מכאן אמרו חכמים כל הקונה עבד עברי ,כקונה אדון לעצמו
Kiddushin 22a
“Because he is well with you” – he must be with [i.e., equal to] you in food and drink, that you should not eat white bread and he black bread, you drink old wine and he new wine, you sleep on a feather bed and he on straw. Hence it was said: “Whoever buys a Hebrew slave is like buying a master for himself.”
Tosafos notes that the expression “It is as if the master has acquired a master for himself” which the Gemara uses suggests that a master must treat a Jewish slave even better than he treats himself. Tosafos asks, however, why it is not sufficient for the master to treat the slave the same as he does himself. Why does the Jewish slave have to be treated better?
Tosafos illustrates that, in fact, it is necessary to sometimes give preference to the slave. For example, as the Yerushalmi points out, it may be that there is only one pillow available. If the master takes it for himself, he is not fulfilling the dictum “it shall be good for him with you.” If the master decides not to use the one pillow and not to give it to the slave, this would be a selfish expression of מדת סדום which is prohibited. Therefore, the master would have no choice other than to forfeit it and give it to the slave, thus resulting in the slave’s being treated better than the master.
The Achronim question this ruling of Tosafos and ask why the master would have to surrender the one pillow to the slave. There is a famous opinion of Rabbi Akiva about two people who are stranded in a desert, and only one has water with which to survive. The halacha is that he must keep it for himself, as the verse states, “וחי אחיך עמך —Your brother should live with you,” which we understand to mean “חייך קודמים” - your life takes precedence over the life of others. Similarly, we should understand the verse here which uses that same terminology — (דברים טו, טז) כי טוב לו עמך — to indicate that although one must support his slave, the comfort of the master should still take precedence. A number of answers are offered to deal with this question.
Maharit explains that in the case of the one container of water, if the owner would offer it to his friend, the friend would immediately find himself confronted with a situation where the original owner is now at risk of dying. He would have to fulfill the mitzvah of forfeiting the water to save him, and the flask of water would have to be returned. The scenario would then repeat itself endlessly. This is why we therefore say that the first owner should just keep it for himself.
In our case, the master is obligated to provide for the slave and give him the pillow. However, the slave has no obligation to provide for the master. It is therefore reasonable that he receives the pillow, and not have to return it to the master. חשק שלמה explains that when being bought, the slave is in violation of the Torah’s rule עבדי" הם” We at least afford him the one “pillow” advantage in order that in one area the slave be the “master” to his master.
