GEN301 In addition to curbing man’s offensive acts, respect for man dictates affirmative measures in support of those who need help. Every individual is a beneficiary of society’s companionship and protection. This is the sense of the text in Genesis: “And the Lord God said: ‘It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helpmate’” [this verse]. Mutual interdependence, essential to man’s happiness, imposes an obligation to balance the benefit derived from human intercourse with a reciprocal contribution to the welfare of others. BLOCH 255

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN323 Does a divorce sever all links between the couple? Legally yes, morally no. Rabbi Jose the Galilean (2nd cent.) was informed that his former wife was resorting to begging for subsistence. Having previously paid her, at the time of the divorce, the amount required by law, he had no further legal obligations for her support. Nevertheless, he felt morally bound to provide for her further needs Jerusalem Talmud, Ketubot 11. Rabbi Jose based his novel moral doctrine on a verse in Isaiah 58:7: “Thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh” The term “flesh” is a biblical synonym for “wife” [this verse]. Isaiah bracketed the moral duty of feeding the poor and clothing the naked with a similar obligation to be mindful of the needs of one’s “flesh.” Surely he was not referring to a wife to whom one is married and to whose care one is legally committed Exodus 21:10. Rabbi Jose apparently concluded that Isaiah had in mind a former wife who is still referred to as his “flesh.” The union of two people in marriage is legally different from the association of two individuals in a partnership. When a partnership is dissolved, the relationship between the partners comes to a complete end. On the other hand, a divorced mate is like a limb severed from a body. The limb remains forever part of the body and must be treated with respect.  Rabbi Jose’s perception has practical implications and gives a new dimension to the moral links which survive a divorce. This is particularly significant when the divorced couple have children who form a permanent bond between their parents. Due to the lingering moral relationship, a divorce must not be permitted to generate a state of festering animosity. The divorced partners must still treat each other with respect. A divorced parent who has custody of the couple’s children must not prejudice their minds against the other parent. Grown-up children occasionally reject a parent for whatever they consider justifiable grounds. That decision must be their own and not the result of prejudicial influences to which they were subjected in their childhood.  Divorced parents have an inherent right to participate in their children’s celebrations of important events. It is in this area where breaches of the surviving moral relationships between divorced people are most common. A parent who pays for a daughter’s wedding affair may, in a spirit of vindictiveness, bar the former spouse from attending the wedding. Such conduct is cruel and unethical. The part assigned to parents in a wedding ceremony is another area of potential conflict. Divorced parents have a moral right to escort their child and march together down the aisle. Such an arrangement is warranted by the surviving moral relationship between the parents which dictates consideration for one another’s feelings.  The propriety of having divorced parents join together in escorting their child is not affected by the remarriage of one or both of the parents. A remarried parent may bring his or her second spouse to the wedding affair of a child. The second wife or husband is entitled to an invitation as a matter of right. They are well advised, however, to try to be as unobtrusive as possible to spare the feelings of the part of the family which views their presence with distaste. Needless to say, under no circumstances should a second spouse take the place of a living parent in the wedding procession.  Judaic tradition does not attach any stigma to the status of a divorcee. However, the rabbis advised against marrying a divorcee in the lifetime of her previous husband. Their objection was based on social rather than moral grounds. They felt that a divorcee might still retain some affection for her previous husband and as a result be unable to develop a true physical and emotional intimacy with her second husband Pesachim 112a. The rabbis implied a similar objection to the marriage of a divorced man in the lifetime of his former wife. The rabbinic reservation about the wisdom of marrying a divorced person would seem to have little validity in the event where a divorce ended a marriage in an explosion of hostility. A number of medieval rabbis also opposed marrying a twice-divorced woman because her fitness for matrimony has been put in question Even HaEzer 9:1 BLOCH 229-31

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN324 Keep thy tongue from evil and thy lips from speaking guile. Psalm 34:14. The gift of speech, which distinguishes man from all other living creatures, is the most vital instrument in the evolutionary process of civilization.  At the same time, it is also a most formidable weapon for the destruction of society. In the words of Proverbs: “Death and life are in the power of the tongue.” Proverbs 18:21.  The positive and negative potentials of speech are reflected in the opening chapters of Genesis.  Two quotations of the statements of each of the principal actors in the drama of the Garden of Eden, Adam, Eve, and the serpent, are recorded in the Bible. Adam’s first spoken words proclaimed the establishment of the family unit as the basis of civilized society [this and subsequent verse].  On the other hand, in his second statement, Adam disclaimed responsibility for his own wrongdoing by placing the blame on Eve Genesis 3:12.  The first recorded words of Eve conveyed a sense of pious submission to the will of God, who had forbidden the “Fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden” Genesis 3:2-3 In her second statement, Eve, like Adam, sought to escape punishment, blaming the serpent for her transgression Genesis 3:13.  The serpent, portrayed as the incarnation of evil, used from the very beginning its power of speech to express blasphemous innuendoes and to question the motive of God’s prohibition of the fruit Genesis 3:1.  In its second statement, the serpent openly accused God of harboring sentiments of jealousy Genesis 3:5. The rabbis regarded this verse as history’s first slanderous expression and used it as an illustration of the frightful consequences of slander. Adam and Eve were deprived of their immortality. The serpent was condemned to become an object of man’s deep loathing Tanchuma, Bereshit 8. The frequency with which the Bible denounces gossip and slander attests to the persistence of this habit in society. Gossip is motivated by malice, arrogance, love or mischief, idle garrulity, and boredom. People who would normally shrink from inflicting physical injury on anyone else many have no scruples about slinging poisonous verbal arrows at their fellowmen. BLOCH 148-9

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN329 [This verse] Procreation is essential to the continuity of life.  In the animal world the perpetuation of the species is generally achieved without the benefit of a familial relationship resembling matrimony. The character and behavior of animal herds are mostly predetermined by fixed laws of nature, with the role of parents limited to the physical preservation of their offspring. A young animal does not need a “home" in the moral sense which this term has assumed in human society. BLOCH 213

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN356 See [[GEN324]] Genesis 2:23 “said”  BLOCH 148-9

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN365 See [[GEN324]] Genesis 2:23 said BLOCH 148-9

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN389 See [[GEN324]] Genesis 2:23 said  BLOCH 148-9

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN398 See [[GEN324]] Genesis 2:23 said  BLOCH 148-9

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN408 Sweet is the sleep of the laboring man. Ecclesiastes 5:11 Retirees, the unemployed, and incapacitated individuals must sooner or later cope with the problem of idleness. Prior to the enactment of modern social legislation, the primary concern of people out of work was one of economics. Social security and pensions have removed the specter of starvation from homes where the head of the family is no longer in a position to earn a livelihood. The partial solution of the economic problems has accentuated the social problem of boredom, which is bred by idleness. Young children, idle all day, while away their time while playing or by acting out their fantasies in a world of make-believe. Even then, they frequently react to boredom by plaguing their mothers with the plaintive question: “What should I do now?” Idle adults ponder over the same question with greater frequency, and unfortunately, the outlets afforded in childhood disappear in later life.  The effects of boredom on adults could be very devastating. Psychologist have discovered that retired people, with no interest or diversions to occupy their minds, have a shorter life-span then what their physical condition has led them to expect. Young people, bored by idleness, not infrequently drift into antisocial and criminal adventures. The problem of idleness received little attention in the Scriptures. This omission is not due to a lack of interest in the problem. It rather reflects the fact that there was little idleness in the primitive agrarian society of the biblical era. The divine rebuke of Adam, ”Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shall thou eat of it, all the days of thy life” [this verse] was an accurate prognostication of the hard life of a farmer. The lot of ancient women was not much easier. The farmer’s workday extended from sunrise to sunset, with nighttime sleep providing the only break. The Psalmist meditated on the long and wearying hours of hard-working people and warned them that even their sleep is filled with anxiety, except for those who put their trust in God. “It is vain for you that you rise early and sit up late, you that you eat the bread of toil; so he [God] gives [rest] to his beloved in sleep.” Psalm 127:2. The institution of the Sabbath, a day of abstention from work, did not create a problem of boredom. The primary purpose of the Sabbath was to allow man and beast some needed physical rest.  A period of rest between stints of labor was never considered a waste of time. It is as essential to the regeneration of energy as the respite of refreshing sleep in the hours of the night. A tired person, relaxing after hard labor, is never troubled by the restlessness which results from idleness. It is possible that the psychological needs of man do not normally require a full day of rest. The rabbis therefore urge that part of the Sabbath day, after one has rested, be set aside for study and intellectual stimulation. Gittin 58b BLOCH 175-6

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN598 Why was divine forgiveness denied to the generation of Noah and to the people of Sodom? One may suggest that absolution by penitence was a divine concession first granted to Moses. One may also rationalize the absence of early forgiveness by the prevalence of extreme corruption which destroyed man’s ability to perceive wrong, to confess to it, and to experience penitence. Biblical texts seem to support this view. The sentence “And the earth was filled with violence” (prior to the Flood) [This verse] seems to convey the enormity of the corruption. The description of the Sodomites,” their sin is exceedingly grievous” Genesis 18:20 similarly depicts extreme depravity. The Talmud also agrees with the view that divine forgiveness was always available to man if only he mended his ways. Penitence would have saved the victims of the Flood and the people of Sodom. Rabbi José of Caesarea offered the following scenario: “Noah rebuked them, urging ‘Repent, for if not, the Holy One, blessed be he, will bring a deluge upon you’” Sanhedrin 108a. Josephus included a similar scenario in his history of the Jewish people: “and [Noah] being displeased at their conduct urge them to change the disposition and their actions for the better” Antiq. III:1. The institution of the solemn Day of Atonement made the theological doctrine of penitence and forgiveness central to Judaism. However, the Day of Atonement primarily relates to religious offenses against God. It is an axiomatic rabbinic maxim that “offenses against God are forgiven [on Yom Kippur], but offenses against God against a fellow man are not condoned unless one receives the forgiveness of his victim” Rosh HaShanah 17b. It is important to bear in mind that a violation of the rights of the fellow man constitutes a double offense, against men and against God. Consequently one must secure the forgiveness of both. The steps leading to human forgiveness are somewhat different than those preceding divine forgiveness. In place of penitents, a term which has a theological connotation, it is preferable to demand an expression of regret and remorse. The sequence preceding human forgiveness is as follows: an admission of guilt, the expression of regret, an apology, and a request for forgiveness. There must also be an offer to make restitution for whatever damage was done. This applies to physical damage as well as to the mental suffering of the injured party. BLOCH 135-6

SHOW FULL EXCERPT