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. 3It 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?
Sarah Pomerantz Comment #5
ReplyDeleteThe Talmud deals with the question of whether or not the punishment should be the same in all cases. I think that there should be one manner of law for everyone just as the Torah states. We can not say because you did this to someone more important, you will have a larger punishment. In America the law is the same for everyone whether you are a “somebody” or a “nobody.” Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the most influential and important leaders in todays society. The person who assassinated him and the killer that assassinated a nobody should be treated the same. Based on the laws in their states that is how they should be treated. It also goes the other way. If someone important hurts another person and a nobody does the same you can’t tell that famous person that they won’t have the same punishment as the one that is a nobody.
It is true that some people are more important than others in society. Some people contribute more and are more powerful leaders in todays society. However what would happen if the punishment was not the same? People would hurt the ones that would get them the least amount of punishment even though they are people as well. The law needs to be the same for everyone in order to insure that society does not fall apart. As Dr. Seuss said “a person is a person no matter how small.” No one should be harmed and punishment should be the same in order to deter people from committing a crime.
The Talmud however, thinks of it differently. If someone cut off your hand but your job requires you to use your hand constantly and theirs doesn’t how is it a fair punishment because they are losing much less than you are. Or the other way around. If your hand is much less important than the person that committed the crime. Now the punishment would be greater than the crime.
Evelin Arriaza Comment #3:
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Sarah said about this article. The consequences of killing someone that has a high power in society are worse than killing someone who doesnt have a high social status. Although, I don't particularly agree with "People would hurt the ones that would get them the least amount of punishment even though they are people as well." as Sarah wrote. I don't think that people will go out of their way to injure someone because of the consequences. I think it will have more to do with targeting a specific someone because you have something against them, whether it be they have a high or low social status.
I think that if you hurt someone, you should get a punishment. Now if the person is specifically targeted for a reason then it changes the punishment.
Sadly, it does happen that some people prey on those in society who are weakest, precisely because nobody will notice. The homeless and prostitutes are the most frequent victims. Here's one recent and pretty awful example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Ridgway
DeleteLaurel Esstman Comment #4
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sarah and Evelin 100% on this case. In the fact that the punishment should not be changed depending on social status.
But another way of looking at this would be by saying these people of higher status worked hard to be were they are so they shouldn't be punished as harshly.
With that being said I don't think that is okay. Just because they worked hard to be were they are doesn't give them a right to go around and hurt people and get away with it. But I also wonder if because they are of a higher status if they will be treated differently in court. Which once again isn't fair.
As it states in the Torah 'Everyone is created equal." it should be the same rule applys to punishment and to crimes. If you are created equal as someone you should have the same punishment as them, if you commit the same crime.
Great point- a victim's status does not matter, and neither does a perpetrators.
DeleteI agree with what Laurel Evelin and Sarah had to say, and I also think that in no case should anyone be punished differently according to their social status. Justice is defined as a moral righteousness in which truth and equality should prevail. In Bava Kamma a person's worth is taken into account when trying to make a "just" decision, which subtracts the initial moral righteousness from the equation. Practically speaking, it would make more sense for a man who lives under a bridge and survives off of whatever scraps he comes across to get hit by a driver who flees the scene, and to not have the man be hunted down because logistically speaking, the homeless man better off dead anyway. Now put into your mind the thought of a famous movie star getting hit by a car and having the driver flee the scene. Police nationwide would be on the watch for the driver then, would they not? Why should a person's "worth" in society determine the price to be paid? I believe that if justice is to live up to its definition, people should be judged on the same scale and standard as everyone because what is justice without a moral support system? The driver who hits the homeless man should be held just as accountable as the driver who hits the movie star in order to achieve a just, moral, and legal decision. The Torah is very clear on its intentions of having all people be treated equal so there should be no exception to this.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that in our society, justice is equal. There are so many people that die on a day to day basis that don't get any recognition, but when an important person such as the president or Martin Luther King, everyone is notified and it's a national tragedy. I don't think that wealth or social status should change the value of someone's life. Everyone is equal and every life is worth the same, a beating heart. What people decide to do with their life and how it turns out is a different concept, but justice should be given to everyone and every lost life is a tragedy and isn't any better or worse than another.
ReplyDeleteMichelle Postolovskiy comment # 8
ReplyDeleteIn the Talmud it questions weather or not an eye for an eye means literally, because lets say you are a runner and someone rips out your leg then you are not able to run anymore. But if you were a writer your leg might not matter as much. Some ones leg maybe more valuable then others. In my opinion we should treat everyone the same because when Abraham Lincoln got assonated the person who did that received the same punishment as if he killed a "nobody." I agree with Ariane because in a way yes, if a "nobody" dies then we don't know about it unless it is a family member or someone close to us. But when a president or a "somebody" dies we all know, although the punishment is the same ether way. It is a person’s choice to go and stab someone’s eye out but I think that no matter who the person is they should get justice. Although, it is not equal today.
DeleteAliya Lofland comment #8
The value of a limb or a life is an ongoing dilemma, even today. The Talmud states that an eye for an eye should be taken literally, but the problem is that later on, the Talmud contradicts itself and says that it should be a metaphor for compensation. I agree with Austin on the fact that if someone does something wrong, they should be treated the same, whether they are the president of the United States, or a homeless person. I believe that a person should receive a punishment for their wrongdoing. Everyone should be treated equally, and receive equal amounts of compensation for equal crimes. It shouldn’t matter if you are the president or a homeless person, if you are black or white, all of us should receive compensation for equal problems
People all should be treated equally, weather you are a normal citizen or the president. If a human being does something wrong, they should be treated exactly the same way as anyone else would. If the president commits a crime of some sort, he should be treated as if he were just another person. Even though some people have worked harder than others and deserved their position, they don't have any right to commit an act that they can get away with and nobody else can. People on this Earth should be treated in the eyes of god, they should be equal.
ReplyDeleteSarah Brill Comment #8:
ReplyDeleteI think that when a person cuts off another person’s hand, the cutter should pay back the money owed and what is needed for recovery. If however the person is a writer and their hand is cut off, then the cutter should pay for time taken off of work and medical bills. Justice should be the same for all people, but if the person has something taken away from them that they need for work or school, then the person who did the harm should pay back for time lost and medical compensation in money. All people should be treated just in the court system, the only thing that will change in the court room should be whether a person had committed the crime or not. When the people walk into the court room, the persecuted should be treated innocent until proven guilty. If guilty, then the person should be charged with necessary charges depending on the crime. Yes they should receive the same punishment. If someone murders someone of importance, then they should be treated just as equally as if they had murdered a 'nobody'. Technically, there is no such thing as a 'nobody', we were all born onto this earth and we have a purpose, if someone takes my life no matter whether famous or not, they should be treated like any other murderer and be charged with the amount needed. If somebody dies and they are famous in some way, like Michelle said, they will be known and the murderer will be famous for killing a famous person. But if a 'nobody' is killed, only the family and friends will care, but there is still care. With all murder cases, in some way shape or form, a person is hurt (death) and a person is affected (emotional). So, a person should receive justice when approaching the jury no matter if they are innocent or guilty, and a person should be charged with a murder crime if they committed murder no matter the person they harmed, they should get the same punishment as any other person who had committed a murder.
Adina #4
ReplyDeleteThe Talmud portrays the question of whether or not a consequence should dealt with similarly in all cases. Just as the Torah states, i believe that there should be an equal punishment for all people, no matter what action they did. Just because you might have killed an important person like Rosa Parks or you killed a random person on the street, does not mean that the murderer of Rosa Parks should get a bigger punishment than the murderer of the random guy on the street. In America, people make very big deals on someone that is "important" and someone who is not. Everyone is equal. The Constitution states that every man is equal. So why should there be unequal punishments? If the punishments had variety, i think there would be more violence and a more unstable society. For example, there were different punishments for whites and blacks back then. Due to this, more people rebelled and more people died. That is not how things should be resolved. The law needs to be the same for everyone, no matter who they are.
R. Dosthai b. Judah points out a very difficult question pertaining to the “eye for an eye” law. What if the eyes are not equal? If one eye is more valuable than the other then is taking an eye for an eye fair? One eye could be bigger, have better sight, or be more essential to the person’s profession. Placing a different value on the injury based on its value according to the victim’s profession or lifestyle is completely different than discrimination based on status. Placing a higher value on an author’s hand makes sense, but when you place a high value on Stephen King’s hand, but a lower value on a less successful novelist’s hand then the lines of justice begin to blur. Being punished differently because of the status of the victim or the criminal implies that one’s value is based on how others perceive them, which I strongly disagree with. Your value comes from within, not from others and allowing the court to decide your value is dehumanizing. The idea that your value as a person varies based upon your status makes people who are “nobodies” an easy target for criminals because then it will be harder to catch them and if they do get caught less people will hear about it and less people will care. Many aspiring actors, models and musicians will fight their way into the industry in search of fame and adoration rather than the profession itself because they believe that their value depends having a fanbase. As Maren Mourtisen says, “Most of us will never do great things. But we can do small things in a great way.” There is also an anonymous quote that says “If who I am is what I have and what I have is lost, then who am I?” If we let our status define who we are, then who are we really?
ReplyDelete