If the ox of a Jew gored an ox of the Temple treasury, or if an ox of the Temple treasury gored the ox of a Jew, the owner is exempt: "...ox of his fellow..." - and not an ox of the Temple treasury.If the ox of a Jew gored the ox of a Canaanite, the Jew was exempt. Still, if the ox of a Canaanite gored the ox of a Jew, the Canaanite paid full damages – a penalty on Canaanites who had no court system and were generally not careful about other people's possessions (Meiri), thus not applicable today.
Art: A Husbandman with his Herd by Paulus Potter
10 comments:
The law here regarding Canaanites is unjust on its face. It's explained that this injustice is no longer applicable. "a penalty on Canaanites who had no court system and were generally not careful about other people's possessions (Meiri), thus not applicable today."
But Meiri's commentary on this subject is itself often found unacceptable, at least according to this: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/meiri.cfm.
If we take this passage as typical of a period when ethnic discrimination was rampant and, and that probably Jews were more sinned against than sinning, then no problem, that's what it is. But if it's legitimate oral torah, are we forced to conclude that Hashem directed Jewish courts to discriminate in civil damages against non-Jews. Certainly, the leap from Canaanite in ancient times to non-Jews in modern times is a small one, much smaller than many other leaps we're constantly making to apply these precepts to today.
It seems to me that this little passage stands at a dividing point between Orthodox Jews on the one hand, and other religious Jews on the other. The former accept the provenance and inerrancy of the passage. They're stuck. On the other hand the latter consider this historically-bound ancient wisdom, and have no problem cherry picking things they like and rejecting things like this. Of course, this approach leads to other problems...
Matt, again you deciphered the unsaid. If you look on that page, you will see that this Mishna has always been a problem, and I just selected one opinion which should provoke the least amount of discussion, but you got the hint anyway.
Actually, Canaanite means any non-Jew, and the reason for them being liable but Jews not being liable for goring is discussed in the Gemorah, which on the face value says that God penalized the non-Jews for not accepting the seven Noachide laws by removing their property laws vis-a-vis the Jews. Then a story is told that two Roman officers were dispatched to learn Torah, which they learn first, second, and third time from the Sages. When they were departing, they said to the Sages, “All of your Torah is just except for this law about the oxen of Jews and Canaanites, but we will not tell the Caesar about it.”
The Talmud Yerushalmi in relating this story adds that the wind came and made them forget all that they had learned even before then boarded the ship anyway.
Why didn't the Sages omit this law altogether? Likely because the officers knew about it and wanted to learn it. Then why did the Sages not lie about it? It is forbidden to distort any Torah law, even if it leads to danger to human life.
As far as cherry-picking, you can surely do it. You can learn some areas and not others. However, if you ARE learning, does it make sense to “accept this” or “not accept that?” We are learning a system of laws, logic, thinking, and our acceptance is not relevant to learning and knowing what this system IS.
Mark,
Don't your last two paragraphs contradict one another? First you say: "Then why did the Sages not lie about it? It is forbidden to distort any Torah law, even if it leads to danger to human life." Then you allow for cherry picking on the ground that "acceptance" isn't relevant.
So you can't distort a Torah law. You can learn it, and interpret it to the best of your abilities, but once you've done that you can't chose not to act on it or to act on a different interpretation. And surely the import here is that Hashem gave Moshe these laws so that we would abide by them. Even I could show evidence for that. He doesn't say "study these laws, so that ye may understand them and thereby sharpen your mind." He says "this is my covenant with you..."
Me personally, I just finished pork ribs for dinner, If I was called on to judge a Canaanite fairly, I would have no compunctions against doing so. But That puts me firmly in the cherry picking camp. As far as I know (not very, admittedly) eating pork and not swindling the Canaanite are essentially equal breeches of Talmudic law.
Matt, you remind me of a wonderful friend of mine, Rabbi Shlomo Poupko, who used to tell about his friend with whom he would study Talmud on Shabbat – and the friend would greet him with a ham-and-cheese sandwich and a cigar in his mouth.
The argument about what is more important, study or doing, was decided as “study is more important (because it leads to doing)”, but there is another point of view – so pick yours.
To borrow from Terry Pratchett, pork chops may be bad for your health and are dangerous to your Karma, even though the young witch says this about cursing someone.
Eating pork is a regular negative prohibition, and judging favorably is even good in itself, and you can always justify yourself by finding a loophole for your judgment, but the responsibility of judges is more fully discussed in Sanhedrin, and we still need to do Bava Metsia (Middle Gate) and Bava Batra (Last Gate).
Mark, I'm looking forward to it. I might even try to develop a taste for cigars. I particularly enjoyed reminding you of someone named "Poupka."
Matt, nobody believed the "Poupko" last name. His favorite story was about him calling to the bakery for a Shabbat challah to be left for "Poupko," to which the bakery person just snickered "sure, of course..." and left no challah, obviously thinking it was a prank.
Meanwhile, he was one of ten sons, and since his father died early, his mother taught Talmud to all her sons. Shlomo was a chief Rabbi in South Africa at one time.
Also, I don't buy "study is more important because it leads to doing." On the one hand, there are people like me, who love to study with no intention of doing. My resolve on that score is just strengthened by studying about the Canaanite thing. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who "study" in order to learn, memorize, and follow precepts. That's not studying at all, in my book. Maybe Bavas Matsia and Batra will change my mind.
"On n'est sait jamais," - one never knows.
There were people in the vicinity of Rabbi Meir who were not observant, and Rabbi Meir befriended them, while the other Rabbis were against it.
When he died, they said, "before he was praying for us, but what will happen now?" - and did Teshuva. Maybe when I die?
Good, you be holy and I'll give you a hard time. When you die, who knows? Except that I'm the older one with the bad diet. You'll probably outlive me.
Again one never knows, but I am 54.
Post a Comment