Turn the Other Cheek vs Eye for an Eye

[Tzaphkiel]

Leviticus 24:18-21
Chabad, English translation with Hebrew shown

18 And one who slays an animal shall pay for it [the value of] a life for the life [he took].
19 And a man who inflicts an injury upon his fellow man just as he did, so shall be done to him [namely,]:
20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Just as he inflicted an injury upon a person, so shall it be inflicted upon him.
21 And one who injures an animal shall pay for it. And one who strikes a person shall be put to death.

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible...Chapter-24.htm

[Tzaphkiel]

included lines 18-21 for Leviticus 24, because it shows that the context before and after is for financial payment and financial restitution.


Sefaria is a Jewish educational website which includes a range of translations, including ten in English. Intralinear Hebrew is available. "Sefaria is a living library of Jewish texts with the goal of making our textual tradition accessible to the entire Jewish people. We are always expanding our collection and currently offer free digital access to several thousand texts, biblical to modern. In addition to providing texts in their original language, we also offer a large, growing collection of translations, with more than a dozen languages currently represented in the library."

sefer is the English transliteration of Hebrew word for book, document, scroll

here is a sample from Sefaria
Leviticus 24:18-21
Onkelos commentary, Metsudah Publication 2009

18
וּמַכֵּ֥ה נֶֽפֶשׁ־בְּהֵמָ֖ה יְשַׁלְּמֶ֑נָּה נֶ֖פֶשׁ תַּ֥חַת נָֽפֶשׁ׃
Whoever kills an animal shall pay for it, [the compensation of] an animal for an animal.

19
וְאִ֕ישׁ כִּֽי־יִתֵּ֥ן מ֖וּם בַּעֲמִית֑וֹ כַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֔ה כֵּ֖ן יֵעָ֥שֶׂה לּֽוֹ׃
A man who maims his neighbor just as he did, so shall be done to him.

20
שֶׁ֚בֶר תַּ֣חַת שֶׁ֔בֶר עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן שֵׁ֖ן תַּ֣חַת שֵׁ֑ן כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר יִתֵּ֥ן מוּם֙ בָּֽאָדָ֔ם כֵּ֖ן יִנָּ֥תֶן בּֽוֹ׃
[Compensation for] a broken bone [in exchange] for a broken bone, [compen-sation for] the loss of an eye [in exchange] for the loss of an eye, [compensation for] the loss to a tooth [in exchange] for the loss of a tooth; just as he maimed the man, so shall it be done to him [monetarily].

21
וּמַכֵּ֥ה בְהֵמָ֖ה יְשַׁלְּמֶ֑נָּה וּמַכֵּ֥ה אָדָ֖ם יוּמָֽת׃
Whoever smites [kills] an animal shall pay for it. Whoever smites [kills] a person shall be put to death.

[Cruithne]

Originally Posted by QuakerBaker

I apologize:

(1) to anyone I upset

(2) If I misinterpreted the meanings of both turn the other cheek and eye for an eye

(3) if I came off "smug," which I did not mean to


I did not intend to "slant" the original post. In fact I found an interesting video with scientific data proving my philosophy to be less effective, gave a real world example where I didn't so well with my philosophy, and admitted I struggle to logically defend my philosophy...so I am surprised if I came off as slanted for my philosophy.


I stink.

I get an F for this thread. I am sorry.

I just wanted to hear different thoughts in different directions.

(1) you do not stink

(2) you no more get an F than anyone on here that starts a thread gets an F.

(3) you did not come off as smug. Far from it. You are about as far from smug as anyone on this forum.

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

may you one day be able to live a set of beliefs without (1) misunderstanding and mis-stating the beliefs of other religions and other holy books; and also without (2) looking down on others with holier-than-though posturing.

"what philosophy is best?"

it is best not to engage in "either or thinking" which is itself a cognitive distortion.
it is best not to engage in the smug superiority of denigrating other religions
it is best to seek to understand what another religion actually teaches.

it is best to remedy the ignorance demonstrated in the opening post and recognize that "what Torah teaches" is very, very different from "what your own upbringing and religious indoctrination has taught you to believe about what the Torah teaches"

I'm genuinely amazed that you could speak to to QuakerBaker in this way. Have you come across this poster before? She is the poster least likely to want to cause anyone any upset on this forum.

If you feel she has mis-stated something about your religion, it's easy enough to write a response correcting what you feel she got wrong in a kind way.

There's absolutely no need to assume she was denigrating other religions, or in any way trying to cause offense or look down on other religions. I don't read that in the post at all.

[Tzaphkiel]

Discussing the human behaviors and attitudes of vengeance, retaliation, retribution, violence, non-violence, pacifism, financial restitution, aggression, non-aggression is just fine and fitting with regards to how any person who is posting views and handles each of those in their own daily life in the framework of their own chosen path of religion and spirituality.

what is way out of line is to denigrate other religions and other paths with simplistic reductive ugly pejoratives. whether that is as an individual posting their own views, beliefs, examples. or an individual parroting that which they have been taught to believe in their own religious upbringing and indoctrination.

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

what is way out of line is to denigrate other religions with simplistic reductive ugly pejoratives.
whether that is as an individual posting their own views, beliefs, examples. or an individual parroting that which they have been taught to believe in their own religious upbringing and indoctrination.

Certainly, there are some misconceptions in QB’s post (as happens with all of us from time to time) that can and should be corrected. I spoke up on a couple points, and you—with the benefit of your far more expansive theological knowledge base—spoke up quite a few more. Speaking up and correcting mistaken beliefs is never a problem.

The issue is that you spoke as if QB had recited an excerpt from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. We all sometimes say things out of turn when we mean no harm or ill-will to anyone. And aside from the fact that no aspect of the post can be reasonably construed as malintent in isolation, QB has a track record and is probably the most consistently kind, earnest, and good-hearted regular poster out of us all. I did not take the one or two instances of benign ignorance as a spewing of ugly pejoratives.

[Tzaphkiel]

and i will say again the forum and this thread are not about discussing any individual person who happens to be posting.
it is to discuss the views, ideas, beliefs, examples, attitudes, teachings put forth.

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

and i will say again the forum and this thread are not about discussing any individual person who happens to be posting.
it is to discuss the views, ideas, beliefs, examples, attitudes, teachings put forth.

All the more reason to refrain from an unnecessarily defensive and accusatory posture that people can reasonably perceive as personal attacks.

Anyhow, as I mentioned in my rep comment, I thank you for retrieving the Christian and Jewish translations of the telltale Leviticus verses. It presents a very interesting comparison across theological traditions. Even the most minor variations in syntax and word choices can lead to very different implications.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by ElijahAstin

All the more reason to refrain from an unnecessarily defensive and accusatory posture that people can reasonably perceive as personal attacks.

Anyhow, as I mentioned in my rep comment, I thank you for retrieving the Christian and Jewish translations of the telltale Leviticus verses. It presents a very interesting comparison across theological traditions.

it was a good question you asked.

[Tzaphkiel]

My own view is that fawning and coddling are a disservice, and serve to keep the person infantilized. It stunts their growth and development. A person does not grow into their strength and radiance by being coddled and fawned over. We grow and develop by dealing with that which challenges us when we bump up against it in daily life. in this case on the forum.

i remember reading somewhere that from a spiritual perspective and point of view the reason most people have to work for a living and have to hold down a job for well much of their adult life is not to earn money or support our families or keep a roof over our head. But it's so that we learn how to interact with people we don't get along with, who annoy us, situations that irritate us. Typically people spend more time at their job and more hours in the day with work associates, than they do anywhere else.

and when a person is sincerely committed to walking their path of religion and spirituality whatever that may be for the person, it's not about "what will people think" or "how is that going to look to others." No. It is about "how well am i putting into practice the principles" and "does the walk match the talk."

[Cruithne]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

and i will say again the forum and this thread are not about discussing any individual person who happens to be posting.
it is to discuss the views, ideas, beliefs, examples, attitudes, teachings put forth.

And yet you referred to Quaker Baker as 'holier than thou' and indirectly referred to her as 'smug' and 'ignorant'.
Try practicing what you preach.

And don't try to pretend you were just discussing her 'ideas' and 'beliefs' or someone else's ideas or beliefs. It's very clear to all who your unpleasant words were directed at. It was very personal.