If slavery was still legal...

[Zelhar]

I wouldn't.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Yes. A slave in Torah is different then the slaves of the nations (like somewhat in the south).
 I think its even better in some situations then what goes on today. For example a thief who can't pay for his crimes would be sold as a "slave" or better word "servant". With the different Halachot involved, for example the slave owner giving even his (if only) pillow to the slave instead of himself (thus teaching him to be a giver, instead of only a taker which got him in this mess to begin with).
Also instead of throwing small thieves into jail and who then come out to become even bigger thieves by all the tactics they learn from fellow inmates. Same with administering lashes as punishment, beats throwing people into jail and being unproductive most of the time.

[muman613]

I have a unique perspective on this. This may be controversial, but I have been known to be controversial...

In Judaism slavery is not something imposed on someone. Slavery in Judaism is a punishment for theft, or for being unable to pay debts. The 'master' of a Jewish slave must not mistreat his servant, even to the point of 'if there is only one pillow the slave must have it'. A slave is to be granted a room and meals and have everything provided for him, the Jewish slave even must observe Shabbat.

In contrast homelessness, theft, and other crimes associated with being 'broke' go away when a person in this situation is taken into a home and provided for. He is given work, he is given a home, and he is treated well.

From 2003 to 2010 I had a man who was homeless living in my home. He was my 'handyman', repairing things in my home and in my yard. He watched over my house when nobody was here to watch it. A Jewish slave is only supposed to serve for 6 years, and in the seventh year he is to be let free... I considered this man my 'servant' as he did not pay me to stay in my home... He used this time to get back on his feet, taking courses to get his contracting license... Today he is on his own taking care of himself. I consider this one of my acts of Chessed...

[muman613]

Yes. A slave in Torah is different then the slaves of the nations (like somewhat in the south).
 I think its even better in some situations then what goes on today. For example a thief who can't pay for his crimes would be sold as a "slave" or better word "servant". With the different Halachot involved, for example the slave owner giving even his (if only) pillow to the slave instead of himself (thus teaching him to be a giver, instead of only a taker which got him in this mess to begin with).
Also instead of throwing small thieves into jail and who then come out to become even bigger thieves by all the tactics they learn from fellow inmates. Same with administering lashes as punishment, beats throwing people into jail and being unproductive most of the time.

HEY!!! We agree!!!

Even to the point of the 'if there is only one pillow'...

[Zelhar]

Just to be clear, I mean slavery like it was practiced in the American south, or if you want, like in the ancient times in the classical world- Rome, Greece etc.

[Rubystars]

I don't have any desire to own another human being for whatever reason and I think it was a mistake for anyone to do that in the USA.

[Dr. Dan]

Actually I answered they I would try and abolish slavery. Then I read Muman and tag's posts.

I would abolish cruelty to slaves if slavery was only temporary as a punishment for petty thieves.

[muman613]

I am against Slavery as it was practiced in the South. That was inhumane bondage of a people akin to the enslavement of the Jews in Egypt.

[muman613]

Here is an article on how the Torah views slavery:

http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/158,2473/Why-does-the-Torah-allow-slavery.html

Why does the Torah allow slavery?

Preface: words are loaded terms that come with preconceived images. The English word slave has a very denigrating connotation and usually evokes the image of an overworked, underpaid, malnourished, and abused worker. In the Torah, however, the word Eved (commonly translated as slave) simply connotes work or worker1, and the Torah’s Eved is more of a "New England Steward" than a "Southern Slave". Thus, henceforth when speaking of the Torah concept I will refer to him as Eved.

According to the laws of the Torah, there are two possible ways for a Jew to be sold as an Eved:

1) If he stole and does not have the means to reimburse the victim. In this case the thief is sold by the courts and the money goes to pay for the stolen items.

The Torah is Torat Chesed and everything in Torah is kindness. In today's world, if someone steals he/she is thrown into prison. Man was created and put onto this world to accomplish a mission, through doing Torah and Mitzvot a Jew has the ability to transform this physical world into a dwelling place for the Almighty. Incarcerating someone is robbing him/her of the ability to be a productive Jew and human being. There is no crueler punishment than this. A person's free-choice and creativity is taken away by caging him/her like an animal. This is besides the fact that in many cases incarceration leads to the destruction of entire families. Innocent children and spouses are subjected to months and years of agony and separation -- what did they do to deserve this fate?

And don't tell me that it is necessary to have a cruel punishment in order to serve as a deterrent for other criminals, for even you realize that not every deterrent is justifiable. For example, executing or incarcerating a criminal’s first-born or amputating a limb from a thief would also serve as a phenomenal deterrent - but everyone realizes that such a punishment is unjustifiable and completely inhumane!

Instead the Torah punishes a thief by making him pay double the amount that he stole, and if he cannot pay even the principle - he must be given the opportunity to earn the means to repay. The Torah commands the master to treat his Eved with dignity and respect -- the Eved must be fed the same foods and wines that the master enjoys and our sages tell us that if there is only one pillow in the house the master must let the Eved sleep on it!

Additionally, the master is also responsible to take in the wife and children of his Eved and feed them as long as the Eved is working for him.

Many people today are complaining about the fact that jails do not properly rehabilitate criminals and prepare them to rejoin the real world. Is there a better way to rehabilitate a criminal than offering him a respectful job (a master is not allowed to overwork his Eved) in a wholesome environment?! Or would you rather lock up the person for a few years together with other criminals?

2) A person is also allowed to sell himself as an Eved if he is poverty-stricken and desperate.

I think that the benefits of this (especially in ancient times when there weren't government funded welfare programs) are quite obvious.

[Dr. Dan]

So what would Jewish justice be fit Bernie Madoff who stole millions from many people?

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

So what would Jewish justice be fit Bernie Madoff who stole millions from many people?

 From what I know I don't think he technically stole $ from people.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Also slavery would be very good for the economy because would save $ from having jails. Also the captured people in war would also just work for us instead of being killed, they would bring in $ instead of us having to pay for their jail cells + food + all the other waste that the taxpayers of Israel have to do. We can also then use them as bargaining chips to then exchange them for our soldiers/people when possible.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

(I don't agree with everything he says, but this is okay)
 

[Zelhar]

I don't know if I would trust a crook to serve me. I wonder how it was done in ancient Israel. Probably there was a severe punishment for a slave that went rogue, but still that is no guarantee the slave in your house wouldn't smother you while you sleep and run away with your gold and silver.

[muman613]

I don't know if I would trust a crook to serve me. I wonder how it was done in ancient Israel. Probably there was a severe punishment for a slave that went rogue, but still that is no guarantee the slave in your house wouldn't smother you while you sleep and run away with your gold and silver.

Then he would be liable for the death penalty. I think when the Jews live by the Torah there will be less theft. Theft is caused by the belief that we should have more than what we earn, and have little faith that our needs will not be fulfilled through the work of our hands. Personally I have a lot of faith in Hashem due to the steady nature of my employment. My livelyhood, I believe, is given to me by Hashem and not due to the work I do for the company I work at. A theif believes that through taking what is someone elses that he is able to attain something good. But a thief does not deserve what he steals and the punishment is to pay back twice the value of what is stolen.

There are also Halachas which allow a Jew to kill a theif who comes to rob a house at night. A thief killed while trying to rob is not considered murder, the blood is on the thieves hands...


http://vbm-torah.org/archive/intparsha71/18-71mishpatim.htm

        Every system of law must grapple with the interaction and conflict between differing values. Among these tensions is the relationship between property rights and the sanctity of life. What measures can one take to protect property? Is a person permitted to kill in order to protect his belongings or must he stand helpless as others walk away with the fruits of his labor? In parashat Mishpatim, the Torah addresses this important question:

"If a thief be found breaking in, and he is beaten to death, he has no blood. If the sun has risen on him he has blood..."(22:1-2).

             These verses are composed of two instances with opposite conclusions. In the first verse the Torah determines "he has no blood" while the second verse states, "he has blood." How do we interpret these verses?  What is implied by the word blood, and furthermore, which person (the thief or the property owner) is the verse referring to when it says "he has no blood?"

            The majority of the commentators, the Rashbam (Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir, France, 1080-1160), Ibn Ezra (Rabbi Avraham ben Ezra, Spain, 1092-1167) and Ramban (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, Spain, 1194-1274), interpret these statements as referring to the HOUSEOWNER who kills the thief breaking into his house. In the first case, the owner of the house has no blood on his hands for having killed the thief; he is not guilty of spilling blood. In the second case the houseowner has blood on his hands, therefore he is guilty of having spilled the blood of the thief.
.
.
.
           What are the circumstances which determine whether or not the houseowner is permitted to kill the thief? Scripture states that if the thief is killed while breaking in then there is no bloodguilt. If the sun has risen on the thief and he is then smitten there is bloodguilt. What is the connection between the two situations? What does the Torah mean by "breaking in" and by the sun rising on the thief? Why should these be the criteria in determining the culpability of the house owner?

 

            Rashi, citing our sages (see Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 72a), explains the criteria for determining whether the house owner is guilty of murdering the thief:

 

"Here the Torah teaches you that if one comes to kill you, arise and kill him first. This thief came to kill you for he knew that no one restrains himself and watches others stealing his money and remains silent. Therefore with this intention did he come, that if the owner of the money would stand up against him, he would kill him."

 

In what case is it forbidden to kill the thief?

 

"If the sun has risen on him" - This is only metaphorically speaking, if it is clear to you that the thief is at peace with you just like the sun which is 'at peace' in the world, if it is plain to you that he does not come to kill even if the owner of the money will rise up against him; as in the case of a father that breaks in to steal the money of his son, it is known that the father has mercy upon his son and he does not come to take his life."

 

            Rashi explains that the Torah understands it to be human nature to fend off a thief stealing one's property. The Torah does not expect a man to stand idly and watch a thief steal his property. It is assumed that, through his natural instinct, the owner will confront the thief. Since the thief knows that the owner will confront him he comes willing to kill the owner. Therefore the thief is considered as one who comes to kill and as such it is permissible to kill him. The critical point is that the permission to kill the thief is not a consequence of his desire to steal but rather the Torah's evaluation that the thief has a willingness to kill. However, if circumstances are such that it is clear that the thief has no intention of harming the owner, it is absolutely forbidden to kill him. Theft of property does not justify killing. There are limits which the Torah imposes on the owner with regard to the means he can use in protecting his private property and belongings. Rashi interprets the clause: "If the sun has risen on him" in a metaphoric sense. The decisive factor in prohibiting the killing of the thief is not the time of the theft, (the time of the theft has no bearing on the law), but rather the intention of the thief. If it is certain that the thief will not harm the owner, as in the case of a father stealing from his son, then it is prohibited to harm the thief. The time of the theft has no bearing on the law. There is no difference between day and night. What matters is the evaluation of the intentions of the thief.
.
.
.

See also : http://www.dafyomi.co.il/pesachim/insites/ps-dt-002.htm

[Zelhar]

(I don't agree with everything he says, but this is okay)
 

I think this is a meshuga who thinks all gentiles must convert to judasim.

[Meerkat]

slavery like in the american south or in rome: under no circumstance.

servitude (with protection) in place of correctional facilities: maybe

yes, zelhar is right. asher meza is not only a meshuga, but also a traitor who says israel's existence is against the torah. he also legitimized the notion that jews are not from the middle east. atop of that, he wants to turn judaism into islam by trying to impose the religion on everybody else.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Like I said in my original post of the video- I don't agree with everything he says, but some of the points in this video are still valid. Lets present the opinions/ content and not care/be involved in the people saying it (that is if the information is accurate).  And about converting people I don't necessarily agree with him, but nevertheless conversion is (applied) stricter then it should be (in my opinion). - Just soo I wasn't misunderstood I mean that I believe that many today are imposing stricter then necessary rules for potential converts who come to convert. (Not that I'm sure about proselytizing and it being a good idea- besides the Noahide laws). Also fighting about those who already converted and if their conversions were valid (if done under proper Beit Din they are valid imo and some like the chief Rabbinite should not hold a monopoly on it).
 

[Rubystars]

People in prison already have to do labor and can't leave the prison any time they want so technically that is a form of slavery, it's just not a personal ownership just ownership by the state, or ownership by the federal government if they're in federal prison.

[muman613]

People in prison already have to do labor and can't leave the prison any time they want so technically that is a form of slavery, it's just not a personal ownership just ownership by the state, or ownership by the federal government if they're in federal prison.

In Judaism a master does not OWN a slave.... Hashem is the ONLY master of man..

http://www.vbm-torah.org/parsha.63/18mishpatim.htm
.
.
.
But the master-slave relationship was outside of the bounds of legal concepts: the master could not be punished for causing the death of his slave, nor for causing him any wound or blemish, since the slave was his property.

Even according to Plato (Laws 49, 856), the slave has no recourse for death or damage. The same situation prevailed in Rome, where some would punish a slave with a cruel death for unintentionally breaking a glass vessel. Even the Christian emperor Constantine protected in his legislation those masters who had beaten their slaves to death.

It is only against this background that we are able to appreciate the magnitude of the legal and philosophical revolution introduced by the laws of the Torah pertaining to the striking of a slave. Although the slave is his master's "property," this is true only in a contractual sense and in the sphere of work relations that prevail in a world where slavery is acceptable. But his independent human essence is retained. His life is not the property of the master, but rather of the One Who gives all life – and it is He Who demands his blood from the hands of those who spill it – whether this be the master or someone else.

The application of the laws of a murderer to one who kills a slave, INCLUDING THE SLAVE'S MASTER, undermines the basis of the entire perverted philosophy that justifies and obligates slavery. The declaration that the Divine image in man is equivalent in a slave and a master is the beginning of the demise of the institution of slavery.
.
.
.
Thus we learn that both of the laws of damages mentioned by the Torah, where the master is punished for harming his slave, represent overt opposition to the universal institution of slavery. The first law expresses opposition to the concept of ownership of the LIFE of the slave, and it raises the slave to the level of a person created in the Divine image, with One Who demands his blood. The second law expresses opposition to the concept of ownership of the BODY of the slave, and opposition also to the cruel methods employed in the ancient world to punish slaves or to mark them by means of permanent, visible maiming. Anyone attempting to maim his slave in this way, and thereby to establish his ownership of the slave's body, would achieve the opposite of his aim, "measure for measure" – his slave would go free, against the will of the master.

[Rubystars]

That's cool Muman

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

I am against Slavery as it was practiced in the South. That was inhumane bondage of a people akin to the enslavement of the Jews in Egypt.

Really.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

I don't have any desire to own another human being for whatever reason and I think it was a mistake for anyone to do that in the USA.

You are absolutely right but you also have to acknowledge that American black slaves were treated far better, and had vastly better lives, than they did in Africa.

[Rubystars]

You are absolutely right but you also have to acknowledge that American black slaves were treated far better, and had vastly better lives, than they did in Africa.

True because they were owned by black slave owners over there who were even more brutal than anything that happened here. At least in the USA many were exposed to the teachings of the Bible plus their descendants greatly benefited from them having been slaves. Even a relatively poor black person living in a ghetto in the USA is MUCH better off than the, vast, vast majority of blacks in Africa. I bet many of them would give anything if their ancestors could have been brought here too.