- This topic has 44 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
People shld b allowed to sell their babies on the open market to the highest bidder, its their property and no 1 shld interfere w/ the free market. I bet s/1 gonna say it’s unethical, but you’re wrong and just being PC, and because I predicted your opinion it is no longer valid sorry.
The government does not consider a child a property to sell. You yourself are forbidden to commit suicide according the Torah. Slavery and human traficking is forbidden and we say on this דיני דמלכותא דיני.
rebyidd,somethings is definitely wrong with you
Oy gevalt this is the second dangerous post i see in 3 minutes.
Your child is not your property. Are you you out of your mind? I sincerely hope you don’t have children if this us your real belief.
If you are joking, not funny. Don’t make jokes that could be taken as serious by impressionable people
There’s no דיני דמלכותא דינה when the government abandons good values.
I’m coming to defend rebyidd,
If the government gives you the ability to “abandon” your child at (a fire station) a place then it has to be yours because if it wasn’t yours to sell for sure you couldn’t abandon it
13 Amendment to the US Constitution made sale of humans illegal. It was called slavery
Maybe you and your spouse should be able to sell children which you yourself gave birth to, but only for adoption, not slavery. and the child should not be able to get resold.
Um, what point are you trying to make?
1, who decides? Anyway, Rav Ovadia says that there is (Yechavei Daat 4:65 and 5:64).
CTL,
a. Rav Moshe says that if he was sold in order to free him there is no problem. This is his solution to adopting a non-Jewish child who might do miun when he grows up IM, YD 1:162.
b. The 13th Amendment only says that slavery shall not exist and that Congress may enforce it by appropriate legislation. Is there a law that bars buying someone in order to free him? What if he was bought in a country that allows slavery?Now THIS is what the CR should be like!
could anyone explain to me why are we even discussing this????????????
Okay, this is obviously an analogy for SOMETHING, but I can’t figure out what.
You can’t sell babies for the same reason that you can’t sell adults: They’re people. You can ‘abandon’ a baby at a safe haven, meaning that you can absolve yourself of the responsibility for the baby, not that you ‘owned’ the baby. (More like he or she owned you.)
Maybe I’m supposed to know this already, but does the “T” in the thread title stand for ‘trigger warning’? ‘Cause this is a really triggering topic.
(‘T’roll thread)
Troll. Uh-huh. Who put that there, in the title? The Original Poster? Or the Moderators?
did it ever cross your mind that some people post just to get a reaction?
RebYidd, what’s gotten into you? You used to post in full sentences and spelled out your words. Now U R doing s/t different.
And you misspelled ‘Plony’. You ADDED a letter. I mean, abbreviating is one thing, spelling ‘fallacious’ wrong is one thing, but making a word LONGER? Are you feeling okay? I’m not being flippant; I’m honestly concerned.
“Triggering” refers to a previous trauma experienced by the person. Unless
someone has been involved in the slave trade, there shouldn’t be an issue.(Also, people who took RebYidd at face value – really?)
Bump.
Reb yid
Since when does predicting the way an argument will
Go equal winning it?Why can’t you sell your child
Ever heard of אמה עבריה?
Sale date expires 12.6
I’m not suggesting you can do it it today’s world, but it can’t be wrong, objectivelyK, as a matter of fact, Rav Kook says that many things the Torah permitted were only meant to be temporary measures to ameliorate conditions which were too ingrained to be prohibited immediately or for emergency situations. Chazal, in fact, say that a man should not marry off his minor daughter. Tosafot explains that it was done in their time because of special conditions. Among these were the אשת יפת תואר and slavery. Similarly, in the time before the social safety net selling one’s daughter was a way to get her out of poverty where the father could not support her. Thus, whether or not it is wrong is subjective.
Avi
While I am familiar with that position, it is definitely a דעת יחיד and a dangerous one to utilize on our own
Pig is only forbidden because in those days…..
Marrying an aunt is only forbidden because…..
As a matter of fact before matan Torah people married their sisters, maybe that too is only assur temporarily
Lighting fires on shabbos is only assur because it was tons of work…..
Wearing shatnez is only assur because…..You can negate any part of the Torah you are so inclined, with that line of reasoning.
Rav kook was a great man. But He certainly was an original thinkerWhile it is your child that only goes so far.
You can’t raise a kid in a burned out abandoned house with no heat water or electric and feed them half a burger once in a while and claim it’s your right. The govt can take them away (your ownership of the child is not absolute).
It’s also why you can’t just privately adopt a child. You must do it through the govtAmong these were the אשת יפת תואר and slavery
Really??the Gemarah says
המשחרר עבדו עובר בעשה שנאמר לעולם בהם תעבודו
That’s a temporary measure?
And when does it end?
Why do we have no guidance?
“warning this מצווה will expire after xx years “??
Sorry I don’t buy it
Maybe אתרוג too. Only applicable when we lived in an agrarian society
תפילין only before we “woke ” and weren’t so cognizant of animal rights
And on and onAnd if it was only stop gap, why only your daughters? Why can’t you sell your sons.
כל שבח נעורים לאביה
That’s even for things that rarely come up.
Why would the Torah say that if it wasn’t intrinsic.I don’t hear anyone exploring the potential for selling your wife versus your children. In some cases, this would be a more progressive idea given that there already is a secondary market “varbeshe zacht”.
GH,
Selling your wife along with your children?
If it’s just selling her without selling your children then who will take care of them?
K, you are correct. Only a gadol like Rav Kook can say it – and part of being a gadol is being an original thinker. Chazal say it regarding the אשת יפת תואר. We also see at the end of Megillat Esther it is noted that the Jews did not take booty. Yet in the Chumash it is clear that it was permitted.
Avi
Permitted does not equal “should ”
And end of McGillah has plenty written as to why exactly they didn’t takeits their property
That’s mistake number one.and no 1 shld interfere w/ the free market.
And that’s mistake number two.The Wolf
Avi K, Haman is amolek where taking booty is forbidden as by Shaul.
From those that were not from Haman they still did not take anything, to show that they fought for the survival of Yiddishkeit and not for the booty.
RE,
1. Shaul did not prohibit it. Hashem prohibited it – and Shaul violated orders.
2. The order to Shaul was a one-time mitzva.
2. Who says that that was the reason?
4. Not all of the enemies were Amalekites. Many were opportunists.It says ,ששת ימים תעבוד, yet good majority of yiddin simply don’t work but they keep only the end of the pasuk of keepng shabbos.
How would Rav look deal with this?Avi K, Look at Rashi that if we take anything from amolek, we have not desttoyed its memory. Rashi is clear, so I don’t know what the Minchas Chinuch’s 604 , problem is. It only applies after the coming of Meshiach because we currently don’t know who amolek is.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.