Judah
Halevi is famous for his various pseudo-(and anti-) philosophical
arguments. As previously shown, http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/yehudah-halevi-kuzari-cannot-read-hebrew.html HaLevi
disqualifies himself from being a reliable commentator on the Torah, since he admits he
cannot read Hebrew without the vowels. Nevertheless,
his other claims in his popular book - the Kuzari - are quite often used by other
important rabbis.
One
of the major disagreements between
Karaites and Rabbis is the interpretation of the laws of “an eye for an
eye”. By and large, the Karaites read the
text as being literal, whereas the Rabbis allege that the compensation for
human injury is financial.
There
are 2 major sources for this Law (as far as I know):
Exodus
21:
22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman
with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be
surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall
pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follow,
then thou shalt give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth
for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burning for
burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
And Lev 24:
17 And he that smiteth any man mortally shall
surely be put to death. 18 And he that smiteth a beast
mortally shall make it good: life for life. 19 And if a
man maim his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him: 20 breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he
hath maimed a man, so shall it be rendered unto him. 21
And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; and he that killeth a man shall
be put to death.
The
Kuzari (3:47) argues, against the
Karaites, that Lev 24:18 uses the phrase life for life, although it is referring
to monetary (or livestock) compensation. From this he claims that all
compensation for injuries to humans must be financial. This is quite dishonest, since the
surrounding verses are very clear as to the specifics of these laws. Thus we see:
“ 19 And if a man maim his neighbour; as
he hath done, so shall it be done to him: 20 breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath
maimed a man, so shall it be rendered unto him. 21 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; and he that
killeth a man shall be put to death.”
If
the law was about financial compensation, then v. 19-20 would be out of place,
since they are talking about like for like.
Furthermore, v21 makes a clear distinction (which HaLevi tries to
obscure) between killing an animal and killing a human. Thus, once again we see
Halevi is either being a dishonest or showing his own stupidity.
It
is interesting to see how other major rabbis dealt with this issue. One debate,
reported by Ibn Ezra in his commentary to Ex 21-24, is allegedly between Saadia Gaon and a Karaite by the name
of Ben Zuta. The accuracy of this debate
cannot be verified, since Ibn Ezra is using it as a polemic. However, it is
worthwhile analyzing:
Rav
Sa‘adia said, “We cannot interpret this passage in accordance with its
simple
meaning, for if a person strikes the eye of another and destroys a third of
its
vision, how is it possible that he will receive such a blow without any
addition
or reduction? Perhaps he will lose the
sight of his eye altogether. And
it
is even more problematic in the case of a burn or a wound or a bruise. For if
they
are in a dangerous spot, perhaps he will die, and this is unreasonable.
Ben
Zuta replied: But is it not written in another place (Lev. 24:20) “As
someone
has made a wound in another, so shall one be made in him.”
The
Gaon answered: The beit in the words “in him” should be understood as ‘al,
and
the meaning is “He will pay a penalty for it.”
Ben
Zuta insisted, “It says further, “As he did so will it be done to him.”
The
Gaon responded, “Samson said, “As they did to me, so I will do to them.”
(Judges
15:11) But Samson did not take their
wives and give them to others,
but
only paid them their deserts.”
And
Ben Zuta asked, “If the offender was a poor man, what would be his
punishment?”
The
Gaon responded, “And [according to your theory] if a blind man should
blind
the eye of a sighted person, what should be done to him? For the poor
person
may one day become rich and pay, but the blind person won’t be able to
pay
ever.”
Saadia’s
reasoning here is quite ludicrous. For
example “The beit
in the words “in him” should be understood as ‘al, and the meaning is
“He will pay a penalty for it.”
This
is pure fiction. He is misinterpreting the verse, In fact changing it to give
another purported meaning. He could equally say that the word “so” is referring
to a pork pie that should be rendered to him.
Next, his reference to Samson does not help his cause. Samson is not making a legal statement. And
he is not exacting a monetary fine, rather he is killing 1000 men in revenge.
How then, can Saadia use this verse as support for his argument of monetary
compensation?
But
of all the rabbis, the most interesting of all is Maimonides on this
issue. In his legal work, the so-called
Mishneh Torah, he of course takes the standard rabbinical line. But
surprisingly, in his Guide for the perplexed, his more rational work, he says
something quite extraordinary:
“The
punishment given to anyone who has done wrong to somebody else
consists
in general in his being given exactly the same treatment that he
has
given to somebody else. If he has
injured the latter’s body, he shall be
injured
in his body, and if he has injured him in his property, he shall be
injured
in his property…. And he who has
deprived someone of a limb
shall
be deprived of a similar limb: As
someone has made a wound in
another,
so shall one be made in him. You should
not engage in
cogitation
concerning the fact that in such a case we punish by imposing a
fine. For at present my purpose is to give reasons
for the [Biblical] texts
and
not for the pronouncements of the legal science. (3.41)”
Maimonides,
quite out of character, is giving a rational and Karaite reading of the Torah
text, which contradicts what he himself says in the legal text he produced for
the rabbanites! Whilst Rabbi Danzig in
the link above suggests that this was for the purpose of bringing karaites into
the rabbanite fold, my analysis would be
somewhat different. Perhaps, his true inner
beliefs are coming out in the Guide for the Perplexed.
No comments:
Post a Comment