An Eye for an Eye

It has been a while since my last post, but I have been busy studying for my next actuarial exam, and as Hofstadter’s Law states, “It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter’s Law.”

In my most recent post, I discussed the view of Rashbam with respect to the Written and Oral Law, specifically regarding the concept of אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו – that one must interpret the literal meaning if the Written Law, even when the literal interpretation runs counter to the Oral Law. The crux of Rashbam’s position is that while Halacha always follows the Oral Law, the Written Law was written in a way that conveys crucial lessons that cannot be ignored. A commenter, under the moniker “abh”, suggested that this may be the opinion of the Rambam in Moreh. At first I was hesitant to agree, for reasons soon to be explained, but after thinking about it, I believe that the Rambam takes a modified stance of the Rashbam’s view. First, let us see the text in question:

"עשה עונש כל פושע נגד זולתו באופן כללי שייעשה בו כאשר עשה בשוה, אם פגע בגוף פוגעים בגופו, ואם פגע בממון פוגעים בממונו, ויש לבעל הממון למחול ולסלוח. אבל הרוצח דוקא מחמת חומר פשעו אינו נסלח לו כלל, ואין לוקחין ממנו כופר, 'ולארץ לא יכפר לדם אשר שפך בה כי אם בדם שופכו'. ולפיכך אפילו נתקיים הנהרג שעה או ימים והוא מדבר ודעתו נכונה עליו, ואמר הניחו להורגי כבר מחלתי לו וסלחתי לו, אין שומעין לו, אלא 'נפש תחת נפש' בהכרח, תוך שויון קטן וגדול עבד ובן חורין החכם והסכל, כי אין בכל פגעי האדם יותר חמורה מזו. ומי שהשחית אבר מאבדים לו כמותו, "כאשר יתן מום באדם כן ינתן בו". ואל תטריד את מחשבתך במה שאנו עונשין כאן בתשלומין, כי הכוונה עתה לתת טעם למקראות לא ליתן טעמים לתורה שבעל פה, עם מה שיש לי בדין זה סברא אשמיענה בעל פה. והפוגעים אשר אי אפשר לעשות כמותן בדיוק דן בהם בתשלומין, 'רק שבתו יתן ורפא ירפא'." (רמב"ם מורה הנבוכים חלק ג פרק מא)

“[The Torah] made the punishment for all [of man’s] sins against his fellow, in the general sense, which it should be done unto him exactly as what he has done. If he caused bodily affliction, we afflict his body. If he caused monetary affliction, we afflict him monetarily; except that it is within the capacity of the claimant to forgive and waive his monetary rights. However, the murderer, because of the severity of his sin, may not be forgiven, [as it states], ‘The land will not have atonement for the blood that was spilled in it, except through the blood of the one who spilled it’. Therefore, even if the victim survives for an hour or days, and he is able to speak and his mind is clear, and he says, ‘Pardon my killer, for I have already forgiven him,’ we do not listen to him. Rather, ‘a life for a life’ it must be, regardless if he is a minor or adult, slave or free man, a wise man or a fool, for there is no sin more severe than this. One who maims a limb, we should likewise maim his limb, [as it states], ‘as he places a blemish on a man, so it should be done to him’. Do not be bothered by that which we are accustomed to punish [instead] with monetary fines, because my goal now is to explain the verses [of the Written Law], not to give reasons for the Oral Law. Regarding that which I have to say about this [i.e. the Oral Law of monetary fines], I will tell you in person. Regarding those whom it is impossible to do punish them precisely as they had injured another, we should punish them with monetary fines, [as it states], ‘only for his sitting idle shall he pay, and he will be healed’”. (Translation mine; except for some verses taken from Artscroll)

At first glance it seems, especially from the part in boldface type, that the Rambam is echoing the opinion of Rashbam. Case close, end of blog post. However, the reason I hesitate to say so is because of what the Rambam writes in the introduction to his commentary on Mishna. The quote is too long to cite in its entirety, so I will select what I believe to be the most important parts, and it is to the reader to look it up and decide if I am correct or if I am quoting out of context.

"והנה זה יסוד צריך שתדענו. והוא, שהפירושים המקובלים ממשה אין בהם מחלוקת כלל, לפי שעד עכשיו לא מצאנו שנפלה מחלוקת בין החכמים בשום זמן מן הזמנים ממשה רבינו עד רב אשי שאחד אמר שמי שסימא עין אדם מסמין את עינו כמאמר ה' יתעלה עין בעין, ואחר אמר דמים בלבד הוא חייב... אבל עם היותן מקובלות ואין בהן מחלוקת הרי מדקדוק המקרא שניתן לנו אפשר ללמוד אלו הפירושים בדרכי הדין והאסמכתות והרמזים וההוראות שיש במקרא... ולמידותם שהעונש ממון הוא שחייב לשלם מי שאבד לחבירו אבר מן האיברים... וכל הדומה לזה אינו אלא לפי היסוד הזה..." (רמב"ם הקדמה לפירוש המשנה)

“…There is no dispute regarding the explanations that were passed down from Moshe, for until now we have not found a dispute among the sages from the time of Moshe Rabbeinu until Rav Ashi, [such as] that one said that one who blinds the eye of his fellow, we should blind his eye, like the word of God, ‘an eye for an eye’, while another said that he is only responsible to pay a monetary fine… Nevertheless, even though there is no dispute regarding the accepted explanations, through [independent] analysis of the text that was given to us it is possible to derive these explanations… That which they derive that one who maims the limb of his fellow only pays a monetary fine… and all similar cases, are to be understood in this fashion.” (Translation mine)

From this citation it is clear the Rambam understands that the simple interpretation of the verses of the Written Law was passed down through Moshe Rabbeinu. Hence, it is a פירוש מקובל, an interpretation passed down through mesorah, that “an eye for an eye” is not to be read literally, rather it means “the value of an eye for an eye”. As I was taught by Rabbi Chaim Ilson, a פירוש מקובל is a הפקעה from שבעים פנים לתורה – translating from Brisker terminology – although there are “seventy faces to the Torah”, and one may decipher multiple meanings to any particular verse, when we have an interpretation passed down from Moshe, there is no other meaning to the verse. When the פירוש מקובל says that פרי עץ הדר means an Esrog, and not a pomegranate or some other fruit, there is no other meaning to the words פרי עץ הדר, and to suggest otherwise is to deny the Oral Law. If this is true, how can the Rambam have suggested that the פשוטו של מקרא means that one who cuts off the limb of his fellow should have his own limb cut off, if the Rambam himself says that עין תחת עין is a פירוש מקובל that refers only to paying money? 

(See the commentary of Shem Tov. Besides for being somewhat strained in the text of the Rambam in Moreh, his shocking suggestion that עין תחת עין should be taken literally for a premeditated attacker is implicitly contradicted by the Rambam in Mishneh Torah.)

I would like to take the suggested approach of “abh”, to apply the Rashbam’s concept of the Written and Oral Law to the Rambam, but with a slight modification. According to Rashbam, both the literal and non-literal readings of the verse are sustainable. The Oral Law is to be followed in determining normative halakhic practice, whereas the literal meaning of the Written Law is used to impart eternal lessons. When it comes to the Rambam however, I would suggest that in the place of a פירוש מקובל, there is only one valid interpretation of the text. Nevertheless, it is permissible, and perhaps even necessary to ask why the text was worded that way. In our case, כאשר יתן מום באדם כן ינתן בו can mean only one thing – monetary compensation. Yet we must ask, why is the text written in such a fashion? To that end, the answer is supplied by the Rambam in Mishneh Torah:

"שאם קטע יד חבירו או רגלו... ומשלם הפחת שהפחית מדמיו, שנאמר עין תחת עין, מפי השמועה למדו שזה שנאמר תחת לשלם ממון הוא. זה שנאמר בתורה כאשר יתן מום באדם כן ינתן בו אינו לחבול בזה כמו שחבל בחבירו אלא שהוא ראוי לחסרו אבר או לחבול בו כמו שעשה ולפיכך משלם נזקו..." (רמב"ם הל' חובל ומזיק פרק א הלכה ב-ו)

“If he cuts off the hand of his friend or his foot… he pays the reduction of value that he caused, as it says, ‘an eye for an eye’. Tradition has taught that [the word] תחת [teaches] that one pays monetarily. That which it says in the Torah, ‘as he places a blemish on a man, so it should be done to him’ does not mean to injure him as he injured his friend. Rather it means that it would be fitting to amputate his limb or injure him as he did; therefore he pays money” (Translation mine)

Instead of simply telling us that one is liable to pay for damages caused to another man, the Torah chooses a specific language to impart the valuable lesson that the money is not compensation for damages. The Rambam calls this payment “כופר”; making amends and awarding compensation is a form of atonement – it is a way out of what the defendant truly deserves by measure of strict justice. The only question that remains is, if justice truly demands an eye for an eye, why is monetary compensation enough to achieve atonement? I hope to return to this question in my next post... to be continued.