EXOD592 (Continued from [[NUM408]] Numbers 35:19 death BLOCH 65-6). The lex taionis ("an eye for an eye") has been singled out as a classic example of biblical harshness. The criticism of this law that appears in the New Testament (Matthew 5:38-42) has given it a wide prominence which no anti-Pentateuchal polemicist has dared ignore. It is incontrovertible that the mutilation of the human body is repugnant to modern minds. Yet, even while rejecting the practice of an eye for an eye, the law of a life for a life was never put in question by critics of the lex talionis. Is the taking of a life less cruel than the taking of an eye? Is capital punishment more acceptable because the executed criminal is buried and forgotten, while a maimed criminal survives as a visible monument to society's barbarism? Was the lex talionis ever practiced in ancient Israel? The answer is no. Ancient Middle Eastern nations supported the lex talionis as a punishment which fits the crime. The Babylonian and Assyrian codes approved of it. The inclusion of this law in the Pentateuch [this verse] did not shock the ancient Hebrew. On the contrary, its omission would have puzzled him. However, while the law was left intact, it was, to all intents and purposes, voided by an alternative option, the payment of damages, which was the case in all tort actions. The provision for the payment of damages was attached to the law prescribing the punishment of the owner of a goring ox which killed a human being. The owner's negligence carried the death penalty (Exodus 21:29). However, he was permitted to redeem his life by the payment of damages (Exodus 21:30). That the alternative of payment of damages applied to all cases of tort is made clear in Numbers (35:31), which singles out murder as a crime that cannot be expiated by the payment of damages.