—then surgery will most likely be of no benefit. This is so if the physicians state it. But if the eye retains some degree of benefit, retaliation is carried out for it: the eye of a man with strong eyesight may be taken for the eye of one with weak eyesight, so long as it retains some benefit.

His statement: “And the reverse may be taken.” That is, a paralysed limb may be taken for a sound limb; a hand with missing fingers may be taken for a complete hand; and an eye that is sightless but intact in appearance may be taken for a sound eye—but on condition that the person entitled to retaliation consents.

His statement: “And there is no financial compensation.” That is, we do not give the victim the difference between a sound limb and a paralysed one, between a complete limb and a deficient one, or between an eye that remains intact in appearance and one that can see. This is because the limb taken in retaliation is like the limb destroyed through an offence with respect to its physical form, though they differ in benefit. This difference is therefore not considered, and no financial compensation is due.

May a sound ear be taken for the ear of a deaf person? Yes, it may. They say: this is because hearing resides in the brain, not in the ear. Thus, if a person’s ear is cut off, he remains able to hear. Likewise, a sound nose may be taken for a nose that cannot smell, because the sense of smell resides in the brain, not in the nose. This is why one whose nose has been cut off can still smell.

A sound ear may also be taken for a paralysed ear, because their outward form is the same. Yet in reality, the paralysed ear is deficient: if an ant were to walk upon it, it would not feel it, whereas the offender’s ear does feel. But this is not taken into consideration; rather, what counts is the outward form.