A Male Maidservant or Female Manservant?
וְכִֽי־יִמְכֹּ֥ר אִ֛ישׁ אֶת־בִּתּ֖וֹ לְאָמָ֑ה לֹ֥א תֵצֵ֖א כְּצֵ֥את הָעֲבָדִֽים׃
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
Isn’t it interesting that while there are “male” and ‘female” forms of many words (like ish and isha), a maidservant, amah, is not the female form of the word for manservant, eved?
Why is that? Might it be because the nature of the relationships are different? Is the quality of the work of a manservant different than that of a maidservant?
Might an explanation of why have an amah but not an avadah (the female form of a manservant, an eved), be connected to the fact that the letters that form amah are identical to the letters that also form the word for “mother,” ima?
Could one explain this connection by suggesting that both mothers and maidservants are invested in something/someone else? While a manservant, an eved, serves essentially transactionally, without the same kind of emotional engagement that comes with mothering and maidserving? Might this explain the above commandment, that we are to treat them differently?
Isn’t it interesting that there is another word with those same identical letters, but it seems wholly unrelated at first glance: a cubit is also an amah. How can we explain the connection?
Might it be possible to suggest that the cubit is used to measure Noah’s Ark – which, like a mother or maidservant, was used to nurture and sustain life?
Might this also explain why the other things measured as amah are the items of the tabernacle, the mishkan? The mishkan also hosted life, did it not? And could not the function of the mishkan, supporting a dual household that included the divine presence and the serving priests, be similar to the key functions of both a mother and a maidservant?
Is there a better explanation? Or are the three uses of this root word really just one big coincidence?
Murder and the Snake
וְכִֽי־יָזִ֥ד אִ֛ישׁ עַל־רֵעֵ֖הוּ לְהׇרְג֣וֹ בְעׇרְמָ֑ה מֵעִ֣ם מִזְבְּחִ֔י תִּקָּחֶ֖נּוּ לָמֽוּת׃ {ס}
But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with arum; thou shalt take him from my altar, that he may die.
Arum is first used to describe the snake in Eden:
וְהַנָּחָשׁ֙ הָיָ֣ה עָר֔וּם מִכֹּל֙ חַיַּ֣ת
Now the snake was more arum than all the living-things.
Is the shared use of arum a coincidence?
Is it also a coincidence that the snake was punished with losing his legs, so that he could not climb or elevate (which was the function of the altar)? Is it possible that this punishment for a murderer who acts with arum is actually connecting us back to the Garden? A measure-for-measure result?
And what is the underlying meaning of arum after all? Is it guile or nakedness? Or might it be a general description of being connected to one’s instinctive and natural existence and desire? If so, is the Torah telling us to be more than our animal natures?
Abortion?
If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she has a miscarriage but there is no ason, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is ason, you are to take life for life… (Exodus 21: 22-23).
What is the meaning of this word, ason?
The Torah uses ason in just three other places.
וְאֶת־בִּנְיָמִין֙ אֲחִ֣י יוֹסֵ֔ף לֹא־שָׁלַ֥ח יַעֲקֹ֖ב אֶת־אֶחָ֑יו כִּ֣י אָמַ֔ר פֶּן־יִקְרָאֶ֖נּוּ אָסֽוֹן׃
For Jacob did not send Joseph’s brother Benjamin with his brothers, since he feared that he might meet with ason. (Gen. 42:4
וַיֹּ֕אמֶר לֹֽא־יֵרֵ֥ד בְּנִ֖י עִמָּכֶ֑ם כִּֽי־אָחִ֨יו מֵ֜ת וְה֧וּא לְבַדּ֣וֹ נִשְׁאָ֗ר וּקְרָאָ֤הוּ אָסוֹן֙ בַּדֶּ֙רֶךְ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תֵּֽלְכוּ־בָ֔הּ וְהוֹרַדְתֶּ֧ם אֶת־שֵׂיבָתִ֛י בְּיָג֖וֹן שְׁאֽוֹלָה׃
But he said, “My son must not go down with you, for his brother is dead and he alone is left. If he meets with ason on the journey you are taking, you will send my white head down to Sheol in grief.” (Gen. 42:38)
וּלְקַחְתֶּ֧ם גַּם־אֶת־זֶ֛ה מֵעִ֥ם פָּנַ֖י וְקָרָ֣הוּ אָס֑וֹן וְהֽוֹרַדְתֶּ֧ם אֶת־שֵׂיבָתִ֛י בְּרָעָ֖ה שְׁאֹֽלָה׃
If you take this one from me, too, [in addition to Joseph] and he meets with ason, you will send my white head down to Sheol in sorrow.’ (Gen. 44:29)
Does it make sense to understand the word ason by how it is used elsewhere?
The Torah has other words for “damage,” but this word, in the above verses, seems to be special and unambiguous: does not ason mean “the irrevocable loss of a child”?
Indeed, look at the next verse:
וְכִֽי־יִנָּצ֣וּ אֲנָשִׁ֗ים וְנָ֨גְפ֜וּ אִשָּׁ֤ה הָרָה֙ וְיָצְא֣וּ יְלָדֶ֔יהָ וְלֹ֥א יִהְיֶ֖ה אָס֑וֹן עָנ֣וֹשׁ יֵעָנֵ֗שׁ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר יָשִׁ֤ית עָלָיו֙ בַּ֣עַל הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וְנָתַ֖ן בִּפְלִלִֽים׃
When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and the child emerges, but there is no ason, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may place on him, the payment to be based on reckoning.
Hold up! Read that again! Is this verse really saying that in this case, there is no miscarriage, but is instead a premature labor and delivery of the baby?!
If this is right, then is the Torah (in the top verse quoted) comparing the death of a prematurely-born baby, to Jacob losing a dully-grown Benjamin?
Would this suggest that an externally-caused abortion might be seen by the Torah as murder most foul?
Seeing ason in the context of how it is used elsewhere in the text, is there another viable way to understand the text while still using the words it gives us?
A Thief and Jacob?
If the sun rises on him [a thief], he must make whole. [pay restitution]. (Ex. 22:2).
The first time in the Torah in which “the sun rises” on someone, it shines on Jacob, after he wrestled with the angel. Jacob was on his way to a confrontation with his brother Esau. Jacob, as we know, had taken Esau’s blessing.
After Jacob reconciles with Esau, bowing down to him multiple times, and giving him a myriad of “gifts,” the Torah tells us that Jacob was then shalem, “whole.”
Is the text telling us, obliquely, that Jacob was the first thief to make the victim whole?
Except that in the case of Jacob, the text tells us that Jacob was the one who was made “whole” – and if we look at Ex. 22:2 again, it is interesting that the text does not tell us which party – the thief or the victim – is made whole!
Is the text telling us that when someone steals from another person, the thief is also harmed? And that restitution might make both parties whole?