[Avodah] Mishpatim [adapted from "Malachim Kivnei Adam", R. Simcha Raz, pp. 351, 360]

[Richard Wolberg]

> Rav Kook was once asked by Azar: how can the Sages interpret the  
> verse "An eye for an eye" [Ex. 21:24] as referring to monetary  
> compensation? Does this explanation not contradict the simple  
> meaning of the verse?
>
> The Talmud [Baba Kamma 84a] brings a number of proofs that the  
> phrase "eye for an eye" cannot be taken literally. How, for example,  
> could justice be served if the person who poked out his neighbor's  
> eyes was blind? Or what if one of the parties had only one  
> functioning eye before the incident? Clearly, there are many cases  
> in which such a sentence would be neither equitable nor just.
>
> What bothered Azar was the wide discrepancy between a simple reading  
> of the verse and the Talmudic exegesis. If "eye for an eye" in fact  
> means monetary compensation, why doesn't the Torah say that  
> explicitly?
>
> Rav Kook responded by way of a parable. The Kabbalists, he  
> explained, compared the Written Torah to a father and the Oral Torah  
> to a mother. When parents discover their son has committed a very  
> grave offense, how do they react?
>
> The father immediately raises his hand to punish his son. But the  
> mother, full of compassion, rushes to stop his raised arm. "Please,  
> not in anger!" she pleads, and she convinces the father to mete out  
> a lighter punishment.
>
> An onlooker might feel that all this drama and conflict is  
> superfluous. In the end, the child did not receive corporal  
> punishment; why make a big show of it?
>
> In fact, the scene had great educational value for the errant son.  
> Even though he was only lightly disciplined, the son was made to  
> understand that his actions deserved a much more severe punishment.
>
> This idea also holds true for one who injures another. Such an  
> individual needs to realize the gravity of his actions. In practice,  
> we can only make him pay monetary restitution, as the Oral Law  
> rules. But he should not think that money alone can rectify what he  
> has done. As Maimonides wrote in his legal code, the Mishneh Torah,  
> the Torah's intention is not that we should actually injure him in  
> the same way that he injured his neighbor, but rather "that it is  
> fitting to amputate his limb or injure him, just as he did to the  
> other" [Laws of Personal Injuries 1:3].
>
> Maimonides more fully developed the idea that monetary restitution  
> alone cannot atone for physical damages in chapter 5:
>
> "Causing another bodily injury is not like causing monetary loss.  
> One who causes monetary loss is exonerated as soon as he repays the  
> damages. But if he injured his neighbor, even though he paid all  
> five categories of monetary restitution - even if he offered to God  
> all the rams of Nevayot [see Isaiah 60:7] - he is not exonerated  
> until he has asked the one injured for forgiveness and he agrees to  
> forgive him."  [ibid. 5:9]
>
> Azar noted: Only Rav Kook could have given such an explanation,  
> clarifying legal concepts in Jewish Law by way of Kabbalistic  
> metaphors. For I once heard him say that the boundaries between  
> Nigleh and Nistar - the revealed and the esoteric parts of Torah -  
> are not so rigid. For some people, Bible with Rashi's commentary is  
> an esoteric study; while for others, even a chapter in the  
> Kabbalistic work "Eitz Chayim" of the Ari z"l is considered  
> 'revealed.'

   ri
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080126/60af117f/attachment-0001.htm>