Commento su Esodo 21:24
עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן שֵׁ֖ן תַּ֣חַת שֵׁ֑ן יָ֚ד תַּ֣חַת יָ֔ד רֶ֖גֶל תַּ֥חַת רָֽגֶל׃
Occhio per occhio, dente per dente, mano per mano, piede per piede.
Rashi on Exodus
עין תחת עין EYE FOR EYE — 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. In the same way all other cases are to be dealt with, but it does not mean the actual cutting off of the offender’s limb — just as our Rabbis have explained in the chapter beginning with the word החובל (Bava Kamma 84a).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Ramban on Exodus
EYE ‘TACHATH’ (FOR) EYE. It is known in the tradition of our Rabbis136Mechilta here on the Verse. that this means monetary compensation. Such usage [of the term tachath to indicate] monetary compensation is found in the verse: And he that smiteth a beast mortally shall pay for it; life ‘tachath’ life,152Leviticus 24:18. [in which case tachath surely indicates monetary compensation]. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that Scripture uses such a term to indicate that he really is deserving of such a punishment, [that his eye be taken from him], if he does not give his ransom. For Scripture has forbidden us to take ransom for the life of a murderer, that is guilty of death,153Numbers 35:31. but we may take ransom from a wicked person who cut off any of the limbs of another person. Therefore we are never to cut off that limb from him, but rather he is to pay monetary compensation, and if he has no money to pay, it lies as a debt on him until he acquires the means to pay, and then he is redeemed.
Proof for what the Sages have said [that eye ‘tachath’ eye means he pays him the value of his eye], is in what He has said above [with reference to one who injures another person], only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.154Above, Verse 19. But if we were to do to the assailant exactly as he has done to the injured man, why does he have to pay after that? He himself is in need of amends for the loss of his own time and costs of his own healing! And it would not be valid to argue that the assailant is to give the injured man [the difference in cost between a slow recovery and] a fast recovery,155Thus, if the assailant had a fast recovery and the injured man a slower recovery, the assailant is to pay him the difference of expenses incurred in the loss of time and costs of healing. In that case, one could still argue that eye ‘tachath’ eye really means that the eye of the assailant be removed, and Verse 19 that deals with his obligation to pay for the loss of time and cost of healing of the injured, applies to that difference as explained above. — This argument is actually mentioned in the Talmud (Baba Kamma 84a.). But, argues Ramban, it is not the plain meaning of Scripture, for the simple meaning of Verse 19 is that it speaks of the assailant having to pay for the whole loss of time and costs of healing. Therefore it constitutes a proof that eye ‘tachath’ eye means monetary compensation, as explained above. since this is not the plain meaning of Scripture. Rather, Scripture speaks of all people, and even if his recovery [i.e., the assailant’s] were to be fast, we would have long taken our punishment of him, in doing to him exactly as he did!156And why should he be burdened with the additional cost representing the difference in the recoveries [as explained above], after we have already taken our punishment of him by doing to him as he had done to others? Thus it is obvious that Verse 19 speaks of all men alike, and eye ‘tachath’ eye cannot be meant literally, but means the monetary value of the eye.
If we explain the verses according to the literal interpretation of Scripture, there is no escape from this question,157I.e., an apparent difficulty in the verses [if we interpret them in their plain meaning]: that in one verse it says eye for an eye, and in the other it speaks of the assailant’s duty to pay for the loss of his time and costs of healing, and the question appears why he should pay this additional payment when we have already punished him. There is no escape from this question except by saying that etc. [see text]. Ramban will finally allude to why he mentions all this: it is to show what sophistry we have to display if we seek to follow only the plain meaning of Scripture! We thus have no recourse but to Tradition. unless they158I.e., “those who pursue the plain meaning of Scripture” (the rodfei ha’pshat). See Vol. I, p. 154. will say that if someone maims his neighbor so that he deprives him permanently of some bodily member, such as an eye, hand, or foot, or causes a burn which leaves a permanent mark, then we are to do likewise to the assailant’s body, this being the case of the verse which says, As he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him,159Leviticus 24:20. and in that case there is no monetary compensation paid for loss of time and cost of healing. But if he hits him with a stone or with his fist on his clothes, and he is laid up in bed but then is completely healed without any crippling effect remaining upon his body, in that case He said, only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.154Above, Verse 19. All the injuries specified in the verse, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe,160Verse 25. are included, according to the plain meaning of Scripture, in this preceding general principle, for a wound and stripe may be completely healed. And as for that which Scripture states there, And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbor, as he hath done so shall it be done to him,161Leviticus 24:19. it too was meant to include all injuries, but He did not mention there at length the cases of wounding, striping, and burning [as He did here]. He used the term mum (blemish), for every wound causes at least a temporary blemish. Thus even if it is of the kind which heals, it is still called “a blemish,” just as we say: “a passing blemish,”162Bechoroth 37b. and the Torah calls scabbed, or scurvy, or hath his stones crushed163Leviticus 21:20. “a blemish” although they are temporary and can be healed,164See my Hebrew commentary, p. 425. and it is further written, youths in whom there was no blemish.165Daniel 1:3. The intention there is obviously that these youths who were to serve in the king’s palace were free even of any passing blemish. The general principle everywhere is that the Tradition is always true.166See above, Note 157.
Proof for what the Sages have said [that eye ‘tachath’ eye means he pays him the value of his eye], is in what He has said above [with reference to one who injures another person], only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.154Above, Verse 19. But if we were to do to the assailant exactly as he has done to the injured man, why does he have to pay after that? He himself is in need of amends for the loss of his own time and costs of his own healing! And it would not be valid to argue that the assailant is to give the injured man [the difference in cost between a slow recovery and] a fast recovery,155Thus, if the assailant had a fast recovery and the injured man a slower recovery, the assailant is to pay him the difference of expenses incurred in the loss of time and costs of healing. In that case, one could still argue that eye ‘tachath’ eye really means that the eye of the assailant be removed, and Verse 19 that deals with his obligation to pay for the loss of time and cost of healing of the injured, applies to that difference as explained above. — This argument is actually mentioned in the Talmud (Baba Kamma 84a.). But, argues Ramban, it is not the plain meaning of Scripture, for the simple meaning of Verse 19 is that it speaks of the assailant having to pay for the whole loss of time and costs of healing. Therefore it constitutes a proof that eye ‘tachath’ eye means monetary compensation, as explained above. since this is not the plain meaning of Scripture. Rather, Scripture speaks of all people, and even if his recovery [i.e., the assailant’s] were to be fast, we would have long taken our punishment of him, in doing to him exactly as he did!156And why should he be burdened with the additional cost representing the difference in the recoveries [as explained above], after we have already taken our punishment of him by doing to him as he had done to others? Thus it is obvious that Verse 19 speaks of all men alike, and eye ‘tachath’ eye cannot be meant literally, but means the monetary value of the eye.
If we explain the verses according to the literal interpretation of Scripture, there is no escape from this question,157I.e., an apparent difficulty in the verses [if we interpret them in their plain meaning]: that in one verse it says eye for an eye, and in the other it speaks of the assailant’s duty to pay for the loss of his time and costs of healing, and the question appears why he should pay this additional payment when we have already punished him. There is no escape from this question except by saying that etc. [see text]. Ramban will finally allude to why he mentions all this: it is to show what sophistry we have to display if we seek to follow only the plain meaning of Scripture! We thus have no recourse but to Tradition. unless they158I.e., “those who pursue the plain meaning of Scripture” (the rodfei ha’pshat). See Vol. I, p. 154. will say that if someone maims his neighbor so that he deprives him permanently of some bodily member, such as an eye, hand, or foot, or causes a burn which leaves a permanent mark, then we are to do likewise to the assailant’s body, this being the case of the verse which says, As he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him,159Leviticus 24:20. and in that case there is no monetary compensation paid for loss of time and cost of healing. But if he hits him with a stone or with his fist on his clothes, and he is laid up in bed but then is completely healed without any crippling effect remaining upon his body, in that case He said, only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.154Above, Verse 19. All the injuries specified in the verse, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe,160Verse 25. are included, according to the plain meaning of Scripture, in this preceding general principle, for a wound and stripe may be completely healed. And as for that which Scripture states there, And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbor, as he hath done so shall it be done to him,161Leviticus 24:19. it too was meant to include all injuries, but He did not mention there at length the cases of wounding, striping, and burning [as He did here]. He used the term mum (blemish), for every wound causes at least a temporary blemish. Thus even if it is of the kind which heals, it is still called “a blemish,” just as we say: “a passing blemish,”162Bechoroth 37b. and the Torah calls scabbed, or scurvy, or hath his stones crushed163Leviticus 21:20. “a blemish” although they are temporary and can be healed,164See my Hebrew commentary, p. 425. and it is further written, youths in whom there was no blemish.165Daniel 1:3. The intention there is obviously that these youths who were to serve in the king’s palace were free even of any passing blemish. The general principle everywhere is that the Tradition is always true.166See above, Note 157.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sforno on Exodus
עין תחת עין; this is what ought to be the judgment against the offender, if we were to apply the principle of the punishment fitting the crime in all its severity. However, according to tradition only financial compensation is exacted as we cannot accurately measure how to apply the principle of “an eye for an eye” literally.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy