Perhaps Hillel based his opinion on the original conversion that took place at Mount Sinai and described in Mishpatim. The Jews were about to convert and become a Mamleches Kohanim V’Goy Kadosh, a holy and separate nation. The sacrifice and sprinkling ceremonies at the end of the parshah, as well as the proclamation of Naaseh venishma form the blueprint we use to accept converts to this day. The convert must be informed of some set of mitzvos, accept the mitzvos, if male, he must be circumcised and all converts must undergo immersion in the mikvah (the lack of a korban is an issue that we do not discuss here).
When the Jews were liberated from their long, backbreaking exile in Egypt they attained wealth. They just left the most selfish and brutal society whose philosophy was to enslave and torture others on a whim. Perhaps this attitude rubbed off on the Jews who would now want to emulate their former taskmasters and mistreat others. Perhaps after all these years the Jews became inured to the fate of a widow or orphan, just like the callous Egyptians who demonstrated no mercy to them. The Torah immediately puts those ideas to rest. At the stage prior to conversion, the Torah tells us that in order to convert we must recognize and accept that we will never emulate the ways of the cruel Egyptians. We commit ourselves to never inflict on others the derision and suffering we endured in Egypt. If we purchase a servant, we will treat him/her with dignity. We agree to remember the widow, orphan and others who have no place to turn for help. Only after we accept these commitments can the conversion process be complete and can we begin to contemplate the building of the tabernacle.
Perhaps Hillel reasoned that the pre-requisite for the conversion of the Jewish nation at Sinai, the acceptance of these critical laws bein adam l’chavayro, applied in perpetuity. All future converts must follow this blueprint. Hence he told the convert the rest of Torah is an elaboration of this principle. You can’t get off the ground unless you accept it. Perhaps that is the message of the sequence of topics covered in Mishpatim.
On a personal note, Parshas Mishpatim marks the second yahrzeit of my father-in-law, Rabbi Chaim Zev Bomzer, zt”l. In the two years since his passing we and those whose lives he touched have tried to come to grips with our loss and to attempt to move on. Over the past year, bli ayin hara, four great grandsons have been born who proudly carry his name, most recently our grandson, Chaim Zev Mindick. When we face a difficult question we continue to ask what would Zydie say in this case? How would he approach this issue?
In last week’s parshah, Yisro sees (“Vayar”) how Moshe alone judges the people and he has the vision to suggest the appointment of a system of justice that would lighten Moshe’s load and allow him to fulfill his most important mission: guiding the people, spiritually and intellectually through the desert to prepare them to inherit Eretz Yisrael. Apparently Yisro had insight into the commandment to establish the system of justice that Hashem would ultimately command Moshe to implement. Perhaps it was Moshe’s appreciation of Yisro’s insight that led him to implore Yisro to stay with Bnei Yisrael in Parshas B’Haloscha, where Moshe tells Yisro that he has been a set of eyes for the people.
The thought of losing an invaluable guidepost weighed heavily on Moshe and the people. After all, it was Yisro who recognized, Vayar, the potential setbacks that could prevent them from entering unless Moshe implemented his suggestion. Moshe may have felt trepidation at losing his father in law’s advice in avoiding future calamities. Indeed, soon after Yisro’s departure, the people gather around Moshe and he sends the spies on that fateful mission that changed the course of Jewish destiny to this day. In Devarim, Moshe says that the idea to send spies found favor in his eyes. Had Yisro remained, perhaps his insight would have led him to reject the mission and Jewish destiny would have unfolded differently.