Komentarz do Wyjścia 21:18

וכי יריבן אנשים AND IF MEN QUARREL — Why is this (vv. 18, 19) stated in this particular form? Since Scripture states, (v. 24) “Eye for eye”, we learn from this only that compensation for the loss of limbs has to be paid, but we cannot infer from it that indemnity for loss of time (during which the injured has been disabled from work) and cost of medical treatment have also to be paid; consequently this section (vv. 18 and 19) is said (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:18:1).

WITH A STONE OR ‘B’EGROF’ (WITH HIS FIST). Judging from certain expressions of the Rabbis, egrof is the hand closed tightly, with the fingers gathered into the palm for the purpose of striking someone with it. Thus they speak of ba’alei egrofin [literally: “men of fists,” or men of power];¹²⁴Kiddushin 76b. “egrofo (the fist) of Ben Abtiach.”¹²⁵Keilim 17:12. A giant who lived in the time of the Second Sanctuary. Similarly ‘b’egrof’ of wickedness¹²⁶Isaiah 58:4. means the hand of wickedness that strikes. Scripture thus mentioned two kinds of hitting — the hard one, with a stone, and the lighter one, with the fist, which in most cases does not cause death — in order to declare that in both cases an estimate [of the power of the stone or the fist with which he struck him] is needed, and the assailant is meanwhile imprisoned. If the assailed person dies, such as where he struck him a mortal blow, he is a murderer; he shall surely be put to death,¹²⁷Numbers 35:16. but if he does not die, the assailant has to pay him for the loss of his labor and for the cost of the healing.
In the Mechilta [we find the following text]:¹²⁸Mechilta here on the Verse. “Rabbi Nathan says: He has likened the stone to the fist and the fist to the stone. Just as the stone can cause death, so also the blow of the fist must be such that it is capable of causing death. And just as the fist is something that can be identified [and measured for the power of its blow], so also the stone must be such as can be identified. But if the stone with which he struck him became mixed up with other stones, the assailant is free.” This means if the stone became mixed up with other stones, they [e.i., the judges] estimate the lightest one and if it is incapable of causing death, they free the assailant.
Other scholars¹²⁹Ibn Ezra and R’dak (in Sefer Hashorashim, root goraf). have said that the word egrof means “a clod of earth,” the term being derived from the expression: the grains shrivel under ‘megr’fotheihem’ (their clods of earth),¹³⁰Joel 1:17. and the letter alef [in the word egrof is redundant], as is the alef in the word ezro’a [“arm,” where the word is really zro’a]. And this is the opinion of Onkelos who translated b’egrof — b’churmeiza (a piece of white stone or glazed tile). He mentioned these things also in order to tell us that the assailant who hits him with a clod of earth is also liable to be put to death, if he struck him on a sensitive spot where it is capable of causing death. This is to distinguish the law of the sword from the stone and egrof, for no estimate [of a sword or weapon] needs to be taken [since even a minute piece of metal — such as a needle — can also cause death], as the Sages have mentioned.¹³¹Sanhedrin 76b.

וכי יריבון אנשים, And if men quarrel (fight physically), etc. Why did the Torah have to add the words: "and he does not die?" Surely any reader would have concluded that the situation described is one where the victim did not die!

או באגרוף, according to the plain meaning, as Onkelos translates, i.e. with a stone or brick. This is also the opinion of Torat Kohanim in its commentary on Leviticus 14,40. The departure from understanding the word אגרוף as “fist,” is justified with the question: “is someone to be executed for hitting merely with a fist, not a lethal tool?” Isaiah 58,4 להכות באגרוף רשע, “to strike wickedness with a fist” would hardly be a deterrent. It is therefore understood to refer to a large stone. Moreover, when the Torah reports that the victim did not die, surely one does not normally die by being struck with a fist; it stands to reason that the Torah refers to a lethal weapon which failed to kill, i.e. a brick or something similar held in one’s fist causing serious injury.

או באגרוף, “or with a fist.” According to our sages the word אגרוף refers to a fist, i.e. a palm balled into a fist. It describes the injury being caused as like a punch by a boxer. The reason the Torah mentions either a stone or a fist as being the cause of the non-fatal injury, is that both a stone and a fist when used in a fight are proof of a degree of premeditation. Even though, generally speaking, a stone inflicts a more serious injury, both of these weapons do not as a rule cause fatal injuries, although, admittedly, being hit by a stone appears to be more serious. Some commentators understand the word אגרוף as referring to dust, the word occurring in this context in Joel 1,17 עבשו פרודות תחת מגרפותיהם, “the seeds have shriveled under their clods of earth.”

But the loss of work and medical costs. Rashi mentions [only] loss of work and medical costs, because [compensation for] pain and embarrassment are learned from other Torah sections. (Re’m)

V. 18. וכי יריבֻן. Es heißt nicht einfach: וכי יכה איש את ראהו וגו׳, sondern: וכי יריבון וגו׳, wohl um zu sagen, daß die hier statuierte Zahlungspflicht unabhängig von der Veranlassung und Absicht ist. Nicht nur, wenn einer darauf ausgeht, den andern zu schlagen, sondern auch, wenn der Schlag infolge eines Wortwechsels etc. geschehen; denn ריב heißt zunächst ein Streit mit Worten, im Gegensatz zu dem וכי ינצו וגו׳ V. 22, welches zunächst ein tatsächliches Streiten, eine Schlägerei bedeutet (נצה: Anfang von נצח). Nur bei Leibesstrafen kommt die böswillige, ja verbrecherische Absicht in Betracht, es muss nicht nur (V. 14) במזיד, sondern auch בערמה, mit vollem Bewusstsein des verbrecherischen Charakters der Handlung, somit בהתראה (— vergl. לתת לפתאים ערמה und sonst ערמה in משלי, so auch בערמה ,להוציא חרש שוטה וקטן שאינן מערימין :מכילתא. Siehe Sanhedrin 41 a, wo jedoch התראה in der Futurform des יזיד gefunden wird — ערמה wäre vielleicht Nacktheit, Unverhülltheit, ein Anschauen der Dinge, wie sie wirklich sind, es fehlt nichts an der Totalität des Bewusstseins —) die Tat geschehen sein. Allein alle die im Gesetze vorkommenden Verurteilungen zu Zahlungsleistungen ( — mit Ausnahme der wenigen, die den Charakter קנס tragen —) sind keineswegs Geldstrafen. Es sind Ersatzverbindlichkeiten (תשלומין), die als reine Rechtskonsequenz aus dem angerichteten Schaden fließen und ganz unabhängig sind von dem größern oder geringern Grad des Verbrechencharakters der verübten Tat. Der Beschädiger trägt die Ersatzpflicht, selbst wenn ihn kein Gericht dazu verurteilt oder auch aus Mangel an Zeugen gar nicht verurteilen kann. Nur hinsichtlich des Umfangs des zum Ersatz kommenden Schadens, ob nämlich nur die unmittelbar verübte Beschädigung (נזק), oder auch deren Folgen (צער ,רפוי ,שבת ,בשת) zum Ersatz obliegen, ist ein Unterschied in dem Grade des Bewusstseins, mit welchem die Tat geübt worden. Hinsichtlich des direkten Schadens heißt es: אדם מועד לעולם בין שוגג בין מזיד בין ער בין ישן סימא את עין חבירו ושיבר את הכלים משלם נזק שלם ( B. K. 26 a) "der Mensch ist immer verantwortlich, ohne Absicht oder mit Absicht, wachend oder schlafend (wenn der beschädigte Gegenstand bereits vor seinem Einschlafen ihm entsprechend nahe gewesen): hat er den Nächsten geblendet oder Geräte zerbrochen, leistet er vollen Ersatz." Die entferntern Folgen der Beschädigung: Schmerz, Heilung, Versäumnis fordern einen gewissen Grad des Bewusstseins der Gefährlichkeit seiner Handlung; Beschimpfung, בשת, sogar Absicht, weil Unabsichtlichkeit den Begriff der Beschimpfung aufhebt (siehe B. K. das. b u. 27 a). Es heißt daher hier: וכי יריבון, und zwar noch mit hervorhebenden 'ן, sie sind nur im Wortstreit begriffen, hatten von vornherein gar nicht die Absicht, einander zu beschädigen. Das Schlagen mag im Affekt geschehen sein. Es mildert das nicht die Ersatzpflicht, die ja nicht Strafe, sondern möglichste Wiedergutmachung des angerichteten Schadens bezweckt. Daher auch, da Geldersatz nicht Bestrafung des verübten Unrechts, sondern Ersatz des verübten Schadens ist, bei Leibesbeschädigungen dieser Ersatz nie erschöpfend sein kann, und zumal das Schmerzgefühl gehabter Kränkung nie aufhebt: darum dauert, selbst nach geleistetem Ersatz, die Schuldigkeit des Beschädigers vor Gott fort und kann nur durch Verzeihung des Beschädigten gesühnt werden. (B. K. 92 a, Ramb. חובל ומזיק V.9. der den Satz der Mischna allgemein fasst. So auch Ch. M. 422, 1. Andere beziehen dies bloß auf בשת.)

וכי יריבון אנשים, “if two men engage in an argument that has become physical;” from this wording I might think that the legislation which follows applies only to males, how do we know that it applies equally to females? Rabbi Eliezer says that seeing that when the Torah discusses the subject of compensations for damages caused is written in general terms not mentioning men or women separately and mentions genders only a single time (in verse 29, i.e. that the victim is either man or woman) it is clear that the entire subject applies equally to both sexes.

ונפל למשכב BUT KEEPETH HIS BED — The meaning is as the Targum gives it: ויפל לבוטלן “and he falls into inactivity”, i. e. he falls into an illness that prevents him from working.

The intent of the Torah is to inform us that payments of compensation such as loss of income, medical expenses, etc., are all applicable only if the victim does not die as a result of this fight. This is the reason the Torah only mentions compensation for loss of income after it had described the victim as having recovered sufficiently so that he could get about without help.

גרף .באבן או באגרף: zusammenscharren, zusammenfassen, daher: אגרף, die zusammengefasste Hand, die geballte Faust. Indem aber das Gesetz das Mittel der Beschädigung nennt und sich nicht begnügt zu sagen: והכה איש את רעהו ולא ימות וגו׳, so ist damit gesagt, dass nicht nur der Erfolg, sondern auch das Mittel der Beschädigung zur Beurteilung kommt, und zwar nennt es: אבן, als ein Objekt, mit welchem Beschädigung und Tötung bewirkt werden kann, und אגרף, die Faust des Beschädigers, die ידוע, d. h. die der gerichtlichen Veurteilung nicht entzogen werden kann, מסור לעדה ולעדים (B. K. 91 a). Es ist nämlich der Beschädiger nur für solche Verletzung verantwortlich, die durch den von ihm mit dem von ihm gebrauchten Mittel geführten Schlag in der Regel bewirkt werden konnte. Folgen, die in der Regel von einem solchen Schlage mit einem solchen Mittel nicht bewirkt werden, müssen von andern Umständen herrühren, für welche der Täter nicht verantwortlich gemacht wird. Es hat also das Gericht sachkundig das Mittel und den Schlag im Verhältnis zu den davon zu erwartenden Folgen zu schätzen יש אומד לנזקין (B. K. das.).

או באגרוף, “or with a certain type of stone,” (according to the Targum) The same expression is used by Torat Kohanim when explaining Leviticus 14,40 where the treatment of an eruptive like plague on the walls of a house is discussed. The usual translation of אגרוף, is: ”fist,” possibly not acceptable to the sages, as it is not a lethal tool, and the death of the victim within 24 hours, which according to Torah law would be equivalent to murder, seems unduly harsh.

I am not sure that if the victim had been expected to die but recovered instead whether this is to be considered an act of G'd (miracle) or not. We have learned in Chulin 42 that an animal which suffers from certain categories of injuries dies within 12 months. In the event it did not die within this period we consider this as something supernatural, and we do not allow such occurrences to change the status of the animal. Similarly in our case. Do we say that the victim's recovery was miraculous and he therefore does not qualify for the various compensations listed in the Torah just as he would not have qualified for such payments if he had died? Or do we consider the fact that he has recovered as the only criterion in determining the compensation due him? According to Maimonides Hilchot Rotzeach chapter 4,3 anyone who did not die is entitled to compensation even if his recovery was a miracle, medically speaking.

Subsequently I found the following statement in the Mechilta. "If he does not die but becomes bed-ridden; if, however, the aggressor inflicted the kind of injury which normally results in death, the attacker is free of the obligation to pay compensation." It appears that the author of the Mechilta makes the payment of compensation dependent exclusively on what the attacker had done and how he had done it.

It appears that the author of this Mechilta holds that the attacker is to be freed from the need to pay for loss of income only if the victim died because the injury he received was lethal. If the victim had succumbed to a non-lethal blow, a situation in which the attacker would not be guilty of the death penalty, he would have to pay the various payments an injured person would have been entitled to. If the attacker did not pay the victim before he died, he would have to make these payments to the estate of the victim.