EE & R, 2_12: Knowing Hashem: The Moral Limits of “An Eye for an Eye”
EE & R, 2_12: Knowing Hashem: The Moral Limits of “An Eye for an Eye”
(For the previous installment of "Exodus, Exile and Redemption," click here. For ToC, click here.)
Yaakov’s deceitful dealings with his brother Esau and his uncle Laban drew sharp rebuke from the prophets. Yet, it bears noting that Yaakov was contending with people who were far from perfect themselves. Esau and Laban were both wicked, and when dealing with wicked people, honesty can be a foolish strategy: Be honest with dishonest people and you’re likely to be cheated in the game of deceit. Regarding Laban, the point is made explicitly by the Sages:
“And Yaakov told Rachel that he was her father’s brother, and that he was Rivkah’s son” (Genesis 29:12). Was he (Yaakov) in fact her father’s brother? But wasn’t he the son of her father’s sister? Rather, he said to her: “Will you marry me?” She said to him: “Yes, but my father (Laban) is a swindler, and you will not be able to outwit him.” Yaakov said to her: “I am his brother in deception.” She said to him: “But is it permitted for the righteous to be involved in deception?” He said to her: “Yes – ‘With the pure You will show Yourself pure, and with the perverse You twist and turn’ (II Samuel 22:27).”1
Yaakov declared himself Laban’s equal in matters of deception, using a verse to justify adapting his behavior to mirror that of those around him. Laban the cheat, argued Yaakov, deserves no better than to be cheated himself! People should be treated exactly as they treat others.
Yet this stance, though just, is potentially corrupting. Treat someone deceitfully and, as deserving as that individual might be of such treatment, you will become a deceitful person yourself. We become how we act; if we cheat regularly, even if it is right to do so, we will become cheats.
In this light, the prophets excoriated Yaakov for his conniving behavior despite it being legal and just. The prophetic critique stems from the unique role of the prophets in relation to the Torah: Whereas the Torah teaches the fair and just Law, the prophets advocate for moral excellence, and these two ideals do not always align.2
This same dynamic appears in a fascinating dichotomy between the literal sense of a Torah verse and the manner in which it is implemented in practice. The text of the Torah prescribes reciprocal justice for one who wounds another:
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise. (Exodus 21:24–25)
According to the literal meaning of the verse, the wounder is treated exactly as he acted. But the practical halacha, as is well-known, is otherwise: the wounder compensates for the damages.
A cryptic remark made by Maimonides in his Guide of the Perplexed, coupled with a letter written to his prized pupil, indicates that he understood this dichotomy to be reflective of the dynamic discussed above: Lex talionis might be just in theory, but implementing it in practice in a world where wounders are too common will engender in its practitioners the negative character trait of cruelty or callousness. Applying “an eye for an eye” too often will turn the court itself cruel. The verse is understood to reflect a merely theoretical ideal that cannot be executed in practice.
In the Guide, Maimonides discusses the reasons for the mitzvahs and laws of the Torah. Regarding this law, he writes the following:
The punishment meted out to anyone who has done wrong to somebody else consists in general in his being given exactly the same treatment that he has given to somebody else. If he has injured the latter’s body, he shall be injured in his body… And he who has deprived someone of a member, shall be deprived of a similar member… You should not engage in cogitation concerning the fact that in such a case we punish by imposing a fine. For at present my purpose is to give reasons for the [biblical] texts and not for the pronouncements of the legal sciences. Withal I have an opinion concerning this provision of legal science, which should only be expressed by word of mouth.3
Maimonides tantalizingly suggested that he would divulge an opinion about this law to the addressee of the Guide, his disciple Yoseph ben Yehudah ibn Shimon, but not in writing, only in person. Did he ever do so? I believe there is a clue that he did, from which we can divine the content of the secret doctrine.
In a letter Maimonides wrote to the same disciple regarding how to behave toward those who malign his master and teacher, Maimonides references a teaching that he had taught Yoseph in person:
I have already told him (Yoseph) face to face, if he remembers, that if a person today would decide to act or speak according to what each individual deserves based on his actions – as it is said, “and with the perverse You twist and turn” – he will establish in his soul a fixed acquisition of all kinds of wickedness, because most people he sees are perverse. Therefore, it is proper for a person who wants to be a human being to focus on perfecting his traits and acquiring wisdom, and not to occupy his mind with foolishness.4
In a seemingly radical departure from tradition, Maimonides taught against adhering to a verse of the Bible. Today, the great master instructed, we no longer twist and turn with the perverse, the explicit verse notwithstanding. Such behavior won’t work for us, living as we do in a world where most people are perverse. It’s an appropriate ideal but not an appropriate practice for our corrupt world.
I maintain that this lesson, which Maimonides taught his student “face to face,” represents the secret doctrine concerning the law of “an eye for an eye” that he hinted at sharing in person.5 This teaching echoes the criticism the prophets directed at Yaakov’s fair but nonetheless deceitful behavior: In a world rife with negative behavior, we should not replicate the actions of those around us lest we become malevolent ourselves.
(For the next installment of "Exodus, Exile and Redemption," click here.)
The subject of the role of the prophets in relation to the Torah will be explored at length later in this work.
Letters of Maimonides, Jerusalem 1995, vol. 1 pg. 421.