Archaeologica.org

2.) The servitude of a Hebrew might be terminated in three ways: (a) by
the satisfaction or the remission of all claims against him; (b) by the
recurrence of the year of Jubilee (<032540>Leviticus 25:40), which might arrive
at any period of his servitude; and (c), failing either of these, the expiration
of six years from the time that his servitude commenced (<022102>Exodus 21:2;
<051512>Deuteronomy 15:12). There can be no doubt that this last regulation
applied equally to the cases of poverty and theft, though Rabbinical writers
have endeavored to restrict it to the former. The period of seven years has
reference to the sabbatical principle in general, but not to the sabbatical
year, for no regulation is laid down in reference to the manumission of
servants in that year (<032501>Leviticus 25:1 sq.; <051501>Deuteronomy 15:1 sq.). We
have a single instance, indeed, of the sabbatical year being celebrated by a
general manumission of Hebrew slaves, but this was in consequence of the
neglect of the law relating to such cases (<243414>Jeremiah 34:14). To the above
modes of obtaining liberty the Rabbinists added, as a fourth, the death of a
master without leaving a son, there being no power of claiming the slave
on the part of any heir except a son (Maimonides, Abad. 2, § 12).
If a servant did not desire to avail himself of the opportunity of leaving his
service, he was to signify his intention in a formal manner before the judges
9
(or, more exactly, at the place of judgment), and then the master was to
take him to the door post, and to bore his ear through with an awl
(<022106>Exodus 21:6), driving the awl into or “unto the door,” as stated in
<051517>Deuteronomy 15:17, and thus fixing the servant to it. Whether the door
was that of the master’s house, or the door of the sanctuary, as Ewald
(Alterth. p. 245) infers from the expression el ha-elohim, to which
attention is drawn above, is not stated; but the significance of the action is
enhanced by the former view; for thus a connection is established between
the servant and the house in which he was to serve. The boring of the ear
was probably a token of subjection, the ear being the organ through which
commands were received (<194006>Psalm 40:6). A similar custom prevailed
among the Mesopotamians (Juvenal, 1, 104), the Lydians (Xenophon,
Anab. 3, 1, 31), and other ancient nations. A servant who had submitted to
this operation remained, according to the words of the law, a servant
“forever” (<022106>Exodus 21:6). These words are, however, interpreted by
Josephus (Ant. 4, 8, 28) and by the Rabbinists as meaning until the year of
Jubilee, partly from the universality of the freedom that was then
proclaimed, and partly perhaps because it was necessary for the servant
then to resume the cultivation of his recovered inheritance. The latter point
no doubt presents a difficulty, but the interpretation of the word “forever”
in any other than its obvious sense presents still greater difficulties.

(3.) The condition of a Hebrew servant was by no means intolerable. His
master was admonished to treat him, not “as a bond servant, but as a hired
servant and as a sojourner;” and again, “not to rule over him with rigor”
(<032539>Leviticus 25:39, 40, 43). The Rabbinists specified a variety of duties as
coming under these general precepts for instance, compensation for
personal injury, exemption from menial duties, such as unbinding. the
master’s sandals or carrying him in a litter; the use of gentle language on
the part of the master; and the maintenance of the servant’s wife and
children, though the master was not allowed to exact work from them
(Mielziner, Sklaven bei den Hebr. p. 31). At the termination of his
servitude the master was enjoined not to “let him go away empty,” but to
remunerate him liberally out of his flock, his floor, and his wine press
(<051513>Deuteronomy 15:13, 14). Such a custom would stimulate the servant
to faithful service, inasmuch as the amount of the gift was left to the
master’s discretion; and it would also provide him with means wherewith
to start in the world afresh.
10
In the event of a Hebrew becoming the servant of a “stranger,” meaning a
non-Hebrew, the servitude could be terminated only in two ways, viz. by
the arrival of the year of Jubilee, or by the repayment to the master of the
purchase money paid for the servant, after deducting a sum for the value of
his services proportioned to the length of his servitude (<032547>Leviticus
25:47-55). The servant might be redeemed either by himself or by one of
his relations, and the object of this regulation appears to have been to
impose upon relations the obligation of effecting the redemption, and thus
putting an end to a state which must have been peculiarly galling to the
Hebrew.
A Hebrew woman might enter into voluntary servitude on the score of
poverty, and in this case she was entitled to her freedom after six years’
service, together with the usual gratuity at leaving, just as in the case of a
man (<051512>Deuteronomy 15:12, 13). According to Rabbinical tradition, a
woman could not be condemned to servitude for theft; neither could she
bind herself to perpetual servitude by having her ear bored (Mielziner, p.
43).
Thus far we have seen little that is objectionable in the condition of
Hebrew servants. In respect to marriage, there were some peculiarities
which, to our ideas, would be regarded as hardships. A master might, for
instance, give a wife to a Hebrew servant for the time of his servitude, the
wife being in this case, it must be remarked, not only a slave, but a non-
Hebrew. Should he leave when his term had expired, his wife and children
would remain the absolute property of the, master (<022104>Exodus 21:4, 5).
The reason for this regulation is, evidently, that the children of a female
heathen slave mere slaves; they inherited the mother’s disqualification.
Such a condition of marrying a slave would be regarded as an axiom by a
Hebrew, and the case is only incidentally noticed. Again, a father might sell
his young daughter to a Hebrew, with a view either of the latter’s marrying
her himself or of his giving her to his son (ver. 7-9). It diminishes the
apparent harshness of this proceeding if we look on the purchase money as
in the light of a dowry given, as was not unusual, to the parents of the
bride; still more, if we accept the Rabbinical view (which, however, we
consider very doubtful) that the consent of the maid was required before
the marriage could take place. But even if this consent were not obtained,
the paternal authority would not appear to be violently strained; for among
ancient nations that authority was generally held to extend even to the life
of a child, much more to the giving of a daughter in marriage. The female
11
slave was in this case termed hm;a;, as distinct from hj;p]væ, applied to the
ordinary household slave. The distinction is marked in regard to Hagar,
who is described by the latter term before the birth of Ishmael, and by the
former after that event (comp. <011601>Genesis 16:1; 21:10). The relative value
of the terms is expressed in Abigail’s address, “Let thine handmaid (amah)
be a servant (shiphkah) to wash,” etc. (<092541>1 Samuel 25:41). The position
of a maiden thus sold by her father was subject to the following
regulations:
[1] She could not “go out as the men servants do;” i.e. she could not leave
at the termination of six years, or in the year of Jubilee, if (as the regulation
assumes) her master was willing to fulfil the object for which he had
purchased her.
[2] Should he not wish to marry her, he should call upon her friends to
procure her release by the repayment of the purchase money (perhaps, as in
other cases, with a deduction for the value of her services),
[3] If he betrothed her to his son, he was bound to make such provision for
her as he would for one of his own daughters.
[4] If either he or his son, having married her, took a second wife, it should
not be to the prejudice of the first.
[5] If neither of the three above specified alternatives took place, the maid
was entitled to immediate and gratuitous liberty (<022107>Exodus 21:7-11).
The custom of reducing Hebrews to servitude appears to have fallen into
disuse subsequently to the Babylonian captivity. The attempt to enforce it
in Nehemiah’s time met with decided resistance (<160505>Nehemiah 5:5), and
Herod’s enactment that thieves should be sold to foreigners roused the
greatest animosity (Josephus, Ant. 16, 1, 1). Vast numbers of Hebrews
were reduced to slavery as war captives at different periods by the
Phoenicians (<290316>Joel 3:16), the Philistines (ibid.; Amos 1:6), the Syrians (1
Macc. 3:41; 2 Macc. 8:11), the Egyptians (Josephus, Ant. 12, 2, 3), and,
above all by the Romans (War, 6, 9, 3). We may form some idea of the
numbers reduced to slavery by war from the single fact that Nicanor
calculated on realizing 2000 talents in one campaign by the sale of captives
at the rate of ninety for a talent (2 Macc. 8:10, 11), the number required to
fetch the sum being 180,000. The Phoenicians were the most active slave
dealers of ancient times, purchasing of the Philistines (Amos 1:9), of the
12
Syrians (2 Macc. 8:21), and even of the tribes on the shores of the Euxine
Sea (<262713>Ezekiel 27:13), and selling them wherever they could find a market
about the shores of the Mediterranean, and particularly in Joel’s time to the
people of Javan (<290306>Joel 3:6), it being uncertain whether that name
represents a people in South Arabia or the Greeks of Asia Minor and the
peninsula. It was probably through the Tyrians that Jews were transported
in Obadiah’s time to Sepharad, or Sardis (<312001>Obadiah 20). At Rome vast
numbers of Jews emerged from the state of slavery and became freedmen.
The price at which the slaves were offered by Nicanor was considerably
below the ordinary value either in Palestine or Greece. In the former
country it stood at thirty shekels (=about $18), as stated below; in the
latter at about one and a quarter mina (=about $20), this being the mean
between the extremes stated by Xenophon (Mem. 2, 5, 2) as the ordinary
price at Athens. The price at which Nicanor offered them was only about
$12 a head. Occasionally slaves were sold as high as a talent (about $1058)
each (Xenophon, loc. cit.; Josephus, Ant. 12, 4, 9).

he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed

That is as clear as you can get , buying people , not servants "bought"

1.) The circumstances under which a Hebrew might be reduced to
servitude were (a) poverty; (b) the commission of theft; and (c) the
exercise of paternal authority. In the first case, a man who had mortgaged
his property, and was unable to support his family, might sell himself to
another Hebrew, with a view both to obtain maintenance and perchance a
surplus sufficient to redeem his property

archaeologist wrote:

he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed

remember you can't always put modern meanings to ancient practices and just going by a surface reading means that you miss out on what really is meant.

prime example:

That is as clear as you can get , buying people , not servants "bought"

there are many reasons why a person would buy another andit would have nothing to do with the type of slavery we are all familiar with from the american example:

1.) The circumstances under which a Hebrew might be reduced to
servitude were (a) poverty; (b) the commission of theft; and (c) the
exercise of paternal authority. In the first case, a man who had mortgaged
his property, and was unable to support his family, might sell himself to
another Hebrew, with a view both to obtain maintenance and perchance a
surplus sufficient to redeem his property

How can you twist that one to fit .

can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life

is just so wrong in soooo many ways

But you say that you can't know god's reasons. How do you know that the bible isn't some cosmic joke?

Slavery is a similar issue. Splitting hairs like this does not overthrow the inherent injustice of slavery. For 'god' to endorse slavery, genocide, mass rape and mass theft does him no credit at all.

same here, you are not on God's side thus you brand God as a murderer, who advocates all sorts of morally rehensible behavior. is that right? No.

Since in essence I believe that 'man created god' it is fair to say that 'man created god in his own bloody image

Perhaps this is the time to remind you that there is not a shred of proof that anything recorded in the bible, prior to around 850 BC, ever happened