Mishpatim

MISHPATIM

Exodus 21:1 - 24:18

Are There Many Legitimate Jewish Paths to God?

Na’aseh Ve’nishma.

Na’aseh (We wil do)

everything God has asked us to do, we will do and then we will listen.Shemot 24

Modern is to understand first and THEN do.

Here we will do and then ask for details.

Rav Eliyahu Dessler “Strive for Truth” (1852-1953)

1. Expression of complete subjugation, self-abasement. Put God first.

This is the key to being a truly religious person.

2. Mitzvah 15 - after eating Seder lamb you will not break the bones of the lamb that you eat.

That’s the way poor people eat. They must suck up bones of what they eat.

The only way you can learn is by doing.

A person is influenced by their actions.

You can develop a religious identity merely by study. You must put it into practice.

3. Sacks

Written in future tense. We WILL do and THEN we WILL understand.

Torah given Shemot 20. Out of order

There is no earlier or later in the Torah. Not strictly chronological.

Jewish people say they will do AFTER they have received Commandments.

Jewish people speak with one voice.

People replied in unison we will do everything the Lord has said.

Later, and Moshe said THEY said. ?Not unanimous.

When it comes to performing Torah we perform Mitzvot in more or less the same way.

When it comes to how we THINK about Mitzvot (or think about God) people think differently.

Tefillin

One attached to arm all mitzvoth are in one box, we all try to do Mitzvot in the same way.

When ti comes to the way we think or conceive of God placed on our head there are 4 boxes, symbolizing we think of God in different ways.

The we DO is done one way, that is together.

we will UNDERSTAND each in our own way.

4. Rav Kook

Unnatural things will be difficult at the beginning: and through learning one is able to perform them. But that which comes naturally does not require prior study, rather from the start a person is drawn to it.

There is an element the basic element of religion that is natural.

5. Rabbi YY Weinberg.

Why when we do ritual commandments we make a blessing BEFORE we do the commandments.

When we give gifts to a friend we don’t make a blessing to God?

the entire reason to give gifts is to create love and friendship, so when i give a gift and immediately go into a blessing then my focus turns to God, not to the creation of love and friendship between yo and the giver.

No blessing when we give charity for the same reason.

21:23

Eye for eye….

Metaphor, mete out appropriate punishment, in Talmud

Maimonides- same

18 and 19 are deliberate and exact monetary damage why then in 20,21 when injury or death is accidental would the punishment be more severe?

Word in Hebrew is notan meaning to give.

but you cannot give a hand to replace a hand or an eye in place of an eye etc. you can only give monetary compensation.

When there is a verse rabbis have problem with, they go to great lengths to argue and disprove it.

Judaism has a rabbinic tradition, not a Torah tradition.

The Torah means what the rabbis say it means.

SACKS

Mishpatim are thus laws that promote the rule of justice.

“Maimonides, in the Guide for the Perplexed, notes that mishpat is a complex idea. It denotes “the act of deciding upon a certain action in accordance with justice which may demand either mercy or punishment.” Justice in Judaism is rarely “strict justice,” known in rabbinic Hebrew as middat hadin.”

“If you see your enemy’s ass sagging under its burden, you shall not pass by. You shall surely release it with him. (Exodus 23:5)

There are two principles at stake here. One is concern for the animal. Jewish law forbids tza’ar ba’alei ḥayim, the needless infliction of pain on animals.2 It is as if the Torah is here saying: a conflict between two human beings should not lead either of them to ignore the fact that the ass is labouring under its load. It is innocent. Why then should it suffer? That in itself is a powerful moral lesson.”

“If [the animal of] a friend requires unloading, and an enemy’s loading, you should first help your enemy – in order to suppress the evil inclination.3

Both equally need help. In the case of an enemy, however, there is more at stake than merely helping someone in distress. There is also the challenge of overcoming estrangement, distance, and ill-feeling. Therefore, it takes precedence.”

“There is, however, one proviso. Note that the text says, “You shall surely release it [the burden] with him.” From this the sages deduced the following:

If [the owner of the animal] sits down and says to the passer-by: “The obligation is yours. If you wish to unload [the animal], do so,” the passer-by is exempt because it is said, “with him” [meaning: they must share the work]. If however the owner [is unable to help because he] is old or infirm, then one must [unload the animal on one’s own].5”

“A fundamental principle of biblical morality is involved here: reciprocity. We owe duties to those who recognise the concept of duty. We have a responsibility to those who acknowledge responsibility. If, however, the person concerned refuses to exercise his duty to his own overloaded animal, then we do not make things better by coming to his aid. On the contrary, we may make it worse, by allowing him to escape responsibility. We become – in the language of addiction-therapy – codependents.”

“There is something distinctive about the Torah’s approach to hatred and enemies. It is realistic rather than utopian. It does not say, “Love your enemy.” It says, help him. Saints apart, we cannot love our enemies, and if we try to, we may eventually pay a high psychological price: we will eventually hate those who ought to be our friends.7 Instead the Torah says, when your enemy is in trouble, come to his assistance. That way, part of the hatred will be dissipated. Who knows whether help given may not turn hostility to gratitude and from there to friendship? That is a practical way of moving beyond hate.”

“One thing, however, is clear on this interpretation. Causing a woman to miscarry – being responsible for the death of a foetus – is not a capital offence. Until birth, the foetus does not have the legal status of a person. Such was the view of the sages in the land of Israel”

Philo is here following the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Bible made in the third century BCE during the reign of Ptolemy II. There are numerous divergences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text, and this is one of them. The Greek version translates ason not as “calamity,” but rather “form.”7 The meaning of the two verses is now completely different. Now, according to Philo, they are talking about damage to the foetus only. In the first case, “there is no ason” means the foetus was “unformed” – i.e., the woman miscarries, but the foetus was at an early stage of development. The second verse speaks of a foetus “that has form,” i.e., the woman was at a later stage of pregnancy. Philo puts this rather finely when he compares the developed foetus to a sculpture that has been finished but has not yet left the sculptor’s workshop. In this view, foeticide – and hence abortion – can be a capital crime, an act of murder.”

“This is not to say that Jewish and Catholic views on abortion are completely different. In practice, they are quite close, especially when compared to the cultures of ancient Greece and Rome, or the secular West today, where abortion is widespread and not seen as a moral evil at all. Judaism permits abortion only to save the life of the mother or to protect her from life-threatening illness. A foetus may not be a person in Jewish law, but it is a potential person, and must therefore be protected. However, the theoretical difference is real. In Judaism, abortion is not murder. In Catholicism, it is.”

“On the opening phrase of Mishpatim, “And these are the laws you are to set before them” (Exodus 21:1), Rashi comments:

“And these are the laws” – Wherever [the Torah only] uses the word “these” it signals a discontinuity with what has been stated previously. Wherever it uses the term “and these” it signals a continuity. ”

“Three remarkable propositions are being set out here, which have shaped the contours of Judaism ever since.

The first is that just as the general principles of Judaism set forth in the Decalogue at Sinai are divine, so too are the details – the minutiae of the civil laws.

“Throughout history there have been philosophers – Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Hume, Kant, Bentham, Mill – who have attempted to reduce the moral life to a few broad principles: rationality, sympathy, duty or the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But though these are important, morality, if it is to become the text and texture of a society, must be translated into a code of conduct. We are made moral by what we do on a day-to-day basis, and by what others do likewise”

“The second principle, no less fundamental, is that civil law is not secular. We do not believe in the idea “render to Caesar what is Caeser’s and to God what belongs to God.” We believe in the separation of powers4 but not in the secularisation of law or the spiritualisation of faith. The Sanhedrin or Supreme Court must be placed near the Temple, to teach that law itself must be driven by a religious vision.

The third principle, and the most remarkable of all, is the idea that law does not belong to lawyers. It is the heritage of every Jew:

“Judaism is a religion of law – not because it does not believe in love (“You shall love the Lord your God,” “You shall love your neighbour as yourself,”) but because, without justice, neither love nor liberty nor human life itself can flourish.”

“The parasha of Mishpatim, with its detailed rules and regulations, can sometimes seem an anticlimax after the breathtaking grandeur of the revelation at Sinai. It should not be. Parashat Yitro contains the vision, but God is in the details. Without the vision, law is blind, but without the details, the vision floats in heaven. With them, the Divine Presence is brought down to earth, where we need it most”

“The term ger itself is undefined in the Torah. There are other words for stranger, namely zar and nokhri, both of which have a stronger sense of “alien” or “foreigner,” a visitor from elsewhere. The word ger, by contrast, signifies one who is not an Israelite by birth but who has come to live, on a long-term basis, within Israelite society. The oral tradition accordingly identified two forms of the ger: the ger tzedek, or convert (Ruth is the classic example), and the ger toshav, a “resident alien” who has chosen to live in Israel without converting to Judaism but instead agreeing to keep the seven Noahide laws mandatory on all mankind. Ger toshav legislation represents the biblical form of minority rights.

“According to Nahmanides the command has two dimensions. The first is the relative powerlessness of the stranger. He or she is not surrounded by family, friends, neighbours, a community of those ready to come to their defence. Therefore the Torah warns against wronging them because God has made Himself protector of those who have no one else to protect them. This is the political dimension of the command.

The second reason, as we have already noted, is the psychological vulnerability of the stranger (we recall Moses’ own words at the birth of his first son, while he was living among the Midianites: “I am a stranger in a strange land,” Exodus 2:22). The stranger is one who lives outside the normal securities of home and belonging. He or she is, or feels, alone – and, throughout the Torah, God is especially sensitive to the sigh of the oppressed, the feelings of the rejected, the cry of the unheard. That is the emotive dimension of the command.”

“To be a Jew is to be a stranger. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this was why Abraham was commanded to leave his land, home and father’s house; why, long before Joseph was born, Abraham was already told that his descendants would be strangers in a land not their own; why Moses had to suffer personal exile before assuming leadership of the people; why the Israelites underwent persecution before inheriting their own land; and why the Torah is so insistent that this experience – the retelling of the story on Passover, along with the never-forgotten taste of the bread of affliction and the bitter herbs of slavery – should become a permanent part of their collective memory.

Excerpt From

Covenent & Conversation

Jonathan Sacks

“One of the Torah’s central projects is to turn memory into empathy and moral responsibility. Appealing to our experience of defenselessness in Egypt, the Torah seeks to transform us into people who see those who are vulnerable and exposed rather than looking past them.

“This is reminiscent of a verse from Psalms that we recite every Shabbat and holiday morning. The verse begins, “All my bones shall say, ‘Lord, who is like You?’” What is the source of God’s incomparable greatness? Again, it is not raw power or might, but rather mercy and care for the vulnerable. “You save the poor from one stronger than he, the poor and needy from his despoiler” (Ps. 35:10). The God Jews worship, in other words, is a God who cares for the distressed and persecuted.”

Excerpt From

The Heart of Torah, Volume 1

Shai Held

“In Hebrew, the book of the Bible in which our portion is found is called Shmot, “Names,” to reflect the first significant word in the book. In English, however, we use the Greek name Exodus, “Departure.” Thus, the central laws and judgments that are required of the Jewish people are not presented in a biblical book entitled “Laws,” but rather, they appear as an integral part of a story about the departure from Egypt. Context, in this case, is everything. These laws are not abstract ideas of a God who is above the fray, or something a philosopher came up with on a cool afternoon in her study. Rather, they are concepts that are intimately tied to the experiences of the Jewish people, in particular the experience of escaping Egyptian slavery.

“It seems odd for a people to so emphasize and recall a humiliating past. Having been a slave is not something one would want to remember or remind others of. Yet, in the Torah, the opposite is the case. The Jewish people are reminded over and over that they come from less-than-noble origins, and it is precisely this experience of slavery that forms the core from which moral obligations to other people are derived.”

“Why does it matter that these “rules for a good life” come from a story about our ancestors in Egypt? The rabbis distinguished between mishpatim and hukim, two kinds of laws. For them, hukim are rules that have no rational explanation. Mishpatim are rules with a reason. And the reason is not a principle but story. It is in this way that the portion is most feminist.

Excerpt From

The Women's Torah Commentary

Rabbi Elyse Goldstein

“A central feature of biblical religiosity is that it is not determined by one’s faith and ritual practices alone, but equally by one’s moral character and behavior toward others. The aspiration of the Bible is to create out of the Jews a holy people, and as such, much of the legal code pertains to regulating people’s interactions with one another, both in the private and public domain, in order to ensure peaceful coexistence and the protection of rights to self and property. It is within this context that one finds the vast majority of the laws that appear in Parashat Mishpatim.

“Our parashah, incorporating classic biblical brevity, states as follows: “When you encounter your enemy’s ox or ass wandering, you must take it back to him” (Exodus 23:4). In this regulation, three principles are set forth that outline our moral responsibilities to one another.

First, ownership is not contingent on possession. A safe public space requires that we know that we can bring our property into that space and not lose ownership as a result of unforeseen and uncontrollable circumstances. A Jewish public space is safe and caring in the sense that it is not a place where fellow citizens come in search of benefiting from other’s misfortunes.

Second, our responsibilities to others are not dependent on our feelings and prior relationships. In speaking of lost property, the Bible specifically states: “when you encounter your enemy’s ox or ass.” The public sphere must be governed by universally applied ethical norms that are not contingent on personal relationships and past history. When we enter the public domain and know that we are encountering friend and foe, we must be assured that all will treat us equally, and the purpose of the law is to regulate precisely such a code and standard.

Third, and in many ways most important, the Bible obligates us to return the lost property. Not only can one not appropriate the property for oneself, but equally, one cannot ignore it.”

Excerpt From

The Modern Men's Torah Commentary

Rabbi Jeffrey K. Salkin

Here these laws are called mishpatim, translated as “rules.” Elsewhere in the Torah, though, all laws, whether civil or ritual, are called mitzvot, usually translated as “commandments.” Whereas the word mishpatim emphasizes that these are civil norms regulating human interaction, the word mitzvot shows that they are of divine origin, reflecting moral and ethical values.”

“It could be said with some justification that Judaism is basically a system of mitzvot, of commands that determine what we should and should not do, and that these mitzvot, rather than beliefs or dogmas, are the basis of Jewish life. The danger with this conception is that Judaism could become a series of actions that are blindly performed without understanding or meaning—mere religious behaviorism. This was certainly not the intent of the Sages, who taught that all of these actions were intended to shape the character of the person performing them. The common formulation was “Mitzvot were given in order to purify human beings.”

Excerpt From

A Year with the Sages

Reuven Hammer

“D’rash: Kaplan’s Insight

“To affirm the sovereignty of God means to acknowledge a higher law and authority than one’s own arbitrary will.”

Although diverse societies may embrace differing values regarding human life, Kaplan points out that the Torah puts this commandment in the mouth of God to insist that a higher authority, greater and wiser than mere human opinion, must invariably take precedence over personal convictions and arbitrary will. God’s will and ethical standards must govern human inclinations in all moral matters, and especially when it comes to ultimate issues of life and death.

Religion, Kaplan explained, must function as the foundation of our ethics and direct how we act in the world. “To know human nature as it is, the scientific approach is sufficient,” Kaplan wrote. “To know human nature as it ought to be, we need also the ethical approach. To be sure that it can be what it ought to be we need, in addition, the religious approach.

Excerpt From

A Year with Mordecai Kaplan

Steven Carr Reuben

3 Themes - ACCOUNTABILITY - DIGNITY - JUSTICE

Engage in text from the worldview of 3500 years ago.

Some things not definsible today, slavery, so much capital punishment.

22:1-2

If thief breaks in while you are there, so are permitted to take a life.

Presumption is that they know you are there and are willing to kill you.

In that moment you are terrified.

If the sun has risen (if it is as clear as day) is startled by your presence and is attempting to get out, you are not permitted to killed him. There is bloodguilt.

23:4-5

Ass of your enemy. you must help raise fallen ass.

We have obligation to friend and enemy, to all people as well as to animals.

Language not well developed Torah time.

Slave and indentured servant use same word. ?eved

22:25-26

Taking garment in pledge. must return garment even if they do not provide service. sleeping without their only possesion robs them of dignity.

21:37

Steals ox or sheep

You steal an ox with a rope around it'sneck.

Sheep will not respond. the only way to steal a sheep is to carry shep on your shoulders, very undignified. four sheep per sheep as you have already lost your dignity running through town carrying a sheep.

22:20, 23:9

you shall not wrong or oppress a stranger. (appears 36 times)

when you oppress a stranger you not only un-dignify them you un-dignify yourself.

21:23-25

eye for eye......

Rabbis suggest that you must find appropriate value to compensate. hand of musician more valuable than hand of desk worker. Default reaction to injury should not be eye for eye. also meanas not More than an eye for an eye. equity.

23:2-3

you shall not side with the mighty or show deference to a poor person.

There is equity before the law.

22:17

Why feminine? misogyny?

Fundamentally being able to predict or cause events is usurping god's role and is idolatry.

Humans are desperate to know tomorrow and will do almost anything to learn it.

from Tamara -

There is apparently lots of information about ancient witchcraft because many sources from Mesopotamia survived. Here is a paragraph about it:

“A large body of cuneiform texts provides firsthand information on the remedies and rituals used by Babylonian and Assyrian experts to cure illnesses, avert calamities, and protect people from harm. These magical and medical texts are usually written in Akkadian, the main Semitic language of ancient Mesopotamia, though incantations in Sumerian and other languages are also used.

22:!9

Whoever sacrifices to a god other than the LORD alone shall be proscribed. *See Lev. 27.29.

There are no capital letters in the Torah. capital L in Lord, small g in god. editorializing.

Torah does not preach monotheism. monotheism comes into Judaism until very late.

These people believed there were many sources of power of the universe.

Current - money. power, knowledge as gods.

Judaism thought - we must be different. if they have this god we don't.

"We create gods to meet our needs, but those gods may not be actual. "(Davids)

Cognitive dissonance. do we do or understand.

answer - Both are true.

Doing and thinking occur simultaneously.

It is in the act of doing that we understand.

21:23

Eye for eye….

Metaphor, mete out appropriate punishment, in Talmud

Maimonides- same

18 and 19 are deliberate and exact monetary damage why then in 20,21 when injury or death is accidental would the punishment be more severe?

Word in Hebrew is notan meaning to give.

but you cannot give a hand to replace a hand or an eye in place of an eye etc. you can only give monetary compensation.

When there is a verse rabbis have problem with, they go to great lengths to argue and disprove it.

Judaism has a rabbinic tradition, not a Torah tradition.

The Torah means what the rabbis say it means.

Are There Many Legitimate Jewish Paths to God?

Na’aseh Ve’nishma.

Na’aseh (We wil do)

everything God has asked us to do, we will do and then we will listen.Shemot 24

Modern is to understand first and THEN do.

Here we will do and then ask for details.

Rav Eliyahu Dessler “Strive for Truth” (1852-1953)

1. Expression of complete subjugation, self-abasement. Put God first.

This is the key to being a truly religious person.

2. Mitzvah 15 - after eating Seder lamb you will not break the bones of the lamb that you eat.

That’s the way poor people eat. They must suck up bones of what they eat.

The only way you can learn is by doing.

A person is influenced by their actions.

You cannot develop a religious identity merely by study. You must put it into practice.

3. Sacks

Written in future tense. We WILL do and THEN we WILL understand.

Torah given Shemot 20. Out of order

There is no earlier or later in the Torah. Not strictly chronological.

Jewish people say they will do, AFTER they have received Commandments.

Jewish people speak with one voice.

People replied in unison we will do everything the Lord has said.

Later, and Moshe said THEY said. ?Not unanimous.

When it comes to performing Torah we perform Mitzvot in more or less the same way.

When it comes to how we THINK about Mitzvot (or think about God) people think differently.

Tefillin

One attached to arm, all mitzvot are in one box, we all try to do Mitzvot in the same way.

When it comes to the way we think or conceive of God, placed on our head there are 4 boxes, symbolizing we think of God in different ways.

The we DO is done one way, that is together.

we will UNDERSTAND each in our own way.

4. Rav Kook

Unnatural things will be difficult at the beginning: and through learning one is able to perform them. But that which comes naturally does not require prior study, rather from the start a person is drawn to it.

There is an element the basic element of religion that is natural.

5. Rabbi YY Weinberg.

Why when we do ritual commandments we make a blessing BEFORE we do the commandments.

When we give gifts to a friend we don’t make a blessing to God?

the entire reason to give gifts is to create love and friendship, so when i give a gift and immediately go into a blessing then my focus turns to God, not to the creation of love and friendship between yo and the giver.

No blessing when we give charity for the same reason.

SACKS

Helping An Enemy

Mishpatim are thus laws that promote the rule of justice.

“Maimonides, in the Guide for the Perplexed, notes that mishpat is a complex idea. It denotes “the act of deciding upon a certain action in accordance with justice which may demand either mercy or punishment.”1 Justice in Judaism is rarely “strict justice,” known in rabbinic Hebrew as middat hadin.”

“If you see your enemy’s ass sagging under its burden, you shall not pass by. You shall surely release it with him. (Exodus 23:5)

There are two principles at stake here. One is concern for the animal. Jewish law forbids tza’ar ba’alei ḥayim, the needless infliction of pain on animals.2 It is as if the Torah is here saying: a conflict between two human beings should not lead either of them to ignore the fact that the ass is labouring under its load. It is innocent. Why then should it suffer? That in itself is a powerful moral lesson.”

“If [the animal of] a friend requires unloading, and an enemy’s loading, you should first help your enemy – in order to suppress the evil inclination.3

Both equally need help. In the case of an enemy, however, there is more at stake than merely helping someone in distress. There is also the challenge of overcoming estrangement, distance, and ill-feeling. Therefore, it takes precedence.”

“There is, however, one proviso. Note that the text says, “You shall surely release it [the burden] with him.” From this the sages deduced the following:

If [the owner of the animal] sits down and says to the passer-by: “The obligation is yours. If you wish to unload [the animal], do so,” the passer-by is exempt because it is said, “with him” [meaning: they must share the work]. If however the owner [is unable to help because he] is old or infirm, then one must [unload the animal on one’s own].5”

“A fundamental principle of biblical morality is involved here: reciprocity. We owe duties to those who recognise the concept of duty. We have a responsibility to those who acknowledge responsibility. If, however, the person concerned refuses to exercise his duty to his own overloaded animal, then we do not make things better by coming to his aid. On the contrary, we may make it worse, by allowing him to escape responsibility. We become – in the language of addiction-therapy – codependents.”

“There is something distinctive about the Torah’s approach to hatred and enemies. It is realistic rather than utopian. It does not say, “Love your enemy.” It says, help him. Saints apart, we cannot love our enemies, and if we try to, we may eventually pay a high psychological price: we will eventually hate those who ought to be our friends.7 Instead the Torah says, when your enemy is in trouble, come to his assistance. That way, part of the hatred will be dissipated. Who knows whether help given may not turn hostility to gratitude and from there to friendship? That is a practical way of moving beyond hate.”

Text and Interpretation: The Case of Abortion

“One thing, however, is clear on this interpretation. Causing a woman to miscarry – being responsible for the death of a foetus – is not a capital offence. Until birth, the foetus does not have the legal status of a person. Such was the view of the sages in the land of Israel”

Philo is here following the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Bible made in the third century BCE during the reign of Ptolemy II. There are numerous divergences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text, and this is one of them. The Greek version translates ason not as “calamity,” but rather “form.”7 The meaning of the two verses is now completely different. Now, according to Philo, they are talking about damage to the foetus only. In the first case, “there is no ason” means the foetus was “unformed” – i.e., the woman miscarries, but the foetus was at an early stage of development. The second verse speaks of a foetus “that has form,” i.e., the woman was at a later stage of pregnancy. Philo puts this rather finely when he compares the developed foetus to a sculpture that has been finished but has not yet left the sculptor’s workshop. In this view, foeticide – and hence abortion – can be a capital crime, an act of murder.”

“This is not to say that Jewish and Catholic views on abortion are completely different. In practice, they are quite close, especially when compared to the cultures of ancient Greece and Rome, or the secular West today, where abortion is widespread and not seen as a moral evil at all. Judaism permits abortion only to save the life of the mother or to protect her from life-threatening illness. A foetus may not be a person in Jewish law, but it is a potential person, and must therefore be protected. However, the theoretical difference is real. In Judaism, abortion is not murder. In Catholicism, it is.”

God Is in the Details

“On the opening phrase of Mishpatim, “And these are the laws you are to set before them” (Exodus 21:1), Rashi comments:

“And these are the laws” – Wherever [the Torah only] uses the word “these” it signals a discontinuity with what has been stated previously. Wherever it uses the term “and these” it signals a continuity. ”

“Three remarkable propositions are being set out here, which have shaped the contours of Judaism ever since.

The first is that just as the general principles of Judaism set forth in the Decalogue at Sinai are divine, so too are the details – the minutiae of the civil laws.

“Throughout history there have been philosophers – Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Hume, Kant, Bentham, Mill – who have attempted to reduce the moral life to a few broad principles: rationality, sympathy, duty or the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But though these are important, morality, if it is to become the text and texture of a society, must be translated into a code of conduct. We are made moral by what we do on a day-to-day basis, and by what others do likewise”

“The second principle, no less fundamental, is that civil law is not secular. We do not believe in the idea “render to Caesar what is Caeser’s and to God what belongs to God.” We believe in the separation of powers4 but not in the secularisation of law or the spiritualisation of faith. The Sanhedrin or Supreme Court must be placed near the Temple, to teach that law itself must be driven by a religious vision.

The third principle, and the most remarkable of all, is the idea that law does not belong to lawyers. It is the heritage of every Jew:

“Judaism is a religion of law – not because it does not believe in love (“You shall love the Lord your God,” “You shall love your neighbour as yourself,”) but because, without justice, neither love nor liberty nor human life itself can flourish.”

“The parasha of Mishpatim, with its detailed rules and regulations, can sometimes seem an anticlimax after the breathtaking grandeur of the revelation at Sinai. It should not be. Parashat Yitro contains the vision, but God is in the details. Without the vision, law is blind, but without the details, the vision floats in heaven. With them, the Divine Presence is brought down to earth, where we need it most”

Loving the Stranger

“The term ger itself is undefined in the Torah. There are other words for stranger, namely zar and nokhri, both of which have a stronger sense of “alien” or “foreigner,” a visitor from elsewhere. The word ger, by contrast, signifies one who is not an Israelite by birth but who has come to live, on a long-term basis, within Israelite society. The oral tradition accordingly identified two forms of the ger: the ger tzedek, or convert (Ruth is the classic example), and the ger toshav, a “resident alien” who has chosen to live in Israel without converting to Judaism but instead agreeing to keep the seven Noahide laws mandatory on all mankind. Ger toshav legislation represents the biblical form of minority rights.

“According to Nahmanides the command has two dimensions. The first is the relative powerlessness of the stranger. He or she is not surrounded by family, friends, neighbours, a community of those ready to come to their defence. Therefore the Torah warns against wronging them because God has made Himself protector of those who have no one else to protect them. This is the political dimension of the command.

The second reason, as we have already noted, is the psychological vulnerability of the stranger (we recall Moses’ own words at the birth of his first son, while he was living among the Midianites: “I am a stranger in a strange land,” Exodus 2:22). The stranger is one who lives outside the normal securities of home and belonging. He or she is, or feels, alone – and, throughout the Torah, God is especially sensitive to the sigh of the oppressed, the feelings of the rejected, the cry of the unheard. That is the emotive dimension of the command.”

“To be a Jew is to be a stranger. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this was why Abraham was commanded to leave his land, home and father’s house; why, long before Joseph was born, Abraham was already told that his descendants would be strangers in a land not their own; why Moses had to suffer personal exile before assuming leadership of the people; why the Israelites underwent persecution before inheriting their own land; and why the Torah is so insistent that this experience – the retelling of the story on Passover, along with the never-forgotten taste of the bread of affliction and the bitter herbs of slavery – should become a permanent part of their collective memory.

Excerpt From

Covenent & Conversation

Jonathan Sacks

HELD

“One of the Torah’s central projects is to turn memory into empathy and moral responsibility. Appealing to our experience of defenselessness in Egypt, the Torah seeks to transform us into people who see those who are vulnerable and exposed rather than looking past them.

“This is reminiscent of a verse from Psalms that we recite every Shabbat and holiday morning. The verse begins, “All my bones shall say, ‘Lord, who is like You?’” What is the source of God’s incomparable greatness? Again, it is not raw power or might, but rather mercy and care for the vulnerable. “You save the poor from one stronger than he, the poor and needy from his despoiler” (Ps. 35:10). The God Jews worship, in other words, is a God who cares for the distressed and persecuted.”

Excerpt From

The Heart of Torah, Volume 1

Shai Held

WOMEN’S TORAH

“In Hebrew, the book of the Bible in which our portion is found is called Shmot, “Names,” to reflect the first significant word in the book. In English, however, we use the Greek name Exodus, “Departure.” Thus, the central laws and judgments that are required of the Jewish people are not presented in a biblical book entitled “Laws,” but rather, they appear as an integral part of a story about the departure from Egypt. Context, in this case, is everything. These laws are not abstract ideas of a God who is above the fray, or something a philosopher came up with on a cool afternoon in her study. Rather, they are concepts that are intimately tied to the experiences of the Jewish people, in particular the experience of escaping Egyptian slavery.

“It seems odd for a people to so emphasize and recall a humiliating past. Having been a slave is not something one would want to remember or remind others of. Yet, in the Torah, the opposite is the case. The Jewish people are reminded over and over that they come from less-than-noble origins, and it is precisely this experience of slavery that forms the core from which moral obligations to other people are derived.”

“Why does it matter that these “rules for a good life” come from a story about our ancestors in Egypt? The rabbis distinguished between mishpatim and hukim, two kinds of laws. For them, hukim are rules that have no rational explanation. Mishpatim are rules with a reason. And the reason is not a principle but story. It is in this way that the portion is most feminist.

Excerpt From

The Women's Torah Commentary

Rabbi Elyse Goldstein

MEN’S TORAH

“A central feature of biblical religiosity is that it is not determined by one’s faith and ritual practices alone, but equally by one’s moral character and behavior toward others. The aspiration of the Bible is to create out of the Jews a holy people, and as such, much of the legal code pertains to regulating people’s interactions with one another, both in the private and public domain, in order to ensure peaceful coexistence and the protection of rights to self and property. It is within this context that one finds the vast majority of the laws that appear in Parashat Mishpatim.

“Our parashah, incorporating classic biblical brevity, states as follows: “When you encounter your enemy’s ox or ass wandering, you must take it back to him” (Exodus 23:4). In this regulation, three principles are set forth that outline our moral responsibilities to one another.

First, ownership is not contingent on possession. A safe public space requires that we know that we can bring our property into that space and not lose ownership as a result of unforeseen and uncontrollable circumstances. A Jewish public space is safe and caring in the sense that it is not a place where fellow citizens come in search of benefiting from other’s misfortunes.

Second, our responsibilities to others are not dependent on our feelings and prior relationships. In speaking of lost property, the Bible specifically states: “when you encounter your enemy’s ox or ass.” The public sphere must be governed by universally applied ethical norms that are not contingent on personal relationships and past history. When we enter the public domain and know that we are encountering friend and foe, we must be assured that all will treat us equally, and the purpose of the law is to regulate precisely such a code and standard.

Third, and in many ways most important, the Bible obligates us to return the lost property. Not only can one not appropriate the property for oneself, but equally, one cannot ignore it.”

Excerpt From

The Modern Men's Torah Commentary

Rabbi Jeffrey K. Salkin

A YEAR WITH THE SAGES

Here these laws are called mishpatim, translated as “rules.” Elsewhere in the Torah, though, all laws, whether civil or ritual, are called mitzvot, usually translated as “commandments.” Whereas the word mishpatim emphasizes that these are civil norms regulating human interaction, the word mitzvot shows that they are of divine origin, reflecting moral and ethical values.”

“It could be said with some justification that Judaism is basically a system of mitzvot, of commands that determine what we should and should not do, and that these mitzvot, rather than beliefs or dogmas, are the basis of Jewish life. The danger with this conception is that Judaism could become a series of actions that are blindly performed without understanding or meaning—mere religious behaviorism. This was certainly not the intent of the Sages, who taught that all of these actions were intended to shape the character of the person performing them. The common formulation was “Mitzvot were given in order to purify human beings.”

Excerpt From

A Year with the Sages

Reuven Hammer

KAPLAN - REUBEN

“D’rash: Kaplan’s Insight

“To affirm the sovereignty of God means to acknowledge a higher law and authority than one’s own arbitrary will.”

Although diverse societies may embrace differing values regarding human life, Kaplan points out that the Torah puts this commandment in the mouth of God to insist that a higher authority, greater and wiser than mere human opinion, must invariably take precedence over personal convictions and arbitrary will. God’s will and ethical standards must govern human inclinations in all moral matters, and especially when it comes to ultimate issues of life and death.

Religion, Kaplan explained, must function as the foundation of our ethics and direct how we act in the world. “To know human nature as it is, the scientific approach is sufficient,” Kaplan wrote. “To know human nature as it ought to be, we need also the ethical approach. To be sure that it can be what it ought to be we need, in addition, the religious approach.

Excerpt From

A Year with Mordecai Kaplan

Steven Carr Reuben