And These Are the Ordinances Which You Shall Set Before Them
Author: Esther Ehrman, Shvat 5769/Feb 2009"elei ha mishpatim asher tasim lifeneihem" (mishpatim, Exodus 21,1)
A language is often characterised by the number of terms it has to describe something. Hebrew has seventy terms with which to designate G-d. It has a number of terms to categorise commandments, e.g., mitzvah, mishpat, chok, din, gezara. Each conveys something different about Divine instructions within the whole body of law, the Torah (this last term is also used within the text to designate ‘instructions’)
Mishpatim appears frequently together with and in contradistinction to chukkim and that is how RamBaN (Nachmanides) understands and explains the term in the sentence quoted in the title, the opening statement of the Torah Section called Mishpatim. It is generally assumed that mishpatim are, or can be, explained and that chukkim may not. Ramban sees mishpatim as civil laws (Samson Raphael Hirsch calls them social ordinances) and notes that their place comes rightfully before chukkim. They follow logically on the last of the Ten Commandments in the preceding section, ‘You shall not covet…’ ‘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’ (transl. C.B.Chavel, Exodus,p.338). Moreover, he tells us, justice requires that they be placed immediately after the Ten Commandments, since the whole Torah depends on justice (Midrash Rabbah,30.15). Incidentally, the equality of treatment in law of women and men in all monetary matters (dinim) is derived from our opening statement, ‘These are the mishpatim that you shall set before them’ (Bava Kamma 15A).
Earlier in the Biblical text (Ex.15, 25),at the incident of Marah, where Moses hit the rock to provide the Israelites with water, chok, Ramban writes, preceded mishpat (sham sam lahem chok u mishpat – ‘there, he set for them a statute and an ordinance, chok u mishpat’). Here, the stress is not on justice, but on accepting the word of G-d. Hence the order of the words. The commentators explain chok u mishpat here as being a sample of commandments; Rashi suggests that the Israelites were shown the laws of the parah adumah (the red heifer, accepted as the classic chok), Shabbat and dinim (laws of justice – this would be in the category of mishpatim), so that they might study them.. There is a certain amount of controversy as to when/where the mishpatim were given. Was it first at Marah, with a repetition at Sinai, or was it at Sinai for the first time. All agree that they form part of the Revelation at Sinai. There is also some discussion among the early commentators which aims to ensure that the less understandable chukkim are not treated more lightly.
The RaMbaM (Maimonides) devotes three chapters of his More Nebuchim (Guide for the Perplexed, part 3, chs.26-28) as well as a section at the end of Hilchot Me’ila (8.8. Laws on changing the status of things that have sanctity) to the question of mishpatim and chukkim, largely presented by him as one body of law. He sees these commandments as having three functions (ch.28):
to impart some truth
to teach some moral
to remove injustice
‘The reason of a commandment …is clear and its usefulness evident, if it directly tends to remove injustice, or to teach good conduct that furthers the well-being of society, or to impart a truth which ought to be believed, either on its own merit (e.g that G-d is one) or as being indispensable for facilitating the removal of injustice or the teaching of good morals (eg. not to murder or take vengeance, to love one another).
This is certainly an extension of what we seemed to mean when speaking of social ordinances (mishpatim) and statutes (chukkim). It raises law to the level of ethics and broadens the ordinances and statutes to the meaning of Jewish Law . It is here not only a matter of ensuring a –just- organisation of society. If laws teach us truths and morality, where do we place e.g. the commandments concerning sacrifices, the red heifer, milk and meat prohibitions. The easy answer is that these are chukkim, but that does not satisfy the Rambam’s three criteria. A law can only impart a truth or teach a moral if it is understood and that is perhaps why Rambam states that ‘there is a reason for every precept, even if it is unknown’ (Part 3, ch.26, More Nebuchim).
If we accept this, the distinction between mishpatim and chukkim becomes blurred. Rambam here is making a different distinction, ‘I will now tell you what intelligent persons ought to believe in this respect; namely that each commandment has necessarily a cause, as far as its general character is concerned, and serves a certain object; but, as regards its details we hold that it has no ulterior object’. Among the examples that he gives, we find ‘The law that sacrifices should be brought is evidently of great use…but we cannot say why one offering should be a lamb, whilst another is a ram; and why a fixed number of them should be brought……It is almost similar to the nature of a thing which can receive different forms, but actually receives one of them’ (ibid). Moreover, ‘those who trouble themselves to find a cause for all these details are, in my eyes, void of sense’ (ibid).
There is still a need to carry out a commandment without question, but it is in the detail, in the manner of its application, not in fulfilling the commandment itself. It is not that there are human reasons for the mishpatim and that chukkim are beyond human understanding. Sacrifices, for example, are explained by Rambam (ch 32) as a means used by the Almighty to teach us how to worship Him. Sacrifices were ‘the’ means of worship, and ‘the nature of man is never changed by G-d by way of miracle’ (ibid). The prophets repeatedly stress that, unless accompanied by moral behaviour, sacrifices are unacceptable. They are, further, limited in terms of time and place, unlike prayer and other mitzvoth such as Tzitzit. Although the Temple was the centre of Jewish life and worship, Jewish life has continued, albeit inadequately, without the Temple. In the desert, the Revelation at Sinai precedes, at least textually, the building of the Tabernacle. – On the other hand, we read about the altar in parashat Yitro, just before the opening of our parashat Mishpatim, (‘And these are the mishpatim that you shall set before them’), for which one reason given is that this juxtaposition teaches us to place the Courts of Justice next to the Temple ( and not the other way around).
The first commandment to be given after the Exodus is not sacrificial worship. It is the statement made at Marah (sham sam lahem chok u mishpat). Like Ramban, Rambam understands mishpat here as civil law ‘which are the means of removing injustice’ (ibid). Interestingly, Rambam understands chok here to refer to Shabbat, a commandment for which we are certainly given a reason, - indeed two reasons in the two versions (Exodus and Deutoronomy) of the Decalogue. 1. ‘That we might confirm the true theory, that of the Creation, which at once and clearly leads to the theory of the existence of G-d.’ It thus imparts a truth 2. ‘That we might remember how kind G-d has been in freeing us from the burden of the Egyptians’ – again, a truth, a moral truth - ‘the Sabbath is therefore a double blessing: It gives us correct notions and also promotes the well-being of our bodies’ (Guide, part 2, ch. 31).
Being a physician, Rambam is also concerned with the well-being of our bodies. In Ch.27 (part3, Guide), he tells us that the general object of the Law is to ensure a). the well-being of the soul and b). The well-being of the body. His subject here is not only society, but also the individual. ‘A person who is suffering from great hunger, thirst, heat or cold cannot grasp an idea’. Man, however, is a social creature and ’the body’ in this chapter also indicates the body politic, society. ‘The well-being of the body’ then means ‘material relations’. The individual, to be healthy and able to satisfy his bodily requirements, needs others, needs society ‘one man alone cannot procure all this’. When a person has satisfied his wants , he acquires a first ‘perfection’, which then allows him to acquire the second perfection, that of the soul, ‘becoming an actual intelligent being’. This ‘does not include any action or good conduct, but only knowledge’. It is ‘promoted by correct opinions’. Perfection of the soul is, ‘alone, the source of eternal life’. The necessary precondition for this is good mutual relations, which are ensured by mishpatim. Seen in this context, the mishpatim are not an end in themselves because the Law of Moses also ‘seeks to train us in faith and to impart true and correct opinions when the intellect is sufficiently developed’. In the wider sense, as we saw earlier, commandments do also impart truths and enable good morals. The laws of Shabbat fulfil both functions as we saw. Interestingly, we take the blowing of the Shofar to belong to both categories. When we make Kiddush on Rosh HaShana, in the morning, we say: tike’u ba chodesh shofar, be keisei le yom chageinu; ki chok le Yisrael hu, mishpat le elokei Ya’akov. ‘Blow the horn in the new moon, in the time appointed, on our solemn Feast day. For this is a statute for Israel, a law of the G-d of Jacob’ (Ps.81, v.4-5). The Shofar proclaims and publicises the Festival. One might say that its function is to awaken our spiritual self, so that it serves the well-being of the soul as well as calling the congregation together.
Jewish Law, the Torah, is the Divine crowning glory of the people, whatever term is used at any given point, ki mi goy gadol asher lo elohim kerovim eilav k’H elokeinu be chol koreinu eilav. U mi goy gadol asher lo chukkim u mishpatim tzadikim ke chol ha torah ha zot asher anochi notein lifneichem hayom.’For what nation is there so great, which has G-d so near unto them as the Lord our G-d is in all things that we call upon Him for? And what nation is there so great that has chukim and mishpatim so righteous as all the Torah which I set before you this day’? (Deut.4, v.7-8).
Shelach Lecha
Author: Esther Ehrman, Sivan 5769/May 2009Salachti ki devareicha (Shelach Lecha)
Understanding the Pardon and Punishment of the Scouts
Immediately after Kol Nidrei on Yom Kippur, we begin our prayers of the Day of Atonement with the following words, repeated 3 times:
Ve nislach lechol adat benei Israel u la ger ha gar betochamki lechol ha am bi shegaga And the whole community of Israel and the stranger living in their midst will be forgiven, for it is an act of inadvertence.
Selach na la avon ha am hazei ke godel chasdeicha ve ka’asher nisata la am hazei miMitzrayim ve ad heina. Forgive, I beseech You, the sin of this people according to the greatness of Your lovingkindness, even as You have borne this people from Egypt till here Ve sham ne’emar And there it is said Vayomer H. ‘salachti ki devareicha’ , And the Lord said: I have pardoned in accordance with your word.
These important statements are all taken from Shelach Lecha, the weekly reading in the Book of Numbers (Chs 14, 15) dealing with the sin of ten out of the twelve Scouts who returned from their mission with a negative report about their chances of conquering the Promised Land. Two questions arise: Why did our Sages consider that these verses were the most appropriate for Yom Kippur? Was the speech by Moses in Shelach Lecha part of a broader agenda?
The first statement (Num.15,v.26) refers to sacrifices brought for sins committed in error and, indeed our repentance on Yom Kippur is largely focused on these. The other two statements (14, v.19,20) are part of the dialogue between the Almighty and Moses. There is no inadvertence in the sin of the Scouts. Although Moses is horrified by the implied lack of faith and the rebellion of both the Scouts and the Community – they plan to appoint a new leader to take them back to Egypt – he pleads with the Lord to avert the evil decree.
In his commentary on this section, the RaMbAN (Nachmanides), refers us to another such dialogue, when Moses pleaded with the Almighty on behalf of the Children of Israel after the sin of the Golden Calf. Let us compare the two dialogues. In both, G-d tells Moses that He will annihilate (achaleim, consume them Ex.32 v.10; akeinu ba dever ve orisheinu, strike them with pestilence and drive them out of existence, Num.14,v.12) and that He will set up a new nation with the descendants of Moses. In both dialogues, Moses argues that recognition of G-d by the nations, in particular Egypt, will be affected if the Israelites are destroyed.
In the earlier episode of the Golden Calf, Moses seems to be bold. He is concerned not just that the people be pardoned, but that G-d should remain in their midst. If they are not to be pardoned, mecheini na mi sifrecha, blot me out of your book (Ex.32 v.32) and if G-d’s presence is not in the midst of the people, ‘do not let us go further’ (im ein paneicha holechim, al ta’alinu mi zei. Ex 33,v.15). The purpose of the Exodus from Egypt and of the Covenant between G-d and the Israelites, Moses implies, is to make G-d known to the nations of the world. This cannot happen without the nation chosen for that purpose and it cannot happen if they are led by a messenger (‘I will send an angel – mal’ach – before you…I will no longer go in your midst (Ex.33 v.2,3).
Was the Almighty persuaded? Vayinachem H’ al ha ra’a asher diber la’asot le amo, thereupon G-d let himself be moved (vayinachem) to change His intent regarding the evil He had said He would do to His people (Ex.32 v.14). They would be destroyed and be replaced by a new nation, the descendants of Moses. But Vayinachem does not constitute a pardon. When G-d determined to destroy with the Flood, we are told nichamti ki asitim, I have been moved to alter my decision in making them (Gen.6 v.7).
Moses tells the people that he will try to bring about atonement, ulai akapera, but when he asks for forgiveness – ‘if not, blot me out of Your book’, G-d answers, ‘Whoever has sinned against me, him will I blot out from my book (Ex 32 v.33). There is no statement about forgiveness – and the people are struck with a plague ‘because they had made the calf that Aharon had made’ (v.35). Yet the Almighty agrees to the other request Moses made. His presence will remain in the midst of the people. Gam et ha davar asher dibarta a’asei, ‘I shall fulfil also this word that you have spoken’ (Ex. 17). G-d does not destroy the people and He will stay in their midst. Both requests are granted. Punishment, however, is not withheld and forgiveness is not stated.
In the episode of the Scouts, Moses again uses the argument that the nations need to have confirmed what they already know and have heard, that G-d is in the midst of His nation, His cloud and His pillar of fire protect them. Egypt has witnessed His power; they might wonder whether there is anything greater. Moses argues that the nations will infer that G-d’s power is not able to overcome in Canaan. Moses pleads Yigdal na koach D, let the power of my Lord wax great. Sforno explains this to mean: let Your might be greater here than Your justice. In other words, regardless of the just deserts of the Israelites, the nations need to witness Your might. Moses continues: ‘as You once uttered, G-d, long-suffering and abundant in loving kindness, lifting away sin (avon) and rebellion, yet He remits nothing. He remembers the avon of parents for the children to the third and fourth generation (the second of the Kol Nidre statements). Forgive, I beseech you, the avon of this people according to the greatness of Your loving kindness and even as you granted them forbearance from Egypt until now. And God said: I have pardoned in accordance with your word’ (Num. 14, v.17-21). In his plea, Moses uses both the words that we have in the Yom Kippur Service quoted in our opening paragraphs and the words of the Thirteen Attributes of G-d, These, too, are very prominent on the Day of Atonement, though not exactly as they appear here.
The Thirteen Attributes, as they have come to be known, were first uttered by the Almighty after the sin of the Golden Calf, (Ex.34,v.5-7) in response to a plea by Moses that he might be vouchsafed a knowledge of G-d. It is the full text as it appears in Exodus that we repeat again and again on Yom Kippur. Indeed, the Gemara, Tractate Rosh Hashana, 17B, tells us ‘Whenever Israel sins, they should pray before Me in this way [with the words of the Thirteen Attributes] and I will forgive them’. Presumably that statement is based on Moses’ plea in Shelach Lecha. When Moses quotes the Attributes in his plea, he omits some of them. RamBaN explains that the situation of the sin of the Scouts did not warrant the full text. For instance, the attribute of ‘truth’ is omitted here, since truth would bring to mind the awful sinfulness of the Scouts. Moses stresses ‘long suffering’, which he makes the opening of the plea, as well as forbearance.
G-d’s response, salachti, I have pardoned, was what Moses wanted to hear. It had not been uttered after the sin of the Golden Calf. Ibn Ezra comments on the word, saying that it does not mean that sins have been wiped out, but that G-d holds back His frustration in order to allow for repentance to become complete. This, again, is very relevant to our Yom Kippur prayers.
‘In accordance with your word’ tells us that the Israelites here, as after the sin of the Golden Calf, will not be destroyed. As was the case there, however, punishment will ensue. The Covenant has not been abrogated. The nation will enter the Promised Land, though not those who doubted, not the generation that came out of Egypt; only their children will live to see the Land. Sins have inevitable consequences. Perhaps it is for that reason that on Yom Kippur we also pray that Repentance, Prayer and Charity may avert the Decree that we deserve.
While it is the full text of the Thirteen Attributes that we insistently repeat on Yom Kippur, we identify with the words of the plea Moses made in Shelach Lecha and therefore set them at the opening of Kol Nidre. We hope that the response to our plea will also be salachti ki devareicha.
We have not yet answered the second of our questions. Did Moses have a broader agenda? Ramban tells us ‘G-d created humanity to acknowledge and give thanks to His name….Were He then to destroy Israel, the peoples of the world would forget His deeds and the whole intention of human creation would be completely defeated’ (text quoted by Nehama Leibowitz, Bamidbar, Shelach 4) . The survival of the Israelites is essential because their mission, to testify to G-d’s presence in the world, is essential. But, a witness needs to be believable. In order to be believable, the witness may not be of questionable character. More, since the testimony entails Divine morality, the witness is expected to exemplify that morality. A wrongdoer is ineffective. Therefore, the punishments, the consequences of wrongdoing are necessary to bring the witness to a fit state to testify. That is what Yom Kippur is about and that is why Moses’ main concern here, as in Exodus, is the survival of the people. He makes no plea for the survival of the sinners themselves.
Mount Sinai
Author: Esther Ehrman, Iyyar 5769/May 2009Mount Sinai, as we know, was the place of the Divine Revelation in the Torah and it is there that the Israelites stood and were given the Ten Commandments. We also know that this was in the desert. But, like the burial place of Moses, we do not, to-day, know which mountain is Mount Sinai, nor in which desert it is located. The Torah gives us the names of the Israelites’ encampments, but opinions differ as to where we can find these on modern maps. Biblical Geography has become increasingly controversial.
Midrash
The Midrash does not concern itself with Geography, although it comments on the places named in the Torah narrative of the Exodus. “And they took their journey from Sukkot…” (Ex.13, 20). Sukkot, the Midrash Mechilta tells us, is the place of the Clouds of Glory. The Lord told Moses to tell the Israelites “to turn and encamp before Pi-Hachirot..”(Ex.14,1). Pi-Hachirot, we are told, is the city of freedom (cheirut).
In his book,The Shavuot Anthology, Philip Goodman lists five names for Mt. Sinai, The Mountain of G-d, The Mountain of Bashan, The Mountain of Peaks, The Mountain of Horeb, The Mountain of Sinai. We are familiar with the link between Horeb and Sinai from the phrase “the day you stood before the Lord your G-d at Horeb” (Deut.4, 10) referring to the Revelation at Sinai. Its name was indeed Horeb, the Midrash says, but because G-d revealed Himself in the thorn bush (seneh), it was called Sinai (Pirke de R.Eliezer, 40, 41). Exodus Rabba (2.4) explains the name Sinai as related to sinah, hatred, because hatred came from there to the idol worshipers, who envied the Israelites for having received the Torah. Horeb, it explains, is related to cherev, the sword; idol worshipers shall be destroyed is thus indicated and, further, the Sanhedrin was given the power of the sword there.
Many mountains sought the honour of being the location of the Revelation. The Almighty chose Sinai as the Mountain of G-d because it made no arrogant claim. The Midrash on Psalm 68,9, “even Sinai was moved in the presence of G-d” suggests that it came from Mount Moriah, the place made fit by the Sacrifice of Isaac.
The Gemara (Shabbat 89, a-b) echoes some of these speculations. It, too, links the Wilderness of Sin to the hostility of idolaters, adding that R.Abbahu suggested that Sinai was called Horeb because desolation, churvah, to idolaters descended from there.
The Midrash, in all these suggestions, is concerned with the message conveyed by the names used in the Torah.
Biblical Geography
Scholars in this field were indeed looking for locations: where did the Israelites cross the Red Sea (Yam Suph) and where, in which desert, was Mount Sinai/Horeb. Their speculations in the last thirty years or so range far; over a dozen different sites have been suggested for Mount Sinai. We know only about the road not taken, “G-d led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near” (Ex.13,17). The Philistines had land along the coastal plain of what is now Israel. The Israelites came from Goshen in the North East of Egypt. One suggestion is that they crossed near the Nile Delta. When they “turned” (Ex.14,1), did they go towards the Bitter Lakes to cross into the Sinai Peninsula or did they reach the Red Sea (one suggestion is that Yam Suph really was the Red – not the Reed – Sea because suph can also refer to seaweed) and cross near the Straits of Tiran into Midian, nowadays part of Saudi Arabia?
The traditional route (M.Gilbert, Jewish History Atlas) has the Israelites travelling down the West side of the Sinai; the crossing suggestions vary, perhaps through the Bitter Lakes, perhaps through the Northern end of the Gulf of Suez. On this route, Mount Sinai is identified with Jabel Musa in the South of the Peninsula. Scholars who argue against this route point out that it would have been highly dangerous, since it would pass by the turquoise mines worked and protected by the Egyptians.
Another suggestion identifies Mount Sinai/Horeb as Jabel el-Lawz in Midian, on the far side of the Gulf of Aqaba. The basis for this claim is the passage in the Torah (Ex.3,1) that tells how Moses led the flocks of his father-in-law, Jethro, in Midian , to the Mountain of G-d and there sees the burning thorn bush. While this seems to place Sinai/Horeb in Midian, did Moses perhaps wander much further with his sheep, it is argued, as shepherds do. We learn that Moses was to be helped in his mission by his brother Aaron and “behold, he is coming to meet you” (Ex.4,14). It is not likely, scholars argue, that Aaron would be in Midian, ‘coming to meet’ Moses. Aaron is in Egypt, as far as we know.
Yet another theory sets Mount Sinai/Horeb as Har Karkom, in the Negev desert in Israel. This claim uses a statement in Deuteronomy (1,2) that it takes “eleven days’ journey from Horeb by the way of Mount Seir, to Kadesh Barnea”. Kadesh Barnea is placed near Ain Kadis and Mt Seir is here identified as Jabel Arif el Naqa. The claim is that the distance from Har Karkom to Kadesh Barnea as defined here would indeed take eleven days on foot. If the Central Negev highland was the land of the Amalekites, then Har Karkom would be between Northern Midian and the Amalekites, in keeping with the Biblical narrative. However, while petraglyphs, rock art depicting cows or oxen or calves were found here, scholars have dated this and other archaeological cultic evidence as being at least from the third millennium BCE, which does not tally with the accepted dating of the Exodus from Egypt in the second millennium.
