Is Exodus 21:21 about a dead slave or one who survives?

Question

Exodus 21:20-21 provides provisions to avenge the maltreatment of a slave:

When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money. (ESV)

The bolded clause

אַךְ אִם־יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם יַעֲמֹד
lit. but if a day or two days he stands

is translated differently by HCSB:

However, if the slave can stand up after a day or two...

This creates the opposite meaning: the implication of the ESV is that the slave still dies whereas in the HCSB he recovers. The HCSB makes for an "easier" interpretation since the owner is deemed to have lost adequate kesef (ESV "money", HCSB "property") in a few days' labor, and no additional punishment is required.

Is this translation justified?

Answer 1

The previous verses helps to answer this question:

וְכִֽי־יַכֶּה֩ אִ֨ישׁ אֶת־עַבְדֹּ֜ו אֹ֤ו אֶת־אֲמָתֹו֙ בַּשֵּׁ֔בֶט וּמֵ֖ת תַּ֣חַת יָדֹ֑ו נָקֹ֖ם יִנָּקֵֽם

"And when a man strikes his servant or his maidservant and he dies under his hand, vengeance shall surely be taken" (Ex. 21:20).

The term "dies under his hand" seems to indicate perishing directly as a result of a beating, as opposed to one who can stand up after one or two days (recovers). I therefore must disagree with the other answers that attempt to interpret this verse as saying, "if he doesn't die after one or two days, the master is innocent." I believe it is saying, if he can stand on the first day or second day after the beating, no vengeance shall be taken. However, if the beating results in a protracted, serious condition, or death, I don't believe this verse is indicating innocence merely because of a few days passing. The blows do have to directly result in death, however ("under his hand"), and therefore if he can walk on the first day, or second day, death or sickness after that is not to be taken to be as a direct result of the blows, and the master is innocent, i.e. not liable to the "rising up [in judgment]". However, if he still cannot walk on the third day, and subsequently dies in his bed, or remains sick, I believe this verse indicates legal vengeance is STILL to be taken.

In fact Ex. 21:19 teaches us the same principle:

אִם־יָק֞וּם וְהִתְהַלֵּ֥ךְ בַּח֛וּץ עַל־מִשְׁעַנְתֹּ֖ו וְנִקָּ֣ה הַמַּכֶּ֑ה רַ֥ק שִׁבְתֹּ֛ו יִתֵּ֖ן וְרַפֹּ֥א יְרַפֵּֽא

"If he rises and walks outside on his staff, then the smiter is innocent, except for the [cost of] his rest he will give to him, and cause him to be fully healed."

This further teaches us that if the servant rises, even after the second day, and walks outside on his staff [or stands up at all, v. 21], the master shall no longer be held liable (to "vengeance" [in judgement] for monetary compensation/blood money) should the servant die in his sickbed. It also teaches us that even a servant is to be compensated for his sick time by his master who beat him by fully healing him (and continuing his wages/compensation).

Our most problematic verse is לֹ֣א יֻקַּ֔ם כִּ֥י כַסְפֹּ֖ו הֽוּא "Don't rise up against him [in judgment], for he is his silver." For me, this proves that the verse is not speaking of the vengeance of the death penalty, but of paying the man's family the price of having severely wounded or killed a servant (accidentally). Because the person is able to stand up after a day or two, he or his family is not entitled to further compensation. Just to clarify, I am interpreting this to be an accidental death, not falling under the category of murder.

Further, when death by stoning is prescribed, the term, "he shall surely die" or "they shall surely be stoned" is used emphatically. Here, the less severe term of "vengeance shall surely be taken" is used. Clearly we are referring here to less severe forms of punishment than death. Clearly its a different type of situation than murder, involving the destroyed value of a man (here called "his silver") that may be compensated for accordingly. However, the fierce anger of a blood-avenger was seemingly condoned in Scripture in manslaughter cases should a civil solution fail, or should the blood avenger get ahold of the man before he could flee to a city of refuge.

Answer 2

From Keil-Delitzsch, "Commentary on the Old Testament" Vol. 1. p. 134.

https://goo.gl/pzzzJQ

Excerpts:

Ex. 20:20-21 - ...The case was different with regard to a slave. The master had always the right to punish or "chasten" him with a stick (Prov. 10:13, 13:4)... The law therefore confined to the abuse of this authority in outbursts of passion, in which case, "if the servant or the maid should die under his hand, he was to be punished"....

...that it is hardly conceivable that a master would intentionally kill his slave, who was his possession and money.

...By the continuance of his life, if only for a day or two, it would become perfectly evident that the master did not wish to kill his servant; and if nevertheless he died after this, the loss of the slave was punishment enough for the master.

End of excerpts.

Answer 3

Is Exodus 21:21 about a dead slave or one who survives? Its about Both.

the first part "when a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rode and the slave dies under his had, he shall be avenged. This was meant as, If a person beats a servant to death they should be sentenced to death The second part "But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money." (ESV)

In the time this was given/ written/ spoken medicine was not the best. Infection was easily contracted. Now most have the medication and care that if one have an open wound it can be treated and nothing much happens (antibiotics, rubbing alcohol, etc.). Then an open wound would cause issues, especially for a slave, who often did not get the best living situations. They worked all day, with no Air Condition, so sweat happened, slaves often were used for field work or to clean; so, any wound would probably have what they worked in it as well. This increased chances of issues.

This law was meant to keep masters from purposefully killing their slaves, but the required punishments were often harsh in that time and as stated above that caused things to happen that might not have been the intent to happen. So it gives an 'allowance' that the death was not the intent. And since the slaves were bought and paid for the master should have been more careful, but not at fault.

It's like: if A gets in a fight with B, if B dies from the pummeling A goes to jail. or A gets into a fight with B, B goes to the hospital and later dies from complications.

It was not A's intent to kill B and so is acquitted. Fines are levied and paid. Though if it happens often the ruling in a court would be different.

To restate, the rule applies to both situations

Answer 4

Amad, in the Hiphil form, is a matter of standing, or a matter of being appointed. It is a question of status. My own understanding is that if a bondman is still standing after a day or two, then vengeance is not appropriate.

To beat a bondman so badly that he is incapacitated is a stupid thing to do, and counter-productive, for it is just not profitable. But the bondman belongs to the man and if he is that way inclined, nobody can do much about it. Similar to wife maltreatment.

Thereafter, it cannot be proven that a death resulted, necessarily, from the previous incident. This is the case in modern courts. It is difficult to absolutely prove what a death resulted from. Or to prove whether employment did, or did not, cause the cancer which killed the patient.

Answer 5

According the Ellicott, if the slave survives a day or two, then it wasn't the intent of the owner to kill him.

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

The notion is, that unless the death follows speedily it must be presumed not to have been intended; and this might be especially presumed in the case of a man killing his slave, since thereby he inflicted on himself a pecuniary [monetary] loss.

Pulpit Commentary is similar:

Verse 21. - If he continue a day or two - i.e., "If the slave does not die till a day or two afterwards." Compare the provision in ver. 19, with respect to persons who were not slaves. No special callousness to the sufferings of slaves is implied. He is his money. The slave had been purchased for a stun of money, or was at any rate money' s worth; and the master would suffer a pecuniary loss by his death.

If the slave survived, there was a chance that he might go free:

Exodus 21:27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.

Answer 6

Your verse [Exo 21:21] where a slave does NOT die at the hands of their master (contrasted to [Exo 21:20] where they do) means that compensation for death is not warranted. That is not to say no compensation is due the slave, merely that compensation for wrongful death is not warranted [Num 35:30-31][Lev 24:17-22].

Consider the implications of [Lev 25:40] and [Exo 21:20] on the general principle of treatment of slaves described in these and surrounding verses, especially with respect to treatments listed later (law of compensation) [Exo 21:26-27].

Property or not, [Lev 25:40] clearly sets the slave, whether Hebrew bondmen, foreign slaves (prisoners taken in war), or persons bought in the market, on par with hired servants AND [Exo 21:20] shows that even death and injurious treatment resulted in compensation for the slave.

The principle in [Gen 9:6] applied even to slaves who were afforded protection, to a very great extent, by the law of compensation given in vss [Exo 21:20,26,27]. The brutality of masters, who had to emancipate their slaves if they did them any serious injury, was held in check, by these verses: and stood in stark contrast to the legal rights of masters in all the other contemporary historical cultures.

In all but the Hebrew case, masters could treat slaves as they pleased: they could sell them; punish them; and put them to death but in Hebrew society slaves were entitled to compensation.

The issue of:

אַךְ אִם־יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם יַעֲמֹד lit. but if a day or two days he stands

.. is only ambiguous in translation, so in the English but not in the Hebrew.