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 ( , ayin tachat ayin) literally means 'an eye under/(in place of) an eye' while a slightly different phrase ( , 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 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...''

Is the following statement correct based on the text

is an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth in the bible
yes