Rabbi Michael Gold

PARSHAT MISHPATIM
(5764)
THE WORLD OF REFLECTION
"When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned and its flesh shall
not be eaten, but the owner of the ox is not to be punished."
(Exodus 21:28)
This week the Bible introduces numerous civil laws, including the law of torts
(damages). The classic example of a tort is the ox that gores. What is the owner's
liability? There are actually two categories of ox. One is called the shor tam (innocent
ox), a gentle ox with no history of goring. The other is the shor muad (warned ox), an
animal with a history of violent behavior. The damages the owner must pay are far more
severe in the latter case.
The Talmud develops this idea further. Certain animals are always warned that
they have the potential to cause damage. If one owns a lion, a bear, a poisonous snake,
one cannot claim that their animal was always gentle in the past and therefore their
liability is limited. Today we would say that if someone owns a pit bull, they better keep
that dog under control, or else be prepared to pay full damages for any injury their animal
causes. Certain animals are innocent and certain animals are warned.
Now comes a fascinating and insightful law on what it means to be a human
being. The Talmud goes on to say adam muad l'olam (humans are always warned)
(Sanhedrin 72a). A human being, from the moment he or she hits adulthood, is fully
responsible for all actions. This is one of the key ways we humans stand above the
animal world. We assume full liability for any damage we may cause from everything
we do. Being a human means living in a world of other humans. It means reflecting on

how our actions affect the people with whom we come into contact, or even the people
influenced by our behavior. To be human is to live in a world of reflection.
Two weeks ago I spoke about the World of Action, the lowest of four worlds in
the kabbalistic outlook. Last week I spoke about feelings, the World of Passion is the
second of the four worlds. I often call the third world the World of Reflection, the world
where we put our appetites aside and see how our actions affect other human beings.
This is the world where we become fully human. To be a human is to see other humans,
and know how everything we do affects other people. To be human is to move beyond
ourselves and our own selfish needs. We become human when we truly see others.
Rabbi Harold Kushner tells a beautiful story about a little boy who was very late
coming home from school. When he finally arrived, his parents began yelling at him.
"Where were you? We were very worried." The boy explained, "My friend received a
brand new bicycle and he was so excited. Then on the way home he hit a tree and the
bicycle broke. I stayed with him to help him." The parents, still angry, replied, "How
could you help him? You don't know anything about fixing bicycles." So the boy said,
"I didn't stay with him to help him fix the bicycle. I stayed with him to help him cry."
This is the meaning of being human, when we stay with one another to help each other
cry.
The Talmud teaches that "Humans are always warned." We can never say that we
did not know how our actions would affect others. As humans, we live in a web of
relationships - with family, with neighbors, with business acquaintances, and with total
strangers. Everything we do affects those relationships. We need to look beyond

ourselves and see what our fellow humans need. This means truly seeing the other, being
able to laugh with them and cry with them, to understand what they need.
I teach a group of high school students each week in my office. We were talking
about love, so I asked them what it means "to fall in love." They struggled with an
answer. Then I told them, what many of us see as love is really self-love. We look for
someone who meets our needs - our need for companionship, for status, sadly during the
high school years, for sex. We want to fall in love to feel good about ourselves. We say
we are in love, but we are focused on ourselves. This is not real love. True love is when
we put ourselves aside and totally see another human being, and then act in a way that
meets the needs of the other. Love begins with reflection. We cannot love the other until
we truly see the other. And we cannot see the other until we stop seeing only ourselves.
It is the ability to live in a World of Reflection that causes us to rise above the
animal within us. Until then, too often we are like that Biblical goring ox, hurting others
without knowing what we are doing, and then claiming innocence. That is why the
Talmud teaches, to be human is to know better. Let us raise ourselves up to live fully in
the World of Reflection.

PARSHAT MISHPATIM
(5763)
ABORTION
"If men strive together and hurt a woman with child so that her fruit depart, and yet no
harm follow, he shall be surely fined. According as the woman's husband shall lay upon
him and he shall pay as the judges determine." (Exodus 21:22).

Dare I speak about abortion! Whatever I might say would engender controversy.
And yet, as we passed the 30th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, it is important to speak on
the issue.
I disagree with those in the pro-life camp who claim that abortion is murder. I
also disagree with those in the pro-choice camp who claim that a woman can make any
choice regarding her own body. Is it possible to stake out a middle ground?
Allow me to share some words from my book God, Love, Sex, and Family:
My belief, which grows from my reading of the Bible and Jewish tradition, is that
abortion is not murder as the sixth commandment understands it. Abortion may be a
serious moral act which ought to be discouraged or forbidden. But it is not murder.
My proof is the statement in the Torah that explicitly forbids a monetary fine for
the perpetrator of murder. (See Numbers 35:31) The Bible always separates the realm of
property from the realm of life and death. According to the Torah, if a man causes a
woman to miscarry through his negligence, he must pay a fine. (See Exodus 21:22) If it
were murder there would be no such fine. The damage from the loss of her potential
child is real, and the woman and her husband must receive compensation. But it is not
murder.
If abortion were murder, we would justified in treating women who seek
abortions precisely as we treat murderers. Are pro-life sympathizers ready to sentence
physicians who perform abortions to life imprisonment, or even the death penalty?
Obviously even the most strident anti-abortionists stop short of calling for such drastic
measures.

To say that abortion is not murder does not mean that it is justified. There are
many reasons why abortion may be deemed improper, immoral, or even possibly made
illegal. One can argue that the developing fetus, even if not a full human being with the
right of protection through the laws of homicide, still is an entity of sufficient worth to
merit some kind of protection. Ronald Dworkin, professor of law and outspoken abortion
rights advocate from the pro-choice camp, has written:
"Even though a fetus is not a constitutional person, it is
nevertheless an entity of considerable moral and emotional significance in
our culture, and a state may recognize and try to protect that significance
in ways that fall short of any substantial abridgment of a woman's
constitutional right over the use of her own body. A state might properly
fear the impact of widespread abortion on its citizens' instinctive respect
for the value of human life and their instinctive horror at human
destruction or suffering, which are values essential for the maintenance of
a just and decent civil society. A political community in which abortion
became commonplace and a matter of ethical indifference, like
appendectomy, would certainly be a more callous and insensitive
community, and it might be a more dangerous one as well."
(Ronald Dworkin, "The Great Abortion Case," New York Review of Books, 36, 11 (June
29,1989), p. 52).
Even if the fetus is not a full living being, it has a moral status which deserves
some degree of protection, if for no other reason than to prevent further callousness

towards life in our society. That is the reason that our Biblical traditions strongly frown
on abortion.
However, one could possibly argue from the liberal point of view that the fetus a
mere limb of the mother's body. If so, can she not deal with it in accordance with her
wishes? Can we say that the abortion of the fetus a non-event to which no moral or
religious judgment can be made? This has been the contention of many in the pro-choice
camp. Over and over, I hear the comment, "A woman has the right to do what she wants
with her own body."
The Torah recognizes no such right. Our bodies do not belong to us to do as we
please. The Torah forbids us from tattooing our skin or making marks in our body.
(Leviticus 19:28) The rabbis taught that a man cannot tell his fellow, "if you injure me
you will not be liable." (Baba Kamma 8:7) Our bodies are on loan from God, and God's
will for us must be the fundamental consideration for any decision about our body.
The fetus may not be a full life, but it is an entity of sufficient moral value that it
deserves protection. It is potential life. There are certain limited occasions when abortion
is permitted or even required, because carrying a pregnancy to term is a threat to the
mother's life or health. Nonetheless, the Bible speaks of the centrality of the
commandment "be fruitful and multiply." God designed a woman's body to carry that
pregnancy to term and give birth to a child. To terminate that pregnancy for any but the
most serious reasons is to frustrate God's designs.

PARSHAT MISHPATIM
(5762)
FOUR ATTITUDES TOWARDS MONEY - PART 1
"If a man steal an ox or a sheep and kill it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox and
four sheep for a sheep."
(Exodus 21:37)
Over the next two weeks I would like to share some thoughts taken from my new
book The Ten Journeys of Life.
As we go out into the world of business and work to provide for our families,
much of our success depends upon our attitude toward money. There is a famous passage
in Pirkei Avot which describes four approaches toward money. Let us explore these four
attitudes in reverse order, from lowest to highest importance.
The Avaricious Mind-set
"What is yours is mine, and what is mine is mine, this is a wicked person." Some
people are never satisfied with what they have. They try to seize the property of their
fellow human beings.
The Talmud teaches, "Who is rich? Whoever is satisfied with their portion" (Avot
4:1). Unfortunately, some people are never satisfied. It often begins with coveting the
possessions of our fellow humans, a desire forbidden by the last of the Ten
Commandments. Eventually it leads to activities aimed at taking that which legitimately
belongs to others. It may involve cheating or even stealing to acquire illegitimately that
which belongs to others.
The Torah is filled with laws forbidding activities to acquire another=s property
in an illegitimate manner. "You shall not steal; you shall not deal deceitfully or falsely

with one another" (Leviticus 19:11). "You shall not defraud your neighbor. You shall not
commit robbery. The wages of a laborer shall not remain with you until morning"
(Leviticus 19:13). "You shall not falsify measures of length, weight or capacity. You
shall have an honest balance, honest weights, an honest ephah and honest hin" (Leviticus
19:35B36).
In the Bible, the penalty for stealing is to return the stolen object, together with a
fine equal to the amount stolen. "He [the thief] must make restitution; if he lacks the
means, he shall be sold for his theft. But if what he stole . . . be found alive in his
possession, he shall pay double." (Exodus 22:2B3).
However, if the thief steals oxen or sheep and slaughters them, he shall pay four or five
times the value of the animal. Why is the penalty so much harsher for oxen and sheep?
One must remember that these biblical laws developed during a historical period when
the Israelites were shepherds. By stealing and slaughtering animals, thieves were literally
taking away their victims' livelihoods. If the highest form of charity is to help someone
earn a living, the lowest form of stealing is to prevent someone from earning a living.
This is reflected in numerous Torah laws. It is forbidden to remove someone's
landmark (Deuteronomy 27:17). Later rabbinic law interpreted this as a prohibition on
unfair competition, deliberately trying to force someone out of business. A lender cannot
take the millstone as pledge on a loan to someone who owns a mill because the worst
form of thievery is to steal someone else=s livelihood.
The Idealistic Mind-set
"What is mine is yours, what is yours is mine,= this is an ignoramus." Many
idealistic people see the solution to inequalities of wealth in removing private property

altogether. "Let everybody work for everybody; what is mine is yours and vice versa. Let
us all work for the common good and share our income with one another." As Karl Marx
put it, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
In theory it sounds wonderful. In practice, history has shown that it does not
work. In Communist Russia, such socialism was the basis of an entire society. It led to
corruption, inefficiency and eventually the breakdown of an entire economy.
Such an idealistic view of money may work in smaller, self-selecting
communities. Families function by sharing financial resources among family members.
The kibbutz in Israel was founded on shared wealth, with everybody working for the
common good and sharing property. Today even kibbutzniks are discovering that humans
beings may work hard for themselves and their immediate families but, unless they are
extremely idealistic, they are less likely to work hard for the common good.
My oldest friend learned this lesson the hard way. He was part of a communal
village in Israel, with all salaries going into a common fund and each family drawing
equally. This extremely idealistic form of economy lasted only a few years. Soon, anger
and resentment entered communal life. People felt that others were not carrying their full
weight; some were drawing benefits without contributing as much as they were capable
to the common good. Eventually the village restructured its entire economy, with each
family keeping its own salary and paying taxes for common needs.
Socialist approaches to wealth fail because they do not consider the reality of
human nature. We humans have a yetzer hara (an evil inclination) and a yetzer hatov (a
good inclination), and we will do whatever is necessary to fulfill our own appetites, but
working for the common good does not come naturally. A more realistic approach is to

encourage individuals to provide for themselves and their families and to accumulate as
much wealth as possible. Only then can they learn to share what they have acquired
through their own hard work.
(To be continued Terumah 5762.)

PARSHAT MISHPATIM
(5761)
STEALING SOMEONE'S LIVELIHOOD
"When a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen
for the ox and four sheep for the sheep."
(Exodus 21:37)
In the Ten Commandments, we have learned that stealing is forbidden. In this
week=s portion, we learn the details of this prohibition. What is the punishment for the
thief who is caught with another's property?
The Biblical penalty for stealing is to return the stolen object, together with a fine
equal to the amount stolen. "He [the thief] must make restitution; if he lacks the means,
he shall be sold for his theft. But if what he stole ... be found alive in his possession, he
shall pay double." (Exodus 22:2-3)
However, if the thief steals ox or sheep and slaughters them, he shall pay four or
five times the value of the animal. Why is the penalty so much harsher for ox and sheep?
One must remember that these Biblical laws developed during a historical period when
the Israelites were shepherds. By stealing and slaughtering animals, the thief was
literally taking away their victim's livelihood. The lowest form of stealing is to prevent
someone from earning a living.
This is reflected in numerous Torah laws. It is forbidden to remove someone's
landmark. (Deuteronomy 27:17) Later rabbinic law interpreted this as a prohibition on
unfair competition, deliberately trying to force someone out of business. A lender cannot
take the millstone as pledge on a loan to someone who owns a mill.
Stealing is wrong. But it is one matter to steal someone's property and quite
another to steal their ability to earn a living. Human dignity is tied up with the ability to

work and provide for one's self and one's family. To rob someone of that ability is to
steal part of their humanity. That is why the fine is so much harsher for taking sheep
from a shepherd. The same would be true of any action that illegitimately forces
someone out of business or prevents them from earning a living.
If taking away one's ability to earn is the lowest form of thievery, helping
someone provide for himself or herself is the highest form of charity. Maimonides taught
eight levels of giving, with the greatest being giving someone a job, a business loan, an
opportunity to provide for themselves and not fall upon the largess of the community.
Human dignity is tied up with work; ever since God said to Adam "By the sweat of your
brow shall you bring forth bread" (Genesis 3:19), humanity is expected to work.
Helping others earn a living goes beyond acts of charity. We should always use
our money as a way to help others provide for themselves. This could mean giving
someone a job, particularly someone who is struggling to support himself or herself. It
could mean giving one=s business to small business people and entrepreneurs, even if the
items may be cheaper on the internet or in mega-stores. It even means being a generous
tipper for those who give us personal service, the waiter who brings our food, the taxi
driver who transports us, people that clean up our rooms after we use a hotel room.
There is dignity in being a provider. To steal someone's ability to provide is the
lowest form of thievery. To help someone else be a successful provider is the greatest
thing we can do with our money.

PARSHAT MISHPATIM
(5760)
WHO OWNS OUR BODY
"When a man opens a pit, or digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or an ass falls into
it, the one responsible for the pit must make restitution."
(Exodus 21:33-34)
In this portion we introduce the Biblical civil code. This includes laws regarding
torts, the importance of taking responsibility for damage to another's property or person.
These Biblical rules are further developed in the Talmud and the Rabbinic codes.
There is one fascinating law regarding damages found in the Mishna, the rabbinic
codification of the oral laws. If someone says to his or her fellow, destroy my property
and you will not be liable, the person is not liable. However, if one says injure my body
and you will not be liable, the person is still liable. (Baba Kamma 8:7) We are allowed
to relieve someone of responsibility for damages to our property. After all, we own it,
and are free to do whatever we want with it.
We are not free to relieve someone of responsibility for damage to our body. This
is based on a profound religious idea. We humans do not own our bodies. We occupy
our bodies, we are responsible for the maintenance and well-being of our bodies while we
are living. But in an ultimate sense, our bodies belong not to us but to God.
This same principle is seen in another Biblical law. "You shall not make gashes
in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourself: I am the Lord." (Leviticus
19:28) Tattoos are explicitly forbidden in the Torah. The question is why?
Imagine leasing a home. If we bought the home, we are free to paint it whatever
color, mark it however we want, as long as we obey local zoning laws. But if we lease a

home, it remains someone else's property. We are allowed the normal wear and tear of
living in the home. We are not permitted to make permanent marks.
Our bodies are like that leased home. We are temporary occupants. In an
ultimate sense, they belong to God. When our time of occupation is finished, we give
them back to God as undamaged as possible. This theological idea has powerful
implications for how we live our lives.
There is a popular feminist text called Our Bodies; Ourselves. Whatever the
value of the content of this book, the title is foreign to the Biblical vision. We have use
of our bodies but they are not ours. That gives us a sacred responsibility to treat our
physical selves as a loan from God. Minimally, we need to assure that our bodies have
adequate nutrition, exercise, sleep, medical care, and the avoidance of stress. We want to
keep that body in as healthy a condition as we are capable.
In addition, when we need to decide such difficult ethical issues as abortion,
euthanasia, experimental medical procedures, or self-sacrifice to save others, we begin
with the notion that our bodies are on loan. We cannot say, "It is my body and I will do
whatever I want." This may radically change how we deal with all of these controversial
religious issues.
Beyond ethics, if we see our bodies as belonging to God, it helps us develop a
deep sense of gratitude for our physical existence on this earth. As Jews throughout the
world pray on Yom Kippur evening, "As clay we are, as soft and yielding clay, that lies
between the fingers of the potter." From a simple law of torts, we learn the profound
religious ideal that God is our creator.