As a public servant, I am committed to stem cell research as a means of saving lives. However, I have always opposed to the destruction of human embryos for this purpose. Every embryo has a soul, and that life is worth just as much as any other. Even when my mentor urged me to give up this position, I stood my ground. I always expected my friends on the religious right to back me up. It is very disappointing to me that the Orthodox Union has sided with Congress and come out in favor of destroying human embryos for research. I am not a Jew, but I am a born-again Christian, and we share a common Biblical tradition. With all due respect, I think you guys might have made a slight error in understanding what the Old Testament says about destroying embryos. I understand the passage is a little unclear, so I figured I'd bring it up for discussion and explain my take on it. Here's how it goes (Exodus 21):
כב וְכִי-יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים, וְנָגְפוּ אִשָּׁה הָרָה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ, וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אָסוֹן--עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ, כַּאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו בַּעַל הָאִשָּׁה, וְנָתַן, בִּפְלִלִים. כג וְאִם-אָסוֹן, יִהְיֶה--וְנָתַתָּה נֶפֶשׁ, תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ.Now, the tricky part is the part about it not being ASON. What does that word mean? Well, I cycled through about twenty different translations at BibleGateway.com, which is where I like to go for inspiration. They all had different writing styles, but they all said that "ASON" means either "injury follows" or "serious injury" or "mischief follows" or something to that effect. They seemed to say the issue was whether the pregnant mother got hurt or not. But y'see, the funny thing is, none of these explanations made any sense to me. If the whole case is about the mommy, why make it so complicated and involve a miscarriage and two men fighting and all that? So I called up an old buddy of mine, kid who likes to call himself the Candyman. He's a strange bird, that Candyman, always memorizing Bible during college when the rest of us were out doing God knows what. Anyhoo, old Candy set me straight about the passage with one word. He said, the word ASON in that passage just means "intentional harm." Let's take a look at that passage again, with the Candyman's translation:
22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and it not be ASON, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if it be ASON, then thou shalt give life for life.
22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and it not be intentional harm, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if it be intentional harm, then thou shalt give life for life.Now that's an explanation that even this simple rancher from Texas can understand. The issue in the passage is whether causing a miscarriage is punishable by execution. The part about the two men fighting was just an example of how another person could be injured by accident. The Bible lays down the law: if you cause a miscarriage by accident, then you gotta pay a fine... but if you cause a miscarriage on purpose, well, it's a life for a life. So, rabbis of the Orthodox Union, I have a proposal for you. It seems there has been some confusion about this passage in the past. I hope you'll take a few minutes to reexamine this passage and study it carefully. Consider the Candyman's interpretation, and decide for yourselves whether it makes more or less sense than the ones on BibleGateway.com. If it makes more sense, then I urge you guys to take God's charge seriously and withdraw your support for research on human embryos. After all, that's murder. Instead, consider making a donation to a Snowflake organization. Because all life is precious, it is Divine, even embryonic life. I know, because it says so in the Bible.
Sincerely,
President Bush.
President Bush.
41 comments:
A but you left out the next two verses:24. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25. Burning for burning, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
How many ways was the miscarriage made and how did a burning happen? The reason Christians insist on life from embryo times is because in Catholicism there is concern for religious salvation before death and this attitude continued even into Protestant readings.
22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and there not be an accident, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But there be an accident, then thou shalt give life for life.24. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25. Burning for burning, wound for wound, bruise for bruise24. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25. Burning for burning, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
26. And if a man strikes the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, and destroys it; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake.
27. And if he strikes out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.
RG, good question. At first I was also confused about how to apply burning to a miscarriage. But then I figured it out. I believe v.24 forward refers to the general principle of lex talionis, i.e. the punishment fits the crime. So, "an eye for an eye..." is referring to the general case of an adult hurting another adult. The case of miscarriage basically ends at v. 23: a life for a life.
Basically, once Scripture bothered to bring up the principle of lex talionis by miscarriage, it took a couple extra verses (24&25) to remind us of the general principle, as well as some of the exceptions (26&27).
I do think it's always better to cite the entire passage, but sometimes I want to keep the post short (sic). So I rely on you to do this for me in the comments.
Is embryo the same thing as a fetus with a heart beat?
Ok Candyman you have your sevora and I have mine.
The confusion started with the Septuagint Greek translation which makes a distinction at least between an embryo and a fetus http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Exodus/index.htm "22 And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman’s husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. 23 But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. 26 And if one smite the eye of his man-servant, or the eye of his maid-servant, and put it out, he shall let them go free for their eye’s sake. 27 And if he should smite out the tooth of his man-servant, or the tooth of his maid-servant, he shall send them away free for their tooth’s sake." From there the Church drifted into a complete ban on abortion in all cases.
CM,
Are you implying that you believe the typical Jewish reading of the relevant verses, that ASON refers to harm done to the mother, is wrong? Or are you making a facetious comment on Christian exegesis?
I don't know why you'd translate ASON to mean "intentional harm" since it's used with respect to Yaakov's concern for Binyamin in Genesis 42 and 44 and there is no sign that Yaakov cares particularly about intentional harm over any other type of harm.
It means an accident or misfortune as it does in Modern Hebrew. That translation certainly fits in better than anything.
You guys are really delving into the meaning of ASON here, which I like to see. I encourage more examples from the Bible. It can't just appear in Genesis.
OP, I am familiar with the Genesis quote and believe that it sounds like "accidental harm" in that context (just as Joseph was "accidentally harmed). This raises in my mind an interesting possibility, which was too complicated to bring up to Georgie:
What if the miscarriage passage got mixed up along the way? That is to say, what if the original Hebrew text was:
"if two men strive... and it *be* an ASON, then he shall be fined... but if it *not* be ASON, it's a life for a life."
If this was the original text, then ASON might mean the same thing it appears to mean in Genesis: an accident! I think it's possible that this was the original text, and it got mixed up very early on in the Torah's transmission. Note how smoothly this translates:
"if two men strive... and it *be* an accidental harm, then he shall be fined... but if it *not* be accidental harm, it's a life for a life."
Note that the law is the same regardless.
I'm happy we have an opportunity to go into such depth here. I encourage you guys to bring other examples of the word ASON from the Concordance and we'll see which definition fits best.
It doesn't fit so well. What's the point of talking of two men quarreling if they are purposely hurting the woman? Just write about a man harming a woman then.
Further in Genesis 44 it says:"15. And Joseph said to them, What deed is this that you have done? Do you not know that such a man as I can certainly divine?
16. And Judah said, What shall we say to my lord? what shall we speak? or how shall we clear ourselves? God has found out the iniquity of your servants; behold, we are my lord’s servants, both we, and he also with whom the cup is found.
17. And he said, God forbid that I should do so; but the man in whose hand the cup is found, he shall be my servant; and as for you, go up in peace to your father.
18. Then Judah came near to him, and said, Oh my lord, let your servant, I beg you, speak a word in my lord’s ears, and let not your anger burn against your servant; for you are as Pharaoh.
19. My lord asked his servants, saying, Have you a father, or a brother?
20. And we said to my lord, We have a father, an old man, and a child of his old age, a little one; and his brother is dead, and he alone is left of his mother, and his father loves him.
21. And you said to your servants, Bring him down to me, that I may set my eyes upon him.
22. And we said to my lord, The lad can not leave his father; for if he should leave his father, his father would die.
23. And you said to your servants, Except your youngest brother come down with you, you shall see my face no more.
24. And it came to pass when we came up to your servant my father, we told him the words of my lord.
25. And our father said, Go again, and buy us a little food.
26. And we said, We can not go down; if our youngest brother be with us, then will we go down; for we may not see the man’s face, except our youngest brother be with us.
27. And your servant my father said to us, You know that my wife bore me two sons;
28. And the one went out from me, and I said, Surely he is torn in pieces; and I saw him not since;
29. And if you take this also from me, and harm (ASON) befall him, you shall bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to Sheol.
30. Now therefore when I come to your servant my father, and the lad is not with us; seeing that his life is bound up in the lad’s life;
31. It shall come to pass, when he sees that the lad is not with us, that he will die; and your servants shall bring down the gray hairs of your servant our father with sorrow to Sheol.
32. For your servant became surety for the lad to my father, saying, If I bring him not to you, then I shall bear the blame to my father for ever.
33. Now therefore, I beg you, let your servant remain instead of the lad a slave to my lord; and let the lad go up with his brothers.
For how shall I go up to my father, and the lad be not with me? lest perhaps I see the evil that shall come on my father."
It can clearly be seen that the Ason here described that would happen to Benjamin is not accidental. Jacob was describing disaster period but the disaster that Judah was pleading to Joseph to prevent was not accidental.
CM,
"What if the miscarriage passage got mixed up along the way?"
Why would you ever jump to that conclusion? If there's any evidence of it I'd be interested to see it, but you can't just assume it.
"If this was the original text, then ASON might mean the same thing it appears to mean in Genesis: an accident!"
I think an expansive definition of "serious harm" without related to intent is the most likely conclusion. Trying to shoehorn a translation where it doesn't fit seems like the wrong approach to me.
"I encourage you guys to bring other examples of the word ASON from the Concordance and we'll see which definition fits best."
Well..that's pretty much all of them. Those five times. Twice in Genesis 42, once in 44 and the two in Exodus.
What's the point of talking of two men quarreling if they are purposely hurting the woman? Just write about a man harming a woman then.
The point of the passage is that embryonic life is still life. So, if you punch a woman intentionally to cause a miscarriage, you've committed murder.
Writing about a man harming a woman would be beside the point.
I think an expansive definition of "serious harm" without related to intent is the most likely conclusion.
Explain the law to me, then. B/c I don't get it.
You see, you have to make simple sense of the "two men striving" part. The only way it makes sense to me is if the question is intentional vs. unintentional harm, and the "two men striving" is an example of how unintentional harm can occur. The Talmud's explanations are extremely forced, whereas mine makes simple and direct sense. It is this logic that makes the passage's intent clear to me (whether we have to say the text was mixed up or not, I don't know... but I'm positive about the law the text is trying to state).
But please, if you can give me another explanation that makes simple sense using another translation of ASON... well, the floor is yours.
"What if the miscarriage passage got mixed up along the way?"
Why would you ever jump to that conclusion? If there's any evidence of it I'd be interested to see it, but you can't just assume it.
Direct evidence isn't necessary for hypothesis -- all you need is *precedent*. The question is, can we think of any other passages in the Hebrew Bible that have been mixed up in the transmission? If so, then I don't think it's a stretch to say the same might have occurred here, if it makes the passage coherent.
Well..that's pretty much all of them. Those five times. Twice in Genesis 42, once in 44 and the two in Exodus.
That's it for the whole Hebrew Bible (tanach)? Bummer. Well, if so, there are too few examples to determine a conclusive meaning for the word.
It can clearly be seen that the Ason here described that would happen to Benjamin is not accidental.
So, it fits the explanation I gave to Georgie?
CM,
"You see, you have to make simple sense of the "two men striving" part. The only way it makes sense to me is if the question is intentional vs. unintentional harm, and the "two men striving" is an example of how unintentional harm can occur."
I think it's just a different scenario as compared to the previous 21:18 which also starts off with men fighting. Why do men need to be fighting in order to explain what you do for an intentionally injured party?
A similar scenario is found by Deut. 25 when men are again fighting and the wife of one tries to grab the other's private area. Her hand gets cut off. What does fighting have to do with publically touching testicles?
It's a common intro clause unrelated to the point of the law. It's saying, "This is how it could happen, suppose..."
"The point of the passage is that embryonic life is still life. So, if you punch a woman intentionally to cause a miscarriage, you've committed murder.
Writing about a man harming a woman would be beside the point."
I have never seen any evidence for any other translation or text aside from the Greek mistranslation or misfreetranslation but that translation also doesn't fit well with the text but at least it is a real tradition. In the Torah unborn life is not considered as alive as we are from the point of view of Jewish law and ethics. Even the Greek translation denies to an embryo the status of humanhood. As Orthoprax says show me concrete evidence.
"If so, then I don't think it's a stretch to say the same might have occurred here, if it makes the passage coherent."
It doesn't. The passage is coherent as it has been translated. Even the King James Bible translates it that way.
"It can clearly be seen that the Ason here described that would happen to Benjamin is not accidental.
So, it fits the explanation I gave to Georgie?"
Not at all. Judah is saying that his father would die if an ason happened and says that therefore if Benjamin is held as a slave his father would die.
I think it's just a different scenario as compared to the previous 21:18 which also starts off with men fighting. Why do men need to be fighting in order to explain what you do for an intentionally injured party?
These law codes are not super complicated. I do not argue that there are no unnecessary words, only that the passage should always make simple sense. By the two men striving in 21:18, we both agree that the setup makes plenty of sense.
In 21:25, the setup as you suggest is unnecessarily complicated. Two men fighting and hitting a pregnant woman by accident is by definition unintentional damage... you cannot avoid this, OP. According to your reading, the Torah is setting up a case where there are two grounds for leniency:
(a) the damage is unintentional
(b) it's just a fetus anyways
This is the case where, according to your reading, "there is no serious harm". But what is the case where there IS serious harm, and for which the man is executed? Is it where both (a) and (b) are not true, or just one of those? Your explanation forces the Torah to leave this unresolved.
My explanation is far simpler. The bottom line of the Torah is that abortion is murder. But the Torah recognizes that it's easy to unintentionally cause a miscarriage, and provides an exception for that. We can extend the principle of intent to other murder cases. The Torah, in great simplicity and conciseness, kills two legal birds with one stone. No confusion here!
It's basically Ockham's razor. I think your reading, where "two men fighting" just happens to be brought along for the ride, is not the simplest explanation. But I do think you've shed light on how the Talmud's rabbis, who were not dumb bunnies, might have rationalized the details of the passage. Yishar Kochacha!
A similar scenario is found by Deut. 25 when men are again fighting and the wife of one tries to grab the other's private area. Her hand gets cut off. What does fighting have to do with publically touching testicles?
Well, that's a special case and special punishment. That's a cryptic passage, but the setup there is likely to be important... just as it is in our case of miscarriage.
The passage is coherent as it has been translated.
OK, explain it to me again. Hillel had to explain it 400 times.
Even the King James Bible translates it that way.
LOL!
The bottom line of the Torah is that abortion is murder
Nope. Check out what the sanhedrin does when a pregnant woman is sentenced to death. The halacha is that up until labor has commenced, the woman is beated until the fetus is aborted, including the entire ninth month of the pregnancy. The reason given is to protect the mother from further embarrassement at having to give birth after she is dead. Now candy man, if abortion really was murder, why would the sanhedrin murder an innocent entity just to avoid the mother's embarrassment? Please.
Fine you want to be a Sadducee and believe the literal word of the Bible as the intent. Ok look up the word Ason in the Hebrew Dictionary. It means accident or mistfortune. It does not refer to level of intent. Certainly in this case whether they want to have the woman miscarry by using her as a weapon to throw at each other or not if the woman miscarries we can call it an accident as she is not having an artificial abortion. We can also call it a misfortune. What it does not mean is what you say an intentional thing. It is a neutral word about intent. Misfortune is the most perfect all encompassing meaning for Ason. While it is true that the Talmud sometimes does not interpret literaly particulary with eye for eye, tooth for tooth, (something the Torah itself mitigates) cutting off the hand etc. they also many times just expound literally at least if you examine closely enough. With the word Ason here they have done so.
CM,
206-If during a quarrel one man strike another and wound him, then he shall swear, "I did not injure him wittingly," and pay the physicians.
207-If the man die of his wound, he shall swear similarly, and if he (the deceased) was a free-born man, he shall pay half a mina in money.
208-If he was a freed man, he shall pay one-third of a mina.
209-If a man strike a free-born woman so that she lose her unborn child, he shall pay ten shekels for her loss.
210-If the woman die, his daughter shall be put to death.
This may sound a bit like Torah - but it's actually a direct quote from the Code of Hammurabi. See any similarities?
OSM, the Talmud deals explicitly with this passage and interprets it differently from me. My point is that this passage has been misinterpreted from early on.
For what it's worth, the Talmud's predominant opinion is also that "an eye for an eye" refers to monetary compensation. Which is obviously wrong.
210-If the woman die, his daughter shall be put to death.
This may sound a bit like Torah - but it's actually a direct quote from the Code of Hammurabi. See any similarities?
Haha, I was also browsing Hammurabi today. Should post about it sometime. Anyways, the Torah often agrees with Hammurabi, but doesn't always. Heck, the Torah's law codes are not even self-consistent. That being said, the Hammurabi code pre-dates the Torah and is a very valuable tool to understanding. So I'm glad you brought it up.
I also see something of a mystery in Hammurabi here: why, if a pregnant woman dies, should the attacker's *daughter* be killed?
I am quite pleased with the level of scholarship shown so far in this discussion. Keep it up!
CM,
"Anyways, the Torah often agrees with Hammurabi, but doesn't always."
The point was not agreement per se, but the whole constructed case of when two men fight and a subset given scenario when they knock into a pregnant woman and she loses the fetus. This is exactly the same series of constructed scenarios as supposed in Exodus.
It is you who are reading into the given scenarios a whole thesis on the Biblical view of intentional abortion, but the fact is that intentional abortion just isn't something that had a high enough profile for it to have specific rules regarding it from the Biblical period.
And just like Hammurabi, if you knock into a woman so that she miscarries - fine. If you cause the woman harm - lex talionis. I think this is the most likely and most consistent explanation. Far better this than assuming the text itself is reversed or creating new definitions for words. Occam's razor is on my side.
"I also see something of a mystery in Hammurabi here: why, if a pregnant woman dies, should the attacker's *daughter* be killed?"
Presumably because he killed the daughter of an aristocrat. Hammurabi's code accepts vicarious justice.
"I also see something of a mystery in Hammurabi here: why, if a pregnant woman dies, should the attacker's *daughter* be killed?"
It makes sense. A pregnant woman was killed so the closest approximation is to have a woman killed but also to have the pain of a loss of a child avenged the woman killed should be his daughter.
Occam's razor is on my side.
I think your explanation has yet to explain why the Torah mentions two men striving. I also think you haven't proven your case about what ASON means elsewhere. I guess we should agree to disagree.
It is you who are reading into the given scenarios a whole thesis on the Biblical view of intentional abortion,
I have no motive to find anti-abortion stuff in the Hebrew Bible. I just call 'em as I see 'em. I've been studying Bible many years, and this is my expert opinion on the passage.
Presumably because he killed the daughter of an aristocrat. Hammurabi's code accepts vicarious justice.
Aristocrat?
It makes sense. A pregnant woman was killed so the closest approximation is to have a woman killed but also to have the pain of a loss of a child avenged the woman killed should be his daughter.
*Does* that make sense?
I'll be honest: I do not understand anything what you are talking about, the debate is too deep in the biblical details you report.
forgive me then if I have a few simpler points of view:
1. a woman has a right to abortion, it' HER body in the first place, full stop.
2. an embryo is not a fetus and stem cell research should be allowed.
3. sure, if someone kicks the belly of a pregnant woman precisely on the purpose to make her abort, that is a horrible evil act of homicide and must be severely punished.
in conclusion, forgive my ignorance on religious matters, but I learned something from this blog and given you a link: visit mine and see if you like to reciprocate. ciao! :)
CM,
"I think your explanation has yet to explain why the Torah mentions two men striving."
For the same reason Hammurabi does. It was a common ocurrence and it was meant literally. It was not a metaphorical placeholder for "if there is an accident." That is your reading into it.
"I also think you haven't proven your case about what ASON means elsewhere."
I've demonstrated that there is no reason to suppose intent is involved in the translation. You are the one trying to create a novel definition for the word and it is you who has failed to make your case.
"Aristocrat?"
As opposed to a lower class person for which only a fine is restitution.
"I have no motive to find anti-abortion stuff in the Hebrew Bible."
But you do have a motive to find in opposition to the Talmud for your own bias.
http://www.ulg.ac.be/vinitor/rida/1997/ziskind.pdf
But is an embryo the same as a fetus???
"The Candy Man said...
It makes sense. A pregnant woman was killed so the closest approximation is to have a woman killed but also to have the pain of a loss of a child avenged the woman killed should be his daughter.
*Does* that make sense?"
It's the only motive I can think of for Hamurrabi.
"1. a woman has a right to abortion, it' HER body in the first place, full stop."
That argument is better for an embryo than a fetus. For a fetus and it's mother there are two bodies. The question being how far do we want to recognize each body. With Candyman's argument the Bible would say pretty far.
The real point is that is abortion injurious? Yes. It terminates a life. It takes that life from a mother to be. All the way around it is wrong. MADE MULTIPLY SO BECAUSE *WE NEED NOT USE EMBRYOS* TO GET STEM CELLS.
As multiple scientific advances have shown, we are presently capable of tricking DNA into doing things it normally wouldn't and given progress are within a few years of being able to force stem cell generation from the existing cells of the already born individuals themselves. THEIR OWN CELLS. NOT those of someone else.
No one else should be sacrificed, even in potential, if we need not do so. We're sacrificing not because we have to, but for the sake of expedience and for the furthering of the political agenda of those who gain by encouraging abortion as an everyday thing: the reduction in importance of life, family, of oneself and one's family friends and neighbors. Over time we are conditioning ourselves to readily do the most inhumane and sacrificial things simply because someone told us to... and we did without thinking for ourselves.
This missing the point reminds me of people trying to turn trap grease into jet fuel when combustive oxidation of any chemical compound is the issue, in need of replacement with a different propulsive method altogether. Instead, we hear all about how human body fat can power a car.
Miss Welby, I am happy someone is taking this conversation from the past into the present! The Biblical stuff is really just a springboard.
OP, as I have pointed out in my earlier comments, everyone agrees that the Bible's case in v. 22 is one of accidental injury. That is, there are two men fighting, and one accidentally hits a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage. The question of intent is implicit in the passage, unavoidable, and independent of the definition of ASON. Your argument that intent is irrelevant to the passage simply cannot stand.
I am looking forward to reading Ziskind's article.
Suitepotato, the man who cloned Dolly the sheep -- Ian Wilmut -- is so impressed with the new, embryo-independent technology for generating ES cells that he is now focusing solely on that in his lab.
The guy who gets credit for the finding is a Japanese researcher named Yamanaka. It was a great paper.
CM,
"OP, as I have pointed out in my earlier comments, everyone agrees that the Bible's case in v. 22 is one of accidental injury. That is, there are two men fighting, and one accidentally hits a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage. The question of intent is implicit in the passage, unavoidable, and independent of the definition of ASON."
It is an accident - but an accident that follows specifically when men fight, not an accident that follows from any circumstance. The point is that consequences of "men fighting" is its own category of responsibility and you cannot generalize it to mean either purely accidental or purely intentional. That was never the intent of the law. You are creating distinctions based on your misunderstanding of societies of the ANE. See Ziskind's article.
In the Bible, a pure accident that leads to death doesn't receive lex talionis but exile to a safe city.
CM,
Your taking "men fighting" to equal "accident" is as justified as a felony murder charge being precedent for involuntary manslaughter. They are simply not equivalent circumstances.
In the Bible, a pure accident that leads to death doesn't receive lex talionis but exile to a safe city.
Who said otherwise? You don't seem to have understood my post. The idea is that causing a miscarriage accidentally is grounds for a fine. Causing it intentionally is grounds for lex talionis, i.e. execution.
I haven't read Ziskind yet, but he'll be hard pressed to convince me that "two men fighting" is a special type of damages category! It seems much more likely to me to be a specific example of a more general principle.
"specific example of a more general principle", i.e. prat u'clal... Funny how I end up using the terminology of the Rabbis here!
"The idea is that causing a miscarriage accidentally is grounds for a fine. Causing it intentionally is grounds for lex talionis, i.e. execution."
And this interpretation requires you to either make up a novel definition for words or unjustifiably suppose that this verse has turned backwards in the course of time.
Here's a question for you: if the word ASON is itself sufficient to determine intentionality vs accident (which you maintain) then what is the point of mentioning two men fighting? It's redundant.
Read Ziskind's article already. It's not long.
Here's a question for you: if the word ASON is itself sufficient to determine intentionality vs accident (which you maintain) then what is the point of mentioning two men fighting? It's redundant.
It's an example. Redundancy is common in the Bible.
Candy man is there anyone who says like you and if so on what basis?
haha, RG, just saw your last comment. The answer is no, I've never seen anyone else explain the passage like me. Which is shocking to me, b/c I think it's the obvious explanation of the passage.
That being said, I struggled with this passage about accidentally causing a miscarriage for years. The only reason I eventually figured it out is b/c I knew it had to be simpler than everyone else made it out to be. It was just like the question of why God had to lie to Pharaoh during the ten plagues. I knew there had to be a simple explanation, otherwise ikaro chassar min hasefer -- "the essence is missing from the book." From time to time, the passage would surface in my mind and I'd give it a little thought, and one day it just made sense.
If you find someone that does say like me... I'd appreciate it if you let me know.
Post a Comment