'An eye for an eye' or not

However, there's plentiful evidence that the text was never meant to be taken literally. Our Sages established quite early on that lex talionis taught us not about literal physical punishment, but instead about torts– financial compensation meant to be issued to the victim of a crime. In doing so, our rabbis are unwittingly engaging in a much older debate, which predates the Torah by some 700 years at least.

In the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, we do in fact read the same statement: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. However, in the contemporaneous text, the Laws of Eshmuna, we read a slightly different version: "If a man bites the nose of another man and thus cuts it off, he shall weigh and deliver 60 shekels of silver; an eye — 60 shekels; a tooth — 30 shekels; an ear — 30 shekels."

This should give us some pause when we approach the Bible and immediately respond with disgust and distance. Perhaps these texts can afford us some perspective and more than a little bit of humility; helping us to realise that we are neither the first, nor likely the last, to raise concerns and debate the meaning of our ancient legal texts. In debating and discussing our holy texts we are engaging in a debate that goes far beyond our own traditions, and one which can only help to illumine our religious life today.

Readers who submit articles must agree to our terms of use. The content is the sole responsibility of the contributor and is unmoderated. But we will react if anything that breaks the rules comes to our attention. If you wish to complain about this article, contact us here