A Strange Halakhic (sort of) Thought

[debka_notion]

So there's a general principle in halakha (Jewish law) that the law of the land is the law. (Dina d'malchuta dina, I think- I don't know Aramaic, so this is just what I remember a teacher telling me it was in high school. It was Rabbi Eli I think.) So, why do the orthodox/observant (pick the word of your choice) folks drink underage? If they're so stringent about other aspects of the law, why break one that's pretty easy to follow? SOmehow I'd think this would be a more common idea.

Note, this is not intended to be a criticism of anyone in particular- just a thought.

Comments

[shirei-shibolim.livejournal.com]

Your Aramaic, at least in this case, is impeccable.

As for the Talmudic principle: Yes, it's ignored a fair amount, though I imagine that those who ignore it in that particular way justify themselves by claiming religious exemption. ("I have to make a l'chayim! It's Shabbos.")

Terri gets red in the face whenever she sees young frum people smoking, in defiance of the prohibition against endangering one's own life. I don't blame her.

[nuqotw.livejournal.com]

I believe that dina d'malchuta dina applies when there is no halakha on a particular question. Hard to imagine, but it happens. This is one of the reasons that it is halakhically forbidden to smoke marajuana. If the government mandated the consumption of ham on alternate Wednesdays, we would have a halakhic obligation not to eat ham on alternate Wednesdays, as well as any other time.

[shirei-shibolim.livejournal.com]

I thought that went without saying, yes. But underage drinking to excess — or in any amount beyond four cups of wine spaced over several hours — is not halakhically mandated. In my opinion, those who think that it is are citing an unhealthy cultural attitude of what constitutes `oneg, rather than the Torah itself.

[shirei-shibolim.livejournal.com]

Point I forgot to make: "when there is no halakha on a particular question" isn't quite how it goes. Dina d'malkhuta applies so long as civil law does not directly conflict with halakhah, even if there is a halakhic position already in existence. So if civil law demanded that all citizens wait 7.5 hours between meat and milk, we'd be obligated to follow.

[belu.livejournal.com]

IANAL, but...

The drinking laws are not that black and white. IIRC, there are exceptions of "in private, under parental supervision" and "for religious purposes". I suspect that the drinking you mention here falls under one or both of these exceptions.

[debka-notion.livejournal.com]

Umm- what do you acronyms stand for?

These folks are at college- I Don't think there's any parental supervision there. And as for religious purposes- I can think of one religious purpose for drinking, and that can be done just as well on grape juice. I'm thinking of what are effectively parties with alcohol but just no music/turning on of lights that are often held on Friday nights. I can't see any permissible exception for that.

[belu.livejournal.com]

IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer
IIRC = If I Recall Correctly

I dunno. I'm sure you know the laws and people in question far better than I do.

[fleurdelis28.livejournal.com]

My contracts professor, who is not generally on the liberal end of things, blinked when the class mentioned the under-21 rule (obviously this didn't apply to anyone in law school, but it came up in the context of something or other), and said that as far as he heard it only prohibited buying the alcohol, and didn't say anything about whether you drank it. (Do not cite this if the police catch you (you-world, not you-Maya), without having done some research of your own; it is not his field of law and neither is he, or I, under 21. But he may be right.)

That said, I'm almost positive there would be some dorm/undergrad restrictions involved in at least some of these cases. And I think there are also rules about overage drinkers buying specifically for minors.

[strange-selkie.livejournal.com]

....you and your professor are both right, at least as far as the last time I had the laws drilled into my head (for Stein Nights in 2001). In Massachusetts, you must be 21 to buy, but 18 to pour and 18 to drink. The laws regarding in whose hands a drink ends up then fall into place, to make sure not a lot of circumstances where this can happen actually exist.

[shirei-shibolim.livejournal.com]

I think this is a state-by-state matter. In New York, a zero-tolerance rule passed a few years ago makes it illegal for persons under 21 to drive with a BAC of .01% or higher.

Of course, it Massachusetts it's an arrestable crime to drive with a previously opened bottle of amaretto in a locked safe in your trunk. (As in, one may drive with sealed alcoholic beverages only, and there are no exceptions whatsoever.)

[fleurdelis28.livejournal.com]

Okay, after some brief web research:

There is no federal drinking age per _se_. Drinking laws are all issued by individual states (this may be why Prohibition had to be enacted by Constitutional amendment, though I seem to recall there were other reasons as well), and Congress has simply made a lot of federal highway funding contingent on states' setting their alcohol age at 21. So they do. Whether 21 is the minimum age for drinking, or just for purchase and possession, varies with the state. As do the other details like BAL and ID requirements.

[shirei-shibolim.livejournal.com]

Why did that make it necessary to amend the constitution? Why would a federal law not have sufficed?

[fleurdelis28.livejournal.com]

I'm not positive, but I think that degree of regulation of commerce was considered to be outside the ennumerated powers of Congress and therefore reserved to the states. Why they decided it didn't fall within the powers Congress explicitly does have to regulate interstate commerce, I'm not sure.

[fleurdelis28.livejournal.com]

Oh, right. Probably because the right to regulate interstate commerce does not mean the right to regulate intrastate commerce.

[belu.livejournal.com]

In Massachusetts, you must be 21 to buy, but 18 to pour and 18 to drink.

Interesting. Any source that you can point us at to verify that?

[strange-selkie.livejournal.com]

I do not recall the name of the (overlarge pamphlet) but the Stein, Brandeis' campus bar, received a copy from the state because at the time, people under 21 were the bar's staff. Self included. We were all required to read it and sign saying that we understood; it listed simplified -- un-legalese -- 'You Must' statements of the drinking laws and had the Great Seal of the Commonwealth on the front, along with a fun color section in the back showing various ID's from various states.