Shabbos Parashas Mishpatim - 5776

Rabbi Hal Miller

When you will buy a Hebrew servant, he shall work for six years; and in the

seventh he shall go to freedom, without charge. [Shemos 21:2]

When a man shall sell his daughter as a handmaiden, she shall not go free

like the release of the slaves. [Shemos 21:7]

In a parsha labeled "laws" for the large number of statutes included, why do we

find two references to buying slaves? In an enlightened religion such as Judaism,

doesn't this seem to be setting a bad example to the rest of the world? Why would a

Jew buy another Jew as a slave? Even moreso, why would the Torah condone it?

It's easy to say, well that's just what people did back then, so it would have been too

hard to change everything at once. This argument is also applied to the idea of animal

sacrifices, that the nations of the time all did it, and the children of Israel might not

have followed Moshe if he told them to stop doing what they were used to. But that is

not the way of the Torah. There is no provision for doing the wrong thing just because

one doesn't feel like doing the right thing. This argument also leads to the conclusion

that it would be acceptable at some point for people to change halacha to suit the

fads of their generation. The fact that the practice was popular then with idolators is

no support for the Torah including it like this. So, what's going on?

The Torah tells us elsewhere [Vayikra 25:39] when to sell someone. If a man steals,

and is unable to pay the compensation to his victim, the court is directed to sell him

for labor to someone who will then pay off the debt. The servant is released when the

debt is paid, at the Yovel, or at the six year point of his servitude, whichever comes

first. But we know from elsewhere that a Canaanite slave is never released. This our

verses clearly apply to a Jewish slave. Even the text says eved ivri, Hebrew servant.

Today we would be shocked if someone sold his young daughter. It appears heinous.

Why was it allowed? More precisely, what did it mean? Certainly we might think that it

is a way to keep her fed in the case where a family is too poor to support all the kids.

Is that what this really is? Sforno and Rav Hirsch both say no, that this is merely

a form of marriage, where the "sale price" is in fact a betrothal gift to the father in

exchange for the girl being married to either the "new owner" or his son. Although not

how we manage relationships today, this is still more palatable. But is that the real

point of our verses?

We learn our point by looking into the laws of injury to a Canaanite slave. If an owner

wishes to strike a slave, presumably for not working hard, he is entitled to do so. But,

if he causes an injury, he may be liable. For an injury to an eye, or for knocking out a

tooth, he must release the slave. Our verses, which apply to the Jewish servant, not

the Canaanite, say that this release is not appropriate. As Rav Hirsch, puts it, "They

are not real slaves, and letting them off the few years of their service would be no

equivalent for bodily injuries. They have to receive full compensation for their loss

as every other Jew would, their condition of service continues."

In other words, a Jewish servant is not treated the same as a non-Jewish one. The

Jew has an obligation, which he must fulfill even if injured in a way that would release

a non-Jew. This applies to non-servant Jews as well. We have obligations, to G-d, to

each other, and also to the non-Jews, obligations that have no equal in the non-Jewish

world. We are always held to a higher standard.