אִם־בְּגַפּ֥וֹ יָבֹ֖א בְּגַפּ֣וֹ יֵצֵ֑א אִם־בַּ֤עַל אִשָּׁה֙ ה֔וּא וְיָצְאָ֥ה אִשְׁתּ֖וֹ עִמּֽוֹ׃
他若單身而來，就要單身出去；他若是有妻子的，他的妻子就要與他一同出去。
Rashi
אם בגפו יבא IF HE CAME IN BY HIMSELF — This means that he was unmarried — as the Targum renders it אם בלחודוהי, if he came in “alone”. The term בגפו is the same as גף) בכנפו being synonymous with כנף wing, skirt) i. e. he came in only just as he was, alone, merely wrapped in his garment: so that בגפו, “in his skirt”, means “in the skirt of his garment”.
Ramban
THEN HIS WIFE SHALL GO OUT WITH HIM. Rashi commented: “But who brought her in, that Scripture need say that she shall go out with him? But [by saying this], Scripture tells us that he who acquires a Hebrew servant is obliged to provide for the food of his wife and children.” This is a Midrash of the Sages.34Mechilta on the Verse here. Now [even though the children are not mentioned in this verse, but only his wife,] the Rabbis have included the children together with the wife in this duty of the master, on the basis of what is written further on, Then he shall go out from thee, he and his children with him.35Leviticus 25:41.
I am not clear on this law as to whether the earnings of the woman and children belong to the master during the time he is supporting them. It appears to me that the master takes the place of the husband [in this respect]. For the Torah had compassion on the wife and children, whose lives are hanging in suspense,36See Deuteronomy 28:66. and who expect [to be supported from] the husband’s earnings, since now that he is sold as a servant, they are in danger of being lost in their misery. Therefore the Torah commanded the master who is now entitled to the servant’s labor, to act towards them as he [the servant] would. If so, the master only has to assume the responsibilities of the husband, [and no more]; thus he is entitled to their labor as is the husband, and in return he must feed and support them. This is the meaning of the expression, then his wife shall go out with him, since the servant’s wife was together with him as a handmaid to his master, for the labor of both of them belongs to him, in return for which he is obliged to give them food. Thus the only difference between husband and wife is that the wife has a right to go away as she pleases, [and is not bound to work for her husband’s master if she does not want to be supported by him, whilst the husband, who is the servant, is bound to the master]. Similarly, the master’s obligation to support the children is limited to the time that the father is responsible for them, namely when they are minors, or as long as is customary to feed them, as Rashi explained in Tractate Kiddushin.37Kiddushin 22a. See my Hebrew commentary p. 413. All this is out of G-d’s compassion for them [the wife and children], and for the servant as well so that he should not die in his anguish, in the knowledge that whilst he is toiling in a strange house, his children and wife are neglected. Now even though he is not obliged by law of the Torah to support them, as has been explained in the Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth,38Kethuboth 49 a-b. but since it is the normal way of life for a man to support his wife and small children, G-d in His mercies commanded the buyer [of the servant] to act to them as a merciful father. The meaning of the Sages in speaking of banav [literally: “his sons”] is both sons and daughters.
I have seen written in the Mechilta:34Mechilta on the Verse here. “I might think that the master is obliged to support the betrothed [of the servant] and the childless widow of his brother who is waiting for him to marry or reject her? Scripture therefore says, his wife, thus excluding the brother’s childless widow who is waiting for him, since she is not yet his wife. With him, this excludes the betrothed who, [even though she is his wife], is not yet with him.” This Mechilta is a proof to the law which I have stated, for since it is not customary for the betrothed and the childless brother’s widow to be supported by the man [in this case the servant], therefore the Torah did not impose their support upon the master either. And even if the brother-in-law or the bridegroom became liable by law at a certain time known in the Talmud39According to a first [i.e., an older] Mishnah, if after such time as the law allows for the preparation of the wedding, the bridegroom postponed it, he is liable to support her, and she may eat from his goods, so that if she is an Israelite’s daughter and betrothed to a priest, she may eat terumah (the heave-offering) as if she was already his wife. A later Mishnah though, ruled that a woman may not eat heave-offering until she has entered the bride-chamber (Kethuboth 57 b). to support them, that obligation was in the nature of other debts they may have, and therefore the master did not become liable to support them.
Again I have found in another Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon:40In Hoffman’s edition, p. 120. — See Vol. I, p. 603, Note 245, for explanation of the term “another.” “If he be married then his wife shall go out with him. Just as the master is obliged to feed the servant, so he is obliged to feed his wife and children. Still I might say: if the servant had a wife and children before he was bought, then his master is obliged to feed them, because he bought him on that condition, but if he had a wife and children only after he was bought I might think that his master is not obliged to feed them. Scripture therefore says, if he be married41Literally: “if he be the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him.” The word “wife” is thus mentioned twice, once to indicate etc. (see text). etc. There are thus two wives mentioned here, one referring to a wife that he had before his master bought him, and the other referring to a wife he had after he was bought. I might think that even if he had just a betrothed wife, or a childless brother’s widow who is waiting for him, whom the servant himself is not obliged to feed, that nonetheless his master is obliged to support them, and proof for that argument I might find in the fact that the husband himself is not obliged [by law of the Torah, as explained above] to feed his own wife and children, and yet, the master of the servant is obliged to feed the wife and children of his servant; Scripture therefore says, then his wife shall go out with him — that wife who is with him, the master is obliged to feed, but he is not bound to feed a wife who is not with him. I might think that even if the servant’s wife was one with whom it is not correct for him to continue living — such as a widow married to a High Priest, or a divorcee or profaned woman married to a common priest42See Leviticus 21:7;14. — [that the master is bound to feed her]; Scripture therefore says, then his wife shall go out with him — one that is fit to live with him, but not this one etc. I might think that even if he married without the master’s knowledge [the master is obliged to feed her]; Scripture therefore says, if ‘he’ be married — just as ‘he’ was acquired with the master’s knowledge, so his wife [whom the master must support] means one taken with the master’s knowledge. I might think that the earnings of his sons and daughters belong to the master, and it is logical that it be so: for if we see in the case of a Canaanite bondman, whose master is not bound to feed him, that nonetheless the earnings of his sons and daughters belong to the master, then surely it is logical that in the case of a Hebrew servant, whose master is obliged to feed him, that the earnings of his sons and daughters should belong to his master! Scripture therefore says: he (if ‘he’ be married) — it is he whose earnings belong to his master, but not those of his sons and daughters. Then his wife shall go out with him — do not separate him from his wife; do not separate him from his children.” Thus far the language of this Beraitha.43See Seder Bo, Note 209.
Yet I continue to say44In spite of the fact that this Beraitha apparently contradicts what Ramban said above — namely, that during the time of the Hebrew servant’s servitude the earnings of his wife and minor children belong to his master, since he is obliged to feed them, whereas here the Beraitha seems to be saying the opposite — “Yet I continue to say” writes Ramban, “as I have written above etc.” as I have written above, that if the servant’s wife and children want to be supported by the master, that he may take their earnings, and this Beraitha quoted above intends only to tell us that they are not his by absolute right, as is the law of the Canaanite bondman, or as is the law of the Hebrew servant himself, [who must of necessity work for their master], but they [the wife and children of the Hebrew servant] can say to him: “We will not be fed by you, and we will not work for you.” What is new in this Beraitha is that if the servant married without the consent of his master, he is not bound to feed the wife or her children, for since it is within the power of his master to give him a Canaanite bondmaid, he is not obliged to feed this Israelite woman. The Rabbis further interpreted the word imo (with him) to teach us that you are not to separate him from his wife and children, which means to say that the master cannot tell him: “Be together with the handmaid I gave you and sleep with her at night, and not with the Israelite wife,” but the servant has the right to choose for himself.
I am not clear on this law as to whether the earnings of the woman and children belong to the master during the time he is supporting them. It appears to me that the master takes the place of the husband [in this respect]. For the Torah had compassion on the wife and children, whose lives are hanging in suspense,36See Deuteronomy 28:66. and who expect [to be supported from] the husband’s earnings, since now that he is sold as a servant, they are in danger of being lost in their misery. Therefore the Torah commanded the master who is now entitled to the servant’s labor, to act towards them as he [the servant] would. If so, the master only has to assume the responsibilities of the husband, [and no more]; thus he is entitled to their labor as is the husband, and in return he must feed and support them. This is the meaning of the expression, then his wife shall go out with him, since the servant’s wife was together with him as a handmaid to his master, for the labor of both of them belongs to him, in return for which he is obliged to give them food. Thus the only difference between husband and wife is that the wife has a right to go away as she pleases, [and is not bound to work for her husband’s master if she does not want to be supported by him, whilst the husband, who is the servant, is bound to the master]. Similarly, the master’s obligation to support the children is limited to the time that the father is responsible for them, namely when they are minors, or as long as is customary to feed them, as Rashi explained in Tractate Kiddushin.37Kiddushin 22a. See my Hebrew commentary p. 413. All this is out of G-d’s compassion for them [the wife and children], and for the servant as well so that he should not die in his anguish, in the knowledge that whilst he is toiling in a strange house, his children and wife are neglected. Now even though he is not obliged by law of the Torah to support them, as has been explained in the Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth,38Kethuboth 49 a-b. but since it is the normal way of life for a man to support his wife and small children, G-d in His mercies commanded the buyer [of the servant] to act to them as a merciful father. The meaning of the Sages in speaking of banav [literally: “his sons”] is both sons and daughters.
I have seen written in the Mechilta:34Mechilta on the Verse here. “I might think that the master is obliged to support the betrothed [of the servant] and the childless widow of his brother who is waiting for him to marry or reject her? Scripture therefore says, his wife, thus excluding the brother’s childless widow who is waiting for him, since she is not yet his wife. With him, this excludes the betrothed who, [even though she is his wife], is not yet with him.” This Mechilta is a proof to the law which I have stated, for since it is not customary for the betrothed and the childless brother’s widow to be supported by the man [in this case the servant], therefore the Torah did not impose their support upon the master either. And even if the brother-in-law or the bridegroom became liable by law at a certain time known in the Talmud39According to a first [i.e., an older] Mishnah, if after such time as the law allows for the preparation of the wedding, the bridegroom postponed it, he is liable to support her, and she may eat from his goods, so that if she is an Israelite’s daughter and betrothed to a priest, she may eat terumah (the heave-offering) as if she was already his wife. A later Mishnah though, ruled that a woman may not eat heave-offering until she has entered the bride-chamber (Kethuboth 57 b). to support them, that obligation was in the nature of other debts they may have, and therefore the master did not become liable to support them.
Again I have found in another Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon:40In Hoffman’s edition, p. 120. — See Vol. I, p. 603, Note 245, for explanation of the term “another.” “If he be married then his wife shall go out with him. Just as the master is obliged to feed the servant, so he is obliged to feed his wife and children. Still I might say: if the servant had a wife and children before he was bought, then his master is obliged to feed them, because he bought him on that condition, but if he had a wife and children only after he was bought I might think that his master is not obliged to feed them. Scripture therefore says, if he be married41Literally: “if he be the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him.” The word “wife” is thus mentioned twice, once to indicate etc. (see text). etc. There are thus two wives mentioned here, one referring to a wife that he had before his master bought him, and the other referring to a wife he had after he was bought. I might think that even if he had just a betrothed wife, or a childless brother’s widow who is waiting for him, whom the servant himself is not obliged to feed, that nonetheless his master is obliged to support them, and proof for that argument I might find in the fact that the husband himself is not obliged [by law of the Torah, as explained above] to feed his own wife and children, and yet, the master of the servant is obliged to feed the wife and children of his servant; Scripture therefore says, then his wife shall go out with him — that wife who is with him, the master is obliged to feed, but he is not bound to feed a wife who is not with him. I might think that even if the servant’s wife was one with whom it is not correct for him to continue living — such as a widow married to a High Priest, or a divorcee or profaned woman married to a common priest42See Leviticus 21:7;14. — [that the master is bound to feed her]; Scripture therefore says, then his wife shall go out with him — one that is fit to live with him, but not this one etc. I might think that even if he married without the master’s knowledge [the master is obliged to feed her]; Scripture therefore says, if ‘he’ be married — just as ‘he’ was acquired with the master’s knowledge, so his wife [whom the master must support] means one taken with the master’s knowledge. I might think that the earnings of his sons and daughters belong to the master, and it is logical that it be so: for if we see in the case of a Canaanite bondman, whose master is not bound to feed him, that nonetheless the earnings of his sons and daughters belong to the master, then surely it is logical that in the case of a Hebrew servant, whose master is obliged to feed him, that the earnings of his sons and daughters should belong to his master! Scripture therefore says: he (if ‘he’ be married) — it is he whose earnings belong to his master, but not those of his sons and daughters. Then his wife shall go out with him — do not separate him from his wife; do not separate him from his children.” Thus far the language of this Beraitha.43See Seder Bo, Note 209.
Yet I continue to say44In spite of the fact that this Beraitha apparently contradicts what Ramban said above — namely, that during the time of the Hebrew servant’s servitude the earnings of his wife and minor children belong to his master, since he is obliged to feed them, whereas here the Beraitha seems to be saying the opposite — “Yet I continue to say” writes Ramban, “as I have written above etc.” as I have written above, that if the servant’s wife and children want to be supported by the master, that he may take their earnings, and this Beraitha quoted above intends only to tell us that they are not his by absolute right, as is the law of the Canaanite bondman, or as is the law of the Hebrew servant himself, [who must of necessity work for their master], but they [the wife and children of the Hebrew servant] can say to him: “We will not be fed by you, and we will not work for you.” What is new in this Beraitha is that if the servant married without the consent of his master, he is not bound to feed the wife or her children, for since it is within the power of his master to give him a Canaanite bondmaid, he is not obliged to feed this Israelite woman. The Rabbis further interpreted the word imo (with him) to teach us that you are not to separate him from his wife and children, which means to say that the master cannot tell him: “Be together with the handmaid I gave you and sleep with her at night, and not with the Israelite wife,” but the servant has the right to choose for himself.
Rashbam
אם בגפו יבא בגפו יצא. The Torah first mentions the subject in general terms, then proceeding to details. For instance, if the servant was unmarried at the time the court sold him, or even if his master has given him a wife while he was in his employ, he leaves without his wife seeing that the woman given to him as a wife remains in the house of the master, her employer. Having said this, the Torah continues to explain how this works אם בעל אשה הוא, if he was already married, his wife (who will also be a charge on his master) will leave with him when he is released from this involuntary contract after 6 years. However, if his master had provided him with a wife during the period of his forced employ, the wife in question remains with her master. The “wife” the master had assigned to his Jewish servant was a gentile servant maid whose body belongs to her master.