Who would have said to Abraham, that Sarah should suckle children?
For I have borne him a son in his old age. (Gen. 21:7)
It starts with kindness. Turn back, my daughters; why would you go with me? have I yet sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands? My life is over now. I am a dead woman, a failure. Don't let me hold you back.
It starts with loyalty. Do not ask me to leave you... for where you go, I will go; where you live, I will live. I will not give up on you so easily. I have a debt to my dead husband, who died without children. And I have a debt to you, who calls me her daughter.
It ends with redemption. A son has been borne to Naomi! She is young again. All those moments thought wasted, the efforts of her entire life, are resurrected with supreme meaning. For is this not the greatest secret of the Hebrew Bible? That hope is everlasting? That we can be reborn in a day?
The kindness we invest in the world comes back around for us. It starts with two words.
My daughter.
My daughter.
PS Looking for something lighter? Check out this preview for the Book of Ruth movie. I found it strangely hilarious.
25 comments:
That movie looks like it might be good. I wonder if it was the same people who did "one Night With the King?"
It's interesting that you point out the redemption in the story. I know that is the point, but I can never seem to get beyond the hardship they went through to get there.
Beautifully written post, by the way.
I know that [redemption] the point, but I can never seem to get beyond the hardship they went through to get there.
It's interesting... the Hebrew Bible is practically obsessed with the idea of redemption. But I don't think it has a good explanation for suffering. Job basically boils down to "God is always right, but it's human to doubt that."
Perhaps the Buddhist approach is more realistic: life is suffering. We can expect it.
"Life is pain, highness! Anyone who says differently is selling something."
Ten points to the first person to identify the quote.
On a guess... Princess Bride?
"Perhaps the Buddhist approach is more realistic: life is suffering. We can expect it."
CandyMan you are being so literal here that you can't see the truth.
Judaism says we can expect suffering. It also says deal with it. Grow from it which is the theme of Job. There is no magical blame game with G-d here to escape suffering but like Job we can grow from the experience. At first in the story Job only has a goody two shoes life. He only becomes extraordinary when he understands suffering. Buddhism by contrast approaches it differently saying life is itself pain and has nothing to offer us. We just have to escape it. It's a value judgement which is better as we are referring to value systems.
ten points to the candy man!
@RG,
Judaism says we can expect suffering.
I agree with you on this point.
Grow from it which is the theme of Job. There is no magical blame game with G-d here to escape suffering
That's not what I get from the book of Job at all. In fact, Job's suffering is definitely God's fault -- God punishes him on a bet with the Satan.
At first in the story Job only has a goody two shoes life. He only becomes extraordinary when he understands suffering.
Where do you see this in the story? Job is no more extraordinary at the end than he was in the beginning.
However, he does get his health, wealth, and family back. This is typical of Hebrew Bible redemption narratives. It's a little like the movie Castaway -- Tom Hanks loses his wife, but he gets his piece of ass in the end.
@Miri,
ten points to the candy man!
Oh YEAH! What was the scene? Is it when Westley is being tortured by Humperdink?
Classic movie. They don't make 'em like that anymore, nosirree.
"Stop that rhyming, and I mean it!"
"Anybody want a peanut?"
"The Candy Man said...
@RG,
Judaism says we can expect suffering.
I agree with you on this point.
Grow from it which is the theme of Job. There is no magical blame game with G-d here to escape suffering
That's not what I get from the book of Job at all. In fact, Job's suffering is definitely God's fault -- God punishes him on a bet with the Satan."
You don't know what I meant. I meant there is no blame G-d game that will get you out of suffering. It is not like everything is smooth if you just do this or that with G-d.
"At first in the story Job only has a goody two shoes life. He only becomes extraordinary when he understands suffering.
Where do you see this in the story? Job is no more extraordinary at the end than he was in the beginning.
However, he does get his health, wealth, and family back. This is typical of Hebrew Bible redemption narratives. It's a little like the movie Castaway -- Tom Hanks loses his wife, but he gets his piece of ass in the end."
On the contrary job is not the same. He questioned G-d and was ruminating on life. He learns that he can not explain all. Job Chapter 38
1. Then the Lord answered Job from the stormy wind, and said,
2. Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
3. Gird up now your loins like a man; for I will demand of you, and you will answer me.
4. Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if you have understanding.
5. Who determined its measures, do you know? Or who has stretched the line upon it?
6. Upon what are its foundations fastened? Or who laid its corner stone,
7. When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8. Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth, as if it had issued from the womb,
9. When I made the cloud its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band,
10. And prescribed bounds for it, and set bars and doors,
11. And said, Thus far shall you come, but no further; and here shall your proud waves be stayed?
12.Have you commanded the morning since your days began; and caused the dawn to know his place,
13. That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
14. It is changed like clay under the seal; and they stand like a garment.
15. And from the wicked their light is withheld, and the uplifted arm shall be broken.
16. Have you entered into the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in the recesses of the depth?
17. Have the gates of death been opened to you? Or have you seen the doors of deepest darkness?
18. Have you comprehended the expanse of the earth? Declare if you know it all.
19. Where is the way where light dwells? And as for darkness, where is its place,
20. That you should take it to its boundaries, and that you should know the paths to its house?
21. You know it, because you were then born, and because the number of your days is great.
22. Have you entered the storehouses of the snow? Or have you seen the storehouses of the hail,
23. Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?
24. By what way is the light parted, or the east wind scattered upon the earth?
25. Who has divided a watercourse for the torrents of rain, or a way for the lightning of thunder,
26. To cause it to rain on a land where no man is; on the wilderness where there is no man,
27. To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?
28. Has the rain a father? Or who has begotten the drops of dew?
29. Out of whose womb came the ice? And the hoary frost of heaven, who has given it birth?
30. The waters are hidden as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.
31. Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades, or loose the cords of Orion?
32. Can you bring forth the Mazzaroth in their season? Or can you guide the Bear with his sons?
33. Do you know the ordinances of heaven? Can you establish its dominion on earth?
34. Can you lift up your voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover you?
35. Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?
36. Who has put wisdom in the inward parts? Or who has given understanding to the heart?
37. Who can number the clouds in wisdom? Or who can refill the bottles of heaven,
38. When the dust becomes a mass, and the clods cleave fast together?
39. Will you hunt the prey for the lion? Or satisfy the appetite of the young lions,
40. When they couch in their dens, and lie in wait in their covert?
41. Who provides for the raven his food? When his young ones cry to God and wander for lack of food?
He perhaps he wasn't a goody two shoes before but had deep thoughts but clearly personal suffering he was unprepared for. The message of Job is not personal redemption.
The message of Job is not personal redemption.
Never said it was. But I stand by what I did say.
Job Ch.38
Gamliel, you have a habit of quoting very long passages that have nothing to do with the subject.
Job Ch.38 is all God talking, not Job. It is God talking about how great God is. It has nothing to do with Job, and does not at all demonstrate that Job had changed in any way.
After this speech by God, in a part you *didn't* quote, Job basically backs down and says, Yes, you are right God, how wrong I was to doubt you!
God's arguments in Ch. 38 are no different from the arguments advanced by Job's friends. It is not clear why Job should accept God's arguments, but not theirs.
Ultimately, the book does not answer why Job was made to suffer. It doesn't even try. It's more a compilation of God-is-great poetry, bookended by an interesting narrative about Job.
Candy Man-
No, it's just after Wesley successfully rescues the Princess Buttercup from the hands of Vicini, just before she shoves him down the mountain.
Yes, I sort of know it by heart - one of my pitifully few claims to geekhood.
"17. Have the gates of death been opened to you? Or have you seen the doors of deepest darkness?"
It seems to me there are some on this earth who might be able to answer this one in the affirmative. It seems to me also that Job might have been one of them. Just a thought.
"Job Ch.38 is all God talking, not Job. It is God talking about how great God is. It has nothing to do with Job, and does not at all demonstrate that Job had changed in any way."
Oh Candyman you are too dang literal! What G-d is saying is that people don't understand fully the nature of why things happen anymore than they can have the power to run the universe. That's the point and Job of course agrees with G-d in the story. The book isn't simply satisfied with saying G-d is great but with explaining how we cannot comprehend His ways fully because of being human in the same way we are incapable of running the universe. There's a depth you are blithely ignoring.
"It's more a compilation of God-is-great poetry, bookended by an interesting narrative about Job."
It's not G-d is great literature and a pile of poetry. The author grapples with suffering. This book is an example of rumination on life literature like Ecclesiastes. You seem to lack a more in depth understanding of literature at least of your own people. If the point was a G-d is great literature you don't have suffering being dealt with in Job especially by blasphemous beliefs being uttered by the protagonists each offering their opinions.
@RG,
Oh Candyman you are too dang literal!
No such thing.
What G-d is saying is that people don't understand fully the nature of why things happen anymore than they can have the power to run the universe.
Well, it's a nice idea but I'm not sure that's what the book's resolution is. I think it's more like, God is always right, you are a human and puny and you can't possibly be more right than God. To which Job basically says, Wow God, you are really always right, Amen.
Again, God's argument is not fundamentally different from those advanced by Job's friends.
You seem to lack a more in depth understanding of literature at least of your own people.
I've learned every chapter of Job in the original Hebrew. Can you say the same? To be honest, from your arguments I'm not even convinced you've read it all in English.
The problem is you think reading the first two chapters with Rashi and skipping to the last chapter constitutes "in depth" learning. The reality is that it's the 36 chapters in-between that separate the men from the boys.
If the point was a G-d is great literature you don't have suffering being dealt with in Job
Well, "God is great and always right" is only part of the book of Job. But it's the main point of the book. The other half -- Job's half -- is, "I'm innocent, and God is unfair!" Of course, no one believes Job, and even his friends suspect he must have done *something* wrong to warrant such Divine punishment.
The book is split between these two views, but even in the "God is unfair" part there's plenty of God-is-great poetry. As I said, that's the main point.
especially by blasphemous beliefs being uttered by the protagonists each offering their opinions.
The protagonists you describe are not blasphemous. Instead, they defend God. It is Job who blasphemes and curses the day he was born.
Everything else aside, I appreciate your ideas and it's always nice to find someone to argue Job with.
@Miri,
You know what I love about the Princess Bride? The Dire Straits "Storybook Love" theme song.
"Have the gates of death been opened to you? Or have you seen the doors of deepest darkness?"
I think you seized upon a good quote from a long passage.
"4@RG,
Oh Candyman you are too dang literal!
No such thing."
Yes there is and it is the job of the brain to make sense of context.
"The problem is you think reading the first two chapters with Rashi and skipping to the last chapter constitutes "in depth" learning. The reality is that it's the 36 chapters in-between that separate the men from the boys."
I haven't read it with Rashi but I haven't read it all. I have read the books of the Tanach from cover to cover through at least a part of Ezekiel and also I have read almost or all of Chronicles and other books too so your attitude that I don't know Tanach firsthand and with no eye to literalism is crap and arrogant and covers up a lack of sufficient literalism and understanding on your part. Your summary is also too simplistic. The arguments in the book were not advanced for nothing and further the answer is not a simple version of being a great G-d. If it was just that then you would not need the whole story and their arguments. Indeed poetry for blasphemy too? Job every time condemns their arguments and G-d backs Job more than Job's friends. G-d also condemns his friends for speaking blasphemy concerning him and also they are condemned in the book for a lack of sufficient sensitivity to Job's plight in condemning him.
Job Chapter 42...
7. And it was so, that after the Lord had spoken these words to Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My anger burns against you, and against your two friends; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.
8. Therefore take now seven bulls and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you; for to him I will show favor in not dealing with you according to your folly, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.
9. So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went, and did according to what the Lord commanded them; the Lord also accepted Job.
10. And the Lord restored the fortunes of Job, when he prayed for his friends; also the Lord gave Job twice as much as he had before.
I would suggest we both review Job. Me because I haven't read the whole thing and you because you obviously missed what was being condemned as blasphemy with the friends perhaps because you strive to see only see only the most literal levels or perhaps in this case you gave too much context and weren't literal enough failing to see blasphemy because you fail to see any higher thought involved beyond condemning G-d or not as blasphemy. Perhaps it's time you thought there is more too ancient thought processes than just the most basic level.
@RG,
G-d also condemns his friends for speaking blasphemy concerning him and also they are condemned in the book for a lack of sufficient sensitivity to Job's plight in condemning him.
OK, I see where you're getting the blasphemy from. It's a little different from Job's kind of blasphemy.
Perhaps it's time you thought there is more too ancient thought processes than just the most basic level.
Hey, I give the ancients plenty of credit. And I can hardly be accused of taking things too literally. I understand the figure of Joseph as a subtle symbol for resurrection, and resurrection itself as a metaphor for redemption. Similarly, I understand "bind it as a sign upon your hand" as a metaphor for constant reminder.
But "an eye for an eye"? That's meant literally. No doubt in my mind. "Let not your eye show mercy."
The common denominator in my approach is to find the simplest explanation that makes the most sense. I think you have a similar approach, but you have become confused because you're trying to fit everything into the traditional Orthodox perspective. I'll bet you won't admit, for instance, that an eye for an eye is meant literally, even though that's the obvious explanation.
Been busy. I'll answer you now. I think that basically you have the problem of always trying to fit the literal meaning into a DH interpretation or sometimes other interpretations after your own heart. I by contrast have no problem admitting if I am not going according to what I feel is the literal meaning. Still I try to leave no sources unturned that have been used to uncover the literal meaning behind as the Tanach and the Talmud are not books which lend themselves to an interpretation independent of temporal and spacial context as no book is. For instance identifying animals and plants in the Tanach is one hard thing to do because of asking what would be referred to by it as animal X or plant Y. As for an eye for an eye I would agree that a literal meaning would basically imply what you say although such an interpretation does have its problems.
One part suggests a general principle:Exodus Chapter 21...
23. And if any further harm follows, then you 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, bruise for bruise.
But the lower part doesn't follow a strict literal interpretation: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.
28. If an ox gores a man or a woman, that they die; then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted.
29. But if the ox was wont to gore with its horn in times past, and its owner had been warned, and he has not kept it in, but it has killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.
30. If ransom be laid on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is laid upon him.
31. Whether it has gored a son, or has gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done to it.
32. If the ox shall gore a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
33. And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass falls in it;
34. The owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money to its owner; and the dead beast shall be his.
35. And if one man’s ox hurts another’s, that he die; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide its money; and the dead ox also they shall divide.
36. Or if it is known that the ox used to gore in times past, and its owner has not kept it in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own.
37. If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.
Life for life also has been used for replacing a beast's life in restitution.
Leviticus Chapter 24...
17. And he who kills any man shall surely be put to death.
18. And he who kills a beast shall make restitution for it; life for life.
19. And if a man causes a blemish in his neighbor; as he has done, so shall it be done to him;
20. Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done back to him.
21. And he who kills a beast, he shall restore it; and he who kills a man, he shall be put to death.
22. You shall have one kind of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country; for I am the Lord your God...
The below from which you quoted is not ordaining a punishment of eye for eye literally but in this case it is merely using it as an expression for having whatever the false witness was wanting to happen to the accused to instead be done to him. Obviously in this case there is no eye which was removed but it is clear that the saying of eye for eye etc. was used as a legal expression.
Deuteronomy Chapter 19...
16. If a false witness rises up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;
17. Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, who shall be in those days;
18. And the judges shall make diligent inquiries; and, behold, if the witness is a false witness, and has testified falsely against his brother;
19. Then shall you do to him, as he had thought to have done to his brother; so shall you put the evil away from among you.
20. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.
21. And your eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot...
@RG,
Thanks for responding.
As for an eye for an eye I would agree that a literal meaning would basically imply what you say.
V'chacham modeh al ha-emet. So let's go one further. Do you agree that an eye for an eye -- literally -- was the original intent of whoever wrote the Torah?
One part suggests a general principle:Exodus Chapter 21...
But the lower part doesn't follow a strict literal interpretation
"General principle?" This sounds like Talmudics. And I don't see anything non-literal about the passage you quoted.
Deuteronomy Chapter 19... Obviously in this case there is no eye which was removed but it is clear that the saying of eye for eye etc. was used as a legal expression.
Ain mikra yotzai midai p'shuto. The intent of the verse is clear enough. The witness attempted to cause a particular punishment, this is the punishment he receives. There is an obvious case where the witness' eye would be removed -- where he testified that the defendant knocked out someone's eye.
">One part suggests a general principle:Exodus Chapter 21...
But the lower part doesn't follow a strict literal interpretation
General principle?" This sounds like Talmudics."
You seem to have the idea that the Talmud never can get a literal pshat. Your disdain of legal dialectics would leave you alone in the Supreme Court. In any event where is your literalism for the Supreme Court decisions? Also I could say the same to you with your supposed literalism which is really most of the time DH interpretation or some other monstrosity after your own heart.
"And I don't see anything non-literal about the passage you quoted."
You were not being very observant with the language. On the contrary as I wrote it says:Exodus Chapter 21...
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...30. If ransom be laid on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is laid upon him.
31. Whether it has gored a son, or has gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done to it...33. And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass falls in it;
34. The owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money to its owner; and the dead beast shall be his.
As I also pointed out life for life is being used to give an animal in place of an animal as opposed to killing an animal.
">Deuteronomy Chapter 19... Obviously in this case there is no eye which was removed but it is clear that the saying of eye for eye etc. was used as a legal expression.
Ain mikra yotzai midai p'shuto. The intent of the verse is clear enough. The witness attempted to cause a particular punishment, this is the punishment he receives. There is an obvious case where the witness' eye would be removed -- where he testified that the defendant knocked out someone's eye."
No. If someone tried to knock out someone's eye and was prevented he doesn't lose his eye based on an eye for an eye. It is only if someone actually did it otherwise it is not an eye for an eye. What is actually being said here is rather that whatever the rule of the court would have been on the accused if he were guilty will now be on the witness. It is not prescribing what should be the punishment of anything but saying whatever would be the punishment should be on him.
"As for an eye for an eye I would agree that a literal meaning would basically imply what you say.
V'chacham modeh al ha-emet. So let's go one further. Do you agree that an eye for an eye -- literally -- was the original intent of whoever wrote the Torah?"
In Exodus 21 it is referring to a case where there is a killing, a fatality so it says a life for life. Are we then to say that eye for eye ect. in the next verse was meaning that in the absence of death we don't do an eye for an eye ect. but upon a death we do? No and we don't take out an eye for a dead person. If we decided his eye is to be removed we would have decided that is his sentence from the moment she lost her eye, not wait till she's dead to decide. So from Exodus 21 I don't see a literal case being mandated for an eye for an eye etc.
The only place where you have an argument for a literal case for what you wish to say is where it says:Leviticus Chapter 24...19. And if a man causes a blemish in his neighbor; as he has done, so shall it be done to him;
20. Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done back to him.
The problem for you is that it is not the most literal as shown above and even in this chapter as it also says:18. And he who kills a beast shall make restitution for it; life for life...21. And he who kills a beast, he shall restore it; and he who kills a man, he shall be put to death.
The man killed the beast and pays restitution without a death being prescribed for man or beast in this case but if he kills a man he has to die. I would say you barely have a case for your eye for an eye. You don't want to believe the oral law fine so if that's true then accept a modified eye for an eye concept because that's the best a literal interpretation can give you.
Dude, your comment is too long, I will not be reading it.
Then live in ignorance.
You are having things being done in place of a literla eye for an eye etc. right in the Torah's literal meaning. If you don't want your eyes to see such heresy fine.
OK, i couldn't live in ignorance any longer. But please, RG, edit your quotes!
You seem to have the idea that the Talmud never can get a literal pshat.
I've learned tons of Talmud, and I have a hypothesis that every drasha is not p'shat. That's what makes it a drasha. In fact, many drashot contradict the p'shat.
Were the Amoraim aware of this? Of COURSE.
As for lex talionis,
in Deuteronomy the explanation is simple, as I have explained. The witness is punished for *trying* to cause a particular punishment. It's the same as if he testified that the person committed a capital crime -- the witness would be executed in that case, regardless of whether the original crime was carried out.
With respect to the animal, it's a life for a life in that the person has to provide a new animal.
I would say you barely have a case for your eye for an eye.
Beyond the "ain mikra yotzai miday p'shuto" aspect, you've ignored the strong indicators from the verse:
"As a man causes a blemish in another man, so shall be done to him"
"Your eye shall not show mercy"
These sentences make sense only if an eye for an eye is meant literally, not as some kind of monetary compensation.
Furthermore, the Bible uses different terminology for monetary compensation. The word "kofer" or "plilim" is more appropriate for such an interpretation. But these terms are not used here.
There is a Mishnaic opinion that "an eye for an eye -- mamash." Would you at least agree that this is a tradition for physical retribution?
"You seem to have the idea that the Talmud never can get a literal pshat.
I've learned tons of Talmud, and I have a hypothesis that every drasha is not p'shat. That's what makes it a drasha."
No it can be needed to figure out what is the meaning irrespective of if it is literal or not. Just check out the Supreme Court records.
"In fact, many drashot contradict the p'shat."
Many do which is hardly a secret in the rabbinic world.
"As for lex talionis,
in Deuteronomy the explanation is simple, as I have explained. The witness is punished for *trying* to cause a particular punishment. It's the same as if he testified that the person committed a capital crime -- the witness would be executed in that case, regardless of whether the original crime was carried out."
My point was that lex talionis does not cover such a situation.
"With respect to the animal, it's a life for a life in that the person has to provide a new animal."
Real lex talionis would demand death for a man or a beast.
"There is a Mishnaic opinion that "an eye for an eye -- mamash." Would you at least agree that this is a tradition for physical retribution?"
I don't know as that statement was too brief given without context. It would be like me saying life for life-- mamash. Maybe I mean like restoring an animal or person for a loss. If I would find such an interpretation as you give fine. I have as yet failed to find one.
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...
He loses his slave instead of an eye or tooth. That's what it means by saying he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake and he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.
29. But if the ox was wont to gore with its horn in times past, and its owner had been warned, and he has not kept it in, but it has killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.
30. If ransom be laid on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is laid upon him.
31. Whether it has gored a son, or has gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done to it...
Ransom for the redemption of his life means his life is spared.
"Your eye shall not show mercy"
It is implying in a case in which false witnesses were caught. It just means whatever punishment will be inflicted must be carried out with these false witnesses. Only what the court would impose was the the threat to the intended victim and thus the punishment for the false witnesses.
"As a man causes a blemish in another man, so shall be done to him"
Again only in Levitcus does your interpretation seem literal but with exceptions to the rule as noted. I noticed another violation of lex talionis in Exodus chapter 21 "18. And if men quarrel together, and one strikes another with a stone, or with his fist, and he dies not, but keeps to his bed;
19. If he rises again, and walks out with his staff, then shall he who struck him be acquitted; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed."
"Furthermore, the Bible uses different terminology for monetary compensation. The word "kofer" or "plilim" is more appropriate for such an interpretation. But these terms are not used here."
The word kofer is in Exodus 21:30 29. But if the ox was wont to gore with its horn in times past, and its owner had been warned, and he has not kept it in, but it has killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.
30. If ransom be laid on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is laid upon him.
Post a Comment