Thoughts on parashat Mishpatim.
When you acquire a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years; in the seventh year he shall go free, without payment. If he came single, he shall leave single; if he had a wife, his wife shall leave with him. If his master gave him a wife, and she has borne him children, the wife and her children shall belong to the master, and he shall leave alone. But if the slave declares, “I love my master, and my wife and children: I do not wish to go free,” his master shall take him before God. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall then remain his slave for life. (Exodus 21:2-6)
The notion that a slave would voluntarily submit himself to eternal service to his master has always seemed preposterous. Who would ever choose slavery over freedom? Upon reflection, this unequivocal belief is likely rooted in modern Western definition of slavery. In the modern “western world” or in first world civilizations slavery in abhorant. In ancient reality, however, this was quite different, especially if we take into account the what Jewish slavery in ancient Israel actaully was. The ancient Jewish slave had many laws regulating the status and the treatment of the slave, including, but not limited to observance of Shabbat – a day off from work and the right to own private property and his own family, which the owner had no right to infringe and many laws regulating the status and the treatment of the slaves.
While Israelites could not become slaves unless by order of the court (criminals) or by giving himself voluntarily into bondage (for example paupers, who could not pay their debts), other slaves were recruited from outside the nation. It has been opined that the epithet Hebrew slave and the laws relating to them (Ex. 21:2–6) would apply to such non-Jewish slaves who were born into the household of alien slaves. In the case of a pauper who sells himself into slavery or a man who is redeemed from bondage to a stranger, there would be no distinction made between a slave and a hired laborer. Additionally, our Sages and most Bible commentators are of the opinion that this “lifelong slavery” was not for life: the word le’olam means “for the life of the jubilee period”, i.e. 50 years at the most, because:
If your kinsman under you continues in straits and must give himself over to you, do not subject him to the treatment of a slave. He shall remain with you as a hired or bound laborer; he shall serve with you only until the jubilee year. (Leviticus 25:39-40)
and when the master died his slaves were freed automatically. Without going into all the details of the institution of slavery in ancient Israel, we can conclude that there were situations that slavery benefited the slaves themselves, especially for those situations in which the person broke the law or simply were unable to cope with their own lives.
In today’s world, many people cannot manage/cope with their own lives. While we face different challenges than the people of antiquity or the Middle Ages, there will always be a percentage of people who “fail” in governing their own lives. I wonder, how would the institution of slavery, similar to the biblical one, work today? Or maybe it still exists in a different form?
Imagine that in some developed, western country a group of people comes to power who openly propose: we will provide you with a decent life, provided you waive your right to vote or alternatively, you will vote for us for the rest of your life. How many people do you think would raise their hands? How many people would sell their right to contribute an opinion about their governments development at the cost of ‘a decent life’ and not having to worry about the basics?
This has actually been happening for many years; buying voter votes is the norm. Buying the support of politicians by big business and installing “your people” in governments is also the norm. Politicians buy voters’ votes, and they themselves are bought by big business, in a more or less legal form. I believe that we are getting closer to a dystopia in which the masses consciously give up their voice in political matters in exchange for various benefits.
Is this a conspiracy theory? I do not think so. I believe that people endowed with great power, whether by democratic choice or by getting to the top of the world’s financial pyramid, are tempted to extend their power over others, thereby restricting the freedom of the masses. I absolutely do not believe that they are guided by the ‘good of humanity’ but instead are guided by their own interests and more so than the average person, perhaps because they have more at stake. In fact, one could argue that one of the factors leading to business success is self-centeredness or a selfish drive for success. While this “selfishness” can and does often change over time, there are many very rich and powerful people who are also great philanthropists, their charity is marked by their views and aimed at realizing a specific vision of the world in which they believe, which may or may not be good for society or humanity.
It is impossible to estimate the scale of corruption among the most “powerful,” especially on a global scale, and it is easy, and sloppy, to resort to conspiracy theories when analyzing this issue. Even worse, these “conspiratorial theories” can serve to justify one’s own poor life situation: “I can never make it because I was not born into the rich class” Nevertheless, to deny the (potential) dangers of the “richest and most powerful” is pure blindness. Those who have enormous power, especially economic power, have a great influence on our lives, and I would say, without reservation, that on average they are not “saints,” but, in fact, are self serving. Lord Acton’s proverbial saying “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely” is still, and ever more, true.
“Free internet” is a recent phenomena that has given us an illusion of freedom but at the cost of the loss of unbiased media: News outlets no longer deliver the news. At one point they were part of the “check and balance” but this is no longer the case. The media serves “at the pleasure” of the specific visions and political interests of their benefactor.
Pavlov made the point that human beings are in many aspects no different than dogs as they are just as easily trained by simple suggestions along with an appropriate reward. Aldous Huxley predicted that tyranny would succeed if people began to enjoy their servitude. Question: are we the new Egypt? Where people voluntarily relinquish their “vote” because it is easy and even agreeable?
We have to be vigilant. Our only rescue from this atrophy lies in the 4th blessing of our daily Amida: knowledge, wisdom and discernment. Only knowledge, wisdom and discernment allows us to escape our natural determination and by applying them in practice, will we rise above Pavlov’s dogs and be free and conscious human beings.
Shabbat shalom!
