Why is Mishpatim HERE?

"Yeish mukdam u'm'uchar ba'Torah oh ein mukdam u'm'uchar ba'Torah?" This is a debate that begins in the Gemara, but really finds its footing in parshanut. The fundamental question is whether or not the Torah is arranged in strict chronological order. Ramban consistently adheres to the former (the Torah follows along chronologically) and Rashi agrees with the latter (the Torah does not necessarily follow chronology). Regardless of where one falls in this debate, the beginning of this week's parasha indicates that it is, in some fundamental way, connected to last week's.

"V'eileh ha'mishpatim"-- And these are the laws. The "vav" that begins that parasha is not a "vav ha'hipuch" because "eileh" is not a verb to be transformed from one tense to the other. Rather, it is a "vav ha'chibur"--a connecting vav. So the first question that must be asked is: What is the connection of this wek's parasha to last week's parasha? Is it that this is the next set of laws that Moshe received from Hashem? If so, was he still on Har Sinai when these were spoken? These questions begin a whole line of questions as to what was said on Har Sinai, what wasn't, what was said at this moment, what was said later, and what Moshe was taught by Hashem during which stint on Har Sinai.

Which brings up another s'michut question: What is the connection between the dibrot, how the mizbei'ach is to be built (with a ramp, not stairs so that the privates of the kohein are not revealed as he walks up) and the laws of Eved Ivri? If the point that the Torah is trying to make is to show that all halacha is, in effect, "bein adam l'makom", then why pick these two to follow the Dibrot? If the mizbeach is parallel to the first five dibrot, then why end the parsha there?

Regardless of where one stands on the yeish/ein mukdam argument, an interesting question arises. In beginning this parasha, the first set of laws discussed are the laws of Hebrew slaves. Bnai Yisrael had just left slavery; the first dibrah forever reminds us that Hashem is the Power that took us out of Egypt "from the house of slavery." Why would slavery even be permitted in Judaism? And why would it be (almost) the first law mentioned after the Aseret HaDibrot?

Finally, if we are all "avadim" only to Hashem, then why does a parasha that is primarily about civil law begin with permission for us not only to own other humans, but other Jews?

Shabbat Shalom!

Mrs. Herzog