Exodus 21:4

Exo 21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.

Ver. 4. Have given him a wife,] viz., One of his heathen handmaids, whom to part with was no great punishment, because an unlawful couple.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Exo 21:4. Her children shall be her master’s — Having become his in consequence of the right which he had to the parents. He shall go out by himself — But was not this separation of man and wife inconsistent with the first institution of marriage, by which that bond is made indissoluble? Answer, 1st, That bond was not necessarily dissolved by this law, both because the separation was at the man’s choice, who might have stayed if he pleased, and because the distinction of their habitations might consist with the right use of matrimony, which the master would probably permit for his own advantage.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

21:4-6 The master was not required to provide a slave with a wife who would then be freed with him. The slave in such a situation had to either abandon the family he began while he was a slave or become a permanent slave.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Till her time of servitude was expired which might be the seventh year or the fiftieth.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 4. The wife and her children shall be her master's] It was a law among the Hebrews, that if a Hebrew had children by a Canannitish woman, those children must be considered as Canaanitish only, and might be sold and bought, and serve for ever. The law here refers to such a case only.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(4) If his master have given him a wife.—If, however, the Hebrew slave, being previously unmarried, had been allowed by his master to take to wife one of his female slaves, then, when the husband claimed his freedom the wife could not claim hers. Both she and her children remained in the slave condition.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. The third case. If the master marries a slave to one of his female slaves, the wife remains her master’s slave as she was before, and does not go free with her husband. If she has borne him children, the remain in servitude with their mother. At this early time, children’s relationship to their mother was held to be closer and more binding than that to their father.

give him] for the slave would not have the right to choose a wife for himself.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

If his master have given him a wife,.... One of his slaves, a Canaanitish woman, on purpose to beget slaves on her, since all born in his house were his own; this is supposed to be after he was come into his house, and into his service:

and she have born him sons or daughters; as she might have born him several of the one sort, or the other, if she was given to him quickly after his servitude began:

the wife and her children shall be her master's: she being his slave, and bought with his money, he had a right unto her, and to the children belonging to her, the birth following the belly; and being born in his house, they were also his. Jarchi here observes, that the Scripture speaks of a Canaanitish woman, for an Hebrew woman went out at the sixth year, and even before the sixth, if she produced the signs, that is, of puberty:

and he shall go out by himself; without his wife and children: if it be objected to this law, that it is contrary to the law of marriage, which is indissoluble, but by this dissolved; it may be replied, that the servant was not obliged by it to leave his wife, unless he chose it; on complying with certain conditions after mentioned, he might continue with her; besides, she was, according to Jarchi, but his secondary wife, and not only so, the marriage was not lawful, being with a Canaanitish woman, and not agreeable to the Lord; and being also her master's slave, to whom he had a right, he could retain her if he pleased, having only given her to his servant to beget slaves on for him.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

That being a true rule, and approved both by Scripture and by heathen authors, that the birth follows the belly, Gen 21:10; Gal 4:24,25; and he that owns the tree hath right to all its fruit.

Quest. How was this separation of man and wife agreeable with the first institution of marriage, by which that bond is made indissoluble?

Answ. 1. That bond was not necessarily dissolved by this law, both because the separation was at the man’s choice, who might have staid there if he so pleased; and because the distinction of their habitations might consist with the right and use of matrimony, which the master also would probably permit for his own advantage.

Answ. 2. God might here, as well as in the case of divorces, dispense with his own laws and institutions, especially in this case, where he might design this for a punishment to the man for marrying a stranger, which was not pleasing to God, as appears from Deu 21:11; Ezr 10:2; Neh 13:23. And that this woman was a stranger, and not a Hebrewess, is manifest, because then she also must have gone out free, Exo 21 7-9; Deu 15:12.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

4. If his master have given him a wife — This condition involved certain rights of family and household possession. It contemplates the patriarchal family, in which servants were born, and may also have had in view the fact that the wife in the case supposed might often be a bondmaid acquired from among the heathen, whose legal term of service would not expire before the jubilee. “This may appear oppressive, but it was an equitable consequence of the possession of property in slaves at all.” — Keil.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

If his master have given him a wife. If the slave was unmarried when he went into servitude, or if his wife died, and his master then gave him a wife from among his female slaves, the master was not to lose his property in his female slave by reason of having permitted the marriage. When the man claimed his freedom at the end of the sixth year, he was to "go out" alone. Should children have been born, they were also to be the property of the master and to remain members of his household. No doubt these provisos, which cannot be regarded as unjust, had the effect of inducing many Hebrew slaves not to claim their release (vers. 5, 6).

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

אם אדניו יתן לו אשה IF HIS LORD HAS GIVEN HIM A WIFE — From this we learn that if he has already an Israelite wife the master has the right to give him a Canaanitish handmaid with the object of raising slaves. Or perhaps this is not so, but Scripture by אשה is speaking about an Israelite woman?! Scripture, however, states: “the wife and her children shall be the master’s”, consequently the text can only be speaking of a Canaanitish woman, for a Hebrew maidservant goes free at the end of six years just as a Hebrew man-servant does — yea, even before the termination of six years she goes free if she shows symptoms of incipient puberty (cf. Rashi v. 7) — for it is said, (Deuteronomy 15:12) “[and if] thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, [be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years, then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee]”, which statement teaches you that a Hebrew woman also goes free after six years’ service (Mekhilta; Kiddushin 14b).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

IF HIS MASTER GIVE HIM A WIFE. “Scripture is speaking of a Canaanite woman. Or perhaps this is not so; but Scripture here speaks only of an Israelite woman?! Scripture therefore says, the wife and her children shall be her master’s. Consequently, it must be speaking of a Canaanite woman.” This is the language of the Beraitha, Note 209. taught in the Mechilta. Now Rashi wrote [in explanation of this Mechilta]: “For a Hebrew maidservant also goes free at the end of six years [just as a Hebrew manservant does], or even before the end of six years if she shows signs of puberty, for it is said, If thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, he shall serve thee six years.” can only be speaking of a Canaanite woman.But this is not quite correct. For if we say [as the Beraitha above attempted to,] that the verse here speaks of an Israelite woman, it could no longer refer to the case of a father selling his minor daughter, about whom the law is given that when she shows signs of puberty she goes free, for how could the master give her as a wife to his Hebrew servant, since he has no power to hand her over to any other man [except to designate her to be his own wife, or that of his son — as is explained further in Verses 8-9]! who sold herself as a maidservant. So how then could Rashi support his argument [that if she were an Israelite woman, she would go free “if she shows signs of puberty],” when the Beraitha must of necessity be referring not to a minor but to a woman of age? (Mizrachi). Similarly, the proof that Rashi mentioned, namely that she also goes free at the end of six years, is only so in accordance with his own words which he wrote that a person who sells himself [on account of his destitution] is sold for a maximum of six years; but in the Talmud these are the words of a single Sage [Rabbi Eliezer], but the accepted opinion is that one who sells himself can be sold for six years or more. Now if so, the case of a woman who goes free at the end of six years can only be when her father sold her [as a minor, but in that case the master has no right to give her as a wife to his Hebrew servant, but only to designate her as his own wife or that of his son]! But that which the Rabbis have said [in the Beraitha above, on the basis of the verse, the wife and her children shall be the master’s]: “Consequently, Scripture must be speaking of a Canaanite woman” — the meaning thereof is as follows: Since He stated, the wife and her children shall be the master’s [it must be speaking only of a Canaanite woman], for the children of a Canaanite bondmaid are the master’s since her child has the same status as she does, but in the case of an Israelite woman — even if she were of age [in which case her master could give her to his Hebrew servant as a wife], and even if we were to say that a woman may sell herself as a maidservant (Verse 7) — a man can sell himself, but a woman cannot sell herself.” But Ramban is writing only on the assumption that the Beraitha introduced this as a hypothesis finally to be disproved. See my Hebrew commentary pp. 515-516. — her children are the father’s [not the master’s].

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.