Tanach · Rishonim on Tanach · Ramban · Torah

Ramban on Exodus 21:7/רמב"ן על שמות כ״א:ז׳

אלֹא תֵצֵא כְּצֵאת הָעֲבָדִים כִּיצִיאַת עֲבָדִים כְּנַעֲנִים בְּשֵׁן וָעַיִן. לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י. (רש"י על שמות כ"א:ז') וְכֵן דְּרָשׁוּהוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (במכילתא כאן). וְכָךְ הוּא, שֶׁאֵין עֶבֶד עִבְרִי נִקְרָא עֶבֶד סְתָם. וַאֲנִי תָּמֵהַּ, וְלָמָּה הֻצְרַךְ הַכָּתוּב לוֹמַר כֵּן. וְאוּלַי שֶׁלֹּא נָדוּן בָּעִבְרִיָּה שֶׁתֵּצֵא גַּם בְּשֵׁן וָעַיִן בְּק"ו מִן הַכְּנַעֲנִית. וְאָמַר זֶה בָּעִבְרִיָּה, וְהִקִּישׁ אֵלֶיהָ הָעִבְרִי: אֲבָל בַּעַל הֲלָכוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת כָּתַב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיְּצִיאַת הָעֲבָדִים בְּשֵׁן וָעַיִן קְנָס הוּא וְאֵין לְמֵדִין מִן הַקְּנָסוֹת, עָשָׂה זֶה מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, יַזְהִיר אֶת הָאָדוֹן שֶׁאִם בָּא לְהוֹצִיאָהּ מֵרְשׁוּתוֹ בְּשֵׁן וָעַיִן שֶׁיַּעֲבֹר בְּלָאו, אֲבָל יְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי הַשֵּׁן וְהָעַיִן, וְתִהְיֶה עִמּוֹ לְיִעוּד עַד הַזְּמַן, כִּי יִהְיֶה זֶה רָעָה רַבָּה שֶׁהִפִּיל אֶת שִׁנָּהּ בְּכַעְסוֹ עִמָּהּ וְיוֹצִיאֶנָּה מִבֵּיתוֹ אֲשֶׁר הָיְתָה מְיַחֶלֶת לְיִעוּדוֹ לְאַחַר שֶׁפָּגַם אוֹתָהּ. וְעוֹד, כִּי פְּעָמִים רַבּוֹת יִהְיוּ דְּמֵי הַנֶּזֶק בְּרָאשֵׁי הָאֵיבָרִים יוֹתֵר מִדְּמֵי עֲבוֹדָתָהּ בִּהְיוֹת קָרוֹב לָבֹא עַתָּה. וְהֶחְמִיר הַכָּתוּב עַל הָאָדוֹן בְּלָאו, שֶׁלֹּא יִגְזֹל מִמֶּנָּה דְּמֵי רָאשֵׁי אֵבָרֶיהָ אֲפִלּוּ יִרְצֶה לְהוֹצִיאָהּ בָּהֶם. וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁהַהוֹצָאָה עַצְמָהּ אֲסוּרָה עָלָיו עַד הַזְּמַן, כִּי חִיְּבוֹ הַכָּתוּב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ וְלַעֲמֹד עִמּוֹ אוּלַי תִּמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו וְתִתְיַעֵד, כַּאֲשֶׁר הִזְהִיר בְּלָאו בִּשְׁאֵרָהּ כְּסוּתָהּ וְעֹנָתָהּ לֹא יִגְרָע. וְלָזֶה הַדַּעַת יִמָּנֶה לֹא תֵצֵא כְּצֵאת הָעֲבָדִים בִּכְלַל שס"ה מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה:

1SHE SHALL NOT GO OUT AS THE MENSERVANTS DO. This means that the Hebrew maidservant does not go out free “in consequence of the loss of a tooth or an eye, as Canaanite slaves do.”⁶⁶ Thus is Rashi’s language, and our Rabbis interpreted it likewise.⁶⁰ Indeed it is so, for a Hebrew servant is not called eved⁶⁷ [as in Verse 2 here: if thou buy an ‘eved ivri’ — a Hebrew servant] but never just eved, which term by itself signifies a Canaanite bondman. Here in Verse 7 where it just says ha’avadim (menservants) it must therefore refer to the Canaanite bondmen. For a similar statement of Ramban see also further Verse 20. without any further qualification.But I wonder: why does Scripture find it necessary altogether to tell us this [that a Hebrew maidservant does not go out free because of the loss of a tooth or eye, as Canaanite bondmen do]?⁶⁸ Perhaps it is to tell us that we should not argue by applying the method of kal vachomer⁶⁹ Note 208. — The kal vachomer in this case would be as follows: A Canaanite bondwoman who does not go out free at the end of six years or in the jubilee year, does go out free because of the loss of any of the chief external organs. It is therefore only logical that a Hebrew maidservant, who does go out free at the end of six years or in the jubilee, should surely go out free because of the loss of any chief external organs. from a Canaanite women, that a Hebrew maidservant goes out free because of the loss of a tooth or eye. This law is stated expressly in the case of a Hebrew woman, but such is also the law for a Hebrew man, who has been compared to her [thus he too does not go out free because of the loss of any of the chief external organs]. The author of the ‘Hilchoth Gedoloth,’⁷⁰ (613) Commandments, for in a preface to this work the author was the first scholar who attempted to define each separate commandment (see my foreword to “The Commandments,” Vol. I pp. viii — ix). wrote, however, that [the verse is not needed to exclude this kal vachomer,⁶⁹ Note 208. — The kal vachomer in this case would be as follows: A Canaanite bondwoman who does not go out free at the end of six years or in the jubilee year, does go out free because of the loss of any of the chief external organs. It is therefore only logical that a Hebrew maidservant, who does go out free at the end of six years or in the jubilee, should surely go out free because of the loss of any chief external organs. for even if Scripture had not excluded it, we could not have argued that a Hebrew woman should go out free in consequence of the loss of a tooth or eye], because the going forth to freedom by slaves on account of the loss of a tooth or eye is a penalty [to the master], and you cannot derive a law by logical argument from penalties. The author of the ‘Hilchoth Gedoloth’ thus considered this verse a negative commandment⁷¹ wherein G-d warns the master that if he wants to send her out free because of the loss of a tooth or eye, that he transgresses a prohibition; but instead he is to pay her monetary compensation for the tooth or eye, and she shall stay with him up to the time [of six years, or before if she produces signs of puberty], to be designated as the master’s wife [or his son’s]. For it would be a great injustice if, after causing her the loss of a tooth in his anger and blemishing her thereby, he would then send her out of his house, when she had hoped to become his wife. Moreover, many times the monetary compensation for the damage done to the chief external organs, is more than the earnings for her labor if her days as a handmaid have nearly terminated. Therefore Scripture was strict upon the master and made a clear prohibition, so that he should not rob her of the monetary compensation due to her for the loss of any of her chief organs, even if he should want to let her go free on account of them. It may be that sending her to freedom is itself forbidden before the fixed time, for Scripture has obliged the master to support her and that she stay with him, in case she finds favor in his eyes and becomes his wife; just as He warned him with a prohibition that [after he marries her and takes another wife] her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights shall he not diminish.⁷² In accordance with this opinion [the author of the ‘Hilchoth Gedoloth’] counted the verse, She shall not go out as the menservants do among the three hundred and sixty-five negative commandments.