Mishpatim: 

The Mai Shiloach  writes: 

“And these are the laws that you shall place before them ….” (Shemot, 21:1)
Here it is not said, “And God spoke to Moshe saying,” as with all the mitzvot, for the matter here discusses civil legal enactments (“mishpatim”), and concerning justice there is no difference between the great and the small. This may be compared to when the king goes out to inspect and judge his soldiers; then they all stand in the same line, even their senior officer standing in the line.

Yithro, last week's parsha, and Mishpatim, this week's, form a section of the Torah. They can be seen as a circumscribed story of Moses relinquishing a unique relationship to the law, informing the people of its content and transferring the  administration to a hierarchy.  Moses' unique understanding and interpretation is now replaced by the democracy of public information. Hence, Mishpatim opens without the usual attributions of provenance. These are the kinds of laws that people would invent on their own.  The details are Divine  These are the rules of adjudication. This is the basis of conflict resolution.  

The first rule limits servitude to six years. The edict assumes the legality of servitude, but limits its duration.  This is one of several laws that involve the master slave relationship.  In contemporary America, dealing with the long aftermath of race-based slavery, the mention of the concept is jarring: How could this Bible condone the concept of owned people? 

One could argue  that the  people addressed by these laws had, themselves, been slaves and  would not understand a society devoid of slavery.  In this (pseudo) historical context: limiting slavery's duration and restricting the master's dominion and conferring rights to the slave - are positive, humanistic acts. They do not go far enough for our taste, but  a revolution must recognize limits if the outcome is to be a viable society. The structure created by these new rules must be recognizable to people born a decade earlier. This is an apology. 

I believe that the review of the Torah has meaning to me, in the world that I live in. My world claims that the great crime of slavery has been abolished in all enlightened nations and should be universally banned.  The truth of that claim depends upon the definition of  slavery.  Do I really live in a world in which one person does not have power over another? What does it mean to buy a service? What are you willing to forgo to maintain your lifestyle? The slave is not merely the person who toils under the leather whip.  The slave is the migrant who travels in a band from dormitory to dormitory and picks fruit. The slave is the worker who toils on Sunday so that she has a job on Monday.  The slave follows orders under the threat of legal prosecution.  A slave can earn wages. 

The anachronism allows us to examine the meaning of slavery.  It can include every relationship in which a human is dependent. The dependency can include other people or it can be to institutions. These relationships allow great achievements: feeding the billions of people in the world, the internet, the tower of Babel, the Russian army. Rules that transcend the instant are needed for the system to work; and for us to feel good about it. 

Slavery is any state of compulsion.  It enforces the separation of possession with an enthralled army of police.

In our times, we come to understand the manipulation of self-enforced compulsion.  The doctor-pharmacy-drug company that gives a person, who claims pain, oxycodone, has caused and addiction, an enslavement to a substance.  The hacker that released a well directed meme softly compelled a vote for autocracy. If we abandon Spotify [in protest] will we be able to relax?  This is enslavement to the Yetzer Hara ( the evil inclination).  Now we have statistical evidence that our inclination can be effectively manipulated.  The manipulators reserve the freedom for themselves. They hire lobbyists to deflect legislation that could limit their exploitation. They cry, "Free Speech. "What does that do to the manipulated? 

Ultimately the Israelites, the acceptors of the law, are enslaved... by the law itself.  They announce

וַיִּקַּח֙ סֵ֣פֶר הַבְּרִ֔ית וַיִּקְרָ֖א בְּאׇזְנֵ֣י הָעָ֑ם וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥ר יְ   נַעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע׃ 

Then he took the record of the covenant and read it aloud to the people. And they said, “All that the LORD has spoken ^aLit. “we will do and obey.”we will faithfully do!”^-a

The people bind themselves with the vow to (blindly) follow the law. Do they believe in the beneficence of the author, or are they intimidated by the power?  Regardless, they are bound, they are in a new bondage... not necessarily bad. 

In this parsha related, sometimes nearly contradictory, verses are separated by a few tangential verses. In Chapter 23, verse 3: 

וְדָ֕ל לֹ֥א תֶהְדַּ֖ר בְּרִיבֽוֹ׃ {ס}         nor shall you show deference to a poor man in his dispute.

Implies that the mercy the judge feels toward the poor should not influence the interpretation of the law. 

verse 6: 

לֹ֥א תַטֶּ֛ה מִשְׁפַּ֥ט אֶבְיֹנְךָ֖ בְּרִיבֽוֹ׃ You shall not subvert the rights of your needy in their disputes.

seems to caution against the opposite. Do not belittle the one less capable of defense. 

Of course, the answer is in the next verses: 

מִדְּבַר־שֶׁ֖קֶר תִּרְחָ֑ק   Keep far from a false charge

and 

וְשֹׁ֖חַד לֹ֣א תִקָּ֑ח   Do not take bribe

and 

וְגֵ֖ר לֹ֣א תִלְחָ֑ץ   You shall not oppress a stranger,

The answer to it all is to be fair.  To maintain the balance. 

But where if the fulcrum?  Can it be moved?