Slaves

A Hebrew servant that is spoken of in the Torah, is a Jew that court of law sold against his will or sold himself of his own will. How so? ...

We have already explained that a woman is never sold because of a theft. Similarly, she may not sell herself as a servant, nor may she purchase a Hebrew servant or a Canaanite slave, because of the suspicion of immoral behavior. A convert may not sell himself as a servant. This is derived from Leviticus 25:41: "And he shall return to his family" - i.e., it is speaking about someone who has a family within the Jewish faith.

A Hebrew servant who is sold by the court is sold only to a native-born Israelite or to a convert to Judaism. Similarly, a person who sells himself as a servant is not permitted to sell himself to a gentile, not even to a resident alien. If he transgresses and sells himself, even to a gentile, even to the service of a false divinity itself, the sale is binding, as indicated by Leviticus 25:47, which speaks of a person's selling himself: "to what must be uprooted from a sojourner's family." "What must be uprooted" refers to a false divinity.

[If someone] comes and says to you, "Indeed I am selling myself to a gentile," you do not need to [help] him until he is sold. But after he is sold to the gentile, even though he transgressed and performed [something] that is not proper, it is a commandment to redeem him, and not [have him] become assimilated with them [i.e. the gentiles], as it is stated, "after that he is sold he may be redeemed" (Leviticus 25:48).

One who sells himself or the court of law forces him, he is not sold in public on a purchasing stone and not in an alley, as the way that slaves are sold, as it says, "they shall not be sold as bondmen" (Leviticus 25:42). Instead [he should be sold] privately and a manner of honor.

It is forbidden to make any Hebrew servant perform excruciating labor. What is excruciating labor? Labor that has no limit, or labor that is unnecessary and is asked of the servant with the intent to give him work so that he will not remain idle. Based on the above, our Sages said that a master should not tell a Hebrew servant: "Hoe under the vines until I come," for he has not placed a limit on the work asked of him. Instead, he should tell him: "Hoe until this and this time," or "until you reach this and this place." Similarly, he should not tell him "Dig in this place," if he has no need for that activity. Even telling him to warm a drink for him, or to cool one off for him, if he does not need it, is forbidden, and reflects the violation of a negative commandment, as Leviticus 25:43 states: "Do not impose excruciating work on him." Thus, a Hebrew servant may be compelled to perform only a limited and necessary task. Similarly, if a Hebrew servant is sold to a gentile, who imposes excruciating labor upon him, the Jews are commanded to prevent him from doing so. If they allow him to continue, they transgress a negative commandment, as Ibid.:53: "He should not impose excruciating work upon him before your eyes." We are not, however, required to enter the gentile's domain and check to see that he is not imposing excruciating labor upon him. This is implied by the term: "before your eyes" - i.e., when you see.

Whenever a Jew purchases a Hebrew servant, he may not make him perform debasing tasks that are relegated only for servants - e.g., to have him carry his clothes to the bathhouse or remove his shoes - as Leviticus 25:39 states: "Do not have him perform servile tasks." Instead, one should treat him as a hired laborer, as Ibid.:40 continues: "He shall be like a hired laborer or a resident among you." It is, however, permitted to have the servant cut the master's hair, launder his clothes and bake his dough. He may not, however, make him the manager of a public bathhouse, a public barber or a public baker. If, however, this was his profession before he was sold, it is permitted. Indeed, at the outset, he should not teach him any profession at all. Instead, he should work at the profession at which he worked previously. When does the above apply? To a Hebrew servant. For his self-image is depressed because of his being sold. When, however, a Jew has not been sold, he may be hired to perform servile tasks. For he is performing this work out of his own desire and his own consent.

[Regarding] people that do not behave well, it is permissible to subjugate them with force and enslave them. [If there is] a king that rules that anyone that does not give the fixed tax, [and that therefore] he is enslaved to whoever pays the tax [for him], it is permissible to use him more than necessary. But not like a [Caananite] slave. [But] if he does not behave well, it is permissible to use him as a [Caananite] slave.

A master is obligated to treat any Hebrew servant or maid servant as his equal with regard to food, drink, clothing and living quarters, as implied by Deuteronomy 15:16 "for it is good for him with you." The master should not eat bread made from fine flour while the servant eats bread from coarse flour. The master should not drink aged wine while the servant drinks fresh wine. The master should not sleep on cushions while the servant sleeps on straw. Nor should the master live in a walled city while the servant lives in a village, or the master live in a village while the servant lives in a walled city, as implied by Leviticus 25:41: "And he shall leave you." On this basis, our Sages said: "Whoever purchases a Hebrew servant purchases a master for himself." A master must treat his servant with brotherly love, as implied by Leviticus 25:46: "And with regard to your brothers, the children of Israel." Nevertheless, the servant himself must conduct himself as a servant with regard to those tasks he must perform.

[Someone becomes neither] a female Hebrew servant nor a [male] Hebrew servant except when the Jubilee occurs. This occurs whether a Hebrew servant sells himself or whether a court of law sells him. We have already explained when the Jubilee was canceled.

A Hebrew servant who is sold by the court {and one who sells himself} can be acquired through the transfer of money or articles worth money or the transfer of a deed of sale. What is implied? The person selling himself writes on a paper or a shard: "I am sold to you," or "I have been acquired by you," and gives him the deed.

A servant sold by the court must serve his master for six years from the day that he was sold. At the beginning of his seventh year, he is released as a free man. If the Sabbatical year falls within his six years of servitude, he must work during it. If, however, the Jubilee year falls during this time, even if he was sold only one year before the Jubilee, he should be granted his freedom, as Leviticus 25:40 states: "Until the Jubilee year, he shall work with you," and ibid.:13 states: "In this Jubilee year, each man shall return to his ancestral heritage."

A person who sells himself into servitude may sell himself for more than six years. Nevertheless - even if he sold himself for ten years or twenty years - if the Jubilee falls a year after he sold himself, he is released in the Jubilee, as it is written: "Until the Jubilee year, he shall work with you."

If either a servant who sold himself or who was sold by the court flees his master's domain, he is obligated to complete his six years of servitude. If, however, the Jubilee falls during this time, he is granted his freedom.

Should the servant become sick - whether he is sick year after year, or whether he becomes sick repeatedly for short periods - if the time during which he is sick is less than four years, it should be counted in the period of six years. If, however, he is sick for four years or more, he is required to complete work for all the days of his illness beyond the six years for which he was originally sold. This is implied by Leviticus 25:40: "He shall be like a hired laborer or a resident among you." If the Jubilee falls in the midst of the time he is compensating for the missed years, he should be released. When do we calculate the days of sickness? When the sickness is severe and the servant is unable to work. If, however, his sickness is not very severe, and he can do needlework, the time is counted, even if he was sick for the entire six years.

When a person sells himself to a gentile, if he is not redeemed he is not released except in the Jubilee, as Leviticus 25:54 states: "If he is not redeemed by these, he shall be released in the Jubilee, he and his sons together with him."

When a person is sold to a gentile, if he cannot obtain the funds necessary to redeem himself, his relatives should redeem him. The closer the relatives, the greater the responsibility as implied by Leviticus 25:49: "His uncle or his uncle's son shall redeem him." The court compels the relatives to redeem him, so that he will not become assimilated among the gentiles. If his relatives do not redeem him, and he does not attain the funds to redeem himself, it is a mitzvah for every Jew to redeem him. Whether he was redeemed by his relative, or by any other person, he is released and obtains his freedom. The servant may borrow money to redeem himself from a gentile, and he may redeem himself partially. When, by contrast, a person is sold to a Jew, his relatives, may not redeem him, he may not borrow money to redeem himself, and he may not redeem himself partially. What is the law that applies to him? If he obtains the funds to pay the amount due for the years that remain, he may pay that amount and be released. If he does not obtain the full amount, he is not released.

Whether a person sells himself to a Jew or a gentile, or whether he is sold by the court, he may deduct money from the price at which he was sold when redeeming himself and obtain his release. What is implied? A servant was sold by the court for sixty dinarim and worked for four of the six years. He then obtained resources. He should pay 20 dinarim and be granted his freedom. Similarly, if he sold himself for 40 dinarim for ten years, he should deduct four dinarim for every year. He may give the remainder in money or in objects worth money and obtain his freedom. Similarly, a servant sold to a gentile should calculate the number of years left until the Jubilee, as Leviticus 25:50 states: "And he shall calculate with his master the number of years from the year he was sold until the Jubilee year." What is implied? If the servant sold himself for 100 dinarim and ten years remained until the Jubilee, he should calculate ten dinarim for each year that he worked, deduct this amount from the money that he was paid, give his owner the remainder in cash and then he is granted his freedom. He may not give his owner produce or utensils. This is implied by the above verse, which mentions: "the money of his purchase" - i.e., he is redeemed with money from a gentile, and not with articles that are worth money.

9. Whenever a Hebrew servant or maid-servant is redeemed by deducting from the price of the sale, the calculation is always made in his or her favor - whether his health improves and his value increases, or his health deteriorates and his value decreases. What is implied? A servant was sold for 100 dinarim, but now he is worth 200. We calculate the value of the remaining years on the basis of 100. If he was sold for 200 and is now worth 100, we calculate the value of the remaining years on the basis of 100.

10. When a person is sold to a gentile, he can redeem himself partially, as stated above. Sometimes this will work to his advantage, and sometimes it will work to his disadvantage. How can it work to his advantage? His master purchased him for 200 zuz. His value decreased and he is now worth 100. The servant gives his master 50, half of his present worth. He then regains his health and is again worth 200. All he is required to pay is 100, the remaining half of his value. He is then released. How can it work to his disadvantage? His master purchased him for 200 zuz. The servant gave his master half of his worth, 100 zuz. His value then decreased and he is now worth 100. To redeem himself, he must pay his master 50 zuz, half the remaining amount. Thus, he paid 150 zuz to redeem himself even though he is now worth only 100.

11. Although a master forgoes the remaining amount of money for which a servant is obligated to work, this obligation is not considered to be waived until the master writes a bill of release for the servant. What is implied? His master purchased him for 60 zuz. The servant worked for a year or two and then his master told him: "I am willing to waive the work due for the remainder of the money. Go on your way." The servant is not released from his servitude until his master has a legal document composed.

12. The following rules apply when a servant's master dies. If the master is survived by a son, the servant must serve the son until the conclusion of the six years, until the conclusion of the years for which he sold himself, until the Jubilee year, or until he deducts the money for the years he worked and pays the remainder. If, however, the master is not survived by a son, the servant is granted his freedom. He need not serve a surviving daughter or the deceased's brother. Needless to say, he need not serve other heirs. When a servant is sold to a convert or a gentile, he is not required to serve even his master's son. Instead, when his master dies, he attains his freedom. Thus, a Hebrew servant can be acquired through the transfer of money or a bill of sale, and can acquire his freedom through one of five means: a) the conclusion of his years of servitude, b) the advent of the Jubilee year, c) by paying money, an amount reduced in consideration of the years he worked, d) through being given a bill of release, and e) through the death of the master without a son, or if the master is a gentile or a convert, even if he is survived by a son. It is a mitzvah to tell a servant: "Go out," at the time of his release. Nevertheless, even if his master does not tell him this, the servant attains his freedom without any cost. Nor is a bill of release required. Even if he had been sick and his master spent much on his medical expenses, the servant has no obligations to the master, as implied by Exodus 21:2: "He shall go free at no charge."

A master is obligated to provide sustenance for the wife of every Hebrew servant. This applies when their marriage has been consummated as nisuin, but not when she is merely an arusah, or if she is awaiting her yavam. And this applies only when she is permitted to her husband. If, however, she is forbidden to him by a Torah prohibition, or even if she is a sh'niyah, the master is not required to provide her with her sustenance. This is derived from Exodus 21:3: "His wife together with him" - i.e., a woman who is fit to live together with him. Similarly, the master is liable to provide the servant's sons and daughters with their sustenance. These concepts are derived as follows: With regard to the release of a servant sold by the court, it is written ibid.: "If he is married to a woman, his wife will leave together with him." Would you think that because the master purchased the servant, the servant's wife would be placed in servitude? Instead, the verse is stated for the sole purpose of teaching that the master is obligated to provide the servant's wife with her sustenance. With regard to the release of a servant who sells himself, Leviticus 25:41 states: "And he shall depart from you, he and his children with him." And with regard to the release of a servant sold to a gentile, it is written ibid.:54: "And he shall go out in the Jubilee year, he and his children with him." This applies to a wife or children the servant had at the time he was sold, or a wife and children that he acquired after the sale, provided he married with the consent of his master. If, however, the servant married without the consent of his master, the master is not obligated to provide for her sustenance.

Although a master is obligated to provide for the sustenance of a servant's wife and children, he is not entitled to the proceeds of their work at all. Instead, the proceeds of the work of the servant's wife and any ownerless objects she finds belong to her husband. Whatever rights the husband has in his relationship with his wife, he retains although he is a Hebrew servant.

When a servant is sold by the court, his master has the option of giving him a Canaanite maid-servant as a wife. This applies to the master who purchased him or the son who becomes his master if the master dies. He may give him a Canaanite maid-servant as a wife and compel him to engage in relations with her so that she gives birth to slaves that he conceived. She is permitted to him throughout the period of his servitude, as implied by Exodus 21:4: "If his master will give him a wife." A person who sells himself as a servant is forbidden to marry a Canaanite slave, as are all other Jews.

A Hebrew servant is not permitted to marry a Canaanite maid-servant unless he already has a Jewish wife and children. If, however, he does not have a Jewish wife and children, his master may not give him a Canaanite maid-servant against his will. This concept is part of the Oral Tradition. Even if the man sold as a servant is a priest, he is permitted to marry a Canaanite maid-servant throughout the duration of his servitude.

If a Hebrew servant has a wife and children, although his master may give him a Canaanite maid-servant as a wife, he may not separate the Hebrew servant from his Jewish wife and children. This is implied by the phrase "his wife together with him." He may not give him two maid-servants, nor may he give one maid-servant to two Hebrew servants, as he is allowed to do with regard to his Canaanite slaves, as implied by the phrase: "Give him a wife." When a servant whose master gave him a Canaanite maid-servant and whose ear was pierced does not desire to leave his master's domain when the Jubilee year arrives, although his master urges him to depart, if his master injures him his master is not liable. He is permitted to strike him, because at that time, the servant becomes prohibited to have relations with a maid- servant.

A person who sells himself may not prolong his servitude by having his ear pierced. If, however, a servant was sold by the court, worked for six years and does not desire to receive his freedom, he may have his ear pierced. In this instance, he must work until the Jubilee year, or until his master dies.

Even though the master leaves a son, the servant whose ear was pierced does not serve the son. This is derived from the exegesis of Exodus 21:6: "And he shall serve him forever." This is interpreted to mean: "And he shall serve him," and not his son; "forever," until the Jubilee year. We thus learn that a servant whose ear was pierced gains his freedom only at the Jubilee or with the death of his master.

A Hebrew servant who is a priest may not have his ear pierced, because this gives him a physical blemish that disqualifies him from service in the Temple, and Leviticus 25:41 states: "And he shall return to his family," to the status that he enjoyed previously. He does not, however, return to the position of authority that he previously held.

How is the servant's ear pierced? His master brings him to a court of three judges and the servant makes his statements in their presence. At the conclusion of the six-year period, he brings him to the door or to the doorpost as they are standing affixed in the building. It could be done near the door or the doorpost of the master, or one belonging to any other person. He should pierce his right ear, in the middle lobe of the ear, with a metal awl until it reaches the door, as Deuteronomy 15:17 states: "And you shall put it through his ear at the door." The doorpost is mentioned only to indicate that the servant may stand next to either the door or the doorpost. Just as the doorpost must be standing, so too, the door must be standing. But the piercing is done to the door. The master himself pierces the servant's ear, as Exodus 21:6 states: "His master shall pierce" i.e., he, and not his son, his agent or an agent of the court. The ears of two servants should not be pierced at the same time, for mitzvot should not be performed in bundles.

More particulars can be derived from the exegesis of Exodus 25:5: "If the servant shall certainly say" - i.e., he must repeat his statement. "The servant" - he must make this statement as a servant - i.e., he must make and repeat his statement at the conclusion of the six years of servitude, at the beginning of the last p'rutah's worth of his servitude. What is implied? That there remain from the final day at least a p'rutah's worth or slightly more of the servant's time. If, however, there remained less than a p'rutah's worth of time, it is as if he made the statements after the six years were concluded.

If the servant has a Canaanite maid-servant as a wife and children from her, and his master does not have a wife and children, his ear should not be pierced, as implied by Deuteronomy 15:16: "Because he loves you and your household." If the master has a wife and children, and the servant does not have a wife and children, his ear should not be pierced, as implied by Exodus 21:5: "I love my master, my wife and my children." If the servant loves his master, but his master does not love him, his ear should not be pierced, as implied by Deuteronomy, op. cit.: "It is good for him with you." If the master loves the servant, but the servant does not love his master, his ear should not be pierced, as implied by Deuteronomy, op. cit.: "He loves you." If the servant is sick, but his master is not sick, his ear should not be pierced, as implied by: "It is good for him with you." If the master is sick, but the servant is not sick, or they are both sick, his ear should not be pierced, as implied by: "It is good for him with you" - i.e., they both must share in goodness.

What are the differences between a servant who sells himself and a servant sold by the court? A servant who sells himself does not have his ear pierced, while a servant sold by the court has his ear pierced. A servant who sells himself is forbidden to marry a Canaanite maid-servant, while the master of a servant sold by the court may compel the servant to marry a Canaanite maid-servant. A servant who sells himself may be sold to a gentile, while a servant sold by the court may be sold only to a Jew, as Deuteronomy 15:12 states: "When your brother is sold to you" - i.e., the court sells him only to "you." A servant who sells himself may be sold for six years or for more than six years, while a servant sold by the court may be sold for only six years. A servant who sells himself does not receive a severance gift, while a servant sold by the court does receive a severance gift.

According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that a Hebrew maid-servant may not have her servitude prolonged by having her ear pierced. This appears to be reflected from the relevant verses. For with regard to the piercing of a servant's ear, Exodus 21:5 states: "I love my master, my wife and my children." What then is implied by Deuteronomy 15:17: "Even to your maid-servant do this"? It teaches that just as it is a mitzvah to give a severance gift to a Hebrew servant, so too, it is a mitzvah to give a Hebrew maid-servant a severance gift.

Whoever sends away his servant or maid-servant empty-handed transgresses a negative commandment, as Deuteronomy 15:13 states: "Do not send him away empty-handed." The verse also made provision for this to be remedied with a positive commandment, as Ibid.:14 states: "You shall certainly give him a severance gift." This applies to a Hebrew servant who is released at the conclusion of his six years of servitude, at the advent of the Jubilee, or at the death of his master. Similarly, a severance gift is given to a Hebrew maid-servant who is released under these circumstances, or because she displays signs of physical maturity. When, however, a servant or a maid-servant purchases his freedom by paying the pro-rated portion of his purchase price, a severance gift need not be given, as implied by Ibid.:13 "When you send him away from you as a free man." A servant who redeems himself is not being sent away free. Instead, he pays the amount of money due for the time he was obligated to work and then departs. Ibid.:14 states: "Give him a generous severance gift from your sheep, your threshing floor and your vat as G-d has blessed you." By mentioning sheep, a threshing floor and a vat, the verse indicates that the servant must be given objects that will naturally increase and generate blessing as a severance gift. He need not, however, be given money or garments. How much should he be given? He should not be given less than 30 selaim worth. This may be from one substance or from many substances. This figure parallels the 30 selaim paid as a fine for killing a servant, which Exodus 21:32 states: "Give to his master." The severance gift must be given whether the master's household was blessed because of the servant's presence or whether it was not blessed, as it is written: "Give him a generous severance gift" - i.e., in all situations. Why then does the verse say: "As G-d has blessed you"? To teach that you should give him according to the measure of blessing you have been granted.

If the servant fled and the Jubilee fell and thus he attains his freedom, his master is not obligated to grant him a severance gift, as implied by the term "When you send him away." The severance gift granted a Hebrew servant is his own; a creditor may not expropriate it. The severance gift granted a Hebrew maid-servant and any ownerless object she finds belong to her father. If her father dies before it reaches his possession, it belongs to her. He brothers have no right to it. For a person cannot transfer to his son as an inheritance a right that he possesses with regard to his daughter.

A Hebrew maid-servant is a girl below the age of majority sold by her father. When she manifests signs of physical maturity after reaching twelve years of age and becomes a na'arah, he does not have the right to sell her, even though he still has authority over her and may consecrate her to whomever he desires. Even a girl who has already manifested physical signs that she is an aylonit, and thus is not fit to manifest physical signs of maturity, may be sold by her father as long as she is below majority. Neither a tumtum nor an androgynous may be sold as a Hebrew servant, nor as a Hebrew maid-servant.

A father may not sell his daughter as a maid-servant unless he became impoverished to the extent that he owns nothing, neither landed property, movable property, not even the clothing that he is wearing. Nevertheless, we compel a father to redeem his daughter after he sold her, because this is a blemish to the family. If the father fled, died or did not have the resources to redeem her, she must work until she is released.

A Hebrew maid-servant is acquired through the payment of money or objects that are worth money, or through the transfer of a legal document. She may not be acquired for a p'rutah, because it is necessary to acquire her with a sum that will allow her to reduce her price according to the number of years she has worked, so that she can redeem herself and depart. How is she acquired through the transfer of a legal document? Her father should write to her master on a piece of paper or on a shard: "My daughter is sold to you," or "My daughter is acquired by you," and give it to the master. The deed of transfer of a Hebrew maid-servant must be written by the father.

A Hebrew maid-servant must work for six years, like a servant sold by the court, as reflected by Deuteronomy 15:12: "When your brother, a Jew or a Jewess, will be sold to you." She receives her freedom at the beginning of the seventh year. If the Jubilee year falls in the middle of these six years, she is released as is a male servant. If her master dies, she is released without payment, even if he leaves a son, as is a servant whose ear is pierced, as reflected by Deuteronomy 15:17: "Even to your maid-servant shall you do this." Similarly, she may be redeemed by paying a pro-rated figure that considers the time for which she served. If her master writes her a bill of release and waives her service for the remainder of the time, she is released without charge, like a Hebrew servant.

A Hebrew maid-servant has an advantage over a Hebrew servant in that she attains her freedom when she manifests signs of physical maturity. What is implied? She manifested signs of physical maturity and became a na'arah - she is released and becomes free without charge, as Exodus 21:11 states: "She will depart without charge." With this verse, the Torah granted her another cause for release beyond those granted to servants. And according to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that this refers to the manifestation of physical signs of maturity. This law applies even if she manifests signs of physical maturity on the day she was purchased. When a maid-servant is released, she returns to her father's domain until she attains bagrut and leaves her father's domain. If the girl is an aylonit, who is not granted a period of na'arah but goes directly to bagrut, when she attains bagrut she is granted her freedom.

A Hebrew maid-servant is not released if her prominent limbs are damaged, as implied by Exodus 21:7: "She shall not depart as the servants depart." Similarly, a Hebrew servant is not released for such a reason. Instead, if his master knocks out his tooth or blinds him in an eye, he should pay him as one must pay another colleague whom one injures as explained in Hilchot Chovel Umazik. Thus, we have learned that a Hebrew maid-servant is acquired through two means - the payment of money or the transfer of a legal document - and obtains her freedom through six means: the passage of six years, the advent of the Jubilee, paying a pro-rated amount of the purchase price, the transfer of a bill of release, the death of her master and the manifestation of signs of physical maturity.

If the master of a Hebrew maid-servant designates her as a wife for himself or for his son, she is like any other consecrated woman. She is not released because of any of the reasons mentioned above - but only because of the death of her husband or through a bill of divorce. The mitzvah of designating a maid-servant as a wife takes precedence over the mitzvah of redeeming the maid-servant. How is the mitzvah of designating a maid-servant as a wife performed? The master tells the maid-servant in the presence of two witnesses: "Behold, you are consecrated to me," "You are betrothed to me," or "Behold, you are my wife." This may be done even at the conclusion of the six years of her servitude before the setting of the sun. He need not give her anything, for the first moneyswere given with the intent that they could serve for the purpose of consecration.From this point onward, he must treat her as a wife, and not as a servant. He may not designate two maid-servants as wives at the same time, for Exodus 21:8 states: "He will designate her." How does a master designate a maid-servant as a wife for his son? If his son is past majority and gives his father permission to designate the maid-servant as his wife, the father tells the maid-servant in the presence of two witnesses: "Behold you are consecrated to my son."

A master may not designate a maid-servant as his wife or as his son's wife without her knowledge. Although her father already received money because of her, the Torah uses the term ya'adah, which implies with her knowledge. If the master dies, his son cannot designate the maid-servant as a wife. For she obtained her freedom at her master's death.

Designating a maid-servant as a wife is equivalent to consecration, but not to marriage. Therefore, the husband may not become impure because of her, he does not inherit her estate, nor does he annul her vows until she enters the chuppah. Exodus 21:11 states: "If he does not do any of these three for her" - i.e., designate her as a wife for himself or for his son, or enable her to be redeemed by paying a reduced amount - "she will be released without charge" - when she manifests signs of physical maturity, as we have explained, in addition to the ways she can obtain her freedom as a Hebrew servant obtains his.

A master may not sell a Hebrew maid-servant, nor may he give her as a gift to another person, regardless of whether or not he shares a family connection with him. If he sells her or gives her away, his deeds are of no consequence, as Exodus 21:8 states: "He does not have the authority to sell her to a different man, when he betrays her." Similarly, a master may not sell or give away a Hebrew servant to another person. It appears to me that the only reason the Torah had to state this explicitly with regard to a maid-servant is that the master is able to designate her as a wife for his son. Therefore, it is necessary to say that "He does not have the authority to sell her to a different man."

A Hebrew maid-servant may be sold to a person only when a marriage between her and either him or his son would be binding, so that she is fit to be designated as a wife. What is implied? A person may sell his daughter to his father. For although the master may not designate her as a wife, she is fit for his son to marry. For the maid-servant is his brother's daughter. A person may not, however, sell his daughter to his son, for she is not fit to marry the master, for she is his sister, nor is she fit to marry the master's son, for she is his father's sister.

A person may sell his daughter to certain individuals whom she is forbidden to marry - e.g., a widow to a High Priest, or a divorcee or a woman who underwent chalitzah to an ordinary priest. For although marriage between such individuals is forbidden, the marriage is binding.

When a person has consecrated his daughter when she was a minor and she becomes widowed or divorced, he cannot sell her as a maid-servant afterwards. For a man may not sell his daughter as a maid-servant after she has been married. He may, however, sell her as a maid-servant after she had served as a maid- servant. What is implied? The father sold her as a maid-servant and then the master designated her as a wife. Afterwards, the master died or divorced her, and she returned to her father's domain because she is a minor. Her father may sell her a second time, even to a priest. Similarly, if she was widowed after being designated as a wife, and her yavam performed chalitzah for her, the chalitzah is unacceptable, because she is a minor. She is nevertheless disqualified from marrying a priest. Even so, her father may sell her as a maid-servant to a priest, because if he consecrated her the marriage bond would be binding, as explained above.

When a person sells his daughter and she is released after serving six years, at the advent of the Jubilee year, or because he redeemed her by paying a prorated amount, he may sell her again if she is still a minor, as we have explained above.

The following laws apply when a person sells his daughter as a maid-servant and then goes and consecrates her to another person: If the master desires to designate her as a wife, he may. If the master does not designate her as a wife - neither for himself nor for his son - when she leaves the master's domain her consecration to the other man is completed, and she becomes his wife.

When a person sells his daughter as a maid-servant, but stipulates that the owner may not designate her as a wife - if the owner desires, he may designate her as a wife, for he has made a stipulation against what is written in the Torah. And whenever a person makes a stipulation against what is written in the Torah, his stipulation is nullified.

A Canaanite slave is acquired through five means and acquires his freedom through three. He may be acquired through the transfer of money, the transfer of a deed of purchase, the manifestation of one's ownership, a kinyan chalifin or by drawing him after oneself. He acquires his freedom through the transfer of money, the transfer of a legal document and because of the loss of the tips of his limbs or organs. A Canaanite slave who is a minor is like an animal and is acquired by drawing him after oneself as one draws an animal. We have already explained in the beginning of this book all the means by which a slave is acquired.

How can a Canaanite slave acquire himself through the transfer of money? When another person gave the slave's master money, telling him: "This is yours with the intent that your slave be granted his freedom because of it." Once the master receives the money or merchandise worth money, the slave is granted his freedom. There is no need for the slave to know of this matter, for it is to his advantage to be released. And something that is to a person's advantage can be acquired on his behalf outside his presence. Similarly, the slave can be freed if a person gives the slave money, specifying that it is given to him "with the intent that he use it to obtain his freedom." Should the master desire to accept the money, the slave is granted his freedom. If the master does not desire to accept the money, it is not acquired by the slave, because it was given to him only with the intent that he purchase his freedom with it. Both money or merchandise worth money are effective in acquiring the slave or in his acquiring his freedom.

How does a slave achieve his freedom through the transfer of a legal document? The master must write to him on a paper or on a shard: "Behold, you are a free man," "Behold, you are your own property," "I no longer have anything to do with you," or other statements that share this theme. For this is the primary content of a bill of release. Afterwards, he gives him the document in the presence of two witnesses. Similarly, if witnesses have signed on the bill of release and he gives the slave the bill of release in private, he attains his freedom. For the bill of release and his capacity to receive it come at the same time. Different rules apply if the master tells the slave "Behold, you are a free man," "Behold, you are your own property," but does not write it in a document: Even though witnesses testify in court that the master made such statements, and even if the master affirmed the statements with a kinyan, the slave has not yet been freed. For a slave is not granted freedom except through the transfer of money, the transfer of a legal document or because of the loss of the tips of his limbs or organs. When a person writes in a legal document to his maid-servant: "Behold you are permitted to any man," his statement is of no consequence.

How is a slave released because of the loss of the tips of his limbs or organs? A person intentionally struck his slave and caused him to lose one of the 24 tips of his limbs or organs that will not regenerate; he is granted his freedom. A bill of release is required. If this applies to the 24 limbs, why does the Torah mention explicitly a tooth and an eye? To extrapolate from them. What characterizes the loss of an eye and a tooth an eye or a tooth? That they are obvious blemishes that will not be regenerated; so too, all obvious blemishes that will not be regenerated cause a slave to be granted his freedom. If, by contrast, a master castrates his slave or cuts out his tongue, the slave is not granted his freedom, for these are not revealed blemishes. Similarly, if a person knocks out one of a young slave's baby teeth, the slave is not released, for the tooth will grow back.

The only slaves released because of the loss of the tips of their limbs or organs are slaves that have been circumcised and immersed in the mikveh, for they are obligated in the observance of some of the mitzvot. A slave who is an outright gentile is not released because of the loss of the tips of his limbs or organs. These are the tips of the limbs and organs that will not regenerate: the 10 fingers and the ten toes, the tips of the ears, the tip of the nose, the tip of the male organ, the nipples of a woman's breasts. The eyes and the teeth are not included in this reckoning, because they are explicitly mentioned in the Torah.

Should a slave possess an extra finger, and the master cut it off, the slave is released because of its loss if the finger is counted on his hand together with his other fingers. If the slave's eye was blinded, and the master cut it out, the slave is released because of its loss. For the master caused him the loss of an organ. The same law applies with regard to any other of the tips of the organs that are not functional and cannot be used for a task: if the master cuts it off, the master caused him the loss of an organ, and the slave is released because of its loss.

If the master struck the servant on his eye and blinded him, or on his ear and made him deaf, the slave is released because of it. If, however, the master struck the slave near his eye and afterwards, he no longer saw, or near his ear, and he no longer heard, the servant is not released because of this.

The following rules apply if the master struck the slave on his eye and reduced its sight, or struck him on his tooth and caused it to wobble. If the slave can use these organs, he is not released. If not, he is released.

The following rules apply if the slave's eye was not functioning well, and he saw with difficulty, or the slave's tooth was wobbly, and the master struck him and knocked out the wobbly tooth or blinded the weak eye. If the slave was able to use these organs beforehand at all, he is granted his freedom because of their loss. If not, he is not granted his freedom.

If the master struck the slave on his hand and it became swollen, but it would ultimately return to its normal state, the slave is not released because of it. If the master pulled at the slave's beard and in doing so, dislocated his jaw bone, the slave is granted his freedom, because the master nullified the use of the teeth that are located in that bone.

If the master knocked out the slave's tooth or blinded his eye unintentionally - e.g., he threw a stone at an animal and it hit the slave and knocked out his tooth or cut his finger - he is not released. This is alluded to by Exodus 21:27, which states: "If he will knock out his slave's or his maid-servant's tooth." The wording implies that he must do so intentionally.

If the master inserted his hand into the womb of his maid-servant and blinded the eye of the fetus within, he is not granted his freedom. For he did not know anything of the entity so that he could intend to strike it.

If the slave's master was a physician and the slave told him: "Treat my eye for me," and he blinded it, "Hollow out my tooth for me," and he knocked it out, the slave tricked the master and is granted his freedom. For although he did not have the intent of injuring the slave, he did intend to touch the slave's limbs and became endangered because of them. Needless to say, if the slave's eye was hurting, and his master was a blood-letter and removed it for him, the slave is granted his freedom.

When a person knocks out the tooth of a slave and then blinds his eye, he must grant the slave his freedom because of his tooth, and pay him damages for his eye. The same principles apply in all analogous situations.

When a person is half a slave and half a free man or he is jointly owned by two masters, he does not receive his freedom because of the loss of the tips of his limbs or organs. The rationale is that he is not the sole property of the master who injured him.

Slaves that belonged to a wife and are considered as tzon barzel are released because of the loss of the tips of their limbs or organs if the husband injures them, but not if the wife injures them.47 Slaves that belong to a wife and are considered as nichsei m'log, are not released because of the loss of the tips of their limbs or organs, neither if the husband injures them - for he owns merely the use of them, nor if the wife injures them - for they are not solely hers.

The release of slaves because of the loss of the tips of their limbs or organs is practiced in every place, and in every time. This ruling may be delivered only by judges who possess semichah, for this is a fine. For this reason, if a servant told his master: "You knocked out my tooth and blinded my eye," and the master admits doing this, the master is not liable. The rationale is that had he taken the initiative and admitted having caused this injury, he would not be liable to grant the slave his freedom unless witnesses testify. For a person who admits his guilt in a case requiring a fine is not liable. As Hilchot Geneivah states, anyone who admits his guilt in a case requiring a fine is not liable.

When a person composes a bill of release for his slave and gives it to another person to acquire on the slave's behalf, saying: "Take possession of this bill of release for so and so, my slave," the slave is granted his freedom even though the bill of release did not reach his hand. For it is possible to acquire something of benefit to a person outside his presence. If, however, a person said: "Give this bill of release to my slave," he may not retract, but the slave does not attain his freedom until the bill of release reaches his hand. Therefore if a person says: "Give this bill of release to my slave" and dies, it should not be given to him after his master's death.

When a person composes a legal document saying: "I made my slave so and so a free man," "My servant so and so was made a free man," or "He is a free man," he is released. If, however, the document states: "I will make him a free man," he is not released.

When a master states that he released his slave and the slave denies being released, we suspect that the master had another person acquire the bill of release on behalf of the slave. If the master said: "I composed a deed of release and gave it to the slave," and the slave says: "You neither wrote it nor gave it to me," the statement of a principal is considered as equivalent to the testimony of 100 witnesses, and he is considered a slave until he is freed in the presence of witnesses.

When a person commands at the time of his death: "My heirs should not subjugate so and so, my maid-servant," she is still considered a maid-servant as before, but it is forbidden for his heir to subjugate her. For it is a mitzvah to fulfill the words of a deceased person. Similarly, if a dying man says: "Generate satisfaction for so and so, my maid-servant," we compel the heirs not to make her perform any tasks other than the ones that she desires to perform. If he commanded them to free her, we compel them to free her.

There are six matters in which a bill of release given to a servant is equivalent to a bill of divorce. With regard to other matters, a bill of release is equivalent to other legal documents. These are the six: a) they are not acceptable if prepared by gentile legal authorities; b) they are acceptable if one witness is a kuti, c) they must be written for the sake of the slave who is being freed; d) they may not be written on an article that is attached to the ground; e) the witnesses may sign only in the presence of each other; and f) the same laws apply to a bill of divorce and a bill of release with regard to bringing these legal documents from one place to another. What is implied? All legal documents that are composed by gentile legal authorities are acceptable provided they conform to all the conditions stated in Hilchot Halva'ah with the exception of bills of divorce for women and bills of release for slaves.

Any legal document that is signed by even one witness who is a kuti is not acceptable, with the exception of bills of divorce for women and bills of release for slaves, provided the kuti is known to be precise in his observance. In the present age, when the kutim are considered as gentiles with regard to all matters, we apply the laws stated with regard to them to the Sadducees. For the Sadducees in the present era are considered like the kutim of the previous era, before it was decreed that they would be considered like gentiles. With regard to a woman's bill of divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1 states: "And he shall write to her," which is interpreted by our Sages to mean: "for her sake." And with regard to a Canaanite maid servant's bill of release, Leviticus 19:2 states: "Nor was freedom given to her," teaching that the bill of release must be written for her sake. With regard to a woman's bill of divorce, Ibid.:1,3 states: "And he shall write, and he shall give," which is interpreted by our Sages to mean that the bill of divorce should be written on a substance that is lacking only to be given. This excludes a bill of divorce that is written while the article on which it is written is attached and afterwards detached. For it is lacking both being detached and being given. Similarly, with regard to a bill of release, it is written: "given to her," teaching that the bill of release should be lacking only being given. Witnesses may not sign bills of divorce for women and bills of release for slaves outside each other's presence. We have already explained that reason for this ruling in Hilchot Gerushin.

7. What is meant by the statement that the same laws apply to bills of divorce and bills of release with regard to bringing these legal documents from one place to another? When an agent brings a bill of release from one place to another in Eretz Yisrael, he does not have to testify that it was written and signed in his presence. And in the diaspora, if there are no witnesses present to verify the authenticity of the bill of release, and the agent states that it was written and signed in his presence, its authenticity is considered as verified. Afterwards, if the master comes and protests, no attention is paid to him, as we have explained with regard to a bill of divorce. Just as when a woman brings her bill of divorce, she does not have to have the authenticity of the document verified, because the bill of divorce is in her possession, so too, when a servant's bill of release is in his possession, he does not have to have the authenticity of the document verified. Just as the woman must say: "It was written and signed in my presence," when it was stipulated that she do so, as we have explained in that context, so too, when a servant brings his bill of release and states: "It was written and signed in my presence," his word is accepted in the same way, and he does not have to have the authenticity of the document verified.

8. Everyone who is acceptable to bring a bill of divorce to a woman as the husband's agent is also acceptable to bring a bill of release for a slave as the agent of the master. A slave may receive a bill of release for another slave from that slave's master, but not from his own master. When an owner writes a legal document with which he seeks to consecrate his Canaanite maid-servant, even though he tells her: "Attain your freedom by virtue of this document and become consecrated because of it," this expression is not one that conveys freedom, and she is neither consecrated nor freed.

The wording of a bill of release must connote that it is severing the connection between the slave and his master, so that his master no longer has any rights with regard to him. Therefore, if a master writes to his slave: "You and everything I own except for such and such a property or such and such a garment are now your property," the connection between them is not severed. The bill of release is nullified. And since the bill of release is not effective, the slave is not freed and he does not acquire any of the property. The same principles apply in all analogous situations.

When a slave brings a bill of release that states: "Your person and my property are acquired by you," he acquires his own person and becomes a free man immediately. He does not, however, acquire the property until the authenticity of the signatures to the document are verified, as is the law with regard to other legal documents. Similarly, if the document states: "All my property is acquired by you," he acquires his own person, but does not, however, acquire the property until the authenticity of the signatures to the document is verified. We divide the content of the document and say: "He acquires his own freedom, for we trust him when he brings his own bill of release, and he does not have to verify the authenticity of the document. With regard to property, a person does not acquire it unless he has clear proof of his ownership. Therefore, he does not acquire it until the authenticity of the document is verified.

When a master frees two slaves with one bill of release, they do not acquire their freedom. Instead, one must write a bill of release for each slave individually. Therefore, if a person writes a single legal document transferring all his property to two slaves, they do not acquire even their own persons. If the master wrote two documents, one for each slave, they acquire the property and free each other. When does the above apply? When the master wrote in each legal document: "All my property is given to so and so and so and so, my slaves." If, however, he writes: "Half of my property is given to so and so, my slave, and the other half is given to so and so, my slave," even if the owner wrote two documents, the slaves do not acquire anything. For the slaves are included in the master's property, and possession of half of each one is retained. Thus, this is not a valid release, and since the slave was not freed, he does not acquire any of the property.

When a person seeks to release half of his slave with a bill of release, the slave does not acquire half of his person, and he is a slave just as he was before. If, by contrast, he releases half of a slave, because of a monetary payment - e.g., he took money for half his worth with the intent of freeing that half - the transaction is binding. Thus, he is half slave and half free man. When does the above apply? When the master released half of the slave and retained half. If, however, he freed half of the slave with a legal document and sold the other half, or he freed half with a legal document and gave the other half as a present, since the slave leaves his domain entirely, the slave acquires half of his person, and he is half a slave and half a free man. Similarly, when a slave is owned by two partners, and one frees his half - whether through money or through a legal document - the slave acquires his half, and he is half slave and half free man.

When a master composes a bill of release for his maid-servant who is pregnant, stating "You are free, but your child-to-be remains a slave," his words are binding. If, however, it states: "You remain a maid-servant, but your child-to-be is free," it is of no consequence. For this is as if he freed half of the maid-servant using a legal document.

With regard to a shifchah charufah: If the master desires to free her other half, making her a woman who is consecrated entirely, he may free her - whether with money or with a legal document. For even money completes her release.

A person who is half slave and half free is not permitted to marry a Canaanite maid-servant, nor a free woman. Therefore, we compel his master to make him a free man. And we have a promissory note composed stating that the slave owes the master half his value. When does the above apply? For a male slave. For a male is commanded to be fruitful and multiply. A maid-servant, however, should remain in her immediate state and serve her master one day, and herself the next. If sinners treat her loosely, we compel her master to free her. And we have a promissory note composed stating that she owes the master half her value.

When a person is half slave and half free, and his master transferred the half he owns to his son who is below majority, so that the court would not be able to compel him to release him, the court appoints a guardian for the minor, and the guardian writes a bill of release. And we have a promissory note composed stating that the slave owes the master half his value. If the minor needs the slave and has pangs of yearning for the slave, we separate him from him with money, for a minor has a great attraction for money.

When a dying man who had a legal document composed, transferring all of his property to a servant, recovers, he regains possession of the property. He does not, however, regain possession of the servant, for he has already acquired the reputation of being a free man.

When a person sells his slave to a gentile, the slave is released as a free man. We compel the previous owner to buy him back from the gentiles at even ten times his value. He then composes a bill of release for him, and the slave is released. If the gentile purchaser does not desire to sell the slave back at even ten times his value, we do not require the owner to make another offer. This fine is only collected and brought to judgment in a court of expert judges. If the seller dies, we do not require his heir to return the slave so that he can free him.

The following rules apply when a person borrows money from a gentile and offers a slave as collateral. If the borrower fixed a time and told the gentile: "If this and this date arrives and I have not paid you, you acquire the body of this slave," the slave must be released immediately. If he told him: "Acquire the proceeds of his work," the slave is not released. If the gentile expropriated the slave as payment for the debt, or attackers came upon the master and sought to kill him, and he redeemed himself from them by giving them his slave, the slave is not freed, for he was taken from his master against his will.

If a person sells his slave to one of the servants of a king or his officers, despite the fact that the seller fears them, the slave receives his freedom. For he could have appeased them with other money.

In the following instances - a person sold his slave to a gentile for 30 days, sold him except for his work, sold him except for the mitzvot, or sold him except for the Sabbaths and festivals - there is an unresolved question whether the slave is free or not. Therefore, if the slave seizes property belonging to his former master that equals his worth, so that he can purchase his freedom from the gentile, it is not expropriated from him.

Whether a Jew sells his slave to a gentile who serves idols, a ger toshav, or even to a kuti, the slave is granted his freedom. If he sells his slave to an apostate Jew, there is an unresolved question regarding the matter. Therefore, if the slave seizes property belonging to his former master that equals his worth, so that he can purchase his freedom from the apostate, it is not expropriated from him.

When a person living in Eretz Yisrael sells his slave to a master from the diaspora, the slave is granted his freedom. We compel his new master to compose a bill of release for him, and his money is forfeited. Why did our Sages penalize the purchaser alone in this instance? Because if he had not purchased the slave, this slave would not have left Eretz Yisrael for the diaspora. Selling a slave to Syria or to Acre is considered as selling him to the diaspora.

There is an unresolved question when an inhabitant of Babylonia marries a woman in Eretz Yisrael with the intent of returning to Babylonia, and the woman brings slaves and maid-servants to his household. There is a doubt whether they are considered as having been sold to the diaspora, for the husband has the right to the fruits of their labor, or they are not considered as having been sold to him, since their physical person belongs to the woman.

When a slave follows his master to Syria, and his master sells him there, the slave is considered to have forfeited his privilege. When does the above apply? When his master took him to the diaspora with the intent not to return to Eretz Yisrael. If, however, his master's intent was to return, and the slave followed him with that intent, should the master sell him there, he is granted his freedom, and we compel the purchaser to release him.

When a slave asks his master to move to Eretz Yisrael, we compel his master to move there with him or to sell him to someone who is moving there. When a master living in Eretz Yisrael desires to move to the diaspora, he cannot compel the slave to move with him against his will. This law applies in all times, even in the present era, when the land is ruled by gentiles.

When a slave flees from the diaspora to Eretz Yisrael, he should not be returned to slavery. Concerning such a person, the Torah Deuteronomy 23:16 states: "Do not return a slave to his master." His master is told to compose a bill of release for him, and he writes a promissory note for his master for his worth, which the master holds until the freed slave earns that money and gives it to him. If the master does not desire to free him, the court invalidates his ownership of him, and the slave is free to go on his way.

This slave who fled to Eretz Yisrael is a righteous convert. Scripture adds a specific warning for anyone who would desire to deride him, for he is even more humble-spirited than a convert. Therefore, Scripture Deuteronomy 23:17 issues a command with regard to him: "He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in one of your cities that he desires. You shall not abuse him." Abusing him refers even to verbal derision. Thus, a person who derides this convert transgresses three negative commandments: "A person should not abuse his colleague" (Leviticus 25:14 , "Do not abuse a convert" (Exodus 22:20 , and "You shall not abuse him." He also transgresses the commandment: "Do not oppress him" (Exodus, Ibid.), as explained with regard to the laws of ona'ah.

When a person purchases a slave from a gentile without making a stipulation beforehand, and the slave does not desire to be circumcised or to accept the mitzvot incumbent upon slaves, he is given leeway for twelve months. If at the end of this period, he still does not desire, the master must sell him to a gentile or to the diaspora. If the slave made a stipulation with the master at the outset that he did not have to circumcise himself, the owner may maintain him as a gentile for as long as he desires and may sell him to a gentile or the diaspora. Similarly, even when a slave who has been circumcised and immersed himself to become a slave, but afterwards caused himself to be captured by a group of brigands, if his master cannot expropriate him - neither through the laws of the Jews, nor through the laws of the gentiles - he may accept payment for him from the gentile and formalize the sale through the gentile authorities, for he is preserving his money from the gentiles.

When a person declares a slave ownerless, the slave is granted his freedom. A bill of release must be composed for him. If the master who declared him ownerless dies, his heir should compose the bill of release.

The following rules apply when a slave who was imprisoned flees from jail. If his master despaired of regaining ownership of him, he is granted his freedom. His master is compelled to compose a bill of release for him.

The following rules apply when a slave is taken captive by gentiles. If his first master despaired of regaining ownership of him, anyone who redeems him with the intent that he remain a slave may subjugate him, and he becomes his property. If he redeemed him with the intent that he become free, he is granted his freedom. If the slave's first owner did not despair of regaining ownership, a person who redeems the slave with the intent that he remain a slave should take back the money he spent to redeem him from his owner, and the slave is returned to his original owner. If he redeemed him with the intent of freeing him, he is returned to his original owner without any payment.

If a master makes a slave an apotiki for his creditor and then frees the slave, the slave is freed. We also compel the creditor to free him as well. This is a measure enacted for the correction of society, lest the creditor encounter the slave at a later time and say: "You are my slave."

When a master marries his slave to a free woman, places tefillin on his head, or tells him to read three verses from a Torah scroll in public, or the like - i.e., matters in which only a freed person is obligated - he is considered to be free. We compel his master to compose a bill of release for him. Similar rules apply when the slave took a vow that we compel slaves to fulfill, as we have stated with regard to vows, and instead of compelling him, his master said: "The vow is annulled." Since he did not compel him in a situation in which he should have compelled him, he indicated that he was concluding his subjugation of him. From this, I conclude that if a person frees a slave while speaking in any language and utters statements that indicate that his intent is that he does not retain any authority over him at all, and he has resolved to accept this step, he cannot retract. We compel him to write a bill of release even though he has not written one already. If, however, a person borrows money from his slave, makes him a guardian, the slave puts on tefillin in his master's presence, or reads three verses in the synagogue in his master's presence, and his master does not rebuke him, he does not obtain his freedom.

It is forbidden for a person to teach his slave Torah. If he teaches him, he is not granted his freedom.

If a person purchases a slave from a gentile, and the slave takes the initiative and immerses himself with intent of becoming free in the presence of his master, he attains his freedom. If he does this outside his master's presence, he must explicitly state his intent. Accordingly, the slave's master must push him into the water.

If a Jew seizes possession of a gentile who was a minor, or finds a gentile child and has him immersed with the intent that he become a convert, he becomes a convert. If his intent was that the gentile become a slave, he becomes a slave. If his intent was that he become a free man, he becomes a free man.

When the slaves and maid-servants of a convert take the initiative and immerse themselves in his presence, they attain their freedom.

When a Jew has relations with a Canaanite maid-servant - even if she is his own maid-servant - the offspring is considered a Canaanite slave with regard to all matters. And one may use him for service forever as any other slave.

The laws applying to a Canaanite slave apply whether the master purchases the Canaanite slave from a fellow Jew, a resident alien, a gentile living under our jurisdiction or a person from another nation. Similarly, a resident alien, a gentile living under our jurisdiction or a person from another nation has the prerogative of selling himself to a Jew as a slave, and then he is a slave with regard to all matters. Similarly, when a gentile sells his sons and his daughters they become Canaanite slaves. This is reflected by Leviticus 25:45: "From the children of the residents from them and from their families who are with you who give birth in your land may you purchase." All of these are Canaanite slaves with regard to all matters.

If a person from another nationality engages in relations with one of our Canaanite maid-servants, a son who is conceived is a Canaanite slave, as implied by the phrase Ibid.: "Who give birth in your land." If, however, one of our slaves has relations with a gentile woman, the offspring is not a slave, as implied by the phrase: "Who give birth in your land." For a slave is not considered to have any genealogical connection to his offspring.

When a gentile king wages war, brings captives and sells them, a slave who is purchased in this manner is considered a Canaanite slave with regard to all matters. The same laws apply if such a king grants permission for anyone who desires to go and kidnap people from the nation with whom he is waging war and sell them as slaves, or if his laws state that whoever does not pay his taxes - or does such and such or fails to do such and such - may be sold as a slave, the laws he ordains are binding, and these individuals are considered Canaanite slaves.

When a gentile purchases another gentile as a slave, he does not purchase his physical person, but only the fruits of his labor. Nevertheless, if the gentile sells this slave to a Jew, his physical person is acquired by the Jew.

A woman may purchase maid-servants, but she should not purchase slaves - even those below the age of majority, lest suspicions of her modesty arise. If she does purchase them, she acquires their physical person as a man would. It appears to me that she is forbidden only to purchase slaves that are nine years old or older. Similarly, it is forbidden for a person to free a Canaanite slave. Anyone who frees such a slave violates a positive commandment, for Leviticus 25:46 states: "And you shall have them work for you forever." Nevertheless, if the master frees him, he attains his freedom, as we have explained. And once he frees him, we compel his master to compose a bill of release for him conforming to all the laws we have described. It is permitted to free a slave for the sake of a mitzvah, even a mitzvah of Rabbinic origin - e.g., if ten free men were not present in the synagogue, a person may free his slave to complete the quorum. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. Similarly, if people are treating a person's maid-servant in a licentious manner and she presents a stumbling block to sinful people, we compel her master to free her so that she will marry and thus remove the stumbling block. The same principles apply in all analogous situations.

A master may tell his Canaanite slave: "Work for me, but I will not provide you with sustenance," and the slave must instead, go and beg from door to door and derive his sustenance from charity. For the Jews are obligated to support the slaves that live among them. When does the above apply? To a man's own slaves. For the court does not take any steps to protect the property of adults. If a person does not provide food and drink for his slaves in a fitting manner, they will flee or die. And a person has greater concern for his own money than anyone else. Different rules apply, however, to slaves that his wife brought to his household as nichsei m'log. He is obligated to provide for their sustenance, for this is one of the conditions of bringing them to his household. For if the husband does not provide them with sustenance, they will die or flee, and he is not responsible for them.

There is no limit to the amount of work you are allowed to give a non-Jewish slave, but even though this is the basic law, the attribute of piety and the ways of wisdom dictate that a person should be merciful and pursue justice and not oppress a slave or cause him anguish. He should feed him, from each kind of food and each kind of drink that he consumes. The earlier Sages would give their slaves from every single dish that was prepared and would ensure that their slaves (and also their animals) would eat before they did. For indeed it is written “like the eyes of slaves to the hand of their masters, like the eye of a maidservant to hand of her mistress” (Tehillim 123). And so too he must not disgrace him, not through action, nor through words, for they have been decreed to serve but not to be disgraced. One should not yell or be angry at them, but must speak patiently and hear his claims. Thus it is explicit that one of Job’s greatest qualities was “Shall I spurn the justice of my slave and my maidservant when they quarrel with me? Were they not made in the belly of my maker? We were conceived in one womb” (Job 31:13-15). Cruelty and brazenness is a trait of idolatress nations, but the seed of Avraham Avinu, which is the Jewish people, to whom the Holy One Blessed Be He has bequeathed the goodness of the Torah and commanded them with righteous statutes (חוקים) and judgements (משפטים) – are compassionate to all. And so are the attributes of the Holy One Blessed be He, which He commanded us to emulate. As it is written: “His mercy is upon all his works” (Tehillim 145) and anyone who is merciful (Hashem is) merciful with him. As it says: “He has given you compassion and been compassionate with you and multiplied you” (Devarim 13:18).