daf bit: Nedarim 48

[cellio]

The mishna discusses using an intermediary to get around a vow. Suppose a father has vowed not to benefit from his son. His son wants to host a banquet for his own son's wedding, and the mishna proposes that he give the banquet (that is, the resources to pay for it) to a neighbor on the condition that his father be invited. The gemara debates whether this is valid, and concludes that if he says "so that my father can come" it is legal but if he says "on condition that my father can come", it is not a legitimate gift. The decision must be left to the recipient, but the giver is allowed to make a request. (48b)

Comments

Tangential, but significant I think:

[talvinamarich.livejournal.com]

The gemara debates whether this is valid, and concludes that if he says "so that my father can come" it is legal but if he says "on condition that my father can come", it is not a legitimate gift. The decision must be left to the recipient, but the giver is allowed to make a request. (48b)

I may be stretching it a bit, here, but in this I find something about Jewish culture that has had a positive impact on our feelings toward Jews (as compared to some other religions).

Jane is blind.

Because Jane is blind, people feel they ought to give her things. Clothes. Money. Occasionally "assistive devices" that are more hindrance or joke than help. (Yes. A story there. A few of them.)

A popular viewpoint among Christians is that they MUST help, and that by extension, Jane MUST accept. If Jane says "No thank you" or "I am not comfortable with that" or even "That really would not be very helpful to me", they take it as a cue to turn up the pressure. They also tend to take the view that now that you have "accepted" (I pushed it into your hand over your protests) a "gift" from me, you should come to my church, accede to other demands, etc.

When a Jewish...ah...samaritan-with-lower-case-s-used-in-a-secular-sense approaches her, however, that person usually (not always! Some Southern Jews have been contaminated by their Baptist neighbors!) understands that a gift is just that: a gift, no strings attached. It doesn't obligate the recipient to do something, to change their values or way of life, or even really to accept it.

I was discussing this a few years ago with one of our friends, and I told her that I wonder if it is because the mentions of Blindness in the Old Testament tend more toward (and I can't quote the exact passage here) "not putting obstacles in the way of a blind man", while the New Testament makes much of the miracles of laying on hands, healing the blind, and showing them the One True Way.

She agreed that could be part of it. Here, I see another part.

Regardless, when we have needed assistance, we have tended to turn to those Jewish s-w-l-c-s-u-i-a-s-s types. They understand the difference between "a legitimate gift" and "The Bible told me to run your life because you have a disability."

OK, sorry, that was a bit rant-like. But this made me think of it. :)

Re: Tangential, but significant I think:

[cellio]

Thank you for sharing that. I'm sorry to hear that so many people are that patronizing and/or pushy.

The passage you're looking for is Lev 19:14 (do not place a stumbling-block before the blind). 19:1-18 makes up what is sometimes called the holiness code, by the way, including "love your neighbor as yourself".

The stumbling-block passage is understood both literally and figuratively. It is the (a?) basis for the laws on modest dress, for instance -- the rabbis hold that men are easily aroused sexually, so women shouldn't tempt them. (I don't see the countering question asked nearly often enough: given that we are responsible for our own actions, why is the burden placed so disproportionately on women, as opposed to telling men "avert your eyes" or "learn to control yourself"? But I digress.)

Anyway, yes -- our tradition tells us not to place obstacles and to help others (but not to just do for them; there's a famous discussion of how we must help someone unload his burdened donkey but he has to help). The Rambam (Moses Maimonides, 12th-century big-name scholar) outlines eight levels of "charity" (the word's complicated; that'll do), with the top of the list being to teach someone a trade. That's pretty different from "give lots of money to the poor" -- which is also called for, but handouts are inferior to helping people get on track so they don't feel beholden to anybody.

I think you're right that this passage of talmud is part of it too. The only giver who can command us about use of the gift is God. And he's pretty flexible, so where do mere people get off trying to add all sorts of conditions?

Re: Tangential, but significant I think:

[chaos-wrangler.livejournal.com]

The Rambam (Moses Maimonides, 12th-century big-name scholar) outlines eight levels of "charity" (the word's complicated; that'll do), with the top of the list being to teach someone a trade. That's pretty different from "give lots of money to the poor" -- which is also called for, but handouts are inferior to helping people get on track so they don't feel beholden to anybody.

There's also the common thread through the lower levels that the less possibility of the giver & receiver knowing each other's identities the better, so as not to make the giver feel more powerful (socially) or the receiver feel in debt or less powerful.

Re: Tangential, but significant I think:

[cellio]

That mindset doesn't make sense to me. I did you a secular favor, so now you need to do me a religious one? I don't think so. If you asked him to go to your synagogue with you for services it would be reasonable for him to then say "so how 'bout coming to my church once?", but what you "owe" him for the kindness he showed you is corresponding kindness -- probably not similar circumstances since emergencies are by their nature unusual, but I'm sure you can find other things to do for him. What they are depend on your skills and talents.

If you want to keep seeing him (and it sounds like you do), I don't think his church request has to be the end of it. You just say "I can't do that but I'd like to do something else for you" and invite him to dinner or whatever it is you decide on. If he really does believe that his kindness means you have to consider his religion, that sounds like a deal-breaker -- but he might just be being optimistic or something and not deeply hold the opinion. Only one way to find out.

(All that said, religious differences can strain relationships, particularly dating. If what you want from this is a good friend rather than a date, making that clear might also ease up on that pressure. I have plenty of Christian friends and religion isn't an issue, but we're not dating. :-) )

Good luck.

Re: Tangential, but significant I think:

[talvinamarich.livejournal.com]

*sighs* Yes, that does sound very familiar.

I will caution: there may be a misunderstanding here. Ask him directly if that is what he meant. He may not have meant it that way.

I went and found a translation of the text here: http://www.come-and-hear.com/nedarim/nedarim_48.html which may differ from the version that cellio is using.

Clearly, I am biased. :) But my reading of this is that they are talking about just this issue: the difference between a gift, and a contract. A gift is something I give to you without any obligation attending to it: it is yours to do with as you will. If there are conditions attached, it is no gift : you are negotiating a contract, and thus the item comes under the laws that govern vows and contracts.

Re: Tangential, but significant I think:

[cellio]

That translation is pretty close (haven't done a close comparison, but nothing jumped out). I'm using the Soncino, which you recently posted PDF links to. (I don't have the PDFs; I have a CD copy that includes other texts, Hebrew, and search. But it's the same material as what you found.)

Sometime last year I remember being cautioned about the web site you found. I don't remember the details -- just that the caution came from someone who's more fluent than I am, so I filed it away as "don't rely on them". I got curious after you posted the link, so I checked out their overview page. They seem to be protesting something; they alude to talmud being "censored", which it is not so far as I know. Their copyright page seems to go out of its way to say "you can't stop us" and demonstates clear misunderstandings of US copyright law, which causes me to raise an eyebrow. I'm not sure what's up with them and I don't know if it would color any of their posted translations, but if it's really important you might want to double-check anything you learn there. Soncino is reputable; so is Steinsaltz or Shottenstein. Again, I haven't personally seen anything bogus in their text, so it might all be just fine -- just passing along what I've heard augmented by what little poking around I did.

(Hmm -- just noticed this: "the talmud is becoming the template for public law in the United States". What?)

Re: Tangential, but significant I think:

[zevabe.livejournal.com]

There is actually a debate if the command to not put a stumbling block before the blind is understood literally at all. It is certainly understood to prohibit giving self-beneficial advice without an explicit caveat of such (telling you to buy stock x and sell stock y when I plan to buy y and sell x), as Rashi does. It is also understood to prohibit enticing others to sin or aiding them in such, as Rambam does. However, while a person who puts a banana peel in front of a blind person in hopes that he'll comically fall is certainly sinning, he may not be violating this verse. Some commentaries claim it ONLY means metaphors, because the literal is so obviously a violation of the rest of the Torah.

Second, modesty has its basis in many things besides the metaphorical stumbling block. Also, it applies to more than women's attire, even if that is where the noise about it comes from. A person is not supposed to lounge about his or her home in the nude, even alone. Nor can someone behave in an immodest way in public, even fully clothed (unfortunately this is only heard about women, even though it also applies to men).

As for the suggestion that men avert their eyes or such, yes the suggestion that men are this out of control is offensive (common question). I tried to imagine a comparable situation and had difficulty. Perhaps the person who must for whatever legitimate reason eat on a fast day. Although Darren Diabetic could pack a lunch to bring to shul on Yom Kippur, and eat it in front of everyone in the social hall, most people eat it discretely. Why? So as not to serve as a temptation/tease to others. Shouldn't his fellow worshippers control themselves and resist the urge to eat, even though Darren Diabetic is eating? (Realistically, I think most people would resist the temptation to eat, but suffer greater hunger pangs because they see someone eating.)

Re: Tangential, but significant I think:

[zevabe.livejournal.com]

A gift need not be unconditional. First the civil law example: A proposes to B with a ring. The engagement ends & A wants the ring back, as it was conditional on marriage. Courts have decided on multiple occassions in favor of A.

The halakhic example: On the first day of sukkot (when it isn't Shabbat), the lulav & Etrog you take must belong to you. They cannot be borrowed. However, people want to loan them out anyway to those who don't have their own. So they are given as gifts, with the implicit or explicit (and I'm dealing more with the explicit) condition that it is given to you as a gift only on the condition that you give it to me as a gift when you are done shaking it. A gift can always be given with conditions halakhically.

Re: Tangential, but significant I think:

[cellio]

However, while a person who puts a banana peel in front of a blind person in hopes that he'll comically fall is certainly sinning, he may not be violating this verse.

Hmm, ok. I had assumed that there was no reason to be shy when counting reasons not to sin. :-) But if it's meant only figuratively, you're right that there's other coverage available for the literal reading.

Also, it applies to more than women's attire, even if that is where the noise about it comes from.

I was also thinking of kol isha but wasn't sure I wanted to get into it. Tzniut (modest dress, in case anyone else is still reading) is an easier case in one way: it is almost always possible to avert one's eyes, but sometimes harder to not listen.

Thanks for the additional information on modesty.

Eating on Yom Kippur: I had assumed that the reason one isn't blatant is not so much tempting others as leading them to think negatively of you (marit ayin).

(Realistically, I think most people would resist the temptation to eat, but suffer greater hunger pangs because they see someone eating.)

Speaking only for myself: I've seen people eat on Yom Kippur, and it didn't affect my actual or perecived hunger. I am, of course, only one person -- not known to be atypical, but still just one person.

Re: Tangential, but significant I think:

[zevabe.livejournal.com]

Ordinarily there is no reason to be shy in counting reasons not to sin. Toward the end of Masechet Makkot, they count up how many prohibitions punishable by lashes a person can simultaneously violate (which isn't quite the same thing). However, I recall having heard in a class once that it may not be literally because it is so obviously metaphorical.

Again, tzniut does not mean ONLY mean modest dress, even if that is the area most likely to get "TZNIUS!!" shouted at you on the streets of Mea Shearim.

Marit ayin probably also factors in to the discresion shown by those eating on YK. I'm still inclined to think in a non marit ayin situation (small shul where everyone knows you, or very obviously pregnant, etc), people would be inclined to be discrete.

Re: Tangential, but significant I think:

[cellio]

(light dawns) Oh! I thought tzniut referred specifically to the subset of modesty that was about dress; I didn't realize it was the whole category. Thank you.