Chapter 21

2022 - In 20:19 the people had requested that Moses become their go-between with God.  God's voice so frightened them that they preferred not to hear Him directly.  They did this after the Ten were given to them directly.  So the rules from here on are passed on to them by Moses, as their prophet, as their law giver.

The rules continue.  The only "break" between the first 10 and the rules about altars and the rules now in 21 is that after the 10, God spoke directly only to Moses, not to all the people together.  There is therefore no reason to believe that these add'l rules are any less important, any less consecrated, than the first 10 were. 

MSB note on 21:1,

A combination of casuistic (case-law) and apodictic (direct command) precepts laid down, as a detailed enlargement of the Decalogue, the framework for judging and resolving civil disputes in Israel.  Such a combination continued to confirm the uniqueness of Israel's law among the different ancient Near Eastern law codes.  Later in a special ceremony, God entitled these precepts the Book of the Covenant (24:7)

2026 - In my mind, the Ten are universal laws, for all people in all times, because all approached the mountain and all were addressed directly.  But starting in 20:22, law in addition to the universal 10 are given and these Laws are given to the prophet of Israel, to Moses, as instruction for how that nation is to conduct its business.  They will be given criminal and civil law, instructions to priests, inheritance law, dietary law and so on.  But all these after the 10, to me, are abrogated by Christ's death as the effective sacrifice to God, appeasing Him for all the sins of those who would be saved.  The "national" law of Israel, the basis of the theocratic government, is marked complete at Christ's death.  But the 10 came before that.  I believe the only thing about the 10 that changed is the Sabbath.  It changed from a day of rest to a day of celebration of the resurrection.

Slaves served for 6 years only, in the seventh, they were to be set free.  If the slave's master gave him a wife and she had children, these others still belong to the master, and do not go out the seventh year.  So the slave has the option of staying with his wife and children, but to do so makes him a slave forever.  This is for Hebrew slaves, not slaves taken in war.  A Hebrew slave was a slave forever only by his own choice, never by force.  At least, this is how it was supposed to be.

Several rules about daughters sold into slavery by their fathers.

Those who kill by direct violence to be killed themselves...if it was premeditated.  But if not, if God let the other fall into his hands so he could kill him, then the killer gets to go to a place prepared for such people.

Striking father or mother is a capital offense.

2023 - This verse is what the Bible says about the kind of slavery practiced at one time in this country:

“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

Exodus 21:16 ESV

Stealing a man, and selling him, is a capital offense for the one who sold him and the one in possession of such a man.  This is an interesting thing, and distinguishes between the kind of slavery the Bible often speaks of and the kind we know today.  I think in Israel, one could sell himself as a slave, or sell his wife and children as slaves, and that would last 6 years.  BUT, if you wanted to be a slaver, and go out and round up other Israelites as captives, and sell them for a profit, you were committing a capital crime.  This was not to be done.  We will see later where captives taken in war were slaves forever - in the sense that we see slavery today.  But then, we don't take captives in war really anymore.  At any rate, this is an interesting rule.

Whoever curses father or mother is to die.

If two guys fight, and one is injured enough to be confined to his bed but doesn't die, then when he recovers, the one who struck him must pay for the loss of his time, and pay to have him thoroughly  healed.

And so on...

Here is an interesting rule:

22 "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. [Exo 21:22-25 ESV]

That oft-quoted eye for an eye thing is first stated as to pregnant women injured during a fight, causing the child to be born.  If it is born blind, then the fighters are to be blinded and so on.  This is a specific case, not universal for any harm caused by any man.  But I wonder where else it might show up later?

YES, it shows up and is more broadly applied here:

19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. [Lev 24:19-20 ESV]

...and Jesus mitigates it during his ministry with these words:

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. [Mat 5:38-39 ESV]