Siman 304

Know that the laws of slaves are not applicable in our time, for since the law of the land in all countries is that a person may not purchase a slave and that no person can be a slave to his fellow, if so, it is only possible to be day laborers or yearly laborers or by contract. And behold, they are like all the masses of the gentiles who have no connection to the laws of slavery that the Torah stated: "You shall not do any labor, you... and your slave, etc." And there is nothing regarding them except the prohibition of speaking to a gentile, which is a shevut, and their laws were explained from siman 243 until siman 248, and will be further explained in siman 306 and 307. And in this siman, we speak of the matter of slaves whose bodies are acquired by the Israelite, as they were in ancient days.

It is written: "You shall not do any work, you, and your son, and your daughter, your manservant, and your maidservant, etc." Behold, a manservant of an Israelite is forbidden to do work by the Torah like the Israelite himself, and this refers to a Canaanite servant, for a Hebrew servant is a complete Israelite. And behold, according to the Ra'avad at the end of the first chapter, the prohibition from the Torah is upon the servant and not upon the master, since he is a sentient being. But the Rambam ruled that the master is cautioned regarding him by the Torah not to allow him to do work on Shabbat, and he inferred this from that which is written in Mishpatim: "In order that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your maidservant and the stranger may be refreshed," for just as with your ox and your donkey the obligation is upon the owners, so too with the son of your maidservant. And they wondered about him, for this verse does not refer to a complete servant as will be explained (Maggid Mishneh), but I say that the primary intent of the Rambam is that just as "in order that they may rest" in this verse refers to the owners, so too the verse "in order that your manservant and your maidservant may rest like you" in Parshat Va'etchanan—the intent is also regarding the owners, and many agreed with the Rambam.

There are three types of slaves: The primary slave regarding whom the commandment in the Ten Commandments came, "you, and your son, and your daughter, your manservant and your maidservant" — this is a slave sold to an Israelite who underwent milah and tevilah for the sake of slavery, and accepted upon himself the yoke of mitzvot and is obligated in mitzvot like a woman, and he is forbidden from labor by the Torah like the Israelite himself, as is written in the Ten Commandments. And the second slave: who was sold to an Israelite and did not undergo milah or tevilah, but only accepted upon himself the seven mitzvot of the children of Noah, and his law is like a ger toshav. And they said in Keritot (9a) and in the Mechilta that this verse of "that the son of your handmaid and the stranger may be refreshed" — deals in this case with a ger toshav and an eved toshav who accepted upon himself the seven mitzvot and did not undergo milah or tevilah. And his law is explained there that for himself it is permitted for him to do labor on Shabbat, meaning his own needs, but for the Israelite — it is forbidden by the Torah that he do labor, whether for his master or for another Israelite. And the Tur who wrote that he is forbidden from the labor of his master — spoke of the common case, but the same law applies that he is forbidden from the labor of any Israelite, and so too the ger toshav, his law is such, as the Rambam wrote there. (See Yoreh Deah at the beginning of siman 267 regarding in what manner it is permitted to buy such a slave)

And the third: A slave who did not undergo milah and did not immerse and did not accept upon himself the seven commandments, and the Rambam did not mention this at all. And in this there is a dispute among the poskim: for the Rambam and the Ramban hold that such a slave is not included in "and the son of your handmaid may be refreshed," but rather he is like any other hired worker, and the Rashba and the Smag and Sefer HaTerumot hold that this is included in "and the son of your handmaid may be refreshed." And so it appears from the words of the Tur who wrote: "But if he did not undergo milah and immerse, even if he accepted upon himself the seven commandments—he is like a ger toshav etc." Thus far his words, behold he wrote "even if he accepted etc.," and certainly if he did not accept, which shows that both have one law. However, the Rashba wrote that regarding the second and third slave whom the Torah forbade to work for the sake of the Israelite—this is when there is a command, where his master or another man told him to do work for him, and regarding this it is said "and may be refreshed etc." But if he works of his own volition—his master is not obligated to separate him, and it is like a minor eating nevelot, where the beit din is not commanded to separate him. And only regarding his master, if it is evident that he works for the sake of his master, meaning because he knows that this is his master's will—he must prevent him. And regarding another, even if he works for his sake—it is of no concern to us, provided that he does not tell him to work and provided that the Israelite does not benefit from that work on Shabbat, and this is by rabbinic decree as written in siman 276, and it is simple according to all opinions, that regarding a non-Jewish hired worker—his master is not commanded concerning his rest.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 2: "And in a case where the slave is permitted to perform labor for himself, if the master said to him that he should work for himself and sustain himself on the day of Shabbat, since he stipulated with him while it was yet day—he may work for the needs of his sustenance, provided it is in private so that there be no concern of onlookers." Thus far his words. And I do not understand why a stipulation is necessary for this and why we care about onlookers, but this could be said: that the onlooker will say he is working for the Jew. But why is a stipulation necessary since he is permitted to perform labor for himself, and even if his master sustains him, why do we care and what prohibition is there in the matter? And perhaps without a stipulation, he presumably works with his master's intent, and this is forbidden for his master as I wrote in the previous section.

And behold, according to what has been explained, that which we maintain that for the needs of a patient who is not in danger one may tell a non-Jew and he performs [the labor], and similarly a deceased person on the first day of Yom Tov, where we maintain that heathens should attend to him—it is forbidden with a slave, whether he circumcised and immersed or whether he did not circumcise and immerse but rather accepted upon himself the seven commandments; and according to the opinion of the Rashba, even if he did not accept upon himself the seven commandments, for from the Torah they are forbidden from performing labor for the sake of the Israelite. Therefore, regarding the labor of the Israelite, these also have the status of an Israelite, and they are not permitted to perform [labor] except in a case of danger like an Israelite himself. However, according to the opinion of the Rambam and the Ramban, one who did not accept upon himself the seven commandments is permitted, and through him the needs of a patient who is not in danger and a deceased person on the first day of Yom Tov may be performed. And know that regarding Yom Tov there is a dispute concerning the essence of the slave's prohibition, for the Bahag maintains that the slave is forbidden from performing labor on Yom Tov just as on Shabbat, and the Ramban disagrees with him and maintains that the slave was only cautioned on Shabbat and not on Yom Tov. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, cited this dispute in his great work further on in siman 526. (And this is the first "there are those who say" in section 1, and it refers to Yom Tov. And the Magen Avraham, subsection 5, is of the opinion that this is the view of the Rambam which he cited afterward, and he questioned the duplication of the matters, but the Tosefot Shabbat, subsection 5, wrote as I have written; and examine this closely.)

The Tur wrote: A slave may not go out with a seal of metal, it makes no difference if it is on his garment or on his neck, for since it is significant and his master is particular about it—we fear perhaps it will break and he will come to carry it. And if it is of clay, about which his master is not particular, on his neck—it is permitted, for if it breaks he will leave it, and there is also no fear that he will take it from his neck and carry it in his hands, for he is afraid of his master as he will say that he wants to remove his servitude from him. But on his garment—it is forbidden, for perhaps it will break, and he will be afraid of his master that he is walking in his garment without a seal, and he will strip off his garment and fold it over his shoulder, for in this he will have some excuse as to why he did so (see Bach). And this is regarding a seal that his master made for him, but if he made a seal for himself—in any case it is forbidden, even of clay and even on his neck, for we fear that he will take it from his neck and carry it in his hand, for since his master did not make it for him—he is not afraid. (See Taz subsection 3 and Magen Avraham subsection 11 and subsection 12, and in our time this is not relevant at all as I wrote in section 1)