Questions - Parshah Mishpatim
Mishpatim
Exodus 21
What is the difference between Hukim and Mishpatim? Are the Aseret Ha-Dibrot (Ten Commandments) Hukim or Mishpatim? Do these terms have strictly differentiated meanings?
Today we are entirely opposed to slavery in our society (except for a fringe group who have some power over the current administration). The Hebrew Bible tolerates slavery, but has different rules for Hebrew slaves and non-Hebrew slaves. However, at the same time, non-Hebrew slaves are judaized to a certain extent. Is there a coherent Biblical idea about the validity of slavery?
Why is slavery the first issue that comes up in this group of Mishpatim? Is it a central Israelite concern?
Is it ethical to give a male slave a wife and force him to decide at some later point between freedom that he is entitled to and the ability to remain with his wife (and probably children)?
What is the law regarding the eventual freedom of children born as slaves?
It seems that only male slaves go free. Is that actually the case?
How do the rules relating to the daughter who is sold into slavery by her father compare with the rules for the woman war captive in Devarim?
21:8 “He must let her be redeemed, he shall not have the right to see her to outsiders, since he has broken faith with her.” What kind of slavery is this? Are women by their nature slaves in Biblical law? Does this mean that the father who sold her into slavery has the right of redemption? What if is poor and lacks the resources to redeem her? Can he appoint an agent to redeem her?
What is meant by “the practice with free maidens?” Etz Hayim commentary gives a straightforward answer to this question. Is it entirely satisfying?
21:11 “If he fails her in any of these ways she shall go free without payment” But with what resources? Does she go free with nothing?
Is there a Biblical distinction between Negligent homicide and manslaughter?
“If he did not it by design, but it came about by an act of God,” וְהָאֱלֹהִ֖ים אִנָּ֣ה לְיָד֑וֹ This seems to imply that the person in this case is acting as an unwitting agent of God. How does this complicate the idea of the agent?
21:15 and 21:17 list death as the punishment for striking or insulting a parent. It is hard to picture any parent today wanting to see their child punished in this way no matter how angry or frustrated they were with their child. Were parents that different from today in Biblical times that one could have expected them to turn their children over to the court? What use is a Biblical law if it would go unenforced? Would God then punish the parents for refusing to cause their child to be put to death?
Does it make sense to put a person who is holding a hostage to death if the hostage is still being held?
How is a man’s idleness adjudicated? What are the costs of “cure?”
21:20 “If a man strikes his slave… with a rod…” Does this mean “treats him harshly in the slave owner’s attempts to get work out of the slave or is it more broadly construed? Is this case restricted to the case where the slave owner’s strikes with a rod or does any method of physical striking fall into this category?
If the pregnant woman who is struck in the course of a fight between two men miscarries, compensation is made in money based on reckoning. This is understood to mean reckoning of the degree of fetal development at the time. This is not unlike other calculations on the Bibl where a person’s financial value is set by their age. In rabbinic law as in contemporary law, the financial value of a person's life is based on their financial productivity and the range over which that future productivity would be expected to continue. Is one system better than the other?
If the woman receives some other injury the punishment is “an eye for an eye,” which we understand rabbinically as another financial settlement, If this is really the case, why then does it not clearly state this as it just did above in reference to the fetus?
What if two women are fighting?
If, despite the fact that the master has caused a slave to lose a tooth or an eye, the slave wants to remain with the master, is this allowed?
When an ox gores a man is so heavily treated in Talmud that there is really no point in rasing questions when there is a banquet laid out there. However, it has always seemed strange to me that the ox would be stoned. This is an unusual way to kill an animal. What is the reason for this method of punishment? It seems to impart a guilt onto the animal that is akin to human guilt.(Talmud also covers at length the issue of the pit and the ox that injures another ox.)
Why is the penalty for theft of an ox five oxen and a sheep only four?
Chapter 22
1) How is the tunneling thief punished if the property owner does not beat him to death? Is the restitution as called for in the case of one caught after sunrise sufficient? Id the property owner obliged to beat the tunneler?
2) 22:5 The use of fire that leads to negligent damage (inadvertent) requires repayment (apparently at par). No punishment is stated if the person who caused the damage cannot pay. Etz Hayim commentary indicates that thorns were a source of heat for the poor. Thorns are mentioned as a specific part of the fire reaching the crops. Is this a general case with the issue of thorns being only incidental or is it a specific case? Does the mention of thorns indicate that this is a specific case where the damage is caused by a poor person whose poverty leads to the heightened potential for the causation of this kind of loss? Homeless people today cause quite a few fires because they use open flames for heat. What is the proper liability in that sort of case?
3) The issue of oaths is covered extensively in Talmud. Because oaths are contracts with God they have a very high value. How are oaths valued in our society? We still use them, but do we believe in their reliability?
4) 22:15 “If a man seduces a virgin…” The seducer loses control of his rights in relationship to the woman. The father loses no rights. What rights does the woman have? Is the father’s refusal of the seducer as a husband done out of a desire to protect his daughter from a bad marriage? What other possibilities are there? Does the father’s right to refuse the seducer offer a mask to consider the wishes of the daughter? What are the consequences for father and daughter if the father refuses the seducer?
5) What is the definition of a sorceress? How does one go about “Let not a sorceress live.”? Why is this stated vaguely?
6) Why is punishment for the mistreatment of widows and orphans reserved to God? Why is it okay for the wife and children of the abuser to end up being punished for the acts of the husband?
