וְלֹ֥א תָח֖וֹס עֵינֶ֑ךָ נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּנֶ֗פֶשׁ עַ֤יִן בְּעַ֙יִן֙ שֵׁ֣ן בְּשֵׁ֔ן יָ֥ד בְּיָ֖ד רֶ֥גֶל בְּרָֽגֶל׃ (ס)
און דײַן אױג זאָל זיך ניט דערבאַרימען: אַ נפֿש פֿאַר אַ נפֿש, אַן אױג פֿאַר אַן אױג, אַ צאָן פֿאַר אַ צאָן, אַ האַנט פֿאַר אַ האַנט, אַ פֿוס פֿאַר אַ פֿוס.
Sifrei Devarim
"to do to his brother": From here they ruled: Edim zomemin are not killed unless the verdict has been pronounced (to kill the defendant). For the Sadducees were wont to say: Scheming witnesses are not killed unless the defendant is killed, it being written (Ibid. 21) "a soul for a soul" — to which the sages replied: But is it not written "Then you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his brother" — but his brother is (still) living? If so, why is it written "a soul for a soul"? For I might think that they are killed as soon as their (the refuters') testimony is accepted. It is, therefore, written "a soul for a soul" — they are not killed unless the verdict has been pronounced (to kill the defendant).
Sifrei Devarim
R. Yossi Haglili says: Whence is it derived that one should not go out to war unless he has hands, feet, eyes, and teeth? From (the juxtaposition of (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" with (20:1) "when you go out to war against your foes."
Sifrei Devarim
R. Yehudah says: It is written here "you shall have no pity," and elsewhere (Ibid. 19:21) "You shall have no pity." Just as there, monetary compensation (is indicated), here, too, monetary compensation (is understood).