וְלֹ֥א תָח֖וֹס עֵינֶ֑ךָ נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּנֶ֗פֶשׁ עַ֤יִן בְּעַ֙יִן֙ שֵׁ֣ן בְּשֵׁ֔ן יָ֥ד בְּיָ֖ד רֶ֥גֶל בְּרָֽגֶל׃ {ס}
Nor must you show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
הַחוֹבֵל בַּחֲבֵרוֹ חַיָּב עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם חֲמִשָּׁה דְבָרִים, בְּנֶזֶק, בְּצַעַר, בְּרִפּוּי, בְּשֶׁבֶת, וּבְבֹשֶׁת. בְּנֶזֶק כֵּיצַד. סִמָּא אֶת עֵינוֹ, קָטַע אֶת יָדוֹ, שִׁבֵּר אֶת רַגְלוֹ, רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִלּוּ הוּא עֶבֶד נִמְכָּר בַּשּׁוּק וְשָׁמִין כַּמָּה הָיָה יָפֶה וְכַמָּה הוּא יָפֶה.
One who injures a fellow person becomes liable to them for five items: for damages, for pain, for healing, for loss of time, and for degradation. How do damages work? If he put out his eye, cut off his arm or broke his leg, the injured person is considered as if he were a slave being sold in the marketplace, and a valuation is made as to how much he was worth [previously] and how much he is worth [now].
The Bavli: Summary of the derashot
Bava Kamma 83b-84a
1. It is taught: “Rabbi Dostai ben Yehudah says: ‘Eye for an eye’—money [i.e. monetary compensation].”
You say monetary compensation, or perhaps it is not so but rather actual retaliation [by putting out an eye] that is meant?
What then will you say when this one’s eye is large and this one’s eye is small, how can I apply this principle of “Eye for an eye”? If, however, you say that in such a case monetary compensation will have to be taken, did not the Torah state “You shall have one law” (Leviticus 24:22), implying that the manner of the law should be the same in all cases!...
2. Another teaching: Rabbi Simon ben Yohai says: “‘Eye for eye’—money [i.e. monetary compensation].”
You say monetary compensation, or perhaps it is not so but rather actual retaliation [by putting out an eye] that is meant?
What then will you say where a blind man put out the eye of another man, or where a someone without a hand cut off the hand of another, or where a lame person broke the leg of another? How can I carry out in this case “eye for an eye”, seeing that the Torah says, ‘You shall have one law’ (Leviticus 24:22), implying that the manner of law should be the same in all cases?...
3. The School of Rabbi Yishmael taught: “Scripture says: ‘So shall it [the injury] be given to him’ (Leviticus 24:20). [The word] ‘giving’ can apply only to money [i.e. monetary compensation].”...
4. The School of Rabbi Hiyya taught: “Scripture says: ‘Hand in hand’ (Deuteronomy 19:21), meaning an article which is given from hand to hand.” And what is this? It is money...
5. Abbaye said: “It can be derived from the teaching of the School of Hizkiyah.” For the School of Hizkiyah taught: “‘Eye for eye, life for life’ (Exodus 21:23-24), and not ‘An eye and a life for an eye.’” For if you should think that actual retaliation is meant, there are times when you find that it is an eye and a life for an eye, as while the offender is being blinded, his soul leaves him...
Question:
1. These rabbis agree that an eye for an eye can't be taken literally, and that the offender should pay the victim money. Why don't they think that literally putting out an eye could be a just punishment?
Bava Kamma 83b-84a
1. It is taught: “Rabbi Dostai ben Yehudah says: ‘Eye for an eye’—money [i.e. monetary compensation].”
You say monetary compensation, or perhaps it is not so but rather actual retaliation [by putting out an eye] that is meant?
What then will you say when this one’s eye is large and this one’s eye is small, how can I apply this principle of “Eye for an eye”? If, however, you say that in such a case monetary compensation will have to be taken, did not the Torah state “You shall have one law” (Leviticus 24:22), implying that the manner of the law should be the same in all cases!...
2. Another teaching: Rabbi Simon ben Yohai says: “‘Eye for eye’—money [i.e. monetary compensation].”
You say monetary compensation, or perhaps it is not so but rather actual retaliation [by putting out an eye] that is meant?
What then will you say where a blind man put out the eye of another man, or where a someone without a hand cut off the hand of another, or where a lame person broke the leg of another? How can I carry out in this case “eye for an eye”, seeing that the Torah says, ‘You shall have one law’ (Leviticus 24:22), implying that the manner of law should be the same in all cases?...
3. The School of Rabbi Yishmael taught: “Scripture says: ‘So shall it [the injury] be given to him’ (Leviticus 24:20). [The word] ‘giving’ can apply only to money [i.e. monetary compensation].”...
4. The School of Rabbi Hiyya taught: “Scripture says: ‘Hand in hand’ (Deuteronomy 19:21), meaning an article which is given from hand to hand.” And what is this? It is money...
5. Abbaye said: “It can be derived from the teaching of the School of Hizkiyah.” For the School of Hizkiyah taught: “‘Eye for eye, life for life’ (Exodus 21:23-24), and not ‘An eye and a life for an eye.’” For if you should think that actual retaliation is meant, there are times when you find that it is an eye and a life for an eye, as while the offender is being blinded, his soul leaves him...
Question:
1. These rabbis agree that an eye for an eye can't be taken literally, and that the offender should pay the victim money. Why don't they think that literally putting out an eye could be a just punishment?
The final word: Rabbi Eliezer
Bava Kamma 84a:19-20
It is taught: Rabbi Eliezer says: “‘Eye for eye’—literally [refers to retaliation].”
You would really think ‘literally’? Could Rabbi Eliezer go against all those other Tannaim [above]?
Rabbah said: “He meant [by ‘literally’] that you should not evaluate him as a slave [but as a real, proper, ‘literal’ person].”
Abbaye said to [Rabbah]: “But like whom [should we evaluate him]? Like a free person? Does a free person have value?!”
Rather, Rav Ashi says: “[Rabbi Eliezer means that] you should not evaluate him according to the difference in value of the victim, but according to the offender.” [Imagine that the offender had been injured in the way he hurt the victim. How would his value have changed? That amount is what he must pay his victim]
Questions:
Why isn't Rav Abbaye comfortable evaluating the value of a free person?
Why does Rav Ashi wants us to consider how the offender's value would have changed?
Bava Kamma 84a:19-20
It is taught: Rabbi Eliezer says: “‘Eye for eye’—literally [refers to retaliation].”
You would really think ‘literally’? Could Rabbi Eliezer go against all those other Tannaim [above]?
Rabbah said: “He meant [by ‘literally’] that you should not evaluate him as a slave [but as a real, proper, ‘literal’ person].”
Abbaye said to [Rabbah]: “But like whom [should we evaluate him]? Like a free person? Does a free person have value?!”
Rather, Rav Ashi says: “[Rabbi Eliezer means that] you should not evaluate him according to the difference in value of the victim, but according to the offender.” [Imagine that the offender had been injured in the way he hurt the victim. How would his value have changed? That amount is what he must pay his victim]
Questions:
Why isn't Rav Abbaye comfortable evaluating the value of a free person?
Why does Rav Ashi wants us to consider how the offender's value would have changed?
Conclusion:
What assumptions do you make about others' bodies?
What stories do you tell yourself about the value of your own body?
What assumptions do you make about others' bodies?
What stories do you tell yourself about the value of your own body?
Rav Abbaye reminds us that all of us are infinitely valuable.
Rav Ashi is reminding us that we're more likely to make assumptions about someone else's health and value when they are sick or injured. We are prone to blaming victims. By focusing on the perpetrator, he forces that person to acknowledge the way their life might change if they had been the victim.
So how can we avoid making assumptions about other's bodies? What can we do here?
The rabbis went to great lengths to explain how something as simple as eye for an eye is not actually correct. Whenever we catch ourselves falling into very simple narratives of our own others' health --she's just lazy, he never stopped smoking, they never went to the gym --we can remember how complex the human body is, and how each of us is infinitely valuable.
Rav Ashi is reminding us that we're more likely to make assumptions about someone else's health and value when they are sick or injured. We are prone to blaming victims. By focusing on the perpetrator, he forces that person to acknowledge the way their life might change if they had been the victim.
So how can we avoid making assumptions about other's bodies? What can we do here?
The rabbis went to great lengths to explain how something as simple as eye for an eye is not actually correct. Whenever we catch ourselves falling into very simple narratives of our own others' health --she's just lazy, he never stopped smoking, they never went to the gym --we can remember how complex the human body is, and how each of us is infinitely valuable.