05-15-2025 Torah Commentary

This week’s parashah is called “Emor”. You will find it in  the Book of Leviticus 21:1-24:23. The section sets out a  series of laws and regulations, with such rules covering  the priesthood (Kahunah) to festival laws, and laws  governing both civil and criminal activities.  

At first glance this section appears to be more practical  than philosophical. Of the Bible’s 613 mitzvot (Divine  regulations), 63 of them are found in this week’s  parashah. Within the parashah, Chapter 24 may be both  the most challenging and also the most useful to the  modern reader. The chapter deals with everything from blasphemy to murder: from inadvertently killing an animal  to maiming another human being. If we go beyond the  time-specific text, then we will see that this parashah  offers us a deal of ageless philosophical material.  

For example, this parashah (Leviticus 24:19-24) contains  one of the most famous, but least well understood Biblical  precepts: “eyin tachat eyin/shen tachat shen-an eye for  an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” and then goes on to state  “a life for a life” Although many Hebrew phrases have  come into other languages and are understood as figures  of speech, this particular phrase seems to confuse a great  many non-Hebrew readers. It is fair to state that for the  last two millennia many non-Jewish readers have not only  misunderstood the phrase’s intent but have drawn exactly  the opposite conclusion to its meaning.  

To understand the verse, it is important to know that Hebrew, as is true of other languages, uses specific nouns  referring to parts of the body symbolically as a way to  represent tangible, philosophical or abstract ideas. For example, when we say that someone broke another  person’s heart, both the speaker and the listener  understand the phrase to have a symbolic meaning. In  the same way the Hebrew reader understands the concept  of an eye for an eye to be figurative or symbolic.  

In this case the text is making a radical change from other  Middle Eastern legal philosophies. Classically in the  ancient world (and often in the modern world) we judge a  person according to his/her social rank, economic class, or  political persuasion. Today’s modern term “lawfare” is an  example of a person being targeted not just by his/her  actions but more on that person’s political affiliation. Also  in much of the world wealth or connections can determine  the harshness of the sentence. The Bible fought against  this idea and insisted that all citizens be treated  equality. Thus, we see the importance of the concept “an  eye for an eye/ a tooth for a tooth/ a life for a life” was not  meant to be taken literally; rather it was meant that every  life was worth the same. In addition, the text makes clear  that no one was to take the law into his/her own hands.

This precept also leads us to an important philosophical  question that still plagues us today. In both religion and  modern politics there are those who are more interested in  the literal meaning of the law then in its spirit, more  interested in condemning than in understanding. On the  other side there are those who have put so much meaning  into their personal interpretation of the law that they have  forgotten what the law’s intent was and whom it was  meant to protect. It is for this reason that ancient Israel  established the precept that all were to receive equal  justice no matter what their gender, religion, or social or  economic status might be. 

The Biblical text teaches the importance of balance, of  honoring the law’s intent and also its spirit. Does this text  have a great deal to teach moderns? Have we  succeeded in finding ways to bring holiness into our lives,  of respecting the law and yet allowing the law to become a  moral guide rather than an obstacle course to inter-human  relationships? What do you think?