A Thought On Parshas Mishpatim
A Thought on Parshas Mishpatim
"...me'im Mizbachi tikachenu..."
...take him away from My altar..." (21:14)
The Torah instructs us to deal judiciously with wrong doers. This is a theme throughout much of our parsha. Whether one commits financial misdeeds, slander, assault or other crimes, they are to be dealt with, and to be dealt with justly.
It seems curious, then, that in discussing a murderer that the Torah would insert the point that not only must he be tried and punished but he must be taken away from the sacred altar. This seems like such a tangential idea. Imagine if a rule book said "if you speed on the highway you will get a ticket, including if you are wearing your Shabbos clothes." What does one detail have to do with the other? What is the connection between committing a crime and not being allowed to hang around the temple altar?
True, there are some classical lessons taught by our sages as to the halachic ramifications of this verse, but is there another lesson, another layer of meaning, to this contiguity?
The Bechor Shor tempts us with an insightful inference here. We know that the Torah has commanded us to construct cities of refuge, arei miklat, to quarantine people who have committed manslaughter, unintentionally and unwittingly. Not only can they flee there for protection, but they are obligated to flee there. This shows us, explains the Bechor Shor, that those cities of refuge serve a sacred purpose. They are consecrated to protecting those unfortunate souls who have accidentally taken a life yet who seek to do HaShem's bidding, fulfilling His will by committing to societal exile for the uncorrectable damage which they have brought about. Those cities are sacred places. Yet, the halacha also states that one who savagely kills another or who murdered with malice may not seek refuge there. He cannot escape and retire to the sacred, protective walls of the Ir Miklat. He is expelled from there, for there is nothing holy about his attempt to evade justice.
The Bechor Shor derives this insight - that the Cities of Refuge are to be regarded as serving a sacred purpose - from the parallel which is apparent in our verse's forbidding the murderer to retreat to the holy Temple at its altar. This is the self-same law as that of the Torah restricting that murderer from the City of Refuge. This parallel sheds light on the obverse case - the accidental death - where one fulfills a commandment by fleeing to that place. Staying there is comparable to staying at the altar, in the sense that both can be regarded as fulfilling a sacred service.
This is an important perspective - fulfilling a commandment and adhering to Divine will, regardless of what mitzva and irrespective of which specific act - should be regarded as an elevated form of conduct, a holy act. The City of Refuge was "an altared state!"
Good Shabbos. D Fox
"...me'im Mizbachi tikachenu..."
...take him away from My altar..." (21:14)
The Torah instructs us to deal judiciously with wrong doers. This is a theme throughout much of our parsha. Whether one commits financial misdeeds, slander, assault or other crimes, they are to be dealt with, and to be dealt with justly.
It seems curious, then, that in discussing a murderer that the Torah would insert the point that not only must he be tried and punished but he must be taken away from the sacred altar. This seems like such a tangential idea. Imagine if a rule book said "if you speed on the highway you will get a ticket, including if you are wearing your Shabbos clothes." What does one detail have to do with the other? What is the connection between committing a crime and not being allowed to hang around the temple altar?
True, there are some classical lessons taught by our sages as to the halachic ramifications of this verse, but is there another lesson, another layer of meaning, to this contiguity?
The Bechor Shor tempts us with an insightful inference here. We know that the Torah has commanded us to construct cities of refuge, arei miklat, to quarantine people who have committed manslaughter, unintentionally and unwittingly. Not only can they flee there for protection, but they are obligated to flee there. This shows us, explains the Bechor Shor, that those cities of refuge serve a sacred purpose. They are consecrated to protecting those unfortunate souls who have accidentally taken a life yet who seek to do HaShem's bidding, fulfilling His will by committing to societal exile for the uncorrectable damage which they have brought about. Those cities are sacred places. Yet, the halacha also states that one who savagely kills another or who murdered with malice may not seek refuge there. He cannot escape and retire to the sacred, protective walls of the Ir Miklat. He is expelled from there, for there is nothing holy about his attempt to evade justice.
The Bechor Shor derives this insight - that the Cities of Refuge are to be regarded as serving a sacred purpose - from the parallel which is apparent in our verse's forbidding the murderer to retreat to the holy Temple at its altar. This is the self-same law as that of the Torah restricting that murderer from the City of Refuge. This parallel sheds light on the obverse case - the accidental death - where one fulfills a commandment by fleeing to that place. Staying there is comparable to staying at the altar, in the sense that both can be regarded as fulfilling a sacred service.
This is an important perspective - fulfilling a commandment and adhering to Divine will, regardless of what mitzva and irrespective of which specific act - should be regarded as an elevated form of conduct, a holy act. The City of Refuge was "an altared state!"
Good Shabbos. D Fox
posted by Rabbi Dr. Fox at 7:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home