In Parshat Mishpatim (Sh'mot 21:24-25) the torah tells us that if a man injuries another person he owes compensation: eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, and so on (listing several more). It then goes on (21:26-27) to talk about when a man injuries his slave, saying that if he damages the slave's eye or knocks out a tooth he must set the slave free on account of the injury. It singles out eye and tooth but makes no mention of hand, foot, wound, and so on.
Rashi explains why both eye and tooth are needed for the slave case but doesn't talk about other injuries.
Does the injured slave go free on account of a hand or foot too? These, like the eye and tooth, are permanent injuries. What about a wound or burn (which might or might not heal to full function)? If he goes free for any of these too, why does the torah not enumerate all cases like it does in the earlier verse?
Perhaps the eye and tooth are seen as lesser damages than the hand and foot, so if a slave would go free for an eye or tooth then surely he would go free for limbs and so the torah does not need to say so. On the other hand, since the torah could have enumerated all the cases that it intended to cover, maybe it's really only about eyes and teeth. That seems counter-intuitive to me, but I'd like to find something better than my gut feeling for why other damages should result in freedom too.