Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 0.7.9

(Exodus 21:26) "And if a man strike the eye of his (Canaanite) man-servant": What is the intent of this? From (Leviticus 25:26) "Forever shall you have them serve you," I might think, even if he knocked out his tooth or blinded his eye; it is, therefore, written "And if a man strike the eye of his man-servant or the tooth of his maid-servant, etc." Scripture took his Canaanite man-servant out of his class (of serving forever) to the end of leniency, (a Hebrew man-servant not going free in this manner.)

"And if a man strike": When do I derive the same for a woman? R. Yishmael said, etc. (See 21:18 above).

"the eye of his man-servant or the eye of his maid-servant": to make him liable for each in itself.

R. Eliezer says: The verse speaks of a Canaanite man-servant. You say this, but perhaps a Hebrew is intended? It is, therefore, written (Leviticus 25:44) "From them (the Canaanites) shall you buy a man-servant and a maid-servant."

"the eye of his man-servant": I might think (that he goes free) even if it developed a leucoma; it is, therefore, written "and he destroy it." Only a blow that causes destruction (is intended). I might think, even if he performed no act upon it; it is, therefore, written :"And if a man strike the eye" — whence it was ruled: If he struck his ear and deafened him, or his eye and blinded him, he goes free. (If he struck) near his eye, so that he does not see, or near his ear, so that he does not hear, he does not go free.

If he knocked out two of his teeth at the same time or blinded two of his eyes at the same time, he goes free and takes nothing, it being written "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." If he knocked out one after the other, he goes free for the first and takes his injury (payment) for the second, it being written in lieu of his eye."

"free shall he send him": I might think that he must write him a writ of emancipation; it is, therefore, written "in lieu of his eye."

R. Eliezer says: It is written here "send" (viz. "free shall he send him") and elsewhere, (in respect to a divorce) "send" (viz. Devarim 24:1 "and he shall send her from his house"). Just as there, with a writ, so, here with a writ.

For I might think, since the Torah speaks of one who sends away and one who is sent away, that just as the first cannot send away unless he is an adult, so, the second cannot be sent away unless he is an adult; it is, therefore, written "free shall he send him in lieu of his tooth" — in any event (i.e., even if he is a minor).

I might think (that he goes free) even if he knocked out a milk tooth, (which grows back); it is, therefore, written "eye." Just as an eye does not grow back, so the tooth (in question must be one which) does not grow back. This tells me only of tooth and eye. Whence do I derive (the same for) all of the other organs? It is derived inductively (binyan av) from the two, viz.: Tooth is not like eye, and eye is not like tooth. What is common to them is that they (i.e., their maimings) are permanent maimings of external organ prominences which do not grow back, (the maiming of which) causes the servant to go free, so (the maimings of) all such organ prominences which do not grow back cause him to go free.

R. Yishmael says: A Canaanite man-servant can never be redeemed and can go free only by consent (of the master), as it is written (Leviticus 25:46) "And you shall hold them as an inheritance … to inherit as a holding, etc." And in our manner we have learned that a Canaanite man-servant is like a field of holding forever.

But if his master persecuted him and knocked out his tooth or blinded his eye or (maimed) one of his (other) external organ prominences, he acquires himself (i.e., his freedom) with afflictions. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If one can acquire himself by afflictions from the hand of flesh and blood, how much more so, from the hands of Heaven! And thus is it written (Psalms 118:18) "The L–rd has afflicted me exceedingly and He did not consign me to death."