Dvir Ben Nehemia
Former shaliach in Washington (2022-2023)
Currently a law student at the Hebrew University.
Click for PDF For translation to Spanish and Português
The passing of an important leader is not merely a moment of crisis in the governance of a nation; it is, first and foremost, a period of mourning. The nation loses its spiritual compass and feels orphaned from the one who protected it throughout the years of wandering in the desert. Our Torah portion opens the fifth and final book of the Torah. In its essence, this book is Moses’s farewell address and the distillation of his legacy. In his words, he chooses to lead us through history, mediating for us the great journey of the Jewish people.
In the year 1796, another leader reached the end of his path—his name was George Washington. He stepped down from his position not due to hardship or political weakness, but on the contrary, out of a broad consensus and support. Washington chose to end his presidency because he believed the nation needed to walk a new path. When one examines the words of Moses alongside Washington’s seminal farewell address of 1796, deep similarities emerge. Both leaders understood that final words are, in fact, the creation of the infrastructure for the nation’s independent life without them.
The first step Moses describes in his speech is the delegation of his authority and the establishment of a judicial system. Moses recognizes the limitations of a single leader’s power: “How can I bear alone your trouble, your burden, and your strife?” (Deuteronomy 1:12). His solution is the creation of a hierarchical system based on administrative qualifications: “Provide for yourselves wise, understanding, and well-known men for your tribes, and I will place them at your heads” (Deuteronomy 1:13). Moses is unwilling to let justice rely solely on his own strength, but rather on an objective and organized judicial system: “And I commanded your judges at that time… Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously… You shall not respect persons in judgment; but you shall hear the small as well as the great” (Deuteronomy 1:16-17).
Similarly, Washington warns in his address that the consolidation of political systems must be accompanied by the division of powers and their distribution among separate branches. He emphasizes that maintaining this division of authority and insisting on mutual checks and balances are just as essential to liberty as the very creation of those branches. Both knew that stable governance belongs not to an individual, but to law and justice. The divine morality that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai had to take shape in the practical life of the people of Israel.
Further in the same Torah portion, Moses recounts the actions of the nation and rebukes them for the sin of the spies. However, the root of the sin he points to is not the fear of war, but internal subversion and the creation of factions that dismantled trust in leadership: “And you murmured in your tents, and said, ‘Because the Lord hated us, He brought us forth out of the land of Egypt…'” (Deuteronomy 1:27). That weeping in the tents brought disaster upon that generation.
Washington warns against this exact danger, describing the fatal damage of a lack of civic unity (statism/mamlachtiyut). He depicts how incitement and factionalism disrupt public order. He notes that a common artifice of a party seeking influence is to misrepresent and blacken the intentions of other regions, making aliens of those who ought to be bound together in fraternal affection. For both Moses and Washington alike, such discourse is a tangible danger facing the nation.
The arrangements Moses establishes are not comprised of technical procedures alone; they draw from a supreme moral justification. When he warns the administrative judges against bias, he explains the true reason for it: “You shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s” (Deuteronomy 1:17). The moral validity of the judicial system stems from the fact that it serves eternal truth and morality, rather than mere political power. Washington echoes this idea as well, placing religion and morality as indispensable pillars for political prosperity. To prove his point, he touches upon the exact judicial aspect mentioned by Moses and asks: “Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?”
Yet, beyond the echo of Moses’s prophecy in Washington’s words, both look forward. A founding leader’s farewell address is never about themselves; instead, they continue to care for and warn the nation. When Washington chose of his own accord to end his term, he proved that the Republic is greater than any single leader. The tradition of Israel and the Assembly of Israel will never falter. And precisely within the heavy loss of the greatest leader in history, there is a glimmer of hope. The words of Moses our Teacher are not merely the first chapter in the final book, but the map through which the faithful servant hints to us that the nation still has a long way to go.
For comments: dvirbn4@gmail.com
