Emancipating the Slaves/2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
Emancipating the Slaves
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Commentators debate the reasons for both the initial emancipation and the re-enslavement. Malbim suggests that the 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 led to self reflection and a desire to remove Hashem's wrath. Unfortunately, though, like many religious reforms and resolutions, the move was short-lived. A final approach suggests that the people's motives were mixed. The religious incentive alone would not have been strong enough to take root if it were not for the fact that emancipation also had political and economic benefits. These various approaches highlight the intersection between the political and the religious, and how the human and Divine planes often intersect.Political & Economic Considerations
Tzidkiyahu's decision to free the slaves stemmed from political and economic considerations rather than religious ones.
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 Tzidkiyahu'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 Nevuchadnezzar in order to free themselves of the yoke of debt2 and bondage. Shadal brings an alternative that Tzidkiyahu freed the slaves since slaves are not particularly motivated to fight their enemies, while a free man will be willing to sacrifice for the sake of 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 the servants normally worked lay outside the city and were inaccessible due to the siege.3
Role of Yirmeyahu – According to this position, only Tzidkiyahu 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 as a result of Egyptian intervention.4 When the siege lifted, it was no longer politically or economically expedient not to own slaves and so their 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 question why the decision would have been accompanied by a covenant made in the Beit HaMikdash, were there to have been 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 lacked religious significance.
"הָעֵגֶל אֲשֶׁר כָּרְתוּ לִשְׁנַיִם וַיַּעַבְרוּ בֵּין בְּתָרָיו" – According to this approach, there was no intentional echoing of the "Covenant of the Pieces", and the people did not make their covenant with that of Avraham in mind. Cutting up animals and passing between the pieces was simply the normal mode of sealing 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 political promises they had made, but were 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
Tzidkiyahu's emancipation of the slaves stemmed solely from religious motives and a renewed desire to abide by the Torah's laws. This position divides regarding the historical background of our story and the specific impetus for the reform:
Before the Siege
The emancipation and re-enslavement took place several years before the Babylonian siege and the siege played no role in the people's decisions.
Timing of the story – According to Seder Olam Rabbah, Tzidkiyahu 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" (of Yehoyakhin's exile).8 This connection may be motivated by the parallel between Yirmeyahu telling the people in 34:13: "כֹּה אָמַר י"י... אָנֹכִי כָּרַתִּי בְרִית אֶת אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם בְּיוֹם הוֹצִאִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם... לֵאמֹר", and Yechezkel 20:5 similar phrasing: "וָאִוָּדַע לָהֶם בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם וָאֶשָּׂא יָדִי לָהֶם לֵאמֹר".
The religious incentive – As this approach chronologically disconnects the emancipation from the Babylonian siege, it would seem that the people's decision had little 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 fruit (at least temporarily) 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 notion 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 fitting 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 displayed 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, as 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 Yehoyakhin, years earlier. Hashem warns, that despite the relative quiet of the recent years, the Babylonians will come 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.
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 Tzidkiyahu'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 the 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 seemingly 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:Dr. Menachem Bula
Historical background – The events of the chapter take place in the tenth year of Tzidkiyahu's reign, while the nation was under siege by the Babylonians.
Role of Tzidkiyahu vs. Yirmeyahu – M. Bula suggests that it was Tzidkiyahu, rather than Yirmeyahu, who 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 Tzidkiyahu in the opening of the chapter, in which he predicts the king's exile, is what goaded Tzidkiyahu into action.
Tzidkiyahu's motives – When Tzidkiyahu 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? Tzidkiyahu 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 in the economic and political spheres.
Covenant in the Mikdash – M. Bula suggests that Tzidkiyahu 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 divided a calf in half to symbolize that those who would 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 always been fairly weak, with the accompanying economic incentive now removed, 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.
