![]() In need not be said that in addition to the sin of theft and/or lying, by deceiving a non-Jew, one risks creating a chillul Hashem. The Mishna could have taught the prohibition of geneivat da’at through a case involving two Jews, but instead wanted to emphasize that we dare not deceive even an idolater. It is for this very reason that common practice today is to insist that a “kosher butcher” (and pretty much all food establishments) have a mashgiach, regardless of their presumed religiousity. That a “kosher” butcher (or anyone else) might lie if the payoff is big enough was a given to our Sages-and nothing has changed in the past 2,000 years. But even the Sages would agree that if removing the gid hanasheh would be onerous, we would not believe the word of the butcher. While the Sages disagree, the Gemara explains that is only because they held a more lenient view in regards to how much of the gid hanasheh must be removed. It is due to the difficulty in removing the gid hanasheh that Rabbi Meir rules that butchers are not believed if they claim that they have removed the gid hanasheh from the meat. Whether geneivat da’at falls under the rubric of theft or lying (or both) is a subject of debate amongst the commentaries, but ultimately matters little it is forbidden. Yet in reality, the Jew did nothing of the sort, and the Jew will be the recipient of undeserved goodwill. ![]() To have done so and then gift it to a non-Jew is a great display of friendship one could argue it reflects ahavat chinam, love for no reason, as there is no logical reason to remove the gid hanasheh for the idolater. Removing the gid hanasheh is so difficult that we do not even bother to do so today, leaving that part of the animal for non-Jews. mishum) explains, the idolater will think that by sending him meat with the gid hanasheh removed the Jew “loves him very much”. The Gemara follows with a second explanation: namely, that sending chopped-up meat containing the gid hanasheh is a violation of the prohibition of genevat da’at, literally “stealing one’s mind”, and follows the approach of Shmuel, who said, “It is forbidden to deceive the minds of people, even that of an idol worshipper ”. However, if the meat is whole, the gid hanasheh would be most noticeable and thus, there is no reason to fear the Jewish consumer might come to eat it accidently. The Jew, having no way to identify the gid hanasheh, would accidentally eat it, thus making the first Jew guilty of aiding and abetting in the consumption of non-kosher meat by a fellow Jew. If the thigh is chopped up, we must be concerned lest the non-Jew sell the meat to a Jew without mentioning that the gid hanasheh is hidden in the meat. The first, not surprisingly, understands this in the context of the laws of kashrut. ![]() ![]() The Gemara offers two possible explanations for the distinction between a whole thigh and one that is cut up. However, if the thigh was cut up, making the gid hanasheh unrecognizable, one would not be permitted to send it to the non-Jew. The Gemara immediately notes one can only send a whole thigh to the non-Jew. The Mishna teaches that “One may send the thigh to an idol worshipper it contains the gid hanasheh, because one can recognize its place” (Chulin 93b). One would not normally associate the prohibition to eat the gid hanashe, the sciatic nerve, with issues of business ethics.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |