Kiddushin 23: Addressing Patriarchal Systems of "Protecting the Vulnerable"

Can a slave use his own money to emancipate himself?  What if a master dies without heirs - who is permitted to take on his adult slaves? His minor slaves?  Where can the money paid for emancipation come from? Should slaves be freed early in any case?  Does a slave have the ability to acquire for himself while in servitude?  What if the master has no means with which to acquire?  When a slave receives his bill of manumission, is he simultaneously permitted to acquire?  Should these halachot align with the halachot regarding divorce, where movement from one location to another defines some of the changes in rights and responsibilities?  How important is it that the master hands the slave his bill of manumission?  Can agents be involved on either side?

The Gemara considers comparisons in dyads based on a power differential: between a slave and his master, and between a wife and her husband.  If either a slave or a wife are given a gift, their master/husband acquires that gift.  In the case of a slave, the master acquires the gift as well, even if the gift is given on the condition that the master does not acquire it.  With a wife, however, the gift is acquired only by the husband, even in a case where the gift was given on the condition that the husband does not acquire it.

As much as I find the concept of slavery abhorrent and as much as I am a strong feminist, I am beginning to understand better the philosophy behind the decisions of our Sages regarding social status.  The system of patriarchy was used, in part at least, as a social safety net.  Women were oppressed under these laws, for example, but they were also protected from other hardship that they would face in that ancient society as unmarried women.  Slaves were forced to work for the benefit of others, but they could sell themselves into slavery and buy themselves out.  They would share the master's standard of living.  They were protected from homelessness and hunger.

Of course, from my viewpoint it makes sense to consider dismantling a system that protects people in a way that relies on the generosity of the most privileged.   The system I am learning about benefits men and slaves more than women or maidservants; Jews more than Gentiles; those who are physically able more than those with physical challenges.  But with what would we replace this system?  Today we see people living on the street - men and women and children - with only broken social services to help them. We say that sexual assault is illegal but our criminal justice system rarely convicts the many men who commit those assaults.  Is our system truly better than this ancient system?  Or just another broken response to the suffering that seems to be inevitable in our social world?