JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: muman613 on January 01, 2013, 02:56:39 PM
-
Here is a story with a good ending. I think it is unfair to imprison Jews without offering them the option of Kosher meals. Here is a case where a Jewish man, accused of assisting in murder, was denied Kosher food. He appealed to the government which then found that there is a law requiring all people institutionalized to be afforded food according to their religious convictions. In the end this guy won the decision and is currently eating Kosher food.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/163785#.UOM-eGL1T0E
Court Rules: Texas Jewish Inmate Should Be Served Kosher Food
A Jewish man imprisoned for murder in Texas should be served kosher meals, a federal appeals court ruled.
Rachel Hirshfeld
A Jewish man imprisoned for murder in Texas should be served kosher meals, a federal appeals court ruled.
Max Moussazadeh, 35, who is serving a 75-year sentence for a 1993 murder, has a sincere religious belief as an Orthodox Jew in keeping a kosher diet, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled, reversing a lower court's judgment.
Texas infringed upon his beliefs by denying him free kosher meals, according to court records filed on Dec. 21.
Moussazadeh allegedly served as a lookout while his three co-defendants shot a man to death during a Houston robbery.
He is serving time in the Stiles Unit in Beaumont, which does not provide free kosher meals, his attorneys said, The Houston Chronicle reported.
In 2005, Moussazadeh sued after the state denied his request for a kosher meal plan to accommodate his religious beliefs.
However, the prison system argued that his commitment to a kosher diet was insincere, as he had reportedly purchased food in the past without kosher supervision.
His case centers around the 2000 Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which forbids the government from restricting religious rights of an institutionalized person.
"I feel that I am going against my beliefs and that I will be punished by God for not practicing my religion correctly," he wrote in the 2005 complaint, as quoted by The Chronicle.
Luke Goodrich, deputy general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which assisted in Moussazadeh’s legal representation described the decision as a “great victory” for human rights and religious liberty, The Daily Mail reported.
“Even prisoners retain their human rights, and the state cannot sacrifice those rights on the altar of bureaucratic convenience,” Goodrich said.
-
Yes but he should have gotten the chair.
-
Yes but he should have gotten the chair.
Why do you say this? He did not actually kill the people, he was a driver on lookout during a robbery...
-
I would be very weary of a Jewish person being tried and executed by a secular gentile court, especially because he did not actually kill anyone. He was an accomplice by being a "look out". In a perfect world, we would have a Jewish court who would be the one to try him.
But back to the story. I am glad he is getting kosher meals. It's none of this backward prison's business if he was sincere or not. He is Jewish and should get kosher meals period. Their argument is petty, he was insincere because he bought non-kosher food? Well if they were withholding kosher food from him what was he supposed to do? Starve to death?
-
Nobody forced him to be a getaway driver for murderers.
-
Nobody forced him to be a getaway driver for murderers.
According to Jewish law he is not guilty of murder. But I think you would make a good hanging judge...
-
Thank you. ;D
-
I would be very weary of a Jewish person being tried and executed by a secular gentile court, especially because he did not actually kill anyone. He was an accomplice by being a "look out". In a perfect world, we would have a Jewish court who would be the one to try him.
It is not soo simple. It is a big discussion especially in cases where the gentile court is more strict (the punishment) then what the Torah prescribes. BUT on the other hand their are many Rabbis and opinions that say that one needs to report the criminals even to gentile courts because 1) they (gentiles) also have the Mitzvah to establish courts of justice 2) when they are following justice and the courts are run fairly and in the pursuit of justice and the Jewish criminal is tried just like a gentile criminal then it is less of a problem then when its a gentile mockery court that tries to make excuses to put Jews in prison or death (as happened in the past). Also 3) Jewish criminals sometimes need to be weeded out from the Jewish people and anyone being lenient with them in an indirect way encourages such behavior and makes even more victims by indirectly supporting them. Merciless people do not deserve mercy.
-
And a murderer gets a lesser sentence than Jonathan Pollard!
-
You make a great point Tag. I was left thinking with the Mitvah for Gentiles to establish law systems and court.
I am divided because is it not said in Judaism that it is better to not execute someone if there is any doubt rather than to kill an innocent person? How many times do US courts convict people to die even though there are doubts? I know that a Jew is required to give testimony against a guilty person. But a Jew is also required to speak up to save an innocent suspected person. Would the secular investigators or court be able to admit this person as a witness? So many questions arise from it that it is no doubt that this would be a big discussion.
-
Most sources I am aware of say that a Jew is not to report on a Jew to a non-Jewish court. I will try to elaborate on this later this evening as I am busy at the moment. I believe we curse an informer as a part of the Amidah prayer... It is a Jew informing on a Jew which brings about the destruction of the Holy Temple.
-
Some of these issues are discussed on this page:
http://www.aish.com/jl/i/mn/48932892.html
An informer who denounces a fellow Jew to the government to be killed, imprisoned, or even fined is likened to an assailant, since being arrested can be a dangerous and traumatic experience. It is in recognition of this danger that the prophet lamented, "Your sons have fainted, they lie at the head of every street, as an antelope trapped in a net" (Isaiah 51:20). Therefore, one who is preparing to denounce another is considered an assailant, and may be killed as such as soon as his intention is know.
But it is also true:
A criminal whose activities endanger the community is considered an assailant, and after being duly warned, may be denounced to the authorities. If he accepts the warning, however, he cannot be denounced for his previous actions. This is true of anybody who endangers others, even without intent.
-
Most sources I am aware of say that a Jew is not to report on a Jew to a non-Jewish court. I will try to elaborate on this later this evening as I am busy at the moment. I believe we curse an informer as a part of the Amidah prayer... It is a Jew informing on a Jew which brings about the destruction of the Holy Temple.
Many others disagree. Their are differences between something small like a Jew and another Jew having a personal matter that they can (and should) settle in private Jewish court (which by the way has in the U.S. legal backing and their decisions are enforced if the parties sign beforehand and agree to the decisions taken by the Jewish court. Examples of such cases can and do include if for example their is a dispute in a business. 2 Jews arguing should take their case to a Beit Din. If one refuses to go then the other should ask his Rav in which case he can and will then take the other to gentile courts (by reporting to police or authorities) in the case where the second party does not comply to go to Jewish court (Beit Din).
Their are other instances where a Jew must go to the gentile authorities (law of the land) and those cases include serious criminals that endanger and bring harm to others. For example sex abusers. These are scumm that need to be weeded out from the midst of any community (Jew or gentile) and not reporting such people only encourages some sick people to pray on the innocent.
-
Their are other instances where a Jew must go to the gentile authorities (law of the land) and those cases include serious criminals that endanger and bring harm to others. For example sex abusers. These are scumm that need to be weeded out from the midst of any community (Jew or gentile) and not reporting such people only encourages some sick people to pray on the innocent.
I did not disagree about turning in a person who is a danger to himself and his community. Indeed this is an example which the link I posted discussed. But the main thing I was pointing out in this post is that a Jew is still a Jew even when he is in prison, and requires Kosher food.
I believe our great Rabbi Kahane even made this an issue...
-
It is not soo simple. It is a big discussion especially in cases where the gentile court is more strict (the punishment) then what the Torah prescribes. BUT on the other hand their are many Rabbis and opinions that say that one needs to report the criminals even to gentile courts because 1) they (gentiles) also have the Mitzvah to establish courts of justice 2) when they are following justice and the courts are run fairly and in the pursuit of justice and the Jewish criminal is tried just like a gentile criminal then it is less of a problem then when its a gentile mockery court that tries to make excuses to put Jews in prison or death (as happened in the past). Also 3) Jewish criminals sometimes need to be weeded out from the Jewish people and anyone being lenient with them in an indirect way encourages such behavior and makes even more victims by indirectly supporting them. Merciless people do not deserve mercy.
Tag,
I completely agree with you. I have no idea why Jews living anywhere but Israel, would think they or anyone else living in this country can pick their judges. You do a crime, you pay the time. Since this man did engage in an act which resulted in someone's death, he gets the time. I think Life is a long time AND he would have been like 15 years old at the time. His dietary issues are side issues. I believe that the prison was right about his eating non-kosher food. I think they have to provide him kosher food, but to say there are likely no shenanigans going on here, is, I think, naive
-
The food and the crime are different issues. Once someone is in prison or pays some fees the job of the prison is not to punish and as such their is absolutely no reason to support him not getting kosher food (as the law of the land stipulates).
Also not in all cases does one need to report and their is an argument *if in cases where the punishment is beyond the punishment stipulated in the Torah for such crime. If one can get the guilty party to pay for his crime without having to report it. For example if someone stole $100 and his punishment (in Jewish law) would be to pay double ($200) as opposed to him being sent to prison for the $100 that he stole. In any event ask a competent Orthodox Rabbi in each case.
-
why are we defending criminals?
he deserves an arab inmate.
-
I have no sympathy for criminals, Jewish or otherwise.
-
Chaim would find this guy a rope and a tree.
-
HE WAS 15 YEARS OLD!!!! Did he know they were going to to kill the man? It's pretty easy to influence somebody at that age!
Normal teenagers do not take part in robbery and murder conspiracies.
-
It is amazing how some people twist and turn the original post into something it is not.
NOBODY IS DEFENDING WHAT HE DID! What I am applauding is the victory which assures Jews who are in prison will get kosher food.
Lest we all forget that Chaim Ben Pesach did time in prison, and he was afforded kosher food after protesting.
-
why are we defending criminals?
he deserves an arab inmate.
Please explain who is defending criminals here?
-
In Judaism, you need 2 witnesses with the exact same testimony for capital cases. If it's found out that the witnesses lied, they themselves are liable for the death penalty. It's said that a Bet Din that executed many people is a bloody court. It was very rare. For example, no homosexuals have ever been put to death for violating Leviticus 20:13.
-
A list of legal findings concerning a Jewish prisoners right to a kosher meal is listed on the site below:
http://www.jlaw.com/Summary/kashrut-prisons.html
See also :
http://blogs.jta.org/thearchiveblog/article/2011/06/03/3088002/timeline-kosher-food-fights-for-jewish-prisoners
August 1975: Federal Judge Jack B. Weinstein of Brooklyn rules for a second time that Jewish inmates in federal prisons, specifically Jewish Defense League founder Rabbi Meir Kahane, have a constitutional right to kosher food.
See also :
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/6660#.UOOQzmKRz0E
Op-Ed: A Monument for Rabbi Kahane
Whether in Israeli jails - where he was incarcerated for speaking Jewish truth - or in American penal institutions - where he fought for and, with G-d's help, secured the rights of Jewish prisoners s to have kosher food and a Torah scroll (which he utilized to teach classes) - Rabbi Kahane, of blessed memory, wore the mantle of Judaism passed down by generations of legendary rabbis, with great pride and dignity. His greatest joy was planting the seeds of Torah knowledge in the minds of young Jews who had been denied their true Jewish identity.
Among these countless memories, one particular incident stands out vividly in my recollection.
While in the US, Rabbi Kahane was once sent to prison for activities on behalf of Soviet Jewry. Although he was permitted to leave the so-called half-way house for a few hours each day to eat and pray (since at that juncture the authorities were not willing to provide him with kosher food), Rabbi Kahane generally used the brief time to speak. Having made plans to visit him, I received a call from relatives who were awed at the prospect of meeting the man whose books they so eagerly read. They asked to accompany me to hear him address students at a Brooklyn Yeshiva.
-
In Judaism, you need 2 witnesses with the exact same testimony for capital cases. If it's found out that the witnesses lied, they themselves are liable for the death penalty. It's said that a Bet Din that executed many people is a bloody court. It was very rare. For example, no homosexuals have ever been put to death for violating Leviticus 20:13.
Their are 2 sides of justice (or justice systems). 1 is the Rabbinic which is very limited and like you said if once in 7 or 70 years they had the reputation as "bloody". The requirements and conditions were extremely rare to put someone to death for (prior warnings, and manyyy conditions). Then their is the Kingship (or governmental) who is somewhat less limited for example 1 witness can be enough. I dont know the whole system and how it works but I know enough to know their are 2 sides 1 the Rabbinic and 2 the Kingship and that the kingship is responsible for state security both from the outside and in as well. The Rabbinic at least from my impression (I could be wrong) was mainly (but not limited to) teach the public the proper ways.
Perhaps someone can ask Chaim and he will answer on the show.
-
Their are 2 sides of justice (or justice systems). 1 is the Rabbinic which is very limited and like you said if once in 7 or 70 years they had the reputation as "bloody". The requirements and conditions were extremely rare to put someone to death for (prior warnings, and manyyy conditions). Then their is the Kingship (or governmental) who is somewhat less limited for example 1 witness can be enough. I dont know the whole system and how it works but I know enough to know their are 2 sides 1 the Rabbinic and 2 the Kingship and that the kingship is responsible for state security both from the outside and in as well. The Rabbinic at least from my impression (I could be wrong) was mainly (but not limited to) teach the public the proper ways.
Perhaps someone can ask Chaim and he will answer on the show.
The Torah clearly lays out the system of witnesses and judges. I believe the King must obey the Torah, as he is commanded to write 2 Torah scrolls and carry one on his person at all times.
But it is true that the King could order his subjects to be put to death. Insulting the King, as in the case of King David, was certainly punishable by death. (I will try to find references a bit later tonight).
-
Although not fully on topic regarding the original post, concerning insults to the king I found this:
http://blog.webyeshiva.org/machshava/the-torah-scholars-obligation-not-to-ignore-insults
As an example, he notes an episode from early in the reign of King Saul. When he was first crowned king, Scripture tells us that some people belittled the king, doubting that he could save them from their enemies. After he won his first victory, Shmuel suggested renewing the kingship; at that celebration, people wanted to take those original doubters and kill them (I note that those people had apparently not been offended at the original insult—frontrunners and fairweather friends are not a new phenomenon!).
Saul stopped them, which Meiri sees as an exact violation of this Gemara; while he might have been right not to respond himself, anyone who is owed respect, like a king or Torah scholar, cannot stop others from enforcing that respect.
See also : http://www.torah.org/learning/ravfrand/5769/tetzaveh.html
Under normal circumstances this would be admirable. Normally, it is praiseworthy to be amongst those who hear themselves being shamed but do not respond [Yoma 23a]. However, that is not the case for the King of Israel. Regarding the King of Israel, the law is that someone who acts rebellious towards, disobeys, or insults the king must be executed. Shaul was, first and foremost, a humble person and as such was not particular about his honor. However, he should have been particular about that honor.
-
Muman the king needs 1 witness to execute a criminal.
-
The Torah clearly lays out the system of witnesses and judges. I believe the King must obey the Torah, as he is commanded to write 2 Torah scrolls and carry one on his person at all times.
But it is true that the King could order his subjects to be put to death. Insulting the King, as in the case of King David, was certainly punishable by death. (I will try to find references a bit later tonight).
In fact, the king or government in place of a king has extrajudicial powers beyond that of the Jewish High Court. This was a system of checks and balances that existed for various reasons. But of course none of this is relevant to a gentile country which is absolutely not subject to the Jewish High court at all. So that would be kind of like unlimited extra judicial power (although the govt has its own legal and justice system through which it exacts punishment and justice).
-
In fact, the king or government in place of a king has extrajudicial powers beyond that of the Jewish High Court. This was a system of checks and balances that existed for various reasons. But of course none of this is relevant to a gentile country which is absolutely not subject to the Jewish High court at all. So that would be kind of like unlimited extra judicial power (although the govt has its own legal and justice system through which it exacts punishment and justice).
Yes, this thread has touched on several issues which I originally did not intend to bring up. I don't know the guy who the original article is about, and I am not aware of his case other than what was written, but the fact that the court upheld the right of Jewish prisoners to be granted Kosher meals I am happy about.
-
Please explain who is defending criminals here?
You are.
I don't care what 'victories' criminals get.
How about victories for good people?
-
You are.
I don't care what 'victories' criminals get.
How about victories for good people?
No, I am not defending what he did or didn't do. If you read the thread the issue is whether a Jewish prisoner should get Kosher meals. This is a topic which Rabbi Kahane fought and won for, and it is a relevant topic, whether you realize it or not. As a Jew I believe that a prisoner should not be forced to violate his religious convictions. Both Chaim and Rabbi Kahane dealt with this issue.
It is a victory for all Jews to have the right to have Kosher food in prison. Look at the case of Jonathan Pollard, according to some he is a murderer and thus he should be denied Kosher food. I say that no matter what, as a Jew, he should be able to have kosher food in prison.
You are really twisting the entire point of this article. Nobody is saying that this guy is not guilty or is guilty. The issue is that he is a Jew, and he has asked for kosher food and the right has been affirmed. I celebrate that victory.
-
A Jewish king has powers to do certain things. A Secular Israeli government doesn't have those powers.
-
No, I am not defending what he did or didn't do. If you read the thread the issue is whether a Jewish prisoner should get Kosher meals. This is a topic which Rabbi Kahane fought and won for, and it is a relevant topic, whether you realize it or not. As a Jew I believe that a prisoner should not be forced to violate his religious convictions. Both Chaim and Rabbi Kahane dealt with this issue.
It is a victory for all Jews to have the right to have Kosher food in prison. Look at the case of Jonathan Pollard, according to some he is a murderer and thus he should be denied Kosher food. I say that no matter what, as a Jew, he should be able to have kosher food in prison.
You are really twisting the entire point of this article. Nobody is saying that this guy is not guilty or is guilty. The issue is that he is a Jew, and he has asked for kosher food and the right has been affirmed. I celebrate that victory.
my point is "too bad". as in, a few muslims are good, should we love all muslims?
if in a prison of many jews and two jews are not particularly bad....
or some lib may say to me what if no non-whites are allowed into the usa, then I would never have been here. my answer is too bad, I can go to another part of the world.
etc...you get the drill.
-
Now he's FURIOUS!
>:(
-
A Jewish king has powers to do certain things. A Secular Israeli government doesn't have those powers.
Not true. And it also doesn't have to be a king either. King is just a form of government. The great sanhedrin isn't expected to be a police force and isn't capable of that anyway, they have other important functions.
-
On the one hand, why should a Jewish criminal be denied kosher food? Jail is the punishment for his crimees not forced violation of his newfound religious beliefs.
On the other hand, this guy did a pretty horrible crime so people don't want to hear about his "rights" and what not. He didn't afford the victim any rights.
BUT what if he truly regrets what he did and his repentance or attempt at it is sincere? Is there some need to force him to violate religious convictions? So why didn't the judge sentence him with that punishment? I don't think people are justified in the visceral reaction against him getting kosher food.
-
Feed him kosher food until he gets the chair.
-
Imagine if someone in the system claimed to follow a religion that says he can only eat caviar, escargot, algae, and some obscure type of beetle that would have to be imported. We can't go to trouble to accommodate every religion. But we should do everything possible to accommodate Judaism and Christianity because this country is based upon Judeo-Christian values.
-
The problem that starts to develop is that every religious group under the sun will expect special accommodation... Either it's done for all or it should be done for none... About the only way around this is to have a third party commissary service prepare the food and reimburse them at the same rate it costs the prison for the normal meals...
-
The problem that starts to develop is that every religious group under the sun will expect special accommodation... Either it's done for all or it should be done for none... About the only way around this is to have a third party commissary service prepare the food and reimburse them at the same rate it costs the prison for the normal meals...
The court has already established that this IS done.
Chaim also had to fight for kosher food while he was in prison, remember?
-
It is already done. Whether Kosher, Hallal or vegetarian (for Buddists) or for any others. This is part of the American system and as such is should and is provided for all.
-
I would be very weary of a Jewish person being tried and executed by a secular gentile court, especially because he did not actually kill anyone. He was an accomplice by being a "look out". In a perfect world, we would have a Jewish court who would be the one to try him.
But back to the story. I am glad he is getting kosher meals. It's none of this backward prison's business if he was sincere or not. He is Jewish and should get kosher meals period. Their argument is petty, he was insincere because he bought non-kosher food? Well if they were withholding kosher food from him what was he supposed to do? Starve to death?
If you live in the United States then you will tried by United States Court System. Isn't that right? Should we have a court that follows Sharia Law for Muslims too? That is why the country is so out of whack. We keep catering to special interests. If a person doesn't like the legal system in this country...they should leave. It's not perfect for certain. Still, it is probably far better than most other systems. As for him not being guilty of 'murder' in some degree...let us just ask the family of the man who was murdered what they think.
Feed him kosher food until he gets the chair.
I agree. Great post.
-
1 even in Israel he would be tried in a secular court#2 we're in the U.S. i don't know any country in the world where he would get a Jewish Trial that includes Israel. I read the Judges ruling it's obvious from his ruling allowing Kosher Food that he's a practicing Christian .I'll look for his ruling now
-
Here's the ruling the Judge who wrote the ruling is obviously not secular http://www.timesofisrael.com/convicted-killer-must-be-served-kosher-food-us-judge-rules/
JTA — A Texas prison inmate should be served free kosher meals, a US appeals court ruled, overturning a lower court decision.
Max Moussazadeh, 35, who is serving a 75-year sentence for a 1993 murder, has a sincere desire to keep kosher, and his religious rights were infringed upon, the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled earlier this month. The 2-1 ruling by the appeals court panel rejected a decision by a US District Court.
After Moussazadeh filed a federal lawsuit in 2005 complaining that the prison system did not provide kosher food, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice started a kosher food program at one of its prisons. Moussazadeh and the other prisoners requesting a kosher diet were transferred there.
But Moussazadeh was transferred later to a high-security prison that does not provide free kosher meals, though he can purchase kosher products from the commissary.
The prison system argued that his commitment to a kosher diet was insincere because Moussazadeh had gone through the general food line at the commissary on occasion and had purchased food without kosher supervision.
“A finding of sincerity does not require perfect adherence to beliefs expressed by the inmate, and even the most sincere practitioner may stray from time to time,” Judge Jerry Smith wrote for the majority, according to Courthouse News. “[A] sincere religious believer doesn’t forfeit his religious rights merely because he is not scrupulous in his observance; for where would religion be without its backsliders, penitents, and prodigal sons?” Yes this was obviously a Christian not a leftist secular
-
Jews are entitled to Kosher food in captivity more than any other religious group because Jews were in America the longest.
I have nothing against vegetarians, but Moslems should not receive Hallal in prison. What's next? Food without onions and garlic for the Ayurvedics?
-
I think it's ridiculous to think that a Jewish person should only be reported to a Jewish justice system. What if his victims were non-Jews? How would you feel if a Muslim murdered a Jew and the only other witnesses to it were other Muslims, and they wouldn't report him to the regular police but only to a Shariah court? Do you think that the victim's family would stand a chance of getting justice that way? If a Jewish person does something evil he should have to face the same secular justice system that anybody else faces.
-
I think it's ridiculous to think that a Jewish person should only be reported to a Jewish justice system. What if his victims were non-Jews? How would you feel if a Muslim murdered a Jew and the only other witnesses to it were other Muslims, and they wouldn't report him to the regular police but only to a Shariah court? Do you think that the victim's family would stand a chance of getting justice that way? If a Jewish person does something evil he should have to face the same secular justice system that anybody else faces.
The Jewish court is a higher level of authority than a secular court. But today we do not have the Jewish High court so there is no ability to operate according to the Jewish law regarding capital offenses. But a Jew, during the time that the Sanhedrin exists, should only deal with justice according to the Jewish law. This is what some of us were discussing above.
This has nothing to do with avoiding prosecution. It has everything to do with Torah law.
See this article for an explanation, it deals with non-capital litigation in court:
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/litigation_in_secular_courts1.html
Litigation In Secular Courts
Rabbi Simcha Krauss
The Shmona Esrai, which a Jew says three times a day, contains our innermost and most profound prayers. In it we express and articulate our most basic needs - we pray for national liberation, the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the redemption brought by Mashiach. And in practically the same breath, we pray "restore our judges as of yore."
The juxtaposition of the rebuilding of our people and the restoration of our judges is not haphazard, but expresses rather an important concept: we believe that the sanctity of Jerusalem and the Beth Mikdash derive from the Shechina, the Presence of the Almighty which dwells therein eternally.1 Now there exists another institution of which we also say that the Shechina is there - that institution is the Court of Jewish Law, the Beth Din.
Rambam states so openly:
"The Shechina is with every proper Jewish Beth Din. Therefore, the judges should sit with awe and fear,.."2.
We may actually draw the analogy between the sanctuary and the Beth Din further. Of Batei Din too it can be said that, "even though they are desolate, the Shechina is there." It is true that Batei Din and Dayanim with full, complete, total and absolute authority In all areas of Jewish life ceased to exist with the end of the traditional Semicha3. Still, throughout history Batei Din judged, adjudicated, heard litigation and decided In accord with Torah law. Dayanim, though their area of jurisdiction was circumscribed and limited, still saw themselves as, and indeed were, carrying out the "shlichus" - the commission of the original Sanhedrin4. Wherever a Beth Din judges In accord with the canons of the halacha, wherever halacha comes to life, wherever you have a "proper Beth Din", there you have the Shechina.
This may be the underlying motif for the extreme stringency with which the Halacha views going to a non-Jewish court, generally called Arkhaoth Shel Nochrim, to settle litigation.
We shall explore here the question of whether, or to what extent, it is permitted for jews to sue other Jews In the secular courts maintained by the countries In which they live. Ancillary questions are whether a Jew may practice law In such courts, or act as a witness therein.
It is best to begin with the Braitha In Maseches Gitin5 "R. Tarfon used to say: 'In any place where you find gentile courts, even though their law is the same as the Israelite law, you must not resort to them since it says, "These are the judgments which thou shalt set before them." (Ex. 21:1) this is to say, "before them" and not before gentiles. Another explanation, however, is that it means, "before them" (i.e. judges) and not before laymen"6
This Braitha actually contains two prohibitions. First there is the issur against resorting to gentile courts. Second, there is an issur against resorting to Beth Din Shel Hedyotes (laymen). The Braitha itself, however, does not spell out the severity of going to gentile courts.
Rashi spells out the severity of this prohibition. "... for he who brings Jewish law to be adjudicated before gentiles desecrates G'd's name and makes dear (or gives value) to idols, for it is written 'For their rock is not our Rock, even our enemies are judges.' When our enemies are judges, it is a testimony to the superiority of their idol."7.
.
.
.
-
If I am victimized by a criminal I don't want him to be tried by a court that would be more likely to acquit him because they share his culture and religion.
-
If I am victimized by a criminal I don't want him to be tried by a court that would be more likely to acquit him because they share his culture and religion.
I believe that the court operates the same whether the victim is Jewish or non-Jewish. Jewish law does not hold Jews above non-Jews except in regards to obligations a Jew has...
-
I believe that the court operates the same whether the victim is Jewish or non-Jewish. Jewish law does not hold Jews above non-Jews except in regards to obligations a Jew has...
Nevertheless I would want such a person tried in a secular court, not one that could even be perceived as being potentially more friendly to him.
-
I think it's ridiculous to think that a Jewish person should only be reported to a Jewish justice system.
I dont think that was said. I certainly did not say that. A gentile court that is based on fair justice is valid, good and even a Mitzvah (part of 7 Noahide laws). I did mention that in some cases (like financial) where the Jews ( Jew vs. Jew) can, they should resolve the dispute in a Jewish court based on Halacha (Jewish law). These courts also do have legal recognition by the U.S. government and their rulings hold power if the parties agree beforehand that the decision of the court is to be upheld.
About secular (as in secular Jewish) courts (as opposed to Jewish religious courts) run by Jews (as in the land of Israel today) that's an even more complicated and more complex matter.
-
So the entire justice system is evil and illegitimate if it is not Sanhedrinic? How come Chaim has never said this?
-
So the entire justice system is evil and illegitimate if it is not Sanhedrinic? How come Chaim has never said this?
I dont think anyone said that. I think you misunderstood the whole matter. Read my posts here and you will understand.
-
So the entire justice system is evil and illegitimate if it is not Sanhedrinic? How come Chaim has never said this?
How did you arrive at this conclusion? That is not what the Jewish view is...
-
I think it's ridiculous to think that a Jewish person should only be reported to a Jewish justice system. What if his victims were non-Jews? How would you feel if a Muslim murdered a Jew and the only other witnesses to it were other Muslims, and they wouldn't report him to the regular police but only to a Shariah court? Do you think that the victim's family would stand a chance of getting justice that way? If a Jewish person does something evil he should have to face the same secular justice system that anybody else faces.
I think people in this thread are either confusing the issue, or you have misinterpreted what they said (or both). I don't want to go back and read it all to find out which it is. But the whole idea is a nationalist idea - in a time when we had a court and legal system and the legal system of those either around us or occupying us were designed to purposely persecute us. What people in this thread are referring to doesn't even apply today for several reasons 1. We don't have a Jewish legal/justice system with law enforcement. 2. We live in a time and place (America right now) where we are not persecuted by the legal system itself - we have a fair chance at a trial just like any other citizen - with some notable exceptions (ie Jonathan Pollard) there aren't "Show trials" meant to humiliate 'the Jew' and there will not be collective punishment on Jewish citizens if a Jew is convicted of a crime. All of those factors have to do with why you cannot report on a Jew to the gentile, but most importantly, it's because that was treason in Eretz Yisrael where our enemies were trying to impose their laws and take over our society. That would be like a law today saying americans are forbidden to report another american and stand before a sharia court!
-
If I am victimized by a criminal I don't want him to be tried by a court that would be more likely to acquit him because they share his culture and religion.
That is a twisted form of corruption and injustice and is definitely not the point of the Torah laws certain people are referencing here.
-
That is a twisted form of corruption and injustice and is definitely not the point of the Torah laws certain people are referencing here.
Ok thanks for explaining that.
-
I think people in this thread are either confusing the issue, or you have misinterpreted what they said (or both). I don't want to go back and read it all to find out which it is. But the whole idea is a nationalist idea - in a time when we had a court and legal system and the legal system of those either around us or occupying us were designed to purposely persecute us. What people in this thread are referring to doesn't even apply today for several reasons 1. We don't have a Jewish legal/justice system with law enforcement. 2. We live in a time and place (America right now) where we are not persecuted by the legal system itself - we have a fair chance at a trial just like any other citizen - with some notable exceptions (ie Jonathan Pollard) there aren't "Show trials" meant to humiliate 'the Jew' and there will not be collective punishment on Jewish citizens if a Jew is convicted of a crime. All of those factors have to do with why you cannot report on a Jew to the gentile, but most importantly, it's because that was treason in Eretz Yisrael where our enemies were trying to impose their laws and take over our society. That would be like a law today saying americans are forbidden to report another american and stand before a sharia court!
That makes a lot more sense now. You explained it a lot better.
-
The whole argument over this thread, is completely asinine!
Who cares, if he gets kosher food or not? A 15 year old is facing 75 years for a murder that he did not commit, he was a lookout. And we don't know anything more than that. He could of been bullied into it, we don't know. A homeboy would of got 5 for the same crime, if that!
So by saying someone should get the death chair, we should probably know a little bit more about the actual incident...
One more thing, we constantly are attacking anyone that is different from us! We're never gonna get anywhere that way...
Most 15 year olds, especially Jews that come from a law-abiding, kind, gentle culture, do not get involved with serious felonies.
-
I dont think anyone said that. I think you misunderstood the whole matter. Read my posts here and you will understand.
One person implied that, and I never said it was you.
-
I think people in this thread are either confusing the issue, or you have misinterpreted what they said (or both). I don't want to go back and read it all to find out which it is. But the whole idea is a nationalist idea - in a time when we had a court and legal system and the legal system of those either around us or occupying us were designed to purposely persecute us. What people in this thread are referring to doesn't even apply today for several reasons 1. We don't have a Jewish legal/justice system with law enforcement. 2. We live in a time and place (America right now) where we are not persecuted by the legal system itself - we have a fair chance at a trial just like any other citizen - with some notable exceptions (ie Jonathan Pollard) there aren't "Show trials" meant to humiliate 'the Jew' and there will not be collective punishment on Jewish citizens if a Jew is convicted of a crime. All of those factors have to do with why you cannot report on a Jew to the gentile, but most importantly, it's because that was treason in Eretz Yisrael where our enemies were trying to impose their laws and take over our society. That would be like a law today saying americans are forbidden to report another american and stand before a sharia court!
Thanks KWRBT. As a sidenote do keep in mind that this putz got a lighter sentence than Jonathan Pollard!
-
The system worked for him.
-
Nobody here implied that there should be special treatment because he was Jewish. What was discussed is Jewish Halacha concerning Jews handing over Jews to a non-Jewish court which historically has been a bad deal for the Jew. No non-Jew has ever been found guilty or has been persecuted by Jewish courts but quite the contrary. Many Jews have suffered persecution because of non-Jewish nations subjecting us to cruel and wicked laws, such as the Romans and Greeks who made it illegal to study the Torah or to circumcise our male children. Even in the last century the non-Jewish nations created systems where the Jew was persecuted legally by the Gentile legal system. In Russia until the last few decades a Jew could be thrown in a Siberian prison for studying and teaching Torah. Any Jew who would turn in such 'criminals' is cursed three times a day in the Shemonie Esrie prayer which Chaim is always talking about, this is the curse on Informers and traitors to the Jewish people.
That anyone twisted this into saying that Jews should have preferential treatment just goes to show where some people are coming from..
-
And regarding the case which brought this up... Many people here are making judgments without knowing facts. That is a very bad thing to do as the Torah commands us to not judge others without knowing the particulars about the situation. I will not comment on whether this guy deserves the punishment he received or not... But I will again say it is a GREAT THING that US courts have realized that a Jew should not be denied Kosher food.
-
I hope that this clears up some questions about the discussion of 'informers' :
http://www.torah.org/learning/mlife/LOR3-12.html
Maimonides on Life
Collaborating with Gentile Authorities
Chapter 3, Law 12
"There are two types of informers (lit., 'giver overs,' Heb: 'moser'): (a) One who gives his fellow over into the hands of the Gentiles to kill him or to hit him. (b) One who gives his fellow's property to the Gentiles or to a seizer who is [considered] as a Gentile. Neither [type of person] receives a share [in the World to Come]."
For the past several weeks, we have been covering the Rambam's very short list of sinners so evil as to merit no share in the World to Come. This week the Rambam discusses the informer, one who turns over his fellow Jew to the temporal authorities.
In rabbinic writings and throughout the ages, the "moser"/informer has been considered one of the most evil and despicable characters in Israel, the Jewish Benedict Arnold who sics our worst enemies on us. Either to avenge his own petty hatreds or to curry favor with the authorities, he snitches on his fellow Jews, generally giving the all-too-willing authorities all the excuse they need to go in for the kill.
An important counterpoint to this is in line. Judaism is not against informing because it makes it difficult for Jews to evade the law. Abidance to the secular law is a Torah obligation ("dina d'malchusa dina"). Jews are obligated by the Torah to pay taxes and obey the law of the land. Rather, informing is viewed so negatively because throughout most of our history, informing on a fellow Jew was tantamount to killing him -- as well as endangering the greater Jewish community once suspicion is aroused on its behavior. Not only is snitching in itself viewed as a very lowly and cowardly act, the danger is real, immediate and more than likely to get terribly out of hand.
In more recent years, scholars have debated to what extent this law applies today. Some are of the opinion that the law is virtually inapplicable in countries whose governments serve to uphold just laws rather than capriciously oppress and discriminate. Others are less sure of this -- arguing in part that although many governments today are just (for the most part), the punishments they administer may not be justified according to Torah law. Incarceration, for example, in itself very dangerous, is almost never warranted in Jewish law. According to virtually all opinions, however, if a person is a direct danger to society -- say a physically-abusive father -- the authorities must be involved almost immediately.
(It should be noted that throughout our history there have been many societies in which the Jews were given a fair degree of legal autonomy -- the authority to rule over religious issues in particular, but almost never were they granted a police arm to enforce the courts' decisions. To enforce compliance, courts would often resort to such means as applying social pressure to the recalcitrant -- ostracizing him from the Jewish community. Yet there was much less they could do against a person who posed a physical threat to his surroundings. For such, the temporal authorities would generally have to be involved.)
Throughout history, there have been fascinating, if tragic, applications of this law. There is a Mishna (Terumos 8:12) which discusses the following scenario. A group of women are out standing together. A gang of Gentiles approaches them, saying "Hand over one of you or we'll violate you all!" Are they permitted to willingly cede one for the sake of the many? Or should we never go along with the evil wishes of such people in any way, regardless of the consequences?
Needless to say, scenarios of this type have repeated themselves throughout history more times than we'd care to know. During the Holocaust the Nazis, in the process of liquidating the ghettos, would require of the Judenrat the orderly handing over of say, 1000 people a day for "deportation". Failure to comply would result in not only the deaths of the Judenrat members and their families, but perhaps the wholesale and immediate destruction of the entire ghetto. Should they comply in the hopes of slowing down the process? Or should they never condescend to collaborate with the enemy?
Of course, far be it from us to judge the behavior of people in such trying and tragic circumstances. As might be expected, there were those refused to cooperate in any way, shape or form, there were those who collaborated in the sincere hope they were ultimately helping the Jewish cause, and there were those who collaborated primarily in the hope of saving their own skins at the expense of their brethren. In fact, many who did collaborate subsequently committed suicide -- on account of the terrible burden of guilt placed upon them, and especially once they recognized that all their noble efforts were utterly futile.
What I *will* do below, however, is offer a few of the primary relevant sources, providing some of the basic framework underlying so difficult and tragic an area of Jewish law.
Returning to the case I quoted above, in which a Gentile gang demands a Jewish girl, the mishna concludes: "Let them violate them all, and let not one Jewish soul be handed over."
It thus seems fairly open and shut. We may never collaborate with the Gentiles whatever the consequences. We may never willingly hand over a single Jew to the enemy come what may.
We must now, however, turn to a second relevant source. In II Samuel 20 we read of Sheva ben (son of) Bichri, who fomented a rebellion against King David. Towards the end of the chapter, he was besieged in the town of Availa which sided with him. Yoav, David's chief general, came with his men to destroy the entire rebellious city. A wise woman -- whom the Midrash identifies as the extremely long-lived Serach daughter of Asher (whom Jacob had earlier blessed with a long life) -- called out to Yoav asking why he wanted to destroy an entire city on account of one man. Yoav demurred, stating that he was really only after Sheva ben Bichri. The townsfolk, on the wise woman's behest, delivered.his head and the rebellion ended with minimal bloodshed.
The classical commentators deduce an important law from the above episode. Yoav was prepared to destroy the entire city of Availa for harboring a rebel to the throne. In the eyes of the townsfolk, who sided with Sheva, Yoav was the temporal authority wrongly demanding one of their number. Could they deliver him over? Does not the Mishna state that a Jew must never be unjustly handed over the the authorities? Yet that is precisely what they did in order to save themselves! What was their justification?
(Note that although the Availites (whatever) were engaged in open rebellion against the King of Israel, the commentators assume we can infer Jewish law from their behavior -- especially from that of the wise woman at their helm. They may have been wrong about Sheva, but the general assumption is that the behavior of the Israelites was fully in accordance with Jewish law.)
Many of the commentators, based on a source contemporary to the Mishna, answer based on the following distinction (see Rashi and Yad Ramah to Talmud Sanhedrin 72b). In the case in Scripture, Sheva himself was holed up in the city with the townsfolk. Had Yoav attacked, not only would the rest of them have perished, but he would have as well. Thus, it was not a matter of handing over one Jew in order to save others. It was a matter of either having him *plus* them killed or having him alone killed. The wise woman rightly realized nothing would have been gained by sacrificing them all.
By contrast, in the case of delivering a woman to the Gentiles, the Gentiles were not asking for a specific woman; any one would have done. And if the women would not comply, they were going to attack them all. Well, perhaps the Gentiles would have been sated without violating every last one of them. If so, willingly handing over a single one is not a case of violating one versus violating all. It is a case of handing over one woman who may have been spared in order to protect the others. And that the Sages never condone.
This discussion actually gets far more complex than this first taste of Talmudic logic. And likewise the application to Holocaust scenarios is far from clear. (Would they have all been killed or deported had they not complied? Perhaps some of those who would have been delivered would have managed to save themselves. Or perhaps refusing to comply would have confused and slowed the entire process. Usually not really answerable questions.) Regardless, I will not attempt to build further upon this discussion. I thought, however, it was valuable to provide this brief introduction into the process of determining Jewish law in so sensitive an area -- as well as appreciating both the legal and ethical dilemmas Jews, both simple and great, have been faced with throughout the ages.
-
:usa+israel: :fist:
It is criminal not to give them Kosher food!