Comentário sobre Êxodo 21:9

ואם לבנו יעדנה AND IF HE HATH BETROTHED HER TO HIS SON — “He” means the master (not like “he” in the previous verse where it refers both to the master and to the father). The verse teaches you that the son also may succeed to his father’s rights to betroth her to himself, if his father consents to it. Then it is not necessary for him either (just as is not obligatory for his father; cf. v. 8) to perform another act of betrothal, but he merely says to her: “You are designated for me as my wife by means of the money which your father has received from my father as your price” (Kiddushin 19a).

AND IF ‘YI’ODENAH’ (HE ESPOUSE HER) UNTO HIS SON, HE SHALL DEAL WITH HER AFTER THE MANNER OF DAUGHTERS. In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, it is possible that G-d is saying that if the buyer yi’odenah for his son, which means that he espoused her to him — for the term yi’ud is an expression of appointing, such as: he tarried longer than the set time which ‘y’ado’ (he had appointed him)⁸⁷II Samuel 20:5. — then he shall do unto her after the manner that a man does for his own daughters — he is to give her of his own according to the dowry of virgins.⁸⁸Further, 22:6. He thus commanded this as He did in the law of outfitting the emancipated servant,⁸⁹Deuteronomy 15:13-14. and it is all an expression of His goodness, magnified be He! And in accordance with the interpretation of our Rabbis, which is the truth, the meaning of the verse is: after the manner of daughters whom parents marry off, so shall the son [of the master] deal with her. And then He explains [what is “the manner of daughters”] that if he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights — that is, of this one [the former maidservant] — he shall not diminish.⁹⁰Verse 10. It is obvious that if he did not marry another woman he must not diminish her rights, but Scripture speaks of that which is usual.⁹¹I.e., if he does marry another woman he is more likely to diminish the rights of this one; hence Scripture speaks of the case ‘if’ he take him another wife. But this is by no means to be understood that it was “the usual” thing to take another wife.
Now Rashi explained: “sh’eirah⁹⁰Verse 10. means food; k’suthah is, as the literal sense of the word, raiment; onatha is the marital duty.” And so did Onkelos render sh’eirah: zivanah (food). But in the Gemara⁹²Kethuboth 47b. — For the meaning of the term Gemara see in Seder Bo, Note 204. the Rabbis said with reference to the Sage who held this opinion [that sh’eirah means food]: “And this Tanna⁹³See in Seder Yithro, Note 451. holds that the alimentation of one’s wife is a law of the Torah. For we have been taught: sh’eirah — this means her food, and so it says, He caused ‘sh’eir’ (flesh) to rain upon them as the dust⁹⁴Psalms 78:27. etc.” And from the subject under discussion in that Gemara it is understood that this is the opinion of a single Sage, whilst the accepted law is that the alimentation of one’s wife is a Rabbinical enactment. And even according to the plain meaning of Scripture, why should it mention food under the term sh’eir which means “flesh;” it should rather have mentioned lachmah (her bread), for man lives by bread⁹⁵See Deuteronomy 8:3. and his obligation towards her is [mainly] in that sustenance. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra thought to correct this, and so he explained sh’eirah as meaning food which builds up her sh’eir, namely her flesh. But there is no sense in Scripture saying that the “husband diminish not her flesh!”
Therefore I say that the meaning of sh’eir everywhere is flesh close and near to one’s own, the root thereof being derived from the expression sh’eir b’saro,⁹⁶Leviticus 18:6. Generally translated: “that is near of kin to him.” According to Ramban the literal meaning would be: “the flesh close and near to his flesh.” that is his close flesh outside that of the flesh of his own body. Thus relatives are called sh’eir: to any sh’eir b’saro’ (that is near of kin to him);⁹⁶Leviticus 18:6. Generally translated: “that is near of kin to him.” According to Ramban the literal meaning would be: “the flesh close and near to his flesh.” they are ‘sha’arah’ (near kinswomen),⁹⁷Ibid., Verse 17. this being associated with the expressions: surely thou art my bone and my flesh;⁹⁸Genesis 29:14. of whom the flesh is half consumed.⁹⁹Numbers 12:12. “The flesh” here refers to Miriam — Aaron’s and Moses’ sister. Similarly, And I will cut off from Babylon a name, ‘ush’ar’ offshoot and offspring,¹⁰⁰Isaiah 14:22. means a child related to him. Likewise, when thy flesh ‘ush’eirecha’ are consumed,¹⁰¹Proverbs 5:11. which means “yourself and your children” who are the flesh closest to you. Thus meat is called sh’eir — He caused ‘sh’eir’ to rain upon them as the dust⁹⁴Psalms 78:27. — because meat when eaten is absorbed by the eater and becomes part of his flesh. It is possible that this is the meaning of the expression, when thy flesh ‘ush’eirecha’ are consumed,¹⁰¹Proverbs 5:11. meaning: when the original flesh of your body, and the nutriment of flesh which came from the food, will be consumed and will no longer be part of your flesh. Thus a woman in relation to her husband is called sh’eir — just as the Rabbis interpreted:¹⁰²Yebamoth 22b. “except for ‘lish’eiro,’¹⁰³Leviticus 21:2. sh’eir means his wife;” — the usage of the term being derived from the idea that G-d stated, and he shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.¹⁰⁴Genesis 2:24. Thus sh’eira here means “the nearness of her flesh;” k’suthah is “the cover of her bed,” just as it is said, for that is his only ‘k’suthoh’ (covering)… wherein shall he sleep?¹⁰⁵Further, 22:26. and onathah is “her time,” that he come to her at times of love. And even if we say as some commentators do, that the meaning of sh’eir is like “his flesh,” and the expression, to any ‘sh’eir’ b’saro’⁹⁶Leviticus 18:6. Generally translated: “that is near of kin to him.” According to Ramban the literal meaning would be: “the flesh close and near to his flesh.” is like “to any flesh of his flesh,” just as it says, for he is our brother, our flesh¹⁰⁶Genesis 37:27. — in that case we would still explain ‘sh’eirah'… he shall not diminish as meaning that he shall not diminish from her her flesh; that is, the flesh due to her, namely, the flesh of her husband who with her is one flesh. Thus the meaning of the verse is, that G-d says that if the master takes another wife, he shall not diminish from this one the nearness of her flesh, the cover of her bed, and her time of love, for such is the manner of daughters. And the intention is that the other woman should not be sitting upon a stately bed,¹⁰⁷Ezekiel 23:41. and there they shall be one flesh,¹⁰⁴Genesis 2:24. whilst this one is to him merely like a concubine, with whom he lives only by chance, and upon the ground, just like one comes to a harlot. It is for this reason that Scripture has forbidden him to act in this way. And so did the Sages say:¹⁰⁸Kethuboth 48a. “sh’eirah means the nearness of flesh, that he should not behave to her as is the custom among the Persians, who perform their marital rights in their clothes.” This is a correct interpretation, for such is the style of Scripture always to mention sexual intercourse in clean and brief language. Therefore it mentions these duties by means of allusion: sh’eirah k’sutha v’onatha, referring to the three things which are usual when a man comes together with his wife. Thus the verse is properly explained in accordance with the accepted law, whilst alimentation of one’s wife and provision of her raiment are duties put upon the husband by ordinance of the Rabbis.

כמשפט הבנות יעשה לה, his son. [the employer’s son if he will marry her. Ed.] He will have to provide these three items to his bride even though he did not formally betroth her or purchase her. [something his father had done. Ed.]

ואם לבנו ייעדנה, And if he espouse her to his son, etc. This means that the master never espoused her to himself, but intended her as a wife for his son when he bought her. The Torah informs us that this is perfectly in order, i.e. the money the father had paid to the girl's father for her is acceptable as the money for the betrothal to his son.

ואם לבנו ייעדנה, “if he had intended her as a wife for his son;” the expression ייעדנה is equivalent to the Torah writing “הזמינה,” “invited her.” The expression occurs in this context in the Scriptures in Samuel II 20,5 מן המועד אשר יעד, “than the time planned for him.”

[“He” refers to] the master. [Rashi knows this] because [after selling her,] the father may not give her to another, [thus the verse must refer to the master]. And Rashi had to state “the master” expressly, so we would not mistakenly say the following: just as neither the master nor the father may sell her [see Rashi on the previous verse], so too, neither of them may designate her to the master’s son. Therefore Rashi expressly states that the master may do so. His proof is from v. 11 which says, “If he does none of these three things to her, she goes out free.” And two of these three things (deducting from her price and designation to the master) [see Rashi on v. 11], are done by the master. [Thus the third — designating to a son — is also done by the master.] (Re’m)

V. 9. כמשפט הבנות וגו׳, nach Rambam: hat er, der Herr, sie auszustatten, als wäre sie seine Tochter; ähnlich der הענקה, der Ausstattung, die (Dewarim 15, 14) dem Herrn beim Austritt eines ibrischen Knechtes oder einer ibrischen Magd aus seinem Diensteigentum zur Pflicht gemacht ist. Allein diese spezielle Brautausstattungspflicht, wenn er sie mit seinem Sohne verheiratet, finden wir in der Halacha nirgends erwähnt. Daher ist das משפט הבנות wohl mit Raschi (und ebenso in der מכילהא) von dem Rechte zu verstehen, welches während der Ehe die Frauen von ihren Männern zu beanspruchen haben und welches in dem folgenden Verse näher bezeichnet wird. Es heißt dann: er, der Sohn, hat sie ganz zu behandeln, wie andere Ehefrauen, die nicht als Mägde, sondern als "Haustöchter" dem Manne zugeführt werden, zu fordern berechtigt sind. Dass aber dies erst beim Sohne und nicht schon beim Vater ausgesprochen ist, dürfte dadurch motiviert sein, dass vom Sohne leicht noch eine größere Geringschätzung in der Ehe als vom Vater zu befürchten sein könnte, und es ist die konzise, und darum prägnante Weise des Gesetzes, seine Bestimmungen gerne bei solchen Fällen auszusprechen, bei denen wir sie weniger erwartet hätten. Der Vater hat sie noch als Freie empfangen, der Sohn heiratet sie als Magd und nachdem sie bereits vom Vater verschmäht worden. Und es steigert das Gesetz in dem folgenden Verse noch erst die Möglichkeit der Geringschätzung durch die Annahme, es heirate der Sohn noch neben ihr eine Freie.

כמשפט הבנות, “according to the norms applying to daughters.” Normally, men betroth attractive girls to themselves and marry them, and celebrate the wedding with joy and decor, not like when one takes a lowly maid as a wife.

כמשפט הבנות [HE SHALL DO UNTO HER] AFTER THE MANNER OF DAUGHTERS — who may claim food, clothing and marital duty (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:9:2).

כמשפט הבנות יעשה לה, “according to the rights of young women he shall treat her.” A reference to the master’s son. The entitlements of the young women are spelled out as שארה, כסותה, ועונתה, her food, clothing, and marital rights.” She is not to be derived of all or any of her statutory rights. He must, in the event that he does not personally marry her, provide her with the equipment given to Jewish daughters when they are about to marry. These endowments are known as מוהר בתולות. These rights are parallel to the economic stake a master has to give a male servant upon his release from service after the requisite number of years, (usually after 6 years.) All of the above legislation is a demonstration of G’d’s loving concern for the economically underprivileged, whose experience in service was, after all, a result of such under privilege. Nachmanides writes, that according to the plain meaning of the text one may understand the legislation as the employer of the girl who intended her as a bride for his son having to give her a dowry out of his own pocket.

And he will not require another marriage ritual. Meaning that [the son is] just like his father, who does not need another marriage ritual since her purchase money effects the marriage. For if this were not so, the verse should have said: If he has married or taken her for his son, [rather than: “he has designated her”].

The words כמשפט הבנות יעשה לה, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters, apply to both the father (master) and to his son. The verse following will spell out exactly what these obligations are that the master/son assumes when purchasing such a maidservant.

Food, clothing, and marital relations. Meaning that she has the same marital rights as all other bnos Yisrael, in regard to food, clothing and marital relations. Although a husband’s general obligation in these matters is not stated anywhere in the Torah, [as the following verse mentions them only in connection to the Hebrew maidservant], our verse teaches [that these obligations apply to the Jewish maidservant], and consequently [we] learn [that these marital rights apply to all bnos Yisrael as well]. Mechilta