Exodus 21:26

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.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Verse 26. If a man smite the eye, &c.] See the following verse.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(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 damage—from the least to the greatest—loses 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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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. Ḥamm. § 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.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Freedom was the proper equivalent for permanent injury.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

CHAPTER XXI.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 26, 27. Assaults on Slaves. The general law of retaliation was not made to extend to slaves. For ordinary blows the slave was not thought entitled to compensation, any more than the child. They were natural incidents of his condition. In extremer cases, where he was permanently injured in an organ or a member, he was, however, considered to have ground of complaint and to deserve a recompense. But for him to revenge himself upon his master by inflicting the same on him was not to be thought of. It would have put the slave into a false position, have led to his prolonged ill-treatment, and have been an undue degradation of the master. Therefore, compulsory emancipation was made the penalty of all such aggravated assaults, even the slightest (ver. 27).

Vers. 26, 27. If a man smite the eye, etc. The "eye" seems to be selected as the most precious of our organs, the "tooth" as that the loss of which is of least consequence. The principle was that any permanent loss of any part of his frame entitled the slave to his liberty. A very considerable check must have been put on the brutality of masters by this enactment.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

If a man

Here "man" refers to the owner of a slave.

in compensation

"as payment." Compensation is what someone does for another person or gives to another person to make up for what he has caused that person to lose.

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

את עין עבדו [AND IF A MAN SMITE] THE EYE OF HIS SERVANT — of a Canaanitish servant; but the Hebrew servant does not got free on account of his tooth or his eye having been knocked out by his master, as we have stated in our comment on the passage לא תצא כצאת העבדים (v. 7).

תחת עינו [HE SHALL LET HIM GO FREE] FOR HIS EYE’S SAKE — and similarly if he cuts off one of the twenty-four “tips of limbs” viz., the fingers, the toes, the two ears, the nose and the ראש הגויה, the membrum (cf. Mishnah Negaim 6:7). But why, since the precept is not applicable to eye and tooth alone but to twenty-four limbs, are both the eye and the tooth, mentioned? One would have stufficed! Because if only the eye were mentioned and not the tooth also, I might have said: What it the characteristic of the eye? It came into the world together with him! So, too, this law is applicable only to such limbs as came into the world together with him, but not to the tooth, for the tooth did not come into the world together with him. If, on the other hand, only the tooth had been mentioned and not the eye also, I might have said: the law applies even to a case when the master knocked out a child-slave’s tooth which grows again (more lit., which has a substitute) after a time. Therefore the eye is also mentioned to intimate that the law can be applied only when the master knocks out the tooth of his adult slave which, like the eye, does not grow again. (Kiddushin 24b).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.