LEV836 … it would be wrong to assume that Judaism's ancient criminal laws are always a perfect fit for today's society. Jewish laws on sexual offenses reflect the morality of the times in which they developed. Some sexual offenses in the Bible are punishable by death. [E.g., this verse]. By contrast, the trend today, even in those countries that retain the death penalty, is to not impose capital punishment for sexual offenses. Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008). Moreover Jewish law prohibits many sexual activities, including consensual acts with nonmarried partners, that today's secular laws may allow. The biblical laws on rape and sexual assault seem antiquated when they call upon women to resist their attackers, cry for help, and be amenable to "punishment" of the defendant by requiring him to marry the victim or pay a fine. (Deuteronomy 22:28-9) These ancient laws do not fit today's culture because they come from a time when women were often considered a type of property. So what do these laws teach about Judaism and the content of criminal justice? They teach us, first, that while Judaism offers some valuable lessons about the operation of a criminal justice system, it does not offer magic formulas for a peaceful and just society. The greatest value that Judaism offers for establishing a criminal justice system is not in the details of its individual prohibitions or exceptions. Rather, it is an ethics-based system that holds its laws out as representative of it ethical values. Within that system, the focus is as much on the needs of the victim as it is on society's need to punish the defendant. (By Laurie L. Levenson, "Judaism and CriminalJustice"

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV837 See [[GEN721]] Genesis 9:6 shed OXFORD 475-6

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV843 See [[LEV250]] Leviticus 18:22 lie OXFORD 393

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV848 See [[LEV168]] Leviticus 15:28 discharge OXFORD 389-90

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV854 Conceptually speaking, commandments [] are to be observed because they are commandments, not for any other reason. [For illustration an early tradition: "Rabbi Eliezar Ben Azariah said: 'From whence do we know that a man should not say "I cannot tolerate wearing sha'atnez, or I cannot tolerate eating pork or cannot tolerate elicit relations" but rather he should say "I am capable and willing, but what can I do [given that] my Father in Heaven decreed thus?" Therefore Scripture states: "I have separated you from the nations to be Mine" [this verse], because of that he avoids the sin and accepts God's sovereignty,'" Sifra, Kedoshim, on those verses. And according to a later talmudic hyperbolic pronouncement, attributed to Rav Nahman bar Isaac: "A transgression committed for its own sake is better than a commandment performed not for its own sake" (B. Nazir 23b). This is not to discount completely other motivating factors within rabbinic literature for acting in accordance with the commandments. (By Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert, “Ethical Theories in Rabbinic Literature”)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV860 See [[LEV854]] Leviticus 20:24 apart OXFORD 55

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV896 (Continued from [[LEV663]] Leviticus 19:18 love OXFORD 421-2). When the tradition emphasizes the ascendancy side of the dialectic, compassion for animals is understood to be for the sake of the human being, but when he kindness side of the dialect is highlighted, animals are granted a value independent of human beings. Both strains serve as foundations for Jewish animal ethics. Three distinct but overlapping Judaic ideas point to the value of compassion for animals for the sake of humanity: the ideas that (1) compassion to animals is rewarded (as in the story of Rabbi Judah) [See [[GEN1183]] Genesis 24:20 drew BLOCH 80-1], (2) morally outstanding individuals spontaneously show compassion to animals, and (3) sensitivity to animals promotes sensitivity to other humans.… The third theme, that compassion for animals actively promotes kindness to other humans, is articulated by Ramban (Moses ben Nahman, "Nahmanides," 1194-1270) in his commentary on both the Deuteronomic law that one must drive away a mother bird before taking her eggs (22:7) and the prohibition on killing a mother and its young on the same day [this verse]. Ramban goes out of his way to argue that the reason for the law of the mother bird is not--despite the suggestion of some Jewish sources (including Rambam, Moreh Nebukim (The Guide for the Perplexed) 3:48)--the undeniable suffering of the mother bird. Sefer haHinnuch (thirteen century), which provides a numbered, systematic commentary on each of the 613 commandments of the Torah, sites Ramban's view with approval: God's "compassion does not extend over [individual] creatures with animals souls [but only over entire species]… For if so, shehitah [Jewish ritual slaughter of animals] would have been forbidden. Indeed, the reason for the restriction [i.e., of driving away the mother bird] is to teach us the quality of compassion" [(Mitzvah 545) and referring to the commandment in Deuteronomy 25:4 not to muzzle a domestic animal during its work (thus causing the animal suffering by tempting it with food it cannot eat)], another law paradigmatically associated with compassion for animals Sefer haHinnukh, makes the case that "from its root the commandment serves to teach us to make our souls beautiful ones… By accustoming us to this even with animals, which were created only to serve us." (Mitzvah 596). (By Aaron S. Gross, "Jewish Animal Ethics")

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV925 See [[LEV795]] Leviticus 19:34 love OXFORD 46-7

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV935 See [[LEV795]] Leviticus 19:34 love OXFORD 46-7

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV941 See [[EXOD542]] Exodus 21:12 death OXFORD 480

SHOW FULL EXCERPT