Halakhah su Levitico 19:20
וְ֠אִישׁ כִּֽי־יִשְׁכַּ֨ב אֶת־אִשָּׁ֜ה שִׁכְבַת־זֶ֗רַע וְהִ֤וא שִׁפְחָה֙ נֶחֱרֶ֣פֶת לְאִ֔ישׁ וְהָפְדֵּה֙ לֹ֣א נִפְדָּ֔תָה א֥וֹ חֻפְשָׁ֖ה לֹ֣א נִתַּן־לָ֑הּ בִּקֹּ֧רֶת תִּהְיֶ֛ה לֹ֥א יוּמְת֖וּ כִּי־לֹ֥א חֻפָּֽשָׁה׃
E chiunque giace carnalmente con una donna, cioè una schiava, designata per un uomo e per nulla redenta, né le fu data la libertà; ci sarà un'inchiesta; non devono essere messi a morte, perché non era libera.
Sefer HaMitzvot
But this was already missed by someone besides us to the point that he counted, "she does not go out like the release of slaves" (Exodus 21:7) - and he did not know that this was a negation and not a prohibition. And the explanation of this is as I will explain. And that is that since God already determined about someone who struck his [gentile] slave or maidservant - and at the time of the strike, caused him to lack one of his main limbs - that [the slave or maidservant] goes out to freedom, it would enter our minds that if the matter is like this with a gentile slave, all the more so would it be the case with a Jewish maidservant and that she would go out to freedom if she loses one of her main limbs. And He negates this conception from us, by His saying, "she does not go out like the release of slaves" - as if to say, there is no obligation for her to be sent out to freedom with the loss of her limbs. So this is the negation of a law about her, and not a prohibition. And the masters of the tradition also explained it like this: And they said in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Bar Yochai 21:7), "'She does not go out like the release of slaves' - she does not go out with the main limbs in the way that [gentile] slaves go out." Behold that it is hence already clear to you that it is the negation of another law, which He is negating from her - not that He prohibited anything to us. And there is no difference between His saying, "she does not go out like the release of slaves," and His saying (Leviticus 13:36), "the priest does not examine the yellow hair, he is impure" - it is only a negation, not a prohibition. And that is that it is explaining to us that he does not require quarantine because of this indication (of impurity), and that there is no doubt about him - he is impure. And likewise is His saying (Leviticus 19:20), "they are not put to death, since she has not been freed," a negation and not a prohibition. For He is saying that they are not liable for the death penalty, since [her] freedom is not complete. And it would be inappropriate to explain this as if it were stated, "you shall not put them to death" - such that it would go from a matter of negation to a matter of prohibition. For His saying, "they are not put to death, since she has not been freed," is like His saying (Deuteronomy 22:26), "the girl has no sin worthy of death" - which negates the death penalty from her because of the rape. And likewise [here], He negated the liability of death from them because of [her] slavery - as if to say, they have no sin worthy of death. And likewise is His saying (Numbers 17:5), "and not be like Korach and like his congregation," a negation. And the Sages clarified that it is a negation: They explained its content and said (Midrash Tanchuma, Tzav 13:1) that He, may He be exalted, was telling us that anyone who argues about and challenges the priesthood will not have what happened to Korach and his congregation happen to him with regards to being swallowing up or burned; but rather his punishment will truly be like that which the Lord said through Moshe - meaning to say, tsaraat. For He, may He be elevated, had said to him (Exodus 4:6), "Put your hand into your bosom." And they brought a proof [for this] from what happened to King Uzziah of Judah (II Chronicles 26:19). And even though we find a different expression in the Gemara in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 110a) - and that is their saying, "Anyone who maintains an argument, transgresses a negative commandment, as it is stated, 'and not be like Korach and like his congregation" - this is by way of an asmakhta (homiletic support), and not that their intention in this is the simple meaning of the verse. However the prohibition about this is included in a different negative commandment, which I will explain in its place.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sefer HaChinukh
And the Torah further also obligated this sacrifice for one who has sexual relations with a designated maidservant; and as it is written in the Order of Kedoshim Tehiyu, as it is stated (Leviticus 19:20-21), "If a man lays with a woman, etc. and she is a maidservant designated (charufah) for a man, but has not been redeemed with redemption, etc. there shall be an investigation, etc. And he shall bring his guilt-offering[, etc.] a ram of guilt." And this is from those that come whether for inadvertent transgression or volitional (Keritot 9a). It comes out that with all of them, there are five definite guilt-offerings. And so did the Sages, may their memory be blessed, count in the Mishnah, such that they said (Mishnah Zevachim 5:5), "These are the guilt-offerings: 1) The guilt-offering of thefts; 2) the guilt-offering of misappropriations; 3) the guilt-offering of the designated maidservant; 4) the guilt-offering of the nazirite; 5) the guilt offering of the metsora." And [regarding] the undetermined guilt-offering which is counted there, its name is upon it [to show] that it is not from the group of definite guilt-offerings. And from these five, three of them come whether they are inadvertent or volitional - and they are the guilt-offering of thefts, the guilt-offering of the designated maidservant and the guilt-offering of the nazirite; and one of them only comes for inadvertent transgression and not for volitional transgression - and that is the guilt-offering of misappropriations; and [for] the fifth - which is the guilt offering of the metsora - the expression, inadvertent and volitional, is not relevant, as we said.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sefer HaChinukh
And nonetheless the maidservant is liable for lashes, as we cannot say about her that she is light in her [own] eyes - and that because of that, she did not guard herself from licentiousness. But still, she also is not liable for lashes unless she has intercourse in the regular fashion, is an adult and volitional. And about her is it said, "there shall be an investigation (bikoret tehiyeh)" - as our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Keritot 22a), "bikrai tehe (she shall be with verses)," meaning to say with lashes. And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Keritot 22a), "She is lashed, and not he." And because of this did the Scripture express the lashes with this language of 'reading' - since they would read verses of rebuke over the one lashed while they were still lashing him, so that he understand and take instruction. And [these verses] are "And the Lord will make wondrous, etc." (Deuteronomy 28:59).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy