Excerpt Browser

This page displays the full text of excerpts.  When viewing a single excerpt, its “Share,” “Switch Article,” and “Comment” functions are accessible.

DEUTERONOMY — 12:28 good

DEUT583 ... I hope to put to rest the widespread but false notion that, after producing the Bible, the Jewish people wrapped itself in a cocoon of laws, continuing in this state of hibernation down to the modern period. Actually, the ethical philosophy of Judaism can be seen from the human viewpoint as a basic and balanced response to the ultimate questions of our existence. Far from being diminished, its validity, when it is considered apart from the closed circle of dogmatic beliefs, is really enhanced. The enduring theme of Judaism is the quest of the good life – "to do that which is right in the sight of man and good in the sight of God." [Author cites Sifri, Deuteronomy 12:29 -AJL] This two-fold quest remains our "ultimate concern," as human beings, even when we no longer assume that the Divine Will has been revealed in all literalness and completeness. If by religion we mean a living awareness of the mystery of life, we cannot separate the domain of ethics. Every value we affirm points to a structure of values in the scheme of things. We cannot even rank man above the beast without some conception of the cosmic order. Thus, religion and humanism cannot be completely separated.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUTERONOMY — 12:28 good

DEUT584 (Continued from [[LEV438]] Leviticus 19:15 favor BLOCH 113) Fairness is a highly elastic quality. A higher degree of perfection and refinement is demanded of educated people than of the ignorant. A person in a position of leadership is expected to live up to higher ethical standards than what is normally demanded of the average man and woman. The test of civilized behavior is not whether a given act is permissible under the law but whether it is fair in the eyes of the public. The layman's concept of equity is an integral part of biblical ethical guidelines. Thus the injunction "to do that which is good and fair" [this verse] was interpreted by Rabbi Akiva (2nd cent.) to mean "that which is good in the eyes of heaven and fair in the eyes of men" (Sifre, this verse). Accordingly, the duty to act fairly is an obligation imposed on all people. This was also the basis of the mandate empowering rabbinic courts to render decisions, whenever necessary, in the spirit of equity rather than law. (Continued at [[EXOD295]] Exodus 18:20 way BLOCH 114-5)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUTERONOMY — 12:28 sight

DEUT588 The Talmud also distinguishes between a tzadik who is "good" and one who is not good, defining the former as one who is good to heaven and good to humanity, and the latter as one who is "good to heaven and bad to humanity" (Kiddushin 49-50). Similarly, the Sifre speaks of being "good in the eyes of heaven" and "straightforward in the eyes of man" (On this verse). All of these passages imply that the rabbis recognized a special class of mitzvot that applied bain adam le-chavero, to relations between man and his fellow man, resulting in conditions that we recognize as morally right and good (a biblical source for the distinction between duties toward God and duties toward man may be the passage in [this verse] taken in conjunction with Proverbs 3:4. See, the Sifre on [this verse] and the discussion in Sefer Hamitzvohs Hashem by J. Seif Introduction to Part 2.)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUTERONOMY — 12:31 abhorrent

DEUT591 There is one other provision in Jewish law for military intervention. As I turn to it, keep in mind that these materials are highly theoretical. I frankly doubt that any Jewish regime would or should act on them. The Bible zealously establishes a strict monotheism for Israel, and it claims that God was dispossessing the seven Canaanite nations because they engaged in idolatry and other “abhorrent things.” (Deuteronomy 12:29-13:1). Extending this thesis through a rather implausible interpretation of Genesis 2:16, the rabbis deduced six laws that, they claimed, had been given to Adam, and Genesis 9:4 provided another, for a total of “seven laws given to the children of Noah.” The first six laws forbid murder, incest and adultery, idolatry, blasphemy, theft, and tearing and eating a limb from a living animal and the seventh requires that a government be instituted to enforce these laws and provide for the general order of society. (Genesis Rabbah 16:6, B. Sanhedrin 56a, and M.T. Laws of Kings 9:1. Compare Novak (1983) The Image of the Non-Jew in Judaism: An Historical and Constructive Study of the Noahide Laws. Edwin Mellen Press) for an extensive study of these laws). If a non-Jew fails to follow these laws, he is subject to capital punishment. B. Sanhedrin 57a. Maimonides summarized the law this way: “We kill any non-Jew who is under our power if he does not accept the commandments enjoined upon the children of Noah. Moses, our Teacher, bequeathed the Torah and commandments only to Israel, as Scripture says, ‘An inheritance for the congregation of Jacob,’ [Deuteronomy 33:4] and to anyone from the other nations of the world who wants to convert, as Scripture says, ‘or you as for the stranger [convert].’ Numbers 15:15 But if anyone [of the other nations] did not want [to accept the Torah and commandments,] we do not force him to do so. Moses, our teacher, similarly commanded at God’s bidding to force all inhabitants of the world to accept the laws enjoined upon the children of Noah, and anyone who does not accept them shall be killed.” M.T. Laws of Kings 8:9-10 This does not justify holy wars, much as it might seem to do so. Later on Maimonides himself specified that the death penalty can be imposed only after a trial, albeit with modified evidentiary and procedural rules, Ibid., 9:14 and thus it is unlikely that the Noahide rules provide any basis for military intervention. Several sources in the tradition specifically deny that Jews have the right, much less the duty, to impose the seven Noahide laws militarily outside the land of Israel; They apply only to non-Jews living in a Jewish state. (Compare Rashi on B. Sotah 35b (end), s.v. “v’katbu mi’limtah”; Sefer Mitzvot Gedolot, Negative Command #49; and Lehem Mishneh on M.T. Laws of Kings, 6:1.) Moreover one must remember that even if Maimonides’ dictum provides a rationale for military action, if the offenders make peace and accept the seven commandments, then, according to Maimonides himself, one must not kill a single person. M.T. Laws of Kings, 6:1. Thus it is doubtful that Jewish law would condone military intervention to enforce the seven Noahide Laws.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

RSS
12467891011121314151617181920Last
Back To Top