LEV489 Many ethical principles found in biblical and talmudic texts should apply in all sorts of modern context, including dating. Whether you view the text as Divine or divinely inspired, or just want to be more considerate of others, imagining everyone as having been created b’tzelem Elohim-- in the image of God, and therefore possessing a bit of the divine that renders us all equally worthy--can inspire greater respect toward the people with whom we share the planet. This equality keeps us grounded to our common bond as humans, even as it reminds us to behave in a more divine way. The people in our case may not lack a commitment to commitment, but they may be lacking the commitment to conversation. While rocking a perfectly good boat is an understandable fear, if the person you are looking at is a potential partner for life, working out how to have a discussion about something difficult is a vital skill. Are you allowed to go see your ex who is going through a bad time and keep that from your partner? Does it hurt him or her more to know about it, or to not know about it? Is phone sex or cybersex cheating? Does it matter if you know who you are having sexual relations with or if it's all anonymous? If civilizations form around a shared set of values and behavioral expectations, how do you identify the ethical geography of your relationship? How can you expect to know the answers to any of these questions unless they are specifically discussed? At bare minimum, the Torah seems to tell us, there is the injunction not to stand idly by the blood of your neighbor (Leviticus 19:16). While this can certainly be read as a commandment against endangering your partner, a figurative reading also provides some contemporary resonance. According to texts, blood doesn't just mean literal blood spilling forth from a wounded body, but also the blood that rushes to our faces when we become embarrassed. The word adom, meaning “red” in Hebrew, contains the word dam, which means “blood.” When we are literally or emotionally wounded, we redden. Hence our lesson is to not be the inflictors of wounds that cause such reddening, either through literal or emotional methods. People who have not defined the borders of their relationships should not be surprised when their significant others end up defining them differently. They may unintentionally end up wounding each other. Hillel told us to do under others as you would have them doing to you (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a). Would you like to be treated the way you are treating others when it comes to dating and relationships? If your answer is no, a self-assessment may be in order. Then there is the much loved phrase, “kol yisrael arevim zeh lazeh,” or “all the people of Israel are responsible for each other” (Babylonian Talmud, Shavuot 39a). This kind of nationalistic appeal takes humanity from the general to the particular, in case that kind of appeal strikes a greater residence with the modern Jewish dater. “You shall not … place a stumbling block before the blind,” the Torah tells us (Leviticus 19:14). There is always a temptation to be literal with biblical text, but taking a more figurative approach also indicts those who deceive others: convince your fellow that things are other than they seem to be and you have caused both their blindness and their fall. A policy of honest communication between partners about the nature and depth of their relationship keeps the playing field level. Both partners go from blind to sighted, and no unfortunate unforeseen obstacles lie in their paths. I have always believed that sexual ethics should be the same for all human beings, whether they are involved in casual sex, a friends with benefits situation, or committed partnerships of any sort with anyone of any gender, and that for all of these groups, communication about the nature of the relationship should take place in advance of sexual union. But anecdotally, evidence seems to point to the fact that people feel awkward talking about their relationships, especially in a moment when passions are running high and logical honesty is... not so much. Most people agree that it's not the act of consummation that creates a committed relationship. If there has been no conversation to define a dyad, it cannot be considered exclusive. (By Esther D. Kustanowitz)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV490 “Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:16). “Our Rabbis taught: how do we know that one who sees that someone [literally, “his friend,” haveiro] is drowning in the river or that a wild animal is dragging him or that highway robbers are attacking him is obliged to save him? Because the Torah says, “Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor.”—But is it derived from that verse? Is it not rather derived from “And you shall restore him to himself” Deuteronomy 22:2)?--From that verse I might think that it is only a personal obligation, but that he is not bound to take the trouble of hiring men [if he himself cannot save the victim]; therefore, the verse [Leviticus 19:16] teaches that he must [also spend his money to hire others, if necessary].-- Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 73a. Furthermore, the duty to strive to heal takes precedence over all but three of the other commandments: “With regard to all transgressions in the Torah except for idolatry, sexual licentiousness, and murder, if enemies say to a person, “Transgress and then you will not be killed,” the person must transgress and not be killed. What is the reason? “And you shall live by them [My commandments]” (Leviticus 18:16) [implies] that he should not die by them [Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 74a).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV492 See [[EXOD572]] Exodus 21:19 heal DORFFWITO 150-2

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV491 Hashem loves His nation, the Jewish people, and wants the best for them, so much so that He refers to them as His “children,” “portion,” and “inheritance,” as well as by many other affectionate titles that indicate the extent of His love for them, as the pasuk says: אָהַ֤בְתִּי אֶתְכֶם֙ אָמַ֣ר יְהוָ֔ה, "I love you, said Hashem"... (Malachi 1:2). Because of this great love, He distanced the Jewish people from all bad practices, and especially from lashon hara and rechilus, which cause people to argue and quarrel. At times, lashon hara and rechilus can even lead to bloodshed, as the Rambam writes in Hilchos Dei’os (7:1): “Even though this prohibition does not incur lashes, it is a grave sin, and causes the murder of many Jews. Therefore, the prohibition of lashon hara is juxtaposed with: לֹ֥א תַעֲמֹ֖ד עַל־דַּ֣ם רֵעֶ֑ךָ, “Do not stand by idly while your friend's blood is spilled" (Vayikra 19:16). Go and learn from what happened with Doeg the Adomi”—whose rechilus caused the massacre of Nov, the city of kohanim. [1 Samuel 21-22--AJL]. These deplorable practices [of lashon hara and rechilus] have caused many other terrible calamities. As we know, the sin of the Serpent was primarily one of lashon hara, for the Serpent spoke lashon hara about Hashem by telling Chavah that “Hashem ate from this tree and then created the world.” He used this claim to seduce Chavah, as Chazal say (Shabbos 146a), “The Serpent came unto Chavah and contaminated her.” We see, then, that his lashon hara led to immorality. The Serpent's actions also brought death into the world; we see, then, that his lashon hara led to bloodshed. In addition, the Serpent’s lashon hara caused Adam Harishon and Chavah to violate the will of Hashem. Consequently, one who speaks lashon hara is adopting the trait of the Serpent, which destroys the world. (Continued at [[GEN1437]] Genesis 37:2 reports SEFER 30-1).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV495 See [[EXOD549]] Exodus 21:14 neighbor SPERO 126-30

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV494 [Regarding this verse the] Torah makes it clear that its greatest heroes were concerned with all suffering, not just that of their own people. When Abraham learns that God intends to destroy the city of Sodom for its acts of cruelty, he argues with God not to do so if there are at least a few righteous people living there (Genesis 18:22–33). Later, when Moses sees the Midianite male shepherds mistreating Midianite female shepherds trying to water their flock, he stands up for the women and secures their rights (Exodus 2:16–17). It is fitting, therefore, that Jews have played such a prominent role in a leading the campaign to stop the genocide in Darfur. In addition to providing humanitarian aid to many of the displaced and traumatized people forced from their homes and living in camps in Sudan and Chad, the American Jewish World Service (headed by Ruth Messinger), which founded the Save Darfur coalition in 2004, has used public education and political advocacy in the United States to try to end the crisis. In a statement issued at the time, AJWS said: "As Jews, we have a particular moral responsibility to speak out and take action against genocide. We must respond and save as many lives as we can."

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV497 The biblical law [this verse] mandates that we intervene and extend help when another's life or well-being is at risk. As the Talmud teaches: "From where do we know that if one sees someone drowning in a river, or if one sees a wild beast attacking a person or bandits coming to attack him, that he is obligated to save the person? The Bible teaches, 'Do not stand idly by while your brother's blood is shed'" (Sanhedrin 73a). However, Jewish law does not oblige us to sacrifice our life for another; intervention is required only when our actions will not put our own life at risk. Thus, in the case of a drowning person, if you can't swim, or if you can but the river's current is dangerously fast, you are obligated to do all that you can (i.e., extend a pole or summon help), but not to risk your own life (see Sefer Chasidim, paragraph 674). In a case where a person is present who can swim, for example, you are obligated to offer money to try to induce them to do so (Sanhedrin 73a) (The victim--if he has the means--is required to repay the person who laid out the money to help save him (Ramah, Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 252:12). The Talmud notes that the obligation to help also applies in a case where you witness a person being attacked by a wild animal. For example, if you can distract the animal without putting yourself at serious risk, you must do so. In the case of muggers or gang members, if it is too dangerous to intervene, you must, at the very least, summon the police. While this would seem self-evident, no such requirement exists under American law.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV496 Someone who has information that can be helpful to a person on trial is obligated to come forward, whether or not he has been subpoenaed. To withhold testimony that can help save someone from undeserved punishment is likewise seen as standing idly by while your neighbor's blood [or reputation] is shed (Sifra on this verse]. In monetary cases, Maimonides applies this verse to one who withholds evidence that can prevent his fellow's money from being lost, but who does not come forward to testify (Book of the Commandments, negative commandment 297).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV498 The law that states, "Do not go about as a talebearer among your people" [this verse, emphasis added] seems to be directed only toward Jews; in other words, don't bear tales or speak negatively and unfairly about your fellow Jews. In legal works on lashon hara, it is generally assumed that we are forbidden to speak lashon hara only of fellow Jews. In a democracy like United States, however, Jews have full equality, and are regarded, both by themselves and by non-Jews, as part of the American people. Therefore the laws prohibiting lashon hara should apply as well to the non-Jews among whom we live (unlike, for example, medieval Europe or Jews living under Roman occupation). In short, American Jews, as Americans and Jews, belong to two people, and have obligations to both.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV499 One may not withhold knowledge or evidence that may lead to a loss of your fellow man's money, as it is written [this verse]. Sifra, Lev. 19:16

SHOW FULL EXCERPT