Mishpatim : Laws of Slaves, Lending, and Property

[muman613]

Shalom,

This week we are reading the Parasha of Mishpatim. This just so happened to be my Birthday/Bar Mitzvah portion. Tomorrow is my Hebrew Birthday Shvat 23...

In this parasha we read about the many commandments which Hashem gave to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai. In all, 613 commandments and all their details were taught to Moshe while he was on the mountain for the 40 days. When Moshe returned to the people he spent the days teaching these laws to the judges which he assembled in last weeks Parasha of Yitro. The Jewish court of 70 wise men, called the Sanhedrin, were taught all the intricacies of the laws and the people were taught what was written in the Chumash (5 Books of Moshe).

This parasha contains 53 Mitzvot, only 2-3 other parshas have this amount of mitzvah, there are 23 positive and 30 negative laws in Parasha Mishpatim.

What is interesting is that this portion starts with an odd commandment. Concerning the Jewish slave there are several interesting points. A Jewish slave is only permitted to be owned for six years before he must be sent away. In the Torah the condition of slavery was intended to be a punishment for people who owed others and could not pay back. Instead of incarcerating people for stealing or embezzling, the Jew would be sentenced to be a slave in the house of another Jew. The oral laws relate how good a Jewish slave must be treated in his masters house. It is famously stated that if there was only one pillow in the house that the slave would be able to use it rather than the master. A master could not mistreat his slave. There would be cases of Jewish slaves who would, after their six years of service, would not want to leave their masters home. The Torah does not want this. The Jewish slave who wants to remain in his servitude would have his ear nailed to the doorway.


Rabbi Richmans talk from a year ago:



I hope to talk about more of the mitzvot of Mishpatim before Shabbat this week... I am happy to know that I will get an Aliyah this Shabbat... My Rabbi knows how important this parasha is to me...

[muman613]

http://www.torah.org/learning/rabbis-notebook/5758/mishpatim.html

Mishpatim - Jewish Slavery?
By Rabbi Aron Tendler

Following the giving of the Torah in last week's Parsha, the Torah pauses in its chronological presentation of the events to introduce laws of social interaction and justice. A full spectrum of social laws are presented in Parshas Mishpatim: the Jewish slave and maidservant, manslaughter, personal injury and damages, custodianship, seduction, occult practices, money lending, and the three main holidays, to name but a few.

1) Why are these laws discussed at this juncture in the Torah; first conclude the story of Revelation and then discuss social law?

2) A nation that had just been freed from centuries of bondage should find slavery abhorrent, and the suggestion that they might engage in the enslavement of their own brethren deeply insulting. Why begin the body of social law and justice with the emotionally challenging cases of the Jewish slave and maidservant?

Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch offers a perspective on this Parsha that is fundamental to understanding the entire Torah. The last five of the 10 Commandments focus on the laws dealing with human relations and interaction. The presence of G-d in religious practices and observances is standard for all religions; however, the total inclusion of G-d in our familial and social lives, is unique to observant Judaism. As we know from the famous story of Hillel and the convert, the clearest expression of Hashem in our lives is when His wishes are manifest in our social engagements and behaviors. Therefore, immediately following the conferral of the last five commandments that focus on social law, the Torah presents the more detailed framework of social and personal responsibilities found in this weeks Parsha.

If you or I were to write a legal and moral constitution for society, we would likely choose to begin with a set of laws that reflect the greatness of our heritage and the goals toward which we aspire. We might select the laws of charity or the sanctity of the Bais Hamikdash. We might highlight the laws of honor and awe for parents or the respect necessary for monarchs and judges. We might even begin with a presentation of the sanctity of life and the rights of personal property. However, we certainly wouldn't have chosen the laws of an apprehended thief who, unable to pay back what he stole, is sold to another Jew as a means of rehabilitation and recompense! We certainly would not begin the body of social, familial, and personal law with the Jewish maidservant who is sold to another family by her own father! In fact, the opposite is true. The laws dealing with the Jewish slave and maidservant are the very first laws in Parshas Mishpatim!

Our adherence to Torah and Rabbinic law is fundamental to the sanctity and preservation of Judaism. We govern our lives by the Halacha because we believe that both the Written and the Oral Torah were given to Moshe on Har Sinai. If we approach the study of the Written Torah independent of the Oral Law, our analysis, study, critique, and conclusions would be 100% wrong. Having been created in the image of G-d, we delve into Hashem's instructions in an attempt to better understand our responsibilities and how we might emulate divine actions and intent. The will of G-d can only be interpreted while contiguously cross referencing its associate oral explanation. To do any less is to pursue our own image rather than the image of G-d. By introducing social law with the emotionally imposing cases of the Jewish slave and maidservant, it demands that we seek out the Oral Law for further information and understanding. Can this be? Can we enslave another human being created in the image of Hashem? Can a father truly sell his daughter for so much barter or cash?

.
.
.

[muman613]

[muman613]

[muman613]

Rabbi Ginsburghs newest Parasha Mishpatim talk, in Ivrit with English subs...

[muman613]

Explanation of the laws of the Jewish slave...

[muman613]

Interesting music and commentary on Parasha Mishpatim:

[muman613]

Rabbi Svirsky on the Kabbalah of Parasha Mishpatim:

[muman613]

Rabbi Winston covers some of the deeper ideas from the Zohar...

[muman613]

Here is a nice explanation of some points concerning the laws of Eved Ivri (Hebrew Servant} from Rabbi Avigdor Miller..

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11279

The Judgements That You Shall Put Before Them

Why is the first civil law in Mishpatim about a Jewish servant?
From HaRav Avigdor Miller zts"l

The very first of the laws which were taught (in addition to the laws of Pesach and of matters that memorialize the Redemption from Egypt) to Israel are the laws of the Hebrew servant.

Two reasons can be understood for the choice of this law as the first of the Mishpatim.

1) Compassion on the lowly or the oppressed is a fundamental Torah-attitude, and it is constantly pointed out in the Sacred Scriptures as one of the chief attributes of Hashem. Because of this aspect, the laws of the Hebrew slave deserve the first mention

2) The laws of the Hebrew slave are a memorial of the Going Out of Egypt. The Egyptians called our fathers “Hebrew” (not Israelites) (1:16, 2:6, and elsewhere), and the Torah treatment of the “Hebrew slave” is a parallel demonstration of Hashem’s compassion upon His people in Egypt. “On the seventh year you shall send him away free from you. And when you send him away free from you, you should not send him away empty-handed. You shall furnish him from your flock and from your grain-pile and from your wine-press” (Dvarim 15: 12-14).

This is a memorial of the deliverance from the bondage of Egypt: “And when you shall depart, you shall not depart empty-handed” (3:2 1), as Hashem had foretold to Abraham: “And afterward they shall go out with great wealth” (Breshis 15:14).

And the Torah adds: “And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt... therefore I command you this matter today.” (Dvarim 15:15)

Thus even the Mishpatim serve as a reminder of the Going Out of Egypt.

Just as Israel did not leave Egypt empty-handed, so also does the Hebrew slave not leave empty-handed from his six years of servitude.

3) The Eved Ivri should correctly be called Eved Yisraeli, for in the language of the Jews the word Ivri is never used except when speaking to gentiles.

But the Israelite bondsman is called by the name that the Egyptians called our fathers in Egypt. Thus the Eved Ivri is used by the Torah to commemorate the bondage of Israel in Egypt.(A Nation is Born)

[muman613]

Regarding giving to our poor 'brothers and sisters' the Torah says the following:

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading.asp?AID=15564&p=complete

24. When you lend money to My people, to the poor person [who is] with you, you shall not behave toward him as a lender; you shall not impose interest upon him.
25. If you take your neighbor's garment as security, until sunset you shall return it to him,
26. for it is his only covering; it is his garment for his skin. With what shall he lie? And it shall be [that] if he cries out to Me, I will hear because I am gracious.

Here are some commentaries on this Mitzvot:

http://www.shlomokluger.com/Kluger-Books/Imrei-Shefer/Mishpotim.html

(22,24) When you lend money to My people, to the poor person with you, you shall not be towards him as a lender; you shall not impose interest upon him.

In the Midrash it says that our posuk is explained by the posuk in Tehillim (112,5) “Good is the man who is gracious and lends, who conducts his affairs with judgement” - and there no one who is not obligated to Hashem. What is the Midrash saying?

It seems to me that the Midrash had a difficulty with the language of the posuk, which says “you shall not be towards him like a lender”. If the posuk means to say that it is forbidden to demand money from the poor person if he does not have it, then it should have said, “do not be towards him a lender”. Why does it say “like a lender”? Also, the order of the posuk is strange; it should have first said “do not impose upon him interest”, and then it should have said “do not be towards him like a lender”, because imposing interest takes place at the beginning of the loan, and the prohibition to demand the money is later, when the time of repayment arrives.

Therefore the Midrash explains that the posuk comes to teach us that not only is it forbidden to demand money from him, but even if you have already lent money to a poor person once and he had no money to repay the loan, and he comes to borrow from you again, do not behave towards him the way most people would, and say to him: Behold, you are already in debt to me and you have not yet paid. Granted that I am not going to demand money from you, but nevertheless I’m not obligated to lend to you further. Hashem commanded that one should not say this, because even though he is not demanding payment, nevertheless, he is showing that he has not yet forgiven him the loan, and in his mind he is still obligated to him. Instead, Hashem commanded him that he should put in his mind that he is not a lender to the poor person at all - that he has already forgiven the first loan and it as if he had never owed him, and he is obligated to lend to him again.

This what it means “he shall not be to him like a lender” - even though he is not actually claiming from him, nevertheless, he should not appear as if he is lending to him by refusing to lend to him again, but rather he should forgive the first loan if the poor person does not have money to repay it, and lend to him a second time. And therefore it now says that “you shall not impose upon him interest”, because since he is obligated to lend to him a second time, he should not say to him "You also owe me from before, and if I lend to you again, at the very least you should pay me interest", because also this the Torah forbids.

Now, the Midrash had a difficulty with the posuk “Good is the man who is gracious and lends”, because these two things are contradictory - because ‘gracious’ implies giving for free, as Chazal say in many places, whereas a lender implies that he intends that the borrower should repay him. If so, how can one be both gracious and a lender? Also, it is not clear how the judgement which is mentioned in the end of the posuk - “who conducts his affairs with judgement” - is relevant here.

But it is well known that the way a person conducts himself, Hashem conducts Himself towards that person. It is also well known, that a person is required to cling to the traits of Hashem. Like Chazal taught, that just as Hashem is gracious, so too you should be gracious, and so on. Now, Hashem bestows good on a person in order that he will be able to do Hashem’s will, and to observe Torah and mitzvos. Thus, because of this goodness that he receives, a person is obligated to Hashem to observe Torah and mitzvos, and so if he transgresses the Torah, then he has not yet paid his obligation to Hashem, and so it would be fitting if Hashem would not bestow upon him any further goodness. This is what people are accustomed to do, that if someone is obligated to his friend and does not repay him, his friend will not lend to him again. But Hashem forgives the first 'loan' and lends to him afresh, in order that he might still repent his ways. Therefore, since Hashem conducts himself in this fashion, a person is obligated to conduct himself the same way, and thus he will merit that Hashem will continue to forgive the first and lend to him anew.

This is what the posuk in Tehillim is saying, “Good is the man who is gracious and lends”, that the reason why he is called good is because he is gracious and forgives that which the person is already obligated to him and gives it to him as a free gift, and lends to him again. Thus he “conducts his affairs with judgement”, with the judgement of Hashem. With the same rule the Hashem uses with a person, forgiving the first 'loan', so too this person conducts himself and forgives the earlier loan - this is a good man. And since there is no one who is not obligated to Hashem, everyone is obligated to conduct themselves this way. This is the meaning of the Midrash.

http://www.aish.com/tp/i/gl/139180624.html

Mishpatim(Exodus 21-24)
Complete Kindness

In the Portion of Mishpatim the Torah instructs us with regard to lending money to our fellow in need. The Torah states: "When you lend money to My people, to the poor person who is with you, do not act toward him as a creditor; do not lay interest upon him. If you take your fellow's garment as security until sunset, you shall return it to him. For it alone is his clothing, it is his garment for his skin - in what should he lie down? - so it will be if he cries out to Me, I shall listen, for I am compassionate." (1)

On superficial analysis these Mitzvot seem to be fairly straightforward and easy to understand, however Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz derives a very important insight about the Torah's attitude to chesed (kindness) from these verses: (2) This passage is dealing with a person who fulfills the great kindness of helping his friend by lending him money, and yet the Torah gives him a number of Mitzvot to ensure that he perform this chesed in the most optimum way and not diminish its effect. It is instructive to analyze these verses more carefully to note their common theme:

"Do not act toward him as a creditor." Rashi, based on the Mechilta, explains that this means that if the lender knows that the borrower is, at present, unable to pay back the loan, then the lender should not make him feel pressured about it, rather he should behave as if the loan never took place, so as not to embarrass the borrower. "Do not lay interest upon him." This refers to the prohibition of lending money with interest (ribbis). Rav Shmuelevitz cites a number of Rabbinic sources that emphasize the seriousness of lending with interest; for example he brings a Medrash that for every sin there are Malachim (angels) in Heaven who try to find a merit for the sinner, the one exception to this case being that of ribbis. Rav Shmuelievitz points out that the severity for lending with interest is difficult to understand. It is clear that even one who lends with a small amount of interest, is doing a great chesed to the borrower who is in urgent need of money immediately and is prepared to pay the extra interest at a later date. Nonetheless the Torah treats this person very strictly.

"If you take your fellow's garment as security until sunset, you shall return it to him." When the borrower is unable to pay back the loan the lender is permitted to take his personal items as collateral to ensure payment of the loan. However, he must return the items when they are needed by the borrower. For example, clothing is needed in the daytime, therefore the lender may only keep it in the night and must return it in the day so that the borrower can use it. This law seems to nullify the whole function of collateral, for if the borrower can still use it when he needs it, he will be far less motivated to pay back the loan. Nonetheless, the Torah demands that the lender respect the borrower's basic needs.
.
.
.