LEV947 As one of the Torah's most famous laws, "an eye for an eye" is often cited by critics of "Old Testament morality" as reflecting a barbaric standard of behavior. In the New Testament, Jesus is cited as teaching, "You have learnt how it was said, 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for tooth.' But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well" (Matthew 5:38 – 39). Although "an eye for an eye" does mandate punishing a person who maims another (Jewish law did not enforce this verse literally; see next paragraph) what is infrequently noted is that it limits the retribution which can be taken. For example, "an eye for an eye" forbids taking two eyes for a eye, even though people who avenge themselves on another often exact a far worse vengeance then the suffering that was inflicted upon them. Although one can, I believe, make a moral argument as to why people who intentionally--as opposed to accidentally--blind another deserve to lose their own right to go on seeing, Jewish law has always ruled that courts should not blind those who deprive others of their sight; rather, offenders must make financial compensation--the sum to be determined by the court--to their victims. The Rabbis believed that punishment be commensurate with the crime, but not exceed it: "Now if you assume that actual retaliation is intended, it could sometimes happen that both life and eye would be taken [in payment for the eye] as, for instance, if the offender died as he was being blinded" (Bava Kamma 84a). Thus, even though the language of the biblical verse seems definitive, the Rabbis understood it as meaning that on moral grounds, someone who intentionally blinds another deserves to lose his sight. But the court exacts only financial compensation, lest it commit the greater injustice of killing the offender while blinding him." An eye for an eye," therefore, establishes two biblical principles of justice: Evil must be punished, [this is the opposite of Jesus's teaching to "offer the wicked man no resistance." Oddly enough, while Jesus would seem to be forgiving of one who maliciously blinds another, he seems, at least according to another New Testament passage, quite unforgiving of those who refuse to accept him as their teacher: "But the one who disowns me in the presence of men, I will disown in the presence of my Father in heaven" (Matthew 10:33). Thus, while advocating that those who maim others should not be punished (a standard that has had no impact on legislation in Christian societies), Jesus rejects people who reject him, an attitude suspiciously similar to "an eye for an eye."] but punishment must be proportionate to, and not exceed, the offense.