LEV29 In today's modern society, if a person does something "wrong" by accident, without specific intent, that person is usually given a reprieve and is not looked down upon. However, Judaism does not quite view the person in the same manner. If a person commits a sin "by accident," i.e., without intent, but it could have been prevented if he had been paying closer attention, then this person is viewed as a sinner in Judaism. Though not as guilty as an intentional sinner, this person has to bring a sin offering (in Temple times), for example, for his Shogeg, an accidental sin (and this sin is often ascribed in the Torah to a Jewish leader) [this and next verse]. If a Jew accidentally kill someone (when a little more sensitivity might have prevented the action), then this person is "punished" by being banished to a city of refuge until the High Priest dies (Numbers 35:11).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV32 In his description of the Nasi as a politician who rules the country, Rabbeinu Bechaye, who lived in the 1300s, sounds as though he is describing modern political life. He says that in referring to the sins of other Jewish leaders, the Torah begins the word "Im" -- "if." Only in the case of a Nasi does the verse begin with the word "Asher" -- "when." The reason is that (in contrast with the situation and other positions of Jewish leadership) it is almost inevitable that the Nasi is going to sin due to his hubris. It is a question of "when" rather than "if" when it came to the Nasi. A High Priest is aware of his holiness, and a Rabbi at the head of the Rabbinical court is aware of his religious duty, but a king who derives his power from his actions often thinks too highly of himself, and this will inevitably lead to sin. Unlike the Torah, Rabbeinu Bechaye is speaking about intentional sins as well (Rabbeinu Bechaye commentary on this verse].

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV72 Respect and sensitivity to sinners also requires not embarrassing them needlessly. When God designed the Tabernacle (and later the Temple), He commanded Aaron to set up the place of the sin offering in the very same place as the burnt offering [this verse]. Why? The Talmud explains that if there was one particular place that the sin offering were to be offered, then all of the sinners would gather there and all would know that these are transgressors, causing a very embarrassing situation. In order to avoid this, God demonstrated great sensitivity, and commanded the sin offering and burnt offering to be brought from the same spot so that no one would be able to distinguish between these two groups of Jews (Sotah 32b).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV106 [The] fundamental difference between man and animal also helps answer questions about some laws of ritual impurity. Touching a dead animal causes ritual impurity for a person for one day until nightfall [this verse, Leviticus 24-26, 31, 39]. But an animal can never make anything else ritually impure as long as it is alive, as it says "whoever touches them when they are dead, shall be unclean until evening" (Leviticus 11:31). But a human being can sometimes cause ritual in purity even while alive. For example, childbirth, the very act of giving life, makes a woman ritually impure for seven or fourteen days (Leviticus 12:2-6). This is the antithesis of the law and logic concerning animals. Why is there a difference between man and animals in ritual purity and impurity? When man or animal fulfills its potential or purpose, it is in consonance with its basic nature. The life of an animal is such that as long as it is alive, its purpose is fulfilled. Every minute of its life it is actualizing its potential and fulfilling its reason for existence. Therefore, an animal can only become ritually impure when its purpose no longer exists, i.e., upon its death. If the animal still has a purpose even after death, then it does not become ritually impure when touched. Thus, kosher animals (those with split homes that chew their cud) that are ritually slaughtered and continue to have a purpose for human beings as food or a sacrifice, do not become ritually impure (Maimonides, Hilchot Avot HaTumot 1:2). But why does a woman become impure at that great moment of giving life, which seems to be the antithesis of ritual impurity? Perhaps this question can be answered by understanding another anomaly regarding the mother giving birth. The Torah tells us that after her time of impurity, the mother brings a sin offering and receives atonement (Leviticus 12:6-7). What possible sin could the mother have committed in giving birth that requires a sin offering and atonement? Although there are many answer to this question, Rebbeinu Bechaya reminds us that the first mention of childbirth in the Torah was connected to the first sin, when Eve ate the forbidden fruit and gave it to Adam (Rabbeinu Bechaya commentary on Leviticus 12:7). Her punishment was a childbirth filled with travail (Genesis 3:16). Thus, every breath reminds us of a time that man did not fill his potential, and the sin offering tries to repair that first sin, whose consequences are seen in the case of each childbirth. Since man is not completed at birth and has not yet fulfilled his potential, he can become ritually impure in life and can render others ritually impure as well.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV109 See [[LEV106]] Leviticus 11:24 unclean AMJV 96-7

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV130 See [[LEV106]] Leviticus11:24 unclean AMJV 96-7

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV133 See [[LEV106]] Leviticus11:24 unclean AMJV 96-7

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV161 Based on a Torah verse, the Talmud declares that lying in all business activities is forbidden, i.e., that your "yes" should really be a yes, and your "no" should truly be a no (Leviticus 19:36, Bava Metzia 49a). A sixteenth century Rabbi writes that telling the truth and not lying in a Jew's everyday routine is an actual Mitzvah, a commandment (Sefer Charedim, Mitzvot Asei Bipeh, 26). The Talmud describes four groups of people who are denied the Divine Presence, and one of them is people who lie regularly (Sotah 42a). By using one extra letter, the Torah teaches us to be exact in our words and never lie, even in small and obvious matters. Regarding a house that was suspected of being ritually impure (that had to be validated by a Kohen-Priest to make it official), a Rabbi seeing the home would initially say, "It appears to have a ritual impurity," even though it was clear to that Rabbi that the home was impure. However, since it could not become officially ritually impure until the Kohen said so, the Rabbis added the extra letter Kaf signifying "it appears" in order not to tell even a mild untruth (this verse with Rashi and Gur Aryeh commentaries). Maimonides especially warns Torah scholars to be extremely careful in their words, and never even hint at an untruth (Maimonides, Hilchot De'ot 5:7,13). Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan (known as the Chafetz Chaim), who became famous for the way he taught Jews how not to misuse their words, says that a Jew who lies is subject to lose all of his or her possessions as well as other harsh punishments, as the sin of lying encompasses many severe sins in Judaism (Sefat Tamim, chapter 2). A person who habitually lies, says the Talmud, will never be taken seriously or be believed, even when he or she tells the absolute truth (Sanhedrin 89b). The prophet Isaiah implies that once a person's lips are impurified by repeated lying, (Isaiah 6:5). On this verse, Chafetz Chaim points out that the impurity of lying stays with the Jew longer than any other type of impurity in Jewish law, especially regarding the impurity related to the head of a human being (Kavod Shamayim 2:6).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV195 The Torah speaks of hunting animals or foul [this verse]. The use of the word "Tzayid" clearly signifies hunting, which seems to be permitted in Judaism. But the Torah context of hunting is very different from the concept of hunting in the modern sense. First, in the verse itself, as explained by the commentaries, the "hunt" is for food that is kosher, which will then be eaten by the hunter, and especially refers to the hunting of geese and wild chickens (Rishi Mizrachi and Gur Aryeh commentaries on Leviticus 17:13). Thus, there is no Jewish term for hunting merely for sport. Similarly, when the Mishna uses this term, "hunting," it never refers to a gun, knife, or weapon to be used to kill the animal, but rather to trapping the animal while it is still alive, especially since killing the animal with any weapon would render it non-kosher for eating (Mishna Beitza 3:1-2). Therefore, there is no concept of hunting for sport or killing any animal with a weapon in Judaism. This concept is codified in Jewish law. Shulchan Aruch rules that it is forbidden on Shabbat to "hunt" even a deer (a kosher animal) that is old, blind, sick, or damaged. Rema adds that hunting with trained dogs is not only forbidden on Shabbat, but is prohibited even during the week, since it is a frivolous, non-Jewish activity (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 316:2). Why is hunting forbidden? Rema, in another of his books, explains that hunting is forbidden, whether the purpose is for "fun" or to sell the prey (Darchei Teshuva, Yoreh De'ah 117:44). This is the occupation of the evil Eisav [Esau], which shows a quality of cruelty in praying on animals and killing God's creations. When man curtails life as sport or for fun, it is the opposite of his purpose in life, which is to enhance and expand the world. Not only is Eisav depicted as the classic hunter, but another evil leader, Nimrod, is also call a hunter in the Torah and is viewed very unfavorably in Jewish thought (Genesis 25:27). Sefer HaChinuch forbids hunting as part of the prohibition of needlessly causing pain to animals (Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 550). Hunting also violates the general spirit of Judaism, which is to promote peace in the world (Gittin 59b). The most famous discourse on the Jewish opposition to hunting is a responsum of Rabbi Yechezkel Landau (1713-1793). In it Rabbi Landau reviews all the reasons presented above to prohibit hunting. He adds that it is forbidden for a Jew to hunt because part of hunting for sport involves putting oneself in danger in the forest or jungle, which is forbidden. He concludes that the entire activity is disgusting, cruel, and dangerous, and is utterly forbidden for all Jews (Responsa Noda BeYehudah Mahadura Tennina, Yoreh De'ah 10).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV200 May Jews, then, celebrate their birthdays at all? Part of being Jewish is remaining distinctively Jewish in beliefs and actions. Therefore, the Torah forbids imitating the customs of foreign cultures [this verse]. The Mishna also associates birthday celebrations with non-Jewish kings who worshiped idols, and therefore forbids Jews to make a celebration on the day the king celebrates his birthday (Mishna Avodah Zara 1:3 with Rashi and Rabbeinu Chananael commentaries). After much discussion in the Talmudic and post-Talmudic period about the precise implications of the Averah/sin, the Code of Jewish Law rules that any custom that was entirely pagan or idol-worshiping in origin is forbidden to Jews, even if the custom is no longer even religious today (like celebrating Halloween, for example). Similarly, if the original reason for the ritual or custom is unknown, then it is similarly forbidden (since it might have had pagan origins). However, if the custom has legitimacy in and of its own, without pagan ideas, then even if non-Jews originated the particular practice, it is not forbidden to Jews (like hairstyles today or wearing a suit) (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 178). Would this Jewish law forbid or permit celebration of birthdays today by Jews? Although the specific rituals may have been pagan in origin, the celebration of the birth of something or someone is not unique to idol worshipers (as was demonstrated above in sources and will be expanded upon below). Thus the idea of celebrating a birthday in and of itself is not pagan in origin and would be permitted from that perspective. However, the specific rituals that are associated with birthday celebration may be questionable. The use of a cake, even a round cake, does not necessarily signify the pagan origin, as many celebrations involve the baking of cakes (and a round cake is simply the standard, not due to the shape of the moon). However, the use of candles, (especially the blowing out of candles) and attaching magical powers for wishes to these candles is certainly questionable from the Jewish perspective. Therefore, one modern Rabbi forbids the use of candles in Jewish birthday celebrations (Rabbi Avrohom Blumenkrantz, "The Laws of Pesach" (2002), p. 206). Specifically, Jews are never supposed to blow out candles, since King Solomon has taught that a candle represents a human life that should never be extinguished by blowing it out (Kaf HaChaim (Palagi) 31:25, Proverbs 20:27).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT