Showing posts with label derash. Show all posts
Showing posts with label derash. Show all posts

Monday, August 22, 2016

The true derasha of 'an eye for an eye' = compensation

In today's daf, I really enjoyed the various derashot for ayin tachat ayin meaning kesef rather than an actual eye. I didn't really appreciate how the systemic analysis of the setama degemara analyzed and modified the meaning of those derashot.

To take one example, here is a powerful derasha at the beginning of the gemara (Bava Kamma 83b):
גמ' 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 ואם נפשך לומר הרי הוא אומר (במדבר לה, לא) לא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח אשר הוא רשע למות לנפש רוצח אי אתה לוקח כופר אבל אתה לוקח כופר לראשי אברים שאין חוזרין הי מכה אילימא (ויקרא כד, כא) מכה בהמה ישלמנה ומכה אדם יומת ההוא בקטלא כתיב אלא מהכא (ויקרא כד, יח) מכה נפש בהמה ישלמנה נפש תחת נפש וסמיך ליה (ויקרא כד, יט) ואיש כי יתן מום בעמיתו כאשר עשה כן יעשה לו האי לאו מכה הוא הכאה הכאה קאמרינן מה הכאה האמורה בבהמה לתשלומין אף הכאה האמורה באדם לתשלומין

Why [pay compensation]? Does the Divine Law not say 'Eye for eye'?3  Why not take this literally to mean [putting out] the eye [of the offender]? — Let not this enter your mind, since it has been taught: You might think that where he put out his eye, the offender's eye should be put out, or where he cut off his arm, the offender's arm should be cut off, or again where he broke his leg, the offender's leg should be broken. [Not so; for] it is laid down, 'He that smiteth any man…' 'And he that smiteth a beast …'4  just as in the case of smiting a beast compensation is to be paid, so also in the case of smiting a man compensation is to be paid.5  And should this [reason] not satisfy you,6  note that it is stated, 'Moreover ye shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer, that is guilty of death',7  implying that it is only for the life of a murderer that you may not take 'satisfaction',8  whereas you may take 'satisfaction' [even] for the principal limbs, though these cannot be restored.' To what case of 'smiting' does it refer? If to [the Verse] 'And he that killeth a beast, shall make it good: and he that killeth a man, shall be put to death',9  does not this verse refer to murder?10  — The quotation was therefore made from this text: And he that smiteth a beast mortally shall make it good: life for life,11  which comes next to and if a man maim his neighbour: as he hath done so shall it be done to him.12  But is [the term] 'smiting' mentioned in the latter text?12  — We speak of the effect of smiting implied in this text and of the effect of smiting implied in the other text: just as smiting mentioned in the case of beast refers to the payment of compensation, so also does smiting in the case of man refer to the payment of compensation.

The derasha from the brayta is pretty clear. It is based on Vayikra 24:21:

וּמַכֵּה בְהֵמָה יְשַׁלְּמֶנָּה וּמַכֵּה אָדָם יוּמָת.

The brayta uses the words of the pasuk in sequence, makei beheima … umakei adam, and has a form of yeshalmena. The setama degemara, for various reasons, dismisses this as the pasuk under discussion, and instead uses sequential pesukim, where makei beheimah has an intervening nefesh and there is no words makei adam, let alone umakei adam.

But this pasuk (Vayikra 25:21) was the source, and the derasha works as follows. There are two implications to the word makei. It could mean smite to kill (vehikeiti kol bechor) or it could mean to injure (makei aviv ve’imo). In context, on a peshat level, of course it refers to smiting which kills. As the gemara says, ההוא בקטלא כתיב. (My assumption is that the gemara refers to the ketala which the perpetrator did.) But on that same peshat level, the pasuk is explicit that if someone kills, he gets the death penalty, יוּמָת.

However, the derasha does two things. Change it to injury and lop off the last word. And what operates here is juxtaposition, rather than a gezeira shava of makei makei. So it is:

וּמַכֵּה בְהֵמָה יְשַׁלְּמֶנָּה
one who wounds a beheima shall pay
וּמַכֵּה אָדָם
as well as one who wounds a person.

Believe me that there are derashot that operate like this, lopping of the pasuk ending which provides context, and reinterpreting the word. Here is a famous example, about techiyat hameitim:

In parashat Vayelech, the following pasuk:
טז  וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, הִנְּךָ שֹׁכֵב עִם-אֲבֹתֶיךָ; וְקָם הָעָם הַזֶּה וְזָנָה אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהֵי נֵכַר-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר הוּא בָא-שָׁמָּה בְּקִרְבּוֹ, וַעֲזָבַנִי, וְהֵפֵר אֶת-בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר כָּרַתִּי אִתּוֹ.
16 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Behold, thou art about to sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go astray after the foreign gods of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake Me, and break My covenant which I have made with them.

There is a famous gemara in Sanhedrin 90b:
Sectarians [minim]17  asked Rabban Gamaliel: Whence do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, will resurrect the dead? He answered them from the Torah, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa, yet they did not accept it [as conclusive proof]. 'From the Torah': for it is written, And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers and rise up [again].18  'But perhaps,' said they to him, '[the verse reads], and the people will rise up?'

This pasuk is also listed in Yoma 52b as one of five pesukim which Issi ben Yehuda considers ambiguous, in the sense that it can be read associating both forward and backwards.

But our gemara treats the derasha with a systematic seriousness which spoils the derasha. The word makei can have only one meaning, and there is an ending to the pasuk. And it assumes it is a gezeira shava rather than a creative juxtaposition / lop derasha. And so it ends up with a forced derasha which is nowhere near as creative and enjoyable, but is rather a mechanistic pilpul which gives me a headache. And due to the gemara’s reinterpretation, no one knows the true derasha anymore.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

The uprooted peshat in אַל תּוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו

Summary: If Rashi maintains that peshat is referring to land, then how could Chazal darshen and restrict onaah to movable objects? Ramban answers and I also suggest something.

Post: In parashat Behar, we read about Shemitta. Thus:

13. During this Jubilee year, you shall return, each man to his property.יג. בִּשְׁנַת הַיּוֹבֵל הַזֹּאת תָּשֻׁבוּ אִישׁ אֶל אֲחֻזָּתוֹ:
14. And when you make a sale to your fellow Jew or make a purchase from the hand of your fellow Jew, you shall not wrong one another.יד. וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר לַעֲמִיתֶךָ אוֹ קָנֹה מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ אַל תּוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו:
15. According to the number of years after the Jubilee, you shall purchase from your fellow Jew; according to the number of years of crops, he shall sell to you.טו. בְּמִסְפַּר שָׁנִים אַחַר הַיּוֹבֵל תִּקְנֶה מֵאֵת עֲמִיתֶךָ בְּמִסְפַּר שְׁנֵי תְבוּאֹת יִמְכָּר לָךְ:
16. The more [the remaining] years, you shall increase its purchase [price], and the fewer the [remaining] years, you shall decrease its purchase [price], because he is selling you a number of crops.טז. לְפִי רֹב הַשָּׁנִים תַּרְבֶּה מִקְנָתוֹ וּלְפִי מְעֹט הַשָּׁנִים תַּמְעִיט מִקְנָתוֹ כִּי מִסְפַּר תְּבוּאֹת הוּא מֹכֵר לָךְ:

17. And you shall not wrong, one man his fellow Jew, and you shall fear your God, for I am the Lord, your God.יז. וְלֹא תוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת עֲמִיתוֹ וְיָרֵאתָ מֵאֱלֹהֶיךָ כִּי אֲנִי ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:


Rashi (on pasuk 15) notes a linkage of these pesukim on a peshat level, though Chazal also darshen this pasuk in a different manner (as Rashi further explains).

According to the number of years after the Jubilee, you shall purchase: The following is its simple meaning, to explain the verse according to its context: [The text] comes to warn against wronging [by overcharging, thereby linking verses 14-16 together (Mizrachi)], [namely, that] when you sell or purchase land, you should be aware of how many years remain until the [next] Jubilee, and according to [that number of] years and the crops that it is fit to yield, the seller should sell and the buyer should buy. For indeed, he will eventually return it to him in the Jubilee year. Thus, if there are [only] a few years [left until the next Jubilee year], and this one sells it for a high price, the purchaser has been wronged. And if there are many years [left until the next Jubilee year], and he will eat many crops from it [until Jubilee-if the purchaser had purchased the land for a low price], the seller has been wronged. Therefore, it must be purchased according to the time [left until the next Jubilee]. And this is [the meaning of] what it says, תְבוּאֹת יִמְכָּרלָ בְּמִסְפַּר שְׁנֵי, “according to the number of years of crops, he shall sell to you.” “According to the number of years of crop yields that it will remain in the hands of the purchaser, you shall sell it to him.” Now, [the word שְׁנֵי can mean “years of” or can mean “two.” Thus,] our Rabbis have expounded from here (see end of this Rashi for clarification), that one who sells his field is not permitted to redeem it in less than two years, that it must remain in the purchaser’s possession for exactly two years to the day, even if there are three crops during those two years, for example, if he sold it to him with crop standing in it [and then the ensuing years brought two more yields of produce. In that case, the seller cannot redeem after one year, claiming that two years’ crops have been issued,] for the word שְׁנֵי [which could mean two, i.e., two yields] does not leave its simple meaning [that it means years,] referring to [the number of years that elapse and] specifically, years that elapse with a yield of crop, but not years of blight. [Now, if the word שְׁנֵי means “years” and not two, then how do our Rabbis expound it to mean “two years”?] Because [the term שְׁנֵי is plural, and] the minimum quantity implied by שָׁנִים is two. — [Arachin 29b; Mizrachi]במספר שנים אחר היובל תקנה: זהו פשוטו ליישב מקרא על אופניו על האונאה בא להזהיר, כשתמכור או תקנה קרקע דע כמה שנים יש עד היובל. ולפי השנים ותבואות השדה שהיא ראויה לעשות ימכור המוכר ויקנה הקונה, שהרי סופו להחזירה לו בשנת היובל. ואם יש שנים מועטות וזה מוכרה בדמים יקרים הרי נתאנה לוקח, ואם יש שנים מרובות ואכל ממנה תבואות הרבה ולקחה בדמים מועטים הרי נתאנה מוכר, לפיכך צריך לקנותה לפי הזמן. וזהו שנאמר במספר שני תבואות ימכר לך, לפי מנין שני התבואות שתהא עומדת ביד הלוקח תמכור לו. ורבותינו דרשו מכאן, שהמוכר שדהו אינו רשאי לגאול פחות משתי שנים, שתעמוד שתי שנים ביד הלוקח מיום ליום, ואפילו יש שלש תבואות באותן שתי שנים, כגון שמכרה לו בקמותיה. ושני אינו יוצא מפשוטו, כלומר מספר שנים של תבואות, ולא של שדפון, ומעוט שנים שנים:






The peshat meaning then is that there is onaah (wronging) lekarkaos (for land property). But, the problem with such a linkage is that Chazal explicitly maintain that there is no onaah lakarkaos!

First, then, how do Chazal understand the explicit pesukim that there is onaah lakarkaos? Simple. They sever the connection between the various pesukim here and understand onaah to refer to non-karka. Thus, the pasuk again:

14. And when you make a sale to your fellow Jew or make a purchase from the hand of your fellow Jew, you shall not wrong one another.יד. וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר לַעֲמִיתֶךָ אוֹ קָנֹה מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ אַל תּוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו:


Who says we need to look at context?! Rather, let us take this to refer to metaltelin, moveable objects. Thus, Rashi writes on pasuk 14:

And when you make a sale to your fellow-Jew or make a purchase from your fellow-Jew: Its simple meaning is obvious. The verse can also be expounded [to teach us the following lesson]: How do we know that when you wish to sell, you should sell to your fellow-Jew? For Scripture says, “ וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר לַעֲמִיתֶךָ,” i.e., “And when you make a sale--sell to your fellow-Jew!” And how do we know that if you come to buy, you should buy from your fellow-Jew? For Scripture continues here: “אוֹ קָנֹה מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ,” i.e., “or when you buy--buy from your fellow-Jew!” - [Torath Kohanim 25:29]
וכי תמכרו וגו': לפי פשוטו כמשמעו. ועוד יש דרשה מנין כשאתה מוכר, מכור לישראל חברך, תלמוד לומר וכי תמכרו ממכר לעמיתך מכור, ומנין שאם באת לקנות קנה מישראל חברך, תלמוד לומר או קנה מיד עמיתך:
you shall not wrong: This means wronging through money (see verse 17 below and Lev. 19:33). - [Torath Kohanim 25:31]אל תונו: זו אונאת ממון:

Its simple meaning is obvious -- Rashi writes. This simple meaning is perhaps that the topic is onaah for karkaos. Or maybe simple onaah in any context. But there is further a dersha about preferring to sell to a coreligionist. And then, on al tonu, Rashi states this is through money.

Rashi cited in other contexts the concept from Chazal of ain mikra yotzei midei peshuto, that the verse never leaves its simple meaning. Even if Chazal darshen a pasuk to mean something else, it means both what Chazal darshen it to mean and the simple peshat. So how could Chazal have cancelled out the simple peshat here?

I would put forth the following answers:
  1. When Chazal say ain mikra yotzei midei peshuto, they don't mean the same thing Rashi and others mean. A careful analysis reveals that this most basically means that when there is a mashal and nimshal based on the Biblical text, the mashal is describing true attributes even as the nimshal is the intended target. (Thus, a sword is described in Tehillim as a decoration, and the literal meaning of the mashal holds, even though Chazal understand that this is an allegory referring to Torah scholars and Torah learning.) In other instances, ain mikra is a general rule that the peshat of a pasuk will always rise to the level of practical halachic action -- except where it does not. Thus, it comes up in discussion where they say that though this is the general rule, it is not so here, in instant X. Rather, the derash comes and supersedes the peshat. I don't believe that they had a specific tradition about the instances where derash did and did not supersede peshat. Rather, they had traditions of interpretation, or innovated explanations based on derashot. And if there understanding (on occasion) would supersede the simple peshat, then so be it.
  2. Some Rishonim take ain mikra as a justification to explain the simple meaning, even where it is at odds with (or in many instances merely runs parallel to) the derasha of Chazal. How to resolve both to exist is not there concern. I think they generally understand that, as it applies to practical halacha, at least, the derasha is dispositive and the peshat is set aside. See Rashbam and the Vilna Gaon for example. So I am not sure that even if Rashi says this here, we need to break our heads to determine how to work this out lehalacha. Except of course that Rashi does explicitly talk (in terms of the word  ושני  meaning years vs. two) about ain mikra.

The Ramban grapples with this Rashi and this issue. Thus, he cites Rashi in full. And then he writes:
ובאמת שהוא הנכון בישוב המקרא.
אבל רבותינו אמרו (ב"מ נו א): 
שאין אונאה לקרקעות, שנאמר או קנה מיד עמיתך, דבר הנקנה מיד ליד.
והמקרא הזה כפי פשוטו ולפי מדרשו לדברי הרב בקרקעות הוא. 
"And in truth this is correct in settling the meaning of the verse. But our Sages said {in Bava Metzia 56a-b} that there is no onaah for karkaos, for it states in the verse {above, 14} אוֹ קָנֹה מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ, namely that which is acquired from hand to hand.


Meanwhile, according to Rashi, in its peshat and derash, this verse refers to karkaos!"
אבל על כורחנו נצטרך להטות מקראות מפשוטן, ונאמר שיהיה כל פסוק עומד בעצמו. יאמר וכי תמכרו ממכר לעמיתך או קנה מיד עמיתך דבר הנקנה מיד ליד אל תונו איש את אחיו, ויחזור ויאמר, במספר שנים אחר היובל תקנה מאתו התבואות וכמספר שני התבואות ימכרם לך, כפי השנים תרבה ותמעיט כי על כל פנים תשיבנו לו ביובל. וכל זה אזהרה ביובל שיזהרו בו לעולם, וחזר ואמר ולא תונו איש את עמיתו, בדברים.

ואני חושב עוד סברא, שודאי המאנה את חברו לדעת עובר בלאו, בין במטלטלים בין בקרקעות, שבהן דיבר הכתוב אל תונו איש את אחיו במספר שנים אחר היובל, שהוא מזהיר שיקנו וימכרו לפי השנים ולא יונו איש את אחיו. אבל רבותינו חדשו באונאה תשלומים בשתות המיקח, וביטול מיקח ביותר משתות, ומזה בלבד מעטו הקרקעות לפי שהאונאה בהם אפילו ביתר משתות, מחילה, כמו שהיא מחילה במטלטלים בפחות משתות, אע"פ שהוא אסור להונות כן לדעת, אבל אין דרך בני אדם לבטל ממכרם מפני אונאה מועטת כזו.
"And this verse, according to its peshat meaning and according to its derash, according to the Rav {=Rashi} refers to karkaos


But against are will we must divert the verses from their peshat, and state that each verse stands on its own. 

  1. First it states that {verse 14} וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר לַעֲמִיתֶךָ אוֹ קָנֹה מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ אַל תּוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו, 'and when you make a sale to your fellow Jew or make a purchase from the hand of your fellow Jew, you shall not wrong one another'. 
  2. Then, it returns and says {verse 15}  בְּמִסְפַּר שָׁנִים אַחַר הַיּוֹבֵל תִּקְנֶה מֵאֵת עֲמִיתֶךָ בְּמִסְפַּר שְׁנֵי תְבוּאֹת יִמְכָּר לָךְ, according to the years you will increase or decrease, for in all instances, you will restore it to him at Yovel. And all of this is a warning regarding Yovel that warns him forever.
  3. And then it returns {to topic 1} and states {verse 17} וְלֹא תוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת עֲמִיתוֹ, in devarim {words}.
And I consider another sevara, that certainly one who wrongs {me'aneh} his fellow intentionally violates a prohibition, whether for metaltelin or karkaos, for in them did the Scriptures state אַל תּוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו, בְּמִסְפַּר שָׁנִים אַחַר הַיּוֹבֵל, that it warns that he should purchase and sell according to the years, and a man should not wrong his brother. But our Sages innovated by onaah the idea of payment in 1/6 of the purchased item, and the cancellation of the purchase in more than 1/6, and in this alone were karkaos excluded, since onaah in them even more than 1/6 is forgiven {and let go by the other party}, just as it is forgiven in metaltelin in less than 1/6, even though it is forbidden to wrong in such manner intentionally, but it is not the way of people to cancel their sale because of a minor onaah such as this."

ודרשו חכמים מפני שאמר הכתוב וכי תמכרו ממכר לעמיתך או קנה דבר הנקנה מיד ליד אל תונו איש את אחיו, למדנו שיש באונאה דין מיוחד במטלטלים שאינו נוהג בקרקעות, והוא חזרת הממון, אבל אזהרת הלאו נוהגת בכולן. ולכך אמר "וכי תמכרו ממכר" לשון רבים, למוכר קרקעות ולמוכר מטלטלין, "או קנה מיד עמיתך", היחיד מהם המוכר המטלטלין מיד ליד, ואמר לכולן "אל תונו", וכיון שייחד והפריש המטלטלין ריבה בהן דין אונאה, והיא בחזרת התשלומין. וזה דבר נכון כפי המדרשים שקבלו רבותינו ברמזי התורה.

ואולי יהיה כל זה אסמכתא, כי הלאו אזהרה בין בקרקע בין במטלטלין, וחזרת הממון בידם קבלה במטלטלין ולא בקרקעות כמו שאמרו (ב"ק יד ב): דבר השוה לכל כסף. כי השיעורים כולם בשתות ויתר על שתות כפי דעות בני אדם, ולמה לא יוציאו הקרקעות מן הדין הזה, והם הוציאו ממנו כלי בעל הבית.
"And the Chachamim darshened that since Scriptures states וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר לַעֲמִיתֶךָ אוֹ קָנֹה...[miyad], something which is acquired from hand to hand... אַל תּוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו. We learn that there is in onaah a unique law by metaltelin which is not practiced by karkaos, and this is return of the money. But the warning of the prohibition is applicable to all of them. And that is why it stated וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר in plural form, to the seller of land and the seller of movable objects. אוֹ קָנֹה מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ, the single one of them, who is the seller of metaltelin from hand to hand. And it states for all of them אַל תּוֹנוּ. And since it singled out and separated the metaltelin, it included in it the law of onaah, namely the returning of the payment. And this matter is correct according to the midrashim that our Rabbis received in the hints of the Torah.

And perhaps all this is an asmachta {a hinting support rather than derivation} for the prohibition is a warning whether for karka or metaltelin, and the return of the money in their hands is a tradition for metaltelin and not in karkaos, as they said {in Bava Kamma 14b{ 'somehting which is equal to all kesef. For the measures in all of them are 1/6 and more then 1/6 according the thought of people, and why not exclude karkaos from this law, when they exclude from it the vessels of the baal habayis?"

ואמרו (ב"מ נא א): 
לא שנו אלא בלוקח מן התגר אבל בלוקח מבעל הבית אין לו אונאה, מפני שדרך בעלי בתים שלא ימכרו כלי תשמישן.

וגם יתכן לומר כי הכתוב יזהיר שידעו מספר השנים עד היובל, ולפיהם ימכרו ויקנו ולא יונו בהם איש את אחיו להטעותו במספר, או להטעותו במכירה שיחשוב בה שהיא לחלוטין ויטעהו בכך, אבל ידעו שניהם ויודיעו זה לזה המספר, כי המכירה היא במספר שנים עד היובל. שגם בקרקעות יש אונאה בטועים במידה ובמנין, ואפילו בפחות משתות, וכל שכן במטלטלין.
"And they said {in Bava Metzia 51a}: they only taught this regarding one who purchased from the merchant, but if one purchased from a homeowner, there is no onaah, since the manner of baalei batim are that they do not sell the vessels they use {except at a dear price}.

And it is also possible to say that the Scriptures warns that one should know the number of years until Yovel, and in accordance with them one should sell and purchase, and not wrong in them one man his fellow, to trick him as to the number, or to trick him in the sale, that he should think that he has it in the clear, and misguide him in this, but rather they both should know and inform one another of the number {of years}, that this sale is in the number of years until the Yovel. For also by karkaos is there onaah when they err in measure and number, and even in less than 1/6, and all the more so in metaltelin."

End quote of the Ramban.

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin