Mishpatim – From the Heavens to the Earth

By Rabbi Ezra Friedman

The Bible is the most purchased and read, ancient and sacred book in history. All major religions agree that this written testament of Hashem is genuine and true. However, in Judaism the written Bible isn’t enough; Hashem gave the Oral Torah as well. Moshe Rabeinu received the Oral Torah at the same place and the same time as the Bible and its level of holiness is no less than the Written Torah. The Oral Torah is much broader and more detailed than the Written Torah. Its depth reaches all aspects of Jewish life including Talmud, Jewish Law and philosophy. Despite the considerable length and development of the Oral Law, it all sprouts from the Written Law. Many religions throughout the generations denied or mocked the Oral tradition. Many sects within Judaism such as the Karaites and Sadducees also challenged the Oral Torah. Over time, the Oral law was written down out of the fear of being forgotten. However, it was not meant to be written down. Oral law took the forms of the times and many laws do not have exact documentation.

The most basic question about our Torah is obvious – why is there a need for a written and oral law? Would it not be more logical if the entire Torah had been either written down from the beginning or passed down orally in its entirety? There are many different ways to understand this complex topic.

In Parashat Mishpatim, we find one of the most apparent contradictions between the two Torahs. When discussing the issues of damages, the Torah describes the proper punishment for a felon who damaged another Jew (Shemot 21, 24):

עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן שֵׁ֖ן תַּ֣חַת שֵׁ֑ן יָ֚ד תַּ֣חַת יָ֔ד רֶ֖גֶל תַּ֥חַת רָֽגֶל׃

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

The explanation of this verse could be taken in the literal sense.  When someone pokes out an eye or knocks out one’s tooth, the punishment for the perpetrator is to remove his eye or tooth. However, our Sages translate this verse in monetary terms. The Oral Torah claims that the Torah didn’t mean that one should physically remove the eye of the offender. Rather, the verse is explained to mean that the amount the felon must pay should be equal to what his eye is worth (the Talmud goes into detail to explain how one should calculate the value).When the Sages mention the option of physical punishment, they are perplexed by such a suggestion. The Rambam goes out of his way to explain that even though the plain translation is correct, the Torah would never mean to inflict this punishment literally.

Regardless of all these claims, The Torah did write the verse in this fashion and the words are translated literally. As such, what is there purpose of such wording? In Jewish philosophical writings, there are two approaches to this question. One school of thought suggests that the literal meaning of the verse is to show that the Torah displays a merciful type of justice. Logically, taking an eye for an eye makes sense, yet since the Torah realizes that it is cruel and illogical to do so, the Oral Torah expounds on the correct and just punishment according to the Jewish system. Another school of thought offers the theory of deterrence. If the Written Torah had decreed a punishment of monetary payment, then the evil-doers would be less afraid to commit such crimes. However, this law means that although it is completely justifiable to remove the limb of the offender, the Torah knew that this punishment would never be inflicted because of the illogical consequence of such a punishment. The Torah describes a punishment that could potentially be inflicted, even though it would never be practiced, in order to instill fear in those even contemplating such a crime.

Both ideas have much truth in them. Perhaps we can offer a third approach. The logical flaw in the literal penalty of an eye for an eye is that revenge has no practical result. It can be a psychological balm to the victim, yet can never return his lost limb. The Oral Law took the abstract verse and made it practical, by assessing payment based on realistic value. The Written and Oral Torah are both true. The Oral Law gives a way of actualizing the written word. On a completely spiritual level, the eye of the offender should be removed, just as when Hashem punishes someone in Scripture, it is always measure for measure. This perspective on a spiritual level makes sense, but it can have no benefit in our temporal world. The Torah was given to this materialistic world to help earthly beings maneuver through its obstacles and therefore the spiritual words must be understood in that context. The Oral Torah uses this term and explains that in order to make an eye for an eye applicable in our world, the punishment must be monetary. There is no gap between the two Torahs; one is an application of the other. The purpose of the Oral Torah is to be able to make our religion tangible and rooted in our day to day lives. The Oral Torah was supposed to stay oral in order to be able explain the dynamic laws of the Torah according to changes in society. According to this idea that there is no contradiction, but rather a completion of the verse.

The question still remains, however, as to why the verse describes something that is not practical. The answer is that our mission as Jews is to try to make the strongest possible connection between the Oral and Written Torah. We are connecting the spiritual with the materialistic; the heavens with the earth. This idea is basic in Judaism. Everything has two perspectives, the abstract ideal and the practical one. There are many examples of this idea. For instance, although offerings are given for specific types of sins and divorce is allowed in certain situations, these aren’t contradictions of the ideals of holiness or of the sanctity of marriage. Rather, they train us to understand our reality and how we are to endeavor to achieve a true level of holiness. By sacrificing sin offerings, people will slowly learn to relinquish sinful practices and through divorce, in certain cases, people will learn what true love is and consequently, harmony can flourish. As opposed to Christianity, Judaism does not believe in celibacy or unblemished piety. The path to true spirituality starts with a practical understanding of the earth in which we live.

The greatest example of this in the 21^st century is the modern state of Israel. On an abstract level, the idea of our modern-style government seems heretical. Why would the Torah allow for its holy land to be governed by such a system? The opposite is true, in order to bring about a true redemption, we must use the positive aspects of modern society to enhance our land, just as we connect the Oral Law and the Written Law. Although there are many flaws in Medinat Yisrael – political rivalries, economic disputes, and social ills- they are all a part of a process of molding a better and more prosperous future. The two Torahs represent our two worlds, the spiritual and the materialistic. We must always strive to bond the heavens with the earth.