Mishpatim

Is civil law rational? Could an honest and intelligent person  derive rules governing human interactions  on a purely logical basis? It feels like it could be done , but I do not think this is true.  Even with the deepest self evaluation, prejudices would taint the product.

Mishpatim sets out civil law as a confrontation. 

וְאֵ֙לֶּה֙ הַמִּשְׁפָּטִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר תָּשִׂ֖ים לִפְנֵיהֶֽם׃

These are the rules that you shall set before them:

 

These laws are decided cases. They are in the people’s face.

Starting with the predetermined seven year term of service for the Hebrew slave,

כִּ֤י תִקְנֶה֙ עֶ֣בֶד עִבְרִ֔י שֵׁ֥שׁ שָׁנִ֖ים יַעֲבֹ֑ד וּבַ֨שְּׁבִעִ֔ת יֵצֵ֥א לַֽחׇפְשִׁ֖י חִנָּֽם׃

When you acquire a Hebrew slave, that person shall serve six years—and shall go free in the seventh year, without payment.

 

the Torah challenges the reader by validating the institution of slavery. In the context of the modern world this seems atavistic, accepting an institution that is anathema and the cause of multigeneration harm.

People continue to indenture themselves, agree to surrender their ability to make (certain) choices to a person or institution that agrees to provide support.  This is a contract. This is a wage-slave. I do not see a future in which these institutions, and the hierarchy of dominance that they represent, disappears. The relationship between bosses and workers needs boundaries. Denying the fact of one human dominating another does not make it disappear; rather, the evils of supremacy flourish in their negation from consciousness.

The imposition of slavery is made a capital offence:

וְגֹנֵ֨ב אִ֧ישׁ וּמְכָר֛וֹ וְנִמְצָ֥א בְיָד֖וֹ מ֥וֹת יוּמָֽת׃ {ס}        

One who kidnaps another party—whether having sold or still holding the victim—shall be put to death.

But the institution, as an economic entity is limited.

When I (under contract) read these passages, I re-evaluate my own position.

The most famous part of the code attributed to Hammurabi is in this parsha,

עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן שֵׁ֖ן תַּ֣חַת שֵׁ֑ן יָ֚ד תַּ֣חַת יָ֔ד רֶ֖גֶל תַּ֥חַת רָֽגֶל׃ …

eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,etc

 

The commentators  are quick to point out that “for” means the money equivalent of the damage. The statement is taken (semi)figuratively.  How far does this interpretive license extend? A code of law that is sometimes literal, sometimes figurative, is challenging to navigate. But delivering the broad message requires that. Every case described un the parsha is a model to be interpreted.

 

The instructions to judge impartially begin with the admonition to follow the law instead of a personal sense of justice

 

לֹ֥א תַטֶּ֛ה מִשְׁפַּ֥ט אֶבְיֹנְךָ֖ בְּרִיבֽוֹ׃ לֹ֥א תִשָּׂ֖א שֵׁ֣מַע שָׁ֑וְא אַל־תָּ֤שֶׁת יָֽדְךָ֙ עִם־רָשָׁ֔ע לִהְיֹ֖ת עֵ֥ד חָמָֽס׃

You must not carry false rumors; you shall not join hands with the guilty to act as a malicious witness:

לֹֽא־תִהְיֶ֥ה אַחֲרֵֽי־רַבִּ֖ים לְרָעֹ֑ת וְלֹא־תַעֲנֶ֣ה עַל־רִ֗ב לִנְטֹ֛ת אַחֲרֵ֥י רַבִּ֖ים לְהַטֹּֽת׃

You shall neither side with the mighty to do wrong—you shall not give perverse testimony in a dispute so as to pervert it in favor of the mighty—

‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’

You shall not subvert the rights of your needy in their disputes.

מִדְּבַר־שֶׁ֖קֶר תִּרְחָ֑ק וְנָקִ֤י וְצַדִּיק֙ אַֽל־תַּהֲרֹ֔ג כִּ֥י לֹא־אַצְדִּ֖יק רָשָֽׁע׃

Keep far from a false charge; do not bring death on those who are innocent and in the right, for I will not acquit the wrongdoer.

וְשֹׁ֖חַד לֹ֣א תִקָּ֑ח כִּ֤י הַשֹּׁ֙חַד֙ יְעַוֵּ֣ר פִּקְחִ֔ים וִֽיסַלֵּ֖ף דִּבְרֵ֥י צַדִּיקִֽים׃

Do not take bribes, for bribes blind the clear-sighted and upset the pleas of those who are in the right.

 

The parsha ends with the mystical experience s of Moshe .  It emphasizes the source of these civil and religious laws. They come from Gd, a source we can never understand. The interpretation is left to us