Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What does Exodus 21:7 mean when it says a father can sell his daughter as a maidservant?
A: According to Rashi and traditional Jewish interpretation, this verse refers to a father selling his minor daughter into a form of servitude, but with important protections. This was not slavery in the harsh sense, but rather a form of betrothal or marriage arrangement where the girl would eventually marry the master or his son, or be redeemed. The Torah limits this practice and gives her rights unlike male servants.
Q: Why does the Torah say a female servant 'shall not go out as the menservants do'?
A: The Talmud (Kiddushin 14b) explains that male Hebrew servants go free after six years (Exodus 21:2), but this doesn't apply to the female case. A female sold by her father has different status - either she is designated for marriage to the master or his son, or she must be redeemed by her family. The Torah provides her special protections not given to male servants.
Q: How does Jewish law understand the sale of a daughter in Exodus 21:7?
A: Maimonides (Hilchos Avadim 4) explains this refers specifically to a father selling his minor daughter (under age 12) with the court's approval, and only due to extreme poverty. It was essentially a form of arranged marriage with safeguards. The master must either marry her himself, arrange her marriage to his son, or redeem her - he cannot treat her as a regular servant.
Q: What lessons can we learn today from Exodus 21:7 about treating women?
A: While the practice doesn't apply today, we learn the Torah's progressive approach for its time - giving protections to vulnerable girls. The Sages (Mechilta) emphasize this shows the special care we must have for women's dignity. Even in difficult circumstances, Jewish law establishes boundaries to prevent exploitation and ensure proper treatment.
Q: Does Exodus 21:7 mean Judaism allows selling children?
A: No. The Talmud (Kiddushin 20a) makes clear this was an exceptional, highly regulated practice only permitted for a father in extreme poverty, only for a minor daughter, only with court oversight, and with specific marital or redemption requirements. The Torah's detailed laws here actually show its opposition to true slavery by limiting and regulating what existed in ancient societies.
Context and Overview
The verse (Exodus 21:7) discusses the laws pertaining to a father selling his daughter as an amah (maidservant), differentiating her status from that of male Hebrew slaves. This law is part of the broader legal framework in Parshat Mishpatim, which outlines civil and ethical obligations.
Rashi's Commentary
Rashi explains that this verse refers to a father selling his minor daughter into servitude, but only under dire financial circumstances (Rashi on Exodus 21:7). He clarifies that the Torah permits this only when the father is impoverished and has no other means of sustenance. The term amah implies a higher status than a regular slave—she is designated for eventual marriage to the master or his son, as derived from later verses (Exodus 21:8-9).
Rambam's Legal Perspective
In Hilchos Avadim (Laws of Servants 4:2), the Rambam elaborates that the sale of a daughter as an amah ivriyah (Hebrew maidservant) is conditional and temporary. Unlike male Hebrew slaves who go free after six years, her servitude ends either:
Talmudic Interpretation
The Talmud (Kiddushin 18a-20a) discusses the nuances of this law, emphasizing that the father’s right to sell his daughter applies only during her minority (ketanah). Once she reaches adulthood (bogeres), she gains autonomy and cannot be sold. The Gemara further clarifies that this sale is not true slavery but a form of betrothal, as the master is expected to elevate her status through marriage.
Midrashic Insights
The Mechilta (a halachic Midrash on Exodus) highlights the ethical dimension: the Torah permits this sale only as a last resort to ensure the daughter’s survival. It stresses that the master must treat her with dignity, as the verse implies by differentiating her from male slaves. The Sifrei adds that this law reflects Hashem’s compassion, ensuring that impoverished families have a dignified way to provide for their children.
Halachic and Ethical Implications
Later commentators, such as the Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 43), explain that this mitzvah teaches societal responsibility toward the vulnerable. While the practice is no longer applicable today (due to changing economic and social structures), its underlying principles—protecting the poor and ensuring dignified treatment of servants—remain timeless ethical imperatives in Jewish law.