.Emor

 

The Priest and the Eye: Connecting the Dots
Lewis M. Barth

Parashat Emor continues the primary themes of the Book of Leviticus: priesthood, ritual purity, and sacrifice. In general, it is well organized and concentrates on specific topics. Leviticus 21 lists the limitations on priests and on the High Priest regarding contact with and mourning for dead relatives, people whom priests or the High Priest may or may not marry, physical defects prohibiting a priest from offering a sacrifice, and permission for such individuals to eat of the sacrifices. Chapter 22 continues with further limitations on ritually unclean priests eating sacred donations and prohibitions preventing the laity from eating of such sacrifices. It continues by prohibiting lay persons from offering animals with blemishes for some sacrifices, while permitting such animals for other sacrifices. In chapter 23 we find a listing of “My fixed times,” (Leviticus 23:2): Shabbat, festivals, and solemn occasions that set the pattern for the Jewish calendar to the present day.

Chapter 24 opens by continuing the topic of offerings, particularly oil and flour. Next (verses 10–14) is a narrative in which God's name is blasphemed and the guilty individual receives punishment. Then the general rule of punishment by execution for blaspheming God is stated. This is followed by a discussion of rules of punishment for murder and the causing of physical harm. Specifically, it discusses execution as punishment for a murderer, the obligation of restitution upon one who kills a beast, and the rule that one who maims another human being must be physically punished in precisely the same way. Leviticus 24:19–20 states the latter idea clearly: “If anyone maims another: as that person did, so shall it be done in return—fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The injury inflicted on another shall be inflicted in return.”

Verse 20 is one of three biblical locations for the biblical phrase , ayin tachat ayin, “eye for eye” (see also Exodus 21:23–25 and Deuteronomy 19:21). This expression was as troubling to our ancestors as it is to us today. It gives permission for physical punishment that represents revenge; needless to say, the context in Leviticus provides biblical sanction for capital punishment as well. The Torah: A Modern Commentary argues that “there is strong reason to believe that the biblical law did not envision literal physical retaliation but rather payment of money damages . . . and [that] Jewish tradition all but unanimously understood the language as referring to financial compensation” (ed. W. Gunther Plaut [New York: URJ Press, 2005], p. 830, note to verse 19). Such judgments certainly are supported by selected passages in Rabbinic literature, such as the following from M’chilta D’Rabbi Yishmael : “Eye for eye. This means, monetary compensation” ( Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael , trans. J. Z. Lauterbach, vol. 3 [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1935], p. 67).

This interpretation resonates well with a contemporary audience. However, execution as punishment for murder, and restitution or maiming as punishment for maiming a beast or a human being are topics of continuing disagreement among the Rabbis (as a more complete citation of the just-quoted M’chilta passage would demonstrate).

Rabbinic Judaism offers a concept that parallels the biblical idea of “eye for eye.” It is called , midah k'neged midah , usually translated as “measure for measure,” and often referred to as “the doctrine of correspondences.” The explanation of this concept in regard to reward or punishment is , b’midah she-adam modeid bah mod’din lo , “according to the measure a person metes out, so it is meted out for him.” Pharaoh, Amalek, and Haman are all mentioned by the Rabbis as examples of those whose punishment corresponded to their acts or plans to destroy the Jewish people. Similarly Joseph, Moses, and the Israelites are among those who received reward corresponding to the mitzvot they performed. Perhaps the clearest statement and examples of the concept are found at the end of Mishnah Sotah 1:7–9, referring to Samson and Absalom: “Samson went after his eyes. Therefore the Philistines put out his eyes, as it is said, ‘The Philistines seized him and gouged out his eyes’ (Judges 16:21). Absalom prided himself on his hair; therefore he was hung by his hair.” (I'm grateful to my colleague Dr. Dvora Weisberg for bringing this passage to my attention).

On the surface, ideas such as the doctrine of correspondences run up against a skepticism founded on our modern assessment of life. That’s because it just is not the way life works. Think, for example, of the experience of the Holocaust. Jews would be revolted by the idea that the existence of the State of Israel—even by those who understand its existence in messianic terms—is reward or compensation for the destruction of a third of our people. We often feel discouragement when we see that a human group biblically known as “the wicked” prosper, while the lot of mass numbers of human beings remains in impoverishment, ill health, and the struggle for food and—as Darfur reminds us—of life itself.

Nevertheless, in popular culture we still find expressions of the doctrine of correspondences. The case of now former governor Elliot Spitzer is a good example. In newscast after newscast and article after article, the idea was put forth that Elliot Spitzer, who made his reputation in corruption busting, was disgraced because he himself was corrupt in his personal and family life. In another example, think how we experience a hint of glee hidden in anger when clergy (including our own) fall. One is reminded of the old saw, “The corruption of the best is the worst”—as if those who devote themselves to public life or the good of the congregation are punished because they couldn't live up to what they preach.

And yet—despite the vulgarities, gloating, and excesses of popular culture—there is a deeper resonance to the phrase “measure for measure” that still rings true. Excluding physical illness, this notion appeals to our sense of fairness: that the way we are in the world—the way we act and treat others—impacts the way others respond to and treat us.

Perhaps these ruminations will help connect the dots leading from the opening of Parashat Emor with its concern about priestly defilement to the Torah portion’s conclusion with “eye for eye.” Over and over again our parashah emphasizes the sacredness of the priest's duties, God’s sanctification of the priests and the people, and the idea that sanctity needs to inhere in the being, acts, and relationships of the “holy nation” (Exodus 19:6). When that sanctity is undermined, when trust is broken, when relationship is betrayed, dysfunction entersour nation, community, and family. When we infuse our lives, acts, and relationships with a kind of sanctity that values human life, the quality of our acts, and the constancy of our relationships, a feeling of , shl’eimut , “wholeness,” solidifies nation, community, and family. In either case, these are the choices that draw us back to the concept “According to the measure a person metes out, so it is meted out for him.”  (Return)

Rabbi Lewis M. Barth is professor emeritus of midrash and related literature, Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion, Los Angeles, California.