Commentary for Bava Kamma 167:4
אלא היכא דאפשר אפשר היכא דלא אפשר לא אפשר ופטרינן ליה
Another [Baraitha] taught: R. Simon b. Yohai says: <i>'Eye for eye</i>' means pecuniary compensation. You say pecuniary compensation, but perhaps it is not so, but actual retaliation [by putting out an eye] is meant? What then will you say where a blind man put out the eye of another man, or where a cripple cut off the hand of another, or where a lame person broke the leg of another? How can I carry out in this case [the principle of retaliation of] <i>'eye for eye'</i>, seeing that the Torah says, Ye shall have one manner of law, implying that the manner of law should be the same in all cases? I might rejoin: What is the difficulty even in this case? Why not perhaps say that it is only where it is possible [to carry out the principle of retaliation that] it is to be carried out, whereas where it is impossible, it is impossible, and the offender will have to be released altogether? For if you will not say this, what could be done in the case of a person afflicted with a fatal organic disease killing a healthy person?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the murderer could not be convicted by the testimony of witnesses; v. Sanh. 78a. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 167:4. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.