Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 18

Mon, 02 Feb 2015

• 1. Re: Prohibition on disparaging non-Jews (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Prohibition on disparaging non-Jews ()
• 3. Re: Prohibition on disparaging non-Jews (Eitan Levy)
• 4. Re: Prohibition on disparaging non-Jews (Simon Montagu)
• 5. Re: Prohibition on disparaging non-Jews (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Prohibition on disparaging non-Jews (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Prohibition on disparaging non-Jews (Micha Berger)
• 8. FW: Prohibition on disparaging non-Jews (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: Prohibition on disparaging non-Jews (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: FW: Prohibition on disparaging non-Jews (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Prohibition on disparaging non-Jews ()
• 12. Re: Prohibition on disparaging non-Jews (Micha Berger)
• 13. Parental Liability for a Minor's Damages - Parts I and II (Prof. Levine)

> So the "amrei inshei" is about the local Aramaim, but Rav applies it
> to Iyov's response to news about the Mitzriyim? You're likely correct,
> but it's a distinction without a difference. What is important to us is
> what Rav meant, not the common idiom he used to phrase it.

Yisro, not Iyov, but yes.  The saying was about Arameans, because those were
the goyim in the place where the saying was current.  If the saying had been
current in some other country it would have used a different term, and would
also have been phrased in a different language.

For the same reason, Chazal spoke about "habo'el aramis"; there's obviously
no difference between an Aramis and any other goyta, but where Chazal lived
those were the ones available.

...
>:> How do you read these word so as not "say[ing] anything of the kind"?
>:> Kindly provide your translation of this quote.

>: Your translation is perfectly correct.  Which is why I'm astonished that
>: you then ignore it and pretend there's a prohibition hiding in there
>: somewhere.

> "Lo sevazeh" (or my "perfetly correct" translation of "do not insult")
> isn't a statement of prohibition????

Of course not. Why would it even occur to you to think so. Who are
"people" to prohibit anything? Honestly, how can anyone read this and
see any kind of issur being promulgated? An Amora cites a common proverb
to explain a puzzling pasuk, and you see him legislating something?!

I just did a search on "Haynu de'amri inshi", to see how common it is
in Shas. It's dead common, and it's *always* citing a common proverb
to illustrate some fact which will help us understand whatever is being
discussed. It's *never* a statement of law.

 

From: Michael Orr via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>

In Parsha Yisro after Moshe recounts to  his father-in-law the good that 
Hashem has done for the Jewish people, including  the overthrow of Paroh's 
army at the sea, the pasuk (Shemos, 18:9) states  "Vayichad Yisro." .... 
Yisro's flesh "pricked up" in discomfort, with  goosebumps, on hearing of the 
destruction of the Egyptians.  The gemara  immediately explains and extends this 
idea...   "Do not disparage a  non-Jew before a ger [convert] unto the 
tenth generation."

 
 

....how is it that there seems to be such a tolerance for speaking  
publicly in a disparaging way about non-Jews generally? 

Michael Orr
Toronto
 
>>>>>
 
The prohibition is ona'as devarim -- thoughtlessly hurting a ger's feelings 
 (or anyone's feelings).  There is no general prohibition of speaking  
disparagingly about non-Jews.  When you are speaking to a particular ger,  you 
shouldn't disparage the particular ethnic group or country that his  people 
come from if there is a chance it will make him feel bad.
 
I have had a tough time with this myself, because we were talking one day  
at our Shabbos table about what vicious anti-Semites the Ukrainians were 
during  the war and how they collaborated with the Nazis.  A giyores who was a  
guest at our table piped up, heatedly denying that the Ukrainians were  
anti-Semites at all.  Her parents were Ukrainians and they were very nice  
people!  End of discussion!
 
I never could talk to her about Ukrainians, it was a closed subject.   
However I can't believe that people will know until the tenth generation whose  
great-grandparents were gerim, or from what country.  I am sure that her  
own children, who went to frum schools and had classes about the  Holocaust, 
have heard the truth about the Ukrainians.  Their  children, in turn, are 
unlikely to feel any sensitivity about this  subject.
 
 

--Toby  Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


-------------------------------------------------------------------


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150202/c334e1e9/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Berger and R' Sero are discussing whether there is a prohibition on
speaking badly of 'the Goyim' or similar statements about non-Jews based on
the gemara brought in this thread.

It appears clear to me that no hard prohibition on this particular instance
exists, as it is not codified in any code of Jewish law after the Gemara,
but the Gemara is just as clearly giving guidance to proper behavior.

I would say this falls under the general category of 'derech eretz,' aka:
Thou shalt not be a jerk. Certainly in our day such statements will
(rightly) offend the sensibilities of someone in the audience. As a baal
teshuvah I can tell you, practically, that I chose not to join certain
communities where such grotesque verbal caricatures of 'the goyim' were
prevalent.
--
Peace and Blessings,
-Eitan Levy

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah
<avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 01:22:57PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> : Your translation is perfectly correct.  Which is why I'm astonished that
> : you then ignore it and pretend there's a prohibition hiding in there
> : somewhere.
>
> "Lo sevazeh" (or my "perfetly correct" translation of "do not insult")
> isn't a statement of prohibition????

For some reason this discussion seems to be circling round the actual
point at issue rather than actually mentioning it. IIRC (and forgive
me for lack of nuance, since I am attempting to simplify things) RZS
is saying that the "hainu de'amrei inshei" is a popular saying that
illustrates the aggada about Yitro, not a statement of halacha, and
RMB is saying that by quoting the popular saying with approval,
Rav/Rav Papa is granting it some halachic status. Is this a fair
summary?

On 02/02/2015 02:22 PM, Eitan Levy wrote:
> It appears clear to me that no hard prohibition on this particular instance
> exists, as it is not codified in any code of Jewish law after the Gemara,
> but the Gemara is just as clearly giving guidance to proper behavior.

How is this at all clear to you?  All the Amora does is cite a common
saying to explain a pasuk.  There is no implication that anyone ought
or ought not to do anything.

On 02/02/2015 02:11 PM, via Avodah wrote:
> The prohibition is ona'as devarim -- thoughtlessly hurting a ger's
> feelings (or anyone's feelings).  There is no general prohibition of
> speaking disparagingly about non-Jews.  When you are speaking to a
> particular ger, you shouldn't disparage the particular ethnic group or
> country that his people come from if there is a chance it will make
> him feel bad.

Ona'as devarim is not *thoughtlessly* hurting someone's feelings, it's
*intentionally* doing so, for that very purpose.   The proverb we are discussing
here is a proverb, like any other.  It represents the cumulative observation of
generations, and is morally neutral.


> I have had a tough time with this myself, because we were talking one
> day at our Shabbos table about what vicious anti-Semites the
> Ukrainians were during the war and how they collaborated with the
> Nazis.  A giyores who was a guest at our table piped up, heatedly
> denying that the Ukrainians were anti-Semites at all.  Her parents
> were Ukrainians and they were very nice people!  End of discussion!
> I never could talk to her about Ukrainians, it was a closed subject.

Exactly.  *That* is what the proverb is about.  Not that it is wrong to
educate her about what the Ukranians were like, but that it's useless
and not a good idea.

On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 9:22:05PM IST, R Eitan Levy wrote:
: It appears clear to me that no hard prohibition on this particular instance
: exists, as it is not codified in any code of Jewish law after the Gemara,
: but the Gemara is just as clearly giving guidance to proper behavior.

: I would say this falls under the general category of 'derech eretz,' aka:
: Thou shalt not be a jerk....

Which alone might account for the silence. An oft-given answer for why
hilkhos LH awaited the CC before being codified in detail is that "thou
shalt not be a jerk" was considered just as binding until then as LH. I
heard this answer from R' Yechiel Perr (RY Far Rockaway) but phrased in
terms of people being more concerned of speaking as their mothers taught
them than whether it fits the minutae of hil LH in particular. There was
simply no need to spell out details, often listing cases that take some
speech out of LH while not making it "ve'asisa hayashar vehatov".

:                           Certainly in our day such statements will
: (rightly) offend the sensibilities of someone in the audience...

Although in truth, the gemara would only be speaking of offending the
sensibility of Jews in the audience, on the (very real) chance that one
of their ancestors of the past 10 generations was a ger.

What you speak of is a real issue, but not the one actually discussed by
Rav here. Which increases the possible parallel to the relative silence
on Hil' LH.


On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 9:34:47PM IST, R Simon Montagu wrote:
: For some reason this discussion seems to be circling round the actual
: point at issue rather than actually mentioning it. IIRC (and forgive
: me for lack of nuance, since I am attempting to simplify things) RZS
: is saying that the "hainu de'amrei inshei" is a popular saying that
: illustrates the aggada about Yitro, not a statement of halacha, and
: RMB is saying that by quoting the popular saying with approval,
: Rav/Rav Papa is granting it some halachic status. Is this a fair
: summary?

You got what I was trying to say correctly.

I would emphasize that it's more than just quoting it with approval,
Rav is using the popular idiom to say that's the mussar haskeil of the
aggadic story about Yisro. Otherwise, why is this comment worth inclusion
in shas?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
mi...@aishdas.org        about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org   Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

For some reason this discussion seems to be circling round the actual
point at issue rather than actually mentioning it. IIRC (and forgive
me for lack of nuance, since I am attempting to simplify things) RZS
is saying that the "hainu de'amrei inshei" is a popular saying that
illustrates the aggada about Yitro, not a statement of halacha, and
RMB is saying that by quoting the popular saying with approval,
Rav/Rav Papa is granting it some halachic status. Is this a fair
summary?
_______________________________________________
Sorry if I missed this being quoted but a post on Hirhurim mentions:
in R. Abraham Besdin's book Reflections of the Rav. In chapter 6 ("The
Profundity of Jewish Folk Wisdom"), R. Besdin quotes R. Joseph B.
Soloveitchik as defending the religious intuition of the devout but
unlearned Jew. The values and traditions are so ingrained in the Jewish
psyche that they infiltrate the subconscious thought of such Jews. 
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On 02/02/2015 02:22 PM, Eitan Levy wrote:
> It appears clear to me that no hard prohibition on this particular instance
> exists, as it is not codified in any code of Jewish law after the Gemara,
> but the Gemara is just as clearly giving guidance to proper behavior.

How is this at all clear to you?  All the Amora does is cite a common
saying to explain a pasuk.  There is no implication that anyone ought
or ought not to do anything.

[Email #2. -micha]

On 02/02/2015 02:11 PM, [RnTK] wrote:
> The prohibition is ona'as devarim -- thoughtlessly hurting a ger's
> feelings (or anyone's feelings). There is no general prohibition of
> speaking disparagingly about non-Jews. When you are speaking to a
> particular ger, you shouldn't disparage the particular ethnic group or
> country that his people come from if there is a chance it will make him
> feel bad.

Ona'as devarim is not *thoughtlessly* hurting someone's feelings,
it's *intentionally* doing so, for that very purpose. The proverb we
are discussing here is a proverb, like any other. It represents the
cumulative observation of generations, and is morally neutral.

> I have had a tough time with this myself, because we were talking one
> day at our Shabbos table about what vicious anti-Semites the
> Ukrainians were during the war and how they collaborated with the
> Nazis.  A giyores who was a guest at our table piped up, heatedly
> denying that the Ukrainians were anti-Semites at all.  Her parents
> were Ukrainians and they were very nice people!  End of discussion!
> I never could talk to her about Ukrainians, it was a closed subject.

Exactly. *That* is what the proverb is about. Not that it is wrong to
educate her about what the Ukranians were like, but that it's useless
and not a good idea.

[Email #3. -micha]

On 02/02/2015 04:29 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>: point at issue rather than actually mentioning it. IIRC ... RZS
>: is saying that the "hainu de'amrei inshei" is a popular saying that
>: illustrates the aggada about Yitro, not a statement of halacha, and
>: RMB is saying that by quoting the popular saying with approval,
>: Rav/Rav Papa is granting it some halachic status. Is this a fair
>: summary?

> You got what I was trying to say correctly.

> I would emphasize that it's more than just quoting it with approval,

There is no approval or disapproval involved. He quotes it for the exact
same reason that the gemara quotes such proverbs dozens of other times:
to illustrate a point.

> Rav is using the popular idiom to say that's the mussar haskeil of the
> aggadic story about Yisro. Otherwise, why is this comment worth inclusion
> in shas?

To explain the passuk.  No more and no less.

On 02/02/2015 04:15 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
> Sorry if I missed this being quoted but a post on Hirhurim mentions:
> in R. Abraham Besdin's book Reflections of the Rav. In chapter 6
> ("The Profundity of Jewish Folk Wisdom"), R. Besdin quotes R. Joseph
> B. Soloveitchik as defending the religious intuition of the devout
> but unlearned Jew. The values and traditions are so ingrained in the
> Jewish psyche that they infiltrate the subconscious thought of such
> Jews.

And that religious intuition never cavilled at saying bad things about
nochrim.  The proverb the Amora quotes is not an expression of religious
intuition at all.  It has nothing to do with religion.  It's just a
statement of perceived fact, like most proverbs and folk sayings,
including the dozens found in the gemara in identical contexts.

In a message dated 2/2/2015 3:20:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
z...@sero.name writes:

> The  prohibition is ona'as devarim -- thoughtlessly hurting a ger's 
feelings (or  anyone's feelings).[--TK]
 

Ona'as devarim is not *thoughtlessly* hurting someone's  feelings, it's
*intentionally* doing so,[--RZS]
 

>A  giyores who was a guest at our table piped up, heatedly
> denying that  the Ukrainians were anti-Semites at all.  Her parents
> were  Ukrainians and they were very nice people!  End of discussion!
> I  never could talk to her about Ukrainians, it was a closed  subject.

Exactly.  *That* is what the proverb is about.  Not  that it is wrong to
educate her about what the Ukranians were like, but  that it's useless
and not a good idea.
 
 
>>>>>
In addition to being useless, the very attempt to educate her about  
Ukrainians would have hurt her feelings, which is why I bite my tongue when I  
talk to her.  Ona'as devarim is a more serious prohibition when you are  
talking to gerim even than when you are talking to anyone else.  You have  to be 
extra-careful with their feelings.
 
As to your suggestion that it is only forbidden to hurt them  
"intentionally" but not "thoughtlessly" I am not so sure.  It's a gray  area.  You have 
to be extra careful and if you hurt their feelings because  you just didn't 
think before you started talking, I'm not sure you get a  pass.
 

--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


-------------------------------------------------------------------


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150202/2b199017/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 04:37:14PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
:> Rav is using the popular idiom to say that's the mussar haskeil of the
:> aggadic story about Yisro. Otherwise, why is this comment worth inclusion
:> in shas?

: To explain the passuk.  No more and no less.

Rav Papayas explained the pasuq. Rav takes his thought and ties it to
an oft repeated thought about how easy it is and therefore how hard one
must work to avoid offending geirim and their descendents.

To me it seems a huge drei to avoid drawing the conclusion that Rav is
taking R' Papayas's words to make Yisro's response an illustration of
why the oft-said warning is worth heeding.

Or to put it another way: if Rav didn't agree with the common saying,
what does repeating it add to Rav Papayas's original aggadita?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

See http://tinyurl.com/lxb2o6m for Part I.  Part II is below.


Q: If a parent brings a child into a store and the child damages the 
merchandise, is the parent liable for the damage?

Discussion

In the previous post we discussed if the damage of a reckless child 
can be viewed as the action of the parent (Adom Hamazik). In this 
post we will explore the possibility of holding parents responsible 
for their children's damages under the concept of Mamon Hamazik.

The two primary categories of torts in halachah are 'Adom Ha'mazik' 
and 'Mamon Ha'mazik'. Adom Hamazik is when a person directly causes 
damage. In the previous article we discussed the limits of this 
approach and how a child's actions cannot be imputed to the parent to 
create an Adom Hazmazik obligation. The second type of tort is Mamon 
Ha'mazik, when one's possessions cause damage. The classic examples 
if one's ox or dog damages another person or property. While Adom 
Ha'mazik only obligates a person to pay for damages that are a result 
of his direct action, Mamon Ha'mazik expands this liability to damage 
caused by his possessions.

With this in mind, if a parent allows a child wander around a china 
boutique and he eventually breaks an item, the damage is too far 
removed to be considered the action of the parent (Adom Ha'mazik). 
Nevertheless, it is clear that if one brings a bull into a china 
shop, he would be liable for the resulting damage. The question at 
hand is whether a parents' responsibility to watch the child creates 
the same financial obligations as the responsibility to watch one's pets.

This question brings to light the age old argument as to why a person 
is liable for the damage of his possessions (see R' Shimon Shkop Bava 
Kama 1, Dibros Moshe BK 1, R' N. Tropp BK, E'ven Haazel Nizkai Mamon 
1,1). Is it a consequence for neglecting the obligation to prevent 
one's possessions from causing damage? Or is it because possessions 
are considered an extension of the person, and it is like the owner 
himself damaged? Whether or not a child can be considered Mamon 
Ha'mazik may depend on this question. A parent does not own his 
children. Being that a child is not the parents' property, if the 
responsibility is based on ownership, then a parent will not be 
responsible the child's damages. However, if the responsibility stems 
from neglecting the obligation to watch, it should follow that a 
parent could be held responsible for damages inflicted by a child 
under his or her care.

  The Rambam begins the laws of Nizkai Mamon by stating that a person 
is obligated to pay for the damages of any living creature "under his 
dominion (reshuso)... for his money (mamono) has 
damaged".  Commentators dispute the intent of this wording. Does the 
responsibility stem from the animal being his possession, as 
mentioned at the end of the Rambam's statement (see Ohr Sameiach), or 
is it because the animal is under his dominion and he has the 
responsibility to watch it, as the first words of the Rambam indicate 
(E'ven Haazel)?

In the fourth chapter of Nizkai Mamon the Rambam rules that a 
guardian who assumes responsibility to watch an animal is responsible 
for its damages as well.  Rabbi Isser Zalman Meltzer and the Chazon 
Ish both observe that if a guardian, who does not actually own the 
animal, is liable, than it is clear that absolute ownership is not 
needed to be responsible under Nizkai Mamon. Rabbi Meltzer 
understands that dominion and responsibility are the key factors in 
the Rambam's opening statement, not actual monetary ownership. 
Additionally, Rabbi Meltzer infers from a comment of the Jerusalem 
Talmud that a custodian appointed by Bais Din is responsible for the 
damages of the estate's livestock.

Based on this approach, Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch (Teshuvos VeHanhagos 
3,477) suggests that parents could be held liable if they were 
negligent in watching their children. He argues, just as a guardian 
who brings a pet into a store must supervise the animal to prevent it 
from damaging, parents who bring children into a store must do the 
same. Likewise, just as the guardian is responsible for the animal's 
damage although he does not own it, parents can be held liable for 
their children's damage resulting from a lack of supervision. Rabbi 
Sternbuch's argument is even more compelling if there is a clear 
policy posted in the store stating that parents may only bring 
children into the store if they assume responsibility for damages. A 
final note, Rabbi Sternbuch's extension of the concept of 
guardianship from animals to children is rather novel and the actual 
outcome of a Din Torah may not reflect his view.



------------------------------



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


------------------------------


**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)