As a former student, this issue reminds me of discussions that we had
around 18 years ago, but I think I have learned a few things since then.
Rabbi Beiler notes the possible explanation:
"While one could claim that this is a holdover from an epoch when
economics dictated a certain workforce, the important assumption that
dicta in the Tora should be above time and relevant to all periods of
human existence truly begs the question"
I believe that with slight variations this explanation may answer to Rabbi
Beiler's query.
We must first set the stage with our agreed understandings about the Torah
its laws. First of all, we believe that the Torah's laws represent Divine
wisdom. At the same time we understand that the laws were given within a
specific historical and social context. While Rabbi Beiler has assumed
simply that the laws maintain a relevance to "all periods", I think this
assumption must be modified.
I understand that the Torah's laws in the case of Eved Ivri come to
dictate ideal practice within a given economic system/social context - not
to dictate the ideal economic system/social context itself. This is based
on the idea that the Torah is written in the language that man can
comprehend "Dibrah Torah BeLashon Beni Adam." (In classic Chazal sources
this statement is only meant to describe a specific way of deriving laws
from double language - in later Rishonim such as the Ramban this idea is
expanded - here I am claiming that the idea must be expanded further.)
The Torah must have been comprehensible and applicable to the generation
at Sinai. Whereas in many cases the Torah mandated dramatic social
revolutions (i.e. Avodah Zarah) in other cases in His/Her Divine wisdom
Hashem realized that too drastic of a change would not have been feasible.
Where is the eternal message? The Torah's laws are imbued with the ethics
and morals of the ideal system.
Here, I believe, comes the true responsibility of Chazal and Torah She
Baa'l Peh. As time changes and society develops (hopefully in a positive
direction), Chazal are asked to adapt the ideals and laws of the Torah to
the new social and economic order. They are able to either add additional
laws to further improve the treatment of the slave - which they did in
many cases - or in a more drastic move - to completely prohibit or prevent
its practice (I am not aware that they went that far, however they were
often creative in adding conditions that had the same effect).
Therefore the answer is somewhat complex.
Yes - at one time people had slaves - Hashem didn't like it but that was
the reality. Within that reality we are asked to act in the ideal way, to
treat the slaves fairly and humanely, to not injure them physically,
ensure that they are positively integrated within the home. (i.e.
semi-conversion). [They are "Kinyan Kaspo" not just to ensure the
economic status but also to enable the Eved to eat from Trumah!!]
Today - when slavery is no longer acceptable in our society - the Torahs
legal system remains eternal (and even may be able to assist a tragic case
of Mamzeirut) but it is not the ideal nor was it ever one. (This may be
compared to the relationship of Chazal to Isah Yifat To'ar and to Ben
Sorer U Moreh.)
By the way I think this approach can be applied to the attitude and laws
pertaining to women (i.e. Ones, Mefateh, Motzi Shem Ra etc.) but that was
not the topic here.
Rabbi Asher Y. Altshul
Jerusalem
