פרשה: משפטים · עלייה: חמישי (הוד)

לא תטה משפט אביונך, "Do not subvert the right of your needy, etc." Perhaps the emphasis is on the ending "your" in the word אביונך. We have learned in Baba Metzia 71 that the poor of your family take precedence in their claim to handouts over the unrelated poor of your city, whereas the local poor take precedence over the poor from other cities. The Torah warns here that we must not pervert this rule when setting out to do charity. "Your own needy" must always be the first on your list of charities.

כי לא אצדיק רשע, "for I will not acquit the wicked." According to Sanhedrin 33 the term נקי refers to someone who testifies that he knows of evidence in favour of a person who has been convicted of a certain misdemeanour. In such a case the trial is re-opened. The expression צדיק in our verse, on the other hand, refers to a person against whom accusations are levelled after he has been acquitted. The Torah states therefore, that once a person has been acquitted of a certain crime he cannot be tried for it a second time. G'd reassures the reader that in the event the acquittal by the court was based on an error, He, G'd, will not allow the person who parades as a צדיק to go scot free. The Torah does not want us to think that seeing a person has been found guilty, "how can the verdict be overturned by fresh evidence?" The Torah answers simply: If the original conviction was fair and corresponded to the facts, I, G'd, will not allow such a person to get away with it even if he is found innocent in his second trial. The testimony on his behalf will not ultimately result in a perversion of justice. If, on the other hand, the original conviction was based on error, why should the person who can offer testimony on behalf of the convicted be ignored? Concerning the person who had been acquitted and against whom fresh evidence has been found, the Torah simply states that the fact that the court declared someone innocent does not necessarily mean that he is innocent in the eyes of G'd too. G'd has His own court and it is quite inconceivable that G'd would seal a decree by a human court which is erroneous. We are taught in Ketuvot 21 that it is forbidden for anyone to sign a document which appears to be fraudulent. You may well ask why we do not apply the same principle, i.e. that a court erred, and re-open the trial of someone who had been freed before new evidence against him had come to light? I believe we can best answer this by recalling that G'd "regrets" something evil on occasion. He does not, however, "regret" a decision which was favourable. As a result of this consideration, if a person has once been acquitted he is not subjected to a trial again for the same alleged offence. When a person has been found guilty in his first trial, the suffering he endured until he was finally exonerated in a second trial may even approximate the suffering experienced while he faced execution for a sin not comitted. He may therefore ultimately be exonerated by a Heavenly tribunal even for sins committed for which he had not been tried at all.

ואתם ידעתם את נפש הגר, "and you are familiar with the way a stranger feels." Compare what I have written on 22,20 "you must not disadvantage the stranger." The present verse is proof of the truth of what I have written there.

ושש שנים תזרע את ארצך, and for six years you will seed your land, etc. This commandment is connected to the previous one warning us how to avoid the taste of being an alien, i.e. an exiled person similar to what is written in Leviticus 26,34: "then the land will make up for its sabbaths, etc."

תעשה מעשיך, "you shall do your work, etc." The Torah was careful not to write: "all your work" as in the Ten Commandments (concerning the Sabbath). The reason is that during the Shmittah year the farmer cannot do his regular work even on the six days of the week.

ובבל אשר אמרתי, "and in all things that I have said, etc." The reason the Torah writes ובכל ..תשמרו instead of simply וכל אשר…תשמרו, is connected to the statement of the sages (Makkot 23) that the number of positive commandments is 248, corresponding to man's limbs, whereas the 365 negative commandments correspond to the number of sinews in the human body (compare Zohar volume one page 78). A person should not say: "I am going to observe a sufficient number of commandments in order to safeguard the health of my body. By writing ובכל, the Torah hints strongly that our good health and well being will depend on our observing all of the commandments.

ושם אלוהים אחרים לא תזבירו, "and you shall not mention the name of other deities, etc." The Torah means that just as the observance of all the commandments will help man to make all of his 248 limbs and 365 sinews function properly, so there is also an overall protection for man which results from his denial of any form of idolatry. Anyone denying idolatry is considered as if he had accepted the entire Torah and would actively assist all those who are engaged in observing Torah and its commandments. As a result, all the various parts of such a person's body will enjoy protection even if he had not performed certain commandments (because the opportunity did not arise), or he had not been able to demonstrate that he would not violate certain of the Torah's injunctions if given a chance to do so. Such "overall" protection of a person due to his denial of idolatry would not accrue to him if he had ignored or violated one or more of the commandments deliberately, however. The limb or sinew which is "connected" to fulfilment of that particular commandment may then experience pain or malfunction.

כאשר צויתיך, "as I have commanded you." These words refer to details of commandments which have not been spelled out in the written Torah, such as that Matzah must be made of dough which could rise if allowed to stand. If it is made made of flour made out of rice for instance, it could not be used to fulfil the commandment that we must eat unleavened bread on Passover night. There are many other examples of such details of commandments not spelled out in the written Torah.

בכורי מעשיך, "the first fruits of your labours." This excludes crops raised by a Gentile. His work is not considered a Jew's accomplishment. We are taught in Rosh Hashanah 13 that if the crop has grown to one third of its final size while still under the care or ownership of a Gentile, it does not qualify as something from which this gift of בכורים can be presented to the Priest. This ruling is based on Leviticus 23,10: "the first of your harvests."

ראשית בכורי אדמתך, "The choicest first-fruits of your soil, etc." Perhaps the Torah hints here that one must not destroy one's seed (semen) and that the son born of one's first seminal emission should be dedicated to the service of the Lord (compare Yuma 2 according to which the word ביתו is an oblique reference to one's wife)

The Torah emphasises "the house of the Lord your G'd," to exclude that such a son be brought to a brothel. Jacob performed this commandment as he said of himself when blessing Reuven: "you are my strength and the first fruit of my virility" (Genesis 49,3).

The conclusion of our verse in which the Torah directs us not to boil the kid in the milk of its mother contains another important moral/ethical lesson. When a man deliberately destroys his semen he is the cause of infants dying while they still suckle at the breast of their mother. I have explained this matter in connection with Michah 6,7: "Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for my sins?" When man destroys his semen he creates a destructive force. This destructive force gains control later over a son who is born to such a father. The souls of such children are considered as עשוקות, "oppressed or deprived," as explained in the Zohar volume one page 219. The reason for this is that their father failed to dedicate his first emission of semen for the creation of a life devoted to the service of the Lord.

According to the opinion that the legislation of mixing milk and meat results in a prohibition of any benefit from such a mixture, this would explain why this legislation adjoins that of the bringing of the first-fruits to the Temple seeing that such first-fruits are also totally prohibited to their owner (compare Chulin 114 and Maimonides Hilchot Bikkurim 2, who declares that one must not use בכורים which have become ritually defiled for heating the stove). I have written more about this in my book פרי תואר.