שמות כא:כד-כה
עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן שֵׁן תַּחַת שֵׁן יָד תַּחַת יָד רֶגֶל תַּחַת רָגֶל: כְּוִיָּה תַּחַת כְּוִיָּה פֶּצַע תַּחַת פָּצַע חַבּוּרָה תַּחַת חַבּוּרָה:
Exodus 21:24-25
24. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25. Burning for burning, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
This is your first opportunity to share your thoughts and questions on the meaning of this verse.
What do you think this means? What do you think this meant in biblical times to Jews? How would this law and consequence have been carried out? If you have other questions or thoughts, or want to respond to your classmates here, please feel free.
What do you think this means? What do you think this meant in biblical times to Jews? How would this law and consequence have been carried out? If you have other questions or thoughts, or want to respond to your classmates here, please feel free.
Sam Comment #2: I believe that this is the Talmud's way of introducing the idea of compensation. While criminals should not be able to get away with crimes, neither do all crimes require indentured servitude or capital punishment. The code states that for anything one does, they should pay back what they did in equal amounts. However, I do not believe that if Someone gouges someone else's eye out, they should in turn give them their eye, for two reasons. The first is that an additional eye is of no use to someone, as that does not restore their sight. The second is that more suffering is not how one fixes the original suffering. The idea is that you give them compensation, in today's world money, equal to that of losing your own eye. The gauge for this is how much money someone could give you that you would allow them to do the same to you. In biblical times, bartered items were used instead of money, and that was probably more negotiated between the two parties.
ReplyDeleteAliya Comment #2
DeleteI agree with Sam. There’s a quote that is thought to be said by Mahatma Gandhi, “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.” This is completely true, even if the situation applies to a leg or an arm. If Bob was to break Joe’s arm, then Joe has every right to break Bob’s arm. If this is taken literally, too many people will be walking around with broken arms or legs and missing eyes. I also agree with Sam that this is meant to be more of a compensation then revenge. I believe that this is meant to be metaphorical rather than literal. If Bob broke Joe’s arm, then he would have to pay Joe the money that he was worth with his arm. It wouldn’t help society to have Joe break Bob’s arm. If that kept happening, everyone would be walking around with broken arms, and the whole world would be blind.
Evelin comment #1: I think that this verse means that if someone hurts you, you have the right to hurt them back. ie. eye for an eye,tooth for tooth. So if I punch, lets say, Adina in the face, she has the right to punch me back. If her tooth falls out, she can take my tooth out. I think in the biblical times it meant you have the right to do what is done to you onto the person who did it to you, or the person who injured you must pay a fine. The consequences may have only applied when someone physically hurts you. The talmud doesn't go into depth of wether the punishments only apply to physically harm as apposed to mental harm. This being stated, the consequences carried out could vary for the different type of harm done.
ReplyDeleteMichelle comment #2
DeleteI agree with Evelin, it doesn't specify what you would do for mental harm. karma comes in to play even though you might be aware that if they injure you then you are most likely to injure them, if we are talking about biblical times. But then there is a question if a person knows that whatever they do to you, you will do back why would the person attempt to do anything to you? I don't think a person would want their tooth ripped out. But I can also contradict you, it might not mean it literally. Because then there would be so much people walking around that got punched. It could mean that if someone punched you the karma will kick in but you should not punch them. Again cheesy but violence is not the answer. Paying the price like the medical bill or going to jail but not actually hurting the person back. Not actually taking the others eye out if they did it to you. I think you can stand up for your self and say don't punch me or be more harsh then that. The "revenge" should depend on the case but in my opinion if some takes out your eye you will probably will be in way too much pain to take their eye out. We weren't there in biblical times so I personally am not too sure if this is literal or not, but again it should depend on the situation.
Sarah Comment #2:
DeleteI agree with Evelin because Biblical times are much different than modern times. Today we think of as an eye for an eye as I hurt you, you hurt me we are even. If something really bad happens like a broken leg, then you should be responsible for paying the medical expenses. Sam I also agree with you because your point of compensation is valid but if I punch out you eye, then the person today has to pay the price and not actually punch out the other person’s eye. There are always consequences to pay if you cause harm to someone else. Like we learned about criminal and capitol punishment. If a person murders another person, then the murderer should also be killed depending on whether it is intentinal. For example, we read the article about the man who was drunk and killed 2 people. We were to decide whether he was to be killed or not. So criminal punishment or capitol. I said criminal because he was drunk and he didn't know what he was doing and he may have been tempted by other people to drink that much. It is his fault though for not stopping when the cops flashed their lights. The man deserves to be in jail forever. This is not exactly an example of an eye for an eye, but if the man is killed, then since he has paid back the other two lives he took; yet those lives won't come back. This is just one of the many examples of and eye for an eye in our life.
This is saying that if a person harms another and injures them then they must repay them by injuring themselves in the same stricken area. It is saying that if someone cuts another persons arm off then they must repay them with their own personal arm. I think this is not useful because if you give your own arm to the man then he has no use for it. I believe that if you injure a man you must repay their medical bill, their time lost, and the money they would have made if they weren't injured. The only logical answer for harming someone is if it is intentional and they are willing to pay off the medical bill. It would stop the person from trying to harm them because they don't want to be harmed they just want the other person to be hurt. If this wasn't the case people would harm another and pay the price of the injury, but because they must suffer like the person they harmed they simply don't do it.
ReplyDeleteAlex Ravioli comment #1. I believe that this it the way the Talmud deal when you do something towards someone and you have to compensate for it. When you perform a crime and end up hurting the other person you shoud compensate for it. The Talmuds way for compensating is you have to do a tooth for a tooth meaning if you broken his tooth then you have to break your tooth. In biblical times for Jews this meant that whenever a jew performed a crime on another jew and broke his arm or tooth the wounder would also have to get his arm broke or tooth broke. This is the way you had to compensate for a crime that you did in the biblical times. The way this law was carried out was the person who wounded would have to have the eye for an eye law taken place or compensate a different way with animals or something of value. This is also an example of karma because whatever the person who wounded did would come back around and hurt them back. If you perform something bad it will come back around and hurt you back and that is what the eye for an eye means. What this meant in biblical times is that whatever you do to something they can do the same back to you.
ReplyDeleteAdina comment #1: I think that this verse introduces the meaning of repayment. This not only portrays what sort of compensation the suspect should give, but also what kind of punishment he/she would get. For instance, in biblical times, if i would have stabbed Evelin in the eye, my compensation towards her would be having my own eye get hurt. Hence, "Eye for an Eye." Although the consequences that were carried would differ in every type of harm that was done. However, i do not agree that in order to solve a situation like this, there would have to be more ache. That is not how i would carry out this situation.
ReplyDeleteAlex Gage #2
ReplyDeleteeverything that you do will be accounted for and whatever you do to a person the same will happen to you eventually. However, if you do good to someone then you will be rewarded because the person you did good to will be in debt to you. this is like good karma and bad karma whatever you do will come full circle sooner or later
Laurel Comment #1 I think this means that what others do to you, you get to do for them. It says you should pay back the person by doing the same he did to you to him. Is this fair? I do not think so, i agree with the quote by Gondi "and eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." If we let others do to us what we did to them it doesn't make them a better person or teaches them anything it just shows them that violence is okay.
ReplyDeleteIn biblical times i think this meant it literally that what someone does to you its okay to do it to them. That there will be no other consequences.
But is that fair, or is that the right thing to do? I disagree with this in the literal sense, but in the sense of the compensation than it is okay because its saying compensate for there loses and then that will be okay.
The repercussions of taking this verse literally would drastically affect society in such a poor way. I believe that Gandhi's expression of "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" is very well said. If The punishment of hurting someone was that you would e hurt in return, eventually everyone would be hurt in one way r another, however if measures were taken t a different measure by say murder, the whole population would be killed off. Therefore I believe that by using the 5 different categories of damages in order to determine compensation, the population will be better off and have a better and stronger moral justice code.
ReplyDeleteAn eye for an eye gave Jews the justification to demand equal compensation for a crime. It is both specific and vague at the same time. It is specific because it mentions seven examples of exactly how to compensate for certain injuries, but it is vague because it leaves many questions unanswered. The most important question would be whether this law should be carried out literally or metaphorically. Eye for an eye could have just been a metaphor written to express the importance of fair and equal compensation in the court of law, but it also could have been meant literally as a simple form of justice where every criminal was punished using the crime that they committed. If it was meant literally then it leaves questions about how a punishment can be carried out identically to the crime when there are so many varying factors. In the case of an eye for an eye, if one man stabs another, resulting in a lost eye in order to fairly compensate for the eye the victim has to measure his own pain tolerance and compare it to the attacker’s. He also would have to consider whether or not he was intoxicated during the attack, which would have dulled his senses and thinned his blood, causing increased blood loss. If he was intoxicated he would have to find a way to compare how impaired he was to how impaired the same amount of alcohol would make the attacker. He would also have to calculate the correct angle and amount of force necessary to inflict the same exact wound on his attacker. If it was metaphorical then there would have been the issue of assigning a monetary value to each individual injury.
ReplyDelete