February 25, 2006 Parshas Mishpatim

27 Shevat 5766 Volume 20, Number 18

T
Freedom and Geula Hashkafic
Thought
The Townsman and the
Avraham Engelson
wenty years ago, American While the Book of Shemos is The Jewish People eventually
Jewry pressured the Soviet referred to as the “Book of received the Torah and built the Villager: Yeshayahu vs.
Government to allow Russian Redemption,” most of its sec- Mishkan after leaving Egypt, Yehezkel

Jews to leave the Soviet Union.
They rallied behind the pop-
ular slogan: “Let my people
go.” While these words
echoed the first half of
Moshe’s famous plea to
Pharaoh on behalf of the
Commandments
enslaved Jewish People, the
I
tions are in fact not related to thus returning to the spiritual Rabbi Hayyim Angel
level of the avos, and as a n the year that king Uzziah died
consequence, Shemos is I saw also the Lord sitting upon
referred to as the “Book a throne, high and lifted up, and his
The Ten train filled the temple. Above it
of Redemption.” Shemos stood the seraphim; each one had
in recounting the Jewish six wings; with two he covered his
People’s journey to the face, and with two he covered his
and civil laws spiritual heights of the feet, and with two he did fly. And

are both equal

slogan omitted the second avos describes this one cried to another, and said,
half of Moshe’s request to “redemption.” However, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of
Pharaoh, namely, that after
being let free the Jewish
expressions of Parshas Mishpatim does hosts; the whole earth is full of His
not fit into the Ramban’s
glory! (Yeshayahu 6:1-3).

People “will [then] serve Me
[God]” (Shemos 7:26).
Moshe’s request highlights
the fact that God did not only
want to bring the Jews out of
slavery physically; He also
wanted to “free” the Jewish
Nation spiritually by making
them His slaves.
Hashem’s will
the Exodus from Egypt. The
Ramban explains that Hashem
had two aims in redeeming the
Jews: He wished to both take
them out of Egypt and give
them their spiritual mission.
interpretation, primarily It is difficult not to be awestruck by
this magnificent throne room
describing civil laws as vision of Yeshayahu, permanently
opposed to the leaving of enshrined in our Kedushah liturgy
Egypt or the building of the and fittingly read as the Haftarah
Mishkan. for Yitro, which contains God’s
The Nesivos Shalom explains revelation of the Ten
Parshas Mishpatim’s “place” in
Commandments. Chazal compare
and contrast this vision with that of
Sefer Shemos by describing the Yehezkel’s famous vision of the
“ma’aseh ha-merkavah” (found at
the beginning of Sefer Yehezkel);
continued on page 3

this analysis can enable us to better

T
T abl e Torah Hardly a Mundane Matter
he first Rashi in Parshas Mishpatim connects An additional theme of this week’s parsha is the The verses that discuss compassion toward one’s
continued on page 2
Daniel Solomon

the lofty spiritual events of Parshas Yisro,
namely the giving of the Ten Commandments, to
Parshas Mishpatim, which deals with seemingly
mundane civil law. Rashi’s message is that for the
Jew, religious devotion involves not only lofty spiri-
tual practice but also seemingly ordinary, worldly
matters such as the laws of damages and money
lending.
NEW YORK CITY SHABBOS TIMES
Candles Dawn Sunrise Shema (MA)
importance of showing sensitivity, kindness, and fellow Jew coupled with the close proximity of the
mercy toward one’s fellow Jew, which the Torah parsha to the Ten Commandments teach us that
explicitly connects to the Exodus from Egypt, although today we are unable to experience the
warning us, “… to taunt or oppress a stranger, for miraculous events of the Exodus from Egypt, we
you were strangers in Egypt.” Furthermore, the can still attain equally grand spiritual heights by per-
Ramban believes the mitzvah of freeing a Jewish forming mitzvos between ourselves and our fellows.
bondsman is a reminder of Israel’s own freedom
from Egypt.
Shema (Gra) Tefilla (MA) Tefilla (Gra) Chatzot Mincha Ged. Shkia Havdala

This issue is sponsored in honor of the recent engagement of Ari Spiegler & Katie Brinn. Mazel Tov!
5:23 P.M. 5:24 A.M. 6:36 A.M. 8:46 A.M. 9:22 A.M. 9:54 A.M. 10:18 A.M. 12:09 A.M. 12:37 PM. 5:42 P.M. 6:23 P.M.
Is there a Place for
T
Logic in Torah?
he Midrash1 states that the torah
Ephraim Meth
was given at dawn, while the
mishpatim, laws, were given in the
evening. This symbolizes the sym-
biosis between torah and laws.2 Just
as we cannot easily claim that dawn
precedes evening or that evening
precedes dawn, we cannot accord
primacy solely to torah or to mish-
patim.
Clearly, the Midrash is treating torah
and mishpatim as subcategories of
the Torah value system given to
Moshe at Mount Sinai. The Midrash
does not, however, clarify the distinc-
tion between torah and mishpatim.
Indeed, the classical commentaries
remain mysteriously silent about this
distinction, even
We cannot
when both
torah and mish-
ignore the
patim are writ-
ten in the same
crucial
verse.3 In light of
contribution of
the symbiosis
discussed by the
human logic and
Midrash, I will
homiletically
law towards
discriminate
our true
between torah
and mishpatim,
leaving a discus- understanding
of Torah
sion of the
words’ simple
meaning for a
later date.4
R. Eliyahu Meir Bloch5 eloquently
articulates one of the largest intel-
lectual problems that confront seri-
ous Torah scholars. He points out
that at one extreme the Torah often
presents laws with details and dis-
tinctions that seem beyond the grasp
of human intelligence. At the same
time, we find many Torah laws that
are tasteful and appealing to our
common sense and to our logic-ori-
ented minds. These two extremes
seem to provide us with a mixed
message: do human logic and com-
mon sense really have any place in
explaining the significance of Torah
laws, or is it the fine details that seem
beyond our grasp that are really out
EINAYIM L’TORAH • 2
of place?
These two extremes, says R. Bloch,
spawn two faulty approaches to
Torah study. Adherents of the first
extreme refuse to acknowledge par-
allels between Torah and common
sense; consequently, they are unable
to decide any matter with certainty,
since subjective certainty relies on its
appeal to common sense. In con-
trast, adherents of the second
extreme attempt to explain the
entire Torah in terms of economics,
law, sociology, etc.; however, they fail
to adequately explain the fine dis-
tinctions that are so integral to
halakha. R. Bloch names the second
approach higgayon ha-mishpati,
legal thought.
The correct
approach to
Torah study,
taking into
account the
existence of
b o t h
extremes, is a
synthesis of
appreciation
for the Torah’s
transcendence
with aware-
ness of its
innate sensi-
bility. Just as
mishpatim were given after torah, we
cannot impose our preconceived legal
schemata upon the corpus of Torah
literature. However, just as night pre-
cedes dawn, we cannot ignore the
crucial contribution of human logic
and law towards our true understand-
ing of torah.
A second homiletic interpretation
can be suggested based on the writ-
ings of R. Shimon Shkop.6 R. Shkop
is bothered by an apparent contra-
diction between two laws. On the
one hand, we are instructed to act
stringently when uncertainty arises
regarding prohibitions of biblical
origin.7 However, we are also
instructed to rule leniently in mone-
tary matters. For example, when one
continued on page 3
The Townsman and the Villager continued from page 1
understand these visions as well as
prophecy in general.
In Haggigah (13b), Rava claims that
Yehezkel and Yeshayahu saw the
same vision. He compares
Yehezkel to a villager who saw the
king, and Yeshayahu, to a towns-
man who saw the king. Although
there are significant ostensible dif-
ferences between the visions of
these two prophets, namely that
Yehezkel describes the merkavah
vision at great length while
Yeshayahu devotes but a few verses
to the same description, Rava links
the two. What exactly is the mean-
ing of Rava’s cryptic statement?
Rashi in Haggigah, and Abarbanel
(introduction to Yeshayahu, p. 4),
suggest that Yeshayahu was accus-
tomed to audiences with human
kings. Yehezkel, in contrast, lived
in the Babylonian exile. Since
Yeshayahu was familiar with the
experience of an awesome, power-
ful human leader, he was relatively
less stunned by the vision of the
King of kings than Yehezkel and
consequently described it more
tersely.
Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim III:6)
proposes two additional interpreta-
tions: Yeshayahu’s audience may
have understood the vision imme-
diately because they were on a high
spiritual level; hence, he needed to
spend only a few verses talking
about the vision. In contrast,
Yehezkel needed to describe the
vision in greater detail since his
audience did not understand and
therefore needed elaboration.
Alternatively, perhaps Yeshayahu
himself attained a higher level of
prophecy, and therefore was not as
overwhelmed by the vision as was
Yehezkel.
Tosafot (on Haggigah 13b) present
another possibility: Yehezkel’s audi-
ence believed that nobody would
receive prophetic revelation in
Babylonia. Therefore, Yehezkel
elaborated on his vision to con-
vince his listeners that he indeed
experienced the Shekhinah.
The foregoing interpretations are
valuable insights into the nature of
prophecy. Two explain how the
personal backgrounds of the
prophets may have affected their
prophetic experiences (Rashi-
Abarbanel, Rambam #2); the other
two pertain to the need for
prophets to express themselves in a
manner appropriate to their audi-
ences (Rambam #1, Tosafot).
Furthermore, several mefarshim
stress how a prophet’s historical
context helps shape the way he per-
ceives God. For example, Rashi
(on Yehezkel 1:4) observes that
since Yehezkel was prophesying at
the time of the destruction of
Jerusalem, Yehezkel perceived God
in a “violent storm.” Malbim (on
Yehezkel 1:4) adds that Yeshayahu
saw God on His throne, since the
Mikdash was still standing at that
time; in contrast, Yehezkel was in
exile, and therefore saw God “on
wheels,” moving away from
Jerusalem. Abarbanel (on
Yeshayahu 6:2) quotes Kuzari with
a similar idea.
In their subsequent discussion of
Rava’s statement, Chazal observe
that the exile caused the angels in
Yehezkel’s vision to decline: they
had only four wings, whereas
Yeshayahu had perceived the angels
with six wings (Haggigah 13b).
Similarly, a Yerushalmi (Sukkah 4:3,
54c) concludes that the Babylonian
servitude must have been worse
than the Egyptian slavery. They
derive this from the manner in
which the respective communities
perceived God: the Israelites in the
desert perceived God as “livnat ha-
sappir,” a brick of sapphire
(Shemot 24:10). Yehezkel, in con-
trast, describes God as an even ha-
sappir, a stone of sapphire
(Yehezkel 1:26). Since stones are
harder than bricks, the Yerushalmi
concludes that the Jews in
Babylonia must have been suffering
more.
Thus, we have seen that the
prophets’ portrayal of Truth is
affected by personal background,
the nature of the audience, and
historical context. Next week we
will discuss how these issues relate
to Moshe Rabbenu’s superior
prophecy.
Is there
vhv, ohn,a Place for Logic in torah?
litigant claims that he definitely owns the disput-
ed object, and the second litigant says that he per-
haps owns it, we award the object to its present
holder even if he is the uncertain one. R. Shkop
asks if indeed the awardee is uncertain, shouldn’t
the possibility of violating the biblical prohibition
of theft mandate us to rule stringently and force
him to cede the object to his opponent?
R. Shkop suggests that “monetary mishpatim are
unlike all the mitzvos of the Torah. Regarding all
mitzvos, our main obligation is to fulfill the mitz-
vah. However, in monetary matters our obliga-
tion to fulfill the mitzvah is preceded by a legal
obligation to clarify who legally deserves the
money. Thus, our lenient rulings in monetary
Freedom and Geula continued from page 1
intimate connection between civil laws and
the giving of the Torah. He cites the well-
known explanation of Rashi that the
“Vav” in the first word of Parshas
Mishpatim connects the civil laws located
in this week’s parsha with the Ten
Commandments recounted in last week’s
parsha. The connection between the two
Torah sections shows that the laws con-
tained in both sections are linked and of
equal importance. The relationship
between them is also apparent from the
following verse in Tehilim: Magid Devarav
L’Yaakov Chukav U’Mishpatav L’Yisrael
(Psalm 147). This verse describes the
telling over of Hashem’s Devarim, or com-
mandments to the Jewish nation, as well as
the giving of His Mishpatim, or civil laws.
From the juxtaposition in this verse
between Dvarav (from the root of
Devarim) and Mishpatav (from the root of
Mishpatim), it is apparent that the com-
continued from page 2
matters stem from their legal, rather than
halakhic, status. Once a person legally possesses
an object, he cannot be halakhically treated as a
thief, even if he is uncertain about his rights to
that object.
There is a parallel between the ideas of R. Bloch
and R. Shkop. Both suggest that there is a synthe-
sis between legal logic and the transcendence of
the Torah. On the intellectual plane, R. Bloch
notes that certainty is linked to a logical apprecia-
tion of the Torah, while practically, R. Shkop
points out that halakhic laws are based on an
already present legal status. Both agree, however,
that the Torah is the primary determinant of our
ultimate values.
mandments and civil laws are both equal
expressions of Hashem’s will.
The connection between Parshas
Mishpatim and Har Sinai indicates that
obeying civil laws is a spiritual activity.
Imposing taxes to support communal
services and other types of civil laws is
required to help maintain a stable society.
While the Torah’s civil laws accomplish
many of the same functions as govern-
mental civil laws, the Nesivos Shalom
explains that there is a qualitative differ-
ence between the two types of laws. While
gentile laws are man made and pragmatic
in nature, Hashem’s civil laws are enacted
as expressions of His intention of how the
world should run, and in fact, Hashem
involves Himself with disputes involving
civil law, as the Talmud says, “The
Shekhinah resides with three who sit in
judgment” (Berachos 6a). The Shekhinah
comes down to the world to deal with civil
Want Einayim in
your shul?
Please email us at
pr@einayim.org
1. Shemos Rabbah 30:11, based on Shemos 19:16
2. R. Shlomo Kluger, in his introduction to Sefer Mili d-
Nezikin
3. See, for example,
contBamidbar 15:16
pagand
e 1 Devarim 17:11.
inued from
4. R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, in Horeb, defines torah as
“fundamental principles relating to mental and spiritual
preparation for life,” and mishpatim as “declarations of
justice towards human beings.”
5. Shiurei Da’as, vol. 1, p. 7
6. Shaarei Yosher 5:1
7. Rambam, Hilchos Mamrim 1:5
judgments, just as it came down to Har
Sinai to give the Jewish Nation the com-
mandments of the Torah.
It emerges that Sefer Shemos is indeed a
thematically consistent book. It describes
the Jews’ transformation from an enslaved
people in Egypt to the servants of
Hashem. The Jewish People needed to
receive the Torah at Har Sinai along with
its civil laws in order to develop into true
servants.
Hopefully, reading about the freedom of
our forefathers and remembering the
recent freedom of Russian Jewry will out-
line for us, the Jewish nation, what we
should be doing. Just like the Jews who
left Egypt, we too must try to improve
ourselves spiritually by enhancing our level
of Avodas Hashem and obeying all of
Hashem’s commandments—especially the
civil ones.
PARSHAS MISHPATIM • 3
Parsha Points in Mishpatim
Ephraim Meth
• Mishpatim means “laws.” The following laws are discussed in this week’s parsha: Servitude: Jewish
man and maid-servant. Murder: Deliberate and accidental murder, murder of parents, murder of
slaves, oxen murdering people or slaves, and murder of thieves. Moral misdeeds: Penalties for kid-
napping, sorcery, bestiality, worship of other entities, and seduction. Favoritism of judges, truthful Einayim L’Torah
testimony, falsehood, and bribery. Cursing: Cursing parents and others. Torts: Payment for induc- 500 W. 185th Street
ing miscarriage, personal damage, and for damage to slaves. Payment for damages by pits, oxen, New York, NY 10033
and fire; collateral; returning lost objects. Theft: Restitution for theft of oxen, sheep, and ordinary www.einayim.org
objects. Guardians: Payments of the altruistic guardian, paid guardian, and borrower. Pain: Pain editor@einayim.org
of a convert, orphan, or widow. Compassion for animals. Diet: Non-kosher meat and the prohibi-
tion of meat and milk. Times and ceremonies: Shemittah, Shabbat, three annual festivals, first Executive Director
Editors In Chief
fruits, and first-born redemption. Canaanites: Exhortation to destroy Canaanite idols. Exhortation Yehuda Brand
against treaties with Canaanites. Yehuda Brand
M a n a g i nFriedman
Pinchas g Editor
• The Jews enter a blood-covenant with Hashem. They agree to obey and heed His word, which Josh Weinberg
Moshe reads to them. Moshe offers sacrifices for them. Executive Editors
Zev
A s s o Koller
ciate Editors
• Moshe ascends into the cloud that surrounds Mount Sinai. He leaves Aharon and Chur behind to
DovidVogel
Josh Skversky
adjudicate disputes in his absence. Zev Koller
Josh Weinberg
Dovid
Oren Kaufman Skversky
Oren Kaufman
Literary Editors
LEitan
i t e r a rBitter
y Editors
Eitan Bitter
Yossi Farkas
Yossi Farkas
Yosef Lindell
Yosef Lindell
Jonah Shulman
Jonah Shulman
Public Relations
Public Relations
Omer
Omer Antman Antman
Benjamin
Benjamin Fakheri Fakheri
Ephraim Meth
Ephraim Meth
Yoni Noble
David New
Yoni Noble
Design & Layout
D e s i g n &Content
Graphic Layout
Graphic
646.387.8573 Content
646.387.8573
Staff Writers
SDovi
taff W riters
Bergman
Dovi Bergman
Noah Cheses
Noah Cheses
Avraham Engelson
Avraham Engelson
David Moster
David Moster
Leib Zalesch
Leib Zalesch

Einayim L’Torah
is the weekly publication of the
Student Organization of Yeshiva,
the student council of the
Mazer Yeshiva Program of
Yeshiva University.
Menachem Butler, President.

EINAYIM L’TORAH • 4 PARSHAS MISHPATIM