Do Good Jews Lie?
Joe Bruno
What do you think?
Is there any authoritative commentary on this question in the Torah or
Talmud?
Tilly
news:c271a1b4-d859-4bd0...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
A good first reference is to the Commandment, 'Thous shalt not bear false
witness against thy neighbour'.
fla...@verizon.net
On 23-Dec-2009, Joe Bruno <joeb...@usa.com> wrote:
> I say NO.
So you should stop.
And you should definitely stop this passive aggressive nonsense, too.
Susan
Joe Bruno
> "Joe Bruno" <joebr...@usa.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c271a1b4-d859-4bd0...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> >I say NO.
>
> > What do you think?
>
> > Is there any authoritative commentary on this question in the Torah or
> > Talmud?
>
> A good first reference is to the Commandment, 'Thous shalt not bear false
> witness against thy neighbour'.
>
> --
tell you that that does not apply to something which is spoken as
someone's opinion. You cannot sue someone for their opinion, no matter
how damaging it is to you.
Don Levey
Is that your understanding of *Jewish* law?
--
Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
(email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: Don't send mail to to sal...@the-leveys.us
GnuPG public key: http://www.the-leveys.us:6080/keys/don-dsakey.asc
mm
wrote:
And there are other places, like Exodus 23:1 You shall not raise a
false report; put not your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous
witness.
You two seem to be talking about some specific situation that we here
know nothing about. But a general quesiton was asked and these
selected lines do not tell the whole story.
For example, note the Ninth Commandment. "You shall not bear false
witness *against* your neighbor". What if the lie is meant to benefit
the neighbor. Is that included in the Ninth Commandment? I don't
think so. It's always hard to understand Jewish law, or almost any
legal system, if one looks only at a line here, or a line there.
What if you're outside and hear backfires or shots and a man runs by
yelling, "He's trying to kill me" and then he runs between two houses
and turns into the backyard of one of them?
Then a bit later another man runs up to you, holding a gun, and says,
Did you see where he went?
What do you say?
What if Jews are hiding in the attic across the street and the German
or Dutch police knock on your door and ask, Where are the Jews?
What do you say?
One way to categorize lies is by whom they are meant to benefit. If A
lies to B to benefit C, that's one thing. If A lies to B to benefit
B, that's another. If A lies to B to benefit A himself, that's a
third. For details you may have to ask someone else. I went to this
shiur 3 or 4 years ago, and don't want to mess up the details, but
it's worse to lie for your own benefit than to lie for the sake of a
third party.
Some/many/most of the Jew-haters reading this group will be willing to
distort what I say here, because they are used to liars and believing
those who have lied to them, and because some/many/most of them are
liars themselves. If they didn't lie, they would run out of hate
material to spread. So they'll have to make a choice again whether
they are even able to recall all the details in my post and repeat it
accurately, or if they will leave out qualifications and pretend that
Jews are allowed to lie, and whether they will lie about it to others.
The Halacha gives a couple situations when lying should be avoided,
but is permitted if it can't be avoided. One is iirc to keep peace in
the family. I think this more often applies to more serious issues,
but an easy to imagine example is having dinner at your
mother-in-law's house. I think derech eretz and American etiquette
both would urge the hostess or host not to ask this question, but it's
certainly possible that some will, "Did you like the meal?" What if
one didn't like it? It's much better to avoid lying, and say
something like "I had a wonderful time", "You're a wonderful hostess",
"I really liked the gribonies" whatever you can say that is true. But
what to do if she doesn't settle for that? What if she says, "I'm so
glad you had a good time, but what did you think of the tsimmes? Was
it good?" And that was the worst dish of a bad meal. I suppose, don't
remember ever hearing this, that one should still consider what one
knows of your mother-in-law and how she will react to negative
answers, but maybe you're not sure or you already know because you
told her the bad truth once already, and she reacted badly. If you
can't avoid the question, you are afaik, consult your experienced
rabbi, allowed to lie and tell her it was good.
LIfe is not simple. Halacha is not simple. A simple legal system
wouldn't work in a complicated world, and this world is and has always
been complicated. In most of Jewish law, I think it's fair to say
that one doesn't just look at the 3 seconds that it takes to perform
an act, but at the consquences, and sometimes the motivations, and
maybe all the other circumstances.
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
cindys
> Joe Bruno wrote:
> > On Dec 23, 5:23 am, "Tilly" <paul1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Joe Bruno" <joebr...@usa.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:c271a1b4-d859-4bd0...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> I say NO.
> >>> What do you think?
> >>> Is there any authoritative commentary on this question in the Torah or
> >>> Talmud?
> >> A good first reference is to the Commandment, 'Thous shalt not bear false
> >> witness against thy neighbour'.
>
> >> --
> > Bearing false witness means falsifying facts. Any legal scholar will
> > tell you that that does not apply to something which is spoken as
> > someone's opinion. You cannot sue someone for their opinion, no matter
> > how damaging it is to you.
>
> Is that your understanding of *Jewish* law?
What he wrote above is not Jewish law. In Jewish law "bearing false
witness" means giving false testimony in a court of law.
BTW, I was rather disapppointed to see these two threads on SCJM. I'm
not sure how SCJM has suddenly turned into an extension of SCJ
unmoderated. Normally, on SCJM, we are spared this kind of....stuff.
Best regards,
----Cindy S.
Don Levey
into it does it become a problem.
Joe Bruno
> Joe Bruno wrote:
> > On Dec 23, 5:23 am, "Tilly" <paul1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Joe Bruno" <joebr...@usa.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:c271a1b4-d859-4bd0...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> I say NO.
> >>> What do you think?
> >>> Is there any authoritative commentary on this question in the Torah or
> >>> Talmud?
> >> A good first reference is to the Commandment, 'Thous shalt not bear false
> >> witness against thy neighbour'.
>
> >> --
> > Bearing false witness means falsifying facts. Any legal scholar will
> > tell you that that does not apply to something which is spoken as
> > someone's opinion. You cannot sue someone for their opinion, no matter
> > how damaging it is to you.
>
> Is that your understanding of *Jewish* law?
>
> --
It's my knowledge of American law.As far as I know, Jewish law has no
provision for lawsuits.
Those must be filed in civil court.
Don Levey
Then, honestly, it's not of much use or applicability here. The
question, and response, was specifically on Jewish law.
Amitai
The initial question wasn't about Jewish law, which presumably means
halakhah. It was whether there was anything in the Torah or Talmud
prohibiting lying. If my previous examples weren't good enough, how
about the following two verses in Exodus 23?
1 Thou shalt not utter a false report; put not thy hand with the
wicked to be an unrighteous witness.
The first statement is not limited to testimony in court
7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous
slay thou not; for I will not justify the wicked.
Again, the first statement says it all.
Amitai
> --
> Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
> (email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
> NOTE: Don't send mail to to sale...@the-leveys.us
> GnuPG public key: http://www.the-leveys.us:6080/keys/don-dsakey.asc- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don Levey
My apologies - that narrows the field of discussion even more, doesn't it?
> If my previous examples weren't good enough, how
> about the following two verses in Exodus 23?
>
> 1 Thou shalt not utter a false report; put not thy hand with the
> wicked to be an unrighteous witness.
> The first statement is not limited to testimony in court
>
> 7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous
> slay thou not; for I will not justify the wicked.
> Again, the first statement says it all.
>
That's clear enough for me. Whether or not that's clear enough for the
original poster is something he'll need to answer.
--
Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
(email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: Don't send mail to to sal...@the-leveys.us
Joe Bruno
reference.
Joe Bruno
fact and opinion.
Opinions cannot be false, as they are subjective and personal.
Facts are provable and can be misstated.
Ex:If I say"I think he is dishonest", it's an opinion.
If I say:"He robbed a grocery store", it's a fact.
mm
wrote:
Jewish law has plenty provision for lawsuits and plenty of law on the
topic. You may find more about this if you learn about Seder Nezikin
(Damages) of the Talmud, which includes 10 Masechtas, dealing with
Damages and torts; lost and abandoned objects; business ethics and
laws of trade; property and inheritance; jurisprudence, government and
the monarchy; laws of evidence, punishment and oaths; the prohibition
of idol worship and relationships with pagans; and the laws of
erroneous rulings by a court. I think all of these correspond to
issues in current American civil courts except the prohibition on idol
worship. You may have already heard of the masechtas (tractates)
Baba Kama, Baba Metzia, Baba Bathra, Shavuoth, Eduyot, and Horayoth.
The first three are the basis of Jewish civil law. Sanhedrim and
Makkot deal with criminal law. Shavuoth deals with oaths and their
consequences, and I think is relevant to both civil and criminal law,
but the consequences are more severe in criminal law.
There have been other writings and rabbinic responsa for the last 1500
to maybe 2500 years that go into even more detail.
Israel was a self-governing nation for 1200 years before the second
exile and we had a government that of course handled both civil and
criminal matters, and the law still applies to us, sometimes with
allowances for new things that didn't exist until recently. That's
what modern responsa deal with.
>Those must be filed in civil court.
Perhaps they must be filed in civil court, but they need not be
decided in civil court.
If both litigants, all if there are more than two, agree to it, they
can have their case heard by a beis din, a Jewish court, and decided
in accordance with Jewish law. With at least one method**, and maybe
two, such decisions are, if necessary, enforceable by the legal power
of the government authorities, such as marshalls and sheriffs, in each
US state, and probably in a lot of other countries.
(National (and state) governments usually won't allow criminal cases
to be decided by non-government people.)
Batei din are regarded in US law as in the same category as
arbitration panels. There are thousands of these nationwide. including
tv court shows such as the Peoples Court and Judge Judy. Baltimore
and several other US cities have a permanent beis din. This saves a
bit of time, and probably encourages more cases to be heard, but in
many more places can a beis din be organized for an individual case.
It would only take a 3 or 4 days maybe and at any rate, far less time
than getting a court date in a state court.
Except perhaps in cases where every party has acted properly and the
facts are not in dispute but the law is, and both parties can make a
reasonable claim that the law is on his side, it's a shanda, a shame,
an embarrassment, for two Jews to litigate in an American court or any
national court. They should go to Jewish court instead. And this is
not an OC or R statement. I've felt this way since I was 10 and first
learned there were Jewish courts.
**One method is to first, or maybe even later, file suit in a state
civil court and then one party would move to have the case decided by
a beis din and the other party doesn't object and the motion is
probably always granted. The beis din hears the case, the court's
ruling is implemented by the litigants, and the beis din or maybe the
litigants report to the civil court that everything is settled and
done. There might exist a second method, at least in some states,
of initiating the procedure in the beis din and agreeing at that time
to have the decision enforced by civil authorities, but I'm just
guessing.
At any rate, a proper Jew won't require civil authorities to compel
him to fulfill a beis din's judgment against him. If the court says
he has to pay, he'll pay. The rabbi of my congregation in Baltimore
was, probably still is, the secretary of the permanent Beis Din of
Baltimore. If there were cars parked in the shul parking lot in the
middle of the day, it usually meant a case was being herard. He told
us of one case, involving a collision of two cars driven by Jews, in a
parking lot, some place in Baltimore. IIRC, B thought he was not at
fault, but the court held in favor of A against B, for the full amount
of the damages, but A would only accept half the amount, since he felt
he was also at fault. That's honesty and mentchlichkeit.
http://www.eternaljewishfamily.org/site/resources/beitdin/
Sixteen cities are listed in the US and Canada that have permanent
batei din, "that are operating with the standards that have been
handed to us by Gedolei Torah." Also London.
mm
It's clear, but clarity isn't everything. There's more to it than
that. See my long post, currently the last one in the thread.
Fattush
I would answer the question, "As a general rule, good Jews do not
lie." However, there are exceptions. IMO if it is necessary to lie
to save a life, than lying is permitted. For example, if a Jew is
caught by a Nazi during WW II, and the Nazi asks, "Are you Jewish?" I
imagine it would be fine for the Jew to say, "No" in order to save his
own life.
Dennis
> If both litigants, all if there are more than two, agree to it, they
> can have their case heard by a beis din, a Jewish court, and decided
> in accordance with Jewish law. With at least one method**, and maybe
> two, such decisions are, if necessary, enforceable by the legal power
> of the government authorities, such as marshalls and sheriffs, in each
> US state, and probably in a lot of other countries.
>
> (National (and state) governments usually won't allow criminal cases
> to be decided by non-government people.)
This is very interesting!
Under traditional Muslim law, as in Spain when the Moors ruled it,
"people of the book" were allowed to rule themselves under their own laws.
Did batei din handle criminal cases involving Jews there?
Also: does Jewish law recognize a crime equivalent to the US crime of
perjury? I'm not sure but I think that some other modern nations don't
have this crime. I once heard that Japan doesn't, though I don't really
know.
Patty
> "Joe Bruno" <joebr...@usa.com> wrote in message
In court. That's the place where witnesses speak out. That's been
discussed on the group before.
mm
<tsalagi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>mm wrote:
>
>> If both litigants, all if there are more than two, agree to it, they
>> can have their case heard by a beis din, a Jewish court, and decided
>> in accordance with Jewish law. With at least one method**, and maybe
>> two, such decisions are, if necessary, enforceable by the legal power
>> of the government authorities, such as marshalls and sheriffs, in each
>> US state, and probably in a lot of other countries.
>>
>> (National (and state) governments usually won't allow criminal cases
>> to be decided by non-government people.)
BTW I meant these days when I wrote the two lines above.
>
> This is very interesting!
>
> Under traditional Muslim law, as in Spain when the Moors ruled it,
>"people of the book" were allowed to rule themselves under their own laws.
>Did batei din handle criminal cases involving Jews there?
That's a good question. And Jews have lived in a lot of Muslim
countries. They didnt' start kicking us out until 1948 and from more
places in 1967 and probably 1968, and other places other times. I
don't know the answer to your question.
> Also: does Jewish law recognize a crime equivalent to the US crime of
>perjury?
Absolutely. "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in
vain" refers to taking oaths to do something one doesn't do, or making
blessings for things one doesn't then do. And maybe for some other
things? (It doesn't refer to just saying "G-d only knows", or other
casual uses of his name or title. That's covered by some other rule,
and that's why religious Jews are more likely to say HaShem, the Name,
which is not one of the sacred names of G-d.)
And at least in a criminal case, if a witness committed perjury, he
was liable to the same punishment the defendant was liable to. At
first I only thought of those testifying falsely to "facts" that
indicate someone was guilty, but it occurs to me that someone
testifying falsely to "facts" that indicate someone is innocent could
be considered an accomplice to the original crime. So I think it's
both who face that punishment. (But don't go by what I think.)
IIUC, the rabbis banned taking oaths altogether, as a fence maybe,
because if one doesn't take an oath, he can't violate his oath,
inadvertantly, by mistake, or even on purpose.
I'm not sure when this ban was made, and I'm pretty sure it also
applies to witnesses at a beis din. (The most common beis din now is
for divorce. I've never been married or divorced, but I read a
detailed description of the proceeding and I don't think there are any
oaths, or even affirmations, except maybe, I'm Jacob Goldberg. And
are you Sarah Goldberg? Yes.)
You may have heard that a woman can't be a witness in court. I think
this is true but only because the meaning of witness seems to be a lot
more limited than in English. That is, when the woman is the
plaintiff or the defendant, she can still testify**
**The etymology of the English word "testify" is very interesting,
comes from the Bible or similar practices elsewhere, and refers to
being under oath, but at least in the US, it alternatively refers to
affirmation. I don't know about other countries. In many forums in
the US, no one is asked to swear to tell the truth, and afaik in all
the others, people have a choice of swearing or affirming.** When I
"spoke" before the Baltimore City Council committee, I didnt' swear or
affirm, but everything I said was opinion anyhow. But the other guy,
Dr. Sharfstein, reprenting the city's Department of Health did claim
to be giving facts, but he didn't swear or affirm either. No one did.
OTOH, watching C-Span, I've noticed that witnesses are asked, Do you
swear to tell the truth.... A Jew should reply, "I affirm that I
will". But most Jews don't know that.
**(Although I can't help wondering what a trier of fact, the jury or
judge, will think when a Jew only affirms and the others have said Yes
when the bailiff asks if they swear to tell the truth.) Will his word
be taken as seriously as someone who swears? The US Constitution only
provides the "oath" of office for President. (The text has been
adapted by Congress For lower offices) and it provides that the
incoming President may swear or affirm. AFAIK I used to imagine
this senstivity was for the sake of Jews, but that was incorrect.
There are some Xian groups who also won't swear. Maybe the Puritans
and the related Congregationalists?
> I'm not sure but I think that some other modern nations don't
>have this crime. I once heard that Japan doesn't, though I don't really
>know.
Me neither.
Patty
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Again v 1 the end shows that it is an issue of courts; Rashi agrees
and connects the first part to loshon hora which is a specific charge
of derogatory statements about others, therefore it does not cover
stating false facts in general. Further, it doesn't cover ambiguous
statements that somebody takes as defamatory to them.
http://dafyomi.shemayisrael.co.il/bbasra/insites/bb-dt-039.htm
Also discussed on Bavli Pesachim 118a, Makot 23a.
v 7 look at the surrounding verses. They are about court testimony
and neither gypping the poor nor taking bribes. Bavli Shevuot 30b-31a
confirms this is about behavior in court.
Taking verses out of context is always the source of confusion, the
same as taking U.S. laws out of context.
Dennis
> **(Although I can't help wondering what a trier of fact, the jury or
> judge, will think when a Jew only affirms and the others have said Yes
> when the bailiff asks if they swear to tell the truth.) Will his word
> be taken as seriously as someone who swears? The US Constitution only
> provides the "oath" of office for President. (The text has been
> adapted by Congress For lower offices) and it provides that the
> incoming President may swear or affirm. AFAIK I used to imagine
> this senstivity was for the sake of Jews, but that was incorrect.
> There are some Xian groups who also won't swear. Maybe the Puritans
> and the related Congregationalists?
According to my recollections, and several references in Wiki, the
legal consequences of an affirmation are exactly the same as for an oath -
it is taken just as seriously, and it leaves one just as open to the charge
of perjury if it is false.
Quakers and Mennonites are the Christian groups who won't take oaths.
There are passages in Christian scripture that forbid oaths. I wasn't
aware until this ng that Jews won't either. I would guess that it was due
to the Quakers that the alternative of affirmation was provided in the USA,
since their proclivity was well-known and they founded Pennsylvania here.
I believe they had already won the right to make affirmation in England by
then. Only two US Presidents, Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover (a
Quaker), used "I affirm" in their Presidential inaugurations. Of course,
Richard Nixon was also a Quaker and he made an oath - but then again, he
also prosecuted a war. :-)
Dennis
Joe Bruno
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's an important distinction.Good point.
Witnesses in a trial, before testifying, swear to tell the truth.
People who engage in conversation outside of court are not bound by
any such oath.
mm
wrote:
>On Dec 24, 8:16 am, Patty <pajh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
They're not bound by an oath outside of court unless they take an oath
outside of court. Some people do. Jews are not allowed to but some
may do so anyhow.
Plus we are not generally allowed to lie whether under oath or not,
which was the topic.
It's interesting how many people have posted to this thread, in
answers to short posts, but my longer more complicated one just above
or below Patty's has gotten no posts in reply. Perhaps mine seemed
too long to read, perhaps no one saw it because everyone has
kill-filed me, perhaps some read it but consider me in the doghouse
and won't reply (although they could still raise the same issues on
their own). Perhaps people like to reply to simple posts, which make
issues seem simple.
sheldonlg
Yes. As a word of advice you need to find some middle ground between
the "seven words" and your usual posting style of extended length if you
want more people to respond (and yet not "read into" it what you don't
want "read in").
Yisroel Markov
>mm wrote:
>
>> If both litigants, all if there are more than two, agree to it, they
>> can have their case heard by a beis din, a Jewish court, and decided
>> in accordance with Jewish law. With at least one method**, and maybe
>> two, such decisions are, if necessary, enforceable by the legal power
>> of the government authorities, such as marshalls and sheriffs, in each
>> US state, and probably in a lot of other countries.
>>
>> (National (and state) governments usually won't allow criminal cases
>> to be decided by non-government people.)
>
> This is very interesting!
>
> Under traditional Muslim law, as in Spain when the Moors ruled it,
>"people of the book" were allowed to rule themselves under their own laws.
>Did batei din handle criminal cases involving Jews there?
Yes, and not only in Spain but everywhere (AFAIK) where Moslems ruled.
Disputes between Jews and Moslems were governed by sharia, though.
In Spain, the judicial independence of the Jewish and Moslem
communities had persisted for a couple of centuries before being
gradually taken away. The Spanish Royal Archives contain a multitude
of complaints of these communities against each other, which were
adjudicated by the Crown.
> Also: does Jewish law recognize a crime equivalent to the US crime of
>perjury? I'm not sure but I think that some other modern nations don't
>have this crime. I once heard that Japan doesn't, though I don't really
>know.
The rule of conspiring witnesses is that in most cases they receive
the punishment to which they intended to subject their victim. AFAIK,
a single witness is not so punished. One can be prosecuted for false
testimony that causes a loss and be liable for reimbursement. As for
lying under oath, the punishment for that is left to God in Whose name
the oath was taken. Current practice is not to require oaths or
swearing.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
mm
<NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>And at least in a criminal case, if a witness committed perjury, he
>was liable to the same punishment the defendant was liable to. At
>first I only thought of those testifying falsely to "facts" that
>indicate someone was guilty, but it occurs to me that someone
>testifying falsely to "facts" that indicate someone is innocent could
>be considered an accomplice to the original crime. So I think it's
>both who face that punishment. (But don't go by what I think.)
Forget all this and go by what Yisroel said.
"The rule of conspiring witnesses is that in most cases they receive
the punishment to which they intended to subject their victim. AFAIK,
a single witness is not so punished. One can be prosecuted for false
testimony that causes a loss and be liable for reimbursement. As for
lying under oath, the punishment for that is left to God in Whose name
the oath was taken. Current practice is not to require oaths or
swearing."
--
@invalid.com Uncle Toad
Why obsess so?
Dennis
>> Under traditional Muslim law, as in Spain when the Moors
>> ruled it,
>>"people of the book" were allowed to rule themselves under their own
>>laws. Did batei din handle criminal cases involving Jews there?
>
> Yes, and not only in Spain but everywhere (AFAIK) where Moslems ruled.
> Disputes between Jews and Moslems were governed by sharia, though.
Makes sense. In Ptolemaic Egypt there was a somewhat analogous
system. There were Greek courts that handled cases between Greeks and
judged on Greek documents, native courts that handled cases between
Egyptians and judged on demotic documents, and mixed courts that handled
cases between Greeks and Egyptians.
>
> In Spain, the judicial independence of the Jewish and Moslem
> communities had persisted for a couple of centuries before being
> gradually taken away. The Spanish Royal Archives contain a multitude
> of complaints of these communities against each other, which were
> adjudicated by the Crown.
That had to have been before 1492, when the Jews were thrown out of
Spain. I suppose before that the Muslims were made to convert to
Christianity.
Which reminds me. Did the Jews in Italy speak Yiddish or Ladino, or
some Judeo-Italian, which would be similar to Ladino but not identical?
Dennis
Yisroel Markov
<tsalagi...@hotmail.com> said:
>Yisroel Markov wrote:
>
>>> Under traditional Muslim law, as in Spain when the Moors
>>> ruled it,
>>>"people of the book" were allowed to rule themselves under their own
>>>laws. Did batei din handle criminal cases involving Jews there?
>>
>> Yes, and not only in Spain but everywhere (AFAIK) where Moslems ruled.
>> Disputes between Jews and Moslems were governed by sharia, though.
>
> Makes sense. In Ptolemaic Egypt there was a somewhat analogous
>system. There were Greek courts that handled cases between Greeks and
>judged on Greek documents, native courts that handled cases between
>Egyptians and judged on demotic documents, and mixed courts that handled
>cases between Greeks and Egyptians.
>>
>> In Spain, the judicial independence of the Jewish and Moslem
>> communities had persisted for a couple of centuries before being
>> gradually taken away. The Spanish Royal Archives contain a multitude
>> of complaints of these communities against each other, which were
>> adjudicated by the Crown.
>
> That had to have been before 1492, when the Jews were thrown out of
>Spain.
Well, of course.
>I suppose before that the Muslims were made to convert to
>Christianity.
The Decree of Expulsion covered all non-Christians. The Moslems faced
the same choice we did, and the Inquisition prosecuted crypto-Moslems,
too. Not nearly as many, though, for the Moslem marranos (those who
did not leave the country) stayed in their agricultural communities
and thus below the Inquisition's "radar", whereas lots of Jewish
marranos, suddenly free of commercial restrictions (for a while),
became very successful in commerce and society and aroused plenty of
resentment.
> Which reminds me. Did the Jews in Italy speak Yiddish or Ladino, or
>some Judeo-Italian, which would be similar to Ladino but not identical?
Sorry, no idea.
Dennis
>>> In Spain, the judicial independence of the Jewish and Moslem
>>> communities had persisted for a couple of centuries before being
>>> gradually taken away. The Spanish Royal Archives contain a multitude
>>> of complaints of these communities against each other, which were
>>> adjudicated by the Crown.
>>
>> That had to have been before 1492, when the Jews were thrown
>> out of Spain.
>
> Well, of course.
>
>> I suppose before that the Muslims were made to convert to
>> Christianity.
>
> The Decree of Expulsion covered all non-Christians. The Moslems faced
> the same choice we did, and the Inquisition prosecuted crypto-Moslems,
> too. Not nearly as many, though, for the Moslem marranos (those who
> did not leave the country) stayed in their agricultural communities
> and thus below the Inquisition's "radar",
Have you read "Montaillou" by Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie? It's about
some small mountain communities in SW France that were the last remnants
of Catharism, a Christian heresy, and the Inquisition's suppression of
them. I guess the Inquisition didn't mount as systematic an effort in
Spain - which is hard to believe.
> whereas lots of Jewish
> marranos, suddenly free of commercial restrictions (for a while),
> became very successful in commerce and society and aroused plenty of
> resentment.
Do you mean after the Decree, the Marrano Jews who remained became
free of commercial restrictions, because they supposedly weren't Jews?
>> Which reminds me. Did the Jews in Italy speak Yiddish or
>> Ladino, or
>> some Judeo-Italian, which would be similar to Ladino but not
>> identical?
>
> Sorry, no idea.
Wiki's article is somewhat contradictory, on one hand it says that
Judeo-Italian was little different from other dialects of Italian, on the
other, it makes this interesting statement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Italian_languages
"All the spoken varieties used a unique (among Jewish languages,
although there are arguably parallels in Jewish English usage)
combination of Hebrew verb stems with Italian conjugations (e.g.,
"axlare", to eat; "gannaviare", to steal; "dabberare", to speak;
"lekhtire", to go). Similarly there are abstract nouns such as "tovezza",
goodness."
Dennis
mm
<tsalagi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Yisroel Markov wrote:
>
>>>> In Spain, the judicial independence of the Jewish and Moslem
>>>> communities had persisted for a couple of centuries before being
>>>> gradually taken away. The Spanish Royal Archives contain a multitude
>>>> of complaints of these communities against each other, which were
>>>> adjudicated by the Crown.
>>>
>>> That had to have been before 1492, when the Jews were thrown
>>> out of Spain.
>>
>> Well, of course.
>>
>>> I suppose before that the Muslims were made to convert to
>>> Christianity.
>>
>> The Decree of Expulsion covered all non-Christians. The Moslems faced
I think I read -- can anyone confirm this -- that August of 1492 was
just the final deadline. That efforts had been made to get Jews and
other non-Xians to leave for decades prior to this. I rather think
that included ordering them to leave, but the 1492 deadline was leave,
convert, or die, and we mean it.
Partly I suspect this is the result of mulitiple authors, who may not
agree with each other. But otoh, a union of the two descriptions
could be that... Except for the Hebrew verb stems (and I'm sure other
Hebrew words, like nouns Shabbat, Yom Tov, etc.**), the *rest* of
Judeo-Italian was little different from other dialects of Italian.
And in English too we use Hebrew roots and conjugate or otherwise
inflect them as if they were English. Well, all the ones that come
to mind are Yiddish. I'll try to get back to you. In Yiddish, most of
the words from Hebrew are religious words, partly since there are no
exact translations for some of those. Same in Judeo-Iralian I expect.
**Who knew that "etc." was a Hebrew word?
>Dennis
Patty
wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh then I must be misunderstanding Mishnah Makkot 1:1-2 which
prescribe flogging when witnesses are proven false, under the rubric
of you shall have one law, because Makkot 1:1 says if somebody falsely
testifies that so and so (whose father is a Levite) was the son of a
divorced woman then you can't turn the false witness into the son of a
divorced woman (and besides if the witness's father wasn't a Levite it
doesn't matter if she was). What am I missing out on?
Feldman Astronomy
> Oh then I must be misunderstanding Mishnah Makkot 1:1-2 which
> prescribe flogging when witnesses are proven false, under the rubric
> of you shall have one law,
Where are you getting the "you shall have one law" in this context?
That is not found in either Makkoth 1, or the associated Gemara.
> because Makkot 1:1 says if somebody falsely
> testifies that so and so (whose father is a Levite) was the son of a
> divorced woman then you can't turn the false witness into the son of a
> divorced woman (and besides if the witness's father wasn't a Levite it
> doesn't matter if she was). What am I missing out on?
The opening mishnayoth in Makkoth deal with the *exceptions* to the
Biblical rule that "you shall do to the [false witness] exactly as he
intended to do to his fellow."
(the "mirror -image punishment")
That rule is easily applied when the flase charges are *crimes*. Then
the punishment is clear.
What about non-crimes - family status, manslaughter, one's animal
injured, one is actually a runaway Hebrew slave, falsely alleging a
man divorced his wife but has not paid the ketuba, etc.?
In these instances we substitute makkoth (flogging) for the Biblical
"mirror-image punishment". Because this is not spelled out in the
text the law is not derivable from the Tora, and is only known via a
legal tradition (qabbala).
Maimonides' MT spells this out rather neatly in "Laws of Testimony."
General "mirror -image rule" at Chapter 18, the first two halakhoth,
and the particular laws found in Makkoth 1:1-:2 in Chapter 20, at the
end.
Jacko
Yisroel Markov
<tsalagi...@hotmail.com> said:
>Yisroel Markov wrote:
>
>>>> In Spain, the judicial independence of the Jewish and Moslem
>>>> communities had persisted for a couple of centuries before being
>>>> gradually taken away. The Spanish Royal Archives contain a multitude
>>>> of complaints of these communities against each other, which were
>>>> adjudicated by the Crown.
>>>
>>> That had to have been before 1492, when the Jews were thrown
>>> out of Spain.
>>
>> Well, of course.
>>
>>> I suppose before that the Muslims were made to convert to
>>> Christianity.
>>
>> The Decree of Expulsion covered all non-Christians. The Moslems faced
>> the same choice we did, and the Inquisition prosecuted crypto-Moslems,
>> too. Not nearly as many, though, for the Moslem marranos (those who
>> did not leave the country) stayed in their agricultural communities
>> and thus below the Inquisition's "radar",
>
> Have you read "Montaillou" by Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie? It's about
>some small mountain communities in SW France that were the last remnants
>of Catharism, a Christian heresy, and the Inquisition's suppression of
>them. I guess the Inquisition didn't mount as systematic an effort in
>Spain - which is hard to believe.
Oh, the Spanish authorities did persecute the Moriscos (ex-Muslims),
but the Inquisition was less involved. They were concentrating on the
Jews because of their higher visibility.
OTOH, Spain finally gave up and ended up expelling all Moriscos (the
decree of 1609) whereas the Marranos were not.
>> whereas lots of Jewish
>> marranos, suddenly free of commercial restrictions (for a while),
>> became very successful in commerce and society and aroused plenty of
>> resentment.
>
> Do you mean after the Decree, the Marrano Jews who remained became
>free of commercial restrictions, because they supposedly weren't Jews?
Yes. Many of them had the hutzpa to prosper so much as to arouse the
anger and envy of the "old Christians" who promptly passed "laws of
blood purity" to put brakes on their advancement.
[snip]