LEV797 See [[EXOD1030]] Exodus 34:6 compassionate BLOCH 57-59

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV799 See [[LEV710]] Leviticus 19:18 love BLOCH 198

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV810 The Talmud takes up the question of the morality of a breach of a verbal promise. It bases its conclusion on [this verse]. Why did the text mention the measure called "hin" in addition to the measure called "ephah"? Hin, according to Rabbi Judah, is a double-entendre. It is the name of a measure, and it also means "yes" in Aramaic. "It is to teach you that your yes should be just, and your no should be just" (Baba Metzia 40a). Man's words must be as honest as his scales.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV875 Priests, the living symbols of a functioning religion, were are also under orders to present a handsome appearance. The high priest is described in the Bible as "the priest who is superior among his brethren" [this verse]. His superiority must be manifested, according to the Talmud, in his "strength, comeliness, and wisdom" (Yoma 18a). Yet men in the public eye quickly discover that strength and comeliness, qualities visible to all, are central to early impressions and evaluation of a leader.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV891 Biblical consideration for animals was the basis for the following laws: ... A mother animal and its young may not be slaughtered on the same day [this verse] Rabbi Aaron of Barcelona (13th cent.) explained this restriction as follows: "The purpose of this injunction is to instill in our character the quality of mercy and to remove ourselves from cruelty" (Sefer HaChinuch 294). To permit an animal to witness the killing of its young is an active of gross cruelty.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV928 See [[LEV177]] Leviticus 16:29 afflict BLOCH 36-7

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV962 The basic rule of business ethics is expressed in [this verse]. The rights and obligations of buyers and sellers were thus placed on an equal footing.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV969 "They speak falsehood everyone with his neighbor; with smooth words and with a double heart do they speak." -- Psalms 12:3 It is said that every man has some larceny in his heart. If there is any truth to this cynical remark, one may properly add that there is some hypocrisy in every man's mind. Surely people who pretend in public to adhere to a strict code of integrity and morality but fail to live up to their professed high standards of behavior in the privacy of their homes suffer from a touch of hypocrisy. Mild hypocrisy is generally motivated by a desire to make a good impression and to gain the respect of one's fellowman. Moralists do not condone even the mildest form of hypocrisy, but they accept it as a common human weakness. They are not so charitable when it comes to aggressive hypocrisy directed against other people, mostly for selfish reasons. An individual who secretly disregards the law when it serves his needs but persists in attacking others for their lawlessness is a despicable hypocrite. An individual who is secretly lax in his religious observances but sanctimoniously berates his friends for their lack of religious fervor is it a detestable hypocrite. An individual who seldom supports worthy causes but criticizes others for their skimpy contributions to charity is a mean hypocrite. It is a known fact that vigilante groups engaged in moral crusades attract a high number of hypocrites to their ranks. In addition to the common classes of passive and aggressive hypocrites, there is another category of self-exculpating hypocrites. Chief among these are people who seek to camouflage their record of unethical activities with a screen of respectability and high-minded social consciousness. A thief who ostentatiously donates part of his ill-gained wealth to charity, a loan shark who supports worthy causes, an exploiting employer who sets up philanthropic foundations, are all engaged in a hypocritical cover-up. Institutions which accept tainted largess are inadvertently aiding an unconscionable process of whitewashing. All types of hypocrisy are deceitful, banned under the biblical provision of deceit [this verse]. A harlot's offering, acquired by immoral acts, must be rejected out of hand by the officials of the sanctuary (Deuteronomy 23:19). The same is true of offerings brought by thieves (Rashi, Leviticus 1:2; Sukkah 30a).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV972 False impressions can be highly damaging to one's good reputation. Even innocent acts may engender unfounded gossip if one is not alert to the potentially wrong conclusions that people may draw from them.… First impressions are at times deliberately created for self-serving reasons. It is done without any intent to harm other people but merely to satisfy one's ego. ... [Some] deliberately create[] th[e] impression to enhance [their] own image. Such conduct is unethical and deceptive. The worst kind of false impression is one that is fostered for self-gain at the expense of another party. An individual who affects a blind man's disguise when soliciting money is guilty of unethical conduct and outright fraud. It is the false impression that is inadvertently created, without any deceptive intent, that is most frequently illustrated in the Bible. The other two categories, perpetrated for reasons of prestige or financial gain, required a little elaboration because they are specifically banned by biblical injunctions prohibiting all forms of deception [this verse and verse 17]. According to rabbinical interpretation, the ban covers all misleading words and acts, even if not perpetuated for financial gain (Baba Metzia 58b). Moses made effective use of the objection to the creation of false impressions in his intercession with God on behalf of the people. He forcefully argued that the destruction of the Hebrews in punishment for the worship of the golden calf would lead the Egyptians to the wrong conclusion that the death of the freed Hebrew slaves was premeditated by God at the time of the exodus (Exodus 32:12). Additionally, the intended punishment might also create the false impression that God was impotent to deliver the land which he had promised to Abraham (Deuteronomy 9:28).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1021 The legal distinction between custody and ownership also played a significant part in the development of ethical obligations in the field of social welfare. The biblical declaration that the land belongs to God [this verse] limits man to the role of custodian of his wealth. Property was entrusted to man on the condition that he use it for the good of all. Modern states have enacted into law advanced social concepts to alleviate the plight of the needy. Yet no law has succeeded in transmitting a sense of ethics to its citizenry on a personal level. Secular education has failed to replace religion as a moral force.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT