Mishpat Ehad:
Equal in the Eyes of Torah Law
Parshat Emor

Leviticus 21:1 -24:23 / Ezekiel 44:15 - 31

Do you have thoughts, comments or questions on Table Torah Talk?
Please share them with me at haravmark@optonline.net

The book of Leviticus is often referred to in rabbinic literature as Torat Kohanim, the Torah of the priesthood. This week’s Parshah epitomizes the reason that Leviticus has gained this special name. It covers a variety of different topics including laws of marriage for the Kohanim, the priests, the holiday cycle and the penalty for blasphemy. Parshat Emor concludes with a passage that discusses the penalty for someone who injures or kills another person. To be holy not only means to live a godly life but to live a life of separation and personal discipline. Every Israelite was expected to strive for holiness in their ethical and spiritual life, and the Kohanim, the priests had even more regulations that affected how they lived, who they could marry and even how they mourned the loss of a loved one. Conservative Judaism has struggled with the ruling that says that a Kohen is forbidden to marry a divorcee or a convert to Judaism. Parshat Emor contains both universal and particularistic laws. In the final verse of the Parshah, we learn that one who blasphemes God is to be put to death. In this context we find a fundamental principle of Jewish law, that there is a rule of law that applies equally to all people.

Leviticus 24:
17. And he who kills any man shall surely be put to death. 18. And he who kills a beast shall make it good; beast for beast. 19. And if a man causes a blemish in his neighbor; as he has done, so shall it be done to him; 20. Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done back to him. 21. And he who kills a beast, he shall restore it; and he who kills a man, he shall be put to death. 22. You shall have one kind of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own citizen; for I am the Lord your God.

Rashi, ad locum
I am the Lord your God: your God: I am the God of all of you. Just as I attach My name to you, so do I attach My name to the strangers. (Rashi is attempting to suggest that this final section of the verse is giving a reason why the stranger should be equal with the native born Israelite.)

Otzar Hahayim, Hayim Ya’akov Zuckerman
One kind of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own citizen: This is the way of the Torah of truth: Righteous laws that are equal for all people. But why did scripture to mention the stranger before the citizen first in a section which deals with the laws of punishment. Should it not have said that the stranger will be like the citizen (and therefore the citizen would be mentioned first in this verse)? It is well known before the One who spoke and created the universe that this is the way of the world: the stranger is the weakest and is most susceptible to persecution and abuse. Therefore the Torah tells us to give preference to the stranger before the natural born citizen so that there will truly be “One kind of law” for you. And why do command you to do this? Because “I am the Lord, your God,” the God of the citizen and the God of the stranger; not only that but God loves the stranger and protects their interests and their pain. God saves them from disaster and tries to minimize their pain and sorrow.

Babylonian Baba Kama 83b
Why (pay compensation) in the case of an eye for an eye? Does the divine law not say, “Eye for an eye”? Why not take this literally to mean putting out an eye (of the offender)? Let not this enter your mind, since it has been taught: you might think that if where he put out his eye, the offender’s eye should be put out, or, where he cut off his arm, the offender’s arm should be cut off, or again where he broke his leg, the offender’s leg should be broken. (Not so,) for it is laid down, “He that smites any man…and he that smites a beast..;” just as in the case of smiting a beast compensation so also in the case of smiting a person, compensation is paid.
It was taught: Rabbi Dostai ben Yehudah says, “Eye for an eye” means pecuniary compensation. You say pecuniary compensation, but perhaps it is not so, but actual retaliation (by putting out an eye of another) is meant? What then will you say where a blind man put out the eye of another man or where a cripple cut off the hand of another, or a lame person broke the leg of another? How can I carry out in this case (the principle of retaliation) of an eye for an eye, seeing that the Torah says “You shall have one manner of law, implying that the manner should be the same in all cases?

Questions for the Table

1. The passage above appears in the middle of the story of the Blasphemer who is found guilty and taken out and put to death. What relevance does the law of an eye for an eye and the law of one law for stranger and citizen have in this context?

2. How do we apply this principle of “one kind of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own citizen” in American Constitutional law? Do you think that Hebrew scripture has anything to do with influencing American jurisprudence? What relevance does this principle have today in American law? Do you think it has any relevance in the case of illegal immigrants now in the United States?

3. Why does the Otzar Hayim suggest the stranger is mentioned before the native-born citizen in Leviticus 24:22? Should the stranger in our midst be given special consideration?

4. To what other areas of civic life would you apply this principle of “One kind of law?” Have the conditions under which we live today changed sufficiently that this principle no longer can be applied in the way it did in ancient times?

5. What relevance does “one kind of law, for the stranger, as for one of your own citizens” have in judging the case of retaliation (Lex Talionis)? What reasons did the sages give for suggesting that it is inherently unfair to demand equal physical payment when one person injures another person?

“All it takes to study Torah is an open heart, a curious mind and a desire to grow a Jewish soul.”
Copyright 2006 Rabbi Mark B Greenspan