Torah, Slavery and the Jews

Question:

My question is about slavery in the Torah. Why did the Torah allow it? It bothers me, though I know there must be some explanation.

Answer:

Once in a while a question comes along that gets to the core of everything. Then along comes some smart-aleck to provide an answer and wash the whole thing away.

Questions such as these are not just holes in the ground waiting to be plugged up. They are invitations to spelunk deep beneath the surface, traveling all the way to the bedrock of our beliefs, challenging basic assumptions and redefining the landscape.

Your question is one of those bedrock questions: After all, isn't slavery the antithesis of Torah?

Torah begins with the creation of Adam in the Divine Image. The central event of the Torah narrative is the liberation of an entire nation of slaves from a cruel oppressor. Torah is about liberty, human dignity and respect for our fellow citizens of this planet for which the Creator cares so much. More than Torah is Man's discovery of G‑d, Torah is G‑d's discovery of Man and his world.

How can that same Torah that makes us kind permit oppressive labor of a fellow Divine Image? You'll note, too, that as soon as the Ten Commandments are done with, where does the Torah begin legislating? "If you will have a maidservant..."--with the rights of the most easily oppressed citizen, a young girl working in your home.

Let me point out another powerful weapon of social upheaval that the Torah espouses, especially through the medium of King David's collection of psalms: The Divine CEO open-door policy. A.k.a. "personal prayer": Any individual, indeed, any living creature, can at any moment, for any complaint, cry out to the Master of the Universe and his/her/its petition will be heard and acted upon. Guaranteed. "This poor man cries out and G‑d listens." You may not have thought about this, but those may just be the most radical, subversive and revolutionary words in history. Whereas the kings and priests of old would have their subjects believe that life is a grand chain of command with yours truly on top and you scum on the bottom, this idea of personal prayer flattened all hierarchies: Everyone is equally close to the top of the ladder.

Torah is not just about liberty, Torah liberates in a radical way. Yet here you have these laws about buying and selling slaves. What's going on?

Okay, they're not really slaves. Slaves are people owned by other people. In Torah law, you never have complete ownership over anything. These slaves rest on the seventh day and Jewish holidays, cannot be physically or sexually abused and are obligated in many mitzvot. So they are really more like indentured servants.

But that certainly does not answer our question: Why should any human being be deprived of rights and privileges that others have? Such as the right to live wherever they please, work for whoever they wish to work and quit whenever they want? How does this divvy up with the Torah's assertion that every human being bears the Divine Image?

Maimonides

Yes, there's tension here, and as every good dramatist and massage therapist knows, tension is a good point to play with.

The place we're going to start is Maimonides' Laws of Servants. Being the reckless, impatient souls that we are, we'll start from the very last words.

(You may ask, "Why the obsession with Maimonides? Is he the only authority on everything?"

No, he's not. But he's usually a great place to search for answers.

Maimonides wrote the only codification of the entire gamut of Jewish law-the Mishnah only includes those matters that were not common practice and could come to be forgotten. And the Shulchan Aruch includes only those matters that apply in the time of exile. And he wrote in a concise style with great precision.

Sure, he hit up against lots of controversy for a few hundred years. But eventually he was accepted as the foremost authority since the close of the Babylonian Talmud.)

So here goes:

It is permissible to work a non-Jewish servant harshly. Yet, although this is the law, the way of the pious and the wise is to be compassionate and to pursue justice, not to overburden or oppress a servant, and to provide them from every dish and every drink.

The early sages would give their servants from every dish on their table. They would feed their animals and their servants before sitting to their own meals. Does it not say (Psalms 123:2), "As the eyes of the servant to the hand of his master; as the eyes of the maid to her mistress [so our eyes are towards the L-rd our G‑d...]"?

So, too, you should not denigrate a servant, neither physically nor verbally. The Torah made him your servant to do work, not to be disgraced. Do not treat him with constant screaming and anger, rather speak with him pleasantly and listen to his complaints. Such were the good ways in which Job took pride when he said, "Did I ever despise the judgment of my servant and my maid when they argued with me? Did not my Maker make him, too, in the belly; did not the same One form us both in the womb?"

For anger and cruelty are only found among other nations. The children of Abraham, our father—and they are Israel, to whom the Holy One, blessed be He, has provided the goodness of Torah and commanded us righteous judgments and statutes—they are compassionate to all. This is one of the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, that we are commanded to emulate (Psalms 145:9): "And He has compassion for all He has made."

Furthermore, all who have compassion will be treated compassionately, as was stated (Deuteronomy 13:18), "He will give you compassion and He will have compassion upon you and multiply you."

(Mishneh Torah, Laws of Indentured Servants, 9:8)

Tightening the Screws

Reading superficially, you might imagine that Maimonides is presenting us with little more than apologetics. He seems to be saying, "The Torah says we can be real mean, but that's not nice, so we don't do that."

But I'm asking you to read his words a little more carefully. Look for the tension in those words. Tension is meaningful, tension indicates something deep going on: Here you have the Torah telling you to be kind and compassionate towards all G‑d's creatures. And this is not just a polite suggestion—this is a command:

"And you shall go in His ways!" (Deuteronomy 28:9)

"Is it possible to say such a thing? Rather, it means that since He is compassionate, you too must be compassionate. Since He is kind, you must also be kind. Since He dresses the naked and feeds the hungry, so must you....." (Midrash Sifri; Talmud, Sotah 14a)

--which Maimonides himself counts as one of the 613 mitzvahs of the Torah (Book of Mitzvot, Positive Commandment #8).

And then the same Torah says, "But you're allowed to be nasty to your slaves"!

The tension screws tighter: Why are we kind and compassionate? Because "the Holy One, blessed be He, gave us His Torah." So how can that same Torah that makes us kind permit oppressive labor of a fellow Divine Image?

How about a little consistency over here? Why can't the Torah start outright with the laws of servants, "If you have people working for you, you must treat them as equals. You must talk to them in a pleasant voice, listen to their complaints, feed them the same food you eat, provide employee benefits, regular vacations, perks and incentives, great office parties, stock options in the company, in-house professional massage therapy at lunch break and a sushi bar on every floor. If you don't like it, do the work yourself."

Why not? Because that would undermine the purpose of Torah.

The Purpose

Let me explain: (Notice that now we're getting down to that which I first promised—the bedrock.)

As we discussed, Torah is a radical element in our world. Torah is that which says, "This is not the way things are supposed to be. Do like this. Not like that." That's why Torah had to be given--we couldn't just figure it out on our own. Because to effect real change it must come from "outside the system."

On the other hand, Torah is the essence of all things. As the sages called it, "the blueprint of the universe." So the Torah effects change not by imposing an exogenous order, but by revealing the inner, hidden order latent within all things. Torah is very much like a good teacher, one who shows you who you really are—which may be very different, even the opposite, of who you think you are.

The Torah effects change not by imposing an exogenous order, but by revealing the inner, hidden order latent within all things. So the Torah, of necessity, has two faces. Unlike human wisdom which has one face. Human wisdom must either reject or accept the status quo. But Torah is a voice heard from beyond—and so it may have two faces at once.

On the one hand, the Torah speaks from a future that has yet to occur, inspiring us with its vision, pulling us toward that time.

On the other hand, the Torah must deal with the world as it is, not artificially imposing upon it a foreign mold, but bringing it on its own from the place it stands by nature and circumstance to the place it truly belongs.

Let's start simple:

Take an agrarian society surrounded by hostile nations. Go in there and forcefully abolish slavery. The result? War, bloodshed, hatred, prejudice, poverty and eventually, a return to slavery until the underlying conditions change. Which is pretty much what happened in the American South when the semi-industrialized North imposed their laws upon the agrarian South. And in Texas when Mexico attempted to abolish slavery among the Anglophones there.

Not a good idea. Better idea: Place humane restrictions upon the institution of indentured servitude. Yes, it's still ugly, but in the meantime, you'll teach people compassion and kindness. Educate. Make workshops. Go white-water rafting together. (Hey, why didn't Abe Lincoln think of white-water rafting?) Eventually, things change and slavery becomes an anachronism for such a society.

Which is pretty much what happened to Jewish society. Note this: At a time when Romans had literally thousands of slaves per citizen, even the wealthiest Jews held very modest numbers of servants. And those servants, the Talmud tells us, were treated better by their masters than foreign kings would treat their own subjects.

Torah teaches us how to run a libertarian society—through education and participation. Elsewhere in the world, emperors and aristocracy knew only how to govern a mass of people through oppression. Look what happened to Rome: When Roman slaves began demanding a day of rest among other privileges, along with talk of a personal relationship directly to G‑d, Emperor Constantine made sure to dismiss the whole concept of mitzvahs and human dignity by adopting a stripped-down, benign version of Judaism for his empire. That'll keep 'em quiet, he thought. (And it did, for about one thousand years.)

So the "conservative-radical" approach of Torah is this: Work with the status quo to get beyond it. Torah is more about process than about content.

Climbing Deeper

Are you satisfied with this answer? I'm not. I'm convinced there's a deeper effect that Torah is looking for. Call it "the participatory effect." A.k.a. nurture.

The Participatory Effect tells us that if you want people to follow rules, you put guns to their heads. But if you want them to learn, grow, internalize those rules and be able to teach them to others, you're going to have to involve them in the process of forming those rules.

School teachers do this when they work with their class on the first day to design rules that everyone will see as reasonable and useful. Parents do this when they allow their child to makes mistakes so that s/he will learn from them. A skilled wife is doing this when she gets her husband to believe that he came up with the idea of re-tiling the kitchen floor.

In general, this strategy comes more naturally to women than to men. Men find it much easier to shove their opinions down other people's throats and, if need be, argue the other into the ground until he surrenders. All variations of the old gun-to-the-head technique. Women are designed to nurture, physically and emotionally, so they take naturally to the participatory technique. To quote Gluckel of Hameln, "She was a true woman of valor. She knew how to control her husband's heart."

In Torah, both the masculine and the feminine approaches exist—they're called "The Written Torah" and "The Oral Torah." The Written Torah (principally, the Five Books of Moses, but also including all the Prophets and Scriptures) lays down the law in a fatherly, authoritarian voice. It says: "These are the rules. They are for you own good, whether you understand that or not. I only made them because I love you so much. If you don't like them, just remember that I'm a lot bigger than all of you put together."

Then along comes the mother of us all, the Oral Torah. Although the Oral Torah includes many fixed traditions—some originating from Moses and even earlier—the bulk of the Oral Torah is our own participation in the process of Torah. The Written Torah itself empowers us to discuss matters, expand on that which we have received, extrapolate and make decisions accordingly. It was concerning the Oral Torah that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chanania declared, "The Torah is not in heaven." It is here, within us, in our struggle to fathom the depths of our received tradition and in our ability to take Torah to the next step.

Of course, that doesn't mean we can make up whatever sounds nice to us and call it Torah. There are rigorous guidelines and a firm set of criteria for a novel idea to be considered Torah. We're dealing with a delicate ecology here—you have to understand the landscape very well before building a highway here and damming a river over there.

But what it does mean is that when you are working through a Torah idea, doing all that examining and letting the creative juices pour (within the guidelines mentioned above), those ideas within your brain and those words that you are speaking are no different than G‑d declaring, "I am the L-rd your G‑d, etc." at Mount Sinai.

When you are working through a Torah idea, those ideas within your brain and those words that you are speaking are no different than the words of the written Torah themselves. As those Talmudic sages put it, "Any new idea a qualified Torah student comes up with was already given to Moses at Sinai." The idea is new, but it's still Torah. It's new, because until now it was hidden deep within the folds and creases of the package Moses delivered. It's Torah, because all the qualified student did was unfold the package and smooth out the creases.

So if I come up with one of those bright Torah ideas one day, is it my idea or is it Torah? It's both. In the Oral Torah, we and G‑d become one.

Getting Real Change

So you can see where I'm getting to with the slavery thing. If G‑d would simply and explicitly declare all the rules, precisely as He wants His world to look and what we need to do about it, the Torah would never become real to us. No matter how much we would do and how good we would be, we would remain aliens to the process.

So, too, with slavery (and there are many other examples): In the beginning, the world starts off as a place where oppressing others is a no-qualms, perfectly acceptable practice. It's not just the practice Torah needs to deal with, it's the attitude. So Torah involves us in arriving at that attitude. To the point that we will say, "Even though the Torah lets us, we don't do things that way."

Which means that we've really learnt something. And now, we can teach it to others. Because those things you're just told, those you cannot teach. You can only teach that which you have discovered on your own.

History bears this out. Historically, it has been the Oral Torah, rather than the Written Torah, that has had the greatest impact on civilization. As much as Rome ruled over Judea, Jewish values deeply transformed Rome. One of the results was the legal privileges eventually granted to slaves and the gradual recognition of the value of human life.

Torah involves us in arriving at the right attitude. And now, we can teach it to others. Because you can only teach that which you have discovered on your own. For over a thousand years, the Church managed to subvert the message of Imagio Deo—that every human being is G‑dly—despite the repetition of the concept in the Genesis narrative five times. It wasn't until the Italian Renaissance that a new Humanist spirit dawned and the idea could no longer be repressed. "The Oratory on the Dignity of Man" is often touted as the manifesto of the Renaissance and early Humanism. It was composed by Giovanni Pico della Mirandola. It's no secret that Pico studied under the greatest rabbis of his time and was obsessed with the Zohar and Kabbalah. There are many more such examples.

The greatest force in the emancipation of slavery in colonial times were the "Society of Friends," also known as the "Quakers." Historians discuss the phenomena of the Quakers in the context of the "Hebraizing of Christianity." Again, their leaders were deeply influenced by readings of the Kabbalah in translation and by humanists who had learned their ideas from rabbinic sources.

The history of emancipation is complex and long—and viciously controversial. In truth, Jews took roles on both sides of the prickly fence. Aaron Lopez, a convert to Judaism, brought slaves on some of his ships to America. On the other hand, Baron Nathan de Rothschild and Sir Moses Montefiore made possible the great Slave Emancipation Act of 1835 by granting 20,000,000 pounds sterling in loan subsidies. In the struggle, eventually the true Jewish spirit prevailed and it is those values that Maimonides espouses that eventually became dominant in our society.

I'll end off with a juicy biographical vignette of one Jew who struggled for the freedom of slaves:

August (Anshel) Bondi was born in Vienna, Austria July 21, 1833. He was the son of Jews who wanted him to have both a religious and a secular education. Caught up as a participant in the failed liberal revolution of 1848, the Bondi family fled to New Orleans and settled in St. Louis, Missouri. Young Bondi encountered, first hand, the horrors of slavery and was deeply disgusted.

In 1855 a New York Tribune editorial urged freedom-loving Americans to "hurry out to Kansas to help save the state from the curse of slavery." Bondi responded immediately. He moved to Kansas and along with two other Jews, Theodore Weiner from Poland and Jacob Benjamin from Bohemia, established a trading post in Ossa-watomie. Their abolitionist sentiments very soon brought pro-slavery terrorists upon them. Their cabin was burned, their livestock stolen. Their trading post was destroyed in the presence of Federal troops who did nothing. The three courageous Jews joined a rabid local abolitionist, to defend their rights as citizens and to help rid Kansas of the horrors of slavery. The Jews joined the Kansas Regulars under the leadership of John Brown.

In a famous battle between the Regulars and the pro-slavery forces at Black Jack Creek, with the bullets whistling viciously above their heads, 23-year-old Bondi turned to his 57-year-old friend Weiner and asked in Yiddish, "Nu, was meinen Sie jetzt?" (Well, what do you think of this now?) He answered, "Was soll ich meinen? Sof odem moves." (What should I think? Man's life ends in death.)

Kansas joined the union as a Free State. Bondi married Henrietta Einstein of Louisville, Kentucky in 1860. Their home became a way station for the underground railroad smuggling slaves to the North and freedom. The Civil War began in 1861, and Bondi enlisted in the Union army, encouraged by the words of his mother. He later wrote in his autobiography, "as a Jew I am obliged to protect institutions that guarantee freedom for all faiths." August Bondi died in 1907, a respected judge and member of his Kansas community.1

Footnotes

Source: Jerry Klinger, President of the Jewish American Society for Historic Preservation, www.jashp.org

By Tzvi Freeman

Tzvi Freeman is the author of Bringing Heaven Down to Earth and, more recently, Wisdom to Heal the Earth. Subscribe to The Daily Dose of Wisdom and Freeman Files for regular updates.

Join the Discussion

Sort By:

NewestOldest

312 Comments

Don July 23, 2024

“What seems most peculiar to us today is that no one, not even the most generous soul, saw anything wrong with slavery until the travesties of 19th-century colonialism.”

This is incorrect. See: Benjamin Lay, a remarkable 18th century figure.

There have always been individuals who recognize injustice and cruel treatment for what they are. Material conditions may promote the spread of such views, but developing an open heart and mind happens outside of such conditions as well. Reply

Tzvi Freeman September 11, 2023

In the years following the writing of this essay, I've continued asking questions and investigating the issue. What seems most peculiar to us today is that no one, not even the most generous soul, saw anything wrong with slavery until the travesties of 19th-century colonialism.

The explanation is obvious: once we see the facts:

Throughout history, up until the Industrial Revolution, 90-95% of humanity lived at subsistence levels. Food was scarce, and it was rare that more could be saved than was needed just to get by. Population levels stayed about the same because only one out of two children lived to the age when they could have their own children. (Today, worldwide, we are at 96/100.)

Now, in such a world, let's say you have a choice between being a hired worker or a bonded servant.

As a hired worker, when there was work, you had food. No work, no food. You had no protection against marauders, and if you fell ill, no one cared.

As a bonded servant, your master saw you as an investment. You were part of his household. If he was wise, you were protected, your family housed and fed, and your basic needs cared for.

Of course, with colonial slavery, this fell to pieces. In many countries, it was cheaper to let enslaved people die from toil and get new ones. Furthermore, an increased abundance of food, clothing, and shelter allowed a greater degree of security for paid laborers, who are far more productive and efficient than slaves.

Basically, it was the astonishing increase in wealth that began in the mid-19th century that rendered slavery obsolete, and therefore immoral.

We naturally tend to see all things through the lens of the moment now. We need to remind ourselves repeatedly: The way things are now is not how they have always been. Reply

Charles Israel September 13, 2023

in response to Tzvi Freeman:

Efficiency leads to morality ? I think we have never seen that through history anyway . It’s the opposite- the Industrial Revolution beginning in 1780 in England brought the horrors described in Dickens . People were much happier on their farms, but they were forced off. Filthy working conditions, endless hours , child labor and aliation from the products of their labor . Years later thete were some limited reforms but we are essentially living in that same age. The only advantage of wage slavery over slavery was the possible choice of masters . Reply

Dovid California September 13, 2023

in response to Tzvi Freeman:

"not even the most generous soul, saw anything wrong with slavery...". Why do we make such a big deal every year of being "rescued" from Egypt as slaves? One can argue that the Israelites' needs were met as slaves with food and shelter (it would have been counterproductive not to). It is also logically counterproductive to treat your slaves with great adversity. Moving to a new land presents a large population with quite adverse survival conditions that may have been worse than their prior conditions. If the Passover story is literally true, we can't really know or understand how the Israelites were actually treated. Your statements reflect an apologist's viewpoint. Reply

Charles Israel September 14, 2023

in response to Tzvi Freeman:

Will write more later , but I think the rabbi is right about presentism, considered error in studying history Reply

Charles Israel September 14, 2023

in response to Tzvi Freeman:

But the church opposed slavery as early as 1470-at that point the prevailing view was that it was wrong . I have to look to see if this is only opposition to the ownership of Christian enslaved people. Reply

HOWARD KIRSHENBAUM DEERFIELD November 9, 2023

in response to Tzvi Freeman:

The fallacy is that we didn't see the wrong of slavery because it was generally thought of as good for the slaves. The truth is that those people would have been better off free and allowed to make something of themselves if they weren't discriminated against. Let's face it, all the slaves were "other", inferior people that didn't deserve equality. What changed a lot of people's minds were the terrible things that started being done to slaves in Europe and America. Most slaves didn't have a choice.

Yes, we see things through the lens of the moment now. We see the discrimination that slaves endured. We see now how good these 'others' can make of themselves if given the chance to live their lives without discrimination. Reply

Charles Israel November 9, 2023

in response to Tzvi Freeman:

Obsolete and therefore immoral? I don’t understand the equation unless the only morality is economic self interest. And it was immoral from the get go. Torah true Judaism rejects moral relativism. And some people in the ancient world knew it was immoral and wrote about it. Epictetus was happy to be free. The instant the opportunity arose, enslaved people bought their freedom ( see Kiddishun ) . They wouldn’t have if it was not in their interest. Part of that interest was economic, part of it was ‘yearning to be free.’ Roman slaves fought and died in a bid for freedom. Under Islamic and Christian theology and law, perfectly acceptable, but it was considered in those societies a pious deed to manumit an enslaved person. It wasn’t the Industrial Revolution ( 1780) that ended domestic slavery in Europe, it had already ended 500 years earlier. It wasn’t an increase in wealth that made domestic slavery obsolete, it was the availability of wage labor resulting from high medieval urbanization Reply

Helen Bruce Jerusalem March 14, 2024

in response to Tzvi Freeman:

Except the past is gone, the future doesn't exist. All there is, is the present moment in all moments. The past is not an example that I wish to go by. The present moment is where I exist in all time. Yes I am Jewish, yet my God is a loving Creator all the time without any exception. I do not feel compelled to shudder before him. He has taught me unconditional love, so I unconditionally love. That is how I emulate my dear Creator. Fear, anger, jealousy are attributes of man, not God. Reply

Tzvi Freeman September 14, 2023

in response to Charles :

Yes, we have Dickens, and yes there was a period of disease and poverty caused by industrialization.

But look at the big picture: Pre-industrialization, an average life span of 33 years and 50% infant mortality. Public sanitation and labor reform kicked in later and had a huge effect.

Britain was the first industrialized nation and the first to not only outlaw slavery but to proactively fight against it. Reply

Tzvi Freeman September 14, 2023

in response to Dovid:

The Egyptian enslavement was not labor-driven, but a strategy to break the people, as told in the Book of Exodus.

Again, I am not touting slavery as an ideal, as I attempted to clarify in this essay. I’m pointing out the restrictions of the human condition. Torah is an evolution. Reply

Tzvi Freeman November 10, 2023

in response to Charles :

From my reading, they were concerned about those who had been baptized. This was significant progress, but not opposition to slavery per set.

Also, it was opposition to certain forms of slavery. Serfdom was okay. Reply

Adam August 8, 2022

Leviticus 25:44-54 and Exodus 21:20-21 call slaves property. It even says you can beat them, as long as you don't beat them to death.

Allowing them to rest once a week or on holidays doesn't mean you don't own them as property. That's a really poor argument.

Does the Torah even state you can't work them on holidays?

I mean as a Jew you can't drive your car on the sabbath, so the car is not your property by that logic? Reply

Tzvi Freeman August 22, 2022

in response to Adam:

Revised comment:
The Torah does not state "you may beat them." The Torah states that if a master beats his slave and the slaves dies within 24 hours of the beating, the master is treated as any other murderer--only that an exception is made in the case that the slave dies after 24 hours. Then we do not consider it to be an intentional murder.

If the master knocks out a limb, such as a tooth, the slave goes free.

Halachically speaking, all the prohibitions of the Torah apply to a non-Jewish servant just as they do to an Israelite. If a servant is told to go rake the leaves on Yom Tov for example, he has to reply, “Sorry, that's not allowed.”

Slaves are considered members of the Jewish people. They lack certain rights--which is what this article struggles with But they are not property in the sense that a car is property. Reply

Adam August 24, 2022

in response to Tzvi Freeman:

I mean no disrespect, but that's a pretty weak argument, that we all belong to G-d therefore slavery doesn't exist.

Giving an ox rest on the sabbath doesn't imply that you don't own the animal as your property.

And no, all the prohibitions don't apply to non-Jews. It says in Leviticus 25:44-46 that you can keep an Israelite slave for only 6 years, but you can keep a non-Israelite slave for life, which is a racist teaching. Reply

Charles Israel November 9, 2023

in response to Tzvi Freeman:

True , but they are expressly properly, as the verse Adam quoted shows. This was not true in all slave systems. In some systems one bought the product of the labor . To the sold and bought enslaved person, it didn’t make any difference. Reply

Tzvi Freeman August 24, 2022

in response to Adam:

You are mistaken. A non-Jewish servant must accept upon himself all the prohibitions of the Torah, along with the responsibility to keep certain mitzvahs. This includes not working on Shabbat and Yom Tov, just as a free Israelite.

Rabbi Adelman was simply pointing out that when the Torah states that servant is his master's "silver," it does not meaning "property" in our modern sense of the word. Nobody will lay charges if you decide to wreck your car, but killing a slave is a capital offence--no different from any other human being.

I'm not sure you are getting the premise of this article—that Torah's agenda is to modify the institution of slavery and thereby gradually render it obsolete. Nobody is touting slavery as an ideal. On the contrary, the on!y historical source for the notion of human equality is in the Genesis narrative--as noted in the beginning of this essay. Reply

Adam August 24, 2022

in response to Tzvi Freeman:

That didn't have anything to do with what I said. I said you can keep non-Israelite slaves for life, but not Israelite slaves. That's not equality, that's racism.

Them having one day off doesn't mean they aren't a slave Rabbi. Lets just stop with the nonsense please.

And the Torah never states at any point that it's intention is to phase out slavery, your just adding in your own narrative at this point.

G-d's laws are said to be eternal and just, not gradually obsolete one day. Reply

Charles Israel November 9, 2023

in response to Tzvi Freeman:

What is any classical source for this Torah rendering obsolete idea . A rishon ? From the gedolei achronim? And what was the Torah’s program for rendering slavery obsolete? It was universally practiced by Jews under Islam until forbidden in the very late Ottoman Empire. Reply

Rabbi Tzvi Freeman August 24, 2022

in response to Adam:

True, they are eternal and just. But there is no law that you must have slaves.

I presented my case in the essay that slavery is the antithesis of Torah values. This is what creates a tension that demands resolution.

I also presented the words of Maimonides that describe how Jews go beyond the letter of the law in this matter.

The narrative of gradual refinement by Torah is fundamental to Lurianic thought, which has been mainstream Jewish thought for many centuries. Reply

Awtsmoos Brooklyn August 25, 2022

in response to Adam:

BH

Another point to expound upon the idea of ownership according to what I heard in a shiur in yeshiva along with other maamareem.

How can anyone own anything, if everything truly belongs to Hashem, who created it?

But in the other hand, we have a commandment to not steal from one another, which implies each person has a true ownership of their property, since all of the commandments of the Torah are completely true!?

The answer is that yes, everything belongs to Hashem in a true, complete way.

But because of that itself, Hashem chooses to give a real and true ownership of that which He owns, to humans, when those entities are acquired according to the laws of the Torah, which includes the laws of each local province.

And why is that?

The same reason for all other parts of the Torah:
To create a dwelling place for G-d in the lowest of levels.

When we acquire things and use them for the service of G-d, that is able to elevate them and unite them with the Creator. Reply

Charles USA August 25, 2022

in response to Rabbi Tzvi Freeman:

Rambam says how slaves should be treated, not how they were treated. For that you need to look in the geniza, teshuvot from Spain and the few remaining teshuvot from Ashkenaz. I wrote a thesis on it. Happy to share if anyone wants to see it. But we had slaves in Ashkenaz through the middle of the 13th century and under Islam till a century and a half or so ago. Reply

Awtsmoos August 25, 2022

in response to Rabbi Tzvi Freeman:

BH

Can you please provide a source for the idea that the Torah intends to phase out certain laws? Honest question Reply

Adam August 25, 2022

in response to Rabbi Tzvi Freeman:

No the law doesn't mandate slavery, but the law is okay with slavery, that is my point. If the laws are eternal, then at no point will slavery not be okay.

I understand that is Lurianic thought, but the Torah never says to gradually make slavery obsolete.

And also, treating Israelite and non-Israelite slaves differently is not equality Rabbi, it's racism.

I believe the Torah may have been inspired by G-d sure, but it written by man. So the books are ethically flawed, just like we are.

A book doesn't have to be perfect to learn from it. My parents are flawed, and I learned a lot of good things from them. Reply

HOWARD KIRSHENBAUM DEERFIELD August 26, 2022

in response to Rabbi Tzvi Freeman:

My problem with your answer is that it just sounds like a lame excuse. True that Jews do not like the idea of slavery but it still is evident that the Bible gives us rules about slavery and that it's OK to have slaves. That just seems against the whole concept since we were slaves in Egypt and didn't like it. Why would God condone slavery by the Jews? Reply

Charles Joseph New York September 11, 2022

in response to Rabbi Tzvi Freeman:

" a tension that demands resolution." We can demand till we are blue in the face, but we won't find a resolution. I question the entire exercise of apologetics. I'm not sure. Rather, we need to learn to live with tension or doubt, and respect the tradition as st forth in the Shulchan Aruch. There are much greater irreconcilable issues to be examined than slavery, although it's a big one. Reply

Charles Israel November 9, 2023

in response to Rabbi Tzvi Freeman:

Gradual halachic refinement? The ARI Hakodesh? Why does it demand resolution? Does our intense discomfort with Divine choices demand resolution? We wouldn’t stop apologizing all the time forever if we had to reconcile and rereconcile the Torah with what is right in our eyes. We live with many tensions , that’s the secret to life. Embrace uncertainty. Respect the tradition. You are striving mightily to square circles but it only gets harder because it can’t be done by thinking . And it leads to a demoralizing constant changing of the goalposts. Reply

Awtsmoos Koyl Mawkoym August 25, 2022

in response to Adam:

BH
Why is it necessary to have equality, or to demand that Hashem treats everyone with equality?
People can all live happy lives without all being treated exactly the same way, I'm just wondering why we should assume absolute equality is a good thing? Reply

Ish Tam August 26, 2022

in response to Adam:

The concept or "racism" or "race" is categorically inadequate and anathema to Judaism. I recommend looking up Rambam's Letter to Ovadiah the Convert on this point. As for slavery, according to Judaism, non-Jewish slaves should be encouraged to convert (which in fact was the case), whereupon they become Israelite slaves, with all that this implies. Slavery is awful; nevertheless, it is worth noting that Jewish slaves owned by Jews were (supposed to be) treated incomparably better than any other slaves. It is indeed difficult, and perhaps impossible, to find such a (relatively speaking) humane attitude. It has been argued that if fully implemented, Jews owned by Jews would in many (and perhaps most) cases not be profitable. That being said, slavery is evil, which is why contemporary Judaism has outlawed it. Reply

Charles Joseph New York August 28, 2022

in response to Ish Tam:

When was it outlawed by halacha? It has never been outlawed other than by secular law. Jews are still allowed to have slaves according to halacha. Reply

Charles Joseph New York September 11, 2022

in response to Ish Tam:

"according to Judaism, non-Jewish slaves should be encouraged to convert . This is an error. According to the halacha, you cannot free a canaanite slave. If you violate this rule, or avail yourself of the any exception, they were then given the opportunity to become full fledged Jews- perhaps that's what you are aiming at. Reply

Rabbi Tzvi Freeman August 31, 2022

in response to Charles Joseph:

Years ago, I met an old Jew from Texas. He was raised in a family that owned a ranch and slaves.

I asked him how they treated the slaves. He said they took good care of them, built a school for them, and sent the bright ones off to college.

That made me realize that taking ownership of your employees can actually create a more responsible relationship. If you’re intelligent, you understand that you need them to stay healthy and loyal.

The industrial economy requires a consumer class to consume its production. Slavery thereby became obsolete. Mostly, that improved the human situation over time. But certain beneficial relationships were lost. Reply

Charles Joseph Clifton September 1, 2022

in response to Rabbi Tzvi Freeman:

You write that contemporary Judaism has outlawed it. That's not true. Halacha permits it even today, it was practiced recently, with circumcision and immersion, and it not outlawed or discouraged by contemporary halacha. Reply

HOWARD KIRSHENBAUM DEERFIELD September 2, 2022

in response to Rabbi Tzvi Freeman:

Are you saying that because we might lose some beneficial relationships we should condone slavery? How about just being a good boss, paying the person for the job they do with a living wage and being nice to the employees. You don't have to own the person in order to have beneficial relationships. And the company I worked for put we through my graduate degree. I am not sure what you comment is trying to prove. Reply

Rabbi Tzvi Freeman September 5, 2022

in response to Charles Joseph:

I relied on the Aruch Hashulchan (Yechiel Michael Epstein), Yoreh De’ah, 267, who writes that it is no longer in practice among Jews. He lived in the Russian Empire in mid-19th century.

Of course, it was practiced in America at that time by Jews.

Perhaps you can tell us if they were following halachah. Did they circumcise their slaves? Did they teach them to keep the mitzvahs that Jewish slaves keep? Reply

Rabbi Tzvi Freeman September 5, 2022

in response to HOWARD KIRSHENBAUM:

Howard, everything in this discussion is in the context of the article, which sees slavery as a compromise of human freedom and far from ideal.

My point was only that Jews, Ian’s a rule, did not practice the sort of textbook colonial slavery we generally associate with the institution. In many ways, their slaves were better treated than most agricultural laborers today. Reply

Tzvi Freeman September 12, 2022

in response to Charles Joseph:

Excuse me if I seem pedantic, Charles, but to be precise:

1. The halachah is that you may not free a non-Jewish slave, but exceptional dispensations abound. In practice—which is what most concerns us here—it seems to have been quite common even in Talmudic times. Rabbi Yehuda haNassi famously freed his personal servant when a tenth Jew was needed to make a quorum for prayers.

2. A non-Jewish slave was a member of the Jewish nation. He was responsible to keep certain mitzvahs and prohibited from all that was prohibited to a Jew. Once freed, he instantly had upon himself all the responsibilities of any Jew. There was no option otherwise. Reply

Charles Joseph New York September 12, 2022

in response to Tzvi Freeman:

What you write about freeing slaves is true- it was more the rule than the exception. In Egypt and Ashkenaz there are many, many teshuvos dealing with freed slaves, but none ever mention the prohibition on freeing slaves. It's a mystery to me. Reply

Charles Israel September 11, 2023

in response to Tzvi Freeman:

There was another option - converting on freedom was optional to the slave. In practice the exceptions never swallowed the rule. Too expensive Reply

Adam September 15, 2022

in response to Awtsmoos:

Again, this is a weak argument. So say slavery doesn't exist because Hashem owns everything.

So someone can walk into your home, and drive your car off, because you don't own it right, Hashem does. Reply

Awtsmoos Kol Makom Bishaveh Mawmish September 21, 2022

in response to Adam:

B"H

Hi nice to hear from you

the point is, is that everything truly belongs to Hashem.

At the same time, we have a commandment not to steal, and we know all of the commandments are completely true.

That implies that everything truly belongs to whoever owns it, which is seemingly a contradiction.

The point is that because of the fact that Hashem truly owns it; therefore, he [stress on word] gives each thing to people, who then also truly own it [since Hashem is completely infinite and can allow even finite beings to truly own it as well], IF it is acquired according to the laws of the Torah and of the local land.

The reason for acquiring things in general is to make a dwelling place for G-d with all of one's possessions. This is why the Rabbi's instituted that objects found in 4 amos of a person in certain cases are automatically acquired, because the 4 amos represent the 4 limited levels of the soul, which are all infused with the Yechiduh, the Essence, which is rooted in G-d's. Reply

Martin Aizawl July 20, 2022

well put but too apologetic in my honest opinion. Yes you can have slave but G-d doesnt say you will be punished if you don't. No need to whitewash let it be what it is. G-d bless. Reply

Avram London May 26, 2022

As one who has been involved in this uncomfortable debate for many yeas I have become tired by this troublesome isse Reply

Avram London July 24, 2022

in response to Avram :

I noted a comment on one Torah site that Torah min Hashomyim that states Rabbonim do not believe that the Torah we read did not come diirect from heaven but was meant to be discussed as a moral blueprint. t . Personally, I see some stories in Torah are far ftom setting a moral lesson eg Esau and Jacob - despite apologetics Reply

Yael NJ April 25, 2022

It sounds a bit like being an apologist for G-d. Like, the Torah deals with slavery like it's a normal thing, as you write, as indentured servants treated extraordinarily well but we are going to decide that Hashem really disapproves of slavery but He's scared the world (that He created!) needs it to go on so He turns a blind eye.
Absurdity! (In my humble opinion.)
I once asked my father about slavery being allowed in the Torah and he said that every employee is essentially a slave, forced to work. Reply

HOWARD KIRSHENBAUM DEERFIELD August 8, 2022

in response to Yael:

The difference is that a slave is owned property of the master but a person in the work force isn't owned by his boss and paid a wage for his services. Also the person working has the ability to say goodbye and go somewhere else. He also has the right to retire and not work at all. Huge difference to slavery. Your dad is wrong. Reply

Charles Israel September 11, 2023

in response to Yael:

Your father is right but as wage slaves we have at least at times the choice of masters Reply

Charles Joseph Clifton March 31, 2022

First, I am researching Jewish owned slaves in middle age Ashkenaz and Egypt and am astounded by Rabbi Freeman's erudition. This is very helpful , Thank you Reply

N June 15, 2021

Would a Jew halachically be allowed to sell a non Jewish slave’s children away from them? Reply

Mel Friedman Missouri City January 31, 2022

in response to N:

Yes Reply

N April 3, 2022

in response to Mel Friedman:

How is this moral? How could a good G-d allow this? Reply

Mel Friedman Missouri City May 3, 2022

in response to Mel Friedman:

G-d made covenants with nations before the Jewish People. When they transgressed He gave them opportunity to correct their actions. When they refused He punished them. Some as the Egyptians were recipient of plagues, loss of wealth and decimation of their military. Some like the Cannanites were given a death sentence. G-d's plan for the Cananites was total annihilation. The description of how to treat non Hebrew slaves in the Torah was for the survivors of the Israelite takeover of the Promised Land. Reply

Charles Joseph Clifton April 7, 2022

in response to N:

How could a good G-d allow any evil? Reply

N April 7, 2022

in response to Charles Joseph:

But here G-d is directly saying that HE approves of it. Reply

Charles Joseph Nj April 7, 2022

in response to N:

My answer is there is no answer. I don’t know why the Torah seems less advanced than liberal democracy, but I still believe in its holiness. Reply

Charles New york April 8, 2022

in response to N:

I don't think its supposed to make sense. I think we each are free make our own sense of it. Mine is that it G-d's word given to us on the cusp of the Iron Age and it reads like that. At what point was it to embody perfect morality? If it perfectly matched Democratic Socialism , what would it read like in over three thousand years from now when our ethics have far advanced? (We hope) . It it matched right now, what would it read like in the days of Moshiach? So it was a massive advance in human rights but it was given in 1200 BC and was revolutionary but its still very ancient. Reply

HOWARD KIRSHENBAUM DEERFIELD August 8, 2022

in response to Charles Joseph:

That just sounds like an excuse to just follow what you were taught without any thought. Reply

Awtsmoos Brooklyn August 25, 2022

in response to HOWARD KIRSHENBAUM:

We know the Torah is completely true, since millions of people saw the Creator become revealed to them directly. Reply

HOWARD KIRSHENBAUM DEERFIELD September 15, 2022

in response to Mel Friedman:

So you are saying that the Canaanites were doomed to be annihilated by the Hebrews just because they didn't follow the Hebrew God? What about all the other peoples that weren't annihilated in that area that didn't believe in the Hebrew God? Yes, the story was that this was the land promised by God to the Israelites but why did all the others have to be annihilated to accomplish that feat? Isn't God strong enough to have all live together? And where is the proof that any of this actually happened? 1.5 million people in the desert for 40 years and not one artifact ever found? And supposedly, Egypt controlled Canaan at the time the Israelites got there? Going from Egypt to Egypt control doesn't make too much sense. Reply

Giovanni Costa Rica March 28, 2021

Rabbi Freeman, i have a question, the definition of slavery here is very similar to the modern jobs, so is an obligation to pay the servants? If we pay them and treat them as equals we are just giving them an employ and doesnt make any sense to use the term slaves. Reply

Shimon Jerusalem May 20, 2022

in response to Giovanni :

One rather big difference is that a "regular" employee of may leave a job at their own initiative, even if it doesn't make economic sense. A slave or indentured servant does not have that option. Reply

Awtsmoos Estem Hawour ShiKoydeem Hawtseemtsoom August 25, 2022

in response to Shimon:

BH

Just wondering but can people freely leave jury duty? Reply

Tim Cowen london January 4, 2021

Rabbi Freeman,

Thank you for this interesting and enlightening article. It was recommended to me by Rabbi Boruch Altein of Crouch End Chabad in London. I wonder if I could trouble you with 2 questions:
1. What is your source for your idea that the Torah's apparent condoning of slavery (albeit a compassionate form) is built-in obsolecence - ie that it is not how the world should be. The passage you have cited from the Rambam does not seem to go that far.

2. Following from the first question, how do we know which other things condoned by the Torah are also designed to be phased out? For example, maybe sexual relations are inherently immoral and we should be working towards celibacy as an ideal (as Catholics believe) with the help of artificial fertilisation.

To be clear, I am not advocating for slavery or for celibacy or for Catholicism. I am just trying to understand the basis of your approach. Reply

Rabbi Tzvi Freeman January 4, 2021

in response to Tim Cowen:

The first paragraphs of the essay describes the inherent tension that leads me to this conclusion. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough there, but I don’t know what more to say.

Admittedly, there are other resolutions to that tension. The Kuzari explains the institution of the non-Jewish servant as being for the betterment (tikun) of the servant. There’s no conflict between these two resolutions.

As for the distinction between slavery and mitzvahs such as those you mention: Slavery is not a mitzvah. Nowhere in the Torah does it say, “You must own a slave.” The only injunctions are concerning a Hebrew slave (which has irrelevant to our topic) and a temporary condition following the conquering of the Land of Canaan.
Being fruitful and multiplying, in the other hand, is clearly commanded in the Torah. Reply

AubreyJ London June 19, 2020

Today in 2020 we are witnessing a belated international popular movement to remove monuments erected to celebrate the lives of those who benefited greatly from slave trading.
Slavery is an evil - completely indefensible in any context .
It is said "if you sup with the devil use a long spoon" A great truism
However the Torah sections regulating the treatment of slaves came to be written it seems seems to me a compromise with a corrupting evil.
Since the Hashem we revere could never compromise with an evil , the paradoxical Torah passages are an interpolation by a human hand. Reply

Tzvi Freeman June 23, 2020

in response to AubreyJ:

The paradox is much deeper than you say. G‑d made man. Man does evil. Did G‑d not know that man would do evil?

If G‑d cannot tolerate evil, what is it doing in His world?

My answer here is that He creates a world in which evil is a possibility in order that we can struggle with that evil and overcome it through our own efforts. That way, a divine power deep within us emerges from potential to actual.

But He also made us in a way that we don't overcome anything overnight. The sublimation of the evil and the emergence of light from darkness within man is always a gradual progress. Sudden radical change inevitably proves destructive to our world.

He, the One who made this world, must tolerate that. It is, after all, the story as He wrote it. Reply

AubreyJ London July 1, 2020

in response to Tzvi Freeman:

The explanation offered seems to suggest that G-d was carrying out an experiment to test our attitude to the ( admitted ) evil of Slavery. Einstein wrote "God does not play dice with the universe." and we are part of His universe. However the explanation offered seems invalidated by Exoodus 21-4 .which expressively E ratifies slavery and confirms that all non- Hebrew slaves are chattels. Even in Rome a slave could become a citizen,
To those in this debate saying "there must be an answer" I would ask "why must there be an answer ( that we can understand ) ?" Our ability to solve problems must be finite - clever as they are a chimpanzee will never play chess. Reply

HOWARD KIRSHENBAUM DEERFIELD January 13, 2022

in response to Tzvi Freeman:

The problem is that this is all being done at the expense of the slave that is being subjugated. We may be learning how we should live but in the meantime we could be doing unspeakable things to others. Reply

Rabbi Tzvi Freeman September 2, 2022

in response to HOWARD KIRSHENBAUM:

No. Everything is in the context of the essay which presents Torah as a dynamic force directing history towards greater human freedom with its dictum of the divine image.

But I will say that it is naive for us to imagine working relationships that are practical today imposed upon another society of another era.

It is similarly naive for us to measure such societies by standards that have only become practical in the industrialized world. Reply

Danny September 11, 2023

in response to Rabbi Tzvi Freeman:

I don't think it is fair to call it naive because of the following:

1) clearly the people of the day would have known that being a slave, especially a non-Jewish slave, was a bad thing which no one wanted to experience and was a position of suffering

2) clearly the people of the day would have known that the people they were enslaving were human beings with full agency, feelings, etc

Once you are aware of those two things then continuing the establishment of slavery becomes morally reprehensible by the standards of any day. The only reason one would continue it is for financial gain and for elevated status within a social hierarchy. People are more than willing to do immoral things for wealth and status.

Also, historically the Israelites had only a few generations experienced slavery and were well aware of it being awful. Clearly it's not naive to expect them to be critical of a system that they themselves suffered under. Reply

Raquel June 18, 2020

I want to know why some people have a hard time and do not want to acknowledges the fact the slaves freed from Egypt were black?. Reply

Anonymous June 18, 2020

in response to Raquel:

Not sure who or what you're talking about, no one has a hard time with that. Race is absolutely irrelevant to Judaism. There are Jews of every race.

I'm not sure though there's enough historical evidence to claim that there were Black or dark skinned slaves in Lower Egypt during the second millennium B.C. Ancient Egyptians were not Black, certainly not in Lower Egypt where the Exodus narrative takes place. Reply

Michael LA January 27, 2022

in response to Anonymous:

What is this "black", anyway? You say race is irrelevant to Judaism, then make a point to say ancient Egyptians were not black. The Western world has become so entrenched in racism that most will say they're not racist, but then make sure they make racial distinctions-and always its important to be "not Black". Race is a lie. HaShem did not make "races". Man made that up, along with all other kinds of distinctions, to justify senseless hatred and oppression. HaShem's distinctions are whether we are worshiping Him, or worshiping idols, period. Because from just those two distinctions life is good or life is horror. The only place I know of where skin color is mentioned in Tanakh is when someone is afflicted with tzara, and that person's skin turns "white as snow". Leprosy is a bad translation. There are nations and languages (cultures), that's all. No "races". Reply

Scott Kushner Wilmington May 16, 2020

Rabbi, I love your writings. Can you help me with Vayikra 25:44-47, "slave whom you may have from the nations that are around you" and "and may thus have them serve you forever". There seems to be no limit, no jubilee, on this type of ownership. I am very troubled by it.
Thank you. Reply

Rabbi Tzvi Freeman June 10, 2020

in response to Scott Kushner:

Yes, that is the question I grappled with here. I wrote this a long time ago and would rewrite it now if I had the capacity.

Fundamentally, this is a kind of built-in obsolescence. It’s a process whereby we start with a society where slaves are necessary and freeing them is harmful. Torah regulates how that is to be done, so that these people are treated as human beings. And gradually, Torah molds the Jew and his world into a place where eventually this all becomes unnecessary. Reply

HOWARD KIRSHENBAUM DEERFIELD August 22, 2022

in response to Rabbi Tzvi Freeman:

Where is it ever necessary to own another human being and make him work for you for nothing? How can you justify that? We can own slaves in our country but WE cannot be owned by others in Egypt? I just don't get that. If we can't get by on our own without subjugating others then maybe we should be getting by. All we are really doing when we own slaves is enriching ourselves at the expense of others. That doesn't seem like something Hashem would want. Reply

David UK September 17, 2019

Hi Tzvi - having received emails because of comments recently made by Joe and Dovid - hi ! - I re-read the article to refresh my memory - there is a big grin upon my face in thinking about it : thanks ! - and as it happens the article and the comments below sort of relate to an historical event the truth of which I have been arguing about with my sister who favours her friend's account of another similar event described to her - which I have never heard report of before - in Brynmawr ... I do not think that you will have heard of this one and I will not attempt to write an account of it here but instead ( if you want to learn some more about it ) I invite you to search for " 1911 Tredegar riots " to read about the controversies over how historians have interpreted them ... My sister and her friend argue these riots to be examples of anti-semitism but I argue that their targets were pawnbrokers i.e. that the issue was enslavement within poverty and debt : would you care to debate that ? Reply

David UK September 24, 2019

in response to David:

Having received a notification - re my comment above - I would like to give a more contemporary example of such an issue - bearing in mind that the Torah lectures us upon promptly paying those hired to do a job i.e. not surreptitiously borrowing from others and thus exploiting their "capital" in time and skills : fraudulent contracts which exploit the disadvantaged by turning them into assets.

" Zero hour contracts " have been the subject of controversy and litigation in The UK - the situation is slightly improved - here is one example which I have in mind ... I lost this job because I kept to the speed limits whilst driving a van delivering parcels - the company coerced me to break the law in its pursuit of " productivity " - ie profit ... I am told that its drivers are now subcontractors on zero hour contracts : legally they can simultaneously work for others but they are indebted to pay for the van and uniform ie the company exploits their capital and has turned them into assets ? Reply

Joe September 11, 2019

Upgrade Keep in mind.. We see how rulers, aristocracy treat the poor peasants of their counties GLOBALLY, and how Americans treated their slaves.. So Even if it meant a hard day of work, the average non Jewish 'slave' back then would have LOVED beyond compare, a day of work with a jew compared with the torture of life he would know in his other 'free' peasant life. Slavery to a jew was definately an ENORMOUS UPGRADE compared with the harrowing treatments of 'normal' life Reply

Dovid California September 16, 2019

in response to Joe :

From what source and with what certitude to we know how Jews treated their slaves? Thanks. Reply

AvramJ London September 22, 2019

in response to Joe :

That is a truly shocking argument .It cant be serious ,
It follows that an evil can be accepted as long a even greater
evil is available. Reply

Rabbi Tzvi Freeman September 17, 2019

in response to Dovid:

I can give some response on that, just off the top of my head. By Torah law, all servants were to rest on every Shabbat and Festival. A servant who was beaten by his master and lost a tooth or such, went free. If the servant died directly by the master's blows, the master was to be put to death. And we have Maimonides' statement, cited in this article, that actual treatment went far beyond the letter of the law. Reply

Charles Joseph New York August 31, 2022

in response to Dovid:

We know pretty well, not from the halacha, which people followed or didn't, but from the responsa, real life questions posed to rabbis in writing and answered in writing. We have some responsa from Ashkenaz in the middle ages and a tremendous amount of responsa, court records, business letters, wills, etc., from the Cairo Geniza about Jews and how they treated their slaves. Slavery is a horrible evil, but given that, Jewish owned slaves were not agricultural but domestic slaves, and the evidence is that they were treated relatively well- for slaves. They were partly jewish according to halacha, and it shows. They were treated as members of the community and even at times like family members. This is for the middle ages only. I don't know how they were treated before or after that. Reply

Dovid California September 17, 2019

in response to Rabbi Tzvi Freeman:

Thank you for the clarification, it's much appreciated. It's a relief to know that constraints were put in place by the Torah which would necessarily and likely lead to better treatment. Although, a far better constraint would be to not beat your slave at all. Reply

Charles Joseph Clifton April 7, 2022

in response to Rabbi Tzvi Freeman:

Maimonides doesn't say that humanitarian treatment of slaves was a practice. He writes it as how things should be done. And Maimonides humanitarian exhortation was written in the late 12th century. I haven't seen any humanitarian exhortations before that, certainly not in the Talmud or from the Gaonim. Reply

Charles Joseph New York August 31, 2022

in response to Rabbi Tzvi Freeman:

Maimonides did not say anything about the actual treatment. He spoke, as he does at the end of every section, about how they should be treated in his view. He wrote the Yad starting in 1170, and he was not much accepted in Europe for a while after that. So his view could not have influenced people prior to that time. Reply

Rabbi Tzvi Freeman September 1, 2022

in response to Charles Joseph:

It’s quite rare that Maimonides writes a comment such as this at the end or anywhere in any section. His work was intended as a compendium of Jewish law as it stood in his time.

He writes what he sees as accepted practice over the ages, certainly not a personal opinion of how things should be.

Furthermore, challenges to his work in his day had little to do with his opinions on law, which were rapidly widely embraced. Reply

Charles Joseph NJ September 2, 2022

in response to Rabbi Tzvi Freeman:

I don’t know about that. Depends on what we mean by rapidly. In Ashkenaz, in fits and starts for maybe 200 years. In Egypt, imeadiately. But in any event you are right in that the teshuvot from Ashkenaz and Egypt show they were treated- in the context of unfreedom- surprisingly well. Like community and even family members at times. Manumission , although forbidden , was the rule rather than the exception. But it’s still unfreedom. Reply

AvramJ London May 28, 2019

Ethical Slavery Thank you David for your comment .
The inclusion of the sections of Torah concerning treatment of slaves is a painful anomaly in
a revered work that defines out ethical values and results in sophisticate arguments in explanation and justification from learned Rabbis.since. How can one possibly even attempt to reconcile the fundamental teaching to " do not to others what is hateful to thyself" with this cruel and inhuman and continuing practice. I cannot recite the story in the Haggadah without feeling a little hypocritical..
I am grateful to Chabad for publishing this discussion. Reply

David UK February 8, 2019

I liked that - in noting Avramj's comments about modern slavery - especially the viciousness of the sex slavery - is something which I had in the back of my mind whilst I listened to Dr Tony Martin's " The Jewish Onslaught " lecture : obviously you have no difficulty in acknowledging that there were some Jews directly and indirectly involved in slavery in the 18c Americas in contrast to those on both sides of the argument who either try to utterly deny it or to utterly exaggerate it. Given that everybody was involved and benefited from 18c slavery in the same way that now 20c people buying vegetables in a supermarket thoughtlessly benefit from modern slavery everybody who benefits are complicit regardless of nationality or religion ...

... but the reason for my browsing the subject today is to research a suspicion as to why such a vicious cherem was pronounced against Spinoza : he may have objected to slavery and was persecuted by those had shares in the Dutch West Indies Company ... Reply

Anonymous Chicago June 7, 2020

in response to David:

I am a Spinoza scholar. Your claim about
the herem being conducted to the slave trade is groundless. Do you have any proof? Reply

AvramJ October 14, 2018

I note that no one has sought to reply to my last comment about modern slavery ...
>.. if Torah had given us a clear condemnation of slavery instead of good management advice ,neither Christians or Muslims who pay lips service to Torah could have ignored it and ,then The Modern Slavery Act 2015 after 3000 years may not have become necessary. Does G-d make mistakes ? >
40.3 million slaves around the world and growing. Reply

Anonymous Calif November 8, 2018

in response to AvramJ:

Subject of growing slavery God never makes mistakes. As for growing slavery... If you do not own a business but are instead an employee especially for very little pay, are you not a slave or a servant? Don’t bosses treat employees unfairly at times? Reply

AvramJ September 8, 2018

Modern Slavery
The Rabbi states "That's basically what slavery was" —labor in return for food and lodging. "
That argument is an apologia for modern slavery ignoring the fact that slavery means profit to the slave users.
. Do we close our eyes to the extraordinary cheap clothing produced in eastern sweatshops from workers paid at best subsistence level
We in UK now have The Modern Slavery Act 2015 prompted by the fact that modern slavery is an international crime affecting an estimated 40.3 million slaves around the world.. Then if Torah had given us a clear condemnation of slavery instead of good management advice ,neither Christians or Muslims who pay lips service to Torah could have ignored it and ,then The Modern Slavery Act 2015 after 3000 years may not have become necessary.
Reply

More in this section

You may also be interested in...

Join the Discussion