Bava Kamma 061

19:
We must now ask ourselves why the sages interpreted the biblical text concerning the fate of the thief as they did, to the extent that "he who acquires for himself an Eved Ivri is as one who has acquired for himself a master."

20:
I think that we will better understand their purpose if we consider what happens to the Eved Ivri. He has a roof over his head, he has food in his mouth, he has a steady job, his family is with him and looked after, and he has maintained his personal dignity. (That he enjoys all these things becomes apparent from reading – or possibly re-reading – the sources that we presented in the previous shiur.)

21:
This is very different from his former situation as a down and out destitute. He was so poor that he could not pay his debts; and in the case of the thief he was so poor that he could not even repay what he had stolen to avoid being sold into slavery. The only thing that he has lost is his personal freedom; and even that he loses only temporarily, for after six years in service he must go free.

22:
Surely, the purpose of the rules and regulations of the Eved Ivri is rehabilitation. In a simple economy, in which a man can always find some means of sustenance, our destitute or our thief were not able to manage their personal economy. So they spend six years learning how it is done. At the end of the sixth year the Eved Ivri should be ready to face the world again and to stand on his own two feet. And in order to make sure that he gets off to a good start his master must give him a parting gift of money, food, animals, so that he does not have to start all over again from zero. It is frustrating that we have no information, no statistics, from which we could learn whether the system worked or not.

23:
In one respect we can say that the system certainly did not work! The last part of the ruling of the Torah indicates where this system could fail – and probably did.

In some cases, no doubt, the Eved Ivri was so frightened of the responsibilities of personal freedom in society that he could not face the possibility of having to go through it all again and to end up destitute once again. He does not have enough faith in himself (or society) to give it a try. Life with his master is good and he and his family are safe. Why take the risk? In such a case the Torah permits him to stay with his master, but the condition is that he can never again claim his right to freedom.

24:
The Torah says that such a man must be brought before the court so that the members of the court can be sure that he is making this decision of his own free will. The Hebrew text of the Torah actually says that he must be brought before "God"; but the context makes it quite clear that here the Hebrew word Elohim is being used in its primary sense of those who wield power. His ear is pierced as a life-long indication that he rejected his human right to freedom. The sages in the Gemara put it beautifully, asking why is such a man pierced through the ear:

The Torah [Leviticus 25:55] states:

For the Israelites are my slaves; they are my slaves which I brought out of the land of Egypt.

No self-respecting Israelite should elect to be the slave of another slave.

25:
After this long introduction we can return our attention to our present mishnah. Its earlier clauses should be readily understandable by now. But the last clause calls for our attention:

Someone who steals from a thief does not make "double repayment", nor does someone who slaughters or sells [an animal that someone else has] stolen" make four- and five-fold repayment.

There is a kind of halakhic "catch 22" here. The stolen goods do not belong to the thief; therefore, technically speaking, if someone steals these goods from the thief he has not stolen his property. In such a case our mishnah says that the second thief does not make "double repayment". But the sages clarified that he must return the original goods to their rightful owner, who will then be able to sue the first thief for the double repayment. If Sara steals 1000 dinars from David and Sam then steals those dinars from Sara, Sam must give the 1000 dinars back to David and David must sue Sara for the other 1000 dinars that make up the double repayment. Similarly in the case of the theft of an ox or a sheep.