Taste of Torah
A Bima-Ready D'var Torah 

10 Iyar 5782
​
Parashat Emor
Balancing the Scales
Torah Portion: Leviticus 21:1-24:23
Haftarah Portion: Ezekiel 44:15-31

---

Shalom!

​This week’s parashah, like so many in Leviticus, is full of instructive laws. Some of them discuss priestly conduct and purity. Others describe what offerings are acceptable as sacrifices, and what to do with them afterward. Still, others cover details regarding several of our main holidays: Shabbat, Passover, Shavuot, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Sukkot.

But one set of laws has been discussed extensively over the centuries; it is what is known as lex talionis: “If anyone maims another [person], what was done shall be done in return: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The injury he inflicted on another shall be inflicted on them in return” (Leviticus 24:19-20).

At first glance, it seems pretty straightforward, albeit brutal: justice is fulfilled if every harm is reciprocated equally on the original perpetrator. But in truth, the Jewish view of justice is actually far more nuanced and complicated than that.

Rashi, as well as other rabbis, tells us that this reciprocal mandate of the law “does not mean actual infliction of a blemish but that it means monetary compensation.”[i] Instead of reciprocity, lex talionis is more about restitution. Doing the same harm to another person doesn’t actually solve anything. Instead, we should seek to restore, compensate, or replace what was damaged to the best of our ability.

But how do we determine the appropriate restitution for harm we have caused? The rabbis, over centuries of debate, have much to say about this—some suggestions stranger than others.

For instance, one rabbi, known only as “Shmuel’s father,”[ii] suggested that in order to find an amount to compensate for an injury like the loss of a hand, they must go and find out how much someone would be willing (hypothetically) to accept in payment to have their own hand cut off, and then have that sum be the amount the original perpetrator should pay to the victim.[iii] The idea that we would need to do market research on hypothetical amputation in order to rule in this case properly seems both extreme and a bit ridiculous.[iv] However, it does illustrate how difficult it is to determine exactly what “justice” means, and what exactly is “just” restitution for harm.

Justice—and being just—isn’t easy. Few cases are clear-cut, with an easily-identifiable “one-to-one” solution to harm we’ve caused. There is rarely a unanimous opinion on what constitutes equal restitution. If there were, we wouldn’t need to take these cases to trial, and there wouldn’t be as much ink spilled about the issue as there has been. There is no simple solution or one-size-fits-all answer.

So how do we approach this dilemma? If we look back, the idea behind lex talionis isn’t to punish the perpetrator, but to try to restore things to balance by giving restitution to the victim. That’s the heart of this whole concept: not to punish, but to restore. To take care of the one who lost something or experienced harm.

​With that in mind, we must therefore always try our best to look at a situation honestly and soberly, and make restitution as best we can. It isn’t easy. It isn’t simple. Often, it may not even be fully satisfying. But it is the just thing to do, and therefore we must always strive to make amends. May we have the strength to care for all who have been wronged, and may we work together to restore what has been lost.

Shabbat shalom!
​
Rabbi Caroline Sim
Director of Rabbinical Services

Please share this message with family and friends; we also invite you to read this Taste of Torah from the bima or share it during digital services. As always, please be in touch. We particularly appreciate hearing about simchahs (moments of joy) like births, birthdays, engagements, anniversaries, graduations, as well as illnesses or other challenges in your family or community. ​

---

_______________________________
[i] Rashi on Leviticus 24:20. For a more thorough explanation of this rationale, see TB Bava Kama 83b.
[ii] However, the Toldot Tanaim v’Amoraim identifies him as Abba bar Abba (p. 11).
[iii] TB Bava Kama 85a.
[iv] Many other rabbis felt the same. See ibid.

---

Support our work

---