The Master Who Strikes His Slave and the Day or Two Leniency

(Exodus 21:20-21) "And when a man strikes his slave." The slave and the bondwoman were also included in the general rule (above, verse 14) "and one who strikes a man so that he dies" [and would be liable to death], yet Scripture took them out of that general rule to be lenient with the master, so that he is judged by the rule of "a day or two" [escaping the death penalty if the slave survives that long]. For this reason this passage was stated. "And when a man strikes": I have only a man; from where do I learn a woman who strikes? Rabbi Ishmael used to say so [it is included], and Rabbi Yoshiyah said so, and Rabbi Yonatan said: "his slave or his bondwoman" comes to make him liable for this one on its own and for that one on its own. Rabbi Eliezer says: Scripture speaks of a Canaanite slave. Or does it speak only of a Hebrew slave? The teaching states "of them you shall acquire a slave and a bondwoman" (Leviticus 25:44-46): just as a slave whose status as slave holds both in his maturity and in his youth, so too a bondwoman whose status holds both in her maturity and in her youth. This excludes the Hebrew slave, for although in his maturity he is a slave, in his youth he is not a slave; and it excludes the Hebrew bondwoman, for although in her youth she is a bondwoman, in her maturity she is not. Rabbi Yitzhak said: I might hear that even a slave belonging to two partners, and a slave who is half slave and half free, are included. The teaching states "his slave and his bondwoman": just as his slave who is wholly his, so too his bondwoman who is wholly his. This excludes a slave of two partners and a slave who is half slave and half free, who is not wholly his. Rabbi Ishmael says: Scripture speaks of a Canaanite slave. Or is it only a Hebrew slave? The teaching states "he shall not be avenged, for he is his money": just as money, whose acquisition is a permanent acquisition and whose ownership of it is complete, so this excludes the Hebrew, for although ownership of him is complete, his acquisition is not permanent; and it excludes a slave of two partners and a slave who is half slave and half free, for although the acquisition is permanent, ownership of him is not complete. "With a rod": I might hear, whether there is enough in it to kill or there is not enough in it to kill. The teaching states (Numbers 35:18) "or with a wooden hand-tool by which one may die"; this tells that he is not liable unless he strikes him with a thing that has enough in it to kill and upon a place where a blow is enough to kill. Before this is even stated, I could derive it by reasoning: if regarding an Israelite, where the law is more stringent (for there is no "day or two" leniency), one is not liable unless he strikes with a thing that has enough in it to kill and upon a place where a blow is enough to kill, then regarding a Canaanite, where the law is more lenient (for there is a "day or two" leniency), is it not logical that one should not be liable unless he strikes with a thing that has enough in it to kill and upon a place where a blow is enough to kill? But if you say so, you would be inflicting punishment by mere reasoning. Therefore it states "with a rod," for one does not inflict punishment by reasoning alone. Rabbi [Yehudah haNasi] says: why is "with a rod" stated? Before it is said, I could argue: if regarding an Israelite, where the law is more stringent, and so on. So what does "with a rod" teach? Rather, it is left free [from being needed for its plain sense] in order to be compared by an analogy of identical wording (gezeira shava): "rod" is stated here and "rod" is stated elsewhere ("the rod"); just as the "rod" stated elsewhere comes to exclude the purchased animal and that of partners, so too the "rod" stated here comes to exclude the purchased and that of partners. "And he dies under his hand": that his striking and his death must both be within the master's domain. Thus if he struck him and then sold him to another and he died, the master is exempt. "He shall surely be avenged": this means death by execution. You say execution; or does it mean only a monetary penalty? Rabbi Natan used to say: vengeance is stated here and vengeance is stated elsewhere (Leviticus 26:25) "and I will bring a sword upon you," and so on; just as there it is by the sword, so here it is by the sword. Rabbi Akiva says: vengeance is stated here, and vengeance is stated elsewhere (Numbers 31:2) "avenge the vengeance of the children of Israel"; just as there it is by the sword, so here it is by the sword; and just as there it is by a court, so here it is by a court.