Do not harass an escaped servant
Verse: עמך ישב בקרבך וגו’ [לא תוננו]
Command: Do not harass an escaped servant.
Devarim 23:17
Type: Negative
SMG Mitzva # 7
Cross-Ref:
SMG
[there is a negative Mitzva] against oppressing a servant who escapes from outside Israel to the land of Israel, as it says in the verse[i] עמך ישב בקרבך וגו’ [!] באחד שעריך בטוב לו, לא תוננו. This Mitzva applies [only] to a servant who runs away from outside Israel to Israel, as will be explained in negative Mitzva 180.
[i] Devarim 23:17
AMUDAY SHLOMO
The Maharshal does not comment on this Mitzva – presumably intending to comment on negative Mitzva 180. However, if that is the case, that commentary was lost to us, or the manuscript of the Amuday Shlomo was never completed.
RASHI
Rashi does not comment on this verse.
Accordingly, it would seem logical that the simple meaning of the verse does provide the source for this Mitzva. Even according to the difference in meaning provided by the Targum [as noted below in negative Mitzva 180, on the verse that precedes this – which is the basis for that Mitzva] is an alternate interpretation, namely that the verse is talking about a Jewish servant who was sold to gentiles and runs away from his obligations to Israel. This does not change the underlying Mitzva. In other words, which servant is being referred to in the verse, that is whom [@] the Mitzva prohibiting harassment applies to.
Discussion by SMS
[!] Twice, the SMG uses the term וגו’ rather than quoting the missing words in the verse. The missing words במקום אשר יבחר are skipped. Perhaps the reason they are skipped is due to the concept of NIMBY – Not In My Back Yard. Theoretically, the entirety of the land of Israel has been apportioned to all the Jews-by-birth and therefore, when the servant escapes and emigrates up to Israel, he is required to be allowed to stay there – meaning he isn’t deported to his old master – but there isn’t a particular person amongst the Jews who is tasked with finding him housing. On the one hand one can say that therefore this obligation is incumbent on every Jew, but there is no law requiring the forcible removal of an existing landowner to allow his land to be given (even if only on a rental basis) to the escaped former servant. NIMBY – each person can claim that they support the implementation of the Mitzva, but it should happen somewhere else.
I would argue the opposite though – that the verse, which mimics the phrase that Hashem uses in determining the site of the Base Hamikdash[1], in fact teaches the opposite. Just like the land for the Base Hamikdash was appropriated away from the tribes to which they belong, and all of Israel was taxed by king Dovid to support its purchase, so too the land the former servant chooses can be appropriated from the individual owners – and that the former servant gets to choose anywhere reasonable to dwell and obtains the right to live there simply by his choice. Obviously, the existing owner is entitled to rental compensation, and to be recompensed for any damages sustained when the tenant moves in, but I believe the Torah is teaching us that a component of this Mitzva includes the obligation to house this individual, and that this Mitzva is incumbent on society at large, and therefore cannot be passed on by any individual.
On the other hand, I would also argue that this applies to land which currently does not have a dwelling on it. Just like the Base Hamikdash when the space for that was chosen, did not have a Jewish dwelling on it. And furthermore, that the place he chooses must be inside the cities of Israel, since the verse qualifies his ability to choose with the term באחד שעריך – which reference to ‘your gates’ usually refer to cities.
[@] Given the ambiguity in Rashi as to whether the verse refers to a Jewish slave escaping from gentile masters or a non-Jewish servant emigrating to Israel away from his Jewish masters, I would thus argue that the verse is written with ambiguity to encompass both scenarios and in fact it is prohibited to harass any servant or slave in the land of Israel regardless of his origins.
However, in the case of a Jewish slave who is in the hands of gentiles, I would argue as well that the prohibition against harassment does not apply, and we should in fact encourage him to escape that situation and move back to Israel. Obviously, this is not an endorsement of escaping without repaying the debt owed to the previous master, gentile or otherwise.
[1] This phrase is used in the Torah (all in Devarim) to refer to the Base Hamikdash at least ten times. I think the only time the phrase is used when not referring to the Base Hamikdash is in this case. Which makes for a very strong argument that my analysis of the similarity in phrasing is correct.
Key
Etymology and Definitions of Defined Terms
- Slave vs Servant – throughout this work care needs to be taken as to which term is used. Servant is used when speaking of an appropriate relationship as defined by the Torah. Slave is used in accordance with modern negative terminology. [See positive Mitzva 87 – לעלם בהם תעבדו]