Kommentar zu Schemot 21:4

אם אדניו יתן לו אשה IF HIS LORD HAS GIVEN HIM A WIFE — From this we learn that if he has already an Israelite wife the master has the right to give him a Canaanitish handmaid with the object of raising slaves. Or perhaps this is not so, but Scripture by אשה is speaking about an Israelite woman?! Scripture, however, states: “the wife and her children shall be the master’s”, consequently the text can only be speaking of a Canaanitish woman, for a Hebrew maidservant goes free at the end of six years just as a Hebrew man-servant does — yea, even before the termination of six years she goes free if she shows symptoms of incipient puberty (cf. Rashi v. 7) — for it is said, (Deuteronomy 15:12) “[and if] thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, [be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years, then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee]”, which statement teaches you that a Hebrew woman also goes free after six years’ service (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:3:1; Kiddushin 14b).

IF HIS MASTER GIVE HIM A WIFE. “Scripture is speaking of a Canaanite woman. Or perhaps this is not so; but Scripture here speaks only of an Israelite woman?! Scripture therefore says, the wife and her children shall be her master’s. Consequently, it must be speaking of a Canaanite woman.” This is the language of the Beraitha⁴³See Seder Bo, Note 209. taught in the Mechilta.³⁴Mechilta on the Verse here. Now Rashi wrote [in explanation of this Mechilta]: “For a Hebrew maidservant also goes free at the end of six years [just as a Hebrew manservant does], or even before the end of six years if she shows signs of puberty, for it is said, If thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, he shall serve thee six years.”⁴⁵Deuteronomy 15:12. “This teaches you that a Hebrew maidservant also goes free after six years’ service” (Rashi). Consequently the verse here which states the wife [and her children] shall be her master’s can only be speaking of a Canaanite woman.
But this is not quite correct. For if we say [as the Beraitha above attempted to,] that the verse here speaks of an Israelite woman, it could no longer refer to the case of a father selling his minor daughter, about whom the law is given that when she shows signs of puberty she goes free, for how could the master give her as a wife to his Hebrew servant, since he has no power to hand her over to any other man [except to designate her to be his own wife, or that of his son — as is explained further in Verses 8-9]!⁴⁶Accordingly, the Beraitha above that attempted to argue that Scripture here speaks of an Israelite woman [given by the master to his Hebrew servant], must refer only to a Hebrew woman of age who sold herself as a maidservant. So how then could Rashi support his argument [that if she were an Israelite woman, she would go free “if she shows signs of puberty],” when the Beraitha must of necessity be referring not to a minor but to a woman of age? (Mizrachi). Similarly, the proof that Rashi mentioned, namely that she also goes free at the end of six years, is only so in accordance with his own words which he wrote⁴⁷Above, Verse 2, Rashi. that a person who sells himself [on account of his destitution] is sold for a maximum of six years; but in the Talmud⁴⁸Kiddushin 14b. these are the words of a single Sage [Rabbi Eliezer], but the accepted opinion is that one who sells himself can be sold for six years or more. Now if so, the case of a woman who goes free at the end of six years can only be when her father sold her [as a minor, but in that case the master has no right to give her as a wife to his Hebrew servant, but only to designate her as his own wife or that of his son]!⁴⁹So both proofs of Rashi as to why Scripture cannot be speaking here of an Israelite woman, [1. that a Hebrew maidservant also goes free at the end of six years; 2. that even before the end of six years, she goes free if she shows signs of puberty], have no application here for reasons explained above.
But that which the Rabbis have said [in the Beraitha above, on the basis of the verse, the wife and her children shall be the master’s]: “Consequently, Scripture must be speaking of a Canaanite woman” — the meaning thereof is as follows: Since He stated, the wife and her children shall be the master’s [it must be speaking only of a Canaanite woman], for the children of a Canaanite bondmaid are the master’s since her child has the same status as she does, but in the case of an Israelite woman — even if she were of age [in which case her master could give her to his Hebrew servant as a wife], and even if we were to say that a woman may sell herself as a maidservant⁵⁰A woman really cannot sell herself; as the Mechilta puts it: “And if a man sell (Verse 7) — a man can sell himself, but a woman cannot sell herself.” But Ramban is writing only on the assumption that the Beraitha introduced this as a hypothesis finally to be disproved. See my Hebrew commentary pp. 515-516. — her children are the father’s [not the master’s].

אם אדוניו יתן לו אשה, If his master gave him a wife, etc. Why did the Torah switch to indirect speech when it had commenced the paragraph with direct speech i.e. "when you buy a Jewish slave, etc.?" The balance of the whole paragraph is in the third person. At the very least the Torah should have concluded the paragraph in the manner it began, by addressing the people concerned directly. Perhaps the reason is that we have a tradition that marriages are made in Heaven, i.e. that G'd personally involves Himself to match the right man to the woman appropriate for him (compare Bereshit Rabbah 68). At first glance one is tempted to interpret the words אם אדוניו as a reference to his true Master, i.e. G'd. The Torah would then tell us that if G'd to whom we are all servants assigns a wife to this man then both she and her children belong to her Master, i.e. G'd. This interpretation is untenable, however; this is why the Torah adds that the wife and her children belong to her master (terrestrial master) whereas the husband (the slave) leaves without them. We also need to know why the Torah repeats the words אמור יאמר העבד in verse five.