Parshat Mishpatim, which follows almost immediately after the revelation of the Aseret HaDibrot at Har Sinai, deals initially with mitzvot that we would usually characterize as civil law – issues dealing with slavery, theft, personal injury, damages etc.

Rashi asserts that the connection to the previous parsha is meant to counter the assumption we might have had regarding civil law as being of a lesser stature. Not so, says Rashi, just as the Aseret HaDibrot were given at Sinai, so too were these mitzvot. The very end of the Aseret HaDibrot seems to further support Rashi’s claim. Immediately after the tenth of the Dibrot ends, the Torah records a fascinating exchange between Moshe and Bnei Yisrael (see the end of ch. 20 of Shemot).

The Torah says that the people were experiencing such trepidation from the miraculous site of Har Sinai’s thunderous sound and lights show that they withdrew from the mountain. Moshe actually chases after them and tells them to return. The people respond that their fear of the event of direct divine revelation and all of the surrounding events are terrifying, and they fear for their lives. Instead of experiencing it themselves, Moshe should instead receive these mitzvot directly and then relay them to the people. Moshe responds that the whole point of the sound and lights show surrounding the mountain was precisely so that the people would have an emotional and memorable experience and not simply receive information conveyed to them. Yet, the conversation ends there. Bnei Yisrael seemingly refused to accept the explanation and Moshe walks alone into the divine clouds of Har Sinai to receive Parshat Mishpatim. Maybe this exchange which immediately precedes our parsha can add an additional layer to Rashi’s assertion.

We take it as a given that since the revelation at Har Sinai presented ten mitzvot, that it was always meant to be only ten mitzvot. But what if Moshe’s plea to the people to return was precisely because there were many more mitzvot that the people were to receive directly? Maybe the civil law of Parshat Mishpatim was not only given at Har Sinai just as were the Aseret HaDibrot. Maybe the rules of damages, personal injury, payment of creditors etc. were meant to be Dibrot themselves. If so, it gives further emphasis to Rashi’s point.

The way we live with our friends and neighbours in society, the way treat one another, these are not only things that are of significance to God, they were, at least initially, meant to be given the exact same treatment as were the directives of faith, idolatry and Shabbat. Can the way in which we view and treat one another be accorded more significance than that?