Just because it's ???? doesn't mean it's right

Home › Forums › Controversial Topics › Just because it's ???? doesn't mean it's right

Viewing 19 posts - 1 through 19 (of 19 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • July 5, 2015 7:00 pm at 7:00 pm #615966
    catch yourself
    Participant

    Chazal tell us that after the birth (conception?) of Amon and Moav, Avraham moved away from Lot because “??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??????.”

    It wasn’t just public opinion – Chazal also put Lot in a negative light because of this incident.

    The fact is that, as the Ramban (if I remember correctly) points out, Lot was halachically permitted to marry them, since they were not his maternal relatives.

    Perhaps the ?? ?? was because it was against the social mores of the time, but why do Chazal portray Lot as such an immoral person, if what he did was within the parameters of Halacha?

    July 5, 2015 8:00 pm at 8:00 pm #1090797
    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    The fact is that, as the Ramban (if I remember correctly) points out, Lot was halachically permitted to marry them, since they were not his maternal relatives.

    they were his daughters, i don’t get your question

    July 5, 2015 8:44 pm at 8:44 pm #1090798
    catch yourself
    Participant

    ?? ?? ???? ????, as long as she is not also ????? ?? ???.

    Hence the question.

    July 5, 2015 8:48 pm at 8:48 pm #1090799
    apushatayid
    Participant

    ???????????

    July 5, 2015 9:40 pm at 9:40 pm #1090800
    theprof1
    Participant

    Chazal in Medrash Rabboh on Bereishis interpret the posuk that Avrohom moved away from Lot because the people were talking about the fact that Lot slept with his daughters. At that point the nations still guarded themselves from illicit marriages. The Ramban says nothing about this. I have no idea where you got this idea that his daughters were muttar to him. They were his daughters from his wife.

    July 5, 2015 11:26 pm at 11:26 pm #1090801
    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    catch yourself

    huh,

    a case where its “achoso min ha’em” is if he married his mother therefore his daughter would be “achoso min ha’em”

    July 6, 2015 2:02 am at 2:02 am #1090802
    catch yourself
    Participant

    Yes, that would be the case where a ?? ?? would be ???? ????.

    July 6, 2015 2:11 am at 2:11 am #1090803
    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    do you have a source for this (is it the ramban it that parsha)?

    July 6, 2015 3:18 am at 3:18 am #1090804
    catch yourself
    Participant

    Yes, ???”? ?????? ?”? ?”?

    July 6, 2015 10:32 am at 10:32 am #1090805
    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    ok, now i get it

    your hypothesis makes sense now

    July 6, 2015 10:48 am at 10:48 am #1090806
    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    isn’t there a passuk nahkee m’elokim u’m’adamm, that also says that too

    July 6, 2015 4:43 pm at 4:43 pm #1090807
    apushatayid
    Participant

    “Just because it’s ???? doesn’t mean it’s right”

    The Ramban says this explicitely on the Passuk Kedoshim Tihyu. He uses the term “menuval b’rishus hatorah”.

    July 6, 2015 8:27 pm at 8:27 pm #1090808
    catch yourself
    Participant

    True. I can’t articulate exactly why this struck me a little differently from the famous Ramban.

    Perhaps because in this case we see the Torah recognising – and validating! – what we would today refer to as “secular values.”

    It seems that the Ramban refers more to gluttonous or hedonistic lifestyles, rather than conforming to public opinion of what’s “right.”

    In any case, my point was that even if (as some people convince themselves) certain types of misrepresentations, or other forms of conduct which are frowned upon by the public, might be halachically permitted (which I do not believe to be the case), they may still be morally reprehensible.

    In other words, while the Torah is our only moral compass, it takes the sensitivities of the times in to consideration.

    In this light, I would suggest, for example, that even some of our greatest leaders who were slaveowners (such as ??? ??????) would condemn the practice in today’s world.

    This is but one example of the many far reaching implications of this concept.

    July 7, 2015 3:03 am at 3:03 am #1090809
    apushatayid
    Participant

    For what its worth, its not clear cut it is permitted, it is a machlokes. See Sanhedrin nun chess amud beis.

    July 7, 2015 2:57 pm at 2:57 pm #1090810
    Curiosity
    Participant

    Catch yourself, I think that slavery would be disdained by gedolim because 1) dina d’malchusa dina, and 2) the global community today would use it as an excuse to persecute the Jews. Slavery in the Torah should not be compared with the American definition of slavery. It’s a totally different thing.

    July 7, 2015 10:57 pm at 10:57 pm #1090811
    catch yourself
    Participant

    Well…

    1) Of course, ???? ??????? is a compelling reason to reject slavery, like so many other activities that run counter to the law of the land.

    2) Anti-semitism is a good practical consideration, but hardly the reason it would be rejected – I think it would be prohibited on more fundamental grounds – namely, that it runs against the basic principles of Torah morality, as explained above.

    I think that although the ideal situation of slavery in the Torah is completely different from what slavery looked like in the United States, it seems from the ?????? that many slaveholders did not live up to their responsibilities.

    July 8, 2015 12:29 pm at 12:29 pm #1090813
    Redleg
    Participant

    “Just because it’s ???? doesn’t mean it’s right”. Would the opposite also be true? “Just because it’s assur doesn’t mean it’s wrong”?

    July 8, 2015 5:55 pm at 5:55 pm #1090814
    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    redleg,

    yes

    gadol aveirah lishma m’mitzvah shelo lishma

    July 8, 2015 7:55 pm at 7:55 pm #1090815
    catch yourself
    Participant

    No.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 19 posts - 1 through 19 (of 19 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.