Our guest this week discussed the laws of "sh'mita" in the parasha. Sh'mita is the sabbatical year (every seventh year), when the land is supposed to lay fallow and not be worked or farmed. It also involves letting people get out of their loans if they are too far in debt.
In modern times, rabbis have found loopholes in order to let poor farmers continue to work on the shmita year; for example, they would "sell" the farmland to non-Jews for the year (sort of like selling our chametz on Pesach) so they could still work the land and keep their livelihood.
This past year there has been a big controversy in Israel, because the Chief Rabbinate has ruled that the loopholes no longer apply and that the original law from the Torah should be kept. This ruling has caused many problems, especially for small farmers who don't want to lose business.
Where do you stand on this debate with the Chief Rabbinate?
Check out the story NPR did on the controversy. You can listen, or read the transcript of the radio interview.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I think that there should be loopholes in the rule. The farmers have to work or they won't be able to support their families. Also, there have been other loopholes in Jewish laws before.
do you think that we should be able to circumvent ("get around") any law in the Torah? or are there certain things that should never be able to have a "loophole?"
A think a rule that should never have a loophole is one like, G-d is our only G-d, because that's basically changing our WHOLE religion.
I think that if bussiness is bad you work half the year or if youu someone whose not jewish you could pay them to help you.
Yitzchak - I think that is an interesting potential solution. It sounds like you are going against the Chief Rabbinate here. (I would, too.)
Shifra - I agree that if you say there are many gods, or that God has a son, then you are outside the bounds of Judaism.
But that is more of a tenet of faith. What about a law from the Torah that has to do with our actions, not just our beliefs? Are there any of those you think we definitely should or should not be able to get around?
My personal opinion is that sometimes the Rabbis should be able to make loopholes for laws in the Torah, such as the sh'mita law, or the law that says a kohen (priest) cannot marry someone who has already been divorced.
Other laws, like observing Shabbat, I do not think should have any loopholes.
I do not think there should be a loophole in the rule. If people are worried about supporting their families (Heather) then they can store crops for the "famine" (like Joseph did for Egypt). It is not right for people to cheat in a Jewish custom and tradition.
Heather I disagree with you. You say that instead of farming on Sh'mita, the poor farmers should just rely on stored crops, but what if this family did not grow enough crops the year before. I understand it is not going with jewish custom, but does that matter as much as not being able to survive?
hey i didn't say that david.
Sorry, but then what did you say?
I think that the loophole for this particular rule is ethical and right. If the lower class farmers did not have any crops, then they might potentailly lose everything they have. I think the override on this rule is wrong. Other rules that pertain specifically to our religion should not be circumvented unless someone life is at stake.
Oh, and by the way David, it was HELEN who said that.
Oops, I forgot my name on that one.
Wow im not accustomed to seeing so many names cool...
I agree with heather and david. I mean if it is for the benefit of man and the livlihood, the minor rules of the torah can be well let's not say broken but definatly bended. Helen i understand what you're point of veiw is but i'm agreeing with david the only reason that storing worked in egypt was that egypt was HUGE. If you are a poor farmer you won't be able to afford enough grain toi store enough to last you through the winter (AHHH REDUNDANT). With out the loopholes the farmers would either die or move and who knows what could happen then. just like if you take out one part of the food chain who knows what could happen?
david, i said that there should be a loophole. helen said there shouldn't. you disagreed with her. you mixed up because helen disagreed with me and said (HEATHER) like pointing out our disagreement.
wait now I'm confused... who said what to who and who did david mix up with whom?????? This is really not productive but WHAT???
okay saul. david thought i said something that helen said. does that clear it up for everyone?????????????????????????????
Post a Comment