In All Fairness

Unfairness may be the one word that most depicts the Human Condition. The Torah Portion Emor addresses fairness within a multitude of dimensions. It is a deity’s solution towards addressing inequity.

Emor, however, begins with directives and restrictions to those of the Israelite Priestly class. The sons of Aaron had limits like no other Israelite. Further, the leader of the priests was subject to additional limitations.

At Emor’s end, the general population is the focus of the lawgiving. It is proclaimed that “You shall have one judgment, it will be the same for the alien and the citizen” Leviticus 24:23. This mandate of equal treatment under the law, to some people’s surprise, is connected to one of the most famous Torah [and misunderstood] provisions: “an eye for an eye”. The portion contains an event in which the rule is applied. In the passage, the son of an Egyptian father and an Israelite mother is subjected to punishment for profaning the Lord’s name and cursing.

To bring this subject to contemporary times, the prophetic words Author George Orwell must be taken into consideration: “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” These words from Animal Farm are perhaps the heaviest indictment to political governance that an ordinary person can easily digest. This Orwellian observation strikes to the heart of a fair society.

While Emor impresses a sense of equality, there still remains, however, individuals, who are different than others. The priestly role created a sub class. Thus, we are confronted with the notion of “nuance”. How can equality be promoted yet include the establishment of sub class who are subject to differential treatment. Is “nuance” the answer?

This notion of equality and and equal result can also be troubling. Emor’s “eye for an eye” passage can raise matters of unfairness. Per the Friedman translation, it reads: “a break for a break, an eye for an eye, a took for a tooth” Leviticus 24:20. The passage, which speaks towards proportionality, is one that has been interpreted in terms of compensation.

Is this compensation fair? For instance, an elderly retired man breaks a young concert violinist’s arm. As a result of the injury, the violinist’s career and livelihood as a performer is over. How can one say that the violinist’s arm was of the same value of the elderly retired man? Should the retired man be forced to pay a high level of compensation?

In essence, we are tortured by perspective. What is fair in the big picture may not be fair when considering the little picture. How do we compensate for unfairness? Nuance?

Society, to some degree, has allowed for some workarounds. For the violinist, there are disability insurance policies available to compensate them in the event of an accident. Thus, this example leads one to the realization that the individual must make their own efforts to prevent unfairness from entering into their lives.

In sum, this discussion of Emor offers up the notion that the Human Condition involves both a big picture and an individual picture. It offers the notion that fairness in society does not necessarily translate into fairness in result. Thus, we learn that individuals who wish to limit the Human Conditions’ unfairness must take their own initiative to prevent greater harm.

Be well!!

Please like, follow, comment or share.