Contradiction between the Bible and the Talmud
Hello.
How do you explain the contradiction between the plain words of the Bible and the words of the Talmud regarding “an eye for an eye”?
The Bible says:
And to the children of Israel thou shalt speak, saying: Whosoever curseth his God, and blasphemeth his sin, and blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall surely be put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones, whether he be a stranger, or one born in the land; he shall surely be put to death. And whosoever smiteth any man, he shall surely be put to death. And he that smiteth any man with a beast shall surely be put to death, life for life. And if a man requites his neighbor, as he has done , so shall it be done to him . A fracture for a fracture, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. As a man requites his neighbor, so shall it be done to him. . “And he that smiteth a beast shall surely be put to death, and he that smiteth a man shall surely be put to death. There shall be one law for you, for the stranger, and for the native: for I am the LORD your God.”
And the Talmud in Tractate Baba Kama (link to the topic: https://he.m.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%91%D7%90_%D7%A7%D7%9E%D7%90_%D7%A4%D7%93_%D7%9) claims that this is a payment of money?
It seems as if these sages prefer speculation to the plain words of the Torah, and have essentially changed it. What’s more, Rabbi Eliezer, who is considered “a rabbi who never loses a drop” and passes on ancient traditions from his rabbis, claims that this is literal (even though the Talmud explains the baraita differently)?
thanks
People believe that the sermon usually takes away from the plain text, and therefore such questions should not be made difficult because these are two different levels of interpretation. And it is not. This happens in very few cases. Usually the sermon adds another interpretation on top of the plain text and does not contradict the plain text. However, in this case, the sermon seems to contradict the plain text, and therefore this is an exceptional case that requires explanation.
The sermon itself can of course be explained, because there is a “under” – “under”, and there are precisions (one does not take a ransom for a murdered person, meaning that one takes the organs of a murderer, otherwise why should one be warned not to take the soul of the murderer?). And yet the question remains why the Torah itself wrote the matter in a different way (contradictory, in this case).
Here I like the Gra’s response, which claims that in the event of a difference between the plain text and the Darsh (even if it is not a contradiction, and even if it is), both interpretations should be taken together. The Torah wrote things this way on purpose, so that we would not use the plain text alone or the Darsh alone, but both together. Rabbi Menashe Maylia, a student of the Gra, brings a beautiful example of this from the midrashic controversy regarding “worry in the heart of a man will be changed.” Now I think I might write a column about it.
So, for example, in this case, this is the only way to write the law that takes the eye of the harmer and not the damage. If they had written in the Pesht itself to take money, we would have taken the eye of the harmer as compensation. If they had written only the Pesht without the Gazash and the Hardash, we would have taken the eye. When they wrote in a way that there is Pesht and there is Hardash, we take money, but the eye of the harmer and not the damage (as a result of the Pesht, since money is a substitute for taking the eye of the harmer and not as compensation for the damage).
Although we rule according to the law that the injured party pays the eye-money, the law also has implications for both interpretations, especially in the Maimonides’ method. David Haneshka discussed this at length in a wonderful series of three articles in the 1978 edition (he was 19 years old at the time). It is well worth reading for anyone interested.
I think I also have a series of lessons on the relationship between Peshat and Darsh.
The insistence on excluding R”A from the list of those who disagree, in my opinion, is purely educational (a holy lie), in order to remove from the hearts of those who challenge the sermon (Sadducees?).
By the way, this seems like part of the same dispute between R”A and Rabbi Yehoshua in the oven of Akhnai whether we always follow what we received from our rabbis or use our own reason (it is not in the sky). And perhaps this is the very reason why later the sages insisted on including R”A in the group. And now I think that maybe it is not a holy lie but that R”A retracted it after accepting the decision of his friends (on the day of his death). And that is why they wrote his opinion after his death and determined that he also agrees with the midrashic view even though it contradicts the tradition that came to them.
In the 2nd of Iyar, 5721, the financial payment is a ransom from the physical punishment of “an eye for an eye” that was supposed to be carried out (and as we saw in the case of the bull that killed a person, the punishment of “and its owner shall also be put to death” was paid by paying a ransom, and only in the case of a murderer in the hands of the Torah did the Torah warn against taking a ransom).
It should be noted that from the words of the Torah, “a life for a life, an eye for an eye,” it seems that just as “a life for a life” is said only with intent and with witnesses and warning, so too is it in the case of “an eye for an eye.” Which was done only intentionally, with witnesses and with warning, as is the case with the law of persons, which is very rare. In most cases, it is not possible to prove the intention beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore all courts since the days of Moses have preferred the option of a financial ransom.
With best wishes, Sh”t
They say in the name of the Lord that vengeance on the Gentiles for what they did to Israel will be an eye for an eye, literally, as it is written: "To execute upon them a written judgment."
With blessings, Sha'athan
Shchel,
There is no need to learn from the Moed Shem, since there it is the harmful money. An eye for an eye is said of a harmful person, who is more material (guilty of rape and five things).
Beyond that, taking money is not a custom but a Torah law. And this is not sufficient but certain. We have never heard of anyone who took out an eye.
And finally, the money in question is not a ransom but damage, which is not the same thing. Although according to the Maimonides, one must judge Tovah, and so on.
“The insistence on excluding the Rabbi from the list of those who disagree, in my opinion, is only educational (a holy lie), in order to exclude from the minds of those who challenge the sermon (Zadduks?).” Continuing with the above quote from Rabbi Michi, “Zadduks?”, I would like to draw attention to the method of the historian Yitzhak Baer (baer) in his book “Israel among the Nations” where he historically reconciles such Mishnahs and disagreements and the methods of the Tan'aim and Amoraim.
“An eye for an eye” to the best of my recollection in Chapter 6 of his book.
The book is not before me at the moment and therefore I cannot quote.
With greetings, Benjamin “Ain Tova” Gurlin
Rabbi Michi,
If you believe that the simple meaning of Rabbi Eliezer's words is that the evil eye is indeed removed, it is ostensibly better to trust his words. In the prologue of the book “Mehalachim Bin Ho'addim” you show that Rabbi Eliezer is a pure transmitter of traditions, not an innovator, while from him onward things began to be innovated. I would therefore say that Rabbi Eliezer is transmitting the original tradition that it is about “an eye for an eye, literally” while the other sages changed the mitzvah for various logical reasons.
But there I showed that despite this, no such ruling was made. The ruling is determined by the decision of the authorized institution and the sages, and not by the authenticity of the traditions. I have already written here several times that authenticity (what came from Sinai) is not the criterion for correct ruling. We continue to follow what emerges from the Torah that we received with the tools of the Tosheva, and not what is most certain to have been said to Moses at Sinai. Of course, the goal of halakhic clarification is to understand the will of God, but it is not done with the tools of the authenticity of tradition, but of evidence. This is seen in the very act of “It is not in the heavens.”
For myself, it is quite clear to me that reading the verse literally was the accepted reading in the distant past, and only the sages changed this ruling. Even if the opinion of Rabbi R. A. had not been presented in the Talmud, I would have thought so.
By the way, as far as I remember, Maimonides in his introduction brings this example of an eye for an eye as an example of the law that was accepted in the tradition from Sinai (the sermon relied on rather than created). It is possible that the rejection of the interpretation in the words of the R”A is what made him think this way. In my opinion, as stated, the opposite emerges from the R”A's method.
As Rabbi Micha and Shai say, this is the direction of Professor Yitzhak Baer (BAER), who provides abundant evidence for his method throughout the above book, which is highly recommended.
But if R”A symbolizes the true tradition, then does he also symbolize the true tradition of jurisprudence?
So if that is the case, then it is in heaven.
Rabbi Eliezer's words are quoted in the Mekhilta (Nazikin, Parsha 8). The version in the Mekhilta section is: Rabbi Eliezer says: "An eye for an eye"; "I hear whether he intends or does not intend, he does not pay except in cash." And the scripture excludes the one who intends to do something wrong, who does not pay except in cash (this is the version of two Mekhilta manuscripts by Horowitz, and not the version of the printed versions: "He does not pay except in cash").
Based on this, it follows that Rabbi Eliezer believes that an eye for an eye is a real thing. Specifically in the case of a misdemeanor, which is a fairly rare situation, and therefore the de facto tradition was to require money, either because of the understanding according to Rabbi Yehoshua that an eye for an eye is essentially a money, or because of the difficulty in proving the criminal intent required by the Rabbi in order to commit an eye for an eye.
With blessings, Rabbi
Further on in his remarks in the Mekhilta, the Rabbi demands a general and particular and general measure, and it does not appear that he had a sweeping reservation from the midrashic teachings of the Sages.
This is the desired response. This is the very position of the opponents who do not rule according to tradition. So also on the question of whether to rule according to tradition, they do not rule according to it.
Sh”l,
In the Gemara Didan it does not appear like this. Otherwise they would have to settle his system like you.
I did not say that the Sha”ra opposed the sermons. Only where they opposed the tradition (he did not say anything he did not hear from his rabbi).
The words of Maimonides in Mora Nevuchim 33, Chapter 41, have disappeared from everyone's sight, as he explains the verses simply and not in the manner of the Talmud, and many have already screamed at him.
I think I once saw several articles about this or even a whole book, and I am sorry.
There is no such thing as “passing on a tradition.” And Chazal knew this. The only tradition that passes on is the Masoretic text.
Everything that is not written in the Torah is from the rabbis.
The whole point of “Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it” is the transmission of the Torah itself. And then it starts with “They said three things..” Things that are not written in the Torah. Otherwise they would not have said them.
And it is quite clear that the Torah’s interpretation is literally an eye for an eye. Measure for measure.
As he did, so it will be done to him
Chazal knew that in their time they could not accept this commandment, so we will have to interpret it differently from the interpretation because it is time to do to him.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
