Thou Shall Not Steal and Other Vague Platitudes

And these are the laws that you should place before them. (Sefer Shemot 21:1)

1. The laws of the parasha are derived from Sinai

The commandments of the Torah can be divided into two groups – commandments that speak to our relationship with Hashem and those that regulate our relationships with other people. The major portion of Parashat Mishpatim is devoted predominately to laws that are from this second group.

The above passage introduces the laws of the parasha. This introductory passage is atypical. Generally, in introducing Hashem’s communication of laws to Moshe, a different introductory phrase is employed. The more common introduction is “And Hashem spoke to Moshe saying: Speak to Bnai Yisrael” followed by the specific commandments communicated to Moshe. Our Sages note our parasha’s departure from this formula and analyze it in detail.

Rashi begins his analysis of the passage by noting it states “And these are the laws.” He quotes the midrash’s comment that the conjunction “and” suggests a common characteristic shared by the laws presented in the parasha and those previously discussed. What is this common characteristic? The midrash responds that the laws in the last parasha – presumably the laws in the Decalogue – are derived from Sinai. The conjunction informs us that the laws being introduced are also derived from Sinai.[1]

This is a remarkable interpretation of the intent of the conjunction! Rashi points out elsewhere in his commentary that all of the mitzvot of the Torah are derived from Sinai.[2] In quoting the midrash’s interpretation of the conjunction, he is suggesting that in this instance we would not apply this generality. Because we would not naturally assume that the laws in the parasha are derived from Sinai, the conjunction is required. The conjunction informs us that these laws are to be included in the general assumption. These laws are also derived from Sinai.

What is special about these laws? Why would we assume that they are not derived from Sinai? Why does the Torah specifically alert us that these laws are derived from Sinai? Divrei David offers an interesting response to this question. His response requires a more careful analysis of the type of laws discussed in our parasha.

When you acquire a Hebrew manservant he shall serve for six years and in the seventh year he shall go free without making payment. (Sefer Shemot 21:2)

2. The laws of the parasha regulate civil and commercial interactions

The above passage initiates the first section of laws in the parasha. This section regulates the treatment of male and female bond servants. The section discusses the rights of these servants, the length of period of their servitude, and responsibilities of the master. Divrei David points out that an individual may never put to practice the laws discussed in this section. If one never acquires a bond servant, then one does not become involved in the laws regulating the master-servant relationship. Divrei David notes that most of the laws in the portion introduced by the parasha’s first passage are of this type. They discuss laws related to situations that a person may or may not encounter in practice. For example, the section includes laws that define the responsibilities of a borrower for the borrowed object. The payments for various types of damages to another’s property or person are enumerated.

Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik Zt”l makes a related and similar observation regarding the content of the portion. He explains that in this section, the Torah does not focus primarily on moral imperatives. Instead, its focus is the laws that regulate interpersonal and commercial relationships. Few, if any, statements of moral and ethical expectations or admonitions to conduct ourselves ethically are included.[3]

Divrei David suggests that this is the reason one might assume that this content was not derived from Sinai. One might assume that Revelation was devoted to imperatives. We might assume that at Sinai, Hashem outlined for us standards that encompass our religious behavior and interpersonal relations. We would assume that the mundane details contained in Parshat Mishpatim are not part of Revelation.[4]

And Moshe came into the cloud. He ascended the mountain. And Moshe was upon the mountain forty days and forty nights. (Sefer Shemot 24:18)

3. The sequence of Revelation

Rabbaynu Ovadia Bertinoro offers an alternative explanation of Rashi’s comment. Before considering his explanation the sequence of events that took place at the Sinai Revelation must be reviewed.

Prior to the pronouncement of the statements of the Decalogue, Moshe ascended Sinai. When Hashem communicated the contents of the Decalogue, the people were assembled at the base of the mountain and Moshe was upon the mountain. After the contents of the Decalogue were revealed to the people and to Moshe, he descended the mountain. The closing portion of Parshat Mishpatim explains that upon his descent Moshe told the people that they were invited to enter into a covenant with Hashem. The people declared their desire to bind themselves to Hashem in this covenant. Moshe completed the execution of the covenant.

As explained in the above passage, after execution of the covenant, Moshe was again summoned to the mountain. He ascended and remained on the mountain for forty days and nights. During this period Hashem communicated to Moshe the commandments and laws of the Torah.

Rashi quotes the midrash. The midrash explains that the conjunction “and” communicates that the laws in the opening section of the parasha are like the laws of the Decalogue. Both are derived from Sinai. Bertinoro explains that the midrash does not mean that the laws of Parshat Mishpatim were communicated to Moshe during the forty days and nights that were initiated after execution of the covenant. The midrash means that these laws were communicated along with the Decalogue. In other words, after Hashem pronounced the contents of the Decalogue, Moshe did not immediately descend from the mountain. Instead, he remained upon the mountain. At that time Hashem communicated to him these laws.[5]

And Moshe came and he told to the nation all of the words of Hashem and all of the laws. And the entire nation responded in a single voice and they said: All of the things that Hashem has spoken we will do. (Sefer Shemot 24:3)

4. The laws of the parasha accompanied the Decalogue

The comments of Bertinoro are consistent with the narrative of the Torah. In the above passage, Moshe communicates to the people the laws described in the opening portion of the parasha. The people accept the responsibility to observe these laws and all of the words of Hashem. Moshe then executes the covenant and ascends the mountain for forty days and nights. It is clear from the narrative that the laws described earlier in the parasha were communicated to Moshe before he returned to the mountain for forty days and nights. When were these laws communicated? According to Bertinoro, the answer is simple. They were given to Moshe immediately after the Decalogue.[6] This is the message intended by the midrash. These laws are not like all of the other laws derived from Sinai. These laws were communicated in conjunction with the Decalogue.

Why are these laws so important? As Divrei David observes, this section of laws does not focus on ethical imperatives. Its focus is regulation of civil and commercial relationships. Why was Moshe not permitted to return to the people and initiate them into the covenant with Hashem until he had received these laws and taught them to the people?

5. Transforming platitudes into meaningful directives

A comment of Nachmanides is relevant to this issue. He explains that the laws of the parasha are directly related to the Decalogue. The Decalogue commands us to not covet that which is our neighbor’s. This imperative presumes that one has a clear understanding of the laws that regulate ownership of property. If I am not to covet my neighbor’s property, I must know the laws that determine the extent and limits of his property.[7]

Nachmanides seems to suggest that the admonitions of the Decalogue are not meaningful in themselves. Ethical admonitions are not meaningful unless they are supported by laws that regulate relationships. Without these laws the ethical admonitions are reduced to platitudes. A few examples will illustrate this point.

We are commanded to not steal. Virtually every reasonable person accepts this commandment as an essential ethical expectation. Yet, this does not mean that we do not steal. Some individuals cheat on their taxes. Many of us would acknowledge taking a sheaf of paper from the office for personal use. We do not engage in these activities because we reject the ethical expectation to not steal. We simply have trouble with “gray areas” and we persuade ourselves that these activities are not contrary to the ethical imperative.

We all accept the commandment to not murder. This is a universal ethic accepted even by those who are completely secular. Yet, society debates the morality of abortion and euthanasia. This is not because those favoring liberal attitudes toward abortion and euthanasia reject the immorality of murder. They do not believe that these actions are murder.

6. The character of the Torah was communicated to the nation

Moshe descended from Sinai after the Decalogue was declared with the laws of our parasha. These laws are not statements of ethical imperatives. They regulate human interaction. These laws provide meaning and give substance to the moral imperatives of the Decalogue. These laws transform the Decalogue from a statement of platitudes into a meaningful code of ethics.

It was essential that Moshe communicate these laws to the people before they entered into a covenant with Hashem. This covenant was a commitment to observe the laws of the Torah. The Decalogue, in itself, did not communicate to the people the character of Torah. Much of the Decalogue is composed of laws that are universally accepted standards of behavior. Hashem gave to Moshe the laws of our parasha. He directed Moshe to teach these laws to the people before inviting them into the covenant. These laws gave meaning and substance to the imperatives of the Decalogue. After Moshe taught these laws to the people, they understood that the Torah is not composed of platitudes but that it is a meaningful code of ethical, moral and religious behavior.

 

[1] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 21:1.

[2] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 25:1.

[3] Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, Recorded lecture on the parasha.

[4] Rabbaynu David ben HaRav Shemuel HaLeyve Divrei David Torai Zahav, (Mosad HaRav Kook, 1978), p 452.

[5] Rabbaynu Ovadia Bertinoro, Commentary Amar Neke on Rashi, Sefer Shemot 21:1.

[6] These passages are consistent with Bertinoro’s opinion but do not prove his contention that these laws were given in conjunction with the Decalogue. Torah Shelymah notes that according to a number of Sages the laws outlined in the parasha and communicated to the people before Moshe returned to the mountain were not yet derived from Sinai. Instead, these laws predated Sinai. They had been communicated to Moshe and taught to the people soon after their departure from Egypt. These laws were among the body of laws communicated to Moshe at Marah.

[7] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 21:1.