LEV234 One shall not uncover the nakedness of one's father's wife, despite that she is not one's mother. As explained in [See [[LEV233]] Leviticus 18:7 nakedness CHINUCH 131], regarding forbidden relations with close relatives. In addition, in this instance, the son shames and disgraces his father, whom the son is obligated to honor. Benefits of honoring one's father have already been noted (See [[EXOD421]] Exodus 20:12 honor CHINUCH 26-7).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV235 See [[LEV490]] Leviticus 19:16 idly-by DORFFWITO 152

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV236 In a number of statements, the Talmud demonstrates how important having children is in Jewish thought. Without children, a person is considered dead (Nedarim 64b). The reason for this, according to Eliyahu Kitov (The Jew and His Home, trans. Nathan Bulman (New York: Shengold Publishers, 1963), pp. 200-201) is that a person can continue to live on even after physical life has ended through his or her children, if they continue the values and life-style of the parent (see the chapter "Purpose of Life"). One may never sell a Torah except in two instances: to obtain money in order to learn Torah (an equivalent mitzvah to having or writing a Torah] and to marry, that is, in order to eventually have children (Megillah 27a). [Compiler's note: Also, see Bava Batra 8b and later commentaries thereon regarding selling a Torah to redeem captives in order to save lives]. There is no other mitzvah that merits the importance of having children. One who does not have children is equated to a murderer one who diminishes the image of God (Yevamot 63b). This comparison may be understood since refusal to create life maybe compared to destroying (potential) life, and since each person is born in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), denying children to come into the world denies more of the image of God in the world. Of course, ultimately, all successful births of children are due to the help of God. Sometimes, for reasons unknown, parents who want children cannot do so, but if they try and are unsuccessful in their attempt to have children, they are blameless both in the eyes of Judaism and of God. Despite this lack of culpability, nevertheless, the inability to have children is grounds for divorce in Jewish law after ten years (Maimonides, Hilchot Ishut 15:10), in order to allow the spouses to remarry and bring children into the world. The Torah itself reverses one of the most stringent prohibitions of adultery in order to allow children to come into the world. Normally, he brother-in-law is forbidden to marry a sister-in-law and this is considered an act of adultery, even after the death of the spouse [this verse]. However, if the husband dies and a couple was childless, the Torah says (Deuteronomy 25:5-6) that it is mandatory for the brother-in-law to married the widow. This is one of the 613 commandments of the Torah--all for the purpose of having a child (See Sefer Hachinuch, Mitzvah #598). Having children is so important in Jewish life that immediately after death, when a person is judged in heaven, one of the first questions that person will be asked is "Did you involve yourself with having children?" (Shabbat 31a). This demonstrates the prominence that this act plays in Jewish belief.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV237 One shall not have had two sisters as his wife if both are living. Key concept: [See [[LEV233]] Leviticus 18:7 nakedness CHINUCH 131]. In addition, the Torah prohibits a man to marry two sisters because Hashem, the Master of Peace, wants His creations to live in peace, especially those who logically should enjoy a peaceful relationship with one another. Nothing should be done to cause sisters to always be competing and quarreling with one another.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV238 … both sibling and wifely rivalry permeated the relationship of two matriarchs, Leah and Rachel. The two women were married to Jacob. Rachel, who was having trouble conceiving, was jealous of her sister Leah, who already had four children (Genesis 30:1). ... Although later Torah law permitted polygamy, it forbade two sisters from marrying the same man, unless one of them had died [this verse].

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV239 One shall not have relations with a woman in niddah. (See [[LEV129]] Leviticus 12:2 unclean CHINUCH 113-4). The basic idea is that Hashem wants his holy nation to distance itself from all impurity, unpleasantness and damage.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV240 See [[LEV168]] Leviticus 15:28 discharge OXFORD 389-90

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV241 See [[GEN874]] Genesis 17:7 your ROSNER-BLEICH 110-1

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV242 See [[GEN854]] Genesis 15:16 iniquity DORFFDRAG 66

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV243 Here I propose to study a specific halakhic provision which illuminates Jewish law's relation to universal human moral judgment, namely the category hillul hashem insofar as it shapes Jewish duty in terms of gentile opinion. An inner theological dialectic lies behind the legal tension to be explored. God has given the Torah to one particular people, the Jews, and its rules distinguish between those who do and those who do not participate in the system. The same Torah indicates that God stands in a similar relationship, if a legally less demanding one, with all humankind, the children of Noah. Hence they may be said to have a legitimate basis for judging Jewish conduct. (See the admirable study by David Novak, The Image of the Non-Jew in Judaism (New York: Edward Mellen, 1983). The potential tension between what the Torah permits to Jews and a harsh evaluation gentiles might make of it creates the subset of the laws of hillul hashem to be studied. While the term hillul hashem does not occur in the Bible, equivalents are found in several biblical books, with heavy concentrations in Leviticus and Ezekiel. The peshat of these texts may be classified as moving from concrete acts of profanation, to those which directly or indirectly cast aspersions on God, and finally to an abstract sense of hillul hashem. Since the book of Leviticus pays considerable attention to cultic acts which sanctify God --to the extent that various items can be called God's "holy things" -- so, by extension, mishandling them profanes God. (Thus Lev. 21:6, 22:2, 32; Mal. 1:12; and perhaps Ez. 20:39.) Idolatry--specifically, sacrificing one's child to Moloch --is a desecration (this verse), 20:13). Ezekiel accuses certain women prophets of equivalent sacrilege (Ezekiel 13:19). The theme also encompasses non-cultic violations, of which swearing falsely by God's name is a similarly direct profanation (Leviticus 19:12). And it includes unethical acts like a father and son having sexual relations with the same girl (Amos 2:7) and Jerusalemites reneging on their solemn path to free their Jewish slaves (Jeremiah 34:16). Ezekiel envisages this notion abstractly and four times, in consecutive verses, proclaims God's determination to sanctify the Divine name which the people of Israel has profaned through its sinfulness (Ez. 36:20-23). The social dimension of several of these acts of profanation deserves particular attention. The heinousness of the sacrilege derives as much from what the act says about God to others, a public, as from its intrinsic profanity. The biblical authors consider God's social, corporate acknowledgment even more important than the equally indispensable private faith of individuals. The political term, king, so often used to refer to God, testifies to this social understanding of God's reality. Hence acts which imply that there is no God or which as good as do the same by testifying falsely to God's nature or commands, profane God's "name," that is, our understanding of God or, equally, God's reputation. Much of rabbinic teaching in this area derives from the social context.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT