(Exodus 21:22) "And if men fight, etc." What is the intent of this section? From (Ibid. 14) "And if a man be bent against his neighbor to kill him," we hear only that one who intends to smite his foe and does so is to be put to death; but we do not hear the same for one who intends to smite his foe and smites his friend. It is, therefore, written (to this effect) "And if men fight … and if there be death (in his friend) then you shall give a life for a life."
Rebbi says: If one intends to smite this foe and smites a different foe it follows that he should be liable; but if one intends to smite his foe and smites his friend, should he not be exempt? The verse, rather, comes to teach that payment for a wife's injury belongs to the husband, and payment for (the death of) fetuses belongs to the husband.
R. Yitzchak says: Even a man who intends to smite one and smites another is not liable — until he makes it clear that it is this man that he wishes to smite, as it is written (Devarim 19:11) "and he rise up against him and he smite him, etc." What, then, is the intent of "and if men fight, etc."? From (Leviticus 24:17) "And if a man smite any soul of man" I would understand even an eight-month birth, (who is destined to die); it is, therefore, written ("and if men fight," to indicate that) he is not liable unless he kills one who is (otherwise) destined to live.
"and they hit a pregnant woman, and her fetuses miscarry": Abba Chanin said in the name of R. Eliezer: Why "a pregnant woman"? From "and her fetuses miscarry" it is obvious that she is pregnant! — I might think that if he struck her head or one of her limbs (and she miscarried) he is liable; it is, therefore, written "pregnant." To apprise us that he is not liable unless he strikes the region of her pregnancy.
Variantly: What is the intent of "and they hit a pregnant woman"? From "as the woman of the husband imposes upon him" I might think, even if the pregnancy is not his; it is, therefore, written "pregnant," to teach that he is liable only to the impregnator.
"and there be no death": in the woman. "then he shall be punished": for the fetuses (i.e., payment for the fetuses shall be exacted of him.) You say this, but perhaps (the meaning is that there be no) death in the fetuses, then he shall be punished for the woman? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 23) "And if there be death, then you shall give a life for a life" (which, perforce, refers to the life of the woman) — But perhaps (the meaning is) if there be no death either in the woman or in the fetuses, (then he must pay; but if there is death in either, he is put to death and there is no payment.) — But if you say this, he (the father) must pay the midwife (for delivery of the fetuses). (How, then, is "he shall be punished" to be understood?) How, then, must the verse be understood? "and there be no death" — in the woman; "then he shall be punished" — for the fetuses.
"then he shall be punished": (by payment of) money. You say this, but perhaps death is meant? It follows, inductively. It is written here "punish," and, elsewhere (Devarim 22:19) "and they shall punish (i.e., fine) him a hundred (shekels of) silver." Just as there, money; so, here, money.
"As the husband of the woman imposes (payment) upon him": Scripture hereby apprises us that payment for injury to the woman reverts to the husband, and payment for the fetuses reverts to the husband, and all who are liable to the death penalty are exempt from (monetary) payment.
Variantly: "As the husband of the woman imposes (payment) upon him": I might think, as much as he likes! It is, therefore, "and he shall give it by pelilim," whereby we are taught he pays by word of judges, "pelilim" being judges, as in (Devarim 32:31) "And (now) our foes judge us" ("veoivenu pelilim"), and (I Samuel 2:25) "If a man sins against a man, then a judge judges ('pilel') him."
(Exodus 21:23) "And if there be ason": "Ason" is death. And though there is no proof for this, it is intimated in (Genesis 42:38) "and he will be met with ason."
Rebbi says; "nefesh for nefesh": Money is intended. You say "money," but perhaps "life" (literally) is intended? It follows inductively, viz.: "imposed" ("yashith") is written here (Ibid. 23) and "imposed" ("yushath") is written elsewhere (Ibid. 30). Just as there monetary payment (is indicated); here, too, monetary payment (is intended).
"an eye for an eye" money. You say "money," but perhaps an eye (literally) is intended? R. Elazar was wont to say (Leviticus 24:21) "One who strikes a beast shall pay for it, and one who strikes a man shall be put to death." Scripture likens the injuries of a man to the injuries of a beast, and the injuries of a beast to the injuries of a man. And just as the injuries of a beast are subject to monetary payment, so, the injuries of a man.
R. Eliezer says: It is written (Exodus 21:30) "When kofer ('atonement payment') is imposed upon him, he shall give the redemption of his soul." Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If where Scripture makes him liable for death, he only pays money, then here (re an eye), where Scripture does not make him liable for death, how much more so does he pay only money!
R. Yitzchak says: "an eye for an eye": I understand this to mean that whether or not he intends (to blind him), he pays only money. And, indeed, Scripture limits one who intends to cause a blemish to monetary payment, as it is written (Leviticus 24:19) "And a man if he maims his neighbor" — general; "an eye for an eye" — particular. general-particular. (The rule is:) The general subsumes only what exists in the particular. Then, in (20) "as he maims a man," there is a reversion to the general. Perhaps the first general is generalized (i.e., all maimings are to be included.) Would you say that? We have here an instance of general-particular-general, where (the rule is that) you judge in accordance with the particular, viz.: Just as the particular specifies permanent maimings, external organ prominences, and intended (injuries) as paying only money (and not being punishable by death) (so, all such maimings are included.) Thus, "as he maims a man" — when he intends to maim him.
(Exodus 21:25) "A burn for a burn": If you say (the meaning is that he burned him and spilled his blood, this is already subsumed in "a wound for a wound." If you say that he made a welt, this is already subsumed in "a welt for a welt." How, then, is "a burn for a burn" to be understood? As his burning him on his nail or on the sole of his foot without leaving an impression, lading him with stones and causing him suffering thereby, placing snow on his head and making him cold — in which instances he compensates him for his suffering. But if he were frail, indulged, and pampered, how much more so is his "suffering" allotment to be doubled. This is the (type of) suffering intended in "a burn for a burn."
(שמות כא,כב) "וְכִי יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים, וְנָגְפוּ אִשָּׁה הָרָה, וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ, וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אָסוֹן, *נָגְפוּ: היכו או דחפו. עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו בַּעַל הָאִשָּׁה, וְנָתַן בִּפְלִלִים."*בִּפְלִלִים: על פי החלטת הדיינים. לָמָּה נֶאֶמְרָה פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ? לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: (שמות כא,יד) "וְכִי יָזִד אִישׁ עַל רֵעֵהוּ לְהָרְגוֹ בְעָרְמָה, מֵעִם מִזְבְּחִי תִּקָּחֶנּוּ לָמוּת." לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ אֶלָּא עַל הַמִּתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹת שׂוֹנְאוֹ וְהִכָּהוּ, שֶׁהוּא בְמִיתָה, אֲבָל הַמִּתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹת אֶת שׂוֹנְאוֹ, וְהִכָּה אֶת אוֹהֲבוֹ, לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: "וְכִי יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים, וְנָגְפוּ אִשָּׁה הָרָה".
(Exodus 21:22) "And if men fight, etc." What is the intent of this section? From (Ibid. 14) "And if a man be bent against his neighbor to kill him," we hear only that one who intends to smite his foe and does so is to be put to death; but we do not hear the same for one who intends to smite his foe and smites his friend. It is, therefore, written (to this effect) "And if men fight … and if there be death (in his friend) then you shall give a life for a life."
(שמות כא,כג) "וְאִם אָסוֹן יִהְיֶה, וְנָתַתָּה נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ." בָּא הַכָּתוּב לְלַמְּדָךְ, עַל הַמִּתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹת שׂוֹנְאוֹ וְהִכָּה אֶת אוֹהֲבוֹ, שֶׁהוּא בְּמִיתָה. לְכָךְ נֶאֶמְרָה פָּרָשָׁה.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אַף הַמִּתְכַּוֵּן שֶׁלֹּא לְהַכּוֹת, וְהִכָּה, דִּין הוּא שֶׁיְּהֵי פָטוּר, אֲבָל בָּא הַכָּתוּב לְלַמְּדָךְ, שֶׁחֵבֶל אִשָּׁה לַבַּעַל, וּדְמֵי וְלָדוֹת לַבַּעַל, וְכָל הַמִּתְחַיֵּב מִיתָה, פָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין.
Rebbi says: If one intends to smite this foe and smites a different foe it follows that he should be liable; but if one intends to smite his foe and smites his friend, should he not be exempt? The verse, rather, comes to teach that payment for a wife's injury belongs to the husband, and payment for (the death of) fetuses belongs to the husband.
רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: אַף הַמִּתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹת וְהִכָּה, פָּטוּר, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר: לְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי אֲנִי מַכֶּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יט,יא) "וְאָרַב לוֹ וְקָם עָלָיו וְהִכָּהוּ נֶפֶשׁ". וּמַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְכִי יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים"? לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: (ויקרא כד,יז) "וְאִישׁ כִּי יַכֶּה כָּל נֶפֶשׁ אָדָם", שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, אַף בֶּן שְׁמוֹנָה!*בֶּן שְׁמוֹנָה ימים, שאינו בר קיימה. תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְכִי יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים", מַגִּיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּהֲרֹג בֶּן שֶׁלְּקַיָּמָה.
R. Yitzchak says: Even a man who intends to smite one and smites another is not liable — until he makes it clear that it is this man that he wishes to smite, as it is written (Devarim 19:11) "and he rise up against him and he smite him, etc." What, then, is the intent of "and if men fight, etc."? From (Leviticus 24:17) "And if a man smite any soul of man" I would understand even an eight-month birth, (who is destined to die); it is, therefore, written ("and if men fight," to indicate that) he is not liable unless he kills one who is (otherwise) destined to live.
"וְכִי יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים". אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אֲנָשִׁים, נָשִׁים מְנַיִן? הָיָה רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: הוֹאִיל וְנֶאֶמְרוּ כָל נְזָקִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה סְתָם, וּפָרַט בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן, שֶׁעָשָׂה בוֹ נָשִׁין כַּאֲנָשִׁין, פּוֹרֵט אֲנִי בְכָל נְזָקִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, לַעֲשׁוֹת בָּהֶן נָשִׁין כַּאֲנָשִׁין.
"And if men fight, etc.": This tells me only of men. Whence do I derive (the same for) women? R. Yishmael said, etc. (See 21:18 above).
רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ אוֹמֵר: "אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה", לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? אֶלָּא לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: (שמות כא,לג) "וְכִי יִפְתַּח אִישׁ בּוֹר אוֹ כִּי יִכְרֶה אִישׁ בֹּר וְלֹא יְכַסֶּנּוּ", אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִישׁ, אִשָּׁה מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (שמות כא,כט) "אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה", בָּא הַכָּתוּב וְהִשְׁוָה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה לָאִישׁ בְּכָל נְזָקִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה.
רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ. וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר: (שמות כא,לד) "בַּעַל הַבּוֹר יְשַׁלֵּם"? (שמות כב,ה) "שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם הַמַּבְעִר אֶת הַבְּעֵרָה." הָא מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (שמות כא,כט) "אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה"? לְתַלְמוּדוֹ בָא.
"וְנָגְפוּ אִשָּׁה הָרָה, וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ". אַבָּא חֲנִין מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: "וְנָגְפוּ אִשָּׁה הָרָה", לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ", הָא לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁהִיא הָרָה, וּמַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "הָרָה"? שֶׁאִם הִכָּהּ עַל רֹאשָׁהּ אוֹ עַל אֶחָד מֵאֵבָרֶיהָ, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, יְהֵי חַיָּב! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "הָרָה", מַגִּיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּכֶּנָּה בִמְקוֹם עוֹבָרָהּ.
"and they hit a pregnant woman, and her fetuses miscarry": Abba Chanin said in the name of R. Eliezer: Why "a pregnant woman"? From "and her fetuses miscarry" it is obvious that she is pregnant! — I might think that if he struck her head or one of her limbs (and she miscarried) he is liable; it is, therefore, written "pregnant." To apprise us that he is not liable unless he strikes the region of her pregnancy.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: "וְנָגְפוּ אִשָּׁה הָרָה", מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "כַּאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו בַּעַל הָאִשָּׁה", שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַהֵרָיוֹן שֶׁלּוֹ! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "הָרָה", מַגִּיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא לְבַעַל הַהֵרָיוֹן.
Variantly: What is the intent of "and they hit a pregnant woman"? From "as the woman of the husband imposes upon him" I might think, even if the pregnancy is not his; it is, therefore, written "pregnant," to teach that he is liable only to the impregnator.
"וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ". מִעוּט וְלָדוֹת שְׁנַיִם. וּמְנַיִן אֲפִלּוּ אֶחָד? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "הָרָה", מִכָּל מָקוֹם.
"and her fetuses miscarry": The minimum of "fetuses" is two. Whence do I derive (the same for) even one? From "pregnant" — in any event.
"וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אָסוֹן", בָּאִשָּׁה, "עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ", בַּוְּלָדוֹת. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר "וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אָסוֹן", בָּאִשָּׁה, "עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ", בַּוְּלָדוֹת, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא "אָסוֹן" בַּוְּלָדוֹת, "עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ" בָּאִשָּׁה? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְאִם אָסוֹן יִהְיֶה", הָא מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אָסוֹן"? בָּאִשָּׁה, "עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ" בַּוְּלָדוֹת, אוֹ "לֹא יִהְיֶה אָסוֹן" לֹא בָאִשָּׁה וְלֹא בַוְּלָדוֹת? אֶלָּא אִם אָמַרְתָּ כֵּן, הוּא צָרִיךְ לִתֵּן שְׁכַר חָיָה!*חָיָה: מילדת. הָא מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אָסוֹן"? בָּאִשָּׁה, "עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ", בַּוְּלָדוֹת.
"and there be no death": in the woman. "then he shall be punished": for the fetuses (i.e., payment for the fetuses shall be exacted of him.) You say this, but perhaps (the meaning is that there be no) death in the fetuses, then he shall be punished for the woman? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 23) "And if there be death, then you shall give a life for a life" (which, perforce, refers to the life of the woman) — But perhaps (the meaning is) if there be no death either in the woman or in the fetuses, (then he must pay; but if there is death in either, he is put to death and there is no payment.) — But if you say this, he (the father) must pay the midwife (for delivery of the fetuses). (How, then, is "he shall be punished" to be understood?) How, then, must the verse be understood? "and there be no death" — in the woman; "then he shall be punished" — for the fetuses.
"עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ", מָמוֹן. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר מָמוֹן, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִיתָה? הֲרֵי אַתְּ דָּן: נֶאֱמַר כָּן "עָנוֹשׁ", וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (דברים כב,יט) "וְעָנְשׁוּ אֹתוֹ". מַה לְּהַלָּן, מָמוֹן, אַף כָּן מָמוֹן.
"then he shall be punished": (by payment of) money. You say this, but perhaps death is meant? It follows, inductively. It is written here "punish," and, elsewhere (Devarim 22:19) "and they shall punish (i.e., fine) him a hundred (shekels of) silver." Just as there, money; so, here, money.
"כַּאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו בַּעַל הָאִשָּׁה". בָּא הַכָּתוּב לְלַמְּדָךְ, שֶׁחֵבֶל אִשָּׁה לְבַעְלָהּ, וּדְמֵי וְלָדוֹת לַבַּעַל, וְכָל הַמִתְחַיֵּב מִיתָה פָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין.
"As the husband of the woman imposes (payment) upon him": Scripture hereby apprises us that payment for injury to the woman reverts to the husband, and payment for the fetuses reverts to the husband, and all who are liable to the death penalty are exempt from (monetary) payment.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: "כַּאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו בַּעַל הָאִשָּׁה". שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַהֵרָיוֹן שֶׁלּוֹ! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "הָרָה", מַגִּיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא לְבַעַל הַהֵרָיוֹן.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: "כַּאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו בַּעַל הָאִשָּׁה". שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, כָּל שֶׁיִּרְצֶה! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְנָתַן בִּפְלִלִים." וְאֵין פְּלִילִים אֶלָּא דַּיָּנִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים לב,לא) "וְאֹיְבֵינוּ פְּלִילִים." וְאוֹמֵר: (שמואל א ב,כה) "אִם יֶחֱטָא אִישׁ לְאִישׁ וּפִלְלוֹ אֱלֹהִים".
Variantly: "As the husband of the woman imposes (payment) upon him": I might think, as much as he likes! It is, therefore, "and he shall give it by pelilim," whereby we are taught he pays by word of judges, "pelilim" being judges, as in (Devarim 32:31) "And (now) our foes judge us" ("veoivenu pelilim"), and (I Samuel 2:25) "If a man sins against a man, then a judge judges ('pilel') him."
(שמות כא,כג) ["וְאִם אָסוֹן יִהְיֶה, וְנָתַתָּה נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ."] "וְאִם אָסוֹן יִהְיֶה", אֵין אָסוֹן אֶלָּא מִיתָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאָיָה לַדָּבָר, זֵכֶר לַדָּבָר: (בראשית מב,לח) "וּקְרָאָהוּ אָסוֹן בַּדֶּרֶךְ".
(Exodus 21:23) "And if there be ason": "Ason" is death. And though there is no proof for this, it is intimated in (Genesis 42:38) "and he will be met with ason."
"וְנָתַתָּה נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ." נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נֶפֶשׁ הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם, וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם מָמוֹן תַּחַת נֶפֶשׁ.
"then you shall give a life for a life": It is a life that he pays; he does not pay money for a life.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: "וְנָתַתָּה נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ." נֶפֶשׁ הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם, וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם נֶפֶשׁ וּמָמוֹן תַּחַת נֶפֶשׁ.
Variantly: "then you shall give a life for a life": It is a life that he pays; he does not pay life and money for a life.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: "וְנָתַתָּה נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ", מָמוֹן. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר מָמוֹן, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִיתָה? הֲרֵי אַתְּ דָּן: נֶאֱמַר כָּן 'הֲשָׁתָה' וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן 'הֲשָׁתָה'; מַה 'הֲשָׁתָה' הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן, מָמוֹן, אַף כָּן מָמוֹן.
Rebbi says; "nefesh for nefesh": Money is intended. You say "money," but perhaps "life" (literally) is intended? It follows inductively, viz.: "imposed" ("yashith") is written here (Ibid. 23) and "imposed" ("yushath") is written elsewhere (Ibid. 30). Just as there monetary payment (is indicated); here, too, monetary payment (is intended).
(שמות כא,כד) ["עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן, שֵׁן תַּחַת שֵׁן, יָד תַּחַת יָד, רֶגֶל תַּחַת רָגֶל."] "עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן", מָמוֹן. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר מָמוֹן, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מַמָּשׁ? הָיָה רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: (ויקרא כד,כא) "וּמַכֵּה בְהֵמָה יְשַׁלְּמֶנָּה, וּמַכֵּה אָדָם יוּמָת." הִקִּישׁ נִזְקֵי בְהֵמָה לְנִזְקֵי אָדָם, וְנִזְקֵי אָדָם לְנִזְקֵי בְהֵמָה. מַה נִּזְקֵי בְהֵמָה בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין, אַף נִזְקֵי אָדָם בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין.
"an eye for an eye" money. You say "money," but perhaps an eye (literally) is intended? R. Elazar was wont to say (Leviticus 24:21) "One who strikes a beast shall pay for it, and one who strikes a man shall be put to death." Scripture likens the injuries of a man to the injuries of a beast, and the injuries of a beast to the injuries of a man. And just as the injuries of a beast are subject to monetary payment, so, the injuries of a man.
רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: (שמות כא,ל) "אִם כֹּפֶר יוּשַׁת עָלָיו". וַהֲרֵי דְבָרִים קַל וָחֹמֶר: מָה, אִם בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁעָנַשׁ מִיתָה, לֹא עָנַשׁ אֶלָּא מָמוֹן, וְכָן, שֶׁלֹּא עָנַשׁ מִיתָה, דִּין הוּא שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲנֹשׁ אֶלָּא מָמוֹן.
R. Eliezer says: It is written (Exodus 21:30) "When kofer ('atonement payment') is imposed upon him, he shall give the redemption of his soul." Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If where Scripture makes him liable for death, he only pays money, then here (re an eye), where Scripture does not make him liable for death, how much more so does he pay only money!
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: "עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן". שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, בֵּין מִתְכַּוֵּן, בֵּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּן, אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא מָמוֹן. וַהֲרֵי הַכָּתוּב מוֹצִיא הַמִּתְכַּוֵּן לַעֲשׁוֹת בּוֹ מוּם, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא מַמָּשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (ויקרא כד,יט) "וְאִישׁ כִּי יִתֵּן מוּם בַּעֲמִיתוֹ, כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה, כֵּן יֵעָשֶׂה לּוֹ", כְּלָל; (ויקרא כד,כ) "עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן, שֵׁן תַּחַת שֵׁן", פְּרָט; כְּלָל וּפְרָט, אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁבַּפְּרָט. כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: (ויקרא כד,כ) "כַּאֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן מוּם בָּאָדָם, כֵּן יִנָּתֶן בּוֹ", חָזַר וְכָלַל, אוֹ כָלַל כַּכְּלָל הָרִאשׁוֹן? אָמַרְתָּ לָאו, אֶלָּא כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, אֵין אַתְּ דָּן אֶלָּא כְעֵין הַפְּרָט: מַה הַפְּרָט מְפֹרָשׁ, מוּמִין קְבוּעִין וְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים בְּגָלוּי וּבַמִּתְכַּוֵּן, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא מָמוֹן,*שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא מָמוֹן: הורוביץ מתקן: ממש. אַף אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מוּמִין קְבוּעִין וְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים בְּגָלוּי וּבַמִּתְכַּוֵּן, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא מָמוֹן. תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (ויקרא כד,כ) "כַּאֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן מוּם בָּאָדָם", עַד שֶׁיִּתְכַּוֵּן לַעֲשׁוֹת בּוֹ מוּם.
R. Yitzchak says: "an eye for an eye": I understand this to mean that whether or not he intends (to blind him), he pays only money. And, indeed, Scripture limits one who intends to cause a blemish to monetary payment, as it is written (Leviticus 24:19) "And a man if he maims his neighbor" — general; "an eye for an eye" — particular. general-particular. (The rule is:) The general subsumes only what exists in the particular. Then, in (20) "as he maims a man," there is a reversion to the general. Perhaps the first general is generalized (i.e., all maimings are to be included.) Would you say that? We have here an instance of general-particular-general, where (the rule is that) you judge in accordance with the particular, viz.: Just as the particular specifies permanent maimings, external organ prominences, and intended (injuries) as paying only money (and not being punishable by death) (so, all such maimings are included.) Thus, "as he maims a man" — when he intends to maim him.
(שמות כא,כה) ["כְּוִיָּה תַּחַת כְּוִיָּה, פֶּצַע תַּחַת פָּצַע, חַבּוּרָה תַּחַת חַבּוּרָה."] "כְּוִיָּה תַּחַת כְּוִיָּה". אִם תֹּאמַר שֶׁיִּפְצְעוֹ וְיוֹצִיא דָמוֹ, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר "פֶּצַע תַּחַת פָּצַע"? וְאִם תֹּאמַר שֶׁעָשָׂה בוֹ חַבּוּרָה, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר "חַבּוּרָה תַּחַת חַבּוּרָה"? וּמַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "כְּוִיָּה תַּחַת כְּוִיָּה"? אֶלָּא כְּוָיוֹ עַל כַּף רַגְלוֹ וְלֹא רָשַׁם בּוֹ,*וְלֹא רָשַׁם בּוֹ: לא עשה בו חבורה, רק גרם כאב. טְעָנוֹ אֲבָנִים וְצִעֲרוֹ,*טְעָנוֹ: העמיס עליו. הֵטִיל שֶׁלֶג וְצוֹנִין עַל רֹאשׁוֹ וְצִנְּנוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְמֵי צַעֲרוֹ. אֲבָל הָיָה מְרֻכָּךְ, מְעֻדָּן, מְפֻנָּק? כָּל שֶׁכֵּן צַעֲרוֹ מְכֻפָּל! זֶה הוּא הַצַּעַר הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה, "כְּוִיָּה תַּחַת כְּוִיָּה".
(Exodus 21:25) "A burn for a burn": If you say (the meaning is that he burned him and spilled his blood, this is already subsumed in "a wound for a wound." If you say that he made a welt, this is already subsumed in "a welt for a welt." How, then, is "a burn for a burn" to be understood? As his burning him on his nail or on the sole of his foot without leaving an impression, lading him with stones and causing him suffering thereby, placing snow on his head and making him cold — in which instances he compensates him for his suffering. But if he were frail, indulged, and pampered, how much more so is his "suffering" allotment to be doubled. This is the (type of) suffering intended in "a burn for a burn."