Mishpatim Questions and answers

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/25.html

Mishpatim 5728.

Alef.

Shemot 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, who Brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

Ibid. 21:2 If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

If the basis for a Jew’s belief in God is the fact that he was redeemed from slavery in Egypt, then it stands to reason that he must be sensitive to anyone else who is enslaved, Jewish or not.

Beit.

1. Shemot 34:1 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first; and I will Write upon the tables the words that were on the first tables, which thou didst break.

In contrast to the use of “פסל” in 34:1, i.e., sculpt/chisel, the term “פסל” in the context of RaShI on 24:1 is that the principle of Kellal U’Perat is being applied, i.e., despite previous statements, the statements that are being made at this later point trump the earlier statements. However when a “Vav HaChibur” appears, then instead of overruling what had been previously stated, additions are being made to what was said earlier.

2. If RaShI were to say that something stated in e.g., VaYikra which begins (VaYikra 1:1) “And the LORD Called unto Moses, and Spoke unto him out of the tent of meeting, saying:” was actually said on Sinai that would be remarkable. However to say that the contents of Mishpatim comes from Sinai does not appear to need any sort of special derivation. Where else would these laws have come from in light of Moshe going up on the mountain in Shemot 20:17 “And the people stood afar off; but Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was”, and first coming down in Ibid. 32:15, therefore clearly indicating that Parashat Mishpatim contains material that was Transmitted to Moshe during the interim.¹ 

Terumat HaDeshen therefore moves the emphasis away from the location of Moshe’s being given the law, and instead focuses upon the actual origin of the laws themselves. There might be a Hava Amina that the logical Mitzvot (that R. Saadia HaGaon refers to as “Sichliot”) might have been formulated by Moshe himself. Therefore RaShI comes to emphasize that even these kinds of Mitzvot came from God and were Taught to Moshe while on Sinai.

3.  As stated above in #2, it is entirely possible that some Mitzvot were taught by HaShem subsequent to Sinai.² However, the contents of Mishpatim appear without question to have been revealed on the literal Har Sinai.

4. R. Eliyahu Mizrachi posits that since RaShI does not bring every Rabbinic interpretation that is based upon Semichut HaParashiyot except where there is a problem with the simple meaning of the text, it becomes necessary to explain how the juxtaposition of the Mizbeach Adama with Mishpatim was somehow irregular unless the Derasha about the Sanhedrin being located in the same place as the altar was derived. The problem perhaps is whereas 20:20 could be seen as a further development of one of the Ten Commandments—

שמות פרק כ

 (כ) לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן אִתִּי אֱלֹהֵי כֶסֶף וֵאלֹהֵי זָהָב לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ לָכֶם: 

שמות פרק כ

(ד) לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה לְךָ פֶסֶל וְכָל תְּמוּנָה אֲשֶׁר בַּשָּׁמַיִם מִמַּעַל וַאֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץ מִתָּחַת וַאֲשֶׁר בַּמַּיִם מִתַּחַת לָאָרֶץ:

the subsequent verses do not seem to have anything to do with any of the Ten Commandments.

(כא) מִזְבַּח אֲדָמָה תַּעֲשֶׂה לִּי וְזָבַחְתָּ עָלָיו אֶת עֹלֹתֶיךָ וְאֶת שְׁלָמֶיךָ אֶת צֹאנְךָ וְאֶת בְּקָרֶךָ בְּכָל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַזְכִּיר אֶת שְׁמִי אָבוֹא אֵלֶיךָ וּבֵרַכְתִּיךָ:

(כב) וְאִם מִזְבַּח אֲבָנִים תַּעֲשֶׂה לִּי לֹא תִבְנֶה אֶתְהֶן גָּזִית כִּי חַרְבְּךָ הֵנַפְתָּ עָלֶיהָ וַתְּחַלְלֶהָ:

(כג) וְלֹא תַעֲלֶה בְמַעֲלֹת עַל מִזְבְּחִי אֲשֶׁר לֹא תִגָּלֶה עֶרְוָתְךָ עָלָיו: פ

Consequently, if there is no connection to what has come before, there must be a connection between these verses and what follows in Chapt. 21, i.e., laws that the Sanhedrin will be called upon to enforce.

5.  Gur Aryeh’s assumption that the altar and the Sanhedrin represent a common theme might be based upon the idea that God is considered to be present both with respect to sacrifices as well as where judgment takes place. The altar is one of the central elements of the Tabernacle/Temple which is the focal point of God’s Presence among the Jewish people:

שמות פרק כה

(ח) וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם:

Similarly, God is assumed to be Present in the place where His Laws are adjudicated:

תהלים פרק פב

(א) מִזְמוֹר לְאָסָף אֱלֹקים נִצָּב בַּעֲדַת קל בְּקֶרֶב אֱלֹקים יִשְׁפֹּט:

Furthermore, the association of the two symbolizes how from the perspective of Jewish law, there is no essential difference between the laws between God and man (sacrifices) and man and man (typical cases that the Sanhedrin decides).

Gimel.

1.  RaShI notes that the verb that is employed in the verse “תשים” is usually not associated with teaching or transmitting information. Consequently, the commentator interprets the verb to refer to a certain type of teaching, i.e., whereby everything is exquisitely clear and the student has simply to partake in what has laid out clearly and expertly before him.

2.  The Hava Amina is that RaShI is being inconsistent with respect to what the Mechilta had said earlier. Whereas on Shemot 19:7 he interprets “וישם” that Moshe “enlightened their eyes”, on 21:1 he interprets that Moshe presented the material to the people in such a way that they could easily absorb and understand it. Maskil LeDavid asserts that essentially the two interpretations are the same, i.e., that Moshe did not simply present what he had heard from HaShem first to the Elders and later to the people, but rather he exerted special effort to assure that all would understand clearly what was being related to them.

3.  In the earlier verse,

שמות פרק טו

(כה) וַיִּצְעַק אֶל יְקֹוָק וַיּוֹרֵהוּ יְקֹוָק עֵץ וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ אֶל הַמַּיִם וַיִּמְתְּקוּ הַמָּיִם שָׁם שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט וְשָׁם נִסָּהוּ:

“And he cried unto the LORD; and the LORD showed him a tree, and he cast it into the waters, and the waters were made sweet. There He Made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there He Proved them,“

the subject of the final phrase is not Moshe, but rather HaShem. It is one thing to describe how Moshe was expected to teach the people, quite another when the Teacher is HaShem. How the Mitzvot that were Revealed at Mara were conveyed to the Jewish people is not clear from either the text or the Rabbinic tradition.

4.  The usage of the metaphor “a set table” is appropriate since the people are expected to partake from what has been set before them. “A made bed” might be neat and organized, but has no relationship to an interaction between teacher and student.

Daled.

1. If RaMBaM wishes to demonstrate a role that a Jewish servant might be asked to play, as opposed to a single, particular service, then more than one action has to be listed. One example could be exceptional; two or more are indicative of a pattern that has been imposed on this individual by his master.

     The order of the two examples given in the Mechilta is reversed by RaMBaM:

Mechilta: 2) Putting on and taking off the master’s shoes; 3) Carrying clothes to the bathhouse.

RaMBaM: Carrying clothes to the bathhouse; putting on and off the master’s shoes.

Perhaps RaMBaM feels that whereas putting on and taking off shoes could simply be an individual’s profession—he could be a shoemaker or shoe salesman—carrying someone’s clothes to the bathhouse is clearly a servile undertaking.

2.  RaMBaM wishes to explain why one could require a person who is not his slave to do these actions, while it would be prohibited to ask one’s slave to do them. A person who is not a slave has free choice in the matter and therefore the fact that he complies to the request does not indicate a servile relationship. However, because the Jewish servant has already been humiliated by virtue of his being sold in the first place, the Halacha attempts to limit any further humiliations that he might potentially experience.

3.  Just like a day worker would generally not agree to undertake any work that he feels is beneath his dignity and has the freedom to determine what he will and won’t do, the Halacha is attempting to defend the dignity of the Jewish servant by equating him with a day worker, in order that he too will not be subject to doing work that will be insulting and psychologically depressing.

Heh.

1.   In Shemot 21:2, 5, 26 and 27, where “חפשי” appears, even if the individual emerges from his status as a Jewish servant, that does not necessarily mean that he will be free of troubles. Even if his master fulfills the Mitzva of Ha’Anaka (Devarim 15:13-15),

דברים פרק טו

(יג) וְכִי תְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ חָפְשִׁי מֵעִמָּךְ לֹא תְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ רֵיקָם:

(יד) הַעֲנֵיק תַּעֲנִיק לוֹ מִצֹּאנְךָ וּמִגָּרְנְךָ וּמִיִּקְבֶךָ אֲשֶׁר בֵּרַכְךָ יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ תִּתֶּן לוֹ:

(טו) וְזָכַרְתָּ כִּי עֶבֶד הָיִיתָ בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם וַיִּפְדְּךָ יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ עַל כֵּן אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה הַיּוֹם:

     it still doesn’t mean that his monetary troubles are solved, particularly if his poverty caused him to sell any land that he possessed. On the other hand, the state of “דרור” associated with the Jubilee Year described in VaYikra 25:10, whereby all land returns to the various tribes that received it at the time of the division of Canaan into parcels of land, could really help a poor person emerge from poverty for a significant period of time.

2.  In Yirmiyahu 34:10,11 “and all the princes and all the people hearkened, that had entered into the covenant to let everyone his man-servant, and everyone his maid-servant, go free(חפשיים) , and not to make bondmen of them anymore; they hearkened, and let them go; but afterwards they turned, and caused the servants and the handmaids, whom they had let go free (חפשיים), to return, and brought them into subjection for servants and for handmaids;” the term “חפשי” is limited and explains why the very people who recently went free were prepared to their previous status because of their continuing monetary difficulties. In Yirmiyahu 37:14 “Therefore thus saith the LORD: Ye have not hearkened unto Me, to proclaim liberty ("דרור"), every man to his brother, and every man to his neighbour; behold, I proclaim for you a liberty ("דרור"), saith the LORD, unto the sword, unto the pestilence, and unto the famine; and I will make you a horror unto all the kingdoms of the earth,” God Proposes that the state of דרור is what He Expects to be created that will make more remote the possibility that anyone will wish to return to servitude.