What are the ramifications of the Pasuk "Im Adonav Yiten lo Ishah"?
Rashi and Ramban (citing the Mechilta): We see from here that the master can force 1 the Eved 2 to marry' a Shifchah Cana'anis, 3 and that any children which she bears belong to the master.
Moshav Zekenim (Al Derech Derush): Refer to 21:3:1:3.
Refer to 21:4:1.1:1.
The Ramban on Pasuk 3, citing Chazal concludes that based on the word "Imo", the master cannot force the Eved to be intimate with the Shifchah and not with his wife, and that the choice each night lies with the Eved.
Rashi: It cannot mean an Amah ha'Ivriyah, since she too, goes out after six years, for she is equated to an Eved Ivri (Devarim 15:12), and even earlier, should she produce signs of Na'arus (puberty). See Ramban, who objects to this reason, in part, because the master does not have a mandate to marry off his Amah ha'Ivriyah to another man. And in any event, her children would belong to the father, and not to the master.
What are the implications of the word "Yitein Lo Ishah"?
Kidushin, 16a: It implies a. "Lo", 've'Lo le'Mocher Atzmo', and b. "Lo", 'Ba'al Korcho'.
Mechilta: It implies that she is designated to him and is not Hefker (to be intimate with anybody else). 1
See Torah Temimah, note 35.
Is this an obligation on the part of the master to provide the eved Ivri with a Shifchah Cana'anis?
Mwchilta: No! Just as 'Im be'Gapo Yavo be Gapo Yeitzei" implies literally 'if',
What are the implications of "ha'Ishah vi'Yeladehah Tih'yeh la'Adonehah"?
Yevamos, 22a: It implies that the children that he has from her are completely Misyaches after her, with the result that a. their son is exempt from performing Yibum with the wife of the other sons of the Eved Ivri, and b. he does not exempt his father's real wife from Yibum in the event that his his fayther dies.
Yevamos, 23a: If one of the Eved Ivri's sons from his real wife commits adultery with his sister from thr Shifchah, he is Patur.
Yevamos, 70a: It implies that, if a Bas Kohen has a grandson who is an Eved, 1 he does not render his grandmother Pasul from eating Terumh. 2
Kidushin, 65a: The son of a Shifchah Cana'anis, like her mother, does not go out together with the Eved Ivri who is her mother's husband and her father.
Kidushin, 69a: It enables the progeny of a Mamzer to become Tahor - by marrying a Shifchah Cana'anis, and setting free their children. 3
Mechilta: It incorporates a Tumtum and an Androginus. 4
Where for example, he is the son of her Yisrael son who became an Eved Ivri who bore him from a Shifchah Cana'anis (Torah Temimah).
Yevamos (Ibid.): Whereas relations with an Eved Cana'ani would disqualify her.
See Torah Temimah, note 41.
Since the Torah did not write 'Banehah u'Venosehah'. See Torah Temimah, note 42.
Rashi implies (in some versions, explicitly says) that the master can force the Eved to live with a Shifchah. This implies that if the slave has no wife, it is optional to live with a Shifchah. Temurah 30a forbids this!
Perhaps the slave is bodily acquired only when the master can force him. When he cannot force him, the slave is a full Yisrael, and is forbidden to a Shifchah! (PF; refer to 21:4:1511 and the note there. Moshav Zekenim left this difficult.)
What do we learn from "v'Hu Yetzei b'Gapo"?
Hadar Zekenim: She does not need a Get from him. Tosfos ha'Shalem (13, citing Moshav Zekenim) - similarly, a Yisraelis does not need a Get from an Eved Cana'ani, for [male and female Cana'ani slaves] are equated - "Mehem Tiknu Eved v'Amah."
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that the master can force the slave to live with a Shifchah. There is a La'av of "Lo Yihyeh Kadesh" (Devarim 23:18)! Only a Mitzvah can override this!
Moshav Zekenim citing R. Aharon: The slave is bodily acquired. He left Kedushas Yisrael and is permitted to a Shifchah, even if the master does not give her to him. 1
The same Torah that forbids a regular Yisrael to live with a Shifchah, permits - even obligates - an Eved Ivri to do so.
Moshav Zekenim: If so, why does one opinion forbid giving a Shifchah to one who sold himself? Kidushin 69a proves that he holds that the Heter is only for one sold for his theft. (Above, Moshav Zekenim himself brought from Temurah 30a that there is no Heter for a slave with children! Does he remain a Yisrael in such a case?! - PF)
