![]() Not that he is to be hurt, as he has hurt his neighbour but inasmuch as he deserves to want a member, or to be hurt as he has done therefore he ought to pay the damage.''Īnd Josephus himself F5 says, that he must be deprived of that, which he has deprived another of, except he that has his eye put out is willing to receive money and which, he observes, the law allows of. From tradition it is learned, that this for, spoken of, is to be understood of paying money this is what is said in the law, "as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again". ``if a man cuts off his neighbour's hand, or foot, he is to be considered as if he was a servant sold in a market what he was worth then, and what he is worth now and he must pay the diminution which is made of his price as it is said, "eye for eye". ``He that puts out his neighbour's eye, must give him ( wnye) ( ymd), "the price of his eye", according to the price of a servant sold in the market and so the same of them all for, not taking away of the member is strictly meant.'' But the Jewish doctors generally understood it of paying a price equivalent to the damage done, except in case of life. put out a man's eyes, shall suffer the like. ![]() The Baithuseans, or Sadducees, among the Jews, took it in a literal sense, and so does Josephus, who says F2, he that shall blind, i.e. This is "lex talionis", the "law of retaliation" which, whether it is to be understood literally, or not, is a matter of question. That is, to, or by them of old time, as is expressed in some of the foregoing instances,Īn eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |