On the Sabbath is lost to the Gentile

Responsa > Category: Talmudic Study > On the Sabbath is lost to the Gentile
Itzhak Asked 6 years ago

1) The Torah exempted us from a lost Sabbath to a Gentile… illuminating the delicious name that we must preserve basic rights towards Gentiles, but which is ‘Chassidut’ we were not obligated to…
This is related to what the latter (Hazo'a and others) have emphasized that the seven commandments that even non-Jews are obligatory are things that are obligatory on the part of 'honesty and morality'.
And look at the words of Maimonides regarding the exemption of the bull of Israel that struck a bull of a Gentile, which in their law do not require it… We do not treat them more than they themselves…

The Gemara in the Sanhedrin says that it is forbidden to return a loss to a gentile… Rambam explained that it is so as not to strengthen worldly wicked (then a decent gentile should be allowed, even if he is not a resident at all), Rashi explained that it reveals that he does not return because of the commandment To return, in any case there is a prohibition (unless he does so because of the desecration of God or for the sake of sanctifying the name)…

My question is can these rules change according to the changing 'honesty and morality' accepted by the peoples? In a situation where every person sees that the right thing to do is to recoup a loss, will the law change? In some countries there are even laws (then maybe it is possible to anchor in the commandments of Kim the 'laws', and if a gentile is obligated we will not be less of them)…
Even if it is said that there is no obligation, it is 'only' a non-Torah morality, at least there will be no obligation (even according to Rashi)… The Torah is not obligatory but there is a reason to return, the morality accepted in our time… And not because of a mitzvah…
Some rabbis write that today it is necessary to return because of the sanctification of the name… but it seems to me an evasion, the sanctification of the name is not obligatory, and ostensibly will only be allowed when he really intends to sanctify the name…

2) What is the meaning of returning 'because of the sanctification of Gd' (as quoted in the stories of the Jerusalemite)… If the Torah not only fired but forbade - what wrong thing would praise the people of Israel for something that for them is really a prohibition?

Leave a comment

1 Answers
Michi Staff Answered 6 years ago

Indeed, I agree that the question of sanctifying the name is an indirect matter. In my opinion there is an absolute obligation to give back today, as Hameiri writes. You write that he does so on the part of morality and not on the part of the law, and I will comment on this in my opinion: First, for today it is a law and not a morality, since it is obligatory to return a loss to a gentile just like a Jew and from the same verse. The Gemara in BK Lez clearly states that they allowed money for Israel only because they did not keep their XNUMX mitzvos. Second, even if it removes what's the problem with that ?!
And what you asked if it was a prohibition where we found that allowed prohibitions against desecration and sanctification of the name, is the giver. This is not a prohibition but a response to the specific situation of the Gentiles at the time, so even in their time there was room to give back for the sanctification of the Name. This is the very evidence that this is not a ban.
See about this in my articles on the Gentiles in our time here:
And on the attitude towards the gentile and changes in halakhah here.
He asks:
According to Hameiri it is clear that it must be returned…

I ask according to the arbitrators who did not follow his method, and the laws of the gentiles in our time should not be compared to the laws of a resident resident…
The Gemara and the poskim explicitly say that apart from the exemption of the Torah there is a prohibition on the matter (allegedly he is from Durban), and even dealt with his reasoning…
According to Rashi, the point is to show that we respond because of the charge and not something else.
But he who does in the name of morality - ostensibly does exactly what sages wanted to prevent, discovers that he does the thing not for heaven's sake. This is ostensibly exactly the prohibition fence.
First, it is not necessary for the Rashi method either. It is possible that the prohibition is to do because of the constitutions of the gentile or to find favor in their eyes. But doing for morality is similar to doing for the sanctification of Gd. Morality is also imposed on us from the Torah (and you have done right and good).
However, even if you are right that there is a prohibition against doing so for the sake of morality, I do not understand how you suggest that this should change. First, if morality today means to respond then again you are doing because of morality and that is what is forbidden. Secondly, in their simplicity, even in their day, it was a moral order, since in your opinion it was then forbidden to respond to morality.
But all this is weird stuff. Since when is it forbidden to do something against morality just to show that one is doing against the law? These are puzzling things.
He asks:
The question is whether the moral norm can change…
The Torah only forbade murder and robbery from Gentiles because it was considered righteousness and morality, and just as the Gentiles themselves are committed only to honesty and morality so are we to them. Are committed to them, or is it still part of the 'addition' that we are committed only between us (and according to Rashi even forbidden to others, so as not to obscure)
I do not understand what the discussion is about. I have already explained it. The moral norm can certainly change. But if in your opinion Rashi forbids doing things for moral reasons (which is clearly illogical in my opinion) then it will not change the law. There will be a moral obligation and a halakhic prohibition.

Leave a comment