GEN608 The choice between conciliation and confrontation is open to every person embroiled in conflict. Those who truly seek conciliation must be ready to accept a compromise. Conflicts are endemic to human life. Indeed, they are desirable in the early years of a child’s growth. A ripening sense of ownership brings a child into conflict with his peers who attempt to divest him of favorite toys. In a subsequent stage of development, when a child begins to assert his rights, he will be in conflict with his parents. He may reject the diet offered by his mother or he may demand the privilege of the late bedtime granted to his older siblings. He will increasingly chafe at the regimen imposed by parental discipline. Most early conflicts are transitory. They are useful indices of a child’s mental growth and teach him the need for adjusting to situations which are not entirely to his liking. Conflicts which arise in adult life are frequently intractable, enduring, and highly damaging. National and racial conflicts run deep and endanger the peace. Domestic conflicts undermine the family structure. Business transactions are rife with dissensions which filled the air with vituperation and clog judicial dockets. Disparaging remarks whispered in social circles lead to enmity and fisticuffs. Most destructive of all are conflicts born of prejudice. Lacking a rational basis, they are not amenable to rational solutions. Even reasonable and restrained individuals cannot avoid conflicts. Each party to a controversy is convinced of the justice of his case, a conviction which blinds him to the merit of his opponent’s arguments. Few controversies fall within the category of a clearcut right versus an unquestioned wrong. In some instances, strife is the result of the collision of two well-established rights. In such cases, not even a King Solomon could come up with a fair solution. When demands go unanswered, nations may resort to war and individuals may seek justice in the courts. Resolutions imposed by wars and courts inevitably aggravate the hostility between the parties. A test of strength proves who is stronger but not who is right. Defeated nations never concede their cause has been unjust, and losing litigants continue to protest a miscarriage of justice. Judaism, with all its reverence for the law, is nevertheless aware of its shortcomings. A second-century Rabbi, wrestling with this problem, came to the conclusion that compromise by consensus is by far more preferable to imposed decisions dictated by the law, which grants all to the winner and nothing to the loser. What appears to be the earliest recorded compromise is reflected in the biblical account of the shift from God’s strict judgment prior to the Flood to a more yielding stand after the Flood. Initially, God was reported as saying, “The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence through them, and behold I will destroy them with the earth” [this verse]. After the flood, however, God said: “I will not again curse the ground on account of man, for the impulse of man’s heart is evil from his youth” Genesis 18:22. The Midrash reads into this verse a compromise which softened the original condemnation of mankind. God conceded that man was not entirely at fault. “If I had not created him with an evil impulse, he would not have rebelled against me” Genesis Rabbah 27. It was in the second century that the merit of arbitration in preference to the law was hotly debated. Does a judge, before whom an action has been brought for legal adjudication, have the right to suggest that the dispute be arbitrated? Judaic laws are based on the Bible and hence are a part of the religion. To relegate the law to a secondary position may reflect on the fairness and wisdom of the divine judgment. Rabbi Eliezer insisted that the law must take its course, regardless of the consequences Sanhedrin 6a. Rabbi Joshua b. Kochba took the opposite view. He based his opinion on a verse in Zachariah: “Execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gate” 8:16. Commenting on the objective of truth and peace, he said: “Where there is strict justice there is no peace, and where there is peace there is no strict justice. What is that kind of justice with which peace abides? Sanhedrin 6b  Conciliation is most successful in the early stages of a disagreement. What is needed is a willingness to engage in dialogue and an open mind. A person who refuses to discuss differences acts unethically. When a next-door neighbor comes to your door to complain that your son’s drum practice drives him up the wall, don’t tell him to mind his own business and slam the door in his face. Invite him in and hear him out. You may discover that he has a just grievance and tell your son to tone down the percussion. In this manner your good-neighborly relations will not suffer. One moment of conciliation outweighs years of confrontation. BLOCH 70-2

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN653 The major inspiration of the extensive Jewish ethical literature comes, of course, from the numerous biblical injunctions which are addressed to man.  These, together with rabbinical interpretations and moral maxims, have provided the guidelines and framework for the continued growth of the Jewish moral code. The very abundance of this genre of literature is a sad reflection of the fact that man is in constant need of admonition to guide him along the way. Despite the biblical assertion that man was created in the image of God, his free will leaves the choice of right or wrong entirely to him. Weakness and passion frequently tempt man to choose the course which has the greatest promises satisfying his greed in many desires. The Bible attests to this weakness by stating that “man’s inclinations are evil from his youth” [this verse]. Our ethical legacy is designed to tame him and to keep a proper balance between the earthly and heavenly aspects of human life, so that he may be worthy of the fact of having been created in God’s image. The faculty of free will and the capacity to distinguish right from wrong were truly divine attributes. Man, alone of all living creatures, was endowed with them. He must use them judiciously to make sure that this earth is a decent place to live in.  BLOCH 5

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN690 Maimonides (12th-cent.) addressed a warning to those who allege that their state of health should be of no concern to other people.  “There are many things which the rabbis have prohibited because they endanger human life. He who says: ‘I am only endangering myself, and no others have a right to interfere,’ the rabbis may administer to them disciplinary flogging” Hilchot Rotzeach 11:5  Man has a right to put himself to shame, if he is indifferent to public opinion, but no one may lawfully injure himself Baba Kama 91b It is also prohibited to curse oneself (curses may be self-fulfilling) Shavuot 35a  No man may degrade himself by eating things which are universally deemed nauseating and repugnant. The biblical source of this prohibition is … Leviticus 11:43: “You shall not make yourself detestable with swarming things that swarm.” The rabbis interpreted this prohibition to include the eating the food contaminated with dirt, the eating of food with slimy hands, and the drinking of fluids from vessels which were used previously as urinals. Maimonides, Maachalot Asurot 17:29. Self-degradation insults the body, which was made in the image of God. Suicide is a transgression which by its very nature can never be atoned for. The biblical verse “But for your own life-blood I will require [an accounting]” [This verse] was interpreted by Rabbi Elazar (2nd cent.) as meaning: “I will require your blood if shed by your own hands” Baba Kama 91b. Judaism denies all religious burial rights to people who commit suicide. There is no doubt that these stringent sanctions kept the number of suicides low, despite the tragic conditions under which Jews were forced to live in the Diaspora. When forcible apostasies became common occurrences during and after the era of the Crusades, many Jews sought an escape in martyrdom. Those who committed suicide were accorded full honors by the medieval rabbis, and their deaths regarded as a “sanctification of the name of God.” Tosofot, veal, Avodah Zarah 18a. BLOCH 242-3

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN733 (Continued from DEUT1121]] Deuteronomy 22:5 clothing BLOCH 268-9) To what extent may science be permitted to alter the laws of nature in disregard of the potential dangers which may ensue? It is the function of nature to provide a healthy environment to sustain life. Is the manipulation of natural laws, with the intent of creating catastrophic destructive forces, an attack upon the established order of the universe? The existence of nuclear weapons, posing the greatest menace ever faced by mankind, brings to mind several questions. Is the atomic bomb a legitimate defensive implement of war or a criminal and immoral weapon? The moral question of the legitimacy of weapons capable of total destruction is resolved in the Biblical account of the Flood.  God used the Flood, the ancient equivalent of the atomic bomb, to eradicate mankind, which had degenerated into a state of utter corruption. Yet in the aftermath of the frightful devastation of the flood, God resolved never to use such a weapon again. He formalized this resolution in a covenant with Noah and his sons [This verse]. The condemnation of the atomic bomb is clearly implicit. The next question is, was the initial American production of the atomic bomb immoral? The answer is definitely no.  In view of reliable reports of the imminent acquisition of a nuclear missile by a ruthless enemy, the preemptive production of that weapon by a nation at war was legitimate under the universally accepted principle of self-defense. Was the use of the bomb against Japan immoral? There were no nuclear weapons in the enemy’s arsenal. Nevertheless, the principle of self-defense lends a degree of legitimacy to the dropping of the bomb. It has been estimated that about 100,000 American lives would be lost in the invasion of Japan in an attack with conventional weapons. Despite the knowledge of inevitable defeat, the enemy refused to sue for peace. To the end of terminating the needless carnage, it was proper to use every means at one’s disposal, provided that adequate warning was given to the enemy to evacuate the civilian population. Is the possession of nuclear weapons by nations at peace morally justifiable? The answer is no. Nevertheless, the principle of self-defense precludes any unilateral nuclear disarmament. The only way out of this dilemma is to follow the biblical precedent. God made a covenant outlawing his weapon of wholesale destruction. Nuclear weapons must be outlawed by an international covenant to which all nations must be signatories. The morality of every nation will be judged by its active pursuit of such a covenant. Is the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes justifiable, in view of the potential risks of accidents? Energy is essential to the survival of mankind. Considering the rapid depletion of natural sources of energy, until such time as alternative sources are available all precautions must be taken to minimize the risks. Financial considerations must not influence the relaxation of safeguards. To prevent the element of profit from entering into judgments of safety, Power plants should be owned by the government. BLOCH 269

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN791 One may violate most religious injunctions in order to save his life. Even an infant who is one day old, legally not considered viable, is entitled to the same consideration Shabbat 151b. There are three cardinal prohibitions which may not be violated even at the cost of one’s life: idolatry, adultery, and murder Sanhedrin 74a. Any commission of suicide for the sake of avoiding a transgression of other religious injunctions is a serious offense. Maimonides Yesodei haTorah 5:4.  The moral question whether religious laws may be transgressed in order to preserve a life was in issue for a long time. Some sectarian groups, such as the Qumran sect, apparently believed that the primacy of the law should never be via compromised (See Bloch, The Biblical and Historical Background of Jewish Customs and Ceremonies, p 117). On the other hand, a Hasmonean court (2nd cent. B.C.E.) ruled that one may desecrate the Sabbath to defend his life I Macc. 2:41. It seems that no such dispensation was ever granted prior to the Hasmonean era. The Talmud accepted the principle of the primacy of life. Rabbi Ishmael (3nd cent.) voiced a minority opinion that even the law forbidding idolatry may be transgressed (not in public) when one ordered to do so at the risk of his life. He based his view on the verse in Leviticus 18:5 “You shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, which if a man do he shall live in them.” Rabbi Ishmael commented on the last phrase of the verse: “’he shall live in them’ but not die by them” Sanhedrin 74a  The primacy of life was apparently paramount in the moral code of the Semitic patriarchs. Abraham requested Sarah to tell Pharoah that she was his sister, not his wife, so that the king would have no need of killing him [This verse]. This request can only be rationalized by the prevailing ethical principle that all virtues, including marital fidelity, maybe waived in the interest of saving a life. The rabbinic majority opinion was crystallized after a long debate in the upper chamber of the House of Nitzah in Lydda (ca. 135). It was during the Hadrianic persecution, when the practice of Judaism was forbidden, that the issue is finally resolved. “In every law of the Torah, if a man is commanded: ‘Transgress and suffer not death,” he may transgress and not suffer death, excepting idolatry, adultery, and murder” Sanhedrin 74a BLOCH 243-4

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN873 Religion eventually replaced folk-customs as the primary source of ethics. Divine approval was substituted for popular approval as the criterion of moral conduct. As religion progressively evolved from a narrow tribal cult to embrace the terminology of universalism, it projected a broad morality divorced from parochialism. The triumph of Judaic monotheism inevitably led to the introduction of universalist concepts.  The Decalogue opened with the solemn declaration of monotheism, coupled with the declaration of the rights of man.   Its universality was acknowledged by Luther, who considered it a summary of all Christian ethics. The Age of Religion did not necessarily witness a rise of ethical societies. As a matter of practical expediency, religious leaders have accommodated themselves, at various stages in man’s history, to slavery, feudalism, industrial baronism, military dictatorships, and paranoid nationalism. In that respect there was no clear break with primitive ethical standards. On a personal level, too, religious ethics were not adequately reflected in the daily conduct of individuals. An overemphasis on ritualism frequently led to the stifling of moralism. Rituals are essential to the preservation of religion. They stimulate the exercise of self-discipline and safeguard the ethical principles with which they are associated. Yet the average religious individual finds it easier to express piety through a zealous observance of rituals then to make the effort central to the development of an ethical personality.  Furthermore, moralism is a nondenominational concept, while ritualism is sectarian and has a greater appeal to a member of a particular creed. Ritualism has consequently come to be regarded as the primary objective of religion. One may point to a number of statements in the Bible and Talmud which command ethical conduct per se, regardless of one’s zeal for ritual observance. Hillel considered the Golden Rule the very core and essence of Judaism. Rabbi Akiva upheld this rule as a “great principle of the Law.” The injunction to love man was thus given greater prominence than the injunction till love God. The rabbinic priorities were reversed in Luke 10:27 in the establishment of the proper conduct which guarantees eternal life. OriGenesis (3rd cent.), the outstanding Christian theologian of the early church, declared that a heretic whose moral life is good is to be condemned more than one whose moral life is unsatisfactory.   This became the dominant view which appealed to pietists of many generations, undermining the moral force of religion. It was not until the 17th century that the lone voice of John Selden, an Anglican theologian, proclaimed that Jews who are morally correct are entitled to the same heavenly rewards as Christians, a prospect long held out by rabbinic sages for all righteous gentiles. It was not until the 19yh century that Tolstoy declared that “love thy neighbor as thyself” is a summary of Christianity. Religion has undoubtedly played a vital role in shaping men’s ethical outlook. It is reasonable to expect that laws rooted in religion have also influenced moral insights. One is more likely to find this in Judaism and Islam, where law and morality flow from the same religious source. Judaism bases the relationship between man and God on a legal compact, the Covenant [this verse]. This helped Jews and Muslims to envision a link between law and ethics. The development of law in Judaism and Islam devolved on the legal scholar, who was also the exponent of religious ethics. Christendom, on the other hand, accepted Roman law as its own civil law. It adopted most of Rome’s legal concepts and rejected only the Roman views of slavery and marriage.   BLOCH 9-10

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN929 See [[GEN608]] Genesis 6:13 destroy BLOCH 70-2

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1007 See [[GEN598]] Genesis 6:11 violence BLOCH 135-6

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1047 Humility is the reverse of arrogance. An arrogant individual has a high opinion of himself. The humble individual thinks little of himself. Arrogance is born of conceit, humility flows from an innate sense of modesty. A humble person is free of delusions of superiority. He is aware of his achievements but does not believe that they entitled him to preferential treatment. However, humility which results from self-denigration is a harmful trait, destructive of human dignity. Humility is most virtuous when it does not distort one’s judgment of oneself. It must not be tinged with a sense of false modesty nor with a sense of inferiority. Judaism regards humility as the crown of man’s ethical stature. The Bible singles out the humbleness of Moses as his most laudable trait Numbers 12:13. The Talmud points to Hillel’s meekness as the quality most worthy of emulation Shabbat 30b.   The early biblical figures set a proper tone of modesty. When Abraham questioned the justice of G–d’s condemnation of Sodom, he made sure to disclaim any stance of arrogance, “For I am but dust and ashes” [this verse]. Jacob’s expression of gratitude for God’s help was heightened by the disarming acknowledgment that he was unworthy of such generous consideration Genesis 32:11 David rejected the rebuke of his wife, Michal, for his participation in the dance of the common people on the occasion of the arrival of the Ark of God. He protested that he would continue to be lowly in his own eyes II Samuel 6:22. BLOCH 166-7

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1153 People who have an exaggerated perception of their own superiority, based on wealth, power, or fame, will not deign to acknowledge a service rendered by person who they considered beneath their lofty status. Whatever is done for them is viewed as an active obeisance to which their position entitles them. Biblical accounts of exemplary behavior are intended to be viewed as models of ethical conduct. The virtue of appreciation has not been overlooked. The scenario of Abraham’s purchase of a burial plot is one example. Ephron the Hittite offer to make a gift of the desired plot. Abraham was aware that the offer it was a hollow display of showmanship. Nevertheless, he indicated proper appreciation and “bowed down before the people of the land” [This verse]. King David’s deathbed instructions to Solomon included a lesson in appreciation.  “Show kindness unto the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, and let them be of those that eat at thy table; for they drew nigh to me when I fled from Absalom thy brother” I Kings 2:7 BLOCH 29

SHOW FULL EXCERPT