Comentários de Citação sobre Êxodo 21:8

Furthermore, we might think that the phrase “a master among his people” [:4] means that the husband may not bury his wife. However, we know the law as the Sages have transmitted it: a kohen does bury his wife (the Sages used the word “his nearest kin” as a means of deriving this exegetically [Yevamot 22b], as I explained in the case of “to other people” [Exodus 21:8]). Furthermore, the word “master” denotes not a husband, but a man of substance, with many people in his household (as in, “its master was not with it” [Exodus 22:13]). Therefore, the original explanation must be invalid. His mother is mentioned before the father, because normally the male of the species outlives the female.

ובגרעון כסף – as it is written with the Hebrew bondwoman (Exodus 21:8): “[…who designated her for himself,] he must let her be redeemed…”; there is a comparison made between the male Israelite slave and the female Israelite bondwoman – if his master purchased him for six Maneh and he is destined to leave [his control] at the end of six [years], it is determined that he purchases every year [of service] for a Maneh, and when he comes to redeem himself, his master deducts from his redemption price the value of the years of service that he performed.

And that they are suspect in illicit relationships ... Question: How could the sons of Yaakov have been suspect of doing these things? And if they were suspect, why then was Yoseif punished on account of this? The answer is: They surely were not suspect of doing these things; Yoseif erred. And he was punished because he should have looked further into the matter before suspecting them. He thought they ate limbs of living animals because they ate from a properly slaughtered animal that was still convulsing. But the meat was permitted since it was after shechitah. Or, he saw them eating a ben pekoa [an animal found alive in the womb of its mother that had been properly slaughtered]. It is permitted [to eat it,] due to the shechitah of its mother. And even if it [develops into] a big bull it does not require to be ritually slaughtered. [It only needs to be slaughtered] because it appears to be forbidden. Yoseif however, considered it as being the limb of a living animal because it nonetheless requires to be ritually slaughtered, due to appearance. They demeaned the sons of the handmaidens by calling the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah “sons of handmaidens.” Although this was true, and even Scripture refers to them so, Yoseif thought it implied that their sons were non-Jewish slaves. But he erred, because their sons were not non-Jewish slaves, for Bilhah and Zilpah were freed women who assisted Rochel and Leah. Regarding illicit relationships: a man may not use another man’s wife to serve him (Kiddushin 70a), and Yoseif saw them using the services or doing business with a married woman, so he suspected them. But he erred, because a man is forbidden to use the services of a married for intimate purpose only, such as washing his face, hands and feet, or making his bed. But, non-intimate matters or doing business with her are permitted. You might ask: How does Rashi know that Yoseif suspected them of all three things? The answer is: Rashi himself answers this by saying, “Yoseif was, in, turn, smitten by these three...” Another answer: There is a connection between דבתם רעה written here, and v. 33 חיה רעה אכלתהו (“A wild beast devoured him”). Just like there it involved a limb from a living creature, since a wild beast devours its prey alive, so too here it involved a limb from a living creature. [The matter regarding non-Jewish] slaves is derived from what it is written about a handmaiden in Shemos 21:8: אם רעה בעיני אדוניה. Just like רעה there involves slavery, so too here it involves slavery. [The matter regarding] illicit relationships is derived from what it is written in 39:9 regarding Yoseif: ואיך אעשה הרעה הגדולה הזאת (“How can I do such a great evil”). Just like רעה there refers to illicit relationships, so too here it refers to illicit relationships.