LEV644 … it is not only the poor whom God commands us to help. In what is one of the most famous verses of the Torah, the one that Rabbi Akiva calls the fundamental principle of the Torah [Sifra, Kedoshim 4:12], God commands us to “love your neighbor as yourself; I am Adonai” (Leviticus 19:18). The Rabbis of the Midrash and Talmud, interpreting this verse, determined that it requires us not really to love everyone, which they knew was impossible, but to have concern for others and, more important, to act out of that sense of commitment and loyalty to others. So, for example, they used this verse to explain a man's duty to marry a woman who is fitting for him [T. Sotah 5:6; B. Kiddushin 41a], to forbid a man from having sexual intercourse with his wife during the day lest he sees something loathsome in her [B. Niddah 17a], to permit a child to draw blood from his or her parents in an effort to heal him or her [B. Sanhedrin 84b] despite the Torah’s prohibition of injuring one’s parents (Exodus 21:15), and to require that a person who is to be executed be killed in the least offensive way possible [T. Sanhedrin 9:3; B. Pesachim 75a; J. Sotah 1:5 (6a); J. Sanhedrin 6:4 (28a). Maimonides (1135-1204) uses this verse as the basis for yet other laws: that one must tell the praises of others, avoid self-aggrandizement through defaming others, and concern oneself with other people's money as one would take care of one's own [M.T. Laws of Ethics (Hilkhot De’ot) 6:3]. Furthermore, Maimonides maintains that loving one's neighbor as oneself is one of the grounds for the demand that we rescue captives [M.T. Laws of Gifts to the Poor 8:10]. He asserts that although the commands to visit the sick, bury the dead, comfort mourners, and help a bride and groom celebrate their wedding are of rabbinic rather than biblical status, they are rooted in this biblical command [M.T. Laws of Mourning 14:1].

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV680 See [[EXOD572]] Exodus 21:19 heal DORFFWITO 150-2

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV938 Oppressive Speech (ona’at devarim). Aside from lies and slander, which one might have guessed would be banned in Jewish law, and aside from telling tales, negative truths, and even the “dust” of such language, about which readers might not have thought previously, Jewish law bans another form of speech that it calls “oppressive.” The foundation for this prohibition is two verses in the Torah that assert that we must not wrong one another: “When you sell your property to your neighbor, or buy any from your neighbor, you shall not wrong one another” (Leviticus 25:14); and “Do not wrong one another, but fear your God, for I, the Lord, am your God” (Leviticus 25:17). The Rabbis, following the interpretive principle that nothing in the Torah is superfluous or redundant, determined that the first verse applies to wronging one another in material goods, as the context suggests, and the second, which actually ends the same section about buying and selling, nevertheless refers to wronging people through words: “Our Rabbis taught: “‘Do not wrong one another’ (Leviticus 25:17). Scripture refers to verbal wrongs.” “You say verbal wrongs, but perhaps that is not so but rather monetary wrongs is meant?” “When Scripture says, ‘You shall not wrong one another’ (Leviticus 25:14), monetary wrongs are already dealt with. Then to what can I refer ‘Do not wrong one another’ (Leviticus 25:17)? To verbal wrongs” (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 58b). The Mishnah and Talmud then define what is included in this ban on verbal oppression: “Just as there is wronging others in buying and selling, so too there is wronging another done by words. [So, for example,] one must not ask another, “What is the price of this article?” if he has no intention of buying. If a person repented [of his sin], one must not say to him, “Remember your former deeds.” If a person is a child of converts, one must not say to him, “Remember the deeds of your ancestors,” because it is written [in the Torah], “You shall neither wrong a stranger nor oppress him” (Exodus 22:20). – Mishnah, Bava Metzia 4:10 (58b]

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV943 See [[LEV938]] Leviticus 24:14 wrong DORFFWITO 86-7

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV977 See [[LEV999]] Leviticus 25:17 fear DORFFWITO 89-91

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV999 The Talmud adds two more examples of oppressive speech: If a person is visited by suffering, afflicted with disease, or has buried his children, one must not speak to him as Job's companions spoke to him, “Is not your piety or confidence, your integrity your hope? Think now, what innocent man ever perished? Where have the upright been destroyed? As I have seen, those who plow evil and sow mischief reap them” (Job 4:6-8). If ass-drivers sought grain from a person, he must not say to them, “Go to so-and-so, who sells grain” when knowing that he has never sold any. Rabbi Judah said: “One must not feign interest in a purchase when he has no money, since this is known to the heart only, and of everything known only to the heart it is written [in that Torah], ‘And you shall fear your God’” (Leviticus 25:17). Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 58b. The first of the Talmud’s examples is telling sick people that their past sins are the reason for their suffering. Even if a person with lung cancer smoked three packs of cigarettes a day or a person who had a stroke is obese, so that there is indeed a probable link between their past behavior and their present illness, one may not mention that when visiting the ill person. However, if the person will recover, the doctor may--and probably should--describe that connection and ways of stopping smoking or avoiding overeating because that may have some practical benefit in avoiding a recurrence of the disease; but even a doctor should refrain from blaming the ill for their disease if they have no hope of it for recovery. People outside the field of medicine who have no practical reason to mention this language are definitely prohibited from saying to the ill that they are responsible for their illness, and the Mishnah compares those who do to Job’s “friends” who similarly blamed a job for his troubles and who were ultimately chastised by God for doing so (Job 42:7-9). [Note that in asserting that such language is oppressive speech, the Rabbis of the Mishnah seemed to prefer the way the Book of Job addresses human suffering to the theology of Deuteronomy 28:58-61, which does link sickness to sin. The Talmud’s second example of oppressive speech--telling someone seeking grain to go to someone whom the speaker knows has none-- is another instance of warning us against “placing a stumbling block before the blind to” (Leviticus 19:14)—this time, before the cognitively blind, people who lack information and can be misled by those who give them false directions. To do that is oppressive speech, because it steals not only the questioner’s time, but also his or her trust in other people and even his or her self-respect as someone whom others will not intentionally lead astray. Clearly, this does not apply to games where the whole point is to deceive one another (card games such as poker or I Doubt It come to mind), for then everyone enters into the game with the intention of having fun by seeing how acute one is in identifying false information. It certainly does constitute oppressive speech, though, when children taunt each other in this way. Even in less personally charged situations, when, for example, one is asked for directions, one must prefer to say “I don't know” if one in fact does not know, rather than sending someone “on a wild goose chase.” Harming another's money or property is clearly prohibited, as the passage in Leviticus 25 that we have been discussing spells out in detail. Even so, after explaining what is included in the category of oppressive speech, as quoted above, the Talmud poignantly indicates why verbal oppression is even worse than that: Rabbi Yochanan said on the authority of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai: “Verbal wrong is worse than monetary wrong because with regard to the former it is written, ‘And you shall fear your God (Leviticus 25:17), ‘but not of the second” [in Leviticus 25:14, which the Rabbis interpret to prohibit monetary wrongs]. Rabbi Eleazar said: “The former [verbal oppression] affects his [the victim's] person, the other [only] his money.” Rabbi Samuel bar Nahmani said: “For the latter [monetary wrongs] restoration is possible, but not for the former [verbal wrongs].”

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1044 … prevention is better than cure. Specifically, it is better to come to a person's aid when his or her problems are just beginning rather than after he or she becomes destitute. “If your kinsman, being in straits, comes under your authority, you shall uphold him” (Leviticus 25:35). Do not allow him to fall into utter poverty. The injunction may be explained by analogy with a load on a donkey: as long as he is standing up, one may grab him [to keep him from falling] and keep him standing upright. Once he has fallen, however, five men cannot make him stand up again (Sifra, Leviticus, on Leviticus 25:35 [ed. Weiss, p. 109b]).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1069 ... the extent of a person's need would be another factor that the community must take into account, but there was a strong sense that the community must first help its own. What results is concentric circles of care and concern. “Anyone who gives money to his adult children, mature enough that the parent is no longer obliged to sustain them, in order that the adult males may study Torah and the females may live uprightly [and] so, too, anyone who gives gifts to his needy father and mother may consider these gifts a fulfillment of the duty to give charity. Indeed, he needs to give these relatives priority over others in his charity giving. He should give a similar priority to his relatives over all others. The Torah commands that the needy of his household come first, then the poor of his city, and they, in turn, have priority over the poor of another city... Rabbi Saadia (882-942) wrote that a person is required to put his own sustenance first, and is not duty bound to give charity to others until after providing for his own. The Torah says, “And your brother shall live with you” (Leviticus 25:36), a verse that clearly establishes that your life comes first and only then the other person [following the Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 62a]. Also remember what the widow of Tzarefat said to the Prophet Elijah [1 Kings 17:12]: “And I have done this for me and my son,” first for herself and afterward for her son, a comment he [Elijah] approved of since Elijah [first] said [v. 13], “Do it for yourself,” and [he said] “and for your son” only afterward. After one has seen to his own sustenance, he may then give priority to the sustenance of his needy parents over that of his adult children, and then he should see to the sustenance of his adult children (Jacob ben Asher (d. 1340), Arba’ah Turim, Yoreh De’ah, chapter 251).” (See also Sifrei on Deuteronomy 15:7; Mishneh Torah, Laws of Gifts to the Poor 7:13; Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 251:3.).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1070 (Continued from [[LEV247]] Leviticus 18:22 abomination DORFFWITO 134-5). The Talmud also includes a story that establishes the principle of one's primary responsibility to save one's own life. “Two people are traveling on a journey [far from civilization], and one has a pitcher of water. [They realize that] if both drink [from it], they will [both] die. But if only one drinks, he can reach civilization. Ben Petura taught: ‘It is better that both should drink and die rather that one should behold his companion’s death,’ until Rabbi Akiva came and taught: ‘that you brother may live with you]’ (Leviticus 25:35), [implying that] your life takes precedence over his life [for only if you are alive can your brother live with you]. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 62a.” Based on this principle, the Shulchan Arukh, again following earlier sources, maintains that one must first seek to redeem oneself, then one’s teacher, and then one’s parent. The “teacher” referred to here is not one of many teachers that one has in one’s life but rather the one mentor with whom one lives and studies for all of one's learning after elementary education. As the Mishnah explains elsewhere regarding whose lost object one should search for first (Mishnah, Bava Metzia 2:11 [33a]), one’s teacher deserves to take precedence over one’s father “because one’s father brings one into this world, but one’s teacher brings one into the world to come.” However, in redeeming from captivity, one's mother takes precedence over both one’s father and one’s teacher because of the risk of rape noted above.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1078 Assisting the poor in biblical times took the form not only of direct aid, but also of relief from servitude, and that too was rooted in respect for God's ownership of the world. Although an Israelite could be sold into slavery to pay a debt, the master was required to set the slave free within six years, even if the debt was not totally redeemed by that time. If the slave chose to remain in servitude, he could do so, but only until the Jubilee year, when even the reluctant had to go free. Moreover, the master could not abuse the slave. The Bible clearly specifies that the rationale behind these commandments is that all Jews are God’s servants, and consequently they may not be perpetually the slaves of any human being: “If your kinsman under you continues in straits and must give himself over to you, do not subject him to the treatment of a slave. He shall remain with you as a hired or bound laborer; he shall serve with you only until the Jubilee year. Then he and his children with him shall be free of your authority; he shall go back to his family and return to his ancestral holding. For they are My servants, whom I freed from the land of Egypt; they may not give themselves over into servitude (Leviticus 25:39-42). Thus care for the poor, including those enslaved to pay off their debts, is required because ultimately God owns us all, together with the world in which we live.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT