Eye for an Eye

Notable Sources

All Sources

Understanding 'Eye for an Eye'

TANAKH

The principle of 'eye for an eye' is often misunderstood as advocating literal physical retaliation, but it actually refers to monetary compensation for injuries. The Torah, in the book of Exodus, outlines specific legal consequences and fines for causing harm, including miscarriage, during a physical altercation.

When [two or more] parties fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Exodus 21:22-24

Measure for Measure

MISHNAH

The concept of divine retribution, where individuals are punished measure for measure according to their specific sins, is a profound aspect of Jewish ethics and justice. The Mishnah, a foundational text of Jewish oral law from around 200 CE, illustrates this principle through the examples of Samson and Absalom.

The mishna provides additional examples of people who were treated by Heaven commensurate with their actions. Samson followed his eyes, therefore he was punished measure for measure, as the Philistines gouged out his eyes, as it is stated: “And the Philistines laid hold on him, and put out his eyes” (Judges 16:21). Absalom was excessively proud of his hair, and therefore he was hanged by his hair. And furthermore, because he engaged in sexual intercourse with ten of his father’s concubines (see II Samuel 15:16 and 16:22)…

Mishnah Sotah 1:8

Thorough Judicial Process Explained

MIDRASH

The phrase 'an eye for an eye' is often misunderstood; however, it underscores the importance of meticulous judicial examination in both capital and monetary cases. The Sifra, an early halachic midrash on Leviticus, elucidates the judicial process, emphasizing thorough cross-examination and the varying number of judges required for different types of cases.

9) (Vayikra 24:22) "One judgment shall there be for you": As the judgment of capital cases, so, the judgment of monetary litigations. Jut as capital cases require thorough cross-examination (of the witnesses), so, monetary litigations. If so, (why not say:) Just as capital cases require twenty-three (judges), so, monetary litigations? It is, therefore, written "en eye for an eye," to include (monetary litigations as requiring only three judges).

Sifra, Emor, Chapter 20 9

Intent and Injury

COMMENTARY

The debate over whether the Torah's 'eye for an eye' legislation applies to both intentional and unintentional actions reveals the depth of rabbinic interpretation. Rabbi Chaim ibn Attar, in his 18th-century commentary Or HaChaim, explores this debate through the lens of a Talmudic discussion in Kidushin 24.

וכי יכה איש את עין עבדו, If a man smite the eye of his slave, etc. In Kidushin 24 Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel and the other rabbis disagree on the meaning of this verse. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the legislation contained in this verse applies only when the master has destroyed the eye of his slave deliberately; the other rabbis hold that even if he had not done so deliberately but had merely aimed his blow at the eye, the slave goes free. According to the rabbis…

Or HaChaim on Exodus 21:26:1

Interpreting 'A Burn for a Burn'

MIDRASH

The phrase 'a burn for a burn' is interpreted by the rabbis to mean monetary compensation based on the victim's suffering, rather than literal retribution. The Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, a second-century halachic midrash on Exodus, provides a detailed explanation of how compensation should be determined for non-physical suffering.

(Exodus 21:25) "A burn for a burn": If you say (the meaning is that he burned him and spilled his blood, this is already subsumed in "a wound for a wound." If you say that he made a welt, this is already subsumed in "a welt for a welt." How, then, is "a burn for a burn" to be understood? As his burning him on his nail or on the sole of his foot without leaving an impression, lading him with stones and causing him suffering thereby, placing snow on his head and making him cold — in which instances he compensates him for his suffering…

Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Tractate Nezikin 8:23

Monetary Compensation in Biblical Law

REFERENCE

The Talmud employs analogical reasoning to interpret biblical commandments, suggesting that 'an eye for an eye' implies monetary compensation rather than literal retribution. This approach reflects the Jewish tradition of oral law and legal reasoning, prioritizing monetary compensation over direct retaliation.

An example of argument by analogy occurs when the Talmud tries to establish that the commandment “an eye for an eye” is not to be taken literally although the biblical text states “If one shall cripple his neighbor, as he did so shall be done to him.” The Talmud argues that in another case involving a man whose ox gored his neighbor’s ox the Bible enjoins that the man shall “pay an ox for an ox.” From this the Talmud deduces that “an eye for an eye” also implies that monetary compensation shall be given to the victim.

The Jewish Spiritual Heroes, Volume I; The Creators of the Mishna, Hillel 63

The True Meaning of Retributive Justice

COMMENTARY

The principle of retributive justice in the Torah was never intended to be taken literally, as clarified by the sages. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, in his essays, explains how Jewish tradition interprets this principle as advocating monetary compensation rather than literal retribution.

This is the famous and much misunderstood lex talionis, the law of retribution. As the sages make clear, the principle of “an eye for an eye” was never meant literally.

Covenant and Conversation; Leviticus; The Book of Holiness, Emor, The Blasphemer 9

Beyond Physical Retribution

COMMENTARY

The principle of 'Eye for an Eye' extends beyond physical retribution to include compensation for lost time and medical expenses. Rashi, the renowned 11th-century French biblical commentator, provides a detailed interpretation of this principle in his commentary on Exodus.

וכי יריבן אנשים AND IF MEN QUARREL — Why is this (vv. 18, 19) stated in this particular form? Since Scripture states, (v. 24) “Eye for eye”, we learn from this only that compensation for the loss of limbs has to be paid, but we cannot infer from it that indemnity for loss of time (during which the injured has been disabled from work) and cost of medical treatment have also to be paid; consequently this section (vv. 18 and 19) is said (Mekhilta).

Rashi on Exodus 21:18:1

Compensation for Physical Injuries

TALMUD

The principle of 'an eye for an eye' in Jewish law doesn't advocate literal retribution. According to the Talmudic tractate Bava Kamma, it actually emphasizes monetary compensation for physical injuries, taking into account the injured party's ability to work.

Rava continues: If one blinded the eye of another, he gives him the value of his eye as compensation for damage; and as for loss of livelihood, the court views the injured party as though the one who caused the injury caused him to grind with a mill, as even a blind person can do this. If one deafened another, he gives him his entire value as compensation for damage, because one lacking the ability to hear is not fit for any form of employment.

Bava Kamma 85b:11

Monetary Justice for Injury

TALMUD

The Torah’s principle of justice in cases of personal injury is interpreted by the rabbis as requiring monetary compensation rather than literal physical retribution. The Talmudic tractate Arakhin explains the method of assessing damages by comparing the value of the injured party before and after the injury, similar to the valuation of a slave in a market.

GEMARA: How do we assess him? Rava said: The court assesses him by means of the same process of assessment used with regard to the halakhot of damages. If one’s hand was severed, the court considers the injured party as though he is a slave being sold in the slave market and appraises how much he was worth before the injury and how much he is worth after the injury. The difference between these two sums is the amount that the guilty party must pay for damages.

Arakhin 19b:14

The Consequences of Actions

MUSAR

The experiences of Judah and his brothers illustrate how their actions led to corresponding consequences. In Shemirat HaLashon, Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan (the Chofetz Chaim) delves into the ethical and legal aspects of speech, emphasizing the importance of avoiding gossip and slander.

From here on, Scripture begins to relate the punishments and the mortifications that they suffered for this, all "measure for measure." First of all, Judah was punished, who was the immediate cause of the sale. He became a mourner over his sons, and certainly also rent his garments over them, according to the din. And his brothers, too, were not exempt from the punishment of "rending" [k'riyah], for they, too, rent their garments on their day of woe [viz. Ibid. 44:13]. And because he [Jacob] mourned his son "many days," therefore, (Ibid…

Shemirat HaLashon, Book II 11:18

Injury Compensation Explained

GUIDES

Jewish law emphasizes financial compensation for injuries, covering damage, pain, medical costs, loss of livelihood, and humiliation. The Babylonian Talmud in tractate Bava Kamma outlines the principles of liability and restitution, emphasizing ethical and legal standards in Jewish law.

Any adult who intentionally injures another person is liable to reimburse the victim with five payments that compensate for the damage, pain, medical costs, loss of livelihood, and humiliation of the victim. Depending on the nature of the damage, the assailant will be liable to pay all of the payments or only some of them.

Introductions to the Babylonian Talmud, Bava Kamma, Summary of Perek VIII 1

The Principle of Exact Retribution

JEWISH THOUGHT

Rambam advocates for strict and literal retribution in cases of personal injuries and property damage, particularly emphasizing the non-negotiable nature of punishment for murder. His 12th-century philosophical work explores the principle of exact retribution within the comprehensive framework of Jewish law and ethics.

The punishment of him who sins against his neighbour consists in the general rule that there shall be done unto him exactly as he has done: if he injured any one personally, he must suffer personally; if he damaged the property of his neighbour, he shall be punished by loss of property. But the person whose property has been damaged should be ready to resign his claim totally or partly. Only to the murderer we must not be lenient because of the greatness of his crime; and no ransom must be accepted of him…

Guide for the Perplexed, Part 3 41:2

Compensating for Injuries

HALAKHAH

The principle of compensating for injuries is often misunderstood, but Jewish legal tradition interprets it as monetary compensation rather than literal retribution. The Sefer HaChinukh, a medieval work, explains the laws of penalties for injuring others, emphasizing monetary compensation based on biblical and Talmudic interpretations.

The commandment of the laws of penalties: That we were commanded about the law of one who injures his fellow to penalize that person, as it is written in the Torah in the section of “And if men fight” (Exodus 21:18). And this is called the laws of penalties. And in another verse, it includes all of the laws of penalties, and it is the verse, “as he did, so shall it be done to him” (Leviticus 24:19) — it means to say that what he pained [his fellow] should be taken away from his money, in accordance with that which he injured his fellow, as the tradition comes about it (Bava Kamma 83b)…

Sefer HaChinukh 49:1

Proportional Justice in Jewish Law

SECOND TEMPLE

The principle of proportional justice ensures that the punishment matches the nature and extent of the offense. Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, explores this principle in the context of Jewish law and Greek philosophy.

[182] Our law exhorts us to equality when it ordains that the penalties inflicted on offenders should correspond to their actions, that their property should suffer if the wrongdoing affected their neighbour’s property, and their bodies if the offence was a bodily injury, the penalty being determined according to the limb, part or sense affected, while if his malice extended to taking another’s life his own life should be the forfeit. For to tolerate a system in which the crime and the punishment do not correspond, have no common ground and belong to different categories…

On the Special Laws, Book III 33:2

Relatedראו גם

One who Causes Damage

Payments

Revenge

Torah

Sheetsדפי מקורות

Related Sheets