The Egyptians oppressed us with a harsh form of labor called "avodas parech." We are prohibited from oppressing Jewish debt-slaves with such labor, but NOT non-Jewish slaves. Why not?
Really important topic, yashar koach for taking it up.
A small point, I don't think that Eved Ivri should be translated as a debt slave since a Jew cannot be sold to pay a debt (and may not use the money from selling himself to pay debts), in the case of a ganav who can't pay, he is sold by the court as a punishment not merely because he has a debt .
Good point! I borrowed the term from the Koren Tanakh of the Land of Israel, but didn't really think about it. I'll change it when I stitch together the complete article.
Possible answer that came to my mind based on how the pesukim present the prohibition (the first group you quoted):
The guidelines of how to treat a Jewish slave seems to tied to a unique quality of a Jew: his ancestors were slaves in Mitzrayim.
If the ta’am of the mitzvah is not about cruelty but rather to avoid a reenactment of the slavery in Mitzrayim, then it makes sense - the issue isn’t a Jew inflicting עבודת פרך, but a Jew experiencing עבודת פרך. In other words, although the Torah obviously objects to the cruelty of עבודת פרך, this mitzvah is not about that; rather the mitzvah is designed to preclude the possibility of a Jew re-experiencing the slavery of Mitzrayim.
The halacha from the Rambam supports this: even if a Jew isn’t inflicting it, we are obligated to prevent a Jew from reliving the slavery of Miztrayim.
Ooh, I like this approach! It doesn't fit squarely into the three approaches I've outlined. I'll definitely consider incorporating it into the article. Thanks!
Really important topic, yashar koach for taking it up.
A small point, I don't think that Eved Ivri should be translated as a debt slave since a Jew cannot be sold to pay a debt (and may not use the money from selling himself to pay debts), in the case of a ganav who can't pay, he is sold by the court as a punishment not merely because he has a debt .
Good point! I borrowed the term from the Koren Tanakh of the Land of Israel, but didn't really think about it. I'll change it when I stitch together the complete article.
Possible answer that came to my mind based on how the pesukim present the prohibition (the first group you quoted):
The guidelines of how to treat a Jewish slave seems to tied to a unique quality of a Jew: his ancestors were slaves in Mitzrayim.
If the ta’am of the mitzvah is not about cruelty but rather to avoid a reenactment of the slavery in Mitzrayim, then it makes sense - the issue isn’t a Jew inflicting עבודת פרך, but a Jew experiencing עבודת פרך. In other words, although the Torah obviously objects to the cruelty of עבודת פרך, this mitzvah is not about that; rather the mitzvah is designed to preclude the possibility of a Jew re-experiencing the slavery of Mitzrayim.
The halacha from the Rambam supports this: even if a Jew isn’t inflicting it, we are obligated to prevent a Jew from reliving the slavery of Miztrayim.
Ooh, I like this approach! It doesn't fit squarely into the three approaches I've outlined. I'll definitely consider incorporating it into the article. Thanks!