Commento su Esodo 21:21

אך אם יום או יומים יעמד לא יקם NOTWITHSTANDING IF HE CONTINUE A DAY OR TWO, HE SHALL NOT BE AVENGED — If the master is free of the death penally in case of the servant remaining alive one day, is it not logical that he is free if he lives two days (what need is there for Scripture to add יומים)? But it adds it to show that the term יום is to be defined by יומים — “a day that is like two days”. And what kind of day is thereby meant? A period of twenty-four hours (a day which comprises a part of two separate days) (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:21:1).

כי כספו הוא, and it is up to him to discipline him. Sometimes a slave’s insubordination continues until the master is forced to administer a strong blow. We have read of such in Proverbs 17,11 ומלאך אכזרי ישלח בואך מרי יבקש רע, “an evil man seeks to rebel; therefore a cruel messenger will be dispatched against him.”

לא יקם כי בספו הוא, he will not be avenged for it was his own money. If he killed the slave unintentionally (in the accepted sense of the word), the master will have to be confined in a city of refuge on account of this. In this ruling there is no difference between putting to death of one's slave or some other human being. Exile is applicable only if one killed directly, in accordance with the definitions we outlined in verse 12. The Torah only needed to write in which respect the law of a master killing a slave is different from someone who kills a person who is not his slave.

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

אך אם יום או יומים יעמוד, “but if he will survive one or two days, etc.” seeing that if a survival of a single day suffices not to treat this death as manslaughter, why does the Torah add the words “or two days?” Our sages answer that what the Torah refers to is a day that is comparable to two days, i.e. the minimum period of survival is 24 hours, even on two successive calendar dates. (Mechilta)

Even were he to linger for 24 hours. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why did the verse not simply say, “His slave, who is his property”? Why does it instead say, “For he is his property”? Thus Rashi explains that this phrase is providing a reason for the above law, saying: only the master is subject to the law of “a day or two,” [since the slave is his property], but another person does not.

V. 21. יום או יומים, nach der Halacha: Ausdruck für vierundzwanzig Stunden. Es kann ja auch nur eine ganz bestimmte Zeit präzisieren wollen, und wenn schon nach einem Tage die Milderung eintritt, so bedarfs des zweiten nicht. Da im Tempel der Tag mit dem Morgen, im bürgerlichen Leben mit der Nacht beginnt, so sind innerhalb vierundzwanzig Stunden immer je nach der einen oder andern Beziehung ein oder zwei Tage enthalten, מכילתא) יום שהוא כיומים ויומים שהוא כיום).

אך אם יום או יומים, “but if he survives for a day or two, etc.” Rashi commenting on verse 20, explains that the subject in that verse was either a Canaanite slave or slave-woman, and that our verse was necessary to describe under what circumstances the scenario described here has been exempted from the general rule applying to someone who struck his Canaanite slave, fatally, with an object that could be assumed to cause death. If death was delayed by at least 24 hours, the master is not treated as a murderer, but as someone who had disciplined someone whom he owned physically. [At this point the author engages in a discussion of the applicability of two closely related principles of Torah exegesis, known as the thirteen principles of Rabbi Yishmael, something extremely complicated for anyone not familiar with these principles. This editor does not think that he is qualified to explain this adequately to his readers, and has decided that rather than to confuse the reader he will omit this. He points to what Rashi himself has written in his commentary on verse 12, that he will endeavour to explain this legislation and why it appears so many times in the Torah, each time in a slightly different format. If even Rashi felt this way, this editor may be forgiven for preferring to skip part of this. Ed.]

יום או יומים, “a day or two days.” The reference is to one day that is equivalent to two days. The verse could not be referring to actual days, as if even one day’s survival is sufficient to absolve the killer from the charge of murder, survival for two days would not need to be mentioned. According to the plain meaning of the text, in consonance with the practice of the Torah, we can simply translate this as “he does not even have to survive two days for the master not to be accused of murder, even a survival of 24 hours is sufficient.” We find a parallel construction in Deuteronomy 17,6: על פי שנים עדים או שלשה עדים, “on the basis of the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses.”

לא יקם כי כספו הוא HE SHALL NOT BE AVENGED: FOR HE IS HIS MONEY — However, any other person who smote him (the servant) is subject to the death penalty although he lived 24 hours before dying.

כי כספו הוא: das Motiv zu dieser Milderung kann nicht in einem etwa tiefer stehenden Menschencharakter des Leibeigenen liegen, da sie nur bei Tötung desselben durch den Herrn eintritt, für jeden andern jedoch ganz das Gesetz der Tötung eines Freien gilt. Vielmehr kann das Motiv nur, in dem Verhältnis des Herrn zu seinem Leibeigenen liegen und ist dies Verhältnis durch die Motivierung כי כספו הוא so scharf bedingt, dass die Milderung nur dann eintritt, wenn der Getötete כספו המיוחד לו ganz nur ausschließlich sein Eigentum war, also dass, wenn er z. B. das Eigentum zweier gewesen, für keinen seiner Herren diese Milderung gilt (B. K. 90 a). Der Begriff dieses Motivs ist schwer zu finden. Der später erfolgte Tod dürfte denselben nicht unbedingt als Folge des Schlages erscheinen lassen, und dieser Umstand, verbunden mit dem Züchtigungsrecht des Herrn, nach welchem in dem Schlagen an sich kein Verbrechen liegt, dürfte vielleicht hier ebenso die Milderung motivieren, wie bei der unabsichtlichen Tötung auch die Galutstrafe nur dann eintritt, wenn der Tod so unmittelbar erfolgt, dass kein Luftzug oder keine heftige Bewegung den schnellen Eintritt des Todes befördert haben kann (Gittin 71 a).

כי כספו הוא, “for he is as if his own money.” He has full control of the servant including beating him, but only in order to discipline him. (Rash’bam)