The laws regarding physical injury operate on a fundamental principle of measure for measure, creating a tension between a literal reading and practical application. The primary approach among commentators is that the instruction to inflict an identical injury on an attacker is not meant to be carried out literally. Instead, it serves as the foundation for monetary compensation.
Commentators offer several logical proofs showing that identical physical punishment cannot be applied literally. It is impossible to replicate the exact force of a blow, and there is a risk that injuring the attacker could lead to his death. Furthermore, practical and moral difficulties arise in cases where the attacker already lacks a limb, such as a blind person who blinds another. Additionally, the Torah explicitly forbids taking a monetary ransom to spare the life of a murderer, which implies that accepting a ransom for bodily injuries is indeed permitted [אבן עזרא, חזקוני, גור אריה].
A subtle shift in the phrasing further supports the requirement for monetary payment. The text describes the penalty as something that is given, implying a physical transfer from hand to hand, which points directly to an exchange of money [רש״י, תורה תמימה, משכיל לדוד, גור אריה]. The phrasing also hints at comparing the injured party to a slave, which establishes the method for calculating compensation. The court evaluates the victim's worth as if he were sold as a slave before the injury, compares it to his value after the blemish, and the attacker pays the difference [העמק דבר, רש״י, שפתי חכמים].
This compensation goes beyond simply covering the economic loss of the damage itself. The firm language dictates that the payment must be comprehensive, encompassing five distinct elements: the actual damage, physical pain, medical healing, loss of workdays, and embarrassment [מזרחי, פירושי רד״צ הופמן].
This raises a question: why use such harsh, physical phrasing instead of simply stating that the attacker must pay? The severe formulation is meant to emphasize the gravity of the act. If the instruction merely required payment, the attacker might assume that handing over the money entirely clears him of guilt. The literal wording teaches that, in truth, the attacker deserved to lose his own limb. Therefore, financial compensation alone does not completely absolve him; he must also seek forgiveness from his victim [גור אריה]. Another perspective suggests that the monetary payment serves as a ransom to redeem the physical punishment. If the attacker refuses or is unable to pay, the original physical penalty remains hanging over him [אבן עזרא].
When detailing the types of harm, a fracture serves as a general category representing all bodily blemishes [העמק דבר, פירושי רד״צ הופמן]. The specific examples of an eye and a tooth are used because they are the body parts most frequently damaged during beatings [העמק דבר]. Mentioning these specific parts also encompasses the entire spectrum of injuries, ranging from the most precious organ to a relatively minor wound [פירושי רד״צ הופמן].
Beyond the legal framework, the concept of placing a blemish in another person carries a spiritual lesson. It suggests that an individual who constantly criticizes and finds faults in others is actually revealing the flaws that exist within himself [שפתי כהן].