Our Gemara on Amud Aleph delves into the scenario of a Jew, due to poverty, selling himself as a slave to a gentile. Responsibility falls upon fellow Jewish brethren to redeem him from this spiritually detrimental environment. Tosafos and the Tosafos Harosh debate whether it would be permissible to employ subterfuge and trickery to redeem the Jewish slave if the asking price is unaffordable.

In the leaflet "Misaviv Lashulkhan," Rav Elchanan Peretz raises a question based on a similar premise that actively cheating and stealing, even from a gentile, is forbidden.

In the biblical tale, Pharaoh's daughter adopts the infant Moshe, whom she finds in the Nile. Seeking a wet nurse, she providentially encounters Miriam, who volunteers Moshe's actual biological mother. However, at that moment, it can be presumed that Pharaoh's daughter remained unaware of hiring Moshe's own mother as the wet nurse.

This situation involves an element of subterfuge. Yocheved is compensated for fulfilling her natural obligation to care for her child. A halakhic dispute arises in a parallel case where a father-in-law agrees to pay his son for teaching his grandson Torah. When the father-in-law reneges, claiming teaching is a natural obligation, the Ketzos (ibid 4) contends that as the son is engaged in employment, the agreement becomes binding upon receipt of services. In contrast, the Nesivos (CM 81:2) challenges this, stating that it doesn't adhere to a typical employment contract due to the work benefiting the son's own interest, and therefore he really worked for himself, not the employer.

Thus, according to the Nesivos, the question arises: was Pharaoh's daughter obligated to pay Yocheved? Rav Peretz proposes that since Moshe was taken from Yocheved, her obligation to care for him ceased. Taking care of Moshe became Pharaoh's daughter's responsibility.

I'm curious about Rav Peretz's connection between technical obligation and deception. While a verbal contract might not establish an obligation, could the "worker" still accept payment without it being considered theft? Rav Peretz seems to imply that the hiring occurred under false pretenses, rendering it improper.

In the realm of derash, Talmudic legal concerns are taken seriously even amid perilous oppression. The notion that a mother who had to relinquish her baby and let him float down the Nile would even momentarily focus on the legal ramifications of tricking her enemy into nursing her own child might seem absurd. Yet, this Jewish archetype played out during Nazi oppression. Rav Ephraim Oshry published his Sha’alos Uteshuvos Mema’amakim, addressing halakhic and ethical questions he answered in the Kovno Ghetto and concentration camp. Even amidst dire circumstances, individuals sought rabbinic guidance when facing dilemmas like saving oneself at another's expense. It's inspiring that both recent and ancient ancestors, subjected to heinous inhumanity, maintained dignity and fear of God. Though we're fortunate not to face such dire situations, our minor crises necessitate maintaining composure and seeking guidance on ethical and halakhic matters we might be tempted to overlook under pressure.

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)