Designation, Redemption, and a Master Who Broke Faith

"If she is displeasing" (Exodus 21:8): I know only of an ugly one; from where the comely one? Scripture says "in the eyes of her master." From where his son? Scripture says "displeasing." Rabbi Eliezer says: "if she is displeasing in the eyes of her master" to include the disqualified ones. "Who has not designated her" (Exodus 21:8): from the negative you infer the positive that if he wished to designate her, he may designate her. "Designated her" with her consent; this teaches that he betroths her only with her consent. And the same applies to all women, who are betrothed only with their consent and by their will. And is this not an a fortiori argument? If a Hebrew maidservant, who is held under his hand, the Torah says he designates her only with her consent, then other women all the more so. And how does he designate her? He says to her before two witnesses, "behold, you are betrothed to me," and he need not give her betrothal-money. Another interpretation: "designated her" this teaches that he does not designate two at once. "He designated her and let her be redeemed" (Exodus 21:8): this teaches that the commandment of designation precedes the commandment of redemption. "And let her be redeemed": this teaches that she goes out by deduction of money. Another interpretation: "and let her be redeemed" this teaches that the court redeems her against his will. Another interpretation: "he designated her and let her be redeemed" there is no designation except within the period of redemption, so that if he designated her within the six years, even at the end of the very last perutah, this is a valid designation; but if he designated her after the six years, there is no designation here. "To a foreign people he has no right to sell her" (Exodus 21:8): one might think he may not sell her but may give her as a gift; Scripture says "he shall have no dominion." One might think he may not sell her to others but may sell her to relatives; Scripture says "to a people he shall not sell." One might think he may not sell her but may give her as a gift; Scripture says "to a people he shall have no dominion." Let it speak of others why must it speak of relatives? For had it said "others" and not "relatives," I would have said he may not sell her to others but may sell her to relatives. Let it speak of relatives why must it speak of others? For had it said "relatives" and not "others," I would have said: to relatives forbidden to her he may not sell her, but to others permitted to her he may sell her. Therefore it must say "others" and must say "relatives." I know only of a Hebrew maidservant; from where a Hebrew slave? You say an a fortiori argument: if a Hebrew maidservant, whom he is permitted to designate for himself or for his son, he may not sell, then a Hebrew slave, over whom he has no such right at all, surely he may not sell him. And if he sold him, he has accomplished nothing, and he is not flogged. "Since he has dealt deceitfully with her" (Exodus 21:8): once he has spread his cloak over her, he can no longer sell her. Another interpretation: "he shall have no dominion to sell her, since he has dealt deceitfully with her" Rabbi Shimon says: the first man who broke faith with her and sent her away you have no right to enslave her further. From here they said: a man does not sell his daughter into servitude after marriage.