In the Torah portion, the principle concerning monetary law is cited: “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, an injury for an injury.” The Sages taught that this verse should not be understood in accordance with its straightforward meaning. They established that in the case of bodily harm, the punishment is not corporal; rather, the reference is to payment. Presented here are two reasons from among many that were given for this explanation of the verse.

Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda says: When the verse states: “An eye for an eye” (Leviticus 24:20), it means that the assailant pays money. The Gemara asks: Do you say the assailant pays money, or is the phrase: “An eye for an eye” a reference to the removal of his actual eye? You can say in response: If the eye of the victim is large and the eye of the assailant is small, how can I read in this case: “An eye for an eye”? [Since the eyes are not equal, it would not be a just punishment.] And if you would say: In all cases like this [where their eyes are not of equal size] take money from the assailant, [but if their eyes are of equal size the assailant’s eye is removed, that cannot be correct, as] the Torah stated: “You shall have one manner of law” (Leviticus 24:22), teaching that you must have a law equal for all of you. Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says: When the verse states: “An eye for an eye” (Leviticus 24:20), it means that the assailant pays money. Do you say he pays money, or is it a reference to the removal of an actual eye? If one is blind and he blinded another, or one is an amputee and he severed the limb of another, or one is lame and he caused one to be lame – in this case, how can I fulfill “An eye for an eye”? And the Torah stated: “You shall have one manner of law” (Leviticus 24:22) – a law equal for all of you. [Therefore, the punishment must be the payment of money in all cases.] (Bava Kamma 83b)