(17) If any party kills any human being, that person shall be put to death.

(18) One who kills a beast shall make restitution for it: life for life.

(19) If any party maims another [person]: what was done shall be done in return—

(20) fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The injury inflicted on a human being shall be inflicted in return.

(21) One who kills a beast shall make restitution for it; but one who kills a human being shall be put to death.

(22) You shall have one standard for stranger and citizen alike: for I Adonai am your God.

(22) When people are fighting, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact, the payment as the judges determine. (23) But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, (24) eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (25) burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

But according to Rabbi Shimon, this verse: “Then you shall give a life for a life,” what does he do with it? He interprets it as monetary restitution. And this understanding is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: "Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the phrase “then you shall give a life for a life” does not mean execution, but rather monetary restitution.

Do you say that it means monetary restitution, or does it mean only the taking of an actual life?

Based on the language employed in the verse, it can be determined that the reference is to monetary payment. In these verses, a term of giving is stated below: “And you shall give a life for a life” (Exodus 21:23). And additionally, a term is stated of giving above: “He shall be punished, as the husband of the woman shall impose upon him, and he shall give as the judges determine” (Exodus 21:22). Just as there, in the phrase: “Give as the judges determine,” the reference is to monetary restitution, so too here, in the phrase: “Give a life for a life,” the reference is to monetary restitution.

Babylonian Talmud (200 CE - 500 CE)

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: “An eye for an eye” is referring to monetary restitution.

Do you say that this is referring to monetary restitution, or is it only teaching that the one who caused the injury must lose an actual eye?

There may be a case where there was a blind person and they blinded another, or there was one with a severed limb and they severed the limb of another, or there was a lame person and they caused another to be lame. In this case, how can I fulfill “an eye for an eye” literally, when they are already lacking the limb that must be injured?

If one will suggest that in that case, a monetary penalty will be imposed, that can be refuted: But the Torah stated: “You shall have one manner of law” (Leviticus 24:22), which teaches that the law shall be equal for all of you.

(1490-1550, Italy)

(24) עין תחת עין; this is what ought to be the judgment against the offender, if we were to apply the principle of the punishment fitting the crime in all its severity. However, according to tradition only financial compensation is exacted as we cannot accurately measure how to apply the principle of “an eye for an eye” literally.

(200 CE, Land of Israel)

One who injures another is liable for five categories of payment: damages, pain, healthcare, unemployment, and shame.

For damages, how is this calculated? One who puts out an eye, cuts off another's hand, breaks another's leg—we see the injured person as if they were a slave sold in the marketplace, and we evaluate how much they were worth [before the injury] and how much they are worth now.

Pain? When he burned another with a spit or a nail—even on their fingernail—anything where there is no permanent wound, we evaluate how much a similar person would want to be paid to be spared this pain.

Healthcare? When one strikes another, they are liable for the other's healthcare costs. If swellings arose, if they were because of the strike, then he is liable; but if it was not because of the strike, he is exempt. If the swelling healed and then reopened and then healed and reopened, he is liable for their healthcare. If it healed entirely, he is exempt.

Unemployment? We see the victim as if they were employed as a guard of gourds, since he already gave them the value for the loss of their hand or their leg [and pay accordingly for days of labor lost.]

Shame? All depends on the one who shames and the one who is shamed.... No one is liable for shame unless one intended to cause it.

(1180 CE, Egypt, Maimonides)

...Even he, who injures his friend or causes him damages in money matters, although he makes restitution of what he owes him, finds no atonement, unless he makes verbal confession and repents by obligating himself never to repeat this again...