Why Permit Slavery/2

Why Permit Slavery

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Beneficial to the Slave

The institution of slavery improves the lot of the slave so that he benefits rather than suffers from his enslavement.  The position subdivides regarding whether the benefit received is physical or spiritual in nature:

Physical Benefit

Slavery improves the physical conditions of the person being enslaved.

Sources:R. S.R. HirschShemot 12:44Vayikra 25:44About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch,  R. Uziel

Hebrew vs. Canaanite slave

"מֵהֶם תִּקְנוּ עֶבֶד וְאָמָה" – R. Hirsch and R. Uziel limit the law regarding buying Canaanites slaves, suggesting that it is forbidden to turn a free person into a Canaanite slave against his will.  One is permitted to buy only someone who already has slave status, for the whole purpose is to save them from the harsh treatment being born under the foreign master.  This might be learned from the fact that the verse does not simply say  "כִּי תִקְנֶה עֶבֶד כנעני" but rather "מֵאֵת הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתֵיכֶם מֵהֶם תִּקְנוּ עֶבֶד", emphasizes that one is buying the slave from others.

"גַם מִבְּנֵי הַתּוֹשָׁבִים הַגָּרִים עִמָּכֶם מֵהֶם תִּקְנוּ" – This verse is somewhat difficult for this approach as it implies that one is allowed to buy a slave from local monotheistic residents (even though they are not already enslaved under harsh conditions).  This is likely what leads R. Hirsch to explain that the verse means that such a resident can sell himself at his own volition, not that one can forcefully buy him.¹

Freedom for knocking out  a limb – In ancient times, it was common for slaves to be punished or kept in line via the wounding or amputating of limbs.² As such, the Torah's law that any master who knocks out a slave's limb must free his slave was revolutionary, and can attest to the difference in treatment a slave could hope to receive under Israelite law.

Penalty for killing – The fact that a slave owner is held accountable for murder if he whips his slave to death teaches that, under Israelite law, slaves were not  viewed as mere property, but as humans whose lives were worth avenging.

Escaped slaves – This position might suggest that the verse is referring to a Gentile slave who escaped the harsh treatment of foreign masters.  As the Torah desires to protect people from such abuse, it forbids one from delivering him back to his owner.³

"וּבְאַחֵיכֶם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל... לֹא תִרְדֶּה בוֹ בְּפָרֶךְ" – This verse is difficult for this position as it implies that it is only forbidden to overwork and abuse Israelite slaves, but that it would not be a problem to treat Canaanite slaves in such a manner.  If the whole point of buying Gentile slaves is to improve their lot, one would have expected that they, too, would be included in this prohibition.⁴ R. Hirsch responds that the verse refers not to abusing one's slaves,⁵ but only to teaching them obedience. He claims that one would be allowed to do the same even to a free Israelite who was under your authority and needed to be educated.⁶

R. Hirsch suggests that

"לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ" – According to this position, if buying Canaanite slaves is mandated in order to improve their lot, why does the Torah not have one free them afterwards, but instead allow them to be enslaved eternally? R. Hirsch appears to believe that once someone is branded as a slave, he is always treated as one, even if supposedly granted equal rights.  As such, his only refuge is to become part of an Israelite household who will ensure that he is not maltreated. R. Hirsch even suggests that it is for this reason that the Torah obligates one to

Spiritual Benefit

Enslavement of a Gentile gives him opportunity for moral and religious growth.

Sources:NetzivVayikra 25:44-46About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, R. Dessler

Concession to Human Nature

The institution of slavery is undesirable and permitted only to prevent worse evils.

Sources:Hoil MosheShemot 21:20About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi, R. Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen KookLetters 89,⁷

¹ The language of "כי תקנה" would appear to dispute this reading, but R Hirsch would likely explain that it simply means that one is allowed to buy a person who initiates the sale and wants to be enslaved.

² See the discussion and examples brought by S. Rubinestein, "קדמוניות ההלכה", (Kovno,1926).  The Code of Hammurabi (law 282) states that a slave who defies his master would have his ears cut off, while Herodotus (4:2) speaks of blinding slaves. Tanakh itself attests to similar treatment of captive slaves. See Shofetim 1:7 which shares how Adoni Bezek had cut off the hands and feet of those kings he had subdued or Shemuel I 11:2, where Nachash threatens to enslave and gouge out the right eyes of the people of Yavesh Gilad.  The Philistines similarly blind the captive Shimshon and the Babylonians do the same to Tzidkeyahu.

³ R. Hirsch himself understands that the verse is referring to a Canaanite slave that belonged to an Israelite living outside of Israel. Since the slave would be subject to the attitudes and treatment prevalent in such foreign lands, if he manages to escape, torah forbids returning him to such cruelty.

⁴ In fact, one might have even expected that they be the ones who are highlighted.

⁵ In fact, he points to the Sifra25:46About the Sifra Vayikra and Bavli NiddahNiddah 47aAbout the Bavli who learn from the verse "לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ" that one is only allowed to work a slave, not embarrass him or the like.

⁶ In other words, it is only the Israelite slave who cannot be treated in such a manner, since the only reason he subdued himself to you was out of pressing economic need.

⁷ Other contemporary scholars also take this approach. See, for example, R"N Rabinovich, "דרכה של תורה - פרקים במחשבת ההלכה ואקטואליה" (Jerusalem, 1999):11-19. [For an abridged English version, see here.]