Parshat Mishpatim - Don't Let the Eyes Have It

"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.

Rav Saadiah says, we cannot understand this phrase exactly as it is written. Because if a man injures the eye of his fellow, and he loses one third of his vision, how can a reciprocal injury be made that would not be more or less severe? Perhaps you would blind him completely. And more difficult would be a burn, wound or bruise - for if they were in a dangerous place, he might die and there is no sense [in causing] the suffering.

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.

One who injures his fellow is liable concerning him for five categories [of payment]: damages, pain, healthcare, 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].

Healthcare? When he strikes him, he is liable for his healthcare costs... 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.... No one is liable for shame unless one intended to cause it.

It was taught: R. Eliezer said: Eye for eye literally refers to the eye [of the offender]. Literally, you say? Could R. Eliezer be against all those Tannaim [enumerated above]?Raba thereupon said: it only means to say that the injured person would not be valued as if he were a slave. Said Abaye to him: How else could he be valued? As a freeman? Could the bodily value of a freeman be ascertained by itself? — R. Ashi therefore said: It means to say that the valuation will be made not of [the eye of] the injured person but of [that of] the offender.