NUM268 The Midrash (Otzar Hamidrshim, Midrash Hagadol Ugedolah, p. 78) says that without peace there is nothing as it is equated with everything in the world. Based on the verse in the Psalms (Psalms 34:15), another Midrash (Yayikrah Rabbah 9:9) states that peace is the only mitzvah one is commanded to actively run after to achieve. Other commandments are obligatory only if they happen to come your way--you must then observe them. But a person must actively seek peace, even if it is not easily achievable. Aaron the High Priest is described as one who actively "ran after peace" (Avot 1:12 and would actually lie to two fighting individuals (saying to each that the other one admitted his mistake and wants to make up) in order to bring them together (Avot DeRabbi Natan 12). And it was Aaron, the man of peace, who was the most beloved leader of Israel. When he died, it says [this verse] the entire congregation of Israel wept, but upon Moses' death, it merely says (Deuteronomy 34:8) that the people (but not all) cried (Avot deRabbi Natan 12).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM279 The Talmud (Arachin 15a) declares that improper speech is far more severe than improper action and proves it from the Torah story of ten spies who sinned by improperly speaking evil about the land of Israel. The consequences of those words an the improper reaction of the people was the punishment that denied all the Jewish adults the opportunity to inherit the land and that they would die in the desert. Yet, when these same Jews months earlier had actually worshiped the Golden Calf, their punishment in committing that sin of action was far less severe than the decree of death. The same concept is echoed in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Tehillim 3:621) which shows through other similar verses that the consequences of improper speech are very often more grievous than the consequences of improper actions. The Talmud (Arachin 15b) points out that the physiological makeup of the human being demonstrates how much the tongue must be guarded. The other limbs of man's body are exposed and seen by others. The tongue, however, is created to be hidden from view. In addition, there was an need to surround a tongue with two protective "walls," the mouth and the teeth, to prevent its misuse. Thus, we see how powerful language can be both for the positive of creation of the world as well as for the destruction of the world. It seems from the Torah (Numbers, chaps. 22-24) that Bilaam would have actually destroyed the Jewish people with his words had he succeeded in cursing the people rather than blessing them, since the Torah went to great lengths to show us that God changed his curses into blessings. The Talmud points out (Megillah 28a) that the power of words is so strong that even the curses of simple, "unimportant" people should not be taken lightly.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM287 One of the ways in which man knows how to behave and feel is to imitate the actions and "feelings" of God (Deuteronomy 28:9 and Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot De'ot 1:6). There are many verses that reflect God's special sensitivity to animals. The verse in the Psalms (Psalms 145:9) says that God is good to all things and has mercy upon all His creatures. God promises bountiful crops not only for man but also for the animals to eat (Deuteronomy 28:11). When Bilaam hit his donkey for refusing to move, the angel (God's agent) got angry at him for striking the animal [this verse]. Therefore, we can see a specific benevolent, merciful, and caring attitude by God to animals. Like God, man should possess a similar attitude. In fact, the Proverbs describes a righteous person as understanding the "soul" (the feelings?) of his animals (Proverbs 12:10). Judaism does not really believe in nice feelings and attitudes. These attitudes must be reflected in a Jew's actions (See the chapter "Mitzvot"). Therefore, the Torah also commands the Jew to perform specific mitzvot that seem to teach sensitivity toward animals. For example, this attitude is clearly translated into action, as the Torah places the feeding of animals before the feeding of man (Deuteronomy 11:15). The Talmud says that this order teaches us that the Jew is to feed his animals even before he feeds himself (Gittin 62a). This statement in the Talmud is adopted into actual practice in Judaism (Maimonides, Hilchot Avadim 9:8 and Magen Avraham, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 167:18). According to the Jerusalem Talmud (Jerusalem Talmud, Yevamot 78a), a person may not buy an animal unless food preparation for that animal has been arranged in advance.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM298 In Judaism, it is clear that privacy is a very important value. In trying to curse the Jewish people, Bilaam continually blessed them. His greatest blessing, which was eventually put in the prayerbook (Prayer recited each morning when rising, found in the first few pages of every siddur) was [this] verse describing how good is the tent of Jacob. What was so special about this particular blessing and what was so special about the tents of the Jewish people? Rashi (commentary on this verse) explains that the doors to their tents did not face each other. Why is that so significant? Because by intentionally placing doors that would not face each other, the people were demonstrating that they could not and did not want to see what was happening in their neighbor's tent. This was the greatness of the people and demonstrates to us the importance of maintaining the privacy of each individual Jew. When a poor person owed money and the lender needed a security, the poor person would have to give a security for the loan, such as a blanket, every day (since the poor person was too poor to part with it permanently), and this would be returned each evening. However, when collecting the security, the lender was not permitted to enter the poor man's home, but had to wait outside until the poor man gave it to him (Deuteronomy 24:10–11). This guaranteed that no matter how poor a person was, his privacy was sacred and could not be violated. The Talmud (Pesachim 112a) states that privacy was so important that one was not even permitted to enter one's own house without knocking first, lest he should discover something private his wife would not want him to know about. And, certainly, each person must knock before entering someone else's home. There is even a concept in Judaism of legal damages for invading someone else's privacy, Hezek Re'iyah (Bava Batra 2b), a concept far more sophisticated then any twentieth-century statutes on this issue. This type of damage, invading someone's privacy, was incorporated into Jewish law (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 153:1). To guarantee privacy, one may not even open a window in one's own house if, by doing so, it allows a person to see into his neighbor's home (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 154:3,6). This type of damage was subject to monetary compensation. Later on, in the Middle Ages, when mail was not sealed in envelopes the way it is delivered today, in a famous dictum, Rabbeinu Gershom forbade anyone from looking at another person's mail, as a right of privacy. Therefore, the importance and right to privacy and a private life is paramount in Judaism.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM310 Is there, then, any instance in the Torah where a violent reaction to an anti-Semitic reaction is praised? Yes. In the story of the Midianite woman who committed sexual intercourse with the Prince of the tribe of Simon, Pinchas, the son of the High Priest, "took the law into his own hands" and killed them both, thereby stopping the plague (which had killed 24,000 people) (Numbers 25:6-9). Based on God's own words, Pinchas did the right thing and was rewarded handsomely for this courageous act (Numbers 25:10-13). Was this indeed the right thing to do, to take the law into one's own hands and kill two people? Although the Torah praises Pinchas's reaction, the Talmud (Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 48b) seems to condemn this type of reaction, saying that Pinchas was about to be excommunicated for what he did, and it was only the divine intervention in this unique case that saved Pinchas. In all other cases, however, this type of reaction would be punishable. This opinion disagrees with the generally accepted positive reaction to Pinchas's act. Although the initial act is not anti-Semitism per se, it was a desecration of God's name in public, a situation not unlike many anti-Semitic attacks. Thus, if the attack is public, may a person react violently? According to Maimonides (Maimonides, Hilchot Issurei Biah 12:4-5) it seems that if there is indeed public desecration of God's name, a violent reaction would be acceptable under three conditions: (1) the reaction to the attack must take place in the heat of passion, while the act is being committed, and not later, after cold reflection; (2) if permission to respond is asked of the authorities (even during the attack), the person will be denied permission by the authorities and he may not respond; (3) if the original attacker kills the Jew responding, the attacker is not guilty of murder. We see, therefore, that under certain conditions, one may be able to respond. This does not conclusively answer, however, which reaction is the most preferable.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM312 When Pinchas became a zealot [Numbers 25:11] and "took the law into his own hands," killing Zimri, who was publicly desecrating God's name (Numbers 25:7-9), God gave Pinchas the reward of peace (Numbers 25:12). Although there are many explanations of what this reward actually entailed, the Netziv (Haamek Davar, commentary on Numbers 25:12) explains that this was a gift to Pinchas of inner peace. God was afraid that Pinchas' zealousness, although proper in this incident, might turn into a permanent anger. God thus changed Pinchas's personality, giving him a sense of inner peace, where he would no longer be an angry person. The Netziv further demonstrated this concept (Haamek Davar, commentary on Deuteronomy 13:18) regarding the mitzvah in which the Jews were commanded to completely eradicate a city of idol worship, and God promised a reward of mercy (Deuteronomy 13:18). This reward of mercy is granted to individuals who, in performing God's commandment to destroy the city, might develop into "angry personalities." This mercy granted them inner peace, so that this angry passion for God would be subdued. Another person who is known as a zealot was Elijah the prophet, who certainly helped to inspire the people via zealotry (I Kings 19:10). Nevertheless, God transformed Elijah, as well, into a man of peace, as his mission in the future is to usher in the Messiah, the ultimate man of peace. Thus, we see that achievement of inner peace, a sense of personal contentment, is the first goal.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM315 See [[NUM310]] Numbers 25:8 stabbed AMEMEI 15

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM320 See [[NUM310]] Numbers 25:8 stabbed AMEMEI 15

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM321 See [[NUM310]] Numbers 25:8 stabbed AMEMEI 15

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM328 [O]n a personal level, each person has to choose the path he or she wants to lead as a Jew. Just because parents have told children what is right and set an example for them is no guarantee that children will follow. At one point everyone must decide for himself or herself. This is expressed in the Mishnah, which says that the Torah is not an automatic inheritance (Avot 2:12). There are those who do not follow in the Torah path even if their parents did. Even in the Bible, many great leaders (Moses, Joshua, Samuel) had children that were nothing out of the ordinary and did not follow the greatness of their parents. But it works both ways. The sons of Korach did not follow in the evil ways of their father, who rebelled against Moses, as they repented and did not die [this verse]. King David even composed a psalm said by or in honor of the sons of Korach (Psalm 48). This idea, that there are no guarantees that children will follow in the religious path of their parents, is alluded to in an enigmatic phrase of the beginning words of every Amidah prayer. The prayer begins by saying that we bless our God and the God of our fathers. Since Judaism believes in only one God, this double phrase must refer to the same God. Why not suffice with just "our God"? It has been said that this shows that each person has a dual relationship with God. A parent who teaches a child to believe in God and follow Jewish tradition is represented by "God of our fathers." But there comes a time in every Jew's life when he or she must make a choice to accept God for himself or herself. This is "our God." Hence, each person has to make his or her own moral choices in life, irrespective of upbringing.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT