אביי אומר: אתיא מדתני דבי חזקיה דתנא דבי חזקיה (שמות כא) 'עין תחת עין, נפש תחת נפש, ולא נפש ועין תחת עין.' ואי סלקא דעתך ממש, זימנין דמשכחת לה עין ונפש תחת עין, דבהדי דעויר ליה נפקא ליה נשמתיה. ומאי קושיא? דלמא מימד אמדינן ליה, אי מצי מקבל ;עבדינן, ואי לא מצי מקבל ;לא עבדינן. ואי אמדינן דמצי מקבל ועבדינן ביה, ונפק רוחיה אי מיית לימות. מי לא תנן גבי מלקות: אמדוהו ומת תחת ידו- פטור
Abaye says: It was brought from a teaching of the school of Hezekiah, that the school of Hezekiah taught 'An eye for an eye, a life for a life.' (Exodus 21); and NOT a life AND an eye for an eye.
And if you might have though really (eye for an eye=literal) some time it could happen that (you do) an eye and a life for an eye, that you mean to blind him and his soul departs from him. And this is a difficulty?
Perhaps we stand him up (to receive the punishment); if he is able, he receives it; and if he is not able, he does not receive it.
And if you stand him up after we decide he is able to withstand it, and we do it, and he sould departs- the one that kills, he is killed.
Was it not taught regarding lashes: you stand him up, and he dies by (the administrators) hand- is he not exempt?
The text is making one more effort to reject the idea of 'an eye for an eye' as a literal, physical punishment. Is this a compelling argument? How about the rebuttal? Is either of these practical?
Sarah Brill Comment #10:
ReplyDeleteNo, this is not a compelling argument. If I punch out someone’s eye, that doesn't mean that they should punch back, which would just make more of an injury, meaning there will be more injured. Eventually the whole punch situation will turn into a full out fight and there will be more injuries than when started out. A rebuttal is, is what if the punch was an accident that was mistaken for purpose. But if in fact the person was punched on purpose, then the puncher should pay for whatever the medical bill is, what the shame is and anything else needed. If however someone is killed, then it is up to the jury to decide whether the murder was 2nd degree or 1st degree. Usually in 1st degree, you get charged with life in prison, in 2nd degree however, the punishment is usually death or an extreme prison. 3rd degree is automatically death but there is always a trial. Back in Talmudic times, the Rabbis would argue on whether a person should receive literal or pecuniary compensation. Today, the court system holds a court session to determine whether a person is guilty or not. The rebuttal is practical because when a person punches out an eye, the payment should be money compensation and not another eye, what would the punched person do with an eye? Or was it just for revenge to punch back? Why would a person punch back if they know that they could get compensation for the damage done? Why damage another person?
Michelle Postolovskiy comment # 9
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sarah. No this is not a compelling argument. If someone punches your eye out and you do the same to him or her that does not help you. Now you are basically in the same position as the person who took your eye out. Eventually everyone will not have an eye, leg, arm etc. Taking someone’s eye out by accident is pretty hard. But even it was an accident then the person who punched the other one should pay for medical bill and whatever other help the person may need, even if it is with his/her job. If it was on purpose the person who punched the other one should still do the same thing, Although, in the Talmudic times Rabbis argued weather or not it was literal or compensation, today it would be compensation because the court would give you a fair trial. This mean innocent until proven guilty. You need a rebuttal (yes it is practical) because wouldn't you rather get money then take a person’s eye out?
Adina #6
ReplyDeleteNo this is not a compelling argument. I think that trying to solve the problem with more violence is not the right way. If someone punches your eye and you do the same to that person, the only thing it will do is cause more pain and more violence. If it were an accident or not, either way you would have to compensate for it. Although the Talmudic Rabbi's discussed whether the catch would be literal or some other kind of compensation, today our court would discuss what kind of consequence the suspect would receive whether it is serving some time in jail, death, or spending their life in prison. The rebuttal is practical because the average person would want money, not to punch an eye out; that's just gross and disturbing.
i do not think that this will bode well for the eye for an eye way of repayment. people all have different pain tolerances and it is inhuman to do that type of punishment on your fellow man. You cannot set a certain level of pain tolerance for everyone. It is also wrong for an innocent man to die because he poked out an innocent mans eye. http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/30/us/oklahoma-botched-execution/ this is the link to a CNN article about a man who went through a brutal execution in Oklahoma because lethal drugs weren't administered properly. is it really humane to do the lethal injections? and is it okay to poke someone else's eye out even thought they might die from it. in my opinion no.
ReplyDeleteLauerl Esstman #10
DeleteI agree with Alex on the fact that doing lethal injections is inhumane. But if a person going up for this was a mass murder and killed your father (god forbid) you would want him to suffer as much as possibly. I'm not saying that this is the right way to look at things I'm giving another opinion. If someone poked my eye out i would want to poke theirs back because that's what they did to me. But i think you have to take an outside perspective and not a perspective of someone who it happened to in order to figure out if its fair. But overall i think Alex is correct in his opinion.
Ariane #10
ReplyDeleteI think that the figurative opinion of and 'eye for an eye' is a very compelling one. If in effort to get even and poke the other person's eye out, you kill them by accident, then that poses a problem. With the figurative view, this avoids a possible death. On the other hand, the rebuttal also raises a good point. If the other person is able to withstand the 'trade' for an 'eye for an eye', then why not have it be literal? The literal opinion is more practical for both parties because its a very even and fair trade and both parties are loosing the same things and amounts. In these different cases of "Description of Cases for those Sentenced to Death in U.S. Military", it showed that even today, the literal opinion is used. The person that murdered someone else, in this case a person in the military, was given the death penalty which sides with the literal opinion of an 'eye for an eye'.
website: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/description-cases-those-sentenced-death-us-military-0
Sarah Pomerantz Comment #9
ReplyDeleteI think that this argument is compelling. It states clearly what are the circumstances of which you should and should not do an eye for an eye. The Talmud says that if he can stand it you do it and if he can’t then he does not receive it. This is compelling because it is fair but also makes sure that people will not have a bigger punishment for a lesser crime.
Many people may have a rebuttal to this argument however. What would you do if he could not stand it? There needs to be some way of punishment if one can not stand it otherwise they would just get off the hook. What I said earlier people may ask why is it that a lesser punishment for a larger crime is fair? This would be the other side of the argument.
I think that overall and eye for and eye is not practical. Taking someones eye is not practical because it wouldn’t do any good for society. All that would happen is two people would end up without an eye. This may be fair but it is impractical to them and those around them. There needs to be some way of punishment that is not only fair but is also practical. This is what compensation is for. Compensation is able to give a fair punishment that would be practical.
Sam Comment #7
ReplyDeleteTo me, this puts the nail in the coffin of the literal interpretation of an eye for an eye. The text asks the question, what if when we punish him, we overcompensate and he dies? With this being said, no one would seek physical punishment if they knew that if they killed the original attacker, they too would be killed. Rather, it would be much simpler to just use money to compensate. However, the Talmud wants to make very clear that a literal interpretation is not to be used, and makes a compromise to see if there were specific cases in which it could be used. However, this is disproved again because even an escrow would be held liable if they overcompensated. I agree with Sarah P that a literal eye for an eye is "not practical" and monetary compensation was and will be the better way to go.
Thats right. The gemara moves on shortly after this. The rebuttal (but maybe SOME people could withstand it) is ultimately rejected, since even though in OTHER places it teaches that a person that gets punished by lashes and dies as a result, HERE, the case is different, since lashes are a proscribed and approved punishment, and gouging out eyes is not.
DeleteAliya Lofland comment #10
ReplyDeleteI think that this text starts strong, but then as soon as it suggests to stand him up and receive it, it is not compelling at all. I believe that it should be an eye for an eye in a metaphorical circumstance, meaning that the victim deserves compensation, because ‘an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind’, and that is not the way that we should live. What good will it do you to punch someone’s eye out? It may make you feel better, to have some revenge, but it would not help YOUR eye in any way. There is also the risk of doing more damage than they did to you, so it is not practical to stand someone up to see if they can take it, nor is it practical to punch out someone’s eye.