Volume 29 Number 41
Produced: Mon Aug 9 5:59:44 US/Eastern 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Acquiring the Slave's "Body"
[Shalom Carmy]
Do restaurants closed by Supervision withdrawal have a lawsuit
[Stuart Wise]
Halakha and a "higher" Morality (2)
[Richard Wolpoe, Eric Jaron Stieglitz]
Hashgacha for more than Food
[Warren Burstein]
Legal Fiction - Selling of Chametz (2)
[Ira L. Jacobson, Gershon Dubin]
Morality of Slavery (3)
[Russell Hendel, Israel Rubin, Zvi Weiss]
Right and Left hand - 2 questions
[Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shalom Carmy <carmy@...>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:58:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Acquiring the Slave's "Body"
Note that according to one view in Gemara, the body of eved ivri is also
acquired, not only eved knaani.
See on this (if I remember correctly, R. Gustman on Kiddushin; if I don't,
it's still a valuable shiur).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Wise <swise@...>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 14:40:18 -0700
Subject: Re: Do restaurants closed by Supervision withdrawal have a lawsuit
It seems it would behoove an organization that loses it certification to
find (a) another kashrus organization that will authorize it (there are
always changes in supervision); or (b) learn to comply
A business that is willing to shut down because it prefers to be
stubborn in what it wants to do probably makes other decisions that
would drive it out of business.
I don't see the comparison with a bride who breaks off an engagement and
causes the groom to lose the money. Am I missing something?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Wolpoe <richard_wolpoe@...>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 17:13:34 -0400
Subject: Halakha and a "higher" Morality
>>From: Bill Bernstein <bbernst@...>
>I should have picked up on this one sooner. We have specific mitzvos
>both bein odom l'makom and bein odom l'chovero. Additionally we have
>chumros on both these. Further there are eitzos tovos from
>Chazal. Wherever we read about some unusual piece of behavior from a
>godol, frequently there is often a source attached to it. So my
>question stands: what is the source of the "higher" morality that
>people frequently cite?
Perhaps based upon the verse "v'osiso hayoshor v'hatov..." Deut. 6:18.
The Gemoro elaborates the case where an Amora was reprimanded for not
wishing to pay his workers because they failed to deliver the goods. As
a great man, we has held to a higher standard. I apologize for omitting
the details, but the thrust of the story is that this verse is the
source for being held to higher standard of conduct.
Rich wolpoe
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eric Jaron Stieglitz <ephraim@...>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 07:56:36 -0400
Subject: Halakha and a "higher" Morality
> While withholding employees' paychecks and cheating the
> government on taxes may be crimes and violations of Halacha, I don't
> commit a sin by eating in a restaurant that does those things. I do
> commit a sin by eating in a restaurant that is not Kosher and by looking
> at things I am not supposed to look at.
This doesn't quite sound right to me. If I eat in a restaurant and
I know for a fact that the owner steals the tips from the waiters, then
I can't help but think that I've become an accomplice in the crime
simply by supporting the establishment. Wouldn't this fit the definition
of "lifnei iver" (placing a stumbling block before the blind)?
/EJS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Warren Burstein <warren@...>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 15:14:47
Subject: Re: Hashgacha for more than Food
I would not mind if Binyomin Segal's suggestion of a "good Jew seal of
approval" hechsher was created (although I would phrase it differently),
so long as it wasn't the only heschsher in town.
> this is (for the vast majority of us) not a govt run monopoly.
For a good number of us, it is a goverment monopoly, which is why in
Israel, I would like the "seal of approval" to come with Mehadrin or
Badatz hechsherim, not with regular Rabbanut.
Other people have, a number of times, asked if a mashgiach should give a
hechsher to a strip club. I would like to suggest that the line, for a
regular heschsher, should be drawn at establishments that a regular
person (not a tzaddik, not a person without any standards, and not
someone for whom any mention at all in the media is considered positive
publicity) would not want to appear in the news going through the door.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 16:04:54 +0300
Subject: Legal Fiction - Selling of Chametz
Yeshaya Halevi <CHIHAL@...> wrote in Volume 29 Number 28:
> Remember: the rabbis of yore set up economic sanctions against buying
>food from a Jew who may not have gotten rid of his hametz during Pesah,
>or did not engage in the "legal fiction" of temporarily selling his
>hametz to a goy.
If you check, you will note that the halakha is quite clear that one who
considers selling his hametz as a legal fiction is not considred to have
sold his hametz. Rather, it must be regarded as a legally binding, true
sale.
IRA L. JACOBSON
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 12:20:09 -0400
Subject: Legal Fiction - Selling of Chametz
The difference here is that the Rabbis were not as concerned about
punishing the nonconforming store owner as in protecting other people
from purchasing chametz she'avare alav haPesach (chametz which was owned
by a Jew over Pesach and therefore forbidden to eat). I am n o t saying
that other "control" issues were not a factor in other situations of
kashrus hashgacha.
Gershon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:37:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Morality of Slavery
There have been some response to my posting defending Slavery in
Messianic times (Because the owners help rehabilitate the thief who was
sold into slavery and this is superior to a prison system). There have
even been those who brought support for the theory (Like Yehoshua Cohen
who cited Rav Kook).
However there were several questions asked in v29n16 which have not yet
been answered. I answer three points.
David Cohen points out that my social worker theory (the owner
rehabilitates the slave) would work well for a thief but not for those
sold for debts or poverty.
Indeed, that is the law. Only a thief is sold. People who can't pay
debts are not sold. Poor people are also not sold by the courts. A
person who voluntarily sells himself because of poverty has a status of
a worker not a slave. (Notice how Rav HIrsch's theory is consistent with
the Law, a characteristic of Rav Hirsch)
Similarly Gittele Rapoport asks how this social worker theory applies to
a non jewish slave (since non jewish slave status continues from
generation to generation--where is the potential rehabilitation).
But this too was answered in another posting: A non jewish slave can be
free for purposes of doing a mitzvah (even a Rabbinic mitzvah.. cf
Rambam Slaves Chapter 9:5-7). The example was brought of a Rabbi who
freed his slave to become part of the minyan. This clearly creates an
atmosphere where non jewish slaves 'want to do commandments' in order to
become free. Hence we have social rehabilitation here also. Again we
see here the consistency of Rav Hirsch's theory and Jewish law.
Finally Yitzchok Zlochower still considers slavery barbaric. My problem
with Yitzchok's posting is that it does not contain details. How for
example does Yitzchok deal with a person who is so poor that he has
already sold his house and clothes---should we allow him to make a
legitimate deal to sell his minor children so he can support his other
children and not let them beg? Is this barbaric? Does Yitzchak have a
better solution?
Furthermore how does Yitzchok deal with the thief? Does he put him in
prison? If so why is that less barbaric then selling him to an
individual owner for purposes of rehabilitation.
My point is not that I agree or disagree but rather that no details have
been discussed making the possibility of conversation difficult.
Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA
Moderator Rashi Is Simple
http://www.shamash.org./rashi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Israel Rubin <Israel.Rubin@...>
Subject: Morality of Slavery
Regarding the numerous postings concerning the possibility that slavery
will "become" moral when Moshiach comes: it's troubling to see the
widespread acceptance of the idea that slavery is immoral today, before
Moshiach. This apparently based solely on the fact that "enlightened
nations" & "modern society" have decreed it so.
In fact, I'm convinced that the main reason for the distinction people
are making between after & before Moshiach is that by distancing the
concept to messianic times, thereby making the issue more theoretical,
people allow themselves to put some distance between themselves & a
concept that they feel to be problematic & troubling. Actually, there's
no reason to assume that slavery is, was, or ever will be immoral.
History shows that every generation has it's own accepted philosophy,
morality & widely accepted truisms. These differ from generation to
generation, but what does not differ is the conviction in each case that
these represent the last ultimate truth, unlike all the previous
generations whose philosophical & moral errors are now so clearly
visible. It would be wise to consider this before reinterpreting the
Torah on the basis of what happens to be currently accepted thought. The
only everlasting truth is the Torah itself, & claims about what is or
isn't moral should be based on the Torah itself, or sources that draw
directly from it, instead of basing morality on "modern society" & the
like, & then reinterpreting the Torah to fit in.
(One point: the morality of slavery as an institution should be
distinguished from the treatment of one's slaves, as several posters
have already pointed out, and from the circumstances under which a given
slave may have become a slave. Either of these may make a given case of
slavery immoral.)
Someone rhetorically asked (#11) "How would you evaluate the morality of
monogamy? Is that another example of "pop culture morality"?". Answer -
yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@...>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 12:44:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Morality of Slavery
> >From: Michael & Bonnie Rogovin <rogovin@...>
> An Eved Cnaani is for an indefinite amount of time, the owner can beat
> the slave (just not so much that the slave dies), the slave is property,
> and the slave has no recourse if the owner fails to provide for him. Is
> the sole reason to be glad this sort of slavery no longer exists "pop
> culture"?
While it is true that the Eved Kna'ani is in perpetuity, I would like a
source that states that the Master may "freely" beat him or her. We
know that if the Master MAIMS the Eved, the eved is set free. Killing
the eved is not simply "over-beating", it is MURDER... I believe that
the above desscription is a distortion of the situation that actaully
existed for such Avadim.
> >Since all of this is being done voluntarily, I am not sure what moral
> >objection would exist (if any).
>
> It would not be voluntary for the descendents of the voluntary slaves,
> and it is not clear that the master would be allowed to free them.
When a person converts to "Judaism", it is not "voluntary for the
descandants" either. I have yet to see anyone who considers that a
moral objection. As noted above, in Y/mos Hamashiach, the reason for
selling one's self as an Eved would be to get closer to Judaism (since
Gerim would no longer [usually] be accepted). The one so selling has --
it seems -- made the decision that this status is worthwhile for for the
one "entering" this status AND his/her descendants...
--Zvi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes <sthoenna@...>
Subject: Re: Right and Left hand - 2 questions
In article <19990723103012.26046.qmail@...>,
Daniel Levine <Daniel.Levine.51132628@...> wrote:
>Q. 2.
>For a left-handed person, do they substitute their left hand for all things
>that a right-handed person does with his right?
No, they don't. Reasons for using one hand or another vary in different
situations and thus aren't always the opposite for a leftie. For
instance, a right handed person would put on his right shoe first
(because the right side is more prominent) but tie the left shoe first
(to show respect for the side the tefillin are tied on). A left handed
person would put on the right shoe first and tie the right shoe first.
>e.g. for a left handed male, most know to have their Shel-Yad on the right
>arm, however:
>(a) which hand is used to shield the eyes during the Shema, left or right?
Right hand for both lefties and righties.
>(b) in which hand should the tzitzis be held?
Left hand (first two paragraphs, anyway) for both lefties and righties.
>(c) with which hand should one beat the heart during Oshamnu, Bogadnu..
Right.
>(d) do they wash for 'Al Netilas Yodoyim' Left, Right, Left etc..
Nope. Right, left, right, etc.
>My left-handed friend eagerly awaits your answer!
>Thank You
>DL
Refer him to the English pamphlet "Yad Eliezer/A collection of various
halachos, mitzvos and minhagim pertinent to left-handers" by Rabbi
Paysach J. Krohn. This pamphlet is based largely on the Kuntros Ish
Itair by Rav Chaim Kanievsky, published in his sefer on Mesechta Ketana
Tefillin and on Kuntros Itair Yad by Rav Moshe Stern (Baer Moshe 2:1-5).
It is available from the author:
call 718-846-6900 or write
Rabbi Paysach Krohn
117-09 85 Avenue
Kew Gardens, NY 11418
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 29 Issue 41
