GEN443 See [[GEN161]] Genesis 1:28 rule SPERO 75-6

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN464 The story of Cain and Abel contains an even more [than Adam blaming Eve and she the serpent] pointed lesson in human responsibility.  When God “accepts” the offering of Abel, but not the offering of Cain, we are told that “Cain was very angry and his countenance fell.” [this verse] It would appear that Cain found himself assailed by very powerful destabilizing emotions. After all, he and not his brother had taken the initiative in doing what he thought was a proper act of thanksgiving by bringing some of the fruits of his farming efforts as an offering to God. Crestfallen and bewildered, he had watched his brother’s offering being accepted but not his own. A fury of envy and resentment filled his heart, focusing on the handiest target—his brother Abel! But before anything serious happens, God appears to Cain, to engage in a conversation which appears to have an informative as well as a preventive purpose. “And the Lord said unto Cain:” ‘Why are thou angry, and why is thy countenance fallen?’” Genesis 4:6 Of course, God knew the answer to that question. But did Cain? At this very early stage of human history, man did not understand his own emotions. He had no conception of their obscure origins, no comprehension of the tortuous paths they cut through the personality, and no explanation for the explosive nature of their expression. Cain felt himself driven by powerful emotional forces he did not understand. God’s initial advice to Cain was: Don’t simply accept the emotions as given. Try to understand them. Stop to analyze your feelings. Cain, why are you angry? To the extent that you understand the source of your feelings, to that extent will you be able to rationally direct them.” The Lord’s statement continues: “If thou doest well [good], shall it not be lifted up?” That is to say, “Cain, get a grip on yourself! All if not lost. The future is still before you. If you react properly you will be all right. The path to God is still open. Your ‘fallen countenance,’ your injured pride, will be lifted up.” “But if thou doesn’t not well, sin croucheth at the door, and unto thee is its desire…” In other words, “Cain, if you vent your emotions, things will cool down. But if you permit yourself to become obsessed by your feelings, which right now are just so much heat, they will become a means by which sin will penetrate your personality with the possibility of tragic consequences.” “But thou mayest rule over it …” “Remember, Cain, that you can understand and control your emotions. Don’t be overwhelmed by their apparent power. You are in command. Exert your willpower. You can rule over it!” We all know the story’s sad ending. “And it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.” Genesis 4:8  The rabbis, however, infer from Cain’s subsequent conversation with God that he ultimately accepted responsibility for himself, exercised his freedom, repented, and was forgiven. Genesis Rabbah 22:28 (sic; reference should apparently be Genesis Rabbah 22:13 - AJL) SPERO 237-9

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN465 See [[GEN464]] Genesis 4:5 distressed SPERO 237-9

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN491 See [[GEN465]] Genesis 4:5 distressed SPERO 237-9

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN561 The concept of kedushah [i.e., “holiness” – AJL]… would appear to be the most general and all-embracing term by which Judaism designates the highest religious quality that can be attained either in space, in time, or in man himself and that brings one closer to God, or into communion with Him. But, since in Judaism, the essential core of religion is morality, it follows that holiness for man is “basically an ethical value” D.S. Shapiro, “The Meaning of Holiness in Judaism.” Tradition 7, No. 1 (Winter 1964-5); 62, the “perfection of morality” and the “ethical ideal of Judaism.”  M. Lazarus, The Ethics of Judaism (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1901), pt. II, pp 25, 176.  The concept of holiness is also found in connection with the dietary laws and the rules governing sexual behavior. Leviticus 11:44-45, 20:8, 26. See Rashi on Leviticus 19:2.  These too, however, must be seen as ultimately contributing to the development of the personal morality of the individual, i.e., his inner character traits and moral dispositions. For clearly, we are dealing here with the two strongest urges or appetites in man, which are biologically grounded and thus have “natural” and useful channels of expression. Yet there is something in man that can convert these passions and sources of great creative energy into an “evil urge.” It is the “imaging of the designs of his heart” [this verse] – which Buber understands as “play with possibility, play as self-temptation … images of the possible from which ever and again, violence springs” Good and Evil (New York: Scribner’s 1953), p. 91 – that is called evil and can transform a neutral passion into lust and gluttony. While Judaism accepts the pleasures of food and sex as legitimate and as a positive good, it seeks, by the imposition of guidelines – by laying down rules for the “how,” “when,” and “with whom” of these activities – to encourage the individual to exercise a degree of control.  Armed with deep insight into the psychology of desire and the dynamics of hedonism, Judaism strove to have man avoid the extreme of repression and obsession and instead cultivate an approach that would preserve for the individual the simple and satisfying joys of food and sex. One of the effects of the many rules regulating eating and drinking in Judaism has been thus described: As often as one is about to satisfy the impulse of eating and drinking, the Torah brings one, from early youth, to that pause which converts impulse to will. The pause may be exceedingly brief but the very withholding of the immediate fulfillment of the demands of the impulse, the very questioning and the very performance of actions other than through the medium of impulse, but after the examination and deliberation, are indeed what separate fundamentally and basically the man whose impulse has the better of him from him who can master it. Aaron Barth, Quoted by B. S. Jacobson, Mediations on the Torah (Tel Aviv: Sinai, 1956), p. 285 Judaism, however, recognizes that man is neither an ascetic animal (which leads to neurosis) nor a pleasure-seeking animal (which leads to obsessional indulgence), but a human being, created in the image of God, whose every biological activity is interpenetrated by the human psyche, which demands meaning and significance. Eliezer Berkovits, “A Jewish Sexual Ethic,” in Crisis and Faith (New York: Sanhedrin Press, 1976), pp. 48-82. Only self-transcendence can save these activities from ultimately becoming stultifying and empty. SPERO 47-8

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN570 Some are still shocked by the assertion that certain things are impossible even for God. Yet it can be shown that such an acknowledgment does not constitute a limitation or an imperfection. For even as God is bound by the laws of logic Maimonides, Guide 3:15 (Friedlander trans., p. 279) – He cannot make a square circle – so, too, the process of soul-making, with its possibility for personal fellowship with God, necessarily involves freedom for man with a large degree of noninterference by God, which inevitable spells suffering and pain. Thus, the Torah in Genesis seems to suggest not only that mans’ disobedience results in direct punishment to himself but that it brings about a deterioration in man’s entire environment, making for general hardship as a “given” condition for all men. In this connection, let us examine the expression, “And it repented the Lord that He had made man on the earth and it grieved Him at His heart.”  [this verse; Genesis Rabbah 27:4]  Surely even a rudimentary notion of God’s omniscience would find such surprise, regret, and grief on the part of God rather anomalous, to say the least! But perhaps this should be seen as the Torah’s way of saying that in spite of God’s omnipotence and omniscience, there was no other way for God to have proceeded to give man freedom except as He did. If it should then be asked why God is so surprised when man chooses badly, the answer is that God’s goodness nevertheless cannot make peace with the idea! God “regrets” and God “grieves” because the reality of man’s corruption and suffering, while in a sense inevitable and expected, cannot go unnoticed by God. The Torah assumes all the risks of anthropomorphism in order to teach that God’s goodness and mercy, however you understand them, are in disharmony with the evil on earth. SPERO 114-5

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN578 It is interesting to note that while the Pentateuch describes individuals as performing all sorts of actions, moral and immoral, wise and foolish, they are rarely ascribed specific attributes or character traits. The rare exceptions are Noah, who is once referred to as a “righteous and whole-hearted man,” and Moses, who is described as “very meek, above all the men that were on the face of the earth.” [this verse; Numbers 12:3] In the light of this reticence, the description of God as “merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth” must have been perceived as a revelation which in some sense ascribed these moral qualities to God as part of His essence or character. God has been known to perform acts of kindness in the past, but now we are being given to understand that kindness is an abiding quality of God Himself.  SPERO 34

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN605 … the basic moral principles upon which the Decalogue is based were in fact already well known and enjoyed some degree of approval long before Israel stood at Sinai. This is implied by the biblical narrative itself. Judaism, however, not only assumed the widespread dissemination of the basic principles of morality but also made the normative judgment that all men are bound by thee moral standards. Since the fatherhood of God implies the brotherhood of man, the prophet could ask: “Have we not all one father? Hath not one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brothers?” Malachi 2:10; See also, Job 31:15  And when moral behavior was not forthcoming from man, the consequence was punishment: “For the earth is filled with violence thoroughly them; and, behold, I will destroy them …” [this verse] Later, in speaking of the nations of Amon and Moab, the Torah faults them for immoral behavior, “because they met  you not with bread and water on the way, when you came forth out of Egypt.” Deuteronomy 23:5  With this in mind, we must ask ourselves what is unique and distinctive about Jewish morality. Certainly, there are some obvious distinguishing characterizations that can be made. It would appear that Jewish morality is strongly deontological in character, emphasizing a sense of duty and obligation that embraces the concept of what is right. Furthermore it would have to be acknowledged that Jewish morality is essentially humanistic in nature, placing the highest value upon human life and personality in directions that encourage justice and righteousness, love and kindness in social relations, and humility and moderation in our personal development. But even if we add the theological component and say that we have in Jewish morality a sort of religious humanism, we are still in the realm of class-membershp and general classification. We have as yet not put our finder upon what is distinctly Jewish about the morality of Judaism. What seems clear to the present writer is that there is no Jewish morality either in the sense that Judaism can be expected to offer some uniquely different definition of right and wrong or in the sense that the essentials of Jewish morality obligate Jews only. … In a previous chapter we pointed out that in the biblical and rabbinical view, morality is the chief demand made upon man by God, whose own nature, insofar as it can be known, is moral. This conviction was supported by the historical memories of the Exodus, which seared into the national consciousness the concept of a God who hears the call of those in pain and liberates the oppressed. This imparted a very clear and overriding centrality to morality in every areas of life. While attempts had been made earlier in human history to endow morality with religious sanction, it was always wisdom, human or divine, which was seen as its source. Just as there are wise rules who compose good laws for their people, so might there be wise gods who recognize effective laws and urge them upon man for the benefits they bring. At Sinai, however, a new source and a new authority were revealed for morality. “Thou shalt not steal” may be good advice in order to achieve a stable and orderly society, but it must first be seen for what it is: an expression of the divine will. “In the Israelite conception, justice and morality belong to the realm of prophecy, not wisdom … The divine imperative from a God … whose will is essentially moral and good.”  Y. Kaufmann, “The Biblical Age,” in Great Ages and Ideas of the Jewish People, ed. L.W. Schwarz (New York: Random House, 1956), p. 24. Such a radical and unprecedented shift in the perception of the source of conventional morality resulted in and new and dramatic emphasis upon the importance and significance of morality in the destiny of the nation. This message was clearly and forcefully hammered home by the long line of Hebrew prophets. Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol 6., col. 934, and Leo Baeck, God and Man in Judaism (New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1958), pp. 26-27. A quality that most impresses the reader of the prophetic literature is the intensity of the passion and the almost “hysterical” tone with which these messengers of God denounce the immorality of their times.   SPERO 119-121

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN684 In some instances the Pentateuch prescribes the death sentence for animals. Thus we read: “If an ox gore a man or a woman that they die, the ox shall surely be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten.” Exodus 21:28  This, of course, should not be interpreted as retribution or punishment, but as the removal of a man-killer so as to prevent a recurrence of the tragedy. Indeed, rabbinic interpretation held that the animal could be executed only where it could be shown before a duly constituted court that the animal had killed intentionally. Sanhedrin 1:4, Baba Kamma 24a; see also Ramban on this verse. Thus Judaism insisted that animals be treated with justice as well as with compassion. SPERO 156

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN698 Judaism teaches that man has duties to himself as well as to others. Man is directed to provide for his own needs, to keep himself in good health physically and mentally, and to seek medical aid when ill. He is also forbidden to harm himself and certainly to take his own life. [this verse]. But man is also commanded to love his fellow man as himself, to respect his person and property, to aid him in need, and to rescue him when he is in danger. This last duty is based upon the command, “Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of thy fellow,” Leviticus 19:16, Sanhedrin 73a which according to the Talmud means that if you see someone drowning or being attacked by wild beasts or by robbers, you are obliged to go to his rescue. Whatever effort is needed to rescue the individual, including the hiring of help, is included in the obligation. There are some authorities who rule that even if a person has to give away all of his fortune to save the life of another, he is obliged to do so. If his efforts succeed, he may, of course, claim compensation from the person he saved.  See the very comprehensive discussion by Rabbi B. Wein, “Aspects of the Prohibition of Standing Idly by the Blood of Thy Neighbor,” Hadarom 33 (Nisan 5731).  SPERO 218

SHOW FULL EXCERPT