GEN1020 Abraham’s question would make no sense, Novak argues, if he did not have access to moral standards independent of God's direct commands.   [David Novak, Jewish Social Ethics, 31].   Similarly, Noah and Job, among many other biblical characters, are referred to as “righteous,” but without benefit of access to God’s revelation.  Such stories, of course, do not provide probative evidence for a doctrine of natural law, but they provide at least circumstantial evidence that biblical authors recognized sources of moral knowledge apart from revelation and this, at least, opens the door to a natural law position. PASTIMP 130

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1080 [Baba Kamma 8:7 citing this verse and Genesis 20:17]   A number of points about the character of forgiveness in rabbinic tradition emerge from this passage.   First, the sages of the Mishnah clearly recognize that injury to another person entails two separate offences.   In addition to the material harm, which one rectifies through monetary compensation, there is also a more intangible injury, which can be remedied only through seeking forgiveness.  This is significant in that it implies an awareness of what Lauritzen has called the “moral gap” created when one individual harms another.   Furthermore, this Mishnaic passage suggests that, as Lauritzen put it, the purpose of forgiveness is essentially restorative.   Just as one restores a situation of material equity though the payment of damages, one must likewise restore that state of moral equilibrium that has been disturbed by the offense in question.   Such reconciliation can be accomplished only by seeking forgiveness directly from the individual harmed.   Moreover, we may infer from [this verse and Genesis 20:17] that the duty to seek and grant forgiveness is not limited to cases of material injury.   Indeed, in the biblical episode referred to Genesis 20:1-18 Abimelech has only offended Abraham, not injured him, [The story of Abraham and Abimelech in Genesis 20 is somewhat incongruous with the case that the Mishnah presents.  Here Abimelech’s offense against Abraham, if it can be called that, is prompted by Abraham’s own concealment of Sarah’s true identity from him.   The connection appears to be that once Abimelech is informed of his offense, he both compensates Abraham monetarily (which conforms with the Mishnah’s principle) and pleads for forgiveness.   Abraham’s intercession with God on Abimelech’s behalf, then, would be taken as an indication of Abraham’s willingness to forgive.] and yet the rabbis say that this is just the sort of situation in which forgiveness is required.  PASTIMP 87

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1102 See [[GEN1080]] Genesis 20:7 intercede PASTIMP 87

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1097 … the overwhelming majority of [rabbinic] sources understand [a person’s] duty to forgive as conditional upon the offender’s prior repentance.   It should be noted, of course, that the offended party might voluntarily choose to forgive in this case, but Jewish law would not regard it as his duty to do so.   PASTIMP 245

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1100 If the offender repents and pleads for forgiveness, he should be forgiven.   The forgiver should not be obdurate, as it is said [this verse]. PASTIMP 90

SHOW FULL EXCERPT