Parashat Mishpatim

“Do not steal” –

“From each man whose heart impels him to donate”

Rav M. Elon

Our parashah, Parashat Mishpatim begins with “ve-Eileh ha-mishpatim” - “And these are the laws” – with the “vav ha’chibur,” the “vav of association,” associating and linking this parashah to the parashah of Yitro.

The nature of the relationship between these two parashot is in fact the union of the heavenly manifestation of Parashat Yitro, in God’s revelation on Har Sinai, together with the practical laws and their minutiae that appear in Parashat Mishpatim.

Both these aspects form one body, for the greatness of our Law manifests itself in all the small laws and statues – Am Yisrael’s Torah is not a legal system that concerns itself solely with the heavenly, to the complete exclusion of the day-to-day survival.

Indeed, at the conclusion of Parashat Mishpatim the famous declaration of Am Yisrael is recorded:

“All that God has spoken – we will do and we will hear (“na’aseh v’nishma.”)”

(Shemot 24:7)

Rashi notes that this incident in fact occurred immediately following the revelation on Har Sinai.  The chronological incongruity in recording this at the end of Parashat Mishpatim is of no consequence, however, for “Ein mukdam u’me’uchar ba’Torah,” (literally “there is no earlier and later in the Torah,” i.e. there is no rigid chronological sequencing to the Torah.)

However this is precisely the point – since “Ein mukdam u’me’uchar ba’Torah,” we must understand why this incident which occurred in Parashat Yitro is removed from its logical position and rather recorded here, at the conclusion of Parashat Mishpatim.

It would seem that this is the concept that we raised at the beginning of this shi’ur: Am Yisrael’s great declaration of “na’aseh v’nishma” refers to both aspects of the Torah – the heavenly, spiritual manifestation of Parashat Yitro, as well as that which imbues every aspect of the earthly existence that is recorded in Parashat Mishpatim.

These two distinct features form the two sides of the one eternal coin that is the Torah of God.

The greatest danger is that God’s manifestation on Har Sinai be understood as a one-time spiritual climax, a great ‘event’ of heavenward ascent that occurred once and only once – thus all spiritual achievement is completely detached from this world.  This is the nature of the admonition not to forget the experience of Har Sinai.  The admonition not to ‘forget’ the event is not merely not to forget the historical occurrence, but also not to perceive the entire event as something extraordinary that owing to its great spiritual nature has no relevance to the mundane routine of everyday life.

We will examine a concept that was established in the Ten Commandments, is repeated in Parashat Mishpatim, and is reiterated for a third time in Parashat Terumah – the prohibition of “Do not steal” in all its various manifestations.

However before we begin with this specific prohibition, we will first examine the structure of the Ten Commandments, understanding each individual commandment.

On the verse in Shir ha-Shirim:

“Your two breasts are as two fawns, twins of a deer,”

(Shir ha-Shirim 4:5,)

Rashi notes an internal relationship between the two tablets of the Ten Commandments.

We must note that it is common practice to divide the Ten Commandments in a vertical manner – the right tablet, containing the first five of the Ten Commandments, deals with those commandments between man and God, [with the exception of one commandment, that of “Honor you father and your mother,” which has been dealt with by many commentators, this discussion falling outside of the scope of this shi’ur.]  Contrary to this tablet, the left tablet deals solely with those mitzvot between man and his fellow.

Rashi raises a different relationship within the Ten Commandments, one which is horizontal in nature, paralleling each commandment on the right tablet with its neighbor on the left tablet.  For example: comparing “I am the Lord your God” and “Do not murder,” while the objective is to understand the internal connection between the two.

As Rashi writes:

“Another explanation, ‘Your two breasts’ – this represents the tablets, ‘deer twins’ for they are attuned in uniform manner, and five commandments on this (tablet) and five on this (tablet) correspond, each commandment to another.” 

(Rashi, ibid.)

Rashi then elaborates:

“‘I (am the Lord)’ parallels ‘Do not murder,’ for the murderer diminishes the image of God.”

(ibid.)

Adam, as the Torah testifies at the beginning of Sefer Bereshit, was created in the form of God, therefore:

“He who spills human blood, shall have his own blood shed by man; for in the image of God He made man.”

(Bereshit 9:6)

Rashi then explains the next pair of commandments:

“‘You shall not (have other gods)’ parallels ‘Do not commit adultery,’ for he who follows idolatry (does so) in the manner that an adulterous wife will take strangers in place of her husband.”

(Rashi, Shir ha-Shirim 4:5)

The notion that arises from this is astounding.  The character trait that allows one to err with idolatry or adultery is one and the same – an unstable sense of faithfulness.  The adulterer seeks out the stranger, just as one who serves idols, who severs the relationship between man and God,

The third pair of commandments is “Do not bear (God’s name in vain)’ and “Do not steal,” and their connection is:

“‘Do not bear’ parallels ‘Do not steal,’ for the thief will ultimately bear false oaths.”

(ibid.)

Here, despite that the relationship between the commandments is apparent, in distinction from the previous two commandments which seem to have bear internal relationships, here the connection seems to be in a more exterior dimension.  It is quite understandable how the prohibition against theft can deteriorate to falsehood, yet it is not clear what the internal relationship between taking an oath in vain or swearing falsely and the prohibition of theft is.

This is a point that we must consider.

In any event, we will conclude Rashi’s commentary:

“‘Remember (the Shabbat)’ parallels ‘Do not bear false witness’ – for he who desecrates Shabbat bears false witness against his Creator, thereby saying that He did not rest in the creation (of the world.)”

(ibid.)

This concept is incredible – not refraining from the prohibited categories of work is paramount to false testimony, testimony that God did not rest, so to speak, and thus denies God’s sovereignty.  Refraining from these prohibited activities, then, is paramount to the acknowledgement of God’s sovereignty, by resting on the day that “He rested from all His work,” (Bereshit 2:3.)

The concluding pair of commandments is:

“‘Honor your father’ parallels ‘Do not covet,’ for one who covets will ultimately give birth to a son who defiles him, and (instead) honors one who is not his father.”

(Rashi, Shir ha-Shirim 4:5)

Here it would seem that the relationship between the commandments is causative-external rather than internal-essential, yet this is not the case.  When a person covets his fellow’s wife – he ceases being involved with his own wife, and now he also creates a sense of ambiguity and uncertainty between the children and their father.  It is from lack of clarity that the immoral basis for dishonoring one’s mother and father develops, for the internal relationships and bond have been destroyed.

Thus, Rashi’s words describe the deep connection and the common basis of those mitzvot between man and God, and those between man and his fellow.

In Shir ha-Shirim the Tablets of the Covenant were likened to breasts that produce milk to nourish a child, for mother’s milk is the child’s ideal nutrition, the same can be said of the Ten Commandments and God’s mitzvot.  Our affinity for life emanating from the Torah gains two facets, however both facets form the two sides of one coin.

It is important to note that it is possible to examine each pair of commandments in great depth, yet we will devote our study to the pair of “Do not bear the name of God, your God, in vain” and “Do not steal.” 

The beginning of our parasha, Parashat Mishpatim, begins with the laws of the “Eved Ivri” – the “Hebrew slave” – yet as we will soon see, there is a deep connection between these laws and the concept of theft.

“And these are the laws which you shall set before them.  If you buy a Hebrew slave, six years he shall serve; but in the seventh year he is to be set free without liability.  If he came in (to servitude) by himself, he shall leave by himself; if he was married, then his wife shall leave with him.  If his master has given him a wife, and she has born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall leave by himself.”

(Shemot 21:1-4)

Then we are told of the individual who prefers a life of slavery over freedom:

“And if the slave declares: ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I do not want to go free;’ Then his master must bring him to the judges; bringing him to the door, or to the door post; and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.”

(ibid. v. 5,6)

This servitude “forever” is until the Yovel, (the fiftieth year of the fifty-year cycle.)  The piercing of his ear is explained by the well-known explanation of our Sages, that this ear which heard “For to Me Bnei Yisrael are servants,” (Vayikra 25:55,) at Har Sinai, and then went and acquired a master for itself – let it be pierced.  (Cf. Kiddushin 22b)

There is an additional reason which is set forth by the Mekhilta, similar in nature to the previous explanation, yet the Mekhilta states:

“This ear which heard ‘Do not steal’ at Har Sinai and went and stole – let it be pierced!”

(Mekhilta d’Rabi Yishmael, Mishpatim 2, s.v. ve-ratza)

Indeed the entire section of the Eved Ivri deals with one who was sold by Beit Din in order to offset the damages that he was unable to repay.  In other words, we are dealing with a person who stole, and now in addition to returning the value of the stolen object (or the object itself,) he must also pay kefel, (“double,”) the full value of the article as a fine.  When he is unable to meet the full repayment – the Beit Din then ‘sells’ him: he is bound by a long-term commitment, whereby he is able to return his debt.  In our age it is the acceptable practice to imprison someone like this, and quite simply by punishing him - we also punish his family, and his debt is never repaid.  In the Din Torah, however, the Beit Din puts the thief through an entire “education series” regarding his responsibility towards society, towards the victim of his theft, and towards himself.

As we said, these are the words of Rashi at the beginning of our parasha which clearly and succinctly state:

“‘If you buy a Hebrew slave’ – from the Beit Din who sold him in his theft, as the verse states: ‘If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft,’ (Shemot 22:2.)”

(Rashi, Shemot 21:2)

Therefore, the parasha of Mishpatim which appears immediately after the Ten Commandments opens with the laws of the thief, or more precisely, with the rehabilitation process of the thief – a fact we must consider.  Parashat Terumah too, which describes the beginning of the construction of the Tabernacle, begins with a certain emphasis enjoining against theft, as the verse states:

“From each man whose heart impels him to donate you shall take My donation.”

(Shemot 25:2)

And our Sages expounded:

“Not from stolen (goods,) not from usury, and not from theft.”

The Zohar on Parashat Va-Yakhel also connects beautifully between the construction of the Tabernacle and the caution from involvement in destructive activities like theft and stealing.

The Zohar begins by expounding upon the verse from Yeshayahu:

“Do you not share your bread with the hungry…”

(Yeshayahu 58:7)

The Zohar then innovates the following concept:

“‘Your bread’ – it does not state ‘bread,’ rather ‘your bread;’ that which is yours from your money, and that you did not steal, nor usurp nor thieve.”

(Zohar, Va-Yakhel, s.v. kechu me’itchem teruma)

The Zohar derives from the precise terminology of the verse: “Do you not share your bread with the hungry” – that it does not state “bread,” rather it classifies the term as “your bread.”  The significance is that the bread that one gives to the poor, or Tzedaka (Charity) that one hands to the needy, must be owned by he who grants it, “and that you did not steal, nor usurp, nor thieve.”

“For if this is the case (that it is stolen etc.) it is not meritorious, rather woe to him that is brought to recall his debts.”

(ibid.)

For if one gives the poor of something that he has stolen, “woe to him that is brought to recall his debts” – woe to this person that his act of ‘charity’ reminds him of his debts.

The Zohar then moves on to compare this case to that which is stated in the Torah regarding the Tabernacle:

“In the same manner ‘Take from yourselves a donation,’ (Shemot 35:5) – take as a donation that which is yours, and not from (that obtained through) usury, nor through stealing, nor through theft.”

(ibid.)

“Take from yourselves a donation” – donate from that which is yours, and not from usury, theft, or stealing.

Just as one is required to give poor person charity from that which he rightfully and lawfully possesses, how much more so is this the case when he donates to a cause for Heaven.  God does not require anything from any of His creations, all He requires is that when one gives, he gives truthfully and honestly of his own assets, and not of another’s property, or of that which he acquired unlawfully.

Let us expand further on the concept of theft.

When we consider the concept of “theft,” we immediately relate to the theft of money or possessions.  In truth, there are three categories of theft.  There is one who “steals souls,” (“gonev nefashot,”) i.e. who kidnaps for resale, trading in humans as if they were mere articles of financial worth.  The law regarding such a thief is that he must pay for his act with his soul – he is sentenced to death.

[This is in fact the commandment of “Do not steal” that appears in the Ten Commandments, which refers to kidnapping and not ‘theft’ in monetary terms.]

The second category of thief, who is dealt with in Parashat Mishpatim is he who steals money or goods.  His punishment is likewise monetary in nature, and he pays the fine of “kefel,” “double,” i.e. he is to make full repayment of the value of his theft, and then is to pay the full value again as a fine.

There is a third category of thief, whose activity of theft often goes unnoticed, this is one who “gonev da’at beriyot” – “steals the mindset of the creations” – i.e. deceives  people, thereby “stealing” their correct perception and understanding of reality.

We must note that to many, “geneivat da’at,” (literally “stealing understanding,” i.e. deceit) is perceived to be immoral behavior.  Yet this is in fact behavior that is prohibited by the Halakha, and according to some of the Rishonim (earlier authorities) may even be a biblical prohibition.

As we have stated, despite the fact that the kidnapper receives the harshest sentence, our Sages spoke of the first thief they mention, and it is apparent that this thief possesses the greatest moral decay – the gonev da’at.

The Tosefta in Bava Kama states as follows:

“There are seven thieves: the primary of all of them is the gonev da’at of others: he who urges his friend to be his guest, yet in his heart he does not want him to accept, and he who exceedingly showers gifts on his fellow, and he knows that he does not accept them…”

(Tosefta, Bava Kama 7:8)

In other words, one manner in which one misleads his fellow is by urging his friend to be his guest, when he knows full well that his friend is unable to accept the invitation.  Another form of geneivat da’at is: “he who exceedingly showers gifts on his fellow” – he showers gifts on his fellow when he knows that his friend will not accept the gifts.  These patterns of behavior lead one’s fellow to think that indeed one wants to do good for them, and it may even lead him to become friends with this “generous” individual.  However they have been mislead by the perpetrator of these acts, and have fallen victim to the manipulation of someone who essentially seeks his own good at their expense.

This form of theft, geneivat da’at, is so severe, that our Sages continue on, expressing themselves as follows:

“And not only this, but we relate to him as if he would steal the Da’at Elyonah (“Supreme Understanding,”) if he was capable of doing so, for whoever deceives the creations is termed “ganav,” (“thief,”) as the verse states: ‘Thus Avshalom stole the hearts of the men of Yisrael.’”

(ibid.)

This reminds us of Lavan’s words to Ya’akov, when Ya’akov was fleeing from him, Lavan states with a fair share of hypocrisy:

“And Lavan said to Ya’akov: ‘What have you done, that you have stolen my heart and carried away my daughters, as captives taken with the sword?  Why did you flee away secretly, and steal me…’”

(Bereshit 31:26,27)

Rashi immediately explains that the phrase “and steal me” signifies: “and you mislead me, stealing my da’at.”  This elucidates and greatly clarifies matters, for indeed he who ‘steals his fellow’s da’at’ is as if he steals him proper, for he uses him as a means for his own needs.

In fact the expression “gonev da’at elyon” – “he who steals the Supreme Understanding” was stated about Kayin (Cane,) who answered the question as to his brothers whereabouts by saying:

“I do not know, am I my brother’s keeper?’

(Bereshit 4:9)

He who has sunken so low, has no chance of repenting, for the tremendous volume that he believes himself to fill prevents him from contemplating his actions.  He even attempts to deceive God!

Unlike in the western world, where there is a clear distinction between he who is guilty of monetary theft and he who has maliciously mislead others to serve his own purposes, the Torah emphasizes the severity of the gonev da’at.

As the Rambam writes:

“A person is forbidden to act in a smooth-tongued and luring manner.  He should not speak one thing outwardly and feel otherwise in his heart.  Rather, his inner self should be like that which he shows to the world, and what he feels in his heart should be the same as the words on his lips.

It is forbidden to deceive people, even a non-Jew.”

(Hilkhot De’ot, 2:6)

Geneivat da’at – deception – is forbidden, whether it is perpetrated against a Jew or non-Jew, for it makes no difference who the victim is, the thief and deceiver becomes decayed and corrupted.

The Rambam then elaborates:

“How?  One should not sell a non-Jew the meat of an animal which has not been ritually slaughtered as if it were ritually slaughtered meat, nor a shoe made from the hide of an animal which as died of natural causes as if it were made of the hide of a slaughtered animal.”

(ibid.)

A non-Jew may eat meat from an animal that was not ritually slaughtered, and thus if one is to sell him meat of an animal that was not ritually slaughtered claiming that the meat in fact originated from an animal which was ritually slaughtered – he has not caused any damage.  However this is deception – this is the sin of geneivat da’at.

The Rambam continues, offering further examples:

“One should not press his colleague to share a meal with him when he knows that his colleague will not accept his invitation, nor should he press presents upon him when he knows that his colleague will not accept them.  He should not open barrels (of wine, supposedly) for his colleague which he must (in fact) open in order to sell them, in order to deceive him into thinking that they have been opened in his honor.  The same applies with all matters of this sort.”

   (ibid.)

Then the Rambam concludes:

“It is even forbidden to utter a single word of deception or fraud; rather (one should maintain) only truthful speech, a proper spirit, and a heart pure from all deceit and trickery.”

(ibid.)

The Rambam writes in a similar vein in his commentary to Masekhet Kelim, where he discusses a coin that has become worn and scuffed, and no longer represents its true value.  The Rambam then establishes that if the extent of corrosion and abrasion is greater than a sixth of the coin’s value, then one must destroy the coin in order that no-one should err with regard the coin’s value.

He writes:

“It is not permissible for one to maintain a gold dinar or silver me’ah which has lost a sixth (of its value,) rather he must cut it, and all the more so may not use it or deceive a non-Jew with it.

(Rambam, Kelim 12:7)

Again the Rambam emphasizes that one must not deceive a non-Jew.

The Rambam further emphasizes the prohibition of deceiving the non-Jew, re-iterating a prohibitive act which seems quite legitimate to many Jews, among them even Talmidei Chachamim.

“And that which many people and some of the Torah sages consider to be permitted – deception of non-Jews is incorrect and (considering it legitimate is) false comprehension.”

(ibid.)

The Rambam elaborates even further:

“God states in the law of the acquisition, (of slaves,) regarding one who sells himself to an idolater or to idolatry itself, as can be explicitly seen regarding ‘And he shall calculate with his purchaser,’ (Vayikra 25:50,) and our Sages said ‘May he deceive him?  The verse states ‘and he shall calculate’ – he will be meticulous regarding the calculation, and the meaning of ‘deceive him’ is that he will deceive him and cheat him.  And our Sages said (further): If this is the case the Torah was referring to a non-Jew who is your servant, how much more so regarding a non-Jew who is not your servant.  If the Torah is meticulous regarding thieving from a non-Jew, how much more so (is the Torah meticulous) regarding thieving from a Jew.”

   (ibid.)

The synopsis of this matter is as follows:

“And so too deception and trickery and various forms of cheating, and fraud and treachery of the non-Jew are not permitted.  They (our Sages) stated: ‘It is forbidden to deceive (‘lignov da’at’) people, and even the non-Jew, all the more so in something which may lead to Chilul Ha-shem, (literally ‘Desecration of the Name’ – i.e. Desecration of God’s name.)’”

(ibid.)

The reason for this is:

“For this is a great sin, and it brings evil traits to one, and these are the most evil of all, as God explained that He despises those who do this, as the verse states: ‘For it is an abomination to the Lord your God, all who do such things, who ever performs injustice,’ (Devarim 25:16.)”

(ibid.)

Very simply – deception and treachery destroy man’s character.  By deceiving one’s fellow – i.e. geneivat da’at – one gives his fellow the feeling that he interests him, when in fact he is not interested in him, in his fellow, but rather in himself,  The moment that one’s focal interest is “I” and “me,” automatically there is no place for “Him,” (God,) or for “you,” (one’s fellow.)

The gonev da’at  - one who deceives and misleads his fellows – showers gifts on his friend, knowing that the gifts will be refused. He leads his fellow into believing that he cares for him, that he has done something that requires his friend to show gratitude toward him, when in fact he only cares for himself, and was solely looking concerned with his own good.

The concept of theft is particular and defined – it singles out the thief and establishes that the thief lacks all meaning and significance.  Despite the great disparity of degree between he who kidnaps, steals money or goods, or he who steals “da’at” – i.e. deceives, they share a common basis, as Rabi Ovadya Sforno comments on the Ten Commandments:

“‘Lo tignov’ – included (in this) is kidnapping, monetary theft, and geneivat da’at of people, despite the fact that the essence of this prohibition is against kidnapping, one may derive (other) issues from this prohibition’s essential characteristics., as our Sages taught us.”

(Ibn Ezra, Shemot 20:12)

All theft originates from the same basis – from the erasing or obliterating of one’s fellow.

This is the internal link and relationship between the Commandments of “Do not bear God’s name in vain” and “Do not steal,” with which we opened out words on this parashah.

“Do not bear God’s name in vain” indicates the prohibition of using God’s name in vain, this is the prohibition of taking an oath in vain or of taking a false oath.  In so doing, one takes God’s name and utilizes it for his own purposes and interests, which is precisely the act of the thief and the prohibition of “Do not steal” and its various facets.

“Take from yourselves a donation” is the directive of the Torah.  God does not desire enormous sums of money, only a half-shekel, yet it must come from the individual, from his own possessions, from that which is his in essence – indeed from one’s essence.  Not an item which is donated on account of someone else, or which was attained by trampling another.

The point where this appreciation is clearest is in the Temple – the meeting place of the finite with the Infinite.  Yet this must never be forgotten, for if it is – the Temple turns into a most dangerous place, as Rabi Shimon bar Yochai confirmed in the Midrash Rabah:

“Rabi Shimon bar Yochai said: ‘There are three crowns: the crown of monarchy, the crown of priesthood, and the crown of Torah.

The crown of monarchy – this is the table (in the Temple,) as the verse states regarding it: ‘zer zahav saviv,’ – ‘a gold rim (or ‘crown’) around,’ (Shemot 25:25.)

The crown of priesthood – this is the altar, as the verse states regarding it: ‘zer zahav saviv,’ (ibid. 30:3.)

And the crown of Torah – this is the ark, as the verse states regarding it: ‘zer zahav saviv,’ (ibid. 25:11.)

Why do the verses write it as ‘zar,’ ‘foreign,’ (i.e. this is the simple reading of the word,) yet they are read as ‘zer,’ ‘rim’ or ‘crown?’  To instruct you that if a person is meritorious they become a ‘crown’ for him, and if not – (they become) foreign (to him.)”

(Shemot Rabah 34:2, s.v. ve-asu)

This, then, is the danger that the crown may become foreign, then the priesthood becomes something which is open to financial negotiation, and then it lacks the quintessential internal essence that the priesthood exemplifies.

Parashat Mishpatim opens with the thief who is sold in order to reimburse the consequences of his act.  Sometimes the thief will prefer a life devoid of essence, he will prefer to remain with his master and not gain his own freedom, while all this is contained in the call of:

“Take for Me a donation, from each man whose heart impels him to donate you shall take My donation.”

(Shemot 25:2)

The call for a true donations rings out throughout the generations, a call for individual donation, not the token gesture of under the cloak of deception that primarily harms he who employs such destructives tactics.  This is a call that will increasingly echo throughout the world, the call for men of truth.

Translated by Sholem Hurwitz.

Copyright Keren Yishai/Rav M. Elon.