Question regarding a run away slave.

I'm currently doing a study for a class and reading what has to be the shortest book in the Bible. I'm asking the question, how big of a deal is this in regards to a run-a-way slave?

From the letter, Onesimus runs away, taking some of his master's money, and eventually arrives in Rome, where he meets Paul, and becomes a Christian. Paul sends him back to his master.... meanwhile it seems as though the punishment for such an action is pretty steep. So the question I have, how much of a favor is Paul asking according to Jewish law?

Philemon 1
New International Version (NIV)
1 Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother,

To Philemon our dear friend and fellow worker — 2 also to Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier —and to the church that meets in your home:

3 Grace and peace to you[a] from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

4 I always thank my God as I remember you in my prayers, 5 because I hear about your love for all his holy people and your faith in the Lord Jesus. 6 I pray that your partnership with us in the faith may be effective in deepening your understanding of every good thing we share for the sake of Christ. 7 Your love has given me great joy and encouragement, because you, brother, have refreshed the hearts of the Lord’s people.

8 Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9 yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love. It is as none other than Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus— 10 that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus,[b] who became my son while I was in chains. 11 Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me.

12 I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. 15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.

17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18 If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. 19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self. 20 I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. 21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.

22 And one thing more: Prepare a guest room for me, because I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers.

23 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends you greetings. 24 And so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, my fellow workers.

25 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.

I did a bit of research for you and found something in Gittin, page 45 that seems connected.

The implication seems to be there that, in a case such as the one you presented, the slave should be returned to his master.

In Jewish law, punitive measures are usually given as the bare minimum to rectify a situation. Thus if anything was stolen the exact value is to be returned and nothing more. If something is damaged the exact value of the damages and any additional losses are to be compensated. In this case, it seems pretty clear that the punishment for a slave running away is that the slave is to be returned to his master and nothing more. If Paul resisted and the case came before a judge, the judge would simply rule that the slave be returned. He may also rule that compensation should be made for the time that the slave was away - I'm not sure on that point.

Paul might have, instead of returning the slave, offered to purchase and emancipate him - though the offer would not necessarily be accepted.

Note that this is what I am understanding from the Gemara text. Feel free to read it yourself. If you'd like more clarification I can try to find some halachic rulings for you that are a bit more clear.

im not sure about how much of a favor is Paul requesting, but what i know from some Jewish friends is that when they borrow money among them, they will give back as much as they were given -no interest.
but if they borrow money to a non-Jewish person, they will "charge" some interest, like the bank would. but this is no very correctly said. say a Jew gave $100 last week, and you give it back this week, they will calculate its value -how many thinkg you could buy last week with that money, and how many can you buy this week. usually chances are you can bu less items this week, and you have to give to the Jewish lender as much money as it needs to buy the same amount of items.

so i think the favor Paul asked for was rather high. but considering the other guy owed Paul some other favor, in the end i think it got balanced out, and it wasn't so much after all. - need to keep in mind that Paul and the slave weren't Jews...

i think this is so complicated, i got dizzy explaining XD

[RabbiO]

Originally Posted by NekoTheCat

need to keep in mind that Paul and the slave weren't Jews...

Paul considered himself to be a Jew.

B'shalom,

Peter

[RabbiO]

Originally Posted by Yamah

I did a bit of research for you and found something in Gittin, page 45 that seems connected......

This is one of those instances where Talmud and Torah may be at odds - or not, even as the tractate cites to the Torah verse:

לא תסגיר עבד אל אדניו אשר ינצל אליך מעם אדניו
which simply stated says that an eved who runs away is not to be returned to his master. The question becomes whether, among other things, the context of the verse is an indicia that the meaning is not quite as plain as it seems. As one more example of this, the word eved, although it does mean slave can also mean a servant or a bondsperson.

B'shalom,

Peter

As a bondsperson, under Hebrew or Roman law, Onesimus is considered Philemon's personal property? What was the possible punishment for Onesimus' actions, I take it he had no rights as a Roman, and under Mosiac laws had fair treatment rights?

Philemon appears to be the injured party here and in this letter, Paul, who is currently facing imprisonment, physical punishment and even death, well, my question is, are these consequences possibly awaiting Onesimus from his master? Could someone elaborate more?

RabbiO: I haven't learned this sugia in depth, but when there seems to be an argument between the Chumash and the Gemara it should be assumed that we don't properly understand the Chumash.

If you're interested there's a brief online lecture available through dafyomi.org which goes through the page.

Paul didn't only consider himself a Jew, he was a Jew, along with most of Yeshka's original disciples.

TeeHee: It depends on the type of slave that Onesimus was, but essentially yes - he was Philemon's property. I don't know anything about Roman law but in Jewish law there are lots of rights and responsibilities outlined for both master and slave to ensure that the slave has a decent quality of life, even at expense to the master's. For example, if there's only one pillow and blanket in the house then the master is obligated to give them to the slave.

Are you asking if the slave is facing the death penalty? That would be rediculous. The slave certainly doesn't get death and most likely wouldn't even get lashes. It is my understanding from the brief investigations I made that nothing happens to the slave - he gets returned to the service of his master and that is all. Nothing should happen to Paul either because returning a slave is a positive commandment, invoking merit for completion but not punishment for ignoring. Again, if Paul refused to return the slave then the punishment would be that he is obligated to return the slave. That's how this situation is remedied and thus that is all that is required.

I'll try to look into the situation a bit more and double check whether or not the slave gets lashes. I very strongly feel this is a no. Certainly he is not waiting for the death penalty.

Right, as I understand this, Paul has instructed Onesimus to return to his position of servitude, but he is asking a favor of Philemon to accept him back not as a slave but a brother in Christ. From my understanding there were different forms of slavery that entailed one to enter into through voluntary means, debt slavery to criminal, to class of citizen.

I'm under guidance right now, in a class, trying to find a little background and cultural understanding, believe it or not, I thought that asking someone who is actively studying with a Jewish background would be a great person to talk to, I would think that history and culture is something preserved as opposed to other resources such as the web, where people seldom give away their resources. This makes me trust little without credentials in regards to just something I stumble upon on a website.

Anyhoot, as I understand it, Romans would not identify themselves as a bondservant, as it was unthinkable to a Roman citizen that prided themselves in their freedom. But even that little piece of info cannot be verified without some credible resources, and this is beginning to drive me crazy. I'm now looking to buy some books that are rich and full of history and background of the said times in which Scripture took place.

You answered the question Yamah, unless there is more to elaborate.

Christians are encouraged to be bondservants to Jesus Christ, His "burden is light." I was just curious, how much of a burden Philemon imposed on the life of Onesimus, and how much trouble Onesimus got himself into. Why did he runaway? That's what I was intrigued about.

Much thanks for your participation!