כִּֽי־קָר֥וֹב יוֹם־יְהוָ֖ה עַל־כָּל־הַגּוֹיִ֑ם כַּאֲשֶׁ֤ר עָשִׂ֙יתָ֙ יֵעָ֣שֶׂה לָּ֔ךְ גְּמֻלְךָ֖ יָשׁ֥וּב בְּרֹאשֶֽׁךָ׃
װאָרום נאָנט איז דער טאָג פֿון גאָט אױף אַלע פֿעלקער; װי דו האָסט געטאָן, װעט געטאָן װערן צו דיר, דײַן טוּונג װעט זיך אומקערן אױף דײַן קאָפּ.
Ibn Ezra
The year of recompences. Comp. Thy reward shall return over thine own head (Obad. 15); these words refer likewise to Edom.
Rabbeinu Chananel
עין תחת עין, there is a tradition by our sages (Baba Kamma 84) concerning this that the meaning is: “the value of an eye for the value of an eye.” The Torah does not speak of the person inflicting the loss of someone’s eye paying with his losing an eye of his own. The proof that this could not have been what the Torah meant is verse 19 in our chapter רק שבתו יתן ורפא ירפא, “he must only pay for his loss of income and his medical expenses.”
If we were to do to a person who has caused the loss of another’s limb exactly as he had done, why would he have to pay something in addition to that? After all, he himself loses pay due to absence from work and he also incurs medical expenses for treatment of his severed limb!?
Furthermore, even assuming that the Torah’s words here were to be interpreted literally, not all situations are alike so that the literal application would resemble any kind of “tit for tat.” If the eye which a healthy person gouged out belonged to a person who had only one good eye, how would the loss of one of two good eyes by the person who caused the injury even come close to “fair retribution?” Not only that. Some people’s constitution would not be able to survive the loss of an organ whereas others would. If a person had had a kidney ruined beyond repair by someone who only had a single kidney left, taking that person’s kidney would be equivalent to a death sentence!
Furthermore, in Leviticus 24,19-20 we read כאשר עשה כן יעשה בו, “just as he has done (to another), so shall be done to him.” This verse cannot be applied in any other way than the way our sages have seen fit to understand it. The thrust of the verses is to indemnify the injured party in a manner commensurate to the injury he has sustained, not by depriving him of a limb of his own. It would be physically impossible to cause a person an exact duplicate of the injury he himself has suffered. If he were to cause either a lesser or a greater injury than the one he had sustained, he would be in violation of what the Torah wrote as he would not have complied with the Torah’s demand “as he had done so should be done to him.” In the case of monetary compensation, experts can evaluate the precise amount of the value of the loss sustained.
It is possible to understand the line כאשר עשה כן יעשה לו, as meaning: “just as he has caused harm, harm shall be caused to him.” Proof of this being the meaning of the words can be found in Judges 15,11 where Shimshon said: “as they have done to me so I have done to them.” The dispute had begun when the Philistines had taken Shimshon’s wife and in retaliation he burned their crops. Seeing that the retaliation by Shimshon did not match the harm done to him by the Philistines, it is clear that the meaning of the line is merely that harm done will be requited. Any retaliation therefore would be considered as “as he has done so shall be done to him.”
We also find that the prophet Ovadiah 15-16 prophesies concerning the future of Esau “as you did so shall be done to you. Your conduct shall be requited.” He goes on to spell out what precisely this involves: “the same cup that you drank from on My Holy Mount shall all nations drink evermore; drink till their speech grows thick and they become as though they had never been.” I have provided you with proof based both on logic and on verses from Scripture that it is impossible to translate the line עין תחת עין, as meaning “an eye for an eye.”
If we were to do to a person who has caused the loss of another’s limb exactly as he had done, why would he have to pay something in addition to that? After all, he himself loses pay due to absence from work and he also incurs medical expenses for treatment of his severed limb!?
Furthermore, even assuming that the Torah’s words here were to be interpreted literally, not all situations are alike so that the literal application would resemble any kind of “tit for tat.” If the eye which a healthy person gouged out belonged to a person who had only one good eye, how would the loss of one of two good eyes by the person who caused the injury even come close to “fair retribution?” Not only that. Some people’s constitution would not be able to survive the loss of an organ whereas others would. If a person had had a kidney ruined beyond repair by someone who only had a single kidney left, taking that person’s kidney would be equivalent to a death sentence!
Furthermore, in Leviticus 24,19-20 we read כאשר עשה כן יעשה בו, “just as he has done (to another), so shall be done to him.” This verse cannot be applied in any other way than the way our sages have seen fit to understand it. The thrust of the verses is to indemnify the injured party in a manner commensurate to the injury he has sustained, not by depriving him of a limb of his own. It would be physically impossible to cause a person an exact duplicate of the injury he himself has suffered. If he were to cause either a lesser or a greater injury than the one he had sustained, he would be in violation of what the Torah wrote as he would not have complied with the Torah’s demand “as he had done so should be done to him.” In the case of monetary compensation, experts can evaluate the precise amount of the value of the loss sustained.
It is possible to understand the line כאשר עשה כן יעשה לו, as meaning: “just as he has caused harm, harm shall be caused to him.” Proof of this being the meaning of the words can be found in Judges 15,11 where Shimshon said: “as they have done to me so I have done to them.” The dispute had begun when the Philistines had taken Shimshon’s wife and in retaliation he burned their crops. Seeing that the retaliation by Shimshon did not match the harm done to him by the Philistines, it is clear that the meaning of the line is merely that harm done will be requited. Any retaliation therefore would be considered as “as he has done so shall be done to him.”
We also find that the prophet Ovadiah 15-16 prophesies concerning the future of Esau “as you did so shall be done to you. Your conduct shall be requited.” He goes on to spell out what precisely this involves: “the same cup that you drank from on My Holy Mount shall all nations drink evermore; drink till their speech grows thick and they become as though they had never been.” I have provided you with proof based both on logic and on verses from Scripture that it is impossible to translate the line עין תחת עין, as meaning “an eye for an eye.”
Rabbeinu Bahya
We need to answer that the meaning of the words: “as he has done so shall be done to him” is: “as he did something evil, so something evil shall be done to him.” The proof that this is what the Torah had in mind can be appreciated through the words of Shimshon who said: “as they have done to me so I have done to them” (Judges 15,11). When you read up you will find that the Philistines had stolen Shimshon’s wife and he had paid them back by burning their crops! There was no comparison at all between what the Philistines had done to Shimshon to the type of revenge he took upon them. The meaning of his words is obviously: “just as they have caused me personal harm and grief, so I have caused them plenty of harm.” We find something similar when the prophet Ovadiah (Ovadiah 1,15-16) prophesied about Esau “As you did, so shall be done to you (Esau). Your conduct shall be requited. That same cup you drank on My Holy Mount, etc.” You have now had a variety of ancient sources all proving that our sages never interpreted this verse of “an eye for an eye” to be understood literally. Thus far Rabbeinu Chananel.