GEN1465 See [[GEN1242]] Genesis 27:18 went TELVOL1 401-2

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1466 J contains some rather elaborate deceptions which are not fully paralleled in [either] E and there is little or no mention of these events in P. In particular, the deception of Jacob by his sons concerning Joseph’s appearance contains the following language in Genesis 37:31 – 32: “And they took Joseph’s coat, and killed a he goat and dipped the coat in blood; and they sent the coat of many colors, and they brought it to their father; and they said: ‘This we have found. Discern please whether it is your son’s coat or not?’” There is no mention of this deception in E. Chapter 38 demonstrates the characteristic J style of countering deception with deception. Here again, one finds J showing that one deception is punishable by another deception using similar language. In this case, Judith fears that Tamar will cause the death of his only remaining son Shelah and tries to deceive Tamar by telling her (38:11): “Remain a widow in your father’s house, till Shelah my son grows up,” But then the text tells us it is a deception “… for he feared that he would die, like his brothers.” Tamar then deceives Judah into fathering a child for her and before she gets punished she turns to Judah and states (38:25): “Discern please who is these are, the signet and the cord and the staff.” The text then adds (38:26): “She is more righteous than I come inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah.” Clearly demonstrating again, that deceptions involving sexual promiscuity are not seen as inherently without merit and that deception is usually punishable by another deception.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1467 Jacob is the Bible’s most prominent example of a parent who could not be consoled.   … Though we can all understand unending grief, particularly after the death of a child, the Shulchan Arukh law rules that a person “should not grieve too much for the dead, and whoever grieves excessively is really grieving for someone else.   [The ArtScroll translation and commentary understands this Talmudic passage as being more in the nature of a curse than of a psychological observation and renders it as follows: “Anyone who grieves over his dead to excess will ultimately weep for another dead.” The commentary explains this teaching (in line with a statement of Rashi) as meaning that “whoever chooses to wallow in grief will be paid with further grief.”] The Torah has set limits for every stage of grief, and we may not add to them. Yoreh Deah 394:1, based on Mo’ed Kattan 27b.   TELVOL 2:131-2

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1468 [This] type[] of conduct constitute[s] gemiluth chesed [acts of lovingkindness], to keep the other person in mind for the purpose of doing good to him, and praise him to those having the power to help him.   AHAVCH 24

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

GEN1470 If we refrain from legitimately rebuking someone, he will eventually be angry at us.   Rashi explains that Yehuda left his brothers because of the selling of Yosef.   Yehuda’s brothers removed him from his rank as leader when they saw the grief of their father over the loss of Yosef. They said to Yehuda, “You said to sell him.   Had you said to return him, we would have listed to you.”   Rabbi Yeruchom Levovitz notes that at first Yosef’s brothers wanted to kill him and in the end because of Yehuda’s advice they sold sold him.   Even though Yehuda saved them from committing a more heinous crime, they were angry at him for allowing them to sell Yosef.  This behavior is typical of someone who regrets his crime after having committed it; he reproaches others for not having prevented him.   … There always comes a time, said the Chofetz Chayim, when a person who has done wrong has grievances against others for failing to stop him; if not in this world, then in the world to come.   (Daas Torah: Limuday Mussray Hatorah, vol. 1, pp. 224-225). PLYN 110-1

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1471 R. Elazar said: If someone does a mitzvah and does not finish it, and someone else comes and finishes it, he [the first] is brought down from his greatness, As it is written: ‘And it was at that time that Judah ‘went down from his brothers [having initiated Joseph’s rescue, but not having consummated it]’ Sotah 13b TEMIMAH-GEN 158

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1472 In the Torah, the levirate law imputes right to a widow.   She has a right to marriage with her husband’s surviving brother.   We can see that the right is hers, because the shift in priorities that brings the law into disuse is already underway when the biblical legislation is recorded: When marriage to her brother-in-law is not feasible, she is called upon to waive her right, with suitable symbolic acknowledgement of her entitlements Deuteronomy 25:4-10; cf [this verse].  Again, the Torah gives a female war captive the right to mourn her parents for a month before she may be married and insists that she if is espoused, it can only be as a wife, not as mere concubine.   She may be divorced but not sold, “because thou has humbled her” Deuteronomy 21:10-14; Exodus 21:8.  This is not the Geneva Convention, but the law of the “fair captive” is a far cry from Homeric values.  The captive has rights, and shed has them by virtue of her personhood.   JHRHV 60

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1477 Jewish tradition recognizes the right of married couples to engage in any mutually agreeable form of sexual activity so long as it does not result in hashhatat zera, the intentional spilling of semen that wastes an opportunity to create new life.  In contemporary times, liberal authorities have interpreted the concern with hashhatat zera, which has its roots in the story of Onan Genesis 38:7-10, to be limited to preventing pregnancy in violation of an agreement between spouses that they will attempt to become pregnant.   Today any remaining concern about hashhatat zera has taken a back seat to an appreciation of the pleasure associated with male masturbation, as well as to the imperative to use a condom to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).  Jewish tradition never banned female masturbation, since it involves no issue of seminal discharge.  Thus, all forms of autoeroticism are permitted.   Masturbation is a legitimate source of pleasure and of physical release, and it is far better than an inappropriate sexual partnership. … There is truly no such thing as “safe sex.” Sexual intercourse means opening oneself to another in the most intimate way.   It means taking a chance with another person.   It means risking being hurt or being used.   While people can perform any number of sexual acts, there is a difference between engaging in sexual activity in order to achieve physical pleasure, an orgasim, in which only the physical aspect of our being is engaged, and sharing sexual intimacy as a way of bonding with another human being that involves our entire physical and spiritual being.   The institution of marriage provides a socially accepted structure in which the emotional and spiritual risks involved in true lovemaking are mitigated.  … Jewish tradition recognizes that sexual activity has the potential to bind partners together and increase their sense of intimacy.   The medieval text Iggeret Hakodesh, The Holy Letter, often erroneously ascribed to Ramban (a 13th century philosopher and bible commentator), emphasizes that marital sexual activity is sacred when done with awareness that intimacy has a divine aspect to it.   Such holiness is possible only when there is no coercion, when the relationship is legitimate, and when the lovers are attentive to each other’s needs and wishes.  This aspect of sexual activity does not apply to casual sexual relationships that lack an ongoing mutual commitment.  Sexual activity obviously does not need to be limited to times when people want to conceive a child.  Sexual pleasure is desirable.  Partners who know that they are unable to conceive a child can still delight in sexual activity. The primary questions around sexual activity are with whom it should take place and under what circumstances.   AGTJL 200-1

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1475 Especially given the high hormonal levels of teenagers and young adults, refraining from non-marital sex will almost inevitably mean that they, and, for that matter, older people, will masturbate. This is especially true in our own time, when people commonly marry some fifteen years after they become sexually mature. The Mishnah, by contrast, mandates that men marry by the age of eighteen, M. Avot 5:21 and the Talmud records how Rabbi Hisda boasted that he was superior to his colleagues because he is married by sixteen, “and had I married at fourteen, I would have said to Satan, ‘An arrow in your eye.’” B. Kiddushin 29b-30a. In other words, had he married at an even younger age, his sexual needs would never have led him to do anything wrong. Men in their middle to late teenage years presumably married women who are somewhat younger. Even then, we must presume that nature took its course and that people masturbated at least until marriage. The Torah is silent about masturbation; the story of Onan [this verse] that is often cited in this regard is about interrupted coitus, not masturbation. The Talmudic Rabbis and the medieval Jewish tradition, however, roundly condemned masturbation, especially by males. Much of that, though, was due to earlier medical beliefs that masturbation would lead to insanity, impotence, loss of hair, and a host of other maladies. See, for example, M.T. Laws of Ethics (De’ot) 4:19 We now know that such beliefs are not true. Therefore, even though the tradition was not happy about masturbation, it is preferable that people masturbate than that they engage in non-marital sex, because masturbation does not involve any of the moral commitments or physical risks of sexual intercourse. Masturbation should be done in private, of course, just as all genital activities should be. In that context, men and women who masturbate rather than engaging non-marital sex should feel no guilt about it: They are making the morally and Jewishly preferable choice.  DORFFLOV 120

SHOW FULL EXCERPT