In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

205 on peshat and derash Introduction to Exodus 21 Rashbam, may his memory be for a blessing, opened his elucidation of this pericope, which is exceedingly profound and rich in laws and rules, in this way: Those who are endowed with reason know and understand that my purpose here is not to explain laws, even though they are what are essential, as I explained in my commentary on Genesis.61 Laws and extralegal matters have been deduced from the superfluous elements of scripture, and some are found in the commentary of my maternal grandfather, Rabbi Solomon [Rashi], may the memory of the righteous be for a blessing. Rather, my purpose here is to explain the peshat of the verses, and I will explain the rules and laws according to common linguistic usage. Nevertheless, the laws are what are essential, as our rabbis, may their memories be for a blessing, said: “Law uproots the Mishnah.”62 Thus far, Rashbam’s language. Although we will take shelter under the wings of this great eagle and not stray from scripture’s peshat either to the right or to the left, we have not forgotten the principle that we adumbrated in this book’s introduction, regarding the distinction between the contradictory and the different .63 Although it is possible for the peshat of scripture to differ from rabbinic tradition in its manner of elucidation, it is impossible for the peshat to contradict rabbinic tradition with respect to laws and rules. For although it is not impossible for propositions that differ to both be true, in a case of propositions that are contradictory, if one is true, the other must necessarily be false. Therefore, 18 | Selections from the Bi’ur (1780–83) 61. [See Rashbam’s commentary on Genesis 1:1 and 37:2.] 62. [See Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 16a; Yalkut Shimoni 217. All versions of Rashbam’s commentary apparently have this corrupt reading, which should be amended to read Mikra (scripture) instead of Mishnah. Rashbam apparently understands this statement to mean that the rabbinically accepted interpretation of the law should be followed, even when it contradicts the peshat of the verse.] 63. [See selection 17, from Light for the Path.] 206 | w r i t i n g s o n t h e b i b l e in every place where what appears to be scripture’s peshat contradicts rabbinic tradition with respect to laws and rules, the one who elucidates must either completely abandon the approach of peshat to follow the path of the true tradition, or broker a compromise between them, if possible. We have made this covenant for our elucidation, and we will preserve it in accordance with the Eternal’s good hand that is upon us. lex talionis Exodus 21:24–25 jps translation eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (21:24) burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise (21:25) mendelssohn translation (According to law it should be) eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot [21:24], burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. (Therefore, the offender must give money instead [21:25]). Commentary: Exodus 21:24, “eye for eye” Through rabbinic tradition (Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 83b), it is known that this refers to monetary compensation. Payment is often referred to with this language, as in the verse: “One who slays an animal must pay life for a life” (Leviticus 24:18).64 There are many proofs for the words [of the sages] grounded in the judgment of the understanding and the verdict of sound reason (mishpat hasekhel hayashar).65 As Rabbi Saadya Gaon said, “If one person strikes another in the eye and the latter loses a third of his eyesight, how would it be possible to inflict this precise wound without inflicting more or less [damage than had been caused]? Perhaps [the offender] will lose his entire eyesight. Even more difficult are the cases of the burn, the wound, and the bruise, since if these were inflicted in a dangerous spot [on the body], the individual [being punished] might die. The understanding cannot tolerate this.”66 Similarly, if a person who is blind blinds another, or a 64. [It is clear from the context of the verses that one who kills an animal need not be killed, but rather must make financial restitution.] 65. [Mendelssohn may be referring to the judgments of common sense. See part 1, note 189...

Share