Catholic Perspective on Talmudic Slavery, Noahide Hypocrisy, and the Superior Justice of Catholic Teaching on Human Dignity (Code Blue)

 See Home Page

SevenColorsMinistry@gmail.com

 This article is "Code Blue": Theft

Catholic Perspective on Talmudic Slavery, Noahide Hypocrisy, and the Superior Justice of Catholic Teaching on Human Dignity

The Noahide movement, rooted in Jewish tradition, promotes the Seven Laws of Noah as a universal moral code for non-Jews, derived from Genesis 9:1–7. Among these laws is the prohibition against theft, understood to include stealing property or personal rights, such as freedom. However, the Talmud, a central text of Jewish law, endorses practices of Gentile slavery that inherently involve the theft of liberty, contradicting the Noahide principle against theft. Two Talmudic passages—Gittin 38b and Sotah 3b—explicitly support the perpetual enslavement of Gentiles and their offspring, while prohibiting similar treatment of Jews, revealing an unequal application of justice. From a Catholic perspective, these practices constitute a moral failing, as they violate the universal dignity of all persons created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26–27). This essay validates the Talmudic claims with further evidence, demonstrates how Talmudic slavery is a form of theft, exposes Noahide hypocrisy in upholding these practices while claiming adherence to the anti-theft law, critiques the unequal treatment of Gentile and Jewish slaves, and contrasts this with the Catholic teaching on slavery, which, while historically complex, ultimately affirms human dignity and freedom more justly.

---

Validation of Talmudic Claims on Gentile Slavery

The two Talmudic quotes provided articulate specific rules regarding Gentile slavery, which are supported by additional Talmudic and Jewish legal sources, confirming their authenticity and centrality in Jewish law.

1. Gittin 38b: Gentiles Should Not Be Freed Except for Payment
   • Quote: “Rabbah said: For these three offences men become impoverished: for emancipating their [heathen] slaves… The question was asked: [Does a slave who is thus liberated] require a deed of emancipation or not? … R. Hiyya b. Abin said in the name of Rab: Both the one and the other become free men, and they require deeds of emancipation… If a man sanctifies his property and some slaves are included in it, the treasurers [of the Sanctuary] are not allowed to emancipate them but they must sell them to others, and these others are allowed to emancipate them. Rabbi says: My view is that the slave can pay his own purchase price and liberate himself…” (1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 38b).
   • Validation: This passage reflects a broader Talmudic principle that Gentile slaves, unlike Jewish slaves, are not to be freed without compensation, as their servitude is considered perpetual unless legally altered. The Talmud elsewhere reinforces this, such as in Kiddushin 22b, which states that a Gentile slave (eved kena’ani) remains enslaved unless manumitted through payment or a formal deed, contrasting with Jewish slaves (eved ivri), who are freed after six years (Exodus 21:2). Yevamot 48b further clarifies that Gentile slaves, once acquired, are permanent property unless explicitly emancipated, aligning with Leviticus 25:46 (“You may keep them as a possession for your children after you”). The disapproval of emancipation in Gittin 38b, linked to divine punishment (impoverishment), underscores the cultural and religious value placed on maintaining Gentile slavery, viewing freedom as a financial loss rather than a moral good.
2. Sotah 3b: Children of Gentiles May Be Purchased as Permanent Slaves, But Not Jews
   • Quote: “‘Of them shall ye take your bondmen for ever’, in order to indicate that if a man belonging to any other Gentile people has intercourse with a Canaanite woman and begets a son by her, it is permissible to purchase him as a slave… It is possible to think that also if a Canaanite had intercourse with a woman belonging to any other Gentile people and he begets a son by her, it is permissible to purchase him as a slave; therefore there is a text to declare, Which they have begotten in your land — from those born in your land and not from those who dwell in your land… ‘Of them’ [he may purchase] but not of your brethren…” (1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 3b).
   • Validation: This passage interprets Leviticus 25:44–46, which permits buying slaves from surrounding nations and their offspring “for ever,” explicitly distinguishing Gentile slaves from Jewish brethren, who are protected from permanent enslavement (Leviticus 25:39–42). Bava Metzia 71b supports this by stating that Gentile slaves’ children inherit their servile status, ensuring generational slavery, while Kiddushin 68b clarifies that only children born of Gentile mothers in the land of Israel are enslavable, refining the rule but affirming its permanence. Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah (Hilchot Avadim 1:1–3) codifies this, allowing the purchase of Gentile slaves and their offspring as perpetual property, while prohibiting the enslavement of Jews beyond temporary indenture. The Talmud’s emphasis on “not of your brethren” underscores the ethnic distinction, prioritizing Jewish freedom over Gentile liberty.

---

Talmudic Slavery as Theft and Noahide Hypocrisy

The institution of slavery in the Talmud, particularly as applied to Gentiles, constitutes a form of theft by depriving individuals of their God-given freedom, violating the Noahide law against theft. The Noahide prohibition against theft, derived from Genesis 9:6 and elaborated in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 56a), includes stealing property, money, or personal rights, such as liberty. By endorsing the perpetual enslavement of Gentiles and their children, the Talmudic system inherently steals their freedom, contradicting the ethical standard it claims to uphold.

• Theft of Freedom: Slavery, by definition, strips individuals of autonomy, reducing them to property. Gittin 38b’s discouragement of emancipation—equating it with a sin punishable by poverty—prioritizes economic gain over human dignity, effectively sanctioning the theft of liberty. Sotah 3b’s allowance for purchasing Gentile children as permanent slaves further institutionalizes this theft, denying entire generations their inherent freedom. These practices violate the principle of Genesis 1:26–27, which affirms all humans as created in God’s image, entitled to dignity and freedom.
• Noahide Hypocrisy: Noahides claim to uphold the Seven Laws, including the prohibition against theft, as a universal ethic for Gentiles (Sanhedrin 56a–b). However, their acceptance of Talmudic slavery, which steals Gentile liberty, exposes a contradiction. Maimonides (Hilchot Melachim 9:1) includes theft of freedom in the Noahide laws, yet Hilchot Avadim permits Gentile slavery, revealing a double standard. Noahides’ defense of these laws as divinely ordained (Leviticus 25:44–46) ignores the moral inconsistency, as they apply the anti-theft principle selectively, exempting Gentile slaves while condemning other forms of theft.
• Unequal Treatment of Gentile and Jewish Slaves: The Talmud starkly differentiates between Gentile and Jewish slaves, exacerbating the injustice. Kiddushin 22b and Bava Kamma 87a outline that Jewish slaves serve temporarily (six years, Exodus 21:2) and are treated as “brethren” (Leviticus 25:39–40), with rights to humane treatment and automatic release at the Jubilee (Leviticus 25:10). Gentile slaves, however, are permanent property (Yevamot 48b), subject to harsher treatment, and lack Jubilee release (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avadim 1:6). Sotah 3b explicitly prohibits enslaving Jewish children permanently, while allowing it for Gentile offspring, reinforcing ethnic privilege. This disparity violates the universal justice implied in the Noahide laws, as it denies Gentiles the dignity afforded to Jews, effectively endorsing theft of liberty based on ethnicity.

---

Catholic Perspective on Slavery: A More Just Approach

The Catholic perspective on slavery, while historically complex, ultimately affirms human dignity and freedom more consistently than Talmudic and Noahide teachings, aligning with the Gospel’s call to love and justice. The Church’s evolving stance, grounded in scripture and tradition, contrasts sharply with the Talmud’s acceptance of perpetual Gentile slavery.

• Historical Context and Evolution: In antiquity, the Church operated in societies where slavery was normative, and early teachings permitted it under strict conditions (e.g., Ephesians 6:5–9, urging masters to treat slaves justly). However, the Church emphasized the spiritual equality of all (Galatians 3:28) and encouraged manumission as a Christian virtue (1 Corinthians 7:21–23). Over time, the Church condemned unjust enslavement, particularly chattel slavery. Pope Gregory I (590–604) freed slaves as an act of charity (Letters, 6.12), and medieval canon law restricted slavery to just titles (e.g., captives of war). By the 19th century, Popes Gregory XVI (In Supremo Apostolatus, 1839) and Leo XIII (In Plurimis, 1888) condemned the slave trade and chattel slavery as contrary to human dignity, reflecting a deepening understanding of Genesis 1:26–27.
• Modern Teaching: The Church’s current teaching, articulated in Gaudium et Spes (27) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2414), condemns slavery as a sin against human dignity, which “violates the fundamental rights of the human person.” The Second Vatican Council declared that “whatever insults human dignity, such as… slavery… is an infamy” (Gaudium et Spes, 27). Pope John Paul II (Veritatis Splendor, 80) reiterated that slavery steals the freedom inherent to God’s image, aligning with the Gospel’s call to love one’s neighbor (Matthew 22:39). The Church advocates for universal human rights, rooted in Christ’s redemption of all (Colossians 1:13–14).
• Contrast with Talmudic Law: Unlike the Talmud’s endorsement of perpetual Gentile slavery (Gittin 38b; Sotah 3b), Catholic teaching rejects lifelong enslavement without just cause and emphasizes freedom as a divine gift (John 8:36). While historical Catholic practices permitted slavery in limited contexts, the Church’s trajectory toward abolition contrasts with the Talmud’s static approval of Gentile servitude. The Talmud’s ethnic distinction—protecting Jewish slaves while enslaving Gentiles—violates the universal justice upheld by Catholicism, which sees all as equal in Christ (Romans 10:12). The Church’s condemnation of stealing liberty (CCC 2414) applies universally, avoiding the Talmud’s selective application.

---

Noahide Hypocrisy and Catholic Justice

The Noahide movement’s hypocrisy lies in its claim to uphold the anti-theft law while endorsing Talmudic slavery, which steals Gentile freedom. Sanhedrin 56a defines theft broadly, including kidnapping or depriving someone of liberty, yet Gittin 38b and Sotah 3b sanction the perpetual enslavement of Gentiles and their children, directly contradicting this principle. Noahides’ reliance on Leviticus 25:44–46 to justify slavery ignores the moral evolution reflected in the New Covenant, which fulfills and transcends the Old Law (Matthew 5:17; Hebrews 8:13). Their selective application—condemning theft in other contexts but excusing slavery—exposes a moral inconsistency, as they deny Gentiles the liberty guaranteed to Jews (Kiddushin 22b).

Catholic teaching, by contrast, offers a more just framework. The Church’s recognition of human dignity, rooted in Genesis 1:26–27 and fulfilled in Christ’s universal redemption (1 Timothy 2:4), rejects the theft of freedom inherent in slavery. While historical Catholic practices were imperfect, the Church’s magisterial teachings—culminating in Gaudium et Spes and papal encyclicals—condemn slavery unequivocally, aligning with the Gospel’s call to justice (Micah 6:8). The Talmud’s ethnic bias, allowing harsher treatment of Gentile slaves (Yevamot 48b), contrasts with Catholicism’s universal ethic, which demands equal dignity for all (CCC 1934–1935). The Noahide failure to apply the anti-theft law to Gentile slaves undermines their moral credibility, while Catholicism’s consistent rejection of unjust servitude upholds true justice.

---

Conclusion

The Talmudic passages in Gittin 38b and Sotah 3b, supported by texts like Kiddushin 22b and Yevamot 48b, validate the claims that Gentile slaves should not be freed except for payment and that their children may be purchased as permanent slaves, while Jews are protected from such treatment. These practices constitute theft of liberty, violating the Noahide law against theft (Sanhedrin 56a), and reveal hypocrisy in the Noahide movement, which endorses Talmudic slavery while claiming universal ethics. The unequal treatment of Gentile and Jewish slaves—perpetual servitude for Gentiles versus temporary indenture for Jews—further undermines the Noahide claim to justice, rooted in ethnic privilege rather than universal dignity. From a Catholic perspective, the Church’s teaching, evolving from historical tolerance to outright condemnation of slavery (Gaudium et Spes 27; CCC 2414), aligns with the Gospel’s call to love and freedom (John 8:36), offering a more just framework than Talmudic law. By rejecting the theft of liberty and affirming all humans as created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26–27), Catholicism surpasses the moral inconsistencies of Noahidism, inviting adherents to embrace the universal justice of Christ, who liberates all from bondage (Galatians 5:1).

IN THE TALMUD

GENTILES SHOULD NO BE FREE, EXCEPT FOR PAYMENT

“Rabbah said: For these three offences men become impoverished: for emancipating their [heathen] slaves, for inspecting their property on Sabbath, and for taking their main Sabbath meal at the hour when the discourse is given in_the Beth Hamidrash. For so R. Hiyya b. Abba related in the name of R. Johanan, that there were two families in Jerusalem, one of which used to take its main meal on Sabbath [at the hour of the discourse] and the other on the eve of Sabbath_[4]  and both of them became extinct.”_“The question was asked: [Does a slave who is thus liberated] require a deed of emancipation or not? — Come and hear: R. Hiyya b. Abin said in the name of Rab; Both the one and the other become free men, and they require deeds of emancipation. Rabbah said: I raise an objection against my own statement[8] from the following: ‘If a man sanctifies his property and some slaves are included in it, the treasurers [of the Sanctuary] are not allowed to emancipate them_[9]  but they must sell them to others,_[10]  and these others are allowed to emancipate them. Rabbi says: My view is that the slave can pay his own purchase price[11] and liberate hiniself_[12] because the treasurer in that case as it were sells him to himself’? — Do you seek to confute Rab from the Mishnah? Rab is himself [considered] a Tanna and is allowed to differ.” - 1962  Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 38b

FOOTNOTES:

4. [Lit., 'money.' Lev. XXV, 47. from which we learn that a heathen may acquire an

Israelite as slave, speaks expressly of 'purchase money', v. verse 51.]

5. This word seems here to have the double meaning of ‘presumptive title’ (supposing that the original owner has given up hopes of recovering him), and

‘act of possession,’ e.g., making the slave serve him. The question thus remains.

— Was the brigand the rightful owner?

6. Israel were forbidden to occupy the territory of Ammon and Moab (Deut. I , 9,

19). Sihon had taken some of the land of Moab (Num. XXI, 26), and this the Israelites were permitted to conquer from him and occupy. (Cf. Jud. XI, 15 ff.). This shows that a heathen can acquire ownership by act of possession.

7. Num. XXI, 1. The lesson is derived from the fact that the Israelites taken by the king of Arad are called ‘captives’.

8. V. B.B. 173a.

9.  V. infra 74a and notes.

10. V. Sanh. 31a.

11. That in any case the slave returns to slavery.

12. That even if we ransomed her for freedom, she must again become a slave.

CHILDREN BORN OF GENTILES MAY BE PURCHASED  AS PERMANENT SLAVES, 

BUT THIS SHOULD NOT BE DONE TO JEWS

“‘Of them shall ye take your bondmen for ever’, in order to indicate that if a man belonging to any other Gentile people has intercourse with a Canaanite woman [4] and begets a son by her, it is permissible to purchase him as a slave. For it has been taught: Whence is it that if a man belonging to any other Gentile people has intercourse with a Canaanite woman and begets a son by her, it is permissible to purchase him as a slave? There is a text to declare, Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy_[5]  It is possible to think that also if a Canaanite had intercourse with a woman belonging to any other Gentile people and he begets a son by her, it is permissible to purchase him as a slave; therefore there is a text to declare, Which they have begotten in your land[6]  — from those born in your land[7]  and not from those who dwell in your land_[8] And [from where does] R. Akiba [learn this rule]? — He derives it from, ‘Of them shall ye buy’; what then is the purpose of, ‘Of them ye shall take your bondmen for ever’? [It indicates that] it is_obligatory. And [how does] R. Ishmael [explain the addition of these words]? _‘Of them’ [he may purchase] but not of your brethren. [From where does] R. Akiba [derive this rule]? — It is deduced from the mention of ‘your brethren’ at the end of the verse: But over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigour.[9] – 1962  Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 3b

FOOTNOTES:

4: The woman belonged to the seven nations which had to be exterminated.

5: Lev. XXV, 45.

6: Ibid. I.e., the original natives of Canaan.

7: [Whose father belongs to another land.]

8: [I.e., the original natives of Canaan]. It is to be noted that descent is traced through the father, whereas in the case of a Jew descent is traced through the mother.

9: Lev. XXV, 46.