Commento su Deuteronomio 15:12

כי ימכר לך IF [THY BROTHER …] BE SOLD UNTO THEE by others (not one that sells himself as a servant on account of his destitution, of which case Scripture deals in Leviticus 25:46 ff); Scripture is speaking of one whom the court has sold for a theft that he has committed. But has it not already been stated. (Exodus 21:2) “If thou buyest an Hebrew servant” and there, too, Scripture speaks of one whom the court has sold (as proved by Rashi in his comment on that verse; Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:2:1)?!. But the repetition was necessary because of two new points that are stated here: the one is that it is here written “or an Hebrew woman”, that she, too, like a man-servant, goes free at the end of six years of servitude — it does not mean a woman whom the court had sold, for a woman cannot be sold by the court on account of a theft committed by her, since it states, (Exodus 22:2) that the thief shall be sold “for his theft” which implies: he for his theft, but not she for her theft (Sotah 23b); — but what Scripture is speaking of here is of a woman under age whom her father has sold as a handmaid, and it teaches you here that if six years of servitude terminate before the time that she shows signs of incipient puberty she goes free. And further it mentions a new point here, viz., “thou shalt furnish him (or her) liberally” (cf. Rashi on Exodus 30:4).

ועבדך, "and he will serve you, etc." The letter ו at the beginning of this word connects it to the previous commandment. This is analogous to what our sages have taught about the word לך in the sequence כי ימכר לך, that a Jewish court is not allowed to "sell" the labour of a Jew except to another Jew. The new addition to this restriction of the court's authority is that the length of time for which the labour of such a Jew may be sold is restricted to six years.

אחיך העברי, on account of his inability to make restitution for what he had stolen.

כי ימכר לך אחיך העברי או העבריה, “If your brother the Hebrew man or the Hebrew woman will be sold to you, etc.” Although the laws applying to Hebrew slaves (servants) have already been outlined in Exodus chapter 21,2-11, the Torah repeats the legislation here as it contains a new element telling us that a woman also leaves her employer by right at the conclusion of six years’ service. Also, the instruction to give the departing servant a stake to help him gain financial independence was not mentioned in Exodus.

When the courts sold him for his larceny, etc. You might ask: From where does Rashi know this? Perhaps he sold himself, similar to the verse (Vayikra 25:39) ונמכר לך (And he is sold to you), where he sold himself. We cannot say that Rashi’s explanation is because it already says, “And he is sold to you,” regarding when he sold himself, and therefore the verse here is apparently redundant [and must be discussing a different case — when the courts sold him]. If so [we could say to the contrary], it already says, “If you purchase a Hebrew slave (Shmos 21:2),” regarding when he is sold by others — the courts [and then the verse here must be discussing a different case — when he sold himself]. Re”m answers: Perhaps the expression, “And he is sold,” on its own means that he is sold by others. For the word נמכר is the nifal verb form, which usually means that a subject is acted upon by others. Except regarding the verse, “And he is sold,” it is first written, “When your brother becomes impoverished,” and continues to explain, “And he is sold.” Perforce, it means that he sold himself. But it seems to me that regarding a Hebrew slave we learn one verse from another: It is written here אחיך העברי (Your brother-Jew), and it is written there עבד עברי (Jewish slave) — just as in the verse there he was sold by others, so too here he was sold by others.

V. 12. כי ימכר וגו׳. Die Gesetze über die den Hilfsbedürftigen zuzuwendende Fürsorge schließen zusammenfassend mit zwei Problemen, mit welchen die ganze soziale Gesetzgebung, insbesondere das Personenrecht im Schmot 21, 2 eingeleitet wird. Es sind dies die Fälle des gerichtlichen Verkaufes eines Diebes zur Tilgung seiner Ersatzschuld und des Verkaufes einer minderjährigen Tochter durch den Vater zum Zwecke ihrer Ernährung, eventuell ihrer bleibenden Versorgung. Wir haben diese Rechtsfälle bereits im zweiten Buche ausführlich besprochen und gezeigt, wie sich an ihnen das jüdische Recht in der Behandlung der durch Verbrechen oder Unglück auf die tiefste Stufe sozialer Stellung geratenen Personen charakteristisch kennzeichnet. Die dort gegebenen Rechtsbestimmungen erhalten hier im Geiste der vorangegangenen allgemeinen Zedakagebote eine wesentliche Ergänzung durch die Pflicht der הענקה (V. 14), durch die Verpflichtung, die zwangsweise in den Stand der Unfreiheit Geratenen beim Zurücktritt in die Freiheit nach gesetzlichem Ablauf ihres Dienstverhältnisses nicht leer aus dem Dienst treten zu lassen, dieselben vielmehr mit "gesegneten" und segenfähigen Gütern für den Wiederantritt der Freiheit auszustatten. Diese Verpflichtung vollendet insbesondere hinsichtlich des zur Tilgung einer Diebstahlsschuld zur Unfreiheit gerichtlich Verurteilten das großartige Gesamtbild rücksichtsvoll fürsorgender Humanität, welche das göttliche Recht selbst dem Verbrecher zuwendet (siehe Schmot S. 224 f.). Der mittellose und eben seiner Mittellosigkeit halber zur Tilgung der Ersatzschuld in die zeitliche Unfreiheit verkaufte Verbrecher wird nicht mit leeren Händen sich selber wiedergegeben. Die Bruderliebespflicht seines bisherigen Dienstherrn hat ihn mit einem kleinen Gütervorrat auszustatten und ihm damit eine fortan redliche Existenz zu ermöglichen. Darf doch wohl überhaupt unter dem Regime der jüdischen Zedakapflicht und des jüdischen Zedakarechts eine soziale Gesamtheit mit Beruhigung sich sagen: in ihrer Mitte sieht keiner aus Not zum Verbrechen sich getrieben. Durch das unermüdete Zusammenwirken öffentlicher und privater Wohltätigkeitsi>pflicht sind jedem die Wege zur Erhaltung und Wiedererlangung einer redlichen Existenz geöffnet, und nur jüdischer Zedakageist kann eine Gesellschaft vor Proletariat und Verbrecherverkommenheit schützen.

כי ימכר לך, “if your brother (fellow Jew) will be sold to you;” the reason why this paragraph has been written here is because the paragraphs written immediately preceding this one dealt with situations in which Jews have become poor, and how to forestall wholesale poverty amongst Jews.

או העברייה, whose father had sold her as a maid while she was a minor, and after a maximum of six years when the sh’mittah year arrives before she had become pubescent. (when she would be freed if her master or his son had not married her).

Rather, because of two novel teachings here, etc. You might ask: Why does Rashi not state another novel teaching — that a Hebrew (male) slave is not set free if his master mutilates the tips of his limbs. For the verse here compares him to the Hebrew maidservant, [and she is not set free if mutilated] as it is written in Parshas Mishpatim (Shmos 21:7). Perhaps the answer is: The rule stated by our sages, “Any segment of the Torah which is written and repeated — it is only repeated for the sake of a novel teaching,” applies only to a novel teaching stated explicitly in the verse. But it does not apply to [something like] this, which is merely an outcome of the comparison [between the slave and maidservant] (Re”m). But it seems to me: Regardless of the comparison here, we still would not learn that the Hebrew (male) servant is set free if mutilated. [This might have been attempted] through a fortiori reasoning from a Canaanite slave [as follows]: Regarding a Canaanite slave, who is not set free after six years. Nevertheless he is set free if mutilated. So then regarding a Hebrew slave, who is set free after six years, does it not logically follow that he too is set free if mutilated? But I would retort: A Hebrew maidservant disproves this logic. For she is set free after six years, but she is not set free if mutilated, and so a Hebrew slave would be the same. We could not learn through a fortiori reasoning from a Canaanite slave that a Hebrew maidservant is set free if mutilated, for Scripture writes explicitly that, “She shall not go out [free] in the manner of male slaves [if mutilated].” [It seems to me].

ובשנה השביעית "and in the seventh year, etc." The words "he will leave" are noticeably missing here (compare Exodus 21,2). The Torah's intention here is that on occasion such a servant will also have to work during the seventh year, such as if he escaped during this period. Even if the original six years may have expired before he was recaptured he has to complete six years of service. This is the ruling of Maimonides in chapter two of his treatise Hilchot Avadim. The Talmud Kidushin 16 derives this from the words "six years he shall serve" in Exodus 21,2. Perhaps we could derive from that latter verse that in the event the servant falls sick for four years he remains obligated to complete six years of labour. The extra letter ו in the expression ובשנה השביעית teach that if the servant escaped he has to make up the time even if it amounts to a whole year.

כי ימכר לך וגו׳: ein ersatzunfähiger Dieb durch das Gericht, oder ein minderjähriges Mädchen durch den völlig verarmten Vater (siehe Schmot 21, 2 u. 7). Ein Frauenzimmer wird eines Diebstahls wegen nicht verkauft (daselbst) und ist auch auf sie der רציעה-Akt (V. 17) nicht anwendbar. עבריה wird hier nur eingeschaltet, um für sie auch den Austritt mit dem siebten Jahre und die הענקה-Pflicht zu statuieren.

ועבדך, “and he will serve you;” the emphasis is on the pronoun ending “you,” which precludes this Jewish servant from being passed on to the heir of his master, even if the period for which he had been indentured had not come to an end. (Sifri)

ועבדך וגו׳ (siehe Schmot S. 223); חפשי daselbst).

תשלחנו חפשי מעמך “you have to release him unconditionally.” If he was released due to having fallen sick, and he recovered, and you felt that he should recompense you for the period that he was not working for you, the Torah writes: “in the seventh year he will go free, period,” regardless of whether he has rendered the required number of years of service. (Sifri on Exodus 21,2)