Wyjścia 21:21 Komentarz: Rashi, Chizkuni, Da'at Zekenim & Kli Yakar

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).

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.”

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.]