|
“…and he shall
provide for healing” (21:19)
The Torah records
that among the compensatory damages which a person who has inflicted bodily
harm on another must pay, are the medical bills. The Talmud derives from
this verse that “nitna reshus larofeh lerapos” – “The Torah grants
permission to a doctor to heal.”[1] If Hashem has blessed a person with the
power to heal, why would a verse be required to permit him to utilize this
talent?
The Ibn Ezra’s
comments on this verse are perplexing. He notes that the Torah juxtaposes
the verse regarding a physician needing permission to heal to the verses
which discuss various types of external wounds inflicted upon a person.
Therefore, he deduces that a physician may only heal external wounds; all
internal maladies are in the hands of Hashem.[2] The Mateh Moshe finds the
Ibn Ezra’s comments unfathomable, citing numerous references in the Talmud
to medical procedures and medications which were given to treat internal
ailments. He therefore concludes that a physician is required to treat
internal ailments and if he refrains from doing so, causing the death of
his patient, he will be held responsible.[3] How do we reconcile the
comments of the Ibn Ezra with the treatments mentioned in the Talmud?
To begin resolving
the aforementioned difficulties, we must first reexamine the statement
“nitna reshus larofeh lerapos”. The dictum is generally understood to be
granting permission to a physician to heal. However, an alternative
definition of the word “reshus” is “domain” or “realm”. The Talmud is
stating that Hashem has placed the ability to heal entirely in the realm of
the doctor. He is completely equipped to deal with the malady in a “derech
hatevah” – natural manner; we do not view the malady or its cure as a
supernatural phenomenon which requires Hashem’s intervention. To this, the
Ibn Ezra comments that only external ailments are completely within the
realm of medical procedures, while internal ailments are not subject to
clear cut medical diagnoses and cures. Although a physician must tend to
internal ailments as well, these maladies require Hashem’s hand to insure
full recovery. Treatments offered by the Talmud for internal ailments are
not completely scientific in nature and are often accompanied by amulets,
incantations and the like, which supports the Ibn Ezra’s assertion.
1. Bava Kama 85a
2. 21:19
3. Refuos p. 358
Sorry Does Help
“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.[1] 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.[2] 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.[3] 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 “nekama” – “revenge” is generally not an acceptable form of
behavior, it acknowledges that there are occasions when “nekama” is
permitted.[4] The root of the word nekama is “kam” – “to restore”, for
nekama 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 restoration of his damaged self-esteem.
It emerges that the
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 Atonement. He derives his
source for this law from the fact that the Torah acknowledges that complete
restitution cannot be attained through financial means alone.
1. Bava Kama 84a
2. Yad Hilchos Choveil Umazik 5:9
3. Yad Hilchos Teshuva 2:9
4. Berachos 33a
|
Comments
Post a Comment