Pemikiran Yahudi Bilangan 35:33: Sefer Yesodei HaTorah & Guide for the Perplexed

And this, too, is the rationale for the mitzvah of eglah arufah (the heifer of the broken neck, Devarim 21:1-9) — not to uncover the murderer (as per Maimonides, Moreh III, Chapter 40), but for two reasons: 1) to strengthen this principle that all of Israel are responsible for each other and that "the land will not be atoned for the blood that has been spilled in it except by the blood of its spiller" (viz. Bamidbar 35:33) — wherefore, since the slayer is not known to them and they cannot bring him to justice, the heifer is broken instead of him and the elders wash their hands (over the heifer) as a sign that they and their senders are innocent and their palms were not sullied by the blood of the slain one, and 2) (in the strength of their conviction in the punishment adverting to the land for the blood spilt in it —) that they not come to kill an innocent man suspected of that murder without incontestable proof and clear testimony. For though they knew that all of the people were not responsible for one who slew his neighbor in secret, they might think that this was so only when the slain one was not known (i.e., when he has not been found), but in our instance, where the corpse has been found, they might think that all the congregation would be punished unless they exerted themselves to find the killer.

The punishment of him who sins against his neighbour consists in the general rule that there shall be done unto him exactly as he has done: if he injured any one personally, he must suffer personally; if he damaged the property of his neighbour, he shall be punished by loss of property. But the person whose property has been damaged should be ready to resign his claim totally or partly. Only to the murderer we must not be lenient because of the greatness of his crime; and no ransom must be accepted of him. “And the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein but by the blood of him that shed it” (Num. 31:33). Hence even if the murdered person continued to live after the attack for an hour or for days, was able to speak and possessed complete consciousness, and if he himself said, “Pardon my murderer, I have pardoned and forgiven him,” he must not be obeyed. We must take life for life, and estimate equally the life of a child and that of a grown-up person, of a slave and of a freeman, of a wise man and of a fool. For there is no greater sin than this. And he who mutilated a limb of his neighbour, must himself lose a limb. “As he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again” (Lev. 24:20). You must not raise an objection from our practice of imposing a fine in such cases. For we have proposed to ourselves to give here the reason for the precepts mentioned in the Law, and not for that which is stated in the Talmud. I have, however, an explanation for the interpretation given in the Talmud, but it will be communicated vivâ voce. Injuries that cannot be reproduced exactly in another person, are compensated for by payment; “only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed” (Exod. 21:19).