1. The Geder of Shmirah: Rashi vs. Ramban
The Ma'amar begins with a diyuk on the posuk: "U’vechol asher amarti aleichem tishamairu" (In all that I have said to you, be guarded). We find a fundamental machlokes between the Rashi and the Ramban regarding the chashivus of this "guarding":
Rashi’s Mahalach: Rashi learns that this is a klal-azharah (general warning) for all Mitzvos Aseh. By invoking the language of Shmirah, the Torah creates a lav (negative commandment) on top of every aseh. Essentially, every "do" is now reinforced by a "don’t," doubling the achrayus (responsibility) of the Jew.
The Ramban’s Peshat: The Ramban focuses the inyan specifically on the Klei HaMikdash. He argues the posuk refers to the seder of the Mishkan—the precise placement of the Menorah and the Shulchan.
These aren’t just two isolated perushim; they represent the Tzurah (Form). Rashi is defining the Tzurah of the entire Torah, while the Ramban defines the Tzurah of the Sanctuary. Both agree that the "geometry" of the halacha—how the pieces fit together—is as critical as the ma’aseh (the act) itself.
2. Sinai: The Inyan of Panim b’Panim
The Maggid Shiur transitioned from the Aseres HaDibros to the Mishpatim by analyzing the bechinah of Panim b’Panim (Face-to-Face).
In a standard tzivuy (command), the relationship is often heteronomous—a decree forced from Above. But Sinai was different; it was a synergy. Hashem didn't just give a "lecture"; He spoke "le-fi da'as hamikabel" (according to the understanding of the receiver).
Take the case of "Ayin tachat ayin" (An eye for an eye). The Peshat might look like physical retribution, but the Torah She’baal Peh—which is the "Face" of the Divine intention—clarifies it as mamon (monetary compensation). This proves that the emes of Torah is found in the shutfus (partnership) between the Ribono shel Olam and the human sechel.
3. "Shulchan Aruch": From External to Internal
Rashi famously comments that the Mishpatim should be placed before them like a Shulchan Aruch (a Set Table). This isn't just a metaphor for clarity; it’s a requirement for pnimiyus (internalization).
If a law remains external, it’s just a burden. But a law that is "set like a table" is one the person has processed and integrated. The tachlis of Parshas Mishpatim is to move a person from being merely "commanded" to a state where the halacha becomes his own teva (nature). This is why civil laws follow the Decalogue: to show that your Yiddishkeit must permeate your "secular" interactions.
4. The Hakbalah of the Luchos
There is a profound Hakbalah (parallelism) in the architecture of the Two Tablets:
Dibrah 1 (Emunah) stands opposite Dibrah 6 (Lo Tirtzach).
Dibrah 2 (Avodah Zarah) stands opposite Dibrah 7 (Lo Tinaf).
The lomdus here is clear: To strike a fellow human is to diminish the Tzelem Elokim. The Bein Adam L’Makom (Man to God) and the Bein Adam L’Chaveiro (Man to Man) are a single entity. You cannot be a "Frum" Jew towards Hashem while being a baal-aveirah toward your neighbor.
5. The Salanter Mesorah: The "New Torah" of Middos
Rav Yisrael Salanter emphasized that a friend’s physical needs are one's own spiritual obligation.
In the world, we identify a religious person by his levush (clothing) or his kashrus. But Rav Yisrael’s chidush was that a "Torah Jew" must be equally recognizable by his menschlichkeit and his yosher (honesty) in business. A blemish in middos is no less a psul (defect) than a blemish in a korban.
Conclusion: The Totality of the Tzurah
You don’t recognize a friend by a nose or an ear, but by the totality of the face.
The Torah is the same. If a person keeps 90% of the mitzvos but creates an ideology to ignore Mishpatim, he hasn't just lost 10%—he has lost the Tzurah of the Torah entirely. To stand Panim b’Panim with Hashem, the "Table" of our interpersonal ethics must be fully set.
