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.
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.
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
Post a Comment