In Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables, the main character, Jean Valjean, is sent to prison, initially for five years, for stealing a loaf of bread. The novel is set in France in 1795. Today, in some Islamic fundamentalist regimes, the punishment for stealing more than a quarter of a dinar is to cut off the thief’s hand. In some societies, the punishment is or was disproportionate to the harm committed.

It is written in Exodus 21:23-25: «But if there is any other wrong, then you shall appoint as punishment: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.» The concept is repeated in Leviticus 24:18-20 and Deuteronomy 19:21. This maxim is known as the Law of Talion, from the Latin «talis,» meaning «identical» or «similar,» meaning that the punishment imposed must be identical or equivalent to the damage. This was a revolutionary idea, especially in the world of biblical times, when it was common for punishment to be disproportionate to the harm caused. However, in Jewish literature, there is no known case where this law was applied literally.

The rabbis of the Mishnah (1st century CE) went further. In chapter 8 of the Talmud’s tractate Bava Kama, they discussed the issue at length and ultimately decided that compensation should be monetary, as applying the commandment literally presented legal and ethical difficulties. One of the many arguments they presented was what R. Simon b. Yohai said: «An eye for an eye means monetary compensation, not gouging out the eye of the guilty party. What then do you do in the case where a blind person gouges out another person’s eye, or where a cripple cuts off another person’s hand, or where a lame person breaks another person’s leg? How can the principle of an eye for an eye be fulfilled in this case?» For the blind person who gouged out another person’s eye, it is not a punishment to have his own eye gouged out.

The Mishnah in Bava Kamma 83b continues the theme and says: «He who injures another person is responsible for paying, in addition to the damage caused (being left maimed, for example), for the pain caused, the costs of healing, the time lost in earning a living, and the humiliation.» The amount to be paid is determined by a rabbinical court.

What does all this mean? The rabbis, in the early years of the Common Era, reinterpreted and modified the application of the biblical precept to make it more humane. A position repeated countless times, on many topics, in the pages of the Talmud. Rabbinic Judaism not only considered the legal aspect, but also considered the effects it would have on humankind.

The principle of «an eye for an eye,» found in the Bible, has been completely misunderstood. It is generally thought to be a barbaric prescription focused on personal revenge and is often contrasted with the New Testament principle of turning the other cheek. Gandhi said that an eye for an eye would blind everyone. «An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life» is found in the sections of the Bible that instruct judges how to punish criminals. It is strictly an instruction for justice, not for personal revenge.

By Marcos Gojman.

Bibliography: Adam Kirsch: «Is an eye for an eye really an eye for an eye?» and other sources.