출애굽기 21:24의 유대 사상

Some problems in the text of the Parshah. 1) Why does the Torah discuss the oil for the menorah, candelabra, in this Parshah, and not in Tetzaveh where the fashioning of the menorah is commanded? 2) Why is the making of the showbreads discussed in this Parshah instead of in Tetzaveh where construction of the table is discussed? 3) What does the mekallel, blasphemer, have to do with the two previous subjects in the Parshah? If he is mentioned in this Parshah already, why is he not lumped together with the mekoshesh, the person who desecrated the Sabbath flagrantly by collecting firewood on the Sabbath? 4) Since the blasphemer was sentenced only for having cursed, why does the Torah introduce the report with the quarrel between two men? (24,1) 5) Since the death penalty had not yet been decreed for that offence, why was the man brought to be tried by Moses? 6) Why does the Torah in this instance require that all witnesses have to place their hands on the condemned man, in contrast with other offences for which the death penalty is applied? (Maimonides hilchot avodah zarah chapter 2) 7) Why is this legislation introduced with the words "any person," when later on it says anyways "anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord etc.?" 8) What is the conceptual connection with the legislation following about "anyone who strikes someone with fatal results?" 9) Why is there an apparent contradiction between "anyone who slays an animal must make financial restitution," and "life for life?" 10) Why is the legislation dealing with bodily injuries repeated, when it has already been dealt with at length in Parshat Mishpatim? 11) Why, after the sentence had been carried out, does the Torah have to write "the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded?"

The fifth knock of the Beloved is perhaps the most important. For the first time in the annals of ‎our ‎exile, Divine Providence has amazed our enemies with the astounding discovery that Jewish ‎blood ‎is not cheap! If the antisemites describe this phenomenon as being “an eye for an eye,” we ‎will ‎agree with them. If we want to courageously defend our continued national and ‎historical ‎existence, we must, from time to time, interpret the verse of an “eye for an eye” literally. ‎So many ‎‎“eyes” were lost in the course of our bitter exile because we did not repay hurt for ‎hurt. The ‎time has come for us to fulfill the simple meaning of “an eye for an eye.” (Exodus 21:24) ‎Of course, I ‎am sure everyone recognizes that I am an adherent of the Oral Law, and from my ‎perspective ‎there is no doubt that the verse refers to monetary restitution, as defined by ‎halakhah. However, ‎with respect to the Mufti and Nasser I would demand that we interpret the ‎verse in accordance ‎with its literal meaning — the taking of an actual eye! Pay no attention to the ‎saccharine ‎suggestions of known assimilationists and of some Jewish socialists who stand pat in ‎their ‎rebelliousness and think they are still living in Bialystok, Brest-Litovsk, and Minsk of the year ‎‎1905, ‎and openly declare that revenge is forbidden to the Jewish people in any place, at any time, ‎and ‎under all circumstances. “Vanity of vanities!” (Ecclesiastes 1:2) Revenge is forbidden when it ‎is ‎pointless, but if one is aroused thereby to self-defense, it is the most elementary right of man ‎to ‎take his revenge.‎

THE term regel is homonymous, signifying, in the first place, the foot of a living being; comp. “Foot for foot” (Exod. 21:24). Next it denotes an object which follows another: comp. “And all the people that follow thee” (lit. that are at thy feet) (ib. 11:8). Another signification of the word is “cause”; comp. “And the Lord hath blessed thee, I being the cause” (leragli) (Gen. 30:30), i.e., for my sake; for that which exists for the sake of another thing has the latter for its final cause. Examples of the term used in this sense are numerous. It has that meaning in Genesis 33:14, “Because (leregel) of the cattle that goeth before me, and because (leregel) of the children.”