One of my commenters, Honestly Frum, has noted on his blog that he once attended a lecture by a noted Rav in which the following content was raised:
it is well known that a number of years ago R. XX YY from Brooklyn was brought to Bergenfield for shabbos and during a question and answer session he said publicly that if there is no material chance of getting caught then there is no issur in cheating on ones taxes. Further when questioned on this privately, he said that theft from gentiles is also permissible and that one can ignore the halachos in shulchan aruch regarding tax evasion and gezel akum because these halachos were probably only codified because of fear of the goyim.
Now, if this attitude strikes you instinctively as incorrect, you'd be on the right track. While there is certainly definitive evidence that many of our important legal texts have been censored in the past (the Mishneh Torah, Shulchan Aruch, Chayei Adam and even parts of the Gemara) by non-Jewish authorities who were looking to remove what they felt were offensive references to their religion, it is also clear that most relevant material in this regard escaped the censors' notice.
What is also poorly understood is that in halacha there are goyim and then there are goyim. There are genuine idol worshippers whose religion encourages them to lead immoral lifestyles and there are non-Jewish societies in which the rule of law is encouraged. Thus when the Gemara refers to all non-Jews being suspected of being murderers or having stolen the land they claim to own, it can be understood that these references were to the more anarchic, immoral non-Jews that lived around our ancestors some 2000 years ago.
No less an authority than the Meiri has written that one can safely conclude that non-Jews today are not to be considered the same as the idol worshippers the halacha warns us about.
Having said that, there are those for whom old traditions die hard. It is an unfortunate fact of history that our ancestors were oppressed in both Europe and Muslim lands for many centuries. The only way to survive was by outfoxing the non-Jewish authorities in their attempts to impoverish and/or wipe out their local Jewish communities. For too many, this survival mechanism has become mesorah. Hence the cries of mesirah when genuine Jewish criminals are outed by their communities even though a cursory knowledge of halacha shows that this charge simply does not apply. And one can assume the above-referenced dismissmal of the need for honesty while paying taxes comes from the same source.
Fortunately, this past Shabbos I came across as clear a refutation of this attitude as one could hope for and I would like to share it here. This is from the Tanna D'Vei Raba Eliyahu 28 (translation mine):
2: From where do we learn the mitzvah for man to love God? The love of man for God is an important mitzvah from the Torah, for the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven is written from the aspect of love, as it says: "Hear o' Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one." (Dev 6:4)
5: From here they said, a person should distance himself from theft, whether from a Jew or a non-Jew. And not only that, but one who steals from a non-Jew will ultimately come to steal from a Jew. And if he swears (falsely) to a non-Jew, he will ultimately swear (falsely) to a Jew. And if he deceives a non-Jew, he will ultimately deceive a Jew. And if he murders a non-Jew, he will ultimately murder a Jew. The Torah was only given to sanctify His great name and it says "I shall place within them a sign and send some of them as survivors" (Yishiyah 66:19). What does it say at the end of the verse? "And they shall tell of my glory to the nations."
Somehow I doubt Eliyahu HaNavi was afraid of non-Jewish censors. This statement of his is a clear rebuttal to those who would tell us that Torah observance permits theft and lying, as long as the victims are just "goyim".
Navonim - The Ramblings of Garnel Ironheart
BUY THIS BOOK! Now available on Amazon! IT WILL MAKE YOUR LIFE COMPLETE!
29 comments:
Interesting. I note that there seem to be a fair amount of mental gymnastics involved in arriving at the conclusion "it's wrong to steal from gentiles." It struck me as self-evident. I wish it seemed so self-evident to more authorities besides the Meiri. "Thou shalt not steal" seems to do just fine without a dependent clause...
And, for the record, just because someone is an immoral idolater doesn't mean that you have a right to steal from that person, does it? I don't steal because it's wrong to steal-- not because I make individual evaluations as to whether a particular person deserves his property or not.
Right on David. This is the problem with Jewish law. To do justice amazing legal loopholes have to be invented. And if that is the case, then why follow religion, just follow secular humanism and let that be it all and end all.
Judaism invented the categories of Jew and Gentile, which is where the problem starts. Mankind was doing fine way before this distinction was ever made, and will continue to do fine without it.
But I do have to give the mancredit where it is due.
Our Lord Garnel is honest and brave enough to allow comments without censorship on his page. Jewish Philosopher and other frummies would do well to learn from that.
"And, for the record, just because someone is an immoral idolater doesn't mean that you have a right to steal from that person, does it? I don't steal because it's wrong to steal-- not because I make individual evaluations as to whether a particular person deserves his property or not."
I think the point here is that the immoral idolater steals and cheats. It is like the case of Bernie Madoff. Does anyone care that all of his possessions are being taken away from him? No, because he cheated people and mistreated them. This is the idolater that the Torah talks about, the immoral cheat that mistreats people.
Shalmo, I'm not interested in censorship. I'm interested in discussion.
Listen, this Tana D'vei Eliyahu reminds us that everything a Jew does is because God commands us to do it.
if God had said that stealing from gentiles is moral and permissible, then the believing Jew would say it is moral and permissible. And too many people out there would like to believe that this is the case. This post was put on to show there is authoritative refutation of that erroneous stance.
Hey Garnel, I as wondering if you could read my latest post on my blog and tell me what you think. I discuss this type of issue in depth. I would really appreciate it. It is www.markset565.blogspot.com Thanks.
Shalmo
I think for once, i am mostly in agreement with you. When there is too much mental gymnastics involved, you know the law was not meant to apply as is trying to kvetch.
I also agree with you regarding the censorship issue. OTD has a lot to learn from Garnel about at the very least, having an open discussion even with people you absolutly disagree with.
HH,
I disagree with you. The halacha often requires a lot of mental gymnastics to come to the true meaning in every area.
"Does anyone care that all of his possessions are being taken away from him? No, because he cheated people and mistreated them. This is the idolater that the Torah talks about, the immoral cheat that mistreats people."
Wrong answer, E-Man. No, I don't care that Madoff's possessions are being taken away from him. But would I cheat him? No. Not because he's a Jew. Not because of his moral values (or lack thereof). Because I don't cheat. Thus, to the extent that the Torah employs differing ethical standards for different people, the Torah is sanctioning dishonorable conduct.
I disagree back e-man. I believe the amount of mental gymnastic you see within Jewish law is a direct result of it being confined within the realm of study, especially l'shma. Had halacha really been required to run a society and nation, many of these laws would never have come about. It's BECAUSE you have people sitting around studying and studying and studying that some feat of creativity ends up coming out as to how to look at the text.
>Thus, to the extent that the Torah employs differing ethical standards for different people, the Torah is sanctioning dishonorable conduct.
Is this Torah, or the rabbinate?
^^The Torah is far more despicable than the rabbis
Yahweh orders people to eat their own children (Deut. 28: 53-57). He repeatedly throughout the bible orders the slaying of women, children and animals (1 Samuel 15: 1- 3, Ezekiel 9:4-6, and many other passages ). He curses a man with bowel disease and later enhances it to the point, I kid you not, that his bowels fall out of his body (2 Chronicles 21: 12-19 ). In 2 Kings 2:23-24 Elisha was teased by a bunch of children because he was bald, so God/Jesus had two bears charge out of the underbrush and knocked them about, ripping them limb from limb—42 children in all! In 1 Samuel 15:33 he comes down to watch Samuel follow his order to hack a man into pieces. And who can forget something as disgusting as Ezekiel 4:1-15.
Most of the world whether Muslim, Christian or Atheist is shocked at the horror stories written in the Jewish books.
And most of this mythological violence is directed at non-jews, which is where the position of gentiles in jewish law is then grounded.
Judaism itself is a discriminative system, and it is trully wonderful that Jews have never been able to actually put these laws into practise in Israel, and I stutter to think what would happen if they actually did someday manage to follow through with these laws.
And this is why I favor Conservative/Reform over the Orthodox since the former do not see much of this as divine at all and are willing to address these insane laws.
"Wrong answer, E-Man. No, I don't care that Madoff's possessions are being taken away from him. But would I cheat him? No"
By taking away his possessions you are cheating him and as you say, you are ok with that.
Shalmo said-
Yahweh orders people to eat their own children (Deut. 28: 53-57).
This is G-D telling us what will happen if we disobey His commands. There will be a time in the future that Jewish mothers will eat their own children. This happened in the kingdom of Israel 500 years later. It is not a command silly billy. You love to misquote.
There is no point in arguing Shalmo. He has a real twisted view of Jews/Israel. Even some skeptic bloggers have seen that.
"By taking away his possessions you are cheating him and as you say, you are ok with that."
Wrong again. If Madoff is sued or prosecuted and his possessions are lawfully taken from him, he is not being cheated.
>Thus, to the extent that the Torah employs differing ethical standards for different people, the Torah is sanctioning dishonorable conduct.
Is this Torah, or the rabbinate?
HH-- to be honest, I'd probably say it's mostly the rabbinate, but, that said, it's still "Torah," writ large. Since the rabbinate claims that its authority is derived from the Torah (and since they get to invent the Oral Torah), is there really a practical difference?
E-Man:
"This is G-D telling us what will happen if we disobey His commands. There will be a time in the future that Jewish mothers will eat their own children. This happened in the kingdom of Israel 500 years later. It is not a command silly billy. You love to misquote."
I disagree. But so what? You didn't deal with the other insane acts committed by Yahweh in the Torah and the Prophetic Writings
for instance:
Amalek & Genocide: Midianites: Num 31, Deut 3
One of the mitzvos is to wipe out (kill) all people who are Amalek.
Why include their animals as part of the extermination?
I don't have a problem with the idea of 'collateral damage', innocents killed unintentionally while hostiles, command and control are targeted.
But captured 'young children' off the field of battle killed 'for vengeance' (three times it says that in Numbers 31) are not 'collateral damage'.
Would it be reasonable to you if a country at war with us captured tens of thousands of young Jewish children killed them 'for vengeance'?
Would that be 'collateral damage' or 'martial law'?
Holy Hyrax:
"There is no point in arguing Shalmo. He has a real twisted view of Jews/Israel. Even some skeptic bloggers have seen that."
name a few. and please define the word "twisted". "Twisted" usually implies thinking that is outside norms of society
The majority of this planet is against the genocide instigated by the apartheid state of Israel. So if anything is "twisted" its people who continue to support it, not the other way round. I'm simply part of the flow.
Though being against Israeli policy does not make me anti-Jewish in the least (though I know to a zionist such a concept may be hard to grasp).
But yes I am very much frightened by the barbaric aspects of halacha (as evidenced by this thread), and do not want it imposed on me or anyone else in Israel.
apartheid/genocide=Israel
there you go. And indeed you are part of the flow. You come up with any vitriol you can to support you're anti Israel slant. That sort of commitment doesn't come from some sort of logic. It just comes from hatred.
Here is what I said david "I think the point here is that the immoral idolater steals and cheats. It is like the case of Bernie Madoff. Does anyone care that all of his possessions are being taken away from him? No, because he cheated people and mistreated them. This is the idolater that the Torah talks about, the immoral cheat that mistreats people."
Here is what you said on my comment "By taking away his possessions you are cheating him and as you say, you are ok with that."
Wrong again. If Madoff is sued or prosecuted and his possessions are lawfully taken from him, he is not being cheated.
Notice how I said that the idolater is a cheat and mistreats people. So the jewish law lawfully allows for his possessions to be taken away. That seems to be consistent with your views from the case of Bernie madoff. You said as long as the court finds him guilty take all of his possessions. Here, the idolater is being found guilty of cheating and stealing. That was my point.
E-Man,
You're still not getting it. The original point is that it is wrong to cheat people. Not that it is wrong to cheat honest people, or that it is wrong to cheat Jewish people. If someone is an idolater, that may be unfortunate, but it's not a license for me to take advantage of him. I can avoid doing business with him if I wish, but I see no moral grounds upon which I could defraud him. I have no authority to 'find him guilty' and penalize him, nor do you.
My point is that the Torah seems to differentiate between cheating one type of person and cheating another type of person. As far as I'm concerned, that is moral poison.
Again, you are ignoring the point David. You are ok with a court of your peers taking someone's money away, but not ok with the Torah law taking someone's money away? That seems odd to me. As I said before, the point of the Torah is that if someone is immoral and cheats others you don't have to respect his rights to his property either. Now, if you disagree with that then you disagree with law in general.
No, E-man, I'm not ignoring the point, but I am getting frustrated with your advocacy of situational ethics in the name of Torah, which I find appalling.
In a nutshell, you are saying that the Torah tells you that your obligation to conduct yourself honestly varies with your assessment of someone else's integrity. So, if you decide that I'm not honest, you are free to cheat me, or steal from me. I find that reprehensible.
I maintain that my obligation to conduct my own affairs honestly does not vary with my personal assessment of someone else's integrity.
If you believe that the Torah authorizes you to steal from another person based on your assessment of that person's honesty, then one of two things must be true: 1) the Torahis a license to steal; or 2) you a 'naval birshus ha-Torah.' Take your pick.
Slow down boys.
Okay, I have to agree with David on one part. I too am okay with a court of one's peers taking someone's money away. The person in question violated the law of the land and the penalty for that is financial AND incarceration.
But David, what if the law of the land said that a Jew convicted of such a crime would be punished with financial penalties and incarceration while a non-Jew would get a simple fine? That's E-man's concern and I think it too is valid.
If the law itself is unjust, do citizens have to hold by it? Is not protesting unjust law a necessity in a democracy? Remember that slavery was once the law of the land in the U.S. It would have been the duty of all decent men to protest that law nonetheless.
And that's what E-man is getting at. If people are coming after Jews using the law of the land to persecute them, then that law is unjust and should be protested. We are under no halachic obligation to allow ourselves to be suckers or to suffer.
"But David, what if the law of the land said that a Jew convicted of such a crime would be punished with financial penalties and incarceration while a non-Jew would get a simple fine? That's E-man's concern and I think it too is valid."
Huh? What if monkeys fly out of my butt? You live in Canada; I live in America, so this is hardly applicable. I'm not sure what universe E-man lives in, but, as far as I know, the halacha in question is not related to a government or any government activities. It deals with interpersonal business relationships.
Protesting an unjust law is an entirely separate (and unrelated) question. Regardless of what the law allows or does not allow, I am required to conduct myself with integrity, and this requirement does not vary with my assessment of your integrity. I used to think that this requirement was imposed by the Torah, but, obviously, I was wrong about that-- the Torah (if E-man is to be believed) maintains a far more flexible approach to ethics than I do. All a Torah-observant person needs to do is convince himself that your morals aren't quite up to snuff, and then KA-CHING! Payday for frummy! How ethical is that!?!
I hear similar forms of argumentation from evangelical christians when I ask them why God had to committ suicide in order to redeem sins!
You know I always used to hate St.Paul for turning Jesus' movement into a roman pagan mystery religion. But I think I am finally beginning to understand what he meant when he called the law (torah) a "curse" because it indeed is. Ironic because only 40 years after him did the sinat chinam lead to banishment of Jewry.
If this was the word of God you wouldn't be making these nonsensical legal loopholes in the first place. It would be perfect the way it is.
One might also ask that if its ok for you guys to use such colorful methods for going around these laws, then what is wrong with a christian saying that the 613 mitvohs are abrogated? At least they are honest in their denial of the law, where as you guys do nothing but go around whatever doesn't suit your temperments.
And personally to me the entire Talmud is a violation of Deut.4:2
and Holy Hyrax, you need to come back to the real world. Opposition to Israel is no more "hatred" then opposing south african apartheid. and frankly you'd be surprised to know how many of the original protesters to ended the apartheid in that country are now coming up to do the same against your precious Eretz Yisrael.
David said-"No, E-man, I'm not ignoring the point, but I am getting frustrated with your advocacy of situational ethics in the name of Torah, which I find appalling.
In a nutshell, you are saying that the Torah tells you that your obligation to conduct yourself honestly varies with your assessment of someone else's integrity. So, if you decide that I'm not honest, you are free to cheat me, or steal from me. I find that reprehensible.
I maintain that my obligation to conduct my own affairs honestly does not vary with my personal assessment of someone else's integrity.
If you believe that the Torah authorizes you to steal from another person based on your assessment of that person's honesty, then one of two things must be true: 1) the Torahis a license to steal; or 2) you a 'naval birshus ha-Torah.' Take your pick."
I am not saying Judaism says every person gets to decide who is moral and not. The point is, if someone steals and it is an absolute certainty that they stole then they their property should not be protected. I am not saying this ludicrous idea of everyone gets to decide their own morals, that is ridiculous. I am saying that when someone is proved to have been in violation of a law, like stealing, that person should be punished in the appropriate way, which would be that he should no longer be protected by that law. This is not just the Torah but also Kant. Through his categorical imperative he says that. Check it out at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/
I do think it is ridiculous to say that every person gets to decide who is immoral, that I am not saying. Also, I am not saying what Garnel pointed out.
Thus when a non-Jew would steal from a Jew or steal from a non-jew this person would forfeit his rights for the law to protect his property. That is the punishment. That is just like by someone who steals like bernie madoff, he stole and therefore the courts are taking away his possessions. Why is that so hard to hear as justice. It is how things work in America as well.
Grnel said-"Okay, I have to agree with David on one part. I too am okay with a court of one's peers taking someone's money away. The person in question violated the law of the land and the penalty for that is financial AND incarceration. "
I agree with this as well. My point was exactly this. The Torah dictates that this is the punishment for the offense. I am in no way saying any person can decide by themselves that another person is immoral, that WOULD be immoral, in my opinion.
"The point is, if someone steals and it is an absolute certainty that they stole then they their property should not be protected. I am not saying this ludicrous idea of everyone gets to decide their own morals, that is ridiculous. I am saying that when someone is proved to have been in violation of a law, like stealing, that person should be punished in the appropriate way, which would be that he should no longer be protected by that law. This is not just the Torah but also Kant."
Sorry, but you Kant make that argument. If someone steals $10 from you, I am not free to go and steal $10 from him. The law will punish his theft, but it will also punish mine. To get back to the original position that you were defending, see the post:
"theft from gentiles is also permissible and ... one can ignore the halachos in shulchan aruch regarding tax evasion and gezel akum because these halachos were probably only codified because of fear of the goyim." Are you saying that this psak is in any way morally acceptable?
I disagree with that psak wholeheartedly. I am not defending that position at all. I was merely pointing out why the Torah seemingly discriminates against idol worshippers. And you Kan make that argument. That is what Kant says. I mean if you want to deny kant's morals then you can say you don't believe in kant's morals, but that is the idea he says. I am also not talking about 10 dollars for 10 dollars, but rather a universal idea of punishment in general. To say what exactly punishment fits the crime is most probably based on society. In the Torah's time that was the proper punishment. Nowadays, it is jail time.
Post a Comment