The Hebrew Slave: Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy

If we put aside part 2 for a moment, we can see that part 1 and part 3 work together. The basic law is that a Hebrew slave must be freed after six years of service, but he can volunteer for permanent servitude if he so wishes. Part 2 is a two-part gloss on part one. Here is the overall structure:

• A master must free his slave after 6 years of labor.
  • The master need not pay the slave when he frees him.
    • Whether he leaves with his wife/kids or alone depends on whether they were his when he was free or whether they were slaves of the master “leant” to him for a short time.
  • If the slave wishes to remain a slave, the master pierces his ear and he stays for life.

The meaning of the term עונה is debated. Traditionally it has been translated as “conjugal rights.” Etymologically, many feel that “shelter” is the better translation, relating it to the term מעון. Still others prefer the term “oils” based on a comparison with ANE texts, which list these three (food, clothing, and oils) as a set of things a man provides his wife.

As it was in the slave law, the second part appears to be a gloss, whereas parts 1 and 3 make up the basic law: A man need never free his slave-wife unless he violates her rights, in which case he must free her and lose his investment. The gloss presents the man with his options if he finds that he does not want her.

Rabbinic exegesis assumes the former possibility. See, for instance, Rashi’s gloss on the verse, quoting the Mechilta:

Structurally speaking, this last point (v. 18) looks like a supplement, since it repeats much of vv. 14-15, adding the point about his being like a (double) hired laborer.

One matter that remains unclear is whether the earliest text of Deuteronomy actually discussed the female slave. Both of the phrases that reference women are awkward and seem out of place; especially the second one. Moreover, the rest of the law only discusses the slave law in the masculine form. Both clauses could be removed without trouble and the text would read smoothly—in fact, more smoothly. Thus, it may be that the references to female slaves being like male slaves was added later, to make clear that Deuteronomy was discounting the law in Exodus about the slave-wife.

This is is why some loans are high risk due to their proximity to the sabbatical year, a problem addressed explicitly in the text (vv. 9-10). 

The rabbis are themselves ambivalent about whether this refers to the seventh year from the sale or the sabbatical year, though they end up going with the first option. See Midrash Tannaim (ad loc.)

ובשנה השביעית שביעית למכירה אתה אומר שביעית למכירה או שביעית לשמטה ת”ל שש שנים הוי אומר זו שביעית למכירה (אמר ר’ שמואל אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא כשם שבראתי עולמי לששה ונחתי בשביעי כך כשתקנה עבד עברי שש שנים יעבד ובשנה השביעית תשלחנו חפשי:)

There is a minority opinion among the rabbis, however, that reads Deuteronomy (and Exodus!) as referring to the sabbatical year. See R. Joseph Bechor Shor on Exod 21:2, who says that the reason a slave is freed on the seventh year is because on that year there is no planting or harvesting anyway—referring to the seven-year cycle in Leviticus and not the sabbatical cycle of Deuteronomy—thus there is nothing for the slave to do.

ובשביעית – שאינו חורש וזורע וקוצר ובוצר אינו צריך עבודה כל כך.

The main difference is that the sabbatical year cycle is every seven years, whereas the jubilee cycle is every fifty. Leviticus also has a seven year cycle built in (Lev 25:3-7), but it is not called שמיטה and it has nothing to do with money but with letting the land lie fallow. Another important difference is that the sabbatical cycle of Deuteronomy is about cancelling debts, whereas the jubilee cycle of Leviticus is about returning land. Both aim to avoid creating a permanent Hebrew/Israelite slave or debtor class.

Deuteronomy never brings up the possibility of the Hebrew servant procreating with a non-Israelite slave woman, so we do not know what Deuteronomy would say about this practice. Nevertheless, I imagine that this would not be an option for the Deuteronomist, since it implies a slave status for the Hebrew and opens up the possibility for a permanent Hebrew slave class.

This type of transformation typifies Deuteronomy, which for example allows meat to be eaten non-sacrificially outside of a temple [see 12:11-28], what in rabbinic literature is called שחיטת חוץ; contrast Exodus 20:24, which only envisions eating meat that was sacrificed at a [local] sanctuary.

This last law seems like a later gloss. Note the Wiederaufnahme  at the end of v. 46 which returns the reader to the end of v. 43.

This third similarity may be evidence of the reverse, that Leviticus had some influence on Deuteronomy, since Deut 15:18 appears to be a later gloss, as pointed out in a previous note. 

For example, the Covenant Collection discusses a virgin who is seduced (Exod 22:15-16), whereas the Deuteronomic Collection discusses a virgin who is raped (Deut 22:28-29). This could very well be a case of different codes picking different cases. The fact that both laws could, in theory, exist side by side in one collection is demonstrated by the fact that the Middle Assyrian Laws (55-56) have both. For more on this, see Eve Feinstein’s TABS essay,“The Rape of the Unbetrothed Virgin in Torah and Assyrian Law.” 

See, however, Aaron Koller’s TABS essay, The Law of the Hebrew Slave: Torah Law Collections Not Codes which makes just that argument.