Responsum: On Sexual Relations with Slaves

Question: Men from [various] places have increasingly been purchasing maidservants of beautiful appearance, and they claim that they are purchasing them for slavery, but they are suspected of purchasing them for “another purpose.” Is it appropriate to leave them alone together, despite the suspicion?

And if one says regarding his maidservant, “I have already emancipated her, and she is my concubine,” do we heed him? Or must we investigate the matter until he produces a deed of emancipation for her and adduces proof that he betrothed her?

And if the court must become involved in the matter and investigate it, should each individual be treated according to his trustworthiness, so that one who is [already] under suspicion remains under suspicion and one who is trustworthy remains trusted? Let our Master explain to us!

Answer: This is how we view it. Seclusion with women of beautiful appearance is forbidden except in the circumstances that have been mentioned. We have this principle in the Mishnah:

One man may not be alone with two women, but one woman may be alone with two men. A man may be alone with his mother and his daughter and may sleep in proximity to them. Once they have grown to adulthood, each sleeps in his or her clothes. [m. Kiddushin 4:12]

It is stated in the Talmud regarding one woman secluding herself with two men:

R. Judah said in the name of Rav: This only applies to individuals of good repute, but regarding those of loose morals, she may not seclude herself even with one hundred men. There was a case where ten men brought her out in a bier. [b. Kiddushin 80b]

Just as it is forbidden to seclude oneself with those within the prohibited degrees of relationship, so, too, is it forbidden to seclude oneself with an unmarried woman, as they stated when they mentioned the episode of Amnon and Tamar [see 2 Samuel 13]:

R. Judah said in the name of Rav: At that time, they made a decree prohibiting men from secluding themselves with unmarried women. [b. Sanhedrin 21a–21b]

As for a maidservant, when her master’s heart desires her, the presumption is that she listens to whatever he says; how much more so ought he to be wary of secluding himself with her!

But as regards your inquiry as to whether the court must investigate the matter or whether each individual may be treated according to his trustworthiness so that one who is under suspicion remains under suspicion and one who is trustworthy remains trusted, we found that [for] our ancestors, in such matters when the public was murmuring against an individual, saying negative things, and he was suspected of sin, the court would speak [to him] and warn [him].

We further found:

Rav said: Lashes are administered [to a man] for secluding himself with a woman, but we do not render her forbidden [to marry others] on account of [their] seclusion. R. Ashi said: Rav’s reasoning is logical when applied to an unmarried woman, but not to a married woman, for if you say this, you slander her children as bastards. Mar Zutra would administer lashes and issue a proclamation. [b. Kiddushin 81a]

They further stated:

There was a certain maidservant in Pumbedita with whom men committed prohibited acts. Abaye said: Were it not for the fact that R. Judah stated that one who emancipates his slave transgresses a positive commandment,1 we would force her master to emancipate her. [b. Gittin 38a]

Concerning what we mentioned, [namely,] that the court investigated such cases and rendered lashes to [the offender], we have seen that our ancestors did things like this; they saw fit to issue enactments, in order to erect a fence and to make a guard [around the law]. We do not find that they investigated an individual—who was presumably of righteous morality—when the public did not murmur about his conduct. We have adopted their practices.

However, regarding [ . . . ] a person who is known to be the owner of a maidservant and says, “I have emancipated her and she is my concubine!”—whether we heed him or we should compel him to produce a deed of emancipation for her and to adduce proof that he betrothed her—in principle, one ought to heed him, as they said: [When] one says, “I have made this person, my slave, a free man” but [the slave] says, “He has not!” we take into consideration that he might have emancipated him through a third party [see b. Gittin 40b].They further stated:

R. Zera said in the name of R. Assi in the name of R. Eleazar in the name of R. Ḥaninah: A slave who marries a woman in the presence of his master goes free. [b. Gittin 39b–40a]

In other words, if his master married him to a [Jewish] woman, like a free man, although we know that he can only be freed by a deed of emancipation, we look upon him as if a deed of emancipation had indeed been written for him. We believe his master that he freed him appropriately, and we say, “Had he not emancipated him, he would not have married him to a Jewish woman, as it is forbidden for her to marry a slave.”

All the more so if her master married her [himself]! If he wrote a deed of betrothal for her, saying, “Go and be betrothed with this,” she is like an emancipated maidservant, just as a male servant when his master married him to a woman.

If the master is learned, this is sufficient for us, since he knows [the law], and if he is an ignoramus or the like, we inform him of the conditions required for the emancipation of a maidservant and her ritual immersion, so that he may be permitted to marry her. If he says, “I have done so,” we need not compel him to adduce proof, as we require the maidservant to do when she claims she has been emancipated, but her master disagrees. There is support for our words in what our rabbis, of blessed memory, said: No man makes his sexual acts into acts of harlotry [b. Yevamot 107a].

Translated by David E. Cohen.

Notes

[Because it is stated: “Of them may you take your bondmen forever” (Leviticus 25:46).—Ed.]

Published in: The Posen Library of Jewish Culture and Civilization, vol. 3: Encountering Christianity and Islam.

Engage with this Source

This responsum concerns the impropriety of physical relationships between a Jewish man and his “maidservant,” a Hebrew term for an enslaved (non-Jewish) woman. These types of relationships were permitted in Islam. The responsum was likely written in Judeo-Arabic, though only a medieval Hebrew translation survives.

Read more

You may also like