Mishpatim

Dual Nature of Mishpatim

This week’s parsha, Mishpatim, is replete with commandments that govern our relationships with others as well as a number of commandments that discuss our relationship with G‑d.

It is noteworthy that the portion is called Mishpatim which refers specifically to the commandments between man and man, even though this portion also contains a significant number of commandments between man and G‑d.

In truth, these two categories are not totally separate and distinct. Even the man to man Mitzvos involve a man to G‑d component and vice versa. When the Torah commands us to give Tzedakah, for example, it refers to charity in the most literal sense and it also refers to charity in the spiritual sense.

This premise—that the commandments contain a dual nature—is most pronounced at the beginning of this week’s parsha which commences with the conjunctive “And these are the judgments that you shall place before them.” Rashi notes that by opening with the word “And,” the Torah connects this parsha, which deals with social commandments, to the preceding one, which featured the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. Rashi states, this is to underscore that all of the commandments, including the social ones, were given by G‑d at Mount Sinai. And to further underscore the dual nature of the commandments, this week’s parsha ends with the continuation of the Sinai experience.

With this introduction in mind, we will attempt to understand the two dimensions of one of the enigmatic commandments in this parsha.

Afflicting with a Smile

The Torah commands us: “Do not afflict a widow or an orphan. If you do oppress him and cry he cries out to Me, hear I will hear his cry…”

Commentators raise the obvious question: Does the Torah really have to command us to not afflict a widow or an orphan?

Rashi seems to have anticipated this question and explains that while the law against affliction applies to everyone, the Torah, nevertheless, cited the widow and the orphan because, due to their special vulnerability, they are the most likely victims of abuse.

The question still remains, why couldn’t the Torah just make a general statement which forbids afflicting anyone?

One possible answer is that the Torah may not be referring to outright affliction but to cases where the affliction is disguised as a gesture of concern and compassion. A devious individual might act as if he is looking out for their best interests and, because of their vulnerability, cause them harm. Thus the Torah follows this commandment with a threat of Divine retribution. This may be the Torah’s way of warning the potential abuser that G‑d could see through the subterfuge and would hold the abuser fully accountable.

Spiritually Widowed and Divorced

Another question has been asked: Why does the Torah use the singular tense when it says, “If you do oppress him and he cries out to Me…”? Why does it only refer to the orphan’s cries and not the widow’s?

And one more question has been raised. Why does the Torah employ repetitive expressions for the word affliction (afflict and oppress), the orphan’s cries (cry he will cry) and G‑d’s response (hear I will hear)?

To answer these questions, we must take a deeper look at, and introduce, a second, more spiritual dimension of this verse:

The commandment against afflicting a widow and an orphan can be explained as a reference to a person who is spiritually widowed or orphaned as a result of exile conditions.

In Biblical and Talmudic literature, G‑d is referred to as our “Husband” and we are His “wife.” When a Jew is in exile—and his or her connection to G‑d is severely curtailed—it can be said that he or she has become a widow. For this “exile Jew,” G‑d ceases to be a living part of his or her life.

In truth, there are two metaphors for our severed relationship with G‑d in exile. One is widowhood and the other is divorce.

The difference between these two metaphors is that a divorce can be a sign of unfaithfulness, hostility or incompatibility in a marriage. In spiritual terms, this occurred when segments of the Jewish nation rebelled against G‑d and embraced foreign gods and alien values. It symbolizes a pro-active assault on the marriage between G‑d and the Jewish people.

The “widow” metaphor, by contrast, is one in which the alienated Jews have lost their enthusiasm for G‑d and for His Torah in a much more benign way. They were not divorced by G‑d nor did they initiate a divorce against G‑d. They did not rebel. Rather, golus – exile - influences insidiously invaded their world and eroded their inspiration and interest in G‑d and His Torah. Golus kills the G‑dly spirit in us. This situation is, therefore, best compared to a woman whose husband is no longer alive. There are Jews for whom their Husband is no longer a vibrant force and it can no longer be said that He is alive and well in their lives.

To be sure, G‑d’s presence can never be extinguished. Even the Jew who has consciously “divorced” G‑d from his or her life is still connected. However, these connections can become so concealed that they can appear to be non-existent.

The Spiritual Orphan

The orphan is also a metaphor for Jews dwelling in exile conditions.

In Chassidic philosophy, the term father and mother are representative of the two intellectual faculties of chochma-wisdom and binah-understanding. Chochma is the ability to conceive of an idea and binah is the ability to flesh out all the details of the idea. Chochma is like a seed and binah is the womb. When one applies these two intellectual faculties to comprehending G‑d’s greatness, it will result in the birth of the two emotions of love and reverence for G‑d. These emotions are referred to as the” children” of the intellectual parents. Chochma, which contributes the seed of the idea, is the “father” of the emotions and binah, which allows the idea to gestate and assume its form, is the “mother” of the emotions.

In exile, however, we are orphaned. We lack the intellectual ability to comprehend G‑d and His greatness. Galus conditions—the physical suffering and the powers of assimilation—have a deleterious effect on our ability to think in spiritual terms. And as a result, we have lost our emotions—our spiritual children — and we are thus rendered orphans.

King David in his Tehillim referred to this orphaned state. In Psalm 27 he says, “Though my father and mother have forsaken me, G‑d has taken me in.” Chassidic thought explains that King David was speaking about the spiritual orphan who lost his intellectual abilities. Nevertheless, King David speaks of how G‑d will take him in. King David was echoing the pleas of the “orphan of exile” in our verse and he assures us that G‑d will certainly listen to his pleas and will “take him in.”

The Silent Widow

We can now understand the answer to our earlier question on why the Torah employs the singular tense when it speaks of the cries of the afflicted.

As explained, the “widow” describes the lowest state of exile in which G‑d’s presence is completely absent. Except for their soul’s essence that can never be extinguished, all of the spiritual “widow’s” soul’s emotions, are for all intents and purposes, lifeless. When there is no life, the person cannot even cry out to G‑d for help. They may be totally devastated by exile affliction or even completely unaware that they are suffering in exile.

The spiritual “orphan”, by contrast, might be lacking in his ability to generate emotion through intellectual reflection, but he is not bereft of his ability to express raw emotion. When he senses how much he is missing because of exile conditions, he cries out to G‑d.

Double Affliction and Double Salvation

We can now also understand why the Torah employs a repetitive expression for the word affliction: The spiritual orphan, as mentioned, is doubly afflicted because he lacks both intellectual powers of chochma and binah. His cries, therefore, are also twofold; he cries for the loss of chochma and cries for the loss of binah. And G‑d’s response is also a double one; restoring both of our intellectual powers.

In addition, one might suggest that the double expression of affliction, cries and salvation in this verse allude to the destruction of two Holy Temples. The first was destroyed because of a lack of reverence for G‑d and the second for a lack of Jewish unity. Our golus must rectify both causes. So the “orphaned” golus Jew cries out to G‑d because he or she feels the vacuum caused by the absence of our Beis Hamikdash, which possessed the dual function of creating an awareness of G‑d and a force of unity.

G‑d’s response is to bring Moshiach and the final Redemption at which time the third Holy Temple will be built, that will be a composite of the two Temples that we lost.

And it is to these exile Jews—the widows and the orphans—that the Torah directs its commands to us to not afflict. When we meet the exile/widow or the exile/orphan, it is our duty to assist him or her to get out of exile widowhood and the exile orphan state.

The Midrash tells us that G‑d observes all of the commandments. When we who are in our state of widowhood and we who are orphaned cry out to G‑d, He will certainly fulfill the commandment not to afflict the widow and the orphan, bring an end to the exile and rebuild the Beis Hamikdash, with the imminent complete revelation of Moshiach and the true and complete Redemption.

Moshiach Matters

The Rambam concludes his Mishneh Torah with the words