[Avodah] She-lo Asani Isha

[Chana Luntz]

I wrote:
> >"But I can see no way that the level of obligation in commandments of a
> >woman can be said to be greater than that of a (male) eved... "

And RAF replied

> I don't understand your problem. An Eved is worse than an Isha because
> it lacks the Kedushat Yisrael of a Jew!! 

No.  An Eved Ca'nani goes through the same conversion process as a ger,
except that he toyvels l'shem avdus. As a consequence he becomes chayav in
(at least) the mitzvos of a woman, although he remains exempt from mitzvos
aseh shehazman grama.  He is therefore forbidden to marry a non Jew, and if
his master chooses to free him (by means of a get shichror, not any
conversion mechanism, nor does he have any say in it) he then becomes chayav
in all the mitzvos of a free born Jew.  Nor is his master permitted to sell
him to a non Jew, because there he might have problems keeping the mitzvos
he is obligated to keep.

 An eved is forbidden to marry
> a Jewess for this reason

It is true, an eved is forbidden to marry a Jewish woman, other than a
shifcha (ie a woman who has also toyvelled leshem avdus or is the child of
someone who has), but an amoni and moavi (not to mention a mamzer) are also
forbidden to marry a regular Jewish woman, and it does not impact on
kedushas yisrael.  Note by the way that a regular Jew, who sells himself as
an eved ivri, is also permitted to marry a shifcha during the period of his
avdus (does his kedushas yisrael diminish?).  Once an eved is freed, then he
is permitted to marry a regular Jewess.  You seem to be assuming that the
kidushas yisrael is chal by means of the get shichror, but I don't think
that can possibly be understood to be the case anymore than a get isha
creates a greater level of kedusha because she is then free to marry any
man.  The kedushas yisrael is chal by means of the tevilla, as it always is,
just that the tevila comes with certain special restrictions, which include
marriage limitations, and even more critically, mitzvah obligation
limitations, for so long as his master does not free him.

This is why the case of the eved is so interesting.

An eved clearly (in terms of social status and the way you can treat him -
you can work him b'farech, for example) falls below that of a woman.
However, if you look at the matter purely in terms of obligations vis a vis
mitzvos, and do it by way of mitzvah count, then a male eved would seem to
rank at least equally and probably above a woman albeit below a free man.  

Now the Yerushalmi and the Tosephta, when they deal with the three brochos,
just don't touch on the question at all, because they do not bring a brocha
vis a vis an eved, their third brocha is vis a vis a bor - for the reasons
they give (a bor has no fear of sin).

And it is clear even from our Talmud that indeed this was the matbeiah that
the Tanaim were saying.  It is only that the amoraim in Bavel felt
uncomfortable/unable to say shelo asani bor.  But it is also clear that it
is important to retain three brochos - as can be seen not only from the
discussion but from the surrounding context there in Menachos, which is all
about the need to say 100 brochos a day.  Just dropping one is not ideal as
it creates an additional obligation to find another brocha in the day.

So shelo asani eved was proposed.  However, that creates a problem if the
rationale for saying shelo asani isha is, as the Yerushalmi and Tosephta say
it is, the number of mitzvos performed.  According to one view they are then
exactly the same, and you have a duplicate bracha, so how can you use shelo
asani eved to make up the three (ie in the language of the Maharsha if you
are blessing because of the greater opportunity you have to perform mitzvos,
there is no need to say both eved and isha, as the same level of opportunity
to be righteous applies to both)?  There are two answers to this - the first
is that actually these brachos can be understood to be all about shibud, in
which case the shibud of an eved is greater than that of an isha (or in
other words, an eved is worth less than an isha). Thus a man can bless shelo
asani eved, I didn't get the greater  burden of shibud, and then go on to
bless shelo asani isha. The second is that indeed an eved has more mitzvos
and therefore can be added, although then the order ought to be, goy, isha,
eved - because a man can bless, I have the greater opportunity to perform
more mitzvos than a woman, and even than a slave, but the reverse is
difficult.  That however is fine in the gemora in Menachos, that indeed
lists them in this order, ie goy, isha, bor or eved.  Indeed, to understand
the *gemora* using the first reason one has to assume that Rav Acha bar
Ya'akov was also telling his son to reverse the order and put eved before
isha.  That is the problem with Rashi's first reason.

Now given the order in our siddurim, I think that we posken fundamentally
like the first reason (which is also the first reason in Rashi) and not the
second reason.  Which is why bringing the second reason, despite its
history, seems to me to be apologetics (ie you are bringing a hava mina of
our gemora, based on a Yerushalmi and Tosephta, and not what seems to be the
maskana, because it is more palatable).  You can, of course, also argue for
the position of the Taz (which is clearly what the Italian siddurim that
have shelo asani ish did, it is the only way to get to shelo asani ish) and
just about get a reading of the gemora in Menachos of zil tfei, but that
tends not to be where the effort is expended.

>         Aryeh (from home)

Regards

Chana