A D’var Torah for 2 Elul 5786, 15 August 2026
Parashat Shoftim asks how power can serve a people without consuming them. Judges must judge fairly. Witnesses must speak truthfully. A king must submit to the Torah and remember that the people he governs are his brothers. Those who claim to speak for God must answer for what they say. Even the army remains subject to commands it did not create and cannot simply set aside.
Within these laws, we encounter a striking interruption. Israel’s soldiers have assembled. The priest has encouraged them to trust in God rather than surrender to fear. We might expect the next instruction to concern weapons, formations, or the advance toward the enemy.
Instead, the officers ask about a house.
Has anyone built a new house without dedicating it? That man is to return home. Has anyone planted a vineyard without yet enjoying its fruit? He, too, is to return. Has anyone betrothed a woman without yet marrying her? He is sent home as well. Finally, the officers address the man who is fearful and fainthearted, directing him to return so that his fear does not spread among his brothers (Deuteronomy 20:5–8).
A home. A vineyard. A marriage. A frightened heart.
At the very moment when an army might seem to require everyone to become interchangeable, the Torah distinguishes among the people standing in its ranks. Each man has a life beyond the battlefield, and God’s instructions require the officers to take that life into account.
From a Netzarim perspective, our first responsibility is to attend carefully to these written words. The five books of Moses provide the binding foundation of our halakhah and theology. Later Jewish commentary may offer insight, but its explanations must remain distinguishable from the commandments themselves. A d’var Torah likewise offers reflection on the text; it does not acquire the authority to add to it.
Here, the written Torah gives us something substantial to consider: communal responsibility includes limits on what the community may demand. The law itself makes room for unfinished work, relationships, and human vulnerability.
Power Under the Authority of Torah
The military exemptions belong within the larger concern of Shoftim: the exercise of authority under God.
The king is required to keep a copy of the Torah and read it throughout his life. The stated purposes include learning to fear God, observing the commandments, and preventing his heart from rising above his brothers (Deuteronomy 17:18–20).
This is a demanding vision of leadership. The ruler remains a member of the people whose lives his decisions affect. His position does not place him beyond the law or make his ambitions sacred.
The military officers likewise receive instructions. They must announce the exemptions before the army proceeds. The protection afforded to the builder, planter, betrothed man, and fearful soldier does not depend on an officer’s generosity. It is already present in the command.
We can draw an ethical lesson from this arrangement: authority is accountable for its demands as well as its achievements. A leader’s enthusiasm for a cause cannot, by itself, justify every sacrifice imposed in its name.
This lesson reaches beyond government. Religious communities, charitable organizations, employers, and families can also become so absorbed in their objectives that they overlook the people carrying them forward. We should be willing to ask whether our demands are just, whether the burdens are necessary, and whether we have listened to those who bear them.
Torah gives leaders responsibilities. It also places responsibilities upon leaders toward the people in their care.
The House Awaiting Its Beginning
The first exemption concerns a man who has built a new house but has not dedicated it. The verse anticipates the possibility that he might die in battle and someone else dedicate what he built (Deuteronomy 20:5).
The law describes a particular circumstance. It does not declare that everyone who owns property is exempt from service, nor does it establish that every private project outweighs public obligation. Its specificity matters.
Yet the circumstance it protects is deeply human. Building a house is an investment in a future one hopes to inhabit. Stone and timber become the setting for meals, conversation, shelter, hospitality, and belonging. Before anyone crosses its threshold to begin that life, the builder has already spent time imagining it.
The Torah allows that beginning to matter.
This should affect how we understand holiness. We can become accustomed to locating religious significance in formal worship while treating the practical work of establishing a home as spiritually secondary. But the Torah repeatedly brings the covenant into the household. We teach its words to our children and speak of them at home and along the way (Deuteronomy 6:6–9). The home is one of the places where knowledge of God becomes daily conduct.
A household becomes a place of covenant through truthfulness, patience, generosity, and care. The way we treat those who live with us matters. So does the welcome we offer others and the instruction we give through our example.
The exemption does not promise that every beginning will reach fulfillment. War still threatens the lives of those who remain. It does, however, require the officers to recognize this unfinished beginning before them. They must respond to a person’s circumstances because the Torah has commanded them to do so.
The Vineyard and the Goodness of Enjoyment
The second exemption concerns a man who has planted a vineyard but has not yet enjoyed its fruit (Deuteronomy 20:6).
A vineyard requires patience. The planter works toward a harvest that does not arrive immediately. He tends something whose goodness lies partly in the future. The verse acknowledges the sorrow of dying before receiving that anticipated benefit.
Elsewhere, the Torah connects economic life with obligations of justice and generosity. Wages must be paid promptly to a poor worker (Deuteronomy 24:14–15). Portions of the harvest must be left for the poor and the stranger (Leviticus 19:9–10). After eating and being satisfied, Israel is instructed to bless God for the good land He has given (Deuteronomy 8:10).
Taken together, these commands show a life in which work, enjoyment, gratitude, and responsibility belong together. We labor, receive, give thanks, and share.
There is spiritual danger in greed, but there is also a mistake in assuming that deprivation is always more faithful than enjoyment. The Torah commands rejoicing at the festivals and includes others in that rejoicing (Deuteronomy 16:11, 14). Its vision has room for satisfaction in the goodness of God’s gifts.
The vineyard exemption belongs naturally within that vision. The planter’s hope of enjoying his work receives recognition even as the army assembles.
For us, this invites reflection on the place of work in our lives. Honest labor can support a household, benefit neighbors, and express care for the world. Its fruits should also provide occasions for gratitude and generosity. A life of constant production, with no room to receive or share its goodness, can lose sight of the people that work is meant to sustain.
The man returning to his vineyard returns to more than an economic asset. He returns to patient work approaching its fulfillment.
The Marriage Awaiting a Shared Life
The third exemption concerns a man who has betrothed a woman but has not yet married her (Deuteronomy 20:7). Once again, the law recognizes a beginning that has not reached its intended fulfillment.
The Torah returns to the relationship between marriage and military obligation in Deuteronomy 24:5. There, a newly married man is given a year free from military service and the duties described in the verse, so that he may remain at home and bring happiness to his wife.
Her happiness appears explicitly in the command. The public demands placed upon him are limited in recognition of the marriage they are beginning.
This gives us a concrete reason to take domestic responsibilities seriously. Attention to a spouse is part of faithfulness. A person cannot adequately measure religious commitment only by public activity while ignoring the relationships entrusted to their care.
In communal life, we sometimes praise the person who is always available, always serving, and always taking on another task. Service deserves appreciation. But those who serve also have obligations at home. Leaders should be careful about encouraging a pattern that repeatedly leaves spouses unsupported, children unattended, or caregivers exhausted.
The military exemption is a specific command, and we should preserve its specific meaning. Our broader reflection is an application of its concern: the well-being of a household deserves serious attention when we ask people to serve.
Jewish customs can help us celebrate and strengthen our homes. Their beauty does not require us to confuse them with the written commandments. For Netzarim Jews, the foundation remains the Torah, and the test of a household’s faithfulness includes the conduct of the people within it.
The man sent home to marry has a responsibility waiting for him there. His return allows a promised relationship to become a shared life.
The Frightened Heart
The fourth exemption is especially striking because of what precedes it. The priest tells the soldiers not to give way to fear, reminding them that God goes with them. Then the officers direct the fearful and fainthearted man to return home (Deuteronomy 20:2–8).
The passage contains both encouragement toward courage and an acknowledgment that some men remain unable to bear the situation before them.
The verse gives a practical reason for their departure: their fear may weaken the hearts of their brothers. We should allow that stated reason to stand. The exemption protects the army from the spread of fear. It also permits the frightened man to leave the battle formation.
The plain wording does not identify him as secretly sinful or explain his fear as evidence that God has rejected him. Later interpretations may explore such possibilities, but we need not import them into the verse. A battlefield already gives a person reason to be afraid.
Nor does the text explain that the other exemptions were designed to conceal the frightened man’s identity. That may be a thoughtful later interpretation, but it remains an interpretation. We can value compassion without attributing an unstated purpose to the command.
What the Torah does tell us is enough to challenge careless judgments. In this setting, the required response to the fearful man is to send him home. The command recognizes a limitation that the officers must address.
Our pastoral application should be equally attentive. When someone in our community is grieving, anxious, overwhelmed, or exhausted, we should listen before judging. An exhortation to trust God may be offered sincerely and still fail to meet the person’s immediate need. They may also need companionship, practical help, time, or relief from responsibilities we have asked them to assume.
This passage does not make every burden optional. It does invite humility about the strength we expect from others. Faithfulness includes an honest assessment of human capacity, especially when pretending to be capable may endanger other people.
Reading the Exemptions Without Adding to Them
Later rabbinic halakhah develops a distinction between obligatory and discretionary warfare and uses that distinction to determine when these exemptions apply. Within that legal tradition, those categories carry substantial consequences.
Our Netzarim approach must distinguish that later framework from what Deuteronomy 20:5–8 itself says. These verses announce the exemptions without explicitly attaching the later classifications to them. We therefore cannot simply repeat a rabbinic limitation as though it were part of the written command.
This requires care rather than sweeping certainty. The Torah contains other instructions concerning warfare, and an account of how its military laws fit together requires close study of those passages. Modern circumstances introduce further questions. A devotional reflection on these verses cannot settle every question of national defense, military service, or competing obligations.
But neither uncertainty nor urgency gives a teacher permission to present an unwritten exception as God’s explicit instruction. If we propose an interpretation, we should identify it as such and explain our reasoning.
The same honesty belongs in our treatment of Torah generally. We should make clear when we are reading a command, interpreting its scope, drawing an ethical lesson, or recommending a communal practice. Each activity has value, but they do not carry identical authority.
Conscience has an important role here. It calls us to examine our motives, study responsibly, and answer for our choices. It should keep us alert to self-serving interpretations, including those that make our own preferences appear to be divine requirements.
The Torah’s protections deserve the same seriousness as its demands.
War and the Limits of Our Reading
The exemptions bring the human cost of war into view. A soldier may die before dedicating his house, enjoying his vineyard, or beginning his marriage. The Torah names those losses before the battle takes place.
That is a powerful corrective to language that makes warfare sound abstract or glorious without attending to the lives it consumes. A military decision reaches into homes and relationships. It changes futures that people have already begun to build.
At the same time, we should read the wider chapter honestly. Deuteronomy 20 contains severe instructions concerning ancient warfare, including the destruction commanded concerning specified peoples in the land (20:16–18). Its provisions concerning other cities also belong to an ancient setting and should not be described as though they were a complete statement of modern humanitarian law.
The exemptions do not erase those difficult passages. A faithful reading makes room to confront them rather than constructing a comforting account by leaving them out.
Nor should we turn commands concerning specified ancient peoples into a general authorization against contemporary populations. That would require identifying people and circumstances in ways the passage itself does not establish.
Within this chapter, the law also protects food-bearing trees during a siege (20:19–20). Even amid destruction, the Torah places a limit around something that sustains life. Read alongside the vineyard exemption, that instruction invites us to consider the future that remains after a battle: people will still need food, cultivation, and the means to live.
These observations support a sober spiritual lesson. When force is contemplated or exercised, we must take its costs seriously and remain accountable for our conduct. Conviction about a cause does not make every action taken for it righteous.
Seeing the Person Within the Community
The officers’ questions require attention to particular lives. From a distance, an army may appear to be a single body. These instructions make its differences visible.
One man is preparing to dedicate a house. Another has planted a vineyard. Another has a marriage ahead of him. Another cannot steady his heart for battle. The command requires the officers to act upon those differences.
The opening of Shoftim commands the pursuit of justice (Deuteronomy 16:20). The exemptions offer one concrete example of why just administration requires attention to circumstances. Treating people fairly includes applying the distinctions that the law itself establishes.
For our communities, the ethical application is immediate. We should learn the circumstances of the people we hope to teach and serve. Someone’s silence may conceal grief. Limited participation may reflect caregiving, poverty, disability, or a demanding work schedule. A person asking a difficult question may be trying to become more faithful rather than looking for a way to escape responsibility.
Listening does not require us to surrender our convictions. It helps us respond with understanding. Sometimes the appropriate response is instruction; sometimes it is practical assistance, encouragement, or a change to an expectation that our community has imposed.
A teacher can explain what the Torah commands while remaining modest about personal advice. A community can maintain meaningful standards while avoiding unnecessary burdens of its own creation. Both require us to distinguish service to God from the desire to control others.
The exemptions remind us that knowing a person’s circumstances can be essential to doing what is right.
The Holiness of the Life Before Us
The concerns named in this passage are ordinary, but they are hardly small. A place to live, the fruits of labor, companionship, and freedom from terror shape the texture of human life.
The Torah gives these matters a place within its commands. We do not have to move away from daily life to begin serving God. Much of that service takes place through our treatment of neighbors, workers, strangers, family members, and those in need.
For Netzarim Jews, this offers a practical measure of our approach to Torah. Our commitment to the written commandments should become visible in conduct. Careful interpretation matters because people may be helped or burdened by what we teach. Personal responsibility matters because no teacher can live our obligations for us.
Later Jewish writings and customs can enrich that life. The Prophets and Writings can inspire and admonish us as we seek to live faithfully. But the binding foundation remains the Torah. We should return to it with enough humility to hear both its demands and its protections.
The exemptions themselves are part of that foundation. They are not an interruption of obedience. Honoring them is obedience.
That is worth remembering whenever we imagine that the more demanding interpretation must automatically be the more faithful one. In this passage, faithfulness requires the officers to release certain men. Keeping everyone in the ranks would disregard what they have been instructed to do.
Returning Home
The repeated direction is simple: “Let him go and return to his house.”
Each return leads to a life the passage has taught us to notice. There is a house awaiting its dedication, a vineyard awaiting enjoyment, and a marriage awaiting its beginning. There is also a frightened man whose departure protects others from the spread of his fear.
Those who remain must continue under the obligations placed upon them. Those who leave do so under the protection of a command. The officers are responsible for recognizing both.
As we read Shoftim, we should ask whether our own exercise of authority shows comparable attentiveness. Do we understand the burdens we place upon people? Do we distinguish God’s commands from our expectations? Do we recognize the work of sustaining a home and caring for others as part of a faithful life? Can we hear an admission of fear without immediately turning it into an accusation?
These questions belong to the daily practice of justice.
May we study the Torah with honesty, teach it with humility, and live it with care for the people beside us. May those entrusted with authority remember the lives affected by their decisions. May our homes be places of kindness, our work provide nourishment, and our relationships receive the attention they deserve.
And may those who stand in danger return safely to the lives and loved ones awaiting them.
Shabbat Shalom.
Principal Torah passages: Deuteronomy 16:18–20; 17:14–20; 20:1–20; 24:5. Supporting passages: Deuteronomy 6:6–9; 8:10; 16:11–14; 24:14–15; Leviticus 19:9–10.
Discover more from Rabbi Ian Adams
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
