B"H

The superiority of our laws over those of other nations can be seen by this week's Torah reading (Mishpatim). Most of these laws, however, could not be understood without our looking at the supplement of oral laws, and reading them in concert with those same laws.

חֲמִשָּׁה בָקָר ×™Ö°×©×Ö·×œÖ¼Öµ× (Shemos 21:37)
If we might treat somewhat on those laws, according to the tenets of Judaism, imprisonment is rarely used as a form of punishment. For a thief pays double, four-fold or five-fold, when he is caught, which actually tends to his rehabilitation more so than by his being locked up behind bars. Even so, such fines described by the Torah can only be imposed by a Court that had been ordained with "semicha." Ordinary courts can only exact the face-value of what was taken illegally.

וְרַפּא יְרַפֵּא (Shemos 21: 19)
A man who cripples another pays indemnities – viz., damages paid to the plaintiff which are estimated by taking an imaginative slave and selling him with that very malady, and taking an imaginative healthy slave and selling him too, while the difference accruing between the two sales being the actual price which one pays in damages. So, too, must he pay the plaintiff monies if he had brought upon him shame by that account, as well as pay for his convalescence, and the loss of wage incurred by the plaintiff's being laid-off or unemployed from his ordinary business and work. In this case, the cost of reparations is estimated by taking the ordinary wage given to a man who sits and keeps watch, say, over a field of cucumbers (meaning, minimal wage).
Reparations given for shame differs between individuals. For example, a sane man's degree of shame is not like that of a lunatic's. Costs for damages, in this case, vary – depending on the person who was ashamed.

The Torah prevents disproportionate law-suits such as which are common in Western cultures and societies, and whose primary aim of the claimant is to get rich at another's expense.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

quote:

sane man's degree of shame is not like that of a lunatic's.

Would you please elaborate on this point with an example?

I might think that an unwell person might exacerbate their sense of indignation, but an extremely well grounded person might not even notice certain things which could be considered an embarassment.

And if it is only a subjective view of the import of such a thing, beyond established norms, then I would find it surprising that a court would validate the distorted view.

David,
While I agree with your assessment of our laws compared to goyish laws, I think our beit din system may have a blind spot. Our 3 member beit din, for tort and non-capital punishment cases, is too local and, as such, can be unfair to a person who is unpopular for whatever reason. Women trying to facilitate gittim are a good example of this.

As you know, lashon hara is rampant in our communities and a beit din whose members have heard enough lashon hara can be prejudiced against a person. I wonder how many beit din members recuse themselves from cases opting to use someone from a different community who can be more objective?

Quote " In this case, the cost of reparations is estimated by taking the ordinary wage given to a man who sits and keeps watch, say, over a field of cucumbers (meaning, minimal wage)."


It's not the minimal wage per se, but whatever he has the ability to do after the accident. If the person was a dentist, but after he lost his hand, all he is worth is to watch cucumbers, so he gets paid according to his new occupation. This is because the price of the hand of a dentist was include in the original damage. But if he lost only a leg and he can still be a dentist, then he gets paid for being laid up without a job a dentist's wage.

B"H
Rav Chaim,
Thank-you for clarifying this point. You are the Rav, and I am the student.

As for Moshe's response, he is mostly right in his assessment of the situation in today's rabbinic courts. Most would agree, though, that today women have the upper-hand in divorces, and can usually attain their desire. (I speak about the rabbinic courts in this country - Israel - but not in America or in England, where I know very little about.) In Yemen, a man could keep his rebellious wife at bay, without having to give her a divorce, yet enjoying the fruits of his marriage with a second wife.

As for Rob's question, it will require further thought. By "shame," it was generally meant what was agreed to be a shameful act by most people's definition. For example, two men were verbally arguing one with the other, and their argument came to fight. The aggressor attacked the other and, in the course of the debacle, the aggressor stripped the other stark naked. Had the man who suffered this shame been a respectable businessman, with a family, etc., his reparations in court would have been greater than those of an insane man who had escaped from the insane asylum, or a small child, who had been treated the same.
I've heard that they ask a neutral man with the same credentials as the former who was brought to shame, "How much money would you take to allow someone to treat you in the same disrespectful manner?" Whatsoever price he agrees to take for such treatment, is the cost of damages laid upon the defendant.

David

I disagree in one word: AGUNAH!
respectfully,
howdy.

On another note: I do not have respect for the bet din system, the "judge" that i have met have little or no דרך ארץ. We want even talk about qualifications, but mouthing a person to death b/c the judge has no teeth ie inforcement powers.

regards,

howdy

Moshe Kerr,
Could you please clarify your post?

quote:

Originally posted by moshe kerr:
I disagree in one word: AGUNAH!
respectfully,
howdy.

Moshe Kerr,

Were you referring to the way the Yemenites would keep their rebellious wives at bay, calling this "Agunah?"

David

B"H

The week's Parasha also speaks about cruelty to animals. Unfortunately, the "Humane Society," which is not so humane, has succeeded in extending its ideological outreach to our own shores. They take impounded dogs, those that had been vaccinated and those that had not, and put them to sleep. (euphemism)

Where the Rabbis have said: "The suffering of animals is a thing prohibited in the Law."
(Shabbat 128b)
צער בעלי ×—×™×™× ×“××•×¨×™×™×ª×.
(שבת קכ"ח, ב)

This, they learned from a verse in the Torah(Shemos 23:5) that says: "When you see your enemy's donkey (חמור שנאך) lying down beneath its [heavy] burden, forsake what you presently might have against him in your heart, and assist him [in unloading the beast]." (Onkelos)

David

B"H
I just received this private message from Aryeh Shore (Lawrence), and I think it's worth making it public. I would welcome any feedback on it:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"Dear David,

Been a little bit busy saving the world to check posts on global yeshiva. The forum seems to be running out of new themes. I also have to worry about aflatoxin poisoning in dog food and other sundry maniacs going around poisoning their neighbor's dogs.

I am also way behind on my learning schedule. I just barely finish the parsha, a perek in mishnaot, a page or two of the Yerushalmi and a musar book and it is the next parsha already.

There are pages and pages of debate whether we learn cruelty to animals from unburdening the animal is from the torah or from the Rabbanim. In any event, the majority opinion is that there is no cruelty to animals in how you kill them and there is no obligation to animals outside of your line of sight.

Actually the "Let animals live" people are more of a pain in the neck than euthanizing animals. They do not have the funds to keep all the dogs they pick up and the dogs are kept under unacceptable conditions. We (that is the veterinary services) just had to defend our policy of killing stray dogs to prevent rabies. The first judge couldn't see any reason to kill all those dogs just because only five people would die a year from rabies. As for the cats, there is a country wide program to sterilize all of the stray cats. You need to castrate at least 70% of the population to be effective as otherwise other cats just move in since they are no longer defend their territory.



Bottom line: Killing animals is not included in tzaar baal chaim. Since it is a public health problem and people's lives are endangered, one is permitted to kill strays. There is no effective contraception for dogs and cats. A new vaccine for dogs has been developed and is in use in some countries but it will be sometime before it can be used to control dog populations.



Dr. Laurence Shore
Dept. of Toxicology
Kimron Veterinary Institute"

Why is "killing" in the category of "pain"? Isn't "pain" something that is done while the animal is kept alive? Torturing an animal, or even scaring it away from its present location by throwing rocks at it, would be under the category of "pain". What I mean is, that, causing pain to an animal has to exclude killing. Or am I wrong?

quote:

Originally posted by Sam-:
Why is "killing" in the category of "pain"?

Who above said it is? Dr. Shore clearly wrote that it isn't.

quote:

Originally posted by MosheYisraeli:
David,
While I agree with your assessment of our laws compared to goyish laws, I think our beit din system may have a blind spot. Our 3 member beit din, for tort and non-capital punishment cases, is too local and, as such, can be unfair to a person who is unpopular for whatever reason. Women trying to facilitate gittim are a good example of this.

As you know, lashon hara is rampant in our communities and a beit din whose members have heard enough lashon hara can be prejudiced against a person. I wonder how many beit din members recuse themselves from cases opting to use someone from a different community who can be more objective?

There already is a system to resolve this issue. The person with the complaint goes to the bais-din of their choice and they send out hasmonos. The respond has two choices they can respond yes or yes.
1. Yes I am coming to the bais-din that called me.
2. Yes I will go for udjudication at the bais-din that I choose.
It is always the respondents choice. Within reason. If you live in NY and respond that I will only have this local case heard in LA but are not willing to pay for the other party to fly there the NY bais-din can call that refusing to come to bais-din. But within reason the respondent can choose a bais-din where s/he feels they will get a fair hearing.
mkf