Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 21:26
And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake.
26, 27. Striking out the eye or tooth of a slave. The person of slave being not as valuable as that of a free man, the lex talionis ( vv. 23 25) is not applicable in his case (cf. amm. 199, as compared with 196): the slave, however, receives his freedom as compensation for his injury, and his master pays for his maltreatment of him by the loss of his services.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Freedom was the proper equivalent for permanent injury.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 26. If a man smite the eye, &c.] See the following verse.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
If a man smite the eye of his servant,…. Give him a blow on the eye in a passion, as a correction for some fault he has committed:
or the eye of his maid, that it perish; strike her on that part in like manner, so that the eye is beaten or drops out, or however loses its sight, and “[is] blinded”, as the Septuagint version; or “corrupts” it k, it turns black and blue, and gathers corrupt matter, and becomes a sore eye; yet if the sight is not lost, or corrupts so as to perish, this law does not take place; the Targum of Jonathan, and to Jarchi restrain this to a Canaanitish servant or maid:
he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake; or “them”, as the Septuagint; his right to them as a servant was hereby forfeited, and he was obliged to give them their freedom, let the time of servitude, that was to come, be what it would. This law was made to deter masters from using their servants with cruelty, since though humanity and goodness would not restrain them from ill usage of them, their own profit and advantage by them might.
k “et corruperit eum”, Pagninus, Montanus, Drusius; so Ainsworth.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Verses 26, 27:
The “law of retaliation” did not apply to slaves. In case of personal injury, rather than allowing the slave to inflict the same penalty on the master, he was to be set free.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
26. And if a man smite the eye. Since, in the sight of God, there is neither slave nor free-man, it is clear that he sins as greatly who smites a slave, as if he had struck a free-man. Still, a distinction is made as regards the civil law and human justice, especially if any one have inflicted a wound on his own slave. For here a tooth for a tooth, or an eye for an eye, is not required, but the superiority, which he has improperly abused, is taken from the master; and in compensation for the injury, liberty, which is almost half their life, is given to the male or female slave. Thus, in consideration that it was his slave, t. he master is treated more leniently, when the severity of the punishment is thus mitigated; whilst, in compensation for his dislocation or fracture, the slave receives what is more advantageous to him, viz., that, being set free, he should not be exposed to another’s cruelty.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(26, 27) The eye . . . Tooth.An exception to the law of retaliation is here made. If the injurer is a free man and the injured person a slave, the marked social inequality of the parties would make exact retaliation an injustice. Is the slave, then, to be left without protection? By no means. As the legislation had already protected his life (Exo. 21:20), so it now protects him from permanent damage to his person. The master who inflicts any such permanent damagefrom the least to the greatestloses all property in his slave, and is bound at once to emancipate him. The loss of an eye is viewed as the greatest permanent injury to the person; the loss of a tooth as the least.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
26, 27. Eye of his servant Here again we note that the male or female servant was reckoned as not enjoying the same natural rights as freemen . The lex talionis did not apply to them, but they were allowed their freedom as a compensation . But we should observe how the provisions of this statute, as well as those of Exo 21:20-21, must have tended to mitigate the wrongs of slavery, and protect the lives and persons of slaves, in a way unknown to the laws and customs of other ancient nations .
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Exo 21:26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake.
Ver. 26. And if a man smite the eye of his servant. ] Think the same, saith Aben Ezra, of the other principal members, which the Jews call capita membrorum: these are the ten fingers, the ten toes, the two ears, the nose, and the yard.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
go free. By Code of Khammurabi, the master was compensated, 199 (see App-15). Compare Deu 4:8.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Exo 21:20, Deu 16:19, Neh 5:5, Job 31:13-15, Psa 9:12, Psa 10:14, Psa 10:18, Psa 72:12-14, Pro 22:22, Pro 22:23, Eph 6:9, Col 4:1
Reciprocal: Exo 21:24 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Exo 21:26-28. He shall let him go free A very fit recompense to a servant for such a loss, and certainly meant to be extended to every other material personal injury. If an ox Or any other creature.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
In contrast to Exo 21:27, the Code of Hammurabi prescribed that in such a case the offender had to pay the slave’s master half the price of the slave. [Note: Code of Hammurabi, section 199.] If a master blinded his own slave, this code required no penalty. The Torah shows greater concern for the slave. This law would have discouraged masters from physically abusing their slaves.