Deuteronomy 25:12 Then cut off her hand, and let not your eye pity... Between the ignorance of the missionaries and the doctrines of Jewish interpretation

 “If two men strive with each other, a man and his brother, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who strikes him, and puts out her hands and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hands, and your eye shall not spare.” Deuteronomy 25:11-12

And then he referred me to a link to one of the Christian intellectual prostitution sites that discusses this text and ultimately leads us to the conclusion that the ultimate punishment in this matter is material compensation and that it does not require the woman’s hand to be cut off, as the poor man concludes the following:

quote

Some people understand that the text refers to corporal punishment or injury to the offender. However, the general law and reality dictate that the offender pays a fine, and does not dictate the existence of any corporal punishment .

I said: This result that this Christian puts before us jumped at once, skipping the foundation that we should have gone through in order to reach it in the end. This Christian did not tell us that the punishment with material compensation is the result of a symbolic interpretation of the text, or that this text was mentioned in the Torah again in greater detail and explicitly stated material compensation, or that there is a third or fourth possibility...etc.

First of all, before all of that, we must present an important quote from Rabbi Yehuda Etzion about this text. He says:

The law that “You shall cut off her hand” (Devarim 25:12) is similar to the law of “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, an arm for an arm, a leg for a leg, a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise” (Shemot 21:24-25) – or, as formulated elsewhere, “If a person maims his neighbor, then as he has done, so shall be done to him: a breach for a breach, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. As he has maided someone else, so shall be done to him” (Vayikra 24:19-20). The similarity between the two laws lies in the fact that in both cases the plain meaning of the text in the Written Law indicates corporal punishment for maiming or wounding another person, while the Oral Law establishes that the offender pays a monetary fine, with no corporal punishment administered .

[1]

Translation:

This law, “cut off her hand,” is similar to the other law, “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” (Exodus 21), or as it is found elsewhere in the Old Testament, “And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbor, just as he has done, so shall it be done to him; fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him” (Leviticus 24).

The similarity between the two laws lies in the fact that both cases refer in the written law - the Torah - to physical punishment for someone who injures or disfigures another person, while the oral law - such as the Talmud - indicates that the offender pays financial compensation to the victim without being subjected to a similar physical punishment . End quote.

So, we have two sources of law for the Jews: oral and written.

The written law or “Torah Shebakhatav” means the Old Testament with its known books, while the oral law or the oral Torah “Torah Shebaal Be’eh” is the law that the Hebrew Jews and their followers claim was received by our master Moses and the prophets and their predecessors from God Almighty orally, such as the Talmud, the Haggadah, and the Halakha.

Both sources have their own punishment that they determine. We have seen what the written Torah says above in the texts, which clearly acknowledge physical punishment. This is contradicted by the oral law, which says the opposite, specifically in the Mishnah, as follows:

[2]

Translation: If a person harms another person, he is obligated to compensate him for the following five things: damages, pain, harm resulting from medical treatment, disability, insult and indecent assault.

The last one is funny because the Christian translated it to "shame" based on what was mentioned in the site from which he took it, which translated the Hebrew word בושת to shame, which the Christian translated that naively to disgrace, and this is wrong because the word means violation of honor or humiliation or degradation in English.
Anyway, let's get back to our topic... Both sources for the Hebrew Jews are divine revelation, so we find Maimonides citing one of them, and Abraham Ibn Ezra citing both together!! So we must research the issue better, and so we return once again to Yehuda Etzion who says:

As noted, the halakhic tradition, based on the Oral Law, supplants the corporal punishments set forth in the Written Law for wounding a fellow human being with monetary payment, which is one of the most pronounced discrepancies between the Written Law and the Oral Law . The commentators grapple with this challenge, reinterpreting the verses so as to resolve them with normative Halakha . For example, Rashbam (Shemot 21:24 sv Ayin) and Rav Sa'adia Gaon (as cited by Ibn Ezra ha-Arokh ad loc. sv Ayin) explain the word “tachat” (“in place of,” as in the expression “an eye in place of an eye”) as referring to monetary payment...... Ibn Ezra himself understands the verses as indicating that the perpetrator deserves to forfeit “an eye for an eye” if he fails to pay the proper compensation.

Aside from the significant textual and linguistic difficulty with the claim that these words in the Torah refer to monetary payment, it is clear that if the Torah had sought to indicate the obligation of monetary compensation, it could have done so in a far simpler and clearer manner . Indeed, nowhere do these verses so much as mention money or a fine. Clearly, then, the plain meaning indicates a corporal punishment .

[3]

Translation: As we can see, the tradition in the Halakhah is based on the Oral Law, which replaces the corporal punishment stipulated in the Torah with financial compensation. This is one of the most serious contradictions between the written and oral law. The commentators have dealt with this problem by reinterpreting these texts with a solution that is compatible with what is stated in the Halakhah . For example, Rashbam (Shmuel ben Meir) and Saadiah al-Fayyumi interpreted the word “תַּחַת” to refer to financial compensation. Abraham ben Ezra himself interpreted the text to mean that the one who was assaulted would also be subject to slaps if he did not pay the appropriate financial compensation.

Regardless of the textual danger and the great difficulty that says that this word found in the Torah in the text of Exodus refers to material compensation, it is clear that if the Torah had sought to refer to material compensation, it would have been easier and clearer to use a method that expresses that in a clearer way.

Of course, there is no place at all to say that these paragraphs referred to financial compensation or fines to be paid. So, quite clearly, the meaning refers to physical punishment.

As we have seen, the subject contains a contradiction between the written law, i.e. the Torah, and what is written in the Talmud. This explains Abraham Ibn Ezra’s resort to a compromise to combine the two, or as Ben Meir and Al-Fayoumi did by trying to interpret the word to carry it in the sense of material compensation, but it is a distant interpretation that is not permissible, neither textually nor linguistically.
This brings us back to something methodological that this Christian did not know in the principles of the principles of interpreting the Torah among the Hebrew Jews. He did not use it to investigate the subject from its beginning and took it in a superficial way without any scientific methodology. There are three principles in the principles of interpretation in such situations among the Jews, which are: <>- Concretization , which is the application of the written provisions of the Sharia in a broad manner to all aspects of life, especially things that were not mentioned in the Old Testament <>- Formalization, which is concerned with the details of the provisions of the Sharia, their interpretation, and the mechanism for their application <>- Synthesis of Contradiction, which is the combination of texts that are confusing in their appearance and their essence, which is what we are talking about in this . If this Christian had understood that last principle, he would have known where the shoulder is eaten in this matter, and this is what Rabbi Amnon Betzak summarizes.

In the previous article we noted that “an eye for an eye” may well have been originally understood to require commensurate physical punishment for the infliction of injury . We concluded by asking why, from the time of Chazal onwards, Jewish tradition has interpreted the verse to be referring to financial restitution.

It would seem that we can understand the reason for the change in light of a principle set forth by Rav Avraham Yitzhak Ha-kohen Kook

Rav Kook's argument that halakha can and must change in accordance with the circumstances of each generation is unquestionably shared by the Rambam in his Guide of the Perplexed

[3]

Translation:
While we spoke in the previous lesson, we noted that “eye for eye” refers to what may require physical punishment to compensate for the harm in return, but at the same time we noted that the traditions of the rabbis - outside the Torah - interpret the text as requiring monetary compensation, not physical punishment

. It seems that we can understand the reason for this difference in light of the principles set forth by Rabbi Abraham Isaac Ha-Cohen.
Rabbi Abraham agrees that the halakhah must change according to the circumstances of each generation and according to the requirements of the era. This is what Moses Maimonides stated in the Guide to the Perplexed.
This is the quote[4] from the Guide to the Perplexed by Moses Maimonides referred to:

Amnon comments:

Here the Rambam addresses the need for the Sanhedrin to apply the Torah in changing circumstances possible misunderstanding
[5]

Translation: Here, Maimonides – Rambam – addresses the need for the Sanhedrin to apply the texts of the Torah in changing circumstances and times .
Rabbi Mordechai Breuer says:

We find no other instance where the Oral Law deviates from the Written Law ..... "The Written Law expresses the punishment that is 'appropriate' to administer for the physical maiming, while the Oral Law expresses the compensation for the monetary loss. Since it is impossible to carry out both judgments simultaneously, the Sages ruled that the monetary restitution takes preference over the corporal punishment.” However, this explanation raises the obvious question: if the Written Law stipulates that corporate punishment takes preference, then why does Chazal reverse this? According to the explanation we have proposed, the reason for their innovation is understandable, since it is a response and reflection of changing circumstances .


[6]

Translation: An example of the difference between the written and oral law ... The written law specifies the adequate punishment for physical harm, while the oral law specifies the adequate punishment for it through material compensation. Since it is impossible to implement both rulings separately at the same time, the jurists and scholars preferred material compensation to physical punishment. But this interpretation raises the question: If the written law requires the implementation of physical punishment and gives it preference, why do the rabbinic interpretations and sayings indicate the opposite? According to the interpretation presented, the reason behind this innovation is easy to understand, as it was a response and reflection of urgent and changing circumstances . I do not think that the subject needs clarification after all this, and as is apparent, the statements of the interpreters that were relied upon were basically based on the principle of synthesis of contradiction, which is a principle used basically to combine two opposites. It is funny that the contradictions are between a text in the Torah and a text in the sayings of the Rabbis, and that the Christian adheres to the sayings of the Jews and abandons the sayings of the Torah.... How enjoyable it was to see a Christian evade answering a question and find nothing but abandoning the Torah and its texts that he believes in and adhere to statements that they have always denied and said that they are not an argument against us. In any case, my problem with this Christian is not about what is the punishment that should be carried out, as this is a matter that does not concern me, but rather my problem with him is basically scientific, and we have shown how he deceived and spoke about what he does not know, and all that remains for me is to ask him two questions: - Are the statements of the Jewish rabbis in the Talmud and the Haggadah and other books of their heritage now considered reliable by you, and are they used as evidence for the texts of the Torah? - Do you believe that the Torah contains rulings that were changed and abrogated by the Oral Law - as Maimonides, whom you cited, says - by changing them and replacing them with new rulings, and that is due to changing circumstances, times and eras? I believe that we have the right to hear the answer to these innocent questions, and God is victorious over His affair, but most people do not know . ____________ [1]Rock, Rav Yehuda. "An Eye for an Eye." In Alei Etzion .

[2]

תלמוד בבלי - מסכת בבא קמא - פרק א

[3]

Bazak, Amnon. "Peshat and Midrash Halakha." In Fundamental Issues in the Study of Tanakh . VBM, 2013.

[4]

Guidance for the Perplexed 3/40
[5]

Bazak, Amnon. "Peshat and Midrash Halakha." In Fundamental Issues in the Study of Tanakh . VBM, 2013
[6] Ibid.