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

EXOD791 See [[EXOD673]] Exodus 22:21 widow SPERO 126

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD794 We are obligated to return lost objects to their owner. Rabbi Naftoli Tzvi Yehuda Berlin points out in his commentary that the Torah stresses the obligation to return a lost object to your enemy. By enemy the Torah means someone who usually insults you. You might think that you should keep a distance from this enemy and not come into contact with him by returning his belongings. The Torah therefore emphasizes that even in the case of an enemy, you must return what is rightfully his. Furthermore, because of the merit of this mitzvah, he might not insult you in the future. Even if he does insult you, however, you should display restraint. (Haamek Dovor, on this verse). The laws pertaining to lost articles are complex and a halachic authority should be consulted whenever any questions arise. [The author lists and explains 23 basic laws of this commandment].

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD793 (Continued from [[GEN501]] Genesis 4:9 keeper SINAI1 xxi) If our primary purpose through life's journey is moral, to ever develop and grow in moral character, mussar is vitally necessary--to learn it and teach it--that we and our fellow Jews may improve in spiritual health. It is our obligation to show a neighbor the error of his ways and help him avoid sin with its tragic consequences. In Scripture we read, "If you meet your enemy's ox or donkey going astray, you shall surely bring it back to him" [this verse]. Who is the owner of this animal that you are required to rescue? Even if he is not a friend but your enemy, hashev t'shivenu lo, says the Torah, doubling the verb: literally, "return shall you return it to him." And to the Sages of Talmud and Midrash this means that even if you keep taking the animal back and it keeps running away, though this happens four or five times, you must continue to bring it to the owner, knowing that he bears you enmity (T.B. Baba Metzi'a 30b; Midrash haGadol on Exodus 23:4). Now, suppose it were not an enemy's animal, but the valued property of a friend. We should surely go out of our way to rescue it. Then what if instead of the animal, the friend himself goes astray in the pathways of life? How much stronger should be our heartfelt concern, our deep obligation to return him to the proper path.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD795 See [[GEN501]] Genesis 4:9 keeper SINAI1 (continued at [[DEUT1082]] Deuteronomy 22:1 bring SINAI1 xxii

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD797 Personal dislikes and animosities do not affect one's social obligations to his fellow man. This rule is expressed forcefully in the Book of Proverbs: "If thy enemy is hungry give him bread to eat, and if he is thirsty give him water to drink" (Proverbs 25:21). All biblical social commands are applicable to friend and foe alike [this and following verses]. The temptation to disregard an enemy in need is very intense. Indeed it requires much character training to ignore one's normal inclination to look the other way. To emphasize the urgency of such character training, the rabbis promulgated an amendment to an established law: "If a friend requires unloading [of an animal which has fallen because the burden was too heavy for it--normally such an obligation has priority], and an enemy requires loading, one's [prior] obligation is toward his enemy, in order to subdue his evil inclination" [to offer no help to an enemy] (Baba Metzia 32b).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD796 (Continued from [[LEV564]] Leviticus 19:17 hate COHON 213). Nowhere does the Torah teach hatred of the enemy. Instead, it commands that one must lend a helping hand to the enemy when he is in need [this and next verses] and that hatred must not be harbored even in one's heart [Lev. 19:17].

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD798 See [[EXOD669]] Exodus 22:21 ill-treat COHON 206

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD799 See [[EXOD765]] Exodus 23:1 rumors LEHRMAN 39

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD802 It also seems that the needs of an animal, even a stranger's animal, come before a person's own feelings. The Torah commandment is to help an animal that has a burden, whether by helping to load the animal or to unload the animal. Since an animal already carrying a burden is in more pain, the mitzvah to help unload an animal takes precedence over helping to load an animal. Normally, one would help unload the animal of a friend before helping to unload the burden of an animal of an enemy. However, what if the friend's animal is loading and the enemy's animal is unloading? Do the needs of the animal take precedence, that is, unloading over loading, or do your personal feelings take precedence, that is, helping a friend over an enemy? Maimonides Hilchot Rotze'ach 13:13 based on the Talmud Bava Metzia 32b tells us that the needs of the animal take precedence over your own feelings and you must first unload your enemy's animal.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT