“An eye for an eye” may be an idiom, but the Torah always uses precise language, so why use this particular phrase? There is a purposeful subtext here: The perpetrator deserves to be injured or lose a limb in the same manner as the victim, but G‑d is compassionate, so the perpetrator makes financial restitution to the victim instead. It’s therefore important to bear in mind that, as is the case with all interpersonal transgressions, merely giving financial compensation should not be seen as having made amends for what was done, which can never fully be corrected; The best we can do is offer monetary compensation and beg forgiveness from the victim.
This preceding law is also very much in the same vein -
ReplyDeleteכב וְכִֽי־יִנָּצ֣וּ
אֲנָשִׁ֗ים וְנָ֨גְפ֜וּ אִשָּׁ֤ה הָרָה֙ וְיָֽצְא֣וּ יְלָדֶ֔יהָ וְלֹ֥א
יִֽהְיֶ֖ה אָס֑וֹן עָנ֣וֹשׁ יֵֽעָנֵ֗שׁ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר יָשִׁ֤ית עָלָיו֙
בַּ֣עַל הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וְנָתַ֖ן בִּפְלִלִֽים:
כג וְאִם־אָס֖וֹן יִֽהְיֶ֑ה וְנָֽתַתָּ֥ה נֶ֖פֶשׁ תַּ֥חַת נָֽפֶשׁ:
If the foetus is killed, hos can there only be financial compensation, since halacha consideres it to be a living human being? (The same halacha considers abortion as murder).