Difference between revisions of ""עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" – An Eye for an Eye/2"
(Import script) |
(Import script) |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
<h1>"עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" – An Eye for an Eye</h1> | <h1>"עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" – An Eye for an Eye</h1> | ||
− | |||
<div class="overview"> | <div class="overview"> | ||
<h2>Overview</h2> | <h2>Overview</h2> | ||
Line 58: | Line 57: | ||
</mekorot> | </mekorot> | ||
<point><b>Meaning of the metaphor</b> – The formulation of "עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" comes to teach that the assailant must make the victim whole again by compensating him in full for all aspects of his injury.<fn>Cf. <multilink><aht source="RDZHoffmannVayikra24-19">R. D"Z Hoffmann</aht><aht source="RDZHoffmannShemot21-18">Shemot 21:18</aht><aht source="RDZHoffmannShemot21-22">Shemot 21:22-25</aht><aht source="RDZHoffmannVayikra24-19">Vayikra 24:19-20</aht><aht source="RDZHoffmannDevarim19-21">Devarim 19:21</aht><aht source="RDZHoffmannDevarim25-11">Devarim 25:11-12</aht><aht parshan="R. D"Z Hoffmann" /></multilink>. According to this reading, the first "עַיִן" in the phrase refers not to the assailant's eye, but rather to the replacement being provided for the victim's eye. Alternatively, this position could explain that the Torah is expressing the need for compensation using hyperbolic language in order to emphasize the severity of the act. Cf. the similar (but yet fundamentally different) position of Ibn Ezra and Seforno below.</fn></point> | <point><b>Meaning of the metaphor</b> – The formulation of "עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" comes to teach that the assailant must make the victim whole again by compensating him in full for all aspects of his injury.<fn>Cf. <multilink><aht source="RDZHoffmannVayikra24-19">R. D"Z Hoffmann</aht><aht source="RDZHoffmannShemot21-18">Shemot 21:18</aht><aht source="RDZHoffmannShemot21-22">Shemot 21:22-25</aht><aht source="RDZHoffmannVayikra24-19">Vayikra 24:19-20</aht><aht source="RDZHoffmannDevarim19-21">Devarim 19:21</aht><aht source="RDZHoffmannDevarim25-11">Devarim 25:11-12</aht><aht parshan="R. D"Z Hoffmann" /></multilink>. According to this reading, the first "עַיִן" in the phrase refers not to the assailant's eye, but rather to the replacement being provided for the victim's eye. Alternatively, this position could explain that the Torah is expressing the need for compensation using hyperbolic language in order to emphasize the severity of the act. Cf. the similar (but yet fundamentally different) position of Ibn Ezra and Seforno below.</fn></point> | ||
− | <point><b>"נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ"</b> – Commentators disagree over whether this phrase is also to be rendered metaphorically: | + | <point><b>"נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ"</b> – Commentators disagree over whether this phrase (which appears immediately before "עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן") is also to be rendered metaphorically: |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>Monetary compensation</b> – R. Yehuda HaNasi in the Mekhilta and Bavli maintains that the passage is consistent in its use of language, and that this phrase similarly refers to monetary compensation<fn>See below regarding use of the phrase in Vayikra 24:18.</fn> for a life which was taken inadvertently.<fn>The case in the Torah is one in which an uninvolved bystander was killed in the course of a fight between two other individuals. Regarding the verses in Bemidbar 35:30-31 which prohibit the taking of blood money for human life, see Abarbanel who explains that these refer only to a fully intentional or completely accidental killer, but not to a case in which one intended to kill one person and ended up accidentally killing another.</fn></li> | <li><b>Monetary compensation</b> – R. Yehuda HaNasi in the Mekhilta and Bavli maintains that the passage is consistent in its use of language, and that this phrase similarly refers to monetary compensation<fn>See below regarding use of the phrase in Vayikra 24:18.</fn> for a life which was taken inadvertently.<fn>The case in the Torah is one in which an uninvolved bystander was killed in the course of a fight between two other individuals. Regarding the verses in Bemidbar 35:30-31 which prohibit the taking of blood money for human life, see Abarbanel who explains that these refer only to a fully intentional or completely accidental killer, but not to a case in which one intended to kill one person and ended up accidentally killing another.</fn></li> | ||
Line 72: | Line 71: | ||
<point><b>"וְקַצֹּתָה אֶת כַּפָּהּ" in Devarim 25:12</b> – R. Yehuda in the Sifre similarly reads this phrase as a metaphor for monetary payment. The Sifre also presents an alternative literal option that requires one to assume that the woman's actions constituted a life threatening danger, thereby justifying amputation of her hand.</point> | <point><b>"וְקַצֹּתָה אֶת כַּפָּהּ" in Devarim 25:12</b> – R. Yehuda in the Sifre similarly reads this phrase as a metaphor for monetary payment. The Sifre also presents an alternative literal option that requires one to assume that the woman's actions constituted a life threatening danger, thereby justifying amputation of her hand.</point> | ||
<point><b>Perjured witnesses</b> – Ralbag notes the difficulty in this verse, as according to this approach there is no case where testimony can cause a loss of limb.</point> | <point><b>Perjured witnesses</b> – Ralbag notes the difficulty in this verse, as according to this approach there is no case where testimony can cause a loss of limb.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>"רַק שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא"</b> – Mekhilta DeRashbi cites this verse as proof that the penalty for a man who wounds another involves monetary compensation. R. Chananel adds that if the assailant himself loses a limb, | + | <point><b>"רַק שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא"</b> – Mekhilta DeRashbi cites this verse as proof that the penalty for a man who wounds another involves monetary compensation. R. Chananel adds that if the assailant himself loses a limb, he will not be able to pay the medical costs of his victim.</point> |
</category> | </category> | ||
<category name="">Two Tracks | <category name="">Two Tracks | ||
<p>Torah law reflects the validity of both the literal and metaphorical interpretations. There are a number of variations of this approach:</p> | <p>Torah law reflects the validity of both the literal and metaphorical interpretations. There are a number of variations of this approach:</p> | ||
− | <opinion name=""> | + | <opinion name="">Case Dependent |
− | <p></p> | + | <p>The verse refers to talion, but monetary compensation may be implemented in some cases, depending on the preferences of the parties or the type of injury.</p> |
<mekorot> | <mekorot> | ||
+ | <multilink><aht source="Josephus4-8-33">Josephus</aht><aht source="Josephus4-8-15">Antiquities 4:8:15</aht><aht source="Josephus4-8-33">Antiquities 4:8:33-35</aht><aht parshan="Josephus" /></multilink>, | ||
<multilink><aht source="IbnEzraShemotLong21-23">Ibn Ezra</aht><aht source="IbnEzraShemotLong21-23">Shemot Long Commentary 21:23-24</aht><aht source="IbnEzraShemotLong21-29">Shemot Long Commentary 21:29</aht><aht source="IbnEzraShemotShort21-25">Shemot Short Commentary 21:25</aht><aht source="IbnEzraVayikra24-19">Vayikra 24:19</aht><aht source="IbnEzraDevarim25-12">Devarim 25:12</aht><aht parshan="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" /></multilink>, | <multilink><aht source="IbnEzraShemotLong21-23">Ibn Ezra</aht><aht source="IbnEzraShemotLong21-23">Shemot Long Commentary 21:23-24</aht><aht source="IbnEzraShemotLong21-29">Shemot Long Commentary 21:29</aht><aht source="IbnEzraShemotShort21-25">Shemot Short Commentary 21:25</aht><aht source="IbnEzraVayikra24-19">Vayikra 24:19</aht><aht source="IbnEzraDevarim25-12">Devarim 25:12</aht><aht parshan="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" /></multilink>, | ||
− | <multilink><aht source=" | + | <multilink><aht source="RambanShemot21-24">Ramban</aht><aht source="RambanShemot21-24">Shemot 21:24</aht><aht source="RambanVayikra24-18">Vayikra 24:18</aht><aht parshan="Ramban">About R. Moshe Nachmanides</aht></multilink>, |
− | <multilink><aht source=" | + | <!--<fn>See also the opinion cited in the Karaite commentary of the <multilink><aht source="HaMuvkhar">HaMuvkhar</aht><aht source="HaMuvkhar">Shemot 21:89-93</aht><aht parshan="Aharon b. Yosef the Karaite">About Aharon b. Yosef</aht></multilink>.</fn>--> |
+ | <multilink><aht source="ShadalShemot21-24">Shadal</aht><aht source="ShadalShemot21-24">Shemot 21:24</aht><aht source="ShadalDevarim25-12">Devarim 25:12</aht><aht parshan="Shadal">About R. S.D. Luzzatto</aht></multilink>, | ||
+ | <multilink><aht source="RDZHoffmannDevarim19-21">R. D"Z Hoffmann</aht><aht source="RDZHoffmannShemot21-18">Shemot 21:18</aht><aht source="RDZHoffmannShemot21-22">Shemot 21:22-25</aht><aht source="RDZHoffmannVayikra24-19">Vayikra 24:19-20</aht><aht source="RDZHoffmannDevarim19-21">Devarim 19:21</aht><aht source="RDZHoffmannDevarim25-11">Devarim 25:11-12</aht><aht parshan="R. D"Z Hoffmann" /></multilink> | ||
</mekorot> | </mekorot> | ||
+ | <point><b>Determining factors</b> – This group of commentators present a number of different possibilities: | ||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li><b>Victim's choice</b> – Josephus states that the victim is given the option of deciding whether to accept money instead.</li> | ||
+ | <li><b>Perpetrator's choice</b> – Ibn Ezra says that the perpetrator can choose whether to pay ransom for his limb.</li> | ||
+ | <li><b>Court's choice</b> – Shadal suggests that the Torah left the decision to the discretion of the judges,<fn>Cf. R. D"Z Hoffmann.</fn> in order to prevent a situation where a wealthy person can maim as he pleases as he would only need to pay compensation.</li> | ||
+ | <li><b>Permanent or non-permanent injury</b> – Ramban offers the possibility that permanent loss of limbs would be punished by talion, while non-permanent injuries would be compensated financially.</li> | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | </point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Judicial theory</b> – According to Josephus, the primary goal of the law is to help the victim. Shadal highlights the need for penal code flexibility in order to maintain an orderly society.</point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Biblical parallels</b> – Ibn Ezra references the case of an owner whose ox repeatedly gored who is also allowed to pay ransom instead of being killed.</point> | ||
+ | <point><b>"וְקַצֹּתָה אֶת כַּפָּהּ" in Devarim 25:12</b> – Ibn Ezra explains this verse also to refer only to a case where the woman cannot pay.</point> | ||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
− | |||
<point><b>Non-literal read</b> – </point> | <point><b>Non-literal read</b> – </point> | ||
<point><b>"נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ"</b> – </point> | <point><b>"נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ"</b> – </point> | ||
− | |||
− | |||
<point><b>Morality</b> – </point> | <point><b>Morality</b> – </point> | ||
<point><b>Intentional / unintentional</b> – </point> | <point><b>Intentional / unintentional</b> – </point> | ||
<point><b>The eye of a slave</b> – </point> | <point><b>The eye of a slave</b> – </point> | ||
− | |||
<point><b>Perjured witnesses</b> – </point> | <point><b>Perjured witnesses</b> – </point> | ||
<point><b>"רַק שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא"</b> – </point> | <point><b>"רַק שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא"</b> – </point> | ||
Line 104: | Line 113: | ||
<opinion name="">Evolving Society | <opinion name="">Evolving Society | ||
− | <p></p> | + | <p>The literal interpretation of the verse was its intended meaning for the generation of the Exodus, but the metaphorical understanding is its import for future generations.</p> |
<mekorot> | <mekorot> | ||
<multilink><aht source="HoilShemot21-24">Hoil Moshe</aht><aht source="HoilShemot21-24">Shemot 21:24</aht><aht source="HoilVayikra24-19">Vayikra 24:19</aht><aht parshan="Hoil Moshe">About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi</aht></multilink> | <multilink><aht source="HoilShemot21-24">Hoil Moshe</aht><aht source="HoilShemot21-24">Shemot 21:24</aht><aht source="HoilVayikra24-19">Vayikra 24:19</aht><aht parshan="Hoil Moshe">About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi</aht></multilink> | ||
</mekorot> | </mekorot> | ||
+ | <point><b>Morality</b> – The Hoil Moshe explains that the uncivilized society of former slaves required a harsh penal code, as monetary punishments would not have sufficed to deter people from committing assault.</point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Judicial theory</b> – The Hoil Moshe emphasizes the deterrent aspect of the legal system.</point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Parallel cases</b> – This type of approach is adopted by the Rambam<fn>See Moreh Nevukhim 3:32-34.</fn> with regard to the need of the generation of the Exodus for a Mishkan and sacrifices. It is also implemented by the Hoil Moshe himself in several other instances.<fn>See Hoil Moshe Shemot 21:20 "ואלו היה הדור ראוי היתה אוסרת לגמרי לקנות עבד", Vayikra 16:8 "ומי יודע מה דבר הורה משה רבנו בעל פה לנשיאי העדה וזקניה להודיע לבאים אחריהם בהתחלף מצב האומה ואמונותיה", Bemidbar 30:2. See also Shadal Shemot 21:12, Bemidbar 35:12.</fn></point> | ||
+ | <!-- | ||
+ | <point><b>Non-literal read</b> – </point> | ||
+ | <point><b>"נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ"</b> – </point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Intentional / unintentional</b> – </point> | ||
+ | <point><b>The eye of a slave</b> – </point> | ||
+ | <point><b>"וְקַצֹּתָה אֶת כַּפָּהּ" in Devarim 25:12</b> – </point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Perjured witnesses</b> – </point> | ||
+ | <point><b>"רַק שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא"</b> – </point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Implementation issues</b> – </point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Polemical influences</b> – </point> | ||
+ | <point><b></b> – </point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Crux of the position</b> – </point> | ||
+ | --> | ||
</opinion> | </opinion> | ||
− | <opinion name=""> | + | <opinion name="">Ideal vs. Reality |
− | <p></p> | + | <p>The Torah's formulation conveys that the perpetrator truly deserves to lose a limb, even though this is not the punishment which is actually implemented.</p> |
<mekorot> | <mekorot> | ||
− | <multilink><aht source=" | + | <multilink><aht source="RambamChovel1-2">Rambam</aht><aht source="RambamMishna">Introduction to the Mishna</aht><aht source="RambamAseh236">Sefer HaMitzvot, Aseh 236</aht><aht source="RambamChovel1-2">Hilkhot Chovel UMazzik 1:2-5,9-10</aht><aht source="RambamRotzeach1-7">Hilkhot Rotzeach 1:7-8</aht><aht source="RambamMoreh3-41">Moreh Nevukhim 3:41</aht><aht parshan="Rambam">About R. Moshe Maimonides</aht></multilink>, |
− | + | <multilink><aht source="SefornoShemot21-24">Seforno</aht><aht source="SefornoShemot21-24">Shemot 21:24</aht><aht source="SefornoVayikra24-17">Vayikra 24:17</aht><aht parshan="R. Ovadyah Seforno" /></multilink> | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | <multilink><aht source=" | ||
</mekorot> | </mekorot> | ||
+ | <point><b>Judicial theory and implementation</b> – Seforno explains that while strict justice would require measure for measure retribution, practical concerns prevent its implementation.</point> | ||
+ | <!-- | ||
+ | <point><b>Non-literal read</b> – </point> | ||
+ | <point><b>"נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ"</b> – </point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Biblical parallels</b> – </point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Morality</b> – </point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Intentional / unintentional</b> – </point> | ||
+ | <point><b>The eye of a slave</b> – </point> | ||
+ | <point><b>"וְקַצֹּתָה אֶת כַּפָּהּ" in Devarim 25:12</b> – </point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Perjured witnesses</b> – </point> | ||
+ | <point><b>"רַק שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא"</b> – </point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Implementation issues</b> – </point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Polemical influences</b> – </point> | ||
+ | <point><b></b> – </point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Crux of the position</b> – </point> | ||
+ | --> | ||
</opinion> | </opinion> | ||
Version as of 04:03, 24 January 2014
"עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" – An Eye for an Eye
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Commentators disagree over whether the literal talionic meaning of "עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" is also the simple meaning of the verse when viewed in context. While early sources going back to the time of the second Beit HaMikdash, such as Jubilees and Philo, render the verse literally, later Rabbinic sources almost unanimously reject this option and interpret the verse metaphorically. This leads medieval and modern exegetes to struggle valiantly to reduce the tension between the literal retributive understanding of the verse and its Rabbinic interpretation. Some, like R. Saadia, go to great lengths to demonstrate how the Midrash is really the verse's simple meaning. Others, like Ibn Ezra and the Rambam view the verse as presenting an ideal which must be converted and translated when applied to real life. Finally, the Hoil Moshe differentiates between the generation of former slaves to which the Torah was originally given and future, more civilized, generations.
Physical Punishment
"עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" is understood literally, and talionic retribution is administered.
Monetary Compensation
"עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" is interpreted metaphorically, and monetary compensation is given for the exact value of the limb lost.
- Monetary compensation – R. Yehuda HaNasi in the Mekhilta and Bavli maintains that the passage is consistent in its use of language, and that this phrase similarly refers to monetary compensation16 for a life which was taken inadvertently.17
- Capital punishment – The first opinion in the Mekhilta and most other commentators assert that this phrase is rendered literally, even though all of the parallel phrases in the following verse are not.18 Mekhilta DeRashbi and Sifra prove this from the verses in Bemidbar 35:30-31 which explicitly prohibit the exacting of blood money.
Two Tracks
Torah law reflects the validity of both the literal and metaphorical interpretations. There are a number of variations of this approach:
Case Dependent
The verse refers to talion, but monetary compensation may be implemented in some cases, depending on the preferences of the parties or the type of injury.
- Victim's choice – Josephus states that the victim is given the option of deciding whether to accept money instead.
- Perpetrator's choice – Ibn Ezra says that the perpetrator can choose whether to pay ransom for his limb.
- Court's choice – Shadal suggests that the Torah left the decision to the discretion of the judges,23 in order to prevent a situation where a wealthy person can maim as he pleases as he would only need to pay compensation.
- Permanent or non-permanent injury – Ramban offers the possibility that permanent loss of limbs would be punished by talion, while non-permanent injuries would be compensated financially.
Evolving Society
The literal interpretation of the verse was its intended meaning for the generation of the Exodus, but the metaphorical understanding is its import for future generations.
Ideal vs. Reality
The Torah's formulation conveys that the perpetrator truly deserves to lose a limb, even though this is not the punishment which is actually implemented.