Editing Eye for an eye (section)

===Judaism===
Isaac Kalimi said that the lex talionis was "humanized" by the Rabbis who interpreted "an eye for an eye" to mean reasonable pecuniary compensation. As in the case of the Babylonian ''lex talionis'', ethical Judaism and humane Jewish jurisprudence replaces the ''[[peshat]]'' (literal meaning) of the written Torah.<ref>{{cite book | title = Biblical interpretation in Judaism and Christianity |first1= Isaac |last1= Kalimi | first2= Peter J | last2 = Haas | author2-link = Peter Haas (rabbi) | publisher = Continuum | year = 2006 | page = 2 |isbn= 9780567026828 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=h6bSc6ksh0YC&pg=PA2}}</ref> Pasachoff and Littman point to the reinterpretation of the lex talionis as an example of the ability of Pharisaic Judaism to "adapt to changing social and intellectual ideas."<ref>{{cite book | title = A concise history of the Jewish people | first1 = Naomi E | last1 = Pasachoff | first2 = Robert J | last2 = Littman | publisher = Rowman & Littlefield | year = 2005 | page = 64 | isbn = 9780742543669 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=z4eaj09hscAC&pg=PA64}}</ref>

====Talmud====
The [[Talmud]]<ref>{{Citation | title = [[Nezikin|Bava Kamma]] | at = 83b–84a}}.</ref> interprets the verses referring to "an eye for an eye" and similar expressions as mandating monetary compensation in [[tort]] cases and argues against the interpretations by Sadducees that the Bible verses refer to physical retaliation in kind, using the argument that such an interpretation would be inapplicable to blind or eyeless offenders. Since the Torah requires that penalties be universally applicable, the phrase cannot be interpreted in this manner.

{{Blockquote | The Oral Law explains, based upon the biblical verses, that the Bible mandates a sophisticated five-part monetary form of compensation, consisting of payment for "Damages, Pain, Medical Expenses, Incapacitation, and Mental Anguish" — which underlies many modern legal codes. Some rabbinic literature explains, moreover, that the expression, "An eye for an eye, etc." suggests that the perpetrator deserves to lose his own eye, but that biblical law treats him leniently. − Paraphrased from the [[Union of Orthodox Congregations]].<ref name = "OU">{{Citation | contribution-url = http://www.ou.org/about/judaism/torah.htm | contribution = Torah | publisher = ou.org | title = About Judaism}}.</ref>}}

However, the Torah also discusses a form of direct reciprocal justice, where the phrase ''ayin tachat ayin'' makes another appearance.<ref>{{bibleverse ||Dt|19:16–21|JPS}}.</ref> Here, the Torah discusses false witnesses who conspire to testify against another person. The Torah requires the court to "do to him as he had conspired to do to his brother".<ref name="bibleverse ||Dt|19:19|JPS">{{bibleverse ||Dt|19:19|JPS}}.</ref> Assuming the fulfillment of certain technical criteria (such as the sentencing of the accused whose punishment was not yet executed), wherever it is possible to punish the conspirators with exactly the same punishment through which they had planned to harm their fellow, the court carries out this direct reciprocal justice (including when the punishment constitutes the death penalty). Otherwise, the offenders receive lashes.<ref>{{Citation | title = [[Nezikin|Makot]] | at = 1:1}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation | title = Bab. Talmud | at = 2a}}, based on critical [[exegesis]] of {{bibleverse ||Dt|25:1–3|JPS}}</ref>

Since there is no form of punishment in the Torah that calls for the maiming of an offender (punitary amputation) there is no case where a conspiratorial false witness could possibly be punished by the court injuring to his eye, tooth, hand, or foot. There is one case where the Torah states "…and you shall cut off her hand…"<ref>{{bibleverse ||Dt|25:11–12|JPS}}.</ref> The sages of the Talmud understood the literal meaning of this verse as referring to a case where the woman is attacking a man in potentially lethal manner. This verse teaches that, although one must intervene to save the victim, one may not kill a lethal attacker if it is possible to neutralize that attacker through non-lethal injury.<ref>[[Sifrei]].</ref><ref>{{Citation | author = Maimonides | author-link = Maimonides | title = Yad}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation | title = Nezikin | last = Hillel | contribution = Rotze'ach u'Sh'mirat Nefesh | at = 1:7}}.</ref> Regardless, there is no verse that even appears to mandate injury to the eye, tooth, or foot.

Numbers 35:9–30 discusses the only form of remotely reciprocal justice not carried out directly by the court, where, under very limited circumstances, someone found guilty of negligent manslaughter may be killed by a relative of the deceased who takes on the role of "redeemer of blood". In such cases, the court requires the guilty party to flee to a designated city of refuge. While the guilty party is there, the "redeemer of blood" may not kill him. If, however, the guilty party illegally forgoes his exile, the "redeemer of blood", as an accessory of the court, may kill the guilty party.

According to traditional Jewish Law, application of these laws requires the presence and maintenance of the biblically designated cities of refuge, as well as a conviction in an eligible court of 23 judges as delineated by the Torah and Talmud. The latter condition is also applicable for any capital punishment. These circumstances have not existed for approximately 2,000 years.

====Objective of reciprocal justice in Judaism====
The Talmud discusses the concept of justice as measure-for-measure retribution (''middah k'neged middah'') in the context of divinely implemented justice. Regarding reciprocal justice by court, however, the Torah states that punishments serve to remove dangerous elements from society ("…and you shall eliminate the evil from your midst"<ref name="bibleverse ||Dt|19:19|JPS"/>) and to deter potential criminals from violating the law ("And the rest shall hear and be daunted, and they shall no longer commit anything like this evil deed in your midst"<ref>{{bibleverse ||Dt|19:20|JPS}}.</ref>). Additionally, reciprocal justice in tort cases serves to compensate the victim (see above).

The ideal of vengeance for the sake of assuaging the distress of the victim plays no role in the Torah's conception of court justice, as victims are cautioned against even hating or bearing a grudge against those who have harmed them. The Torah makes no distinction between whether or not the potential object of hatred or a grudge has been brought to justice, and all people are taught to love their fellow Israelites.<ref>{{bibleverse ||Lv|19:17–18|JPS}}.</ref>

====Social hierarchy and reciprocal justice====
In Exodus 21, as in the [[Code of Hammurabi]], the concept of reciprocal justice seemingly applies to social equals; the statement of reciprocal justice "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe"<ref>{{bibleverse ||Ex|21:23–25|JPS}}.</ref> is followed by an example of a different law: if a slave-owner blinds the eye or knocks out the tooth of a slave, the slave is freed but the owner pays no other consequence. On the other hand, the slave would probably be put to death for the injury of the eye of the slave-owner.<ref name = "Coogan">{{cite book| last = Coogan | first = Michael D | author-link = Michael Coogan | title = A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament: The Hebrew Bible in Its Context | publisher = [[Oxford University Press]]| location = New York| year = 2009| page = 112 | isbn = 978-0-19-533272-8}}</ref>

However the reciprocal justice applies across social boundaries: the "eye for eye" principle is directly followed by the proclamation "You are to have one law for the alien and the citizen."<ref>{{Bibleverse ||Lv|24:19–22}}.</ref> This shows a much more meaningful principle for social justice, in that the marginalized in society were given the same rights under the social structure. In this context, the reciprocal justice in an ideal functioning setting, according to [[Harvard Divinity School]] lecturer Michael Coogan, "to prevent people from taking the law into their own hands and exacting disproportionate vengeance for offenses committed against them."<ref name = "Coogan" />