The Treatment of Non-Israelite Slaves: From Moses To Moses
Non-Hebrew slaves were considered permanent acquisitions and never had to be freed.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Maimonides and the Problem of Non-Israelite Slaves:
The Mishneh Torah Law Code
Moses Maimonides (1138-1205) is the first to take a big step towards a more humane treatment of gentile slaves. In the final section of his Laws of Slavery, Maimonides, expresses moral discomfort with the idea, endorsed by the Torah, that an Israelite master is to work his non-Israelite slaves with harsh labor ( pharekh ), [6] which he defines as ( Mishneh Torah , “Laws of Slaves” 1:6):
- No defined limit is set for the work.
- Useless work. [7]
In both cases, the slave is not allowed a semblance of accomplishment that could salvage some sense of self-worth or empowerment as a human being. [8] In effect, the master replaces God as the supreme object of the slave’s obedience and dependence. Thus, this may account for why the classical rabbis considered keeping a slave past the obligatory sabbatical limit tantamount to idolatry. [9]
Focusing on the imposition of pharekh labor, Maimonides writes, ( Mishneh Torah , Laws of Slaves 9:8):
| Best to be compassionate and not overburden slaves. |
מֻתָּר לַעֲבֹד בְּעֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי בְּפָרֶךְ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַדִּין כָּךְ מִדַּת חֲסִידוּת וְדַרְכֵי חָכְמָה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אָדָם רַחְמָן וְרוֹדֵף צֶדֶק וְלֹא יַכְבִּיד עֻלּוֹ עַל עַבְדּוֹ וְלֹא יָצֵר לוֹ.
|
It is permissible to have a Canaanite slave perform excruciating labor ( pharekh) . Although this is the law, the attribute of piety and the ways of wisdom is for a person to be compassionate and to pursue justice, not to excessively burden his slaves, nor cause them distress. |
| Feed slaves well. |
וְיַאֲכִילֵהוּ וְיַשְׁקֵהוּ מִכָּל מַאֲכָל וּמִכָּל מִשְׁתֶּה. חֲכָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים הָיוּ נוֹתְנִין לָעֶבֶד מִכָּל תַּבְשִׁיל וְתַבְשִׁיל שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹכְלִין. וּמַקְדִּימִין מְזוֹן הַבְּהֵמוֹת וְהָעֲבָדִים לִסְעוּדַת עַצְמָן.
|
He should feed them and give them drink from all his available food and drink. This was the practice of the ancient Sages who would give their slaves from every dish of which they themselves would partake. And they would provide food for their animals and slaves before partaking of their own meals. |
| A master to his slave has the power of God. |
הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (תהילים קכג-ב) “כְעֵינֵי עֲבָדִים אֶל יַד אֲדוֹנֵיהֶם כְּעֵינֵי שִׁפְחָה אֶל יַד גְּבִרְתָּהּ [כֵּ֣ן עֵ֭ינֵינוּ אֶל־ה’ אֱלֹהֵ֑ינוּ עַד שֶׁיְּחָנֵּנוּ]”.
|
And so, it is written Psalms 123:2: “As the eyes of slaves to their master’s hand, and like the eyes of a maid-servant to her mistress’ hand, [so are our eyes to the Lord our God awaiting his favor].” |
| Do not verbally abuse a slave, but speak kindly. |
וְכֵן לֹא יְבַזֵּהוּ בַּיָּד וְלֹא בִּדְבָרִים. לְעַבְדוּת מְסָרָן הַכָּתוּב לֹא לְבוּשָׁה. וְלֹא יַרְבֶּה עָלָיו צְעָקָה וְכַעַס אֶלָּא יְדַבֵּר עִמּוֹ בְּנַחַת וְיִשְׁמַע טַעֲנוֹתָיו. וְכֵן מְפֹרָשׁ בְּדַרְכֵי אִיּוֹב הַטּוֹבִים שֶׁהִשְׁתַּבֵּחַ בָּהֶן (איוב לא-יג) “אִם אֶמְאַס מִשְׁפַּט עַבְדִּי וַאֲמָתִי בְּרִבָם עִמָּדִי” (איוב לא-טו) “הֲלֹא בַבֶּטֶן עשֵֹׁנִי עָשָׂהוּ וַיְכֻנֶנּוּ בָּרֶחֶם אֶחָד.”
|
Similarly, we should not embarrass a slave verbally or physically, for the Torah only contemplated work for them not humiliation. Nor should one excessively scream at or exhibit anger with them. Instead, one should speak to them gently, and listen to their complaints. This is explicitly stated with regard to the positive paths of Job for which he was praised Job 31:13, 15: “Have I ever shunned justice for my slave and maid-servant when they quarreled with me…. Did not He who made me in my mother’s belly make him? Did not One form us both in the womb?” |
| The children of Abraham are kind and not cruel like idolaters. |
וְאֵין הָאַכְזָרִיּוּת וְהָעַזּוּת מְצוּיָה אֶלָּא בְּעַכּוּ”ם עוֹבְדֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֲבָל
זַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ וְהֵם יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהִשְׁפִּיעַ לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא טוֹבַת הַתּוֹרָה וְצִוָּה אוֹתָם בְּ”חֻקִּים וּמִשְׁפָּטִים צַדִּיקִים” רַחְמָנִים הֵם עַל הַכּל.
|
Cruelty and arrogance are common only among idolaters. By contrast, the descendants of Abraham our patriarch, i.e. Israel on whom the Holy One, blessed be He, endowed the goodness of the Torah and commanded to observe “righteous statutes and judgments,” (Deut 4:8) are compassionate to all. |
| God is merciful so we should be as well. |
וְכֵן בְּמִדּוֹתָיו שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶּׁצִּוָּנוּ לְהִדָּמוֹת בָּהֶם הוּא אוֹמֵר (תהילים קמה-ט) “וְרַחֲמָיו עַל כָּל מַעֲשָׂיו . וְכָל הַמְרַחֵם מְרַחֲמִין עָלָיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יג:יח) “וְנָתַן לְךָ רַחֲמִים וְרִחַמְךָ וְהִרְבֶּךָ”:
|
And similarly, with regard to the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, which He commanded us to imitate, it is written Psalms 145:9: “His mercy is upon all of His works.” And whoever shows mercy to others will have mercy shown to him, as implied by Deuteronomy 13:18: “He will show you compassion, and in His compassion merciful increase you.” |
s
| This codified recommendation represents the high water mark of Jewish law in expressing noble and equitable ideals. It also presents an exquisite weave of biblical texts, philosophy, theology, and law. This emerges most clearly if we follow the logic of four verses Maimonides cites and how he integrates them into a kind of philosophically theological mini-treatise that touches on the nature of man, his relationship with the divine, the nature of God, and imitatio dei . |
| Slave Market in Cairo, Egypt & Nubia. Artist David Roberts, between 1845 and 1849 . Wikimedia |
Tags
Who is online
546 visitors
This discussion will be an open and honest discussion of slavery in Ancient Israel from a biblical perspective. A critical look. Let's get it all out in the open. Let's get answers.
Slavery was pervasive in the ancient world, and it goes along way back beyond and after Ancient Israel.
Absolutely. People lived their entire lives with slavery everywhere they looked. They knew slaves had been in their society for generations with no hint that this would change. In short, slavery was a lifelong normality.
What you have offered is demonstration that Hebrews evolved. Over time they started to realize that slaves were human and should be treated humanely. This certainly is what we would expect as a form of evolution - moral evolution (or societal evolution). Clearly, today, their descendants (modern Jews) consider slavery to be absolutely immoral.
The question is this: In Ancient Israel was the institution of slavery immoral?
Yes. Owning another human being as property is immoral.
It does not matter if people realize they are immoral or think they are being moral.
Please elaborate.
One should not have to explain why slavery is immoral. The immorality of slavery is probably one of the most commonly held moral positions worldwide. To wit ...
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
This is nice and I respect it. However, it is anachronistic to Ancient Israel. It has no bearing on this particular article. Ancient Israel (and its surroundings) had their own individual legal laws.
Yes they did. And, as I noted, they thought it was moral to own people. We know better nowadays.
Good we agree Ancient Israel and the Ancient World both had separate legal standards and morals of conduct.
When individuals follow the laws which govern their community (Ancient world and nations) are they doing what is right?
Of course! In fact every culture basically has its own standards, mores and values.
Not necessarily. Owning a slave was legal but it clearly is immoral and wrong. Ancient laws did indeed allow the immoral practice of owning another human being as property.
How so?
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Which of the above is correct: 1 or 2?
Which of the above is correct: 1 or 2? This document is anachronistic to this specific discussion. I have mentioned this already.
Who wrote this document you refer to? When? How is the Ancient World and Ancient Israel impacted by this specific document?
I disagree. It goes to the question of the immorality of slavery. It does not matter if people did not realize slavery is immoral. We know it is immoral today. (Right? Slavery is immoral?)
Per your question:
Answer: Yes! It was immoral back then too. It was legal and normal to them. They just did not realize it was immoral to own another person as property.
You did not answer this.
This is today. (With all its modern (heavy) machinery, (high-grade) technologies, and war apparatuses—none which were available in Ancient Israel)
This is the reason we are discussing this from the perspective of Ancient Israel and the Ancient World.
Glad we agree! I want to highlight this agreement.
I gave you the link. You can answer all the questions you wish about the document by following the link.
Never was a disagreement. I am pretty sure most everyone knows that slavery was legal in the ancient world. Cal, slavery was legal in the USA until Lincoln ended it in the 19th century. This is common knowledge.
What does technology, etc. have to do with morality?
You 'entered' the link into this discussion. You have referenced it several times, you often are strict about getting answers to your questions from others, so reciprocate with answers as a common courtesy, please.
Modern man and its economies do not work as hard, build as hard, or fight as hard as ancient societies. Thus, this world's sense of rights and wrongs (morality) justly modifies itself.
You are confusing morality with necessity.
I will be happy to leave this discussion if you start insisting I answer every sidebar question you ask. Especially when you are asking about background details that are not germane to the topic. You have a link, you have a computer. If you want to explore details then do so. If you think the source is not credible then you are free to do your own research.
My position is that slavery is immoral. It does not matter when it is done or why it is done. The owning of another human being as property is immoral.
Now you either agree or not. No amount of justification will ever make slavery moral. One can justify the practice as necessary (or really convenient) but the owning of another person is immoral in all circumstances.
Frankly I am surprised that anyone would disagree with that statement.
No such thing. In modernity, (which clearly has not ended slavery worldwide, though classifying it as wrong) the necessity of human manpower for toiling labor lessened with machinery; military deterrent weaponry lessened border invasions, and technology makes it so that people are expecting to be 'pitted' against automation! What will become of people when there is insufficient workloads and excess people? People will be forced to 'convert' to working for little or subsistence.
Certainly, you are fully aware you can do as you wish. Though, I am concerned at how abrupt your tone has become mere 'minutes' into a debate. I hope you are okay.
You 'quoted' this UN document into this debate, and then refuse to 'take' questions about its usefulness and demonstrate why it matters in our discussion? Maybe it is beneath you answer questions others ask, and you really should work on that!
If the intention of your questions is to get others to think long and hard on the point being driven home, then do not let a bad taste form when others expect you to kindly think long and hard on the point they are delivering. Critical thinkers' are famous for asking questions! I am confident you know this.
Your position on slavery as immoral primarily in Ancient Israel is one-side of this undertaking.
What you can do is continue to debate the subject or exercise a choice to walk away. Anything else, may be a case of special pleading, that is, holding a position without holding debate. Hereafter, your questions shall be given the same amount of treatment as you grant questions of others.
Surprise is irrelevant.
How does this relate to your topic?
And here we go. You want to pepper me with a bunch of secondary and tertiary questions. Sorry, I am not going to chase down details for you.
Note: here is where you take a discussion and go personal (and ugly).
Slavery is always immoral. It does not matter the time or the place. Owning another person as property is immoral. Apparently you disagree.
We are done here.
To be clear, I did not bring up modern life in this discussion. You did.
It is a direct answer to a partial list of some factors which correlate with slavery in Ancient Israel and the ancient world: Poverty. Debt. Defeat and/or surrender in war times. Lack.
If you wish. That (feigning outrage) is a weak argument for 'being done here.' Truth is, there ARE no 'victims' to be found between the two of us. Good bye.
The other side of this-just to complete the thought:
This discussion will be an open and honest discussion of slavery in Ancient Israel from a biblical perspective. A critical look. Let's get it all out in the open. Let's get answers.
There are points to be borne out on both sides of the topic of slavery in Ancient Israel. When and if this conversation goes forward, I will let the 'chips' fall where they may. I will not, however, permit one side's opinion to override the discussion.
In effect, the master replaces God as the supreme object of the slave’s obedience and dependence. Thus, this may account for why the classical rabbis considered keeping a slave past the obligatory sabbatical limit tantamount to idolatry.[9]