Do not enslave an escapee
Verse: לא תסגיר עבד אל אדניו, אשר ינצל אליך מעם אדניו
Command: Do not enslave an escapee slave
Devarim 23:16
SMG
It says in the Torah[i] לא תסגיר עבד אל אדניו, אשר ינצל אליך מעם אדניו. Rabbi Aĉai son of Rabbi Yoshia said[ii] [1]that this verse is talking about a servant which ran away from outside Israel to the land of Israel – we do not return him [to his status as a servant], and we inform his [former] master that a Bill of Emancipation must be written to free him. Together with the Bill of Emancipation, the master [is entitled to] write a promissory note obligating the [former] servant to repay his value when he has the means to do so – at which point [the former servant] is obligated to pay it off. If the [former] master does not want to free him, the courts remove the status of servitude [from the former servant] and he goes free.[2] This [former] servant who runs away to Israel gains the status of a Righteous Convert, and [in addition to the prohibition of enslaving this person back to the authority of the former master,] he is also subject to the protection of the negative Mitzva 172 – Do not commit Ona’ah against a convert. [In addition to the standard prohibition noted above, there is an extra admonishment] since this new convert is excessively downtrodden [due to his experience in escaping from his former master] even more than a free will convert, and therefore the Torah commanded [an additional admonishment] as stated in the verse עמך ישב בקרבך וגו’ באחד שעריך בטוב לו, לא תוננו.
Nevertheless [this is not a separate Mitzva, but] is included in the prohibition against [committing Ona’ah against] a convert. It is all one thing. [Notwithstanding] that logically it would seem these are two negative Mitzvos [that against harassing a convert – וגר לא תונה, and that against harassing a former servant – עמך ישב בקרבך וגו’ [לא תוננו]] [nevertheless] we [also] do not count the verse[iii] כל אלמנה ויתום לא תענון [as its own negative Mitzva] instead it is all included within the same negative Mitzva.
[1] As adjudicated by Rabbi Ami when this actually occurred.
[2] Without incurring the monetary obligation. This is not a punishment, instead it is a reflection of the cause of his liberation – when the master agrees to comply, the slave is obligated to repay the master for his loss. But when the master refuses to comply, it is the courts that cause the master to lose his authority and thus the court is the one who would be theoretically obligated to repay the loss – but the courts are not subject to such types of obligations. Accordingly, the slave goes free with no financial burden.
[i] Devarim 23:16
[ii] Gem. Gittin 45a
[iii] Shemos 22:21
AMUDAY SHLOMO
The Maharshal quotes the verse but does not elaborate – presumably the commentary has either been lost to time or was never completed.
RASHI
Interestingly, Rashi does not initially render the verse according to the Gemara, instead he states that the meaning follows the Targum – which translates the verse as talking about a Jewish-by-birth slave, who had been sold to a gentile. Only afterward does Rashi quote the Gemara that there is another way of learning the verse as applying to a Cana’anite servant who is escaping to Israel.
Discussion by SMS
The Gemara quotes the following stories of runaway servants:
There was a servant who escaped from outside Israel to Israel. The master chased after him and brought the matter to [the court of] Rabbi Ami. [Rabbi Ami] said to him [the master] ‘we’ll write a promissory note for his value – and you write a Bill of Emancipation. If you refuse, we will take him from your custody [without payment] based on the ruling of Rabbi Achay son of Rabbi Yoshia.’
The Gemara provides the Braissa in which Rabbi Achay son of Rabbi Yoshia made his ruling. As we learnt – based on the verse[i] לא ישבו בארצך פן יחטיאו אתך לי, you might think this verse even applies to a non-Jew who accepted upon himself not to serve idolatry, that’s why the Torah states לא תסגיר עבד אל אדניו אשר ינצל אליך מעם אדניו. Instead, what should this person do [as the verses continue] עמך ישב בקרבך וגו.
In that case, Rabbi Yoshia (?)[1] needs to explain why the verse uses the term מעם אדניו the verse should have said מעם אביו. To explain this, Rabbi Yoshia states that this is talking about someone who sells his servant to someone outside Israel.
The Gemara continues and asks about the term אשר ינצל אליך, shouldn’t it be אשר ינצל מעמך [since the servant is escaping from a Jewish master]. The Gemara answers this refers to a servant who escaped to the land of Israel.
Rav Ĉisda also had a slave who ran away to the Cuthians. He sent a message to them asking for the slaves return. They responded that the verse says a slave may not be returned. He answered from the verse[ii] וכן תעשה לכל אבידת אחיך – which implies that all property lost must be returned. They asked, what then of the verse prohibiting the return of the slave, to which he responded, that verse talks of a slave who escaped to Israel[2].
Notwithstanding the possible ambiguity of the end of the verse לא תוננו which could apply to a Jewish-from-birth slave, it seems obvious to me that given the content of the Mitzva, we can safely assume according to the פשט that לא תסגיר עבד is talking about a Cana’anite Servant.
With regard to a Jewish-from-birth slave who was working for a gentile master, there wouldn’t be the possibility of returning him, since the Torah admonishes us not to allow a gentile to work a Jewish slave roughly in the verse[iii] לא ירדנו בפרך לעיניך. Obviously, if we are talking about a Jewish slave who is running away from the gentile master to Israel where Jewish law holds sway, he must have been having a difficult time with the master, and accordingly returning him to that master would violate the statement in the verse.
Therefore, we must be talking about a Jewish master.
Following that line of reasoning, in terms of which slave is running away to Israel from a Jewish master, it must be the Cana’anite Servant. The reason the Torah instituted this Mitzva is to provide a caveat to the requirement noted in positive Mitzva 87, that of the obligation to keep Cana’anite Servants ‘forever’. You might think that this requirement applies when the Cana’anite Servant runs away – that Jewish society has an obligation to repatriate the servant back to the master. Therefore, the Torah tells us this is not the case.
The whole reason a Jewish master is obligated to maintain the Cana’anite Servant ‘forever’ is to provide the Cana’anite Servant a living example of how to live as a Jew. Remember, every Cana’anite Servant is actually a converted Jew, whose process has been temporarily suspended at the point of the final step – freedom from subservience to any human master in exchange for subservience to G‑d. So, when the Cana’anite Servant runs away to Israel, he does so because he is seeking to develop himself to a holier status which is automatically conferred on all those living in Israel, and the act of seeking such a status change in itself conforms to the final step in his process of becoming Jewish – not accepting servitude to any human (since he rejected the authority of his human master by running away in favor of pursuing his obligation and desire to settle in Israel) – and therefore he has taken all the necessary steps to becoming a full-fledged Jew, and is treated accordingly.
This also explains what the SMG will quote from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, that one who sells a Cana’anite Servant to a gentile, the servant is automatically freed, and the master is obligated to buy him back / or reimburse the gentile even as much as ten (10) times the original price. By selling the Cana’anite Servant to a gentile, the Jewish master has abrogated his responsibility to the servant and thus not only is he unfit to remain the master (living example) he now has the obligation to rectify the matter even by means of a penalty of up to ten (10) times the purchase price.
And again, the SMG will also quote a ruling that one who sells a Cana’anite Servant who was in servitude in Israel to a Jewish master outside of Israel, the servant goes free automatically. Here though, the buyer though is the one who loses the money since he is the one who refused to emigrate to Israel and is thus unfit to be a master (living example).
[1] Rashi specifically states that this was not a question to his son, Rabbi Achay.
[2] Interestingly, this implies there was a community of Cuthians who lived outside Israel in Babylon, which is where Rav Ĉisda lived. There is currently an archeological site in that area associated with these people called Tel Ibrahim.
[i] Shemos 23:33
[ii] Devarim 22:3
[iii] Vayikra 25:53
Key
Etymology and Definitions of Defined Terms
- תסגיר – to close off or imprison
This term is first used with regard to the ark that Noaĉ built, where G-d sealed it to prevent it from springing a leak or being damaged. The verse[i] there states ויסגר ה’ בעדו.[1]
[1] However, Rashi there goes into an at length explanation of the term. First [he cites the Targum and Midrash without quoting them and] he explains the phrase to mean that G-d protected it so that it would not be sabotaged [by the peoples of the time] by surrounding it with bears and lions that would kill those who approached.
Then he continues noting that the simple explanation of the verse is that G-d sealed the ark against the water, after which Rashi provides a general rule that the word בעד means ‘in front of’ and he cites five (5) different verses where the word is used.
Without going into a detailed analysis of the word בעד, and Rashi’s choice to quote all five (5) verses, why is this word troublesome to Rashi – who is not a dictionary, and if this word is the troublesome word, why quote the two words beforehand of ויסגר ה’. What in fact is Rashi attempting to explain here – in other words, what is the question which arises from the verse which Rashi is answering with his commentary.
From an initial analysis of the phrase ויסגר ה’ בעדו one would assume that the word בעדו means ‘on his behalf’, like we find in the verse ויתפלל משה בעד העם. The simple question is of course, why was it necessary for G‑d to close the door on behalf of Noaĉ. Wouldn’t Noaĉ do so on his own. Obviously, he wouldn’t want the rain and other waters to keep washing into the interior. Especially since he was warned to coat the interior and exterior with pitch to prevent water leakage.
Furthermore, according to the opinion that the צהר prepared by Noaĉ to give light to the ark was actually a glowing stone of some sort, it seems likely that the entirety of the ark was a sealed structure, without windows – and obviously the reason for that was to prevent water seepage. Even according to the opinion that it was a window, or that he made his own window – as implied in the verse ויפתח נח את חלון התבה אשר עשה surely there weren’t many such as implied by the need he had to remove the entire covering of the ark in order for him to observe that the ground had dried up.
In any case, it was fairly obvious that the entire requirement to build the ark included the idea that it be waterproof – so it seems unlikely that Noaĉ would either neglect to, or build a design flaw making him unable to, seal himself inside to the point that he would need G‑d to seal the ark for him.
Therefore, Rashi explains that this is not a sealing for Noaĉ – but a protection against the evil people who wanted to destroy the ark. In which case, the question arises why the term סגר is used, when a better term [which Rashi himself uses] of הגן was available. To which Rashi reverts to the פשט explaining that it means G-d protected him against the water.
Water in the kind of volumes being talked about in the flood would have had catastrophic weight and pressure. A single cubit foot of water weighs 62 lbs. Even using conservative estimates as to the size of the ark, assuming it was fully submerged at least part of the time would mean it was displacing as much as 47.5 metric tons. That is crushing weight for a wooden ark. Even if it wasn’t fully submerged, that amount of moving water would have catastrophic tsunami-like force which could crush anything man made. Therefore, a special miracle by G-d was required to act against the water to prevent the ark from being inundated or destroyed.
This explains the use of the term סגר, since the ark was sealed, but does not explain בעדו which would normally mean ‘on behalf of him’. What special merit is being invoked that would mean that Noaĉ deserved this miracle? The Torah makes no mention of such a thing. Therefore, Rashi notes that the word בעדו can also mean against-like, and then goes on to provide the examples from the other verses.
Perhaps we can also derive a lesson that when told in the Torah to do something, even if it is patently obvious it should fail, we do it anyway and trust that G-d will both prevent others from stopping us and stand against anything that will harm or otherwise interfere with our mission.
In any case, the word סגר is thus established as meaning sealed with the additional connotation of the sealing surrounding that which is sealed – which is why it means imprison.
[i] Beraishis 7:16