GEN603 One of the explanations for the cause of the Flood and God’s dissatisfaction with the world is the widespread homosexual activity at that time. [See also, 39:1 AMJV 140]  According to the commentaries, each species “corrupted its way,” i.e., had improper sexual relationships.  Man and other species regularly engaged in bestiality and homosexuality.  It was for this reason that God destroyed the world, showing that these practices are antithetical to God’s vision for man and society’s development.  Rashi, Chizkuni, and Mizrachi commentaries.  AMJV 140

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN604 We are forbidden to steal even small amounts. … Rabbi Yochanan said, “Come and see the power of corruption. The generation of the flood violated everything, but the final decree against them was not signed until they were guilty of stealing.” Sanhedrin 108a.   Rabbi Alexander Ziskind explained the severity of stealing in the following manner: When one steals a few dollars from another person, he is actually causing more damages than might initially appear.  The victim might have invested the money and received a profit, and when his children would have inherited his money, they too could have gained profit from it.  The same with their children and their children’s children until the end of time.  This could amount to a fortune, and as the Sefer Chasidim writes, all this is taken into account.  We must realize the gravity of stealing even small sums, and resolve to keep far away from this crime Yesod Veshoresth Haavodah 10:2.  Rabbi Shalom Shwadran made the following observation: “I have seen people enter a store and sample some of the food without paying for it.  In many instances the owner really wanted them to pay, but was embarrassed to ask for such a small amount.  Such behavior is to be condemned.  It is similar to that of the generation of the flood.” PLYN 36

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN606 Because [by stealing,] people demonstrated absolutely no belief in a higher being (and destroyed the fabric of society in the process), the world could not continue.  AMEMEI 32

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN607 Rashi, based on Sanhedrin 57a, explains that the use of the word destroy in the Torah connotes sexual relations.  This heinous sexual sin, then, led to the destruction of the entire world. AMEMEI 260

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

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

GEN605 … the basic moral principles upon which the Decalogue is based were in fact already well known and enjoyed some degree of approval long before Israel stood at Sinai. This is implied by the biblical narrative itself. Judaism, however, not only assumed the widespread dissemination of the basic principles of morality but also made the normative judgment that all men are bound by thee moral standards. Since the fatherhood of God implies the brotherhood of man, the prophet could ask: “Have we not all one father? Hath not one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brothers?” Malachi 2:10; See also, Job 31:15  And when moral behavior was not forthcoming from man, the consequence was punishment: “For the earth is filled with violence thoroughly them; and, behold, I will destroy them …” [this verse] Later, in speaking of the nations of Amon and Moab, the Torah faults them for immoral behavior, “because they met  you not with bread and water on the way, when you came forth out of Egypt.” Deuteronomy 23:5  With this in mind, we must ask ourselves what is unique and distinctive about Jewish morality. Certainly, there are some obvious distinguishing characterizations that can be made. It would appear that Jewish morality is strongly deontological in character, emphasizing a sense of duty and obligation that embraces the concept of what is right. Furthermore it would have to be acknowledged that Jewish morality is essentially humanistic in nature, placing the highest value upon human life and personality in directions that encourage justice and righteousness, love and kindness in social relations, and humility and moderation in our personal development. But even if we add the theological component and say that we have in Jewish morality a sort of religious humanism, we are still in the realm of class-membershp and general classification. We have as yet not put our finder upon what is distinctly Jewish about the morality of Judaism. What seems clear to the present writer is that there is no Jewish morality either in the sense that Judaism can be expected to offer some uniquely different definition of right and wrong or in the sense that the essentials of Jewish morality obligate Jews only. … In a previous chapter we pointed out that in the biblical and rabbinical view, morality is the chief demand made upon man by God, whose own nature, insofar as it can be known, is moral. This conviction was supported by the historical memories of the Exodus, which seared into the national consciousness the concept of a God who hears the call of those in pain and liberates the oppressed. This imparted a very clear and overriding centrality to morality in every areas of life. While attempts had been made earlier in human history to endow morality with religious sanction, it was always wisdom, human or divine, which was seen as its source. Just as there are wise rules who compose good laws for their people, so might there be wise gods who recognize effective laws and urge them upon man for the benefits they bring. At Sinai, however, a new source and a new authority were revealed for morality. “Thou shalt not steal” may be good advice in order to achieve a stable and orderly society, but it must first be seen for what it is: an expression of the divine will. “In the Israelite conception, justice and morality belong to the realm of prophecy, not wisdom … The divine imperative from a God … whose will is essentially moral and good.”  Y. Kaufmann, “The Biblical Age,” in Great Ages and Ideas of the Jewish People, ed. L.W. Schwarz (New York: Random House, 1956), p. 24. Such a radical and unprecedented shift in the perception of the source of conventional morality resulted in and new and dramatic emphasis upon the importance and significance of morality in the destiny of the nation. This message was clearly and forcefully hammered home by the long line of Hebrew prophets. Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol 6., col. 934, and Leo Baeck, God and Man in Judaism (New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1958), pp. 26-27. A quality that most impresses the reader of the prophetic literature is the intensity of the passion and the almost “hysterical” tone with which these messengers of God denounce the immorality of their times.   SPERO 119-121

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN609 [T]he sages teach Pesachim 87b, “A man only plants one measure, for the sake of bringing forth many measures.  In the same manner, HaShem plants the Jewish people throughout the various lands, in order to increase the number of converts [to Israel].”  However, as long as they are deceitful in their dealings with other nations, who will want to be attached to them?  After all, God is even strict with regard to theft from the wicked, as the Torah states [this verse], “And the earth was filled with robbery.”   EYES 267

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN610 Many people show a greater disregard for the mitzvos that apply between a man and his fellow (bein adam la’chaveiro) than for those that are between man and God (bein adam la’Makom).  It appears that there are two reasons for this.  Firstly, they erroneously believe that one who violates the mitzvos between man and God is directly slighting the Creator’s honor, whereas one who violates the mitzvos between man and his fellow only damages the honor of man and his needs. The second rationale stems from the fact that no punishment is meted out by man [The power to mete out all physical punishments, including all forms of the death penalty, rested solely in the hands of the 71-members supreme court, the Sanhedrin.  Hence, these court-administered punishments essentially came to an end with the destruction of the Temple, and along with it, the rule of the Sanhedrin] for commandments transgressed between man and his fellow.  Even one who embarrasses another person in public—a sin so severe that he loses his share in the World to Come [As the Talmud points out in Bava Metzvia 59a, even one who omits adultery with a married woman – whose punishment is execution by strangulation – nonetheless retains his share in the World to Come] – is nonetheless free of any court-administered punishment.  Similarly, even one who commits robbery, one of the gravest transgressions  [This is implied by the Talmud’s statement Sanhedrin 108a that the fate of the Dor HaMabul (Generation of the Flood) was only sealed on account of their robbery], does not receive lashes [If one intentionally violated a biblical prohibition (laav) that is punishable by a Divine death (rather than a court-administered penalty), the Sanhedrin sentenced him to receive as many as 39 lashes.  It should be noted, however, that a number of extraordinarily difficult conditions had to be satisfied in order for this sentence to be carried out.  For example, two witnesses must testify that he committed the transgression within seconds of being warned by them not to do so.  The witnesses must also undergo extensive cross-examination separately, and their testimony is stricken if they contradict each other on even minor details].   However, both of these arguments are false. The first line of reasoning is forcefully refuted by the Ramban in Parshas Yisro Exodus 20:13, in his comments on the commandment “You shall not kill:” Behold, the Ten Commandments are divided [into two halves], so that five relate to the Creator’s honor, and five are for the man’s benefit … It appears that the tablets were written with the first five on one tablet – these are the commandments pertaining to God’s honor, as I mentioned.  The second set of commandments appeared on the second tablet, so that the two sets of five would be opposite each other. The Ramban elucidates this matter further in the continuation of his commentary, according to the allusions and secret mysteries of the Torah, in his usual, holy manner.  But we are not qualified to dabble in the Torah’s secrets.  The simple message that is revealed to us by the balanced layout of the Ten Commandments on the Luchos (Tablets) is the following.  Just as we may surely not believe that the two Luchos were unequal in holiness, or that the sanctity of all the Ten Commandments is not equal – so, too, are all of the Torah’s mitzvos equal in holiness, whether they are between man and God, or between man and his fellow.  For it is by the Word of God that we have been commanded to observe all of the Torah’s commandments.  The same Torah that commands, “You shall not eat from a carcass, or from a torn animal,” Leviticus 22:8 and “You shall not wears shatnes (mixed fibers), wool and linen together,” Deuteronomy 22:11, also decrees “You shall not be a gossip–monger,” Leviticus 19:16, “You shall not move your neighbor’s boundary,” Deuteronomy 19:14, and “You shall not steal.” Exodus 20:13.  In fact, violating one of the commandments between man and his fellow is even more serious than violating a commandant between man and God, since one who transgresses one of the former has not only sinned against God, as is the case for all of the Torah’s prohibitions, but also against his fellow man.  This is precisely what the Ramban alludes to in his commentary on Parshas Noach [this verse], regarding the statement by Rabbi Yochanan (Sanhedrin 108a) that the decrees of the Mabul (Great Flood) was ultimately sealed on account of their robbery, and not as a result of their adulterous behavior.  The reason, explains the Rambam [sic?], is that “robbery is evil committed against both God and human beings.” In other words, robbery is also a sin between man and God, since the Torah states “You shall not steal,” just as it commands, “You shall not commit adultery.” Exodus 20:13 But the former has an additional aspect of sin in that it causes harm to other people as well.  Similarly, the Rambam writes [Yad HaChazakah, “Laws of Charitable Gifts” 10:1], that we are obligated to pay more heed regarding the commandment of charity than with regard to any other positive commandment in the Torah.  Thus, although tzedakah is but a mitzvah between man and his fellow, we are obligated to be more stringent concerning its observance than for that f all the positive commandments between man and Gj-d.  We have also not seen it stated with regard to any commandment, that one who does not perform that mitzvah is not a descendant of our forefather Abraham, with the exception of one who does not have compassion for others, as cited in the Talmud (Beitza 32b).  The second line of reasoning used by those who show disregard for the mitzvos between a man and his fellow can also be rejected, based on the comments of Rabbeinu Yonah in Sha’arei Teshuva (3:24): … Our Sages of blessed memory taught (Chulin 141a): “One does not receive lashes for violating a laav (negative commandment) that is linked to a positive one.” For example, the prohibition Deuteronomy 22:6 “Do not take the mother-bird together with the young,” is linked to the positive commandment (that immediately follows it in the same verse), “You shall surely send away the mother-bird.” But even though the courts do not administer lashes for these transgressions, there are violations among them whose punishment reaches to high heaven in its severity, and whose judgment mounts on high.  For example, in the case of theft, it is written Leviticus 9:13, “You shall not rob,” and this is connected to the positive commandment Leviticus 5:23, “He shall return the robbed items that he has robbed.”  Yet our Sages have stated Sanhedrin 108a, “The fate of the generation of the flood was sealed only because of robbery, as it is stated [this verse]: ‘The end of all flesh as come before Me, for the earth is filled with robbery.’” And although the sin of illicit relations is more serious than that of robbery, the nature of the penalty for robbery is to draw nearer the day of destruction, and to hasten that which lies in store for one….  EYES 120-4

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN612 The fate of the Generation of the Flood was sealed only over theft, as (this verse) says “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth has become filled with larceny.”  Although the sin of illicit relations is graver than that of theft, the punishment of theft has the quality of bringing the day of catastrophe closer and speeding up the unfolding of [calamitous] future events.  They also said, Ecclesiastes Rabbah 1:13, “In a ‘se’ah [a measure of volume] filled with sins – there is none among them that prosecutes as much as theft.’”  [Translated in TZADIK 153 as “In a measure full of sins there is none more incriminating than that of theft.”]  GATES 195

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN611 R. Yochanan said: “Come and see how great is the power of violence [pillage]: for the generation of the flood committed all manner of transgressions, and yet their decree was not sealed until they stretched out their hand to steal, as it is written [this verse].  Sanhedrin 108a TEMIMAH-GEN 36

SHOW FULL EXCERPT