(א) וְאֵ֙לֶּה֙ הַמִּשְׁפָּטִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר תָּשִׂ֖ים לִפְנֵיהֶֽם׃ (יא) וְאִם־שְׁלָ֨שׁ־אֵ֔לֶּה לֹ֥א יַעֲשֶׂ֖ה לָ֑הּ וְיָצְאָ֥ה חִנָּ֖ם אֵ֥ין כָּֽסֶף׃ (ס) (יב) מַכֵּ֥ה אִ֛ישׁ וָמֵ֖ת מ֥וֹת יוּמָֽת׃ (יג) וַאֲשֶׁר֙ לֹ֣א צָדָ֔ה וְהָאֱלֹהִ֖ים אִנָּ֣ה לְיָד֑וֹ וְשַׂמְתִּ֤י לְךָ֙ מָק֔וֹם אֲשֶׁ֥ר יָנ֖וּס שָֽׁמָּה׃ (ס) (יד) וְכִֽי־יָזִ֥ד אִ֛ישׁ עַל־רֵעֵ֖הוּ לְהָרְג֣וֹ בְעָרְמָ֑ה מֵעִ֣ם מִזְבְּחִ֔י תִּקָּחֶ֖נּוּ לָמֽוּת׃ (ס) (טו) וּמַכֵּ֥ה אָבִ֛יו וְאִמּ֖וֹ מ֥וֹת יוּמָֽת׃ (טז) וְגֹנֵ֨ב אִ֧ישׁ וּמְכָר֛וֹ וְנִמְצָ֥א בְיָד֖וֹ מ֥וֹת יוּמָֽת׃ (ס) (יז) וּמְקַלֵּ֥ל אָבִ֛יו וְאִמּ֖וֹ מ֥וֹת יוּמָֽת׃ (ס) (יח) וְכִֽי־יְרִיבֻ֣ן אֲנָשִׁ֔ים וְהִכָּה־אִישׁ֙ אֶת־רֵעֵ֔הוּ בְּאֶ֖בֶן א֣וֹ בְאֶגְרֹ֑ף וְלֹ֥א יָמ֖וּת וְנָפַ֥ל לְמִשְׁכָּֽב׃ (יט) אִם־יָק֞וּם וְהִתְהַלֵּ֥ךְ בַּח֛וּץ עַל־מִשְׁעַנְתּ֖וֹ וְנִקָּ֣ה הַמַּכֶּ֑ה רַ֥ק שִׁבְתּ֛וֹ יִתֵּ֖ן וְרַפֹּ֥א יְרַפֵּֽא׃ (ס) ... (כב) וְכִֽי־יִנָּצ֣וּ אֲנָשִׁ֗ים וְנָ֨גְפ֜וּ אִשָּׁ֤ה הָרָה֙ וְיָצְא֣וּ יְלָדֶ֔יהָ וְלֹ֥א יִהְיֶ֖ה אָס֑וֹן עָנ֣וֹשׁ יֵעָנֵ֗שׁ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר יָשִׁ֤ית עָלָיו֙ בַּ֣עַל הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וְנָתַ֖ן בִּפְלִלִֽים׃ (כג) וְאִם־אָס֖וֹן יִהְיֶ֑ה וְנָתַתָּ֥ה נֶ֖פֶשׁ תַּ֥חַת נָֽפֶשׁ׃ (כד) עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן שֵׁ֖ן תַּ֣חַת שֵׁ֑ן יָ֚ד תַּ֣חַת יָ֔ד רֶ֖גֶל תַּ֥חַת רָֽגֶל׃ (כה) כְּוִיָּה֙ תַּ֣חַת כְּוִיָּ֔ה פֶּ֖צַע תַּ֣חַת פָּ֑צַע חַבּוּרָ֕ה תַּ֖חַת חַבּוּרָֽה׃
(1) These are the rules that you shall set before them... (11) If he fails her in these three ways, she shall go free, without payment.(12) He who fatally strikes a man shall be put to death. (13) If he did not do it by design, but it came about by an act of God, I will assign you a place to which he can flee. (14) When a man schemes against another and kills him treacherously, you shall take him from My very altar to be put to death. (15) He who strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death. (16) He who kidnaps a man—whether he has sold him or is still holding him—shall be put to death. (17) He who insults his father or his mother shall be put to death. (18) When men quarrel and one strikes the other with stone or fist, and he does not die but has to take to his bed— (19) if he then gets up and walks outdoors upon his staff, the assailant shall go unpunished, except that he must pay for his idleness and his cure....(22) When men 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 from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. (23) But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, (24) eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (25) burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Villager: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.
Tevye: Very good. That way the whole world will be blind and toothless.
When the person of high social status gave his son to a nurse and that son died in the care of the nurse, if the nurse made a contract for another son without the knowledge of his father and mother, they shall prove it against her and they shall cut off her breast because she made a contract for another son without the knowledge of his father and mother.
If a son has struck his father, they shall cut off his hand.
If a person of higher social status destroyed the eye of a member of the aristocracy, they shall destroy his eye.
If he has broken another person's bone, they shall break his bone.
If he has destroyed the eye of a slave or broken the bone of a slave, he shall pay one-half his value.
If a person has knocked out a tooth of a person of his own rank, they shall knock out his tooth.
Our Sages have differing opinions regarding this matter. Some say [that it means] literally, a life. Others, however, say monetary compensation but not, literally, a life, for one who intends to kill one person and killed another, is exempt from the death penalty. He must compensate the heirs with his (the victim's) worth as if he were someone sold in the marketplace. If he blinded the eye of another person he must compensate him for the worth of his eye, [i.e.,] the amount his worth decreased were he to be sold [as a slave] in the marketplace.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna take for granted the fact that one who caused injury is liable to pay compensation to the injured party? The Merciful One states in the Torah: “An eye for an eye” (Exodus 21:24). You might say that this means that the one who caused injury shall lose an actual eye rather than pay money.
The Gemara presents another derivation: Rav Ashi said that the fact that one who injures another pays monetary restitution is derived from a verbal analogy of the word “for,” as written with regard to injuries caused to people from the word “for,” as written with regard to an ox that gored another ox. It is written here: “An eye for an eye” (Exodus 21:24), and it is written there, with regard to a forewarned ox that gored the ox of another: “He shall pay an ox for an ox” (Exodus 21:36). Just as there, the verse does not mean that the owner pays compensation with an actual ox, but rather pays monetary restitution, so too here, one who injures another pays monetary restitution.
The Gemara presents another derivation: It is taught in another baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: “An eye for an eye” (Leviticus 24:20), is referring to monetary restitution. Do you say that this is referring to monetary restitution, or is it only teaching that the one who caused the injury must lose an actual eye? There may be a case where there was a blind person and he blinded another, or there was one with a severed limb and he severed the limb of another, or there was a lame person and he caused another to be lame. In this case, how can I fulfill “an eye for an eye” literally, when he is already lacking the limb that must be injured? If one will suggest that in that case, a monetary penalty will be imposed, that can be refuted: But the Torah stated: “You shall have one manner of law” (Leviticus 24:22), which teaches that the law shall be equal for all of you.
(1) One who injures his fellow is liable concerning him for five categories [of payment]: damages, pain, medical costs, unemployment, and shame.
For damages, how [is this calculated?] One who puts out his eye, cuts off his hand, breaks his leg—we see him as if he were a slave sold in the marketplace, and we evaluate how much he was worth [the injury] and how much he is worth now.
Pain? When he burned him with a spit or a nail—even on his fingernail—anything where there is no [permanent] wound, we evaluate how much a similar person would want to pay to be spared this [pain].
Medical costs? When he strikes him, he is liable for his healthcare costs. If swellings arose on him, if they were because of the strike, then he is liable; but if it was not because of the strike, he is exempt. If the swelling healed and then reopened and then healed and reopened, he is liable for his healthcare. If it healed entirely, he is exempt from his healing.
Unemployment? We see him as if he were a guard of gourds, since he already gave him the value [for the loss] of his hand or his leg.
Shame? All depends on the one who shames and the one who is shamed. One who shames a naked person, a blind person or a sleeping person is liable. If a sleeping person embarrasses another, he is exempt...No one is liable for shame unless one intended to cause it.
And if it enters your mind that the phrase: “An eye for an eye” (Exodus 21:24), refers to the removal of an actual eye from the one who injured the other, then just as it is so that the injured party has pain from the loss of his eye, the one who caused him injury also has pain when the court removes his eye; why then does the Torah require that he pay compensation for pain as well? The Gemara objects: And what is the difficulty? Perhaps there is a person who is delicate, so he has more pain, and there is a person who is not delicate, so he does not have the same amount of pain. Therefore, even if the court actually removes an eye for an eye, the one who caused the injury might still need to compensate the injured party for pain. What is the practical difference when the Torah states: “A wound for a wound” (Exodus 21:25)? It renders the one who caused the injury liable to give the injured party compensation for the difference between them in pain tolerance.
The Torah law represented here an important stage in the development and extension of the sphere of criminal law and thereby had the important function of limiting private revenge, especially family or tribal feuds. Further, the Torah treats injuries to rich and poor, male and female, completely alike...so that Philo could call these biblical laws "the interpreter and reacher of equality"...
[The Torah law] parallels the Code of Hammurabi to a significant degree, but it also diverges from it in two important respects: the Torah bases itself on the law of human equality and eschews the provisions for mutilation that the Babylonian code contains.