The following text comes at the end of an extensive discussion of the verse "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Exodus 21:24) עין תחת עין שן תחת שן יד תחת יד רגל תחת רגל. The discussion in the Talmud up to this point ultimately aims to prove that "eye for an eye" means a monetary payment rather than physically taking an eye when an eye is lost.
תניא ר"א אומר עין תחת עין ממש ממש סלקא דעתך רבי אליעזר לית ליה ככל הני תנאי
אמר רבה לומר שאין שמין אותו כעבד א"ל אביי אלא כמאן כבן חורין בן חורין מי אית ליה דמי אלא אמר רב אשי לומר שאין שמין אותו בניזק אלא במזיק:
It is taught: Rabbi Eliezer says: The verse that states: “An eye for an eye” (Exodus 21:24), is referring to an actual eye.
—Can it enter your mind that the verse is referring to an actual eye?
Doesn’t Rabbi Eliezer understand the verse like all these previous authorities just cited, who explained that this verse is referring to monetary payment?
Rabbah said in response: Rabbi Eliezer means to say that the court does not appraise the injured party as a slave to assess the compensation for the injury. Abaye said to Rabba: Rather, like whom does the court appraise the injured party? If you say that the court appraises him like a freeman, does a freeman have monetary value? Rather, Rav Ashi said: Rabbi Eliezer means to say that the court does not appraise the injured party as if he were going to be sold as a slave, but rather, they appraise the one who caused him damage. The court appraises how much the latter’s value would be reduced were he to sustain the same injury he caused to the injured party, and he pays this amount as compensation.
The following Talmudic story is based on the Rabbinic law that there are five types of damage that must be paid when a person wounds another. (These damages are 1. direct damage; 2. pain and suffering; 3. medical expenses; 4. unemployment; 5. humiliation) When an animal causes damage to a person, there is only direct damage.
Damage is assessed in Rabbinic law by assessing how much a person would be worth as an enslaved person prior to and subsequent to their being wounded.
This story revolves to an extent around the similarity between the Aramaic words for "donkey" and "donkey driver." Both are "hamara" or חמרא.
ההוא חמרא דקטע ידא דינוקא אתא לקמיה דרב פפא בר שמואל אמר להו זילו שומו ליה ארבעה דברים אמר ליה רבא והא אנן חמשה תנן א"ל לבר מנזק קאמינא אמר ליה אביי והא חמור הוא וחמור אינו משלם אלא נזק אמר להו זילו שומו ליה נזקיה והא כעבדא בעי למשיימיה אמר להו זילו שיימוהו כעבדא.
אמר להו אבוה דינוקא לא בעינא דזילא ביה מילתא אמרו ליה והא קא מחייבת ליה לינוקא אמר להו לכי גדיל מפייסנא ליה מדידי.
There was a certain donkey driver that severed the hand of a child. The case came before Rav Pappa bar Shmuel. He said: Go appraise the four types of payment for the child. Rava said to him: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that there are five types of payment? Rav Pappa bar Shmuel said to him: I was referring to payments the responsible party is liable to pay other than direct damage. Abaye said to him: But was this not a donkey that caused this injury, and the owner of a donkey that causes injury pays only for the damage? Rav Pappa bar Shmuel said: Go appraise for the child the value of his damage. They said to him: But doesn’t the child need to be appraised as an enslaved person? He said to them: Go appraise him as an enslaved person.
The father of the child said to them: I do not want my child to be appraised as an enslaved person, because this matter would demean him. They said to the father: But you are acting to the detriment of the child, as he will not receive compensation for his injury. He said to them: When he matures, I will appease him with my own money, rather than see him demeaned now.
הָנְהוּ בִּרְיוֹנֵי דַּהֲווֹ בְּשִׁבָבוּתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר וַהֲווֹ קָא מְצַעֲרוּ לֵיהּ טוּבָא. הֲוָה קָא בָּעֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר רַחֲמֵי עִלָּוַיְהוּ כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלֵימוּתוּ. אָמְרָה לֵיהּ בְּרוּרְיָא דְּבֵיתְהוּ: מַאי דַּעְתָּךְ — מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב ״יִתַּמּוּ חַטָּאִים״, מִי כְּתִיב ״חוֹטְאִים״? ״חַטָּאִים״ כְּתִיב.
וְעוֹד, שְׁפֵיל לְסֵיפֵיהּ דִּקְרָא ״וּרְשָׁעִים עוֹד אֵינָם״, כֵּיוָן דְּ״יִתַּמּוּ חַטָּאִים״ ״וּרְשָׁעִים עוֹד אֵינָם״? אֶלָּא בְּעִי רַחֲמֵי עִלָּוַיְהוּ דְּלַהְדְּרוּ בִּתְשׁוּבָה, ״וּרְשָׁעִים עוֹד אֵינָם״.
בְּעָא רַחֲמֵי עִלָּוַיְהוּ, וַהֲדַרוּ בִּתְשׁוּבָה.
There were these hooligans in Rabbi Meir’s neighborhood who caused him a great deal of anguish. Rabbi Meir prayed for mercy on them, that they should die. Rabbi Meir’s wife, Berurya, said to him: What is your thinking? On what basis do you pray for the death of these hooligans? Do you base yourself on the verse, as it is written: “Let sins cease from the land” (Psalms 104:35), which you interpret to mean that the world would be better if the wicked were destroyed? But is it written, let sinners cease?” Let sins cease, is written.
Moreover, go to the end of the verse, where it says: “And the wicked will be no more.” If, the transgressions shall cease then the wicked will be no more, i.e., that they will no longer be wicked. Therefore, pray for mercy on them, that they should repent. Rabbi Meir saw that Berurya was correct and he prayed for mercy on them, and they repented.
What is repentance? The sinner shall cease sinning, and remove sin from his thoughts, and wholeheartedly conclude not to revert back to it, even as it is said: "Let the wicked forsake his way" (Is. 55.7); so, too, shall he be remorseful on what was past, even as it is said: "Surely after that I was turned, I repented" (Jer. 31. 19). And the One Who knows all secrets shall be able to testify that he will not turn to repeat that sin again, according to what it is said: "Say unto Him.… neither will we call any more the work of our hands our gods" (Hos. 14.3–4). It is, moreover, essential that his confession shall be by spoken words of his lips, and all that which he concluded in his heart shall be formed in speech.
Neither repentance nor the Day of Atonement atone for any save for sins committed between man and God, for instance, one who ate forbidden food, or had forbidden coition and the like; but sins between man and man, for instance, one injures his neighbor, or curses his neighbor or plunders him, or offends him in like matters, is never absolved unless he makes restitution of what he owes and begs the forgiveness of his neighbor. And, although he make restitution of the monetary debt, he is obliged to pacify him and to beg his forgiveness. Even if he only offended his neighbor with words, he is obliged to appease him and implore him till he be forgiven by him. If his neighbor refuses a committee of three friends to forgive him, he should bring to implore and beg of him; if he still refuses he should bring a second, even a third committee, and if he remains obstinate, he may leave him to himself and pass on, for the sin then rests upon him who refuses forgiveness. But if it happened to be his teacher, he should go and come to him for forgiveness even a thousand times till he does forgive him.