The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Another Perspective

Going By the Book

What goes around does come around.

My friend Sharon Stone got into trouble a while back when she reminded the Chinese after an earthquake that what goes around comes around. You can’t expect to jail dissidents and harass Tibetans with impunity. It turned out that whole stoic, inscrutable Charlie Chan thing is out of style in the modern People’s Republic, and Dior had to drop her as their spokesmodel for the region. They told her to go away and not come around. Bad for business, too, because people who are losing a lot of face need more cosmetics.

Of course, Sharon was absolutely right, and she paid a temporal price for speaking eternal truth. If anyone needed a demonstration of this principle closer to home, the case of O.J. Simpson provided ample illustration. Outside of a dozen California jurors, most of the country thought he belonged in jail and sure enough, eventually, he managed to work his own way behind bars. This column predicted that verdict was coming around long before O.J.’s go-round in court.

All these comings and goings are gratifying to a degree, but one thing is annoying. For a nice Jewish family like the Goldmans to describe Mister Simpson’s fate as “karma” is sad. (Stone, by contrast, used the phrase in an Asian setting, where the Hindu and Buddhist familiarity renders it appropriate.) There is no reason anyone needs to go beyond the Biblical and Talmudic tradition to understand this denouement.


THE VERSE IN EXODUS (21:12,13) is fascinating. “If one strikes a man and he dies, he should be put to death. If he did not stalk him, but the Lord delivered it into his hand, I will assign for you a place where he may find refuge.”

The sentence of exile (akin to prison) was reserved for someone who killed by criminal negligence, what we might call manslaughter. The question arises: why does the verse say that the Lord brought the situation about? The tradition teaches that this is explained by the verse in Samuel I (24:14) when David refuses to kill Saul despite having a clear shot. “As the primordial parable says, evil comes from evil men.”

This is explained to mean as follows. One person had committed murder without witnesses and deserved the death penalty. Another person had committed manslaughter without witnesses and deserved to be exiled. Neither one could be apprehended. So God makes the latter fall off the ladder in the presence of witnesses and land on the former. The murderer is killed in the accident, receiving a death penalty. The witnesses get the impression that the faller mounted the ladder dangerously, so he is convicted of manslaughter and sent to prison.

Thus the Bible, the “primordial parable”, when read carefully by a King David, reveals the principle that bad people can be used as a vehicle for bad things to happen, with the added irony that those seemingly bad things have a good purpose of their own.

In a Talmudic story that Alan Dershowitz is fond of quoting, the great scholar of the Second Temple period, Simon-ben-Shetah, witnesses a man brandishing a knife chasing another man into a building. Simon runs to help, but by the time he gets through the door he finds the one man holding a bloody knife with the other stabbed to death on the floor. Since Jewish law does not allow circumstantial evidence in capital cases, the man could not be prosecuted. Simon feels thwarted by the law until, some time later, he hears the news that the killer was himself killed by a snake.

As to the human behavior by law enforcement, the judge and the jury, this too has a Biblical basis. When King David is on his deathbed at the beginning of Kings, he summons his son and successor, Solomon. He tells him to see to it that Shimmi-ben-Gerah gets what he deserves. Shimmi had been abusive and threatening to David when he was dethroned in a revolution and running for his life (Samuel II 16:5-13). David passed up the opportunity to kill him then and again later (ibid 19:19-24) when he retook the throne. This was done to show that he could rise above personal vindictiveness to think of the needs of the nation. Still, Shimmi deserved punishment.

“Do as your wisdom dictates,” David told Solomon. Just make sure he gets what is coming to him. Solomon put Shimmi on a short leash, forbidding travel outside Jerusalem. When Shimmi violated this order “to recover some property,” he was finally put to death. It is fair and reasonable to give very little leeway to someone who got away with one. Even a much smaller crime the second time will evoke major penalties.

There was once a time, not very long ago, when most Americans knew those stories and understood their lessons. When fate accomplished justice, they knew what they had seen. But that seems to have gone around somewhere; hopefully it will come around again soon.

About the Author

Jay D. Homnick, commentator and humorist, is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator. He also writes for Human EventsHere he speaks at the Rally for Religious Freedom in Miami on June 8, 2012.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (5) |

Janell Carter | 12.29.08 @ 9:41AM

For a look behind the scenes of the 1995 Simpson trial and the dynamics at play that led to the not-guilty verdicts, and the profound long-term impact that trial has had and continues to have on judges, the media and public understanding of the courts, please read Jerrianne Hayslett’s new book, "Anatomy of a Trial: Public Loss, Lessons Learned from The People vs. O. J. Simpson" (www.anatomyofatrial.com ), just released by the University of Missouri Press.

rudy| 12.29.08 @ 11:41AM

If that noted expert on universal justice Sharon Stone is going to make pronouncements from on high then she ought to be prepared for a reaction. Death, destruction, and misery visited a portion of the population as a result of that particular China earthquake, and assuming that the victims had anything to do with state policy that supposedly "caused" the disaster is fatuous. Considering some of the other empty-headed statements Ms. Stone has made on other subjects, I am reminded of the joke Joan Rivers used to tell about Christie Brinkley being living proof that peroxide causes brain damage. Substitute "Sharon Stone", and, well, q.e.d.

And it's hard to believe that Mr. Homnick could write a whole essay about divine justice without simply citing the controlling statement from Deut. 32:35, which is quoted again in the New Testament in Rom. 12:19-21 and Heb. 10:30 ff. I used to tell people who were gnashing their teeth over the first Simpson verdict that the case was currently under appeal in the Supreme Court of Heaven (where double jeopardy does not apply), and that verdict would be perfect, whatever it turned out to be in the end; the end is not yet. Once the legal system has done its job, I don't believe it is for us to speculate upon how and why justice will be administered.

James H Shewmaker| 12.29.08 @ 1:37PM

Mr. Homnick,

Apparently you are one of those who do not know these stories and who do not understand their message. What you call prison was for the INNOCENT and if David had killed Saul, I doubt that he would have been eligible for the provision mentioned in Exodus 21:13

Exodus 21:13, refers to the six cities of refuge which were part of the number of cities assigned to the Levites. The Levites did not have a contiguous territory instead they were given 48 cities and the common lands around these cities in which to live. Six of these 48 cities were known as Cities of Refuge. There were three on the west side of Jordan and three in trans-Jordan.

The cities were places where a person who had unintentionally or accidentally slain another might flee to avoid being killed by a relative of the slain who was known as the avenger of blood.

When the fugitive arrived at the gates of the city of refuge, he was given a hearing. If those assembled inhabitants of the city of refuge agreed that he was NOT criminally responsible - then he was allowed the freedom of the city of refuge but he had to remain as an inhabitant of the city of refuge until the death of the current High Priest.

If however the hearing decided that the slaying was not accidental or unintentional, the fugitive was released to the avenger of blood to be killed.

If David had slain Saul, it would have been an intentional killing. Therefore he would not have been given refuge by one of the cities of refuge.

There are several places in the Torah (aka Books of Moses) in which the laws concerning cities of refuge. One of the places to start if you wish to research this is Numbers 35. The assignments are detailed in Joshua 20 and 21.

Jay D. Homnick| 12.30.08 @ 4:49PM

The verse in Deuteronomy 32:35 is a generic statement that eventually God avenges all sins. There are hundreds such verses in Scripture, and they have little bearing on this subject. It is an article of faith that all sins are punished, though mostly beyond this world.

The phenomenon referred to in the verses and traditions I cited is specific to the idea of certain physical scenarios being replayed later through manipulation of fate with the purpose of creating images of poetic justice within this world.

More Articles by Jay D. Homnick

More Articles From Another Perspective

http://spectator.org/archives/2008/12/29/going-by-the-book

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Pick Obama's Brain

Paul Kengor | 5.16.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Pray and Grow Rich

Christopher Orlet | 5.16.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

ADVERTISEMENT