Exodus: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13a 13b 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30a 30b 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38a 38b 39 40
SEDRA 6, MISHPATIM
Exodus 21:1 – 24:18
Chapter 21
The whole of this next section presents a problem. The state of the narrative is such that so detailed an elaboration of the laws does not make any chronological sense. Mosheh and the people have just received ten very basic commandments in the thunder of Mount Sinai. Mosheh has not yet "ascended" the mountain. Nothing is written down - and how would it be, unless in Mitsri (Egyptian) hieroglyphs laboriously chiselled onto tablets of stone? Neither Yehudit (Hebrew) as a language, nor alphabetic writing, have been invented yet.
Yet here we have several chapters full of law. What is more, some of it - for example the opening verses which refer to the possession of Yisra-Eli slaves - seem not to be Yisra-Eli laws at all, while those that relate to the ownership of fields and vineyards (eg 22:4) or to the rulers of the state (22:27) presuppose a people settled in a settled land, whereas these are the Beney Yisra-El in their third month of wilderness wandering after four centuries of "slavery". In the same way 23:10 refers to the laws of jubilee, itself a variation on the Sabbath laws, dealing with the seventh year of harvest.
To understand any text, literary and/or historical, we always have to ask four basic questions: a) Who wrote it?; b) When?; c) For what audience?; d) With what agenda? So, here, we have the Beney Yisra-El just left a lengthy period of what might be called "exile" in Mitsrayim, starting to make their way towards life in what they hope will be their new land. And in Nehemiah 8 we read of the Beney Yisra-El, who have just left a lengthy period of what was definitely "exile" in Babylon, arrived home but not yet in a position to start living meaningfully in their own land. Until Nechem-Yah arrives and completes the building of the walls of Yeru-Shala'im, with support from the Persian king, so that none of the hostile neighbours will risk attacking. Until Ezra has completed the writing of the Torah, and, in verse 1 ff:
"All the people gathered together as one man in the open plaza opposite the Water Gate. And they called on Ezra the Scribe to bring the Scroll of the Law of Mosheh, which YHVH had instructed Yisra-El. And Ezra the priest brought out the Torah before the assembled populace, both men and women, and all who could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month...
And as to the historicity of the Mosheh tale - why does it matter? What Ezra needed was divine and Mosaic validation, retroactively, and History is in the hands of the reporter. In all, what we have here is a late - probably post-exilic; Ezra's text further edited later on - gloss of the laws, attempting to cram in as many as possible in a style that tries to echo the archaic form of the Ten Commandments. In much the same way, one might imagine a modern Communist dictator forging documents that were then purported to be from the hand of Karl Marx, or a believer in the power of prediction adding verses to the "Centuries" of Nostradamus.
✡
Exodus Chapter 21
Laws relating to slaves
21:1 VE ELEH HA MISHPATIM ASHER TASIM LIPHNEYHEM
וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים לִפְנֵיהֶם
KJ (King James translation): Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.
BN (BibleNet translation): Now these are the statutes which you shall set before them.
MISHPATIM: The laws in general are MITZVOT. For an explanation of the difference between the three types of MITZVAH - Chokim, Edot and Mishpatim - click on the link.
The voice throughout these verses is the god's, presumably speaking "to" Mosheh rather than "through" him. It is nonetheless unusual for there to be no attribution.
21:2 KI TIKNEH EVED IVRI SHESH SHANIM YA'AVOD U VA SHEVI'IT YETSE LA CHAPHSHI HINAM
כִּי תִקְנֶה עֶבֶד עִבְרִי שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד וּבַשְּׁבִעִת יֵצֵא לַחָפְשִׁי חִנָּם
KJ: If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
BN: If you buy an Ivri servant, he shall serve for six years, and in the seventh he shall be set free at no cost.
IVRI: Probably a variant of the term Habiru. Was this then Ach-Mousa re-establishing the pre-Hyksos Egyptian law-code, after his return from driving them out? It is not likely that, after four hundred years of "slavery", Mosheh or his god would be in favour of Beney Yisra-El taking other Beney Yisra-El as slaves, when the whole point of the Jewish version is "we were slaves in Egypt, but free now". Nor is it likely that the term "Ivri" would be used.
The first of the Jubilee laws, for the full text of which see Leviticus 25.
CHAPHSHI: "free" in both senses, he shall have his freedom, but also you shall not get any money from it. If these laws were given in the desert, we have to wonder who the non-Yisra-Eli servants might have been, and what ex-slave could afford to hire a nanny anyway? What is not included in this law is any suggestion of giving the freed slave anything at all, whether financial compensation, or even a reference for a new position; it seems unlikely, in the context of the general humanity of these laws, that a slave would simply be shown the tent-flap and pointed down the road.
And why this law, of all laws, as virtually the first to be given after the universal ten (see Exodus 20:19 ff)? Because these are the first laws of their own that the Beney Yisra-El have, after 400 years of... precisely... or actually very imprecisely because we still don't really know what it involved, but whether indenture or serfdom or vassaldom or full slavery, in some form, avadut. What other subject should a recently liberated people start with, if not this? Just - not like this. "Thou shalt never again enslave any people, not in this generation, nor in the generations to come, for ever and ever, thus says YHVH who brought you out of Mitsrayim, out of the House of Bondage" - now that I can imagine from Mosheh at this moment; and the people cheering when they hear it.
21:3 IM BE GAPHO YAVO BE GAPHO YETSE IM BA'AL ISHAH HU VE YATS'AH ISHTO IMO
אִם בְּגַפּוֹ יָבֹא בְּגַפּוֹ יֵצֵא אִם בַּעַל אִשָּׁה הוּא וְיָצְאָה אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ
KJ: If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
BN: If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he is married, then his wife shall go out with him.
This unusually liberal law is very relevant to a number of the stories told elsewhere, e.g. Ya'akov's seven year contracts with Lavan (Genesis 29-31). Note that the law only applies to an Ivri slave.
There are indentured labourers working in parts of the world today, including western, First World countries, whose employment rights do not extend even this far.
21:4 IM ADONAV YITEN LO ISHAH VE YALDAH LO VANIM O VANOT HA ISHAH VIYLADEYHA TIHEYEH LA ADONEYHA VE HU YETSE VE GAPHO
אִם אֲדֹנָיו יִתֶּן לוֹ אִשָּׁה וְיָלְדָה לוֹ בָנִים אוֹ בָנוֹת הָאִשָּׁה וִילָדֶיהָ תִּהְיֶה לַאדֹנֶיהָ וְהוּא יֵצֵא בְגַפּוֹ
KJ: If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
BN: If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
If this law had been in place at the time of Ya'akov, then not only Bilhah and Zilpah and their sons should have remained behind with Lavan and not become Beney Yisra-El, but Le'ah's and Rachel's too; see my notes to Genesis 31:14 and 15, which confirm that it was not in place. This law allows the Kohanim to "grandfather" those tribes into the confederacy that were not originally Beney Yisra-El - the Shomronim (Samaritans) for example, who were brought to Kena'an at the same time that the Beney Yisra-El were removed to Babylon. The only argument against this is that Ya'akov was not a slave but a hired labourer; yet the Yehudit uses the same root in each instance: "VE YA'AVOD YA'AKOV... וַיַּעֲבֹד יַעֲקֹב" (see for example Genesis 29:20). Now you see why I have kept on questioning and re-questioning whether or not AVADUT in Mitsrayim was slavery!
21:5 VE IM AMOR YOMAR HA EVED AHAVTI ET ADONI ET ISHTI VE ET BANAI LO ETSE CHAPHSHI
וְאִם אָמֹר יֹאמַר הָעֶבֶד אָהַבְתִּי אֶת אֲדֹנִי אֶת אִשְׁתִּי וְאֶת בָּנָי לֹא אֵצֵא חָפְשִׁי
KJ: And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
BN: But if the servant shall say clearly: I love my master, my wife, and my children; I do not wish to be set free...
How does this relate, for example, to Av-Raham's relationship with Hagar - albeit that the wife was given by the Lady not the Lord? Not only did Hagar take Yishma-El with her when she left, but the whole point of Sarah wanting her gone was that she now had Yitschak, her own son, and wanted to be sure that he got the inheritance of the sheikhdom, rather than Yishma-El.
From this we have to try to understand a different notion of "slavery" from our modern one. The term does not mean what we think. Look at the Latin and Persian and Greek writings and it becomes clear. This being the case, we must re-think our understanding of slavery in Mitsrayim as well.
21:6 VE HIGIYSHU ADONAV EL HA ELOHIM VE HIGIYSHU EL HA DELET O EL HA MEZUZAH VE RATSA ADONAV ET AZNO BA MARTSE'AH VA AVADO LE OLAM
וְהִגִּישׁוֹ אֲדֹנָיו אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים וְהִגִּישׁוֹ אֶל הַדֶּלֶת אוֹ אֶל הַמְּזוּזָה וְרָצַע אֲדֹנָיו אֶת אָזְנוֹ בַּמַּרְצֵעַ וַעֲבָדוֹ לְעֹלָם
KJ: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
BN: Then his master shall bring him to Ha Elohim, and take him to the door, or to the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.
HA DELET: I facetiously said "tent-flap" at verse 2, and this is why; laws are given in the context of the day, and that context may be many things: a constitutionally elected Parliament, voted in after the dissolution of the monarchy or the end of the civil war that overthrew the military dictatorship, whill spend months drawing up a set of laws that strategically plan the future of the country, thinking ahead to what life should be like, once things calm down and the economy can be restored - which frankly is what a law like the one in this verse sounds like. Escaped slaves convening in the desert to determine "what now?", and who have no idea where they will be living next week, let alone next month, year, decade or century, put in place laws for "this is what we need to do to survive", and that should mean laws about obtaining food and water, and sharing it so everybody gets some, and about leadership structures for the clans, and arrangements for tent-housing, and yes, latrines, and what about the women, in their menstrual cycles, do we have enough trained midwives, and hygiene arrangements for the births, and where are we going to bury the dead? Ach-Mousa could have written these laws; Mosheh celebrating covenant renewal could have had his bard-priests recite these laws from memory; but the Habiru fleeing slavery could never, would never, have written them, here, now, at this time, in this way.
And what an extraordinary custom this is anyway: to purchase a man exactly as you would a piece of cattle, or a bride for your master's son in Genesis 24:22, tagging it by the ear. The understanding is that the freeman resumes his serfhood by choice; but of course the alternative is to give up your wife and kids and leave (I would like to say that this is not much of a choice really, for most men, but alas, from personal experience of the gender, I rather suspect that many if not most of them would leave).
And what an extraordinary custom this is anyway: to purchase a man exactly as you would a piece of cattle, or a bride for your master's son in Genesis 24:22, tagging it by the ear. The understanding is that the freeman resumes his serfhood by choice; but of course the alternative is to give up your wife and kids and leave (I would like to say that this is not much of a choice really, for most men, but alas, from personal experience of the gender, I rather suspect that many if not most of them would leave).
HA ELOHIM: Hertz comments that Ha Elohim means "the judges", as in the King James translation, which is an evasion; somehow the Redactor has failed in his proof-reading and allowed this to slip through. HA ELOHIM means "the gods". But we can imagine, from our knowledge of the Greeks for example, that to come before the gods actually sounds more potent than reducing it to the mere "judges". The point is, you cannot just tag his ear, you have to have Rabbinic, or in those days Kohanic approval.
MEZUZAH: the actual doorpost, not the latter-day metal box containing the Shema. Once again, my facetious "tent-flap" applies.
Your ear-rings, ladies, like your finger-rings (and your wrist bracelets, your ankle bracelets...) are the left-overs of your chattledom, as this verse witnesses. At what point does feminism separate the loveliness of costume jewelery from the history of patriarchalism, and stop wearing them?
21:7 VE CHI YIMKOR ISH ET BITO LE AMAH LO TETSE KE TSE'T HA AVADIM
וְכִי יִמְכֹּר אִישׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ לְאָמָה לֹא תֵצֵא כְּצֵאת הָעֲבָדִים
KJ: And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
BN: But if a man sells his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not be let go in the manner of men-servants.
One rule for the women, another for the women; t'was ever thus.
21:8 IM RA'AH BE EYNEY ADONEYHA ASHER LO YE'ADAH VE HEPHDAH LE AM NACHRI LO YIMSHOL LE MACHRAH BE VIGDO VAH
אִם רָעָה בְּעֵינֵי אֲדֹנֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר לא (לוֹ) יְעָדָהּ וְהֶפְדָּהּ לְעַם נָכְרִי לֹא יִמְשֹׁל לְמָכְרָהּ בְּבִגְדוֹ בָהּ
KJ: If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
BN: If she appears to be wicked in her master's eyes, when the time comes to release her, then he may sell her for a price; but he may not sell her outside the tribe, because then she may be treated badly.
Though on this occasion it may actually be that the different law for the women is to their advantage.
Because this is much more complex than the King James translation offers, and much depends on whether it includes the word LO (לא) or the word LO (לוֹ).
But first RA'AH BE EYNEY ADONEYHA, which does not mean "if she does not please her master", in the sexual sense, nor really "if she appears wicked in her master's eyes", though this is closer; either way it is a negative rather than a lack of positive, though we need more detail of how this might come to be, and it is not given. Probably she just hasn't done the jobs expected of her very well.
The Masoretes question LO (לא) and LO (לוֹ), but the second of these is masculine, and if they are correct in making the change, then it should be LAH (לה).
LO YE'ADAH (לא יְעָדָהּ), might come from the root YA'AD, which is to do with meeting somebody, or something happening, at an appointed time; lots of examples; cf Jeremiah 47:7, 2 Samuel 20:5, Micah 6:9, and repeatedly in Exodus: 25:22, 30:6 - but in none of these does it have to do with betrothal or marriage, or even sex with a non-disclosure clause in the slave-contract. The word MO'ED (plural MO'ADIM) derives from this root, as in Genesis 1:14 et al, as does the OHEL MO'ED, the "Tent of Meeting", as in Exodus 29:42 et al, and the EDUT itself, the "congregation" (Exodus 30:6 has both EDUT and IVA'ED).
Because this is much more complex than the King James translation offers, and much depends on whether it includes the word LO (לא) or the word LO (לוֹ).
But first RA'AH BE EYNEY ADONEYHA, which does not mean "if she does not please her master", in the sexual sense, nor really "if she appears wicked in her master's eyes", though this is closer; either way it is a negative rather than a lack of positive, though we need more detail of how this might come to be, and it is not given. Probably she just hasn't done the jobs expected of her very well.
The Masoretes question LO (לא) and LO (לוֹ), but the second of these is masculine, and if they are correct in making the change, then it should be LAH (לה).
LO YE'ADAH (לא יְעָדָהּ), might come from the root YA'AD, which is to do with meeting somebody, or something happening, at an appointed time; lots of examples; cf Jeremiah 47:7, 2 Samuel 20:5, Micah 6:9, and repeatedly in Exodus: 25:22, 30:6 - but in none of these does it have to do with betrothal or marriage, or even sex with a non-disclosure clause in the slave-contract. The word MO'ED (plural MO'ADIM) derives from this root, as in Genesis 1:14 et al, as does the OHEL MO'ED, the "Tent of Meeting", as in Exodus 29:42 et al, and the EDUT itself, the "congregation" (Exodus 30:6 has both EDUT and IVA'ED).
LO YA'DAH, on the other hand (this requires assuming a spelling error - ידעה) would mean "he had not known her", inferring that she did indeed not please him, or not sufficiently that he subjected her to concubinage as an aspect of her slavery (as was presumably his right under the Mosaic equivalent of droit du seigneur). But if he has not "known" her, and she is therefore still a virgin, her marriage options are still open, and so the question of "redeeming" her - for which she the tale of Yehudah and Tamar in Genesis 38, but more especially the story of Rut and Bo'az in Ruth 3 and 4- does not apply. So it cannot be this.
Which then brings us to HEPHDAH, and yes it does mean "redeem", from the root PADAH, but it is not the same as the word GO'EL, which is the very precise word used in the story of Rut and Bo'az (see Ruth 4:3 for example). We have actually discussed this previously, at Exodus 8:19, when the word PEDUT occurred - see my notes there. And the inference of these notes has nothing to do with either sex or marriage either.
So none of this has to do with sex or marriage, and yet Jewish scholarly tradition has always insisted that it is precisely about this, that he has promised marriage, even formally betrothed himself, and that selling her now would be "deceitful". The age of the girl thus becomes significant, and Rashi is particularly interesting on the phrase which is translated here, following traditional Christian versions, as "who has espoused her to himself". Rashi prefers to understand it as:
"who did not designate her": For he should have designated her and married her, and the money paid for her purchase is the money of her betrothal. Here Scripture hints that it is a mitzvah [for the master] to perform יִעוּד, designation for marriage, [with the maidservant] and it hints that she would not require any other betrothal. [I.e., neither money nor articles of value would have to be given to the girl’s father in order to marry her. The money the father originally received for selling his daughter now would become the money of betrothal from her master.]-[From Kid. 19b]
HEPHDAH is also difficult because no detail is given; normally one is redeemed for money, but how much? And is it paid to the girl as a "dowry" or a "redundancy" for when she leaves, assuming that she cannot go back to her family; or is it paid to the father, so that he will take her back; or is it paid to the priests, in the manner of PIDYON HA BEN? If it is a sale-price to the previous owner, then, again, the term "redeem" does not apply. See also verse 30, where the PIDYON becomes a fine.
AMAH means maid-servant; yet what is her role?
But what if LO YE'ADAH was YAD'AH LAH, meaning that he has indeed "known her", as in carnally? She would then become his legal concubine, and he would own any children fathered on her (exactly as with Hagar, Bilhah and Zilpah). But if the girl turns out to be wicked (which does not mean sexually unfaithful, because the law would require the death penalty for that), he can sell her, but only to another member of the Beney Yisra-El. Why?
But what if LO YE'ADAH was YAD'AH LAH, meaning that he has indeed "known her", as in carnally? She would then become his legal concubine, and he would own any children fathered on her (exactly as with Hagar, Bilhah and Zilpah). But if the girl turns out to be wicked (which does not mean sexually unfaithful, because the law would require the death penalty for that), he can sell her, but only to another member of the Beney Yisra-El. Why?
Which brings us to the last part: LE MACHRAH BE VIGDO VAH is translated as "he has dealt deceitfully with her". In what way deceitful? Did she expect to become his concubine when she accepted slavery? Or more, was marriage stated or implied in the original contract of sale? Or was her father using it as a way to buy his fortune? VIGDO comes from the root BEGED, meaning "clothes". The one thing that is clear is that she is a member of the Banot Yisra-El and has the right, indeed must, remain within the tribe. Good to know that women had some rights in proto-Judaism.
Rashi's response to this is to say that:
"he shall enable her to be redeemed": [This means] he [the master] should give her the opportunity to be redeemed and go free, for he too assists in her redemption. Now what is this opportunity that he gives her? That he deducts from her redemption, according to the number of years that she worked for him, as if she had been hired by him [and was not a slave]. How so? Let us say that he bought her for a maneh [one hundred zuz], and she worked for him for two years. We say to him, “You knew that she would ultimately leave at the end of six years. This means that you bought each year’s work for one-sixth of a maneh, and she has worked for you for two years, which equals one-third of a maneh. Accept two-thirds of a maneh [from her, to pay for the remaining four years] and let her leave you.” -[from Kid. 14b]
I think Rashi is wrong in his previous comment, but absolutely right with this one. I also strongly suspect that Rashi would have some very harsh things to say about minimum wage contracts and zero-hours contracts, and male-female inequality of pay as well, based on the above.
21:9 VE IM LIVNO YIYADENA KE MISHPAT HA BANOT YA'ASEH LAH
וְאִם לִבְנוֹ יִיעָדֶנָּה כְּמִשְׁפַּט הַבָּנוֹת יַעֲשֶׂה לָּהּ
KJ: And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
BN: And if he has appointed her for his son, he shall treat her in exactly the same way that the law requires him to treat his own daughters.
YIYADENA: The same problem here as in the last verse - assumptions based on misunderstandings of keywords, which misunderstandings then lead on to further misunderstandings. As explained above, the root YA'AD is never used to mean "betroth", except (incorrectly) in this chapter. He has "appointed" her for his son means that the Jubilee has come, and she is free to leave, or to choose to remain; but he no longer wants her in his slave-crew, and has "appointed" her to his son's; because she is now in her second Jubilee period, her rights within the clan increase - which also helps us understand how come Bilhah and Zilpah were regarded as Ya'akov's and not Lavan's, when he departed at his own Jubilee time.
With one probable exception though, because she probably doesn't have the inheritance rights that daughters will acquire, then lose on appeal, then re-acquire, when the daughters of Tselaphchad bring their case later on.
And with one additional problem - for the mis-reading of YA'AD anyway. If he has slept with her, or become betrothed and then changed his mind, or even if he has gone so far as to marry her and then decides to divorce her - he cannot give her to his son, or not in Mosaic Law anyway, if what we are reading is, as the orthodox insist, Mosaic Law. See Leviticus 18:6 ff, which are very precise and explicit in this matter.
21:10 IM ACHERET YIKACH LO SHE'ERAH KESUTAH VE ONATAH LO YIGRA
אִם אַחֶרֶת יִקַּח לוֹ שְׁאֵרָהּ כְּסוּתָהּ וְעֹנָתָהּ לֹא יִגְרָע
KJ: If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
BN: If he takes for himself another, he shall not in anyway reduce her board and lodging, or her rights of employment.
But let us, for the purpose of the debate, allow YA'AD to mean "betrothed". Again, her rights are ensured, and it is once again comforting to learn that the Beney Yisra-El bestowed conjugal rights on women even at this early stage in their history, recognising that libido is not an exclusively male privilege; but also that sex in the female is a biological instinct as well as a sensual hobby. One would like to think that these laws are Mosaic, because it would be pleasing to think that Mosheh, taking a people out of intolerable living and working conditions, should see it as a priority to make laws that ensured his own people did not treat others as they were treated. From this fancy wse may draw conclusions as to what life was really like in Mitsrayim.
But alas, falsely, because this is based on acceptance of the misunderstanding. And we can demonstrate again that it does not mean that:
IM ACHERET: There is no mention of a wife here; the text discusses female slaves who are free to leave at the Jubilee, and may choose to remain, or choose to go. If she chooses to go, this verse tells us, she goes with all her rights in tact; the owner has abrogated all of them and may not claim any back, not even the clothing or the jewellery that he may have given her. In modern parlance, you gave the secretary a laptop to use at home, for any extra work you might need her to do at the weekend, and feel free to use it for your personal emails and Netflix or whatever; when you release her at the end of her contract, regardless that you want that laptop for her replacement, she keeps the laptop.
SHE'ERAH means "leaven", and is being used here for her general feeding; KESUTAH pillows and bed-linen rather than clothes - so "board and lodging", at least until the time of her departure.
ONATAH is the problem word. And it has nothing to do with "conjugal duties", now or in the future. The root, in Gesenius' very precise translation of Ecclesiastes 1:13 and 3:10, means "to bestow labour upon anything" or "to exercise oneself in anything", which is not sex, but "intellectual engagement" in the first Ecclesiastes reference, the hard work of commerce in the second; and elsewhere "tilling the ground" - MA'ANAH and MA'ANIT are both used for ploughed furrows (Psalm 129:3, 1 Samuel 14:14). So she has to carry on doing her jobs until the day of the Jubilee; and the owner has no say in where she goes when she leaves, unless he decides to sell her, in which case he is obligated to ensure she is able to stay within the tribe.
21:11 VE IM SHELASH ELEH LO YA'ASEH LAH VE YATS'AH HINAM EYN KASEPH
KJ: And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
BN: And if he does not do these three things, then she shall be let go for nothing, without money.
EYN KESEPH; meaning that he gets no money for her, but she is simply set free; it does not mean that she gets no money from him when he sets her free, although this was likely to be the case as well anyway. But the key is that he has responsibilities, and not simply privileges and benefits, as her "employer" - yet another important lesson for our contemporary state of capitalism.
samech break, indicating here a change of subject matter rather than a break in the reading (the same does not apply to the next few samech breaks, which are purely paragraph or line-indicators).
21:12 MAKEH ISH VA MET MOT YUMAT
KJ: He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
BN: He who strikes a man, so that he dies, shall surely be put to death.
At the time of the giving of the Ten Commandments, in Exodus 20:12, I noted that the universalism "Thou Shalt Not Kill" was problematic, and explained some of the different words used for different forms of killing. Clearly the Redactor (or Mosheh, or YHVH, as you prefer) also recognised the problem, and saw the need to clarify. So the next several verses will provide some of that clarification.
The Death Penalty for Murder - but what wonderful phrasing: "flourish a knife, forfeit your life" is as near as I can get to all those alliteratives in English. We have to wonder if the Beney Yisra-El knew about the skeleton in Mosheh's own cupboard (Exodus 2:12); and why he was not now put to death for having done precisely this a few years back.
21:13 VA ASHER LO TSADAH VE HA ELOHIM INAH LE YADO VE SAMTI LECHA MAKOM ASHER YANUS SHAMAH
KJ: And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.
BN: However, if the man did not lie in wait, but Ha Elohim caused the matter to come to hand, then I have appointed for you a place to which he may flee.
The language of Fate, Destiny, Accident and what, endorsed by this verse, insurance companies call "an act of God". Accidental killing allows flight - but though a place is specified, we are not told where. Given that this is the desert, it is hard to imagine where such a place could have been, and so, again, we must read this as post-exodic. The place, of course, or places, will be the refuge cities, given in full in Numbers 35 and Joshua 20.
samech break
21:14 VE CHI YAZID ISH AL RE'EHU LEHARGO VE ARMAH ME IM MIZBECHI TIKACHENU LAMUT
KJ: But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.
BN: But if a man comes in a temper upon his neighbour, and slays him with guile, then you shall take him from my altar, that he may die.
YAZID: Fron the root ZUD (זוד) meaning "to boil", which earlier gave "וַיָּזֶד יַעֲקֹב נָזִיד - and Ya'akov was making stew", the famous "mess of potage" which he sold to Esav in exchange for his birthright in Genesis 25:29. In this case, it clearly does not mean "presumptuously", though that is the standard translation; he kills his neighbour in a boiling rage, and for this he cannot claim "act of God"; but neither can the court find "premeditated"; it is a mid-stage between the two, and the point of the law is that the man cannot claim asylum in a refuge city for his fatal failure to control his own temper.
ARMAH: We have also seen this word before, in a slightly varied grammatical form: ARUM ("VE HA NACHASH HAYAH ARUM MI KOL CHAYAT HA SADEH - וְהַנָּחָשׁ, הָיָה עָרוּם, מִכֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה"), the "nakedness", which is to say the "guile" or "craftiness" of the serpent of Eden (Genesis 3:1). Here, it is added to the boiling rage, and qualifies it; the man does not simply kill in a moment of lost temper, but even in his rage he thinks of the best plan, which includes both the murder and the seeking of refuge. This the law renders unacceptable, and again the man may be taken, dragged if necessary, from his asylum (the phrase IM MIZBECHI TIKACHENU suggests that he has run to the city of refuge and grasped the horns of the altar), and subjected to justice.
But alas, falsely, because this is based on acceptance of the misunderstanding. And we can demonstrate again that it does not mean that:
IM ACHERET: There is no mention of a wife here; the text discusses female slaves who are free to leave at the Jubilee, and may choose to remain, or choose to go. If she chooses to go, this verse tells us, she goes with all her rights in tact; the owner has abrogated all of them and may not claim any back, not even the clothing or the jewellery that he may have given her. In modern parlance, you gave the secretary a laptop to use at home, for any extra work you might need her to do at the weekend, and feel free to use it for your personal emails and Netflix or whatever; when you release her at the end of her contract, regardless that you want that laptop for her replacement, she keeps the laptop.
SHE'ERAH means "leaven", and is being used here for her general feeding; KESUTAH pillows and bed-linen rather than clothes - so "board and lodging", at least until the time of her departure.
ONATAH is the problem word. And it has nothing to do with "conjugal duties", now or in the future. The root, in Gesenius' very precise translation of Ecclesiastes 1:13 and 3:10, means "to bestow labour upon anything" or "to exercise oneself in anything", which is not sex, but "intellectual engagement" in the first Ecclesiastes reference, the hard work of commerce in the second; and elsewhere "tilling the ground" - MA'ANAH and MA'ANIT are both used for ploughed furrows (Psalm 129:3, 1 Samuel 14:14). So she has to carry on doing her jobs until the day of the Jubilee; and the owner has no say in where she goes when she leaves, unless he decides to sell her, in which case he is obligated to ensure she is able to stay within the tribe.
21:11 VE IM SHELASH ELEH LO YA'ASEH LAH VE YATS'AH HINAM EYN KASEPH
וְאִם שְׁלָשׁ אֵלֶּה לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה לָהּ וְיָצְאָה חִנָּם אֵין כָּסֶף
KJ: And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
BN: And if he does not do these three things, then she shall be let go for nothing, without money.
EYN KESEPH; meaning that he gets no money for her, but she is simply set free; it does not mean that she gets no money from him when he sets her free, although this was likely to be the case as well anyway. But the key is that he has responsibilities, and not simply privileges and benefits, as her "employer" - yet another important lesson for our contemporary state of capitalism.
samech break, indicating here a change of subject matter rather than a break in the reading (the same does not apply to the next few samech breaks, which are purely paragraph or line-indicators).
21:12 MAKEH ISH VA MET MOT YUMAT
מַכֵּה אִישׁ וָמֵת מוֹת יוּמָת
KJ: He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
BN: He who strikes a man, so that he dies, shall surely be put to death.
At the time of the giving of the Ten Commandments, in Exodus 20:12, I noted that the universalism "Thou Shalt Not Kill" was problematic, and explained some of the different words used for different forms of killing. Clearly the Redactor (or Mosheh, or YHVH, as you prefer) also recognised the problem, and saw the need to clarify. So the next several verses will provide some of that clarification.
The Death Penalty for Murder - but what wonderful phrasing: "flourish a knife, forfeit your life" is as near as I can get to all those alliteratives in English. We have to wonder if the Beney Yisra-El knew about the skeleton in Mosheh's own cupboard (Exodus 2:12); and why he was not now put to death for having done precisely this a few years back.
21:13 VA ASHER LO TSADAH VE HA ELOHIM INAH LE YADO VE SAMTI LECHA MAKOM ASHER YANUS SHAMAH
וַאֲשֶׁר לֹא צָדָה וְהָאֱלֹהִים אִנָּה לְיָדוֹ וְשַׂמְתִּי לְךָ מָקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יָנוּס שָׁמָּה
KJ: And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.
BN: However, if the man did not lie in wait, but Ha Elohim caused the matter to come to hand, then I have appointed for you a place to which he may flee.
The language of Fate, Destiny, Accident and what, endorsed by this verse, insurance companies call "an act of God". Accidental killing allows flight - but though a place is specified, we are not told where. Given that this is the desert, it is hard to imagine where such a place could have been, and so, again, we must read this as post-exodic. The place, of course, or places, will be the refuge cities, given in full in Numbers 35 and Joshua 20.
samech break
21:14 VE CHI YAZID ISH AL RE'EHU LEHARGO VE ARMAH ME IM MIZBECHI TIKACHENU LAMUT
וְכִי יָזִד אִישׁ עַל רֵעֵהוּ לְהָרְגוֹ בְעָרְמָה מֵעִם מִזְבְּחִי תִּקָּחֶנּוּ לָמוּת
KJ: But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.
BN: But if a man comes in a temper upon his neighbour, and slays him with guile, then you shall take him from my altar, that he may die.
YAZID: Fron the root ZUD (זוד) meaning "to boil", which earlier gave "וַיָּזֶד יַעֲקֹב נָזִיד - and Ya'akov was making stew", the famous "mess of potage" which he sold to Esav in exchange for his birthright in Genesis 25:29. In this case, it clearly does not mean "presumptuously", though that is the standard translation; he kills his neighbour in a boiling rage, and for this he cannot claim "act of God"; but neither can the court find "premeditated"; it is a mid-stage between the two, and the point of the law is that the man cannot claim asylum in a refuge city for his fatal failure to control his own temper.
ARMAH: We have also seen this word before, in a slightly varied grammatical form: ARUM ("VE HA NACHASH HAYAH ARUM MI KOL CHAYAT HA SADEH - וְהַנָּחָשׁ, הָיָה עָרוּם, מִכֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה"), the "nakedness", which is to say the "guile" or "craftiness" of the serpent of Eden (Genesis 3:1). Here, it is added to the boiling rage, and qualifies it; the man does not simply kill in a moment of lost temper, but even in his rage he thinks of the best plan, which includes both the murder and the seeking of refuge. This the law renders unacceptable, and again the man may be taken, dragged if necessary, from his asylum (the phrase IM MIZBECHI TIKACHENU suggests that he has run to the city of refuge and grasped the horns of the altar), and subjected to justice.
samech break
21:15 U MAKEH AVIV VE IMO MOT YUMAT
וּמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ מוֹת יוּמָת
KJ: And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
BN: And he who strikes his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
MAKEH: Language is subtly nuanced, and never without context, but clarifications need to clarify, not add further obfuscation. Some translations prefer "smite" to "strike", which involves a greater measure of violence, even the possibility of killing, to the rather more casual "strike". But neither "smite" nor "strike" confirm that the death of the parent is the consequence; it may be that the death penalty is for the crime of hitting them, regardless of the outcome. However, the law comes in a sequence, and the sequence deals with murder, and the sequence continues into the verse that follows, and so the rules of Rabbi Ishmael should apply. And do - the death penalty is to be carried out. Whether we prefer "smite" or "strike", whether death is the outcome, or not, the law is clear: you don't even give a parent a slap across the cheek (and now take a look at verse 17 below!).
samech break (note that the "sequence" referred to above is not affected by the samech break, but only the form in which the text is presented on the scroll; the samech here is a change of line, not a change of subject; see my note to verse 11)
21:16 VE GONEV ISH U MECHARO VE NIMTSA VE YADO MOT YUMAT
וְגֹנֵב אִישׁ וּמְכָרוֹ וְנִמְצָא בְיָדוֹ מוֹת יוּמָת
KJ: And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
BN: And he who kidnaps a man, and sells him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
Kidnapping for ransom, or human trafficking, and once again we have a law that relates to an earlier incident in Torah - that of Yoseph's brothers in Genesis 37. In fact, it would make an interesting project for a middle school class, to go through the laws (leave out those that only apply to the priesthood and Temple practice), and draw up three lists, one for those which relate back to tales told in Genesis, a second for those which relate to slavery in Mitsrayim, and the third for those which just happen to be there because such laws are good and right and necessary; you may find that third column surprisingly empty. And then: does this discovery modify in any way our reading and understanding of the tales in Genesis?
One last thought: the verse before this, and the verse after this, deal with relationships with parents; why is this law of kidnapping placed between them, and not before or after, allowing them to be placed together? Nor is that a rhetorical or a teacher's question. I ask because I do not know, but find it odd.
samech break
21:17 U MEKALEL AVIV VE IMO MOT YUMAT
וּמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ מוֹת יוּמָת
KJ: And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
BN: And he who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death.
Cursing your parents is as bad as hitting them? We would probably not think so, in western societies, today; both are bad, but the former surely worse than the latter. What Mosaic law recognises is that really they are the same, that one strikes with the hand and the other with the voice, and both dishonour and disrespect the parent(s).
Note again that these verses are clarifications of the Ten Commandments; this time Commandment Five:"Honour your father and mother, that your days may be many on this earth which YHVH has given you" (Exodus 20:11). And now we know what was really meant by the second half of that commandment! It isn't a reward for being nice to them; it's a warning of what will happen if you are not.
Note again that these verses are clarifications of the Ten Commandments; this time Commandment Five:"Honour your father and mother, that your days may be many on this earth which YHVH has given you" (Exodus 20:11). And now we know what was really meant by the second half of that commandment! It isn't a reward for being nice to them; it's a warning of what will happen if you are not.
We will discover as we go along that there are not really 613 commandments at all, separated into 365 negative and 248 positive; there are 613 statements of law, but in fact a significant number appear twice, once as a basic principle and then as a clarification (as in the case here), and/or once as a positive and elsewhere as a negative (or even, as in Leviticus 2:13, presenting two laws, one positive and one negative, within the same verse). Here, both opposite and clarification are taking place, by stating clearly the negatives, the methods of "dishonouring" them, and the consequent punishment.
samech break
21:18 VE CHI YERIYVUN ANASHIM VE HIKAH ISH ET RE'EHU BE EVEN O VE EGROPH VE LO YAMUT VE NAPHAL LE MISHKAV
וְכִי יְרִיבֻן אֲנָשִׁים וְהִכָּה אִישׁ אֶת רֵעֵהוּ בְּאֶבֶן אוֹ בְאֶגְרֹף וְלֹא יָמוּת וְנָפַל לְמִשְׁכָּב
KJ: And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:
BN: And if men get into a quarrel, and one smites the other with a stone, or with his fist, and he does not die, but remains confined to bed...
One and a half million slaves fleeing into the dry and barren desert, attacked by Amalekites (and presumably many dead and wounded as a result), with no idea where they are going, or how they will survive to get there, and Mosheh, sitting with Aharon perhaps, or with a committee of tribal elders, or on his own with YHVH, not simply passing a simple set of rules (the Ten Commandments) which are all, surely, anyone can reasonably expect in such a circumstance, as guidelines for decent behaviour at a time of such uncertainty, but actually taking the time to consider some of the most subtle details of law, the kind of nuances that a committee of the Senate or the House of Lords might think of, reviewing the fourteenth draft of a bill that has been passed twice by the other house, and sent back each time, to improve this piece of phrasing, and then that one. "This law about killing...we need to make distinctions; not just premeditated versus manslaughter, but does the nature of the killing change the matter substantially, and what if the intention was murder - though how we can know precisely what a man's intention was... this will have to go to a different committee... but if the intention was murder, and the victim survives perfectly intact, or slightly injured, or paralysed for life... does the consequence differ..."
These are hugely important distinctions, and it is amazing that the Mosaic Law, so early on in the history of human civilisation, multiple centuries apparently before the Hellenic Greeks (even if it was Ezra and Nechem-Yah it was still a hundred years ahead of them), took the time and trouble to have their Supreme Court Justices publish their opinions on them, and enshrine them formally in Law. But... and you know what I am going to ask... in Mosheh's time, in the desert, while whole delegations are lined up to demand water and food and threatening a return to the fleshpots of Egypt if it isn't provided now, right now, and mourning for the post-Amalekite dead, and the wounded and sick needing rather better provision... or perhaps, a thousand years later, in Ezra's time, in the comfort of a restored homeland, financed by Koresh (Cyrus) of Persia, upon return from exile?
These are hugely important distinctions, and it is amazing that the Mosaic Law, so early on in the history of human civilisation, multiple centuries apparently before the Hellenic Greeks (even if it was Ezra and Nechem-Yah it was still a hundred years ahead of them), took the time and trouble to have their Supreme Court Justices publish their opinions on them, and enshrine them formally in Law. But... and you know what I am going to ask... in Mosheh's time, in the desert, while whole delegations are lined up to demand water and food and threatening a return to the fleshpots of Egypt if it isn't provided now, right now, and mourning for the post-Amalekite dead, and the wounded and sick needing rather better provision... or perhaps, a thousand years later, in Ezra's time, in the comfort of a restored homeland, financed by Koresh (Cyrus) of Persia, upon return from exile?
21:19 IM YAKUM VE HIT'HALECH BACHUTS AL MISH'ANTO VE NIKACH HA MAKEH RAK SHIVTO YITEN VE RAPHO YERAPH'E
אִם יָקוּם וְהִתְהַלֵּךְ בַּחוּץ עַל מִשְׁעַנְתּוֹ וְנִקָּה הַמַּכֶּה רַק שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא
KJ: If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.
BN: But if he gets up again, and is able to walk about with the aid of a stick, then he who struck him shall be acquitted; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.
This is a very fair law; Workers' Comp cannot offer better by way of "damages". Americans should note the inference of this for medical insurance.
For those of you interested in knowing more, the place to go is Seder Nezikin, the fourth tractate of Mishnah, which is to say a part of the original Talmud - about five hundred years after Ezra and Nechem-Yah. For a broad overview, MyJewishLearning has a good page. For the text specific to this passage rather than the full Seder, try here. Nezikin means "damages", in exactly the same sense that we use the word in law today.
samech break; end of first fragment
21:20 VE CHI YAKEH ISH ET AVDO O ET AMATO BA SHEVET U MET TACHAT YADO NAKOM YINAKEM
וְכִי יַכֶּה אִישׁ אֶת עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ אֶת אֲמָתוֹ בַּשֵּׁבֶט וּמֵת תַּחַת יָדוֹ נָקֹם יִנָּקֵם
KJ: And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
BN: And if a man smite his bondman, or his bondwoman, with a rod, and he die at under his hand, he shall surely be punished.
Again a reflection of Egyptian conditions? Does Mosheh not have to pay this penalty (see my note to verse 12)?
YINAKEM: really means "revenged", not "punished". However, neither word is terribly explicit: does it mean that he pays the death penalty, or is there some other form of NEKAMAH? We are not told. Can it be deduced from Rabbi Ishmael's rules? This is a challenge for senior high school students, or undergrads, not for middle school.
But see verses 26 and 27 below.
21:21 ACH IM YOM O YOMAYIM YA'AMOD LO YUKAM KI CHASPO HU
אַךְ אִם יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם יַעֲמֹד לֹא יֻקַּם כִּי כַסְפּוֹ הוּא
KJ: Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
BN: However, if he remains alive for a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his money.
Yes, Mosheh/god allows you to beat your servants with a rod, provided you do not kill them (Saudi Arabia still applies that law today), or at least if it takes a few days for him to die. You own them, after all, so you may do as you please with them. Amid the humanity of so many laws, the relative barbarity of the ancient world (yes, but the same is true throughout our world today; we just prefer not to see it).
And again, for the fullness of this pair of verses, see also verses 26 and 27.
KI CHASPO HU: A central pillar of Jewish employment law this, as we shall witness repeatedly. You, the boss, may have the entrepreneurial vision, may have taken out the loan, may have brought your vision and talents to the setting up of this business, may be taking most of the risks, but the bottom line is nonetheless: your profit comes from the way your workers work, and the better you pay them, the better you treat them, the better your profits are likely to be; whereas, if you just exploit them and treat them badly, why should they care, why would they bother? "He is your money".
KI CHASPO HU: A central pillar of Jewish employment law this, as we shall witness repeatedly. You, the boss, may have the entrepreneurial vision, may have taken out the loan, may have brought your vision and talents to the setting up of this business, may be taking most of the risks, but the bottom line is nonetheless: your profit comes from the way your workers work, and the better you pay them, the better you treat them, the better your profits are likely to be; whereas, if you just exploit them and treat them badly, why should they care, why would they bother? "He is your money".
samech break
21:22 VE CHI YINATSU ANASHIM VE NAGPHU ISHAH HARAH VE YATS'U YELADEYHA VE LO YIHEYEH ASON ANOSH YE'ANESH KA ASHER YASHIT ALAV BA'AL HA ISHAH VE NATAN BIPH'LILIM
וְכִי יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים וְנָגְפוּ אִשָּׁה הָרָה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אָסוֹן עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו בַּעַל הָאִשָּׁה וְנָתַן בִּפְלִלִים
KJ: If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
BN: And if men get into a quarrel, and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she loses the baby, and no other harm follows, he nust definitely be made to pay a fine, according to the damages demanded of him by the woman's husband; but he shall pay as the judges determine.
A form of suing for compensation. The loss of the baby is virtually discounted, provided no harm comes to the woman. Today we might well feel differently, reckoning the harm psychologically as well as physically, and in both the foetus and the mother (opponents of abortion, for example, who regard abortion as foetus-murder). Note that the judges are here empowered to decide the punishment, though the litigant, as today, can claim whatever amount he thinks he can get (I of course mean the amount that he believes he is morally and ethically entitled to).
21:23 VE IM ASON YIHEYEH VE NATATAH NEPHESH TACHAT NAPHESH
וְאִם אָסוֹן יִהְיֶה וְנָתַתָּה נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ
KJ: And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
BN: But if any harm should follow, then you shall take a life for a life...
Possibly the most famous pair of verses in the whole Bible, this and the next...
21:24 AYIN TACHAT AYIN SHEN TACHAT SHEN YAD TACHAT YAD REGEL TACHAT REGEL
עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן שֵׁן תַּחַת שֵׁן יָד תַּחַת יָד רֶגֶל תַּחַת רָגֶל
KJ: Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
BN: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot...
Though in remembering the phrases, we tend to stop after the first two, and not register that, yet again, the law is being extremely precise and specific; there is no room here for a lawyer arguing that the damage was, say, to a knee, or an ear, and therefore the law doesn't apply; the next verse adds even more precision through differentiation.
21:25 KEVIYAH TACHAT KEVIYAH PETSA TACHAT PATSA CHABURAH TACHAT CHABURAH
כְּוִיָּה תַּחַת כְּוִיָּה פֶּצַע תַּחַת פָּצַע חַבּוּרָה תַּחַת חַבּוּרָה
KJ: Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
BN: Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
samech break
21:26 VE CHI YAKEH ISH ET EYN AVDO O ET EYN AMATO VE SHICHATAH LA CHAPHSHI YESHALCHENU TACHAT EYNO
וְכִי יַכֶּה אִישׁ אֶת עֵין עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ אֶת עֵין אֲמָתוֹ וְשִׁחֲתָהּ לַחָפְשִׁי יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ תַּחַת עֵינוֹ
KJ: And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.
BN: And if a man smite the eye of his bondman, or the eye of his bondwoman, and destroy it, he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.
Very generous to the slave, but would it not be better to outlaw altogether the right to whip and strike your servants. This needs to be read in conjunction with verses 20 and 21 above, and 27 below.
21:27 VE IM SHEN AVDO O SHEN AMATO YAPIL LE CHAPHSHI YESHALCHENU TACHAT SHINO
וְאִם שֵׁן עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ שֵׁן אֲמָתוֹ יַפִּיל לַחָפְשִׁי יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ תַּחַת שִׁנּוֹ
KJ: And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.
BN: And if he smite out his bondman's tooth, or his bondwoman's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.
The right to hit versus the right to hurt!
pey break
21:28 VE CHI YIGACH SHOR ET ISH O ET ISHAH VA MET SAKOL YISAKEL HA SHOR VE LO YE'ACHEL ET BESARO U VA'AL HA SHOR NAKI
וְכִי יִגַּח שׁוֹר אֶת אִישׁ אוֹ אֶת אִשָּׁה וָמֵת סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל הַשּׁוֹר וְלֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ וּבַעַל הַשּׁוֹר נָקִי
KJ: If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.
BN: And if an ox gores a man or a woman, with the consequence that they die, the ox shall be required to be stoned; but its flesh may not be eaten; and the owner of the ox shall be acquitted.
Interesting that the meat cannot be eaten; presumably because it has not been ritually slaughtered, though we have not yet been given that law. Or is the beast considered evil in some way because it has killed, and is therefore unclean? But we haven't been given that law yet either!
21:29 VE IM SHOR NAGACH HU MITMOL SHILSHOM VE HU'AD BI VE'ALAV VE LO YISHMERENU VE HEMIT ISH O ISHAH HA SHOR YISAKEL VE GAM BE'ALAV YUMAT
וְאִם שׁוֹר נַגָּח הוּא מִתְּמֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם וְהוּעַד בִּבְעָלָיו וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ וְהֵמִית אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל וְגַם בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת
KJ: But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
BN: But if the ox was known to have gored previously, and a warning has been given to its owner, but he has not kept it secure, and it has killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and its owner too shall be put to death.
Go tell that to the owners of rottweilers and pit-bull terriers!
21:30 IM KOPHER YUSHAT ALAV VE NATAN PIDYON NAPHSHO KE CHOL ASHER YUSHAT ALAV
אִם כֹּפֶר יוּשַׁת עָלָיו וְנָתַן פִּדְיֹן נַפְשׁוֹ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יוּשַׁת עָלָיו
KJ: If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.
BN: If a ransom has been laid on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.
KOPHER...PIDYON: "Ransom" may not be the best choice of word, as the concept in English makes us think of kidnappings and hostage-takings, and that is not what this is about; it is to do with animals that have been designated for sacrifice, and which obviously cannot now be sacrificed, either because they have been gored by the ox, or it is the ox itself that was so designated (all of which infers that the laws relating to the sacrifices had already been given!). The problem is about what to do with the beast, and this leads to the issue of "ransom", which is really about "redemption", but the word "redemption" also has a different meaning, so "ransom" is the best we can do. The impact of the verse is to make PIDYON ("redemption") a form of fine, or at least a form of damages imposed judicially, which takes us back to the case in verse 8 (see my notes to HEPHDAH, which comes from the same root as PIDYON).
Ransom may also not be the best choice of word because, in the history of the Jews of Europe, and of England in particular, the use of ransom as a way of extorting money from the Jewish community was sadly normative.
21:31 O VEN YIGACH O VAT YIGACH KA MISHPAT HA ZEH YE'ASEH LO
אוֹ בֵן יִגָּח אוֹ בַת יִגָּח כַּמִּשְׁפָּט הַזֶּה יֵעָשֶׂה לּוֹ
KJ: Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.
BN: Whether it has gored a son, or it has gored a daughter, what shall be done to him will be according to this ordinance.
Isn't it nice to think that gender equality was applied in some contexts even then. Our second example in a single chapter. (Alas, there aren't many more.)
21:32 IM EVED YIGACH HA SHOR O AMAH KESEPH SHELOSHIM SHEKALIM YITEN LA ADONAV VE HA SHOR YISAKEL
אִם עֶבֶד יִגַּח הַשּׁוֹר אוֹ אָמָה כֶּסֶף שְׁלֹשִׁים שְׁקָלִים יִתֵּן לַאדֹנָיו וְהַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל
KJ: If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
BN: If the ox gore a bondman or a bondwoman, he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
Why does King James suddenly reduce its translation of YIGACH from "gore" to "push"? A huge diminution of the crime, yet the Yehudit text is identical.
One has to actually imagine that some of these crimes must have taken place; because that is usually how laws get made, in response to something brought to the courts; laws are rarely made hypothetically.
Why does an ox have to be stoned? If it has to be put down, are there not less cruel ways of doing it? This question gains weight in the face of the very strict laws of Shechitah.
samech break
21:33 VE CHI YIPHTACH ISH BOR OR KI YICHREH ISH BOR VE LO YECHASENU VE NAPHAL SHAMAH SHOR O CHAMOR
וְכִי יִפְתַּח אִישׁ בּוֹר אוֹ כִּי יִכְרֶה אִישׁ בֹּר וְלֹא יְכַסֶּנּוּ וְנָפַל שָׁמָּה שּׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר
KJ: And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein;
BN: And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit and not cover it, and an ox or an ass falls into it...
This is easily imagined; though, again, not so much in the desert, unless among the Bedou.
21:34 BA'AL HA BOR YESHALEM KESEPH YASHIV LI VE'ALAV VE HA MET YIHEYEH LO
בַּעַל הַבּוֹר יְשַׁלֵּם כֶּסֶף יָשִׁיב לִבְעָלָיו וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לּוֹ
KJ: The owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money unto the owner of them; and the dead beast shall be his.
BN: The owner of the pit shall make it good; he shall give money to their owner, and the dead beast shall be his.
Not much use to him though, a dead beast; he can't eat it and he can't offer it as a sacrifice; it simply becomes his burden to get rid of it, rather than the original owner. Or maybe he can make use of it - the bones for glue, the hide for clothing or leather goods...
samech break
21:35 VE CHI YIGOPH SHOR ISH ET SHOR RE'EHU VA MET U MACHRU ET HA SHOR HA CHAI VE CHATSU ET KASPO VE GAM ET HA MET YECHETSUN
וְכִי יִגֹּף שׁוֹר אִישׁ אֶת שׁוֹר רֵעֵהוּ וָמֵת וּמָכְרוּ אֶת הַשּׁוֹר הַחַי וְחָצוּ אֶת כַּסְפּוֹ וְגַם אֶת הַמֵּת יֶחֱצוּן
KJ: And if one man's ox hurt another's, that he die; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money of it; and the dead ox also they shall divide.
BN: And if one man's ox hurts another's, so that it dies; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide its price; and likewise if the animal or animals die, they shall divide the price.
These are generally laws of considerable equity, even if sometimes harsh.
21:36 O NODA KI SHOR NAGACH HU MITMOL SHILSHOM VE LO YISHMERENU BE'ALAV SHALEM YESHALEM SHOR TACHAT HA SHOR VE HA MET YIHEYEH LO
אוֹ נוֹדַע כִּי שׁוֹר נַגָּח הוּא מִתְּמוֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ בְּעָלָיו שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם שׁוֹר תַּחַת הַשּׁוֹר וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לּוֹ
KJ: Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own.
BN: Or if it be known that the ox was in the habit of goring previously, and its owner has not kept it secure, he shall be required to pay ox for ox, and the dead beast shall belong to him.
But the law says that it should have been put down the first time it gored - verse 28.
samech break. Most Christian versions end the chapter here.
21:37 KI YIGNOV ISH SHOR O SEH U TEVACHO O MECHARO CHAMISHAH VAKAR YESHALEM TACHAT HA SHOR VE ARBA TSON TACHAT HA SEH
כִּי יִגְנֹב אִישׁ שׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה וּטְבָחוֹ אוֹ מְכָרוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה בָקָר יְשַׁלֵּם תַּחַת הַשּׁוֹר וְאַרְבַּע צֹאן תַּחַת הַשֶּׂה
KJ (22:1): If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.
BN: If a man steals an ox, or a sheep, and kills it, or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.
Note that all the above laws relate to oxen, no mention anywhere - except this verse - of sheep or goats. The Bedou did not generally keep cattle. Those wandering in the desert normally do not either, for there is nowhere to graze them, and little water for them to drink. We were told (Exodus 12:32) that the Beney Yisra-El took cattle with them when they left Mitsrayim, but we had misgivings about that statement; and if they did take them, given the shortage of water and the absence of grazing land, how did the cattle survive? Sheep and goats are hard enough, but they will graze on thorns and thistles if need be; not cattle. Again, therefore, we can deduce that these laws were of later, or much earlier, origin.
end of chapter 21 in the Masoretic version, though we will see that 21:7 becomes 22:1 in most Christian translations. I have repeated the verse there, and marked thhe variant KJ numbering accordingly.
Exodus: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13a 13b 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30a 30b 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38a 38b 39 40
Copyright © 2020 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment