שֶׁ֚בֶר תַּ֣חַת שֶׁ֔בֶר עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן שֵׁ֖ן תַּ֣חַת שֵׁ֑ן כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר יִתֵּ֥ן מוּם֙ בָּֽאָדָ֔ם כֵּ֖ן יִנָּ֥תֶן בּֽוֹ׃
patah ganti patah, mata ganti mata, gigi ganti gigi; sebagaimana ia membuat cacat pada seseorang, demikianlah harus diberikan kepadanya.
Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael
(Exodus 21:15) "And if one strikes his father and his mother, he shall be put to death": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Leviticus 24:20) "an eye for an eye, etc.", and Scripture took it (striking father or mother) out of its category to make it more stringent, to make it liable to the death penalty, this section was, therefore, stated.
Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael
R. Yitzchak says: "an eye for an eye": I understand this to mean that whether or not he intends (to blind him), he pays only money. And, indeed, Scripture limits one who intends to cause a blemish to monetary payment, as it is written (Leviticus 24:19) "And a man if he maims his neighbor" — general; "an eye for an eye" — particular. general-particular. (The rule is:) The general subsumes only what exists in the particular. Then, in (20) "as he maims a man," there is a reversion to the general. Perhaps the first general is generalized (i.e., all maimings are to be included.) Would you say that? We have here an instance of general-particular-general, where (the rule is that) you judge in accordance with the particular, viz.: Just as the particular specifies permanent maimings, external organ prominences, and intended (injuries) as paying only money (and not being punishable by death) (so, all such maimings are included.) Thus, "as he maims a man" — when he intends to maim him.