Code of Hammurabi:
(Code of law of ancient Mesopotamia, dating back to about 1754 BC)
If a seignior (i.e. lord) has destroyed the eye of a member of the aristocracy, they shall destroy his eye.
If he has broken another seignior's bone, they shall break his bone.
If a seignior has knocked out a tooth of a seignior of his own rank, they shall knock out his tooth...
If he put out the eye of a commoner, or break the bone of a commoner, he shall pay one gold minna. If he put out the eye of a man's slave, or break the bone of a man's slave, he shall pay one-half its value.
Saadia Goan (10th Century Babylonia)
‘An eye for an eye' - we cannot explain this verse literally, for if a man struck the eye of his fellow and caused a vision loss equal to 1/3, how will it be possible to inflict precisely the same injury on the perpetrator, without neither excess nor deficiency? The wound and the bruise present an even more difficult situation, for if the initial injury was sustained close to a vital organ, perhaps the retaliatory strike will result in the death of the perpetrator. Reason does not tolerate a literal interpretation of this verse!
(כד) עין תחת עין כך היה ראוי כפי הדין הגמור שהיא מדה כנגד מדה, ובאה הקבלה שישלם ממון (קמא פרק החובל) מפני חסרון השערתנו, פן נסכל ונוסיף על המדה לאשמה בה:
(1490-1550, Italy)
(24) עין תחת עין; this is what ought to be the judgment against the offender, if we were to apply the principle of the punishment fitting the crime in all its severity. However, according to tradition only financial compensation is exacted as we cannot accurately measure how to apply the principle of “an eye for an eye” literally.
(200 CE - 500 CE, Babylonia)
The Gemara presents another derivation: It is taught in another baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: “An eye for an eye” (Leviticus 24:20), is referring to monetary restitution. Do you say that this is referring to monetary restitution, or is it only teaching that the one who caused the injury must lose an actual eye? There may be a case where there was a blind person and he blinded another, or there was one with a severed limb and he severed the limb of another, or there was a lame person and he caused another to be lame. In this case, how can I fulfill “an eye for an eye” literally, when he is already lacking the limb that must be injured? If one will suggest that in that case, a monetary penalty will be imposed, that can be refuted: But the Torah stated: “You shall have one manner of law” (Leviticus 24:22), which teaches that the law shall be equal for all of you.
(כז) וַיִּבְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים׀ אֶת־הָֽאָדָם֙ בְּצַלְמ֔וֹ בְּצֶ֥לֶם אֱלֹהִ֖ים בָּרָ֣א אֹת֑וֹ זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בָּרָ֥א אֹתָֽם׃
(27) And God created the person in God's own image, in the image of God God created him; male and female created God them.
(ז) אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ, אֵין נִמְחָל לוֹ עַד שֶׁיְּבַקֵּשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ...
(200 CE, Land of Israel)
(7) Even when he gives him [the payment], he will not be forgiven until he seeks it [pardon] from him...
וְכֵן הַחוֹבֵל בַּחֲבֵרוֹ וְהַמַּזִּיק מָמוֹנוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשִּׁלֵּם לוֹ מַה שֶּׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ אֵינוֹ מִתְכַּפֵּר עַד שֶׁיִּתְוַדֶּה וְיָשׁוּב מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת כָּזֶה לְעוֹלָם ...
(1180 CE, Egypt, Maimonides)
...Even he, who injures his friend or causes him damages in money matters, although he makes restitution of what he owes him, finds no atonement, unless he makes verbal confession and repents by obligating himself never to repeat this again...
(א) החובל בחבירו חיב עליו משום חמשה דברים, בנזק, בצער, ברפוי, בשבת, ובבושת.
בנזק כיצד? סמא את עינו, קטע את ידו, שבר את רגלו, רואין אותו כאלו הוא עבד נמכר בשוק ושמין כמה היה יפה וכמה הוא יפה .
צער, כואו בשפוד או במסמר, ואפילו על צפרנו.מקום שאינו עושה חבורה, אומדין כמה אדם כיוצא בזה רוצה לטול להיות מצטער כך.
רפוי, הכהו חיב לרפאותו; עלו בו צמחים, אם מחמת המכה חיב, שלא מחמת המכה, פטור. חיתה ונסתרה, חיתה ונסתרה, חיב לרפאתו, חיתה כל צרכה אינו חיב לרפאותו.
שבת, רואין אותו כאלו הוא שומר קשואין, ... אינו חיב על בושת עד שיהא מתכון.
(200 CE, Land of Israel)
One who injures his fellow is liable concerning him for five categories [of payment]: damages, pain, healthcare, unemployment, and shame. For damages, how [is this calculated?] One who puts out his eye, cuts off his hand, breaks his leg—we see him as if he were a slave sold in the marketplace, and we evaluate how much he was worth [before the injury] and how much he is worth now. Pain? When he burned him with a spit or a nail—even on his fingernail—anything where there is no [permanent] wound, we evaluate how much a similar person would want to be paid to be spared this [pain].
Healthcare? When he strikes him, he is liable for his healthcare costs. If swellings arose on him, if they were because of the strike, then he is liable; but if it was not because of the strike, he is exempt. If the swelling healed and then reopened and then healed and reopened, he is liable for his healthcare. If it healed entirely, he is exempt from his healing.
Unemployment? We see him as if he were a guard of gourds, since he already gave him the value [for the loss] of his hand or his leg.
Shame? All depends on the one who shames and the one who is shamed.... No one is liable for shame unless one intended to cause it.