Why Eye for Eye Means Payment and Not Mutilation

"An eye for an eye" (Exodus 21:24). One who injures his fellow is liable to him on account of five things: for damage, for pain, for healing, for loss of work, and for humiliation. For damage, how so? If he blinded his eye, cut off his hand, or broke his leg, we view the injured man as though he were a slave being sold in the market, and we assess how much he was worth before and how much he is worth now. Pain, how so? If he burned him with a spit or a nail, even on his fingernail, in a place that does not produce a wound, we assess how much a person like this would be willing to take to endure such pain. Healing: if he struck him, he is obligated to heal him. If sores erupted on him because of the blow, he is liable; if not because of the blow, he is exempt. If the wound healed and then reopened, he is obligated to heal him; if it healed completely, he is no longer obligated to heal him. Loss of work: we view him as though he were a watchman of cucumbers, since he has already paid him the value of his hand and the value of his leg. Humiliation: all is according to the one who humiliates and the one who is humiliated. Why? "An eye for an eye" the Merciful One said, an actual eye! It should not enter your mind, for it is taught: One might think that if he blinded his eye we blind his eye, if he cut off his hand we cut off his hand, if he broke his leg we break his leg; Scripture teaches, saying, "one who strikes a man" and "one who strikes an animal" (Leviticus 24:21): just as one who strikes an animal pays, so too one who strikes a man pays. And if you still wish to object, it says, "You shall not take a ransom for the life of a murderer" (Numbers 35:31), implying: for the life of a murderer you may not take a ransom, but you may take a ransom for the limbs of the head that do not regenerate. Which "one who strikes"? If we say "one who strikes the life of an animal shall pay for it, and one who strikes a man shall be put to death" (Leviticus 24:21), that verse is written about killing. Rather, from here: "and one who strikes the life of an animal shall pay for it" (Leviticus 24:18), and adjacent to it, "and if a man inflicts a blemish on his fellow" (Leviticus 24:19), and this latter is not phrased as "striking." Rather, we say it is a verbal analogy of "striking" and "striking": "striking" is stated regarding a man and "striking" is stated regarding an animal; just as there it is payment, so too here it is payment. What is "if you still wish to object"? The following difficulty troubled him: what did you see to learn from "one who strikes an animal"? Let it be learned from "one who strikes a man" [implying actual retaliation]. They say: we judge damages from damages, and we do not judge damages from death. On the contrary, we judge a man from a man, and we do not judge a man from an animal. This is why he said, "if you still wish to object, it says, You shall not take a ransom," and so forth. This phrase "You shall not take a ransom" is needed for its own teaching, that the Merciful One said: do not do two things to him, do not take money from him and also kill him. That teaching is derived from "according to his wickedness" (Deuteronomy 25:2): for one wickedness you make him liable, but you do not make him liable for two wickednesses. And still it is needed to teach that you should not take money from him and exempt him from death. If it came only for that, let the verse say "You shall not take a ransom for one who is wicked" and so forth; why do I need "for the life of a murderer"? Learn from this two matters. And since it is written, why do I need this "one who strikes, one who strikes"? If from that verse alone, I would say: if he wishes he gives the eye itself, and if he wishes he gives the value of his eye and redeems himself; therefore it teaches "one who strikes, one who strikes": just as one who strikes an animal pays, so too one who strikes a man pays. It is taught: Rabbi Dostai ben Yehudah says: "An eye for an eye" means money. Or is it perhaps an actual eye? You say: behold, if this man's eye was large and that one's eye was small, how can I apply "an eye for an eye"? And if you say, in such a case we take money from him, the Torah said, "There shall be one law for you" (Leviticus 24:22), a law that is equal for all of you. They say: what is the difficulty? Perhaps the Merciful One said: he took the light of an eye from him, let us take the light of an eye from him; for if you do not say so, how do we execute a small person who killed a large one, or a large person who killed a small one, when the Torah said, "There shall be one law for you"? Rather, he took a soul from him, we take a soul from him, and so forth. And it is taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says: "An eye for an eye" means money. Or is it perhaps an actual eye? You say: behold, if a man was already blind and he blinded another, or was maimed and maimed another, how can I apply "an eye for an eye," when the Torah said "one law" and so forth? And what is the difficulty? Perhaps where it is possible it is possible, and where it is not possible it is not possible; for if you do not say so, what do we do with a terminally wounded person who killed a sound person? Rather, where it is possible, and so forth.