They also restate a boundary for penalties. Decision-makers are told not to let pity weaken the required standard (“Your eyes shall not pity”), and the standard is framed as matching consequences: “life for life… eye for eye… tooth for tooth… hand for hand… foot for foot” (textual claims about the listed equivalences). The passage presents proportion, not escalation.

Where interpretation differs

Who are “those who remain”? Some read it as the wider community who hear about the case and are deterred. Others read it more narrowly as those connected to the false-witness episode (for example, potential false witnesses who might otherwise attempt similar harm).

Does “eye for eye” require literal injury, or an equivalent penalty? Some take the list as a straightforward rule of physical retaliation in kind. Others take it as a way of stating proportional justice in general, which may be carried out through other equivalent forms of penalty (including compensation), so long as it truly matches the harm rather than exceeding it.

Is “Your eyes shall not pity” aimed only at judges, or at the community’s attitude? Many read it as a direct instruction to the court to resist sympathy that would undercut justice. Others hear a broader community message as well, since the result is public knowledge and social deterrence.

Why the disagreement exists The passage is brief and uses memorable examples rather than procedure. It does not spell out how penalties are administered (physical action vs. other equivalents), and it uses open-ended phrases (“those who remain,” “any such evil”) that can be read more narrowly (false testimony) or more broadly (similar community-threatening wrongdoing). The line “Your eyes shall not pity” also does not explicitly name the subject (“judges”) inside verse 21, so readers infer the target from the larger unit.

What this passage clearly contributes It ties justice to community stability: public, known outcomes are intended to deter future wrongdoing. It also puts a clear ceiling on punishment by insisting on measured equivalence—beginning with “life for life” and extending through injury examples—so penalties are meant to match consequences rather than exceed them (compare the wider unit’s concern for fair process in Deuteronomy 19:15).

tooth (bə·šên)