Save
Copy
Add to Collection
Export to Google Docs
Share(Code of law of ancient Mesopotamia, dating back to circa 1750 BCE)
If a man has destroyed the eye of a man of the gentleman class, they shall destroy his eye .... If he has destroyed the eye of a commoner ... he shall pay one mina of silver. If he has destroyed the eye of a gentleman's slave ... he shall pay half the slave's price.
(23) But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, (24) eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (25) burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. (26) When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye.
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a]39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[b] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
(א) החובל בחבירו חיב עליו משום חמשה דברים, בנזק, בצער, ברפוי, בשבת, ובבושת.
בנזק כיצד? סמא את עינו, קטע את ידו, שבר את רגלו, רואין אותו כאלו הוא עבד נמכר בשוק ושמין כמה היה יפה וכמה הוא יפה .
צער, כואו בשפוד או במסמר, ואפילו על צפרנו.מקום שאינו עושה חבורה, אומדין כמה אדם כיוצא בזה רוצה לטול להיות מצטער כך.
רפוי, הכהו חיב לרפאותו; עלו בו צמחים, אם מחמת המכה חיב, שלא מחמת המכה, פטור. חיתה ונסתרה, חיתה ונסתרה, חיב לרפאתו, חיתה כל צרכה אינו חיב לרפאותו.
שבת, רואין אותו כאלו הוא שומר קשואין, ... אינו חיב על בושת עד שיהא מתכון.
One who injures his fellow is liable concerning him for five categories [of payment]: damages, pain, healthcare, unemployment, and shame. For damages, how [is this calculated?] One who puts out his eye, cuts off his hand, breaks his leg—we see him as if he were a slave sold in the marketplace, and we evaluate how much he was worth [the injury] and how much he is worth now. Pain? When he burned him with a spit or a nail—even on his fingernail—anything where there is no [permanent] wound, we evaluate how much a similar person would want to pay to be spared this [pain].
Healthcare? When he strikes him, he is liable for his healthcare costs. If swellings arose on him, if they were because of the strike, then he is liable; but if it was not because of the strike, he is exempt. If the swelling healed and then reopened and then healed and reopened, he is liable for his healthcare. If it healed entirely, he is exempt from his healing.
Unemployment? We see him as if he were a guard of gourds, since he already gave him the value [for the loss] of his hand or his leg.
Shame? All depends on the one who shames and the one who is shamed.... No one is liable for shame unless one intended to cause it.
(24) עין תחת עין, there is a tradition by our sages (Baba Kamma 84) concerning this that the meaning is: “the value of an eye for the value of an eye.” The Torah does not speak of the person inflicting the loss of someone’s eye paying with his losing an eye of his own. The proof that this could not have been what the Torah meant is verse 19 in our chapter רק שבתו יתן ורפא ירפא, “he must only pay for his loss of income and his medical expenses.”
If we were to do to a person who has caused the loss of another’s limb exactly as he had done, why would he have to pay something in addition to that? After all, he himself loses pay due to absence from work and he also incurs medical expenses for treatment of his severed limb!?
Furthermore, even assuming that the Torah’s words here were to be interpreted literally, not all situations are alike so that the literal application would resemble any kind of “tit for tat.” If the eye which a healthy person gouged out belonged to a person who had only one good eye, how would the loss of one of two good eyes by the person who caused the injury even come close to “fair retribution?” Not only that. Some people’s constitution would not be able to survive the loss of an organ whereas others would. If a person had had a kidney ruined beyond repair by someone who only had a single kidney left, taking that person’s kidney would be equivalent to a death sentence!
Furthermore, in Leviticus 24,19-20 we read כאשר עשה כן יעשה בו, “just as he has done (to another), so shall be done to him.” This verse cannot be applied in any other way than the way our sages have seen fit to understand it. The thrust of the verses is to indemnify the injured party in a manner commensurate to the injury he has sustained, not by depriving him of a limb of his own. It would be physically impossible to cause a person an exact duplicate of the injury he himself has suffered. If he were to cause either a lesser or a greater injury than the one he had sustained, he would be in violation of what the Torah wrote as he would not have complied with the Torah’s demand “as he had done so should be done to him.” In the case of monetary compensation, experts can evaluate the precise amount of the value of the loss sustained.
It is possible to understand the line כאשר עשה כן יעשה לו, as meaning: “just as he has caused harm, harm shall be caused to him.” Proof of this being the meaning of the words can be found in Judges 15,11 where Shimshon said: “as they have done to me so I have done to them.” The dispute had begun when the Philistines had taken Shimshon’s wife and in retaliation he burned their crops. Seeing that the retaliation by Shimshon did not match the harm done to him by the Philistines, it is clear that the meaning of the line is merely that harm done will be requited. Any retaliation therefore would be considered as “as he has done so shall be done to him.”
We also find that the prophet Ovadiah 15-16 prophesies concerning the future of Esau “as you did so shall be done to you. Your conduct shall be requited.” He goes on to spell out what precisely this involves: “the same cup that you drank from on My Holy Mount shall all nations drink evermore; drink till their speech grows thick and they become as though they had never been.” I have provided you with proof based both on logic and on verses from Scripture that it is impossible to translate the line עין תחת עין, as meaning “an eye for an eye.”
(ג) ...אינו לחבול בזה כמו שחבל בחבירו אלא שהוא ראוי לחסרו אבר או לחבול בו כאשר עשה ולפיכך משלם נזקו...
...this does not mean that one should injure another as that person was injured by the other, but rather that this person deserves to be lacking a limb or to be injured, as the person inflicted, and therefore, the injurer pays for the damage.
וְכֵן הַחוֹבֵל בַּחֲבֵרוֹ וְהַמַּזִּיק מָמוֹנוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשִּׁלֵּם לוֹ מַה שֶּׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ אֵינוֹ מִתְכַּפֵּר עַד שֶׁיִּתְוַדֶּה וְיָשׁוּב מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת כָּזֶה לְעוֹלָם ...
...Even he, who injures his friend or causes him damages in money matters, although he makes restitution of what he owes him, finds no atonement, unless he makes verbal confession and repents by obligating himself never to repeat this again...
If the holy Torah had written a sentence like “One who blinds another person must pay money as a punishment,” cruelty would have increased. Powerful, wealthy people would have blinded the poor with impunity, happily paying the damages from their deep pockets. After all, why would [the super-rich, the one percent] care about paying the shekels instructed by a judge? And anyone who provoked the ire of such a powerful person would have ended up disabled.
The holy Torah was concerned about this, so it presented a sentence that would apply across the board to both rich and poor: “If someone blinds another person and the like, what he did will be done to him!” Now everyone who is poor and downtrodden could be assured of keeping his body intact. After all, a rich person has lots of money, but not lots of eyes and arms. He will be afraid of hurting anyone, because if he casually disables some poor child, he too might end up disabled for life. The Torah doesn’t distinguish between the super-rich and the super-poor; the law is the same.
Here the Torah made a fence to protect the poor from the powerful and tyrannical. In contrast, if it happens that one person blinds another, whether in a fight or an accident, God gave Moshe the rule in the holy Torah that the person should pay money. With this, the Torah fixed two things: [the Written Torah] set up a fence against the corrupt and powerful, and the Oral Torah made it unlikely that anyone will seek revenge. A beit din can instruct that money must be paid, assuming it is a place where there is no concern that the powerful will get out of hand.
But if it is a place where there is such a concern, then as a fence the Torah law is that the beit din should apply what is written [and do “an eye for an eye” literally]! As Tosafot wrote [regarding a rabbi who had someone’s hand cut off], this is indeed Torah law. [I think that Tosafot’s source is] not an oral tradition, but the written verse of “an eye for an eye.” From here we see that the Written and Oral Torah are one. They cannot exist without each other, like body and soul.
(ז) אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ, אֵין נִמְחָל לוֹ עַד שֶׁיְּבַקֵּשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ...
(7) Even when he gives him [the payment], he will not be forgiven until he seeks it [pardon] from him...
(א) ועשית הישר והטוב בעיני ה' על דרך הפשט יאמר תשמרו מצות השם ועדותיו וחקותיו ותכוין בעשייתן לעשות הטוב והישר בעיניו בלבד
(ב) ולמען ייטב לך - הבטחה, יאמר כי בעשותך הטוב בעיניו ייטב לך, כי השם מטיב לטובים ולישרים בלבותם. ולרבותינו בזה מדרש יפה, אמרו זו פשרה ולפנים משורת הדין. והכוונה בזה, כי מתחלה אמר שתשמור חוקותיו ועדותיו אשר ציוך, ועתה יאמר גם באשר לא ציוך תן דעתך לעשות הטוב והישר בעיניו, כי הוא אוהב הטוב והישר: וזה עניין גדול, לפי שאי אפשר להזכיר בתורה כל הנהגות האדם עם שכניו ורעיו וכל משאו ומתנו ותיקוני הישוב והמדינות כלם, אבל אחרי שהזכיר מהם הרבה, כגון לא תלך רכיל (ויקרא יט טז), לא תקום ולא תיטור (שם פסוק יח), ולא תעמוד על דם רעך (שם פסוק טז), לא תקלל חרש (שם פסוק יד), מפני שיבה תקום (שם פסוק לב), וכיוצא בהן, חזר לומר בדרך כלל שיעשה הטוב והישר בכל דבר, עד שיכנס בזה הפשרה ולפנים משורת הדין, וכגון מה שהזכירו בדינא דבר מצרא (ב"מ קח א), ואפילו מה שאמרו (יומא פו א): פרקו נאה ודבורו בנחת עם הבריות, עד שיקרא בכל עניין תם וישר:
(1) In line with the plain meaning of scripture the verse says, "Keep the commandments of G-d, His testimonies, and His statues, and in observing them, intend to do what is right and good in his sight only." And [the expression in the verse before us] that it may be well with thee is a promise, stating that, when you will do what is good in His eyes, it will be well with you, For G-d does good unto the good, and to them that are upright in their hearts. Our Rabbis have a beautiful midrash on this verse. They have said. [ That which is right and good] refers to a compromise and going beyond the requirement of the letter of the law." The Intent of this is as follows: At first he [Moshe] stated that you are to keep his statues and his testimonies which he commanded you, and now that he is stating that even where he has not commanded you, give thought as well, to do what is good and right in his eyes, for he loves the good and the right. Now this is a great principle, for it is impossible to mention in the Torah all aspects of man's conduct with his neighbors and friends, and all his various transactions, and the ordinances or all societies and countries. But since he mentioned many of them- such as , Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer....Thus [a person must seek to refine his behavior[ in every form of activity, until he is worthy of being called "good and upright"
