Mishpatim Answers

Mishpatim 5729
Alef.

1. These are all laws that deal with different aspects of the cycle of the year:

   a. The week (seven day cycle.)

   b. The seven year cycle.

c. The planting and harvest cycle over the course of the year that are marked by festivals and offerings of first fruits.

2. Shemot 23:9 is most closely associated with 23:12 which deals with Shabbat. In fact, in the version of the Ten Commandments appearing in Devarim 5:14, the reason for observing Shabbat is listed as being sensitive to one’s servants in light of the Egypt experience during which your ancestors were slaves. This is in contrast to the reason given in the version of the Ten Commandments appearing in Shemot 20:10, where the reason for observing Shabbat is listed as emulating God Who Rested on the Seventh Day of Creation. 

3.  The parallel that Cassuto detects between 23:10-9 on the one hand,  and 21:1-11 on the other, is the seven year cycle, which formally comprises the Sabbatical year sequence, as well as the number of years that a Jewish slave serves unless he opts to extend his servitude, which is then bounded by the Jubilee Year, the culmination of seven of these seven year cycles. Although the Sabbatical year itself does not effect the status of the Jewish slave, the fact that it operates based upon a seven year cycle allows one to acknowledge the parallelism.

Beit.

1. The difficulty that the commentators have with Shemot 23:12 is that the simple meaning appears to suggest that the purpose of the Commandment of Shabbat is not necessarily for the Jewish person not to engage in Melacha, but rather to allow the rest of one’s animals and non-Jewish servants. Animals and non-Jewish servants are not obligated in the observance of this Commandment and therefore it is strange that they should be listed as though the entire Commandment is for their benefits.

2.  Rabbeinu Bachaya: For the sake of the Jew resting is why the animals and servants must rest. They are the means to the end of the Jew fulfilling the Commandment.

   Ben Amozeg: While the verse does state that the Commandment is for the benefit of animals and non-Jewish servants, it is not exclusively for this purpose, but also for the Jew who refrains from Melacha. The extension of the Tora’s concern to animals and non-Jews is a reflection of the sympathy and compassion inherent in the Tora system.

3.  The refraining from eating Chametz and the obligation to eat Matza is not for the sake of remembering the Exodus, but rather by means of doing these things, you will be enabled to remember the Exodus. So too, by means of the animals and non-Jews resting, you will be enabled to fulfill the Commandment of not performing Melacha on Shabbat.

4.  An Jewish servant and a righteous sojourner are obligated in all Commandments. Consequently, their rest constitutes ends in themselves, rather than a means to the end by which the Jewish owner of the animal or the non-Jewish slave will be able to observe Shabbat.

Gimel.

1.  RaShI: If “Gedi” has to be modified with the word “Izim”, that implies that if there is no modifier, then we are talking about young domesticated animals in general, i.e., not only goats, but also sheep and cows.

   Ibn Ezra: “Gedi Izim” implies an animal so young that it must stay with the other goats for protection. The word “Gedi” alone is also a goat, but one that is more mature and independent, and therefore is not tied down to the herd the way that Gedi Izim are.

2. “כי מה צורך לסמכן”—why does a construct form have to be created involving “Gedi” and “Izim” if all that it means is a young goat anyway?

   “וכזה לא מצאנו”—In order to explain why the general term for the bird in question is “בת היענה” which is a feminine rather than a masculine form, although there are per force also masculine birds, Ibn Ezra appears stymied and says that this is never the case, implying that it should not be the case here either.

   “שיחבר חלב זאת עם זאת”—Ibn Ezra is suggesting that since goats do not have that much milk, whenever there is a quantity of goat milk, it derives from a number of goats, making the possibility that should the milk be used in order to cook the kid, at least part of that milk might be its own mother’s, a clear Tora violation.

   “ויהי' עובר”—in the event that the milk that he purchases in the market may contain even a small amount of milk from the mother animal, therefore we are strict to prohibit every case because we don’t want a person to transgress a Tora precept.

3.  The rule “דיברה תורה בהווה” relates to when the Tora presents a single case, it does not necessarily mean that that is the only case that is relevant, but rather it is the most typical or the most likely. In the case of the Bat HaYa’ana, since according to Ibn Ezra, only the female of the species is good to eat, therefore it is known in the female form, despite there also being males, and when a general reference to a creature is made, it is in the masculine.

4.  The first case deals with nomenclature—why is the bird known by the female rather than the male form. The second case has to do with cultural mores, with a support to the prohibition of cooking a kid in its mother’s milk from Arab practices.

5.  In his פירוש הקצר, Ibn Ezra uses the phrase “כי הכתוב דבר על נמצא ברוב” as a replacement for “והכתוב דבר על ההוה”.

6.  VaYikra 11:16—a demonstration of the Tora talking about the typical case. See Gimel 2 above.

   Shemot 22:30—another example of how the Tora frames individual cases in terms of what  typically happens, even though other cases are included. Therefore while meat that is considered Tereifa does not necessarily have to be found only in the field, e.g., an animal with a terminal illness is also adjudged Tereifa even if it is not found lying dead in a field, nevertheless the Tora describes Tereifa as found in the field.

   VaYikra 17:13—Although the Mitzva of covering the blood of a fowl or a non-domesticated animal that has split hooves and chews its cud does not apply only to animals that are trapped in the wild and Shechted, e.g., there are venison farms in upstate New York where the deer are not wild but still have the status of Chaya due to their species, nevertheless, since that is the typical case, that is why the Tora phrases it in terms of animals that have been hunted.

Daled.

1.  RaMBaM: Cooking a kid in a mother’s milk is an idolatrous rite that is to be avoided.

   Ibn Ezra: Speculates that cooking a kid in a mother’s milk is a form of cruelty, paralleling chasing away the mother bird if she is hovering over the nest and one wants to take the eggs or the chicks, or the prohibition against Shechting the parent animal and its baby animal on the same day.

2.  According to Ibn Ezra, if during the harvest festival, one has to bring first fruits and first born animals, then it will be tempting to prepare the animals for consumption, and the Tora wishes to eliminate a particular preparation of the animal, i.e., cooking a kid in its mother’s milk.

3.  If this was such a widespread idolatrous practice, why couldn’t RaMBaM find mention of it in the books on idolatry that he referenced? (Cassuto in the asterisked footnote  removes this problem by citing sources discovered after RaMBaM’s time that support the contention that this was a fertility rite.)