|
הַגּוֹנֵב נֶפֶשׁ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּכְנִיסֶנּוּ לִרְשׁוּתוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיַּכְנִיסֶנּוּ לִרְשׁוּתוֹ וְיִשְׁתַּמֶּשׁ בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וְהִתְעַמֶּר בּוֹ וּמְכָרוֹ". הַגּוֹנֵב אֶת בְּנוֹ, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה מְחַיֵּב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. גָּנַב מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּב, וַחֲכָמִים פוֹטְרִין:
One is only guilty of abduction after having forced the abductee under one's authority. Rabbi Yehudah says that one must both force him under one's authority and also make servile use of him, for the verse says "and make use of him and sell him". If one abducts one's own son, Rabbi Yishma'el the son of Rabbi Yoĥanan ben-Barokah says he is culpable, but the [rest of the] sages say he is not. If one abducts a person who is partly an indentured servant and partly free, Rabbi Yehudah says he is culpable, the rest of the sages say he is not.
1:
Once again I point out that there is a difference between the division of the mishnayot in the manuscript codices and the Talmuds. In the Babylonian Talmud the first mishnah of the chapter, as given in the manuscript codices, is divided into smaller units. I have followed this arrangement (for didactic reasons) so our present mishnah is marked Mishnah One "third part".
2:
The Torah stipulates that
If a person be found abducting one of his brethren of Israel, make use of him and sell him, that abductor shall die; thus shall you eradicate evil from your midst [Deuteronomy 24:7]
Since the Torah does not state even by implication which of the four modes of execution is applicable to the kidnapper, the "default" that we have already mentioned several times comes into play and the penalty for this crime is death by strangulation.
3:
In ancient times as well as in medieval times kidnapping was a thriving business. Robbers – often respected people – would abduct someone, often someone just walking innocently down the street, and then sail for foreign parts where they would sell the abductee into slavery at a profit. This abominable trade was practiced in the main by non-Jews. Rambam, basing himself on the Gemara [Avodah Zarah 25b], states categorically in his great code [Hilkhot Rotzé'aĥ 12:7]:
It is forbidden for a Jew to consort with non-Jews because they are under constant suspicion of murderous intentions. A Jew should not accompany them along the road… lest he attack him and kill him. He should not even converse with a non-Jew lest he club him and rend asunder his skull.
Under such circumstances, I suppose, someone who was not killed by highwaymen but "only" abducted would consider themselves fortunate!
4:
Jewish communities all over the world were constantly on the lookout for Jewish abductees. When a foreign ship would sail into port with a human cargo representatives of the local community would board the ship in order to ascertain whether there were any Jews on board. If there were such a general tax was laid upon the community in order to raise the money needed to buy their freedom.
5:
Against such non-Jews it was not possible to legislate. But if a Jew should abduct his fellow Jew the laws of our present mishnah apply. By a careful reading of the text of the Torah the sages came to the conclusion that there were three elements in the crime of abduction: depriving the abductee of his or her personal freedom, making some servile use of them, and selling them (into slavery) to another buyer. Only when all three elements are proven to be present (with the usual requirement for witnesses and prior warning) would it be possible to make a charge of abduction stick.
6:
The reisha [first section] of our mishnah deals with the abduction of a free person. Although there is a seeming maĥloket [difference of view] between the sages and Rabbi Yehudah bar-Ila'i, the Gemara [Sanhedrin 85b] explains that this is not a difference in principle, only of detail. The view of the sages, which is Halakhah, is that even making the most minimal use of the abductee qualifies as "making servile use" of them – such as leaning on them. (Rabbi Yehudah is more stringent.)
7:
The seifa [second section] of our mishnah discusses the abduction of persons who are not completely free, even if only for technical reasons. For example, can a parent be charged with depriving his own son of his personal freedom, when his offspring are considered to be under the father's authority? Here, again, in order to obviate the death penalty being incurred, the sages say that it is not possible for a parent to deprive his offspring of their personal freedom. Thus, a parent could only be guilty of abduction of their child if they "make servile use" of them and sell them into slavery; and even then, the penalty would be incarceration for life, not death by strangulation – as we learned in mishnah 5 of chapter 9.
8:
The other case discussed by our mishnah in connection with the abduction of persons not completely free is the case of the person who is partly indentured and partly free. This could come about, technically, in a situation where to people enter into a partnership and buy a slave between them; subsequently one of the partners releases the slave. This does not end the slaves indenture, since the other partner has not yet relinquished his ownership. The only kind of slave that could possibly come into this situation is an Eved Kena'ani during the first year of his indenture. An Eved Kena'ani is a non-Jewish slave owned by a Jew (or Jews, as we have seen). At the end of one year the Jewish owner must pass the non-Jew on to a non-Jewish owner unless the slave himself prefers to stay. If the slave makes this decision he must become a Jew (circumcision and immersion in a ritual pool) and is then required to observe all the mitzvot (except positive time-delimited mitzvot). The sages thus say that during that first year, when the slave might be half slave and half free, he is not a Jew yet, and therefore the law does not apply since the Torah explicitly stated that it applies only to "a person found abducting one of his brethren of Israel".
In Sanhedrin 124 I gave my opinion that there is no connection between the Shewbread and the wine libation with the Catholic Mass. David Bockman disagrees. He writes:
While the text of the mass points clearly to its re-interpretation in the X-ian milieu (as the body & blood of Jesus, derived from the incident at the seder), the Catholics with whom I have discussed the communion have basically indicate that the communion conflates the two previous Jewish traditions (the matzah and wine of Pesach with the offerings of the Mishkan and MIkdash). Consider that the wafer-box is called a 'Tabernacle', the officiants are called 'Priests', and that the text of the leĥem ha-panim is read (at least in some liturgies) when the wafers are brought out. At least some Catholics, including clergy, see this as the bread that is constantly before God, a symbol of the people's devotion and service. Albeit Jewish sources have since surpassed a literal reading of the significance of the leĥem ha-panim in the Talmud and midrashim, nonetheless we would do ourselves a disservice to ignore some bits of 'sacred ritual language' we have (or at least 'had') in common with our offspring, X-ity.
This discussion is now closed. |
