"An eye for and eye," etc.

Avodah
1

Avodah readers are of course aware that the Talmud (Bava Kamma 8:1, 28a, )
states that the actual consequence for physically damaging someone is a
monetary fine, and the Rambam writes that historically Bes Din never ruled
otherwise.

Rav Yitzchak Isaac Halevy in Doros HaRishonim (II:16, p. 426ff.) strongly
maintains that it is not that the translation of the phrase is monetary
compensation. The phrase actually means that Bes Din should afflict the
same wound upon the perpetrator with which he afflicted the victim.
However, he explains, the Torah considers it understood that monetary
payment is always an alternative, except when it's not, and that is why the
Torah specifies in some cases (e.g. murder) that "kofer" is not an
alternative. He notes that the Targum translates the phrase literally. Rav
Saadia Gaon's Tafsir does so as well.

This is indeed one of the explanations offered in the Gemara. Oddly,
though, Rav Halevy energetically labels the other approach as a mistake. I
say oddly, because the Gemara offers several explanations that to my mind
follow the other approach of reconsidering the meaning of the words as well.

I'm aware that the issue of how to relate the halacha of monetary
compensation to the words of the posuk "ayin tachas ayin" has been
discussed in the past, such as here:

https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=L#LIMITS%20OF%20PARSHANUT

--but I think this Doros HaRishonim is an interesting new data point.

Zvi Lampel

2

Avodah readers are of course aware that the Talmud (Bava Kamma 8:1, 28a, )
states that the actual consequence for physically damaging someone is a
monetary fine...

....

Rav Yitzchak Isaac Halevy in Doros HaRishonim (II:16, p. 426ff.) strongly
maintains that it is not that the translation of the phrase is monetary
compensation...

The gemara uses this example to discuss whether a derashah needs to be
panui mishnei tzedadim / qera yatira, or if only one of the two pesuqim
has to be available for derashah. So, it's definitely derashah.

Which explains Unqelus and R Saadia Gaon saying peshat is physical.

But, given how often "tachas" does mean payment, *why* is this considered
derashah, and not simply idiom? That bothers me.

Also related, taking some edge off my question... "They say" that peshat
in the pasuq is the Mussar, whereas derashah contains the Halakhah. This
pasuq being a usual example; peshat in the pasuq is about being as
careful with someone else's safety as one would with one's own, because
in a sense a person would deserve the same injury that they caused. That
is the attitude, values and middos message. And this is true for Tanakh
as a whole. Neviim don't source halakhah because they are only peshat
(and remez and sod?) not derashah. Tanakh is a Mussar book. It's just
that Chumash has a second layer as well.

-Micha

3

ZL: > Avodah readers are of course aware that the Talmud (Bava Kamma 8:1,
28a, )
> states that the actual consequence for physically damaging someone is a
> monetary fine...

....
> Rav Yitzchak Isaac Halevy in Doros HaRishonim (II:16, p. 426ff.) strongly
> maintains that it is not that the translation of the phrase is monetary
> compensation...

RMB: The gemara uses this example to discuss whether a derashah needs to be
panui mishnei tzedadim / qera yatira, or if only one of the two pesuqim
has to be available for derashah. So, it's definitely derashah.

ZL: The Gemara offers several explanations for why the application of
"ayin tachas ayin" is not the blinding of the criminal's eye. Most are
drashos, such as the one you reference. But as I mentioned, another is not
drash, but the Torah's way of saying what ought to be done if compensation
is not provided.

RMB: Which explains Unqelus and R Saadia Gaon saying peshat is physical.

ZL: But Unqelos sometimes "translates" pesukim the way Chazal darshan. For
example, "Do not cook a kid in its mother's milk," Unqelos "translates as
"Do not cook meat and milk together,"

RMB: But, given how often "tachas" does mean payment, *why* is this
considered
derashah, and not simply idiom? That bothers me.

ZL: The idea that "tachas" means payment is indeed another explanation the
Gemara offers. It doesn't say that this is a drash.

RMB: Also related, taking some edge off my question... "They say" that
peshat
in the pasuq is the Mussar, whereas derashah contains the Halakhah. This
pasuq being a usual example; peshat in the pasuq is about being as
careful with someone else's safety as one would with one's own, because
in a sense a person would deserve the same injury that they caused. That
is the attitude, values and middos message. And this is true for Tanakh
as a whole. Neviim don't source halakhah because they are only peshat
(and remez and sod?) not derashah. Tanakh is a Mussar book. It's just
that Chumash has a second layer as well.

ZL: Rambam and Ibn Ezra say something similar: That the posuk is saying
that the perpetrator really deserves to have the same injury inflicted on
him, although kofer is an alternative. (As I mentioned, the Doros
HaRishonim supports himself with this.

4

I wrote:

The idea that "tachas" means payment is indeed another explanation the

Gemara offers. It doesn't say that this is a drash.

I retract. The Gemara's language implies, and the comments of Rashi and
Tosefos explicate, that it is, as you said, a gezeyra shava.

RMB: But, given how often "tachas" does mean payment, *why* is this

considered
derashah, and not simply idiom? That bothers me.

Well, my Concordance does list 186 times that the Tanach uses "tachas" in
the sense of "in place of," or "because of the fact that," and includes
"ayin tachas ayin" as an example. So it /can/ mean payment in some
contexts, such as as with the payment for damages to one's ox, where the
posuk states tashlumin explicitly. But one could say that unqualified,
"ayin tachas ayin" means that as punishment, the criminal must literally
give his eye to the victim "in place of" the eye the victim lost, or
"because of the fact that" he blinded the victim.