivefold.
There is such a person – Joseph.
“Ul’Yosef amar…B’chor shoro hadar lo.”
About Joseph he said…His glory is like a firstborn ox. [Devarim 33:17]
And he was stolen and sold.
Who sold him? Judah.
“Judah said: Let’s sell him to the Arabs.” [Bereshit 37:27]
Having stolen and sold Joseph in his nascent role as king of his brothers, Judah thus stands to be penalized by a fivefold comparable loss from his kingdom. But keep in mind that in tribal terms, Joseph represents two tribes – Ephraim and Menashe. Thus Judah’s penalty as king of the nation is to have ten tribes stripped from his leadership. And that is exactly what occurred, as ten tribes seceded, joined the leadership of Ephraim, and were lost to the kings of Judah.
So can they return?
Well, let’s turn to the question of why the penalties for these particular thefts are assessed in so many multiples?
Actually, all thefts are penalized in multiples.
“If the stolen article is found in his possession…he must make double restitution.”
[Shemot 22:3]
My rebbe, Harav Yochanan Zweig, shlit”a, has explained that the reason for the double restitution is so that the thief can experience the same sense of loss he made his victim suffer. If he just gives back the animal he stole, he will not lose an animal himself. In giving up another animal, he knows the feeling of loss his victim was made to suffer up until the time the thief was apprehended.
In the case of the stolen ox or sheep that was then sold or slaughtered, the feeling of loss is more profound. The owner of a sheep experienced not only the anxiety associated with a lost possession, he additionally suffered the anxiety of the loss of business associated with the animal’s milk, its wool or leather, and its meat, plus, in the case of the ox, its work. These feelings of loss are what demand the fourfold and fivefold multiples of compensatory payment.
The operating principle in theft restitution is that the purpose of the penalty is to make sure the perpetrator understands and internalizes the pain he caused his victim.
So now I want to ask: Does the extra loss we exact from the thief need to be a permanent one? Based on our operating principle, one could argue that it need not. Once restitution was made, the original owner’s anxiety came to an end. His suffering was not permanent, so we should not require that the criminal’s sense of loss be permanent.
But the problem is, if the criminal knows at the time he is forking up the extra cows that his loss will only be temporary, he will not be replicating his victim’s experience. The victim FEARED his loss might be permanent, not knowing whether or not the crook would be caught; the thief knows his won’t be. So the only equitable penitence can be if we exact a permanent loss, and that is the halacha.
But let’s say the perpetrator somehow did not know that his loss would be only temporary. It would seem that so long as he first FEARED his loss might be permanent, one could make a convincing case that afterwards he could be granted restoration – just as restoration did eventually come to his victim.
Back to Judah and his kingdom. Judah did steal and sell Joseph – the “ox”. And as a result, he did lose ten tribes – fivefold the value of Joseph. But Joseph, as we know, eventually was repatriated. Need Judah’s loss be permanent? According to our logic, not as long as he first FEARS that it might be. Thus, the Talmud does not tell us that the Ten Lost Tribes will definitely return, because then Judah would be aware of it, and he would not experience the anxiety he must feel in order to produce an equitable outcome. Instead, the Talmud obfuscates and gives us mixed signals about their return; so Judah does not know for certain whether his kingdom will be restored. We thus satisfy our need to have the perpetrator experience the temporary anxiety of his victim – and the Ten Lost Tribes can return!
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Subscribe
