The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1853-11-03


exception throwing much light on the relation
of master and servant in the Jewish common
wealth, and evncing the extreme jealousy with
which the law watched over the personal free
dom Of the poor and friendless.
In immediate connection with the law au-
thorizing the master tO retain the wife and
children, we have the following enactment
d" If the servant shall plainly say lore my
master, my wife and my children, will not 60
out free then his master shall bring him unto
the Judges he shall also bring him TO the door,
or unto the door.post and his master shall
bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall
serve him forever '-Er. xxi, 5, g. From this
law are derived several very important infer
ences:
lit follows, that the master had no power
of separating families, no selling of wives and
children. Under the peculiar circumstances
already mentioned, the master had the right
of retaining the wife and children in his SER
vice for limited time. But then the father
and husband had the privilege, on certain con-
ditons of remaining with them. Now, these
cOnd tons, and the ceremony which sanctioned
them, would have been utterly idle and use
less, If the master could the next day sell the
wife and children. 1t rresistibly follows that
neither the wife nor children could DO sold by
the master.
2 The next inference il, that the relation of
master and servant was such, that the law
takes for granted that servants would often
love their masters, and desire to remain per
mauently i'm their service Hence the law is
founded on the presumed affection OF servant
for his master. la the law quoted the SER
want is supposed to say 4" love my master, my
,Djte and nv children, | will not 20 out free"
! H. for "a nd oh cd
with love for the master, in determining the
servant to remain in service and hence the
law seems to be limited 10 the case of a man
with wife and children. But the limitation is
merely apparent, and we have in this place
only the application of a general law TO par
ticuar case. The general law we have IN
Dem. XIV l2-l7: "lf thy brother an Hebrew
man, or an Hebrew toOmdn, be sold unto thee,
! and serve thee six years, then IN the seventh
year thou shalt let him 90 free from thee And
it shall be- if he say unto thee will not go |
away from thee because he ioUeh thee and thine |
house because he is well with thee, then thou
shalt take an awl and thrust it through his
ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant
forever. And also unto thy maid, servant thou
shalt do likewise"
Thus every single servant, man or woman,
As we'll as the married man having children,
had the privilege of remaining in the service
Of the MASTER and being maintained by him,
and this without his consent-a privilege which
The law presumes the servant may exercise
rom the attachment he bears to his master
and family and from q sense of the kindness
and comforts he had enjoyed. There is no
reason to suppose that any other code of laws
ever granted to servants such privilege from
'rch expectations
2 IL pa+ oiah IN tbatp kb,,a | |
breed himself on a master, and exacted
without regard to the wants and /.
convenience of the latter, he was entitled to !
wages Yet we can readily understand, that
n a state Of society so ua~tifcal as that of q
he Jews one in which the population was !.
crowded, but in which the field for enterprise j
md industry was exceedingly limited, it might J
We a great and precious privilege for poor f.
nan to be incorporated in kind, worthy, and !.
,fluent family, As domestic even without y
wages but secure of humane treatment and
sufficient food and rament and especially as =
he was intimately acquainted with the family,
having lived SIX years in it. and now of his =
Tree choice made it his home and asylum.
3. We may infer from this law the extreme .
,arG with which personal liberty was guarded
The servant mt the end Of his term was to
rave the choice Of leaving or remaining with
IA master, while the master was to have no =
'hoce in dsmissing or retaining him but the .
'ery privilege accorded TO the servant might
De used a. pretext for retaining him against a
lls will AT that age, and among the jewish y
people, the art of writing was probably confined II
o very few. Hence, certain ceremonies we're
substituted for written contracts. Thus we n
ind in Ruth iv, I, 8, the kinsman of Boaz as
igning to the latter all his presumption right d
md title TO the land left by Eimelech Instead n
II giving to B0az n qut-claim deed, signed n
ealcd, and acknowledged, the kinsman says 81
before witnesses, Buy it for thee SO he drew O
,h his shoe Tho transaction is thus explain a
od by the historian Now. this was the man. O
ner in former times, in Israel, concerning re- o
toemng and changing; for to confirm all Il
things man pluckcd off his shoe and gave it
TO his ncighbor; and this was testimony in g
Israeli 80 Boaz, when he had received his n
shoe "said unto the elders and all I
he people, fe are witnesses this day that t.
nave bought all that was Elimecch's" {
The servant who decided to remain in his v
masters service entered into no written con- q
ract or obligation to that effect OF course,
he master had no written evidence that the
servant was freely retained Yet had verbal
consent on the part of the servant been sufi r
iient, the master, if so disposed might have
pretended that such consent had been given, ,
and poor, friendlcss man might have been
torcibly and most wickedly kept in servtude.
The humane and provident provisions of this
law made the free consent of the servant
matter OF public notoriety, and respecting
which no question could arise Ga the servant
announcing his intention to remain "the mas
ter shall bring him unto the judges that il,
hnt u, in A.
the servant is to acknowledge his desire and
intention to remain in his masters service But
moro than this nc shall submit to receive a
permanent mark in his person, indebly test-
Tying that he acted freely and not by compul-
SION. After having made his declaration in
court his master shall bring him to the door
Or unto the doOr-post, probably the court. house
door and bore his ear through with an awl y |
These precautions and this peculiar ceremony |
guarded at once the rights Of both servant and |
master 1t was impossible for the master to
| claim the services of the other after six years,
| against his consent; and it was impossible for
| the servant to claim exemption from service,
and the liberty of leaving his master at pleas
| IRE, while the hole in the ear bore witness of
hls formal public engagement to remain.
!. Another important inference from this
law is, that the servant could not be sold The
servant voluntarily chooses to remain with his
master, because he lows him and his house, and
IS UeH with HIM. The law accords him. under
certain conditions, the privilege of staying with
his master. Now, the object Of the servant and
the whole purport of the law would be frustra-
ted could the servant be Immediately sent to
market and sold to another.
There still remains an important inquiry as
to the meaning Of the last clause of this law
And no shall be thy servant roREvERp-
Dcm XIV, II. The word forever IA applied Il,
the service Of one man for another, is OF course
rr-ed in limited sense. The most natural in
terence would be, that it is here equivalent to
the phrase during liien But a. the induce
ment Of the service was love for the master