Discovering the True Meaning of "An Eye for an Eye"

One of the most widely misunderstood verses in the Torah is the phrase “an eye for an eye.” Many assume it reflects cruelty or physical retaliation, while others struggle to reconcile it with the Torah’s moral foundations. In truth, this verse opens the door to one of the most important discussions about the relationship between the Written Torah and the Oral Torah, the nature of justice in Judaism, and the depth of the Torah’s legal system. To understand it properly, we must look carefully at the sources and the tradition that has guided the Jewish people for generations.

The Biblical Text: “An Eye for an Eye”

The original biblical text states (Exodus 21:22–25):
“If a fatality occurs, you must give a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.”

Further in the Torah (Leviticus 24:17–22):
“If anyone takes the life of a human being, they must be put to death. Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, life for life. If anyone injures a neighbor, whatever they have done must be done to them: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As they have injured another, so they are to be injured. Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a human being is to be put to death. You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native born. I am the Lord your God.”

Our sages teach in the Oral Torah (Bava Kamma 84a):
“An eye for an eye: if one blinds the eye of their friend, they must pay the value of the eye.” The sages elaborate there on the payments required.

Many ask: how is it possible that the Oral Torah’s explanation seems different from the literal wording? Did the sages interpret the Torah at their own discretion? In this article, we will fill in the missing knowledge needed to understand this topic.

Can “An Eye for an Eye” Be Understood Literally?

Someone who interprets this phrase literally is essentially claiming that the Torah promotes revenge. After all, the injured person gains nothing by injuring the offender, and revenge would be imposed even in cases of accidental harm. How could we imagine that the Torah, which commands “love your neighbor as yourself,” and teaches moral sensitivity even toward the stranger, would suddenly reverse course and endorse personal vengeance?

Indeed, this is not the way of the Torah. The Torah teaches “do not harbor hate and do not take revenge,” and even commands: “If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying under its burden, you shall surely help with it.” The Torah does not guide us toward violence or vengeance even toward enemies, certainly not over accidental injury.

Although the Torah includes punishments, they are always purposeful, either for the wrongdoer, such as bringing a sacrifice in the Holy Temple, or for the injured, through compensation and healing. The Torah’s punishments are never about harming for the sake of harm.

Simple revenge, without moral benefit and without compensation for the injured, is pointless. Anyone claiming that the Torah intended literal retaliation would need to distort the Torah’s moral foundation and ignore countless laws that emphasize payment, responsibility, repair, and atonement.

Every Verse Needs Oral Clarification

Logic itself demands that alongside the Written Torah, a detailed oral explanation was transmitted. There is hardly a single commandment that can be properly fulfilled based on the Written Torah alone.

The Torah speaks concisely, sometimes in brief hints, as though the details are already known. For example, the verse “and it shall be for a sign on your hand and for frontlets between your eyes” is repeated multiple times, yet the Torah never explains what those frontlets are, what they look like, what they are made from, or how they are prepared.

The Torah commands, “and you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates,” but does not define what a doorpost is, what is written, how it is written, or how it is affixed.

Even the commandment of Shabbat, which carries severe consequences, is summarized as “you shall not do any work,” without defining what work is, whether it depends on effort or payment, or whether it is set aside for saving life. The Torah also states, “no man may leave his place on the day of Shabbat,” but what is “place”? A city, a street, a home, a room? What are the precise boundaries? And what about emergencies?

Similarly, the Torah says, “and you shall slaughter as I have commanded you,” indicating laws of slaughter, but nowhere does the Written Torah explain how slaughter is performed. Where, then, was it commanded?

If one reads the Torah carefully, it becomes clear that this is the pattern of nearly all mitzvot: circumcision, sukkah, matzah, Shabbat, tzitzit, tefillin, mezuzah, marriage, divorce, testimony, eruv, kilayim, nedarim, nazirite vows, and more. Many mitzvot appear as summaries or outlines for detailed laws that must have been taught elsewhere.

Without a detailed clarification, the Torah would lose its legal and practical meaning, because it would be impossible to fulfill. One cannot execute a person for Shabbat violations based on assumptions, or decide life and death without precise definitions.

Therefore, logic compels the conclusion that the Written Torah was given together with an oral, clear, and detailed explanation, transmitted through generations. The people of Israel have preserved this oral tradition for thousands of years, and it was later recorded in the six orders of the Mishnah nearly two thousand years ago. In that tradition are found the laws of slaughter, the forbidden categories of work on Shabbat, the laws of mezuzah and tefillin, and much more. The relationship between the Written Torah and its oral elucidation is discussed throughout the Gemara in both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud.

Accordingly, the phrase “an eye for an eye” has no complete meaning without the oral explanation. The Oral Torah reveals the true intent: compensation, not physical retaliation, God forbid.

Nevertheless, two questions still remain:

1. What is the most logical explanation of the verse “an eye for an eye”?

2. Why did the Torah choose to use this expression?

The True Meaning of “An Eye for an Eye”

In Bava Kamma 83b and 84a, the Gemara addresses this question. Although the conclusion is rooted in the Oral Torah, the sages also analyze the matter through reasoning and textual evidence.

1. Injury requires compensation, while murder requires death.
   The Torah explicitly teaches that one who injures another must pay restitution. Yet regarding murder, it states, “Do not accept ransom for the life of a murderer who deserves to die.” This distinction proves that monetary payment applies to injury but not to murder.

2. A literal reading would create inequality.
   Rabbi Dostai teaches that eyes differ from person to person in value, vision, function, and livelihood impact. Therefore, literal retaliation could never produce equal justice.

3. A literal reading would be impossible in many cases.
   Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai points out that if a blind person blinded another, or a one handed person injured someone else, the law could not be fulfilled literally. Yet the Torah commands one law for all.

4. The language of giving implies monetary payment.
   Rabbi Yishmael notes that the Torah’s language implies giving, which refers to monetary transfer. Rabbi Chiya adds that “hand to hand” refers to something that can be transferred, meaning money.

5. Literal retaliation risks death.
   Removing an eye can endanger life. The Torah does not impose punishments that may unintentionally lead to death.

6. It is impossible to replicate wounds and burns precisely.
   The Gemara teaches that the goal is not to duplicate suffering, which is impossible to measure, but to require the offender to compensate for the harm caused. “He shall surely heal him” implies financial responsibility for healing.

7. The Torah itself explicitly teaches compensation.
   The Rambam shows that other verses clearly state that one who injures another must compensate and provide healing. Therefore, the verses of “an eye for an eye” must also be understood as referring to monetary payment.

Why Did the Torah Use This Expression?

Five explanations are given:

1. To deter.
   The phrase “an eye for an eye” carries powerful emotional force. It teaches the severity of harm and encourages extreme caution, even regarding accidental injury.

2. To convey the moral weight of the act.
   The language forces the offender to understand that what they did is so severe that, in principle, they deserved the same harm. The Rambam explains that payment does not fully atone. Forgiveness is only achieved when the injured party forgives.

3. Because no money truly equals an organ.
   There is no true price for an eye or a hand. The Torah therefore uses the honest expression: only an eye equals an eye. Payment is only a partial and symbolic repair.

4. Because value changes across time and circumstance.
   The impact of losing an eye or tooth varies across generations. Medicine changes, technology changes, and circumstances change. The expression allows courts to assess fair compensation in every era.

5. Because the Torah speaks in familiar language.
   The Torah uses expressions people understand. Just as “do not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” conveys the broader prohibition of meat and milk, so too “an eye for an eye” uses a familiar phrase to express the system of compensation. Because the Torah was given with the Oral Torah, there was no risk of misunderstanding among those who preserved the tradition.

Mistakes arise only when one attempts to interpret Scripture without the Oral Torah, encountering countless similar difficulties in understanding mitzvot such as Shabbat, tefillin, mezuzah, tzitzit, circumcision, and many others.

There is no doubt that the Torah was given together with the Oral Torah, which serves as the detailed and authoritative explanation of every commandment in the Written Torah.