LEV945 The firm foundation of the social order is justice. It probably dawned early in man's development as the simple rule which places all members of the tribe as equals before the chief and before the deity. In its forensic form it is embodied in the lex talionis, of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." "As one does so shall it be done to him" (Exodus 21:24; this and next verse). The rule of like for like applied only to tribesman. To strangers the rule of the jungle applied, of doing to them whatever was within one's power. Within the widening of social relations and sympathies, justice extended the sphere of its operations beyond the limits of the group and became intertribal and national, and it steadily strives to become international. (The primitive nature of the lex talionis showed itself in the mechanical mode of its execution, which ignored the total effect of its operation upon the victim. Pharisaic Judaism mitigated its harshness by introducing monetary compensation for physical injuries. "An eye for an eye" was interpreted to mean payment for the loss of the eye."

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV946 Special place [in Jewish law] is given in the context of damages to the prevention of damage to the human body. Here, in addition to the economic loss caused by the loss of limbs or by death itself, there are obviously also moral and psychological costs, both to the individual and to society. Halakhic sources are careful to translate even these costs into monetary ones, since a human court would not be able to inflict punishment commensurate with the moral or psychological damage. Thus, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” [Leviticus 24:20], has always been understood by the Oral Law to mean monetary compensation, as defined in the following Mishnah: “He who damages his fellow man bodily is liable to pay for five types of damages: namely, damage [a monetary assessment of the physical damage done]; pain [payment for the pain incurred on account of the injury]; medical costs; enforced idleness [as a result of the sickness or damage done]; and shame [it is an affront to human dignity for a man to have been involved in the kind of situation in which the damage resulted.] Baba Kama, chapter 8, mishnah 1.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV947 As one of the Torah's most famous laws, "an eye for an eye" is often cited by critics of "Old Testament morality" as reflecting a barbaric standard of behavior. In the New Testament, Jesus is cited as teaching, "You have learnt how it was said, 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for tooth.' But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well" (Matthew 5:38 – 39). Although "an eye for an eye" does mandate punishing a person who maims another (Jewish law did not enforce this verse literally; see next paragraph) what is infrequently noted is that it limits the retribution which can be taken. For example, "an eye for an eye" forbids taking two eyes for a eye, even though people who avenge themselves on another often exact a far worse vengeance then the suffering that was inflicted upon them. Although one can, I believe, make a moral argument as to why people who intentionally--as opposed to accidentally--blind another deserve to lose their own right to go on seeing, Jewish law has always ruled that courts should not blind those who deprive others of their sight; rather, offenders must make financial compensation--the sum to be determined by the court--to their victims. The Rabbis believed that punishment be commensurate with the crime, but not exceed it: "Now if you assume that actual retaliation is intended, it could sometimes happen that both life and eye would be taken [in payment for the eye] as, for instance, if the offender died as he was being blinded" (Bava Kamma 84a). Thus, even though the language of the biblical verse seems definitive, the Rabbis understood it as meaning that on moral grounds, someone who intentionally blinds another deserves to lose his sight. But the court exacts only financial compensation, lest it commit the greater injustice of killing the offender while blinding him." An eye for an eye," therefore, establishes two biblical principles of justice: Evil must be punished, [this is the opposite of Jesus's teaching to "offer the wicked man no resistance." Oddly enough, while Jesus would seem to be forgiving of one who maliciously blinds another, he seems, at least according to another New Testament passage, quite unforgiving of those who refuse to accept him as their teacher: "But the one who disowns me in the presence of men, I will disown in the presence of my Father in heaven" (Matthew 10:33). Thus, while advocating that those who maim others should not be punished (a standard that has had no impact on legislation in Christian societies), Jesus rejects people who reject him, an attitude suspiciously similar to "an eye for an eye."] but punishment must be proportionate to, and not exceed, the offense.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV949 See [[EXOD542]] Exodus 21:12 death OXFORD 480

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV950 (Continued from [[GEN715]] Genesis 9:6 in ROSNER-BLEICH 137) R. Meir Simhah of Dvinsk, in his Biblical novella, Meshekh Hokhman, Exodus 35:2, offers an interesting scriptural foundation for this prohibition, demonstrating that, while not a penal crime, the killing of a fetus is punishable by "death at the hands of heaven." He observes that Scripture invariably refers to capital punishment by employing the formula "mot yumat--he shall surely be put to death." The use of the single expression "yumat--he shall be put to death" as, for example, in Exodus 21:29, is understood in rabbinic exegesis as having reference to death at the hands of heaven. Thus, R. Meir Simhah argues, the verse "and he that smiteth a man shall be put to death – yumat [this verse] is not simply a reiteration of the penalty for homicide but refers to such destruction of life which is punishable only at the hands of heaven, i.e. the killing of a fetus. Reference to the fetus as "a man" poses no difficulty since the fetus is indeed described as "a man" in the above stated verse (Genesis 9:6) prescribing death for feticide under the Noachide Code.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV951 One of the bases of prejudice is the belief that not all people should be equal before the law. In Judaism, that is not so. Although different groups of Jews have different roles to play in Judaism (such as a Kohen [priest], a Levite, and Israelite), every Jew is equal under the law. The Torah [this verse and Numbers 15:16] stresses only one law, which applies equally to everyone, as explained in the Talmud (Ketuvot 33a). Thus, there is no discrimination in Judaism by class or social strata. Even the elite have no special privileges under the law of Torah. This is emphasized by the special commandment for the Jewish king to write a second Torah scroll (every Jew is commanded to write one) (Deuteronomy 17:18 – 20) in order to remind him that despite special powers granted to the Jewish king, he is still subject to Torah law like every other Jew. Unlike today's society and all societies of the past, there is no privilege for the Jewish rulers such as the presidential privilege, powers of pardon by leaders, and diplomatic immunity to all foreign diplomats. All Jews, no matter how powerful or weak politically, are bound by the same set of laws.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV952 R. Chanina said: According to the Torah, both capital cases and monetary litigations require thorough cross-examination of the witnesses. Why, then, did the sages say that monetary litigations do not require such cross-examination? So that the door not be closed to borrowers [people fearing to lend, lest their witnesses be "caught" in some technicality of cross-examination] (Sanhedrin 3a)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV953 See [[LEV795]] Leviticus 19:34 love OXFORD 46-7

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV954 See [[LEV821]] Leviticus 20:2 death HURWITZ 77

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV955 Count seven cycles of seven years until the Yovel (jubilee) year. Hashem wants [it] to be known to His people that the entire world belongs to Him. In the end He will return it to those to whom He wanted to give it in the first place, for He is its Owner. This mitzvah deters people from stealing or coveting each other's land, for they know that with the arrival of the Yovel year, the land will return to the person to whom Hashem wants to give it. The matter of the Yovel year is similar to a practice of earthly kings who occasionally confiscate lands, just so that the owners will fear and respect the king's authority and majesty. Hashem takes back what is His and then gives it to those to whom He wanted it to belong in the first place. Similarly, slaves go free and again serve only their real Master, the Master of the universe. In addition, our Sages explained that the matter of the Yovel year contains a sublime secret that alludes to all of history, including its conclusion.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT