In introducing this chapter to you, I first offer a confession that many of its words leave me with a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach, stretching my faith in its divine inspirational origin.  I find it difficult to imagine the Lord specifying some of these ordinances.  I have struggled to find any rationale for many of them with little success.  I find that they offend my sense of right and wrong, and I have to fight back a desire to question God on many of the ensuing points, not always successful at restraining my indignation.  If my forefathers had not questioned God, I would feel very queasy about doing it.  I will air my grievances and remarks as we progress.

On another perhaps interesting note, this chapter and the next two seem to reverse the concept of mine that singular second-person pronouns refer to the whole of the people, while plural ones refer to each of the individuals of the people.  These three chapters contain the ordinances that Moses shall set “before them”  (see next verse).  I can imagine that the inversion of my theory may be specific to these three chapters.  The reason for my suspicion is that the Lord says to Moses in the first verse that these are the ordinances he should set “before them.”  He does not say “before the people.”  Now the people is singular, but them is plural, meaning to each of them.  Notice that there is no specific antecedent to the pronoun them.  It’s merely understood.  The form of this instruction to Moses doesn’t appear anywhere else in the Torah.  This could be a clue that a difference was intended here.

Remember that the Lord, having begun His dictation to Moses in v. 20:19, continues to dictate to Moses throughout this chapter and the next two.

וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים לִפְנֵיהֶם   21:1

Exod. 21:1  “Now these are the ordinances that you shall set before them:”

כִּי תִקְנֶה עֶבֶד עִבְרִי שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד וּבַשְּׁבִעִת יֵצֵא לַחָפְשִׁי חִנָּם   21:2

Exod. 21:2  “When you would buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh, he shall go out to freedom without cost.”                                                          [Back to Exod. 21 notes]

This bought man is a slave in every sense of the word, except that he goes free after six years of service.  But what’s to prevent his owner selling him after five years?  Then he would continue as someone else’s slave for another six years.  Now bible commentators put this individual into a special category.  The claim is that the man must have been convicted of theft, and because he could not make restitution for his unlawful act, the judge or judges who convicted him put him up for sale.  We will see below that this claim is not pertinent to this situation.  The man might not have been a convict, but instead was too poor to support himself, and consequently sold himself for board and care.  Beyond all these apologetics, I have to remind myself (and everyone else) that this is not a matter of the customs or values of the time, but a commandment of the Lord (see the discussion relating to v. 21:7 below).  Is it possible to consider that slavery was justifiable to and by the Lord?  I question this conclusion with all my being.

Moreover, what does the phrase “without cost” mean?  Without cost to whom?  To the owner, or to the servant?  My guess is that it means to the servant.  This point is clarified later in Deuteronomy.             [Return to Deut. 15:12]

אִם־בְּגַפֹּו יָבֹא בְּגַפֹּו יֵצֵא אִם־בַּעַל אִשָּׁה הוּא וְיָצְאָה אִשְׁתֹּו עִמֹּו   21:3

Exod. 21:3  “If he will come in by himself, he shall go out by himself.  If he will be the husband of a woman, then his wife shall go out with him.

This verse caused me to immediately suspect the commentators’ explanation of v. 21:2.  If the man was a convict, why should his wife have come with him?  Was she subject to the same penalty imposed on her husband by the legal system?  Was she also a slave?  I find it impossible to imagine that she would not have been, that the slave owner would house the woman without exacting her labor as well.  Another question arises:  Was she, not having been bought as her husband, free to go whenever she wished?  Or could she leave only when her husband was freed?

אִם־אֲדֹנָיו יִתֶּן־לֹו אִשָּׁה וְיָלְדָה־לֹו בָנִים אֹו בָנֹות הָאִשָּׁה וִילָדֶיהָ תִּהְיֶה לַאדֹנֶיהָ וְהוּא יֵצֵא בְגַפֹּו   21:4

Exod. 21:4  “If his master will give a wife to him and she bears sons or daughters for him, the woman shall be her master’s with her children, and he shall go out by himself.

Some commentators explain this verse by saying that the owner would have given one of his maidservants to the thief, only to procreate more slaves for him; although she was the man’s wife during at least some of the six years, she always remains the owner’s property.

וְאִם־אָמֹר יֹאמַר הָעֶבֶד אָהַבְתִּי אֶת־אֲדֹנִי אֶת־אִשְׁתִּי וְאֶת־בָּנָי לֹא אֵצֵא חָפְשִׁי   21:5

Exod. 21:5  “But if the servant shall definitely say, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children.  I will not go out free,’

וְהִגִּישֹׁו אֲדֹנָיו אֶל־הָאֱלֹהִים וְהִגִּישֹׁו אֶל־הַדֶּלֶת אֹו אֶל־הַמְּזוּזָה וְרָצַע אֲדֹנָיו אֶת־אָזְנֹו בַּמַּרְצֵעַ   21:6

וַעֲבָדֹו לְעֹלָם

Exod. 21:6  then his master shall bring him to He Who is God; then he shall bring him to the door or to the door post and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.”

I have to conclude from these two verses that the owner would likely be tempted to give his slave/servant the most lovely woman in his household, so that the man would probably fall in love with her and also love his children, and therefore be more likely to stay forever.  What does the owner stand to lose if he tries this?  Nothing!  If the man leaves, he still has his maidservant and her children.  Thus, given vss. 21:5 and 6, I can’t accept any justification for

v. 21:4.

Verse 21:6 does not make clear why the servant is to be brought to the door or door post.  This is clarified later in Deuteronomy.                                              [Return to Deut. 15:17]                 [Return to rubincmds.org]

As an aside, the fourth word in the verse, הָאֱלֹהִים, is often translated as the judges, because it was the judges who ultimately decided the slave’s fate.  I prefer to translate the word as God, as He is the true ultimate Judge, and it is, after all, one of His names.  Still, I suspect judges was intended by the scribe.

וְכִי־יִמְכֹּר אִישׁ אֶת־בִּתֹּו לְאָמָה לֹא תֵצֵא כְּצֵאת הָעֲבָדִים   21:7

Exod. 21:7  “And when a man will sell his daughter for a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the man-servants.”

Well, here we have another apparent instance of female prejudice.  Why should a woman who was bought not go free after serving six years like the man?    More >>

אִם־רָעָה בְּעֵינֵי אֲדֹנֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר־(לֹא) [לֹו] יְעָדָהּ וְהֶפְדָּהּ לְעַם נָכְרִי לֹא־יִמְשֹׁל לְמָכְרָהּ בְּבִגְדֹו־בָהּ   21:8

Exod. 21:8  “If she is unpleasant in the eyes of to whom her master had betrothed her, then he shall redeem her.  He shall have no power to sell her to a foreign people, because of his dealing wrongly with her.”

An error in this verse is identified in the sixth word.  The לֹא in parentheses, meaning not, should be corrected to the לֹו in the brackets, meaning to whom.

The master in this verse is most likely the one who bought her in the previous verse.  The only other person it could be is the father.  If it was he, how would he sell his daughter to a prospective husband?  Doesn’t he have to provide a dowry?  It should cost him, not make money for him.  Now the “master,” if she is unpleasant in his eyes, can betroth her to another.  Why would he do that?  Now he has to provide a dowry.  So she would cost him double.  It makes no sense.  I wonder if there’s something here that I’m missing.

וְאִם־לִבְנֹו יִיעָדֶנָּה כְּמִשְׁפַּט הַבָּנֹות יַעֲשֶׂה־לָּהּ   21:9

Exod. 21:9  “And if he will betroth her to his son, he shall do for her after the manner of daughters.”

Here we see that the master does have to provide a dowry, even to his own son.  It would be as if she were his stepdaughter now.

אִם־אַחֶרֶת יִקַּח־לֹו שְׁאֵרָהּ כְּסוּתָהּ וְעֹנָתָהּ לֹא יִגְרָע   21:10

Exod. 21:10   “If he will take another for himself, he shall not diminish her food, her garments, and her conjugal rights.”

The pronoun he in this verse must refer to the son, not the master.  If he takes a second wife, he must maintain his support for the first as a wife.                                                                   [Return to Mala. 2:11]

וְאִם־שְׁלָשׁ־אֵלֶּה לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה לָהּ וְיָצְאָה חִנָּם אֵין כָּסֶף   21:11

Exod. 21:11   “And if he can not do these three for her, then she shall go out free without money.”

The hapless woman is now free to go, but she would be penniless.  What could become of her?

An interesting but meaningful sidelight regarding this verse should be examined here.  The sages seem to be in agreement that the three things referred to in this verse are not related to the son in diminishing his wife’s food, garment, or conjugal rights.  But instead they refer to the master’s marrying, betrothing, and redeeming her.  I see that it makes a great deal of difference which it is, and I feel that the phrase these three in this verse more likely refers to the immediately preceding one, not to vss. 21:8 and 9.  Did the sages really believe that a husband was not responsible for dealing well with his first wife if he took another?                [Back to Exod. 21 notes]

מַכֵּה אִישׁ וָמֵת מֹות יוּמָת   21:12

Exod. 21:12   “He who wounds a man so he would die shall surely be put to death,

וַאֲשֶׁר לֹא צָדָה וְהָאֱלֹהִים אִנָּה לְיָדֹו וְשַׂמְתִּי לְךָ מָקֹום אֲשֶׁר יָנוּס שָׁמָּה   21:13

Exod. 21:13   but when he does not lie in wait and God delivers him to his hand, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee.”

If the death was not premeditated and apparently an accident (i.e., the Lord delivers him), then the killer will have a chance to escape the vengeance of a family member or friend.

וְכִי־יָזִד* אִישׁ עַל־רֵעֵהוּ לְהָרְגֹו בְעָרְמָה מֵעִם מִזְבְּחִי תִּקָּחֶנּוּ לָמוּת   21:14

Exod. 21:14   “And when a man should act insolently against his neighbor to kill him by guile, you shall take him away from My altar to die.”

But if the act is premeditated and carried out with guile, the killer, even a priest or Levite, would not be permitted to sacrifice at the altar and would be removed to die, how, we are not told at this point.

וּמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמֹּו מֹות יוּמָת   21:15

Exod. 21:15   “And he who would strike his father or his mother shall surely die.”

The sages conjecture that the blow has to leave a bruise.  If the young man lightly slaps his father or mother, he would not die.  Does this mean that a blow leaving a bruise constitutes a violation of the fifth commandment, while a light slap does not?

וְגֹנֵב אִישׁ וּמְכָרֹו וְנִמְצָא בְיָדֹו מֹות יוּמָת   21:16

Exod. 21:16   “And he who would steal a man and sell him, or he will be found in his hand, shall surely die.”

Kidnapping is a very old capital crime.  Even older than this verse.  What of Joseph’s brothers?  Should they have been put to death?  Apparently not.  The only justification seems to be that this commandment had not promulgated as yet then.                                                                                             [Return to Deut. 24:7]

וּמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמֹּו מֹות יוּמָת   21:17

Exod. 21:17   “And he who would curse his father or his mother shall surely die.”

I asked myself, why should v. 21:17 be sandwiched between the two verses  21:16 and 18, relating to dishonoring a parent?  There appears to be no explanation or notice of this in the biblical literature.  I suspect that the answer is that kidnapping is a crime comparable to dishonoring a parent in the two ways described.  To understand how this might fit, one should consider the effect on the parents of the kidnapping of their child.

וְכִי־יְרִיבֻן אֲנָשִׁים וְהִכָּה־אִישׁ אֶת־רֵעֵהוּ בְּאֶבֶן אֹו בְאֶגְרֹף וְלֹא יָמוּת וְנָפַל לְמִשְׁכָּב   21:18

Exod. 21:18   “And if men should grapple and one should strike the other with a stone or with a fist and he would not die but would lie down in bed,

אִם־יָקוּם וְהִתְהַלֵּךְ בַּחוּץ עַל־מִשְׁעַנְתֹּו וְנִקָּה הַמַּכֶּה רַק שִׁבְתֹּו יִתֵּן וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא   21:19

Exod. 21:19   if he should get up and can walk outdoors with his walking stick, then he who struck him shall be held innocent.  Only his lost time shall he compensate and shall have him completely healed.”

This verse raises some questions that don’t appear to be answered anywhere.  What if the injured man can walk without a walking stick although he is ailing?  What if his arm was broken and he can still walk?  Isn’t the one who struck him still liable for compensation and medical treatment?  Also, if the injured party stays in bed but does not die, is the one who struck him subject to the death penalty?

וְכִי־יַכֶּה אִישׁ אֶת־עַבְדֹּו אֹו אֶת־אֲמָתֹו בַּשֵּׁבֶט וּמֵת תַּחַת יָדֹו נָקֹם יִנָּקֵם   21:20

Exod. 21:20   “And if a man should strike his man-servant (or his maid-servant) with a rod and he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished.”

For the death of a servant, the master is merely punished, not subject to the death penalty.  When did the Lord specify (other than here) that the life of a servant was worth less than the life of any other human being?  Can this be an appropriate implication of this verse?  It certainly appears to be.

Notice that this verse, unlike many others, is gender neutral.  It applies to either a man- or woman-servant.  No distinction between them is made.  They are equal under this ordinance.

אַךְ אִם־יֹום אֹו יֹומַיִם יַעֲמֹד לֹא יֻקַּם כִּי כַסְפֹּו הוּא   21:21

Exod. 21:21   “However, if he endures a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money.”

Well, if the servant should live for a day or two, no punishment ensues.  Even if she dies on the third day?  And what is the punishment of the master to be?  A fine?  Apparently, as that is what the last phrase in the verse seems to mean.

וְכִי־יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים וְנָגְפוּ אִשָּׁה הָרָה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אָסֹון עָנֹושׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו   21:22

בַּעַל הָאִשָּׁה וְנָתַן בִּפְלִלִים

Exod. 21:22   “And when men might struggle together and they should strike a pregnant woman so her offspring come out but there would be no harm, he shall surely be fined as the husband of the woman will set for him, and he shall pay according to the judges.”

There is a great deal of controversy over the interpretation of this verse.  Various scholars argue for and against different meanings.  It is the central verse in the pro-choice vs. pro-life controversy.  So I must ask a question whose more-or-less obvious answer may help in resolving the intent of this verse.  Let’s assume the baby comes out fine and the mother is not injured (hard to believe, but possible).  What reason would the Lord have for imposing a fine?  There has been no harm, no one is hurt.  A fine imposed by the husband seems quite unreasonable.  No where else in the Torah does the Lord dictate a fine when no one and nothing has been harmed.  A fine is imposed only when there is harm.  I claim this proves that the hypothetical circumstance is that the embryo must have died.  I recognize that this interpretation flies in the face of Christian belief.  But any other reasonable meaning is difficult to come by.

וְאִם־אָסֹון יִהְיֶה וְנָתַתָּה נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ   21:23

Exod. 21:23   “But if harm should result, then you shall permit a life for a life,

In light of the discussion on the preceding verse, we can now shed some white light on the meaning of this verse and the next two.  They are not meant as a dictated revengeful response to the perpetrator of harm.  They are meant as a reasoned limit to revenge.  One may exact no more punishment than the harm done to the victim.

By the way, although I need no more support for my conclusion relating to v. 21:22 above, these verses provide an additional basis for my words.  Notice there is no mention of “a fetus for a fetus” here.

עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן שֵׁן תַּחַת שֵׁן יָד תַּחַת יָד רֶגֶל תַּחַת רָגֶל   21:24

Exod. 21:24   an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot,

כְּוִיָּה תַּחַת כְּוִיָּה פֶּצַע תַּחַת פָּצַע חַבּוּרָה תַּחַת חַבּוּרָה   21:25

Exod. 21:25   a burning for a burning, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.”

                                                                                                     [Return to Levi. 24:20]

וְכִי־יַכֶּה אִישׁ אֶת־עֵין עַבְדֹּו אֹו־אֶת־עֵין אֲמָתֹו וְשִׁחֲתָהּ לַחָפְשִׁי יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ תַּחַת עֵינֹו   21:26

Exod. 21:26   “And when a man might strike the eye of his man-servant (or the eye of his maid-servant) and destroy it, he shall let him go to freedom in place of his eye.”

How soon the eye for an eye verse ( 21:24) gets forgotten!  Or does this exception to the rule mean that a servant is again treated as inferior?

וְאִם־שֵׁן עַבְדֹּו אֹו־שֵׁן אֲמָתֹו יַפִּיל לַחָפְשִׁי יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ תַּחַת שִׁנֹּו   21:27

Exod. 21:27   Or if a tooth of his man-servant (or a tooth of his maid-servant) should fall out, you shall let him go to freedom in place of his tooth.”

וְכִי־יִגַּח שֹׁור אֶת־אִישׁ אֹו אֶת־אִשָּׁה וָמֵת סָקֹול יִסָּקֵל הַשֹּׁור וְלֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת־בְּשָׂרֹו וּבַעַל הַשֹּׁור   21:28


Exod. 21:28   “And when an ox might gore a man (or a woman) and he should die; while the owner of the ox shall be blameless, the ox shall surely be stoned to death, yet he shall not eat its flesh.”

Stoning an animal to death makes the animal’s meat not kosher in any case.  However, there’s no restriction on anything else the owner can do with the carcass.  He can sell it to a stranger or he can feed it to dogs or lay traps with it.

Notice that we encounter the gender neutrality first displayed in v. 21:20 and again in v. 21:26 also in this verse.

וְאִם שֹׁור נַגָּח הוּא מִתְּמֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם וְהוּעַד בִּבְעָלָיו וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ וְהֵמִית אִישׁ אֹו אִשָּׁה הַשֹּׁור יִסָּקֵל  21:29

וְגַם־בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת

Exod. 21:29   “But if the ox might have been a vicious one from before that time in the past, and warning would have been given to its owner and he would not heed it so it might have killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned to death and its owner shall also be put to death.”

אִם־כֹּפֶר יוּשַׁת עָלָיו וְנָתַן פִּדְיֹן נַפְשֹׁו כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־יוּשַׁת עָלָיו   21:30

Exod. 21:30   “If a ransom should be placed on him, he may pay any amount that might be placed on him, thus redeeming his life.”

Is this redemption intended only for this circumstance, or does it apply in general to someone who is to be put to death for negligent disregard for another’s life?  No commentaries on this question, as far as I can determine.

אֹו־בֵן יִגָּח אֹו־בַת יִגָּח כַּמִּשְׁפָּט הַזֶּה יֵעָשֶׂה לֹּו   21:31

Exod. 21:31   “Even if it should gore a son or gore a daughter, according to this ordinance shall it be done to him.”

אִם־עֶבֶד יִגַּח הַשֹּׁור אֹו אָמָה כֶּסֶף שְׁלֹשִׁים שְׁקָלִים יִתֵּן לַאדֹנָיו וְהַשֹּׁור יִסָּקֵל   21:32

Exod. 21:32   “If the ox should gore a man-servant (or a maid-servant), he shall pay his master thirty shekels silver, and the ox shall be stoned to death.”

I have to assume that the pronoun it in the previous verse, and the ox mentioned in this verse both refer back to the ox in v. 21:29.  There the owner of the ox is also sentenced to death (from which he may redeem himself, to be sure).  But in this verse all he has to do is pay compensation to the servant’s owner.

So once more we are reminded that the life of someone else’s servant is inferior to that of any other (free) person.  This flies in the face of, and is contradicted by, numerous verses in the Torah and bible, which I will point out as we progress.  Once more, therefore, I find myself tempted to question the divine origin of this ordinance, as well as those related to it.

וְכִי־יִפְתַּח אִישׁ בֹּור אֹו כִּי־יִכְרֶה אִישׁ בֹּר וְלֹא יְכַסֶּנּוּ וְנָפַל־שָׁמָּה שֹּׁור אֹו חֲמֹור   21:33

Exod. 21:33   “And when a man might open a pit or when a man might dig a pit, but would not cover it, and an ox or an ass should fall in there,”

בַּעַל הַבֹּור יְשַׁלֵּם כֶּסֶף יָשִׁיב לִבְעָלָיו וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה־לֹּו   21:34

Exod. 21:34   the owner of the pit shall make good.  He shall pay back silver to its owner and the dead animal shall become his.”

Are we being told in these two verses that the life of a servant is roughly equivalent to the life of an ox?  It would seem disturbingly so.

וְכִי־יִגֹּף שֹׁור־אִישׁ אֶת־שֹׁור רֵעֵהוּ וָמֵת וּמָכְרוּ אֶת־הַשֹּׁור הַחַי וְחָצוּ אֶת־כַּסְפֹּו וְגַם אֶת־הַמֵּת   21:35


Exod. 21:35   “And when a man’s ox might hurt the ox of another and it should die, then they shall sell the living ox and divide its price, and they shall also divide the dead one.”

And divide the dead one?  For what?  Certainly not to eat its meat.  It is not kosher.

אֹו נֹודַע כִּי שֹׁור נַגָּח הוּא מִתְּמֹול שִׁלְשֹׁם וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ בְּעָלָיו שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם שֹׁור תַּחַת הַשֹּׁור וְהַמֵּת   21:36


Exod. 21:36   “Or had it been made known that the ox was a vicious one before that time in the past and its owner would not take heed to it, he shall surely pay back an ox for the ox, and the dead one shall become his.”

Again, the same questions for this dead ox!

כִּי יִגְנֹב־אִישׁ שֹׁור אֹו־שֶׂה וּטְבָחֹו אֹו מְכָרֹו חֲמִשָּׁה בָקָר יְשַׁלֵּם תַּחַת הַשֹּׁור וְאַרְבַּע־צֹאן תַּחַת    21:37


Exod. 21:37   “When a man might steal an ox or a sheep and slaughter it, or he sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox, and four sheep for the sheep.”                 [Return to 2Sam. 12:6]

I presume that the penalty for an ox is greater than that for a sheep because the ox can do work but the sheep does not.  But once more I have to ask what happened to an eye for an eye?  Does that rule (ordinance) only apply to humans or only to pregnant women?  Is it restricted only to the situation described?  Certainly when it is quoted or referred to, the context usually implies a generalized situation, not the particular circumstance specified in vss. 21:22 and 23.  As I see it, this is a critical uncertainty, demanding objective clarification.  When this rule is repeated later in Leviticus 24, one may deduce that there it seems to be described as a generalized rule, not specific to any given situation.  I will continue this discussion when we arrive at that chapter.             [Return to Levi. 24:20]

                                                                   [Return to Rubinhood.org, Part 3]

Torah Commandments in this Chapter

44.  The procedures pertaining to a purchased man-servant shall be observed.     V. 21:2 - 6

45.  The procedures pertaining to a sold maid-servant shall be observed.     V. 21:7 - 11

46.  The procedures pertaining to one who mortally wounds

       a person shall be followed.      V. 21:12 - 14

47.  One who strikes his mother or father shall die.     V. 21:15

48.  A kidnapper shall die.     V. 21:16

49.  One who curses his mother or father shall die.    V. 21:17

50.  If in a fight one injures the other, and the latter survives, the former is responsible for

       compensation and medical expenses.    V. 21:18,19

51.  If one strikes his servant so he dies, the master is to be punished.    V. 21:20

52.  But if the servant lives for two days or less, he is not punished.    V. 21:21

53.  If in a fight a pregnant woman bystander is struck so she has a miscarriage,

       the guilty one shall pay a fine.    V. 21:22

54.  But if harm results, then a life for a life or any other equal punishment

       is permitted.    V. 21:23 - 25

55.  If a master blinds an eye of his servant, the servant goes free.    V. 21:26

56.  If a master causes the loss of his servant's tooth, the servant goes free.    V. 21:27

57.  You shall follow the procedures pertaining to damage by or to oxen.    V. 21:28 - 37


[Return to Exodus Chapters]  [Prev:  Exod. 20]  [Next:  Exod. 22]





Exodus 21