GOOD MORNING! In my youth I was quite fond of Robert Frost’s poetry. I particularly connected with his “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening.” Decades later, when I was “sheltering” alone during COVID on our school’s campus in rural Pennsylvania, I experienced the many different subtle layers of that poem.

The poem is unique in many ways – it is written in perfect iambic tetrameter and has a lovely chain rhyme (those of you who remember your high school Shakespeare know what I mean). It also evokes deep imagery of the tranquil snowy night and what is taking place in the rider’s mind. There is a good reason why it is one of Frost’s most beloved pieces.

Robert Frost once said that “poetry is what gets lost in the translation.” In other words, aside from the near impossibility of replicating the rhythmic structure and rhyming quality of a poem in another language, the very “soul” of the poem – the ethereal quality that makes it unique and special – is mostly lost. A translation of something is, by its very definition, an interpretation, and very often a poor representation of the original.

I mention this observation because it is particularly relevant to this week’s Torah reading. There are many instances in this week’s Torah portion that are simply mistranslated and therefore misunderstood. There are also instances of concepts that are misinterpreted and therefore, of course, also misunderstood. I will give examples of both shortly.

There is another important point to be made. Changing social mores are not reflective of actual eternal values of right or wrong, or even proper and improper behavior. The Torah, which was gifted to the world by the Almighty, is the final arbiter of what is absolutely moral or immoral.

For example, I am certain that, given the advances made by science in the field of “lab-grown” animal tissue, within 25 years (and perhaps even sooner) there will no longer be a need to slaughter animals for protein. There are many reasons and motivations for this progress; compared to conventional beef, lab-grown beef requires 45% less energy use, 99% less land use, and produces 96% fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

Depending on how this industry continues to develop, future theorists will have a whole slew of new questions to ponder: Is lab-grown meat truly vegan? How would Hindus view this development? What would it take to be considered kosher?

In fact, I predict that it will become so prevalent that future generations will be aghast at the barbaric nature of mankind butchering animals for food. They will be unable to wrap their minds around how we could even conceive of killing animals for food. It is very likely that animal slaughter will even eventually be deemed immoral by society.

(This is not unlike how the world today looks at Korea, China, and other Asian countries who regularly raise and butcher dogs for food. This practice was even widely accepted in Hawaii until the 1980’s and only formally outlawed in 2018 when the federal government passed the Dog and Cat Meat Trade Prohibition Act.)

But just because society fifty years from now may choose to believe that butchering animals is immoral, doesn’t simply make it so. The only legitimate determiner of morality is the Torah. Future societies may decide that it’s a better way to live – but that fact cannot retroactively condemn prior generations for living a different life nor make such a practice “immoral.”

It is therefore of the utmost importance that the Torah itself be interpreted with extreme care. By necessity, the Torah is written with extreme brevity. It is for this reason that an accompanying Oral Law was given to Moses at Mount Sinai, and as part of that tradition the Oral Law has thirteen principles on how the Torah may be elucidated.

A prime example of this is the concept of fasting on Yom Kippur; it is widely accepted and practiced within all Jewish communities – from Reform to Orthodox. However, the fact is that the Torah never says that one must fast on Yom Kippur. The Torah simply states, “you must afflict your souls” (Leviticus 16:29 and 23:27), it was the sages, using exegetical analysis, who determined what the Torah meant by this “affliction.”

This week’s Torah portion begins with the laws of a Jewish indentured servant – a person who sells his services for a fixed sum. The Hebrew word “eved” is almost always mistranslated to mean slave and along with that comes the unpleasantness of abuse that it generally connotes. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

According to Jewish law, an indentured servant has to be treated by his “master” even better than the master would treat himself. For example, if he has only one pillow, he must provide it to the servant and the master goes without. In addition, he must provide him with the same wine and quality of food that he himself enjoys and he is prohibited from giving him any demeaning jobs.

This week's portion devotes quite a bit of space to jurisprudence and judicial matters, with a special focus on torts and assigning compensatory damages for a variety of injuries to person and property. An oft quoted verse relating to how Judaism applies justice is likewise found in this parsha: “[…] an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot” (21:24).

Simply understood (and wrongly so), the Torah seems to be prescribing a “law of retaliation” for injuries caused to the physical body. That is to say, the Torah appears to advocate that one who causes physical injury to another be penalized to a similar degree. The Talmud quickly dispels that notion and explains that “an eye for an eye” refers to monetary compensation for the loss of an eye.

The Talmud goes on to explain that because Judaism requires that all justice be fair and evenly applied, the sages utilize an exegetical analysis of the language used by the Torah to determine that the law requires equitable monetary compensation, not a physical maiming as retribution (Bava Kama 83b-84a). Through exegesis, the Talmud cites numerous proofs that the Torah is not proscribing physical payback and is instead prescribing financial recompense.

Unfortunately, this verse has been misunderstood for thousands of years (even as a far back as the Sadducees over two thousand years ago) and has been termed by uninformed “Bible Scholars” to be one of the most controversial verses in the Bible as it seems to reveal the “vengeful nature” of the Torah. Though, as explained, in rabbinic Judaism this verse was NEVER taken literally, Shi’ite countries that practice Islamic Sharia law, such as Iran and many others, actually apply the “eye for an eye and hand for a hand” rule as stated.

Still, the Talmud’s understanding of the verse requires further explanation. If the Torah merely meant a monetary payment and not a literal retribution of “an eye for an eye,” then why should the Torah write it in such an oblique manner? Why doesn’t the Torah plainly state, “If one causes another to lose his eye, he must pay an equitable amount of money”?

Maimonides (Hilchos Chovel Umazik 5:9) makes a curious statement: We cannot equate one who damages another monetarily to one who damages another physically. For one who damages another monetarily is considered forgiven when he repays the money that is owed. But one who damages another physically and pays him in full for the damage caused isn’t absolved of his responsibility until he begs for forgiveness from the injured party.

This seems a little strange. Begging forgiveness from an injured party generally falls within the laws of repentance – i.e. an issue between the offender and the Almighty. While this final absolution may be true in the laws of repentance, what does this have to do with paying what is owed? Why does Maimonides list this requirement among the laws of compensation?

This is why the Torah writes “an eye for an eye.” While on the surface this statement seems to be advocating vengeance, the Torah is revealing the very nature of the compensation required in the case of a physical injury. In Hebrew, the word for vengeance is “nekama,” which has its roots in the Hebrew word “kam – to stand or reinstate.”

One of the reasons vengeance is so satisfying is because it restores the dignity and self-respect of the injured party. The Torah is teaching us that when a person suffers a physical injury there is an emotional injury that must be addressed as well. Even if the injured party is financially compensated, the loss of self-esteem hasn’t yet been addressed.

In order to properly fulfill “an eye for an eye” the one who caused the injury has to beg forgiveness in order to reinstate the self-esteem of the person he injured; this is part of what is owed. By begging for forgiveness, the perpetrator is acknowledging the human value of the injured party and begins the process of restoring their self-esteem.

Mishpatim, Exodus 21:1 - 24:18

One of the most mitzvah-filled Torah portions, containing 23 positive commandments and 30 negative commandments. Included are laws regarding: the Hebrew manservant and maidservant, manslaughter, murder, injuring a parent, kidnapping, cursing a parent, personal injury, penalty for killing a slave, personal damages, injury to slaves, categories of damages and compensatory restitution, culpability for personal property damage, seduction, occult practices, idolatry, and oppression of widows, children, and orphans.

The portion continues with the laws of: lending money, not cursing judges or leaders, tithes, first-born sons, justice, returning strayed animals, assisting the unloading of an animal fallen under its load, Sabbatical year, Shabbat, and the Three Festivals (Pesach, Shavuot, and Succot).

Mishpatim concludes with the promise from the Almighty to lead us into the land of Israel, safeguard our journey, ensure the demise of our enemies, and guarantee our safety in the land – if we uphold the Torah and do the mitzvot. Moses makes preparations for himself and for the people and then ascends Mt. Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments.