From TheBestLinks.com
The phrase "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" expresses a form of retributive justice also known as lex talionis (Latin, 'law of retaliation'). It may have originated in ancient near-Eastern and Middle Eastern law, such as Babylonian law.
In societies not bound by the rule of law, if a person was hurt, then the injured person (or their relative) would take vengeful retribution on the person who caused the injury. Often the retribution would be much worse than the crime; it was often death. Babylonian law put a limit on such actions, restricting the retribution to be no worse than the crime.
In the Hebrew Bible, God issues many denunciations of ancient near-Eastern morality and law; the Torah (Exodus 21:24) offers its own statement of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Read in its historical context, this seems not be encouraging retributive justice, but is rather setting forth a commandment that punishments must be no more worse than the crime, giving as an example "an eye for eye, or a tooth for a tooth". This verse probably was meant to serve as a limitation on what kind of response the injured party could give.
Lex talionis in Judaism
The oral law of Judaism holds that this verse was never meant to be followed literally. The rabbis of the Talmud ask, "How can any person be certain that the punishment they inflict is definitely no worse than the initial injury?" They answer that this is impossible to carry out in practice. Therefore, they conclude that to follow the spirit of this law, it must be interpreted as applying to financial damages that are commensurate with the severity of the crime.
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 legal codes - and that 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. Aginst this, some argue that the Torah is intended to be taken literally, because it says, "Do not take a ransom for the life of a Murderer, who is wicked to the extent that he must die". In other words, for the murderer, there is no monetary amount that is sufficient to grant him atonement in the eyes of God, and only payment with his life will secure that atonement. For other forms of injury, however, the criminal must pay a huge sum, as a ransom for his eye, hand, or foot; and as atonement, which is intended to make him a poor man for his terrible crime.
In other cases, an exact retaliation is practically impossible. For example, suppose a blind person damaged the eye of another. It would then be impossible to demand "an eye for an eye"? (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Bava Kama 84a).
Criticisms
Most Christians see the New Testament as superior to the Hebrew Bible, and have traditionally read many of the laws in the Hebrew Bible as outdated or immoral. Outside of the Jewish community, the Christian view of the Hebrew Bible has become standard for many non-Christians. As such, many non-Christians have a critical view of the Hebrew Bible's conception of justice, and also of rabbinic Judaism's concept of justice. One example of this point of view is the quote "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" by Mohandas Gandhi.
Those who disagree with this view note that it is a Christian interpretation of the commandment, which assumes that the directive encourages bloody retributive justice. Since the original intent was to limit retribution, the criticism is held to be misinformed and invalid.
See also: Turn the other cheek (the opposite)
External references
Related links
Top visited
0 of
0 links
[no links posted yet]
>> place link >>
Discussion
Last posted
0 of
0 messages
[no messages posted yet]
>> post message >>
Watch
You can
add this article to your own "watchlist" and receive e-mail notification about all changes in this page.
