One who pays attention to meanings, both general and particular, will understand why a vav precedes Eleh Ha-Mishpatim.¹. As I.E. explains in his next comment, the vav connects Ex. 21:1 with the verses that come before it.

footnotes: ¹ This portion opens with a connective vav

NOW THESE ARE THE ORDINANCES. After the children of Israel told Moses, Speak thou with us, etc. (Ex. 20:16), God told Moses, when Moses drew near to the thick darkness,² Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, etc. (Ex. 20:19). God began to warn them against making golden gods.³ He told Moses that upon Moses’ descent from Mount Sinai, He would make a covenant with Israel to the effect that the Lord alone would be their God.⁴ God taught Moses the ordinances and commandments⁵ so that Moses would tell Israel, if you accept these ordinances and commandments then God will make a covenant with you. At the end of these conditions,⁶ God told Moses the portion of Behold, I send an angel before thee (Ex. 23:20). The most important part of the latter chapter is the elimination of idol worship from their country when they entered it. Moses explained this to Israel before he made the covenant,⁷ for Moses concluded with, neither shalt thou serve their gods (Deut. 7:16).⁸ Now the portion opens with the prohibition against making other gods alongside the Lord⁹ and concludes with the commandment to uproot the memory of idols and molten gods which were made in the land of Canaan.¹⁰

footnotes: ² Ex. 20:18. ³ Ex. 20:20. ⁴ I.E.’s interpretation of Ex. 20:21. ⁵ Contained in Ex. 20:19-23:19. ⁶ The acceptance of the ordinances and commandments. ⁷ Ex. 23:40. So Weiser and Netter. ⁸ I.E. paraphrases Ex. 23:33 with a quote from Deut. 7:16. ⁹ Ex. 20:20. ¹⁰ Ex. 23:24.

IF THOU BUY. Before I begin to explain¹¹ let me give you a general rule. Each ordinance or commandment¹² is an independent unit. If we are able to find a reason that two ordinances or commandments are connected to each other, then we will expend all of our efforts to connect them. If we are not able to do so, we will conclude that the reason this cannot be done is our intellectual deficiency.¹³ There is nothing in the world more difficult for a human being to bear than to be under the control of another person like himself. Scripture therefore began¹⁴ with the law of the Hebrew servant. Our sages said that the Hebrew servant¹⁵ is an Israelite. The same applies to And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant (v. 7).¹⁶ However, our sages maintain that And if a man smite the eye of his bondmen (v. 26) refers to a Canaanite.¹⁷ Similarly, If the ox gore a bondman (v. 32).¹⁸ And they said that then he shall be sold for his theft (Ex. 22:2) refers to an Israelite. Those who dispute with our sages say that the Hebrew slave¹⁹ is not an Israelite but rather someone of Abraham’s family.²⁰ The same is true of the daughter sold into slavery²¹ and of all the slaves mentioned afterwards. They are to be understood in the same way.²² Their proof is from the wife and her children (v. 4),²³ for they say that family identity is established by the father.²⁴ They offer additional proof from and he shall serve him for ever (v. 6), for they say that the latter means all of the slave’s life.²⁵ means until the jubilee year. It was difficult for them to accept that an Israelite would have his ear pierced.²⁶ Let us now seek the plain meaning of the words.²⁷ (Hebrew). If the Hebrew slave is not an Israelite, then why did Scripture state, If thy brother, a Hebrew man…be sold unto thee²⁸. Thus Deut. 15:12 and our verse refer to the same type of servant. Now if the term Hebrew does not refer to an Israelite, why does Scripture use the term brother? Brother refers only to an Israelite. If Deut. 15:12 referred to a non-Israelite it should have read, “If a Hebrew man be sold unto thee.” We thus see that our verse refers to an Israelite. (Deut. 15:12)? Do we not know that brother in Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart (Lev. 19:17) means an Israelite? It is the same case with between a man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him (Deut. 1:16).²⁹ stands in contrast to stranger. There are many such cases. Now there is no doubt that the meaning of Abram the Hebrew (Gen. 14:13) is: Abram of the children of Eber, about whom Scripture says avi kol bene ever, (the father of all the children of Eber) (Gen. 10:21),³⁰. See I.E.’s comments on v. 8. in contrast to and Ham is the father of Canaan (Gen. 9:18). On the other hand, it is possible that Abram was called the Hebrew because he came from beyond the river,³¹. See Josh. 24:2, Your fathers dwelt of old time beyond the River (be-ever ha-nahar). According to this interpretation, Abraham was called the ivri because he came from beyond (ever) the river. although in this case the term used should have been ivri nahari ³². rather than ivri. Let us assume that Scripture was being brief,³³ is short for ivri nahari. because we find that the Bible states, And I took your father Abraham from beyond the River (me-ever ha-nahar) (Josh. 24:3).³⁴ is short for ivri nahari. The Hebrews are also called Israelites, for we see that Moses told Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel (Ex. 5:1). However, when Pharaoh asked Moses, “Who is this God?”³⁵? (Ex. 5:2). Moses answered him, The God of the Hebrews (Ibid.). The God of the Hebrews thus means the same as the God of Israel. Now if the Israelites are called Hebrews because they are related to Eber, then the children of Ishmael and the children of Keturah³⁶ and the children of Esau should be joined to us. However, we do not find Scripture referring to any people as our brothers except for Edom,³⁷ who shared one womb with Jacob.³⁸ We also do not find Scripture referring to Esau³⁹ as our brother in commandments.⁴⁰ We find him referred to as a brother only in the account of the messengers.⁴¹ The same applies to Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother (Deut. 23:8)⁴² wherein Scripture mentions he is thy brother after first mentioning the term Edomite.⁴³ in Deut. 23:8 explains why we are not to hate an Edomite. It does not mean that he is our brother in commandments. The same is true of Because he⁴⁴did pursue his brother⁴⁵ with the sword (Amos 1:11).⁴⁶. Now we do not find in all of Scripture the word Hebrew employed except in regard to the children of Jacob. Scripture thus states: And there was with us there a young man, a Hebrew (Gen. 41:12); because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews (Gen. 43:32); an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew (Ex. 2:11); two men of the Hebrews were striving together (Ex. 2:13). Jonah said, I am a Hebrew (Jonah 1:9) because he was asked, and of what people art thou (Jonah v. 1:8). If the term Hebrew had referred to many nations, Jonah would not yet have told them of what people he was.⁴⁷, he might be saying I am an Edomite, or a Moabite, or the like. Scripture also states, that ye be not servants unto the Hebrews (I Sam. 4:9);⁴⁸ Now the Hebrews⁴⁹ that were with the Philistines (I Sam. 14:21). The book of Jeremiah states: that every man should let his man-servant, and every man his maid-servant, being a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, go free (Jer. 34:9). The latter closes by explaining, that none should make bondmen of them, even of a Jew his brother (Ibid.). Now it is known that an Edomite is not called a Jew.⁵⁰ Those who disagree with our sages say, look, it is written: And many from among the peoples of the land became Jews (mityahadim) (Esther 8:17)⁵¹ in reference to those who were not Jews. This is blindness. For according to their opinion, whether the meaning of the word mityahadim (became Jews) is that they claimed to be Jews or that mityahadim means they accepted Judaism,⁵² means: praised the Jews. Scripture should have read, “even of one of his brothers who became Jewish.”⁵³, a Jew. If the reference was to those not born Jewish, i.e., slaves who belong to Jews and practice Judaism, then the term used should have been mityahed, acting Jewish. Furthermore, the word mitabber (becoming a Hebrew)⁵⁴ should be formed from the word ivri according to this interpretation.⁵⁵ means to claim to be Jewish or to become a Jew, then a parallel form, mitabber, should exist. However, it does not. One who says this, meddleth (mitabber) with strife not his own (Prov. 26:17).⁵⁶. It has thus been clearly shown that the words of our sages are correct. We will rely upon them with regard to all of the commandments in accordance with their tradition, which they received from their fathers. Furthermore, how can one think that an Ishmaelite and an Edomite shall serve for six years⁵⁷ and an Israelite until the year of jubilee.⁵⁸

footnotes: ¹¹ The ordinances. ¹² Recorded in Ex. 21:2-23:19. ¹³ Although each commandment or ordinance is an independent unit, they were not thrown together haphazardly. ¹⁴ The list of ordinances. ¹⁵ Spoken of in our verse. ¹⁶ Verse 7 refers to an Israelite. ¹⁷ That is, a Canaanite bondman. By Canaanite, the sages meant non-Israelite. ¹⁸ That is, a Canaanite bondman. ¹⁹ Spoken of in this verse. ²⁰ Someone descended from Abraham, such as an Ishmaelite, Edomite or the like. Abraham was known as Abraham the Hebrew (Gen. 14:13). Hence his descendants, whether Israelites or not, are called Hebrews according to this interpretation. ²¹ Verse 7. ²² As Hebrew slaves, that is, as people descended from Abraham. ²³ Who remain in slavery. They could not believe that the children of an Israelite would remain in slavery, for they believed these children to be Israelites. ²⁴ That is, the children of an Israelite man and a non-Israelite woman are considered Israelites. ²⁵ Contra the rabbis, who maintain that for ever ²⁶ And be a slave in perpetuity. ²⁷ Employed by Scripture. The reference is to the term ivri ²⁸ The verse continues, he shall serve thee six years; and in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee ²⁹ It is clear that brother refers to an Israelite, for brother ³⁰ Any descendants of Eber who accept the teaching of Eber is called an ivri ³¹ The Hebrew word for beyond is ever ³² The Hebrew word for river is nahar ³³ In other words, ivri ³⁴ The point is, anyone acquainted with the Bible will know that ivri ³⁵ I.E.’s paraphrase of Who is the Lord ³⁶ Abraham’s concubine. See Gen. 25:1. ³⁷ The descendants of Esau. See Deut. 23:8. ³⁸ That is, whose ancestor shared one womb with Jacob. ³⁹ That is, Edom. ⁴⁰ Thus Edom too is not joined with us. ⁴¹ Moses sent messengers to Edom asking for permission to pass through their land. See Num. 20:14. ⁴² That is, Edom is not here referred to as a brother in commandments. ⁴³ In other words, brother ⁴⁴ Edom. ⁴⁵ Israel. ⁴⁶ This verse does not imply that Edom and Israel are brothers in mitzvot ⁴⁷ By saying I am a Hebrew ⁴⁸ The reference there is clearly to that of an Israelite. ⁴⁹ The reference is to Israelites. ⁵⁰ Hence the term Hebrew in Jer. 34:9 cannot apply to him. I.E. notes this because he had earlier noted that Scripture refers to the Edomites as brothers. ⁵¹ We thus see that the term Jew can be applied to someone who is not born a Jew. Hence the term Jew in Jer. 34:9 may also apply to a non-Jew, that is, to a non-Jewish slave who observes some of the commandments (Filwarg). ⁵² According to I.E., mityahadim ⁵³ Jer. 34:9 refers to the man-servant as a yehudi ⁵⁴ There is no Hebrew word with this meaning. ⁵⁵ If the word mityahed ⁵⁶ I.E. plays on the word mitabber ⁵⁷ As outlined in our verse. ⁵⁸ See Lev. 25:39, which states that an Israelite serves till the year of jubilee. I.E. reconciles our verse and Lev. 25:39 in his next comment.

SIX YEARS HE SHALL SERVE. And no longer. It is like Six years thou shalt sow thy field (Lev. 25:3).⁵⁹ At the start of the seventh year of his being sold he shall go free no matter what year it be.⁶⁰ Do not be amazed that Jeremiah writes, At the end of seven years (Jer. 34:14),⁶¹ because everything has two ends and sometimes the end is found at the beginning and sometimes it is at the end.⁶² Our verse deals with a servant whom the law courts have sold, namely, an individual concerning whom it is written, then he shall be sold for his theft (Ex. 22:2). However, And if thy brother be waxen poor with thee, and was sold unto you (Lev. 25:39)⁶³ or to a stranger (Lev. 25:47) refers to a slave who sells himself according to the years remaining to the year of jubilee, for such a servant goes out when the Jubilee comes. Israel has a tradition that males but not females are sold because they stole. I will finish the matter in the chapter which follows. Rabbi Merinus says that the yod of the word la-chofshi (tree) is superfluous.⁶⁴ (free) has the same meaning as la-chofesh (unto freedom). Cf. Rashi, chofshi: la-cherut (unto freedom). It is like the yod of le-mishi (for cleansing) (Ezek. 16:4) and the yod of akhzari (cruel) (Prov. 11:17). However, Rabbi Judah the grammarian says the lamed of la-chofshi (free) is superfluous because its meaning is similar to chofshi (free) in And when thou lettest him go free (Deut. 15:13).⁶⁵ means chofshi (free). Its yod is, as it were, the yod of relationship, like the yod of ha-kadmoni (of the east gate) (Ezek. 19:19). The lamed of la-chofshi is like the lamed of la-avshalom (Absalom)⁶⁶ of la-avshalom is superfluous, for la-avshalom means Absolam, not unto Absolam. in the third, Absalom the son of Maacah (I Chron. 3:2). However, in my opinion the lamed and the yod in la-chofshi are both prepositions, even though one would have sufficed.⁶⁷ or chofshi. Chofshi is similar to ha-oholi (of my tent) (Josh. 7:21) in in the midst of my tent.⁶⁸ has an emphatic heh prefix and a first person pronoun yod suffix. According to Hebrew grammar, the emphatic heh is not suffixed to a declined noun. Josh. 7:21 thus should have read, ha-ohel, or oholi. We thus see that Scripture sometimes combines two forms. Chofshi (free) is an adjective.

footnotes: ⁵⁹ And no longer, for the seventh year is a Sabbatical year. ⁶⁰ No matter what year of the fifty-year count to the Jubilee. ⁶¹ Whereas our verse states that a slave goes free at the beginning of the seventh year. ⁶² Thus at the end of seven years means: at the beginning of the seventh year. A physical object has two ends, Each of the ends is also the first part of the object. I.E. applies this concept to a non-tangible object such as years. ⁶³ Translated according to I.E. ⁶⁴ In other words, la-chofshi ⁶⁵ In other words, la-chofshi ⁶⁶ The lamed ⁶⁷ Scripture could have read either la-chofesh ⁶⁸ Ha-oholi

[FOR NOTHING.] The word chinnam (for nothing) comes from the same root as channunu (grant)⁶⁹. in grant them (Jud. 21:22). It means a gift.⁷⁰ We do not know why chinnam has a mem.⁷¹ Its mem is like the mem of rekam (empty) (Gen. 31:42).⁷² has no meaning. A mem suffixed to a word is sometimes a third person plural pronominal suffix. Hence I.E.’s comment.

footnotes: ⁶⁹ Its root is chet, nun, nun ⁷⁰ Something freely or graciously given. ⁷¹ It is not a root letter and it does not have any meaning. ⁷² Whose mem

IF HE COME IN BY HIMSELF. Some say that the word be-gappo (by himself) has the same meaning as be-gufo (with his body). Now we find the phrase gufat sha’ul (the body of Saul) (I Chron. 10:12) in Scripture.⁷³ is gufah. Gufah with the third person pronominal suffix is gufato. Thus our verse should have read gufato rather than gappo. However, the forms of nouns change.⁷⁴ Others say⁷⁵: in the wing (skirt) of his garment. that gappo (himself) has the meaning of wing. Wings are referred to as gappin in Aramaic. It is as if Scripture read, if he came in bondage possessing only the wing of his garment.⁷⁶ refers to the wing (corner) of his garment. However, this is out of context, for the context requires us to explain be-gappo as meaning that he carries no other body on his back. Gappo is like gabbi (my back) in The plowers plowed upon my back (Ps. 129:3).⁷⁷ is a variant of gabbo (his back), for the bet and peh sometimes interchange because they are similarly sounded labials. Rabbi Saadiah Gaon says that Scripture had to say, If he come in by himself, he shall go out by himself⁷⁸ while saying⁷⁹ he shall go out free⁸⁰ because of his wife,⁸¹ that is, the Torah had to say, if he be married.⁸² Now if an Israelite women is not sold by a law court for theft, why does Scripture say, then his wife shall go out with him? It states this to teach us that the one who acquires a Hebrew slave is obligated to support his [the slave’s] wife. She is with him until they go out together.

footnotes: ⁷³ The absolute form of gufat ⁷⁴ The same word comes in different forms. ⁷⁵ See Rashi, be-gappo ⁷⁶ In other words, gappo ⁷⁷ In other words, gappo ⁷⁸ In other words, why repeat that the slave goes out free after having stated the same in verse 2? ⁷⁹ That is, immediately after saying (Filwarg). For other interpretations see Krinsky. ⁸⁰ The question is, why does Scripture repeat itself? ⁸¹ That is, because it wanted to go on and explain the law dealing with the slave’s wife, and it is the style of Scripture to repeat itself when it introduces a new law. ⁸² Then his wife goes out with him. For other interpretations see Krinsky and Filwarg.

IF HIS MASTER GIVE HIM A WIFE. We find that those who employ the holy tongue render honor with various nouns⁸³ but not with verbs. They use the terms adon (lord) and also adonim (lords).⁸⁴ They employ the latter as a singular in a cruel lord (adonim) (Is. 19:4). They employ the term adonav (his lord)⁸⁵ is a plural. in the construct.⁸⁶ is connected to the third person pronoun shelahem. They do not use the term adono (his lord),⁸⁷ for we do not find the word adono in Scripture. However, Adoni (my lord),⁸⁸ as in My lord asked (Gen. 44:19), is employed in the first person. It is prohibited to use the plural form⁸⁹. so that it not be confused with God’s glorious name.⁹⁰. It is similarly unfit to use the singular declensional form adoni (my lord) in My lord asked (Ibid.) when God is spoken of.⁹¹ is used when God is referred to. The same applies to the term Elo’ah (God).⁹² is in the singular. However, it is not respectful to use the singular when referring to God. Hence the plural form Elohim is used. Rabbi Merinus says that eloho (their god),⁹³ with the third person pronominal suffix. rather than elohav (their god),⁹⁴ in their might unto their god (Hab. 1:11) is used in a disparaging manner.⁹⁵

footnotes: ⁸³ Literally, with the laws of nouns. The plural form of certain nouns is employed honorifically. ⁸⁴ When referring to a lord or master. ⁸⁵ Adonav ⁸⁶ By construct I.E. means when the word adonim ⁸⁷ Which is a singular. ⁸⁸ Which is a singular. ⁸⁹ Adonai ⁹⁰ Adonai ⁹¹ Hence the plural form Adonai ⁹² Elo’ah ⁹³ Which is elo’ah ⁹⁴ The plural form. ⁹⁵ Because Habakkuk speaks of pagan gods.

IF HIS MASTER GIVE HIM A WIFE. A Canaanite woman according to our sages.⁹⁶ 1. It is possible that the meaning of a Canaanite women is in keeping with Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you (Lev. 25:45) conceming whom it is written, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids (Lev. 25:44).⁹⁷ The same applies to all Canaanite slaves,⁹⁸ for Scripture states, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth (Deut. 20:16) with regard to the seven nations.⁹⁹ Scripture states with regard to Solomon, of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel: They shall not come among you, neither shall you go among them (I Kings 11:2).¹⁰⁰. Now this is written¹⁰¹. with regard to Zidonians and Hittites,¹⁰² not Moabites and Ammonites.¹⁰³

footnotes: ⁹⁶ Mekhilta, Mishpatim ⁹⁷ In other words, Canaanite is not to be taken literally. It refers to the nations mentioned in Lev. 25:44. ⁹⁸ Mentioned in Rabbinic literature. ⁹⁹ That is, the seven Canaanite nations. ¹⁰⁰ I.E. quoted from memory and erred. The Book of Kings reads, of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel: Ye shall not go among them, neither shall they come among you ¹⁰¹ That Solomon loved women of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel: Ye shall not go among them, neither shall they come among you ¹⁰² Both are Canaanite nations. ¹⁰³ A female Moabite and Ammonite whom one is permitted to marry after they convert. Hence they may serve as slaves and a master may give a woman belonging to these nations to his Hebrew bondman.

BUT IF THE SERVANT SHALL PLAINLY SAY. Our sages have already explained¹⁰⁴ 11. that his ear is not pierced unless all these conditions,¹⁰⁵, etc. including because he loveth thee and thy house (Deut. 15:16), have been fulfilled.¹⁰⁶

footnotes: ¹⁰⁴ See Mekhilta, Mishpatim ¹⁰⁵ Listed in our verse, i.e., I love my master ¹⁰⁶ That is, the servant’s ear is not pierced unless all the conditions listed in verse 5 and in Deut. 15:16 have been fulfilled.

THEN HIS MASTER SHALL BRING HIM UNTO GOD. The term Elohim (God) means those who establish God’s laws in the land.¹⁰⁷ means judges. It is customary for the judges to sit in the gate of a city that has doors and a bolt. To the door or the door-post means that what Scripture deals with in this verse is to be performed before those who sit in the gate.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁷ That is, elohim

AND HE SHALL SERVE HIM FOR EVER. We know that the word le-olam (for ever) in Hebrew refers to time, as in it hath been already, in the ages (le-olamim) which were before us (Eccles. 1:10), wherein olamim means ages.¹⁰⁸ Similarly, ve-yashav sham ad olam (and there abide for ever) (I Sam. 1:22) means: and he will there abide until he grows up. Va-avado le-olam (and he shall serve him for ever) likewise means: and he will serve him until the year of jubilee,¹⁰⁹ on third verse. for there is no season of Israel that is longer than it.¹¹⁰ Going free is comparable to a renewal of the world.¹¹¹ (and he shall serve him for ever); that is, he shall serve him until the world is renewed, namely, the year of jubilee when all slaves are freed. The word le-olam literally means to a world. Hence I.E.’s comment. This interpretation appears to differ slightly from the preceding one, which took the word olam to mean time. It is also possible that its meaning is that he should be as he was in former times.¹¹² to mean: to a time.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁸ In other words, for ever here means some definite time span. ¹⁰⁹ This is the opinion of the sages of the Talmud. See Mekhilta ¹¹⁰ The jubilee year comes around once in 50 years. ¹¹¹ Hence Scripture reads, va-avado le-olam ¹¹² Literally, he should return to his former “time.” This interpretation takes the word le-olam

AND IF A MAN SELL HIS DAUGHTER TO BE A MAID-SERVANT. Scripture speaks of a minor who is under her father’s control, like the daughter whose oaths a father may annul.¹¹³ The phrase unto a foreign people (v. 8) is connected to this verse.¹¹⁴ For unto a foreign people speaks of the father.¹¹⁵. I.E. takes foreign people literally, that is, to a non-Jewish nation.

footnotes: ¹¹³ See Num. 30:4-6. ¹¹⁴ Rather than to what precedes it in verse 8. ¹¹⁵ That is, the father is not permitted to sell his daughter unto a foreign people

TO SELL HER UNTO A FOREIGN PEOPLE HE SHALL HAVE NO POWER, SEEING THAT HE HATH DEALT DECEITFULLY WITH HER. Bi-vigdo (that he hath dealt deceitfully) is similar to the word nivgad (we deal treacherously) in Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother (Mal. 2:10). It is true and correct that the master has no right to sell her to an Israelite.¹¹⁶ refers to both her father and her master. They take foreign nation to mean any stranger. See Kiddushin 19a. We know this from tradition.¹¹⁷ refers only to the father. See note 121. The sages used this verse as a peg and as a support.¹¹⁸ Do not be surprised at the distance between unto a foreign people and the verse to which it is connected,¹¹⁹ for as I will explain, it is the same case with he shall make restitution¹²⁰ (Ex. 22:2). Rabbi Saadiah Gaon says that unto a foreign people means to a stranger. The same is true of wilt Thou slay even a righteous nation¹²¹ (people, nation) can refer to a person. Saadiah thus interprets unto a foreign people as unto a stranger, and a righteous nation as a righteous person. (Gen. 20:4). However, it is impossible that Scripture would refer to an individual by one of these terms. It is correct for Scripture to say, “and Israel said,” because Israel is a collective noun, like Egypt in and Egypt said (Ex. 14:25).¹²² However, it is impossible for a noun which refers to a group, such as the terms people, nation, company, and congregation, to be used for an individual. The meaning of wilt Thou slay even a righteous nation is explained by that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin (Gen. 20:9).

footnotes: ¹¹⁶ The sages say that to sell her unto a foreign people he shall have no power ¹¹⁷ According to I.E. to sell her unto a foreign people he shall have no power ¹¹⁸ For their tradition. ¹¹⁹ Verge 7. ¹²⁰ Which, according to I.E., is connected to Ex. 21:37. ¹²¹ Am ¹²² Translated according to I.E.

[SHE SHALL NOT GO OUT AS MEN-SERVANTS DO.] Its meaning is, she shall not go out as men-servants who always go out after six years. The maid-servant also goes out after six years of servitude, as Scripture states, If thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew women, be sold unto thee, he shall serve thee six years (Deut. 15:12). However, the maid-servant goes out if she reaches the onset of puberty before six years pass.

IF SHE PLEASE NOT HER MASTER. If she does not find favor in the eyes of her master after he bought her in order to take her for a wife. This is the meaning of who hath espoused her to himself; he espoused her to be his wife¹²³ or he espoused her to be the wife of his son.¹²⁴ (v. 9). Its meaning is, he bought her to be his son’s wife. Note that the word lo (himself) is spelled¹²⁵. lamed alef in the text¹²⁶ spelled with an alef means no. and is read¹²⁷ as if written with a vav and so spelled in the margin.¹²⁸. Thus asher lo ye’adah means who hath espoused her to himself. If we translate the text as spelled, then we should translate asher lo ye’adah as who hath not espoused her. The Gaon says that the word lo has two meanings.¹²⁹ should be translated both as “no” and as “to him.” It is similar to It is He that hath made us, and we are His (lo) (Ps. 100:3).¹³⁰ is spelled with an alef but interpreted as if spelled with a vav. One meaning is, we have not made ourselves.¹³¹ as written, i.e., as spelled with an alef. In this case the literal reading of Ps. 100:3 is: It is He that hath made us, and not us. The second meaning is, we are His.¹³² is interpreted as if spelled with a vav, and the verse is translated: It is He that hath made us, and we are His. However, in my opinion only the second is the correct meaning.¹³³ is to be interpreted only as if spelled with a vav, i.e., according to the kre. The same applies to all of them.¹³⁴ is spelled with an alef but interpreted as if written with a vav. Rabbi Judah the grammarian says that we cannot distinguish in pronunciation between lo spelled with an alef and lo spelled with a vav or a heh, as in is it not (ha-loh)¹³⁵ is spelled with a heh. The heh has been substituted for an alef. in Rabbah of the children of Ammon (Deut. 3:11). All cases where the text has an alef and the margin a vav¹³⁶. are to be interpreted the way they are read.¹³⁷. Note that the word ve-hefdah (then shall he let her to be redeemed) is a transitive verb. It is similar to ve-happodekha (and redeemed thee) (Deut. 13:6); padah (redeemed) in who hath redeemed my soul (II Sam. 4:9); peditem (redeemed them) in For I have redeemed them (Zech. 10:8).¹³⁸ Now vehefdah is a hifil. It is like ha-matzmi’ach (maketh to spring) in Who maketh the mountains to spring with grass (Ps. 147:8)¹³⁹. or like the word he’ekhil (fed)¹⁴⁰. in saying Reuben fed (he’ekhil) Simeon bread. The meaning of ve-hefdah thus is,¹⁴¹ is a hifil, a causative. he shall seek her redemption and accept it whether she redeems herself, or her father or one of her relatives redeems her. If she is close to the end of her years of servitude, they shall compute how many years she has served and how many remain till the seventh year or to the time that she reaches the onset of puberty. The redemption money will be in accordance with the aforementioned computation.¹⁴²

footnotes: ¹²³ He bought her to marry her. ¹²⁴ I.E.’s paraphrase of And if he espouse her unto his son ¹²⁵ The ketiv ¹²⁶ Lo ¹²⁷ Interpreted. ¹²⁸ The kre ¹²⁹ That is, lo ¹³⁰ Here too lo ¹³¹ In this case we interpret lo ¹³² Here lo ¹³³ The word lo ¹³⁴ Where lo ¹³⁵ Here lo ¹³⁶ That is, the word is interpreted as if written with a vav ¹³⁷ That is, according to the kre ¹³⁸ All of the aforementioned are transitive verbs. ¹³⁹ Which is a hifil ¹⁴⁰ Which is a hifil ¹⁴¹ Since ve-hefdah ¹⁴² With how many years the maid-servant has served and how many remain until either the seventh year or her onset of puberty.

UNTO A FOREIGN PEOPLE. I have already explained it.¹⁴³ (people) in the earlier part of his comments on this verse. He now goes on to explain the meaning of the term nokhri (foreign). Note that the term nokhri (foreign) applies to all people who are not Israelites. The word nokhri does not have the same meaning as the word zar (stranger), as the term zar refers to one who is not of the same tribal family.¹⁴⁴ Now if we say that the Israelites are called Hebrews because¹⁴⁵ of Eber, who worshipped God, then whoever is descended from Eber and follows Eber’s faith is called a Hebrew.¹⁴⁶ However, if we say that one is called a Hebrew because of Abraham,¹⁴⁷ then Scripture states, for in Isaac shall seed be called to thee (Gen. 21:12).¹⁴⁸ Now even though Scripture writes with regard to Ishmael, because he is thy seed (Gen. 21:13),¹⁴⁹ the land¹⁵⁰ was given only to Isaac.¹⁵¹ Jacob and Esau were sons of Isaac. However, Scripture states with regard to Isaac, for unto thee, and thy seed, I will give all these lands (Gen. 26:3). Now Isaac’s seed was “called” only in Jacob, to whom the land was given. Thus the children of the concubines¹⁵² along with the children of Esau are considered foreigners.

footnotes: ¹⁴³ I.E. explained the term am ¹⁴⁴ But is a fellow Israelite. ¹⁴⁵ I.E. in his comments on verse 1 suggested two reasons why Israelites are called Hebrews. He now refers to them. ¹⁴⁶ Thus descendants of Eber who do not follows Eber’s faith are not called Hebrews. I.E. comments thus because Eber had non-Israelite descendants. See I.E. on verse 1. ¹⁴⁷ Because he is descended from Abraham, who was called Abraham the Hebrew. ¹⁴⁸ In other words, only Isaac and his descendants are to be called Hebrews. ¹⁴⁹ Which implies that the Ishmaelites should also be considered Hebrews. ¹⁵⁰ Of Israel. ¹⁵¹ Thus only Isaac is a full heir of Abraham and entitled to the name Hebrew. ¹⁵² Abraham’s concubines.

AND IF HE ESPOUSE HER UNTO HIS SON. Yi’adennah (espouse her)¹⁵³, ayin, dalet. The literal meaning of yi’adennah is: shall set her aside or shall designate her. follows the paradigm of yirashennah.¹⁵⁴. The word mo’ed (season)¹⁵⁵. is similar to¹⁵⁶ the word moked (altar).¹⁵⁷.

footnotes: ¹⁵³ From the root yod ¹⁵⁴ From the root yod, resh, shin ¹⁵⁵ Which comes from the same root as yi’adennah ¹⁵⁶ That is, follows the paradigm of. ¹⁵⁷ From the root yod, kof, dalet

[AFTER THE MANNER OF THE DAUGHTERS.] The reference is to virgin daughters who were not sold.

HE SHALL DEAL WITH HER. The son, and also the father if he took her.

IF HE TAKE HIM ANOTHER WIFE. Be she a daughter of Israel who was sold, or be she a daughter of Israel that was not sold.

HER FOOD. She’erah refers to her food. He must sustain her flesh, which is what she’erah means.

AND HER CONJUGAL RIGHTS. Some say that ve-onatah (and her conjugal rights) means: and the place of her dwelling.¹⁵⁸ (a dwelling place). According to them, the word ve-anah (shall howl) in and jackals shall howl (Is. 13:22) and ve-anetah (and she shall respond) in and she shall respond there (Hos. 2:17) have a similar meaning.¹⁵⁹ However, I believe that ve-anah iyyim (and jackals shall howl) is to be taken as it implies.¹⁶⁰. Ve-anah is similar to ve-anita (and thou shalt speak) in and thou shalt speak and say (Deut. 26:5). Ve-anah is used metaphorically, for Scripture there metaphorically states, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow (Is. 34:14).¹⁶¹ (cry, or more literally, call) is parallel to ve-anita. Hence ve-anita must have a similar meaning. Similarly, ve-anetah in and she shall there respond means she shall make music. Ve-anetah is similar to enu (sing) in Sing unto the Lord with thanksgiving (Ps. 147:7). Onatah refers to sexual activity, also known as the time of lovemaking.¹⁶² The word et (time) is missing a nun.¹⁶³ is ayin, nun, tav. It is similar to the word emet (truth).¹⁶⁴. Hence the tav of ittekh (thy time) in and, behold, thy time (Ezek. 16:8) receives a dagesh.¹⁶⁵. Likewise,¹⁶⁶ is similar to the word emet. itto (his time) is similar to amitto (his truth). The word attah (now) is also similar.¹⁶⁷ and drops a nun. Note, onatah comes from the same root as et. The word attah (now) means this time.¹⁶⁸ at the end of the word attah takes the place of the heh which should have been placed at the beginning of the word. That is, attah equals ha-et (the time) (Weiser).

footnotes: ¹⁵⁸ They connect it to the word ma’on ¹⁵⁹ The former is to be rendered: and jackals shall live there; and the latter, and she shall live there. ¹⁶⁰ It means and jackals shall howl ¹⁶¹ In other words, yikra ¹⁶² Literally, to bedding, which is the time of lovemaking. ¹⁶³ That is, the root of et ¹⁶⁴ Which comes from the root alef, mem, nun ¹⁶⁵ To compensate for the missing nun ¹⁶⁶ Literally, or. That is, another example that the word et ¹⁶⁷ It comes from the root ayin, nun, tav ¹⁶⁸ The heh

AND IF. Scripture employed an abridged form in saying shelosh eleh (these three). It is similar to shelosh se’im (three measures) (Gen. 18:6),¹⁶⁹ for Scripture should have read, ha-shelosh ha-eleh.¹⁷⁰. Many think that these three refers to her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights. However, this is impossible. After Scripture stated, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters (v. 9), and one is obligated to give these three things to all daughters there is no need to mention this here. Furthermore, Scripture writes concerning the beautiful woman¹⁷¹ who is a foreigner, but thou shalt not sell her at all for money (Deut. 21:14). How much more so is this maid-servant not to be sold for money.¹⁷² i.e., her master cannot sell her. Its correct interpretation thus is: and if he does not do one of these three things, namely, if he does not marry her, or espouse her to his son, or redeem her, she shall go out for nothing when she has the onset of puberty.¹⁷³ If any that is unclean by a dead body touch all of these, which means one of these, shall it be unclean¹⁷⁴ (Hag. 2:13) is similar. There are many other similar instances.¹⁷⁵ The Gaon asks, what reason was there for Scripture to say, without money after stating for nothing? He answers: If she took ill in her master’s house and he spent money on medicine,¹⁷⁶ then she did not have to pay him back anything. However, in my opinion there is no need for all of this, for Scripture offers additional explanation, such as for thou shalt die, and not live (II Kings 20:1).¹⁷⁷

footnotes: ¹⁶⁹ Which is also a short form. ¹⁷⁰ And similarly in Gen. 18:6 it should have read, ha-shelosh ha-se’im ¹⁷¹ The beautiful captive woman. ¹⁷² What need is there for Scripture to say, then shall she go out for nothing without money; ¹⁷³ That is, if she reaches the onset of puberty before her six years of servitude are over. ¹⁷⁴ Translated according to I.E. See Lev. 18:24. ¹⁷⁵ Where Scripture uses the term these or all of these and means one of these. ¹⁷⁶ To heal her. ¹⁷⁷ See I.E. on Ex. 2:6.

HE THAT SMITETH A MAN. The reason this follows the laws dealing with the man- and maid-servant is that Scripture wanted to go on and explain how to deal with one who strikes his man- and maid-servants.¹⁷⁸ [A MAN.] The reference is to an Israelite.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁸ It therefore first had to lay down the law dealing with one who strikes a free man.

HE SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH. By a court of law. This is the case whenever the term mot yumat (he shall surely be put to death) is employed. The one exception to this will be shown shortly.

AND IF A MAN LIE NOT IN WAIT. Tzadah (lie in wait) is similar to the word bi-tzediyyah (lying in wait) (Num. 35:20) and tzodeh (layest wait) in though thou layest wait for my soul to take it (I Sam. 24:12). Observe, it involves laying in wait and acting presumptuously.¹⁷⁹ means to presumptuously lay in wait.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁹ In other words, tzadah

BUT GOD CAUSE IT TO COME TO HAND. Innah (cause it to come) is similar to mitanneh (seeketh an occasion) in he seeketh an occasion against me (II Kings 5:7), the meaning of which is, he looks for reasons and excuses.¹⁸⁰ The meaning of our clause is that God caused and arranged things so that this person would die at this individual’s hand even though he had never intended to kill him. God caused this to happen to him so that he would be exiled from his place because of some other sin which he committed. Scripture explicitly states, There shall no mischief befall the righteous (Prov. 12:21).

footnotes: ¹⁸⁰ To attack me.

AND IF A MAN COME PRESUMPTUOUSLY. To slay him¹⁸¹. is to be understood as if written, and slew him with guile.¹⁸² Similarly If she profane by playing the harlot (Lev. 21:9),¹⁸³ the meaning of which is, if she profane herself by playing the harlot and therefore she profaneth her father (Ibid.).¹⁸⁴ (she profane) includes in it the object; that is, she profane herself. It is known that the term chillul (profanation) and the word techillah (beginning) come from a double root.¹⁸⁵. However, they differ in meaning. It was therefore necessary to differentiate between them. Scripture therefore reads, techel li-zenot (profane by playing the harlot) (Lev. 21:9), for if it had the meaning of beginning, it would read tachel (thou shalt begin), as in tachel lispor (shalt thou begin to number) (Num. 16:9).¹⁸⁶ are vocalized with a kamatz beneath their prefixes. However, in order to differentiate between the words, to profane was vocalized with a tsere, techel, and to begin follows the normal vocalization, that is, tachel.

footnotes: ¹⁸¹ With guile ¹⁸² That is, the infinitive includes in it the action (Filwarg). ¹⁸³ Translated literally. ¹⁸⁴ Here too the infinitive techel ¹⁸⁵ They both come from the root chet, lamed, lamed ¹⁸⁶ Double roots conjugated in the kal

FROM MINE ALTAR. This is the reverse of the previous verse. It is there stated, then I will appoint thee a place [whither he may flee], the reference being to the cities of refuge. However, he who presumptuously kills and flees, even if he seeks refuge at the altar as Joab did,¹⁸⁷ shall be put to death. Our sages said even a priest¹⁸⁸ who wants to perform the service at the altar shall be put to death.¹⁸⁹ 85a; San. 35b.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁷ See I Kings 2:28,29. ¹⁸⁸ Who has committed murder. ¹⁸⁹ Yoma

AND HE THAT SMITETH HIS FATHER. Since Scripture had previously mentioned, He that smiteth a man, so that he dieth, shall surely be put to death (v. 12), Scripture had to explain that there is an instance where one is put to death for smiting someone even when the one who is struck does not die. This is the case when one hits one’s father. The word u-makkeh (and he that smiteth) is to be read as if written twice.¹⁹⁰ It was out of regard for the parents’ honor that Scripture found it necessary to state¹⁹¹ that even when one does not strike one’s parents but curses them, he is to be put to death.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁰ Our verse is to be understood as if written: and he that smiteth his father, and he who smiteth his mother, shall surely be put to death. ¹⁹¹ In verse 17.

AND HE THAT STEALETH A MAN. Saadiah Gaon asks: Why was this verse inserted between He that smiteth his father (v. 15) and And he that curseth his father (v. 17)? He answers that Scripture speaks only of the commonplace. Those stolen were young children. They were brought up in a strange country and did not recognize their parents. It is thus possible for them to strike and curse their parents. The punishment for this will fall upon the kidnapper.

OR IF HE BE FOUND IN HIS HAND. In the market before he sells him,¹⁹² means: and intends to sell him. Otherwise, how could Scripture say, “or if he be found in his hand.” then he shall be put to death.

footnotes: ¹⁹² In other words, and selleth him

AND HE THAT CURSETH. We find a curse that invokes the name of God, as in and cursed them in the name of the Lord (II Kings 2:24). We also find curses that do not invoke the name of God.

AND IF MEN CONTEND. Rabbi Saadiah Gaon says that be-egrof (with his fist) is similar to egrofin (strong) in “strong men.”¹⁹³. 49a. Hebrew, ba’ale egrofin. The reference¹⁹⁴ refers to something strong and hard. is to something strong and hard. Rabbi Merinus says that the alef of egrof is superfluous. It is like the alef of ezro’i (my shoulder) (Job 31:22).¹⁹⁵ It comes from the same root as ge-rafam (swept them away) (Jud. 5:21).¹⁹⁶. The reference is to something that one drags in one’s hand.¹⁹⁷ The same is true in Arabic.

footnotes: ¹⁹³ San ¹⁹⁴ That is, egrof ¹⁹⁵ Which is superfluous. ¹⁹⁶ The root of which is gimmel, resh, peh ¹⁹⁷ A clod of earth. See I.E.’s short commentary.

IF HE RISE AGAIN. We will rely on our sages of blessed memory who said that al mishanto (upon his staff) means that he supports himself and does not lean on others as sick people do.¹⁹⁸. 78b. Also see Rashi.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁸ Cf. San

THEN SHALL HE THAT SMOTE HIM BE QUIT. They shall release him from prison.

[LOSS OF HIS TIME.] Shivto (loss of his time) comes from the same root as shevitah (rest),¹⁹⁹. for his work stopped.²⁰⁰ means his work stoppage; i.e., he must reimburse him for his work stoppage. This interpretation is correct.²⁰¹, I.E. must mean that this interpretation is grammatically defensible. Shivto follows the paradigm of shivro (his corn money) (Gen. 44:2), for the tav is a root letter. It is possible that shivto comes from the same root as shivtah (tarried) in save that she tarried a little in the house (Ruth 2:7). Shivtah comes from the same root as the word yashav (sat).²⁰². Shivto refers to the time that the one who was struck sat at home resting, without work. What proves that this interpretation is correct is that it is the reverse of and walk abroad.²⁰³

footnotes: ¹⁹⁹ Its root is shin, bet, tav ²⁰⁰ According to this interpretation, shivto ²⁰¹ In view of the fact that he next offers a different explanation of shivto ²⁰² Its root is yod, shin, bet ²⁰³ Which indicates that until then he could not walk abroad and had to stay home. The only difference between both definitions is in etymology.

AND SHALL CAUSE HIM TO BE THOROUGHLY HEALED. This is a sign that permission has been granted to physicians to heal blows and wounds that are visible on the surface.²⁰⁴ However, it is in God’s hand to heal any illness which strikes inside of the body. It is thus written, For He maketh sore, and bindeth up (Job 5:18). Furthermore, Scripture tells us concerning King Asa, yet in his disease he sought not to the Lord, but to the physicians (II Chron. 16:12).²⁰⁵ Now Scripture distinguished between them.²⁰⁶ It does not state, verafo yirpe (and he shall surely heal), which is in the kal.²⁰⁷ form. Cf. refa (heal) in Num. 12:13 and erpa (I will heal) in Deut. 32:39. The kal is employed because, when contrasted to the pi’el (see next note), it implies ease of effort (Weiser). It rather reads, ve-rappo yerappe (and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed). The latter is in the pi’el.²⁰⁸ implies an expenditure of effort. Hence it is used when man does the healing. I will explain this very well later on in this portion.²⁰⁹ The rabbis received a tradition concerning other payments²¹⁰ 83b. in addition to the two²¹¹ mentioned in our verse. They similarly received a tradition to include spices which are not stated in the Torah among the incense spices.²¹² 6a, the incense consisted of 11 spices. However, only five spices are listed in Ex. 30:34.

footnotes: ²⁰⁴ Of the body. ²⁰⁵ Asa was stricken with an internal disease. The Bible rebukes Asa for seeking the help of physicians rather than the Lord’s. ²⁰⁶ Internal and external wounds. ²⁰⁷ The simple active form. When God does the healing Scriptures employs the kal ²⁰⁸ The intensive form. The pi’el ²⁰⁹ See I.E. on Ex. 23:25. ²¹⁰ Namely, compensation for damage, pain, and shame. See Baba Kama ²¹¹ That is, healing and loss of time. ²¹² According to the Talmud Keritot

AND IF A MAN SMITE HIS BONDMAN. There is no doubt that according to Israelite jurisprudence the same ordinances that apply to a free man apply to a person sold into bondage. Hence it is impossible for the bondman²¹³ to be a Hebrew servant.²¹⁴ Furthermore, Scripture states at the end,²¹⁵ for he is his money.²¹⁶ Now the bondman and bondwoman²¹⁷ are the ones concerning whom Scripture writes, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids (Lev. 25:44). The bet of ba-shevet (with a rod) is vocalized with a pattach. ²¹⁸. The reference is to the rod²¹⁹ beneath the bet indicates a specific rod. According to I.E., bashevet (with a rod) should be rendered, with the rod, i.e., the rod which the master uses to chastise his servants. which the master was in the habit of using to beat his servants. Now all those who dispute the words of our sages²²⁰ are forced to agree with them with regard to the phrase nakom yinnakem (he shall surely be avenged),²²¹ means: he shall be executed by the sword. for vengeance takes many forms.²²² Now logic will not help them in this case.²²³. The fathers have received the tradition that nakem yenakem (he shall surely be avenged) is similar to a sword that shall avenge (nokemet) the vengeance of the covenant (nekam berit) (Lev. 26:25).²²⁴

footnotes: ²¹³ Spoken of in our verse. ²¹⁴ For the same law that applies to any Israelite would apply to him. Thus the law codified in verse 21 cannot relate to a Hebrew. ²¹⁵ Of the Masoretic chapter, that is, verse 21. ²¹⁶ This cannot apply to an Israelite, for one Hebrew does not become the property of another Hebrew. ²¹⁷ Spoken of in our verse. ²¹⁸ Rather than with a sheva ²¹⁹ The pattach ²²⁰ See I.E.’s comments on the next verse. ²²¹ According to the rabbis, nakom yinakkem ²²² Thus were it not for Rabbinic tradition, we would not know what punishment to mete out to a master who kills his slave. ²²³ A logical and literal analysis of this verse will not tell us what punishment Scripture had in mind by he shall surely be avenged ²²⁴ Translated literally.

NOTWITHSTANDING. Observe that the word yukkam (be punished),²²⁵ which is a hofal, has the same meaning as yinnakem (be punished),²²⁶ which is a nifal. The heretics²²⁷. 38. The printed texts have kuthim (Samaritans). say that the meaning of nakom yinnakem (he shall surely be avenged) is that great vengeance shall be exacted, namely, that the master shall be beaten. However, if the bondman lives for a day, less vengeance shall be exacted. If he lives for two days no vengeance shall be taken. They argue²²⁸ that we do not find the term vengeance used with reference to the death penalty inflicted by a law court. They also say, that there is no positive proof that a sword that shall avenge (Lev. 26:25) refers to being put to death.²²⁹ Furthermore, what need is there to say “two days” after saying “a day”?²³⁰ refers to execution, then why does Scripture say that if the slave lives for two days the master is not put to death? If the master is not put to death when the slave lives for one day, he is certainly not put to death if the slave lives for two days. However, if we speak of graded punishments, then it is logical to distinguish between the two. However, their²³¹ real difficulty lies in accepting the idea that the master would be executed because of the death of a bondman. I will now answer them. Why didn’t Scripture specify what greater or lesser vengeance is to be exacted?²³² Let us now pursue what is written in Scripture. Scripture states, nekom nikmat bene yisrael (avenge the children of Israel) (Num. 31:2). It then goes on to tell us that all the Midianites were killed. Note that Samson said, ki im nikkamti ba-khem (surely I will be avenged of you) (Jud. 15:7). It then states, And he smote them hip [and thigh with a great slaughter] (Jud. 15:8). Samson said, ve-innakemah nekam achat (that I may be this once avenged) (Jud. 16:28) and they died in the house.²³³ Scripture states, And a two-edged sword in their hand (Ps. 149:6). It then goes on to say, To execute vengeance (nikamah) upon the nations (Ps. 149:7). The Bible states, For he doth avenge (yikkom) the blood of his servants (Deut. 32:43). Now blood indicates slaughter.²³⁴ This is the way the term²³⁵ (vengeance). is always used. The reason Scripture here refers to execution by vengeance is that a master seeks excuses to fall upon his bondman because he is in his power,²³⁶ as he cannot smite a fellow Israelite.²³⁷ Now let us turn to Scripture’s statement a day or two. Observe that the latter is like At the mouth of two witnesses [or three witnesses] (Deut. 17:6).²³⁸ They²³⁹ said that they do not know its meaning.²⁴⁰, if two witnesses are sufficient. Let them put our verse along with it.²⁴¹, so do they not understand the reason for or two (days). Our sages of blessed memory said that the meaning of a day or two is that the hours shall add up to the twenty-four of a day.²⁴² on this verse: “A day means one that is as long as two days, and two means two days that are as long as one. How so? A twenty-four hour period.” Also see Rashi: “A day which is made up of a part of two separate days, i.e. twenty-four hours calculated from any moment” (Rashi, paraphrased by Cohen). Now when we examined the verse we found that Scripture says, “with the rod,”²⁴³. See note 213. the reference being to the disciplining rod, as in Thou beatest him with the rod²⁴⁴. (Prov. 23:14). It is thus clear that the master wanted to punish the bondman. Scripture did not mention what the laws are regarding a master who kills his bondman,²⁴⁵ because a master normally takes pity on the bondman, whom he owns, and refrains from killing him even as he takes pity upon his cattle. Now God commanded that a master shall not act sadistically when he punishes his bondman. When he sees the bondman dying under his rod the master shall let him be. If he does not leave the bondman alone then he will be put to death on the bondman’s account, for God’s mercy is upon all of His creatures. Indeed, concerning David we read, Thou hast shed blood abundantly (I Chron. 22:8).²⁴⁶ The reference was to non-Israelite blood.²⁴⁷

footnotes: ²²⁵ In our verse. ²²⁶ Employed in the previous verse. As the former refers to execution so does the latter. ²²⁷ So Vat. Ebr ²²⁸ Literally, their proof is. ²²⁹ See I.E. on verse 20. ²³⁰ If nakom yinnakem ²³¹ The heretics. ²³² If, as the heretics claim, Scripture speaks of graded punishments, then it should have stated what these punishments consist of. ²³³ The reference is to the temple of Dagon. ²³⁴ Thus to avenge the blood of his servants means to kill those who slaughtered his servants. ²³⁵ Nekamah ²³⁶ The master thinks that the slave has no one to avenge him and thus abuses his slave. Hence Scripture states the death of an innocent slave must be avenged. ²³⁷ Who is his slave, for he fears the slave’s family who will avenge him. ²³⁸ Scripture tells us that capital cases require two or three witnesses. Now if two witnesses are sufficient to establish the fact, why mention three? ²³⁹ The above-noted heretics. ²⁴⁰ Why Scripture reads, or three witnesses ²⁴¹ As they do not understand the reason for or three witnesses ²⁴² Cf. Mekhilta ²⁴³ This is the literal meaning of ba-shevet ²⁴⁴ Hebrew, ba-shevet ²⁴⁵ When not disciplining him. According to Rashbam the master is put to death in such cases even if the servant lives beyond two days. ²⁴⁶ The reason David was not permitted to build the temple. ²⁴⁷ We thus see that the blood of all people is precious in the sight of God.

AND IF MEN STRIVE²⁴⁸. TOGETHER. The reference is to Hebrew men²⁴⁹ means Hebrew men. who strive together and hit each other. Scripture similarly reads, Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow? (Ex. 2:13)²⁵⁰ [who] were striving (nitzim) together (Ex. 12:13). Now nitzim and yinnatzu (the word used for strive in our verse) come from the same root. We thus see that the Hebrew word yinnatzu (strive) means to exchange blows (Filwarg).

footnotes: ²⁴⁸ Hebrew, yinnatzu ²⁴⁹ Men ²⁵⁰ Moses said this to two men of the Hebrews

AND HURT. Both are included.²⁵¹ (hurt) is in the plural. Its literal meaning is, and they hurt. Hence I.E.’s comment. Sometimes its meaning is one or the other.²⁵² Thus the meaning of they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they (Lev. 20:14) is, either this one or that one.²⁵³ If both²⁵⁴ are Israelites one law applies to them. The woman spoken of in this verse is an Israelite woman.

footnotes: ²⁵¹ Both men hurt the woman. Ve-nagefu ²⁵² At times Scripture employs the plural but its meaning is one of those spoken of. ²⁵³ Either the mother or her daughter. The verse speaks of a man who takes a woman and her daughter. For doing so, he and one of the women are executed; i.e., if he is married to a woman and sleeps with her daughter, then it is the daughter who is executed; if he is married to the daughter and sleeps with the mother, it is the mother who is executed. See I.E. on Lev. 20:14. ²⁵⁴ Men who hurt the woman.

YET NO HARM FOLLOW. To the woman.

HE SHALL BE SURELY FINED. Because of the children who were aborted and died.

ACCORDING AS THE WOMAN’S HUSBAND SHALL LAY UPON HIM. If the one who hurt the woman wants to do according to the will of the father of the children.²⁵⁵ Otherwise he shall pay in accordance to the ruling of the law court. Bi-fililim (as the judges determine) is similar to the word u-fillelo (shall judge him).²⁵⁶ means judges.

footnotes: ²⁵⁵ That is, pay an amount of money requested by the woman’s husband. ²⁵⁶ In other words, pelilim

BUT IF ANY HARM FOLLOW. To the woman. We find a difference of opinion.²⁵⁷ on this verse: “Then thou shalt give life for life. He cannot pay for life with money. It is with life that he must pay for life…Rabbi says: Then thou shalt give life for life. This means monetary compensation.” Also see San. 79a. Some say that the one who caused the women’s death is put to death because he intended to kill a fellow Israelite. They offer as proof the fact that Scripture states, he shall surely be fined (v. 22) with regard to the children, but it states with regard to the woman, then thou shalt give life for life. Now if the reference is to a fine,²⁵⁸ refers to a fine. then in what way is the woman’s death worse than that of the children? On the other hand, if we say that one is to be punished with death for killing the children, why did Scripture alter its style²⁵⁹ and read, life for life? The opposing opinion maintains that one who intends to kill one individual and kills another is not put to death, and the reason the Torah altered its language and stated life for life is that the fine for killing a person is much greater than that for killing an embryo. They offer as proof the fact that the Torah afterwards reads, eye for eye, tooth for tooth (v. 24). The latter is not to be taken literally. On the contrary, it refers to ransom.²⁶⁰ refers to money, so does life for life in this case. This portion²⁶¹, etc., verses 22-25. was written because of the clause eye for eye, tooth for tooth.²⁶² Scripture afterwards codifies the law dealing with the eye and tooth of a bondman.²⁶³

footnotes: ²⁵⁷ Concerning the punishment of the one who is responsible for the woman’s death. See Mekhilta ²⁵⁸ That is, if then thou shalt give life for life ²⁵⁹ When dealing with the death of the woman. ²⁶⁰ The culprit pays ransom for his tooth or eye. Thus as eye for eye, tooth for tooth ²⁶¹ And if man strive together ²⁶² The laws dealing with murder were dealt with in verse 14. ²⁶³ Scripture first wanted to lay down the law dealing with one who takes out the eye or tooth of a free person before it went on to deal with the law regarding one who takes out the eye or tooth of a slave.

EYE. Rabbi Saadiah says that we cannot interpret this verse according to its plain meaning. For if a man struck his neighbor’s eye and the eye lost a third of its sight, how is it possible to punish the culprit with an equivalent blow, that is, with a blow which is neither greater nor lesser?²⁶⁴ There is a possibility that the culprit will lose his entire eyesight. Burns, wounds, and stripes present even greater difficulties, for if they were inflicted on a dangerous area it is possible for the culprit to die. The mind cannot accept this.²⁶⁵ be taken literally. Ben Zuta²⁶⁶ said to Saadiah Gaon: Does not Scripture elsewhere state, as he hath maimed a man, so shall it be rendered unto him (Lev. 24:20)? Rabbi Saadiah answered him: We have a bet taking the place of the word al (on).²⁶⁷. However, it is to be interpreted as a bet. For example, Scripture states, lo ragal al lishono (Ps. 15:3). Its literal reading is: He did not slander upon (al) his tongue (leshono). However, it should be interpreted: He did not slander with his tongue (bi-leshono). Its meaning is, so shall a fine be placed upon him.²⁶⁸ (so shall it be rendered unto him). According to Saadiah Gaon, ken yinaten bo should be interpreted as if written, ken yinaten alav (so shall it be placed upon him); i.e., he is to be fined accordingly. For just as a bet takes the place of al, al (alav) takes the place of a bet (bo). However, Ben Zuta responded, as he hath done, so shall it be done to him (Lev. 24:19).²⁶⁹ The Gaon retorted: Observe, Samson said, As they did unto me, so have I done unto them²⁷⁰ (Jud. 15:11). Now Samson did not take their wives and hand them over to others.²⁷¹ (Lev. 24:19) is not to be taken literally. He only repaid them for their dastardly acts. Ben Zuta responded: If the culprit²⁷² is a poor man what shall his punishment be? The Gaon answered: If a blind person shall blind one who can see, what shall be done to him, for it is possible for a poor person to become wealthy and pay. However, it is eternally impossible for the blind to pay.²⁷³ The general rule is that we cannot fully explain any commandment written in the Torah unless we rely on the words of our sages of blessed memory. Just as we received the Torah²⁷⁴ from the sages,²⁷⁵. so did we receive the Oral Law.²⁷⁶ There is no difference between them. Now the interpretation of eye for eye is, it is fitting for the culprit to give his eye in place of his victim’s eye if he does not pay ransom for it.²⁷⁷

footnotes: ²⁶⁴ Than the blow which the culprit inflicted upon his victim. ²⁶⁵ That eye for eye ²⁶⁶ See I.E. on Ex. 2:2 and the notes thereto. ²⁶⁷ There are verses in Scripture in which Scripture employs the word al ²⁶⁸ Lev. 24:40 reads: ken yinaten bo ²⁶⁹ Which implies tit for tat. ²⁷⁰ The Philistines. ²⁷¹ Which is what the Philistines did to him. Hence it is also possible that as he hath done, so shall it be done to him ²⁷² Who injures another person and knocks out his eye. ²⁷³ In other words, the blind man can never regain his eyesight so that the punishment of blinding him can be exacted. ²⁷⁴ The written law. ²⁷⁵ Literally, the fathers. I.E. occasionally refers to the sages as fathers. Cf. the Talmudic tractate Ethics of the Fathers ²⁷⁶ From them. ²⁷⁷ He deserves to have his eye taken out. However, Scripture substituted a monetary payment.

[TOOTH FOR TOOTH, HAND FOR HAND, FOOT FOR FOOT.] Rabbi Saadiah Gaon says: In some cases the payment for taking out a tooth is very small.²⁷⁸ This is the case when a youth is struck, because if his tooth is uprooted another will take its place.²⁷⁹ Scripture mentions the hand because one does work with it.²⁸⁰ Scripture mentions the foot because the loss of a foot is worse than the loss of a hand, as a person cannot walk on one foot.²⁸¹ However, I believe that Scripture mentions these organs because they are the ones that are usually harmed. When a man strikes his neighbor he strikes him in the eye which faces him, or the mouth which faces him and thus breaks his teeth, or in the hand that his neighbor fights with or protects his face with, or his foot when he runs away from him.

footnotes: ²⁷⁸ Hence Scripture mentions this law. ²⁷⁹ Nevertheless, the one who takes it out must pay for it. ²⁸⁰ Thus one might suppose that a greater penalty would be inflicted for harming it. ²⁸¹ Thus one might suppose that a greater penalty, i.e., more than just monetary compensation, would be inflicted for harming it.

BURN. Keviyyah (bum) is to be taken at face value; that is, it refers to a burn caused by fire.

Some say that petza (wound) refers to a bleeding wound and chabburah (stripe) to a blow that does not draw blood. However, the Gaon says that petza refers to breaking a bone and chabburah to a bleeding wound.

AND IF A MAN SMITE. God commanded that a bondman should go free because of his eye or tooth to prevent masters from cruelly striking their servants with terrible blows. Thus if the master destroys his bondman’s eye or even his tooth, then the bondman will pass from his control free of charge and the master will forfeit his property.

AND IF HE SMITE OUT HIS BONDMAN’S TOOTH. Scripture, as I have noted, speaks about the most usual. According to tradition a bondman similarly goes free if any of his major organs²⁸² 6:7; Kiddushin 25a. are destroyed.

footnotes: ²⁸² The major external organs, which consist of the fingers and toes, the ears, the nose, the tip of the penis in a male and the nipples in a female. See Nega’im

AND IF AN OX GORE A MAN. This portion²⁸³ is mentioned because of if the ox gore a bondman or a bondwoman (v. 32).²⁸⁴ The man and the woman referred to in our verse are Israelites. Our verse reads, or a woman. Scripture does not mention a woman in He that smiteth a man, so that he dieth (v. 12) because it is the manner of Scripture to mention the more important, namely, the male. Nevertheless, the same law applies to a female.²⁸⁵ Scripture now mentions a woman²⁸⁶. so that the owner of the ox does not protest and argue that the woman did not follow the normal practice. For there are places where it is not the custom for women to go out of the city to a field where oxen are found. It is because of this that Scripture afterwards states, Whether it have gored a son, or gored a daughter (v. 31). The law concerning one that smiteth a man applies equally whether the victim is an adult or a minor. Scripture mentions son or a daughter so that the owner of the ox does not protest against the parents and say that the parents should have watched their children.

footnotes: ²⁸³ Verses 28-31. ²⁸⁴ Since Scripture up to now dealt with injuries to slaves, it wanted to go on and codify the law dealing with an ox that gores a bondman or a bond-woman. However, before dealing with the latter it wanted to state the law dealing with an ox that gores an Israelite. ²⁸⁵ A person who murders a woman is put to death. ²⁸⁶ That is, our verse reads, or a woman

THE OX SHALL BE SURELY STONED. The meaning of and its flesh shall not be eaten is that its flesh shall not be eaten as the flesh of an animal that dies of itself, which the stranger in the gate or the foreigner may eat.²⁸⁷ may be mistakenly taken to imply that the flesh of other oxen not killed by shechitah (ritual slaughtering) is permitted to be eaten by Israelites. Hence I.E.’s comment. Our sages said that every time Scripture states, it shall not he eaten, it means that it is prohibited to derive any pleasure from it.

footnotes: ²⁸⁷ And its flesh shall not be eaten

BUT THE OWNER OF THE OX SHALL BE QUIT. Of punishment.

BUT IF THE OX WAS WONT TO GORE. There is no doubt that there is no ransom for those who are to be executed by a court of law.²⁸⁸. The transmitters of tradition therefore said that shall also be put to death refers to death at the hands of heaven. Now I believe that here [the term shall be put to death] is similar to eye for eye. Its meaning is, the owner shall be put to death if he does not give a redemption for his life. All of this because Scripture reads, yumat (shall be put to death); not yamut (he will die).²⁸⁹ always means that others shall put him to death. However, yamut always refers to death at the hands of heaven. Since Scripture here uses yumat, the reference cannot be to death at the hands of heaven (Filwarg).

footnotes: ²⁸⁸ See Num. 35:31: Moreover ye shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer, that is guilty of death; but he shall surely be put to death ²⁸⁹ According to I.E., the term yumat

IF THERE BE LAID ON HIM A RANSOM. This does not contradict Moreover ye shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer (Num. 35:31), for Scripture speaks there of a real murderer. However, the person spoken of in our verse did not commit murder. He is only punished because he did not restrain the ox by tying it up. Or, if he tied the ox up, he did not do so properly so that the ox was able to free itself. Or, the ox did not find the door²⁹⁰ closed²⁹¹ and it went out and caused damage.

footnotes: ²⁹⁰ Of the bam or corral. ²⁹¹ In other words, the owner left the bam door open.

LAID UPON HIM. By the decree of the judges.

WHETHER IT HAVE GORED A SON, OR HAVE GORED A DAUGHTER. Both of whom are Israelites, for Scripture afterwards reads, If the ox gore a bondman (v. 32). God decreed that the owner of the ox²⁹² be punished because it is hard for God to see an animal kill a person who is created in the image of God. Because of this, the ox is also stoned.

footnotes: ²⁹² Even though he personally did not directly kill.

AND IF A MAN SHALL OPEN A PIT. Which was dug.²⁹³ Scripture mentions this because God does not want an animal to die in vain, that is, if its death does not serve human needs. Furthermore, he²⁹⁴ injures the owner of the beast.

footnotes: ²⁹³ That is, a pit which was dug and then covered. ²⁹⁴ The one who opens the pit.

THE OWNER OF THE PIT. The one who opened it or the one who dug it. This is the law even though the pit is on public property.²⁹⁵ He made it for his use; therefore he is called the owner of the pit.

footnotes: ²⁹⁵ And does not belong to the one who opened or dug it.

HE SHALL GIVE MONEY. He shall pay what the fallen animal was worth when alive after deducting the value of the carcass.

AND IF ONE MAN’S OX HURT ANOTHER’S. Ben Zuta says that re’ehu (another’s)²⁹⁶ is an adjective describing the ox.²⁹⁷), i.e., the ox , who is his neighbor. However, Ben Zuta did not notice that the word shor (ox) is in the construct with ish (man’s).²⁹⁸ This is also the case with the word shor (ox) and re’ehu (another’s).²⁹⁹ is parallel to shor ish, which literally means a man’s ox. Hence shor re’ehu must similarly mean a neighbor’s ox. However, an ox has no neighbor except for Ben Zuta.³⁰⁰ (neighbor) only refers to a fellow human being. The owner of a tame ox pays half of the damage.

footnotes: ²⁹⁶ Literally, his neighbor. ²⁹⁷ According to Ben Zuta (a Karaite exegete) our verse should be rendered: And if a man’s ox hurt an ox his neighbor (re’ehu ²⁹⁸ Its literal meaning is, a man’s ox. ²⁹⁹ I.E.’s point is that shor re’ehu ³⁰⁰ For the term re’a

OR IF IT BE KNOWN. On the other hand, if the ox was a gorer he shall pay the entire damage. Scripture mentions the laws dealing with the ox up to If a man steal an ox (v. 37).³⁰¹ All of this³⁰² because of the bondman who is sold³⁰³ because of his theft. This is the way our Torah portion opened, namely, If thou buy a Hebrew servant (v. 2).³⁰⁴

footnotes: ³⁰¹ That is, starting with verse 28 and ending with verse 37. ³⁰² Scripture found it necessary to codify here the laws contained in verses 28-37. ³⁰³ By the law courts. ³⁰⁴ The slave spoken of in verse 2 is a slave sold by the law courts for theft.

IF A MAN STEAL. Rabbi Joshua says that God was stricter with an ox than with a sheep because the thief cannot hide an ox as he can a sheep.³⁰⁵ One cannot steal it unless one is experienced in the art of theft.³⁰⁶ However, Saadiah Gaon says that the theft of an ox is more severely punished because the owner of the ox suffers more than that of a sheep because the ox is used for plowing.

footnotes: ³⁰⁵ Since one has to be more of a professional thief to steal the ox, the fine is heavier. ³⁰⁶ Hence the thief is punished more severely.