Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk Imamat 24:23

Who knows one? “One is our God who is in heaven and on earth” represents the first of the favors which God bestowed upon Israel: God executed judgment upon the Egyptians. This explains why the Ten Commandments begin “I am the Lord your God who took you out of the land of Egypt,” and not, “…who created the heavens and the earth.” Also, why the Shabbat is said to be a reminder of the Exodus in the Kiddush, and why we mention the Exodus in connection with Tefillin and the holidays: “that the generations to come may know that I am the Lord who caused you to dwell in booths when I took you out of the Land of Egypt.”²⁸⁹Leviticus 24:23 The Ramban explains that the Exodus taught us the significance of Divine Providence over the earth. In that way, those who believe that all matters of the world are determined by the natural forces or that the world is eternal (and not created by God) will recognize the power and acts of God in the world.

Even a baby that cannot live would be included. The Re’m says that this interpretation [saying that one is liable for killing a viable child] was received by Chazal as an oral tradition. Otherwise, we could say that “If one strikes a man” exempts killing a minor, and “any human being” makes one liable for killing an [adult who is a] woman, one whose gender is indistinguishable, or a hermaphrodite. The same applies to Chazal’s interpretation that the verse “If a man should strike” (Vayikra 24:17) makes one liable only for a blow that kills. Otherwise we could expound the opposite: since it says in our verse, “If one strikes a man and he dies,” this means only for a blow that kills. Therefore the verse in Vayikra says, “If a man should strike,” teaching that even for a blow that does not cause death, [still he would be liable]. The Re’m explained at length. However, it is difficult [how can Rashi suggest that one might be liable for the death penalty for killing even a baby that cannot live]. If so, when would one be liable merely to pay damages for killing a fetus [see v. 22]? An answer is: damages would apply when one had no intent to injure the fetus. This is similar to what Rebbi said (Sanhedrin 79a), that “A life for a life” (v. 23) means merely to pay money [when the striker intended to kill a certain person but actually killed another). Another answer is: One would be subject to the death penalty for killing an unviable baby that was already born, whereas before its birth, one would not be liable [to the death penalty, only to pay damages]. (Tosafos, Sanhedrin 84b)