[Avodah] "An eye for and eye," etc.

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 02:17:46PM -0500, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote:
> Avodah readers are of course aware that the Talmud (Bava Kamma 8:1, 28a, )
> states that the actual consequence for physically damaging someone is a
> monetary fine...

....
> Rav Yitzchak Isaac Halevy in Doros HaRishonim (II:16, p. 426ff.) strongly
> maintains that it is not that the translation of the phrase is monetary
> compensation...

The gemara uses this example to discuss whether a derashah needs to be
panui mishnei tzedadim / qera yatira, or if only one of the two pesuqim
has to be available for derashah. So, it's definitely derashah.

Which explains Unqelus and R Saadia Gaon saying peshat is physical.

But, given how often "tachas" does mean payment, *why* is this considered
derashah, and not simply idiom? That bothers me.


Also related, taking some edge off my question... "They say" that peshat
in the pasuq is the Mussar, whereas derashah contains the Halakhah. This
pasuq being a usual example; peshat in the pasuq is about being as
careful with someone else's safety as one would with one's own, because
in a sense a person would deserve the same injury that they caused. That
is the attitude, values and middos message. And this is true for Tanakh
as a whole. Neviim don't source halakhah because they are only peshat
(and remez and sod?) not derashah. Tanakh is a Mussar book. It's just
that Chumash has a second layer as well.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
http://www.aishdas.org/asp    'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
Author: Widen Your Tent       'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                   - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l