Parashath Mishpatim (Exodus XXI,1-XXIV,18) 2/17/12

A.

In last week’s parasha, G-d told Moshe that His express purpose in freeing the bënei Yisra’él from Egyptian bondage and bringing them before Sinai had been to create a new nation: ועתה אם שמע תשמעו בקלי ושמרתם את בריתי והייתם לי סגלה מכל העמים כי לי כל הארץ: ואתם תהיו לי ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש וגו' (“And now, if you will diligently listen to My voice and keep My covenant, you will be more precious to Me than all the nations, for Mine is the entire Earth. And you will be a kingdom of kohanim [mamlecheth kohanim] and a holy nation [goy qadosh]....”; XIX, 5-6)

That what was coming into being was in fact a new nation is borne out by the wording just a few verses earlier: בחדש השלישי לצאת בני ישראל מארץ מצרים ביום הזה באו מדבר סיני: ויסעו מרפידים ויבאו מדבר סיני ויחנו במדבר ויחן ישראל שם נגד ההר: (“In the third month of the exodus of the bënei Yisra’él from the land of Egypt, on this day, they came [to] the Sinai desert. And they traveled from Rëfidim, and they came [to] the Sinai desert, and they camped in the desert; and Israel camped there opposite the mountain”; XIX, 1-2). It is less obvious in English, but every one of the verbs in the passage is plural, referring to the bënei Yisra’él, save the last one, referring to the unified nation of Israel. The contrast is very striking, and prompted Rashi to note that, on the eve of Mattan Torah, a group of disparate individuals united only by a common ancestry had become כאיש אחד בלב אחד, “like one man with one heart,” unified with a singularity of national purpose and resolve.

They had, in short, been transformed from mere bënei Yisra’él, descendants of a common ancestor, into the Torah-nation, which also bears the name Yisra’él, which must therefore be expressive of the nation’s nature and characteristics. What might they be?

B.

The addition of the name Yisra’él to our patriarch’s original name Ya‘aqov is mentioned twice. The first occasion is at the time of his struggle with the mal’ach. When Ya‘aqov bests his opponent and refuses to release him without receiving a blessing, the mal’ach proclaims: לא יעקב יאמר עוד שמך כי אם ישראל כי שרית עם אלקים ועם אנשים ותוכל (“Not Ya‘aqov will your name be said any more, but rather Yisra’él, for you were exalted [saritha] with G-d and with men and were able”; Genesis XXXII, 29).

Subsequently, G-d confirmed the additional name when Ya‘aqov returned to Har ha-Moriya, which he had named Béyth É-l (“G-d’s House”) because the Béyth ha-Miqdash would one day be built there: ויאמר לו אלקים שמך יעקב לא יקרא עוד שמך יעקב כי אם ישראל יהי' שמך ויקרא את שמו ישראל (“And G-d said to him, 'Your name [is] Ya‘aqov; your name will not longer be called Ya‘aqov, but rather Yisra’él will be your name'; and He called his name Yisra’él”; XXXV, 10).

Aside from the different venues, the two occurrences are distinguished by the fact that in the first, the mal’ach disclosed a reason for the name-change, whilst in the second, G-d mentions no reason.

Our parasha opens with the case of the ‘eved ‘Ivri, a formerly independent man who is sold by by the court, or who sells himself, into slavery. The maximum term for such a sentence is six years, after which he is to be restored to independence. Should such a person refuse liberty, and insist on remaining a slave, he is marked by having a hole bored in his earlobe (Exodus XXI, 6). The Talmud tells us why, in a statement which has two striking variations. First is that of the Bavli: אמר הקב"ה אוזן ששמעה על הר סיני בשעה שאמרתי "כי לי בני ישראל עבדים" ולא עבדים לעבדים והלך זה וקנה אדון לעצמו ירצע (“Said the Holy One, Blessed is He, 'An ear which heard on Mt Sinai at the time I said, "For to Me are the bënei Yisra’él servants" [‘avadim Leviticus XXV, 55], and not servants of servants, and this one has gone and acquired himself a lord!? He should be bored'” קדושין כ"ב:). The second occurs in the Yërushalmi: אוזן שמעה על הר סיני "לא יהי' לך אלהים אחרים" והלך זה ופרק עול מלכות שמים וקבל עליו עול בשר ודם ירצע (“An ear which heard on Mt Sinai, ‘You will have no other gods,’ and this one has thrown off the yoke of the kingdom of heaven and accepted on himself the yoke of flesh and blood; he should be bored”; ירושלמי קדושין פ"א ה"ב).

Israel’s national culture, then is he “yoke of the kingdom of heaven”; it is a culture of Divinely ordained ‘avoda, a word often translated “work” or “worship” but which is perhaps best translated “service,” derived as it is from the same root as the word ‘eved.

How does our twin characterization as a mamlecheth kohanim and goy qadosh relate to our ‘avoda? And what does the name Yisra’él add to the description?

C.

Focus first on the concept of the goy qadosh. What, precisely, is qëdusha? If we look at other uses of the root, we find, for instance, the word heqdésh, which describes anything dedicated to an exalted purpose, e.g., an animal designated as a sacrifice. As Rashi says in his famous comment on Leviticus XIX, 2: "קדושים תהיו" הוו פרושים מן העריות ומן העבירה (“‘You will be holy’ [means] be separated from sexual improprieties and from transgression”), blemishes of the soul to be avoided in much the same way as a sacrificial animal may not be blemished.

Hence, we find in our parasha, amidst its discussion of mishpatim, mitzvoth resulting from the application of the principles established in the ‘Asereth ha-Dibbëroth last week, ואנשי קדש תהיון לי וגו' (“And men of sanctity [qodesh] will you be for Me....”; XXII, 30), prompting Hazal to elaborate: כשהמקום מחדש מצוה על ישראל הוא מוסיף להם קדושה כו' כשאתם קדושים הרי אתם שלי (“When G-d originates a mitzva for Israel, He adds qëdusha to them... 'When you are holy, you are Mine'”; מכילתא, פרשתנו). Observing the Torah’s mitzvoth serves to induce this state of qëdusha.

If we now return to Ya‘aqov’s lonely fight with the mal’ach on that fateful night, we note (as Rashi, following the midrash, reminds us) that his opponent was none other than saro shel ‘Ésav, responsible for directing the fate of the nation which would arise from his evil twin, who, as we know, was completely sunk in the web of physical appetites and lusts (cf. e.g. Rashi on Genesis XXV, 29).

But Ya‘aqov was very different, as indeed he told his brother in the message he sent on his return to the Holy Land: "עם לבן גרתי" ותרי"ג מצות שמרתי ולא למדתי ממעשיו הרעים (“‘With Lavan I dwelt’ and I kept the 613 mitzvoth, and did not learn from his evil ways”; XXXI, 5, Rashi ad loc.). Hence, saro shel ‘Ésav was completely unable to prevail over him; this is what the mal’ach meant by the last word in his blessing, va-tuchal (“and you were able”): Ya‘aqov passed the test; his adherence to Ha-Shem’s will, to the culture of Divine service imbued him with such a level of qëdusha that he was able completely to resist the mal’ach’s efforts.

It was this, expressed in the perfective, which served as the basis for the exaltation to which the mal’ach refers, ki saritha, as implied by the first part of the new name Yisra’él. The verb sara implies dominion, dominance, high position, and from the same root is the word sar, a ruler, leader, prince (already encountered in the expression saro shel ‘Ésav). This is how Rashi understands the term mamlecheth kohanim: A kingdom of שרים כמה דאת אמר "ובני דוד כהנים היו" (“sarim, as you say, ‘And David’s sons were kohanim’ [II Samuel VIII, 18]”). Kohanim here are sarim, equivalent to sons of the royal family.

So Israel are supposed to be dominant in the world, leading the world to exaltation, to scale spiritual heights; that is our purpose. But that exaltation can only be accomplished on a firm basis of qëdusha; only when we are a goy qadosh, when the individual bënei Yisra’él are striving to be anshei qodesh, can we be the mamlecheth kohanim.

D.

The above goes far to explain certain otherwise inexplicable things which we see in the world.

The facts of Israel’s intended purpose are known instinctively and intuitively by every other nation in the world. It explains why it is that Israel, both the individual members of the Torah-nation and their communities throughout the world, as well as the component of the nation dwelling in the Holy Land, are held by those nations to far higher standards than any others. For with the subconscious knowledge comes a measure of resentment; as Hazal also tell us, Sinai is related to sin’a, “hatred.”

To the extent that we are striving to be the goy qadosh comprised of the anshei qodesh Ha-Shem intends us to be, to that extent does the world respect us, and look to us for moral leadership and guidance. They know instinctively, as indeed we should, what we are capable of doing. As saro shal ‘Ésav pronounced, va-tuchal; we are capable of the mission.

And to the extent that we are not moving in that direction, the world despises us, and seeks to fill the void which we are intended to fill. In such circumstances, they seek and find a cheap substitute for the mamlecheth kohanim, an Ersatz (to use the German term), such as the horrible caricature of the mamlecheth kohanim which the Nazi concept of the Herrenvolk, the “master race,” represented. Or, for that matter, the alternative, warped forms of religion which has set the world afire in our time.

Do we wish not to be supplanted in this way, and suffer as a result, we must step up to our purpose; after all, the mal’ach said tuchal – “you are able.”

Parshath Mishpatim (Exodus XXI,1-XXIV,18) 1/27/11

A.

Last week’s dëvar Torah contained the assertion that the ‘Asereth ha-Dibbëroth, constitue an “executive summary” of the 613 mitzvoth; hence the common translation of the term dibbëroth as though it means “commandment” (i.e., mitzva) is incorrect, misleading, and most of all, inadequate.

The source of that statement is in this week’s parasha: ויאמר ד' אל משה עלה אלי ההרה והי' שם ואתנה לך את לחת האבן והתורה והמצוה אשר כתבתי להורותם (“And Ha-Shem said to Moshe, 'Come up onto the mountain to Me and I shall give you the stone tablets and the Torah and the mitzva which I have written to instruct them”; XXIV, 12).

Ramban notes that this is mentioned again in Deuteronomy V, 28: ואדברה אליך את כל המצוה והחקים והמשפטים אשר תלמדם וגו' (“And I shall speak [Va-adabbëra] to you all of the mitzva and the laws and the judgments which you will teach them”), and continues: ורש"י כתב אשר כתבתי בתוך לוחות האבנים להורותם שכל שש מאות ושלוש עשרה מצות בתוך עשרת הדברות הם כו' "ואדברה" יעיד כי על כל המצות כולן דבר ועל דעת רבותינו יתכן כי יהי' רמז שהיתה כל התורה כתובה לפניו קודם שנברא העולם וגו' (“And Rashi has written, ‘Which I have written within the stone Tablets to instruct them that all 613 mitzvoth are in the ‘Asereth ha-Dibbëroth.... Va-adabbëra attests that He spoke of all the mitzvoth in their entirety, and in the opinion of Hazal it is established that there is an allusion that the entire Torah lay written before Him before the world was created....”).

The Talmud seems to go farther than this: א"ר שמעון בן לקיש כו' "לוחות" – אלו עשרת הדברות, "תורה" – זה מקרא, "והמצוה" – זו משנה, "אשר כתבתי" – אלו נביאים וכתובים, "להורותם" – זה גמרא, מלמד שכולם נתנו למשה מסיני (“Said Rabbi Shim‘on ben Laqish...‘Tablets’ – these are the ‘Asereth ha-Dibbëroth; ‘Torah’ – this is the written Torah; ‘and the mitzva’ – this is Mishna; ‘which I have written’ – these are the [books of the] Prophets and Writings; ‘to instruct them’ – this is gëmara, teaching that all of them were given to Moshe from Sinai”; ברכות ה.).

So it seems apparent that a dibbëra, which I have inadequately translated “utterance,” is something other than a mitzva. Since each of the former “contains” or “includes” dozens of the latter. What exactly is a dibbëra?

B.

It seems clear from what Ramban writes in the quotation supra that it is related to the most common word meaning “speak” in the Holy Language, one which occurs many hundreds of not thousands of times in Tanach. Yet, it does not mean “speech” (that is dibbur), nor does it mean word (davar, also from the same root). It is the latter which allows us to approach the word’s meaning.

On several occasions in the past, I have taken note of the fact that davar signifies simultaneously “word” and “thing”, and on this basis suggested that a davar is not merely a vocal utterance (for which we have the word milla), or a row of characters on a page (for which there is the word téva), but a “word” in its fullest physical and metaphysical sense, the archetype which contains the DNA, as it were, of the object, phenomenon, or concept which it names (most recently, this principle found allusion in A”z Yashir, Bë-Shallah, 5771).

In this context, we note that this most common word for “speech,” dibbér, is in the pi‘él conjugation, which is factitive in nature, that is, it denotes bringing something into existence, making it manifest in the world around us. It is also plain from the fortis middle radical of dibbëra (transliterated “bb”), that it is directly related to this conjugation, whose signature consonantal manifestation is precisely that fortis middle radical.

A few years ago, my good friend Rabbi Dr A. Corré pointed out to me that one of the functions of the suffix -a in the Holy Language (which usually signifies a word of feminine gender) is to distinguish a single exemplar of a general case, which is described by a form generally considered masculine. A couple of examples will illustrate the point: In I Kings VII, 22 and 26, the word shoshan (masculine in appearance) is used to describe a lily-motif which was used to grace the capitals of the columns in the Holy Temple; the word shoshanna (feminine in form), denotes a single lily. Similarly, the word dema‘ denotes weeping, tears in the collective (an expression such as “she burst into tears” might be translated with dema‘), whilst a dim‘a is a single tear.

This, I believe, is the essential relationship between dibbur and dibbëra – the former connotes “speech” in its fullest metaphysical, generative sense, and the latter connotes a unit of factitive speech; a dibbëra is a specific unit of dibbur.

Ramban’s remark supra that the entire Torah lay written, kav’yachol, before G-d at Creation is a reference to the dictum קודשא בריך הוא אסתכל באורייתא וברא עלמא, “The Holy One, Blessed is He, looked into the Torah and created the world” (זוה"ק ח"ב קס"א: וע"ע בראשית רבה פ"א סי' ב'). The Torah is the very warp and woof of the universe; connected at every point, it contains all of the “natural laws” which define and govern the cosmos (as Hazal say, "הליכות עולם לו" – אל תקרא "הליכות" אלא "הלכות" [“’The ways (halichoth) of the world are His’ (Habakkuk III, 6) – read not halichoth but rather halachoth”; מגילה כ"ח:]). As G-d Himself proclaims through the prophet Yirmëyahu: אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי (“If My covenant is not by day and by night, the laws of heaven and earth I have not established”; Jeremiah XXXIII, 25; ע"ע עבודה זרה ג.).

What remained, then, was to get the user’s manual, the control panel, as it were, into the hands of the human race, the dëmuth Eloqim, whose purpose was, and is, to administer the cosmos through, and by means of, and in keeping with the principles of, the Torah. Inded, התנה הקב"ה עם מעשה בראשית וא"ל אם ישראל מקבלים התורה אתם מתקיימין ואם לאו אני מחזיר אתכם לתהו ובהו (“The Holy One, Blessed is He, made a condition with Creation, and said to it, If Israel accept the Torah, you continue in existence; and if not, I return you to chaos!”; שבת פ"ח. וע"ע זוה"ק ח"ג קצ"ג. ורח"ץ:).

This was the function of the ‘Asereth ha-Dibbëroth – to make the mitzvoth manifest, and available for use, in this world. But if Moshe was indeed given everything from Sinai, to include the sifrei Nach which comprise the rest of the Bible with the Torah, and the Mishna and Gëmara, the components of the Oral Torah, why was it not imparted to us en bloc at Sinai? Why were we obliged to wait centuries and millennia for the continued revelations of these works?

C.

The Sforno provides a fascinating insight: כי לולא חטאו בעגל היתה כל התורה נתונה חתומה ביד הבורא יתברך כמו הלוחות כמו שהעיר באמרו "ואתה מרבבות קדש מימינו אש דת למו" ומאז שחטאו בעגל לא זכו בכך אבל כתבה משה במצותו כאמרו "כתב לך את הדברים האלה" ולא הביא משה רבנו את הלוחות אלא לשברם לעיניהם לשבר את לבם הזונה כדי שיחזרו בתשובה (“For had they not sinned with the [golden] calf, the entire Torah would have been given, sealed by the hand of the blessed Creator, like the Tablets, as He noted when He said, ‘And He came from the myriads of holiness, from His right hand was the fire of religion to them’ [Deuteronomy XXXIII, 2]; and since they did sin with the calf, they did not merit this, but rather Moshe wrote it at His command, as He says, ‘Write for yourself these words’ [Exodus XXXIV, 27]; and Moshe only brought the Tablets to shatter them before [Israel’s] eyes, to break their straying heart in order that they might return in tëshuva”).

When the ‘erev rav panicked and stampeded some of the weaker souls in Israel into viewing Aharon’s construction in an idolatrous light, as if it were an intermediary between the Creator and His creation (cf., ibid., XXXII, 4, Rashi et Ramban ad loc.), it created a distance between G-d and Israel which, even after the subsequent reconciliation, was not completely closed. The result was that the Torah, from the initial infusion of the dibbëroth, came to be unfolded in a process entangled with human agency and temporal causality, a process of revelation from nistar to nigla (to use the terminology of the Përi Tzaddiq), of continual expansion through the mitzva of talmud Torah and the hiddush Torah inherent in it, to this day.

D.

Yet it is the very same Torah, and it has indeed been given into our hands: לא בשמים היא, “It is not in the heavens,” rather קרוב אליך הדבר מאד בפיך ובלבבך לעשותו, “the matter is very close to you in your mouth and in your heart to do” (Deuteronomy XXX, 12, 14).

So long as faithful Israel remain true to the task, the chaos is held at bay.

Parshath Mishpatim (Exodus, XXI,1-XXIV,18) 2/12/10

A.

Last week’s parasha ended with G-d’s instructions to Moshe that any altar for Divine sacrifice be constructed of earth or rough, undressed stones, ולא תעלה במעלת על מזבחי אשר לא תגלה ערותך עליו (“and you will not ascend upon My altar by steps, so that you will not uncover your nakedness upon it”; XX, 23). This is immediately followed by the first verse of our parasha: ואלה המשפטים אשר תשים לפניהם (“And these are the mishpatim which you shall place before them”).

The midrash (שמות רבה פ"ל סי' ב') tells us that the presence of the vav ha-chibbur, the prefix generally translated “and,” indicates an intimate connexion between our parasha and the preceding. The existence of such a connection appears bolstered by the fact that the last few verses of last week’s parasha (‘aliyath Maftir) constitute the opening passage of the wide-ranging discussion of the donations for the Mishkan, construction of its constituent parts and their assembly and erection, as well as all the accessories and accoutrements associated with it which dominates the rest of the Book of Exodus; yet, our parasha is concerned with social and civil laws: The adjudication of disputes and assessment of damages, treatment of the poor, widows and orphans, consideration of handicapped persons, and so on, entirely in keeping with their classification as mishpatim, “judgments.” The connection, in other words, is not obvious.

What might it be?

B.

Rashi enlightens us by explaining that מה הראשונים מסיני אף אלו מסיני (“just as the first [statements. i.e. those made in last week’s parasha] are from Sinai, so are these from Sinai”).

Rashi’s source appears to be a more-or-less parallel passage in the Mëchilta, which records a dispute between Rabbi Yishma‘él and Rabbi ‘Aqiva: ר' ישמעאל אומר לומר לך מה עליונים מסיני אף תחתונים מסיני ר"ע אומר "ואלה" יכול שונין ולא יודעים ת"ל "ואלה" כו' ערכן לפניכם כשולחן הערוך (“Rabbi Yishma‘él says, 'Just as the upper [statements] are from Sinai so are the lower ones from Sinai,' and Rabbi ‘Aqiva says, ‘"And these," could it be that one learns and does not know? It comes to teach, "And these...," he has arrayed them before you like a table which has been set’”). It will be noted that Rashi here sides with Rabbi Yishma‘él.

If we turn next to the Talmud, we find recorded another ramification of the difference between Rabbi Yishma‘él and Rabbi ‘Aqiva, which sheds considerable light on the Mëchilta cited above: א"ר ישמעאל כל המצות נאמרו כללותיהן בסיני ופרטותיהן באהל מועד ר"ע אומר כל המצות נאמרו כללותיהן ופרטותיהן בסיני (“Said Rabbi Yishma‘él, 'All of the mitzvoth, their general statements were said at Sinai and their details were said in the Tent of Assembly [Ohel Mo‘ed]'; Rabbi ‘Aqiva says, 'Their general statements and their details were said at Sinai'”; זבחים קט"ז:).

In light of this, we can better understand Rabbi ‘Aqiva’s statement above: Since all of the details of the mitzvoth, in his view, were said at Sinai, how could it be possible that one could learn what was said at Sinai and not know of these mishpatim? Therefore, in his view, the relationship implied by the vav ha-chibbur explains that all the details were laid out before the learner at the time the statements were made at Sinai. For Rabbi Yishma‘él, who held that detailed expositions of the mitzvoth were withheld until later on, in the Ohel Mo‘ed, their inclusion in the Sinaïtic revelation at the level of detail found in our parasha was not a foregone conclusion, and merited mention here, with the vav ha-chibbur to indicate the equivalence of these and those.

At the beginning of parshath Bë-Har (Leviticus XXV, 1), we note that Rashi comments: מה ענין שמיטה אצל הר סיני והלא כל המצות נאמרו מסיני אלא מה שמיטה נאמרו כללותי' ודקדוקי' מסיני אף כולן נאמרו כללותיהן ודקדוקיהן מסיני וגו' (“What has shëmitta to do with Mt. Sinai [since it could only be observed in the Holy Land]; were not all the mitzvoth said from Sinai? But just as all the general principles and details of shëmitta were said from Sinai, so were the general principles and details of all of them said from Sinai....”). Rashi appears to take Rabbi ‘Aqiva’s side here, and Rabbi Yishma‘él’s side in our parasha. Why the apparent inconsistency?

C.

The fact is that there is yet a third opinion, recorded elsewhere in the Talmud, which appears to contradict both Rabbi ‘Aqiva and Rabbi Yishma‘él. In Exodus XV, 25 we read of the incident at a place called Mara: שם שם לו חק ומשפט (“there, [Moshe] placed before [the people] law and judgment”) – מכאן שעל הדינין נצטוו ישראל במרה (“From here [we learn] that concerning dinim Israel were commanded at Mara”; סנהדרין נ"ז:), which again is mentioned by Rashi.

So Rashi appears trebly conflicted: The bënei Yisra’él were commanded concerning dinim at Mara, before Ma‘amad Har Sinai; they received both the generalities and the details at Ma‘amad Har Sinai; and they received the generalities at Ma‘amad Har Sinai, but the details later on in the Ohel Mo‘ed! How can this be?

For help, we turn to the Maharal mi-Prag. The Maharal (in his Gur Aryeh) calls our attention to yet a fourth ma’amar Chazal: התורה נתנה כללותי' ופרטותי' מסיני חזרו ונשנו באהל מועד וחזרו ונשנו בערבות מואב (“The Torah’s generalities and details were given from Sinai; they relearnt them in the Ohel Mo‘ed, and relearnt them again on the plains of Mo’av”; חגיגה ו.). On this basis, he makes the following suggestion:

Certainly all of the mitzvoth were learnt, with all their ramifications, at Mt. Sinai. However, at different times, on different occasions, emphasis was given more to certain mitzvoth than to others. Thus, those mitzvoth clearly connected to the ‘Asereth ha-Dibbroth, shabbath, the prohibition of idolatry and obligation to recognize the one and only G-d of the universe, and so on, were quite naturally stated with more force and emphasis at Mt. Sinai than some others. In the Ohel Mo‘ed, amongst other things, the sacrificial worship was especially emphasized (which is why the Torah appears to tell us that Moshe first learnt of the sacrifices there; rather, the correct interpretation is that those mitzvoth with their details were especially emphasized on that occasion, since the location and timing made the sacrifices particularly relevant). Then, as they were about to enter the Holy Land, other mitzvoth, previously stated but hitherto in the background, now came to the fore.

‘Ad kan the Maharal. Something like this is evident in the structure of the two Talmudim, which reflect the different curricula of the yëshivoth in Bavel and those in Eretz Yisra’él: The Yërushalmi contains gëmara on most of séder Zëra‘im, the order of the Mishna dealing with such laws as tërumoth u-ma‘sëroth, shëmitta, and so on, because they are vital issues to farmers resident in the Holy Land; those mishnayoth were learnt in Bavel, but much less emphasis was placed on them, because they were not urgent matters of practical halacha there.

Following this logic, we can see that the partial revelation at Mara, in which Moshe was instructed to tell the bënei Yisra’él about specific mitzvoth, including shabbath, honoring one’s parents, and dinim, were intended as a response to the rebellion there, to give a foretaste to the people of the sort of society they were being primed to inhabit, a society emphasizing justice and compassion, with a weekly day of rest, so that they would recognize that they had not been brought out into the desert to die of thirst, but should take heart, trust G-d, and persevere.

The heart of the matter, it seems to me, lies in the very different verbs used to describe the revelation at Sinai and the two subsequent reviews mentioned: The Torah was given (nittëna) at Sinai; in the latter two locations, the halachoth were nishnu, reviewed and repeated (from the same root as shéni, “second,” and Mishna). The same verb is used by Rabbi ‘Aqiva in the Mëchilta: Could it be that they learn (shonin) but do not know them? Rabbi ‘Aqiva understood that the dinim were taught at Mara and again at Sinai, where they were “laid out like a set table,” discussed in full when the emphasis was to be made.

And it is here that we can discern the connection to what had gone before.

D.

Mishpatim, we have said, means “judgments.” Rashi tells us concerning the prohibited altar steps: שע"י המעלות אתה צריך להרחיב פסיעותיך ואע"פ שאינו גלוי ערוה ממש שהרי כתיב "ועשה לך מכנסי בד" מ"מ הרחבת פסיעות קרוב לגלוי ערוה כו' והרי דברים ק"ו ומה אבנים הללו שאין בהם דעות להקפיד על בזיונן אמרה תורה הואיל ויש בהם צורך לא תנהג בהם מנהג בזיון חברך שהוא בדמות ויצרך ומקפיד על בזיונו על אחת כמה וכמה (“that because of the stairs you have to broaden your steps, and even though it is not actually ‘revealing one’s nakedness’, for it is written ‘and make for yourself cloth trousers’ [Exodus XXVIII, 42]; nonetheless broadened steps are close to revealing nakedness... and the words are a deduction from a minor premise to a major premise: Just as the Torah says concerning these stones, which are not sentient to mind their shame, that you not engage in shaming conduct, your fellow, who is in the image of your Maker and does mind his shame, how much more so?”).

Only a society in which great care is taken to recognize and preserve the exalted status of the human dëmuth Eloqim, in large part by observing the Torah’s dinim or mishpatim as laid out in our parasha, is one worthy of carrying out the Divine service of sacrifices, qorbanoth (from the same root as qarov, “close”), through which both individuals and the society of which they are members are brought close to the Holy One, Blessed is He, and maintained in that state.

Parshath Mishpatim (Exodus XXI,1-XXIV,18) 2/14/07

A.

At G-d’s behest, Moshe, Aharon, his sons Nadav and Avihu, and the first Sanhedrin, the seventy elders selected by Moshe, approach the summit of the mountain, and behold a vision: ויראו את אלקי ישראל ותחת רגליו כמעשה לבנת הספיר וכעצם השמים לטהר (“And they saw the G-d of Israel, and under His feet was like a piece of sapphire brickwork, and like the very heavens in purity;” XXIV, 10).

Rashi explains the intended significance of the brickwork: היא היתה לפניו בשעת השעבוד לזכור צרתן של ישראל שהיו משועבדים במעשה לבנים (“[The brick] was before Him during [the Egyptian] enslavement, to recall the sufferings of Israel, who had been enslaved through brickwork”). G-d wanted to demonstrate to the leadership of Israel that throughout the entire trial of their suffering in Egypt, He had been נושא בעול, sharing in what they had gone through. They had never been alone the whole time.

Elsewhere, in the Talmud (ירושלמי סוכה פ"ד ה"ג), we find a number of drashoth involving this verse, and amongst them this one: אמר ר' מיישה, בבבל כתיב "כמראה אבן ספיר" ובמצרים כתיב "כמעשה לבנת הספיר" ללמדך כשם שהאבן קשה מן הלבינה כך שעבודה של בבל היתה קשה משעבודה של מצרים (“Said Rabbi Miyyasha, 'Concerning Babylon it is written "like the appearance of sapphire stone" [Ezekiel I, 26] and concerning Egypt it is written "like a piece of sapphire brickwork," to teach you that just as a stone is harder than a brick, so was the Babylonian enslavement harder than the Egyptian enslavement'”).

The Babylonian exile lasted only 70 years as ooposed to the 210 years of Egyptian exile. Even if we deal only with the worst period in Egypt, the actual time under the lash, that lasted some 80 years. How, then, was the Babylonian enslavement harder?

The Pnei Moshe’s comment on the above passage, וכפי תוקף הגלות היתה המראה (“and according to the effectivity of the exile was the vision”) does not, at first blush, seem to help us much. What was the difference in the “effectivity” of each respective exile?

B.

The whole point of the drasha hangs on the comparison between brick and stone. What other passages can enlighten us about such a difference?

In the first mishna in Bava Bathra, we find the following: השותפין שרצו לעשות מחיצה בחצר, בונין את הכותל באמצע וכו' בונין... גויל, זה נותן ג' טפחים וזה נותן ג' טפחים וכו' בלבינים, זה נותן טפח ומחצה וזה נותן טפח ומחצה וגו' (“The partners [in a piece of property] who desire to build a partition in the courtyard, build the wall in the middle.... [If] they build... [with] undressed stone, each one gives up three tfachim on his side... [If they build] with bricks, each one gives up a tefach and half;” a tefach is a linear unit equivalent to 9.6cm or 3.8 inches [בשיעור החזון אי"ש]).

Rashi explains the implication, שעובי כותל גויל ו' טפחים... ושל לבינים ג' (“that the thickness of a wall of [a single course of] undressed stone is six tfachim... and of bricks, three”). In other words, a standard-sized undressed stone in the Talmud is 2 tfachim longer than a standard-sized brick along any of the three axes. This being so, 2 x 2 x 2 tells us that a standard-sized undressed stone was eight times larger than a standard brick.

So?

C.

In Genesis XLVI, 27, we read, in part: כל הנפש לבית יעקב הבאה מצרימה שבעים (“All the souls of the house of Ya’aqov who were coming to Egypt [were] seventy”). The same number is repeated in Exodus I, 5. But this is not the end of the story.

The midrash (מדרש תנחומא פרשת שמות ג') picks up on the phrase איש וביתו באו (“[each] man came with his household”) in Exodus I, 1 to tell us: מלמד שלא ירד למצרים עד שמנה לפרץ ולחצרון, זה בן שנה וזה בן שתי שנים, וזיווג להם נשים )”It teaches that [Ya’aqov] did not descend to Egypt until he had taken account of [his grandchildren] Peretz and Chatzron, the first one year old and the second two, and matched them with wives;” אבל עיי' עץ יוסף כאן). Based on the well-known Talmudic principle that ביתו זו אשתו (“one’s household is one’s wife;” cf., e.g., גיטין נ"ב.), then, each male member of Ya’aqov’s household had a female counterpart; 70 x 2 = 140.

But this is also not definitive in terms of the number of exiles. There were female members of this household: Dina bath Ya’aqov, Serach bath Asher, and Yocheved; there was also Ya’aqov himself and his three surviving wives, Le’a, Bilha and Zilpa (already taken into account). Thus, a total of 63 wives can be added to the 70 original members, and so we arrive at a total of 133 people who entered the Egyptian exile.

But R’ Miyyasha is comparing the שעבוד, the enslavement, of one exile to the other. How many of the original exiles actually lived long enough to feel the Egyptian enslavement?

We know that Ya’aqov died before it began (Genesis XLIX, 33). Presumably (in the absence of any statement to the contrary) his wives also predeceased their children in the normal order of events. Then (Exodus I, 6): וימת יוסף וכל אחיו וכל הדור ההוא (“And Yosef and all his brothers, and all that generation, died”). So we have the twelve brothers, their wives, their sister Dina, and Ya’aqov and his wives, 29 in all, whom we must subtract from the total number who had entered exile, to get the number of original exiles who actually saw the enslavement: 104.

If we now turn to Jeremiah LII, 23, we read that: בשנת שמונה עשרה לנבוכדראצר מירושלם נפש שמונה מאות שלשים ושנים (“In the eighteenth year of Nevuchadretzar [there were exiled] from Jerusalem 832 souls”). This, as Rashi and the M’tzudath David tell us, constituted the last surviors of the siege of Jerusalem, driven straight into slavery with their king, Tzidqiyahu. Do the math; the final group of Babylonian exiles was exactly eight times as large as the group of original Egyptian exiles who had been enslaved by the Egyptians. According to its תוקף, its effectivity, the Babylonian exile was harder; it took effect immediately as they were exiled, and eight times as many people went from freedom into slavery.

D.

From this we can see that even in their metaphors, Chazal were careful to utilise exact language. They did not simply wax poetic; even their metaphors and similes have a precise quality to them, waiting for us to discover.