I regularly read the weekly devar Torah of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the U.K.'s orthodox synagogues. This past Shabbos Rabbi Sacks' devar Torah focused on Hope (Bechukotai - The Logic of Hope) and quoted RFK and FDR. It almost sounded like an endorsement of Obama.But what I want to discuss is his devar Torah from the week before: Behar-Bechukotai The Chronological Imagination
Much of the vort focused on slavery in Judaism. Hirhurim seemed to like the post. This response is more than a week late but Rabbi Sacks' argument has been nagging at me.
The main point of the devar Torah was that people don't handle change well and the Torah is wondrous because it sets us up to change in positive ways. R' Sacks spends a lot of time illustrating this point with the example of slavery and the Torah. As he put it:
The Torah did not abolish slavery but it set in motion a process that would lead people to come of their own accord to the conclusion that it was wrong.He argues that although Judaism allows/allowed slavery "it was limited and humanized". Rabbi Sacks thinks that "[s]lavery is wrong" is the clear message in the Torah and pulls the following quote from Behar to make his case:
If your brother becomes impoverished and is sold to you, do not work him like a slave. He shall be with you like an employee or a resident. He shall serve you only until the jubilee year and then he and his children shall be free to leave you and return to their family and to the hereditary land of their ancestors. For they are My servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. Do not subjugate them through hard labour – you shall fear your G-d . . . For the children of Israel are servants to Me: they are My servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt – I am the Lord your G-d.Here's the problem. The passages above makes the case for why slavery is wrong... to impose indefinitely on your fellow Jew. These passages aren't saying slavery "is an assault on the human condition". It's just saying don't enslave your fellow tribesman.
His argument that Jewish slavery is "limited and humanized" doesn't condemn slavery, if anything it just implies that slavery shouldn't be taken to extremes. At the most basic level the Torah is saying that slavery can be OK.
There may be something to R' Sacks' argument that people don't handle change well and that people more readily accept gradual change. This logic is used elsewhere in Judaism. For example, we are taught that god had the people bring sacrifices because this was a form of worship they were used to when they worshiped idols.
Sometimes the Torah/god does introduce extreme change. When god gave the Torah on Mt. Sinai his first commandment abolishes polytheism. ("...you shall have no other gods before me...") In no uncertain terms the Torah/god is saying that polytheism is not OK. Some of the practices were still allowed, like sacrifice. But the principal was clear: one God only. It was a condemnation of polytheism. The shift from polytheism to monotheism was a significant change in spiritual worship. And, supposedly, a novel idea.
The biggest problem with the argument that the Jewish people wouldn't be able to handle the abolition of slavery is that the Hebrews were slaves themselves! If anyone would be able to empathize with slaves it would be the ancient Jews.
By accepting god's commandments the Jews in the Torah were committing to a significant change in many areas of their personal life. The abolition of slavery should have been been an easy thing for the Hebrews to accept having just escaped a slavery of their own. If god holds that slavery is immoral it would have been abolished in the Torah.
It makes no sense that slavery, something the Torah says the Jewish people fled from, should need to emerge over time.
41 comments:
The other obvious issue is that the Chief implies that the Torah is contextual to the time it was given. Obvious, but not party-line Orthodox.
The back-message I get from his argument is
a) If Matan Torah occurred today, the commandments in the Torah would look radically different
b) They are not eternal in the form they were written
yair,
Two excellent points. I especially like point "b". Thanks for commenting.
Gil posted on it recently
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2008/05/soft-news-musings-iv.html
and the question came up on Eved Kna'ani came up
Your argument that slaves wouldn't take slaves is not good as they did and further it was even too big a paradigm shift to not have a permanent Jewish slave class. It was meant to be a lesson that there was to be equality down to the stranger that dwells with the Israelites and becomes one with them not by blood. The closer someone is to Israelite citizenship the more rights as the more you are to have a sense of family. If you have no sense of family you will have little sense of anyone's humanity.
As for the stranger G-d said you know the heart of a stranger for you were strangers in the land of Egypt so don't oppress them.
I'm no punctuation stickler, but I think that even if you don't believe in it, God is a proper noun and meant to be capitalizes- just like Moses, Isaiah and (L'Havdil) Jesus.
The thing is that while Jews might be able to empathize with slaves bc they had just been slaves, the cultural mindset was still such that there was a ruling class who enslaved subordinate classes. The fact that they moved out from underneath doesn't necessarily mean they disagreed with the system. There's no real reason to assume that slavery wouldn't have evolved on its own as the nation developed and grew richer.
Miri,
The thing is... the cultural mindset was still such that there was a ruling class who enslaved subordinate classes. The fact that they moved out from underneath doesn't necessarily mean they disagreed with the system.
That doesn't make any sense. If they agreed with the system then why would they move out from under it? Or are you saying that they were hypocrites who didn't want to be enslaved themselves but supported enslaving other people?
When the founding fathers established the U.S. there was also the cultural mindset that there should be a king. They could have created a new monarchy. (In fact George Washington was offered the job). But in the end they chose to do the right thing because they had lived under a monarchy and didn't like it. The same goes for the Jewish people. They had lived under slavery, didn't like it. At the time of Matan Torah they had the political will to remove it from the culture.
There's no real reason to assume that slavery wouldn't have evolved on its own as the nation developed and grew richer.
Irrelevant.
If the Torah said slavery in any form is assur (as it does with idol worship) then slavery would not evolve on its own.
This whole discussion is hypothetical anyway because the Torah clearly condones slavery.
If you believe that the Torah comes from god, and you believe slavery is immoral, you need to recognize that the Torah/god does not support your position.
LNM,
"Or are you saying that they were hypocrites who didn't want to be enslaved themselves but supported enslaving other people?"
Why would that be surprising? That's exactly what every person who ever supported slavery thought.
It's the same as the empire-building game. Every people wanted to force their neighbors to pay them tribute, but they sure as hell hated paying tribute to someone who conquered them.
"If the Torah said slavery in any form is assur (as it does with idol worship) then slavery would not evolve on its own."
Well the Jews violated both the issur on idolatry and on that of having a slave class of their own countrymen much to the consternation of the prophets. So the ideal was hard enough to strive for but it was there down to the sojourner who comes from another people.
Leviticus 19:34. But the stranger who dwells with you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God.
Exodus 23:9. Also you shall not oppress a stranger; for you know the heart of a stranger, seeing you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
OP,
> Why would that be surprising? That's exactly what every person who ever supported slavery thought.
I never said it was surprising. I was asking Miri for clarification on her position.
> Every people wanted to force their neighbors to pay them tribute, but they sure as hell hated paying tribute to someone who conquered them.
Every people is a gross generalization. Not that any of this matters to my argument. I never claimed that the biblical Jews were anti-slavery. If anything I implied they would need a commandment from god to know not to engage in it. My argument is that the freed Jewish slaves (and their children) would have been open to accepting a commandment that abolished slavery. And further, according to the Torah slavery is not immoral as evidenced by the fact the Torah condones slavery.
>When the founding fathers established the U.S. there was also the cultural mindset that there should be a king. They could have created a new monarchy. (In fact George Washington was offered the job). But in the end they chose to do the right thing because they had lived under a monarchy and didn't like it.
Yes, but I think the subtle difference here is that for the US, their ideas of a different ruling body and laws was built already on previous philosophers and statesmen. I didn't just come out of a vacuum.
> Yes, but I think the subtle difference here is that for the US, their ideas of a different ruling body and laws was built already on previous philosophers and statesmen. I didn't just come out of a vacuum.
OK, so let's continue the analogy: where the founding fathers had previous philosophers and statesmen the Jewish people had the word of god. Hardly a vacuume.
The founding fathers didn't throw off the British monarchy because they read the complete works of Locke. They separated from the king because they were sick of putting up with all his crap. They even made a list of their grievances.
Once the colonists separated from the king (or were at least in the process of separation) great men seized the opportunity to draft a fresh system rather than create another monarchy.
Once the Jewish people were freed from slavery god gave them commandments and had the opportunity to abolish slavery.
But He didn't.
>The founding fathers didn't throw off the British monarchy because they read the complete works of Locke. They separated from the king because they were sick of putting up with all his crap. They even made a list of their grievances.
Ofcourse they through it out and had grievances, but idea of an alternative form of government did not happen out of nowhere. If you had the same grievences 1000 years earlier, would anyone dream of a democracy and to "chaz veshaom" NOT have a king???
So yes, they were sick of him, but the concept of NOT having a king and producing an alternative was built on concepts of others before them.
>Once the Jewish people were freed from slavery god gave them commandments and had the opportunity to abolish slavery.
Well maybe not in a world that required slavery. Look, I see your point. But for them NOT to have slaves is probably the same as saying:
"The founding fathers were sick of a tyrannical ruler. So the answer is not to get rid of government ENTIRELY, but to change it. For the Jews, the answer to bad slavery behavior is not to get rid of it entirely, but to change it. "
Again, I am trying to look at it from the perspective of man 3000 years ago.
>The founding fathers didn't throw off the British monarchy because they read the complete works of Locke.
No, they didn't throw out the king BECAUSE of Locke, but perhaps if not for Locke and others, throwing out a king and replacing it with something better would not have been an option.
> Again, I am trying to look at it from the perspective of man 3000 years ago.
I hear what you are saying, but the concept of employees existed 3,000 years ago. Slave labor may have been cheaper but there were known alternatives.
> perhaps if not for Locke and others, throwing out a king and replacing it with something better would not have been an option.
This is a good point, but again, the Hebrews had the advantage of communication from god. He had the option of offering them something better. Known alternatives existed at the time.
>He had the option of offering them something better. Known alternatives existed at the time.
in the ancient near east?
Hell, even the Beit hamikdash was built on slave labor.
HH,
I don't understand. Are you saying that all labor done in the ANE was slave labor?
I understand that slave labor was prevalent. (This is expected since it was cheap, useful, and legal). But payment, or barter, for services predates Judaism. Slave labor was a luxury (for lack of a better term), not a necessity.
Well, obviously there was regular commerce and wages to be paid. Even the Torah mentions that. But I think that day and age, slavery was part of that whole structure. So again, in hindsight, we can put any number of alternatives since we live in the 21st century, but I guess for them, it would totally removed from how they understand the world functions.
And IIRC , slavery for the bnei israel was only imposed by the court for a crime or having to pay off something. I wonder if its any different (in theory) than when I see people committing a crime and having to work the whole day in community service clearing out weeds near highway entrances.
An important difference is in community service you pay back your debt by "serving society" and in Judaism a Jew may be sentenced to serve the person whom they wronged. Modern judges can sentence a criminal to "court ordered restitution" in which they pay back what they stole. This would be the modern parallel to the Jew-on-Jew slavery you mentioned.
Right,
So if he had no means to pay him back, then the Jew on Jew slavery would be needed. Again, in those days.
Either way, in both cases someone is forced to work off his wrong, with obviously some distinction, but still..
If you had the same grievences 1000 years earlier, would anyone dream of a democracy and to "chaz veshaom" NOT have a king???
You mean like the Romans did after they booted out Tarquinius Superbus, and created the Republic?
>You mean like the Romans did after they booted out Tarquinius Superbus, and created the Republic?
And did their concept of a republic come out of nowhere or was it influenced by others?
And did their concept of a republic come out of nowhere or was it influenced by others?
It may have been influenced by Cleisthenes (who did pretty much the same thing in Athens at about the same time), but as far as I know, even if it was influenced by Cleisthenes, we could simply transfer our question about the Roman Senators to a question about Athens.
Either Cleisthenes and the Roman Senate came up with similar ideas at about the same time, or one influenced the other, at any rate, we had the creation of representative government (Rome) or a democracy (Athens) at about the same time, both in response to some level of Tyrant.
Either way, one (or both) gets your "who would have invented such a thing" prize.
Good post. Yet another example of how the Torah was just a product of its time.
Well the Jews violated both the issur on idolatry and on that of having a slave class of their own countrymen much to the consternation of the prophets. So the ideal was hard enough to strive for but it was there down to the sojourner who comes from another people.
I basically agree. Jeremiah specifically rails against the Jews' failure to free slaves on the Sabbatical year.
That being said, the Torah condones slavery and does not protect slaves fully. For instance, a slave can be beaten by his master, since he is his property.(Ex. 21:20-21) The Rabbinic doctrine, however, is that if you only have one pillow you gotta give it to your slave (source, people?).
"For instance, a slave can be beaten by his master, since he is his property."
But it had to be for an offense and not with intention to kill or maim just in the same sense as anyone was beaten at a time in which there were fewer penalties available for lesser offenses. If it was apparent that the master was beating the slave so that the slave died because the master was not restrained to care about murder he was clearly not guilty of manslaughter but of murder and had to face death if all the provisions in Jewish law concerning conviction were met.
>Either way, one (or both) gets your "who would have invented such a thing" prize.
I guess your right. But then I guess Slavery didn't bother the Jews.
Personally, I believe that slavery is one of those ideas in the Torah that is expressed for the time. There are examples where God specifically allowed murder of women and children. The question is not how can God allow this to happen. Everyone was doing it, it was common practice, I don't believe we can even comprehend such common practices. But in any case, that was life back then. God didn't make it a mitzvah to have slaves, He just implied that if the times call for it, you can have it, but don't abuse it.
I like to think of slavery within the context of the Yifat Toar, the female captive that the Torah allows one to sleep with under very specific conditions. These conditions are designed so that the man recognizes that this woman is a human being and that therefore the act of taking her as he did was immoral. The Torah is against fornication yet it is pragmatic enough to recognize that in practice men during wartime are going to give in to the temptation. So the Torah allows for the act of fornication, but puts in certain safeguards.
Slavery, like fornication, is immoral. Like fornication, it treats human beings as objects, who have no further value beyond their ability to give one pleasure. The Torah, though, was pragmatic enough to recognize that slavery was not going to end overnight. Therefore it allowed it to continue to exist though with certain restrictions so that people would come to the recognition of the humanity of the slave and the evil that slavery perpetrates.
I like to think of slavery within the context of the Yifat Toar, the female captive that the Torah allows one to sleep with under very specific conditions.
As I have pointed out before, the "Yifat Toar" had no choice in sleeping with her captor. She was raped.
Before you try to correct me, consult the Hebrew. Deut. 21:14 -- "Do not sell her, having raped her (Hebrew INITA)." The same root INH is used for rape in the stories of Dinah and Tamar.
Like genocide and slavery, such passages represent the Hebrew Bible at its lowest. There may exist a Talmudic exegetical apologetic for the verse, but that should not be confused for its original intent.
Any argument of the form that Torah was better than the surrounding cultures or enlightened for its time work perfectly fine for something that is the work of men.
They don't seem all that compelling for something that is supposed to be divinely authored.
"Before you try to correct me, consult the Hebrew. Deut. 21:14 -- "Do not sell her, having raped her (Hebrew INITA)." The same root INH is used for rape in the stories of Dinah and Tamar."
CandyMan we've been through that. It's not meaning raped. It's meaning afflicted. The same word in the Torah used for what we due on Yom Kippur to ourselves.
I think slavery is OK. Look how it civilized so many Africans.
Candyman
Yes the situation of the Yifat Toar also involves rape. Of course rape in the Bible does not carry the same connotations as it does for us. That is an issue for another time.
Just from reading the text, I believe that it is strongly implied that this is not a good thing. The Bible is not commanding that Jewish men should go out and grab themselves a hot non Jewish girl. Furthermore the Bible sympathizes with this woman, a non Israelite, and protects her from being sold into slavery.
Jewish Philosopher
Would that the Israeli Rabbinate declare your conversion to be invalid as well.
@RG,
CandyMan we've been through that. It's not meaning raped. It's meaning afflicted. The same word in the Torah used for what we due on Yom Kippur to ourselves.
Glad to see you finally looked up the root. Last time we discussed this you thought it meant "humbled."
Anyways, where sex is involved, it always connotes rape. Dinah and Tamar.
@Izgad,
Yes the situation of the Yifat Toar also involves rape. Of course rape in the Bible does not carry the same connotations as it does for us... Just from reading the text, I believe that it is strongly implied that this is not a good thing... Furthermore the Bible sympathizes with this woman, a non Israelite, and protects her from being sold into slavery.
Absolutely, 100% correct. Well observed, izgad. Chacham modeh al ha-emet. Perhaps I was wrong to say that this verse is the Hebrew Bible at its lowest, since actually it is an attempt to protect captive women.
Candy Man.
The Vulgate has “quia humiliasti eam.” The KJV follows this lead and says “humiliated.” Targum Yerushalmi say “d’samasta imah,” that you had relations with her. Not that this is of any scholarly relevance but Artscroll says “afflicted.” So RG has some ground to stand on.
Yair
According to Sefer ha-Temunah we are in the second world cycle and as such we have a Torah based on Gevurah. Unlike the world that came before us that had a Torah based on Hesed.
It would seem that this is not very different from the views of Joachim of Fior, a twelfth century Christian mystic, who believe that there were three ages, the age of the Father, the age of the Son and the age of the Holy Spirit and that each of them would have their own covenant and Law.
The idea that you can have a changing evolving Torah is well rooted in Jewish sources, even if Haredi rabbis refuse to admit it.
I've got a post on slavery.
I made a mistake in regards to the King James, it says "because thou hast humbled her."
So RG is taking the side of the Vulgate and the King James against Targum. How "heretical" of him!
izgad,
The Vulgate has “quia humiliasti eam.”... Targum Yerushalmi say “d’samasta imah,”... Artscroll says “afflicted.” So RG is taking the side of the Vulgate and the King James against Targum.
Good job researching this. RG has most recently taken the Artscroll's position, which is at least not completely wrong. But the word here obviously means rape, just like by Dinah and Tamar.
Note that none of these translations actually got it right. Even Yerushalmi falls short of saying rape.
I for one am not surprised. Translations get so much wrong to begin with. And in a case like this one, where the correct translation (of "rape") is rather sensitive, they may have ulterior motives. I wouldn't be surprised if this goes all the way back to the Septuagint.
The only way to understand the Hebrew Bible on a verse-by-verse basis is to read it in the original Hebrew. And read enough of Tanach in the original to make a good judgment.
Translations may occasionally open your eyes if you can't figure out the original Hebrew on your own. Even then, caveat emptor.
It's rather sad that most Jews, and Jewish rabbis, don't even know enough Tanach to translate our basic religious texts.
I hope someone liked my slavery post. :-)
Post a Comment