An Eye for an Eye
Found 8 Search results
"You Shall Cut Off Her Hand" and "An Eye for an Eye"
Rabbi Yehuda Rock"An eye for an eye" is a blatant example of the gap between the written and oral Torah. The gap might be viewed as an expression of two complementary divine attributes - rahamim and din. The differences express the desire for justice for one who was injured, as well as the desire to educate the injurer.
Peshat and Midrash Halakha
Part 3 - Rabbinic Interpretations that Contradict the Peshat
Rabbi Amnon BazakIf the literal text indeed suggests one understanding, why do Chazal not rule in accordance with it? If, on the other hand, it is Chazal’s interpretation that is binding in any case, what is the status and value of the peshat understanding?
With regard to “an eye for an eye,” the Rambam seems to contradict himself: in Moreh Nevukhim he writes that the plain meaning of the text is that the offender's eye is actually to be put out, while in Mishneh Torah he writes that Chazal's conclusion that the reference is to monetary restitution is "implicit in the Written Law."
If the former is true, and monetary restitution for an eye is not an oral law passed down from Moshe, but rather derived by Chazal, it is possible to raise the possibility that at some stage the law of "an eye for an eye" was indeed practiced in accordance with the literal interpretation, and only later did Chazal rule that the reference is to monetary restitution. If we accept this possibility, then there is room to ask why, at some stage, Chazal moved away from the plain meaning of the text and interpreted the verses in such a way that the punishment imposed is monetary rather than physical.
Peshat and Midrash Halakha
Part 4 - Rabbinic Interpretations that Contradict the Peshat (cont.)
Rabbi Amnon BazakThe changing understanding of “an eye for an eye” can be explained as follows: during the biblical period there was no compunction about severing limbs as a form of corporal punishment, and hence it is possible that "an eye for an eye" was indeed followed literally at that time. However, as the generations progressed, it seems that in light of moral norms it was no longer possible to arrive at a practical ruling that someone who had maimed his fellow had to have his own limb removed, and for this reason the Sanhedrin used its authority to interpret the verses in a different way, with the faith that this was God's will and that the Torah had permitted this change from the outset.
Saadia Gaon
Dr. Avigail RockThe person who had the most profound and wide-ranging influence upon the development of the Jewish tradition in the early medieval period, was Rabbeinu Saadia Gaon. Rasag was a revolutionary in many spheres. In the discipline of linguistics and halakhic writing, his work marks a turning point and a paradigm shift in the Jewish tradition. In the realm of parshanut, he is one of the founding fathers and trailblazers of the Jewish exegesis of Tanakh.
The historical background of Rasag’s Commentary is a response to the rise of Islam and to the Karaite movement that denied the Oral Law and its divinity.
The main aim of Rasag in his short commentary was to translate the Torah into the spoken Arabic of his world, in order to make it approachable for everyone, without dealing with broader issues of exegesis. However, even in this simple version Rasag was guided by several principles:
· Avoids the anthropomorphization of God
· Commentative elucidations
· The identification of places, nations, objects and animals
· Clarifications in the sphere of faith and philosophy
· Alterations to prevent the desecration of God’s name
In his longer commentary, of which we have only small portions, Rasag’s modus operandi was to explain the verses according to their simple meaning, unless: the sensory perception of the world or intellect refute the peshat, the Sages’ tradition refuted the peshat or the existence of contradicting verses forced one to reevaluate the peshat.
Rashbam
Part 2
Dr. Avigail RockForeshadowing
One of the most important ideas that the Rashbam develops is the principle of foreshadowing. According to this principle, when the Torah notes details that appear to be disconnected, extraneous, or anachronistic, it actually provides them in order to explain an event that comes afterwards.
It is possible to apply the principle of foreshadowing, not only to verses or fragments, but even to larger segments. For example, in the Rashbam’s introduction to Bereishit, he declares that the story of Creation interests us solely because it helps us understand the Ten Commandments.
From explanations similar to this, it arises that the essence of the Torah is the mitzvot, while the narratives are secondary; the stories appear in order to explain the mitzvot.
Peshat and Halakha
In his explanations of the halakhic portion of the Torah, the Rashbam employs the same method which he applies to the narrative portion of the Torah: the explanation of the verses without any reliance on Midrashic literature. This approach is difficult to apply to mitzvot because the binding halakha is not the simple meaning of the verse, but the interpretation of the verses as the Sages explain it. The Rashbam believes that one should adopt the views of the Sages for everything that relates to practical Halakha; however, the interpretation of the peshat and the halakhic midrashim can live under the same roof. What worth does peshat have when it does not fit with Halakha? One possibility is that the peshat reflects the ideal, while the derash deals with the real.
The Blasphemer (Bamidbar 15): The Emergence of a Jewish Humanism
Rabbi Dr. Daniel Tropperתאריך פרסום: 5777 | | Hour
Why is the blasphemer given the death penalty? How are the laws against murder and cursing God or parents related? In this shiur, we explore an insight of Rav Soloveitchik ztz"l. We begin with a Halakhic introduction that serves as background for our study, and then we move on to analyze the biblical text, identifying chiastic structure and other features.
Peshat vs. Halakha: An Eye for an Eye and Other Cases
Rabbi Yehuda Rock | Hour and 4 minutesThere is an apparent contradiction between some verses and the halachic laws derived from them. One famous example of this is the “eye for an eye” scenario, whereby the punishment detailed in the verses is not the same as the one delineated within the halachic sources. How do we resolve this contradiction between the written and oral Torah? Throughout the discussion we relate to this problem specifically and also to the conceptual relationship between peshat and halacha.
An eye for an eye
Rabbi Amnon Bazak