출애굽기 21:1의 주석

ואלה המשפטים NOW THESE ARE THE JUDGMENTS — Wherever אלה, “these are”, is used it cuts off (פוסל) the preceding section from that which it introduces; where, however, ואלה “and these” is used it adds something to the former subject (i. e. forms a continuation of it). So also here: “And these are the judgments (i. e. these, also)”: What is the case with the former commandments (the עשרת הדברות)? They were given at Sinai! So these, too, were given at Sinai! (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:1:1; Shemot Rabbah 30:3; cf. also Midrash Tanchuma, Mishpatim 3) If this be so, why is this section dealing with the “civil laws” placed immediately after that commanding the making of the altar? To tell you that you should seat (i. e. provide quarters for) the Sanhedrin in the vicinity of the Temple.

AND THESE ARE THE ORDINANCES WHICH THOU SHALT SET BEFORE THEM. The reason [why this whole section dealing with mishpatim — civil laws — is placed here, rather than being placed after the chukim — statutes — as is the order in the commandments given at Marah],¹Above, 15:25: There He made for them ‘chock’ (a statute) ‘umishpat’ (and an ordinance). The “statutes” are the precepts for which the reasons are generally unknown. See Vol. I, p. 331. is that G-d wanted to explain to them first the civil laws. Thus we find that the first of the Ten Commandments dealt with the obligation of knowing of the existence of G-d, and the second one with the prohibition against idolatry, after which [following the giving of the Ten Commandments] He again instructed Moses, saying, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: Ye yourselves have seen that I have talked with you from heaven,²Above, 20:19. meaning that you, [Moses] should warn them again to take to heart that which they have seen, so that they will be careful to keep these precepts which I have commanded them. For Ye yourselves have seen corresponds to the commandment, I am the Eternal thy G-d;³Ibid., Verse 2. Ye shall not make with Me — gods of silver etc.⁴Ibid., Verse 20. — corresponds with Thou shalt have no other gods,⁵Ibid., Verse 3. thereby completing the subject of idolatry; likewise, And these are the ordinances corresponds to Thou shalt not covet,⁶Ibid., Verse 14. for if a man does not know the laws of house and field or other possessions, he might think that they belong to him and thus covet them and take them for himself. This is why He said, thou shalt set before them just ordinances, which they should establish amongst themselves, so that they will not covet that which does not legally belong to them. And thus did the Rabbis say in Midrash Rabbah:⁷Shemoth Rabbah 30:15. “The whole Torah depends on justice; that is why the Holy One, blessed be He, gave the civil laws directly after the Ten Commandments.” Similarly G-d explains in this section of These are the ordinances additional laws about idolatry,⁸Further, 22:19. the honor of parents,⁹Further, Verses 15 and 17. murder,¹⁰Ibid., Verses 12-14. and adultery¹¹Ibid., 22:15-16. — which are all mentioned in the Ten Commandments.
The Rabbis have explained:¹²Tanchuma Mishpatim, 6. “Before them, but not before the Canaanites.” This interpretation is based on the observation that it should have said, “which tasim lahem” (“thou shalt set for them”) just as He said, There ‘sam lo’ (He set for them) a statute and an ordinance;¹³Above, 15:25. thus since He said, which thou shalt set ‘liphneihem’ (before them), we interpret this to mean that they should be the judges, for it is with reference to a judge that this term [liphnei (before)] appears in Scripture: And both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Eternal, ‘liphnei’ (before) the priests and the judges;¹⁴Deuteronomy 19:17. Until he stand ‘liphnei’ (before) the congregation for judgment;¹⁵Numbers 35:12. ‘liphnei’ (before) all who know law and judgment.¹⁶Esther 1:13. The Rabbis further explained: “Before them, but not before laymen.” They interpreted [the verse in this way] because with reference to the ordinances it is written: Then his master shall bring him unto ‘ha’elohim;’¹⁷Further, Verse 6. the cause of both parties shall come before ‘ha’elohim;’¹⁸Ibid., 22:8. and it is also written, and he shall give ‘biphlilim’ (as the judges determine)¹⁹Further, Verse 22. — these terms referring to judges who are experts in the law, and who had received ordination²⁰The process of investiture with judicial rights and functions. Ordination was conferred by three Sages, only one of whom himself had to be duly ordained. Ordination was valid only if both the ordainers and the ordained were in the Land of Israel. Once received in the Land of Israel, however, the authority of ordination became effective outside the Land as well. [in an unbroken chain from the time of those who had been duly ordained] by Moses our Teacher. This is why He said here that these ordinances are to be set before them, meaning before the elohim [expert, ordained judges] that He will mention further on, but not before Canaanites, and not before one who is not a judge by the standard of the Torah, such as a layman in this respect. It is forbidden to appear before such a person to act as a judge, just as it is forbidden to bring it before the Canaanites, even if he knows that this layman knows the correct law and will render him a proper decision. Even so it is forbidden for the litigant to set him up as a judge and complain before him so that he orders the other party to come to court before him, and the layman himself is also forbidden to act as their judge. Now even though the Sages have mentioned these two groups [the layman and the Canaanite] together, there is a difference between them, in that if the two litigants are willing to come before an Israelite who is a layman, and accept him upon themselves, it is permissible for them to do so, and they must abide by his decision, but to come before the Canaanites to act as judges between them, is forbidden under all circumstances, even if the Canaanite laws are in that particular case the same as our laws.

ואלה המשפטים, in the previous paragraph the Torah spoke about the prohibition of coveting property belonging to someone else (20,13). This did not involve action; by contrast ואלה המשפטים, now the Torah speaks about laws governing the concrete nature of “אשר לרעך,” tangible matters belonging to your fellow man.

ואלה המשפטים, "And these are the ordinances, etc." The word ואלה needs analysis. We find a disagreement in the Mechilta between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva on this subject. The former holds that the reason for the linkage between the Ten Commandments and the ordinances is to tell us that just as the former are of Sinaitic i.e. Divine origin, so are the latter. Rabbi Akiva said the reason for the conjunctive letter ו is that we could have thought that Moses was to teach the ordinances to the Israelites and if they did not understand them all, he, Moses, did not have to repeat them; therefore the Torah speaks of תשים לפניהם "place them in front of them," as one lays a meal before people which is ready to be eaten. According to Rabbi Yishmael who holds that the ordinances are of Sinaitic origin it is obvious that the Torah speaks about the details of these various laws being of Divine origin seeing we already know that the outlines are of Divine origin. Rabbi Yishmael has said himself in Zevachim 115 that all the general rules of the commandments of the Torah were handed down from Sinai, whereas Moses was told the details when G'd used to speak to him in the Tabernacle. If so, the commandments referred to here were the general outline only and there would be no reason for adding the letter ו in front of אלה. According to Rabbi Akiva who claimed that both general outlines and details were revealed to Moses at Mount Sinai, the expression ואלה המשפטים is also unnecessary. We need to look a little closer at what Rashi has to say on our verse. In our verse he explains the expression in line with Rabbi Yishmael, whereas at the beginning of Leviticus 25,1 where the Torah speaks about what G'd said to Moses at Mount Sinai, Rashi explains the verse in terms of Rabbi Akiva's statement in the Mechilta we quoted earlier. Rabbi Akiva said that just as both the outline and the details of the Shmittah regulations originated at Sinai, so all the laws in the Torah originated at Sinai.

Everyone endowed with intelligence should know that it is not my purpose to explain halachic rulings as part of my commentary, something I have mentioned already in my commentary at the beginning of Parshat Vayeshev. I explained there that many such rulings are hinted at by variant spellings in the text, missing words or extraneous words. Many of these have been covered in the commentary on the Torah by my grandfather Rashi of blessed memory. I have set myself the task of only explaining the plain meaning of the text as it is before us. When I explain legislation I do so within the context of its contribution to civilised behaviour, דרך ארץ. My explanations notwithstanding, when they conflict with the halachic rulings, the latter are supreme.

ואלה המשפטים, “and these are the ordinances, etc.” The introductory letter ו at the beginning of the word ואלה means that what follows must be understood as a continuation of what preceded it, i.e. the Decalogue. Alternately, what follows are new ordinances, continuing the laws which had been revealed already at Marah, where the Torah spoke of two types of laws that were taught to the people, i.e. חוק ומשפט. The reason why the Torah chose to follow this pattern is because at the beginning of the Decalogue G’d had first introduced Himself with the words: “I am the Lord your G’d, etc,” so here too Moses introduces all these laws by reminding the people that they had just recently experienced the revelation, In other words, all that follows originates with the same G’d as did the Decalogue. Moses’ words: אתם ראיתם וגו', corresponds to the first two commandments (i.e. the ones heard and understood by the people spoken to them by Hashem directly.) What follows under the heading of ואלה המשפטים corresponds to such commandments as לא תחמוד, indicative of the final and perhaps ethically most demanding commandment (as it tries to control our feelings and desires that are unspoken) If man does not know the legal aspects of private property, how can he be sure that he does not violate G’d’s will in this respect? This is why G‘d used the term תשים לפניהם, meaning that the laws following must be clearly set out for the people, must be elaborated on. No one must remain in doubt so that he cannot claim that what he coveted was not something belonging to someone else.

..."Why was the section of the laws made adjacent to the [section about the] altar": And is it not the case that Rashi only cited those that expounded about the adjacency of sections when they are not written in [chronological] order - when they [expounded in a manner] that was close to the simple meaning of Scripture? But not those sections that are not understood as being out of order - as there is no need to give a reason for their adjacency...

It disqualifies that which preceded it. If you say: [This rule seems not true because] in Parshas Bechukosai (Vayikra 27:34) it is written, “ אלה (These) are the commandments.” And in Parshas Masei (Bamidbar 36:13) it says, “ אלה (These) are the commandments and the laws.” And in Parshas Matos (ibid 30:17) it says, “ אלה (These) are the statutes.” And in Parshas Ki Savo (Devarim 28:69) it is written, “ אלה (These) are the words of the covenant.” And in all theses cases we do not interpret it as disqualifying that which preceded. The answer is: We only interpret it this way for “ אלה (These) are the histories of the heaven and the earth” (Bereishis 2:4; see Shemos Rabba 30:3), where the histories were already mentioned above, so a difficulty arose: why are they repeated and detailed? Similarly for “ אלה (These) are the descendants of Noach” (Bereishis 6:9), where the descendants were mentioned above in Parshas Bereishis, so a difficulty arose: why were they mentioned again? Thus we say they were mentioned again in order to disqualify the preceding. [The meaning of “disqualify” is discussed in the next entry.] But with “ אלה (These) are the commandments” and all the above verses, nothing was mentioned [preceding them that was similar to them], so אלה cannot mean to disqualify the preceding. Similarly in Parshas Devarim, where it says “ אלה (These) are the words” (Devarim 1:1), we cannot interpret אלה as disqualifying the preceding, since Chumash Devarim is Mishneh Torah [i.e., its primary purpose is a repetition of the Torah].

Kap. 21. V. 1. ואלה: Unmittelbar zuvor war in der Konstruktion des Altars der symbolische Ausdruck dem Grundprinzipe gegeben: dass unsere ganze Beziehung zu Gott als eine solche zu begreifen sei, dass damit dem Rechte und der Menschlichkeit für den Bau der Gesellschaft und der keuschen Sittlichkeit für die Arbeit jedes Einzelnen an sich selber die feste unerschütterliche Basis gewonnen werde. Daran schließt das Waw kopulativum die Mischpatim, die Rechtsordnungen, mit welchen nun zuerst der Aufbau der jüdischen Gesellschaft auf dem Prinzipe des Rechts und der Menschlichkeit geordnet wird. חרב, das "Schwert", Gewalt und Härte, sollen damit aus der jüdischen Staatsgesellschaft gebannt sein, erst dann wird sie würdig, dass sie in ihrer Mitte Gott einen Altar errichte. Darum gehen diese Mischpatim dem Bau der Stiftshütte voran. Die Gesetze, die dann der Verbannung der גלוי ערוה im weiteren Sinne, der Zurückdrängung des, "den Aufgang zur Altarhöhe" hemmenden Tierischen im Menschen, somit der Vollendung des Einzelnen auf dem Prinzipe der keuschen Sittlichkeit geweiht sind, folgen sodann im dritten Buche.

ואלה המשפטים, “and these are the ordinances, etc.;” Rashi has pointed out that whenever a paragraph in the Torah commences with the word אלה, this signifies that it is not a continuation of something that had been written previously. However, when the paragraph begins with the word: ואלה, “and these, etc., it signals some kind of continuation. From Rashi’s words it would appear that the laws promulgated from here on in did not originate at Sinai as when the Torah wrote in Exodus 19,20 that Hashem descended to Mount Sinai, the whole point was that He did so in order to give the people the whole Torah.In order to solve this apparent contradiction, we need to view the word: פסל used by Rashi to signify a break with what preceded it, is to be understood as in Exodus 34,1 where G–d told Moses to hew himself two Tablets to replace the ones he had shattered after coming down from the Mountain for the first time. The act of “hewing” means to separate what you carve out from a greater quantity of the same base material, i.e. rock. In other words, what we are going to read from here on in are laws that, though of the same origin as the Ten Commandments, had been separated somewhat in time from when and how they were presented to the people. What Rashi meant to tell us was that if this paragraph had commenced with the word אלה, I would have thought that what followed was not of Sinaitic origin at all. In order not to mislead the reader, the Torah added the prefix ו to make clear that what follows was also of Sinaitic origin, i.e. G–d taught Moses all the Torah while he was on the mountain for forty days and forty nights. The letter ו here has the same meaning as the word את in Exodus 9,29, where Moses said: כצאתי את העיר, “when I go out from the city.” We find a similar construction in Deuteronomy 28,69: אלה דברי הברית, “these are the words of the covenant, ”where the admonitions have been separated from the blessings. The blessings in that paragraph had been preceded by curses. We find something similar in Deuteronomy 1,1: אלה הדברים אשר דבר משה, “these are the words which Moses had spoken, etc.” where we cannot understand this as something unconnected to what preceded it, but the letter ו is omitted as we are dealing with a different Book of the Torah, one that had not been dictated to Moses, but which G–d had approved after the event as deserving to be part of the written Torah. In Genesis 2,4 the words אלה תולדות השמים והארץ, “these are the generations of heaven and earth are separated from the prehistoric period when the Torah had described the tohu vavohu which had preceded the creation of light.

ואלה המשפטים, “and these are the ordinances, etc.” according to Rashi whenever the word אלה appears, it signals a break with what preceded, whereas when the word ואלה appears it signals a continuation or addition of the subject that had been discussed previously. In other words, the correct translation of the word: אלה is: “these opposed to what preceded it,” whereas ואלה should be translated as “and these as well as the preceding verses.” The author warns the reader not to challenge Rashi by quoting the word אלה in Leviticus 27,34, or the same word in Numbers 36,13, and Numbers 30,17 nor the same word in Deuteronomy 28,69, as in those instances as well as in others like it, the previously mentioned subject is being concluded. ואלה המשפטים, Rabbi Avahu, quoting Rabbi Yossi ben Zimra said that the word אלה represents a break with what was written previously, whereas when the word appears with the prefix letter ו it signals some type of continuation. He quotes Exodus 15,25, as an example, where the Torah had written: שם שם לו חוק ומשפט ושם נסהו, “there He made for them a fixed rule and gave them social laws, there He put them to a test.” המשפטים, prior this paragraph the Torah spoke about aspects of being G-d fearing, whereas from now on it concentrates on rules that enable living in the land of Israel as a civilised nation. An alternate interpretation: previously the Torah spelled out prohibitions as warnings, as for instance: “do not commit murder; do not commit adultery;” from here on in the Torah repeats the prohibitions but adds the type of penalty that applies to violating these prohibitions deliberately. As to the commentary by Rashi here, who poses the question why we read here about the details of an altar, something entirely different from the subjects the Torah deals with here, he bases himself on the Mechilta, which suggests that this is a hint that the High Court should have its office near the Temple and that all these laws had been told to Moses while he was on the Mountain. The altar was after all also close to the Temple, immediately in front of its eastern entrance. Logic dictates that the whole paragraph commencing with 21,2 “when you purchase a Jewish slave, etc., until chapter 23,10, ושש שנים תזרע, “and during six consecutive years you may plant seeds,” are all laws that G-d taught Moses while he was on the Mountain before the people had heard the Ten Commandments. Concerning all these laws, Rashi has written: these laws are a continuation of the earlier laws.” He is referring to the laws listed in Parshat B’har in the Book of Leviticus.

אשר תשים לפניהם WHICH THOU SHALT PUT BEFORE THEM — God said to Moses: It should not enter your mind to say, “I shall teach them a section of the Torah or a single Halacha twice or three times until it will become current in their mouths exactly according to its wording (i. e. until they know the text verbatim), but I shall not take the trouble to make them understand the reason of each thing and its significance”; therefore Scripture says, אשר תשים לפניהם, “which thou shalt set before them” (cf. Genesis 34:23) — like a table fully laid before a person with everything ready for eating (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:1:1).

אשר תשים לפניהם. These are not positive commandments and negative commandments which apply to every Jew, but are applicable only if the occasion arises. The matters under discussion need to be adjudicated only if and when such situations occur in someone’s life.

אשר תשים לפניהם, ”which you are to set out before them.” Our sages (Mechilta) draw attention to the word לפניהם, meaning “before the Israelites,” but not before the gentiles or the common, uneducated people. Had the Torah wanted that Moses explain the details of the following legislation to unlearned people, it would have written a different formulation, such as אשר תלמדם, which you are to teach them, or אשר תשים להם, a formula used when Moses taught the people some of the laws at Marah. (Exodus 15,25) The expression לשום לפני וגו' is a standard phrase when the Torah means for something to be taught to the judges, the elders of the people. All litigants always have to appear before a quorum of judges, compare Deut. The judges are described as יודעי דת ודין, possessing knowledge in matters or ritual law and interpersonal relations requiring legal decisions. The reason the Mechilta understands the word לפניהם as excluding gentiles, is to warn Israelites not to have their disputes judged by a court composed of gentiles even if the laws of the gentile host country are similar to ours in that matter. Even if both litigants are agreeable to submit their dispute to a gentile court for a ruling, the Torah does not permit this. If, however these same Israelites agree to submit their dispute to three gentile laymen, (or more or fewer) this is acceptable as G‘d’s jurisprudence has not been slighted thereby. Rabbi Joseph Kimchi draws attention to the Torah not having said תשפטם, “you are to render judgment,” but תשים לפניהם, “submit before them,” as the Torah speaks of a situation when the basic halachic rulings were known to the parties. However, this is insufficient, as it allows the owner of a Hebrew servant to claim that had he known that this man’s services would be limited to 6 years, he never would have bought his services in the first place, and that therefore the entire transaction had been based on a misunderstanding. Or, for instance in the case of an ox goring a gentile servant with fatal results, for which the Torah fixes that the owner of the ox which gored has to pay 30 shekel, (a small and fixed amount) even if in the market place such a slave while alive could have fetched several times that amount. Pleading ignorance of the legislation is no reason to revoke transactions that had involved ignorance of the finer points of the law of compensation.

Then why was the section of judgments placed near the section dealing with the Altar? Many difficulties arise. First, Rashi should have asked this [first, as his first comment] on the verse, “And these are the laws. . .” Second, perhaps [the Torah is just following] the order that these Torah sections were told by Hashem to Moshe. Third, Rashi explained straightforwardly at the beginning of Parshas Behar that the entire Torah was said by Hashem at Sinai. [So why does our verse connect only the judgments to Sinai?] Fourth, Rashi [earlier] should have said that the ו of ואלה “is a continuation of that which preceded it.” [I.e., why does Rashi need the whole word of ואלה to teach this?[ Fifth, Rashi should have explained this rule on the verse “ אלה (These) are the products of the heaven and the earth” (Bereishis 2:4), or “ אלה (These) are the descendants of Noach” (ibid 6:9). The answer is: The rule that אלה disqualifies ( פסל ) that which preceded it, means [that it minimizes that which preceded it. I.e.,] these things now to be mentioned are better and more important than those preceding things which are less significant. That is the meaning of פסל . So did Bereishis Rabba explain “ אלה (These) are the products of the heaven and the earth,” and “ אלה (These) are the descendants of Noach.” Here too, if the Torah had written אלה , I would think it is disqualifying [i.e., minimizing] the judgments, [since it cannot be minimizing the preceding — the Ten Commandments — which were on the highest level]. But now that the Torah wrote ואלה , it means “a continuation of that which preceded it,” saying that the judgements, too, were given in the assembly of all B’nei Yisrael, with thunder and lightning, like the Ten Commandments that preceded them. Whereas the other mitzvos were given to Moshe alone, during his forty days on the mountain. Therefore Rashi asks: “Why was the section of judgments placed near the section dealing with the Altar?” Since the section of judgments is a continuation of the Ten Commandments, why does the section dealing with the Altar interrupt them? So explained the Re’m at length.

Why does Rashi give two separate interpretations instead of mentioning that Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree in their understanding of our verse? Rashi could have more easily stated that the letter ו is to tell Moses how to teach the laws to the Jewish people, i.e. to set it before them like a table which is all laid out for the guests. He could have said that this rule applies both to the commandments regulating our relations with G'd as well as to those regulating our relations with each other.

Es heißt aber: אשר תשים לפניהם, nicht: אשר תצוה אותם ,אשר תדבר אליהם oder sonst. שום לפני־ kommt außer bei Mitteilung der göttlichen Gebote durch Mosche an Israel nur noch in einer einzigen Bedeutung vor, und zwar als spezieller Ausdruck für das Auftragen zubereiteter Speisen vor einen Gast. So: ויושם לפניו לאכול (Bereschit 24, 33), וישם לפני שאול. (1. Sam., 9, 24). Ebenso: (1. Sam., 28, 22) Auf Mitteilung von Gesetzen übertragen, heißt es daher nichts anderes, als eine dergestalt ausführliche und deutliche Mitteilung, dass sie für die Erkenntnis und Ausführung vollständig und klar vorliegen. Die der מכילתא entnommene Erklärung: כשולחן ערוך ומוכן לאכול לפני האדם ,"wie ein zum Essen vor dem Menschen angerichteter und bereiter Tisch", ist daher der wortgetreue Sinn des Ausdrucks. Es ist damit in der Überschrift dieser Gesetze das Faktum konstatiert, dass die hier folgenden schriftlichen Aufzeichnungen nur kurze, nackte Sätze enthalten, deren genauere Präzision Und vollständige Ausführung der mündlichen Überlieferung vorbehalten blieb, wir somit in diesen Sätzen der תורה שבכתב nicht schon das Gesetz in seiner Totalität vor uns sehen, wir vielmehr die Vollständigkeit des Gesetzes nur der תורה שבעל פה zu entnehmen haben.

לפניהם, “before them.” Rashi sees in this word an exclusion of gentiles, to whom all these ordinances will not apply, even if they would adopt our system of civil law. [Presumably, he felt that otherwise that word is superfluous, as it is obvious that the laws would be addressed to the |sraelites. Ed.] Jews are not allowed to submit their litigation to a gentile court even if the rules of that court are like those of ours. Our author uses a parable to illustrate the point. Imagine that two sick persons go to a physician to have themselves examined. The physician tells one of them to eat, heartily and healthily, whereas he tells the second one to abstain from some of the very foods he had encouraged the first person to eat from heartily. The reason is that not every food is good for everyone. What is good for one patient may be very dangerous for the next patient. When the physician advised the first patient to eat heartily, the reason was that that patient was diagnosed as fatally ill, so that he might as well enjoy the time left for him on earth. The same advice to the second patient would prove very dangerous for him. The same reasoning applies to Jews and gentiles. We read in Ezekiel 20,25 concerning the gentiles that G–d had given them laws and statutes that they could not live by, whereas the laws He gave to the Israelites were designed to be for their benefit. [This verse is extremely difficult, and the reader is advised to read the commentary by Rabbi M.Eisemann in the Art Scroll edition of the Book of Ezekiel. Ed.] Rashi assumes that when the Israelites fail to observe G–d’s laws, they will eventually attribute their hardships to G–d’s laws having been harmful. We are taught in the Torah that the opposite is true. Compare Leviticus 18.5. This is also the reason why we are forbidden to eat all kinds of creeping creatures, as they are injurious to one’s health. These same creatures, if eaten by gentiles, are not harmful to them. This is also the meaning of Psalms 147,19: מגיד דבריו ליעקב, חוקיו ,” ,משפטיו לישראל. לא עשה כן לכל גוי, “He issus His commands to Yaakov, His statutes and rules to Israel; He did not do so for any other nation;” The following is a true story involving the convert Onkelos, a nephew of the Roman Emperor Hadrianus, who when wishing to convert was afraid of the wrath of his uncle the Emperor. He told his uncle that he wished to engage in business, whereupon his uncle asked him if he was short of capital, in which case he was willing to help him out. He told his uncle that he wished to travel and find out which merchandise was both in demand and easy to obtain. His uncle told him to seek out a field which was presently in a recession so that he could invest at low prices and profit when market conditions would improve. As a result, he went to the land of Israel, at that time in a deep depression commercially, and studied Torah from the scholars prior to undergoing circumcision for becoming a convert. He was told that the words of Torah would only reside within him permanently if he circumcised himself first. He followed this advice, circumcised himself and studied a great deal of Torah. When Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua saw him, they noticed that his facial features had undergone a great change. They concluded that this was not Onkelos who had studied the Torah. When he began to ask the scholars questions, they told him that this was the result. When he returned to his uncle the Emperor, the latter asked him what had brought about the change in his facial features. He told him that he had studied the Torah and had himself circumcised. Upon being asked who had advised him to do this, he said: “you have.” He explained that his uncle had told him to acquire merchandise which was in a depression and patiently wait until this merchandise would appreciate in value. He had visited many nations and not found a single one which was in such a state of depression as the Jewish nation, so that he became convinced that their fortunes would improve drastically. He quoted the prophet Isaiah 49,7 who had predicted this already more than five hundred years earlier. The Emperor slapped his face and asked him once more what had prompted him to convert to Judaism. He told him that actually, he had gone to study the Torah, but had been told that the condition for being taught Torah was that he had to be circumcised, just as Yaakov. He quoted Psalms 147,20 where it has been spelled out by the use of the word בל, that only the people of Israel had been endowed with Torah knowledge that could be retained. (Tanchuma, Mishpatim section 5)

לפניהם “before them;” on this word Rashi comments: “before the Israelites and not before the gentiles,” even if you know that the gentile judges are experts in the section of law concerned in the litigation. When someone submits his legal problems to gentile judges he thereby desecrates the name of G-d, and simultaneously honours the reputation of the deity whom these judges worship. If the Jewish judges have given a ruling on the case and his Jewish opponent has not submitted to that judgment, the party deemed in the right may then appeal to gentile judges who have more power to enforce their ruling. [If both Jewish parties concerned are living in the Diaspora. Ed.]

לפניהם BEFORE THEM — but not before the heathens. Even if you know that in the case of a particular matter of law they will decide it in the same way as Jewish law would, do not bring it before their courts; for he who brings Israel’s law-cases before the heathens defames the Name of the Lord and pays honour to the name of the idol (in the name of which the heathen court administers justice), thereby giving it undue importance, as it is said, (Deuteronomy 32:31) “For their rock is not as our Rock that our enemies should be judges over us”, which implies: when our enemies are judges over us (i. e. if we make them judges over us) it is a testimony to the superiority of that which they reverence (their idol) (Midrash Tanchuma, Mishpatim 3).

Do not allow it to enter your mind to say, I will teach them. . . [Rashi knows this] because for most mitzvos the Torah says, “Speak to the B’nei Yisrael and say to them,” [or similar expressions]. Thus [the repetition of] “speak” and “say” implies teaching them at least twice. If so, why did Hashem now use the [unusual] expression of “set before them”? We must say it means “to make them understand the reasons for each thing.” (Re’m)

I have seen that Rabbi Eliyah Mizrachi explains the statement of Rabbi Yishmael to mean that even the ordinances were also communicated to the Israelites amidst thunder and lightning, and that G'd spoke more than just the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai. Even if Rabbi Yishmael had said so expressly, he would have had to substantiate this, all the more so since Rabbi Mizrachi only credits him with having meant this. According to the Mechilta all Rabbi Yishmael is quoted as saying is "just as the earlier statements were revealed at Sinai so the (later) ordinances were also revealed at Sinai." He did not say that "just as the earlier commandments were issued amidst thunder and lightning so were the ordinances revealed amidst thunder and lightning." There is no hint in this statement of the ordinances having been revealed amidst thunder and lightning. Furthermore, we have already answered the question we raised about Rabbi Yishmael's statement referring to the details of these ordinances not being revealed here because he has stated that when the Torah introduces the Shmittah legislation in Leviticus. It is posssible that Rabbi Yishmael thought that the example of the שמטה legislation was not enough to use it as a role model for all the commandments seeing that there are three other occasions in the Torah when a commandment is specifically mentioned as related to Mount Sinai. The principal reason, however, is the one we already mentioned. It might be best to leave the question against Rashi as a matter unresolved pending further study than to follow the path of Rabbi Mizrachi who put words into Rabbi Yishmael's mouth that he has not been able to support with evidence.

And not before the gentiles. [Rashi knows this] because “before them” refers to the seventy elders mentioned above in Parshas Yisro, who ascended the mountain with Moshe before the giving of the Torah. This is Rashi’s approach, as stated in the first chapter of Maseches Gittin. Tosafos explained that “before them” refers to the judges mentioned in a future verse: “The claims of both parties must be brought to the judges” (22:8). But according to both views, it refers to expert judges and not laymen judges. Thus you might ask that “before them” could be teaching us: “and not before laymen judges,” and certainly not before the gentiles. The answer is: Rashi himself answered this question when he explained, “And even if you know of a particular law that they render the same as Jewish law, do not bring the matter to their courts.” Rashi is saying that the Torah excluded gentile judges absolutely, even if they rule the same as Jews. But [this exclusion could not apply to laymen judges,] since one is indeed allowed to have them judge if they know a particular law as well as the experts do.

If Rabbi Mizrachi's intention was to say that whereas the Ten Commandments were handed down amidst both thunder and lightning, whereas the ordinances were handed down only amidst thunder, not exactly like the Ten Commandments, this would also not be acceptable as it would create a third category of commandments and the manner in which they were communicated to the Jewish people. The first category would be the way the Ten Commandments were communicated; the second category would be the way G'd communicated all the commandments to Moses during the forty days Moses spent on the Mountain; the third category would be the ordinances. Who would be prepared to even listen to such an explanation?! There is nothing anywhere in the Torah which could serve as a comparison for such an approach!

Another reason why the Torah wrote ואלה may well have to do with Sanhedrin 86, which stipulates that the judges of the Sanhedrin had to officiate near the Tabernacle or Temple. The expression ואלה then hints that just as there are other locations which are sacred, namely the altar and subsequently the Tabernacle, so the site where the judges pronounced G'd's law also had to be a site which was close by and had been sanctified.

אשר תשים לפניהם. "which you shall place before them." Whereas our sages have provided us with numerous homiletical explanations for this expression (Sanhedrin 7), we also need to know the plain meaning of these words. [I presume the author feels that one does not place words before a person. Ed.] Perhaps this is connected to the fact that some of the Torah's commandments are duties that a person's body has to perform, i.e. חובת גברא. In order to perform these commandments one needs to know what is involved. Unless a person performed such duties with his body he would not be considered part of the Holy Covenant between G'd and His people. For example, if a person did not know that it is forbidden to eat an animal which died from injuries he would consume both it and the blood and the fat parts which are forbidden. Similarly, when performing the positive commandment of the Passover he has to eat the lamb, the bitter herbs, the unleavened bread, keep the days holy, etc. In order to fulfil these commandments he has to be familiar with them. There are other categories of commandments of a more abstract nature, such as sanctifying the new moon, litigations, laws pertaining to which animal sacrifices are applicable and under what conditions, etc. The truth is that every Israelite ought to be familiar with all aspects of the Torah. However, as long as there are Torah scholars who are familiar with all the commandments and who can be consulted when the need arises all is under control. When G'd said תשים לפניהם, this means that everyone ought to be familiar with the laws listed here. How would a person making a purchase know if the purchase was legally valid unless he had first familiarised himself with the laws pertaining to acquisitions? The person who had been sold would not know of his rights to freedom after a certain number of years unless he had studied the relevant portion of the Torah. The reason the Torah continues in verse two with direct speech, i.e. "when you purchase a slave" instead of "when someone purchases a slave, etc." may underline the importance the Torah places on the purchaser being familiar with this legislation.

אשר תשים לפניהם; The word תשים is related (at least aurally) to the word סם, which can be a poisonous or therapeutic herb. If the משפטים would be observed they would act as the elixir of life, if not, as the reverse.

The words תשים לפניהם also contain a plea for the purchaser to accept the legislation wholeheartedly. While it is natural for someone who purchases a slave to consider such an acquisition permanent, the law which directs him not only to release such a slave after six years but to provide him with a stake so that he can re-establish himself economically may arouse some misgivings in the owner. The Torah wishes everyone to evaluate this legislation also from the standpoint of the slave. Since the reason the slave had to sell himself is that he was financially unlucky and/or had been found stealing, this is something which could happen to anyone, seeing money has a habit of "rolling" from one person or family to another. The owner is meant to reflect on the matter that if he himself were ever to find himself in the situation that his slave found himself in, the Torah's legislation holds out hope for such a person to achieve financial rehabilitation.

And that is that He commanded us to redeem the firstborn man, that we should give the money to the priest. And that is His saying, "you shall give me your firstborn sons" (Exodus 22:28). And He explained to us how this giving should be: And it is that we redeem him from the priest; and it is as if [the priest] already acquired him, and we purchase him from him for five sela - and that is His saying, "but surely redeem the firstborn man" (Numbers 18:15). And this commandment is the commandment of redeeming the son. And women are not obligated in it - indeed it is one of the commandments of the son that is upon the father, as it is explained in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 29a). And all of the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Bekhorot. However Levites are not obligated in it. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Firstlings.)