Criminal Law & Civil Law

Ex. 21:23-25 Law of the tooth or so-called law of retaliation.
It is preserved in a shorter form in Lev. 24:19-20 and Deut. 19:21
This legislation was never intended to allow individual to avenge their own injuries.
It is included in the section of Ex. 1-22:17, addressed to the ‘judges’.
These Laws functioned, then, as precedents for the civil and criminal magistrates in setting disputes and administering justice, but they were not to be applied in a wooden or literalistic way.
Life for a life, but in actuality this rule functioned as a stereotyped expression for the judges who had to assign compensations and amounts of restitution in damage cases.
The expression eye for eye and tooth for tooth simply meant that he compensations paid were to match the damages inflicted – no more and no less.
In modern law, such terms as damages or compensation usually replace the term restitution.
In modern law an offense is seen as against the state or one’s neighbor; in biblical law the offense was seen as against G-d as well.
Even in those cases where life was literally required as he punishment for the offense, a substitution was available, as Num. 35:31 implies.
This text specifies that no ransom is available for murder, implying that a commensurate compensation might be possible in cases other than first degree murder.
The Hebrew verb for ‘to give’ in the surrounding verses refers to monetary compensation (21:19, 22, 30, 32). The ordinary verb that is used for restoring in kind, or paying the exact equivalent, is the verb to make whole or repay.
Criminal law (determining punishment) and civil law (determining commensurate compensation.)
If this is so, then the Law in this verse is not a Law of retaliation, but a formula for compensation or composition.
The principle of equivalence also applies. It appears at this point because it applies not only to the laws preceding it (theft), but also to the laws following it (assault); indeed, it applies even to third parties who were drawn involuntarily into a clash.
A hand for a hand must be understood conceptually to mean ‘the means of livelihood for the means of livelihood.’
This verse assigned solely and properly to the judges and compensation was to fit the damages.