Dvar Torah

עין תחת עין EYE FOR EYE — If one blinded the eye of his fellow-man he has to pay him the value of his eye, i. e. he pays him how much his value would be diminished if he were to be sold as a slave in the market. In the same way all other cases are to be dealt with, but it does not mean the actual cutting off of the offender’s limb — just as our Rabbis have explained in the chapter beginning with the word החובל (Bava Kamma 84a).

EYE. Rabbi Saadiah says that we cannot interpret this verse according to its plain meaning. For if a man struck his neighbor’s eye and the eye lost a third of its sight, how is it possible to punish the culprit with an equivalent blow, that is, with a blow which is neither greater nor lesser? There is a possibility that the culprit will lose his entire eyesight. Burns, wounds, and stripes present even greater difficulties, for if they were inflicted on a dangerous area it is possible for the culprit to die. The mind cannot accept this. Ben Zuta said to Saadiah Gaon: Does not Scripture elsewhere state, as he hath maimed a man, so shall it be rendered unto him (Lev. 24:20)? Rabbi Saadiah answered him: We have a bet taking the place of the word al (on). Its meaning is, so shall a fine be placed upon him. However, Ben Zuta responded, as he hath done, so shall it be done to him (Lev. 24:19). The Gaon retorted: Observe, Samson said, As they did unto me, so have I done unto them (Jud. 15:11). Now Samson did not take their wives and hand them over to others. He only repaid them for their dastardly acts. Ben Zuta responded: If the culprit is a poor man what shall his punishment be? The Gaon answered: If a blind person shall blind one who can see, what shall be done to him, for it is possible for a poor person to become wealthy and pay. However, it is eternally impossible for the blind to pay. The general rule is that we cannot fully explain any commandment written in the Torah unless we rely on the words of our sages of blessed memory. Just as we received the Torah from the sages, so did we receive the Oral Law. There is no difference between them. Now the interpretation of eye for eye is, it is fitting for the culprit to give his eye in place of his victim’s eye if he does not pay ransom for it.

EYE ‘TACHATH’ (FOR) EYE. It is known in the tradition of our Rabbis that this means monetary compensation. Such usage [of the term tachath to indicate] monetary compensation is found in the verse: And he that smiteth a beast mortally shall pay for it; life ‘tachath’ life, [in which case tachath surely indicates monetary compensation]. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that Scripture uses such a term to indicate that he really is deserving of such a punishment, [that his eye be taken from him], if he does not give his ransom. For Scripture has forbidden us to take ransom for the life of a murderer, that is guilty of death, but we may take ransom from a wicked person who cut off any of the limbs of another person. Therefore we are never to cut off that limb from him, but rather he is to pay monetary compensation, and if he has no money to pay, it lies as a debt on him until he acquires the means to pay, and then he is redeemed.
Proof for what the Sages have said [that eye ‘tachath’ eye means he pays him the value of his eye], is in what He has said above [with reference to one who injures another person], only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed. But if we were to do to the assailant exactly as he has done to the injured man, why does he have to pay after that? He himself is in need of amends for the loss of his own time and costs of his own healing! And it would not be valid to argue that the assailant is to give the injured man [the difference in cost between a slow recovery and] a fast recovery, since this is not the plain meaning of Scripture. Rather, Scripture speaks of all people, and even if his recovery [i.e., the assailant’s] were to be fast, we would have long taken our punishment of him, in doing to him exactly as he did!
If we explain the verses according to the literal interpretation of Scripture, there is no escape from this question, unless they will say that if someone maims his neighbor so that he deprives him permanently of some bodily member, such as an eye, hand, or foot, or causes a burn which leaves a permanent mark, then we are to do likewise to the assailant’s body, this being the case of the verse which says, As he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him, and in that case there is no monetary compensation paid for loss of time and cost of healing. But if he hits him with a stone or with his fist on his clothes, and he is laid up in bed but then is completely healed without any crippling effect remaining upon his body, in that case He said, only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed. All the injuries specified in the verse, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe, are included, according to the plain meaning of Scripture, in this preceding general principle, for a wound and stripe may be completely healed. And as for that which Scripture states there, And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbor, as he hath done so shall it be done to him, it too was meant to include all injuries, but He did not mention there at length the cases of wounding, striping, and burning [as He did here]. He used the term mum (blemish), for every wound causes at least a temporary blemish. Thus even if it is of the kind which heals, it is still called “a blemish,” just as we say: “a passing blemish,” and the Torah calls scabbed, or scurvy, or hath his stones crushed “a blemish” although they are temporary and can be healed, and it is further written, youths in whom there was no blemish. The general principle everywhere is that the Tradition is always true.

עין תחת עין; this is what ought to be the judgment against the offender, if we were to apply the principle of the punishment fitting the crime in all its severity. However, according to tradition only financial compensation is exacted as we cannot accurately measure how to apply the principle of “an eye for an eye” literally.

בתחתית ההר AT THE NETHER PART OF THE MOUNTAIN — According to its literal meaning this signifies “at the foot of the mountain”. But a Midrashic explanation is, that the mountain was plucked up from its place and was arched over them as a cask, so that they were standing בתחתית beneath (under) the mountain itself (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 19:17:2; Shabbat 88a).