Everyone endowed with intelligence should know that it is not my purpose to explain halachic rulings as part of my commentary, something I have mentioned already in my commentary at the beginning of Parshat Vayeshev. I explained there that many such rulings are hinted at by variant spellings in the text, missing words or extraneous words. Many of these have been covered in the commentary on the Torah by my grandfather Rashi of blessed memory. I have set myself the task of only explaining the plain meaning of the text as it is before us. When I explain legislation I do so within the context of its contribution to civilised behaviour, דרך ארץ. My explanations notwithstanding, when they conflict with the halachic rulings, the latter are supreme.

כי תקנה עבד עברי, the Torah speaks about a Jewish thief who did not have enough money to make restitution (compare Exodus 22,2, “if he is unable to make restitution he will be sold in settlement of what he stole.”) שש שנים יעבוד, this applies to the thief who was sold by the court. The case of someone who had to sell himself (his labour) is discussed by the Torah in Leviticus 25,39 under the heading of כי ימוך אחיך ומכר לך, “when your brother has fallen on economically hard times so that he had to sell himself to cover his debts, etc.” Concerning that situation the Torah adds that he goes free in the Jubilee year (verse 40 there) In our situation, the term he is sold for is 6 years. Some of our sages (Kidushin 14) hold that both situations are halachically similar based on a gezeyrah shavah, identical wording being used by the Torah in both examples, i.e. the word in question being the unnecessary word יעבוד in Leviticus 25,40.

ובשביעית, the seventh year after he was sold, not the seventh year of the Shmittah cycle.

יצא לחפשי, the word lachofshi, a participle of a verb, means “without having to pay compensation;” had the word described the state of liberty of the “servant” now released, the word should have been vocalised lechofshi with the semi vowel sheva under the letter ל.

אם בגפו יבא בגפו יצא. The Torah first mentions the subject in general terms, then proceeding to details. For instance, if the servant was unmarried at the time the court sold him, or even if his master has given him a wife while he was in his employ, he leaves without his wife seeing that the woman given to him as a wife remains in the house of the master, her employer. Having said this, the Torah continues to explain how this works אם בעל אשה הוא, if he was already married, his wife (who will also be a charge on his master) will leave with him when he is released from this involuntary contract after 6 years. However, if his master had provided him with a wife during the period of his forced employ, the wife in question remains with her master. The “wife” the master had assigned to his Jewish servant was a gentile servant maid whose body belongs to her master.

אל האלוהים, before a judge or judges

אל הדלת או אל המזוזה, in public view, as a sign of servitude. The door and doorpost described are made of wood even if the house in question is of stone so that the procedure of piercing the ear against such a background poses no problem.

לעולם. According to the plain meaning of the text, “for the rest of his life.” This is also the meaning of the word לעולם in Samuel I 1,22 when Chanah announced her intention of handing over her son Samuel to the High Priest Eli.

לא תצא כצאת העבדים, after the expiry of six years. Her employer is supposed to marry her, as will be explained later.

אם רעה בעיני אדוניה, and as a result he does not want to keep the implied agreement to marry her, she will not leave his employ in the manner her male counterparts would leave, but, seeing that he committed a breach of trust by not finalising the deal and marrying her (violating what the prophet Maleachi 2,14 called “the Lord is a witness between you and the wife of your youth with whom you have broken faith, although she is your partner and covenanted spouse,”) והפדה, the master has to assist her by releasing her prematurely, by allowing her to compensate the employer for unexpired years of service.

IN HIS BREAKING FAITH WITH HER - Since he is breaking faith with her in that he does not designate her, as it is written in Malachi (2:14) regarding the wife of one's youth, "you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner and covenanted spouse."

HE SHALL LET HER BE REDEEMED. He reduces her redemption price and she goes out through redemption, according to the number of remaining years.

שארה, her provisions (food) as in Micah 3,3ואשר אכלו שאר עמי, “the ones who devoured the flesh of my people.”

כסותה, her clothing

ועונתה, her accommodation, housing, the word is a derivative of מעון, a residence. The letter מ in the word מעון is similar to the letter מ in the word מקום, “place, site,” or in the word מלון, “inn.” It is not an integral part of the noun. In other words, the rejected bride must be provided food, living quarters and adequate clothing. [all of the above would have been hers automatically if her master had honoured his original undertaking. Ed.]

ואם שלש אלה, that he neither wants to marry her himself, nor have her marry his son, nor allow her to buy herself out of her contract,

ויצאה חנם אין כסף, the court will declare her free from her contract without her owing the master-employer any compensation for unexpired years of service. Our sages, (Kidushin 4) understood the verse halachically as meaning that she is entitled to leave that employ upon the signs of puberty without reference to the Jubilee year or the expiry of the six years for which her father had contracted her to the employer.

ואשר לא צדה, the word צדה is used here in the same sense as in Numbers 35,20 בצדיה, or in Samuel I 24,12 ואתה צודה את נפשי, “yet you are bent on taking my life.” The word describes lying in ambush in order to kill one’s victim, not necessarily running after him.

אנה לידו, the Torah describes someone who had already been guilty of death but who could not be legally executed, now being killed inadvertently by someone else whom he did not even know. This is what we call מיתה בידי שמים, “death at the instigation of heaven.”

ושמתי לך מקום, once you will have cities wherein to dwell. The reason the Torah spoke about this already at this time is because it had already legislated the prohibition of murder in the Ten Commandments as well as the need to honour one’s parents. This is why also penalties for violation of these commandments have to be legislated in this portion. The penalty for kidnapping is also spelled out here, seeing the Torah had prohibited stealing as part of the Ten Commandments. Our sages said that the “do not steal” in the Ten Commandments refers to kidnapping and is punishable by legal execution (Sanhedrin 86). We note that at this juncture the Torah discusses a number of crimes or sins punishable by death.

ומכה אביו, our sages say that the penalty prescribed applies only if an injury results from hitting one’s parents (Sanhedrin 84).

או באגרוף, according to the plain meaning, as Onkelos translates, i.e. with a stone or brick. This is also the opinion of Torat Kohanim in its commentary on Leviticus 14,40. The departure from understanding the word אגרוף as “fist,” is justified with the question: “is someone to be executed for hitting merely with a fist, not a lethal tool?” Isaiah 58,4 להכות באגרוף רשע, “to strike wickedness with a fist” would hardly be a deterrent. It is therefore understood to refer to a large stone. Moreover, when the Torah reports that the victim did not die, surely one does not normally die by being struck with a fist; it stands to reason that the Torah refers to a lethal weapon which failed to kill, i.e. a brick or something similar held in one’s fist causing serious injury.

'אם יקום והתהלך וגו, if he dies, even after a lengthy interval, the attacker will be executed. If the victim was one’s servant the owner is guilty of the death penalty only if the victim died immediately as the result of the blow, not if he survived for a day or two.

שבתו, loss of income from the victim’s normal occupation by being bedridden.

בשבט, an example of an instrument used to administer physical punishment to one’s slave in order to discipline him. If the slave had been struck with a sword, for instance, even if he had not died within the first twenty four hours, the master would be guilty of manslaughter as the tool used to inflict the injury points at criminal rather than disciplinary intention. The subject of our verse is a gentile slave. A Jewish servant, by contrast, not being the personal property of his master, is treated legally in all respects as if he were a hired hand, with the exception of his master (employer’s ) right to give him a gentile slave as his wife.

כי כספו הוא, and it is in order to administer a bodily blow in order to discipline him.

ולא יהיה אסון, and no harm will befall her.

בפלילים, in accordance with the assessment by the judges trying the case.

ונתתה נפש תחת נפש. There will not be additional financial damages payable.

עין תחת עין, the monetary value of the eye destroyed. Our sages (Baba Kamma 84) have explained why the Torah needed to write so many examples for what appears to be the same legislation. Our verse discusses loss of an entire limb or organ.

כויה תחת כויה; even though the examples mentioned here do not involve loss of an entire organ or limb, the principles applying to compensating the victim are based on the same considerations

פצע, an injury caused by a lethal weapon such as a sword.

וחבורה, a minor injury, such as damage to one of his fingernails.

תחת עינו, if the victim was a gentile slave.

סקול יסקל השור, according to the plain meaning the offending ox will be stoned to death.

ולא יאכל את בשרו; not only may its meat not be eaten by a Jew, but not even by a gentile or a dog; it is completely forbidden to be enjoyed by anyone. This is in spite of the fact that normally, when the animal of a Jew has died of natural causes or has been found ritually unfit for consumption, the Torah permitted the meat of the carcass to be either sold to a gentile or given to him as a gift or to be fed to one’s dogs (Deuteronomy 14,21 and Exodus 22,30), such animals are permitted even after they had died through stoning. [seeing that had not killed a human being. Ed.] Our sages derive from this verse that after judgment had been handed down that the animal in question is to be stoned to death, slaughtering it ritually will not make it fit for consumption or other beneficial use to the owner. (Baba Kamma 61).

ובעל השור נקי, as long as the offending animal had not been classified as a dangerous animal, putting an additional onus to guard it properly on its owner.

וגם בעליו יומת, by heavenly forces as opposed to by human tribunal. If the owner did make restitution of monetary kind he is not guilty vis a vis heaven either.

אם עבד, a gentile slave יגח השור, the one whose owner had been warned concerning the danger this animal represented (מועד). If the ox did not have any strikes against it but was a תם, its owner is not liable for damages.

וכי יפתח איש בור, one which was already deep enough to cause fatal harm to animals when not covered; when the owner deepened it further, his sin being that he did not cover it to render it harmless. כי יכרה איש בור, or even if the man in question only digs a hole and fails to cover it at the end of the day, seeing he did not complete it until the following day, and he considered it too much bother to put a temporary cover on it pending his completing his excavation, he is held responsible for any damage thus caused.

בעל הבור, either the one opening a pit which had been covered, or the one having excavated a pit and not completed it is considered by the Torah as בעל, its owner, in a negative sense, i.e. responsible as if he were the owner for any damage he caused.

והמת יהיה לו, but the carcass of the animal for which he pays compensation is his, seeing he had fully compensated its owner. However, our sages interpret the verse to mean that the carcass of the animal remains the property of its owner. (Baba Kamma 10)

וחצו את כספו, our sages (Baba Kamma 34) understand the entire verse as applying only to situations in which the owner of the offending animal is only liable for partial compensation, the offending animal having had a track record of being tame. The entire loss is to be borne in equal measure by both owner of the surviving animal and owner of the carcass.

חמשה בקר, our sages (Baba Kamma 79) rule that when the stolen ox had been doing work for the owner prior to its being stolen, compensation is set at 5 times the value of the labour the owner has now been deprived of.