Chapter Trigger Warnings Wrote:Implied Act of Dub-Con/Non-Con (Berserkers again)

In his Collected Divrei Torah, Rabbi Shihook ben Dror, Rosh Yeshiva of Vedrarfjord, AM 4892-4919 (AD 1132-59), Wrote:"Tzedek, Tzedek, tirdof."  "Justice, justice, you shall pursue."  This week's parsha has this famous injunction, given by Moshe Rabbenu, on how we shall pursue justice.  It is not merely stated, but repeated for emphasis, in the context of instructions on the appointment of judges and enforcers of law, of the treatment and behavior of everyone from the highest king to the lowliest beggar, from the staunches of allies down to the worst of enemies. 
And from this we learn much.  Justice is not merely a perfect product, dispensed from a court of law like goods available at the market for purchase.  No, justice is an ideal, one which we strive towards but never truly accomplish, for it would mean that in all times and in all places, we meet the standards to which we are held, and to which we hold ourselves—for the Torah is not in Heaven, and neither is Justice.  No, it is ours, here, in Olam Hazeh, and to pursue Justice is to engage in Tikkun Olam, and make of our world a better place in accordance with the Law. 
The usual response heard to this perspective is that, as Rashi said, that the rest of the verse goes, "that you may live and possess the land that the Lord, your God, is giving you," meaning that it was only incumbent upon us to appoint judges and hold courts of law while living in the Land of Israel, and is not binding outside of it.  This is not true.  Yes, it referred to the long-ago time when we lived as a nation in and of ourselves, and we are since dispersed, and, as Rashi said, it is on that merit that we held our long-ago home.  But we are still told to pursue that justice, even if our home is lost, and hold to what we can, even if we do not live in that land any longer. 
But perhaps one might think that our justice is only for ourselves.  After all, the injunction to pursue justice was spoken only to the Bnei Yisrael.  But this is also not true. "Mishpat achad yihiyeh lachem", we are told.  "You shall have one single standard of justice."  There is no comment there stating that variation in Law, in the ideal of Justice, is acceptable because we now live in a different land.  And it is to that standard that we hold ourselves, the standard which we were told was holy, which we were told to pursue, no matter where we live, no matter with whom we live.  And too,"Ve'ahavta l'reieha komocha"—"You shall love your neighbor as yourself."  "Lo ta'amod al dam reiecha"—"You shall not stand by the shed blood of your neighbor."  From this we see that no matter where we live, no matter who our neighbors are, we are commanded to stand by them and to pursue justice for them and for ourselves.

Origins Of The Grand Thing, Edinburgh Press, 1631 Wrote:One of the legal bases that the Imperial Assembly used as their guidance in developing consistent laws across the Empire were the previously answered questions regarding citizenship which had been refined in the years earlier. 
Specifically, prior to the political conflicts and developments of AD 1043, the laws regarding citizenship, tribal and clan membership, and other such identities were extremely variable across the Alban Isles and its constituent polities.  Berk and its sister Norse societies had laws that automatically granted freed thralls tribal membership upon arrival in their territories, and the Bog Burglars had similar laws regarding women seeking refuge, both cases of which were laws that had been adopted out of pragmatic need over the previous decades and centuries, to give two examples, but free individuals outside of those classes were not considered to be tribal members outside of specific actions taken to adopt them in, which themselves required particular conditions. 
Due to this, then-Chief Stoick's ad hoc mass 'adoption' of Vedrarfjord in AD 1041, bringing the residents of the city into the tribe, was technically not in line with the law.  However, as it solved a moral quandary no one spoke up against the action at the time.  Still, the action ended up creating an effectively new class of tribal citizens who held their citizenship by dint of their residence within Berk's territory.  This new class quickly grew to be overwhelmingly demographically dominant as new outsiders came in and took up residence in Berk's new territories, becoming tribal members as a result, on the technicality of being a resident in a region under Berk's control.  The annexations that followed on that precedent made legal matters worse in this regard, and the need for an overhaul of the tribal citizenship laws became quickly apparent.
Further complicating matters in this regard were the interactions between tribal citizenship, clan membership, and the various permutations of life.  Was an individual who had been brought in as a clan citizen due to annexation of their home territory still a citizen upon receiving a sentence of temporary exile due to the commission of a crime, either during their exile or upon their return?  What citizenship rights could a transient merchant claim?  Was it based on his home port, origin of birth, or some other factor?  What rights and privileges were granted to outsiders adopted by citizens, or even directly into a clan, especially with adoption law itself being a complicated tangle of precedents? What status, if any, did an individual claiming sanctuary or refugee status, still hold with their old community?  And so forth.