Emor - אמור : "Say"
Torah : Leviticus 21:1-24:23
Haftarah : Ezekiel 44:15-31
Gospel : Luke 18-20
In this week's Torah Portion we come across one if the most misinterpreted passages of Scripture. Read Leviticus 24:17-22: 17 "Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. 18 Whoever takes an animal's life shall make it good, life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. 21 Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death. 22 You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the LORD your God."
The most common interpretation of this verse is that if you do something against another person, that something must be "paid back" against you. Other topic words that are use to describe this section are "retribution" or "vengeance."
This section of scriptures is sometimes classified in Christian commentaries as "civil law," as opposed to "ceremonial law" or "moral law." In other words, these are a set of laws that governed how the Israelites were to live during that time. These "civil laws" do not apply to anyone today. Those who subdivide the Scripture in this way will have difficulty figuring out how classify laws under these three headings since no place in Scripture uses any of these terms. Furthermore, there is no Jewish classification system such as this. These three terms were developed primarily around the time of the Reformation, and as such, they are one of many ways by which someone can end up in "replacement theology," whereby the "Law" to the Old Testament are bad and "done away with", and "Grace" and the New Testament and viewed as good and right. As a result of applying replacement theological approaches to this passage of Leviticus, many within the Christian spheres either avoid reading such passages. These "civil laws" are "done away with" because of Jesus gave us a "new covenant" and "new commandments." Once this line of reasoning takes hold within a Christian community, there have been historical instances in which Christian peoople are abused by politically power-hungry Christian theologians and leaders. One can remember how priests and lords of feudalism would abuse their peasants by literally applying Scriptures such as Leviticus 24 in this way. Thus, during that Age, one could imagine people convicted of crimes walking around without appendages and eyes. Throughout Christian history, the Bible has been applied without recognition of the cultural context in which the Bible was written. In other words, the historical/grammatical approach of the Scriptures has been forgotten or neglected. Without making connections to the Jewish understanding of specific Scriptures, the meaning of these verses is negated and any application of the verse would be out of context.
A selection taken from www.grafted-in.com seems to explain very well the Jewish discussion:
That the sages of antiquity had differing opinions as to the meanings behind
these verses [Lev. 24:17-22] is made evident from our Talmudic extract, taken from Tractate
Bava Kama:
MISHNA: One who wounds his neighbor is liable to pay the following five things, viz.: damage, pain, healing, loss of time, and disgrace. "Damage."--If he blinds one's eye, cuts off his hand, or breaks his leg, the injured person is considered as if he were a slave sold in the market, and he is appraised at his former and his present value. "Pain."--If he burns him with a spit or with a nail, if even only on the nail (of his hand or foot), where it produces no wound, it is appraised how much a man his equal would take to suffer such pain. "Healing."--If he caused him bodily injury,he must heal him; if pus collected by reason of the wound, he must cause him to be healed; if, however, not by reason of the wound, he is free. If the wound heals up and breaks out again, even several times, he must cause it to be healed; if, however, it once heals up thoroughly, he is no more obliged to heal it. "Loss of time."--The injured person is considered as if be were a watchman of a pumpkin field, as he was already paid the value of his hand or foot. The disgrace is appraised with consideration of the station and rank of the one who causes as well as of the one who suffers it.
GEMARA: Why so? Perhaps it is to be taken literally, for the Scripture reads [Ex. xxi. 24]: "Eye for eye"? This cannot enter the mind, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: Lest one say, if he blinds one's eye or cuts off one's hand, that the same should be done unto him, therefore it is
written [Lev. xxiv. 21]: "And he that killeth a beast shall make restitution for it; and he that killeth a man," etc. As in case of a beast only the value is paid, so also in case of a man. And lest one say, Does not the Scripture read [Numb. xxxv. 31]: "Moreover, ye shall take no redemption for the person of a murderer, who is guilty of death"? you may say that from this, very verse it may be inferred that no redemption money is to be taken for a murderer, but redemption money is to be taken for one who destroys such members of the body as cannot grow on again. We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Simeon b. Johi said: "Eye for eye" means its value. You say, its value. Perhaps it means literally? Nay, for what should be done when a blind man blinds another, etc.--how should be fulfilled the commandment "eye for eye"? And lest one say that such a
case is an exception, therefore the Scripture reads [Lev. xxiv. 22]: "One manner of judicial law shall ye have"; from which is to be inferred that it means a law which can be applied alike to all human cases. In the school of R. Ishmael it was taught: The Scripture reads [ibid., ibid.
20]: "So should it be given unto him"; and by "given" is meant a thing which is given from hand to hand. If so, how are the preceding words in the same verse to be explained? "In the manner he should give a bodily defect," etc. (hence the word "give" is used also for such a thing as is not given from hand to hand)? It may be explained thus: The school of R. Ishmael deduce it from a superfluous verse, thus: Let us see. It reads already in the preceding verse [ibid. 19]: "And if a man cause a bodily defect in his neighbor; as he hath done, so shall it be done unto him."
Why, then, the repetition in verse 20? To indicate that it means money. But still the above-stated objection as to the use of the word "give" in the beginning of the verse remains? Because at the end of the verse the Scripture desired to use a term from which it should be deduced that it
means money. It used the same expression also here. The school of R. Hyya deduce it from the following: The Scripture reads [Deut. xix. 21]: "Hand for hand" --that means something that can be passed from hand to hand, i.e., money.3 Well-respected Torah scholar Nechama Leibowitz adds her comments on how the Chazal (ancient sages) wrestled with the intended meaning behind this Levitical passage, eventually favoring a monetary interpretation: Few are the verses from the Bible which have been so frequently and widely misunderstood by Jew and non-Jew as verse 24:20, from which our title is taken. This misconception has transformed our text into a symbol, the embodiment of vengeance at its cruelest level. One who wishes to express his opposition to forgiveness, concession, and compensation, insisting instead on his pound of flesh, on retaliation of the most brutal and painful kind, resorts to the phrase: "Eye for eye," a formula which conjures up a vision of hacked limbs and gouged eyes. Even he who is familiar with the traditional Rabbinical interpretation of our text, "eye for eye," i.e., monetary compensation, does not rule out the possibility of this being merely an apologetical explanation, a later toning down of ancient barbarity, humanization of the severity of the Torah by subsequent generations. But this is not the case. On the contrary, our Sages and commentators adduce many and varied proofs indicating that the plain sense of the text can be no other than monetary compensation.
By contrast, the Karaite attacked the Rabbinic interpretation on two counts, first from the wording of the text. The Gaon demonstrated that the two phrases do not necessarily bear out the Karaite interpretation. (Benno Jacob notes that the case of Adoni-Bezek – As I have done, so God has requited me (Judges 1:7) is no proof to the contrary, for there he uses a different verb in each clause of the phrase, and is therefore not comparable to our verse). The proof from Samson is the clearest indication that the phraseology when… implies an equivalent or analogous, but not identical punishment. Again, from Bava Kama: "Eye for eye": Rav Saadya said we cannot take this text literally. For if a man deprived his fellow of a third of his normal eyesight by his blow, how can the retaliatory blow be so calculated as to have the same results, neither more nor less, nor blinding him completely? Such an exact reproduction of the effects is even more difficult in the case of a wound or bruise which, if in a dangerous spot, might result in death. The very idea cannot be tolerated. Ben Zuta (a Karaite) retorted: But surely it is explicitly written: (Lev. 24:20) As he has maimed a man so shall it be rendered to him. The Gaon answered: The word on, implying so shall punishment be imposed upon him. Ben Zuta retorted: As he did, so shall be done to him! The Gaon replied: We have in the case of Samson (Judges 15:11): As they did to me, so I did to them, and Samson did not take their wives and give them to others (as they had done to him), but only punished them. Ben Zuta retorted: What if the attacker was a poor man, what would be his punishment? The Gaon replied: What if a blind man blinded one with normal eyesight, what should be done to him? The poor man can become rich and pay; only the blind man can never pay for what he did! The Karaite then forsook the argument from the wording of the text and attacked the Rabbinical interpretation from the point of view of feasibility of its implementation. Here Ben Zuta evidently did not realize that by doing so he was advancing the objection that could be raised against all judicial fines. Just as he asked: What if the attacker is a poor man, so he could have asked: What if any defendant on whom a fine was imposed was a poor man? He thus played into R. Saadya's hands by showing him that the same flaw in execution that could be pointed out in the monetary interpretation could be objected in the literal one, bringing in R. Shimon b. Yohai's argument.
Conclusions
First a quote from my own commentary to Parashat Mishpatim: [Exodus] Chapter 21 – Verses 22-27 speak about restitution in the event of accidental injury. We are familiar with the saying, "An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth." We remember that our LORD Yeshua made a comment
about this in the B'rit Chadashah book of Mattityahu 5:38-42. We often feel that his comments reflect the right, enacted by this particular Torah passage, to go out and take "revenge" on the individual who took our "eye" or "tooth." In Yeshua's estimation (we suppose), revenge is not the
correct course of action, and instead, we should seek to forgive our brother. Actually, these verses of our current parashah establish justice in such a situation. For instance, if indeed your brother accidentally (or maliciously) takes your "eye" or "tooth" (these are symbols of your precious commodities), then the ruling says that you are entitled to an equal share of recompense—but not more! This ruling sets the order so that greed and unforgiveness don't become rife in the community. But Yeshua, realizing that the person wronged is owed an "eye" or "tooth" for his compensation, challenges his audience to seek forgiveness instead of compensation. He does NOT contradict the Torah here, rather he establishes it true intent.
If the Rabbis are right that money is the compensation, then it can be observed that one who pays compensation for the loss of sight does not make good the damage as one who damages his fellow's goods. The money only serves to make good the monetary damage involved in the loss of the eye or hand, but the actual loss of the eye can never be made good. Injury to another human being is a crime that cannot be made good by ransom or monetary payment. This is the reason why the Torah did not use the expression, "He shall pay for his eye...." This emerges even more clearly from the verse of our parashah that we cited at the beginning of this section. After the punishment for mortally injuring a man or beast is stated (v. 17-18) comes the punishment of the one who causes bodily injury to which the punishment for the one who injures a beast is not juxtaposed. For in the case of man, the difference between mortal injury (murder) and maiming is qualitative (death—money), whereas in the case of beast, there is merely a quantitative difference between killing it and injuring it (greater or lesser compensation according to the injury).
Our parashah concludes by contrasting both: "He who kills an animal is to make restitution, but he who kills another person is to be put to death." (Lev. 24:12) The verse appears superfluous, a repetition of the previous, unless we bear in mind that it wishes to impress upon us the difference between man's responsibility for his fellow's goods and his responsibility for his fellow's life as a human being created in the image of God.
Using this as an example to establish "Halachah" for the Torah-based believers in Messiah:
Notice the presentation of this argument presented by "Grafted-In.com:"
- First, a passage of Scripture is presented. In this case, Leviticus 24:17-22. In order to be Biblical, there must be a Biblical text underlying any discussion. Otherwise, there is no point to any discussion.
- The Mishnah from Talmud is explained. The Mishnah is presented as commentary of this passage of Scripture. The Mishnah was written down beteen 2nd Century BCE until 2nd Century CE. From the Orthodox Jewish perspective, the Mishnah is "oral Torah" and is viewed as equal to Scripture. This is what it means to follow "the Rabbis." A rabbinic approach is a good approach IN REGARDS TO THE CULTURAL CONTEXT. Much of the teachings in Mishnah are believed to predate the first century, even if they were only written down after the 2nd Centery BCE. Thus, for those who believe in Yeshua as the Messiah, this is the strain of thought relevant to the discussions of Yeshua and Rav Shaul (Paul). However, as believers in Messiah, our standard of authority is not the Talmud. This is discussed in #4.
- The Gemara on the Mishnah is explained. The Gemara is the second half of Talmud, and it is commentary on the Mishnah. Gemara was written down between 2nd Century CE until 6th Century CE. In other words, the Gemara is a commentary on the commentary of a Scriptural passage. Within the Gemara, explanations from the Rabbis are specifically distinct from the New Testament. By the 2nd Century AD, the Rabbis had to contend with the Messianic Jews of the 1st and 2nd Century. Specific Torah passages were understood in such a way as to show that Yeshua was NOT the Messiah. (We can come to understand this from the context of the book of Galatians. Those who were "bewitching" the Galatian non-Jewish believers in Galatians 3:1 were non-believing Jews. They were not "Judaizers" as is often described. The point is that non-believing Jews during the time of the writing of the New Testament had already begun to work against both Jews and the nations to keep them away from believing in Yeshua.) Thus, for believers in Messiah, one must understand that Gemara is the correct CULTURAL context for reading the New Testament, but the decisions that the non-believing Rabbis had put upon the Jewish culture of their day is not authoritative for Jewish and non-Jewish believers in Yeshua.
- A New Testament passage which corresponds to the Torah is explained: The New Testament is contemporary with the early authors of Mishnah, and most of its writings were already in circulation prior to the circulation of the texts of Mishnah. It must be understood that the only proper way to understand the New Testament is as part of Jewish literature, as its authors were all Jewish, and as the subject matter dealt with the Hebrew/Jewish culture of the first century. Thus the reading of Mishnah and the reading of New Testament are co-dependent upon one another in order to understand the meanings of terms used in both books. However, only the New Testament is authoritative upon both the Jewish and non-Jewish believers in Messiah. In reality, only the New Testament is binding upon all of mankind as it is the proper understanding of the Torah. The Messiah, who is the incarnation of Adonai, had come to "properly interpret" Torah (Matthew 5:17-18). The New Testament is where what Yeshua said is written down, thus is carries authoritative weight. Another way of saying this is that the New Testament is the proper "Halachah" for believers in Yeshua Messiah. There is not another book that is needed, only the New Testament.
- Note regarding the early Church Fathers: Most of the early Church fathers has begun to swing "the Church" away from Jewish traditions as a whole, and away from the cultural context of the Scriptures. While there are some occasional early Church fathers who were accurate in their explanations of Scripture, there is simply too much European cultural contexts mixed into their explanations that most of them can be set aside as unauthoritative. Writers as early as Clement of Rome (90 CE) can be set aside as due to their syncretizing the message of the Bible with their preferred cultural bias, which tended to be pro-European and anti-semetic. As a result, their writings only lend to misinterpretations, and not proper interpretations of Torah. This is an overgeneralization, but simply said, the Church fathers are not necessary reading material for proper interpretation of Scripture. The Talmud, however, is necessary, yet also unauthoritative.
As can be seen then, the authors of "grafted-in.com" properly assess the way that a believer is to read the Torah. First, Torah passage is read. In this case then, a corresponding New Testament passage is used to properly interpret the meaning of Leviticus 24. The Mishnah and Gemara properly explain that this passage is not to be taken literally. If someone is killed, or someone's property is damaged, monetary compensation is justifiable. The offender and the offendee need to come to terms, and the offender needs to reconcile with the offendee. However, when the interpretation of Yeshua is applied, not only does the offendee need to take responsibility for his actions, but also the offender needs to be forgiving and restore the fellowship. Whereas the Mishnah and Gemara are not incorrect in their interpretation; however, Yeshua's interpretation goes beyond the Rabbis interpretation because both justice and mercy are applied. The offender properly takes account for what he destroyed, and the offendee is held accountable to being forgiving. If both parties properly understand this message of Torah, than there can be true justice, forgiveness can be possible, and healing can begin. And the concept of "eye for eye" will no longer be misunderstood as some sort of injustice, but from now on will be the standard by which universal justice between all men can be achieved. Man will one day have the capacity to truly "love his neighbor as himself."
No comments:
Post a Comment