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 — 22:11 combining

DEUT1173 The Torah is sensitive to make sure that man does not alter the world or destroy it. Commenting on a verse in the first chapter of the Torah where the Torah commands each species to reproduce itself [Genesis 1:11], Samson Rafael Hirsch comments that the mitzvah given to man not to create a mixture of species in plants or animals in general, or between wool and linen specifically [this verse], indicates that the Torah did not want man to alter the world or to "play God." Creating hybrids alters the commandment by God to keep species separate.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUTERONOMY — 22:11 wear

DEUT1174 Since free will is indeed basic to Jewish belief (See chapter "Choices and Freedom"), then, logically, each person who freely chooses to perform any particular action must accept full responsibility for that deed. Therefore, even though a person's action was incited and brought about by some other individual, the perpetrator of a crime out of free will must assume full responsibility. Inciting the deed by another person may explain why the person committed the sin, but it should not excuse him or her. And if the sinner takes full responsibility, then logically the inciter bears no responsibility, even if the inciter urged that the deed be effected and knew what was happening at the time of the deed. This concept seems to have support from specific Jewish sources. Maimonides rules (Maimonides, Hilchot Kelayim 10:31) that if one man clothes a second individual with a garment of wool and linen, a Torah prohibition [this verse], and if the person wearing the garment was unaware of the illicit mixture in the clothing, then the one who caused the sin by placing the garment on the individual is the blameworthy party and is punished, while the wearer is exonerated. However, if the wearer knew about the illegal garment, then he is guilty. In a similar manner, if a man sends his shepherd with cattle to graze in someone else's field, the shepherd, and not the sender, is responsible for the damages (Kiddushin 42b). ... What is the logic for making the shepherd guilty (or the Mafia hitman guilty) for merely following the instructions of the sender or inciter? Can't he claim that "I am only acting as his messenger" and assume no personal guilt? The answer is that in the Talmud (Kiddushin 42b), there is a concept that there is no agency to commit a sin. While I may generally act at someone's behest to do a mitzvah and my action makes it as if he performed the action, if a person asks me to commit a sin, I may not listen to him or her and carry out this sin even in the other person's name. If I do the act, I am doing it of my own free will.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUTERONOMY — 22:13 marriage

DEUT1177 Consummate marriage according to the Torah’s directives. Key concept: The Torah commands that before a man takes a woman into his home to live together as man and wife, he must perform an act of acquisition to designate her as his wife. This procedure impresses upon her that she has become singled out only for him and must always remain faithful to him, never having intimacy with anyone else. She now is obligated to honor and respect him, help him in every way and devotedly meet his needs. If she does so, they will dwell together in peace and harmony for always. Homes such as these are the fulfillment of [the] Holy One’s Will, Who wants His world to be settled and populated. For this reason, the custom is that the man give the woman a ring for the sake of kiddushin. Wearing the ring on her finger and seeing it constantly, she is always reminded of her purpose and duties as a married woman.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUTERONOMY — 22:14 evil

DEUT1178 It is forbidden to issue a false report about another [this verse]. It is also forbidden to receive a false report (Exodus 23:1). From the passage "Thou shalt keep thee from every evil thing" [Hebrew davar, which can also be read as 'word'], the rabbis concluded that one is forbidden to speak ill of one's fellow even if what is said is true (Deuteronomy 23:10).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUTERONOMY — 22:14 indict

DEUT1179 I might think [the halachah obtained] even [if he accused her] of spoiling his meal; I, therefore, induce: It is written here: "indict," and, further (verse 17): "indict." Just as there, illicit relations are indicated [as the substance of the indictment]; here, too, illicit relations are understood (Yerushalmi Ketuvoth 4:4)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUTERONOMY — 22:15 gave

DEUT1180 Changed Realities and the Relevance of Tradition. ... our reality regarding these matters [i.e., people’s backgrounds, and the assumptions they and their cultural environments make about romantic relationships-AJL] is so drastically different from that of the Sages that we need to apply the ancient teachings with great discernment. In the true process of halakhah, one doesn't just quote sources; one also applies them to current realities. This can be challenging, and when it comes to sexuality even more so, because the changes in this area, even in our own lifetimes, have been so dramatic. One major example is that, in antiquity, a father arranged for his children's marriage: “I gave this man my daughter to wife” (Deuteronomy 22:16). This was ideally done “close to their time,” that is, shortly after the children entered puberty. By arranging for the children's marriage at that age, the father provided a framework for ethical, sacred expression of the natural sexual urges that arise at that time: “The sages commanded that one marry off his sons and daughters close to their time, lest they come to sexual immorality or impure thoughts” (Maimonides [Rambam], Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Intercourse 21:25, based on the Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 62b, Sanhedrin 76b). A more commonly known teaching is: “At 18, to the wedding canopy” (Mishnah, Avot 5:21). There were times that, due to less abundant nutrition, women arrived at puberty later, sometimes even as late as 17. This may explain the suggested age for marriage. Regardless, marrying children off at 18, as is still common in the Hasidic world, usually prevents many, though not all, of the questions this essay addresses from ever arising. Today, however, young people wishing to marry at 18 or 20 would be hard pressed to support a family. Gone are many of the manufacturing jobs and family businesses that once allowed high school graduates to be financially self-sufficient. Increasingly, a college degree and even a graduate degree are prerequisites for a comfortable standard of living. Often, even those are not enough, and one needs a certain number of years at a given position to start earning a salary that could support a family with children. The Tradition itself reminds us of the folly of entering into marriage before finances are in place: “The way of the wise is to first find work that supports him, then buy a house, then get married... But the fools first get married, then look for housing, and lastly look for work” (Maimonides [Rambam], Mishneh Torah, Laws of Ethics 5:11). We thus have an almost unprecedented number of young adults financially unable to marry for a decade or more after puberty, a time of peak sexual desire for men, and often for women. How tragic that our wealthy society has brought about this situation, in which economics leave young adults with no choice but to delay marriage. Another changed reality has to do with the context in which physical intimacy takes place. There has been a huge shift in what society considers moral. This is partially a result of the diminished impact of religious teachings, and partially a result of the advances in accessibility of contraception. With the easy availability of birth control, which set the sexual revolution in motion, young adults are largely able to avoid the negative consequences that until recently accompanied, and often deterred, sex outside of marriage (i.e., social stigma and unwanted pregnancies). (By Uzi Weingarten)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUTERONOMY — 22:19 never

DEUT1182 The Talmud cites two instances in which the husband was denied the right of divorcing his wife. The first was the case described in the Bible [Deuteronomy Xxii. 13-19], when the accusation of pre-marital immorality brought by him against his wife proved untrue; the second was when he himself had seduced his wife before marriage. In that case, it was an act of justice that he should not be allowed to shame her by summarily dismissing her.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

RSS
First535536537538539540541542543545547548549550551552553554Last
Back To Top