This week’s parasha, Emor, presents the well-known and oft-quoted dictum, ayin tachat ayin, an eye in place of an eye. Taken in isolation, the literal meaning of this phrase is clear – the punishment for poking out another’s eye is the loss of the perpetrator’s eye. We all know, however, that our mesorah teaches that the punishment for poking out another’s eye is monetary payment for the loss. The Rambam writes that in the history of the Jewish People there has never been an authorized Jewish court that has poked out a perpetrator’s eye for damaging another’s eye.
While our interpretation of ayin tachat ayin is unequivocal, our chachamim struggle with the question of why the Torah writes “an eye in place of an eye” if, in fact, it intended monetary payment. One suggestion offered in the gemara in Masechet Bava Kamma is that, when interpreted literally, an “eye for an eye” would lead to inequity in punishments – perpetrators with two healthy eyes will lose an eye but blind people will suffer no punishment. Based on the Torah principle that there is “one law for the Jewish People”, the only punishment that could be enforced equitably is monetary compensation to the victim.
Rav Mordechai Breuer offers a compelling explanation as to why ayin tachat ayin – an eye for an eye – is interpreted by our mesorah as monetary compensation. Through the Torah, Hashem reveals both a system of law and a guide for personal perfection. From a legal perspective, poking out another’s eye encumbers the perpetrator with an obligation to the victim – monetary compensation for the loss. From a personal perfection perspective, poking out another’s eye represents an imperfection in the perpetrator. This imperfection demands a punishment that fits the crime – an eye for an eye. The perpetrator should understand the gravity of the damage that he caused.
Rav Breuer suggests that these two perspectives represent the tension between the verse – ayin tachat ayin – and the interpretation of our mesorah – monetary compensation in place of an eye. The Written Torah focuses on the most appropriate consequence from the perspective of the perpetrator – suffering the loss of an eye. However, the Oral Torah – the mesorah – teaches that monetary compensation in place of an eye is, in fact, the law – the victim must be made as whole as possible. Rav Breuer explains that the respective consequences taught by the Written and Oral Torah simply reflect two frameworks – punishment for the perpetrator and compensation for the victim.
Based on this analysis, Rav Breuer explains why compensation for the victim is in fact the law. Compensation meets both goals – punishment and compensation. While the punishment is not exact – loss of money is never equivalent to the loss of an eye – monetary compensation does additionally serve the aim of punishing the perpetrator. Poking out the eye of the perpetrator does nothing for the victim. Hence, the halacha is compensation.
While our interpretation of ayin tachat ayin is unequivocal, our chachamim struggle with the question of why the Torah writes “an eye in place of an eye” if, in fact, it intended monetary payment. One suggestion offered in the gemara in Masechet Bava Kamma is that, when interpreted literally, an “eye for an eye” would lead to inequity in punishments – perpetrators with two healthy eyes will lose an eye but blind people will suffer no punishment. Based on the Torah principle that there is “one law for the Jewish People”, the only punishment that could be enforced equitably is monetary compensation to the victim.
Rav Mordechai Breuer offers a compelling explanation as to why ayin tachat ayin – an eye for an eye – is interpreted by our mesorah as monetary compensation. Through the Torah, Hashem reveals both a system of law and a guide for personal perfection. From a legal perspective, poking out another’s eye encumbers the perpetrator with an obligation to the victim – monetary compensation for the loss. From a personal perfection perspective, poking out another’s eye represents an imperfection in the perpetrator. This imperfection demands a punishment that fits the crime – an eye for an eye. The perpetrator should understand the gravity of the damage that he caused.
Rav Breuer suggests that these two perspectives represent the tension between the verse – ayin tachat ayin – and the interpretation of our mesorah – monetary compensation in place of an eye. The Written Torah focuses on the most appropriate consequence from the perspective of the perpetrator – suffering the loss of an eye. However, the Oral Torah – the mesorah – teaches that monetary compensation in place of an eye is, in fact, the law – the victim must be made as whole as possible. Rav Breuer explains that the respective consequences taught by the Written and Oral Torah simply reflect two frameworks – punishment for the perpetrator and compensation for the victim.
Based on this analysis, Rav Breuer explains why compensation for the victim is in fact the law. Compensation meets both goals – punishment and compensation. While the punishment is not exact – loss of money is never equivalent to the loss of an eye – monetary compensation does additionally serve the aim of punishing the perpetrator. Poking out the eye of the perpetrator does nothing for the victim. Hence, the halacha is compensation.
Comments
Post a Comment