After all, for a Scribe or College Professor an eye is more valuable than it is for a retired business person. Hence the Oral Law prescribes monetary compensation. A Torah which educates conscience must so emphasize the utter reprehensibility of certain crimes. However, the Oral Law, which must prevent the possibility of an individual being put to death wrongfully for a crime he did not commit, insists that before an accused can be prosecuted, two witnesses must have seen the crime committed and must have warned the perpetrator before he actually performed the heinous deed. In this way, the Oral Law determines normative practice while the literal text directs the moral and ethical sensitivities of the individuals who hear and read it.
Rabbinic interpretation rules the system, while the literal meaning of the text is still honored.
This week's Torah portion provides yet another instance of the complementary relationship between the literal meaning of the text and its rabbinic interpretation. The Rabbis interpret the verse allegorically in order to reach their conclusion. Except for one's own father, the homeowner must assume that the perpetrator will stop at nothing to achieve his iniquitous goals. His act will always be considered to have been in self defense. He therefore doesn't anticipate confronting the owner of the house and killing him.