In this week's parsha, when discussing monetary damages, it is written in Perek 21 Pasuk 25:
עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן שֵׁ֖ן תַּ֣חַת שֵׁ֑ן יָ֚ד תַּ֣חַת יָ֔ד רֶ֖גֶל תַּ֥חַת רָֽגֶל
eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Rashi explains this Pasuk by saying “If one blinded the eye of his fellow-man he has to pay him the value of his eye, i. e. he pays him how much his value would be diminished if he were to be sold as a slave in the market...but it does not mean the actual cutting off of the offender’s limb”
What are other explanations for this easily misinterpreted Pasuk? Why is it put here?
Sforno explains that and eye for an eye means that the judgment against the person who did the crime is to apply the punishment of the crime in all of its severity. But now at days since we cannot accurately determine how to apply this punishment of an eye for an eye, we do financial compensation. I really like Sfornos answer because I think the only possible way someone could compensate what they did is with money because it’s too severe to do that thing to them too.
ReplyDeleteJen Felder
ReplyDeleteAish.org had an interesting take on this Pasuk. Aish.org said When one write the Alef-beit from alef to tav, one under the other the letter under “ע” is “פ”, the one under “י” is “כ”, and the one under “נ” is “ס”. These three letters are the word עין or eye. The letters beneath עין spell כסף which is money. This can be seen as the Torah teaching us that עין— if a person blinding another’s eye— he must give “תחת עין” the letter under עין which are כסף, money.
I really like this option because I think it’s cool to see how every letter and specific words relates to each other in the Torah. I also believe that עין תחת עין does not literally mean “eye for an eye”, this opinion is a good explanation of what it really means.
Rashbam explains that even though the examples mentioned in these psukim aren't the loss of an entire limb or organ, which would obviously be more intense, the result and compensation for the victim is still the same meaning that the compensation for losing a foot would be the same as losing one's entire leg. This is why there are so many examples, to ultimately prove this overarching point of how important this situation really is. I think this is interesting because I would think that because it's just the foot the compensation would be less than the whole leg but this interpretation teaches that it's the idea that matters and it is a much bigger deal than one may think.
ReplyDeleteLilly Fuchs
The Ibun Ezra says it is nearly impossible to understand this phrase literally because it is impossible to do the same damage on another person (that was done to you). You can never do the same exact damage to another person that was done to you because it is nearly impossible. It (punishment) cannot be measured.
ReplyDeleteChabad.org
Tova Rubin
ReplyDeleteThe Ramban says that this is referring to money. If you kill an animal, you would have to pay for the amount that the animal is worth. We know this refers to money because in Vayikra it uses the same langauge of "nefesh tachat nefesh" that if you kill someones animal you must pay the cost of the animal. I think that it is smart to associate this money because once you know you'd have to pay the damages it relates to you and effects you and would make you not want to cause intentional damage.
Ariella Rosencrantz
ReplyDeleteRav Kook explains that this means not that someone should physically deserve the same thing to happen to them that they have done, but that someone should understand the kind of punishment they deserve. He gives this example: "The father immediately raises his hand to punish his son. But the mother, full of compassion, rushes to stop him. “Please, not in anger!” she pleads, and she convinces the father to mete out a lighter punishment.
An onlooker might conclude that all this drama was superfluous. In the end, the boy did not receive corporal punishment. Why make a big show of it?
In fact, the scene provided an important educational lesson for the errant son. Even though he was only lightly disciplined, the son was made to understand that his actions deserved a much more severe punishment."
I think this a really interesting way to look at this pasuk. I think sometimes really understand the punishment you deserve, and understanding your actions is worse and more fitting than just getting a punishment.
http://ravkooktorah.org/MISHPATIM_67.htm
Ayala Kilimnick
ReplyDeleteIn Masechet Bava Kama, Rav Eliezer states his opinion and says that when it says an eye for an eye, its literal. However Many other Tanaim and Amoraim reject that statement and say that disabling one persons limb because they disabled someone else's is never mentioned in the Torah. They say that the Torah means that you give someone monetary compensation in return.
https://etzion.org.il/en/%E2%80%9C-eye-eye%E2%80%9D
I think this is really interesting because it seems like in the Gemara, Rav Eliezer is one of the only Rav's that feels as though the pasuk means it literally.
DeleteThis pasuk has many explanations. This pasuk seems strange because in jewish law we never see an issue being resolved by doing the same thing to someone else. The shulchan orach brings up that we are taught that our bodies are really hashem bodies and we are just the "caretakers" and therefore it is wrong of us to harm someones body. If our bodies are really hashems and we are just "caretakers" then it doesn't make since that we should take an "eye for an eye". Rav Soloveitchik comments on this topic. Rav solohveitchik says that human beings cant be the judges of such strict punishments, who are we to judge when really hahsem is the only one who can implement such an extreme punishment. On a practical level an eye for an eye means its talking about money.
ReplyDeleteI think this is really interesting because it really puts things in perspective, sometimes we think that we are the judges when in reality hashem in the ultimate judge.
Sources:
http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/48961051.html
“Rabbi’s Rabbi Keeps the Law Up to Date,” The New York Times, June 23, 1972, pp. 39, 74.
In this week's parsha, when discussing monetary damages, it is written in Perek 21 Pasuk 24:
ReplyDeleteעַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן שֵׁ֖ן תַּ֣חַת שֵׁ֑ן יָ֚ד תַּ֣חַת יָ֔ד רֶ֖גֶל תַּ֥חַת רָֽגֶל
- eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot -
עין תחת עין, “an eye for an eye.” Mechilta Nezikin understands these words as “the value of an eye for an eye,” and not that the guilty party is being deprived of his own physical eye. If we would inflict upon a person who had struck and caused injury to another person a similar injury to the one he had inflicted, what would there be left for him to pay? He himself would then be in need of medical attention and he himself would then suffer loss of income while laid up? Furthermore, if we were to apply the principle of “an eye for an eye” literally, this would often not be justice at all. If a man ruins the only eye of a one-eyed individual and he had an eye of his removed as a penalty, the former would remain blind whereas the guilty party would still have a good eye to see with. What kind of justice would this be? Moreover, a weak individual might not survive having his eye gouged out so that he would pay with his life for having ruined a strong person’s eye. Surely this would not be justice! The only way a semblance of justice could be arrived at in the situations described in verses 24-27 is to make financial compensation for the damage caused. I agree with this interpretation, because I think it makes the most logical sense, the damage being done for is fairly being repaired. Sometimes doing the exact same thing, does not result in an equal outcome.
Rav soloveitchik asks that if the oral law is discussing money than why does the written law say it literally- it’s misleading? He answers that there really is no way to make up for damage for the body- it takes away from his tzelem elokiam, so ideally a person should lose their eye for causing such damage but on a practical level courts can not give this punishment. I think this is a good answer to the question because The Rav is not only answering question but going on a deeper level to question the answer. - Nealy Saks
ReplyDeleteAtara Krinitz
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Why would the pasuk be purposely misleading with its words, when it is just meant to say that the aggressor should pay his victim money?
Answer: If a person cuts off the limb of another, paying monetary values is not nearly enough to make up for it. It is simply not enough for the person to write a check to his victim, and be done with the whole ordeal. The man needs to think about the damage he caused to his victim for the rest of his life. He must beg for forgiveness, do teshuva, and make sure that he never does that damage to anyone else. Therefore, the pasuk uses harsh language to emphasize the amount of damage the aggressor has caused, and the requirement to treat it with the upmost importance. I really like this idea because it shows how the words were specifically chosen for the victim to get the most respect he can from the aggressor, and to make sure the aggressor never forgets what he has done. I think that is a really good example of how the Torah truly cares about every person, and does its best to make sure everyone gets as much respect as possible in the end.
Source: http://www.aish.com/atr/Eye-for-an-Eye.html
At first glance, the verse, "ayin tachat ayin, shayn tachat shayn" "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". seems to say that the punishment for a sin to another person, is whatever the person did. How is this divine justice?
ReplyDeleteRabbi Hirsch says that the word "tachat" means "instead of", and not "for" as its translated above. This proves that a payment would make up for the missing eye while taking someones eye out would only be revenge.
The Vilna Gaon, says that the hint to money is in the verse itslelf, in the word "ayin". "Ayin" is spelled with the three letters ayin, yud, and nun. The word "tachat" literally means "under", and it alludes to the three Hebrew letters following each of the previous letters, peh, kaf, and samech, which spells out "kesef".
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Maharal explains that the concept of eye for an eye is not to be taken literally, but rather it teaches us the importance of taking responsibility for one’s actions. one cannot simply take something from someone (like their eyes) out of spite and get away with it if a person choses to do something evil they must take the responsibility and repay for their sin and the damages they caused. I think this is really nice because in this you can find what we talked about being the foundation of Judaism and the Torah which is just being a good human being and trying to connect with god. Taking responsibility for your actions is just a basic responsibility of being human (in my opinion)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aish.com/atr/Eye-for-an-Eye.html?mobile=yes
Ricky Weiss
Rabbi Chanan Morrison says
ReplyDeleteThe Kabbalists compare the Written Torah to a father and the Oral Torah to a mother. When the parents discover their son had done something really bad, whats happens? The father quickly raises his hand to hit his son. But the mother full of compassion runs to stop him and convinces him to give their son a lighter punishment. Now someone who oversees this situation might feel like all this drama was for nothing, in the end the boy got a lighter punishment so why make a big deal of it? But this scene had great educational value to the boy. Even though he did get a worse punishment he know that his actions deserve one far worse. This idea is also important here. An individual needs to realize the importance of his actions. sure, we can only make him pay money for the damage he caused as Torah Shebichtav says. We don’t take "an eye for an eye" literally but that individual should not think that money alone can fix what he has caused.
I like this answer. This source shows us that we can’t just throw money at a problem to fix it that someone can’t just come to our rescue. Our action have serious consequences and even if we get the lighter punishment we should never forget that.
I took this from a larger article by Rav Uri Cohen at Harova
Deletehttps://harova.org/torah/view.asp?id=1776