1-25-14 Message to Beit Adonai Yisrael
Torah Portion: Exodus 21:1 - 24:18 (Mishphatim - judgments)
Haftarah: Jer 34:8-22, 33:25-26,
Suggested Acheron K’tuvim: Luke 12:35-38
We’re Number Two!
Central question of this message: Are you placing blame, or
rather binding up wounds?
We are in parasha Mishphatim, which means “judgments”, or
sometimes translated as “ordinances”. It is taken from the first
sentence in the passage, where G-d commands, “And these are the
ordinances which you are to set before them.”
The first passage we will examine contains a memorable phrase.
“An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.”
That phrase is buried within the context of Torah, and if we can see
that context, we will have much help in our interpretation.
Ex 21:22-27
22 "And if men struggle with each other and strike a
woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet
there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the
woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay
as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further
injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for
foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for
bruise.
26 "And if a man strikes the eye of his male or female
slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on
account of his eye. 27 And if he knocks out a tooth of
his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on
account of his tooth.
So, we immediately see that there is a context here. It is the
context of a struggle between men near a pregnant woman.
During the struggle, one of the men has struck the woman. Note
that there is no qualifier.
2
One man might have pushed the other one, so that he backed into
her, pushing her down. Doesn’t matter.
The man who is accountable for the impact might not have even
known that the woman was there. Doesn’t matter.
The pregnant woman might have been trying to drag an assailant
off her innocent husband. Doesn’t matter.
The man might have accidentally run over the pregnant woman as
he was trying to flee the assailant. Doesn’t matter.
Do you see what I am showing you? In this law, there is no
negligence, there is no intentional action.
There is no requirement of awareness of the woman at all, nor any
consideration given to her actions, or the actions of the other
assailant.
The only inquiry that is appropriate in this circumstance is into the
facts. The questions to be answered are:
3
1. Were the men struggling with one another?
2. Did one man during that struggle strike a woman?
3. Was the woman who was struck pregnant?
4. Did the woman who was struck have a miscarriage?
5. Was that miscarriage caused by her being struck?
6. Was the woman herself injured as well?
7. What does the woman’s husband require as a fine?
8. What is the value to be paid for the injury?
The bottom line is that you can now see G-d’s law is one of “strict
liability”.
So, with strict liability, what would the punishment be?
A common interpretation is that G-d’s judgment is so strict that if
one accidentally blinds a person, then he is to be intentionally
blinded by another. That interpretation cannot be sustained except
by those who refuse to look further – with unblinded eyes.
Let’s look at the Hebrew, for further insight.
4
The word that is constantly being translated as “for” is tachat,
found at Strongs 8478.
5
The word is most often translated as “under”, or “below”, but it
can also mean “in place of”. Here, I like that translation. Here are
some examples where it appears.
Gen 4:25-26
25 And Adam had relations with his wife again; and she
gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for, she said,
"God has appointed me another offspring in place of
Abel; for Cain killed him."
Another well-known example of this use is found at the Akaida
Yitzhak.
Gen 22:13-14
13 Then Abraham raised his eyes and looked, and
behold, behind him a ram caught in the thicket by his
horns; and Abraham went and took the ram, and
offered him up for a burnt offering in the place of his
son.
The word translated in both these passages as “in place of”, is
likewise tachat.
6
The problem is that Hebrew doesn’t jump into English very well in
some cases, and this case is a prime example.
If you re-read the passage, replacing the word “for”, with “in place
of”, it now works. Since we know that the passage is not talking
about eye, tooth, hand or foot transplants, it must be talking about
value.
Coincidentally, that is the universal and historical interpretation of
Jewish courts on this matter from the beginning until today. I find
no record of any Jewish court meting out any other kind of
punishment.
I don’t say that human kind has never meted out the harsh
punishment of gouging the eye of the perpetrator as punishment for
inflicting a blindness.
Specifically, the Code of Hamurabi (Hammurabi's Code of Laws,
Translated by L. W. King) says:
196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye
shall be put out. 197. If he break another man's bone,
7
his bone shall be broken. 198. If he put out the eye of a
freed man, or break the bone of a freed man, he shall
pay one gold mina. 199. If he put out the eye of a man's
slave, or break the bone of a man's slave, he shall pay
one-half of its value.
So, there is some severity, but also some monetary compensation
contemplated, even in the unbelieving world.
It is clear to me that modern Christianity may have confused these
two codes with one another, and assumed their agreement.
Let’s examine, to the degree we are able, the logic underlying this
passage.
Is it not to find proper compensation for an injury, and provide a
pathway to making the victim as whole as possible?
Do you see that restitution theme behind virtually all of the
property and personal injury laws of Torah?
8
That being the case, how could one rationally argue that removal
of the eye of another might in any way serve to make the injured
person whole?
Assume one of the people is a gifted artist, and the other a water
carrier.
How can the loss of vision for both be in any way
equivalent?
Only a monetary compensation would even approach restitution in
this circumstance… not another eye-gouging.
And it is clear, as we read the verses just above, and just below the
subject passage, that nothing but monetary compensation is being
discussed. So, in context, the idea of monetary compensation is
not being abandoned in the intervening verses, only to be reestablished below.
In Talmud (Bava Kamma 84a), there is a discussion on this very
issue. I think Rabbi Eliezer presents there an interesting argument.
He says that the verses are to be interpreted literally, but in an
unexpected way.
9
Eliezar says that for the blindness of the victim, the perpetrator
owes the sight of his own eye. But here he is permitted to pay a
sum to the blinded one for his own eye. So, the value paid is the
value of the eye of the perpetrator – as a ransom, as a redemption.
It is heartbreaking that many Christians use the misinterpreted “eye
for an eye” passage in Exodus as the seminal example of how the
G-d of the “Old Testament” is one of anger, and the G-d of the
“New Testament” is one of love.
But let’s settle this translational dispute with the sage words of one
of the greatest minds of our people.
He argues against eye-
gouging for the sake of practicality. Hear his words describing the
end state of such a practice:
“And soon, the entire world would be toothless and blind!”
Reb. Tevye.
What do we do in our society today when faced with such personal
injuries? We immediately try to determine fault.
To G-d, fault is irrelevant. It has not entered into the equation.
10
But we today would inquire whether the pregnant lady bore any
fault in the matter, or whether one man pushed another, or whether
someone accidentally tripped, and on and on. And the law books
pile higher and higher.
Do you see the philosophical difference? Strict liability set up by
G-d. As opposed to an abundance of excuses, finger-pointing, and
blame-placing established by man?
We have been inundated, and saturated, with the idea of excuses.
The first examination we undertake in the case of an auto accident
is “whose fault is it?”
In G-d’s ways – it simply doesn’t matter. There are broken things,
and broken people. Fix them.
When a child runs past you and trips over your feet as you sit in
the shul… do you immediately say to the child, “You shouldn’t
have been running so fast”, or “You need to watch where you are
going?”
Probably. I have done so. I am trying not to do so ever again.
11
All of those statements deflect blame from us. They are not loving
statements.
They are prideful statements.
They are not the
statements of a servant.
What we should be doing is to recognize that there is a crying child
on the floor. Forget finding fault and making excuses for what
happened.
Pick up the child and hold him. Let your true heart be known.
Excuses and blame-placing leads to arguments. Arguments lead to
strife, and strife leads to breaking of fellowship.
Now forget that the injured one is a child. Nobody fell. Nobody
was running. But someone in the seat just over there this morning
is hurting just as badly. And it doesn’t matter why.
Holding one another, and binding wounds as we all fall down leads
to the bond of love.
Let’s look at one man in the passage who expressed this kind of
love.
12
Ex 24:12-13, 17
12 Now the Lord said to Moses, "Come up to Me on the
mountain and remain there, and I will give you the
stone tablets with the law and the commandment which
I have written for their instruction." 13 So Moses arose
with Joshua his servant, and Moses went up to the
mountain of God.
.
.
.
17 And to the eyes of the sons of Israel the appearance
of the glory of the Lord was like a consuming fire on the
mountain top. 18 And Moses entered the midst of the
cloud as he went up to the mountain; and Moses was on
the mountain forty days and forty nights.
Our sages have contemplated the relationship between Joshua and
Moses.
They see, in Joshua, an amazing servant, who has no personal
agenda. He just wants to serve his Master.
Torah tells us Joshua was Moses’ attendant. The Rabbis believe
Joshua would carry towels for his bath, would rise early to gather
13
the best mannah for Moses. They say that in matters of Torah,
Joshua dedicated himself to learning and to following the example
of his master.
Moses was a very old man. I have been around very old Jewish
men. They get banged-up a lot. They need someone to bind up the
wounds that bleed… and some on the inside that don’t.
No doubt Joshua bound up Moses’ visible, and invisible, wounds.
Joshua, you see, seems to have been perfectly happy to be
“second”. He was content being the best servant he could be.
A Midrash tells us that it was precisely because Joshua was so
much of a submitted servant, that he found merit in G-d’s eyes to
then become the leader of the Hebrew people.
This concept is repeated by Yeshua.
John 12:25-26
25 "He who loves his life loses it; and he who hates his
life in this world shall keep it to life eternal. 26 "If
14
anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am,
there shall My servant also be; if anyone serves Me, the
Father will honor him.
Rashi believes Joshua followed Moses, by his side, until Moses
reached the place where Joshua could not take one step further.
At that point, Joshua set up his tent, facing the mountain. And
awaited the return of his Master.
This is also reflected in the encouragement given to us by Yeshua.
Luke 12:35-38
35 "Be dressed in readiness, and keep your lamps
alight. 36 "And be like men who are waiting for their
master when he returns from the wedding feast, so that
they may immediately open the door to him when he
comes and knocks. 37 "Blessed are those slaves whom
the master shall find on the alert when he comes; truly I
say to you, that he will gird himself to serve, and have
them recline at the table, and will come up and wait on
them.
15
We have people in this congregation who are wounded. Some are
spiritually blind, some lame, some without a hand, some with
broken teeth.
Although their physical bodies are whole, their
spirits are wounded.
Don’t look for excuses. Don’t lay blame. It doesn’t matter how
they got that way. Pick them up. Hold them.
For there is a King coming, and coming soon, Who will heal all
those afflictions.
He will restore sight, heal lame, restore hands and teeth. Let us
follow our Master as far as we can – right up to the place where we
cannot come one foot further – and let us await him anxiously
there, just as Joshua did for Moses.
But until that day, let us love one another with a perfect love, and
bind one another’s wounds.
16
Verses for Parashah Mishphatim
Ex 21:22-27
Gen 4:25-26
Gen 22:13-14
Ex 24:12-13, 17
John 12:25-26
Luke 12:35-38
17