Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Exodus 21:26 is about letting a slave go free if they are injured by their owner. This appears to be a good thing, but I'm also wondering if it would be detrimental to a slave to be freed when they have now lost an eye.

I guess I see slavery at that time as similar to employment of today. The Hebrews were to treat their slaves well. It's not really that different from having a job in today's world - except room and board was provided. So would freeing a slave be like firing an employee, and then the former slave having to go find a new owner?

Am I entirely wrong in my understanding of this culture?

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Good question.

A freed slave did not go to another master. He obtained the status of a full-fledged Jew. (In fact, many of the laws pertaining to converts in the Talmud are actually phrased as "converts and freed slaves.")

share|improve this answer
Was a slave not a Jew? –  Charles Koppelman Mar 9 at 20:33
@CharlesKoppelman, a slave has a quasi-Jewish status. He can't eat pork, but doesn't have to hear megillah reading. When he is freed, he is given full Jewish status. (There's a separate legal category, the full-fledged Jew who is sold for monetary reasons, but that's not what we're discussing here.) –  Shalom Mar 9 at 20:39

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.