272 S h a l o m Carmy
Despite the adherence of the classical medieval authors to this principle,
they never explicitly justifi ed their dual allegiance. Th e explanations of-
fered by moderns have generally followed ideological preferences. Th eo-
logical liberals usually credit the medievals as having anticipated some of
their own modern critical positions and dismiss their predecessors’ protes-
tations of fealty to tradition as lip service. Orthodox scholars committed to
their own constructive project of Bible study, despite their awareness of the
meager historical record, annex their medieval predecessors’ achievement
to their own practice.4
Let us illustrate with a well-known example cited by Breuer. Th e laws of
Jewish servitude (eved ivri) are expounded in three separate portions of the
Torah: Exodus 21:2 – 6, Leviticus 25:39 – 55, and Deuteronomy 15:12 – 18. Th e
legislation of Exodus and Deuteronomy includes the eventuality that the
slave refuses to go free when his term of servitude is up, prescribing that
his master bore his ear through with an awl and subjugate him in perpetu-
ity (l ’olam). According to Leviticus, however, all slavery is terminated by
the Jubilee year. In the Talmud (Kiddushin 21b), the Rabbis explain that the
word l ’olam, in this connection, means “for an extended term,” not “for-
ever.” Even the recalcitrant slave eventually is given his freedom. L’o l a m in
Exodus and Deuteronomy thus does not confl ict with Leviticus’s Jubilee-
based universal manumission. Th us, the three texts, regarding this detail
and others, can be amalgamated to form a consistent halakhic code.
Th e 12th-century French Talmudist and exegete Rashbam (R. Samuel
ben Meir) insisted that the peshat meaning of l ’olam is “forever.” If he is
right — and champions of the internal consistency of the Written Torah and
the absolutely authoritative interpretations of the Oral Torah5 maintain
that the word l ’olam means exactly what the Rabbis say it means — then we
have two authoritative but contradictory interpretations of the word. Th e
rabbinic explication of l ’olam, according to Rashbam, is derash. It cannot
be treated as the plain meaning of the verses in Exodus and Deuteronomy.
Following Rashbam, Breuer holds that Leviticus cannot be harmonized,
at a peshat level, with Exodus and Deuteronomy. Each legal section artic-
ulates a diff erent aspect of the Torah’s teaching on Jewish servitude. Th e
major theme of Leviticus 25 is that the children of Israel can never become
genuine slaves: “they are My slaves, whom I took out of the land of Egypt”
(Leviticus 25:55). In Deuteronomy, by contrast, the master is reminded,
“You were a slave in the land of Egypt and God redeemed you” (15:15). Th is
principle is elaborated throughout Deuteronomy’s legislation: for example,
in the law that obligates the master to provide the departing slave with