“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth...” (21:24)
The Torah records that if two men come to blows and accidentally cause bodily injury to a third individual, the assailant is held completely responsible: “An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, hand for a hand, foot for a foot.” The Talmud states emphatically that the verse is not to be taken literally. Rather, according to the Oral Tradition, the responsible party must pay the monetary value of the limb he destroyed in restitution for his actions. The Talmud proves this assertion by stating that it would be impossible to inflict an equitable injury upon the assailant, for no two human beings are physically or emotionally alike. Why then does the Torah couch the restitution in terms which, if taken literally, indicate that the assailant is subject to physical injury?
In The Laws of Damages and Injuries, the Rambam records the various compensatory requirements that must be made for injuring a human being. Contrasting the restitution required for bodily injury to that of property damages, the Rambam states that when a human being has been injured, forgiveness is necessary for complete restitution. Why does the Rambam deem it necessary to include the requirement to seek forgiveness in the laws of financial compensation? Furthermore, the Rambam also includes this requirement in the Laws of Repentance. He adds that even if a person has made full financial restitution, he is not forgiven unless he appeases the person he damaged. If the injured party has been compensated, why is it necessary to appease him? What is the Rambam’s source for this ruling?
The Talmud teaches that although “nekamah,” “revenge,” is generally not an acceptable form of behavior, it acknowledges that there are occasions when “nekamah” is permitted. The root of the word nekamah is “kam,” “to restore,” for nekamah restores the dignity and self-esteem of the slighted party. The injury inflicted upon the victim is not solely of a financial nature, but a blow to his self-esteem as well, for the assailant has exercised physical dominance over him. By recording the restitution in terms indicating that the assailant is subject to physical injury, the Torah is acknowledging that the only way to truly restore the victim’s self-esteem would be to inflict upon the perpetrator the same damage that he caused. Through the Oral Tradition, we understand that such restitution is not possible, and financial compensation is offered instead. However, money does not restore a person’s shattered self-esteem. Therefore, the assailant must beg forgiveness from his victim. His seeking appeasement offers the injured party some.
It emerges that appeasement is an integral component of the restitution and, therefore, is recorded by the Rambam in The Laws of Damages and Injuries. One cannot achieve atonement for taking something away from another unless the stolen item is returned. Therefore, appeasement is a prerequisite for receiving atonement, since it helps restore that which was taken away. Consequently, the Rambam records this ruling in The Laws of Repentance. He derives his source for this law from the fact that the Torah acknowledges that complete restitution cannot be attained through financial means alone.
RABBI YOCHANAN ZWEIG
