I've been a little stressed recently, so no write. This also isn't really anything special - but maybe food for thought.
There is a mitzvah in this weeks parsha, liolam bahem taavodu:
והמצוה הרל"ה היא שצונו בדין עבד כנעני. והוא שנעבוד בו לעולם ושאין לו חירות אלא בשן ועין. והוא הדין לשאר ראשי אברים שאינם חוזרים כמו שבא בו (שם כד ב מכיל') הפירוש המקובל. והוא אמרו יתעלה (ס"פ בהר) לעולם בהם תעבודו ואמר (משפטי' כא) וכי יכה איש וכו'. ולשון גמר גיטין (לח א) כל המשחרר עבדו עובר בעשה דכתיב לעולם בהם תעבודו.
(Rambam, mitzvah 235)
There is a machlokes in the rishonim with regards to the taam hamitzvah. The Ramban in gittin (38b) writes that it really is just an extension of li sichanem. Were you to be meshachrer the eved, however, for the purpose of making a minyan, thats not a matnas chinam and hence is completely muttar. (See the rashba there, however, for the difficulties in this approach, and the maggid mishnah avadim 9:6)
the sefer hachinuch has quite a different way of understanding it:
משרשי המצוה, לפי שעם ישראל הם מבחר המין האנושי ונבראו להכיר בוראם ולעבוד לפניו, וראויים להיות להם עבדים לשמש אותם, ואם אין להם עבדים מן האומות, עכ"פ יצטרכו להשתעבד באחיהם ולא יוכלו להשתדל בעבודתו ברוך הוא, על כן נצטוינו להחזיק באלו לתשמישנו אחר שהוכשרו ונעקרה עבודה זרה מפיהם ולא יהיו למוקש בבתינו.
...
ומהיות יסוד המצוה כדי שירבו בני אדם בעבודת בוראם ברוך הוא, התירו חכמים זכרונם לברכה לעבור על מצוה זו בכל עת שביטול מצוה זו יהיה גורם למצוה אחרת, ואפילו בשביל מצוה דרבנן אם היא מצוה דרבים, כגון שלא היו עשרה בבית הכנסת וצריכין לשחרר העבד ולהשלים המנין. ואל יקשה עליך, ואיך נדחה מצות עשה זו דאורייתא בשביל מצוה דרבנן, כי מפני שיסוד המצוה אינו אלא כדי להרבות עבודתו ברוך הוא, אחר שבשחרורו עכשיו נעשית מצוה, ועוד שגם הוא מתרבה בגופו במצוות שלא היה חייב קודם השחרור, בין זה וזה אמרו זכרונם לברכה שמותר לשחררו, שכן קיבלו הענין.
For the sefer hachinuch, the mitzvah stems not out of a prohibition of giving a matnas chinam, but rather, out of the broader perspective of G-d's greater plan. (This approach neatly avoids the questions of the rashba and maggid mishnah on the Ramban, ayen sham).
Please forgive my modern sentiments, but what type of rationale is that for keeping people forever enslaved?
To strengthen the question, the Rambam emphasizes in various places how the torah is very makpid that we should have rachmanus on our avadim. Particularly in the moreh this clash becomes very ironic:
וכן כל המצות אשר ספרנום בהלכות עבדים כולם חמלה רחמנות וחנינה לאביונים, ומרוב הרחמנות יציאת עבד כנעני חפשי בחסרון אחד מאבריו, שלא יתחברו בו העבדות והבטול ואפילו בהפלת שן כ"ש על זולת מהאברים,
So if the torah has such a rachmanus on the avadim that they immediately go free upon hakaas shein vi-ayen, then why did the torah insist that they cannot go free otherwise? Shouldn't this rachamanus carry over to at least allow a master to free his avadim if he so chooses?
Whether or not I have a good answer to this, kabalah hi u-nikabel. But I thought maybe this twist might help explain it.
The torah emphasizes one theme again and again, throughout parshas behar: ki avadai heim - avdus isnt tofes on bnei yisrael because we already are avadim - shtari kodem, Hashem's claim on us is first. You have to free an eved ivri by yovel - ki avadai hem. You can't work him with avodas perech - ki avadai hem. There is no reference to a right to be free or anything of the sort. Who made up such a thing? The reason why we cannot enslave bnei yisrael is solely because bnei yisrael already belong to another master.
Its nothing against the eved that we can't free him. But unlike by bnei yisrael, this eved has no shtar kodem - mimeila, his avdus is liolam.
The take-away message, then, is that if we neglect to fulfill our obligations in our shtar to Hashem, we c''v open the door for a new shtar which we don't like. On the positive side, if we fulfill our obligations to G-d, then no new claims can take effect against us.
Shavua tov!
Mr. Mashkim,
ReplyDeleteI am sorry but I cannot forgive your modern sentiments, in fact I don't even understand why they were brought into this discussion. Where in the passage you quoted does the Chinuch allow for cruelty to the Canaanite slave? The quote from the Rambam is as beautiful as it is irrelevant to any point the Chinuch was making.
"For the sefer hachinuch, the mitzvah stems not out of a prohibition of giving a matnas chinam, but rather, out of the broader perspective of G-d's greater plan." I am not sure what you mean by this, but I am certain that the Chinuch did not mean this. The Chinuch's point is simple, albeit in direct contradiction to yours, which I guess is why you sort of glossed over it. To put the Chinuch's point into caveman language: Mitvot are good, really good. If the source of the commandment is to allow Jews to better worship their creator, than it applies doubly so to the Canaanite. Giving him the opportunity to forsake idolatry and worship God is undoubtedly the most beneficent thing you can do for him. However, if freeing him gives him the ability to perform even more of Gods commandments, then by all means, says the Chinuch, do so! In fact when the Chinuch writes: "ומהיות יסוד המצוה כדי שירבו בני אדם בעבודת בוראם ברוך הוא" he specifically uses the more general "Bnei Adam" as opposed to "Bnei Yisrael" because he is also referring to the Canaanite himself. Now, with this point duly noted, we can have a discussion about the morality of such a commandment instead of just sweeping it away upon the altar of modern sensibilities. I want to end by pointing out something we Moderns simply do not appreciate. Aristotle noted that there are 3 types of political rule: Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy. Each one has a corresponding perversion. Monarchy is bad when it becomes a tyranny, Aristocracy is bad when it becomes an Oligarchy, and Democracy is bad rule, when it becomes mob rule. However, inherently no system can claim more of a right to morality than the others. I think this can be applied to slavery as well. A just enslavement is one where the Master is kind and good to his slave, while its perversion is where he is cruel. Does the Torah anywhere allow for cruelty towards the slave?
Slightly disappointed,
Tzafnas Paneach
Mr. Mashkim,
ReplyDeleteI am sorry but I cannot forgive your modern sentiments, in fact I don't even understand why they were brought into this discussion. Where in the passage you quoted does the Chinuch allow for cruelty to the Canaanite slave? The quote from the Rambam is as beautiful as it is irrelevant to any point the Chinuch was making.
"For the sefer hachinuch, the mitzvah stems not out of a prohibition of giving a matnas chinam, but rather, out of the broader perspective of G-d's greater plan." I am not sure what you mean by this, but I am certain that the Chinuch did not mean this. The Chinuch's point is simple, albeit in direct contradiction to yours, which I guess is why you sort of glossed over it. To put the Chinuch's point into caveman language: Mitvot are good, really good. If the source of the commandment is to allow Jews to better worship their creator, than it applies doubly so to the Canaanite. Giving him the opportunity to forsake idolatry and worship God is undoubtedly the most beneficent thing you can do for him. However, if freeing him gives him the ability to perform even more of Gods commandments, then by all means, says the Chinuch, do so! In fact when the Chinuch writes: "ומהיות יסוד המצוה כדי שירבו בני אדם בעבודת בוראם ברוך הוא" he specifically uses the more general "Bnei Adam" as opposed to "Bnei Yisrael" because he is also referring to the Canaanite himself. Now, with this point duly noted, we can have a discussion about the morality of such a commandment instead of just sweeping it away upon the altar of modern sensibilities. I want to end by pointing out something we Moderns simply do not appreciate. Aristotle noted that there are 3 types of political rule: Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy. Each one has a corresponding perversion. Monarchy is bad when it becomes a tyranny, Aristocracy is bad when it becomes an Oligarchy, and Democracy is bad rule, when it becomes mob rule. However, inherently no system can claim more of a right to morality than the others. I think this can be applied to slavery as well. A just enslavement is one where the Master is kind and good to his slave, while its perversion is where he is cruel. Does the Torah anywhere allow for cruelty towards the slave?
Slightly disappointed,
Tzafnas Paneach
Mr Tzafnas,
ReplyDeletesometimes i think you just disagree with me lishmah. I hate to break it to you, but that does not merit the same reward as torah lishma.
How is the Rambam not connected to everything I said. Does he, or does he not, connect rachmanus on an eved to freeing said eved? He does - right mr. tzafnas?
So isn't that rachmanus counteracted by the command that in the majority of cases, it is forbidden to free an eved? The question is quite glaring in the moreh, where the Rambam begins by saying that all the mitzvos in hilchos avadim were given as rachamanus, and explains them all except liolam bahem taavodu - that mitzvah, somehow, doesnt get explained. And that, I think, should require explanation.
If you really believe slavery can be kind, than ok. I cant prove you wrong, but thats bogus, and you know it.
Sincerely, and with great respect,
Mr. Mashkim
Mr Mashkim,
ReplyDeleteI noticed that you ignored the substance of my comment, and that your response continues along the path of your misunderstandings. Rather than restating my position, I will allow you to reread my comment, or ask someone of superior intelligence to assist you. I would also suggest you look at the Rambam again. I await a less emotionally charged and (one can only hope) more cogent rejoinder. Regarding your last point, all I can say is that if your best argument is nothing more than the mere wails of a suckling saying "Your wrong because I said so!" than we will have to simply allow the readers to judge who is correct. I don't think I will respond to your fatuous remark at the beginning of your response, but merely point out that I had thought you higher than to resort to such immature, not to mention singularly uncalled for, insults.
Sinking into a depression,
Tzafnas Paneach