Insights from Past Parshiot: The Antithesis of Squid Game
There’s much debate over the commodification of the body.
For example, should we permit people to sell their organs? Should we legalize prostitution? (As an aside, Rabbi Dr. Avraham Steinberg gave a fascinating talk on the subject of selling organs; you can see my notes here.)
Naturally, people are squeamish about setting a price on body parts- or the body itself. But much of Mishpatim deals with exactly that- the value of a person based on their age, gender and status.
Then we get to a strange section.
וְאִם־אָס֖וֹן יִהְיֶ֑ה וְנָתַתָּ֥ה נֶ֖פֶשׁ תַּ֥חַת נָֽפֶשׁ׃ But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life,
עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן שֵׁ֖ן תַּ֣חַת שֵׁ֑ן יָ֚ד תַּ֣חַת יָ֔ד רֶ֖גֶל תַּ֥חַת רָֽגֶל׃ eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
כְּוִיָּה֙ תַּ֣חַת כְּוִיָּ֔ה פֶּ֖צַע תַּ֣חַת פָּ֑צַע חַבּוּרָ֕ה תַּ֖חַת חַבּוּרָֽה׃ {ס} burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Really? Does the Torah mean us to take this literally?
Of course not. We understand this to mean financial compensation for the injury, not the eye itself.
But then why is it worded this way? Why not word it in a way that is unambiguous?
Today at our Shabbat table, Heshy went through an interesting perspective Rabbi Eliezer offers.
Rabbi Eliezer at the end of our passage, where he asserts: "'An eye for an eye' – literally." This would seem to mean that indeed the eye of the person who caused the injury is removed. The Gemara, however, concludes (according to Rav Ashi[8]) that certainly even Rabbi Eliezer agrees in practice that the court does not actually remove the eye of the person who caused the injury, only that he maintains that we are dealing here with a ransom at the highest level. The fundamental law is that the eye of the person who caused the injury should be removed, but instead we assess the value of his eye, and he pays its value in money: "That the evaluation is made not of [the eye of] the injured person, but of [the eye of] the person who caused the injury." (Taken from this link)
I loved the ransom idea, although Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion was not ultimately accepted as psak. A guest at our table raised an objection that a person might actually undervalue their eye (perhaps they have poor eyesight and work in a job that does not require excellent eyesight). This was a great segue to the point Heshy wanted to make, and which Rabbi Ari Kahn had remarked upon. Here’s the lead-up.
There once was a man named Chanan the Scoundrel. Why was he called the Scoundrel, you ask?
See Bava Kamma 37a:
חנן בישא תקע ליה לההוא גברא אתא לקמיה דרב הונא א"ל זיל הב ליה פלגא דזוזא הוה ליה זוזא מכא בעי למיתבה ליה מיניה פלגא דזוזא לא הוה משתקיל ליה תקע ליה אחרינא ויהביה נהליה: The Gemara relates: Ḥanan the wicked slapped a certain man. He then came before Rav Huna for judgment. Rav Huna said to him: Go give him a half-zuz, which is the fine imposed for such an act. Ḥanan the wicked had a dented zuz, and wanted to give him a half-zuz from it, but there was no one who wanted to take it from him to give him smaller coins for it. Ḥanan the wicked then gave him another slap, rendering himself liable to pay an additional fine of half a zuz, and gave him the dented zuz as payment.
(To understand why people didn’t want to accept Hanan’s dented coin, see here.)
So Chanan the Scoundrel boxed someone’s ear, which incurs the penalty of a half-zuz. But Chanan only had one zuz. Since he couldn’t find someone to give him change, he therefore decided to go back to the man he had harmed, box his other ear, and give him the full zuz.
Imagine a society that would run this way. We would determine how to act, not based on principles of justice, but based on whether we felt the penalty we would incur was acceptable. We would look at the value we would have to pay to compensate someone for their eye and think to ourselves, “Hmm, how much do we hate them? If we hate them enough, it is worth it to gouge out their eye, even if we end up needing to compensate them for it!”
And that’s why the Torah says “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” The point is to demonstrate that really, this is what you deserve when you harm someone. No amount of money truly compensates and you should not make mental equations to determine whether paying the penalty is worth it.
I immediately thought of Squid Game.
For those who are unfamiliar, Squid Game is a hit Netflix show which follows, according to its official description, “hundreds of cash-strapped players who accept a strange invitation to compete in children’s games. Inside, a tempting prize awaits- with deadly high stakes.” (The show covers far more than that, though- it’s a foray into ethics, class distinctions, friendship, brotherhood and much more. Also, it’s gory and disturbing. But dystopian everything is my jam.)
In order to determine whether cash-strapped contestants would be ripe for recruitment to the grand game, a well-dressed man interacts with them in a public space. He offers to play a children’s game with them, offering them money if they beat him. What happens when they lose? Well, you can see that here.
Here’s how it goes.
“How about you use your body to pay?” the salesman asks.
“A what?” Seong Gi-Hun asks.
The salesman slaps him, and Gi-Hun is understandably upset. “What the hell, man?” he asks.
“I’ll take 100 grand off per slap,” the salesman offers.
And then Gi-Hun is hooked. He plays. And continues to play. And is recruited to the grand game.
Squid Game is the ultimate show about bodies as commodities. It begins that way, it continues that way, and it ends that way. It’s why it’s so horrifying to watch. And I think the point that is being made through the language of the Torah in this section is a compelling antithesis to everything Squid Game stands for.
Yes, the Torah sets a price on bodies. And figures out a financial system of compensation when one is wounded, harmed or disfigured. But that’s not because the Torah is suggesting this is the ideal. It’s because the Torah is dealing with the practical reality of how the court should handle sales of slaves or compensation for damages.
So to underscore the point that no, a human being is not just so many parts that can be harmed or abused for cash, we get the harsh, intense, unequivocal language of “An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth.”
The God of justice is watching you.