An Eye For An Eye

R. Avraham Sar Shalom:

The last verses in the weekly Torah portion, Parshat Emor, deal with the punishment given to a person who physically harms another person (and his property). There is one verse in particular amongst all the verses in which our commentators have invested a greatdeal of effort. "... An eye for an eye ..." (Vayikra [Leviticus] 24, 20). On reading, the simple meaning of the words, they would seem to imply that the person who harms the eyes of his friend will be punished by being harmed in his eyes, and the person who removes the eye of a friend will be punished by having his eye taken out.

Our sages dedicated a very long discussion to explain this verse (at the beginning of the chapter "HaChovel" in tractate Baba Kama), which basically brings various evidence suggesting that the simple explanation cannot possibly be correct. Therefore, the verses must be explained in another way. They then bring and base the explanation as follows, that the meaning implied is financial compensation for damages.

It is not my intention to discuss this issue. The more nagging question, following the long discussion mentioned above is "Why is the Torah unable to write in a simple manner that a person who harms another person's body will be punished by having to pay financial compensation for damage inflicted?"

A fundamental issue is raised here. It is impossible to simply write "Money for an eye". This would transform the entire issue into a business deal with a list of prices. And then a person may make a calculation to check whether it pays for him to harm his friend in his eye, his ear or other part of his body, according to the amount that he is willing to invest in the injury and his financial situation.

The Torah does not conduct itself in this manner. First of all the Torah is alarming: the one who takes out his friend's eye, he should have his own eye taken out; the one who breaks his friend's hand, he should have his hand broken. It is true that ultimately the person who causes injury to another will be obliged to pay monetary payments only. However, it is necessary that the fundamental saying concerning the severity of the actions is spoken...