Sanhedrin (27a) ] in the case of Bar Hama, who committed murder. The Resh Galutha said to R. Abba b. Jacob: Go and investigate the matter, if he is definitely the murderer, dim his eyes.[ Perhaps, ‘blind him,’ ‘put out his eyes.’]
aha, and what about the dispute between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, where the Tzedukim took "ayin tachat ayin" literally, whereas Chazal took it figuratively - hence no blinding! ? (ok, this is for a slightly different case, but still...)
I suspect this requires further analysis - in his Intro. to his perush on the Mishnah, he brings examples of verses that are interpreted according to Tradition of the Rabbis and/or halacha le MOShe miSinai. One of them is the verse where a woman grabs a man's groin who is fighting with her husband - the Torah says "that hand shall be cut off", and do not sympathize with her. Rambam says this is not taken literally and is according tothe punishment that Chazal bring (financial?)
His thought in the Perush, the Yad and the Moreh are not always the same. Reason? Not sure.
Rambam (Chovel u'mazik 1) When the Torah says: "If a man disfigures a person, as he has done so shall it be done to him" (Leviticus 24:20), it does not mean to inflict injury on this man as he did on the other, but that the offender fittingly deserves to be deprived of a limb or wounded in the same manner as he did, and must therefore indemnify the damage he caused. Furthermore, the Torah says: "You shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer" (Numbers 35:31), implying that only for a murderer no ransom is accepted, but compensation is taken for the loss of limbs or for injuries sustained. How do we know that what is written concerning the loss of limbs, "an eye for an eye," means compensation? In the same context it is written: "A wound for a wound" (Exodus 21:25), and it is also written explicitly: "If one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist … he must pay for the man's loss of time and also see that he is thoroughly restored to health" (Exodus 21:18-19). Hence, you may infer that the word for (taḥath), used in wound for wound, signifies compensation. The same applies to [the word] for used in connection with the eye and the other organs. And even though these things are apparent from perusal of the written Torah, they are all explained from the mouth of Moshe, our teacher, and they are all laws [given] to Moshe (halacha le'Moshe) that are in our hands. And like this did our ancestors see that they were judging in the court of Yehoshua and in the court of Shmuel the Ramati and in each and every court that stood from the times of Moshe, our teacher, until today.
Moreh Nevuchim (3:41)The punishment of him who sins against his neighbour consists in the general rule that there shall be done unto him exactly as he has done: if he injured any one personally, he must suffer personally; if he damaged the property of his neighbour, he shall be punished by loss of property.
Daas Torah Kalonymus HaQatan 16 hours ago edited Rambam understands it to be meant literally ---
Perhaps he is saying there is a function to the plain meaning, regardless of final psak. Rabbi rackman wrote an essay on a Functional approach to halacha, many years ago, that is where I got my idea from.
In any case, it's obvious what the plain meaning is. Just like it is obvious what it means "that hand shall be cut off " which he rails against on his perush to the mishnah. And that totafot /tefillin should be bein aineycha means between your eyes. But is there a function, purpose or deeper message to these other verses - that without the oral Law, would be taken literally, to somebody reading the text?
Literal blinding as in scooping the eyes out or figurative blinding as in "I don't see any evidence of Jew hatred in the Democratic Party"?
ReplyDeleteaha, and what about the dispute between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, where the Tzedukim took "ayin tachat ayin" literally, whereas Chazal took it figuratively - hence no blinding! ?
ReplyDelete(ok, this is for a slightly different case, but still...)
They didn't see Jew hatred in the (British) Labour Party either.
ReplyDeleteYes, yes but rest assured, all real anti-Semitism is on the right!
ReplyDeleteRambam understands it to be meat literally
ReplyDeleteMeat or read literally?
ReplyDeleteDo you mean in the Guide for the perplexed?
meant literally...
ReplyDeleteI suspect this requires further analysis - in his Intro. to his perush on the Mishnah, he brings examples of verses that are interpreted according to Tradition of the Rabbis and/or halacha le MOShe miSinai. One of them is the verse where a woman grabs a man's groin who is fighting with her husband - the Torah says "that hand shall be cut off", and do not sympathize with her. Rambam says this is not taken literally and is according tothe punishment that Chazal bring (financial?)
His thought in the Perush, the Yad and the Moreh are not always the same. Reason? Not sure.
Rambam (Chovel u'mazik 1)
ReplyDeleteWhen the Torah says: "If a man disfigures a person, as he has done so shall it be done to him" (Leviticus 24:20), it does not mean to inflict injury on this man as he did on the other, but that the offender fittingly deserves to be deprived of a limb or wounded in the same manner as he did, and must therefore indemnify the damage he caused. Furthermore, the Torah says: "You shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer" (Numbers 35:31), implying that only for a murderer no ransom is accepted, but compensation is taken for the loss of limbs or for injuries sustained.
How do we know that what is written concerning the loss of limbs, "an eye for an eye," means compensation? In the same context it is written: "A wound for a wound" (Exodus 21:25), and it is also written explicitly: "If one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist … he must pay for the man's loss of time and also see that he is thoroughly restored to health" (Exodus 21:18-19). Hence, you may infer that the word for (taḥath), used in wound for wound, signifies compensation. The same applies to [the word] for used in connection with the eye and the other organs.
And even though these things are apparent from perusal of the written Torah, they are all explained from the mouth of Moshe, our teacher, and they are all laws [given] to Moshe (halacha le'Moshe) that are in our hands. And like this did our ancestors see that they were judging in the court of Yehoshua and in the court of Shmuel the Ramati and in each and every court that stood from the times of Moshe, our teacher, until today.
Moreh Nevuchim (3:41)The punishment of him who sins against his neighbour consists in the general rule that there shall be done unto him exactly as he has done: if he injured any one personally, he must suffer personally; if he damaged the property of his neighbour, he shall be punished by loss of property.
ReplyDeleteCan you explain the change in position?
ReplyDeletewhat change? Rambam thought the plain meaning was to literally take an eye but the Mesorah overruled that
ReplyDeleteDaas Torah Kalonymus HaQatan
ReplyDelete16 hours ago edited
Rambam understands it to be meant literally
---
Perhaps he is saying there is a function to the plain meaning, regardless of final psak.
Rabbi rackman wrote an essay on a Functional approach to halacha, many years ago, that is where I got my idea from.
In any case, it's obvious what the plain meaning is. Just like it is obvious what it means "that hand shall be cut off " which he rails against on his perush to the mishnah. And that totafot /tefillin should be bein aineycha means between your eyes.
ReplyDeleteBut is there a function, purpose or deeper message to these other verses - that without the oral Law, would be taken literally, to somebody reading the text?