EXOD586 There are numerous sources that seemed to be in conflict with regard to answering the question of whether or not the fetus is considered a human life and, therefore, if an abortion is the equivalent of murder. A simple reading of the Torah verse involving a pregnant woman whose fetus is accidentally killed in a dispute between two people shows that a fetus is considered to be personal property rather than human life. In that case, when the loss of the fetus was caused accidentally, the Torah merely tells the culpable person to pay damages based on a certain formula of the value of the fetus. There is not even any hint of murder or immoral behavior, and payment for damages is all that is required. If the fetus were considered mere property of the mother, it certainly would be permitted to get pregnant in order to save the life of the father of the fetus. However, other sources make the status of that fetus much more complicated. (See. e.g. Genesis 9:6; Sanhedrin 40b; Maimonides, Hilchot Melachim 1:4; Mishna Ohalot 7:6)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD587 Many cynics may conclude that prayer really has no purpose: If the person deserves what he or she asks for a, he or she will get it without prayer. If the person does not deserve it, prayer will not help anyway. In addition, why should God need our prayers--doesn't He know our thoughts? Does He need to be praised or asked? To answer these questions, one must look at the Hebrew word "to pray," which is lehitpallel. Technically, the word has nothing to do with prayer. The root, based on the text in [this verse], means to judge, as explained by the Talmud. Megillah 15b. The word lethitpallel is the reflexive form of the word. Therefore, the word technically means "to judge oneself." Thus, all Jewish prayer translate as judging oneself and involves just that. God does not need our prayer, but we do. Each time a Jew prays, he or she is supposed to judge himself or herself and make an honest reckoning of good and bad. This allows the person to understand if he or she is worthy of what is being asked for. Through prayer, the person should grow, not God.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD588 The Talmudic interpretation of the words "an eye for an eye" [this verse], is that they merely enjoin monetary compensation. Such compensation, commensurate with the accidental destruction of life or limb, must be accepted as authentic, because it is truest to the spirit of the Torah.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD589 When the aim of a Rabbinic command is to enforce Biblical ruling in monetary assessments of damage, or to strengthen the claims of a hired servant, the Rabbis are vested with full authority to read a new meaning into the command, as in the case of the Lex Talionis [this verse]. Even in matters not strictly monetary such Rabbinic power was made manifest. Take the case of the Agunah, the anxious widow, whose remarriage was allowed on the corroboration of one witness only testifying that her lost husband was found dead. Even if that witness be a woman who elsewhere was incompetent in the eyes of the law to act as a witness, her evidence here was considered valid. The plight of such hard examples force to the Rabbis to reinterpret some of the Biblical laws on the grounds of humanitarian reasons advocated by the Torah [Yeb. 88a; Gitt. 3a].

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD590 See [[EXOD583]] Exodus 21:22 fined FREUND 242

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD594 Is the fight option ever legitimized in Judaism? Many will point to the source "an eye for an eye" to prove that one may react to violence with violence. However, according to all the commentaries as well as to the Talmud (Bava Kama 84a), the clear meaning of the verse is to pay back money for any bodily damage.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD591 (Continued from [[DEUT619]] Deuteronomy 13:7 friend BLOCH 141). An analysis of the concept of compassion in Judaism is incomplete without a discussion of the areas in which the Bible calls for stern justice. We must also explore such biblical injunctions as the expulsion of the indigenous Canaanites from Palestine and the eradication of the Amalekites, which appear unduly harsh by the standards of enlightened civilized behavior. Why does the Bible tolerate capital punishment and war? How does one explain the law of the blood-avenger (Numbers 35:21) or the so-called lex talionis [this verse]? The answer to these questions rests on two assumptions. (1) Some biblical moral perceptions were not intended to establish a permanent normal ethical behavior. They were merely responses to the temporary exigencies of a particular moment. [2) Biblical ethical values are expressed in terms comprehensible to primitive man, who was heir to long-established, ancient concepts of morality. New ethical concepts, designed to raise the moral level of human behavior, can be effective only if they do no violence to the generally accepted values of society at any given stage of man's development. New standards must be endowed with elasticity that permits them to keep pace with the growth and progress of civilization. This view is correlated to the talmudic maxim: "The Torah adopted language which is understandable to human beings" (Berachot 31b). In its brighter connotation, the teaching of ethics was linked to man's capacity of understanding and acceptance. Each stage of human advancement permits an upgrading of moral perceptions by an evolutionary process.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD592 (Continued from [[NUM408]] Numbers 35:19 death BLOCH 65-6). The lex taionis ("an eye for an eye") has been singled out as a classic example of biblical harshness. The criticism of this law that appears in the New Testament (Matthew 5:38-42) has given it a wide prominence which no anti-Pentateuchal polemicist has dared ignore. It is incontrovertible that the mutilation of the human body is repugnant to modern minds. Yet, even while rejecting the practice of an eye for an eye, the law of a life for a life was never put in question by critics of the lex talionis. Is the taking of a life less cruel than the taking of an eye? Is capital punishment more acceptable because the executed criminal is buried and forgotten, while a maimed criminal survives as a visible monument to society's barbarism? Was the lex talionis ever practiced in ancient Israel? The answer is no. Ancient Middle Eastern nations supported the lex talionis as a punishment which fits the crime. The Babylonian and Assyrian codes approved of it. The inclusion of this law in the Pentateuch [this verse] did not shock the ancient Hebrew. On the contrary, its omission would have puzzled him. However, while the law was left intact, it was, to all intents and purposes, voided by an alternative option, the payment of damages, which was the case in all tort actions. The provision for the payment of damages was attached to the law prescribing the punishment of the owner of a goring ox which killed a human being. The owner's negligence carried the death penalty (Exodus 21:29). However, he was permitted to redeem his life by the payment of damages (Exodus 21:30). That the alternative of payment of damages applied to all cases of tort is made clear in Numbers (35:31), which singles out murder as a crime that cannot be expiated by the payment of damages.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD597 See [[LEV945]] Leviticus 24:19 so shall COHON 193

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD596 Problems in Applying the Death Penalty. It is inaccurate to claim that the death penalty represents the Torah prescription of an “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” and “life for life.” (Exodus 21:23-27). The truth is that the death penalty is imposed in such an arbitrary manner that there is no guarantee that it will be imposed only on those who actually deserve it. Prosecutors have enormous discretion. Defendants who have committed heinous killings may receive reduced sentences because their testimony is needed against co-defendants. However, the two biggest factors at play in deciding who will be subject to the death penalty are geographic location and race. In some large jurisdictions, there are so many killings that a number of those who kill in a manner that would result in the death penalty elsewhere do not end up facing the death penalty. On the other hand, small, rural jurisdictions are notorious for being particularly aggressive in seeking the death penalty. A defendant who robs and kills a convenience store owner may face the death penalty in one town and only a life sentence in another. However, race is the biggest elephant in the room. Although the Supreme Court has refused to strike down the death penalty as discriminatory per se, it has repeatedly recognized that racism pervades the criminal justice system. [There are many ways this racism is evidenced in the criminal justice system. First, there are a disproportionate number of people of color who are criminal defendants. For example, although Black Americans make up only 12.7% of the US population, they make up 48.2% of all adults in prisons and jails. Second, people of color tend to be targeted by law enforcement. Because of racial profiling, Blacks and Hispanics are substantially more likely to be stopped by the police. For more information regarding racism in the criminal justice system, see “Factsheet: How is the Criminal Justice System Racist?” Defending Justice: An Activist Resource Kit, Public Research Associates (2005). Available at http://www.publiceye.org/defendingjustice/pdfs/factsheets/10-Fact%20Sheet%20-%20System%20as%Racist.pdf; note: link inoperative when access attempted on 5/11/2021-AJL] Studies show that a person who kills a white victim is almost four times more likely to receive the death penalty than a person who kills a non-white victim. At least 55% of inmates currently sitting on death row are minorities. [Death Penalty Information Center, “Facts About Death Penalty,” Oct. 15, 2008 Available at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org] More subtle racism also influences the system. Nearly every year, the Supreme Court decides a case in which prosecutors have intentionally sought to dismiss minorities from juries in death penalty cases in attempt to keep away potentially sympathetic jurors. Thus, the death penalty is not applied on an even playing field. If a minority defendant is on trial, the field is tilted toward a capital verdict. The death penalty is also a very expensive proposition. The cost of keeping an inmate incarcerated for life is significantly less than that of prosecuting a capital case through the appellate process. Capital defendants are entitled to two sets of everything--two sets of lawyers, two stages of a trial (the guilty phase and the penalty phase), and two sets of appeals (direct appeals and habeas corpus proceedings). If voters just voted based on their pocketbooks, they would outlaw the death penalty tomorrow. Because of these necessary procedural guarantees, some jurisdictions have tried to contain costs by paying capital defense lawyers rock bottom salaries. For example, in Alabama, a lawyer handling a death penalty case is paid less than $2,000 to investigate and prepare a capital case, including the preparation of a post-conviction appeal. If the lawyer spends a minimum of 500 hours on the capital case, he or she then earns $4 per hour. As they say, “You get what you pay for.” Unfortunately, this means that poor defendants are much more likely to receive the death penalty just because they do not have the resources to defend their case. (By Laurie L. Levenson, "Judaism and CriminalJustice"

SHOW FULL EXCERPT