Mishpatim: Do Actions Speak Louder Than Words? Na’aseh vs. Nishma

By Yonatan Berner

Our Parsha begins with an unusual transition:

וְאֵ֙לֶּה֙ הַמִּשְׁפָּטִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר תָּשִׂ֖ים לִפְנֵיהֶֽם

Rashi is bothered with the necessity of the leading “vuv” in “v’eleh.” He explains this teaches us that the following mishpatim are a continuation from Sinai, just as the previous mitzvos were, hence the transition “v’eleh - and these.” I once heard Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz bothered by this explanation: What is the hava amina to say otherwise? Who would think that these mitzvos weren't given at Har Sinai!? Rabbi Lebowitz quoted Rabbi Bezalel Rudinsky with the following explanation: It is easy for one to understand and internalize the importance of Hashem teaching us the chukim and non sichliyot (intuitive) mitzvot, however, one may underestimate the importance of needing to follow the mishpatim bein adam l’chaveiro in the way that Hashem dictates. Lest one think they are any different, the Torah highlights that we must treat the dinei mamanos and mitzvos bein adam l’chaveiro in the same high and strict regard as we do with the complexities of the chukim. Thus our Parsha begins with the continuous transition of “v’eleh.”

The Netziv arrives at a similar conclusion with a different highlight in our Parsha. He quotes the pasuk from last week, Parshat Yitro:

וַיַּעֲנ֨וּ כׇל־הָעָ֤ם יַחְדָּו֙ וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה נַעֲשֶׂ֑ה

Here, Am Yisrael accept the mitzvot and proclaim “na’aseh - we will do them”. However in this week’s Parsha, Am Yisrael famously add a word:

וַיִּקַּח֙ סֵ֣פֶר הַבְּרִ֔ית וַיִּקְרָ֖א בְּאׇזְנֵ֣י הָעָ֑ם וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה נַעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע

Why the addition? What does v’nishma add here? The Netziv beautifully explains that na’aseh refers to Am Yisrael’s acceptance of Torah and Avodah; they agreed to begin to observe these obligations. However, The acceptance of Gmilus Chasadim was not needed here as this was not something that needed to be taught. Am Yisrael as well as many others around the world already possessed a basic moral compass of performing good deeds. Additionally, these were the descendants of the Avos and Imahos! Gmilus Chasadim was not a foreign concept, therefore, it was not included when Am Yisrael proclaimed “we will do” as it was unnecessary. However, in this week's Parsha they add “we will listen” - listen to Hashem’s Gmilus Chasadim and observe it in the most shalem way, l’shem shamayim, because it is ratzon Hashem.

I once heard Rabbi Josh Grajower quote a Pardes Yosef which complements the connection between these ideas. The Pardes Yosef, being bothered by the same question as the Netziv, arrives at a different, yet complementary pshat. He explains how it is physically not possible for a single Jew to be able to fulfill all the mitzvos. Some are only for women, men, kohanim, leviim, yisraelim, etc. However, there are 2 ways that one can participate in all the mitzvot; each hinted to by the contrasting pesukim of “na’aseh” in last week’s Parsha, and “na’aseh v’nishma” in this week’s Parsha. This week’s addition of “v’nishma”, which is a reference to Talmud Torah (Zohar), hints to the teaching of Chazal that by learning about a mitzvah it is k’ilu you are doing the mitzvah. However, last week’s pasuk of just “na’aseh” is preceded by the words “vya’anu kol ha’am yachdav… na’aseh”. Am Yisrael’s acceptance of the mitzvot in a state of unity, formed a bond between our collective obligation in mitzvot. By connecting to our fellow Jew and displaying our achdus, we can participate in our national performance of mitzvot and thus maintain a chelek in all the mitzvot, even the ones which we cannot complete personally.

The synthesis of these ideas beautifully highlights the vital duality between our Talmud Torah and midos ben adam l’chaveiro. However, I think there is one other idea that helps paint the picture of the relationship of this duality. The Beis Halevi quotes Chazal on the pasuk of “na’aseh v’nishma”, that because Am Yisrael said this, 600,000 angels came down and tied 2 crowns on everyone's head, 1 for na’aseh and 1 for nishma. The Beis Halevi asks why this phrase was so meritorious that it elicited such an event? The answer lies in the reason the more intuitive phrase of nishma vna’aseh was not used instead. The Zohar explains that “na’aseh” refers to the “mitzvot”, while nishma refers to Talmud Torah. There exists 2 components within Torah: Torah as a means to an end, and Torah as a means in and of itself. If the Jews had said nishma vna’aseh, it would have meant that they only wanted to learn Torah as a means to an end, in order to keep the mitzvos. However, by saying na’aseh v’nishma, they expressed their desire in accepting Talmud Torah as a mitzvah and means in and of itself. Such a proclamation was deserving of angels descending to individually crown every Jew.

A Midrash in Tanchuma offers an alternative understanding to why na’aseh v’nishma merited the crowns of angels. Am Yisrael declared “we will do and listen”, rather than each individual declaring “I will do and listen”. By accepting Torah together we not only took responsibility upon ourselves to observe dvar Hashem, but also the responsibility to ensure our fellow Jews observe dvar Hashem as well. Such an act of achdus and achrayus warrant angelic crowns.

While the reward for this was great, the failure was equally significant. The Gemara in Nedarim interprets Yirmiyahu’s explanation for the cause of churban bayis rishon. The first Beis Hamikdash was destroyed because Am Yisrael ceased reciting birchas hatorah. While this may seem puzzling, the Ramban further explains that brachot are recited before an action, when that action is a mitzvah. By Am Yisrael’s lack of care for birchas hatorah, they showed their disregard for the importance of Talmud Torah as a mitzvah. They learned Torah only to be able to know the halachot and perform mitzvot, and while that is necessary, they completely disregarded the chashivus of learning as a mitzvah itself, essentially reversing their proclamation of na’aseh v’nishma. Additionally, when looking at the cause for churban bayis sheini, Chazal describes the reason for destruction being sinas chinam. A complete opposite of taking responsibility for your fellow Jew. Again, essentially reversing our na’aseh v’nishma.

What emerges from Parshat Mishpatim is the profound significance of Talmud Torah and kabalas ol malchus shamayim, as well as our responsibility to our fellow Jews and our obligations to connect with each other. Both our highest and lowest points as a nation revolved around these themes. May we be zoche as a chevra and a nation to be osek btalmud torah and gmilus chasadim in a way that they complement each other and in a way that helps us get to binyan beis hamikdash b’karov.