The changing understanding of “an eye for an eye” can be explained as follows: during the biblical period, there was no compunction about severing limbs as a form of corporal punishment. However, as the generations progressed, it seems that in light of moral norms, it was no longer possible to arrive at the same practical ruling and for this reason, the Sanhedrin used its authority to interpret the verses in a different way, with the faith that this was God's will and that the Torah had permitted this change from the outset.
“An eye for an eye” may well have been originally understood to require commensurate physical punishment for the infliction of injury. Why then, from the time of Chazal onwards, Jewish tradition has interpreted the verse to be referring to financial restitution?
The multiplicity of potential readings of the text means that the Torah in advance offers different possibilities for interpretation in accordance with changing circumstances. This is because the Torah proceeds from the assumption that over time, Halakha may change in accordance with the circumstances of each generation, and no single criterion of practice can be applied to all generations and to all circumstances.
God refused to give Moshe a Torah that was unequivocal in its interpretation, for if He had, it would have not been fit for "eternal existence.” Instead, God gave him an eternal Torah of life, in which there are many different interpretative possibilities, all of them correct, and the decision as to what to interpret and how lies with the Sanhedrin in each generation.
The changing understanding of “an eye for an eye” can be explained as follows: during the biblical period there was no compunction about severing limbs as a form of corporal punishment, and hence it is possible that "an eye for an eye" was indeed followed literally at that time. However, as the generations progressed, it seems that in light of moral norms it was no longer possible to arrive at a practical ruling that someone who had maimed his fellow had to have his own limb removed, and for this reason the Sanhedrin used its authority to interpret the verses in a different way, with the faith that this was God's will and that the Torah had permitted this change from the outset.
This post is based on an article, To read the full article>>
Edited by the HaTanakh Site team