Emancipating the Slaves/2

Emancipating the Slaves

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

Commentators debate the reasons for both the people's initial emancipation and their re-enslavement.  Malbim suggests that he decisions had nothing to do with observance of Hashem's commands and stemmed from purely practical concerns.  During the Babylonian siege it was both politically and economically expedient to free worthless slaves.  After the siege was lifted, however, this was no longer the case.  Others disagree, claiming that the move was spurred by a sincere desire to repent.  Either Yirmeyahu's prodding had finally taken fruit, or the desperate political situation l ed to self relfection and a desire to remove Hashem's wrath.  Unfortunately, like many religious refomrs and resolutuions, them ove was short-klived.

Political & Economic Considerations

Tzidkeyahu's decision to free the slaves stemmed from political and economic considerations rather than religious ones.

Sources:opinion rejected by ShadalYirmeyahu 34:8-21About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, MalbimYirmeyahu Beur HaInyan 34:8-21About R. Meir Leibush Weiser,

Historical background – These sources posit that the emancipation of the slaves took place while the nation was under siege by the Babylonians, in the tenth year of Tzidkeyahu's reign.¹

The political  and economic incentives – These sources point to two distinct, but related incentives that led the people to free their slaves:

• Political – Malbim suggests that, during the siege, the king feared that the slaves might rebel and side with Nevuchadnezzer in order to free themselves of the yoke of debt² and bondage. Shadal alternatively brings an opinion that Tzidkeyahu freed the slaves since slaves are not particularly motivated to fight their enemies, while a free man will risk much to guard his freedom.
• Economic – During the siege, the slaves were a burden on their owners who had to house and feed them, yet received almost no utility in return, as the fields which they normally worked lay outside the city and were inaccessible due to the siege.³

Role of Yirmeyahu – According to this position, only Tzidkeyahu is mentioned in relationship to the original emancipation because Yirmeyahu played no role in it.  The people did not act under the prophet's teachings or influence, as their move had nothing to do with Hashem.

Why did they re-enslave the people? Yirmeyahu 37:5-8 speaks of a short reprieve from the siege, the result of Egyptian intervention.⁴  When the siege lifted, it was no longer politically or economically expedient not to own slaves and so owners re-enslaved them.

"וַתַּעֲשׂוּ אֶת הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינַי" – Shadal questions this approach from verse 15 which states that Hashem found the nation's emancipation of the slaves pleasing, suggesting that the deed was done as a fulfillment of the Torah's obligation, and not simply for political benefit.

Covenant in the Mikdash – One might further questions why the decision would have been accompanied by a covenant made in the Mikdash if there was no religious motivation.⁵  These sources might respond that the Mikdash was a central meeting place where many official events took place, even if they had no religious significance.

"הָעֵגֶל אֲשֶׁר כָּרְתוּ לִשְׁנַיִם וַיַּעַבְרוּ בֵּין בְּתָרָיו" – According to this approach the verses might not be intentionally alluding to the "Covenant Between the Pieces", and the people did not make their covenant with that of Avraham in mind. Cutting animals and passing through the pieces was simply the normal mode of cutting a covenant in ancient times.⁶

"הָעֹבְרִים אֶת בְּרִתִי" – In these words, Hashem might be emphasizing to the nation that in re-enslaving the people, they were not simply reneging on promises they had made, but also breaking their covenant with Hashem.  Since the nation had not even thought about Torah laws throughout he episode, Hashem reminds them that emancipation is a Divine ordinance, not a choice to be made based on practicality.

Religious Motives

Tzidkeyahu's emancipation of the slaves stemmed solely from religious motives and a (temporary) desire to abide by the Torah's laws. This position divides regarding the historical background of our story and thus the specific impetus for the reform:

Before the Siege

The emancipation and re-enslavement took place several years before the Babylonian siege and, thus, the siege played no role in the people's various decisions.

Timing of the story – According to Seder Olam Rabbah26About Seder Olam Rabbah, Tzidkeyahu made the covenant to free the slaves in the seventh year of his reign, several years before the Babylonian siege began.⁷ The Midrash reaches this conclusion by associating Yirmeyahu's rebuke in our chapter with Yechezkel's rebuke to the elders in Yechezkel 20, dated to the "seventh year".  There are several reasons to make such a connection:

• All the time markers in Sefer Yechezkel refer to the exile of Yeyohachin, which was the same year as the ascension of Tzidkeyahu. As such, an event dated to the "seventh year" would have occurred in the seventh year of Tzidkeyahu's reign.
• In our chapter Yirmeyahu tells the people, "כֹּה אָמַר י"י... אָנֹכִי כָּרַתִּי בְרִית אֶת אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם בְּיוֹם הוֹצִאִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם...  לֵאמֹר". Yechezkel similarly says, "וָאִוָּדַע לָהֶם בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם וָאֶשָּׂא יָדִי לָהֶם לֵאמֹר".
• In his rebuke, Yechezkel repeatedly mentions how throughout history the nation has not observed Hashem's "Shabbatot".⁸  Though, in context, he appears to speaking about the weekly Shabbat, the word recalls the cycle of Sabbatical years and, thus, might be seen as hinting to the people's negligence in the freeing of slaves in the Jubilee years.  This would fit well with our chapter, where the people re-enslave the nation, with apparently no plans of freeing them thereafter.

The religious incentive – As this approach disconnects the emancipation from the Babylonian siege, it would seem that the people's decision had nothing to do with any economic or political incentives related to the siege, but was rather part of a sincere desire to repent. Throughout the era, Yirmeyahu had attempted to amend the people's ways and his efforts finally bore (at least temporary) fruit in our chapter.

Role played by Yirmeyahu – Though the verses do not explicitly mention that Yirmeyahu encouraged the nation to repent and observe the laws of slave emancipation, it is assumed that he played a role.

Why this commandment? It is possible that Yirmeyahu chose to encourage the people to observe this commandment specifically because of its symbolic value.  It served to remind the nation of the Exodus and how Hashem freed the Israelites from bondage. As this is the act which provides the basis for all of Israel's obligations to Hashem,⁹ it was an appropriate command to have the nation observe as they began to repent.¹⁰ Yirmeyahu was likely hoping that this would be the beginning of a lager reformation, and would be continued by observance of other neglected laws as well.¹¹

"וַתִּכְרְתוּ בְרִית לְפָנַי בַּבַּיִת אֲשֶׁר נִקְרָא שְׁמִי עָלָיו" – The fact that the ceremony to free the slaves took the form of a covenant which was made in the Mikdash supports the idea that it was a religious deed.

" וַתַּעֲשׂוּ אֶת הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינַי " – Hashem's words "and you did that which was right in my eyes" similarly suggests that the people's actions were sincere and motivated by a desire to abide by Hashem's laws.

Allusion to Covenant of the Pieces – This position might suggest that when the people made their covenant, they intentionally modeled it after the Covenant Between the Pieces.  Since that covenant foretold the nation's bondage and emancipation, it was appropriate to recall it as they decided to free their own slaves.  Moreover, throughout Torah, the reason given for proper treatment of slaves is the fact that Israel too had been enslaved and should therefore have empathy on others.  In recalling the covenant which predicted their oppression, they display a recognition of this point.

Why did they re-enslave the people? This approach would likely suggest that the process of re-enslavement was gradual and not the consequence of any one particular event, but rather a slow regression in behavior. Change and repentance are often short-lived.  Despite sincere intentions, people naturally revert to their old ways.  As such, it is not particularly surprising that the people went back on their word.¹²

"וּבְיַד חֵיל מֶלֶךְ בָּבֶל הָעֹלִים מֵעֲלֵיכֶם" – This verse is somewhat difficult for this position as it assumes that the Babylonians had attacked Yerushalayim and temporarily left, suggesting that the siege had already been in place and was lifted when our story takes place.  This position might suggest that the verse is referring not to the Babylonians leaving the besieged city, but to their original leaving of the country after the exile of Yehoyachin, years earlier  Hashem warns, that despite the relative quiet of the past few years, Hashem will bring them back to attack.

Yirmeyahu and Yechezkel – This approach raises the question of how much correspondence took place between Yirmeyahu and Yechezkel and to what extent prophecies relayed in one country reached the other.  Seder Olam Rabbah is assuming that at least some of the events and rebuke taking place in Israel were relayed, or at least referred to, in exile as well.¹³

During the Siege

The emancipation took place during the Babylonian siege and this played a role in the people's various decisions.

Sources:Shadal, Prof. Y. Elitzur¹⁴

Historical background – This position maintains that the emancipation of the slaves took place while the nation was under siege by the Babylonians, in the tenth year of Tzidkeyahu's reign, as the placement of the story might suggest.¹⁵

The religious incentive – Prof. Elitzur maintains that when catastrophe looked imminent, Yirmeyahu made one last attempt to get the people to repent and observe Hashem's commands, telling them that observance could lead to their salvation.  Feeling desperate, the people finally heeded his words, and took upon themselves observance of this commandment.¹⁶

"וַתִּכְרְתוּ בְרִית לְפָנַי בַּבַּיִת אֲשֶׁר נִקְרָא שְׁמִי עָלָיו" – As above, these sources point out that the fact that the covenantal ceremony took place in the Mikdash and is said to have been "pleasing to Hashem" supports that it was done as a religious deed, and in observance of the Torah commandment.

Why re-enslave the people? This approach connects the re-enslavement to the temporary lifting of the siege described in Yirmeyahu 37:5-8:

• Prof. Elitzur suggests that initially the nation attributed the lifting of the siege to the hand of God, assuming that, as Yirmeyahu promised, their observance of commandments brought with it miraculous salvation.  When they learned of the role played by the Egyptians, however, they were disillusioned, concluding that Egypt alone was the cause of their salvation.  Not recognizing that Hashem works through natural means, they thought Yirmeyahu had lied to them.  Moreover, as Yirmeyahu had constantly advised them not to seek Egypt's aid, they were further convinced that he was totally mistaken in his notions, leading them to return their old ways and re-enslave the people.
• One might suggest more simply that in times of crisis people are often willing to turn to Hashem,¹⁷ reflect, and change, yet when a crisis passes (as did the siege), they return to their old ways.¹⁸ 

Seeing the Hand of God: Biblical parallels – Prof. Elitzur asserts that throughout Tanakh, one of the challenges constantly faced by the nation is whether they will be able to recognize the hand of God in the apparently mundane workings of the world. Since Hashem works through natural means, the people often mistake Divine intervention as being merely human agency, leading them more often than not to revert to sinful ways.  Thus, for instance, he suggests that throughout the era of the Judges, the people had difficulty recognizing that the success of their judges was not merely human strategy or coincidence, but the result of Divine aid, repeatedly leading them to forget God soon after being saved.¹⁹

Combination

The people's decision to free their slaves stemmed from a combination of factors, both economic.and religious.

Sources:R. Menachem BulaMenachem Bula, Da'at Mikra, Yirmeyahu (Jerusalem, 1983): 443

Historical background – The events of the chapter take place in the tenth year of Tzidkeyahu's reign, while the nation was under siege by the Babylonians.

Role of Tzidkeyahu vs. Yirmeyahu – R. Bula suggests that Tzidkeyahu (rather than the prophet) spearheaded the initiative to free the slaves, as it is his role which the verses emphasize. Nonetheless, he likely did this with the encouragement of Yirmeyahu.  It is even possible that Yirmeyahu's prophecy to Tzidkeyahu in the opening of the chapter, in which he predicts the king's exile, is what goaded Tzidkeyahu into action.

Tzidkeyahu's motives – When Tzidkeyahu saw that catastrophe was imminent and that Yirmeyahu's prophecies were being fulfilled, he thought that perhaps fulfilling one of Hashem's mitzvot would lessen His wrath and avert the danger.

Why this commandment? Tzidkeyahu looked for a commandment that the people would be amenable to observing.  Since, in addition to the religious reason for freeing slaves, there were also economic and political incentives for so doing, emancipation of slaves was a good option. It would not be hard to convince the people to free slaves who were not working regardless and who were only a  burden to feed. Moreover, once freed, the former slaves would be much more willing to join the rebellion against Babylonia.²⁰

The people's motives – The people, thus, acted out of a combination of incentives.  Being fearful of the Babylonians, they were somewhat open to repenting and observing God's laws.  This alone, though, would not have been sufficient had it not been for the fact that observance also benefited them on the human level.

Covenant in the Mikdash – M. Bula suggests that Tzidkeyahu realized that there was a good chance that the reformation would be short lived if there was a change in the political situation, so he attempted to strengthen the people's commitment by sealing the agreement through a covenant.²¹ As part of the ceremony, he cut a calf in half to symbolize that those who do not abide by the covenant would share the calf's fate.

Why re-enslave the people? As soon as the siege lifted and there was once again a need for slaves the elite went back on their word. Since their religious motivation had been fairly weak to begin with, without the accompanying economic incentive, they reverted to their old ways. Perhaps, had they been able to recognize that the lifting of the siege was an example of Divine intervention, rewarding them for observance, they would have acted differently, but they likely viewed it as a purely political phenomenon.²²

Intersection of human and Divine planes – This approach highlights the intersection between the Divine and human planes in all areas of life. Since people rarely act solely from religious beliefs, what at first glance might appear to be a purely religious action, often has non-religious motives as well.  Conversely, Hashem, for His part, often works through human agency. Thus, something which at first glance might appear to be occurring totally in the human realm, is actually being directed totally by God.

¹ See Yirmeyahu 32:1-2 and verses 6-7 of our chapter which suggests that Babylonia had already attacked much of Yehuda.

² Malbim assumes that most of those who were enslaved had been poor people who could not pay off their debts.

³ See Yirmeyahu, Olam HaTanakh, (Tel Aviv, 1996): 164.

⁴ This reprieve is alluded to at the end of our chapter, when Hashem tells the people that he will punish them and return them to the hands the Babylonians who "have risen up from you" (חֵיל מֶלֶךְ בָּבֶל הָעֹלִים מֵעֲלֵיכֶם). Hashem's mention of the Babylonians having left the city suggests that the event played a role in our story, supporting this thesis.

⁵ See: יהודה אליצור, "מבחן האמונה בירושלים ערב חורבנה" מחניים, מ"ז (תש"כ).

⁶ See Treaties in Tanakh and the Ancient Near East for elaboration.

⁷ According to this approach, our chapter is not chronological. Yirmeyahu 32:1-2 is dated to the 10th year of Tzidkeyahu's reign, when the siege began, and verses 6-7 here imply that the Babylonians have already attacked much of Yehuda.  This approach, though, assumes that neither event has yet occurred. However, since much of Sefer Yirmeyahu is explicitly achronological, this is not necessarily any more of a question here than anywhere else in the  book.  [For a discussion of the book's structure, see Structure – Sefer Yirmeyahu.]

⁸ See verses 13, 16, 21 and 24.

⁹ See the opening of the Decalogue, "אָנֹכִי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִיךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים".

¹⁰ This might be the reason why it is one of the first laws given after revelation as well.

¹¹ Alternatively, perhaps this was simply one of the major societal ills of the time.

¹² In fact it would be much more unusual had they kept it.  It is rare that "new year resolutions" last the year.

¹³ This is explicit in YIrmeyahu 29:1, which speaks of Yirmeyahu sending a message to the elders  in exile.

¹⁴ See his article, "תפיסת ההיסטוריה במקרא", in ישראל והמקרא (Ramat Gan, 2000): 253-260 and "מבחן האמונה בירושלים ערב חורבנה" cited above.

¹⁵ The siege is mentioned already in Yirmeyahu 32:1-2

¹⁶ N. Leibowitz, Iyyunim in Sefer Bereshit (Jerusalem, 1992): 296-297, further suggests that in times of crisis, when facing an enemy, feelings of solidarity grow, leading the people to view their slaves as brothers and equals.

¹⁷ See Yirmeyahu 2:26-27, how Hashem chides the people for leaving Him when all is peaceful, and remembering him only when things are bad: "וּבְעֵ֤ת רָעָתָם֙ יֹֽאמְר֔וּ ק֖וּמָה וְהוֹשִׁיעֵֽנוּ".

¹⁸ One might look to Paroh as an example. During each plague he tells Moshe that he is willing to let the people go, yet as soon as the plague passes he changes his mind.

¹⁹ See his development of this idea in Ehud's Assassination of Eglon.

²⁰ While enslaved they had no reason to feel allegiance to Yehuda and fight on her behalf.

²¹ This would also explain why in describing the emancipation the verse does not only state that the people agreed "לְשַׁלַּח אִישׁ אֶת עַבְדּוֹ", but also "לְבִלְתִּי עֲבׇד בָּם עוֹד". It was not enough that they free their slaves for the time being; Tzidkeyahu wanted them to promise also that they would not later re-enslave them.

²² See Prof. Elitzur above.