LEV177 An analysis of the Jewish attitude to asceticism must begin with the Bible. Does the Bible favor excessive fasting? ... The Pentateuch enjoined only a single annual day of fast, Yom Kippur. The phrase "You shall afflict your souls" [this verse], a synonym for deprivation of nourishment, might conceivably have given substance to the notion that self-affliction is a meritorious practice. Such an assumption is erroneous, as is evidenced by the twin commandment relating to Yom Kippur: "And you shall do no manner of work in the same day" (Leviticus 23:28). Surely there is no merit to abstention from work except in the context of a formally established religious observance. The same is true of the abstention from food. Fasting was regarded by people as an expression of intense contrition, as a symbolic ritual of self=sacrifice, or as fervent prayer for divine mercy and forgiveness. Due to the physical severity of fasting, it was instituted only on the most solemn day of the year. Eventually, it was resorted to on occasions of major emergencies. Although there was no dearth of emergencies in the days of Moses, there is no mention in the Pentateuch of any public voluntary fast aside from Yom Kippur. … Biblical approval of fasting is clearly limited to special occasions. "Affliction of the soul" on a regular basis is contrary to the "preservation of life." At no time does the Bible allude to fasting as a recommended virtuous practice for people of piety and zeal.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV308 Honor of parents is essential to their assigned task of transmitting religious and cultural values to succeeding generations. Instruction of one's children is the only parental duty mentioned in the Bible (Deuteronomy 6:7). Children who are respectful of their parents will readily accept their guidance and instructions. The biblical command "You shall fear every man his father and his mother" is concluded with the statement "I am the Lord your God" [this verse], i.e., parents whose children fear them are able to implant reference for God in the hearts of their children. The verse following this command warns against the worship of idols. The link between parental honor and the preservation of the faith is thus clearly implied. This connection is explicitly emphasized in the Book of Proverbs: "The fear of Lord is the beginning of knowledge. … Hear, my son, the instruction of thy father and forsake not the teaching of thy mother" (Proverbs 1:7–8). It may be added parenthetically that parental honor solidifies family bonds. The survival of Jewish society as a religious and cultural community rests upon the foundation of stable family units.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV383 See [[EXOD1030]] Exodus 34:6 compassion BLOCH 57-59

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV429 Temptation it does not excuse sinful or criminal actions. Theology as well as secular criminal law is based on the notion that human beings must exercise self-control and restraint even in the face of the most powerful incentives to commit a wrong. Despite the demands for absolute rectitude, it is immoral and malicious to tempt an individual to perpetuate an illegal act. This is true even when the proffered temptation is merely a subterfuge as a means of testing a person's character and integrity. Such is the case when an employer deliberately leaves money unattended, within easy reach of an employee, so that he may find out whether the latter is capable of resisting a temptation to steal. An entrapper is a moral accomplice to the criminal. The ancient rabbis expressed their loathing for entrapment by condemning it as a sign of greater gravity then murder (Bamidbar Rabbah 21:4). The principal source of the prohibition of entrapment is [this verse]. The blind person is not aware of the human intervention which caused his fall. In most instances of entrapment the individual who holds out the blandishments is known to his victim. Yet the attraction of the temptation is such that the victim is blinded to the true intent of the entrapper and the potential danger to his own welfare. The young man who induces his friend to smoke marijuana by describing its blissful rewards is an entrapper. The person who persuades his buddy to join him on a stealing rampage because it is "a good way of making some easy money" is an entrapper. The young lady with a taste for expensive jewelry who is willing to offer her favors as soon as the young man proves his love with lavish gifts is an entrapper. The rabbis' objection to entrapment was extended also to the creation of opportunities for entrapment, even when none was intended. Thus they looked with disfavor upon lending money when the transaction is not done in the presence of witnesses or if no receipt is demanded. A debtor pressured for money might be tempted to deny the loan under such circumstances. An individual who deliberately offers misleading advice for selfish reasons of personal gain was considered guilty of violating the law against entrapment. The recipient of his advice, who has confidence in the sincerity of the adviser, is blinded to the trap laid before him (Sifra, Leviticus 19:14). Provocation, like temptation, may impel an individual to commit a wrong. Both are equally immoral and mischievous.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV438 "He will minister judgment to the peoples with equity." Psalm 9:9. Justice, by its very definition, must treat all people with equal impartiality, rich and poor, powerful and humble. The Bible explicitly prohibits favoring the poor or giving preference to the rich [this verse]. Yet equality before the law does not always meet the ends of justice. The loss of a small financial claim will not significantly affect a rich person but it may destroy a man in need. Universality of law precludes the kind of flexibility which allows for wide judicial discretion. This renders the law helpless to prevent occasional miscarriages of justice. To remedy the situation, courts of equity came into existence in medieval England. Equity judges gave liberal interpretations to the letter of the law in order to arrive at equitable decisions. However, even courts of equity were bound by legal principles which did not permit judges to entirely ignore the letter of the law. The layman's interpretation of equity, as it is widely understood in modern times, is not constrained by technicalities, as was the case when equity was part of the national juridical system. In common parlance equity is synonymous with fairness. The determining factor of fairness is ethics, not law. The burden of equity is the responsibility of all individuals in every walk of life. The standard of behavior of equitable people must be measured on the scale of fairness rather than legality. (Continued at [[DEUT584]] Deuteronomy 12:28 good BLOCH 113-4)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV534 The most common misuse of speech, even among "observant" Jews, is lashon hara, a sin that has been so neglected in the past that the greatest decisor of the twentieth Century, Rabbi Yisroel Meir HaCohen, wrote an entire volume on this one sin and is universally known by name associated with the book, the Chafetz Chaim. Some of the excesses of the sin are outlined in earlier sources. The prohibition in the Torah [this verse] is actually against a talebearer. However, both in the Talmud and later commentaries (Ibn Ezra, commentary on this verse), the Hebrew term for talebearer, rachil, actually means a merchant. This merchant, however, uses information about people as his goods, picking up some hear and dropping off some there. Maimonides (Hilchot De'ot, chap. 7) describes the details of these laws at length and shows how serious this offense really is. For example, he points out (Hilchot De'ot 7:2) that a talebearer denies God's existence. Someone who speaks ill about others helps to destroy the world (Hilchot De'ot 7:2), and he who listens is deemed even more culpable than the speaker, since if no one would listen, this sin could not be committed (Hilchot De'ot 7:3). Even if one speaks well of a particular person, it could still be improper (Hilchot De'ot 7:4) based on a passage in the Talmud (Arachin 16a). Positive comments can easily lead to additional negative comments either about that person or about another person as a reaction to the positive statement. Similarly, even joking about a person, with no maliciousness intended, is forbidden (Hilchot De'ot 7:4), since this can easily lead to real lashon hara. In short, any kind of speech about individuals is forbidden since it is so easy to cross over the line and really sin. There is no question that, like any act, man can use speech either to make himself and God holy or to desecrate them both. This gift from God can either raise man above all other creatures or help him commit acts that make him no better and possibly worse than animals. By developing a true sensitivity to the specialness of speech, man can learn to maximize this unique gift for good.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV525 Keep thy tongue from evil and thy lips from speaking guile. Psalm 34:14. … The rabbis regarded [Genesis 3:5, in which the serpent openly accused God of harboring sentiments of jealousy] as history's first slanderous expression and used it as an illustration of the frightful consequences of slander. Adam and Eve were deprived of their immortality. The serpent was condemned to become an object of man's deep loathing (Tanchuma, Bereshit 8). The frequency with which the Bible denounces gossip and slander attest to the persistence of this habit in society. Gossip is motivated by malice, arrogance, love of mischief, idle garrulity, and boredom. People who would normally shrink from inflicting physical injury on anyone else may have no scruples about swinging poisonous verbal arrows at their fellow-men. The biblical injunction "Thou shall not go up and down as a talebearer among the people" [this verse] is a comprehensive prohibition of malicious calumny as well as idle tattling. Truth is no defense against the sin of talebearing. The second half of the verse which prohibits gossip reads as follows: "neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of the neighbor." This sequence is highly significant. It is a dire warning of the potentially deadly consequences of gossip. There is an additional biblical injunction relating primarily to malicious slander. "Thou shall not take up [or circulate] a false report" (Exodus 23:1). According to rabbinical interpretation, this injunction is mainly addressed to those who lend a willing ear to false rumors (Mechilta 196; Onkelos, Exodus 23:1). The nefariousness of gossip is enlarged upon in great detail in the Hagiographa. Talebearers create discord among friends (Proverbs 16:28). They destroy their neighbors (Proverbs 11:9). They readily reveal confidential secrets (Proverbs 11:13, 20:19). He who has slander on his tongue cannot be close to God (Psalms 15:1,3).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV548 [This verse] says one may not hate in one's heart. The hatred, when permitted, must be in the open and the "enemy" must be openly confronted, according to Maimonides (Sefer Hamitzvot #302). Nachmanides (commentary on this verse) says that if a person confronts the object of his or her hatred, in all probability the reason for the anger will be out in the open, which will lead to a reconciliation. Even if a reconciliation does not come about, the person hating will feel better.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV551 Biblical ethics reach their highest level with the commandment "You shall not hate your fellow person in your heart," which concludes with "love your neighbor as yourself" (this and next verse). The general trend of social ethics was summed up by the Jewish prophets who said, "Hate evil and love goodness" and "God has told you what is good, and what is required of you: do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8). An excellent summation of biblical ethical teachings is contained in the well-known saying of Hillel: "What is hateful to you, do not do to another" (Talmud Shabbat 31a).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV574 The biblical law [this verse] implies that not all anger should be repressed. The Bible does not forbid all hatred, but only that which you are keeping secret. Therefore it is best to tell the person who has offended you why you are angry, because doing so might lead to a change in the person's behavior or to an apology--and to reconciliation. Rashi, commenting on Numbers 12:9, suggests that you should not become angry at someone without first telling the person what he is doing that has upset you. Once you have done this (and your reason is valid), then, if the person does not alter his behavior, you have the right to be angry at him.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT