GEN1172 Procreation is essential to the continuity of life. In the animal world the perpetuation of the species is generally achieved without the benefit of a familial relationship resembling matrimony. The character and behavior of animal herds are mostly predetermined by fixed laws of nature, with the role of parents limited to the physical preservation of their offspring. A young animal does not need a “home” in the moral sense which this term is assumed in human society. Man, endowed with a free will, does not develop his character by a predetermined pattern of evolution. The influences of the home are essential to the transmission of moral values and perceptions. The spiritual dimension of a human being, and to a large extent of society as a whole, is based on parental guidance and instruction provided in the home. Hence the Judaic stress on the importance of background as determining factor in an individual’s qualification as a good mate. The importance of background is emphasized in the Biblical account of the choice of Rebecca as a wife for Isaac. Abraham entrusted his loyal servant Eliezer with the task of finding a proper wife for his son. He ruled out any choice of a local Canaanite girl because of the immoral environment of Canaanite homes. Abraham was convinced of the lingering effects of the undesirable influences of one’s youth.   He therefore instructed Eliezer to go to his native land to find a suitable girl of a Semitic family. Genesis 24:3-4.   Eliezer’s choice of a bride is highly illuminating.   The decisive consideration was not her wealth or the prominence of her family but her character. Standing at the well, he prayed: “So let it come to pass that the damsel to whom I shall say: ‘Let down thy pitcher, I beg of thee, that I may drink,’ and she shall say: ‘Drink and I will give thy camels drink also,’ let the same be she that thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac” [This verse]. Such a response, he felt, would qualify her to marry Isaac and would also be a token of G–d’s approval. BLOCH 213-4 (Continued at [[EXOD540]] Exodus 21:10 withhold BLOCH 214-5)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1183 The rabbis pointed to God’s kind to animals as a model for man to follow. “Just as the almighty is merciful to man, so is he merciful to animals” Tanchuma, Noah 5.  “He who shows mercy to animals will receive mercy from God” Shabbat 151b Kindness to animals was considered the ultimate test of a noble character. Rebecca’s fitness to be the wife of Isaac was proven by her offer to fetch water for Abraham’s emissary, Eliezer, and for his thirsty camels [this verse]. Moses proved himself qualified to led the Jewish people by demonstrating his tender care for the sheep in his herd. Exodus Rabbah 2   Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (2nd cent.), the eminent editor of the Mishnah, was once afflicted with a painful illness. After a prolonged period of distress, the sickness finally disappeared. A Talmudic anecdote seeks to shed light on the background of this painful episode. It seems that a calf, which was being led by a butcher to an abattoir, tore loose and ran to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who had witnessed this scene, as if to plead for his protection. The rabbi looked at the calf and commented: “Go, my little creature. This is what you were created for.” Heaven was displeased with his callousness and inflicted a punishment upon him. Years later, the rabbi stopped his maid from sweeping out some young weasels which she had discovered in his study. “We must be mindful,” he said,” of the biblical verse “and his [God’s] mercies are over all His works.”  Heaven took note of his concern for the weasels and decreed an end to his illness. Baba Metzia 85a. BLOCH 80-1

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1188 See [[EXOD540]] Exodus 21:10 withhold BLOCH 214-5

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1222 Envy exacerbates strife. Philistine envy of the success of Isaac in finding water led, according to the Bible, to discord and an end to friendly neighborly relations [this verse]. In the agony of her childlessness, Rachel expressed her envy of the fertility of her sister Leah Genesis 30:1. The result was a strain on their sibling relationship. Ethical condemnation of envy mandates an obligation to avoid creating situations which are likely to provoke envy another people. Parents who single out one child for more favorable treatment are guilty of generating sibling rivalry, envy, and hatred. Jacob, for reasons of his own, made Joseph an object of favoritism. The Bible describes the unhappy consequences.  “When his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren, they hated him and could not speak peaceably to him” Genesis 37:4. Drawing the proper conclusion from this incident, Rav (3rd cent.) issued a timely warning: “Let no man show favoritism in the treatment of his children” Shabbat 10b. Parents may properly reward a child for a meritorious act but should not habitually offer one child preferential treatment in a discriminatory manner. Similarly parents have a right to punish a child who is guilty of wrongdoing. However, they should refrain from imposing a penalty which will irretrievably attach a stigma to a child for the rest of his life. Parents who this disown a child in their will in a moment of great fixation sow the seeds of chronic envy and hostility among siblings.   BLOCH 111

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1279 See [[GEN1858]] Genesis 47:31 swear BLOCH 248-9

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1312 See [[GEN1222]] Genesis 26:14 envied BLOCH 111

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1376 See [[GEN1047]] Genesis 18:27 dust BLOCH 166-7

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1423 The biblical account of the revenge taken by Simon and Levi against the people of Shechem, in retaliation for the dishonor suffered by their sister Dinah, illustrates the potential danger of a rash act. Jacob felt responsible for the security of his clan. He reacted with a sharp rebuke [this verse]. Simon and Levi stood accused of endangerment. People may be endangered by packs of wild dogs that roam the streets of the cities. It is the responsibility of the authorities to remove this hazard from inhabited areas. Prior to their settling in the Promised Land, the ancient Israelites were given the following assurance by God: “I will give peace in the land … and I will cause evil beasts to cease [their attacks] in the land” Leviticus 26:6.   According to Rabbi Judah (2nd cent.), God did not promise to change the nature of wild beasts to make them docile. To make the streets secure the wild beats would have to be physical removed (Sifre, Lev. 26:6).   The ethical obligation to correct dangerous conditions was enacted into biblical law. A person who digs a pit on property accessible to the public must cover it to prevent possible injuries Exodus 21:33-34. Flat-roofed homes must have parapets to protect visitors from falling off Deuteronomy 22:8. This law was broadly interpreted by the rabbis to include all dangerous conditions which pose a danger to innocent people. Hence the prohibition of harboring dangerous dogs in a home or of placing a broker ladder against the wall of one’s home Ketubot 41b.   Containers of medicine normally carry a warning label which reads: “Keep out of reach of children.” Consideration for the protection of children dictates reasonable preventive measures. However, it does not indicate a ban on medicine, which properly belongs in the home. What about poison, for which there is no common practical need? Does the occasional use of poison for exterminating purposes justify the risk which its presence entails? Josephus (1st cent.) was unequivocal in his objection. “Let no Israelite keep any poison that may cause death, or any other harm” (Antiq., bk. 4, 8:34). Poison may be used under proper safeguards to exterminate rodents. Whatever is left should be disposed of in a manner which will create no danger to man and animals alike. Does the same ethical prohibition apply to the possession of guns in a private home? Rampant crime has produced a growing demand for guns for reasons of self-defense. There are instances where guns have proved useful in driving off criminals. Unfortunately, there are may more instances of guns falling into the hands of minors which tragic results. In urban areas, where police protection is available, the possession of a gun is risk which should not lightly be assumed.   A rabbinic decree (2nd cent.) prohibited the sale of offensive weapons to individuals who are suspected of harboring a criminal intent Avodah Zarah 16b.  In modern societies licensing procedures have been instituted to keep guns out of the hands of criminal elements. Such procedures have proved woefully inadequate. There is a need tor stricter gun-control laws. Ethical considerations make such legislation imperative. BLOCH 106-7

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1446 See [[GEN1222]] Genesis 26:14 envied BLOCH 111

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1469 Judaism has established a rigid code of rituals for the guidance of mourners. It prescribes the conduct which tradition regards as proper and respectful in the period of bereavement. These rules are particularly instructive for the maintenance of an atmosphere of dignified solemnity in a house of mourning where there is little grief. A death which terminates a prolonged agonizing sickness is understandably accepted by the surviving kin with a muted sense of relief.   The same is true of a death which lifts a crushing physical and financial burden from the family of the deceased. Yet, even under such circumstances, the observance of mourning rituals is important as an expression of honor for the memory of the decedent.   The duty of the bereaved kin to mourn their loss has as its counterpart of duty of friends to offer condolences. This obligation similarly srerves a double purpose. It brings solace to the mourners. It also gives the friends an opportunity for paying tribute to the memory of the departed.  The latter aspect of condolence visitations was stressed by Rabbi Judah (3rd cent.). The Talmud relates the story of a man who died without heirs. Hence there were no mourners in need of consolation.  Yet Rabbi Judah was troubled because the decedent was denied the honor which comforters would have paid to his memory had they had the opportunity to make a condolence visit. He therefore assembled a quorum of men to sit with him in the house of the departed to receive condolence visitations. Shabbat 152b The practice of offering condolences is as ancient as the custom of mourning. When Jacob mourned Joseph, “All this sons and all the daughters rose up to comfort him” [this verse]. Ecclesiastes acclaimed the virtue of condolence visits: “It is better to go the house of mourning than to the house of feasting” Eccles. 7:2  How should a vistor behave in a house of mourning? According to the rabbis, a visitor should sit in silence Berachot 6b, Moed Katan 28b The ancient sages apparently felt that a mourner engrossed in his grief is in no mood for conversation. They were also undoubtedly aware of the fact that unsophisticated people might say something which would bruise painfully raw nerves. In their opinion, a visit, even if no words are spoken, is in itself a gesture of sympathy which will bring comfort to the bereaved. The silence was always broken before leaving, when visitors recite the traditional message of condolence.   The maintenance of silence by visitors was an acceptable practice in ancient times because all mourners understood the significance of the silence. Modern people, not familiar with this practice, might misinterpret such silence as assign of indifference. Visitors therefore feel constrained to express some sentiments that will ease the pain of the mourners. Unfortunately, the wisdom for choosing the right words at such a delicate moment eludes many people.  The injection of humor in a house of mourning is highly improper. In the words of the rabbis: “Let no one smile in the company of mourners, nor grieve in the company of celebrators” Derech Eretz Rabbah 7.   The practice of serving refreshments and drinks to visitors is also objectionable because it turns the atmosphere of solemnity into conviviality. Such a disregard of propriety is a mockery of the dead.   There are visitors who try to distract the mourner by taking his mind off his loss. That is a misguided strategy. Mourners need sympathy, not distraction. It is also a disservice to the memory of the dead. Comments on the merits of the deceased and an expression of a sense of personal loss are always proper and comforting to the bereaved. BLOCH 233-5

SHOW FULL EXCERPT