CLAIM (27)
Jews May Lie to Non-Jews Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.
RESPONSE (1)
This is one of the most obvious pieces of out-of-context blather it has ever been my pleasure to refute. The context is evading a thief. Yes, you are permitted to lie to a robber --- in particular a crooked tax collector.
Further down the same page, it not only says that robbing gentiles is prohibited, it even discusses the derivation of the prohibition.
Here, we have gone beyond going out of context and have entered the realm of deliberate falsification.
jhertzli@ix.netcom.com(Joseph Hertzlinger)
RESPONSE (2)
Refers to whether a Jew may deceive a Roman tax collector, IIRC (note that Romans were the occupying force at that time, literally playing the role of the Sheriff of Nottingham).
From Usenet message
behrends@student.uni-kl.de (Reimer Behrends)
RESPONSE (3)
The passage discusses robbers (such as tax collectors who acted beyond their legal authority) who have stolen property. The question that arises is whether it is permitted to use subterfuge to circumvent their thievery. In a long legal discussion, the entire thrust of which is that any form of stealing from heathens is forbidden, the following statement is brought forward for consideration: "we use subterfuges to circumvent him [a heathen; this is one opinion] ... but Rabbi Akiva said that we should not attempt to circumvent him on account of the sanctification of the Name". The Talmud continues and notes that Rabbi Akiva forbids subterfuges not only on account of desecration of G-d's name, but also because theft from a non-Jew is absolutely forbidden by biblical law. The Talmud continues to explain that even the opinion which is rejected does not condone outright theft which is absolutely forbidden according to all opinions.
The Talmudic passage here is a well-known one which makes the point that the "law of the land is the law", that is, the civil and commercial law of the nations in which Jews reside is binding on them.
The conclusions to be drawn from this passage, as noted by the commentator Meiri, some 700 years ago are as follows:
"We find that it is forbidden to steal even from idol worshippers and those who do not have any kind of legal system and if a Jew is sold to them [as a slave] it is forbidden for him to leave their service without payment, and it is forbidden to refrain from repaying a loan received from them but one is not required to expend efforts to find and return their lost articles, and in fact one who simply finds their lost articles is not required to return them .... since return of lost articles is an act of extraordinary kindness [in places where 'finders-keepers' is the rule] and we are not required to show this extraordinary kindness to those who live without laws, but in any event ... in the case of a lost article it should be returned if there is any chance of desecration of G-d's name by failing to do so .... but for all those who have any kind of legal and religious system at all of any type even though their faith is far from our own, they are not [referred to] in these laws, rather they are in all respects as Jews for these matters, both as to lost articles, or to mistakes and to all the other matters without exception."
Michael Gruda (
mgruda@netvision.net.il)
RESPONSE (4)
This passage shares the same footnote as Baba Kamma 37b, discussed above. What is at issue is the principle of legal recipricocity:
As Canaanites did not recognize the laws of social justice, they did not impose any liablitity for damage done by cattle. They could consequently not claim to be protected by a law they neither recognized nor respected... In ancient Israel as in the modern state the legislation regulating the protection of life and property of the stranger was... on the basis of reciprocity. Where such reciprocity was not recognized, the stranger could not claim to enjoy the same protection of the law as the citizen. <Baba Kamma, p. 211, Footnote 6.>
David S. Maddison (
maddison@connexus.net.au)
RESPONSE (5)
A footnote to the passage above refers to the previous footnote. In other words, this is a case of legal non-reciprocity. That this passage is directly related to the preceding one, is apparent from the full citation:
Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: 'This is _our_ law'; also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens justify him and say [to the other party:] 'This is _your_law'; but if this cannot be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him. This is the view of R. Ishmael, but R. Akiba said that we should not attempt to circumvent him on account of the sanctification of the Name. <Baba Kamma, p. 664.>
Note that an opposing opinion is quoted in the very next sentence after the one cited by Mr. Hoffman -- he could not have missed it! R. Akiba's opinion, the one Mr. Hoffman does not see fit to mention, is the one that is accepted as the rule. The reason given, "the sanctification of the Name," means that a heathen must not be goaded into cursing against God.
Neither does Mr. Hoffman see fit to mention the very narrow circumstances in which R. Ishmael sees subterfuge as warranted. Nevertheless, as R. Ishmael's opinion is not accepted, R. Ishmael himself would be required to follow R. Akiba's rule. (The strict adherence of the talmudic rabbis to majority rule is even affirmed by another of Mr. Hoffman's "citations" in this same article -- the story of R. Akiba washing his hands before a meal when he had hardly enough water to drink -- but I will not be getting around to discussing that one in this post.)
This particular talmudic discussion continues a few lines down:
Is then the robbery of a heathen permissible? Has it not been taught that R. Simeon stated that the following matter was expounded by R. Akiba when he arrived from Zifirin: 'Whence can we learn that the robbery of a heathen is forbidden? From the significant words: _After that he is sold <I.e., an Israelite to a Canaanite. -- Footnote 9, p. 664> he may be redeemed again,_ <Lev. XXV, 48. -- Footnote 1, p. 665> which implies that he could not withdraw and leave him [without paying the redemption money]. <Baba Kamma, p. 664-5.>
That is, an Israelite may not be freed from servitude to a Gentile without paying compensation to the Gentile.
The debate ends with an affirmation of R. Akiba's view. R. Bibi b. Giddal, R. Simeon the pious, and R. Huna agree, "The robbery of a heathen is prohibited...<Baba Kamma, p. 666.>" A footnote to this last passage delivers the knockput punch:
...v. also Tosef. B.K. X,8 where it is stated that it is more criminal to rob a Canaanite than to rob an Israelite... <Baba Kamma, p. 666, Footnote 2.>
(The abbreviation, Tosef., stands for _Tosefta_, a commentary on the Talmud, and B.K. stands for Baba Kamma.)
In spite of which, Mr. Hoffman has the audacity, the unmitigated gall, and the _chutzpah_ to make up subtitles for his "citations" such as, "Jews May Steal from Non-Jews" and "Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews!"
From Usenet message
Harry Katz (
Harry.Katz@mci.com)
