Parashat Mishpatim (Exodus 21 - 24)

by Rabbi Margaret Jacobi

Summary

This Sidra is almost entirely legal. The laws presented are diverse, and lay out the basis for a civil society. They range from the treatment of slaves to compensation for injury and damage to one’s property. At the heart of the Sidra is a call to respect the poor and the stranger and act justly.

Commentary

Last week, a teenager asked me, “How do we know when to accept what is in the Torah and when not to?”  As I said to her, this is one of the hardest questions for us as Liberal Jews.  This week’s Sidra is a particularly good place to think about this question. Amongst the diverse laws are some which seem relevant only to biblical times, and which we would clearly reject, and some which seem to have eternal relevance.

The laws ‘You shall not suffer a sorceress to live. Whoever lies with a beast shall surely be put to death.’(Ex. 22:17-18) are laws we would reject.  However, there are far more laws of enduring relevance, for example: ‘You shall not oppress strangers or wrong them, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt’ (22:20) and ‘If you see the ass of one that hates you lying under its burden, you shall not pass it by, you shall help it up with its owner. You shall not divert the judgement of the poor in his case’ (23:5-6).

There are also laws which fall somewhere in between. For example, laws about slaves may seem irrelevant in 21st century Britain, but the slave trade was only abolished two hundred years ago, and slavery still persists in many parts of the world, and in some forms in Britain too. So the command, ‘If someone knocks out the tooth of theirs man or maidservant, they shall let them go free,’ (21:25) which demands humane treatment of slaves, was far ahead of its time and is of continuing relevance. Likewise, the famous command, ‘You shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand…’ (21:23-24) if read carefully can be seen to mean financial compensation, and was an important way of limiting revenge and retaliation.

All this leaves us with the question, how do we decide? It is not a new question.  The rabbis of the Talmud already wrestled with the question of what should be taken literally. They virtually argued away the death penalty and used the laws about women to greatly ameliorate their position.  But they could not state, as the founders of our movement did, that the laws were not the word of God.   Claude Montefiore at the beginning of the 20th century, wrote: ‘It cannot be too often repeated that we have obligations to truth as well as to righteousness.’  He emphasised our duty to think about this question with thoughtfulness and reverence.  Rabbi John Rayner, at the end of the century, wrote of the interplay of Scripture, Tradition and Conscience. He warned that the answers we found would always fall short of certainly but nevertheless, we should continue to ask the questions.

Both Claude Montefiore and Rabbi Rayner were clear that it is our continuing task to seek to discover from our Torah what God requires of us.  This weeks Sidra brings the question into focus.  As we read it, may we find enduring teachings, and put them into practice in our lives.

Rabbi Margaret Jacobi

Birmingham Progressive Synagogue