Difference between revisions of ""עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" – An Eye for an Eye/2"
m (Text replacement - "Seforno" to "Sforno") |
m |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
<p>"עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" is understood literally, and talionic retribution is administered.</p> | <p>"עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" is understood literally, and talionic retribution is administered.</p> | ||
<mekorot> | <mekorot> | ||
− | <multilink><a href="Jubilees4-43" data-aht="source">Jubilees</a><a href="Jubilees4-43" data-aht="source">Chapter 4:43-45</a><a href="Jubilees" data-aht="parshan">About Jubilees</a></multilink>, | + | <multilink><a href="Jubilees4-43" data-aht="source">Jubilees</a><a href="Jubilees4-43" data-aht="source">Chapter 4:43-45</a><a href="Jubilees" data-aht="parshan">About Jubilees</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="PhiloXXXIII" data-aht="source">Philo</a><a href="PhiloXXXI" data-aht="source">The Special Laws III:XXXI:173-175</a><a href="PhiloXXXIII" data-aht="source">The Special Laws III:XXXIII:182</a><a href="PhiloXXXV" data-aht="source">The Special Laws III:XXXV:195</a><a href="Philo" data-aht="parshan">About Philo</a></multilink>,<fn>See, however, Rabbi S. Belkin, Philo and the Oral Law (Mass., 1940): 97-103 who maintains that Philo's position on this matter is debatable.</fn> Boethusians cited in <multilink><a href="MegillatTaanit" data-aht="source">Megillat Taanit</a><a href="MegillatTaanit" data-aht="source">Oxford Ms. of Scholion 4 Tammuz</a><a href="Megillat Taanit" data-aht="parshan">About Megillat Taanit</a></multilink>,<fn>This version is found only in the Oxford manuscript of the Scholion, but not in the Parma manuscript.</fn> <multilink><a href="MekhiltaNezikin8" data-aht="source">R. Eliezer</a><a href="MekhiltaNezikin8" data-aht="source">Mekhilta Mishpatim Nezikin 8</a><a href="BavliBK83b" data-aht="source">Bavli Bava Kamma 83b-84a</a><a href="Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael" data-aht="parshan">About the Mekhilta</a><a href="Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink>,<fn>This appears to be the simple understanding of R. Eliezer's position as found in the Oxford, Munich, and Vatican manuscripts of the Mekhilta (and it also matches the version of R. Eliezer found in Lekach Tov Shemot 21:24). In these manuscripts, it is R. Yishmael who takes the position of monetary compensation, while R. Eliezer says "שאינו משלם אלא <b>ממש</b>" (the word "ממש" appears also in the version of R. Eliezer found in Bavli BK 84a – see below). On the general tendency of R. Eliezer's rulings to adhere to the literal (or simple) reading of the Biblical text (and the similarity of his rulings to the positions of other sources from the Second Temple period), see Y. Gilat, משנתו של ר' אליעזר בן הורקנוס, (Jerusalem 1968).<p>See, however, the early Constantinople and Venice printings of the Mekhilta, which read R. Eliezer instead of R. Yishmael in the earlier part of the passage, and "ממון" instead of "ממש" in the latter section (as well as attributing the latter statement to R. Yitzchak). These may be influenced by R. Ashi's statement in the Bavli BK 84a which reinterprets R. Eliezer's position to be saying merely that the payment is determined based on the value of the assailant's eye, but not that he actually loses his eye. [See also Yalkut Shimoni 338, in his version of the Mekhilta, who explains R. Eliezer in a way which conforms with R. Ashi's understanding.]</p></fn> Ben Zuta (the Karaite) cited by <multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong21-23" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong21-23" data-aht="source">Shemot Long Commentary 21:23-24</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotShort21-25" data-aht="source">Shemot Short Commentary 21:25</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink><fn>See also the Karaite commentaries of Yefet b. Eli in MGWJ (1897): 205 and Aharon b. Eliyahu in Keter Torah, Shemot p. 143. Ibn Ezra in his Short Commentary cites this position in the name of the Karaites ("המכחישים").</fn> |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
</mekorot> | </mekorot> | ||
<point><b>Judicial theory</b> – Philo focuses on the need for appropriate retribution for the person who committed the crime. Thus, he explains that proper justice mandates a measure for measure punishment, exactly equal to the damage that was done, be it injury to life, limbs, or property.<fn>Cf. the <multilink><a href="RambamMoreh3-41" data-aht="source">Rambam</a><a href="RambamMoreh3-41" data-aht="source">Moreh Nevukhim 3:41</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Maimonides</a></multilink>'s similar formulation.</fn> Talionic justice also serves as a significant deterrent to others who might consider committing such a crime.</point> | <point><b>Judicial theory</b> – Philo focuses on the need for appropriate retribution for the person who committed the crime. Thus, he explains that proper justice mandates a measure for measure punishment, exactly equal to the damage that was done, be it injury to life, limbs, or property.<fn>Cf. the <multilink><a href="RambamMoreh3-41" data-aht="source">Rambam</a><a href="RambamMoreh3-41" data-aht="source">Moreh Nevukhim 3:41</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Maimonides</a></multilink>'s similar formulation.</fn> Talionic justice also serves as a significant deterrent to others who might consider committing such a crime.</point> |
Latest revision as of 02:47, 31 July 2023
"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 compensation17 for a life which was taken inadvertently.18
- 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.19 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,24 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.