Rav Zweig Shlita on Parshas Mishpatim

All credit goes to the Talmudic College of Florida | Rohr Talmudic University Campus, 4000 Alton Road, Miami Beach, FL 33140 and the Rosh Hayeshiva Shlita

Parshas Mishpatim.............................................................................................Shevat 5786 Based on the Torah of our Rosh HaYeshiva HaRav Yochanan Zweig Weekly Insights Printer Friendly Format Click Here This week’s Insights is dedicated in loving memory of Malka bas Rav Kalman. “May her Neshama have an Aliya!” To sponsor an issue of Insights Click Here Money Can’t Buy Self-Esteem […] an for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, hand for a hand, a foot for a foot (21:24). This week’s parsha devotes quite a bit of space to jurisprudence and judicial matters, with a special focus on torts and assigning compensatory damages for a variety of damages to person and property. An oft quoted possuk relating to how Judaism applies justice is likewise found in this parsha: “[…] an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, hand for a hand, a foot for a foot” (21:24). Simply understood, the Torah seems to be proscribing a “law of retaliation” for injuries caused to the physical body. In other words, the Torah seems to advocate that one who causes physical injury to another be penalized to a similar degree. The Talmud quickly dispels that notion and explains that “an eye for an eye” refers to monetary compensation for the loss of an eye. The Gemara goes on to explain that Judaism requires that all justice be fair and evenly applied, “But what of a case where an already blind person causes another to lose his eyesight? How can we fairly exact justice?” The Gemara ends with an exegetical analysis of the language used by the Torah to determine that the law requires equitable monetary compensation, not a physical maiming as retribution (See Bava Kama 83b-84a). This verse has been misunderstood even as a far back as the Sadducees* and has been termed by uninformed “Bible Scholars” to be one of the most controversial verses in the Bible as it seems to reveal the “vengeful nature” of the Torah. Though we don’t take the verse literally, Shi’ite countries that use Islamic Sharia law, such as Iran, actually apply the “eye for an eye” rule as stated. Of course, the Gemara’s understanding of the possuk requires further explanation. If the Torah merely meant a monetary payment and not a literal retribution of “an eye for an eye,” then why should the Torah write it in such an oblique manner? Why doesn’t the Torah plainly state, “If one causes another to lose his eye, he must pay an equitable amount of money?” Rambam in the Yad (Hilchos Chovel Umazik 5:9) makes a curious statement: We cannot equate one who damages another monetarily to one who damages another physically. For one who damages another monetarily is considered forgiven when he repays the money that is owed. But one who damages another physically and pays him in full for the damage caused isn’t absolved of his responsibility until he begs for forgiveness from the injured party. While this may be true in the laws of repentance, what does this have to do with paying what is owed? Why does Maimonides list this requirement among the laws of compensation? This is why the Torah writes “an eye for an eye.” While on the surface this statement seems to be advocating vengeance, the Torah is revealing the very nature of the compensation required in the case of a physical injury. In Hebrew, the word for vengeance is nekama and is rooted in the word kam – to stand or reinstate. Meaning, one of the reasons vengeance is so pleasurable is because it restores the dignity and self-respect of the injured party. The Torah is teaching us that when a person suffers a physical injury there is an emotional injury that must be addressed as well. Even if the injured party is financially compensated, the loss of self-esteem hasn’t yet been addressed. In order to properly fulfill “an eye for an eye” the one who caused the injury has to beg forgiveness in order to restore the self-esteem of the person he injured. By begging for forgiveness he is acknowledging the human value of the injured party, and begins the process of restoring their self-esteem. *Those who insist on the literal interpretation of the Torah when the literal reading seems to contradict the rabbis’ interpretation.