Thanks for posting a source, but your source is about as damning as critics say it is.
Right before 113b starts they are discussing deceiving a gentile to "vindicate the Jew"
In the case of a Jew and a gentile who approach the court for judgment in a legal dispute, if you can vindicate the Jew under Jewish law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is our law. If he can be vindicated under gentile law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is your law. And if it is not possible to vindicate him under either system of law, one approaches the case circuitously, seeking a justification to vindicate the Jew.
Then there is some discussion, but it appears they ultimately decide that any gentile who is not abiding by their Noahide laws (i.e. not a goy puppet) can be screwed over.
It is not difficult, as this ruling that permits the court to deceive a gentile is issued with regard to a regular gentile, whereas that verse, which teaches that it is prohibited to deceive a gentile, is stated with regard to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot
What they actually do is distinguish between a case involving "consideration of the sanctification/desecration of God’s name. " and when a situation does not, in their opinion, have that consideration. In other words, they find the loopholes to deceive and steal.
the reason that the court does not employ trickery in order to vindicate the Jew is only because there is the consideration of the sanctification of God’s name. Consequently, if there is no consideration of the sanctification of God’s name, the court does approach the case circuitously. Apparently, it is permitted to deceive a gentile.
In fact if you keep reading, rabbis assert that it is lawful to "not return" a lost item of a gentile as well as absolving themselves from any loan they paid to a gentile.
Thanks for posting a source, but your source is about as damning as critics say it is.
Right before 113b starts they are discussing deceiving a gentile to "vindicate the Jew"
In the case of a Jew and a gentile who approach the court for judgment in a legal dispute, if you can vindicate the Jew under Jewish law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is our law. If he can be vindicated under gentile law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is your law. And if it is not possible to vindicate him under either system of law, one approaches the case circuitously, seeking a justification to vindicate the Jew.
Then there is some discussion, but it appears they ultimately decide that any gentile who is not abiding by their Noahide laws (i.e. not a goy puppet) can be screwed over.
It is not difficult, as this ruling that permits the court to deceive a gentile is issued with regard to a regular gentile, whereas that verse, which teaches that it is prohibited to deceive a gentile, is stated with regard to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot
What they actually do is distinguish between a case involving "consideration of the sanctification/desecration of God’s name. " and when a situation does not, in their opinion, have that consideration. In other words, they find the loopholes to deceive and steal.
In fact if you keep reading, rabbis assert that it is lawful to "not return" a lost item of a gentile as well as absolving themselves from any loan they paid to a gentile.
Thanks for posting a source, but your source is about as damning as critics say it is.
Right before 113b starts they are discussing deceiving a gentile to "vindicate the Jew"
In the case of a Jew and a gentile who approach the court for judgment in a legal dispute, if you can vindicate the Jew under Jewish law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is our law. If he can be vindicated under gentile law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is your law. And if it is not possible to vindicate him under either system of law, one approaches the case circuitously, seeking a justification to vindicate the Jew.
Then there is some discussion, but it appears they ultimately decide that any gentile who is not abiding by their Noahide laws (i.e. not a goy puppet) can be screwed over.
It is not difficult, as this ruling that permits the court to deceive a gentile is issued with regard to a regular gentile, whereas that verse, which teaches that it is prohibited to deceive a gentile, is stated with regard to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot
What they actually do is distinguish between a case involving "consideration of the sanctification/desecration of God’s name. " and when a situation does not, in their opinion, have that consideration. In other words, they find the loopholes to deceive and steal.
In fact if you keep reading, rabbis assert that it is lawful to merely "not return" a lost item of a gentile as well as absolving themselves from any loan they paid to a gentile.
Thanks for posting a source, but your source is about as damning as critics say it is.
Right before 113b starts they are discussing deceiving a gentile to "vindicate the Jew"
In the case of a Jew and a gentile who approach the court for judgment in a legal dispute, if you can vindicate the Jew under Jewish law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is our law. If he can be vindicated under gentile law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is your law. And if it is not possible to vindicate him under either system of law, one approaches the case circuitously, seeking a justification to vindicate the Jew.
Then there is some discussion, but it appears they ultimately decide that any gentile who is not abiding by their Noahide laws (i.e. not a goy puppet) can be screwed over.
It is not difficult, as this ruling that permits the court to deceive a gentile is issued with regard to a regular gentile, whereas that verse, which teaches that it is prohibited to deceive a gentile, is stated with regard to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot
What they actually do is distinguish between a case involving "consideration of the sanctification/desecration of God’s name. " and when a situation does not, in their opinion, have that consideration. In other words, they find the loopholes to deceive and steal.
In fact if you keep reading rabbis assert that it is lawful to merely "not return" a lost item of a gentile as well as absolving themselves from any loan they paid to a gentile.
Thanks for posting a source, but your source is about as damning as critics say it is.
Right before 113b starts they are discussing deceiving a gentile to "vindicate the Jew"
In the case of a Jew and a gentile who approach the court for judgment in a legal dispute, if you can vindicate the Jew under Jewish law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is our law. If he can be vindicated under gentile law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is your law. And if it is not possible to vindicate him under either system of law, one approaches the case circuitously, seeking a justification to vindicate the Jew.
Then there is some discussion, but it appears they ultimately decide that any gentile who is not abiding by their Noahide laws (i.e. not a goy puppet) can be screwed over.
It is not difficult, as this ruling that permits the court to deceive a gentile is issued with regard to a regular gentile, whereas that verse, which teaches that it is prohibited to deceive a gentile, is stated with regard to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot
What they actually do is distinguish between a case involving "consideration of the sanctification of God’s name. " and when a situation does not, in their opinion, have that consideration. In other words, they find the loopholes to deceive and steal.
In fact if you keep reading rabbis assert that it is lawful to merely "not return" a lost item of a gentile as well as absolving themselves from any loan they paid to a gentile.
Thanks for posting a source, but your source is about as damning as critics say it is.
Right before 113b starts they are discussing deceiving a gentile to "vindicate the Jew"
In the case of a Jew and a gentile who approach the court for judgment in a legal dispute, if you can vindicate the Jew under Jewish law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is our law. If he can be vindicated under gentile law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is your law. And if it is not possible to vindicate him under either system of law, one approaches the case circuitously, seeking a justification to vindicate the Jew.
Then there is some discussion, but it appears they ultimately decide that any gentile who is not abiding by their Noahide laws (i.e. not a goy puppet) can be screwed over.
It is not difficult, as this ruling that permits the court to deceive a gentile is issued with regard to a regular gentile, whereas that verse, which teaches that it is prohibited to deceive a gentile, is stated with regard to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot
What they actually do is distinguish between a case of "desecrating God's name" and when a situation does not, in their opinion. In other words, they find the loopholes to deceive and steal.
In fact if you keep reading rabbis assert that it is lawful to merely "not return" a lost item of a gentile as well as absolving themselves from any loan they paid to a gentile.
Thanks for posting a source, but your source is about as damning as critics say it is.
Right before 113b starts they are discussing deceiving a gentile to "vindicate the Jew"
In the case of a Jew and a gentile who approach the court for judgment in a legal dispute, if you can vindicate the Jew under Jewish law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is our law. If he can be vindicated under gentile law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is your law. And if it is not possible to vindicate him under either system of law, one approaches the case circuitously, seeking a justification to vindicate the Jew.
Then there is some discussion, but it appears they ultimately decide that any gentile who is not abiding by their Noahide laws (i.e. not a goy puppet) can be screwed over.
It is not difficult, as this ruling that permits the court to deceive a gentile is issued with regard to a regular gentile, whereas that verse, which teaches that it is prohibited to deceive a gentile, is stated with regard to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot
What they actually do is distinguish between a case of "desecrating God's name" and when a situation does not, in their opinion. In other words, they find the loopholes to deceive and steal.
In fact if you keep reading they discuss the lawfulness of merely "not returning" a lost item of a gentile as well as absolving themselves from any loan they paid to a gentile.
Thanks for posting a source, but your source is about as damning as critics say it is.
Right before 113b starts they are discussing deceiving a gentile to "vindicate the Jew"
In the case of a Jew and a gentile who approach the court for judgment in a legal dispute, if you can vindicate the Jew under Jewish law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is our law. If he can be vindicated under gentile law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is your law. And if it is not possible to vindicate him under either system of law, one approaches the case circuitously, seeking a justification to vindicate the Jew.
Then there is some discussion, but it appears they ultimately decide that any gentile who is not abiding by their Noahide laws (i.e. not a goy puppet) can be screwed over.
It is not difficult, as this ruling that permits the court to deceive a gentile is issued with regard to a regular gentile, whereas that verse, which teaches that it is prohibited to deceive a gentile, is stated with regard to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot
What they actually do is distinguish between a case of "desecrating God's name" and when a situation does not, in their opinion. In other words, they find the loopholes to deceive in steal.
In fact if you keep reading they discuss the lawfulness of merely "not returning" a lost item of a gentile as well as absolving themselves from any loan they paid to a gentile.
Thanks for posting a source, but your source is about as damning as critics say it is.
Right before 113b starts they are discussing deceiving a gentile to "vindicate the Jew"
In the case of a Jew and a gentile who approach the court for judgment in a legal dispute, if you can vindicate the Jew under Jewish law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is our law. If he can be vindicated under gentile law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is your law. And if it is not possible to vindicate him under either system of law, one approaches the case circuitously, seeking a justification to vindicate the Jew.
Then there is some discussion, but it appears they ultimately decide that any gentile who is not abiding by their Noahide laws (i.e. not a goy puppet) can be screwed over.
It is not difficult, as this ruling that permits the court to deceive a gentile is issued with regard to a regular gentile, whereas that verse, which teaches that it is prohibited to deceive a gentile, is stated with regard to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot
Thanks for posting a source, but your source is about as damning as critics say it is.
Right before 113b starts they are discussing deceiving a gentile to "vindicate the Jew"
In the case of a Jew and a gentile who approach the court for judgment in a legal dispute, if you can vindicate the Jew under Jewish law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is our law. If he can be vindicated under gentile law, vindicate him, and say to the gentile: This is your law. And if it is not possible to vindicate him under either system of law, one approaches the case circuitously, seeking a justification to vindicate the Jew.
Then there is some discussion, but they ultimately decide that any gentile who is not abiding by their Noahide laws (i.e. not a goy puppet) can be screwed over.
It is not difficult, as this ruling that permits the court to deceive a gentile is issued with regard to a regular gentile, whereas that verse, which teaches that it is prohibited to deceive a gentile, is stated with regard to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot