I'm sure that by now, most of you have seen the People's Court case that aired on Dec 2. If not, you can view it at the end of this post or read the summary below.
An obviously frum couple are suing a dry cleaning establishment for $3000 for the destruction of a wig. The couple's young child put a $3000 Georgie wig into the dry cleaning bag before it went off to the cleaners. The dry cleaners saw the wig and phoned the customer what to do with the wig. The person calling had limited English skills and there is some confusion about what transpired over the phone call. The customer says that she told the dry cleaner not to wash it -- the dry cleaning employee says that she was told to wash, but not dry it.
In any event, the dry cleaner went ahead and washed the wig. The couple said that they took the wig to three different stores to see if it could be repaired, but they were told it was a total loss. The couple, however, did not bring any documentation of this (other than the receipt for the original wig purchase from Georgi back in May). The judge called a recess to consider the matter.
When the judge came back from recess, she said that she called Georgies and confirmed that the woman did indeed purchase a $3000 wig from them back in May. However, the wig was a long-haired wig (the one that the woman was wearing in court) and not a short wig (which is the one that was damaged). In addition, the damaged wig was a cheaper wig that Georgies does not even sell. The judge, in the end, tossed the suit.
What mystifies me about the couple's behavior is this:
I understand if they succumbed to temptation and decided to sue the dry cleaner to get them to pay for the more expensive wig. I don't approve, of course, but we're all human and we've all succumbed to some form of temptation or other.
However, if they did indeed attempt to perpetrate a fraud, I have to wonder what possessed them to do it on national television. It's bad enough they brought the suit in the first place -- but had this happened in small claims court, the case would have been thrown out and, at worst, a small blurb would have appeared in a local paper. But now, however, the attempted fraud is all over the internet. The video has 20,000+ views on YouTube, not to mention the many more people who actually saw the episode when it aired.
There is a reason that Chazal tell us that when one is tempted to sin they should do so in a far away place... so as to minimize the chillul HaShem that will result. I'm just utterly shocked and bewildered that they chose to attempt this on national television. To me, that's just as bad as the actual attempted fraud.
The Wolf
Showing posts with label honesty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label honesty. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
My Take On the Unfolding Kollel Scandal
Earlier this week, Israeli authorities rounded up numerous Chareidim in Israel who are accusing of defrauding the State. In a classic case of identity fraud, it seems that the yeshivos were collecting monies for students who either did not attend the schools or were taking the monies allocated for the personal use of people who attend the yeshiva but have a policy not to take money from the State.
I don't know if the accusations are true or not. However, this episode has helped to illustrate several interesting points:
1. We Keep Our Priorities Straight -- Marty Bluke points out that this affair is being discussed on the Chareidi website. However, there the discussion isn't about whether or not the parties involved are guilty or whether we need to rethink the way we do things. The discussion there focuses on trying to find out who notified the authorities. In other words, it's not the fault of the thieves, it's the fault of the people who turned them in.
2. We Learn To Distinguish Between Important Issues and Issues of Lesser Importance: I find it highly telling that these same people who would look down at me for wearing a colored shirt, or working for a living, or for wearing a leather yarmulke, or for any of the other things that violate the chareidi lifestyle -- but yet don't even rise to the level of minhag or Rabbinic mitzvos, have no problem blithely violating the actual Torah commandment against theft.
Lord knows that I'm not perfect... and I don't expect Chareidim to be either. We're all human and we all make mistakes. But it's one thing when someone makes a one-time mistake and yet another when the violation is repeated and systemic. How someone who is repeatedly violating a Torah law can look down at someone who simply doesn't dress the same way or is otherwise acting in accordance with halacha is beyond me.
3. We're Can Keep the Big Picture In Sight: I am personally in favor of Torah study. I may have some quibbles with the way the kollel system is currently set up (ok, perhaps more than quibbles), but on a deeper level, I believe that there should be a kollel option for those who have the aptitude and desire.
But it has to be realized that the purpose of the kollel (or at least one of the purposes) has to be to educate people in the observance of the mitzvos. If the purpose of the learning doesn't include actual observance of the mitzvos, then what the heck is the point of the whole venture? To learn what the Torah wants while hypocritically acting the other way? I don't think so -- nor should any rational person. But if we support Torah learning with thievery what message does that send to the avreichim that are learning there -- especially in this day and age where many in the yeshiva world revere the Rosh Yeshiva himself and view his behavior as a model to emulate?
I don't have a problem with instutions that serve the community -- be they kollelim, tzedakah organizations, or the like. But the paramount thing is that these organizations have to be run above-board and with complete honesty. If we can't do that, not only do we risk further chillul HaShem, we also might begin to lose faith in our own institutions.
The Wolf
I don't know if the accusations are true or not. However, this episode has helped to illustrate several interesting points:
1. We Keep Our Priorities Straight -- Marty Bluke points out that this affair is being discussed on the Chareidi website. However, there the discussion isn't about whether or not the parties involved are guilty or whether we need to rethink the way we do things. The discussion there focuses on trying to find out who notified the authorities. In other words, it's not the fault of the thieves, it's the fault of the people who turned them in.
2. We Learn To Distinguish Between Important Issues and Issues of Lesser Importance: I find it highly telling that these same people who would look down at me for wearing a colored shirt, or working for a living, or for wearing a leather yarmulke, or for any of the other things that violate the chareidi lifestyle -- but yet don't even rise to the level of minhag or Rabbinic mitzvos, have no problem blithely violating the actual Torah commandment against theft.
Lord knows that I'm not perfect... and I don't expect Chareidim to be either. We're all human and we all make mistakes. But it's one thing when someone makes a one-time mistake and yet another when the violation is repeated and systemic. How someone who is repeatedly violating a Torah law can look down at someone who simply doesn't dress the same way or is otherwise acting in accordance with halacha is beyond me.
3. We're Can Keep the Big Picture In Sight: I am personally in favor of Torah study. I may have some quibbles with the way the kollel system is currently set up (ok, perhaps more than quibbles), but on a deeper level, I believe that there should be a kollel option for those who have the aptitude and desire.
But it has to be realized that the purpose of the kollel (or at least one of the purposes) has to be to educate people in the observance of the mitzvos. If the purpose of the learning doesn't include actual observance of the mitzvos, then what the heck is the point of the whole venture? To learn what the Torah wants while hypocritically acting the other way? I don't think so -- nor should any rational person. But if we support Torah learning with thievery what message does that send to the avreichim that are learning there -- especially in this day and age where many in the yeshiva world revere the Rosh Yeshiva himself and view his behavior as a model to emulate?
I don't have a problem with instutions that serve the community -- be they kollelim, tzedakah organizations, or the like. But the paramount thing is that these organizations have to be run above-board and with complete honesty. If we can't do that, not only do we risk further chillul HaShem, we also might begin to lose faith in our own institutions.
The Wolf
Monday, December 14, 2009
Mind Boggling Comment of the Day...
OnionSoupMix put up a post about a Spinka fundraising letter that went out. The Spinka yeshivos are facing some financial difficulties due to the financial improprieties of it's leadership.
In response to OSM's post, a poster named Mindy went on to state that the only reason the yeshiva was financially viable was because they were defrauding the government*. Now that they can't do so anymore, they need to find alternative sources of income. A poster responded to Mindy that aside from the financial harm, there is also the fact that the Spinka Rebbe probably taught the kids (if not in words then certainly through his deeds) that tax fraud is perfectly acceptable.
Mindy's response:
and I still dont consider tax fraud stolen money. He committed a crime against the US govt, he didtn still from people.
Words just fail me on this one. Money gained through tax fraud isn't stolen money because it's not stolen from "people?" The government IS the people. The government of the United States is owned by me, by Mindy and by every other U.S. citizen all over the world. When you steal from the government, you have the unique opportunity to steal from over 300 million people at once.
How a frum Jew comes to this type of mentality (that stealing from the government isn't the same as stealing from "people") is just mind boggling.
The Wolf
* I have no idea whether that's true or not.
In response to OSM's post, a poster named Mindy went on to state that the only reason the yeshiva was financially viable was because they were defrauding the government*. Now that they can't do so anymore, they need to find alternative sources of income. A poster responded to Mindy that aside from the financial harm, there is also the fact that the Spinka Rebbe probably taught the kids (if not in words then certainly through his deeds) that tax fraud is perfectly acceptable.
Mindy's response:
and I still dont consider tax fraud stolen money. He committed a crime against the US govt, he didtn still from people.
Words just fail me on this one. Money gained through tax fraud isn't stolen money because it's not stolen from "people?" The government IS the people. The government of the United States is owned by me, by Mindy and by every other U.S. citizen all over the world. When you steal from the government, you have the unique opportunity to steal from over 300 million people at once.
How a frum Jew comes to this type of mentality (that stealing from the government isn't the same as stealing from "people") is just mind boggling.
The Wolf
* I have no idea whether that's true or not.
Friday, September 04, 2009
Is Lying About One's Age Grounds For Breaking A Shidduch?
Matzav.com brings a question that was asked to the author of the Chelkas Ya'akov, R' Mordechai Yaakov ben R' Chaim Breisch of Zurich. The question was whether or not a shidduch could be broken because the bride lied about her age. In the specific case at hand, she said at the time of engagement that she was 28, yet when it came time for the wedding three years later (three years??!!), it turned out that she was 36 at the time.
The Chelkas Ya'akov answers that the only time one can break a shidduch because of age is if the woman is over forty (because of childbearing concerns). Otherwise, a lie about one's age is not grounds for breaking a shidduch.
With all due respect to the Chelkas Ya'akov, I find this answer a bit difficult. Rather than focusing on the fact that the number of years was inaccurate, how about focusing on the fact that if she's willing to lie about this, it reveals a serious character flaw about the person. I know that I would not want to start a relationship with someone who lies about their age.
I can understand that the woman was scared -- she was 36 and single and probably figured that if she didn't find a husband soon, then she would never find one. I really do understand that. However, the fact that she was willing to fib about her age shows that she understood that the guy didn't want an older wife -- a fact that was borne out by the fact that he asked the question about breaking the shidduch when he did discover her true age. And even if the age issue isn't truly worth breaking a shidduch (suppose, for example, she truly beleived that she was 28 and only later discovered the truth), I would think that the dishonesty and deception that she displayed would be valid reasons to break the shidduch.
The Wolf
The Chelkas Ya'akov answers that the only time one can break a shidduch because of age is if the woman is over forty (because of childbearing concerns). Otherwise, a lie about one's age is not grounds for breaking a shidduch.
With all due respect to the Chelkas Ya'akov, I find this answer a bit difficult. Rather than focusing on the fact that the number of years was inaccurate, how about focusing on the fact that if she's willing to lie about this, it reveals a serious character flaw about the person. I know that I would not want to start a relationship with someone who lies about their age.
I can understand that the woman was scared -- she was 36 and single and probably figured that if she didn't find a husband soon, then she would never find one. I really do understand that. However, the fact that she was willing to fib about her age shows that she understood that the guy didn't want an older wife -- a fact that was borne out by the fact that he asked the question about breaking the shidduch when he did discover her true age. And even if the age issue isn't truly worth breaking a shidduch (suppose, for example, she truly beleived that she was 28 and only later discovered the truth), I would think that the dishonesty and deception that she displayed would be valid reasons to break the shidduch.
The Wolf
Monday, June 08, 2009
The YWN CoffeeRoom, Plagiarism and Multiple Personalities
It seems that there is a rash of plagiarism going on over at the YWN CoffeeRoom.
In a discussion on evolution, four consecutive posters simply copied and pasted their anti-evolution arguments directly from Frumteens (without attribution). Mind you, this is *after* I called out another poster for plagiarizing (although, I suspect, he was merely copying himself under a different username).
"Toras Moshe" has a post that starts:
Once should never confuse science with scientists. Science is knowledge; scientists are people, complete with their own agendas, weaknesses, and dishonesties. Their PhD’s do not make them any more moral or honest or objective than truck drivers.
The Frumteens Moderator posted that back in September 2005 here.
"Hill of Beans" wrote an essay that starts:
Scientists are involved in finding "scientific fact", which is not the same as "truth", or even plain "fact." This is because scientists - not science - have agreed to restrict "scientific proof" to things that fulfill their own self-imposed criteria, which limits the type of truth they will find. Example: If an experiment cannot be reproduced in the laboratoy, it is not considered scientifically proven.
However, he stole that from the Frumteens moderator here (second post).
"Bogen" starts his piece with:
That Hashem first made man from dirt and then blew into him a Neshama is not in question. But to say that the Torah can agree with the theory of evolution is another matter entirely. The theory of evolution - and the word itself, which means slow change, the opposite of "revolution," which means sudden change - requires many generations of gradual development, and man was already functioning on the day he was created.
However, that, too, is ripped from FT here.
"Will Hill" starts his piece with:
Evolution, by definition, means "slow progress", the opposite of revolution, which means sudden progress. When did this "evolution" supposedly occur?
That, too, comes from FT here (second post).
That four *consecutive* posts simply rip their arguments from another source (and the same source, at that), tells me that something stinks in the CoffeeRoom.
I don't mind a paragraph copied and pasted (with attribution) to support a point you're making, but to simply mass-copy your argument and present them as your own is simply wrong (and doing it under four different names so as to make it appear that you have a multitude on your side is even worse). How about a little honesty guys...
The Wolf
(P.S. -- For the record, I posted in the CR thread about my findings. Let's see if the post is actually approved. UPDATE: It went up.)
In a discussion on evolution, four consecutive posters simply copied and pasted their anti-evolution arguments directly from Frumteens (without attribution). Mind you, this is *after* I called out another poster for plagiarizing (although, I suspect, he was merely copying himself under a different username).
"Toras Moshe" has a post that starts:
Once should never confuse science with scientists. Science is knowledge; scientists are people, complete with their own agendas, weaknesses, and dishonesties. Their PhD’s do not make them any more moral or honest or objective than truck drivers.
The Frumteens Moderator posted that back in September 2005 here.
"Hill of Beans" wrote an essay that starts:
Scientists are involved in finding "scientific fact", which is not the same as "truth", or even plain "fact." This is because scientists - not science - have agreed to restrict "scientific proof" to things that fulfill their own self-imposed criteria, which limits the type of truth they will find. Example: If an experiment cannot be reproduced in the laboratoy, it is not considered scientifically proven.
However, he stole that from the Frumteens moderator here (second post).
"Bogen" starts his piece with:
That Hashem first made man from dirt and then blew into him a Neshama is not in question. But to say that the Torah can agree with the theory of evolution is another matter entirely. The theory of evolution - and the word itself, which means slow change, the opposite of "revolution," which means sudden change - requires many generations of gradual development, and man was already functioning on the day he was created.
However, that, too, is ripped from FT here.
"Will Hill" starts his piece with:
Evolution, by definition, means "slow progress", the opposite of revolution, which means sudden progress. When did this "evolution" supposedly occur?
That, too, comes from FT here (second post).
That four *consecutive* posts simply rip their arguments from another source (and the same source, at that), tells me that something stinks in the CoffeeRoom.
I don't mind a paragraph copied and pasted (with attribution) to support a point you're making, but to simply mass-copy your argument and present them as your own is simply wrong (and doing it under four different names so as to make it appear that you have a multitude on your side is even worse). How about a little honesty guys...
The Wolf
(P.S. -- For the record, I posted in the CR thread about my findings. Let's see if the post is actually approved. UPDATE: It went up.)
Monday, April 06, 2009
Rabbi, Heal Thyself...
Honestly Frum recounts an event that happened when a prominent Rav gave a Q&A session in his neighborhood.
he said that all things being equal and as long as there is no chance for chillul hashem, it is mutar to cheat on ones taxes. After pushed on the answer and asked about the shulchan aruch where it says it's asur and that one has to follow dina d' malchusa he said that the shulchan aruch only wrote what it did because he was "affraid of the authorities".
Looking beyond the blatant disregard for honesty and being responsible members of the community, I thought the following was interesting:
Apparently, if there is a danger of chillul HaShem*, then cheating on your taxes is forbidden. But if chillul HaShem is such an overriding concern, how about the chillul HaShem that results from making the statement in the first place resulting in thousands (if not more) of non-frum Jews (and non-Jews) who hear that Orthodox Jews believe it's fundamentally okay to cheat on taxes?
The Wolf
* Isn't there *always* a danger of being caught by the IRS?
he said that all things being equal and as long as there is no chance for chillul hashem, it is mutar to cheat on ones taxes. After pushed on the answer and asked about the shulchan aruch where it says it's asur and that one has to follow dina d' malchusa he said that the shulchan aruch only wrote what it did because he was "affraid of the authorities".
Looking beyond the blatant disregard for honesty and being responsible members of the community, I thought the following was interesting:
Apparently, if there is a danger of chillul HaShem*, then cheating on your taxes is forbidden. But if chillul HaShem is such an overriding concern, how about the chillul HaShem that results from making the statement in the first place resulting in thousands (if not more) of non-frum Jews (and non-Jews) who hear that Orthodox Jews believe it's fundamentally okay to cheat on taxes?
The Wolf
* Isn't there *always* a danger of being caught by the IRS?
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Is Personal Integrity Dead?
Both WebGirl over at The Road Taken and Rabbi Maryles have posts up concerning stealing that sometimes occurs in the frum community.
WebGirl discusses activities such as money laundering and lying to obtain free goods. Rabbi Marlyes discusses stealing from the government. In the past, I've discussed dishonesty in such forms as copying media, illegally avoiding sales tax and even electoral fraud. I've even blogged about my own failings and when I wimped out when I had the chance to stand up for honesty.
While I find it disturbing that such activities go on in the Jewish community, I don't find it surprising. After all, Jews are human too, and we're subject to the same temptations as everyone else. I'd be lying if I said I *never* stole anything in my life, and I suspect the vast majority of people would be too.
However, what I find particularly disturbing is the openness that exists about stealing. No one seems to be ashamed of it anymore - it's simply accepted as a part of the way of doing things. People who are halachically married but not legally so as to qualify for benefits? Not a problem. Paying cash for goods or services to avoid sales tax? It's okay. Running money laundering schemes? Where does it say in the Shulchan Aruch that it's wrong? And so on. The same people who would recoil in horror at the thought of violating a mitzvah d'rabbanan or a such as eating fish and meat together or not wearing a hat during davening, or eating kitniyos on Pesach have no problem being blase about the Torah commandment of not stealing -- which applies whether the money being stolen belongs to a Jew or a non-Jew, a person, partnership, corporation or government.
Rabbi Maryles reports that one person's attitude toward defrauding the government is:
I wasn't aware that defrauding the government was one of the three cardinal sins. My bad.
And yet, I somehow suspect that the same person would not be so blase about a frum person eating treif or a woman wearing a skirt that ends a bit above the knee. Neither of things are cardinal sins either, and yet, I'm sure they would get a reaction (and possibly a violent one in some quarters).
So, why does theft and dishonesty get a pass? Why does stealing seem to be "okay" as long as it's not on the scale of Bernard Madoff, or as long as you're not the victim? Or even better, why do we pay lip service to the idea that stealing is wrong -- why not simply declare that stealing is okay?
Well, okay... perhaps my last suggestion was somewhat over the top - but the underlying question still remains. We pay a lot of lip service to the ideal of honesty. We say that the seal of Hakadosh Baruch Hu is truth. We repeat stories about how scrupulously honest our Sages were. We go so far as to say that one of the primary reasons for the destruction of the world in the days of Noach was because of dishonesty. And yet, all that is lost upon us. All that is lost upon us to the degree that not only do people steal in private (which might be expected -- again -- we're only human), but they do so openly and without any shame.
Lord knows, I'm not perfect. I have my faults and weaknesses. But I would never dream of bragging about something that I've done wrong. I would never even think of being open (and worse, blase) about it. But that seems to be the point we've reached as a society.
You know what? I would trade adherence to all the chumros in the world -- whether justified or not -- to gain a greater adherence to things such as honesty and personal integrity.
The Wolf
WebGirl discusses activities such as money laundering and lying to obtain free goods. Rabbi Marlyes discusses stealing from the government. In the past, I've discussed dishonesty in such forms as copying media, illegally avoiding sales tax and even electoral fraud. I've even blogged about my own failings and when I wimped out when I had the chance to stand up for honesty.
While I find it disturbing that such activities go on in the Jewish community, I don't find it surprising. After all, Jews are human too, and we're subject to the same temptations as everyone else. I'd be lying if I said I *never* stole anything in my life, and I suspect the vast majority of people would be too.
However, what I find particularly disturbing is the openness that exists about stealing. No one seems to be ashamed of it anymore - it's simply accepted as a part of the way of doing things. People who are halachically married but not legally so as to qualify for benefits? Not a problem. Paying cash for goods or services to avoid sales tax? It's okay. Running money laundering schemes? Where does it say in the Shulchan Aruch that it's wrong? And so on. The same people who would recoil in horror at the thought of violating a mitzvah d'rabbanan or a such as eating fish and meat together or not wearing a hat during davening, or eating kitniyos on Pesach have no problem being blase about the Torah commandment of not stealing -- which applies whether the money being stolen belongs to a Jew or a non-Jew, a person, partnership, corporation or government.
Rabbi Maryles reports that one person's attitude toward defrauding the government is:
I wasn't aware that defrauding the government was one of the three cardinal sins. My bad.
And yet, I somehow suspect that the same person would not be so blase about a frum person eating treif or a woman wearing a skirt that ends a bit above the knee. Neither of things are cardinal sins either, and yet, I'm sure they would get a reaction (and possibly a violent one in some quarters).
So, why does theft and dishonesty get a pass? Why does stealing seem to be "okay" as long as it's not on the scale of Bernard Madoff, or as long as you're not the victim? Or even better, why do we pay lip service to the idea that stealing is wrong -- why not simply declare that stealing is okay?
Well, okay... perhaps my last suggestion was somewhat over the top - but the underlying question still remains. We pay a lot of lip service to the ideal of honesty. We say that the seal of Hakadosh Baruch Hu is truth. We repeat stories about how scrupulously honest our Sages were. We go so far as to say that one of the primary reasons for the destruction of the world in the days of Noach was because of dishonesty. And yet, all that is lost upon us. All that is lost upon us to the degree that not only do people steal in private (which might be expected -- again -- we're only human), but they do so openly and without any shame.
Lord knows, I'm not perfect. I have my faults and weaknesses. But I would never dream of bragging about something that I've done wrong. I would never even think of being open (and worse, blase) about it. But that seems to be the point we've reached as a society.
You know what? I would trade adherence to all the chumros in the world -- whether justified or not -- to gain a greater adherence to things such as honesty and personal integrity.
The Wolf
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
I'm Convinced 'Torah Proofs' Cause More Harm Than Good
Sometimes I have to wonder if people who peddle "Torah proofs" aren't, in fact, doing more damage than good. They proclaim that they have "scientific proof" that the Torah is divine and then follow it up with arguments that could be called faulty at best and downright loony at worst. Personally, I feel that no proof is better than a bad proof. If I tell you that I believe that God exists and that the Torah is divine, it's not subject to refutation. True, a belief on my part is not as strong as a "proof," but unlike a bad "proof," it won't leave someone feeling "lied to" when they discover the truth of the argument.
I just listened to one such lecture given (downloadable here) by Rabbi Yossi Mizrachi. The title of the lecture is Proof That Torah is Divine Part I. In his lecture, he claims to bring "scientific proofs" that the Torah is of Divine origin. Sad to say, very few of his "proofs" stand up to serious scrutiny. He goes through a lot of material in his presentation, and for me to debunk everything he says would simply take too much time. However, I don't actually have to debunk everything he says. Right at the beginning of the lecture, he presents his cardinal rule for debunking religions -- if a mistake can be found in the "holy book" of a religion, then it is a proof that the book is not Divine and the religion that it supports is bunk. So, the net result is that, according to him, if I can show that any one of his premises regarding the Torah is false, and that the Torah has a flaw, then Judaism itself is bunk. That's a rather high bar to set and, if I apply to Judaism the same conditions that he applies to other religions, then it's easy to show that Judaism is false.
Before I go any further, I want to make one thing very clear: I *do* believe in Judaism. Just because a person shows that a "proof" to Judaism is flawed and invalid doesn't make the religion itself flawed and invalid. I *do* believe that the Torah is of Divine origin and if a real proof to it is discovered one day, I will wholeheartedly embrace it. But I will not embrace flawed proofs, shoddy logic or emotional claptrap.
Biblical Errors And Consistent Standards
As I mentioned earlier, Rabbi Mizrachi begins with his cardinal rule; that if an error can be found in a "Divine book," then that error serves proof that the book is, in fact, not Divine, and that the religion that it supports is false. As an example, he brings up the verse in Acts 7:14 which states that Jacob went down to Egypt with 75 people. Of course, we know from Beraishis (46:27) and Shemos (1:5) that the number of people that went down to Egypt was only seventy. Did God forget how many people went down? Of course not, hence, it is argued that Acts (and, by extension, the rest of the Christian Bible) is a flawed document and not Divine.
On the surface, it's a sound argument. However, one has to wonder if Rabbi Mizrachi actually gave the Christians and honest and sincere hearing on the matter. Assuming that most of the Christian clergy are not total idiots, I'm fairly certain that some of them must have noticed this contradiction. Has he asked any of them for an explanation? Somehow, I doubt it. A simple Google serach turned up two possible answers that Christians can use to reconcile the 70/75 count; and, truth to tell, those answers are entirely plausible -- or at least certainly as plausible as the answer given to explain why the total given in Beraishis 46 is 70 while only 69 names are mentioned.
In other words, I can support the basic premise that Rabbi Mizrachi puts forward -- i.e. that if you find a flaw in a book claiming to be Divine then the book is not Divine. What I do object to, however, is the fallacy of holding Christians accountable for contradictions in the text itself, without giving them a chance to reconcile the contradictions, while allowing Chazal, the Rishonim and Achronim to engage in explanations that, to an outsider, would sound far-fetched and forced. In other words, if you're going to call out Christian books because they contradict themselves (or other established sources), then you have to allow the adherents to explain the contradictions; much as you wold allow yourself to explain the apparent contradictions in Tanach. I'm not saying, of course, that you have to accept the explanations offered, but, in the name of honesty, you have to give them the chance and to accept the possibility of an explainable if it sounds plausible. Somehow, my gut tells me that Rabbi Mizrachi would not accept *any* explanation from a Christian of the 70/75 discrepancy, but would entertain almost any effort to explain an apparent error in the Torah.
Mass Revelation
Rabbi Mizrachi also brings up the argument of mass revelation. In short, the argument is that Judaism is unique because it has, at its origin, a mass revelation. Millions of people (he says between six and fifteen million, but that's quite a stretch, even accepting the 600,000 number as literally true) stood at Mt. Sinai and literally heard God speak. Putting aside, for a moment, the fact that the only proof that this happened is because it says it in the very book you're trying to prove, it's a fair argument. Most religions, begin with a single individual who makes an unverifiable claim (Mohammed receiving the Koran from the angel Gabriel, Joseph Smith receiving the Golden Plates from the angel Moroni, etc.). The fact that Judaism makes a claim of mass revelation is a striking point in its favor. However, Rabbi Mizrachi is not content with that. He says that if *any* religion can claim that they had an origin even involving one other eyewitness, then that proves the Torah is false, since (and I don't know his source for this) he says that Torah says that no other religion will be able to make the claim of a plural origin.
Sadly, his claims do not stand up to scrutiny. The Aztecs, for example, had a mass revelation story. They believed that their god, Huitzilopochtli, led them (in person) to the site of present-day Mexico City. Based on Rabbi Mizrachi's assertion, the very fact that another group even claims a mass revelation shows that the Torah is not true. I suppose it's a good thing that I don't agree with Rabbi Mizrachi's underlying assertion. :)
Textual Variations and Consistent Standards
The next claim he makes is that if a "holy book" has multiple versions, then it cannot be divine. After all, how would you know which version is the correct one? He makes the point that there are over 150,000 textual variations of the New Testament (I don't know if this is correct or not... it's really beside the point) and therefore, it's impossible to determine which is the "correct" version that would have been Divinely given. R. Mizrachi makes the point that no matter where you go in the world, the Torah is the same. Since it's the same everywhere in the world, it must be divine. Well, I don't know if Rabbi Mizrachi has ever been to Yemen, but there are Jews there that have a different Torah than ours. In fact, there are nine differences. But even if we dismiss the Yemenite Torahs, we even have differences here in the United States. There are two different versions of the word "daka" in Devarim 23:2; some Torahs have an aleph as the last letter while some have a heh. So, which Torah is the correct one? The Yemenite? The daka-aleph? The daka-heh? Does this mean that the Torah is not divine? If Rabbi Mizrachi were to apply the same standard that he does to the Christians to the Torah, he'd have to say no, but I don't think he's going to do that.
Faulty "Scientific" Proofs And Dubious Claims
In his lecture, Rabbi Mizrachi attempts to give "scientific proof" to the divinity of the Torah, but all that happens is that he comes off sounding incredibly uneducated about science. He trots out various "proofs," however, very often the underlying assumption of the proof is simply wrong.
For example, he tries to prove that the Jews knew, through the Torah (specifically, a verse in Isaiah), that the world was round before anyone else. He mentions that before Columbus, no one knew that the world was round. The spherical nature of the earth was discovered when Columbus sailed off to the west and returned from the east. Of course, that's not true. In order to do that, you have to go around the world, something that Columbus never did. It was not until Magellan's voyage, in 1521, that anyone actually went around the world. However, even that's not important, because people *did* know that the world is round many years before Columbus. The ancient Greeks knew the world was round because they observed that the earth casts a circular shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse.
He also tries to show that the Zohar, written in the days of the Tanaim (itself a very dubious claim) revealed many secrets of the world, that could not have been known before the advent of modern science. However, for two of the proofs that he brings, it's very clear that the Zohar was *not* written by a Divine Being. A Divine Being would not have peddled such incorrect information.
One proof from the Zohar that he mentions is a passage that descibes that there is one place in the world where it is always light and only dark for one hour a day -- the North Pole. However, that statement is simply not true. The North Pole is not always bathed in light except for one hour. The fact is that the sun is above the horizon at the North Pole for six months in the summer and below the horizon for six months in the winter. In other words, it is daytime for six months straight and night (to various degrees) for six months. In other words, the Zohar is completely wrong in the way it describes the North Pole.
Another "proof" from the Zohar is the fact that different people in the world look differently. According to the Zohar (at least according to Rabbi Mizrachi -- I haven't actually checked the source material), the climate affects the appearance of people. Or, to put it in Rabbi Mizrachi's words: "In Africa, everyone is black, almost the same face. Same hair, same face, same shape in the face. You go to China -- copy machine. Two billion copies." Rabbi Mizrachi clearly doesn't know what he's talking about here -- Africa is the most genetically diverse place on Earth. To say that everyone in Africa has the "same hair, same face, same shape in the face," simply shows that Rabbi Mizrachi hasn't done a great deal of reading about genetics or geography. In any event, to get to the point, the fact that different people in different regions look different is hardly a surprising discovery, even in the days when the Zohar is said to have been written. Anyone who had traveled would have known that.
As another proof to the idea that only God could have written the Torah, he mentions the Gemara in Megillah which purports to give the exact number of stars. Rabbi Mizrachi states that the number given is 1019 , although the true number mentioned in the Gemara is approximately 1018. However, we can forgive him the math error. What's harder to overlook is the simple logical mistake of using the Gemara's figure to prove the actual number of stars. In other words, the Gemara gives a really number, so it *must* be right. The fact is that the only way to prove that it's right is to compare it to another counting. The current estimate to the number of stars is actually 7x1022.
There are other "proofs" that he brings in his speech, which are equally easy to discredit (the four animals proof, the fins/scales proof and the calendar proof stand out most prominently), but this post has already gone on for quite a while.
There is, however, a deeper, more fundamental problem with Rabbi Mizrachi's argument. He attempts to prove that the Torah (and by extension, the Oral Torah) is Divine because it's an error-free document and contains information that only a Divine Being could have possessed. However, by allowing supporting proof from the Gemara and the Zohar, he also leaves them open to refutation. In other words, if you're going to claim that the Pentateuch is divine, then you can only find fault with items in the Pentateuch. But by stating that the Gemara and Zohar are also divine, Rabbi Mizrachi is asserting that they, too, are error-proof. He's also asserting that they, too, must be free of textual variations (since a divine document must have only one version). The fact of the matter is that there is no one today who will say that the Gemara doesn't have textual variations. So, according to Rabbi Mizrachi's definition, the Gemara is not Divine; and if the Gemara is not divine, then the religion it supports, Judaism, must be false.
Far More Harm Than Help
At the beginning of his speech, Rabbi Mizrachi states that over 100,000 people are religious today because of this lecture (whether delivered by him or someone else). All I can say is that I find that *extremely* hard to believe. I'm not the smartest guy in the world, and yet, I was able to pick apart most of his arguments pretty easily. If this is the "proof" of Judaism, I'm left to wonder if his lectures don't do far more harm to the kiruv movement than help.
The Wolf
I just listened to one such lecture given (downloadable here) by Rabbi Yossi Mizrachi. The title of the lecture is Proof That Torah is Divine Part I. In his lecture, he claims to bring "scientific proofs" that the Torah is of Divine origin. Sad to say, very few of his "proofs" stand up to serious scrutiny. He goes through a lot of material in his presentation, and for me to debunk everything he says would simply take too much time. However, I don't actually have to debunk everything he says. Right at the beginning of the lecture, he presents his cardinal rule for debunking religions -- if a mistake can be found in the "holy book" of a religion, then it is a proof that the book is not Divine and the religion that it supports is bunk. So, the net result is that, according to him, if I can show that any one of his premises regarding the Torah is false, and that the Torah has a flaw, then Judaism itself is bunk. That's a rather high bar to set and, if I apply to Judaism the same conditions that he applies to other religions, then it's easy to show that Judaism is false.
Before I go any further, I want to make one thing very clear: I *do* believe in Judaism. Just because a person shows that a "proof" to Judaism is flawed and invalid doesn't make the religion itself flawed and invalid. I *do* believe that the Torah is of Divine origin and if a real proof to it is discovered one day, I will wholeheartedly embrace it. But I will not embrace flawed proofs, shoddy logic or emotional claptrap.
Biblical Errors And Consistent Standards
As I mentioned earlier, Rabbi Mizrachi begins with his cardinal rule; that if an error can be found in a "Divine book," then that error serves proof that the book is, in fact, not Divine, and that the religion that it supports is false. As an example, he brings up the verse in Acts 7:14 which states that Jacob went down to Egypt with 75 people. Of course, we know from Beraishis (46:27) and Shemos (1:5) that the number of people that went down to Egypt was only seventy. Did God forget how many people went down? Of course not, hence, it is argued that Acts (and, by extension, the rest of the Christian Bible) is a flawed document and not Divine.
On the surface, it's a sound argument. However, one has to wonder if Rabbi Mizrachi actually gave the Christians and honest and sincere hearing on the matter. Assuming that most of the Christian clergy are not total idiots, I'm fairly certain that some of them must have noticed this contradiction. Has he asked any of them for an explanation? Somehow, I doubt it. A simple Google serach turned up two possible answers that Christians can use to reconcile the 70/75 count; and, truth to tell, those answers are entirely plausible -- or at least certainly as plausible as the answer given to explain why the total given in Beraishis 46 is 70 while only 69 names are mentioned.
In other words, I can support the basic premise that Rabbi Mizrachi puts forward -- i.e. that if you find a flaw in a book claiming to be Divine then the book is not Divine. What I do object to, however, is the fallacy of holding Christians accountable for contradictions in the text itself, without giving them a chance to reconcile the contradictions, while allowing Chazal, the Rishonim and Achronim to engage in explanations that, to an outsider, would sound far-fetched and forced. In other words, if you're going to call out Christian books because they contradict themselves (or other established sources), then you have to allow the adherents to explain the contradictions; much as you wold allow yourself to explain the apparent contradictions in Tanach. I'm not saying, of course, that you have to accept the explanations offered, but, in the name of honesty, you have to give them the chance and to accept the possibility of an explainable if it sounds plausible. Somehow, my gut tells me that Rabbi Mizrachi would not accept *any* explanation from a Christian of the 70/75 discrepancy, but would entertain almost any effort to explain an apparent error in the Torah.
Mass Revelation
Rabbi Mizrachi also brings up the argument of mass revelation. In short, the argument is that Judaism is unique because it has, at its origin, a mass revelation. Millions of people (he says between six and fifteen million, but that's quite a stretch, even accepting the 600,000 number as literally true) stood at Mt. Sinai and literally heard God speak. Putting aside, for a moment, the fact that the only proof that this happened is because it says it in the very book you're trying to prove, it's a fair argument. Most religions, begin with a single individual who makes an unverifiable claim (Mohammed receiving the Koran from the angel Gabriel, Joseph Smith receiving the Golden Plates from the angel Moroni, etc.). The fact that Judaism makes a claim of mass revelation is a striking point in its favor. However, Rabbi Mizrachi is not content with that. He says that if *any* religion can claim that they had an origin even involving one other eyewitness, then that proves the Torah is false, since (and I don't know his source for this) he says that Torah says that no other religion will be able to make the claim of a plural origin.
Sadly, his claims do not stand up to scrutiny. The Aztecs, for example, had a mass revelation story. They believed that their god, Huitzilopochtli, led them (in person) to the site of present-day Mexico City. Based on Rabbi Mizrachi's assertion, the very fact that another group even claims a mass revelation shows that the Torah is not true. I suppose it's a good thing that I don't agree with Rabbi Mizrachi's underlying assertion. :)
Textual Variations and Consistent Standards
The next claim he makes is that if a "holy book" has multiple versions, then it cannot be divine. After all, how would you know which version is the correct one? He makes the point that there are over 150,000 textual variations of the New Testament (I don't know if this is correct or not... it's really beside the point) and therefore, it's impossible to determine which is the "correct" version that would have been Divinely given. R. Mizrachi makes the point that no matter where you go in the world, the Torah is the same. Since it's the same everywhere in the world, it must be divine. Well, I don't know if Rabbi Mizrachi has ever been to Yemen, but there are Jews there that have a different Torah than ours. In fact, there are nine differences. But even if we dismiss the Yemenite Torahs, we even have differences here in the United States. There are two different versions of the word "daka" in Devarim 23:2; some Torahs have an aleph as the last letter while some have a heh. So, which Torah is the correct one? The Yemenite? The daka-aleph? The daka-heh? Does this mean that the Torah is not divine? If Rabbi Mizrachi were to apply the same standard that he does to the Christians to the Torah, he'd have to say no, but I don't think he's going to do that.
Faulty "Scientific" Proofs And Dubious Claims
In his lecture, Rabbi Mizrachi attempts to give "scientific proof" to the divinity of the Torah, but all that happens is that he comes off sounding incredibly uneducated about science. He trots out various "proofs," however, very often the underlying assumption of the proof is simply wrong.
For example, he tries to prove that the Jews knew, through the Torah (specifically, a verse in Isaiah), that the world was round before anyone else. He mentions that before Columbus, no one knew that the world was round. The spherical nature of the earth was discovered when Columbus sailed off to the west and returned from the east. Of course, that's not true. In order to do that, you have to go around the world, something that Columbus never did. It was not until Magellan's voyage, in 1521, that anyone actually went around the world. However, even that's not important, because people *did* know that the world is round many years before Columbus. The ancient Greeks knew the world was round because they observed that the earth casts a circular shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse.
He also tries to show that the Zohar, written in the days of the Tanaim (itself a very dubious claim) revealed many secrets of the world, that could not have been known before the advent of modern science. However, for two of the proofs that he brings, it's very clear that the Zohar was *not* written by a Divine Being. A Divine Being would not have peddled such incorrect information.
One proof from the Zohar that he mentions is a passage that descibes that there is one place in the world where it is always light and only dark for one hour a day -- the North Pole. However, that statement is simply not true. The North Pole is not always bathed in light except for one hour. The fact is that the sun is above the horizon at the North Pole for six months in the summer and below the horizon for six months in the winter. In other words, it is daytime for six months straight and night (to various degrees) for six months. In other words, the Zohar is completely wrong in the way it describes the North Pole.
Another "proof" from the Zohar is the fact that different people in the world look differently. According to the Zohar (at least according to Rabbi Mizrachi -- I haven't actually checked the source material), the climate affects the appearance of people. Or, to put it in Rabbi Mizrachi's words: "In Africa, everyone is black, almost the same face. Same hair, same face, same shape in the face. You go to China -- copy machine. Two billion copies." Rabbi Mizrachi clearly doesn't know what he's talking about here -- Africa is the most genetically diverse place on Earth. To say that everyone in Africa has the "same hair, same face, same shape in the face," simply shows that Rabbi Mizrachi hasn't done a great deal of reading about genetics or geography. In any event, to get to the point, the fact that different people in different regions look different is hardly a surprising discovery, even in the days when the Zohar is said to have been written. Anyone who had traveled would have known that.
As another proof to the idea that only God could have written the Torah, he mentions the Gemara in Megillah which purports to give the exact number of stars. Rabbi Mizrachi states that the number given is 1019 , although the true number mentioned in the Gemara is approximately 1018. However, we can forgive him the math error. What's harder to overlook is the simple logical mistake of using the Gemara's figure to prove the actual number of stars. In other words, the Gemara gives a really number, so it *must* be right. The fact is that the only way to prove that it's right is to compare it to another counting. The current estimate to the number of stars is actually 7x1022.
There are other "proofs" that he brings in his speech, which are equally easy to discredit (the four animals proof, the fins/scales proof and the calendar proof stand out most prominently), but this post has already gone on for quite a while.
Where R. Mizrachi Completely Disproves His Own Point
There is, however, a deeper, more fundamental problem with Rabbi Mizrachi's argument. He attempts to prove that the Torah (and by extension, the Oral Torah) is Divine because it's an error-free document and contains information that only a Divine Being could have possessed. However, by allowing supporting proof from the Gemara and the Zohar, he also leaves them open to refutation. In other words, if you're going to claim that the Pentateuch is divine, then you can only find fault with items in the Pentateuch. But by stating that the Gemara and Zohar are also divine, Rabbi Mizrachi is asserting that they, too, are error-proof. He's also asserting that they, too, must be free of textual variations (since a divine document must have only one version). The fact of the matter is that there is no one today who will say that the Gemara doesn't have textual variations. So, according to Rabbi Mizrachi's definition, the Gemara is not Divine; and if the Gemara is not divine, then the religion it supports, Judaism, must be false.
Far More Harm Than Help
At the beginning of his speech, Rabbi Mizrachi states that over 100,000 people are religious today because of this lecture (whether delivered by him or someone else). All I can say is that I find that *extremely* hard to believe. I'm not the smartest guy in the world, and yet, I was able to pick apart most of his arguments pretty easily. If this is the "proof" of Judaism, I'm left to wonder if his lectures don't do far more harm to the kiruv movement than help.
The Wolf
Friday, November 07, 2008
Where Did Personal Integrity Go?
E-Kvetcher has a post today about frum people in Chicago who voted twice for McCain in the recent presidential election -- once under their Hebrew name and once under their legal (English) name. I don't know (and E-Kvetcher doesn't tell us) whether this was racially motivated or whether they simply preferred McCain's policies. In any event, it doesn't really matter, I suppose.
What I find interesting is how we pay a lot of lip service to the idea of honesty in all our dealings -- even with non-Jews, and yet we simply fail miserably at following through in real life. There is a story often told about a Jew who consistently returned a few cents that he regularly received in excess change to a non-Jew postal clerk. Years later that very same non-Jew, impressed with the honesty and piety of the Jew, goes on to save him and other Jews from the Nazis. Other vesions of the story exist (with a shopkeep, or with the Czar instead of the Nazis, but they're all pretty much the same story). Who among us hasn't heard a story of this type? I know I've heard it countless times -- and it's a good story. The point being made is that if you conduct yourself with honesty, and treat people fairly, they will respect you and see you (and possibly your community) as people to be treated fairly.
Sadly, this lesson has been lost on today's generation. Today's generation looks at the story and misses the point entirely. Instead of seeing the message of "be honest, you never know what the consequences are," the message has become "be honest when it only costs you a few cents. A few cents may save you in the future." But when it comes to larger issues, honesty falls by the wayside.
Now, I don't want to suggest that this is a simply a frum problem -- it's not. There are plenty of people around the world of all stripes who are openly dishonest; and, as a firm believer in karma (aka Divine Justice) I beleive that they will eventually have to answer for it. But we tend to pay a great amount of lip service to the idea of honesty. We say that the seal of HKBH is truth. We're taught to be scrupulously honest -- even with non-Jews. And yet, time and again, we see examples where we fail to live up to the very ideals we profess to hold as the highest values.
I'm not suggesting that we should be perfect. I understand that Jews, like everyone else, are only human. We're all subject to temptations and failings. We all (myself included) find that sometimes we fall short of the mark. But that's fine -- as I said, we're human and not meant to be perfect. However, when it comes to the measure of a person's character, I sometimes feel that what's more important is the subsequent actions that a person takes. If a person steals someting, are they ashamed of the fact that they stole? Are they willing to make restitution (even secretly) and resolve to sin no more? Or are they proud of the fact that they got away with it? In other words, are they essentially honest people who simply slipped up once and gave in to temptation, or are they simply dishonest people?
Much of our halachic system is built on the idea of trust and personal integrity. How do I know that the food Eeees prepares for my dinner is kosher? Because I trust her. How do I know when I go to a restaurant or somone's home that they food they serve is kosher? Trust. I rely on thier personal honesty. How do I know my tefillin and mezzuos are written in order (if they are written out of order, they are invalid -- and this is not something that can be caught on inspection)? Again, we rely on the honesty of the sofer. Heck, how did we know that the Kohen Gadol in the Temple performed the ketores service in the proper way? Sure, he was made to swear that he'd do it the right way, but once he swore, we relied on his honesty that he would carry out his oath. In short, much of our halachic system is built on the idea of personal honesty. To see it so casually battered in public speaks volumes, I believe, about how we've lost our way and how we've lost sight of what truly is one of the major underpinnings of our religion.
The Wolf
(EDIT: I suppose I was unclear in the post. I didn't mean to suggest that there is rampant election fraud in Chicago [or anywhere else]. The post wasn't really about the election, but the open dishonesty in general [collecting sales tax comes to mind] that goes on in our community. The election fraud is just an example. My apologies for all those who were misled by my post.)
What I find interesting is how we pay a lot of lip service to the idea of honesty in all our dealings -- even with non-Jews, and yet we simply fail miserably at following through in real life. There is a story often told about a Jew who consistently returned a few cents that he regularly received in excess change to a non-Jew postal clerk. Years later that very same non-Jew, impressed with the honesty and piety of the Jew, goes on to save him and other Jews from the Nazis. Other vesions of the story exist (with a shopkeep, or with the Czar instead of the Nazis, but they're all pretty much the same story). Who among us hasn't heard a story of this type? I know I've heard it countless times -- and it's a good story. The point being made is that if you conduct yourself with honesty, and treat people fairly, they will respect you and see you (and possibly your community) as people to be treated fairly.
Sadly, this lesson has been lost on today's generation. Today's generation looks at the story and misses the point entirely. Instead of seeing the message of "be honest, you never know what the consequences are," the message has become "be honest when it only costs you a few cents. A few cents may save you in the future." But when it comes to larger issues, honesty falls by the wayside.
Now, I don't want to suggest that this is a simply a frum problem -- it's not. There are plenty of people around the world of all stripes who are openly dishonest; and, as a firm believer in karma (aka Divine Justice) I beleive that they will eventually have to answer for it. But we tend to pay a great amount of lip service to the idea of honesty. We say that the seal of HKBH is truth. We're taught to be scrupulously honest -- even with non-Jews. And yet, time and again, we see examples where we fail to live up to the very ideals we profess to hold as the highest values.
I'm not suggesting that we should be perfect. I understand that Jews, like everyone else, are only human. We're all subject to temptations and failings. We all (myself included) find that sometimes we fall short of the mark. But that's fine -- as I said, we're human and not meant to be perfect. However, when it comes to the measure of a person's character, I sometimes feel that what's more important is the subsequent actions that a person takes. If a person steals someting, are they ashamed of the fact that they stole? Are they willing to make restitution (even secretly) and resolve to sin no more? Or are they proud of the fact that they got away with it? In other words, are they essentially honest people who simply slipped up once and gave in to temptation, or are they simply dishonest people?
Much of our halachic system is built on the idea of trust and personal integrity. How do I know that the food Eeees prepares for my dinner is kosher? Because I trust her. How do I know when I go to a restaurant or somone's home that they food they serve is kosher? Trust. I rely on thier personal honesty. How do I know my tefillin and mezzuos are written in order (if they are written out of order, they are invalid -- and this is not something that can be caught on inspection)? Again, we rely on the honesty of the sofer. Heck, how did we know that the Kohen Gadol in the Temple performed the ketores service in the proper way? Sure, he was made to swear that he'd do it the right way, but once he swore, we relied on his honesty that he would carry out his oath. In short, much of our halachic system is built on the idea of personal honesty. To see it so casually battered in public speaks volumes, I believe, about how we've lost our way and how we've lost sight of what truly is one of the major underpinnings of our religion.
The Wolf
(EDIT: I suppose I was unclear in the post. I didn't mean to suggest that there is rampant election fraud in Chicago [or anywhere else]. The post wasn't really about the election, but the open dishonesty in general [collecting sales tax comes to mind] that goes on in our community. The election fraud is just an example. My apologies for all those who were misled by my post.)
Monday, October 27, 2008
The Implications Of Not Paying Wages On Time
Sephardi Lady (over at Orthonomics) has an interesting piece on a story that ran in the Times Herald Record last week. The story (carried by both YWN and VIN) concerns hotel workers upstate who were not paid on time because of Yom Tov. Specifically, as the story goes, the paychecks were sent to an office in New York, but because no one was there over Yom Tov to forward them to the hotel, the workers pay was delayed.
The workers were last paid on Oct 2. It would seem to me that they are probably paid every other week (or else they would have gotten their Oct 9 paycheck after Yom Kippur).
While you might think that this is just the sort of screw up that happens once in a while (hey, we're all human, right?), it should be pointed out that the same thing happened last year as well. One would think that the hotel staff would learn from past experience and try to prevent such a thing from happening in the future.
I've worked in several places throughout my long and varied career(s). When I worked for frum employers, not only did they make sure that Yom Tov didn't delay wages for two weeks, but they actually made sure to pay *early* if Yom Tov or a legal holiday came out on a payday. Payday was Friday, but if Yom Tov came out Thursday and Friday that year, we had our checks before we left the office on Wednesday. Needless to say, the non-frum (or non-Jewish) employers also made sure that (depending on the place) (a) if payday was a holiday we got paid early or (b) we got paid on the next day -- and everyone knew well in advance of the policy and the delay was never longer than over the weekend.
Truthfully, there really is no excuse for what happened at the hotel. Yes, as I said, people screw up sometimes. But then there are ways to handle it. As I've done before on my blog, I'll present the right way and the wrong way:
Wrong Way:
Workers ask about their paychecks on the 16th. You think to yourself "oh no, they're probably in the Brooklyn Office which is closed for Yom Tov." Oh well, they're poor workers, what can they do? Quit? Nah, they won't do that -- they'll be afraid that they'll never see thier money at all. I'll just call the Brooklyn office and leave a voice message telling them to mail out the checks first thing in the morning when they come back from Yom Tov vacation next week.
Right Way:
Workers ask about their paychecks on the 16th. You think to yourself "oh no, they're probably in the Brooklyn Office which is closed for Yom Tov." You get on the phone with someone from the Brooklyn office. You apologize profusely for asking them to go into the office on Chol HaMoed, but this is an emergency. You ask them to go to the office, find the package of checks and have them sent Fedex overnight to the hotel so that they'll be there first thing in the morning. Failing that, you actually go down to Brooklyn yourself and get the checks and bring them back to the workers.
Barring that, you call up the payroll company and order them to overnight new checks to the hotel. Then you call the Brooklyn office and instruct them to destroy the checks when they get back from vacation.
In short, you have to do everything in your power to make sure that workers get paid on time. One of the commenters on YWN makes the point (I'll take his word for it that it's correct) that the lav (negative commandment) prohibiting delays in worker pay does not apply to non-Jews. That may or may not be so. However, even if delaying the payment of a non-Jews wages does not result in a violation of the commandment, there are still three very important points to consider:
1. Are you sure that *all* the workers are non-Jews? Isn't it possible that some of them *are* Jews and, therefore, you *are* in violation of the mitzvah?
2. Even assuming that they're all non-Jews, so what if one is not in technical violation of the commandment? It's *still* not fair or right to withhold wages. If you make an agreement with your workers that they will be paid on a particular day, they have a right to expect payment on that day. It's simple honesty, courtesy and the way that you would want to be treated.
3. I'm no lawyer, but I'm fairly certain that New York state has laws that require wages to be delivered to workers on time.
One thing that always puzzles me about this sort of scenario is how is reflects on the trustworthiness of the proprietors of the establishment. After all, if they're willing to delay someone's wages, in violation of state law (for which there are legal mechanisms of enforcement), how can you know that their business isn't being run in ways that are in violation of other halachos (for which there is no effective legal enforcement mechansim). Once someone openly displays dishonesty (and withholding of wages is dishonest), how can you consider them to be trustworthy with regard to the mitzvos?
Interestingly enough, I've had this experience twice over the last three years with both of my sons' bar mitzvahs. The first time was when I went to commission the writing of Walter's tefillin. The second time was when I went to pay the caterer for the kiddush in shul in honor of George's bar mitzvah. In both cases, I was given the opportunity to "save" the sales tax by paying in cash. In both cases, I turned it down -- and in both cases, it left a very bad taste in my mouth. If they were willing to be dishonest about the taxes, how could I be sure that the tefillin or the food were completely kosher? In the former case, at least, I can report improvement. When I went back for George's tefillin (you can check out the original post for the reason I was willing to go back) there was a sign in the store indicating that *everyone* must pay sales tax. In the latter case, this problem only surfaced after the kiddush was already over. But I can say this -- as nice as the caterer was to us (and he was) I would have serious hesitations about using him for any future function.
I'm not going to sit here and claim that I've never done anything wrong in the past and that I've always been honest in everything I've ever done. I'm only human and, yes, I've had my weak moments and acted in ways that I am less than proud of. But I don't go around offering people ways to cheat and steal from others (and, let's face it, that's what tax evasion is). I'm also not going to say that I pay every bill on time -- sometimes things happen and payment gets delayed. But when it does happen, I try to make sure that they get paid as soon as possible and I try to take any and all steps possible to see to it that it happens. I certainly don't use excuses such as "the office was closed." Especially when it's the worker's sole livelihood and the delay is an unacceptable two weeks and when the excuse is a lame "the office was closed."
The Wolf
The workers were last paid on Oct 2. It would seem to me that they are probably paid every other week (or else they would have gotten their Oct 9 paycheck after Yom Kippur).
While you might think that this is just the sort of screw up that happens once in a while (hey, we're all human, right?), it should be pointed out that the same thing happened last year as well. One would think that the hotel staff would learn from past experience and try to prevent such a thing from happening in the future.
I've worked in several places throughout my long and varied career(s). When I worked for frum employers, not only did they make sure that Yom Tov didn't delay wages for two weeks, but they actually made sure to pay *early* if Yom Tov or a legal holiday came out on a payday. Payday was Friday, but if Yom Tov came out Thursday and Friday that year, we had our checks before we left the office on Wednesday. Needless to say, the non-frum (or non-Jewish) employers also made sure that (depending on the place) (a) if payday was a holiday we got paid early or (b) we got paid on the next day -- and everyone knew well in advance of the policy and the delay was never longer than over the weekend.
Truthfully, there really is no excuse for what happened at the hotel. Yes, as I said, people screw up sometimes. But then there are ways to handle it. As I've done before on my blog, I'll present the right way and the wrong way:
Wrong Way:
Workers ask about their paychecks on the 16th. You think to yourself "oh no, they're probably in the Brooklyn Office which is closed for Yom Tov." Oh well, they're poor workers, what can they do? Quit? Nah, they won't do that -- they'll be afraid that they'll never see thier money at all. I'll just call the Brooklyn office and leave a voice message telling them to mail out the checks first thing in the morning when they come back from Yom Tov vacation next week.
Right Way:
Workers ask about their paychecks on the 16th. You think to yourself "oh no, they're probably in the Brooklyn Office which is closed for Yom Tov." You get on the phone with someone from the Brooklyn office. You apologize profusely for asking them to go into the office on Chol HaMoed, but this is an emergency. You ask them to go to the office, find the package of checks and have them sent Fedex overnight to the hotel so that they'll be there first thing in the morning. Failing that, you actually go down to Brooklyn yourself and get the checks and bring them back to the workers.
Barring that, you call up the payroll company and order them to overnight new checks to the hotel. Then you call the Brooklyn office and instruct them to destroy the checks when they get back from vacation.
In short, you have to do everything in your power to make sure that workers get paid on time. One of the commenters on YWN makes the point (I'll take his word for it that it's correct) that the lav (negative commandment) prohibiting delays in worker pay does not apply to non-Jews. That may or may not be so. However, even if delaying the payment of a non-Jews wages does not result in a violation of the commandment, there are still three very important points to consider:
1. Are you sure that *all* the workers are non-Jews? Isn't it possible that some of them *are* Jews and, therefore, you *are* in violation of the mitzvah?
2. Even assuming that they're all non-Jews, so what if one is not in technical violation of the commandment? It's *still* not fair or right to withhold wages. If you make an agreement with your workers that they will be paid on a particular day, they have a right to expect payment on that day. It's simple honesty, courtesy and the way that you would want to be treated.
3. I'm no lawyer, but I'm fairly certain that New York state has laws that require wages to be delivered to workers on time.
One thing that always puzzles me about this sort of scenario is how is reflects on the trustworthiness of the proprietors of the establishment. After all, if they're willing to delay someone's wages, in violation of state law (for which there are legal mechanisms of enforcement), how can you know that their business isn't being run in ways that are in violation of other halachos (for which there is no effective legal enforcement mechansim). Once someone openly displays dishonesty (and withholding of wages is dishonest), how can you consider them to be trustworthy with regard to the mitzvos?
Interestingly enough, I've had this experience twice over the last three years with both of my sons' bar mitzvahs. The first time was when I went to commission the writing of Walter's tefillin. The second time was when I went to pay the caterer for the kiddush in shul in honor of George's bar mitzvah. In both cases, I was given the opportunity to "save" the sales tax by paying in cash. In both cases, I turned it down -- and in both cases, it left a very bad taste in my mouth. If they were willing to be dishonest about the taxes, how could I be sure that the tefillin or the food were completely kosher? In the former case, at least, I can report improvement. When I went back for George's tefillin (you can check out the original post for the reason I was willing to go back) there was a sign in the store indicating that *everyone* must pay sales tax. In the latter case, this problem only surfaced after the kiddush was already over. But I can say this -- as nice as the caterer was to us (and he was) I would have serious hesitations about using him for any future function.
I'm not going to sit here and claim that I've never done anything wrong in the past and that I've always been honest in everything I've ever done. I'm only human and, yes, I've had my weak moments and acted in ways that I am less than proud of. But I don't go around offering people ways to cheat and steal from others (and, let's face it, that's what tax evasion is). I'm also not going to say that I pay every bill on time -- sometimes things happen and payment gets delayed. But when it does happen, I try to make sure that they get paid as soon as possible and I try to take any and all steps possible to see to it that it happens. I certainly don't use excuses such as "the office was closed." Especially when it's the worker's sole livelihood and the delay is an unacceptable two weeks and when the excuse is a lame "the office was closed."
The Wolf
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
I Am Such A Wimp
After going on about honesty and copying media last month, I became involved in a situation in real life and acted less-than-honorably.
I'm starting a new accounting class in two weeks and I happen to know someone who is going to be in that class. For that class, we're going to need a particular accounting application. I already own a copy of this software from a previous class. My future classmate knows that I have this software and asked me if he could copy it, potentially saving himself about a hundred dollars.
I wimped out.
No, I didn't let him copy it. I lied and told him that I lost the disc.
I am such a wimp.
The Wolf
I'm starting a new accounting class in two weeks and I happen to know someone who is going to be in that class. For that class, we're going to need a particular accounting application. I already own a copy of this software from a previous class. My future classmate knows that I have this software and asked me if he could copy it, potentially saving himself about a hundred dollars.
I wimped out.
No, I didn't let him copy it. I lied and told him that I lost the disc.
I am such a wimp.
The Wolf
Thursday, June 19, 2008
How About Just Because It's Not An Ehrlich Thing To Do?
A poster in YWN's forum asks about copying media:
If, as is the case in some countries, "file sharing" (such as sites like limewire and Kaza, or torrent sites like mininova and bittorent) is legal, provided that it is not done for profit. If that is the case, can somebody explain to me why their would be an issur in copying (if there is any at all), and what, when i copy a cd, movie, etc. from a disc or someone elses ipod, would i be stealing (even the "perpetual lease" to me doesn't seem like it would make a difference, b/c forsure i am allowed to copy my cd onto my ipod, and when i am taking it from the ipod, i am not taking anything from the cd). thanks anyone for the clarification
The next poster brings up the fact that there is a dispute amongst modern poskim about the halachic legality of copying.
How about this approach:
It's wrong because it's simply not an ehrlich thing to do. You know the producers of the CD you bought would object to your copying. You know that if the situation were reversed, and you put a lot of effort into producing a CD, a DVD, a computer program or a book, you wouldn't want it copied and distributed for free to everyone and their brother. Forget whether it might technically be permitted halachically for a minute and actually ask yourself if this is the right thing to do.
Whenever I find myself in these sorts of situations, I ask myself this: is my self-respect worth the $14.99? Suppose I saw a person drop $14.99 in the street. Put aside the issue of hashavas aveida for a minute and assume no one would see you take the money. Would I swoop in, grab the money and pocket it? Of course not -- I'd return it to the person who dropped it, simply because that is how I would like to be treated if I ever lose a sum of money. I know that if the person were aware that they dropped the money that they'd want it back -- I would too. As such, I couldn't fathom keeping it. My self-respect is worth more than that.
The same thing applies to copying CDs. Put aside whether it's legal. Put aside whether it's halachically permissible. Put aside everything else and just ask yourself "if the situation were reversed, what would you want the other person to do?"
The Wolf
If, as is the case in some countries, "file sharing" (such as sites like limewire and Kaza, or torrent sites like mininova and bittorent) is legal, provided that it is not done for profit. If that is the case, can somebody explain to me why their would be an issur in copying (if there is any at all), and what, when i copy a cd, movie, etc. from a disc or someone elses ipod, would i be stealing (even the "perpetual lease" to me doesn't seem like it would make a difference, b/c forsure i am allowed to copy my cd onto my ipod, and when i am taking it from the ipod, i am not taking anything from the cd). thanks anyone for the clarification
The next poster brings up the fact that there is a dispute amongst modern poskim about the halachic legality of copying.
How about this approach:
It's wrong because it's simply not an ehrlich thing to do. You know the producers of the CD you bought would object to your copying. You know that if the situation were reversed, and you put a lot of effort into producing a CD, a DVD, a computer program or a book, you wouldn't want it copied and distributed for free to everyone and their brother. Forget whether it might technically be permitted halachically for a minute and actually ask yourself if this is the right thing to do.
Whenever I find myself in these sorts of situations, I ask myself this: is my self-respect worth the $14.99? Suppose I saw a person drop $14.99 in the street. Put aside the issue of hashavas aveida for a minute and assume no one would see you take the money. Would I swoop in, grab the money and pocket it? Of course not -- I'd return it to the person who dropped it, simply because that is how I would like to be treated if I ever lose a sum of money. I know that if the person were aware that they dropped the money that they'd want it back -- I would too. As such, I couldn't fathom keeping it. My self-respect is worth more than that.
The same thing applies to copying CDs. Put aside whether it's legal. Put aside whether it's halachically permissible. Put aside everything else and just ask yourself "if the situation were reversed, what would you want the other person to do?"
The Wolf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)