Emor: All Things Being Equal

Everybody must get stoned

Bob Dylan

“An eye for an eye” is perhaps the most misunderstood Torah passage. Its literal interpretation sparks controversy. Often, it is interpreted as endorsing a barbaric means of justice. Mahatma Gandhi- allegedly- savaged the Torah Portion Emor passage with the assertion: “an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.”

The Torah Portion Emor passage was controversial its pronouncement. Per Richard Elliot Friedman, the passage’s meaning in antiquity is not well understood. See Friedman’s Commentary on the Torah, P. 401, footnote. He indicated that “the earliest postbiblical Jewish sources already understood ‘an eye for an eye’ to mean monetary, and not literal compensation.” Supra.

Beyond compensation, the “an eye for an eye” provision speaks towards the proportionality of justice, i.e. minor harms should only require minor compensation. It also speaks of justice being applied equally to all individuals.

As controversial as “an eye for an eye” is, it is part of a more controversial passage touching on the nature, extent and proportionality of punishment.

And a man who will strike any human’s life shall be put to death, and one who strikes an animal’s life shall pay for it: a life for a life. And a man who will make an injury in his fellow: as he has done, so it shall be done to him. A break for a break, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth: as he will make an injury in a human, so it shall be made in him. And one who strikes an animal shall pay for it, and one who strikes a human shall be put to death. You shall have one judgment: it will be the same for the alien and the citizen…

Leviticus 24:17-22

The Real Controversy?

The an “eye for and eye’s” particular placement in Emor may have been intended to spark controversy; a quite different one than an “eye for an eye.”

The “eye for an eye” passage is sandwiched within a more controversial Emor tale. It is the story of a young man stoned to death as punishment for cursing.

Did the Torah’s authors or editors intend to push readers to confront the issue of punishment disparity by merging the story with the “an eye for an eye” passage? With the young man’s extreme punishment, one must query if it is an “eye is for an eye” why is it “a life for a curse?” Does it make any sense?

The Emor Tale

The young man was the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man. Leviticus 24:10. It is told that the young man fought with an Israelite man in the camp. There is no indication that any harm or physical injury resulted from the incident.

The son is then reported to have “profaned the name and cursed.” Leviticus 24:11 [emphasis added.] He was brought to Moses for a determination from the Lord. Leviticus 24:12. Per the Lord, he ordered Moses to take the the man outside of the camp and to be battered by the congregation. Leviticus 24:14. During this controversy, it was pronounced that the same punishment is for the alien as is for the citizen; those profaning the name shall be put to death. Leviticus 24:16

After that, the “eye for an eye” etc, passage is inserted in the Emor Torah Portion. It reiterates the concept of similar punishment for both the alien and the citizen. After that insert, the story resumes. The Children of Israel do what had been commanded. Leviticus 24:23.

Was This a Legitimate Punishment?

To legally analyze this matter one must look at other Torah passages for guidance. To do so, a series of questions will be posed with respect to other passages addressing both the activity- the profaning of the name and cursing- and the punishment – stoning to death.

Should the concept of fighting be an issue?

For this, the Book of Genesis’ tale of Ishmael is on point. It was alluded that Ishmael was problematic towards Isaac. Genesis 21:9. Despite that, his actions did not warrant a severe punishment. Rather, he was sent away. In doing so, he was also designated to become the father of a nation. Genesis 21:13. In the present matter, there was no reported harm in the conflict. Thus, the violence was a non-issue.

Should his scripturally significant temporal proximity be taken into consideration?

This young man most likely experienced the following: the Exodus, the Lord’s signs [the Ten Plagues], the Red Sea parting, the Mt. Sinai receipt of the Ten Commandments, and the Golden Calf debacle. He also was likely told of the Holiness Code which included a prohibition of using the Lord’s name in vain.

Thus, on at least two occasions, he was likely aware of the rule to not use the Lord’s name in vain. Likewise, he likely participated in the Mt. Sinai theophany. His generation’s experience with the Israelite Deity is unsurpassed within history. Thus, if there was any generation who should not have doubted the Lord, it was this generation.

Is there any similar situation involving like punishment?

In the Book of Numbers, there is the tale of the Sabbath breaker that is quite similar to this incident. The individual was gathering wood on the Sabbath. He was similarly ordered to be taken outside of the camp to be stoned as well.

In it, the Children of Israel found an individual collecting wood on the Sabbath day. He as well was brought to Moses. Moses then received from the Lord instructions that he was to be put to death by stoning. It, as well, was to be done by the congregation outside of the camp. Numbers 15:32-36.

Both the young man’s violation of profaning the name and the Sabbath breaker’s struck to the heart of the Ten Commandments. These actions, arguably, did not cause harm to other humans. Rather, they were an affront to the Israelite Deity. They struck to the heart of the covenant. The directly impacted the Children of Israel-Deity exchange as opposed to other commandments that merely dealt with Human-Human interactions.

Is This a Matter of Holiness?

In matters of holiness, Priests performing tasks in an authorized manner suffered fatal consequences. Leviticus 10:1-2. Was the use of the name, a matter of holiness? Was this offense more than simply using the Lord’s name in vai>n. The use of the name in vain usually attached to the act of “swearing.” In light of the matter involving some level of holiness- the offering up of the name- could this be the basis for the punishment’s severity?

Was the Name Usage an Existential Threat?

The Israelite’s Deity’s name means something like “to be.” It is an expression of existence. Thus, profaning the name could have been construed as an attempt to take the life of the Deity by deriding the name. Could this be part of the justification of the punishment’s severity.

Was the Punishment Consistent with the Torah’s laws?

In doing the analysis, when viewing the matter within the context of the scripture, there are strong arguments that severe punishment fell in line with the Torah’s ideology. This analysis is not intended to address whether the young man’s action in modernity would warrant any punishment at all. Rather, the issue was whether it was consistently logical within the Torah’s laws and precedent.

Conclusion

With the Torah Portion Emor, seemingly harsh punishments must be challenged with a legal analysis. Throughout the Torah, there are instances which provide clues to the its attempt to be consistent and fair. Thus, even though a punishment is extreme in nature in modernity, the question is to whether it meets the principles laid out within the Pentateuch.

Given that challenge, there is factual precedent, legal precedent, commandments, and the harsh measures relating to cultic activity that make the stoning punishment a legitimate but extreme penalty. Further, the use of the name in the camp arguably posed an existential threat to the Deity as an institution. The young man’s actions parallels what occurred to the Sabbath violator in the Book of Numbers. Thus, “a life for a curse” is logical conclusion within the scriptural context.

In the end, the takeaway from this exercise is that the Torah promotes an internally consistent legal system with respect to matters of punishment. Rather than focus on the harsh punishment exacted in scripture, the appreciation should be towards the value of promoting and creating legal systems which are both consistent and just.

Be well!!

Please like, follow, comment or share.