Slavery

Parshat Vayelech

Along with the previous discussions on misogyny, parts one and two, genocide and homosexuality, this week's topic finishes out four of the major moral areas in which I struggled mightily over when religious.  In fact, you might say that it was really my inability to rationalize how an omniscient and benevolent being could countenance such laws that led me to drop the religion (a process I will outline in two weeks time!). This week, we will look at slavery, starting with the Torah itself and moving towards how it was treated in Rabbinic times.

Before we start, I have a confession to make regarding this week's post. Originally, I planned to have a much broader and intensive treatment of this topic. However, I both ran out of time and energy, so the final result is considerably shorter and more superficial than I might have desired. Nevertheless, I think I have something substantial enough here, and can perhaps provide some new insights to the institution of slavery in Judaism.

Slavery in the Ancient World

Before we begin, it's probably best to define slavery.  I will use slavery as chattel slavery, the physical ownership of one human being by another. It is different from both indentured servitude and stuff like "wage slavery." While these practices are often bad, and often highly immoral, in my mind there is still a moral distinction between them and chattel slavery. It is no doubt that chattel slavery was a reality in the ancient world.  In fact, to the chagrin of many, including myself, it is still a reality today for far too many people.  In ancient times though, it was considered normal.  Laws of how to handle slaves were different from laws about handling free people.  This is true both in the Torah and other law codes like Hammurabi's. People who think the Torah should be treated as a document of its own era (as I tend to do) will find that the various laws are not abnormal for their time, although they have their own twist, which we'll see shortly.

The Torah - Slavery is not for Hebrews

It is very possible to see the Torah's treatment of slavery as a natural outgrowth of the Israelite origin myth, that the Israelites were once slaves (to Egypt) and were made free through divine intervention.  One of the more poignant recapitulations is made in the parsha two weeks ago (and where this was originally scheduled) albeit with a different background than slavery (Deut 26:6-9):

6 And the Egyptians dealt ill with us, and afflicted us, and laid upon us hard bondage. 7 And we cried unto the LORD, the God of our fathers, and the LORD heard our voice, and saw our affliction, and our toil, and our oppression. 8 And the LORD brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders.

One of the central ideas of the Torah is that the Israelites are no longer slaves.  And as such, they should not enslave each other.  Therefore, the Torah specified time limits to slavery, reducing it to indentured servitude.  For example (Exod. 26:2-3)

2 If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3 If he come in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he be married, then his wife shall go out with him.

The use of Ivri (Hebrew) is interesting.  It is not a common word, but is commonly found in passages dealing with slavery.  I won't go into this more here, but I did discuss this along with the Apiru when discussing the Exodus.  The Torah doesn't extend this reduction of slavery to everyone.  The very next verse states (Exod. 26:4):

If his master give him a wife, and she bear him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

Later there's an even clearer description of this.  First with regard to Israelite slaves (Lev. 25:39-42)

39 And if thy brother be waxen poor with thee, and sell himself unto thee, thou shalt not make him to serve as a bondservant. 40 As a hired servant, and as a settler, he shall be with thee; he shall serve with thee unto the year of jubilee. 41 Then shall he go out from thee, he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. 42 For they are My servants, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as bondmen.

I'll note that "serve as a bondservant" in the Hebrew is Avodat Aved which probably should be translated (in context) as work of a slave. Translating Eved is tricky because the Hebrew word can both mean a slave, an employee, or anything in between. Context is key here, and the following verse, 26:40 help us understand that Aved in 26:39 probably means slave.  Also note that here the slaves only go free in the Yovel (Jubilee) years, which is every 50 years, not the every seven years that we saw in the previous passage in Shmot (Exodus). This is a contradiction that gave the Talmudic Rabbis issues as they tried to resolve who exactly goes free every 7 years, and who every 50. But it's not one we'll pick up in this post.

The verses following these draw the distinction between Israelite slaves (who are not really slaves) and non-Israelite slaves.  Let's see how that goes (Lev 25:44-46)

44 And as for thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, whom thou mayest have: of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them may ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land; and they may be your possession. 46 And ye may make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession: of them may ye take your bondmen for ever; but over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigour.

The Torah is explicit.  Non-Israelite slaves, people from outside, are to be your property, and may be so forever.

If the Torah represents an improvement in slavery laws, it is only an improvement for the Israelites.  In other words, slavery itself isn't bad or immoral according to the Torah, rather it's enslaving your kinsmen that is bad (and then only somewhat bad, you can still do it, just not forever).

Whenever the topic of slavery comes up with someone who wants to defend the Torah (whether Jewish or Christian) they will always say that the Torah's version of slavery is more like indentured servitude, and they will point to the progressive passages concerning freeing the slaves after 7 or 50 years.  All you have to do is read a little further in these sections, and you'll find that they're misrepresenting the Torah which clearly allows for the eternal chattel slavery of non-Israelites. Later we'll see that traditional Jewish interpretation in the Talmud agrees with the allowing of chattel slavery. But, before that, if you want a lighthearted break, this parody cartoon is a humorous look at the whitewashing tendencies of religious supporters.

The Practice of Slavery as Recorded 

Several places in the Tanach there are descriptions of slavery (of other individuals by Jews). For example, in the Torah we have the following account (Num 31 - 32-47, selected verses)

32 Now the prey, over and above the booty which the men of war took, was [no. of sheep, cows,  and donkeys]... 35 and thirty and two thousand persons in all, of the women that had not known man by lying with him.  41 And Moses gave the tribute, which was set apart for the LORD, unto Eleazar the priest, as the LORD commanded Moses. 42 And of the children of Israel's half, which Moses divided off from the men that warred-- 43 now the congregation's half was [no. of sheep, cows, and donkeys] 46 and sixteen thousand persons-- 47 even of the children of Israel's half, Moses took one drawn out of every fifty, both of man and of beast, and gave them unto the Levites, that kept the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD; as the LORD commanded Moses. 

It should be noted that these slaves were all virgin women, so it's probably guessable what their duties entailed. Later there are accounts in Yehoshua (Joshua). In a story that clearly serves both etiological and propaganda purposes, the Hivites hearing that the Israelites are on a mission to commit genocide on them, pretend to be foreigners and make a peace treaty (Josh 9:6,15)

6 And they [the Hivites] went to Joshua unto the camp at Gilgal, and said unto him, and to the men of Israel: 'We are come from a far country; now therefore make ye a covenant with us.' 15 And Joshua made peace with them, and made a covenant with them, to let them live; and the princes of the congregation swore unto them.

After Yehoshua finds out that they are Canaanites he get angry because he now can't slaughter them en masse. As punishment for not wanting to die, he enslaves them all (Josh. 9:22-23,27)

22 And Joshua called for them, and he spoke unto them, saying: 'Wherefore have ye beguiled us, saying: We are very far from you, when ye dwell among us? 23 Now therefore ye are cursed, and there shall never fail to be of you bondmen, both hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God.' 27 And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the LORD, unto this day, in the place which He should choose. 

The use of "unto this day" is interesting, because it implies that there were Hivite slaves serving in the Temple at the time this story was penned. The story is giving an etiological explanation as to why there are Hivites serve in the Temple!

The conscription of slaves is also described later in the reign of Shlomo, where it says (1 Kings 9:20-21)

20 All the people that were left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, who were not of the children of Israel; 21 even their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel were not able utterly to destroy, of them did Solomon raise a levy of bondservants, unto this day.

Again, this is a description of chattel slavery and serves both etiological and propaganda purposes. It is explaining why there are foreign slaves serving in the temple. Perhaps the same slaves Yehezkel (Ezekiel) complains about in 44:7

 7 in that ye have brought in aliens, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary, to profane it, 

This is about all I will say on this topic, for more you can see this blog post, which describes in a bit more detail what is going on.

Slavery According to the Rabbis

In the times of the Talmud, slavery was considered a normal fact of life. About the era directly preceding the codification of the Mishnah, Urbach writes:

A crucial change occurred with the Maccabaean wars and the conquests of the early Hasmonaean kings. Prisoners of war, and the population of pagan cities which had either been forced into flight or forcibly ejected when their homes were captured by John Hyrcanus or Alexander Jannaeus, constituted a source of suppy for the slave market [sourced from Josephus War 1,4,3].  These foreigners were dubbed "Canaanite" slaves... We have no exact information concerning numbers of slaves; but the warning note struck by Hillel, "whosoever multiplies maidservants multiplies promiscuity, whosoever multiplies male slaves multiplies misappropriation of property," shows that a multiplicity of slaves was not an unknown phenomenon still in his own day [1].

References to slaves abound throughout the text of the Talmud. The vast majority of them worry about the halakhic standing of slaves, what commandments they are subject to, and what they are not [2]. Also of interest is that slaves are required to undergo a ritual immersion in a mikvah and be circumcised [3] although the latter was relaxed in later years. However one Talmudic section, deserves special attention. The section begins at the end of Gittin 38a with a story and continues on to the next page. Here's my translation:

There was a female slave in Pumbedita that people were using for immoral purposes. Abaye said, "If only R' Shmuel didn't say that whoever sets a slave free transgresses a positive mitzvah (commandment) we'd compel her master to write her a deed of emancipation...R' Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel, "Anyone that sets his [non-Israelite] slave free transgresses a positive mitzvah, since it says (Lev 25:46) 'They shall serve you forever'...Our Rabbis taught, "they should be your bondsmen for ever" R' Yishmael says this is optional, R' Akiva says this is mandatory... Rabbah said for these three things people lose suffer financial loss, for setting free their [non-Jewish] slaves, for taking inventory of their property on Shabbat, and for making their Shabbat meal coincide with the time they should be at synagogue (lit. Beit Midrash.)

While it wasn't a universal opinion, we see in this section a clear indication that at least some Rabbis, including the venerated Rabbi Akiva, thought that one should never set their non-Jewish slaves free, and if they did, they were violating the divine law that non-Jewish individuals should serve Jews. It's this gemara that Ovadiah Yosef channeled when he said that non-Jews only exist to serve Jews.

Before we move on, it is important to give credit where credit is due. While the possession of slaves by the great Jewish Rabbis of yore is deplorable by today's standards, in many cases the treatment of slaves was better than what could be expected in Greek or Roman cities. As Urbach writes:

The absolute equality of slave and free man in all matters regarding the judicial safeguarding of their lives has no parallel in either Greek or Roman Law [4]

Implications for the Morality of Judaism

It is nearly universally agreed today, at least in the west, that owning another human being is immoral. Certainly, the Torah laws regarding perpetual slavery of non-Israelites reminds us of the chattel slavery engaged in by the nations of the Western Hemisphere with its disastrous consequences. In fact, in medieval periods when chattel slavery of conquered nations were common, and in the 17th and 18th centuries when the mass enslavement of the African population occurred, Jews participated in slave trading just as everyone else.

It is very hard, given the clear presence of chattel slavery in the Torah, the Nevi'im and in early Rabbinic practice for Judaism to claim any moral high ground in this area. They are indeed lockstep with the rest of the surrounding nations. This of course is problematic for modern moralists. Let's see how Rabbi Jonathan Sacks confronts this checkered history of Judaism and attempts to answer the question "Why did God not say: There shall be no more slavery?":

There is little doubt that in terms of the Torah’s value system the exercise of power by one person over another, without their consent, is a fundamental assault against human dignity. ... So slavery is to be abolished, but it is a fundamental principle of God’s relationship with us that he does not force us to change faster than we are able to do so of our own free will. So Mishpatim does not abolish slavery but it sets in motion a series of fundamental laws that will lead people, albeit at their own pace, to abolish it of their own accord...[God] wanted slavery abolished but he wanted it to be done by free human beings coming to see of their own accord the evil it is and the evil it does. The God of history, who taught us to study history, had faith that eventually we would learn the lesson of history: that freedom is indivisible. We must grant freedom to others if we truly seek it for ourselves.

In this little piece of apologetics, Sacks indicates that he possesses a far better insight into the divine law than any of the Rabbis of the Talmud, since absolutely none of them ever made a statement like "God wanted slavery to be abolished." Instead they used the Torah verses to justify horrendous practices and even prevent people from freeing slaves! And finally, it is only through western ideals and enlightenment that we've reached the idea of full emancipation of all people. So, what use is the Torah in this matter?

Of course the final question to ask is whether there's any truth to Rabbi Sack's account. Did the laws in Mishpatim regarding freeing Jewish slaves after a period of time have any influence on the drafting of such modern laws like the Thirteenth Amendment. The answer, of course, is no. There's no discernable influence there. In fact the Torah itself was just as often used to justify horrendous practices as it was to eliminate them. It's at best neutral on the topic, and at worst a representation of backwards morality.
  

---

1. Urbach, "The Laws Regarding Slavery,  Arno Press 1979, p.31 ^

2. In case you are wondering, slaves are pretty much equal to women in this regard. ^

3. Urbach p. 42 ^

4. Urbach p. 39-40 ^