Commento su Esodo 21:22
וְכִֽי־יִנָּצ֣וּ אֲנָשִׁ֗ים וְנָ֨גְפ֜וּ אִשָּׁ֤ה הָרָה֙ וְיָצְא֣וּ יְלָדֶ֔יהָ וְלֹ֥א יִהְיֶ֖ה אָס֑וֹן עָנ֣וֹשׁ יֵעָנֵ֗שׁ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר יָשִׁ֤ית עָלָיו֙ בַּ֣עַל הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וְנָתַ֖ן בִּפְלִלִֽים׃
Qualora alcuni uomini vengano alle mani, ed urtino una donna incinta, e questa abortisca, ma non avvenga la morte (della donna); sarà multato (il colpevole), secondo che gl’imporrà il marito, e pagherà per sentenza dei giudici.
Rashi on Exodus
וכי ינצו אנשים IF MEN STRIVE with each other and one intended to strike the other and inadvertently struck the woman (Sanhedrin 79b).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Ramban on Exodus
AND IF MEN STRIVE TOGETHER, AND HURT A WOMAN WITH CHILD, SO THAT HER FRUIT DEPART, AND YET NO HARM FOLLOW, HE SHALL BE SURELY FINED, ‘KA’ASHER’ THE WOMAN’S HUSBAND SHALL LAY UPON HIM. “This means: ‘when’145Rashi is thus explaining the letter kaf in the word ka’asher not in the sense of “as,” indicating degree or extent (“according as”), but in the sense of “when” — when the woman’s husband takes him to court. the husband will summon him before the court in order that they put a fine on him for it.” Thus far Rashi’s language. And it is correct [to interpret here the letter kaf in the word ka’asher as meaning “when”, and not “as”]. A similar case is the expression, ‘ka’asher’ (when) it shall be well with thee,146Genesis 40:14. and there are many other such cases. And the intention of the verse is that the assailant has to pay compensation for the miscarriage when the husband takes him to court, not when the woman does so, as the compensation is not hers. Onkelos, however, translated: “according to the amount [that the woman’s husband] shall lay upon him.”
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained the verse as follows: according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him, or147The Hebrew word v’nathan, which is generally translated “and he shall pay” — as the judges determine, Ibn Ezra interprets to mean “or he shall pay,” and the purport thereof is as explained in the text. he shall pay as the judges determine, as if to say that the assailant should come to agreement with the husband on a fixed sum, or he should pay compensation as the court will assess him. This is not correct, for what reason is there to mention this?148For surely if the parties voluntarily agree on a sum there is no necessity for them to go to court, and if they fail to agree on a sum it is self-understood that the court will have to assess the fine.
In my opinion, since the damage done is one that is not discernible in the unborn children themselves — for who could know their fortune — therefore Scripture said, that although he cannot be made to pay a precise monetary compensation, he should nonetheless be fined as a sort of penalty in the form of a sum of money149See my Hebrew commentary p. 424 for further elucidation of this phrase of Ramban “a sort of penalty.” which others [i.e., the judges] shall impose upon him. A similar usage [of the term onesh — punishment] is also found in these verses: and he put the land to ‘onesh’ (a fine);150II Kings 23:33. they drink the wine of them that have been ‘anushim’ (fined).151Amos 2:8. Scripture is thus stating that the punishment be entirely as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him, because he desires his children and they are important to him, but he [i.e., the husband] should fix the sum through the judges, in order that he should not impose upon him an exorbitant sum. In the words of the Mechilta:136Mechilta here on the Verse., “According as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him. I might think this to mean, whatever he pleases; Scripture therefore says, and he shall pay as the ‘pelilim’ determine, and pelilim always means judges.”
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained the verse as follows: according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him, or147The Hebrew word v’nathan, which is generally translated “and he shall pay” — as the judges determine, Ibn Ezra interprets to mean “or he shall pay,” and the purport thereof is as explained in the text. he shall pay as the judges determine, as if to say that the assailant should come to agreement with the husband on a fixed sum, or he should pay compensation as the court will assess him. This is not correct, for what reason is there to mention this?148For surely if the parties voluntarily agree on a sum there is no necessity for them to go to court, and if they fail to agree on a sum it is self-understood that the court will have to assess the fine.
In my opinion, since the damage done is one that is not discernible in the unborn children themselves — for who could know their fortune — therefore Scripture said, that although he cannot be made to pay a precise monetary compensation, he should nonetheless be fined as a sort of penalty in the form of a sum of money149See my Hebrew commentary p. 424 for further elucidation of this phrase of Ramban “a sort of penalty.” which others [i.e., the judges] shall impose upon him. A similar usage [of the term onesh — punishment] is also found in these verses: and he put the land to ‘onesh’ (a fine);150II Kings 23:33. they drink the wine of them that have been ‘anushim’ (fined).151Amos 2:8. Scripture is thus stating that the punishment be entirely as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him, because he desires his children and they are important to him, but he [i.e., the husband] should fix the sum through the judges, in order that he should not impose upon him an exorbitant sum. In the words of the Mechilta:136Mechilta here on the Verse., “According as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him. I might think this to mean, whatever he pleases; Scripture therefore says, and he shall pay as the ‘pelilim’ determine, and pelilim always means judges.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Or HaChaim on Exodus
וכי ינצו אנשים, And if men strive together, etc. In this case each one is presumed to have murderous intent. It happpened that instead of killing his adversary the potential killer struck the woman (either fatally or otherwise).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy