LEV949 See [[EXOD542]] Exodus 21:12 death OXFORD 480

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV953 See [[LEV795]] Leviticus 19:34 love OXFORD 46-7

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV965 Ona'at mammon (price deception or price fraud) is a very important prohibition that teaches us that we have to "play fair." The concept is related to theft, although unlike geneivat da'at (deception), ona'at mammon is a specific provision found in the Torah [this verse]. The Mishnah articulates very specific guidelines as to what constitutes price fraud: selling an object for more than 1/6 above what it is "really" worth. Interestingly--and very much at odds with our normally accepted ideas about fairness in pricing--it is equally forbidden to underpay. Paying more than 1/6 below the real price is also forbidden, and such a transaction can be legally nullified. A reasonable profit is allowed, and some variation in pricing is acceptable, but overall prices should be "fair." One of the biggest problems in applying this principle is determining what constitutes the "same product." Two stores may be selling what appears to be the same product, but one store might provide a better warranty, or have different payment terms, or offer much better customer service, and so on, all of which could be sufficient to say that the product is not exactly the same and a price differential greater than 1/6 is justified. (By Barry J. Leff, "Jewish Business Ethics")

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV978 See [[LEV1005]] Leviticus 25:17 wrong OXFORD 438-9

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1005 A baraita on B. Bava Metzia 58b roots the prohibition of oppressive speech in [this verse]. M. Bava Metzia 4:10 begins with an example of "oppressive speech" in a commercial context: a person should not inquire about an item's price if he has no intention of buying it. The Mishnah also prohibits reminding the penitent of his prior bad deeds and reminding the convert of his ancestors' non-Jewish past. The aforementioned baraita on B. Bava Metzia 58b goes further than the mishnah. The baraita directs that if a convert comes forward to study Torah, one should not say to him, "The mouth that ate [forbidden foods] comes to study [the] Torah that was given from the mouth of the Power [God]!" Also, if illnesses come upon a person or he has buried his children, speaking to him in a manner of Job's companions (Job 4:6-7) is considered oppressive speech: "Is not your piety your confidence.… Think now, what innocent man ever perished?" Three talmudic sages go so far as to say that oppressive speech is even worse than commercial overreaching. One reason given for this is that [this verse] (oppressive speech] says "but fear your God," an admonition missing from Leviticus 25:14 (commercial overreaching). A second reason is that while commercial overreaching is only a matter of money (b'mamono), oppressive speech is something one does with oneself (b'gufo). Ultimately, the baraita says that the matter of oppressive speech is given over to the heart. R. Vidal di Toulousa (fourteenth century), commenting on M.T. Law of Sales 14:18, explains that a person may claim that the words he had spoken were intended for good, or that he had meant something other than what the hearer thought. Whatever the speaker claims about his own speech, ultimately God will look to the inner intentions behind what was said. The Talmud on B. Bava Metzia 58b-59a juxtaposes a discussion of embarrassing someone in public ("whitening their face") to the treatment of oppressive speech. Embarrassing someone in public is also linked to a prohibition against calling someone by an evil name. The Talmud asks why the latter is singled out, being a subset of the former, but the response is given that even if a person has become accustomed to being called by that name, one who uses it is still guilty of publicly embarrassing him. This latter point is psychologically insightful: at the stage at which someone is no longer visibly embarrassed by the name, he is probably so humiliated that he no longer reacts to it. (By Alyssa M. Gray, "Jewish Ethics of Speech")

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1062 The Torah frequently acknowledges the multiethnic nature of Israelite society, using the terms ger, zar, and nokhri for strangers or foreigners. In legal texts, ger is the most common and refers to the non-Israelites who continue to live in the land of Israel after the conquest; they appear mostly as landless recipients of charity (Exodus 22:20, Deuteronomy 10:18–19). The nokhri is a person who is not ethnically Israelite, perhaps visiting Israel from a foreign land (Deuteronomy 15:3, 17:15), while the term zar in its technical sense refers to someone who is not necessarily an ethnic stranger but is not a member of a specific category, the priesthood, for example (Exodus 30:33, Numbers 1:51). What are the Israelites' humanitarian obligations to these categories of people? Deuteronomy bars the ethnic foreigner from kinship (17:15) perhaps for reasons of religion or security. This two-tier approach is also evident regarding economic and ethical conduct in general. In the sabbatical year the Israelite may demand repayment of debt from a nokhri, but he must remit the debt for a fellow Israelite (15:3). The scheme is understandable because of the exceptional loss involved in remitting a debt, which makes sense only for one's own people or kin. The same distinction applies regarding interest on loans (Deuteronomy 23:20–21; see also Exodus 22:24, Leviticus 25:35-37). (Continued at [[EXOD725]] Exodus 22:26 covering OXFORD 46). (By Elaine Adler Goodfriend, “Ethical Theory and Practice in the Hebrew Bible)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1073 See [[LEV1062]] Leviticus 25:36 interest OXFORD 46

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1084 See [DEUT163]] Deuteronomy 5:15 remember OXFORD 39

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1093 (Continued from [[LEV1093]] Leviticus 25:45 property OXFORD 47). Leviticus explains Israel's immunity from slavery with their status as God's slaves (v. 42), by which they may not be enslaved by others, Israelite or stranger. With regard to non-Israelites, conversely, "it is from the nations round about you that you may acquire male and female slaves" [this verse]. Thus, non-Israelites (including the ger) may be kept as chattel slaves and be passed down within the family as property [this verse]. Israel was therefore no exception to the widespread practice of slavery in the ancient Near East, as the circumstances that generated enslavement were found throughout the region: war, self-sale and the sale of minors due to hunger or death, and a heavy penalty for theft. Israelite legislation attempted to ameliorate the circumstances of the non-Israelite chattel slave, who is given rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10, 23:12) and is mentioned as participating in family religious festivals (Exodus 12:44; Deuteronomy 12:12, 18; 16:11, 14). He was offered some protection from his owner's use of excessive force (Exodus 21:20-21, 26-27), and those slaves who had run away from their masters were granted asylum (Deuteronomy 23:16, but see 1 Kings 2:39-40). Thus, while biblical Israel accepted, with some modifications, the ancient Near Eastern practice of chattel slavery, regarding those of non-Israelite origins, circumstances for the Israelites sold into bondage because of debt or theft seem to have been significantly improved (but see Jeremiah 34). (By Elaine Adler Goodfriend, “Ethical Theory and Practice in the Hebrew Bible)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1105 See [[DEUT163]] Deuteronomy 5:15 remember OXFORD 39

SHOW FULL EXCERPT