Q&A: A Torah-level law that makes no sense at all
A Torah-level law that makes no sense at all
Question
In Maimonides, Rules of Enumeration, Eighth Principle, it is mentioned: “She shall not go out as the slaves go out.” “Others already failed to understand this, and counted ‘She shall not go out as the slaves go out.’ They did not realize that this is a negation, not a prohibition. Its explanation is as I will describe: God already ruled regarding one who strikes his Canaanite slave, male or female, and causes him to lose, at the time of the blow, one of the tips of his limbs, that he goes free. We might have thought that if this is so for a Canaanite slave, then all the more so for a Hebrew maidservant—that if she loses one of the tips of her limbs, she too should go free. Scripture denied her this law, by saying, ‘She shall not go out as the slaves go out.’ It is as though it says: ‘She is not entitled to go free through the loss of one of her limbs.’ And this is a negation of a law in her case, not a prohibition.” End quote. Logically, it is hard for me to understand: a slave whose limb was damaged by his master goes completely free, whereas a Hebrew maidservant, who is of higher status than he is, does not go free? It doesn’t make sense… Suppose he cuts off the slave’s finger—and he goes free; but if he cuts off the maidservant’s finger, he only pays compensation and she does not go free—how can that be? Is that fair?
Answer
The a fortiori inference you made is not necessary. A Hebrew maidservant was sold either by her own will or by her father’s will, or because she stole and has no way to pay. Therefore, setting her free is not necessarily a benefit for her.
Discussion on Answer
If they hadn’t wanted her to be a maidservant, he wouldn’t have sold her. If both agree, then maybe there is room for such a decision, and a religious court is of course authorized to make such a ruling. Just as in the case of a rapist, he is obligated to marry the woman he raped, but that is only if she wants it.
If so, then she should convert to Christianity the moment she goes to work for the person to whom she owes the debt, because that way she’ll profit more if he damages, say, her finger. And afterward, if he injures her, she’ll go free anyway, and if not then she hasn’t lost anything, because in any case she would have remained a maidservant until her debt was paid off. Does the Rabbi agree?
Why does the master have the right to hit a Hebrew maidservant?
??? What? What? What?
He has no such right. It’s just that she does not go free.
I didn’t understand the third sentence. Why—what happened—that he would cut off her finger?
Assuming she or her father agree that he should set her free—in exchange for the finger—is that possible?
What does the slave owe the master, financially, in order for him to free him because of a missing limb? And if he removed two limbs, what is the law?