Emor

Jonathan Farine May 10, 2003/ Iyar 8, 5762

Parashat Emor contains one of the most famous phrases in the Torah- ayin tahat ayin or "An eye for an eye". The English text in the bible that refers to this principle is in Leviticus, Chapter 24, Psukim 19-21. It states the following: "If a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he has done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. And he that kills a beast, he shall restore it: and he that kills a man, he shall be put to death". This Pasuk explains the basic fundamentals of the law of retaliation, which relates to physical conflicts between two human beings. The solution, according to ayin tahat ayin would be to do to someone as he did to his fellow man. This means that if two men were fighting, then, legally, the injury done to the victim would be inflicted on the perpetrator.

At first glance ayin tahat ayin seems like a very fair law, it even still happens today. If someone doesn't invite you to his bar mitzvah, you probably won't invite him to yours. If someone doesn't give you some of his chocolate bar, the next day you probably won't give him a snack. But when this law is dealing with the lives of human beings and their bodies this situation becomes more complicated. Would it be right to maim or kill someone because they did it to someone else?

Some scholars have objected to ayin tahat ayin based on the right to maim or kill, others have objected on technical grounds. For instance, what if a blind man accidentally blinded another man? How could such a law really be implemented fairly? The blind mans sight couldn't be taken away because it has already been disabled. An opposite example of a blind man is a man with sight in one eye only. If he causes the loss of an eye to another person - How should he be punished? As removing is only eye will result in complete blindness, and that is quite different that losing only one eye. A common solution in such cases would be financial compensation.

There are a few commentators who have very different opinions about "An eye for an eye". Some scholars like Robert H. Pfeiffer believe that this law should be read literally. He believed that "An eye for an eye" was an old law of the desert, performed by Israelites who never forgot their desert origin. Pfeiffer took the literal translation of ayin tahat ayin and thought that if any injury was inflicted upon a human being, the same injury, insignificant or not, would be set for the original attacker.

We know that, possibly, the oldest book of law in history was written by the Babylonian king, Hamurabi in 1800 BC. Written in this book is the law of "An eye for an eye" and the literal translation was also considered and used for the Babylonians of that era. The tablets are now in the Louvre Museum in Paris.

Most other Jewish scholars, including Nahum Sarna, don't take the literal approach to this principle. Sarna thinks that one cannot assess an injury, that there is always a fraction of the wound that is immeasurable. Therefore, he believes that the translation should not be taken literally and the law suggests that one should pay the designated worth of the damages done.

A medieval scholar, Abraham ibn Ezra, also rejected the literal meaning of ayin tahat ayin. He says that there is no way to be certain of the wound inflicted on the perpetrator. As an example, he mentioned that if the wound was in a vulnerable area, like the neck, or near a vital organ, the punishment for a minor bruise, may result in internal bleeding or even death. This of course is much more serious than a minor bruise and so the course of action may have a very different result. Ibn Ezra also feels that the penalty should be financial compensation.

Nehama Leibowitz, another scholar, also rejects the literal interpretation of ayin tahat ayin for a different reason. Leibowitz feels that no compensation can really make up for damage done to the human body. She further says that our body does not really belong to us; it belongs to g-d. The reason that we have it if it isn't ours is that g-d provides us with our body to serve as a house for our soul. She thinks that the human body is sacred because it is a gift from g-d and therefore it can be considered as a holy gift. Because of this, she feels that it is not only wrong to mutilate or harm another persons body, it is also wrong to do this to ones own.

Based on most of these views it is common to transform ayin tahat ayin into a system of financial compensation. When deciding how much financial compensation should be paid, Jewish law provides that there are five categories that must be taken into account. The first is nezek, which is determining how any permanent damage will affect one's life.

The second is tza'ar, which is the amount of pain the victim experiences throughout the ordeal. The third is rippui, which is the cost of medical treatment that will be paid by the victim. The fourth is shevet, which is when you are too badly injured to work for a period of time so wages would be deducted. And the fifth and final category is boshet, or humiliation. This category discusses the embarrassment in which you encounter when you are wounded.

I have presented the beliefs of some scholars and I would like to share mine with you. My views are very different. I completely take the literal meaning of ayin tahat ayin. So if you don't invite me to your bar mitzvah, you won't be invited to mine. If you won't let me try your new computer game, you won't be able to use mine. However, I only feel this way when it comes to minor issues. When this principle deals with maiming and killing people, I totally disagree with the literal interpretation and accept the views of ibn Ezra and Nahum Sarna. But I will take their views one step further and suggest that even hurting a person emotionally isn't right. An emotional wound can be as painful and sometimes longer lasting than a physical one. In general, I feel the way I do because if we were to harm a human being as he harmed someone else, emotionally or physically, we would be a no better person than the attacker, we might even be worse.

Normally if someone did something to me like push me or insult me, I would respond by doing whatever action he did to me. Now that I am a bar mitzvah and have thought about this issue I would probably react in a more mature and responsible way.

Before I finish I would like to thank a number of people for helping me be here now as today's bar-mitzvah. I would like to thank Rabbi Elkin and my father for helping me with my D'var Torah, I would like to thank Liz Martin Landau for teaching me my portion, and finally I would like to thank my mother and family for all of their support. I would also like to give a special thanks to my grandparents who traveled all the way from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. West Nile Virus, SARS, nor any other illness could stop them from being with me here today. Shabbat Shalom!