One Law, Rich or Poor, Great and Small; BK 83b pt 3

בבא קמא פג עמוד ב

תניא ר' דוסתאי בן יהודה אומר עין תחת עין- ממון. אתה אומר ממון או אינו אלא עין ממש? אמרת הרי שהיתה עינו של זה גדולה ועינו של זה קטנה, היאך אני קורא ביה "עין תחת עין"? וכי תימא כל כי האי שקיל מיניה ממונא התורה אמרה (ויקרא כד) "משפט אחד יהיה לכם" משפט השוה לכולכם.

Bava Kamma 83b Pt. 3
It was taught: R. Dosthai b. Judah says: Eye for eye means pecuniary compensation. You say
pecuniary compensation, but perhaps it is not so, but actual retaliation [by putting out an eye] is meant? 

What then will you say where the eye of one was big and the eye of the other little, for how can I in this case apply the principle of eye for eye? 

If, however, you say that in such a case pecuniary compensation will have to be taken, did not the Torah say, "You shall have one manner of law," implying that the manner of law should be the same in all cases?

Here we see the Talmud discuss whether a 'large eye' and a 'small eye' are to be valued the same- this is used as a קושיא (difficulty) to the idea of a literal עין תכת עין punishment. What do you think? Should justice be the same for all people? Is the murder of a rich or important person, like a president or important leader like Martin Luther King, to receive the same punishment as the murder of a 'nobody'?

Justice, Justice… What is Justice?

The Torah teaches us in Deuteronomy 16:20
"צדק צדק תרדוף"
"Justice, justice shall you pursue."

* Rashi comments 'Go after a good court."


* Ramban comments 'Justices need to seek   the just answer, so to YOU need to seek proper justice.'

* Rabbi Akiva taught: 'It is doubled, because one should pursue justice, whether one financially profits or loses.'

* Ibn Ezra teaches 'Not just once, but each and every time.'

Yesterday we spoke at length about what 'justice' means to you. Comment below on your definition, AND the Torah and commentaries thoughts, too.

Imagine Yourself in Rubin Carter's Shoes

Our unit about 'self and other' has so far studied the biblical and rabbinic punishments for assault and murder. As I would expect (and maybe hope), so far all the student comments have focused themselves around the possibility of being the victim of a crime, but not the person accused of the crime.

Carter's story became famous, first due to a song by Bob Dylan (below), and later, a movie starring Denzel Washington. The song tells the story pretty well, too.

Read the obituary from this past weekend of Rubin 'Hurricane' Carter, and think about A) how the criminal justice system treated him, B) how YOU would want the justice to treat you if you had been accused of a crime (regardless of your guilty or innocence), and C) Why perhaps the literal interpretation 'an eye for an eye' might be problematic in Rubin Carter's case.

Reflect in the comments below.

 

The Only Constant… Is Change

Talmud Bava Kamma 83b

הי מכה?

אילימא (ויקרא כד) "מכה בהמה ישלמנה ומכה אדם יומת".

 ההוא בקטלא כתיב! 

אלא מהכא (ויקרא כד) "מכה נפש בהמה ישלמנה נפש תחת נפש." וסמיך ליה (ויקרא כד) "ואיש כי יתן מום בעמיתו כאשר עשה כן יעשה לו" . 

האי לאו מכה הוא? 

הכאה הכאה קאמרינן. 

מה הכאה האמורה בבהמה לתשלומין אף הכאה האמורה באדם לתשלומין .

Which 'Makkah'?

Perhaps we're talking about "one who strikes an animal (and kills it) shall pay, and one who strikes a man (and kills him) shall be put to death."

But (in this Makkah) he gets killed!

Rather, it is from this one; "One who strikes the life of an animal (and it dies) shall pay, a life for a life." And we combine it with "and a man, when he gives a wound to his fellow, as he did, so shall be done to him."

But this verse doesn't have the phrase 'Makkah'? 

Hakkah is implied in second text by the hakkah in the first text.

(Also) Just as 'hakkah' is said to be for animals a payment, so too 'hakkah' is said for a person as payment.

The Talmud seems to take great efforts to overturn the Torah's stated law that one literally should be punished as they have injured- an eye for an eye.

Laws in society change constantly. Think of (or look up) an American law that has been changed or eliminated altogether. Describe it in your post here- or better yet, use this as an opportunity to find one of your required articles!

Mishnah Bava Kamma 8:1, Pt. II

בבא קמא ח:א

(3) רִפּוּי, הִכָּהוּ חַיָּב לְרַפְּאוֹתוֹ. עָלוּ בוֹ צְמָחִים, אִם מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה חַיָּב. שֶׁלֹּא מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה, פָּטוּר. חָיְתָה וְנִסְתָּרָה, חָיְתָה וְנִסְתָּרָה, חַיָּב לְרַפְּאֹתוֹ. חָיְתָה כָּל צָרְכָּהּ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְרַפְּאוֹתוֹ.(4) שֶׁבֶת, רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִלוּ הוּא שׁוֹמֵר קִשּׁוּאִין, שֶׁכְּבָר נָתַן לוֹ דְּמֵי יָדוֹ וּדְמֵי רַגְלוֹ. (5) בֹּשֶׁת, הַכֹּל לְפִי הַמְבַיֵּשׁ וְהַמִּתְבַּיֵּשׁ. הַמְּבַיֵּשׁ אֶת הֶעָרוֹם, הַמְּבַיֵּשׁ אֶת הַסּוּמָא, וְהַמְּבַיֵּשׁ אֶת הַיָּשֵׁן, חַיָּב.

(3)

Healthcare? When he strikes him, he is liable for his healthcare costs. If swellings grew on him, if it was because of the strike, then he is liable; but if it was not because of the strike, he is exempt. The swelling emerges and then is hidden, emerges and then is hidden: he is liable for his healthcare. (4) Unemployment? We see him as if he were a cucumber watcher, since he already give him the value of his hand or his leg. (5) Shame? All depends on the one who shames and the one who is shamed. One who 

.shames a naked person, a blind person or a sleeping person is liable

.Read the text above and comment or add your questions or thoughts

GM, Boston Bombing, 9/11; They all need a way to compensate victims

Kenneth Feinberg, who was mentioned in class, was recently appointed to decide how to compensate for victims of car accidents caused by a defect in GM cars.

Feinberg is famous for his involvement in these kinds of cases; read more here.

After you read, comment below on how Feinberg does what he does, and how it is similar or different to our Talmud.