Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the verse prohibiting theft found in the Ten Commandments (Shemos 20:13). Ironically, from the Talmudic Midrashic perspective, “Thou shalt not steal” refers to kidnapping, due to its context. This commandment follows the prohibitions against murder and adultery; by analogy, just as those are capital crimes, so too must this form of theft refer to a capital crime—namely, kidnapping, not ordinary theft.

A Jewish thief who cannot repay what he stole may be ordered by the Jewish court to be sold into indentured servitude. A Jew who is impoverished and has no other option may also sell himself. Should he wish to continue his service beyond his term, he must undergo a ritual of having his ear cartilage pierced. Rashi (Shemos 21:6, quoting Mekhilta and Kiddushin 22b) reflects on the meaning of this ritual:

What is the reason that the ear had to be pierced rather than any other limb of the servant’s body? Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai said: That ear which heard on Mount Sinai, (Shemos 20:13) “Thou shalt not steal,” and yet its owner went and stole and was therefore sold as a slave—let it be pierced! Or, in the case of one who sold himself from destitution, having committed no theft, the reason is: That ear which heard on Mount Sinai what I said, (Vayikra 25:55) “For unto Me the children of Yisroel are servants,” and yet its owner went and procured for himself another master—let it be pierced! (Mekhilta; Kiddushin 22b).

When it states, “That ear which heard on Mount Sinai,” presumably it refers to the commandment “Thou shalt not steal.” Based on our Gemara’s conclusion, Mizrachi asks: At Mount Sinai, the commandment was against kidnapping, not theft—so what does this teaching mean by “That ear which heard on Mount Sinai”? It should rather say, “That ear which heard in the Torah…” Mizrachi answers that, in fact, the Jews heard the entire Torah compressed—symbolically or prophetically—in the Ten Commandments, and Moshe later explained it to them. That is to say, they were somehow intuitively exposed to the full will of God, expressed in one moment as the entire Torah, but only Moshe, the superior prophet, could discern the details and transmit them.

Indeed, there are various traditions and disputed nuances about what the Jews heard at Mount Sinai. Gemara Makkos (23b-24a), in its simple reading, indicates that the Jews could only hear the first two commandments, with Moshe transmitting the rest. However, Rashi (Shemos 20:1), quoting a Mekhilta, implies the idea of the Mizrachi: that there was a compressed, complete expression of the entire Torah to which the Jews were exposed in some form, though they could not fully comprehend it. How are the first two commandments different? The Ran (Derashos 5) says that the first two came to the Jews on a prophetic level akin to Moshe’s—a completely supernatural boost by God, undeserved, in service of this historic event. Ramban (ibid. 20:7) says something similar, adding that it was necessary for the two fundamental commandments—concerning God’s existence and the rejection of polytheism—to be directly perceived by each Jew at Mount Sinai, so it was not based on blind faith alone.

Of course, the super-simple peshat is that the Mekhilta meant “the ear that heard at Mount Sinai” in a colloquial sense. Since we received the Torah in its entirety at Mount Sinai—be it through Moshe’s transmission or our witnessing the spectacle—it still amounts to “hearing” it. The problem lies in the choice of words and the use of “ear,” implying actual hearing, which likely did not occur. Certainly, beyond the Ten Commandments, the rest of the Torah was more a teaching than an actual hearing—unless we mean hearing from Moshe’s mouth.

I will propose an original and creative explanation. The Mekhilta was actually referring to the commandment “Thou shalt not kidnap,” not merely stealing. The hidden rebuke is that one who loses his dignity and allows himself to be sold—especially choosing to remain in servitude—disrespects his status as a servant solely to God. In effect, he is kidnapping himself, depriving himself and possibly his future children and family of a free life to pursue their fullest potential. The Torah, as presented via the Mekhilta, deliberately referred to the commandment—a double entendre for theft and kidnapping—to subtly rebuke him on multiple levels.

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

If you liked this, you might enjoy my Relationship Communications Guide. Click on the link above.

Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, LCSW-R, DHL is a psychotherapist who works with high conflict couples and families. He can be reached via email at simchafeuerman@gmail.com