Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 24:20
Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him [again].
Verse 20. Breach for breach] This is a repetition of the lex talionis, which see explained, Clarke’s note “Ex 21:24“.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,…. Which is not to be taken strictly or literally, but for the price or value of those, which is to be given in a pecuniary way; [See comments on Ex 21:24],
[See comments on Ex 21:25];
as he hath caused a blemish in a man, shall it be done to him; unless he gives satisfaction, and pays a valuable consideration for it.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
20. Breach for breach Broken limb for broken limb. This punishment is included in that of life for life, as a part is included in the whole. In those primitive times it was a stronger restraint from crime than the modern penalty of a term of imprisonment with good food and healthful labour.
The law of retaliation is for the guidance of the judge, and not a provision for the injured person to practice private revenge. It was this perversion of the law which Christ condemns, and not legal punishments enjoined by a magistrate. See Mat 5:37-39, notes. Society is conserved by law, and law by penalties. There is mercy in this code, inasmuch as it protects the criminal against too severe punishment through the heat of popular indignation or the malice of a hostile party, as that of the priests and scribes against Jesus Christ. There may be injustice done by fixed penalties, but we are convinced that without them there is a liability of doing greater wrong.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Lev 24:20. Breach for breach, &c. These words fully prove that we are to take those in Exo 21:24 in a literal sense. We are not to imagine that individuals were permitted to avenge themselves, they were to refer their injuries to the judges. There is no doubt, however, that reason, in various cases, required a compensation; for the same member is far more valuable to one man than to another; as in that case mentioned by Diodorus Siculus, lib. 12: where the one-eyed man complains of the rigour of this law, as it took place among the heathens: for, if he lost his other eye, he must have suffered more than the man whom he injured, and who still had one eye left; so the right hand of a scribe, or painter, cannot be so well spared as that of a finger. The lex talionis, therefore, of the twelve tables made this exception, si membrum rupit, ni cum eo pacet, talio esto; i.e. unless he agree with the person injured to make him satisfaction, and to redeem the punishment, he was to suffer in the same kind. That, in like manner, the law of Moses allows all these punishments to be redeemed by money, except that of life for life, is gathered from Num 35:31 ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer: which seems to intimate, that smaller personal injuries might be redeemed; and so it is explained by Maimonides and others. Be it further observed, that though Moses might think it necessary, for preserving the peace and order of the community, to permit this revenge of injuries, yet it is not to be doubted, but many of the pious Jews were far from making use of this permission. Compare Mat 5:38; Mat 5:48.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Exo 21:23-25, Deu 19:21, Mat 5:38
Reciprocal: Exo 21:24 – General Dan 1:4 – in whom