Thursday, February 12, 2026

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Mishpatim

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

The first vort R' Frand said this evening related to the first pasuk of the Parsha - וְאֵ֨לֶּה֙ הַמִּשְׁפָּטִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר תָּשִׂ֖ים לִפְנֵיהֶֽם. He quoted the Ba'al HaTurim who teaches that the word הַמִּשְׁפָּטִ֔ים is an acronym - HaDayan Metzuveh Sheya'aseh Peshara Terem Ya'aseh Mishpat - (loosely translated as the Judge is commanded to make a compromise before making judgment). 

The value of compromise is seen in the Shulchan Aruch which instructs in the beginning of Choshen Mishpat that it is a Mitzva for the Judge to say the litigants before hearing a case - do you want judgment or compromise. Any any court which makes compromises is praiseworthy.

R' Frand quoted the Satmar Rav who notes that Mishpatim follows immediately after Parshas Yisro and that it contains many Mitzvos which are found in Choshen Mishpat. But why then does the Shulchan Aruch not start with Choshen Mishpat? [R' Frand quipped that if he would answer the question, he would say it starts with Aruch Chaim because you need to know what to do when you get up in the morning]. The Satmar Rav answers that Choshen Mishpat values compromise and you cannot start a book of law which contains Mitzvos like eating Matza or the rules of Kashrus, with a discussion of compromise.

R' Frand's second vort was also based on the first pasuk of the Parsha. He quoted Rashi who states that וְאֵ֨לֶּה֙ comes to join a concept to what came before it. Just as the Mitzvos in Yisro and specifically the Aseres HaDibros came from Hashem, so too do the Mitzvos in this week's Parsha.

R' Frand quoted the Rav M'Bartenura's introduction to Pirkei Avos wherein he states that all the Mesechtos of Shas are about Halacha, but Pirkei Avos is about how to treat one's fellow man. And while we are not the only society to create rules of interpersonal relationships, Pirkei Avos underscores that our rules are divine and that is why Pirkei Avos begins by stating that Moshe received the Torah from Sinai.

R' Frand linked to this to a story about a Mr Denker who was Chiloni columnist in Israel who was sent to interview R' Shach. When he got to Ponevich and asked for R' Shach, he was told that R' Shach was unavailable. So he wandered the Beis Medrash and was amazed - but not by the decibel level. R' Frand observed that secular people study in a library where one MUST keep quiet. But this was not what impressed him. Instead it was the notes on the bulletin board - "found three shirt buttons" or "found Bic pen." When Mr Denker returned to Tel Aviv, he wrote about the bulletin board, stating that when he was in university, no one would pick up a Bic pen, let alone try to return it to the owner. But this is Torah, just like the Gemara in Bava Metzia which instructs a person that if he sees his friend and his enemy struggling to unload a donkey, you help your enemy. This is what is meant by the statement that the Middos in Pirkei Avos are divine.

R' Frand's final vort was about the end of the Parsha where Moshe goes up on the mountain and the Jews say to him in Shemos 24:7 -  וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע. This seemingly does not belong here and Rashi explains that this takes place before Matan Torah in Parshas Yisro. R' Frand then referred to the Gemara in Avodah Zarah which states that Hashem went to all the nations of the world and asked whether they wanted the Torah and they in turn asked what was stated in the Torah. When each nation heard, they rejected the Torah.

The Vilna Gaon asks - but don't you think that there must have been some members of the nations who did want the Torah? He answers that that yes there were some - and those people became converts. The Chida supports this, noting that the Gemara refers to a Ger Sheba L'Hisgayer - a convert who comes to convert. Grammatically, it should read - an Akum who comes to convert. The reason it does not is because he was already a Ger, he just needed to convert. 

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

No comments: