Because of the vague language, and the impersonal pronouns implied, it is difficult to tell who was harmed or killed. If you hold according to Jewish tradition, then it was the woman, and if you hold according to Christian tradition, it was the woman or the child.
But what if they are both wrong, and for ideological reasons?!
First, let's look a few verses earlier, at 21:13 where it says:
"But one who did not lie in wait and God brought about his/His hand, I shall provide you a place to which he shall flee."
This is echoing Numbers 35:15 where is speaks of someone who unintentionally killed another person (manslaughter), and who will flee to a "city of refuge" for safety. Granted, the Book of Exodus never mentions the "city of refuge", and where one would flee while in the desert/wilderness, it doesn't say, but the intention is the same: if you accidentally kill someone, you are not put to death.
Now let's look at 21:22-23 one more time:
If some men are having a physical-struggle and they [unintentionally] harmed a pregnant woman and her offspring-to-be came out [as a result] but there was no tragedy from it, he [the non-husband] will CERTAINLY (doubled language) be fined, according to [the fine] imposed upon him by the woman's husband, he will give according to the determination [of the judges]. But if following [that incident] there was a tragedy, then a soul will replace a soul.
I translated that last highlighted portion literally so that you can see the difficulty with that verse.
As I also noted, Ibn Ezra and Rashi, quoting the Talmud, held that this meant that the person would pay a fine.
Why?
Because verse 21:13 already says that manslaughter is not punishable by death.
But a nefesh is not another word for "money" in the Torah. Although, it is used, mostly, as a synonym for a "being", sometimes a human (Gen 12:13, 14:21, etc.), and sometimes an animal (Gen. 1:20, 2:19, etc.), and sometimes both (Gen. 9:12, 9:15, etc.)
The Hebrew word that is often badly translated as "for" is "instead of" or "a replacement for". The word "tachat" (תחת) can be found in Genesis 4:25 "for God has appointed me another seed to replace (or "instead of") Abel, for Cain slew him." We also see it in the Genesis 30:2, when Jacob is chastising Rachael "Am I replacing God (or "instead of") who has withheld from you the fruit of your womb!?"
So we are talking about one being replacing another.
Now immediately after saying that, the Torah lists things that you will lose by having them destroyed if you destroy, even unintentionally, those things of another. You destroy one's eye, you lose yours. You destroy one's teeth, you lose yours. You destroy one's hand, you lose yours. You destroy ones foot, you lose yours. You cause one to lose a healthy skin by burning or cutting or bruising, then you will also have your skin ruined as well.
In all cases, tachat, "in place of" is used.
There are many times when the Jewish apologists are very uncomfortable with something in Scripture, and will underscore that by coming up with an outlandish reinterpretation. In this case, calling a soul "money" should be a clue that there is something here that makes the apologists uncomfortable.
The Christian apologists declaring that it speaks of the death penalty for killing an unborn baby, while expected, ideologically, is also a red flag, because a previous verse says that you would not put someone to death for accidentally killing an adult, and therefore, one would certainly not do that for a potential human.
There is a third possibility that nobody speaks about.
What if the verse means, "You destroy or ruin one's child, then yours will be ruined or destroyed"?!
A being that is lost replaces a being that was lost.
Yes, it seems quite barbaric.
But need I list all of the barbarism that the Torah demands or permits?
Based on the language, what I have present is more valid than saying that it refers to the man who caused the mother or the unborn to die to also die, or to say that he merely pays a fine for the death.
I am saying that this verse is sentencing on to losing an offspring to as a punishment for causing the loss of the offspring of another.
And what if there was no death, but the child was born defective, which the word used for "tragedy" can imply?
It is something to ponder.
No comments:
Post a Comment