בס "ד

UN PENSIERO SU PARSHAT EMOR 5786

Few Biblical phrases have been more misunderstood than “an eye for an eye.” It is often presented as primitive revenge legislation that inevitably produces cycles of violence. Yet when the text is read carefully — and in light of classical Jewish interpretation — it becomes clear that this formula was designed not to inflame violence, but to restrain it.

The expression appears three times in the Torah:

In Leviticus 24:19–20 we read:

“If a man inflicts an injury upon his fellow… fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has inflicted an injury upon a person, so shall it be inflicted upon him.”

This passage appears in a legal context, not a personal quarrel. The chapter discusses judicial process, punishment, and equal application of the law. Only a few verses later we read:

“You shall have one law for the stranger and for the native-born” (Leviticus 24:22).

Earlier the Torah had already commanded:

“You shall not take revenge nor bear a grudge” (Leviticus 19:18).

The Torah cannot contradict itself. If personal revenge is explicitly forbidden, then “eye for eye” cannot be a command for private retaliation.

Limiting Violence, Not Escalating It

In the ancient world, personal injury often led to endless blood feuds. A single wound could spiral into generational violence. Against that backdrop, “eye for eye” was revolutionary. It meant: no more than what was done. No escalation. No disproportionate retaliation.

It is a legal principle of proportionality.

When this principle is removed from its judicial framework and treated as a personal right to retaliate, the very cycle of violence people accuse the Torah of creating can indeed arise. But that is not the result of the law itself — it is the result of misreading it.

The Teaching of the Sages

The Talmud (Bava Kamma 83b–84a) states unequivocally that “eye for eye” is not applied literally, but refers to monetary compensation. Rashi adopts this interpretation. Ibn Ezra explains that literal enforcement would often be impossible or unjust. What if the offender had only one eye and injured someone with two healthy eyes? What if the injury was unintentional? What if inflicting an identical wound would endanger life?

Chizkuni similarly emphasizes that the Torah speaks in general legal categories, and that judges evaluate damages.

The Torah itself distinguishes sharply between murder and bodily injury. Concerning murder, it states:

“You shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer” (Numbers 35:31).

A human life cannot be reduced to monetary value. Bodily injury, however, can be assessed by a court. That moral distinction is fundamental.

Thus, the Sages understand “eye for eye” as a principle of objective, court-administered justice — not physical mutilation.

A Misreading in Matthew 5

In Matthew 5:38–39 it is written:

“You have heard that it was said: ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist the evil person…”

This statement presents the Torah as if it endorsed personal retaliation and then contrasts it with an ethic of non-resistance. But this rests on a misunderstanding of the Torah’s legal framework. The Torah speaks about judicial procedure — witnesses, judges, proportional penalties — not about individuals taking revenge.

To portray the Torah as commanding private vengeance is to argue against a caricature rather than against the text itself.

Not Revenge — But Not Passivity Either

At the same time, it would be equally mistaken to claim that the Torah demands passive submission to violence.

The Talmud formulates a clear principle:

“If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first”
(Sanhedrin 72a).

This principle — ha-ba lehorgecha hashkem lehorgo — establishes that self-defense against an immediate threat is permitted, and in certain circumstances obligatory. This is not revenge; it is the preservation of life.

Jewish law therefore distinguishes between three categories:

The Torah neither promotes vigilante justice nor demands passivity. It channels force into two tightly controlled contexts: immediate defense of life, or lawful judicial process.

The Noahide Obligation to Establish Courts

The obligation to establish systems of justice originates in Genesis 9:6:

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 56a) derives from this verse the Noahide commandment of dinim — the obligation to establish courts of justice. This is one of the seven commandments given to humanity as a whole.

Maimonides (Rambam), in Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 9–10, codifies that non-Jews are required to appoint judges and enforce the Noahide laws.

Today, however, there is no distinct global Noahide judicial system. In practical terms, Jewish law recognizes the principle:

Dina de-malchuta dina — “the law of the land is law.”

This principle appears in the Talmud (Nedarim 28a; Gittin 10b; Bava Kamma 113a) and is codified by Rambam (Hilchot Gezelah 5:11). It establishes that one is legally bound by the civil law of the country in which one resides, provided it does not compel violation of fundamental divine prohibitions.

Thus, the obligation of justice today operates within existing civil legal structures.

Emor as a Model of Divine Justice

Parashat Emor (Leviticus 24:10–23) presents a model of divine justice. It addresses blasphemy, murder, bodily injury, and concludes with the principle of equal law for stranger and native alike. In the ancient world, this was extraordinary. Justice was not to depend on tribe, status, or ethnicity, but on objective legal standards.

Psalm 89:14 expresses this theologically:

“Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne.”

Justice is not merely a social convenience. It reflects the character of G-d.

“An eye for an eye” is therefore not a primitive revenge formula. It is a legal boundary. It restrains escalation. It subjects emotion to law. It removes vengeance from the hands of individuals and places it under judicial authority.

Where that structure collapses, chaos follows.
Where it functions properly, violence is limited.That is not revenge. It is civilization.

Di Angelique Sijbolts
Grazie a Rabbi Tani Burton per il feedback


© Copyright, tutti i diritti riservati. Se questo articolo vi è piaciuto, vi invitiamo a diffonderlo ulteriormente.

I nostri blog possono contenere testi/citazioni/riferimenti/link che includono materiale protetto da copyright di Mechon-Mamre.org, Aish.com, Sefaria.org, Chabad.orge/o AskNoah.orgche utilizziamo in conformità alle loro politiche.