GEN1388 A man should take care to be generous according to his means, to be magnanimous where magnanimity is called for, and miserly and withholding where it is not called for, weighing all in the scales of Torah.   He should learn from our father Yaakov, who was unparalleled in his frugality, as it is written [this verse]: “And Yaakov remained alone,” concerning which our Rabbis of blessed memory have said that he had returned for some small jars that he had forgotten, from which we learn that the wealth of the righteous is more precious to them than their bodies, because they do not stretch forth their hands to steal Chullin 91a.   Observe the extreme frugality of a man as rich as our father Yaakov, may peace be upon him, in returning for small jars.   Yet in another place we find that he was unparalleled in his lavishness, as our Rabbis of blessed memory expounded: “In my grave which I have dug [karisi] for myself” Genesis 50:5 – this teaches us that Yaakov took all the silver and gold that he had taken from the house of Lavan, made a pile [keri], and said to Esav: “Take this for your share in the Machpelah cave’” Exodus Rabbah 31:17.   Can anyone be more lavish than this?   Therefore, from this one should learn not to squander even a perutah vainly and needlessly.   And in the event of a mitzvah, such as the giving of charity and other mitzvos involving expenditure, such as the acquisition of a teacher, a friend, and books, one should spend lavishly in order to achieve exalted levels to return one’s soul to its place of purity where it will be bound up in the bond of eternal life, as it is written Samuel 1 25:29: “And the soul of my master will be bound up in the bond of life.”   TZADIK 323

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1393 Midrashic sources show that individuality is at the very essence of being a Jew.  There are three classical names in the Scripture for the person who today is called a Jew: Hebrew, Israelite, and Jew.   The first Jew, Abraham, was called a Hebrew Genesis 14:13 because, according to Genesis Rabbah 42:13, the terms means that, regarding belief and action, the entire world was on one side while Abraham was on the other side (Ever).  Abraham’s actions and belief separated him from all others. The name Israel was given to Jacob after he fought the Angel of God [this verse].   Through this name change, he was thus transformed from Jacob, which means “following on the heels of another,” to Israel, which means “wrestled with God.” This transformation might be understood as a change within Jacob from a follower, a conformist, into a leader, an individualist. Finally, the most common name used today, Jew, was first sued in its present context with reference to Mordechai in the Purim story. Until that time, the term “Jew” (Yehudi) was a description of a person from the tribe of Judah. When Megillat Esther 2:5 described Mordechai, who was from the tribe of Benjamin, as a Yehudi, Esther Rabbah 6 naturally asks what is the meaning of this terms. Among the answers given, Mordechai was thus described because he was an individualist, refusing to follow the norms of the Persians and to bow down to Haman. The term Yehudi, says the Midrash, comes from the Hebrew Yechidi, an individualist. Therefore, it can be seen that all three biblical names for the term Jew describe, in some fashion, the characteristics of individuality. AMEMEI 122

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1394 Alone among God’s creatures, we humans underline our individuality by naming each other and ourselves. Each of us has a multitude of names. Some change with our age and status, so we started out as “baby” or “little one;” progress to “sissy” or “bro;” then answer to “sweetheart,” “darling,” “mommy,” “auntie,” or “dada;” and if we are truly blessed, make it to “Nana” or “Grandpa.” But we bristle if we hear the cruel “Uncle Tom” or “kike”—for these names foster an evil stereotyping, perpetuating ignorance and hatred, defaming the speaker as much as the person at whom they are hurled. More than 200 years ago, Jews living in Europe’s sprawling Hapsburg Empire were forced to take surnames by governmental fiat. Obviously the easiest thing to do was to maintain the Jewish custom of being known by the name of one’s father, so Isaac Ben Abraham became Isaac Abrahamson or Abramson. Jews could also take names that are common descriptives, which is why so many of us are named for the German words for black (“Schwartz”), white (“Weiss”), small (“Klein”), or large (“Gross”).   Or our great-great-great-great-grandfathers took their craft as their last name-hence “Silver,” “Gold,”   or “Diamond;” or more humbly “Schneider” (tailor), “Shuster” (shoemaker), or “Schachter” (shohet-ritual slaughter). Or they simply adapted to the name of the town that they lived in, so many of us answer to “Frankfurther” or “Warshow.” All these names tell us little about the character of those who hold them. A name becomes a “good name,” a shem tov, in the Jewish community when good deeds accompany it. Thus our first names or our Hebrew names may honor the memory of a well-loved relation, conveying the hope that we, as namesakes, will similarly live honorably. Jews by choice often take “Abraham” or “Sarah” as their Hebrew name, understanding that our first patriarch and matriarch where the first persons to heed God’s calling. Because of this, they became the ancestral fathers and mothers of all Jews.   Many Hebrew proper names recall an event. For example, the Torah tells us that “Israel” means “wrestling with God” and was the new name Jacob won from the angel he fought all night [this verse]. But it is our deeds that ultimately “name” us, for good or for ill. As R. Yose b. Hanina noted: People’s names fall into four classifications: some have fair names but have done foul deeds; others have ugly names but have done good deeds; some have ugly names to which their deeds correspond; and others have a good deeds to match their lovely names” Genesis Rabbah 71.3.   BOROJMV 228-9

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1395 “What happened to their ancestors,” says a Midrash, “will also happen to their descendants.”  Just as Jacob, at Peniel, wrested a blessing from his unknown assailant after prevailing over him, [this verse], so did his descendants emerge from their chequered history ennobled and hopeful, without the iron of cruelty having entered their own attitude towards life.   Tirelessly, did Jewish ethical precepts inculcate gentleness and humility, a love of peace and a passion for justice, so that the temporary resentment on the part of the Jew towards those who hated and baited him gave way to a co-operative relationship at the slightest display of tolerance towards him.   He was obedient to his codes of honour, because these bore the impress of divinity on their surface and in their content, and because these were regarded as the direct communications of a heavenly Father to His children on earth. To be disobedient to them, would be interpreted as an insult to Him who had declared that the sole purpose of human existence is to hallow every aspect of life.   It is this sanctification of life, this consciousness that goodness in thought and deed links man with heaven and is worthy of sacrifice, great and small, that made the ideal Jewish ethical life the summum bonum, the target, of Judaism.  The ideal Jew became “a partner with God in the work of Creation,” Shabbat 9b, by implementing his beliefs in the world of action.   LEHRMAN 12-13

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1396 Rav said: “From here it is to be derived that a Torah scholar should not go out alone at night” Chulllin 91a  TEMIMAH-GEN 141

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1398 After fighting the angel and getting injured (a battle of morality, no matter whose interpretation is followed), Jacob is instructed not to eat the sciatic nerve as a remembrance of this battle.   This Jewish law continues until today, tying the prohibition of eating part of the animal to the spiritual battle between Jacob and the angel.   Many more examples can be cited from the Torah (such as eating the Paschal lamb, eating matzah, manna, and so forth), which would show the same principle of tying food in Judaism to morality.   AMEMEI 73

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1399 We are obligated to accompany people who leave our house.   The Daas Zkainim explains the reason for the prohibition against eating the thigh-vein in the following manner: The night before Yaakov’s confrontation with Aisav, Yaakov was left by himself.   He was attacked and in the ensuing struggle Yaakov was wounded in the thigh. Yaakov’s children behaved inconsiderately in leaving their father by himself; they should have remained with him.   Therefore the Almighty imposed upon Yaakov’s descendants a prohibition against eating the thigh muscle in order to insure that they would remember to accompany others.   When someone leaves our house, we are obligated to accompany him at least four amos (app. 8 feet) SMA, Choshen Mispot 427:11.   We must show the visitor the way and wan him of any pitfalls. Ahavas Chesed, part 3, ch. 2.   PLYN 107

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1397 [A] part of the land animal that is forbidden [to eat] is the gid hanasheh, sinew of the thigh muscle [this verse]. This commandment links every generation of Jews to the transformative moment in Jacob’s life.   (By Mary L. Zamore, "An Overview of Ritual Kashrut") SACTAB 128

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1400 Do not eat the sinew of the thigh-vein. During a fearsome nighttime struggle, Esav’s angel sought to eliminate Yaakov and his descendants, but succeeded only in wounding Yaakov (in the thigh, Ed.). The sun, however, cast its rays on Yaakov’s wound, curing him. This event is a metaphor for the Jewish People's existence in Exile. Widely scattered throughout the world, the Jewish nation will suffer many types of hardships and ordeals at the hands of the peoples amongst whom they are dispersed. Each Jew should know that even so, the Jewish nation will survive and the redemption will come. By keeping this mitzvah and internalizing its message, Jews gain reassurance. Thus strengthened, the nation is better able to retain its faith, righteousness and trust in Hashem.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1401 Fundamentally, all the ethical questions of the Internet have parallels in the ordinary “bricks and mortar” world. Yet … one characteristic emerges as the special ethical challenge of the Internet: anonymity. The highest level of human interaction is the face-to-face encounter, and when this degree of rapport is created, the sense of empathy and the ethical motivation are highest. When we look into the face of a fellow human being, we sense the common human element we share and recognize ourselves, as if looking in the mirror. “As the reflection in the water is to the face, so is the heart of man to man.” Proverbs 27:19   Empathy opens our hearts and makes them as one. As the Torah tells us, Esau was determined to take vengeance on Jacob, but he relented when the anonymous meeting of armed camps turned into a face-to-face meeting of the twin brothers; at that moment Esau ran toward his brother and hugged and kissed him [this verse]. Similarly, Joseph was unable to keep up his carefully planned act of haughty aloofness with his brothers after several face-to-face meetings; his emotions overcame him and he revealed himself to them. Genesis 45:1-2   As the individual element of communication is diminished, so is this psychic connection between individuals. This idea has entered common discourse in the expression a “bare-faced lie.” The highest level of insolence is to lie to someone to their face; when their face is hidden, our ethical scruples tend to be diminished. Once other people become depersonalized in our minds, we lose sight of our ethical obligations to them. In a face-to-face encounter, we actually see the person; if we walk from room to room, we at least hear their voice. A telephone conversation is held over a distance, but at any rate we hear the voice’s reproduction in real time; even a letter bears the sender’s personal imprint through his or her unique handwriting. In traditional communication, “the medium is the message”-the tokens of individuality are an inherent part of the encounter. But the Internet strips our communication of all personal embellishments apart from the actual words of the sender. The factors of distance and anonymity increase the opportunity as well as the temptation for deceit. This anonymity plays some role in all of the Internet [ethical] questions.   [One issue] pertain[s] to using false identities, which is much easier in the chat rooms of cyberspace than in the physical world. Another relates to sending copies of emails without obtaining the permission of their authors and primary recipients or informing them that there are now many other readers peeking into the correspondence—a further exploitation of the Internet’s potential for creating anonymity. Others pertain to the great anonymous ease with which we can copy material protected by copyright or snoop on our employees. The key is to remember that there is a real, live human being at the other end of the connection, a person with feelings and rights. We need to be sensitive to the feelings and expectations of other chat room members, of e-mail recipients, of artists, and of employees.   The ultimate face-to-face encounter is with the Creator. Judaism’s sources on ethics tell us that when we live up to the ethical challenges we face, we can, in a certain sense, “look God in the face” without being ashamed of our behavior. The prophet Isaiah tells us that at the time of the future redemption, when all our human relations will be repaired, we will see God “eye to eye.” Isaiah 52:8.  If we conduct ourselves in the anonymity of cyberspace just as we would in a personal encounter with a fellow human being, then we will be worthy of the Divine glance God’s special providence.  MEIR 211-2

SHOW FULL EXCERPT