Exodus 21:8-10

New English Translation

Footnotes

1. Exodus 21:8 tn Heb “and if unpleasant (רָעָה, raʿah) in the eyes of her master.”
2. Exodus 21:8 tn The verb יָעַד (yaʿad) does not mean “betroth, espouse” as some of the earlier translations had it, but “to designate.” When he bought the girl, he designated her for himself, giving her and her family certain expectations.
3. Exodus 21:8 tn The verb is a Hiphil perfect with vav (ו) consecutive from פָּדָה (padah, “to redeem”). Here in the apodosis the form is equivalent to an imperfect: “let someone redeem her”—perhaps her father if he can, or another. U. Cassuto says it can also mean she can redeem herself and dissolve the relationship (Exodus, 268).
4. Exodus 21:8 tn Heb “he has no authority/power,” for the verb means “rule, have dominion.”
5. Exodus 21:8 sn The deceit is in not making her his wife or concubine as the arrangement had stipulated.
6. Exodus 21:9 tn Or “after the manner of” (KJV, ASV); NRSV “shall deal with her as with a daughter.”
7. Exodus 21:10 tn “wife” has been supplied.
8. Exodus 21:10 tn The translation of “food” does not quite do justice to the Hebrew word. It is “flesh.” The issue here is that the family she was to marry into is wealthy, they ate meat. She was not just to be given the basic food the ordinary people ate, but the fine foods that this family ate.
9. Exodus 21:10 sn Traditional Rabbinic interpretation, affirmed in spirit by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor 7:5, understands the term עֹנָה (ʿonah) to refer to rights to sexual relations within marriage. The term only occurs in this verse and its precise nuance is unclear. An alternate opinion is proposed by S. Paul, “Exodus 21:10, A Threefold Maintenance Clause,” JNES 28 (1969): 48-53. He suggests that the third element listed is not marital rights, but ointments, since Sumerian and Akkadian texts list food, clothing, and oil as the necessities of life. But none of the three are cognates to the words in the Hebrew list (a cognate term for “clothing” was not used) and the sequence is different than the Akkadian, so it is unlikely that it represents a shared standard legal formulation. The point is that the husband cannot play favorites and functionally demote his first wife.