Deuteronomy 15: 13-21 Analysis

In ancient Israel, slaves were regarded as property and were generally owned by the elite Israelites. Slave trade was ubiquitous in everyday society, and involved both Hebrew and foreign slaves. Slave owners at the time most likely relied upon a higher power to govern their relationships with slaves. Chaya Halberstam echoes this idea, saying that “it is probable, then, that ancient Israelite societies had some measure of a ‘legal enterprise’,” and that “they were not expected to adhere strictly to a code of law,” but a “body of tradition that provided the bases for social justice--and just decision making” (CCJL 20). Rooted in this “body of tradition”, ancient Israelite law, such as Exodus 21:1-8, is detailed when regarding the slavery and
treatment of Hebrew slaves; these laws in Exodus are also clearly written with business practices in mind rather than the lives of the slaves themselves.
Exodus 21 begins with an objective tone, stating “when you acquire a Hebrew slave, they shall serve six years, in the seventh year he shall go free, without payment ” (Exodus 21:2). Stating that the slaves are to leave without payment, means that the former slave is free but has no monetary payment (shekels) or guaranteed necessities like food, water, and a place to sleep. This section reveals that the slaves are to be treated more like property than like humans because there is no concern in the law for their well-being once they are free from their owner. Ex-slaves are to be treated like a plot of land would be treated, meaning that once a plot of land is no longer owned, the previous owner is not obligated to tend to the land in any way. Further in the text, it is mentioned that if a man came to his owner single, he will leave that way, and if he came with a wife, he will leave with the wife, but “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” (Exodus 21:3-4). As shown in the previous passage, there is no regard in the law for any personal relationships that the slave may have developed during his six years, other than the relationship with the wife given to him. The law appears to simply mention the situation in order to clarify that the slave will still leave without anything or anyone, even his children. Now, “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 21:5). In either situation, the master does not lose the wife and children because they are his rightful property. Once more, this ties into the idea that there is more value placed on the monetary aspect of owning a slave rather than the slaves themselves. If the freed slave is fond of his wife and his children and wants to continue to be with them, his only option is to remain a slave for the rest of his life. On another note, concerning female slaves, “when a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not be freed as male slaves are” (Exodus 21:7). Daughters are given unequal treatment because they are sold for marriage and not work. The language of this section shows that the giving up of one's daughter is a transaction that results in the daughter’s permanent ties to her new family, whether she is pleased with it or not, demonstrating again the recurring theme of business over empathy. While Exodus’s laws on slavery deal with the business aspect of the institution, there are other texts in the Hebrew Bible that refer to slavery in a more humane way.
One of these related texts is Deuteronomy 15.
Deuteronomy 15:12 starts similar to Exodus 21; this passage mentions a slave being freed in the seventh year as well, however there is a slight difference as the text says “a fellow Hebrew slave, man or woman” to openly indicate that it applies to both sexes. This difference could cause misconceptions or arguments between ancient people, seeing as Exodus only refers to a slave as a “he”. The next difference is found in the section dealing with the act of emancipating the slave. Exodus acknowledges that the slave is to depart without payment, however Deuteronomy 15:13-14 states “when you set him free, do not let him go empty-handed: Furnish him out of the flock, threshing floor, and vat, with which the Lord your God has blessed you.” This is a stark contrast to the law in Exodus and follows the idea that the Israelites should treat their fellow kinsman with kindness and respect. It treats slaves in a more ethical way and reminds the slave owners that they are sharing items that the Lord has blessed them with. Deuteronomy 15 also says, “bear in mind that you were slaves in the land of Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I enjoin this commandment upon you today” (Deuteronomy 15:15). This reference to the historical narrative provides justification for carrying out the law and is likewise a way to entice slave owners to act in accordance with the law. God saved the people and the people owe it to him to follow the laws. This also connects back to Halberstam’s view on ancient Israelite societies and tradition. Deuteronomy 15 evidently has a superior emotional appeal and the text values the kind treatment of slaves over the monetary and material gains/losses that come with owning
them. Although the Hebrew Bible does not have one set list of rules or laws that the Israelites had to follow, it provides guidelines for copious aspects of ancient life. Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 15, while contradictory at times, both provide laws that the Israelites could follow regarding the ownership of their slaves. These two texts show that ancient Israelite law was detailed, and depending on the text, it either prioritized business, like Exodus, or human interaction, like Deuteronomy.