DEUT1303 (Continued from [[LEV520]] Leviticus 19:16 talebearer BLOCH 76) Modern law recognizes the principle of confidentiality in relationships between clergymen and parishioners and attorneys and their clients. The law occasionally imposes secrecy and individuals who have access too sensitive information. Secrecy may also be self-imposed by contractual commitment. However, in most instances a breach of confidence constitutes an ethical rather than a legal violation. Judaism condemns breaches of confidence on several grounds. A person who agrees to a request for secrecy but never intends to honor his agreement brands himself a liar as soon as he proceeds to make a disclosure. According to the Bible: "Lying lips are an abomination of the Lord" (Proverbs 12:22). A person who was originally sincere in his acceptance of a pledge of secrecy but later changes his mind may not be a liar in the strict sense of the word, but he is guilty of unethical conduct. A breach of promise is a violation of the spirit of the biblical injunction: "That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt observe and do" [this verse]. The Talmud holds that a breach of promise is as serious an offense as idolatry (Sanhedrin 92a).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1330 Indeed, it would be contrary to the interests of the couple, their children, and society to preserve a union which generates unceasing discord and antisocial attitudes. To quote a talmudic maxim: "No individual can live permanently in the same den with a snake" (Yevamot 112b). Under some circumstances, the dissolution of a marriage by divorce is not only desirable but meritorious (Eruvin 41b). In the absence of compelling reasons, the termination of a marriage by divorce is regarded in Judaism has a great tragedy. "When a divorce ends a first marriage, the altar shed tears" (Gittin 91b). The altar, a symbol of reconciliation between man and God, shed tears when two individuals in conflict cannot reconcile to one another. The Pentateuch seems to be deliberately vague in its description of a legitimate cause for divorce. A man divorces his wife "because he has found an unseemly thing in her" [this verse]. What is the definition of an "unseemly thing"? Is it in her moral conduct or in her general inadequacy as a wife? Rabbinic interpretations differ. However, the vagueness of the text might indicate that the definition of an "unseemly thing" should be left to the social and moral perceptions of each generation.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1389 "He who with holds a worker's wages is as though he deprived him of his life" (Baba Metzia 112a). The rabbis also warned employers that the withheld wages would not enrich them. On the contrary, their transgression would result in the loss of their estates (Bamidbar Rabbah 11). The biblical allegation that a worker "sets his soul upon it" [his wages; this verse] was interpreted literally by the rabbis. "Why did the man ascend the ladder, suspend himself from the tree, and risk death itself; was it not that you should pay him his wages?" (Baba Metzia 112a)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1406 Widows and orphans are entitled to special consideration because of their unfortunate lot. Strangers, frequent objects of discrimination, are similarly classed as individuals deserving of kind treatment. "And a stranger shalt thou not wrong, neither shalt thou oppress him. … You shall not afflict any widow or orphan" (Exodus 22:20-21). Indeed a widow was granted some preferential legal protection. If she defaults on a payment of a loan, her garment may not be taken as a pledge [this verse]. All transactions with widows as also with orphans and strangers, must be free of rancor and animated by compassion (Chinuch 63, 65). Modern social laws have done much to improve the financial security of widows. However, these laws do not lessen the trauma of widowhood nor ameliorate the sense of loneliness and sensitivity to society's indifference. The ancient biblical concern for the psychological deprivation of defenseless people is as vital today as it was in a more primitive era.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1430 Biblical consideration for animals was the basis for the following laws: … An animal which works in an operation that exposes it to food which is eaten by animals must not be muzzled [this verse]. In such circumstances, the prevention of the animal from eating is an act of cruelty. Josephus (1st cent.) places this injunction on a moral plane of equity and fairness. "It is not just to restrain our fellow-laboring animals… of the fruit of their labor" (Antiq. 4:8). The required degree of animal care reached a noble dimension in rabbinic literature. It is forbidden to buy animals or fowl unless preparation of food for their sustenance has been made in advance. (Jer. Yevamot 15:3). Rav (3rd cent.) is the author of a rule which stipulates that owners must feed their animals first before sitting down to enjoy their own meals (Berachot 40a). It is important to bear in mind that Rav's rule applies exclusively to owners, since they bear a responsibility for the feeding of their cattle. No such preference is proper when one has to satisfy the needs of a hungry guest and his hungry animal. The interest of man must precede that of an animal. The major concern for the welfare of man has led the rabbis to discourage the raising of dogs. A dog which attacks or frightens strangers will inevitably deter the poor from entering a home for the purpose of soliciting charity or help (Shabbat 63a). For the same reason the rabbis urged that all dogs be kept on a leash (Baba Kama 79b).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1538 See [[DEUT1558]] Deuteronomy 28:61 diseases BLOCH 271-3

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1558 "For my life is spent in sorrow and my years in sighing; my strength fails because of my iniquity." – Psalms 31:11 Pain is a major contributor to human unhappiness (see "Contentment and Discontent"). In addition to the physical discomfort, pain exacerbates the sufferer's mental anguish by its implication of his guilt. The Pentateuch emphasizes the link between sin and sickness. "But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments … and he will bring back upon thee all the diseases of Egypt … also every sickness which is not written in the book of this law" [this verse, Deuteronomy 60-61]. ... The average observant man justifiably ponders several questions. Does suffering serve a higher moral purpose? Is pain due to divine punishment? Is it proper to cry out against pain if it is divinely ordained? Is it proper to berate a person who persistently complains of pain? Is it proper to seek remedial help to ease one's pain? The rabbis provided answers to these questions. In many instances pain is indeed inflicted in punishment for sin. "He who can engage in the study of Torah and he does not do so, the Almighty brings upon him severe suffering." (Berachot 5a). "Man's sins bring upon him divine retribution" (Tanchuma, Tazria 8). Judaism also ascribes some pain to a divine design to open the sufferer's heart to penitence (Menachot 53b). Rabbi, the saintly editor of the Mishnah (2nd-3rd cent.), was said to have suffered excruciating pain for thirteen years because he had neglected to show humane compassion for a calf which sought his protection against a butcher who was taking it to the slaughterhouse. The pain disappeared when Rabbi, in an obvious mood of contrition, demonstrated compassion for a brood of weasels which were discovered by a maid in his home (Baba Metzia 85a). This incident supports the view that pain ennobles man's character. It is axiomatic that every individual who goes through life inevitably commits some indiscretion or a transgression of law. In the words of Ecclesiastes: "For there is not a righteous man upon earth, that does [only] good, and sins not" (Ecclesiastes 7:20). However, one is not necessarily aware of his wrongdoing. Suffering in the here and now is atonement which spares the sinner punishment in the hereafter (Berachot 5a). Under such circumstances, the suffering is evidence of God's love and is regarded as a "suffering of love" (ibid.). It brings reward in the hereafter by purging one's sins on this earth (Yoma 86a). Rabbi commented that such suffering is "precious" (Baba Metzia 85a). The true rationale of one's pain is never revealed to man. The rabbis therefore advised sufferers to examine their past deeds. If they discover some faults they should repent. If they fail to find any personal guilt, they may assume that the suffering does not reflect divine anger but divine love (Berachot 5a). Despite theological rationalizations of pain, most people cannot make peace with suffering and surely do not welcome it. Those who are confident of their virtue and merit plaintively echo the biblical cry: "To punish also the righteous is not good, nor to strike the noble for their uprightness" (Proverbs 17:26). Even a religious leader of the stature of Rabbi Yohanan (3rd cent.) exclaimed: "I want neither the pain nor its reward" (Berachot 5b). The Talmud concludes that not all pain serves a high moral purpose. "There is death without sin and suffering without inequity" (Shabbat 55b). Man is mortal, and he is subject to a process of aging in which pain is endemic. An individual who cries out in the agony of his pain is not unethical. It is wrong to preach to him that he deserves his fate. It is absolutely proper to try to ease one's pain. Those who are induced by pain to reexamine their daily conduct provide a useful redeeming feature to a period which is otherwise bleak and dismal.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1633 "Therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed."--[this verse] It is the religious duty of every individual to keep fit and to refrain from practices which endanger health and shorten life. This obligation is a corollary of the general prohibition of waste and needless destruction of living creatures or inanimate useful articles. The instruction to safeguard one's health and life is additionally based on several theological rationales. In view of the biblical declaration that man was created in the image of God, any injury to one's body can constitutes an assault upon its divine aspect and hence an affront to the Almighty. The belief that parents create the body of their offspring but that it is God who implants the soul (Berachot 60b) further contributed to the tenet that life must be preserved and that suicide is a crime against God. Man owns his body, but he is merely the custodian of the soul which resides within him. Only God can decide when the soul is to depart the body. ... The philosophic explanation of the interaction between the soul and the body provided another basis for the principle of the preservation of life. The soul which is implanted in a human body is pure, without any blemish. That is the gist of the morning prayer recited upon waking: "My God, the soul which thou hast planted in me is pure.… thou preservest it in me, and thou shalt someday take it from me" (Berachot 60b). According to the teachings of Kabbalah, the soul is tainted by the corruption of the body. Biblical references to sin and impurity are frequently addressed to the soul: "If a soul sin through error" (Leviticus 4:2), "If a soul sin and commit trespass against the Lord" (Leviticus 5:21). ...When the body atones for its sins, the purity of the soul is restored. The willful destruction of one's body precludes an eventual purging of the soul of its acquired flaws, forcing it to return to heaven in a state of impurity. Aside from doctrinaire considerations, there is a universal consensus that life is man's most precious gift. (Continued at [[DEUT88]] Deuteronomy 4:9 watch BLOCH 242-3)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1722 "Thou shalt teach Jacob thy ordinances and Israel thy law" [this verse]. Modern society worships success. Education is the key to success in business and the professions. An education which is geared to the promotion of proficiency in one's career must of necessity stress technological and scientific competence. Philosophy and ethics are of little consequence within this framework. Regretfully, technology does not enhance a student's moral stance, and postgraduate degrees do not attest to perfection of character. Fortunately, man's ethical heritage derives from various sources, independent of formal education. Many professionals find an opportunity to project their humane impulses in their chosen field of endeavor. The dedicated social worker, the medical practitioner in the inner city, the lawyer who defends the poor, the teacher who remains after school hours to tutor students in need of help, and countless others in different fields, find self-fulfillment in acting out their moral perceptions. Judaism has advocated the pursuit of education as a worthy goal in its own right, not for the material gain which it may produce. The rabbinic slogan which reflects this attitude was coined by Rabbi Zadok (1st cent.): "Make not the Torah a crown with which to aggrandize thyself, nor a spade with which to dig" (Avot 4:7). The rabbis and teachers of antiquity were unsalaried people who made their living by hard labor. Despite their lack of economic success, they received the highest degree of respect, admiration, and veneration. Traditional Jewish society equated education with the study of Torah, a compendium of ritual laws, civil laws, and ethical precepts. Experts and laymen alike were required to have a knowledge of this code. It was mandatory for every individual to set aside periods for study. The basic rule of national conduct with regard to education was formulated in the command to Joshua: "This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein" (Joshua 1:8). The purpose of education, spelled out in this command, is to teach the rules which one must translate into daily conduct.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT