GEN165 See [[DEUT1493]] Deuteronomy 27:3 milk and honey TAMARI 28-9

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN273 See [[DEUT1493]] Deuteronomy 27:3 milk and honey TAMARI 28-9

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN436 See [[DEUT1734]] Deuteronomy 34:6 buried TAMARI 243

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN592 Over and above the economic loss involved in theft and the moral effect on the individuals concerned, the rabbis were clearly aware of its effect on the social and moral fabric of society.  Judaism has always maintained that evil actions and wrongdoing, such as theft and robbery are not only the problem of the parties concerned.  Rather, by perverting concepts of what is permitted and what is forbidden, they eventually undermine the whole basis of society.  Permissiveness in regard to theft sooner or later affects man’s religious behavior, his sexual mores, and even his regard for the sanctity of human life.   TAMARI 41

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN595 The Talmud, discussing the biblical description of spiritual conditions prior to the Flood, concludes that the destruction of that generation was finalized only when they were guilty of robbery.  Sanhedrin 108b  It should be noted that the word chamas – “wrongdoing” – is understood in halakhic terms as referring to the theft of a marginal item (less than shaveh prutah).  Pre-Deluge society was to be destroyed because of all –pervasive economic immorality that concerned itself with the theft of even relatively unimportant things. Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch on this verse.  In our day this could be construed as covering those areas not commonly viewed as criminal, such as exploiting expense accounts, exploiting consumer ignorance by overcharging slightly, or holding back due payments in order to benefit from inflationary price changes.  TAMARI 41-2

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1006 The same Jewish law which protects the rights of the individual to his own property in turn limits those rights and grants others, the community and other individuals, moral claims to that property.   The rabbis of the Talmud, reflecting an interpretation that was already hundreds of years old, claimed that the sin of Sodom was its inability to share its wealth with strangers, with the weak, and with the poor—and its insistence on the absolute right of each individual to his own property.   The Mishnah defined one who said, “What’s mine is yours and what’s yours is mine” as a simple man.   He who says, “What’s your is mine and what’s mine is mine” is an evil man.  He who says, “What’s yours is yours and what’s mine is yours” is a righteous person.   But “What’s yours is yours and what’s mine is mine – some say this is the mark of Sodom.”   Ethics of the Fathers 5:10.   [In his Bible commentary], the Malbim, a 19th-century rabbinical scholar in central Europe, commented on [this verse] as follows: It must be remembered that the Bible stresses that Sodom was fertile and rich “as the garden of Egypt” before its destruction. The citizens of Sodom were worried that the desert dwellers or the poor from the surrounding areas would come to their cities in search of a livelihood and wealth.   It was in order to prevent others from sharing in the wealth that legislation against strangers –unless they were rich, like Lot – was passed and enforced in Sodom.  This jealous protection of their wealth later led to the corrupt laws and practices which characterized Sodom and precipitated its destruction.”   There is a story about the Gaon of Vilna – the preeminent Talmudic scholar of 18th-century Lithuania – underscoring this idea.   In the middle of the 18th century there were renewed persecutions of Jews in Germany and Poland, which led to refugees flooding Vilna; the Jewish Council of Lithuania debated new legislation to prevent their entry.  Obviously what bothered them was the economic burden of providing food and shelter for the refugees, as well as the economic threat posed by their competition.   When the Gaon arrived and was told of the pending legislation he immediately left, saying, “This is considered new legislation? These are the laws enacted already in Sodom.”   Charity is not simply an act of kindness but rather the fulfillment of a legal obligation.  The “haves” in Judaism have an obligation to share their [property with the “have nots,” since it was given to them by God partly for that purpose.   TAMARI 51-2  

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD67 See [[DEUT1493]] Deuteronomy 27:3 milk and honey TAMARI 28-9

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD465 In the Ten Commandments, "You shall not steal" appears in the singular form and is understood by the sages to refer to the act of kidnapping and the selling of slaves. The injunction against stealing in its usual sense appears in the Bible in Leviticus [19:11] in the plural. Answering a Chasid's question as to this distinction, a Chasidic master replied, "Kidnapping of men for sale as slaves is a marginal act in our society, whereas common theft and fraud is something we are all too guilty of." No functioning economic society can exist for very long without a legal system to prevent fraud. It would be misleading, however, to consider the communal edicts, halakhic decisions, and homiletic literature against theft, in its widest connotations, as simply constituting Jewish interpretations of a universally accepted dictum. Rather, the majority of authorities (in contrast to Maimonides [Shmoneh Perakim, chapter 6], saw the prevention of theft or dishonesty as part of a distinctly Jewish socioreligious morality based on the notion of the Divine source of wealth. [Malbim, Commentary on the Bible, Exodus 20]. The Divine source of wealth makes all form of theft and dishonesty religious crimes, over and above their social aspects. Furthermore, society's concept of morality, economic and otherwise, are flexible, and change from one generation to another and one cultural group to another. However, forbidding stealing as part of a Divinely related law makes the injunction definitive and absolute, and provides a yardstick that cannot be blurred by conventionally accepted infringements.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD656 See [[LEV970]] Leviticus 25:14 wrong TAMARI 96-7

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD671 The Sefer Hachinukh, in explaining the purpose of those mitzvot relating to the weak members of society, points out that "it is written, 'One may not oppress the orphan or a widow' [this verse]. One must see that all one's transactions with the widow and orphan will be charitable, merciful, and tranquil. Their rights must be respected even more than would have been the case if the husband or father was alive and involved in the transaction." (Sefer Hachinukh on Parshat Mishpatim, mitzvah 65). The Chasidic teacher Menachem Mendel of Kotsk points out that the Bible, immediately following the injunction against oppressing the orphan, uses repetitive forms of the words "oppress," "He will cry out," and "I the Lord will hear." The Rebbe explained that when an orphan complains about his oppression or his mishandling at the hands of the community, his complaint is twofold. There is the normal complaint of being hurt, but in addition to that there is a cry that he is being hurt because he is an orphan, because he has no protector, because he has no father or mother to look after his interests. Since the oppression of such people is a dual one, the Divinity's censure and His punishment will also be multiplied.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT