<P> The principle is found in Babylonian Law . If it is surmised that in societies not bound by the rule of law, if a person was hurt, then the injured person (or their relative) would take vengeful retribution on the person who caused the injury . The retribution might be worse than the crime, perhaps even death . Babylonian law put a limit on such actions, restricting the retribution to be no worse than the crime, as long as victim and offender occupied the same status in society . As with blasphemy or lèse - majesté (crimes against a god or a monarch), crimes against one's social betters were punished more severely . </P> <P> Roman law moved toward monetary compensation as a substitute for vengeance . In cases of assault, fixed penalties were set for various injuries, although talio was still permitted if one person broke another's limb . </P> <P> The principle was first referenced in the Code of Hammurabi, which predates the Hebrew bible . In the Hebrew Law, the "eye for eye" was to restrict compensation to the value of the loss . Thus, it might be better read' only one eye for one eye' . The idiomatic biblical phrase "an eye for an eye" in Exodus and Leviticus (עין תחת עין ‬, ayin tachat ayin) literally means' an eye under / (in place of) an eye' while a slightly different phrase (עַיִן בְּעַיִן שֵׁן בְּשֵׁן, literally "eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth") is used in another passage (Deuteronomy) in the context of possible reciprocal court sentences for failed false witnesses . The passage in Leviticus states, "And a man who injures his countryman--as he has done, so it shall be done to him (namely,) fracture under / for fracture, eye under / for eye, tooth under / for tooth . Just as another person has received injury from him, so it will be given to him ." (Lev. 24: 19--21). For an example of תחת ‬ being used in its regular sense of under, see Lev. 22: 27 "A bull, sheep or goat, when it is born shall remain under its mother, and from the eighth day ..." </P> <P> Isaac Kalimi explains that the "lex talionis was humanized by the Rabbis who interpreted "an eye for an eye" to mean reasonable pecuniary compensation . As in the case of the Babylonian' lex talionis', ethical Judaism and humane Jewish jurisprudence replaces the peshat (literal meaning) of the written Torah . Pasachoff and Littman point to the reinterpretation of the lex talionis as an example of the ability of Pharisaic Judaism to "adapt to changing social and intellectual ideas ." </P>

Where did the term an eye for an eye come from