In Ki Teitze (Devarim 25:11-12) we read:
"When there will be men fighting together, a man against his brother, and the wife of one gets close to rescue her husband from the hand that is striking him, and she extends her hand and grabs tightly his embarrassing place (genitals), you will cut off her hand- there shall not be pity in your eye."
Rashi quotes the Gemara (Bava Kamma 28a) which is a page about taking the law into your own hands, and using excessive force and when or not it is appropriate.
"Come and here: (Devarim 25:12) 'You will cut off her hand.' MAMON (financial). Does not this ruling apply even if she cannot do anything else to save [her husband]? No, [the punishment] only applies if she could have saved him some other way, and she is exempt from punishment. But if so, why does it say "and she extends her hand", rather than that of the beit din (court)? Could not this argument be made in a subsequent clause [by adding] she is treated like an officer of the court, and that she could not have saved him any other way - so she is exempt from punishment.
Now several things bother me about this Gemara.
- The first word, "mamon", if removed, reads equally well.
- Why quote "You will cut off her hand" rather than "If she extends her hand" unless "You will cut off her hand" was assumed, and the discussion goes on about "and she extends her hand".
- At no point do we find any financial wording ("she will pay", etc.).
- At no point does it question the use of "you shall sever". This is the only place in all of the Talmud that this sentence is quoted, and one would think that "Do not read it as..." or some such thing to clarify the source of thinking "you will sever means something else", even "Halacha l'mMoshe m'Sinai" is missing.
- Payment is to compensate for a loss. At no point is a "loss" ever discussed, while in all other cases around it, loss or potential loss are discussed.
- It appears that the discussion is how to lighten the punishment, based on her point of view that she had no choice.
So I am wondering if is it likely that the word "mamon" was an editorial insert because the idea of chopping off a woman's hand was unacceptable. If so, that certainly is a good thing!
It is something to ponder.
As an update to this, I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter if "mamon" was a later addition or not. In any case, the Rabbinical authorities decided that the punishment decreed in the Torah was too harsh, and modified it in such a way that it could never be carried out. After all, how can you ever prove that she did NOT have any alternative? This is also in the case of killing a Ben Sorer (rebellious son), where so many conditions were added that theTanna Kamma throws up his hands and says "In such a case, it can never happen or ever will happen" - meaning that the gezeirot have squashed the dictates of the Torah to kill one's son. Also in the punishment of whipping (40 lashes) - because of interpretations, 40 lashes were never done, but only to the degree that the person could handle it to a maximum of 39.
ReplyDeleteThe humanity of the sages were applied to Torah-commanded punishments in order to provide the compassion desired for the society of their days. And as in this case, I can guess that the cutting off of a woman's hand was probably rare, if it happened at all.