Power of Midrash ~ Midreshei Halacha II ~ An eye for an eye

(17) If anyone kills any human being, he shall be put to death. (18) One who kills a beast shall make restitution for it: life for life. (19) And when a man gives a blemish on his fellow, as he has done so shall it be done to him: (20) fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth - as he gave a blemish to a man, so it will be given to him. (21) One who strikes a beast shall make restitution for it; but one who strikes a human being shall be put to death.

(16) If a man appears against another to testify maliciously and gives false testimony against him, (17) the two parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests or magistrates in authority at the time, (18) and the magistrates shall make a thorough investigation. If the man who testified is a false witness, if he has testified falsely against his fellow, (19) you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow. Thus you will sweep out evil from your midst; (20) others will hear and be afraid, and such evil things will not again be done in your midst. (21) And your eyes shall have no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

(11) If two men get into a fight with each other, and the wife of one comes up to save her husband from his antagonist and puts out her hand and seizes him by his genitals, (12) you shall cut off her hand; your eyes shall have no pity.

An eye for an eye - one pays damage(s), the value of his eye. ...... Ben Azai says: behold here it says "a wound for a wound" and further on (verse 18) it says "if a man hits his neighbor with a stone or with the fist" - behold, this is the wound spoken. Just as the wound spoken of above "he will pay for his idleness and for his cure", here too "he will pay for his idleness and his cure". The wound is included in the general idea, and is expressed [lit. comes out] to teach (in general) and not about itself (specifically) - but it does come to teach regarding the general principle: just as the wound of which it is said "due to" is about payment, so too (here) [everything] of which it is said "due to" is about payment. Or - is it possible that this applies even for "life for life"? [No,] the text says (Numbers 35:31) "and you will not take ransom for the life of a murderer". [For the life of a murderer] you do not take ransom, but you do take ransom for limbs.

Burn for burn - if with wound it was already said, but if even though there is no wound [inflicted], such as he hit him with a [towel?] or a nail on his nail, on a place that does not make a wound, from here you say that one who diminishes the limb of his fellow, he pays five things: damages, and pain, and idleness, and healing, and shame. Damages and pain are spoken of here. Idleness and healing [are spoken of] above. And shame in another place, as it is written (Deut. 25:11) "and she stretches her hand and seizes him by his genitals [lit. shames]." Damages - we assess him: how much is he worth complete, and how much he is worth after he made him lose a limb. Pain - we appraise how much a person would want that would be given to him to have his hand cut with a narcotic or not cut at all, [cut]with a slaughtering knife. Idleness - we see him as if he is a guard. Healing - we appraise in how many days he will heal, and how many are needed. And shame - All goes according to who shames and who is shamed. And if he did not make him lose a limb, he is exempt from damages; and if there is no pain, he is exempt of [paying for] pain; and if there is no idleness, he is exempt of [paying for] idleness; and if there is no healing he is exempt of [paying for] healing; and if there is no shame, he is exempt of [paying for] shame.

"An eye for an eye" money. You say "money," but perhaps a real eye [is intended]? R. Elazar was used to say (Leviticus 24:21) "One who strikes a beast shall pay for it, and one who strikes a man shall be put to death." Scripture likens the injuries of a man to the injuries of a beast, and the injuries of a beast to the injuries of a person. And just as the injuries of a beast are subject to monetary payment, so too the injuries of a person. R. Yitzchak says: Behold, it says (Exodus 21:30) "When ransom is imposed upon him." Now this follows a fortiori [kal vachomer]: if where Scripture makes him liable for death, he only pays money, then here where Scripture does not make him liable for death, how much more so does he pay only money! R. Yitzchak says: "an eye for an eye": From this I hear that whether or not he intends (to blind him), he pays only money. And, indeed, Scripture brings out [the case of] one who intends to cause a blemish whose only payment is money, as it is written (Leviticus 24:19) "And when a man makes a blemish on his fellow" — [this is the] general [case]; "an eye for an eye" — [is the] particular. [From] general [to] particular, [the rule is:] the general [case] has only what exists in the particular [case]. Then, when the text says "as he gave a blemish to a man," (Leviticus 24:20) there is a reversion to the general. Perhaps the first general is generalized (i.e., all maimings are to be included.) You would say no [to that], rather we have here an instance of general-particular-general, where [the rule is that] you judge only in accordance with the particular: just as the particular specifies permanent maimings, external limb prominences, and intended (injuries) as paying only money [and not being punishable by death, so, all maimings are included for payment]. (But you would be wrong, since the text says "as he maims a man" — when he intends to maim him - "what he has done will be done to him" [in that case] one does on him a blemish.)

(Exodus 21:25) "A burn for a burn": If you say the meaning is that he wounded him and spilled his blood, isn't this already implied in "a wound for a wound." If you say that he made a welt, this is already subsumed in "a bruise for a bruise." How, then, is "a burn for a burn" to be understood? As his burning him on his nail or on the sole of his foot without leaving an impression, lading him with stones and causing him suffering thereby, placing snow on his head and making him cold — in these [instances] he compensates him for his suffering. But if he were frail, refined, and coddled, how much more so is his "suffering" allotment to be doubled. This is the (type of) suffering intended in "a burn for a burn."

And from where is it derived that one who shamed another pays money? It is written here (19:21) "your eyes shall not pity," and elsewhere (in an instance of shaming) (25:12) "your eyes shall not pity." Just as here monetary payment (is being referred to), so, there, monetary payment.

R. Yehudah says: It is written here (19:21) "hand" and "foot," and elsewhere (Shemot 21:24) "hand" and "foot." Just as "hand" and "foot" here refer to monetary payment, so, "hand" and "foot" there.

R. Yossi Haglili says: From where is it derived that one should not go out to war unless he has hands, feet, eyes, and teeth? From (19:21) "Your eyes shall not pity; a soul for a soul, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot" [being next to] (20:1) "when you go out to war against your foes."

An eye for an eye - money.