Leviticus 24:20

24:20 eye for an eye: The legal principle involved is often called lex talionis (“law of retaliation”), which is that the penalty must fit the crime. When an injured party sought revenge on behalf of their kinsman (see Num 35:19-21), excessive revenge naturally ensued instead of appropriate justice. This provoked even greater retaliation, resulting in a cycle of increasing violence. Lex talionis served to regulate the prosecution of crimes (see also Lev 6:2-7; cp. Exod 21:24; Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21; Matt 5:28-39).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 20. Breach for breach] This is a repetition of the lex talionis, which see explained, Clarke's note "Ex 21:24".

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

And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it,.... The same as in Lev 24:18, which is repeated for the confirmation of it, and that it might be observed, though Jarchi takes it to be a different law; before, he says, it speaks of him that kills a beast, here of him that makes any wound or bruise in it, which he must make good; and it must be allowed that the manner of expression is different; there it is, he that smites the soul of a beast so that it dies, here only he that smites a beast, though it dies not, yet having some damage done it, satisfaction must be made:

and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death; or he that smites a man, though he does not kill him, as Jarchi observes, only makes a wound or bruise in him, because it is not said, the soul of a man, as before; but such damages did not require death, but satisfaction in another way, as in Lev 24:19.

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

Breach, or fracture: if he break a bone, the like detriment shall he receive.

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).

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.

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

כן ינתן בו [AND IF A MAN CAUSES A BLEMISH IN HIS COMPANION…] SO SHALL IT BE DONE TO HIM — Our Rabbis explained that this does not mean the actual infliction of a blemish but that it means monetary compensation — that we estimate his (the injured man’s) value as a slave and the offender has to pay the difference between his value as an unmaimed man and that which he represents after the infliction of the injury. It is for this reason that the term נתן “to give” is written here referring to something that is given (passed) from hand to hand viz., money (Ketubot 32b; Bava Kamma 84a).

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.

The gaon brought proofs based on balanced judgment that “a broken bone for a broken bone, etc.” cannot be interpreted literally. [Perhaps] the first one injured unintentionally; how could we break his bones in the same way? If it was in a dangerous place he might die, and so too for the eye. And if someone lost a third of his vision, how could that be duplicated in the eye of the damager? Therefore, the words of our Tradition are true — the explanation of all these is that he is liable to pay a fine of atonement, and it would be fitting to take out his eye if he did not redeem it [and therefore it says, “an eye for an eye” although the eye is never actually taken]. Perhaps you will claim against us: What if the damager was a poor man? Our answer is that Scripture speaks about the majority cases, and the poor man could possibly obtain money, as well. This question also applies to those claimers [who interpret the verse literally]: What if the damager of an eye was blind?

Ibn Ezra on the Tanakh — English translations: “Sefaria Community Translation” (CC0 1.0 (public-domain dedication)); “Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009” (CC BY 4.0); and “Commentary of Ibn Ezra on Isaiah - trans. by M. Friedlander, 1873” (public domain). Text via Sefaria.