"He will repay the wicked according to his wickedness," right?
Shvut Newsletter – Alumni – 1995
Studies in the meaning of punishments
In this article I would like to discuss several issues concerning the Torah concept of punishment., Both the one in the hands of man and the one in the hands of heaven. What is its meaning and goals?, What is the relationship between the punishment and the crime?, And how is the severity of the punishment determined?. Of course, these words do not exhaust this great and central issue., And I came only to awaken the hearts of those who are watching..
A. The relationship between the severity of the punishment and the severity of the offense.
In the Book of Commandments, Lars"third (In the R edition' Yeruham Perla) In the punishment of–from' writer destruction"third: According to the honor of the Sabbath, from its desecration and from the city of Ma'arsha, a beloved. Ver' Yeruham Perla In his commentary on the website, Vaz writes:"to: It seems that his intention is to say that by this he is considering the value of the commandment of the Sabbath observance, which is one of the greatest commandments in the Torah. In this sense, the punishment for its desecration is the most severe of all the types of punishments in the Torah. For example, stoning is more severe than all other deaths in the 4th century. Likewise, in the case of a girl who is betrothed, the punishment is based on the value of the substance of the offense. And so our Rabbi the Gaon, may God bless him and grant him peace, wrote in his book Beliefs and Opinions (article five) and in the 4th century there. And from which side do we know that they are not severe because they did not increase their punishment in this world, etc. But the one who deliberately transgresses the severe ones, and they include cutting off, etc. and four deaths in the 4th century. And in this we know that they are severe, etc. according to the Aisha. And this is not according to the opinion of our Rabbi Yehuda the Hassid, may God bless him and grant him peace (in the Complete Hasidim, 317), who wrote and in the 4th century, know that you cannot know the commandments of their punishment and reward according to the substance of the offense. After all, the desecration of the Sabbath is by stoning, and some of the commandments of adultery are by strangulation and cutting. However, one who desecrates the Sabbath for the sake of saving one's life is permitted and cannot do so in the prohibition of adultery and murder that are not by stoning. Therefore, do not say that this is more expensive and more beloved than this, according to Aisha. And so again Lakman (ibid., 1946) states that the value of the commandments should not be assessed according to the punishment of the one who violates them. And he brought evidence for this, since the sin of a false oath and the erasure of the name is nothing but a lie, and the sin of a man's wife is strangulation. And yet, when a man's wife committed a crime, for several reasons, her spittle did not fall and her stomach did not hurt. And when the priest swore and she drank the bitter water, her spittle fell and her stomach did hurt. Eye"In his words.
And further on in his words, the narrator brings"According to the Rambam"In the mouth"that (Fathers P"In the"A. Look at the Mayari and Warsaw."In his book Magen Avot there) From the punishment for breaking a mitzvah, we will know the reward for the one who keeps it, and we will be like the Lord.' destruction"C above. Then the extension of the"P in the"From and in evidence to the contrary' destruction"C and its equivalents, And ends there and then"to: And the words of the holy Rabbi Chasid, z"l, are wonderful to me. And the words of our Rabbi Gaon and the Rambam, z"l, are simple and clear: God Almighty does not serve one law without another, and the ways of God are straight, etc..
We have learned that the relationship between the severity of the punishment and the severity of the offense is controversial among our early rabbis.. Lars"third, The severity of the punishment is equal to the severity of the offense., While Scheler' The righteous Judah has no such necessary connection.. And really, he asked./The cry of the Gerry"P at the end of his words is charged with incandescence, And apparently the words of R."The Hasidic Marfasin Igra.
on. What is hardware?
The first point that should be raised in such a discussion is whether the severity of the penalties is clear enough to us., In a way that we can tap from (To know Res"C and his team) On the seriousness of the offense. Hagari"In his words, he states that stoning is the most severe death penalty, and therefore, whoever is punished with stoning knows that the offense he committed is the most serious.. This is the place to ask., Is the statement that stoning is the most severe form of death, Based on a realistic assessment of the pain or humiliation involved? Even if the pain of stoning is the greatest, This is a momentary pain., And assessing this punishment as the most severe because of the pain involved is puzzling..
An alternative approach could be proposed that states that stoning is the most severe form of death., It is a statement concerning the spiritual meaning of punishment.. It is even possible to raise a completely opposite view to that of the writer."P. who would argue that the severity of stoning derives precisely from the fact that it is given as a punishment For the most serious offenses. According to this approach, there is of course no meaning in measuring the severity of the offense through the severity of the punishment., Because this is a circular process.
Now let's go ahead and say, If Torah punishment truly has a spiritual dimension that is equivalent to physical punishment,, And it is he who determines the severity of the punishment., There is room to discuss whether the difference between the spiritual punishments is a difference in intensity or a difference in type.. It is very likely that spiritual punishment corrects the defect in the soul. (Or in the world) That the offense was considered a sin, And according to the type of defect, so is the type of abrasion. And if that is really the case, After all, a serious offense obviously requires a punishment appropriate to the crime.. Such a punishment may involve less suffering than the punishment for another offense that is more serious than it.. Such an argument puts R's approach in a somewhat more plausible light."The Hasidic who separates the severity of the punishment from the severity of the offense.
It is of course possible to raise the consideration of the compatibility between the spiritual meaning of the punishment and the intensity of the suffering involved., In such a way that the spiritual level of the defect that needs to be corrected "Translated" In the national perspective on the intensity of suffering. If we accept this argument, then Ress's approach"C seems obvious..
The same problem exists in the area of crimes as well.. What is the meaning of the statement that a certain offense is more serious than its counterpart?? It clearly seems that here the classification is purely spiritual.. Unlike in the case of punishment, Here is the fabric"There is no distinct physical aspect..[1]
An offense is classified as more serious if it harms a higher spiritual level., Or if the person who committed this offense is afflicted with a deeper spiritual defect. Apparently, such a difference is also a difference in kind and not a difference in intensity.. From the same consideration as before, The approach that states that there must be a match between the intensity of suffering in the punishment and the type of defect in the offense can be challenged..
Let's summarize and say, Both punishment and crime have a spiritual and a physical aspect./earthly. The offense is an act that is prohibited by"The Torah, But it is also an act that has consequences that damage the soul./In the world. Punishment is also an action decreed by"The Torah is about the one who does the forbidden act and only"As well as a reason for his suffering, But it is also an action that spiritually heals the damage of the offense.. It is obvious that the connection between the spiritual dimension of punishment and the offense is one-sided, as one reinforces the other.. All other connections, Like the connection between the intensity of suffering in punishment and the spiritual height of the damage or the correction., are not necessary. More than that, It is unclear whether there is even a quantitative severity scale that can characterize the various penalties and offenses., Or are the punishments and offenses different in type and have no common measure?.
Ita in inscriptions page 30"third. Rabbi Ashi attacks her, "Why does she pretend to be serious? It is permissible for a light thing, but it is not permissible. If you find it, say, "Oh, why does she pretend to be serious? It is not permissible to be severe. Rav said, "If only we had not confronted her with Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who went to Zelma." Rabbi Sama Beria, the father of Asi, argued with Rabbi Ashi, and there is no difference between a beating that has a penalty and a beating that does not have a penalty..
In this issue, it seems that the question of which is the more severe punishment also arises for discussion and is not obvious.. On the other hand, The Gemara's response indicates that the criterion for the severity of the punishment is truly the pain involved.. The conclusion of the Gemara seems to have retained the notion that the severity of the punishment is determined by"The suffering involved, Therefore the order is (From difficult to easy) Beating without allowance, death, Beating with a stipend.
The wet"A on a fabric website"the "There is no word." Explains the course of the Gemara and 7"to And from what is the image of a grave thing, it is permissible to speak lightly, but not from what. The interpretation of the decrees of the Scripture is that a warning of the same punishment that was punished for it is necessary. And then from what is the image of a grave thing, according to the Torah, the judges of the Torah, the image of a grave thing, they said, from what is the image of a grave thing, for a man, the image of a grave thing, for a man, the image of a grave thing, for a man, the image of a grave thing, they said, "Let my soul die with the Philistines."[2] But it is not fitting for him to be beaten unless he is killed, and to be beaten is to be beaten with a whip, more severe than the whips of a slayer.
The perception of the wet"A is a noun."D. It is permissible for the severe, not for the light. This is a joke."And not because of the opinion of the"A. Differs from the Torah's assessment of the severity of the punishment. But all"D. It is like a donkey, so it is permissible to say something easy, it is difficult.' Who said that a picture is worse than a whip in the mind of a child?"A.
It was found that according to the Ritb"A. The discussion of this issue is not related to the general question we are discussing in this article.. This is a problem in the minds of people., What are they more afraid of?. On the other hand, In Torah law, it is clear to Ritev"A. The name is more serious.. Here, of course, the question arises, If the suffering of the punishment is irrelevant to determining its severity, What is the determining criterion for this severity??
Fabric name additions"the "From May", Brings as an explanation the Ritva"A full"D. It is permissible for a heavy person, not for a light person. This is a gas."And no other estimate in human opinion. Thos' Proves this from the verse in P.' The Burnt (Sanhedrin"ninth🙂 I have heard that those who are guilty of death who are involved will be judged lightly, and he said in the Book of Genesis (ibid.:) that it is permissible for a serious matter to be stoning, and it is permissible for a light matter, and it is a simple matter that they have permitted him to be stoned, and he accepted, because if they had permitted him to be strangled for the same matter, he would have accepted. And even though the Lord says that a person is guilty of a serious matter, it is not permissible for a light matter. Rather, it must be said that the decree of the Scripture is in their favor that he should permit himself to be put to the same death, whether it is light or severe.
Tosafot clearly links the severity of death with a person's fear of it., By assuming as a matter of course that someone who has accepted the punishment of stoning is"H. He will accept the penalty of death by strangulation for the same offense..[3] Therefore, it seems that in the continuation of the issue when the' It is more difficult than it seems., Its intention is to make the ordinary and customary law more difficult, and it is a severe punishment., And not like a harit"A. Separate this problem from the general question.. And"According to Thos.' The severity of the punishment is determined by"The degree of suffering (Or fear) of the person from whom.[4]
To conclude our remarks on the issue of addresses:, For Shi' The wet"A. The index The severity of the punishment is not related to the degree of fear the person has of it., While on Tuesday' The toad' The degree of concern is the measure of severity.[5]
According to us above, It can be said that if according to the method of wetting"A. That suffering (Or the fear) Is not the measure of the severity of the punishment, So it can be said that"The Hasidic says that there is no reason to link the severity of the offense with the severity of the punishment.. The severity of the punishment is a spiritual measure, and then the differences between the punishments are differences in type and not in intensity, as is the case with"T.
On the other hand, If you are lucky' Thos' That suffering is indeed the measure, It is likely that the perception is that punishment is a material concept in its simple sense., And in any case, a more serious offense is punished with a more severe penalty.. In this view, the differences between punishments are differences in intensity..[6]
According to us, these are"Well said, Tod."the "And Dalma" (Name for"third🙂 cited in the note 4 above, Which links the severity of the punishment to the severity of the offense (belly"G and Rambam"M). Thos' For Shi' Azil Daiho S."The severity of punishment is measured by the suffering involved., And how?"The above is the basis of the concept of"third.
third. Various consequences of the dispute"Y Vers"third
The GM' In the Sanhedrin, page 5'. and more, Dana suffered a serious death from her partner."Examination of the seriousness of the offenses punishable by death. According to R."The apparent follower is a, The seriousness of the offense is comparable to the severity of the punishment.. And the questionable material had room to say that the concept of severity discussed in these issues is different.. In that issue in the Sanhedrin, we truly see that the conclusion about the severity of the punishment always stems from an argument about the severity of the offense.. The severity of the offense is inferred from different interpretations for each offense. (Blasphemer–A neighbor who extends his hand mainly, Beating his father and mother–Because their honor was honored in honor of the place, etc'). Such an argumentative structure suggests that what is being discussed in these issues is the severity of the offenses for which the various deaths are punished, and not the severity of the deaths themselves.. In other words, we can say that what is discussed there is the spiritual depth of the defect that that death came to correct.. And as explained above, Also R"The Hasidic admits that the grinding is directly proportional to the defect in the spiritual dimension of things.. And I will cry."K.
By the R method"The apparent pious person simply explains the halakhic principle that states that there is no punishment from the law.. Interpretation: Cannot be learned from"From the punishment of one offense to its combination.[7] To grasp R"The pious man is clear about why he cannot be punished by law., After all, the fact that an offense is a' Serious offense in' It cannot teach us that its punishment should also be in accordance with. R"The Hasidic believes that punishments differ from time to time."G. In their type and not in their strength, Therefore, even though a crime' Serious offense in' It may require a different kind of spiritual awakening..
destruction"C and his team can resort to the same explanation that says there is no penalty from the law because there is a fear that there is a breach of the law."H (See the dimensions of Aaron P."In the living"third), Or is it the one who believes that because the teacher is lighter than the student, atonement for such a punishment of the teacher will not benefit him? (See Maharash"A Sanhedrin S"D:).[8] Another way could be the way of the Lord."M P' Shmini Shefi' Gas station"About"His sister". It is not our business here to discuss in detail the generality of the law's punishment., But note that the first two explanations are more complicated than some of my,[9] While the most likely interpretation of the third way is as an understanding of R"The devotee herself. From the verse of "His sister" We have learned precisely this point that the severity of the punishment is not necessarily proportional to the offense., Therefore, there is no penalty from the law..
Into the light"the "A stranger who ate a donation" In the inscriptions on page 1': Discusses the question of impunity for"The rule of Kim Lia in Drava Minya. And writes there Thos' That a person cannot get rid of atonement by"A more severe punishment"that. And simply put, it seems that his intention is that death and flogging are not expiatory punishments., For they must have been called Calabar."from. And"What kind of punishments are these, according to Thos?'.[10]
And truly, there is a place for study in you, without any doubt."From Eliva Dr."How is the Hasidic to be exempted from one slander?"From another kind of green. And toss' Here I am."To the de"The essence of the death penalty and flogging is physical suffering., And in this Shafir belongs the exemption from the calabash."from. And this is again according to the method of Yahu Datos.' Who perceived the punishment as physical suffering,
Welsh' R"The follower of the"A.[11]
Another topic that needs to be discussed is the Mishnah in the Sanhedrin."ninth: The death row inmates who were involved in the trial are being held in Cod.. Simply put, it means that even those who are guilty of a serious crime have an interest in a dunam of cod, even a dollar."The follower explained to us that it is a different kind..
In light of this issue, we see a model"The Hasid must admit that there is also an element of physical suffering in the punishment., However, his claim is that there is also an aspect of spiritual greening that is not necessarily uniquely suited to the intensity of the suffering of the punishment.. Therefore, When various death row inmates intervened,"Z Y"For a light penalty to implement at least this aspect of the penalty, Although the grinding is of a different type.
It can be further stated that the physical severity of the punishment is important for the purpose of educating the public., While the role of the scolding is with regard to the offender himself. And if that's the way things are, Here, a new understanding emerges of the essence of the above dispute.: Lars"C. The purpose of the punishment is general educational., While Scheler"The goal of the Hasid is mythological and its meaning is for the Hebrew himself.. According to us here, Also R"The Hasid acknowledges the existence of the other side., Therefore, those guilty of murder who were involved are sentenced to death as follows:"Q above, But he denies the exclusivity of this aspect..[12]
This question and similar ones in the Sanhedrin issues there require detailed and thorough discussion."from.
D. The mechanistic view
A more extreme view than that of R."The devotee is offered"The man"Eight commandments of silence"G. The discussion is about the conqueror of his prophecy who nullifies what he did., And his punishment is that he is tortured until his soul departs.. And the man"H claims that although we have learned the punishment for the one who does this,, We did not issue orders..[13] And"The question is, how did they punish him?. indeed, Writes the name of the"H, We do not find that a warning is needed in action, but only in omission.. But according to"As for the education itself in the mitzvah"ninth (The one who curses the judges) As for Levin, if there was only punishment without warning, we would think that if he wants to pass and accepts the punishment, he is innocent and does not act against the will of God."etc.' A"The Torah warned against announcing that the"T does not want this etc.' A"that. And if so, this understanding"Even in the case of the devil, orders beyond punishment are needed to inform us that God"He does not desire such an act.. Therefore, Continues from"H and claims, It is possible that the conqueror of his prophecy, for which we have not given orders, is truly a mechanistic punishment and not a punishment in the conventional sense, which is a response to the transgression of God's will."the. This explains the"The eighth mentions the fact that Jonah fulfilled his prophecy despite the prohibition in the Word of God."that. To conclude from"H writes that this is not seen and offers another explanation for the actions of Jonah and"that.
i.e, There is an understanding that punishment is a kind of natural mechanical response to an offense, like someone who puts their hand in a fire, whose burning is not a punishment but a natural physical response., And not punishment for those who transgress the will of God."In the conventional sense. This is a more extreme view than that of R."The follower, After all, according to this view, not only is there no connection between the severity of the punishment and the severity of the offense, But punishment is possible without any offense at all. (A criminal act is required, of course., But not a crime in the negative sense of the term.). Such a perception completely uproots the concept of punishment from its usual meaning and the negative connotation in which it is generally perceived."about.
I remember once seeing a short article by R.' Dov Lando (R"J. Slobodka) In a memoir whose name I don't remember, It is argued that such a concept is also found in the words of' Gershom in Tractate Tmura 3': Regarding whippings for swearing. The GM' There it says "... He said, "This miracle is a scourge," he said, "even a true oath, in the law it is written, the oath of the Lord shall be between them both." He said, "I am a man to appease his friend, but Milkah is a lily, not a kindler, you said, "It is written, and by his name you shall swear, etc."" A"Q: In all matters, there are several points that concern our concerns here..
And brush"The name means "in his presence.""A Shilka on an oath of truth, this is it. He is useful and brings himself under oath. Weber"3. There is a sail and 7."to And it is better to make up his mind with money and not with an oath, and if he did not want money but an oath (meaning simply the two-thirds he did not want), he should swear to make up his mind, but he will be punished for swearing the truth, etc. And that means bar"3. That there was truly an understanding that the guard would swear as the Torah requires him to in order to appease Ba'ah."on, And in"Zilka.
A similar concept is prevalent in various books regarding punishments at the hands of heaven. (Contrary to my punishment"D. discussed in this article so far). For example, in the book "Sichot Musar Lager""H. Shmuelevich (Tshel"A conversation about"D. Regarding the remembrance of the deed of Miriam) Brought the act of a merciful rabbi (Addresses S"on🙂 He was late returning home in his sleep."And he caused concern to his wife.. As a punishment, he was executed.' Rachumi A."Ceiling collapse. And the stranger's difficulty"H Su"The grief caused to his wife by his death is immeasurably greater than the grief caused by his later death., And"There is no sense in such a punishment.. And he explains there that the punishments for offenses between a person and his fellow man are like putting a hand into a fire that burns regardless of the person's guilt..
To suffer"Such a perception is something that cannot be said.. This is a heresy against the whole concept of private care., One of its basic characteristics is that there is no event (Certainly not a punishment.) What happens to a person without a decision following a higher judgment.[14]
The case of R.' Rachumi can of course also be explained in the standard way., When it can be assumed that his wife also deserved punishment for some reason, Therefore, the killing of Her husband, which was a fitting punishment for what he had been through., Not avoided because of his wife.[15]
Another example of an anti-mechanistic view of divine punishments can be found in the issue of Gittin."the. There the Gemara tells of a widow who was entrusted with a dinar and placed in a jar of flour.. She then baked the flour and gave the bread, with the dinar inside, by mistake to the poor.. When the depositor came to ask for his money, the widow swore that the death potion would be enjoyed by one of that woman's sons. (herself) If I enjoyed this dinner. Not many days passed and one of his sons died.. The GM' You learn from this how severe the punishment is for someone who swears to lie., If someone swears to the truth, so is someone who swears to lie."Yes, yes."that. And in it"C. Bring the rashab"A on the hard site of May oath Ika Haka. And' Dezhou Kar' I will be in the weeks to"And Des"To Dala this is an oath.. And the last few were difficult., Delphi"There is no evidence that the penalty for perjury is severe., And here her son died because she cursed him and not as punishment for her oath.. And I' It seems that this model does not work mechanically., But its activation is done after consideration., And this allows its execution only if the person to whom it was directed is indeed worthy of receiving it..[16]
Similar approaches can be found in the subject "Stupidity of the heart" (The soul) As a result of offenses committed with a permit. For example, The Herm"A Yu"DC' P"A S"G K' And"to And the rabbis will not suckle a baby from an Egyptian woman, if possible, an Israeli woman who works as a milkmaid, who makes the stars dull the heart and gives birth to a bad nature in him. Likewise, the nursing woman, even an Israeli woman, will not eat the forbidden things, and likewise the baby himself, because all of this is harmful to him in his old age. Stupidity The milk of a foreigner results from her eating forbidden foods., A food for which he is completely permitted. More than that, As explained by"K S"K K"Even the Israeli nursing mother, when she is sick and needs to be cured with forbidden foods, will send her son to be nursed by someone else., And this is despite the fact that she eats them with complete permission. (And it is also a commandment."And lived in them" spelling). And finally the baby himself, Nose bags"For it is not obligatory to separate it from the one who eats carrion., It is recommended here to retire him to avoid the damage he will suffer in the future..
The son of a living soul in Shu strongly opposes this view."T Many verbs H"C at the end Some answers were printed on confidential matters under the name "The secret of truth". In reply to' There the son writes, "I am a living being.""to: An unclean creature, as well as carrion and carrion, does not defile the soul of man, and yet when it is written, "Behold, and be defiled by them," the intention is not to say that their body defiles the soul of man. Rather, every forbidden and unclean thing has a spiritual power of impurity upon it, and when a person eats it, that power of impurity rests upon the person and enters him and defiles him. Indeed, if he is a complete fool who does not know at all about the prohibition and impurity, and he also does not have to attribute to it the cause that he caused himself to stumble by mistake, then if he eats that forbidden and unclean thing, the same power of impurity of that thing will not defile the person, and the power of impurity is not permitted to enter him or touch him. And"Q: Continuing his remarks, And the wind"H.
An earlier source that discusses this problem is the book Sermons on the Mount."In the eleventh sermon "Judges and police officers". mountain"There he explains that the commandments are not an expression of God's arbitrary will."But there is benefit in their existence and harm in their transgressions."May we not know his grandmother. And according to"G is a difficult name."N and Z"to According to this, then, the wisdom is that when the sages agree on one impure thing, it is pure. (mistakenly), what will happen. Isn't that thing going to harm us and do what it is in its nature to do, and despite the fact that the sages agreed that it is pure. And those doctors agreed on one drug that is equivalent, and it is by way of the example of a fourth degree of heat, there is no doubt that the drug's action in the body will not continue as the doctors agreed, but as it was in its own nature. So the thing that the Torah forbade us from doing because it is harmful to the soul, how will the nature of that thing change since the sages agreed that it is permitted, this is impossible only on the side of wonder. mountain"It is difficult to understand how the Torah commands us to obey the decisions of the sages even when we know they are wrong., It will cause spiritual damage to our souls.. mountain"It is difficult to even imagine such damage as an act of physical harm..[17]
And he excuses himself there,"The Torah has established a course of action that will be optimal in most cases.. fabric"The decision of the wise will be closer to the truth than that of the common man, and therefore this is the optimal way to minimize the damage.. It is true that in some cases even wise people may make mistakes, and then we will all pay for it with spiritual damage., Similar to damage caused by a doctor's error in judgment. Continuing his remarks, Har wants to"To claim more than that, And to say that the benefit of obeying the voice of the sages will erase the damage that could have been caused by the mistake itself.[18]
From the mountain view"It appears that the spiritual damage (Stupidity of the heart) It is truly mechanistic and depends on the act itself and not on the act being a violation of the will of the'. To the conclusion of the mountain"In his first argument, it is clear that this perception remains. The rest of his words (You' other?) Can be interpreted as Teri Anfi: Or is the damage really mechanistic, but the counter-benefit that results is voiced by the wise? (She was also ordered"A) Equivalent to it. And it is also possible to interpret that because obedience is a commandment, there is no harm at all from the transgression.. This is because the damage was caused by exceeding the will of the' And not from the act itself, And not as he assumed at the question stage.
the. Summary
In this article I have attempted to examine several aspects of the Torah's conception of punishment.. In the simple view, the severity of the punishment is determined by the severity of the offense. (Res"G and Rambam"M). The approach of R."The devotee who believes that this is not true, I tried to explain."J. Change in criteria for assessing a punishment as severe. The possibility was then raised that the dispute stems from a disagreement over the nature of punishment., Is its purpose educational or mythological?. The differences between these punishments and perceptions are also differences in the type of punishment."The follower, And not only with power like a' Res"third. The criteria for assessing penalties were examined in light of the issue of' In addresses to"third, There, they were the first to disagree on whether the degree of suffering is the measure of the severity of the punishment or whether the measure is different. (Probably spiritual).
Then we will discuss the issue of "There is no penalty under the law.", When my main argument was that according to R."For the Hasidic, this principle is self-evident.. For opposing approaches, this is"K.
Later, a mechanistic approach was presented in which punishment was seen as an automatic consequence of the offense., And not as a response to going beyond God's will."the. fabric"Such a perception is a"A. That was rejected when it came to punishments."D. As for the punishments in the hands of Heaven, at the end of our speech, several examples were presented that represent such a mechanistic view, also leading to the conclusion, Although there are those who oppose it even at this level..
The natural tendency of course, She sees every spiritual harm (Stupidity of the heart) Certainly, in every punishment, a response that stems from a higher judgment. The approach that there are laws "Spiritual mechanics" Acting deterministically seems to contradict the idea of providence and reward and punishment.. Although there is room to say that what happens to the soul is not irreversible., And the entire account was closed in accordance with the rules of justice. (And not arbitrarily–Mechanical) In vain"on. If this is the case, So it is not clear why such rules are established, which are not always fair..
The significance of such a problem is of course limited., For such a lack of understanding can also stem from human limitations.. But where there are different approaches whose origin does not seem to depend on the Midrash verses, Rather, they are the fruit of human thought. (Of wise men), It seems that there is still an important place for such deliberation before adopting one of these approaches as a description of the way the Creator of the world works..
[1] Exceptions to this rule are offenses between man and his fellow man, where there is also a clear earthly aspect to the act of the offense in addition to the spiritual defect that is present in all of them. We are discussing here only general characteristics that belong to all types of offenses.
[2] This is essentially the argument we raised above against the notion that death is serious because of the suffering it causes, when we say that the suffering in death is momentary, and it is unlikely that this is what determines it to be more serious.
[3] Of course, this may be Thos's assessment specifically regarding strangulation and stoning, in which case even an ordinary person fears stoning more than strangulation, but this is not a general law that a person's suffering determines the severity of the punishment. Such an argument seems to me to be weak, since it is not clear from the explanation why a person should fear strangulation less than stoning.
[4] We will further note that Tudah and Dalma, 33: provides evidence of the severity of the death penalty from the fact that it is given to the people of a remote city. This means that the serious offense is punished with the severe punishment, although the direction of the inference there is the opposite, from the severity of the offense to the severity of the punishment. In the discussion above on the issue of the gam' in the inscriptions, I refer only to the question of what is the measure of the existence of a severe punishment, and not to the question of the connection between the severity of the punishment and that of the offense. In any case, this passage constitutes evidence for our claim that the discussion of this issue in the syllogism is the general discussion of the severity of punishments and not a specific one.
[5] It would be very unreasonable to say that the fear is of the severe punishment not because it is painful but because of the very fact that it is severe. I think this is not a correct assessment in the opinion of the NA.
[6] Here it is appropriate to note that I do not mean to say that this method of punishment has no spiritual dimension, but only to say that the punishment is defined by the physical aspect, the spiritual dimension apparently being uniquely adapted to the differences in physical severity. Such a possibility was raised above.
[7] See Talmudic Encyclopedia, entry "There is no punishment from the law."
[8] Similarly, the 20th chapter of
[9] The interpretation of Korban Aharon is complicated by the rule that the disclosure of a milta is also done according to the law (see Talmudic Encyclopedia, loc. cit.), even though this is also in fact a study of the punishment of the milta. If there is a fear of making a mistake and we do not want to punish in a situation where there is a fear of making a mistake, what is the difference between the disclosure of a milta and a direct study of the punishment.
The second interpretation is difficult, that a desu can be punished at least with the lightest punishment, as in the Mishnah of Sanhedrin, 9: Those who are guilty of a light and a severe death who have intervened are punished with a light punishment, and so on. Precisely because they are not punishments at all, this again hints at the view of the Hasidic Rabbi that if someone is guilty of a severe punishment, then he cannot be punished with another punishment, even if it is lighter, since the difference is in type and not in intensity, and so on. However, this is hidden from the aforementioned Mishnah of Sanhedrin, which states that they are indeed punished with the lightest punishment, and see for yourself what has been explained in this regard.
[10] Aisha in the collection of lessons for the Grav Y.D. letter ZA in this.
[11] And see for yourself what is claimed by the Hasidic Rabbi Nami: there is such a side to the punishment, but it is not the only one. And in Piz, a little is allowed to be sat down, and I wrote Tza.
[12] And it is possible that this is related to the divergence of perception among the Bati Midrash scholars. As is known, the Rambam and the Rabbis are from a rationalist school of thought, and against this background, their perception of the essence of punishment can be explained, as can the Rabbani Hasid, who was among the Ashkenazi Hasids who also dealt with Kabbalah and therefore tended more towards metaphysical explanations.
[13] And consult the notes in the Jerusalem Institute edition of the Manach Mishak on this.
[14] There is room to ask a similar question about the fire itself: why does someone who puts their hand into it get burned, if they do not deserve it as a punishment? It seems to say that in this type of action, a person knows that they need to be careful, and therefore, for various reasons, providence allows for mechanistic guidance on the physical level. However, on the spiritual level of punishment for offenses, there is no place for such guidance.
[15] It is worth noting that this kind of perception is found in the words of the Rabbi who was asked by Turnus Rufus why God did not create the poor rich if He wanted their good. The Rabbi's response was that the Torah was given only to include all beings in it. That is, a person is required to help the poor only in order to include himself, and not so that the poor's condition will be improved. And according to the rabbi, Rabbi Rachumi was punished not because his wife suffered, but because he caused her suffering and thus violated the will of God. Such a perception removes the moral content from the commandments between a person and his fellow man (cf. note 1 above). However, see in Sefer Hinunch, mitzvah 66 (loan to the poor), whose precise words indicate that the mitzvah of lending to the poor includes both aspects: the preservation of the poor's condition, and the inclusion of the giver's soul. And as he linked his words to the above-mentioned act of the Rabbi and Turnus Rufus.
[16] And the Aisha in the Toss of the Sundanese says, "There were none," from his words that the oath was the oath of the guards, and this is also explained in the words of Rabbi Karshakash on Atar. And this is a dokht that I did not know was a crime (B"M 35.), and see the Chazo"a of the Mishak in this. And it is possible that those who introduced it into the Toss to dokht this is the opposing view that it is truly a curse that operates mechanically, and so on.
[17] See Abarbanel Reish Shofitim in the fifth question and in the eighth message.
[18] The Rabbi also likens this situation here to a physical effect, when he claims that even if a person eats harmful food and intends for it to benefit him, if the harm is not excessive, then he will truly not be harmed by it.