Parshat Mishpatim – Yitro continued, and how bribery perverts testimony

One would least expect a helter skelter arrangement in a parsha called Mishpatim. If anything, a legal code should be a paragon of meticulous organization and presentation. And yet, Mishpatim is a jumble of laws — some simply declared, some explained, some in a context of similar rulings, others coming as complete non sequiturs. And there is certainly no apparent hierarchy of any sort in terms of importance, frequency, severity etc.

The overall mishmash is perhaps best illustrated by verses 15-16-17 in Chapter 21.

15: Who strikes his father and mother shall be put to death.

16: Who kidnaps a person and sells him or he is found in his possession shall be put to death.

17: And who curses his father and mother shall be put to death.

One would assume verse 17 would follow verse 15 as both describe penalties for crimes committed against a parent. The interjection of verse 16 is entirely out of context here, making its placement unintelligible.

One might think that the hodge podge nature of Mishpatim is yet again an example, as was Parshat YItro, of the “ein mukdam umeuhar ba-Torah” — that the sequence of the Torah’s narative is not necessarily the sequence in which things actually occurred. However while this is likely true for Yitro which is indeed narrative, I would propose the very opposite for Mishpatim which is legal.

Last week I dealt with the a widely held belief that the two halves of Parshat Yitro are in reverse order. First came the revelation at Sinai, and only after that the arrival of the rebuking Jethro, Moses’ father in law, with Moses’ wife and kids in tow – the abandoned spouse and sons who, according to this sequence, were not even present at Matan Torah.

As we recall, Jethro is critical of Moses’ attempt to single-handedly manage all the lawsuits and legal questions of the contentious Israelites, and suggests a rational judicial system that is structured to cope with the enormous volume of litigation.

That Jethro knew what to do is perhaps rooted in his being a keeper of the Noahide laws, one of which mandates the establishment of courts – something about which Moses may have known nothing, having had little, if any, exposure to a Noahide society.

Understandably, an avalanche of legal queries and lawsuits must have occurred immediately following the Revelation. The Israelites had been waiting for the Torah to be given before filing their cases and posing their questions. Jethro appears in medias res, just as Moses is drowning in a bottomless pit of cases.

By rescuing Moses, and instituting a functional legal system, Jethro is the “makeh b’patish” the one who puts the finishing touch on Revelation. Hence our naming of the Parsha of the Revelation “Yitro” rather than “Moshe” or “Sinai”.

Now comes Parshat Mishpatim whose sequence of laws seems inchoate, unless we consider the very real possibility that these laws are in fact adjudication of actual cases presented to the new, Jethro-established legal system. Court cases, after all, are not filed in the order of their importance, but merely in the arbitrary sequence in which they are brought. If a case concerning Hebrew indentured servants happened to come first, it is dealt with and recorded first. If a case of kidnapping happens to come between a case of striking one’s parents and another of cursing one’s parents, then this is how it is recorded.

And so we learn another lesson from Mishpatim: there are no big cases and small cases. Each one deserves attention, and each one should be dealt with in sequence. Indeed big business gets no priority over small claims.

* * *

ושחד לא תקח כי השחד יעור פקחים ויסלף דברי צדיקים

And you shall take no bribe, for the bribe blinds the wise and perverts the words of the righteous

Exodus 23:8

Strange words. After all, how is it even possible that the righteous take bribes in the first place? Would this not automatically disqualify one from being classified as a ‘tzaddik’?

I would like to offer two suggestions.

1. The tzaddik referred to here is not he bribe taking judge. Rather,it is the witness or litigant giving his testimony. A judge has enormous leeway in how he chooses to understand testimony, and can easily distort the meaning and intent of what is stated on the witness stand in a manner that can impact his verdict.  Hence when the verse says “and perverts the words of the righteous” it is the judge, who has accepted a bribe, who then proceeds to manipulate the meaning of the righteous person’s testimony so that it serves the purpose of the party who paid him off.  After all, testimony is testimony.  How can any judge rule against what is clearly posited by objective witnesses? The answer is he can, and often does, especially when his bias is all purchased and paid for.

2. We tend to think of bribery in simplistic terms, ie. An attempt to fix a trial.  But, in fact, bribery is a far broader bailiwick than merely attempting to rig the outcome of a particular court proceeding.  Any payoff that can garner unmerited benefits for the ’donor’ can, and should be, considered bribery.  

Indeed when a wealthy individual makes a sizable contribution to a tzaddik’s yeshiva is this not bribery? Can it not – as it often does – lead to preferred treatment, ranging from accepting the donor’s otherwise lackluster son to the yeshiva – at the expense of a more qualified but impecunious applicant – to an express track giyur for his new bride or his son’s? Not to mention the fact that tzaddikim have no problem granting instant access to those who grease their way in with cash, and to treat such individuals with a deference they reserve only for men with money?

Who has not seen famous roshei yeshiva sitting in the lobby of the King David Hotel shmeicheling and groveling before some boorish gvir who has written, or will hopefully write, a handsome check?

Isn’t shokhad what modern philanthropy is often about?   Visit any large synagogue or institution and what one is greeted by is a plethora of signs and plaques trumpeting the names of donors whose largesse made the bricks and mortar possible.  Is this not bribery? The very existence of the signage is already a payoff behind which once can be sure lays ’siluf divrei tzaddikim’, a perversion of the righteous’ words.