 | In a world of passive aggression, physical and emotional aggression, and mounting societal outrage, there can be instinctive allure to Torah's "eye for an eye" maxim about justice. Except it doesn't mean what the millennia made it out to mean. What principles should guide us in addressing bad behavior? When – if ever – does "like" merit "like"? |
By Rabbi David Evan Markus
Mishpatim 5786 (2026)
Near the end of Fiddler on the Roof, the Czar orders the Jews of Anatevka out. Some villagers call for self-defense to stand their ground against exile. The pivotal scene reaches a climax:
Mishpatim 5786 (2026)
Near the end of Fiddler on the Roof, the Czar orders the Jews of Anatevka out. Some villagers call for self-defense to stand their ground against exile. The pivotal scene reaches a climax:
VILLAGER:
An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth!
TEVYE:
Very good. That way the whole world will be blind and toothless.
An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth!
TEVYE:
Very good. That way the whole world will be blind and toothless.
The exchange uplifted Torah's core moral challenge using the very same words. Does Torah really ask for "an eye for an eye," a strict retributive justice? In the pain and abusive behaviors of this societal moment, our answer is pivotally important to what spirituality demands of us.
In turn, our answer traces the story of what happens if Torah is taken out of context and used as an anti-Jewish polemic.
Our story begins in this week's Torah portion (Mishpatim), aptly named for a slew of "laws" (מִשְׁפָּטִים / mishpatim) that immediately follow the Ten Commandments at Sinai. These laws recognize that bad behavior will happen, including assault. In those instances, what should society do? What principles define justice? Torah's first answer (Exodus 21:23-25):
In turn, our answer traces the story of what happens if Torah is taken out of context and used as an anti-Jewish polemic.
Our story begins in this week's Torah portion (Mishpatim), aptly named for a slew of "laws" (מִשְׁפָּטִים / mishpatim) that immediately follow the Ten Commandments at Sinai. These laws recognize that bad behavior will happen, including assault. In those instances, what should society do? What principles define justice? Torah's first answer (Exodus 21:23-25):
| וְאִם־אָס֖וֹן יִהְיֶ֑ה וְנָתַתָּ֥ה נֶ֖פֶשׁ תַּ֥חַת נָֽפֶשׁ׃ עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן שֵׁ֖ן תַּ֣חַת שֵׁ֑ן יָ֚ד תַּ֣חַת יָ֔ד רֶ֖גֶל תַּ֥חַת רָֽגֶל׃ כְּוִיָּה֙ תַּ֣חַת כְּוִיָּ֔ה פֶּ֖צַע תַּ֣חַת פָּ֑צַע חַבּוּרָ֕ה תַּ֖חַת חַבּוּרָֽה׃ | And if damage ensues, the penalty will be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. |
Roman law called this principle lex talionis, "law of the teeth," and applied it literally – eye for eye, tooth for tooth, death penalty for homicide. Later, some Christian theologians arrayed Torah's words as "proof" of Judaism's inferiority in supposedly focusing more on retaliatory justice than superior forgiveness and compassion. Those same theologians next pointed a similar polemic finger at Islam, which likewise bears elements of lex talonis (Qur'an 5:45).
Such is the danger of taking sacred scripture out of context. Centuries of ostensibly legal and spiritual thought got it utterly wrong – and society continues to bear the price.
These words are about civil law, not criminal law. They are about fiscal claims, not corporal punishment. We know so from their context, and from how Talmud addressed them.
In context, lex talionis is a corollary to Judaism's traditionally permissive views on abortion. Yes, abortion. In the sentence immediately before lex talionis, Torah presents the situation (Exodus 21:22):
Such is the danger of taking sacred scripture out of context. Centuries of ostensibly legal and spiritual thought got it utterly wrong – and society continues to bear the price.
These words are about civil law, not criminal law. They are about fiscal claims, not corporal punishment. We know so from their context, and from how Talmud addressed them.
In context, lex talionis is a corollary to Judaism's traditionally permissive views on abortion. Yes, abortion. In the sentence immediately before lex talionis, Torah presents the situation (Exodus 21:22):
| וְכִֽי־יִנָּצ֣וּ אֲנָשִׁ֗ים וְנָ֨גְפ֜וּ אִשָּׁ֤ה הָרָה֙ וְיָצְא֣וּ יְלָדֶ֔יהָ וְלֹ֥א יִהְיֶ֖ה אָס֑וֹן עָנ֣וֹשׁ יֵעָנֵ֗שׁ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר יָשִׁ֤ית עָלָיו֙ בַּ֣עַל הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וְנָתַ֖ן בִּפְלִלִֽים׃ | If people fight, they hit a woman and miscarriage results but there is no other physical damage, payment will be on [court] reckoning on the husband's suit. |
On this principle, Judaism traditionally holds that the killing of another's fetus yields a fine: it is not murder. From that, traditional Judaism holds that a fetus does not have human rights, instead focusing on the mother's bodily autonomy – hence Judaism's broad pro-choice views.
What does this have to do with our subject? It is the subject. Lex talionis is a corollary to this pro-choice principle – and nothing more. In context, lex talionis applies where a bystander woman is injured accidentally in others' physical dust-up – and nothing more. Even then, "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth" and all the rest are about fines set by a court – and nothing more. Judaism never supported capital punishment for unintentional homicide, or physical in-kind punishment for unintentional assault – not ever.
Even the ostensibly legalistic Talmud agreed. These are financial damages for "damages, pain, medical expenses, lost wages and humiliation" (M. Bava Kamma 8:1, B.T. Bava Kamma 83b) – what lawyers would call "tort damages." Even after Talmud asked if the words could be taken out of context to mean what they appear to say, Talmud's answer was no (B.T. Bava Kamma 84a; B.T. Sanhedrin 74a, 79a).
Even where the Qur'an imputed strict lex talionis to Torah, the Qur'an made abundantly clear that "whoever waives it charitably, it will be atonement for them" (Qur'an 5:45). There is no merit or praise in "eye for an eye."
To Gandhi, the Christian misunderstanding of lex talionis merely perpetuated the fear and unrequited hurt that are the root causes of interpersonal conflict, oppression and violence – hence Gandhi's teachings about nonviolence that ultimately liberated India:
What does this have to do with our subject? It is the subject. Lex talionis is a corollary to this pro-choice principle – and nothing more. In context, lex talionis applies where a bystander woman is injured accidentally in others' physical dust-up – and nothing more. Even then, "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth" and all the rest are about fines set by a court – and nothing more. Judaism never supported capital punishment for unintentional homicide, or physical in-kind punishment for unintentional assault – not ever.
Even the ostensibly legalistic Talmud agreed. These are financial damages for "damages, pain, medical expenses, lost wages and humiliation" (M. Bava Kamma 8:1, B.T. Bava Kamma 83b) – what lawyers would call "tort damages." Even after Talmud asked if the words could be taken out of context to mean what they appear to say, Talmud's answer was no (B.T. Bava Kamma 84a; B.T. Sanhedrin 74a, 79a).
Even where the Qur'an imputed strict lex talionis to Torah, the Qur'an made abundantly clear that "whoever waives it charitably, it will be atonement for them" (Qur'an 5:45). There is no merit or praise in "eye for an eye."
To Gandhi, the Christian misunderstanding of lex talionis merely perpetuated the fear and unrequited hurt that are the root causes of interpersonal conflict, oppression and violence – hence Gandhi's teachings about nonviolence that ultimately liberated India:
The shreds of individuality cannot be sewed together with a bayonette; nor can democracy be restored according to the Biblical injunction of an "eye for an eye" which, in the end, would make everybody blind.
Any attempt to introduce democracy or to check totalitarianism must constantly emphasize the rehabilitation of personality. Freedom and responsibility help. Rigid authority hinders.
Judaism doesn't do retribution – period. Judaism doesn't do "an eye for an eye" in the way that the millennia misunderstood it. We never did. And there is certainly nothing here about an unloving, uncharitable, unforgiving theology to be cabined, controlled or superseded.
Yes, we can feel angry (different from hostility). Yes, we can engage in self-defense: sometimes we must. Yes, we can stand up against bad behavior: often we must. Along the way, Judaism does not do polemic, using sacred text as a cudgel. Rather, Judaism embraces teshuvah and the network of justice principles that demand we assume others' best intent, look inward, face our own stuff, and only then address others' behavior – without shaming them, if at all possible.
Otherwise, who are we? It's telling that immediately after the Ten Commandments, Torah's first teachings remind us not to spread hostility even if our hurt might call it just. Otherwise, we'd just play our bit parts in making the whole world blind and toothless.
Yes, we can feel angry (different from hostility). Yes, we can engage in self-defense: sometimes we must. Yes, we can stand up against bad behavior: often we must. Along the way, Judaism does not do polemic, using sacred text as a cudgel. Rather, Judaism embraces teshuvah and the network of justice principles that demand we assume others' best intent, look inward, face our own stuff, and only then address others' behavior – without shaming them, if at all possible.
Otherwise, who are we? It's telling that immediately after the Ten Commandments, Torah's first teachings remind us not to spread hostility even if our hurt might call it just. Otherwise, we'd just play our bit parts in making the whole world blind and toothless.
RSS Feed