DEUT880 How can the Torah's apparent stress upon conformity remain congruent with sources stressing Jewish individuality? Is it possible for the Jew to conform and yet remain an individualist? One possible solution lay in distinguishing between Jewish action and Jewish thought. While traditional Jews did conform to basic Jewish practice, individual opinion was never stifled. The Shulchan Aruch codified Jewish practice for all Jews, but the Talmud and its varied opinions continues to be studied and debated. This distinction between thought and action can readily be seen in the procedures of the Sanhedrin, the body of rabbis who decided in Temple times new questions of Jewish law that arose. The seventy-one Sanhedrin members debated at length any particular law in question. In the debate, individuality of thought was not only tolerated but was encouraged as part of procedure. The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 36b) tells us that the Sanhedrin was organized in a semicircle (as is the Knesset today), and any debate involving life and death issues started from the side (Sanhedrin 32a). This meant that the youngest and most inexperienced Sanhedrin members would have to express their opinions first. This was mandated by law, so that the more respected elders could not stifle individual and different opinion by speaking earlier in the debate and causing the younger members to be intimidated from disagreeing. Thus, individuality in thought was certainly encouraged. However, once the Sanhedrin voted and the law was decided by a majority of members, the law was adopted and applied equally to all of Israel and to all Sanhedrin members. Everyone had to conform. If a member of the Sanhedrin did not conform after the law was decided, but, rather, insisted on putting his original opinion into practice, he was known as Zaken Mamre (this and following verses), a rebellious elder, and would be put to death (Maimonides, Hilchot Mamrim 1:1-2). Therefore, while individual thought was tolerated and certainly encouraged, conformity of action was also demanded. Within this framework, it can be shown that traditional Judaism even "tolerates" a total questioning of God, mitzvot, and religion, as long as the person continues to conform and perform the commandments while questioning. This unique religious concept, that is, the primacy of the individual's right to think and question as long as conformity to general practice continues, can be seen in a unique passage (Jerusalem Talmud, Chagigah 6b) that says God prefers that Jews totally abandon him as long as they do not abandon observance of the Torah. The implication is that Jewish belief and Jewish thought is secondary to Jewish practice and that what one thinks and questions is tolerated as long as practice continues. (Of course, the ideal is that both thought and action should coincide. For a fuller development of this idea, see the chapter "Mitzvot-Commandments.")

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT905 In addition to the general commandment for every Jew to write a personal Torah, the Torah [Deuteronomy 31:19] commands the Jewish king to write his own Torah. In an unusual departure, the Torah text itself explains why the king must write this "extra" Torah. It says the king should read it always, in order to ensure that he will keep all its laws, despite his natural desire to think of himself as "above the law." This unusual commandment (elaborated upon by the commentators) runs contrary to the laws of government in our century or any century, even in democratic Western democracies. While history has amply demonstrated that kings and leaders of nations have always lived by a set of rules different from that of the people they govern, presidents and heads of democratic governments today still retain special status when it comes to adherence to the laws of the land. In the United States, the concept of executive privilege allows the president to ignore many laws or bypass other statutes. His ability to pardon any criminal and declare emergency powers when he sees the need runs contrary to democratic principles and attests to his special status before the law. In the state of Israel, as in many other countries, members of the Knesset have immunity from prosecution for breaking state laws, and diplomatic immunity for foreign diplomats gives them the right to commit crimes without retribution. These concepts are accepted virtually all over the world. And, yet, contrary to this norm, the Torah stresses that no one, not even the king, can be above the Law. All must conform.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT976 Today, the idea of not having children because of the enormous cost of bringing up children has permeated even the observant Jewish community. Specifically, the cost of Jewish education in day school, close to $10,000 a year per child in some institutions, has caused many parents to pause and reconsider having a large family. Is there any validity to this type of thinking in Judaism? If the money issue is mainly one of selfishness, where the parents want to use the money for leisure activities, there is no philosophical or moral Jewish leg to stand on, as leisure is certainly not a legitimate Jewish value or priority. But if the money is needed for legitimate basic essentials such as clothing, food, and Jewish education, can that be a legitimate Jewish reason to limit family size? Maimonides (Hilchot De'ot 5:11) addresses this concern by laying out the order that should be followed in achieving financial stability. First a person should have a job, then he should buy a house, and only then should he get married. This is the order mentioned in the Torah when mentioning the exemptions from army service [this and following verses]. Foolish people get married first, then buy home, and only then try to find proper working. This is the order of action mentioned in the curses of the Torah [Deuteronomy 28:30] as the path not to follow. However, says Maimonides, if a person structures his or her life in the correct order, he will not have such large financial worries. This may be merely good advice or specific advocacy of a particular Jewish lifestyle by Maimonides. However, in scanning the sources, other than what was mentioned about lack of food during the famine, there does not seem to be any other valid financial reason in Jewish thought for abstaining from procreation.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT981 .. it seems the Torah itself anticipates civil disobedience on a certain level and attempts to avoid it. When forming an army, the Torah allows certain categories of soldiers not to join [this verse]. One of the categories of soldier who is asked to return home and not fight is the soldier who is "weak of heart." The Mishnah (Mishnah Sotah 8:5-6) according to one opinion, explains this to be a person who does not feel he can fight, who is unable to stand the heat of battle, and who cannot stand to see a drawn sword. Some commentaries have interpreted this to mean not people who are weak, but those who cannot fight because they are opposed to fighting a battle, what we would call today conscientious objectives. The Torah, anticipating this group of people, gave them the option not to fight and be sent home without penalty, according to these commentaries. Therefore, the Torah does recognize the right (in potential) to object to military force.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT987 [Continued from [[NUM268]] Numbers 20:29 AMEMEI 211 bewailed]. Peace is the vehicle, the vessel, of prayer, and that is why both the Priestly Blessing and the final blessing of the Silent Prayer end with peace (Bamidbar Rabbah 11:7), as it says that God will bless His people with (the vessel of) peace (Psalms 29:11). Many laws for Jews (such as the order of calling people up to the Torah) as well as for non-Jews (such as burying their dead if they live in the same neighborhood) were instituted to ensure a more peaceful coexistence among people (Gittin 59b). In describing the Torah scholar, the talmid chacham, Maimonides (Hilchot De'ot 5:7) lists as one of the requirements that this person have the quality of peace before he can assume the mantle of leadership. Therefore, two Torah scholars living in the same city must have peace between them or they are either exiled or put to death (Sotah 49a). Even in preparing to attack a sworn enemy, the Torah says one must first try to achieve a peaceful coexistence [this and following verses]. It was a lack of peace between brothers, the sons of Jacob as they fought with Joseph, (Megillah 16b) that eventually caused the Jewish people terrible pain and suffering. Therefore, one of the purposes of the world today is to promote peace among Jews (Sefer Hachinuch, Mitzvah #243).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT991 When fighting a war that God commanded to fight, even to conquer a nation, the Torah [this verse] commands that the Jewish people must first ask for and offer peace prior to attack. If the nation agrees to peace under Jewish rule, it is forbidden to fight war against such a nation. Maimonides (Hilchot Melachim 6:1) codifies this law and explains its details. The Jewish nation cannot make a war unless it first offers peace. If the nation accepts the seven Noahide laws and agrees to pay taxes to the Jewish nation, then the Jewish army may not attack. After making a treaty of peace with any country, even if the other nation is suspected of wrongdoing or it would be advantageous for the Jews to break the treaty, it is forbidden to renege on such an agreement (Maimonides, Hilchot Melachim 6:3). Therefore, we see that in Judaism, unlike in most societies in a war situation, Jewish values may not be abandoned, and they must help to guide the process of conducting war.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1021 Thousands of years ago, before ecology became a worldwide human concern, Judaism dealt at length and in a most sophisticated manner with these specific dilemmas and other questions involving the environment. The first indication of any attitude to these issues occurs in the first chapter of the Torah [Genesis 1:28] where God commands man to "fill the world and capture it." In his commentary on this verse, Nachmanides explains that the world is given to men for their needs "to do as they wish" and includes, as one of the examples, man digging up the ground to mine copper. Since strip-mining of copper is a prime illustration of the destruction of the environment, it seems that the Torah permits man to use the world as he sees fit, with no ecological concerns or sensitivity. However, a few verses later [Genesis 2:15] the Torah tempers this by telling us that God put man in the Garden (symbolic of the entire world) “to work it and to guard it.”  Since guarding something means preserving it, God essentially wants man to both use the world of his needs, but, at the same time, to preserve the world and not destroy it. How can man do both? How can he use the world for his needs, but at the same time take care to save it? The answer comes from [this verse] in Deuteronomy. When an army at war surrounds a city in siege and it prepares to use a tree is a battering ram, a fruit-bearing tree may not be used for this purpose, only a tree that does not bear fruit. What is the difference? If one uses the food-bearing tree, then the fruit will be needlessly destroyed, since the same objective could be accomplished just as well with the tree that does not bear fruit. However, a person may cut down a fruit tree when it causes damage to other trees (Maimonides, Hilchot Melachim 6:8). This, then, highlights the Torah perspective on the environment. While man may use the world for his needs, he may never use any resource needlessly. Destroying anything in the world needlessly is called Bal Tashchit.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1080 It appears that one may indeed hate those people try to destroy the Jews, for example, Haman, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and so forth. But how can his hatred be permitted when the verse in Proverbs (11:10) and later the Mishnah say "One may not rejoice when your enemy falls"? At the time one's enemies fall, one may not rejoice. But afterward (and before), one may indeed hate them and what they stood for. Why should we not be happy at the time of their death? As with the angels who were instructed by God not to rejoice when the enemy of the Jews, the Egyptians, drowned in the sea, these enemies are still human beings created in God's image. For that part of them that is destroyed, one cannot rejoice when they die. Afterward, one certainly can be happy that these people are no longer around to destroy the Jewish people. This concept is reflected in the killer or sinner who is to be hanged by a Jewish court. Although this person was evil, Judaism does not permit the community to let the body publicly hang more than a few hours (Sanhedrin 46b) based on [this] reverse in Torah. Here, too, says the Talmud, this evil person is still created in the image of God and is the reflection of that image. Thus, at the time of death, one cannot rejoice afterwards. However, one certainly can be happy that an evil person and the evil he or she caused is eradicated from the world. It is only the shame reflected upon God at the time of death when hatred is forbidden. After all, the Jewish community does celebrate the downfall of Haman and the defeat of the Egyptians. Part of Purim and Passover certainly is being happy that the enemy is defeated. Hating an enemy, especially during time of war, is part of warfare. When Ecclesiastes says "a time to hate" [Ecclesiastes 3:8), the Midrash (Kohelet Rabbah 3:10) clearly explains this refers to an enemy during time of war.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1088 In Western society, when people hear a story of a person who returns an object of great value, the common reaction is (1) great surprise, (2) a comment about the unusually high moral quality of this individual who returned the object, and (3) a belief that this person should receive some type of reward for acting "beyond the call of duty." Judaism has an entirely different approach and expected level of morality regarding returning lost objects. Unlike Western society, Judaism regards returning found objects as a mitzvah and not merely a good deed (See the chapter "Mitzvot-Commandments" for discussion on the difference between the two). What does this mean? In a Jewish society not only is it not unusual for an object to be returned, but it is the expected norm and is even demanded as a Torah obligation [this verse]. In many societies, there are laws requiring someone to return the found object once it is picked up--you cannot keep it. But no other society except Judaism says that the individual must pick up the lost object to begin with. Judaism says that a person cannot pass by the object and do nothing, and the Torah repeats this commandment for emphasis two verses later. Therefore, a Jew can't say that "it's not my problem" or "let someone else worry about it." A Jew must pick it up. Most people feel more of a moral obligation to pick up and return the lost object if they know the owner. Therefore, the Torah specifically says that even if you do not know the owner, you still must retrieve the lost object (Deuteronomy 22:2).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1089 See [[LEV696]] Leviticus 19:18 love AMEMEI 240

SHOW FULL EXCERPT