From a member:

A little late, but wanted to share this anyway.

Rabbeinu Bahya on Exodus 21:24...

עין תחת עין, “an eye for an eye.” Mechilta Nezikin section 8 understands these words as “the value of an eye for an eye,” and not that the guilty party is being deprived of his own physical eye. Proof that this interpretation is correct can be deduced from verse 19 where the Torah had legislated financial compensation for injuries caused to a fellow human being. If we would inflict upon a person who had struck and caused injury to another person a similar injury to the one he had inflicted, what would there be left for him to pay? He himself would then be in need of medical attention and he himself would then suffer loss of income while laid up?
Furthermore, if we were to apply the principle of “an eye for an eye” literally, this would often not be justice at all. If a man ruins the only eye of a one-eyed individual and he had an eye of his removed as a penalty, the former would remain blind whereas the guilty party would still have a good eye to see with. What kind of justice would this be? Moreover, a weak individual might not survive having his eye gouged out so that he would pay with his life for having ruined a strong person’s eye. Surely this would not be justice! The only way a semblance of justice could be arrived at in the situations described in verses 24-27 is to make financial compensation for the damage caused.
Furthermore, the Torah writes in Leviticus 24,19-20: “and if a man inflicts a wound on his fellow, as he did so shall be done to him; fracture for fracture, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; just as he will have inflicted a wound on a person, so shall be inflicted upon him!” It is quite impossible to carry out the instructions in this verse except by accepting the ruling of our sages that what is meant is financial compensation.
You may well ask how it is possible to fulfill an instruction such as “as he has done so shall be done to him,” unless we inflict the same kind of injury that the guilty party has inflicted? Surely giving someone money in compensation for experiencing pain and suffering is not what the Torah had in mind when writing: ”as he has done so shall be done to him?”
We need to answer that the meaning of the words: “as he has done so shall be done to him” is: “as he did something evil, so something evil shall be done to him.” The proof that this is what the Torah had in mind can be appreciated through the words of Shimshon who said: “as they have done to me so I have done to them” (Judges 15,11). When you read up you will find that the Philistines had stolen Shimshon’s wife and he had paid them back by burning their crops! There was no comparison at all between what the Philistines had done to Shimshon to the type of revenge he took upon them. The meaning of his words is obviously: “just as they have caused me personal harm and grief, so I have caused them plenty of harm.” We find something similar when the prophet Ovadiah (Ovadiah 1,15-16) prophesied about Esau “As you did, so shall be done to you (Esau). Your conduct shall be requited. That same cup you drank on My Holy Mount, etc.” You have now had a variety of ancient sources all proving that our sages never interpreted this verse of “an eye for an eye” to be understood literally. Thus far Rabbeinu Chananel.
The verse mentions injury of seven different kinds: 1) eye; 2) tooth; 3) hand; 4) foot; 5) burn wounds; 6) פצע, an “injury.” 7) חבורה, “a bruise.” Each of this injuries contains at least one element not contained in all the other six, thus making it impossible to omit any of these seven examples. An eye is something we have from birth; teeth we are not borne with; their loss might be considered as less serious. Teeth are also not included in the 248 organs which make up man as a healthy specimen. All the 248 organs are covered with tissue and flesh whereas the teeth appear in our mouth completely exposed. The function of the teeth is not to help man survive as a viable human being, but they are merely a tool to break down the food we eat. Just as we could not have assumed that the legislation contained in our verse applies to teeth unless the Torah had made a point of writing it, so the loss of none of the seven examples cited by the Torah would have been presumed to be a cause for the freeing of a slave forthwith.