After the traumatic affair of the sending of the spies, the people's loss of faith, and the resultant punishment, the Torah relates to us various mitzvot that apply only in the land of Israel. This seems to be a kind of pacification and appeasement. The painful report that the people would die wandering in the desert is followed by a forward-looking description of the eventual keeping of mitzvot in Israel. In this context, we are told that, whenever a sacrifice is offered, it must be joined by a meal offering and a measurement of wine (Bamidbar15:1-16). This mitzva applies in Israel alone.
However one understands the idea of a sacrifice, it is clear that these additions are of a different nature than the animal itself. They seem to intimate a certain closeness. If the animal can be understood almost as a substitute for the life of the worshiper, the wine and meal offerings seem associated with the idea of being a respectful guest in a home, or paying tribute to a king. Perhaps this is the reason that the wine and meal offerings would be offered the people upon entering the land of Israel, where such a relationship with the Divine could develop.
The concluding verses of this section (Bamidbar 15:13-16) clarify, at great length, that this procedure should be followed by a convert also. This may be understood in light of the above. One may have thought mistakenly that the closeness celebrated in the bringing of wine and a meal offering together with one's sacrifice, would not be applicable in the case of a proselyte. The Torah teaches us that such an understanding would be mistaken. With great emphasis, we are told of the absolute equality of the convert.
Three terms are used in the section regarding the convert: chuka achat, torah achat, and mishpat echad, roughly translatable as: one statute, one rule, and one law. Outside of this week's parasha, each of these three terms appears in one other place in the Torah only. Both Chuka achat and mishpat achat appear in relation to the pesach offering; the former in Bamidbar 9:14, and the latter in Shemot12:49. We are told that a convert keeps the mitzvot of the Pesach offering: "There shall be one statute for you and the convert", "there shall be one law for the ezrakh and for the convert". We can appreciate the use of these terms in the context of the convert by noticing how they are used generally. Chuka is used specifically concerning the laws of the pesach offering (in that very same verse), while torahis used continuously in relation to the sacrificial laws. (These two verses seem to pick up on different aspects of the pesach offering.) This understanding is ratified by noticing that in this week's parasha, the phrase torah achat appears also in relation to the chatat sacrifice, brought as atonement for one who sins inadvertently. We are told that a proselyte brings such a sacrifice also.
It would seem from the above that concerning two other sacrificial laws, pesach and chatat, the Torah found it necessary to clarify that the convert has the same law as any other Jew. The Torah emphasizes in two separate places that even concerning the pesach, a mitzva that has national and historical meaning, the convert is equivalent to the born Jew. Furthermore, the Torah points out that he offers a chatat like any other Jew, lest one think that a newcomer would have no atonement if he falls.
Mishpat echad appears in Vayikra 24:22, in relation to laws of damages and injury. This is easily understood, as the word mishpatusually means laws in the general legal sense (e.g. Shemot 21:1). It would therefore seem that this source teaches us that the convert enjoys legal equality. In the eyes of the law, there is no difference whether you are a new citizen or a veteran.
If we now return to our parasha, we find it hard to understand why all these terms, so understandable in their other contexts, are brought together here. The term mishpat seems completely out of place, and, while the phrase chuka achat may be taken differently, to refer to law generally, it is hard to understand why this needs to be said here. It would seem that God chose to use each term in one other parasha, and then to purposely bring them all together here. Why?
We discussed above the nature of the mitzva to join to every sacrifice both a meal offering and wine. We noticed that it intimates a sense of spiritual closeness, beyond the basic ritual aspect of the sacrifice itself. The fact that the proselyte is included in this mitzva is unlike the mere fact of equality in the eyes of the law, or being able to atone for mistakes; it is more than being told that the historically-based commandments of Pesach are applicable to him. All those cases may be understood as issues of equality in the sense of fairness, or national identification with the Jewish People. However, here we are told that even in ritual acts that express extreme closeness to God, there is no difference between the proselyte and any other Jew. This is the heart of the issue: not merely legal and moral equality, but spiritual identification. Bringing the whole subject into focus in this context teaches much about the nature of the equality taught in those other contexts. They are not merely fairness; they are expressions of the spiritual stature of the proselyte.
Courtesy of Yeshivat Har Etzion - www.etzion.org.il