DEUT1273 See [[LEV842]] Leviticus 20:13 lies DORFF-RUTTENBERGSEX 116

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1275 Do not have extra-marital relations. The abhorrence of promiscuity has been discussed previously. See [[EXOD442]] Exodus 20:13 adultery CHINUCH 28

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1276 Do not offer on the Altar an animal that was used as payment to a harlot or as payment for any forbidden relations. So, too, an animal that was traded for a dog is unfit as an offering. Of course, the disqualification applies to animals that otherwise are fit to be offerings, for other animals are barred from the Altar in any case. As noted earlier ([[EXOD940]] Exodus 25:8 sanctuary CHINUCH 62-5), offerings are to purify the thoughts and improve the deeds of those who bring them. Harlotry is a low and vile transgression, so if the animal brought as an offense was payment to a harlot, the corrupting, impure thought of that sin is likely to enter the mind of the person bringing the offering, which would have destructive consequences. The idea is similar regarding an animal that was traded for a dog. Offerings provided atonement. As someone guilty of sin brings an offering, he is supposed to imagine that everything that happens to the offering should be happening to him, on account of his sin. The animal is slaughtered before his eyes. Afterwards it is cut into pieces. The one bringing the offering thinks, “That should have been me,” and the pain of experiencing these thoughts is part of his atonement. He realizes that Hashem, in His kindness, accepted an animal as an “exchange.” Hopefully, because of these thoughts, the sinner's heart will soften. He will regret his sin and his heart will be filled with firm resolve to not sin again. Therefore, no offering can be an animal that was traded for a dog, for dogs are known for their gall. They are insolent. Shame is foreign to them. If an animal traded for a dog is used as an offering, the mind and heart of the person bringing the offering might become infected with gall and shamelessness. There is a chance that his heart will not soften and he will remain stubborn and not regret his sin.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1277 See [[LEV969]] Leviticus 25:14 wrong BLOCH 170-1

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1280 It is a negative commandment not to borrow at interest from a member of Jewry since Scripture says, “You shall not give interest to your brother (D’varim 23:20), which is an admonition to the borrower. He would also violate the injunction, nor shall you put a stumbling-block before the blind (Va-yikra 19:14).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1278 Do not lend money with interest to a fellow Jew. Key concept: See [[EXOD774]] Exodus 22:34 interest CHINUCH 44-5

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1286 See [[LEV1062]] Leviticus 25:36 interest OXFORD 46

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1284 See [[EXOD6902]] Exodus 22:24 interest SINAI1 17

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1285 See [[EXOD703]] Exodus 22:24 lend TELVOL2 191

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1283 People sometimes note that Torah law permitted Israelites to charge interest on loans to non-Israelites, but not to fellow Israelites [this and following verse], and that despite [French rabbi Menachem] Meiri [(1249-ca. 1310)]'s ruling [that all discriminatory legislation in the Talmud applied only to ancient pagans and idolaters who rejected the moral teachings of the Bible, and the belief in one God], Jewish law still permitted them to do so. However, this is not an example of discriminatory legislation. The reasoning of Jewish law can be described as follows: Since non-Israelites charged interest on loans to Israelites, and everybody else, and still do, Israelites were and are permitted to charge interest to non-Israelites. The regulation against charging interest to fellow Israelites was a special provision, a sort of family solidarity with our coreligionists (just as we can imagine a family patriarch or matriarch instructing his/her children and descendants not to charge interest on a loan to a close relative, particularly if the loan is made to cover urgent, personal expenses).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT