Mishpatim Parsha Thoughts
@@@@@@
The Law Of Death
An accidental killer is provided with escape: the urei miklat. A real murderer is spared no quarter; ‘even from My altar take him to die!’
Actually no punishment is deferred by the perp being on the mizbeach and doing Avodah. So why is murder singled out?
One answer is that this contrasts to providing accidental murderers with refuge. We explain that we are not being soft on murder: if he is a purposeful murderer, no consideration is given.
Another thought is that Pirkei Avos relates that Hillel saw a skull floating upon the water and said ‘As you drowned others, so were you drowned. And those who drowned you, will drown too’. What’s the idea? Hillel was teaching a principle; natural dynamics states that killers not die a natural death. They will die by violence. (Witness Mexico’s history; until recently, almost every president killed to reach his position. And each was killed in turn, either during presidency or even years later. The law is inescapable!)
This is the intention here: the Torah says that anyone who kills cannot live. He must needs die, no matter what – even from the altar take him to die!
@@@@@@
Passive Partnerships
The Torah uses the plural when forbidding hurting a widow or orphan; ‘lo taanun’. The Torah switches back to the singular tense in the next pasuk. Why?
The Ibn Ezra explains that that when a widow or orphan are abused, often others know of it and don’t step in. They aren’t doing evil themselves, so why get their hands dirty. Why make enemies? Why interfere? Sometimes they second guess, thinking perhaps the victim deserves – or needs – this treatment.
The Torah lays it down: if you do not protect the victim, you are party to crime. The Torah uses the plural tense because we are all accountable. Scary.
And remember: there are four types of orphan; those with no father, mother, neither father or mother… and then those orphans who have two parents….
@@@@@@
Bribery
‘Bribery blinds clear-headed men’. It is prohibited to accept a bribe even to rule fairly. Not only cash can be bribery, but even unusual benefit from a litigant and clouds a judge’s judgment. The Gemarah illustrates; if one of the litigants dusts a feather off the clothes of a judge he disqualifies him!
The Chazon Ish speaks of a common scenario; a godol opines on who ought to be chosen as rav. What do people say? ‘The candidate is a pupil of that gadol so he has a vested interest in him. Therefore this gadol cannot rule about the issue. Shochad!’
Basically all gedolim are disqualified to speak on any issue, as per this theory, for there always is some connection and interest between the gadol and the issue. (The man on the street, however, IS impartial. Particularly if he is a macher.) Why follow gedolim?
‘Bribery’ is a legal term, with halachik parameters. Some bribes disqualify a judge, others don’t. And sometimes his rulings are binding despite his bias, but he ought not to rule on the case. A judge who received a gift from a litigator unlinked to the court case explicitly or implicitly, may rule if he feels no obvious bias. Bribery is payment for judgment. All else does not disqualify a judge. Even a judge with a clear preference for one side may rule (although he is recommended not to take the case).
The logic is clear; we ask the top surgeon if we should operate or not and follow his advice even if we suspect that, as a surgeon, he has interests influencing his judgment. He is the authority, assumed to give us his honest opinion.
So too, we follow the judge and the gadol even whith a basis for bias; they are our authorities. That’s real life. Do we really think our own partialities stop us from making ethical decisions? Why would others’ do so?
@@@@@@
Why Me?
‘If a fire goes out, and finds thorns, and a grain-pile or wheat field has been burnt …’ Chazal explain the interesting phraseology here to hint that disaster strikes when thorns – sinners – lie around. When disaster happens, however, it hits good people – grain-piles and wheat. And it hits them first, as it states ‘…has been burnt’; i.e. they have already burnt early on. (Baba Kama 60A)
The Meiri explains that the Gemara is telling us a tzaddik ought to care about turning sinners to good, for he stands to suffer the consequences of their actions first.
Why indeed? Don’t troublemakers ought to be licked first, not tzaddikkim?!
Tzaddikim are close to Hashem. They live in Hashem’s orbit, under His watch. Therefore Hashem’s anger affects them immediately. Other people, more removed from Hashem and His direct influence, are affected slowly.
So this spur to tzaddikim to be mekarev sinners, also expresses their closeness to Hashem; how they are in close contact with Him.
Another thought is that Hashem is quick to chasten tzaddikkim, who respond readily. Sinners respond rarely and slowly, so Hashem prefers not wasting His reproof upon them.
Again, a statement to how beloved tzaddikim are to Hashem.
In addition, Hashem tends to the Tzaddik first, prodding him to repent, because He cares about him more. A parent will smack their child faster than a teacher will hit a pupil, (even in the old days, when smacking was condoned), because he cares more about the child keeping straight.
A friend expressed that if the tzaddik wasn’t impacted first, the rasha getting punished will not be helped by the tzaddik, who will think ‘The sinner had it coming to him!’. Only by being in the same boat will the righteous guide the sinners!
Why do the righteous suffer? Here is an armful of reasons!
@@@@@@
Neither Black Nor White
An ox kills another for the first time. The law is to split the goring ox and the dead one between the two owners. This is not always literally true; if the dead body is worth more than the live ox, does the gorer’s owner profit? No, but when the two oxen were of equal value before death then they split them both.
Why is this appropriate? Why doesn’t the gorer’s owner need to pay up?
Many things in life are grey in nature. There is great ambiguity here: a fellow takes his ox for a walk, – entirely appropriate, for it had always been docile – and ended up with a debacle. On the other hand, this was not an accident; an attack was made. It may not be the owner’s fault, but the other was targeted and hurt.
The Torah says that we cannot ask the owner to pay in full, nor must the victim absorb the loss. We share the loss and remaining money, for all partner in this sad episode. This settles all the issues fairest overall, while taking into account the grey, dappled nature of the matter.
Humans like things black or white. Reality, however, is usually a bit grey…
@@@@@@
Who Dunnit?
‘If he did not ambush his fellow man, rather Hashem caused [the murder] to be by his hand, then I will set a place for him to run’
This reads as if Hashem Himself provides refuge for the murderer. Yet Hashem told US to create cities of refuge. Why is it attributed to Him?
The Torah says that ‘Hashem caused it to be by his hand’: Hashem sort of brought about the incident. Sometimes, in Hashem’s stewardship of this world, He sets someone up. The murderer need answer for his actions, for they were his choice, but he had also been stood up. Hashem says ‘Yes, I orchestrated it, and therefore I will provide him refuge’.
As the murder is His, so is the refuge.
What’s the lesson here? Perhaps that Hashem guides history, and takes responsibility for it as well, ensuring that accounts are righted in the end.
©2014
kollel parshah | Tiferet Ramot 83-21, Jerusalem, Israel, 97290
Web Version
Forward
Unsubscribe
Powered by Mad Mimi ®