For the source text click/tap here: Bava Kamma 84
To download, click/tap here: PDF
Our daf tries to prove that “an eye for an eye” refers to monetary payment and not any other sort of restitution.
It considers the meaning of the word yitten, and whether it refers to money, giving, or something else regarding a injury/wound given to another person.
One important argument is that the monetary payment represents the value of the person who inflicted the injury as well as the person injured.
Thus a wealthy, older man’s leg would be worth more than a poor child’s damaged leg.
Any system of compensation must follow Leviticus (24:22), where we shall have only one manner of law. מִשְׁפַּט אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לָכֶם
We explore lex talonis.