The Verse:
The Torah allows a person who has become irreparably destitute to sell themselves into indentured servitude. His term concludes either after six years or at the Jubilee year if that arrives first. The verse introduces his departure as follows:
“Then he shall leave you; he, and his children with him, and he shall return to his family and resume the status of his fathers.” (Vayikra 25:41)
The Rashi:
He, and his children with him—Says Rabbi Shimon: If he was sold, who sold his children [that Scripture states that his children go free with him]? However, from here, [we learn] that his master is obligated to provide food for his children [and, in this sense, they are released with their father].
The Question:
Rashi explains that the presence of the slave’s children in this verse, even though they were never sold to begin with, informs us of the master’s obligation to provide sustenance for the children. Whenever Rashi introduces a law derived from a phrase, he simply cites the phrase and provides the interpretation in the fewest words possible. He doesn’t generally include the problem in the verse that led to the interpretation, or prefatory remarks that aren’t relevant to the derivation.
In this case, Rashi could have simply cited the words, “and his children with him,” and commented, “from here we learn that his master is obligated to provide food for his children.”
Why does he need to preface with the question, “If he was sold, who sold his children”? Firstly, he could have shortened the question to, “who sold his children? From here we learn....” Secondly, he didn’t need to include even that shortened question.
Contrast with Shemos
This becomes more problematic when we contrast Rashi’s comments here with his similar comments in Mishpatim. There, the Torah discusses a slave sold by the court, and describes his departure as follows:
“If he comes [in] alone, he shall go out alone; if he is a married man, his wife shall go out with him.” (Shemos 21:3)
Rashi says: His wife shall go out with him—Now who brought her in that she should go out? Rather, the text informs us that whoever purchases a Hebrew slave is also responsible for supporting his wife and his children. [From Mechilta, Kid. 22a]
In this comment, Rashi indeed cuts out the preface, “if he was sold” and begins with the question itself, “who brought her in?” Why does he include the preface in our verse, but discards it in Mishpatim?
Secondly, from the verse in Mishpatim, Rashi derives that the master is obligated to provide for the slave’s wife and children, even though the verse never mentioned children. Why, then, in our verse, does Rashi not also include the master’s responsibility toward the slave's wife?
The Explanation
To understand this, we need to first notice a grammatical anomaly in Rashi’s comment. In the Hebrew, the phrase, “If he was sold” is in the passive voice, while the phrase “who sold his children” is an active verb. In the Talmudic source for this comment, both verbs are in the passive, “if he was sold, are his children sold?” The difference regarding the children is that the Talmud’s tense implies that the children cannot be sold, “are his children even sold,” while Rashi’s formulation implies that the children can technically be sold, “who sold the children.”
This is because the Talmud deals with the halachic reality which is that a father cannot sell his minor sons. The Oral law derives this from the Torah’s discussion about a father selling his minor daughter, without mentioning a minor son. But this interpretation is not grounded in the literal meaning of the text which Rashi concerns himself with. In the plain sense, there’s no reason to distinguish between a son and a daughter, and both sons and daughters can be sold.
Thus, Rashi uses the active verb regarding the children, “who sold the children,” because they can, according to this reading, be sold. The only question in our verse is, who sold them?
Once we have established this premise, we can understand why Rashi includes the preface, “if he was sold.” Rashi is bothered by the verse’s repetition, “Then he shall leave you; he, and his children with him,” when it could have simply said, “then he shall leave you, and his children.” This repetition presents the possibility that there are two cases discussed in the verse. One where just the father was sold, and one where the children were sold.
Rashi therefore clarifies that the verse never mentioned that the children were sold, and therefore, there must be some other reason they are mentioned here. Which leads to the conclusion that “from here, we learn that his master is obligated to provide food for his children.” But the verse adds the seemingly unnecessary “he” because the master’s obligation to feed the slave himself is also a novelty of this verse.
To explain: In Mishpatim the Torah discusses a person sold by the court into servitude. In that case, it is understood that the court will take responsibility for the well-being of the man’s wife and children, by stipulating with the master/buyer that he must provide for the slave’s family. In this parshah, however, the person is selling himself to pay his debts. If the court is not connected to this sale, then we might assume that the master must only provide for the slave himself, and even regarding the slave, perhaps only for his bare necessities, and perhaps even deducted from his cost of sale.
Therefore the verse reiterates, “he and his children,” to underscore that the master is indeed obligated by the Torah to support the slave and his children. Rashi does not mention the slave’s wife here, however, because it is inconclusive if she is included in this obligation, as there are equally convincing arguments to either side.
A sharp student will not be satisfied, and still ask why indeed is the master obligated to provide for the slave’s children. Why are they not considered like any other poor residents who are supported by charity of the city? Rashi therefore cites the author of the teaching, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, who maintains that the son is identified as one entity with the father, that they are inseparable parts of one essence, and therefore, if the master is obligated to feed the father, naturally, that extends to the son as well.
The Deeper Dimension
The sale of a father and his children alludes to exile, as Rabbi Shimon said, “wherever the Jewish people are exiled, G-d goes with them.” To this Rashi adds another statement of Rabbi Shimon, “if he is sold, who sold his children,” meaning, G-d is infinite and can exile Himself, so to speak, and remain unaffected. But how can the Jewish people, G-d’s children, be in exile and still be considered “His children”? To this Rashi responds that the exile only extends to the Jewish people’s material selves, “their food,” but not to their souls which remain free. But perhaps the nations of the world can restrain the Jewish people’s material well-being? To this Rashi again responds—their “master is obligated to provide their food”—the material sustenance passes through the master, the heavenly representatives of the nations, but they cannot choose to withhold the sustenance, they are “obligated” in it by G-d Himself.
