We need to review some historical context here. The ancient Hebrew people were tribal and feudal. Their social stratification bore little resemblance to that of Medieval Europe; this was not a feudalism of lands and titles, but of people and leadership. In general, each household would host at least a couple of men-at-arms, professional soldiers by the ancient Hebrew standard. It’s not that they didn’t do more common work, but they did hold a certain privilege regarding physical violence, because they were trained as to when it was proper. They had a code of honor of sorts, though nothing like Western chivalry.
Hebrew feudal order was more a matter of how many people for which a man was shepherd. Moses divided them up with a chief at households of ten men, fifty men, a hundred, and a thousand (Exodus 18). These numbers were flexible, of course, but the point is gaining some idea of how a chief might be over his own close household of ten, and he would be subject to an elder over fifty, who was in turn subject to an elder over one hundred, etc. Each of these men could call on their higher elder to handle something for which they doubted their own judgment. It was partly by birth, but also a matter of community consensus, and sometimes other factors who assumed the role of chief at various levels. However, in practice, the chief was typically the man best able to lead in battle, either directly or as a wise tactician. He was also considered wise enough to judge civil matters, or to appoint someone else to bear that load.
But his was the final authority over the people in his care who misbehaved. The point at which a man ranked high enough to carry out an execution appears to have varied over the history of the nation, but it was typically rather low on the chain for something obvious, where the penalty was not in doubt. Sometimes a crime committed by someone from a neighboring jurisdiction would warrant turning them over to the victim’s family to punish. In general, physical punishment was carried out by a social peer or superior, virtually always a man-at-arms who acted for his household/clan/tribe/etc. This man was the appointed “avenger.” If the criminal was a soldier himself, you would send a better soldier (higher ranking) with helpers.
Virtually every man was trained to fight some as a conscript. Sparring was a form of sport, and Hebrew unarmed fighting was mostly wrestling. Men who got into a fracas would typically resort to wrestling, not punching, kicking or using weapons. They were expected to understand by custom that trying to kill someone was generally forbidden. Just wear him down and make him surrender. That was usually the end of the matter.
Thus, this passage begins with a warning about using punches or convenient weapons. Once you take that path, the liability rises steeply — compensation for lost time or execution for killing. God makes a special point about the difference between winning a fight and starting one, particularly in terms of killing. Most fights arise from genuine disagreements, and if you happen to kill your opponent, you can flee to a City of Refuge away from the avenger, and wait for your case to make its way through the appeals system. But if you harbor hatred for your covenant brother or sister, you are already dead in your heart, so it’s likely your body will soon follow because you would act on that hatred and get into trouble. In that case, even the most extreme refuge of taking hold of the horns of an altar — normally sacred where violence of any kind is forbidden — cannot protect you. The avenger can drag you off the altar and execute you.
On the one hand, punitive beatings were justly performed with a rod, though typically not so heavy as a staff, but more like a long flexible stick or section of cane. On the other hand, it didn’t matter much of you fail to restrain yourself and kill your bond servant. In such a case, the servant’s kin can appoint an avenger to execute the master. If it takes the servant a while to die, then the bond servant’s family cannot appoint an avenger. The man loses his investment, though, and can’t reclaim the monetary loss from the servant’s kin.
If two men are tussling and accidentally cause the spontaneous premature birth of a pregnant bystander, the minimum penalty is whatever the father of the child demands, up to the amount agreed to between a pair of judges, one representing each of the two parties. For any actual harm, it’s the old Lex Talionis.
Beating a servant so that he/she loses an eye or tooth dissolves the bond. Eyes are obvious, but the issue with teeth is that there was no dentistry to speak of in those days. People would lose enough teeth all too soon in their lives simply from aging.
Obviously we see that it’s taken for granted people will fight some. The idea was to keep it within boundaries that would promote shalom (AKA social stability). There were rules in place to help guide, and if someone can’t learn to restrain themselves before they get involved, they are already a threat to shalom.
“If two men are tussling and accidentally cause the spontaneous premature birth of a pregnant bystander,”
I remember reading this part before. It seems like a really specific and rare thing to make a law about. I wonder if it was meant to cover some other similar situations.
On the one hand, it makes the rowdies responsible. On the other hand, it limits the vengeance, something not always seen in other parts of the ANE.
A broken tooth hurts real bad until the nerve “dies” and there’s the issue of an abscess killing you.