Does an eye for an eye mean monetary compensation?Why does Halacha not follow the simple reading of the...

I want to know what marumaru means

Why does the Starter Set wizard have six spells in their spellbook?

A burglar's sunglasses, a lady's odyssey

Heat lost in ideal capacitor charging

Removing the last element of a list

Would Buddhists help non-Buddhists continuing their attachments?

Burned out due to current job, Can I take a week of vacation between jobs?

Is superuser the same as root?

Freedom of Speech and Assembly in China

Why would a rational buyer offer to buy with no conditions precedent?

Count all vowels in string

How was Daenerys able to legitimise Gendry?

Where is Jon going?

Does an eye for an eye mean monetary compensation?

Gravitational Force Between Numbers

What is the recommended procedure to land a taildragger in a crosswind?

How to melt snow without fire or using body heat?

The Maltese Falcon

Why A=2 and B=1 in the call signs for Spirit and Opportunity?

Cardio work for Muay Thai fighters

Who knighted this character?

Which European Languages are not Indo-European?

Do copyright notices need to be placed at the beginning of a file?

What weight should be given to writers groups critiques?



Does an eye for an eye mean monetary compensation?


Why does Halacha not follow the simple reading of the Biblical text?Do I need to use damage compensation for repairs?Are Segulot a Prohibition of Nichush?What does יוציא בשפתיו mean?Is there monetary compensation for injuring a fetus?Why does the torah on injured slaves call out eyes and teeth but not other damages?Eye contact with makom bris?What does testing Hashem mean?Does an עירוב turn the area into a רשות היחיד for נזיקין?Who is responsible for damages caused by a malfunctioning borrowed machine?Is there any chance a man can get the death penalty for causing a miscarriage?













1















That's what I've heard it means. So the judges don't really pluck out the other defendants' eyes due to a plaintiff complaints. However, the judge would require the defendant to compensate for the loss of eyes of the plaintiff.



A verse attract my attention




22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives
birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must
be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23
But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye
for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for
burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.




Here the stories talk about paying fine (or some tort settlements it seems). I do not know if it's paid to the government or the plaintiff.



Then it talks about eye for eye, tooth for tooth. That seems to suggest that the eye for eye means fine too.



However, there is a life for life thing there. I do not expect life for life to means paying life. It seems that it's death penalty.



However, I maybe wrong.



In those verses and in other verses, is there any clear indication whether it should be fine or punitive damage or compensatory damage. Or is it just straightforward retaliation?










share|improve this question




















  • 3





    According the Oral Tradition from Sinai, these verses were not meant to be taken literally. The same regarding about the amputation of a woman's hand, if she grabs the private parts of her husband's assailant (Deuteronomy 25:12).

    – IsraelReader
    8 hours ago











  • Related video that explains the Malbim's understanding of this issue: youtube.com/watch?v=ZMr4iJG9AKU

    – Silver
    7 hours ago











  • sefaria.org/Leviticus.24.18 has a similar expression that obviously means monetary payment. The words of the verse can go either way, the Oral Tradition tells us what the actual intended meaning is.

    – Heshy
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    Possible duplicate of Why does Halacha not follow the simple reading of the Biblical text?

    – user15464
    4 hours ago
















1















That's what I've heard it means. So the judges don't really pluck out the other defendants' eyes due to a plaintiff complaints. However, the judge would require the defendant to compensate for the loss of eyes of the plaintiff.



A verse attract my attention




22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives
birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must
be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23
But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye
for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for
burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.




Here the stories talk about paying fine (or some tort settlements it seems). I do not know if it's paid to the government or the plaintiff.



Then it talks about eye for eye, tooth for tooth. That seems to suggest that the eye for eye means fine too.



However, there is a life for life thing there. I do not expect life for life to means paying life. It seems that it's death penalty.



However, I maybe wrong.



In those verses and in other verses, is there any clear indication whether it should be fine or punitive damage or compensatory damage. Or is it just straightforward retaliation?










share|improve this question




















  • 3





    According the Oral Tradition from Sinai, these verses were not meant to be taken literally. The same regarding about the amputation of a woman's hand, if she grabs the private parts of her husband's assailant (Deuteronomy 25:12).

    – IsraelReader
    8 hours ago











  • Related video that explains the Malbim's understanding of this issue: youtube.com/watch?v=ZMr4iJG9AKU

    – Silver
    7 hours ago











  • sefaria.org/Leviticus.24.18 has a similar expression that obviously means monetary payment. The words of the verse can go either way, the Oral Tradition tells us what the actual intended meaning is.

    – Heshy
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    Possible duplicate of Why does Halacha not follow the simple reading of the Biblical text?

    – user15464
    4 hours ago














1












1








1








That's what I've heard it means. So the judges don't really pluck out the other defendants' eyes due to a plaintiff complaints. However, the judge would require the defendant to compensate for the loss of eyes of the plaintiff.



A verse attract my attention




22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives
birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must
be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23
But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye
for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for
burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.




Here the stories talk about paying fine (or some tort settlements it seems). I do not know if it's paid to the government or the plaintiff.



Then it talks about eye for eye, tooth for tooth. That seems to suggest that the eye for eye means fine too.



However, there is a life for life thing there. I do not expect life for life to means paying life. It seems that it's death penalty.



However, I maybe wrong.



In those verses and in other verses, is there any clear indication whether it should be fine or punitive damage or compensatory damage. Or is it just straightforward retaliation?










share|improve this question
















That's what I've heard it means. So the judges don't really pluck out the other defendants' eyes due to a plaintiff complaints. However, the judge would require the defendant to compensate for the loss of eyes of the plaintiff.



A verse attract my attention




22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives
birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must
be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23
But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye
for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for
burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.




Here the stories talk about paying fine (or some tort settlements it seems). I do not know if it's paid to the government or the plaintiff.



Then it talks about eye for eye, tooth for tooth. That seems to suggest that the eye for eye means fine too.



However, there is a life for life thing there. I do not expect life for life to means paying life. It seems that it's death penalty.



However, I maybe wrong.



In those verses and in other verses, is there any clear indication whether it should be fine or punitive damage or compensatory damage. Or is it just straightforward retaliation?







halacha capital-punishment torts-damages






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago









Alex

25.6k161140




25.6k161140










asked 9 hours ago









user4951user4951

1,65712238




1,65712238








  • 3





    According the Oral Tradition from Sinai, these verses were not meant to be taken literally. The same regarding about the amputation of a woman's hand, if she grabs the private parts of her husband's assailant (Deuteronomy 25:12).

    – IsraelReader
    8 hours ago











  • Related video that explains the Malbim's understanding of this issue: youtube.com/watch?v=ZMr4iJG9AKU

    – Silver
    7 hours ago











  • sefaria.org/Leviticus.24.18 has a similar expression that obviously means monetary payment. The words of the verse can go either way, the Oral Tradition tells us what the actual intended meaning is.

    – Heshy
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    Possible duplicate of Why does Halacha not follow the simple reading of the Biblical text?

    – user15464
    4 hours ago














  • 3





    According the Oral Tradition from Sinai, these verses were not meant to be taken literally. The same regarding about the amputation of a woman's hand, if she grabs the private parts of her husband's assailant (Deuteronomy 25:12).

    – IsraelReader
    8 hours ago











  • Related video that explains the Malbim's understanding of this issue: youtube.com/watch?v=ZMr4iJG9AKU

    – Silver
    7 hours ago











  • sefaria.org/Leviticus.24.18 has a similar expression that obviously means monetary payment. The words of the verse can go either way, the Oral Tradition tells us what the actual intended meaning is.

    – Heshy
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    Possible duplicate of Why does Halacha not follow the simple reading of the Biblical text?

    – user15464
    4 hours ago








3




3





According the Oral Tradition from Sinai, these verses were not meant to be taken literally. The same regarding about the amputation of a woman's hand, if she grabs the private parts of her husband's assailant (Deuteronomy 25:12).

– IsraelReader
8 hours ago





According the Oral Tradition from Sinai, these verses were not meant to be taken literally. The same regarding about the amputation of a woman's hand, if she grabs the private parts of her husband's assailant (Deuteronomy 25:12).

– IsraelReader
8 hours ago













Related video that explains the Malbim's understanding of this issue: youtube.com/watch?v=ZMr4iJG9AKU

– Silver
7 hours ago





Related video that explains the Malbim's understanding of this issue: youtube.com/watch?v=ZMr4iJG9AKU

– Silver
7 hours ago













sefaria.org/Leviticus.24.18 has a similar expression that obviously means monetary payment. The words of the verse can go either way, the Oral Tradition tells us what the actual intended meaning is.

– Heshy
7 hours ago





sefaria.org/Leviticus.24.18 has a similar expression that obviously means monetary payment. The words of the verse can go either way, the Oral Tradition tells us what the actual intended meaning is.

– Heshy
7 hours ago




1




1





Possible duplicate of Why does Halacha not follow the simple reading of the Biblical text?

– user15464
4 hours ago





Possible duplicate of Why does Halacha not follow the simple reading of the Biblical text?

– user15464
4 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















4














The Gemara on Bava Kama 83b:




אמאי (שמות כא, כד) עין תחת עין אמר רחמנא אימא עין ממש לא סלקא דעתך דתניא יכול סימא את עינו מסמא את עינו קטע את ידו מקטע את ידו שיבר את רגלו משבר את רגלו ת"ל (ויקרא כד, כא) מכה אדם ומכה בהמה מה מכה בהמה לתשלומין אף מכה אדם לתשלומין




(My translation with help from steinzaltz): Why (does it say) “An eye for an eye”? The Torah would tell you: maybe it means it literally? You wouldn’t (shouldn’t) think that, for we learned in a b’raita “(We would think) that for blinding someone, he is liable to be blinded, for breaking his arm, he is liable to have his arm broken, for breaking his leg, he is liable to have his leg broken, so the Torah tells us ״מכה אדם ומכה בהמה״ (“One who hits a person or an animal): just like one who hits an animal gets fined, so too one who hits a person gets fined.
Rashi on the verse “an eye for an eye”(sh’mos 21:24) brings this gemara as proof that he was fined:




עין תחת עין. סִמֵּא עֵין חֲבֵרוֹ נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי עֵינוֹ כַּמָּה שֶׁפָּחֲתוּ דָּמָיו לִמְכֹּר בַּשּׁוּק, וְכֵן כֻּלָּם; וְלֹא נְטִילַת אֵבֶר מַמָּשׁ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁדָּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בְּפֶרֶק הַחוֹבֵל (בבא קמא דף פ"ג):
“An eye for an eye”- One who blinded his friend, pays him the difference of his worth on the marketplace, the same in the other cases; but not taking the organ itself, like our teachers taught in the Gemara (Bava Kama 83).




There are many other instances in the Gemara where this is said, and many other commentators on this verse that say the same thing, but I think one example of each is sufficient.






share|improve this answer

































    3














    Even before the Gemara, the Mishna on Bava Kamma 83b makes it clear :




    One who injures another becomes liable for five things: damages,
    pain, medical expenses, incapacitation, and mental anguish.




    -Damages: If he put out his eye, cut off his arm or broke his leg, the injured person is considered as if he were a slave being sold in
    the market place, and one must calculate how much he was worth before
    the injury and how much he is worth after the injury; [the difference
    is the damages to be paid]



    -Pain: One must calculate how much a man of equal standing would require to be paid to undergo such pain.



    -Medical expenses: If he has struck another, he is under obligation to pay medical expenses... If the wound was healed but reopened,
    healed again but reopened, he would still be under obligation to heal
    him. If, however, the wound had completely healed [even though it may
    have reopened much later] he would no longer be under obligation to
    heal him.



    -Incapacitation: The wages lost during the period of illness must be reimbursed.



    -Mental anguish: Must be calculated in accordance with the status of the offender and the offended.






    share|improve this answer

































      0














      Based on Rashi ad. loc., there is a debate whether נפש תחת נפש, "life for life" in that verse is to be taken literally, and the assailant/murderer is liable for capital punishment, or if that phrase, too, is figurative, like the phrases in v. 24-25, and the defendant merely liable for monetary compensation. If the latter, the defendant pays the full (market) value of the woman (as if she were to be sold as a slave) to the woman's heirs (the husband, generally). This would be similar to a modern day wrongful death suit. The debate hinges on the question of whether one who aims to kill one person but ends up killing someone else is classified as a capital murderer (and liable to be executed) or not. (See Mishna Sanhedrin 9:2; 79a)



      The other clauses (in verses 24 and 25) are universally understood to mean monetary compensation, paid to the injured party, not to the government. (You expressed uncertainty on this point.) The other answers here, as well as other questions and answers on this site, speak to that discussion. Note that this is assessed as compensation, not as a fine or a penalty. This distinction has ramifications beyond the scope of this discussion.



      By the way, I believe the translation you have is erroneous:




      22: If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives
      birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must
      be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.




      Mechon Mamre translates ויצאו ילדיה ולא יהיה אסון as "... so her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow." ArtScroll is more plain: "... and she will miscarry, but there will be no fatality [to the woman, c.f. Rashi ad. loc.]" The verse is generally understood to be discussing the rules of transferred intent as they apply to to a fetus - not a capital crime - and a pregnant woman (as a specific example of the general rule) - possibly a case of capital punishment.






      share|improve this answer































        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes








        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        4














        The Gemara on Bava Kama 83b:




        אמאי (שמות כא, כד) עין תחת עין אמר רחמנא אימא עין ממש לא סלקא דעתך דתניא יכול סימא את עינו מסמא את עינו קטע את ידו מקטע את ידו שיבר את רגלו משבר את רגלו ת"ל (ויקרא כד, כא) מכה אדם ומכה בהמה מה מכה בהמה לתשלומין אף מכה אדם לתשלומין




        (My translation with help from steinzaltz): Why (does it say) “An eye for an eye”? The Torah would tell you: maybe it means it literally? You wouldn’t (shouldn’t) think that, for we learned in a b’raita “(We would think) that for blinding someone, he is liable to be blinded, for breaking his arm, he is liable to have his arm broken, for breaking his leg, he is liable to have his leg broken, so the Torah tells us ״מכה אדם ומכה בהמה״ (“One who hits a person or an animal): just like one who hits an animal gets fined, so too one who hits a person gets fined.
        Rashi on the verse “an eye for an eye”(sh’mos 21:24) brings this gemara as proof that he was fined:




        עין תחת עין. סִמֵּא עֵין חֲבֵרוֹ נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי עֵינוֹ כַּמָּה שֶׁפָּחֲתוּ דָּמָיו לִמְכֹּר בַּשּׁוּק, וְכֵן כֻּלָּם; וְלֹא נְטִילַת אֵבֶר מַמָּשׁ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁדָּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בְּפֶרֶק הַחוֹבֵל (בבא קמא דף פ"ג):
        “An eye for an eye”- One who blinded his friend, pays him the difference of his worth on the marketplace, the same in the other cases; but not taking the organ itself, like our teachers taught in the Gemara (Bava Kama 83).




        There are many other instances in the Gemara where this is said, and many other commentators on this verse that say the same thing, but I think one example of each is sufficient.






        share|improve this answer






























          4














          The Gemara on Bava Kama 83b:




          אמאי (שמות כא, כד) עין תחת עין אמר רחמנא אימא עין ממש לא סלקא דעתך דתניא יכול סימא את עינו מסמא את עינו קטע את ידו מקטע את ידו שיבר את רגלו משבר את רגלו ת"ל (ויקרא כד, כא) מכה אדם ומכה בהמה מה מכה בהמה לתשלומין אף מכה אדם לתשלומין




          (My translation with help from steinzaltz): Why (does it say) “An eye for an eye”? The Torah would tell you: maybe it means it literally? You wouldn’t (shouldn’t) think that, for we learned in a b’raita “(We would think) that for blinding someone, he is liable to be blinded, for breaking his arm, he is liable to have his arm broken, for breaking his leg, he is liable to have his leg broken, so the Torah tells us ״מכה אדם ומכה בהמה״ (“One who hits a person or an animal): just like one who hits an animal gets fined, so too one who hits a person gets fined.
          Rashi on the verse “an eye for an eye”(sh’mos 21:24) brings this gemara as proof that he was fined:




          עין תחת עין. סִמֵּא עֵין חֲבֵרוֹ נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי עֵינוֹ כַּמָּה שֶׁפָּחֲתוּ דָּמָיו לִמְכֹּר בַּשּׁוּק, וְכֵן כֻּלָּם; וְלֹא נְטִילַת אֵבֶר מַמָּשׁ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁדָּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בְּפֶרֶק הַחוֹבֵל (בבא קמא דף פ"ג):
          “An eye for an eye”- One who blinded his friend, pays him the difference of his worth on the marketplace, the same in the other cases; but not taking the organ itself, like our teachers taught in the Gemara (Bava Kama 83).




          There are many other instances in the Gemara where this is said, and many other commentators on this verse that say the same thing, but I think one example of each is sufficient.






          share|improve this answer




























            4












            4








            4







            The Gemara on Bava Kama 83b:




            אמאי (שמות כא, כד) עין תחת עין אמר רחמנא אימא עין ממש לא סלקא דעתך דתניא יכול סימא את עינו מסמא את עינו קטע את ידו מקטע את ידו שיבר את רגלו משבר את רגלו ת"ל (ויקרא כד, כא) מכה אדם ומכה בהמה מה מכה בהמה לתשלומין אף מכה אדם לתשלומין




            (My translation with help from steinzaltz): Why (does it say) “An eye for an eye”? The Torah would tell you: maybe it means it literally? You wouldn’t (shouldn’t) think that, for we learned in a b’raita “(We would think) that for blinding someone, he is liable to be blinded, for breaking his arm, he is liable to have his arm broken, for breaking his leg, he is liable to have his leg broken, so the Torah tells us ״מכה אדם ומכה בהמה״ (“One who hits a person or an animal): just like one who hits an animal gets fined, so too one who hits a person gets fined.
            Rashi on the verse “an eye for an eye”(sh’mos 21:24) brings this gemara as proof that he was fined:




            עין תחת עין. סִמֵּא עֵין חֲבֵרוֹ נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי עֵינוֹ כַּמָּה שֶׁפָּחֲתוּ דָּמָיו לִמְכֹּר בַּשּׁוּק, וְכֵן כֻּלָּם; וְלֹא נְטִילַת אֵבֶר מַמָּשׁ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁדָּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בְּפֶרֶק הַחוֹבֵל (בבא קמא דף פ"ג):
            “An eye for an eye”- One who blinded his friend, pays him the difference of his worth on the marketplace, the same in the other cases; but not taking the organ itself, like our teachers taught in the Gemara (Bava Kama 83).




            There are many other instances in the Gemara where this is said, and many other commentators on this verse that say the same thing, but I think one example of each is sufficient.






            share|improve this answer















            The Gemara on Bava Kama 83b:




            אמאי (שמות כא, כד) עין תחת עין אמר רחמנא אימא עין ממש לא סלקא דעתך דתניא יכול סימא את עינו מסמא את עינו קטע את ידו מקטע את ידו שיבר את רגלו משבר את רגלו ת"ל (ויקרא כד, כא) מכה אדם ומכה בהמה מה מכה בהמה לתשלומין אף מכה אדם לתשלומין




            (My translation with help from steinzaltz): Why (does it say) “An eye for an eye”? The Torah would tell you: maybe it means it literally? You wouldn’t (shouldn’t) think that, for we learned in a b’raita “(We would think) that for blinding someone, he is liable to be blinded, for breaking his arm, he is liable to have his arm broken, for breaking his leg, he is liable to have his leg broken, so the Torah tells us ״מכה אדם ומכה בהמה״ (“One who hits a person or an animal): just like one who hits an animal gets fined, so too one who hits a person gets fined.
            Rashi on the verse “an eye for an eye”(sh’mos 21:24) brings this gemara as proof that he was fined:




            עין תחת עין. סִמֵּא עֵין חֲבֵרוֹ נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי עֵינוֹ כַּמָּה שֶׁפָּחֲתוּ דָּמָיו לִמְכֹּר בַּשּׁוּק, וְכֵן כֻּלָּם; וְלֹא נְטִילַת אֵבֶר מַמָּשׁ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁדָּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בְּפֶרֶק הַחוֹבֵל (בבא קמא דף פ"ג):
            “An eye for an eye”- One who blinded his friend, pays him the difference of his worth on the marketplace, the same in the other cases; but not taking the organ itself, like our teachers taught in the Gemara (Bava Kama 83).




            There are many other instances in the Gemara where this is said, and many other commentators on this verse that say the same thing, but I think one example of each is sufficient.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 2 hours ago









            alicht

            4,0231636




            4,0231636










            answered 8 hours ago









            Lo aniLo ani

            914214




            914214























                3














                Even before the Gemara, the Mishna on Bava Kamma 83b makes it clear :




                One who injures another becomes liable for five things: damages,
                pain, medical expenses, incapacitation, and mental anguish.




                -Damages: If he put out his eye, cut off his arm or broke his leg, the injured person is considered as if he were a slave being sold in
                the market place, and one must calculate how much he was worth before
                the injury and how much he is worth after the injury; [the difference
                is the damages to be paid]



                -Pain: One must calculate how much a man of equal standing would require to be paid to undergo such pain.



                -Medical expenses: If he has struck another, he is under obligation to pay medical expenses... If the wound was healed but reopened,
                healed again but reopened, he would still be under obligation to heal
                him. If, however, the wound had completely healed [even though it may
                have reopened much later] he would no longer be under obligation to
                heal him.



                -Incapacitation: The wages lost during the period of illness must be reimbursed.



                -Mental anguish: Must be calculated in accordance with the status of the offender and the offended.






                share|improve this answer






























                  3














                  Even before the Gemara, the Mishna on Bava Kamma 83b makes it clear :




                  One who injures another becomes liable for five things: damages,
                  pain, medical expenses, incapacitation, and mental anguish.




                  -Damages: If he put out his eye, cut off his arm or broke his leg, the injured person is considered as if he were a slave being sold in
                  the market place, and one must calculate how much he was worth before
                  the injury and how much he is worth after the injury; [the difference
                  is the damages to be paid]



                  -Pain: One must calculate how much a man of equal standing would require to be paid to undergo such pain.



                  -Medical expenses: If he has struck another, he is under obligation to pay medical expenses... If the wound was healed but reopened,
                  healed again but reopened, he would still be under obligation to heal
                  him. If, however, the wound had completely healed [even though it may
                  have reopened much later] he would no longer be under obligation to
                  heal him.



                  -Incapacitation: The wages lost during the period of illness must be reimbursed.



                  -Mental anguish: Must be calculated in accordance with the status of the offender and the offended.






                  share|improve this answer




























                    3












                    3








                    3







                    Even before the Gemara, the Mishna on Bava Kamma 83b makes it clear :




                    One who injures another becomes liable for five things: damages,
                    pain, medical expenses, incapacitation, and mental anguish.




                    -Damages: If he put out his eye, cut off his arm or broke his leg, the injured person is considered as if he were a slave being sold in
                    the market place, and one must calculate how much he was worth before
                    the injury and how much he is worth after the injury; [the difference
                    is the damages to be paid]



                    -Pain: One must calculate how much a man of equal standing would require to be paid to undergo such pain.



                    -Medical expenses: If he has struck another, he is under obligation to pay medical expenses... If the wound was healed but reopened,
                    healed again but reopened, he would still be under obligation to heal
                    him. If, however, the wound had completely healed [even though it may
                    have reopened much later] he would no longer be under obligation to
                    heal him.



                    -Incapacitation: The wages lost during the period of illness must be reimbursed.



                    -Mental anguish: Must be calculated in accordance with the status of the offender and the offended.






                    share|improve this answer















                    Even before the Gemara, the Mishna on Bava Kamma 83b makes it clear :




                    One who injures another becomes liable for five things: damages,
                    pain, medical expenses, incapacitation, and mental anguish.




                    -Damages: If he put out his eye, cut off his arm or broke his leg, the injured person is considered as if he were a slave being sold in
                    the market place, and one must calculate how much he was worth before
                    the injury and how much he is worth after the injury; [the difference
                    is the damages to be paid]



                    -Pain: One must calculate how much a man of equal standing would require to be paid to undergo such pain.



                    -Medical expenses: If he has struck another, he is under obligation to pay medical expenses... If the wound was healed but reopened,
                    healed again but reopened, he would still be under obligation to heal
                    him. If, however, the wound had completely healed [even though it may
                    have reopened much later] he would no longer be under obligation to
                    heal him.



                    -Incapacitation: The wages lost during the period of illness must be reimbursed.



                    -Mental anguish: Must be calculated in accordance with the status of the offender and the offended.







                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited 2 hours ago









                    alicht

                    4,0231636




                    4,0231636










                    answered 4 hours ago









                    Maurice MizrahiMaurice Mizrahi

                    2,724315




                    2,724315























                        0














                        Based on Rashi ad. loc., there is a debate whether נפש תחת נפש, "life for life" in that verse is to be taken literally, and the assailant/murderer is liable for capital punishment, or if that phrase, too, is figurative, like the phrases in v. 24-25, and the defendant merely liable for monetary compensation. If the latter, the defendant pays the full (market) value of the woman (as if she were to be sold as a slave) to the woman's heirs (the husband, generally). This would be similar to a modern day wrongful death suit. The debate hinges on the question of whether one who aims to kill one person but ends up killing someone else is classified as a capital murderer (and liable to be executed) or not. (See Mishna Sanhedrin 9:2; 79a)



                        The other clauses (in verses 24 and 25) are universally understood to mean monetary compensation, paid to the injured party, not to the government. (You expressed uncertainty on this point.) The other answers here, as well as other questions and answers on this site, speak to that discussion. Note that this is assessed as compensation, not as a fine or a penalty. This distinction has ramifications beyond the scope of this discussion.



                        By the way, I believe the translation you have is erroneous:




                        22: If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives
                        birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must
                        be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.




                        Mechon Mamre translates ויצאו ילדיה ולא יהיה אסון as "... so her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow." ArtScroll is more plain: "... and she will miscarry, but there will be no fatality [to the woman, c.f. Rashi ad. loc.]" The verse is generally understood to be discussing the rules of transferred intent as they apply to to a fetus - not a capital crime - and a pregnant woman (as a specific example of the general rule) - possibly a case of capital punishment.






                        share|improve this answer




























                          0














                          Based on Rashi ad. loc., there is a debate whether נפש תחת נפש, "life for life" in that verse is to be taken literally, and the assailant/murderer is liable for capital punishment, or if that phrase, too, is figurative, like the phrases in v. 24-25, and the defendant merely liable for monetary compensation. If the latter, the defendant pays the full (market) value of the woman (as if she were to be sold as a slave) to the woman's heirs (the husband, generally). This would be similar to a modern day wrongful death suit. The debate hinges on the question of whether one who aims to kill one person but ends up killing someone else is classified as a capital murderer (and liable to be executed) or not. (See Mishna Sanhedrin 9:2; 79a)



                          The other clauses (in verses 24 and 25) are universally understood to mean monetary compensation, paid to the injured party, not to the government. (You expressed uncertainty on this point.) The other answers here, as well as other questions and answers on this site, speak to that discussion. Note that this is assessed as compensation, not as a fine or a penalty. This distinction has ramifications beyond the scope of this discussion.



                          By the way, I believe the translation you have is erroneous:




                          22: If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives
                          birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must
                          be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.




                          Mechon Mamre translates ויצאו ילדיה ולא יהיה אסון as "... so her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow." ArtScroll is more plain: "... and she will miscarry, but there will be no fatality [to the woman, c.f. Rashi ad. loc.]" The verse is generally understood to be discussing the rules of transferred intent as they apply to to a fetus - not a capital crime - and a pregnant woman (as a specific example of the general rule) - possibly a case of capital punishment.






                          share|improve this answer


























                            0












                            0








                            0







                            Based on Rashi ad. loc., there is a debate whether נפש תחת נפש, "life for life" in that verse is to be taken literally, and the assailant/murderer is liable for capital punishment, or if that phrase, too, is figurative, like the phrases in v. 24-25, and the defendant merely liable for monetary compensation. If the latter, the defendant pays the full (market) value of the woman (as if she were to be sold as a slave) to the woman's heirs (the husband, generally). This would be similar to a modern day wrongful death suit. The debate hinges on the question of whether one who aims to kill one person but ends up killing someone else is classified as a capital murderer (and liable to be executed) or not. (See Mishna Sanhedrin 9:2; 79a)



                            The other clauses (in verses 24 and 25) are universally understood to mean monetary compensation, paid to the injured party, not to the government. (You expressed uncertainty on this point.) The other answers here, as well as other questions and answers on this site, speak to that discussion. Note that this is assessed as compensation, not as a fine or a penalty. This distinction has ramifications beyond the scope of this discussion.



                            By the way, I believe the translation you have is erroneous:




                            22: If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives
                            birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must
                            be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.




                            Mechon Mamre translates ויצאו ילדיה ולא יהיה אסון as "... so her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow." ArtScroll is more plain: "... and she will miscarry, but there will be no fatality [to the woman, c.f. Rashi ad. loc.]" The verse is generally understood to be discussing the rules of transferred intent as they apply to to a fetus - not a capital crime - and a pregnant woman (as a specific example of the general rule) - possibly a case of capital punishment.






                            share|improve this answer













                            Based on Rashi ad. loc., there is a debate whether נפש תחת נפש, "life for life" in that verse is to be taken literally, and the assailant/murderer is liable for capital punishment, or if that phrase, too, is figurative, like the phrases in v. 24-25, and the defendant merely liable for monetary compensation. If the latter, the defendant pays the full (market) value of the woman (as if she were to be sold as a slave) to the woman's heirs (the husband, generally). This would be similar to a modern day wrongful death suit. The debate hinges on the question of whether one who aims to kill one person but ends up killing someone else is classified as a capital murderer (and liable to be executed) or not. (See Mishna Sanhedrin 9:2; 79a)



                            The other clauses (in verses 24 and 25) are universally understood to mean monetary compensation, paid to the injured party, not to the government. (You expressed uncertainty on this point.) The other answers here, as well as other questions and answers on this site, speak to that discussion. Note that this is assessed as compensation, not as a fine or a penalty. This distinction has ramifications beyond the scope of this discussion.



                            By the way, I believe the translation you have is erroneous:




                            22: If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives
                            birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must
                            be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.




                            Mechon Mamre translates ויצאו ילדיה ולא יהיה אסון as "... so her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow." ArtScroll is more plain: "... and she will miscarry, but there will be no fatality [to the woman, c.f. Rashi ad. loc.]" The verse is generally understood to be discussing the rules of transferred intent as they apply to to a fetus - not a capital crime - and a pregnant woman (as a specific example of the general rule) - possibly a case of capital punishment.







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered 1 hour ago









                            MenachemMenachem

                            647310




                            647310















                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Taj Mahal Inhaltsverzeichnis Aufbau | Geschichte | 350-Jahr-Feier | Heutige Bedeutung | Siehe auch |...

                                Baia Sprie Cuprins Etimologie | Istorie | Demografie | Politică și administrație | Arii naturale...

                                Nicolae Petrescu-Găină Cuprins Biografie | Opera | In memoriam | Varia | Controverse, incertitudini...