Skip to main content

Monetary Compensation for an Eye - Parashat Emor 5778 - May 5, 2018


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 this interpretation of 
ayin tachat ayin is uniformly accepted, our chachamim struggle with the question of why the Torah writes “an eye in place of an eye”, if, in fact, the Torah intends 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 appropriately monetary compensation. Hashem reveals, through His Torah, a system of law and a guide for personal perfection. Let us consider the appropriate punishment for poking out someone’s eye from these two frameworks.
Imagine that Reuven pokes out Shimon’s eye. From a strictly legal perspective, Reuven is obligated to monetarily compensate Shimon for the loss of his eye. However, there is another perspective to consider – Reuven acted improperly when he poked out Shimon’s eye, even if it was only an accident. From this perspective of personal perfection, Reuven deserves a punishment which fits his crime – a punishment which will educate him about the severity and impact of his misdeed. From this perspective, Reuven should lose the use of his own eye. By losing his eye, he will truly understand his error.

Rav Breuer suggests that these two perspectives represent the tension between the words of 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 reflect two frameworks – punishment for the perpetrator and compensation for the victim.

Based on this analysis, Rav Breuer explains why monetary compensation is, in fact, the law. Poking out the perpetrator’s eye only accomplishes the goal of teaching him the consequence of his action. Monetary compensation, in comparison, meets the goals of
both punishment for the perpetrator and compensation for the victim. Money offers the victim, Shimon, the best compensation possible. Furthermore, money additionally serves the aim of punishing Reuven. While monetary compensation is not exact, it is superior to poking out the perpetrator’s eye because the victim is compensated to a degree and the perpetrator is punished to a degree. The Torah’s two aims of creating a legal system and supporting personal perfection are both accomplished. Hence, the halacha is compensation.
(This is an edited version of an article previously published in this newsletter)


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Unity Through Shared Purpose - Parashat Tetzaveh 5780, March 6, 2020

This coming week, we will celebrate the holiday of Purim. We know that Megilat Esther is the record of the miraculous saving of the Jewish People that occurred in Shushan and in the surrounding areas of King Achashverosh’s reign. One of the culminating themes in the  megila  is the unity within the Jewish People that was forged as a result of this miracle. This unity expressed itself in a number of ways. One of the expressions was the re-acceptance of the Torah that occurred in that generation –  kiyemu ve’kibelu . This re-acceptance included a unified acceptance of the mitzvah of Purim that was legislated by the Anshei Kinesset HaGedola – the Men of Great Assembly. Another expression of this unity is the emphasis on forging brotherhood within the Jewish People – we read the  megila  in big groups, we give money to the poor and we give food gifts to our fellow Jews. Clearly, unity is a fundamental theme of Purim. Given this focus on unity, there is a striking difference between P

On Learning Torah - Parashat Beshalach 5778, January 26, 2018

This week’s parasha , Parashat Beshalach, describes the final steps of the liberation of the Jewish People from Egypt. In last week’s parasha , the Torah describes b’nei yisrael leaving Egypt. After destroying the Egyptian firstborns, Hashem guided b’nei yisrael out of Egypt – leaving Ra’amses on the way to Sukkot. The Torah then inexplicably leaves aside the exodus story and introduces a series of commandments – specifically, the mitzvot of Pesach, tefilin , and redeeming the first born. The Torah resumes the exodus story in the beginning of our parasha . Why does the Torah interrupt the exodus story with the presentation of specific mitzvot? In resuming the exodus story, the Torah writes: vayasev Elokim et ha’am derecho yam suf; vachamushim alu b’nei yisrael me’eretz mitzrayim – And Hashem took the nation the long way, the way of the desert to the Reed Sea; and the children of Israel brought arms up from the land of Egypt. (Shemot 13:18) The Midrash is puzzled by the Torah’s incl

Seeking Opportunities to Teach - Parashat Bemidbar - May 26, 2017

This week’s parasha , Bemidbar, recalls the death of two of Aharon’s sons, Nadav and Avihu. The Torah says, “and Nadav and Avihu died before Hashem because they brought foreign fire before Hashem in the Sinai desert; and they had no children.” The context of the incident of Nadav and Avihu is more fully treated in Sefer VaYikra. Moshe communicates Hashem’s command to Aharon and b’nei yisrael to bring ingredients for four different offerings – a chatat , an olah , a shelamim and a mincha – all for the culmination of the inauguration of the mishkan. All of the respective parties brought the proper ingredients to the mishkan in conformity with Hashem’s command. Moshe then gave Hashem’s next command of what to do with these ingredients – the result of which will be G-d’s glory appearing to the nation. Aharon and b’nei yisrael brought their respective offerings in exact conformity with Hashem’s command. Aharon lifted his hands to the nation and blessed them and then descended from pe