In Rabbinic sources, the laws discussed in the first seven verses of parshat Mishpatim are believed to pertain to a Jewish slave. This is based on the assumption that the word "עברי"(ivri) in the second verse is synonymous with “Jew” or “Israelite”. This understanding is reflected in the Daat Mikra commentary on the beginning of the second verse:
כִּי תִקְנֶה עֶבֶד עִבְרִי- When you, an Israelite, acquire for yourself an ivri slave, that is to say: a slave who is himself an Israelite.[1]
However, Professor Umberto Cassuto points out in his commentary to Sefer Shemot that the verse “uses the expression Hebrew slave (eved ivri) in its primary signification, which included not only Israelite slaves, but a wider category of bondmen.”[2] According to Cassuto, various Egyptian and Akkadian documents make it clear that the term Hebrew (ivri) does not connote a specific race of people but refers to a specific class of people. This class was composed primarily of enslaved foreigners of any race. Thus the laws and humanitarian regulations regarding the eved ivri in parshat Mishpatim are extended to all sorts of slaves, not just our fellow Israelites.
It seems that in the chumash itself, it is ambiguous whether or not ivri is a racial or social designation. Support for the theory that the term ivri is a social designation and therefore applicable to broader range of people, not just Israelites, can be found in Sefer Devarim (23:20) by the prohibition of charging interest[3]. There, in Sefer Devarim, Moshe wishes to tell us that the prohibition only extends to charging a fellow Israelite interest. But charging a non-Israelite interest is permitted. There, the text does not use the term 'ivri' to connote kinship between Israelites. Rather it uses the term achicha- “your brother” to signify that interest payments may not be collected from an Israelite. Thus, we can infer that had slavery regulations in Mishpatim been applicable to specifically Israelites, then the text could have used the term 'achicha' rather than 'ivri'.
However, support for the theory that the term 'ivri' is a racial designation, as opposed to one of class, can be brought from the following verse in (14:13) Sefer Bereishit:
וַיָּבֹא, הַפָּלִיט, וַיַּגֵּד, לְאַבְרָם הָעִבְרִי; וְהוּא שֹׁכֵן בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא הָאֱמֹרִי, אֲחִי אֶשְׁכֹּל וַאֲחִי עָנֵר, וְהֵם, בַּעֲלֵי בְרִית-אַבְרָם.
And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew--now he dwelt by the terebinths of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshkol, and brother of Aner; and these were confederate with Abram.[4]
In this verse, Abram is described as an ivri but also as having a brit (covenant) with his Amorite neighbors. The relationship between parties in a brit is not hierarchical wherein one party is subservient or inferior to the other. Rather, each party consensually agrees to fulfill certain obligations. The parties, as they come together and agree on those conditions, approach each other as equals. Thus, the term ivri here does not seem to mean someone who is of a lower social status. The term here designates Abram as a racially Hebrew man living amongst Amorites.
Despite this ambiguity regarding the true sense of the word ivri, Cassuto’s novel understanding offers us some valuable homiletical insights. Whatever the specific different halakhot may be regarding the treatment of Jewish slaves versus gentile slaves, it is clear that there is a strong humanitarian sense underlying the Torah’s treatment of slaves of whatever origin. In the civilizations that surrounded or interacted with Israel, this humanitarian sense is completely absent. As Martin Goodman remarks regarding slaves in the Roman Empire, “[A] a slave was property in the same sense that animals were property.” [5] Understanding the term ivri as Cassuto does, God’s choice to begin His instruction of civil and criminal law with the treatment of humanity’s least fortunate indicates His ethical priorities. We would be wise to imitate God and share those priorities, as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment