Excerpt Browser

This page displays the full text of excerpts.  When viewing a single excerpt, its “Share,” “Switch Article,” and “Comment” functions are accessible.

EXODUS — 22:21 ill-treat

EXOD668 [This verse] The admonition is repeated some thirty-six times in the Torah. [Some count forty-six such passages, Bava Metzia 59b]. Obviously, the orphan, the widow, and stranger are not the only ones who are not to be wronged or mistreated. They are singled out merely because they are the most defenseless members of society. The same is true of the admonition "not to insult the deaf or place a stumbling block before the blind" [Leviticus 19:14]. They cannot protect themselves by responding in kind. They do not even know who wronged them. Resisting the temptation to take advantage of a fellow man when one can do it with impunity, verges, as we have previously pointed out, more on the moral than on the ethical. But the Torah goes beyond merely forbidding such abuse of the weak. It commands that provision be made that "they rejoice with you." [Deuteronomy 16:13–14]

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXODUS — 23:3 poor

EXOD792 We shall note briefly [a] non-biblical passage [] to which the Rabbis on occasion refer in order to validate their legal rulings. The verse "That Thou mayest walk in the way of good men, and keep the paths of the righteous" (Proverbs 2:20) was obviously not intended to service as a legal maximum. Yet Rav based a decision upon it. The Talmud relates (Bava Metzia 83a) that wine caskets belonging to Rabbah Bar Bar Hana were broken while being handled by porters. The text is not clear whether it was in any way due to their negligence, but Rashi thus interprets it. Whereupon Rabbah took possession of their clothing. They complained to Rav and he ordered Rabbah to return it to them. Whereupon he said, "Is this the law?" And Rav answered, "Indeed it is, for does it not say, 'Walk in the ways of good men'?" Rabbah Bar Bar Hana thereupon returned the clothing. The porters then asked for pay, saying, "we have worked all day. We are hungry and have nothing." Rav ordered that they be paid. Again Rabbah Bar Bar Hana asked, "Is this the law?" And again Rav answered, "Indeed it is, for does it not say 'And keep the ways of the righteous'?" [Rashi interprets it to mean "act lifnim mishurat hadin," go beyond the requirements of the law.] Now by all definitions of law and legal procedure, what Rav did was illegal. If there ever was a clear-cut case of "uprooting" a law of the Bible this was it, for the Bible specifically states, "Neither shalt thou favor a poor man in his cause" [this verse]. Rav does not defend his action by appealing to any legal dictum, such as hefker bet din hefker [court authority to expropriate property - AJL]. Instead he quotes an ethical maxim from Proverbs and insists that he is following the law. And his action remains unchallenged in the Talmud.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXODUS — 23:5 enemy

EXOD809 Jesus said "resist not evil" (KJV) or "one who is evil" (RSV) (Matt. 5:39) and "commanded" his disciples to love their enemies (Matt. 5:44). The problem which even many pious Christians have with these verses is reflected in Sherman E. Johnson's exegetical commentary on Matt. 5:34-55 in the Interpreter's Bible, which states that "it is difficult to escape the conclusion that verses 34 – 35 and verses 38 – 42 are laws" and that "how far they [not to resist] can be applied to groups, and especially to political life, is constantly debated" (v.39). Regarding the teaching to love one's enemies (v. 44), the commentator correctly remarks, "Exodus 23:4-5 and numerous rabbinical sayings look in this direction, but the idea is never made a general maxim for conduct in Judaism." He admits that this "teaching of course has political implications, but how it should be applied is one of the most difficult problems of Christian social ethics."

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXODUS — 31:13 keep

EXOD970 [Regarding the decision of Mattathias and his followers to defend themselves on Shabbat; see First Book of Maccabees] While Mattathias and his followers apparently sought no biblical sanction for their decision to violate the Sabbath, later generations did seek such sanction. Was it possible to assume that so important a matter as permitting the violation of the Sabbath in even a doubtful situation should not somehow be at least indicated in the Torah? The Mekhilta [Mekhilta d'Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai, on Ki Tisa 31:13. Also in Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael] relates that "Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Akiba, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, and others were once walking together when the question was asked, Whence do we derive the right to violate the Sabbath in order to save human life?" Note that the question is not whether it is or is not permissible to violate the Sabbath in such a situation. The right is assumed. The discussion is devoted merely to finding Biblical warrant for what was obviously the universal practice. Rabbi Yishamel, Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Akiba all offer biblical laws upon which, by the principle of kal vahomer, they base their biblical validation of the practice. Rabbi Yose Hagalili bases it upon the apparently superfluous akh [this verse], which is taken to imply that there are occasions when you may violate the Sabbath, and those are presumably when life is in danger. Rabbi Simeon ben Menasya bases it up on the word lakhem "to you" (ibid. v. 14) taking it to indicate that "the Sabbath mesurah--is placed in your charge-and not you in the charge of the Sabbath." Rabbi Nathan validates the practice by interpreting the statement "The children of Israel shall observe the Sabbath" (ibid. v. 16) to imply "you violate one Sabbath on his (that is, the endangered person's) account, so that he may then observe many Sabbaths."

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXODUS — 34:1 broken

EXOD1018 … Resh Lakish interprets God's use of the words "which you have broken" [this verse] to signify that on occasions bitulah shel Torah zehu yesoda, "Violation (or suspension) of the law constitutes its (firm) establishment." Menahot 99b. Rashi's interpretation (ad locum) makes it appear as if Resh Lakish's statement is altogether innocuous, and as if what Moses did was comparable to nothing more than temporarily turning from the study of Torah to the performance of such mizvot as attending to the burial of the dead or participating in a marriage ceremony. But what Moses did was obviously considered by the Rabbis to have been a much more serious case of "abrogation of the Torah" then Rashi leads us to think, as can be seen from the attempts made by the Rabbis to justify what he did. [Yevamot 62a].

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEVITICUS — 18:5 live

LEV219 Rashi there comments that "one is expected to perform the commandments only when he is sure he shall live by them, and not when in the performance of them he risks the possibility of losing his life. Therefore we may violate the Sabbath in cases of safek [uncertainty]." Maimonides' statement is the most instructive. "It is forbidden to delay violating the Sabbath for a sick person whose life is in danger, for it says, 'which if a man do them he shall live by them' and not die by them. We are thus taught that the commandments of the Torah are not intended to inflict punishment upon mankind but to bestow mercy, loving-kindness, and peace. As for the apikorsim, who say that this is a violation of the Sabbath and is forbidden, in regard to them Scripture says, 'I have given them laws which are not good, and commandments by which they cannot live'" (Ezekiel 20:25). Hilkhot Shabbat, Ch. 2, Para. 3.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEVITICUS — 18:28 spew

LEV264 In the biblical rationalization of Israel's conquest of Canaan there are a number of ethical implications. (a) It rejects the self-glorification of the conqueror, the spirit of "My power and the might of mine own hand has given me all this" (Deuteronomy 8:17). (b) It sets up an objective standard equally applicable to all. Israel was ultimately rationally compelled to apply to itself what it believed to be a divinely ordained principle. God, who permitted and even commanded Israel to dispossess the Canaanites, could summon others to exile Israel if it sank to the spiritual level of the inhabitants it replaced (this and previous verses). Israel applied the same measuring rod to itself when it was expelled from the land first by the Babylonians and later by the Romans. On every Sabbath and Festival the synagogue liturgy reminds Jews that it was not the power of the Babylonian or Roman armies which deprived them of their homeland, but their own sins. Sabbath and Festival Prayer Book, pp. 140, 150. They failed in their responsibility to do their share as God's partners in maintaining the integrity of the foundations of His throne, and he acted through His appointed messengers to compensate for their failure.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

RSS
123456
Back To Top