On the Sabbath, a loss to the Gentiles
1) The Torah exempted us from the Sabbath, which is a loss for a Gentile… The Meiri is a delicious name that we must maintain basic rights towards Gentiles, but that we were not obligated to be ‘Hasidic’…
This is related to what the later scholars (Chazo”a and others) have said that the seven commandments that Gentiles must also obey are things that are obligatory from the standpoint of “honesty and morality”… and the well-known rule of Isi ben Yehuda is that what is forbidden to a Gentile is also forbidden to a Jew… It follows that we must act honestly toward them, and nothing more…
And look at the words of the Rambam regarding the exemption of an ox of Israel that goesres a Gentile’s ox, for which they are not obligated in their law… We do not behave towards them any more than they behave towards themselves…
The Gemara in the Sanhedrin says that it is forbidden to return a loss to a gentile… Rambam explained that this is in order not to strengthen the wicked of the world (and then a decent gentile should be permitted, even if he is not a resident alien at all), Rashi explained that this reveals that he does not return because of the commandment, and according to the rabbinic law, since there is an exemption to return, there is a prohibition anyway (unless he does so out of desecration of God or for the sake of sanctifying God)…
My question is whether these rules can change according to the changing ‘honesty and morality’ accepted among nations? In a situation where every person sees that the right thing to do is to return a loss, will the law change? In some countries there are even laws (then perhaps the ‘laws’ can be anchored in the commandments of the Creator, and if a Gentile is obligated, we will be no less than them)…
Even if it is said that there is no obligation, that it is ‘only’ extra-Torah morality, will there at least no longer be an obligation (also according to Rashi)… The Torah does not oblige, but there is a reason to return, the accepted morality of our time… Or will there be a defect because it reveals that one is doing it out of morality and not out of a mitzvah…
There are rabbis who write that today one must return it because of the sanctification of God… but this seems to me to be an evasion, the sanctification of God is not obligatory, and apparently it would only be permissible when one truly intends the sanctification of God…
2) What is the meaning of returning ‘for the sake of sanctification of God’ (as mentioned in the Jerusalemite stories)… If the Torah not only exempted but also prohibited – what wrong thing would it be to praise the people of Israel for something that, from their perspective, is truly forbidden?
Indeed, I agree that the question of Kiddush Hashem is a side issue. In my opinion, there is a complete obligation to return today, as the Meiri writes. You write that doing so is done from a moral perspective and not from a legal perspective, and I will comment on this in my translation: First, for the ענדה today, it is a legal perspective and not a moral perspective, since there is an obligation to return a loss to a Gentile just like a Jew and from the same verse. The Gemara in the Book of Genesis 37 clearly states that they allowed their wealth to Israel only because they did not fulfill their seventh commandment. Second, even if it is moral, what is the problem with that?!
And what you asked about whether this is a prohibition, where did we find that prohibitions were permitted due to desecration and sanctification of the Lord? That is the answer. This is not a prohibition, but a response to the specific situation of the Gentiles at the time, and therefore even in their time there was room for giving back for the sake of sanctification of the Lord. This is the evidence itself that this is not a prohibition.
See my article on the Gentiles in our time here:
https://musaf-shabbat.com/2013/10/04/%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99-%D7%A9%D7%94%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94-%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%90%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%94%D7%9D
And about the attitude towards the Gentiles and changes in the law here .
————————————————————————————————
Asks:
According to the Meiri, it is clear that it should be returned…
I ask according to the poskim 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 alien…
The Gemara and the Poskim explicitly state that apart from the exemption of the Torah, there is a prohibition on the matter (ostensibly from the rabbis), and they even discussed its reasoning…
According to Rashi, the reason is to show that we respond because of the obligation and nothing else… For someone who does something for the sake of sanctifying God, there is no prohibition at all, because he is doing it ‘for the sake of Heaven’, the entire reason for the prohibition is nullified…
But the one who does in the name of morality – seemingly does exactly what the sages wanted to prevent, reveals that he is doing it not for the sake of heaven… My question is whether when the basic moral norm changes from the one the Torah recognizes as valid, this enters the realm that the Torah itself has obligated towards Gentiles, and in any case there would be no prohibition… Without this mechanism, this is seemingly exactly the boundary of the prohibition.
————————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
First, even according to Rashi, this is not necessary. It is possible that the prohibition is to do something because of the laws of the Gentiles or to please them. But doing something out of morality is similar to doing something out of sanctification of God. Morality is also imposed on us from the Torah (and you will do what is right and good).
In any case, even if you are right that it is forbidden to do so because of morality, I do not understand how you suggest that this should change. First, if morality today says to respond, then again you are doing it because of morality and that is what is forbidden. Second, simply put, in their day it was also a moral command, since according to you it was forbidden then to respond because of morality.
But all of this is strange stuff. Since when is it forbidden to do something out of morality just to show that it is done out of Halacha? These are puzzling things.
————————————————————————————————
Asks:
The question is whether the moral norm can change…
The Torah only forbade murder and robbery of Gentiles because it was considered honest and moral, and just as Gentiles themselves are only obligated to be honest and moral, so are we toward them… The question is what is the law when Gentiles themselves accept more stringent norms of moral behavior – will the Torah recognize this and will it become a ‘basis’ that we are also obligated toward them, or is it still part of the ‘addition’ that we are obligated only among ourselves (and according to Rashi, it is even forbidden toward others, so as not to obscure)
————————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I don’t understand what the discussion is about. I’ve already explained it. The moral norm can certainly change. But if, as you believe, Rashi prohibits doing things for moral reasons (which is clearly illogical in my opinion), then that won’t change the halakha. There will be a moral obligation and a halakhic prohibition.
Hello,
Although this is from years ago, I read it now. I hope it is okay for me to respond.
The Rabbi wrote about the possibility that Rashi opposes doing things for moral reasons that do not make sense.
In this context, I wanted to refer to what is said in Rashi's response to Siman Kal'a regarding "gifts to the poor for a non-Jew" – but not necessarily what he writes at the beginning of his words about gifts to the poor, but rather regarding the example of giving from a guest house – the words are very consistent with what is implied by his words regarding loss, and it seems that this is indeed his approach: even esoteric mitzvot must be kept because of the commandment and not because of morality.
Attaches the answer:
Response to Rashi, Mark 11
We saw in the NIV that it is customary to distribute gifts on Purim to male and female slaves who are in the homes of Israel. This was a difficult matter for the Rabbis, as thorny, since the language of giving gifts to the poor is spoken of in Israel and not among the Gentiles. And he who gives to the Gentiles robs the poor and shows himself as if he is now fulfilling the commandment of giving gifts to the poor, which is spoken of among the poor of Israel. And since at first the poor, who were ashamed to send their infants to the hands of nursing Gentiles, began to return infants to the gates of Israel, they also used to give to male and female slaves without the need for infants. And the Rabbis do not practice [anything] else in this matter. And according to the Rabbis, it is better than him who throws a stone [on the page: a bundle] into the sea, which shows that gifts were given today even to the Gentiles. And the Rabbis read: On it and I multiplied silver for it, and gold they made for Baal, because there was much gold for Israel to bring for the service of the tabernacle, and when the matter of the calf came to them and all the people broke off the gold rings that were in their ears: A parable to a man who was receiving guests, the guests of Israel came and he received them, the guests of the Gentiles came and he received them, he lost the first, and this is what they say about him: he is a fool and he is in the way of this. Even he who gives gifts to the Gentiles on Purim has lost the gifts he gave to the poor, who does not show that he is doing it for the sake of heaven, but rather as doing it for his own good.
Maybe. But these are still very puzzling things. Of course, if one does it because of morality and not because of the commandment, there is no mitzvah here. But one can do it because of both.
I don't understand the confusion. If a person gives gifts to the poor on Purim to a non-Jew, then it is at the expense of the true mitzvah to give specifically to Jews, and that is wrong. Just as a person would cut short his participation in a family celebration in order to participate in the celebration of a non-Jew.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
