# "an eye for an eye" - meant to be taken figuratively only? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 14, 2005, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-meant-to-be-taken-figuratively-only/335607 "2005-12-14T17:44:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![DarrenS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@DarrenS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DarrenS)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-meant-to-be-taken-figuratively-only/335607/1 "2005-12-14T17:44:41Z")
The other day I heard a rabbi being interviewed in the radio. He said he was tired of hearing people use the the biblical phrase “an eye for an eye” to justify retributive violence, and that as originally written, it referred to monetary transactions – nothing to do with exacting violent revenge. Is this true? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-meant-to-be-taken-figuratively-only/335607/2 "2005-12-14T18:04:16Z")
> [@DarrenS](#): > > The other day I heard a rabbi being interviewed in the radio. He said he was tired of hearing people use the the biblical phrase “an eye for an eye” to justify retributive violence, and that as originally written, it referred to monetary transactions – nothing to do with exacting violent revenge. > > Is this true? > [@Code of Hammurabi](#): > > If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. [An eye for an eye] [http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM](http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM) Sounds pretty literal to me. ---
**Author:** ![FatBaldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecd19e/32.png) [@FatBaldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FatBaldGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-meant-to-be-taken-figuratively-only/335607/3 "2005-12-14T18:06:12Z")
This is how the passage is given in Leviticus (KJV) > [@Leviticus 24:17-21](#): > > And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. > > And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast. > > And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; > > Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. > > And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death. Sounds pretty literal to me, too. However, if you want to put a Christian spin on it, Jesus toned this down quite a bit in the Sermon on the Mount. > [@Matthew 5:38-42](#): > > Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: > > But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. > > And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. > > And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. > > Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. ---
**Author:** ![AWB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bb73d2/32.png) [@AWB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AWB)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-meant-to-be-taken-figuratively-only/335607/4 "2005-12-14T18:11:04Z")
The quote I found was from Matthew 5:38-39 (Jesus speaking): [sup]38[/sup]Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: [sup]38[/sup]But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. The verse indicates that Jesus wanted us to _not_ exact equal revenge for anything evil done to the listeners. Monitary transactions, while trying, aren’t evil. So it sound like “eye for an eye” is about revenge, but Jesus was saying _don’t_ do it. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-meant-to-be-taken-figuratively-only/335607/5 "2005-12-14T18:11:10Z")
AFAIK, the Jewish thinking on this was set by, IIRC, Maimonides and he was of the thought that the idea was figurative. If you lost an eye, you would go down to the friendly slave trader and see what a healthy slave sold for. After that you would see what a one eyed slave sold for and the difference in the price is the compensation that you would have been due. ---
**Author:** ![AWB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bb73d2/32.png) [@AWB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AWB)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-meant-to-be-taken-figuratively-only/335607/6 "2005-12-14T18:17:41Z")
Searching again, I found the quotes in the Old Testament as well: Exodus 21:23-26 [sup]23[/sup]And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, [sup]24[/sup]Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, [sup]25[/sup]Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. [sup]26[/sup]And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. The commentary I found for the OT site says, “The cases here mentioned give rules of justice then, and still in use, for deciding similar matters. We are taught by these laws, that we must be very careful to do no wrong, either directly or indirectly. If we have done wrong, we must be very willing to make it good, and be desirous that nobody may lose by us.” The Old Testament _is_ calling for revenge, but the New Testament is not. ---
**Author:** ![DarrenS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@DarrenS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DarrenS)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-meant-to-be-taken-figuratively-only/335607/7 "2005-12-14T19:11:30Z")
Thanks, that was how I understood it too: old testament: fire and brimstone, violent revenge new testament: love thine enemy. I don’t know why the rabbi was saying it was only ever meant to be figurative. ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-meant-to-be-taken-figuratively-only/335607/8 "2005-12-14T19:42:11Z")
> [@adam yax](#): > > AFAIK, the Jewish thinking on this was set by, IIRC, Maimonides and he was of the thought that the idea was figurative. > > If you lost an eye, you would go down to the friendly slave trader and see what a healthy slave sold for. After that you would see what a one eyed slave sold for and the difference in the price is the compensation that you would have been due. The idea is held to be figurative, not literal, in Judaism, back to at least the time of the Talmud. [Cite](http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/NEHAMA/emor.html). The Oral Law, or interpretations of the written Torah, says that “an eye for an eye” is meant to be figurative: > [@ou.org Judaism 101](#): > > The concept of an “eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot” as punishment for a physical injury is mentioned in the Written Torah in “Shemot”/Exodus 21:24. This verse has been the basis for criticism of the Torah as a harsh and inhumane document for thousands of years, all based on a misunderstanding of its meaning. > > The Oral Law explains that what is meant is a sophisticated five-part monetary form of compensation, consisting of payment for “Damages, Pain, Medical Expenses, Incapacitation, and Mental Anguish” - which underlie many modern “advanced” legal codes? And the expression, “An eye for an eye, etc.” means that that is what the perpetrator deserves, if not for the mercy of the Torah and its Author. Ah, you ask, how do you know the Torah means that, and is not to be taken literally? Because the Torah says, “Do not take a ransom for the life of a Murderer, who is wicked to the extent that he must die”; for the murderer, there is no monetary amount that is sufficient to grant him atonement in the eyes of G-d! Only payment with his life will secure that atonement! But for other forms of injury, we will take millions of dollars from the criminal, as a ransom for his eye, hand, or foot; and as atonement, hopefully rendering him a poor man, for his terrible crime! The Orthodox believe that the Oral Law was given to Moses on Sinai along with the Torah, so according to them, “an eye for an eye” was never meant to be taken literally. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-meant-to-be-taken-figuratively-only/335607/9 "2005-12-14T19:52:23Z")
I seem to recall something in the relevant Old Testament passages about “an eye for an eye” being a _limit_ on vengeance. That is to say, if someone blinds you, you are _not_ allowed to kill him in revenge, but only to carry out punishments up to and including equal retribution. But a lesser punishment would still be allowed. Is there any support for this view? ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-meant-to-be-taken-figuratively-only/335607/10 "2005-12-14T20:08:04Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I seem to recall something in the relevant Old Testament passages about “an eye for an eye” being a _limit_ on vengeance. That is to say, if someone blinds you, you are _not_ allowed to kill him in revenge, but only to carry out punishments up to and including equal retribution. But a lesser punishment would still be allowed. Is there any support for this view? Yes, but I’m not the Jew to track it down. **Gfactor** quoted the Code Of Hammurabi. Under those laws, we get things like ‘If a man kill another man’s son, then his own son shall be slain.’. This is clearly not fair to the innocent son who is killed for the crime of his father. “An eye for an eye” is a call for just and fair punishment. If a man puts out my eye, I cannot claim both of his eyes and an ear. So, instead of people performing excessive acts of revenge and families being caught up in blood feuds, we have a system where the aggrieved party is entitled to fair compensation and no more. If somebody burns my house down, I am entitled to a fair price for my house and possessions. But, I can’t just go out and kill him. BTW I’ve heard a similar interpretation on ‘Vengance is mine sayeth the Lord’. Many sages agree that the proper meaning is ‘I am G-d. Vengance is My right and Mine alone. If you are a human being, you have no right to it. So, quit it with the vengance.’ ---
**Author:** ![633squadron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/6/ee59a6/32.png) [@633squadron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/633squadron)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-meant-to-be-taken-figuratively-only/335607/11 "2005-12-14T20:09:51Z")
> [@DarrenS](#): > > Thanks, that was how I understood it too Bull. But the rabbi’s response is sorta bull, too. The traditional rabbinical interpretation was that “eye for eye” is figurative, as the rabbi was trying to explain. But according to traditional Judaism, _all_ of the Tanach (Hebrew Bible) is to be taken figuratively. That includes the Torah, despite what others have said here. It is plain **wrong** to take the words literally. Any rabbi, no matter how ultra-orthodox, would agree. The level of orthodoxy is simply how strict/literal the words are interpreted, but they are _always_ interpreted. This idea of old testament=violence and new testament=love is something that some Christians love to propagate; it always seems to be the same Christians that give out the quotes like “G-d does not hear the prayer of a Jew”. I won’t comment any more than that. I have studied Torah (and Tanach) with several rabbis. Most of them are fairly progressive, which means that they allow us all to make our own interpretations. I think that “eye for eye” makes sense. Here’s my interpretation: The passage has to be taken as a whole. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc. means that one must demand justice commeasurable with the offense. Losing an eye is pretty serious; losing a tooth is a minor inconvenience. Punishment has to be balanced. I don’t believe that the passage is meant to be taken literally; in fact, I don’t believe that G-d meant it to be taken literally. The rabbi’s attitude that it’s meant to be taken figuratively is Jewish doctrine going back at least 2000 years. A Christian who believes that the Old Testament was meant to be taken literally is ignoring Jewish doctrine. One last note: individual passages from Torah/Tanach should not be quoted out of context. Remember that the chapter/verse divisions were applied much later to the text; regardless of what you believe about the text’s origin, history clearly indicates that chapter and verse were undeniably applied by humans. Given that, you really have to read all the stuff before and after to get a good idea of the point, just as much as you have to read a quote from somebody in context. The passages, believe it or not, have to do with holiness. I was taught that justice commeasurate to the transgression is a key part of holiness. ---
**Author:** ![ryobserver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b2d939/32.png) [@ryobserver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ryobserver)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-meant-to-be-taken-figuratively-only/335607/12 "2005-12-15T00:06:10Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > BTW I’ve heard a similar interpretation on ‘Vengance is mine sayeth the Lord’. Many sages agree that the proper meaning is ‘I am G-d. Vengance is My right and Mine alone. If you are a human being, you have no right to it. So, quit it with the vengance.’ The full verse is “Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay.” People don’t seem to quote the full verse very often. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2005, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-meant-to-be-taken-figuratively-only/335607/13 "2005-12-16T21:42:53Z")
Here are some articles on the interpretation of the phrase: [http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en\_mishpatim.html](http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_mishpatim.html) [http://www.benisrael.org/articles/Eye%20for%20Eye\_Tooth%20for%20Tooth.htm](http://www.benisrael.org/articles/Eye%20for%20Eye_Tooth%20for%20Tooth.htm) [http://www.hillel.org/hillel/newhille.nsf/0/E7CBAA9B9376C3CD85256B5F0077B592?OpenDocument](http://www.hillel.org/hillel/newhille.nsf/0/E7CBAA9B9376C3CD85256B5F0077B592?OpenDocument) [http://www.hir.org/torah/rabbi/5760/emor60.htm](http://www.hir.org/torah/rabbi/5760/emor60.htm) [http://www.koltorah.org/volume%2014/20%20Mishpatim.htm](http://www.koltorah.org/volume%2014/20%20Mishpatim.htm) [http://www.ou.org/torah/frankel/5762/mishpatim62.htm](http://www.ou.org/torah/frankel/5762/mishpatim62.htm) [http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~dbh/parshas/mishpatim/96/](http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~dbh/parshas/mishpatim/96/) ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2005, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-meant-to-be-taken-figuratively-only/335607/14 "2005-12-16T22:02:18Z")
> [@AWB](#): > > Searching again, I found the quotes in the Old Testament as well: > > Exodus 21:23-26 > [sup]23[/sup]And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, > [sup]24[/sup]Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, > [sup]25[/sup]Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. > [sup]26[/sup]And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. This may just be a result of my upbringing/outlook/temperment/whatever, but it sounds like these laws are more of a “If YOU take someone’s eye” rather than “If someone takes YOUR eye”. ie: Rules of reparation rather than retribution.