GEN1309 [T]he sages tell us that sometimes jealousy can be something very positive and useful.  If an individual recognizes jealous feelings and uses them to build himself up rather than direct the feeling towards the other person, this emotion can indeed be very positive. Pele Yo’etz on “Jealousy.”   Thus, if a person seeks the achievements of a friend and analyzes why that person achieved what he or she did, and then uses that achievement as motivation to better himself or herself, this jealousy is turned outward and becomes a motivator to help a person succeed more.   Therefore, intellectual jealousy among Rabbis is permitted in order to increase Jewish wisdom.   Baba Batra 21a.  The Midrash [Midrash Psalms 37a] explains that if not for this kind of jealousy – i.e. using others’ achievements to motivate to accomplish more – the world as we know it would fall apart. Fewer people would be motivated to build homes, marry, and achieve more in life.   Proverbs tells us not to envy sinners, but rather to be jealous of those that fear the Lord. Proverbs 23:17.   The commentaries explain that a person should not be jealous of any success of evildoers.   Rather, they should envy the accomplishments of the righteous and then try to emulate them.   When Rachel saw that her sister had given birth to many children while she remained barren, the Torah says that Rachel was jealous of her sister [this verse]. But she used that jealousy to improve her own deeds and eventually merit to having children.   Genesis Rabbah 71:6.   AMJV 167

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1334 The Hebrew term for falsely propping oneself up [is] Genaivat Da’at, which technically means “stealing someone else’s thoughts.”   It signifies a conscious effort by an individual to look better than he or she actually deserves to be viewed in the eyes of another person or other people or, similarly, it means making an object for sale appear more desirable and valuable than it really is.   … Jacob, who lived in [his father-in-law] Lavan’s home for twenty years, snuck away at night because he was afraid that Lavan would never let him leave.  Lavan’s reaction to Jacob’s leaving (when he caught up to him) was to say, “What did you do? Why did you steal my heart?” In the next verse he again says, “You stole me,” because he escaped and ran away.   Rashi says these phrases in the verse refer to Genaivat Da’at – i.e., that Lavan accused Jacob of appearing to be friendly, appreciative, and satisfied with is life in Lavan’s house, when he obviously was not.   Chatam Sofer comments that this feigning by Jacob to Lavan would generally be forbidden for a Jew, even towards a non-Jew like Lavan, but he explains that Jacob legitimately did this only because he was afraid for his life.   AMJV 260

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1362 It is clear from Rashi [See above] that Jacob was not concerned about killing Esau himself since this would be a legitimate act of self-defense.   [This and other Torah sources, i.e. Leviticus 19:16] point to the legitimacy of self-defense in Jewish thought and affirm the general concept of “if someone comes to slay you, you should slay him first.” Sanhedrin 72a. AMJV 62-3

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1363 The moral dilemma of possibly having to kill innocents while fighting in a war has been found in actual incidents .. in the Bible. … Abraham was worried that he had “used up” any rewards [promised by God] due him because he might have killed [innocent] people during the war, says Rashi, and God reassures Abraham.   Genesis 15:1.   An analogous emotion ws expressed by Abraham’s grandson, Jacob, when he was faced with a similar emotion and situation.   When confronted with the possibility of fighting his brother, Esau, along with Esau’s entourage, the verse states that Jacob felt two emotions: he was both fearful and distressed.   Answering why the verse uses both verbs, Rashi explains that Jacob was not only distressed that he may be killed (since he might be found unworthy to continue living) but was also distressed that me might kill innocent people during the confrontation … who had no intention of harming Jacob or his family.  … An even more explicit reference regarding Jewish understanding of the issue of collateral damage is the action of King Saul, who was commanded to kill all the Amalekites.  When he approached the city that mostly contained Amalekites but also some people from the Kenite tribe, he warned the Kenites to leave [the] city immediately so that they would not be killed accidentally during the battle.   Samuel 1 15:5-6.   Thus, we see another Torah precedent legitimately worrying about collateral damage.   AMJV 62-3

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1392 What could be the problem or issue with Jews wrestling or Jews boxing [for sport?]   Unlike other sports, in wrestling and especially in boxing, the chances of inflicting damage and bodily harm on the opponent are very high, since essentially that is the goal of the activity in defeating an opponent.  [Deuteronomy 4:9, 4:15 require keeping the body healthy.]   … The Talmud clearly states that causing someone else bodily harm is forbidden, just as causing bodily harm to oneself, is forbidden. Baba Kama 91b.   … Maimonides … rules … the prohibition is only if it is done between two people so angry at each other that they come to blows.   Laws of Personal Injury [Chovel U’Mazik] 5:1.   … The Shulchan Aruch also rules that wrestling and boxing are indeed permitted and that any damage as a result of the match does not make an individual liable for damages.   Choshen Mishpat 421:5.  AMJV 331-2

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1419 See [[GEN1420]] and [[GEN1421]] Genesis 34:25 slew AMJV 67 and AMJV 275-6

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1420 [Is revenge ever justified? … T]here is considerable disagreement about whether or not Simon and Levi did the right thing.   On the surface, Jacob was still angry at them many years later for their act of revenge, and he cursed Simeon and Levi on his deathbed. Genesis 49:5-7.  Nachmanides states that the brothers were indeed wrong and sinful in their act of revenge.  Commentary on Genesis 34:13, 49:5.  Even those commentaries that defend the action of these brothers explain their actions differently, never legitimizing revenge.   Maimonides writes that the attack of the people of the town was indeed justified, as they deserved the punishment of death under Noahide law for allowing the rape and kidnapping to continue without protest. Law of Kings 9:14.  [See also, 34:14 AMJV 67].  Maharal justified Simeon and Levi’s action as an act of war between two nations, not one family pitted against another family.   Gur Aryeh commentary on Genesis 34:13.   But no commentary justifies the act of revenge by Simeon and Levi as legitimate.  AMJV 275-6

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1421 Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, in his commentary to the Torah, states that in a time of legal war against Israel, many of the concepts governing Judaism are changed, and it may be appropriate to kill people (even innocents) when it is not normally permitted t do so.  He says that in the time of war, the rules are different and that innocent people may be killed if necessary to defeat the enemy.   Genesis 9:5 with Ha’amek Davar commentary.   That is why the verses in Ecclesiastes 3:8 say in one verse that “there is an appropriate time (and reaction) for war,” and “an appropriate time (and reaction) to hate.”  This idea also helps us understand how Maimonides could rule that Simeon and Levi were justified in killing all the people in the city of Shechem when, in reality, only their leaders actually kidnaped and raped their sister Dina.   Nachmanides takes strong issue with Maimonides and states that Simeon and Levi were wholly unjustified in killing the entire townspeople for their heinous acts of the leaders.   Nachmanides commentary on Genesis 34:13;49:5.   Wherein rests the argument between Maimonides and Nachmanides? In his Torah commentary, Maharal helps resolve the argument.   He explains that if Simeon and Levi were reacting to individuals who kidnaped and raped their sister, then they were not justified in killing the entire city’s people (the approach of Nachmanides-Ramban). But if this was a war between two peoples, between the Jewish nation and the tribe of people living in Shechem, then in war it is totally justified to kill the people in the entire town, even if they are civilians, as a means of defeating the enemy (the approach of Maimonides-Ramban). Gur Aryeh commentary on Genesis 34:13.  In Judaism, the laws of war are distinct from those governing personal or collective self-defense.  AMJV 67

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1450 Rashi comments that although they were wrong in hating him, at least this hatred was out in the open and they were not hypocritical by keeping hate in their hearts while outwardly feigning friendliness. That would be far worse than openly showing one’s hatred. Like the Talmud, the Midrash Yalkut Shimoni, Leviticus 19,613 also states that only hatred in one’s heart (privately), and not expressed hate, is forbidden by the Torah.   Maimonides specifically says that if a person informs someone that he hates him or her, he or she has not violated the prohibition of hatred (although other sins may have been committed). [See also [[GEN1117]], 21:25 reproached AMJV 129]… On the other hand, Nachmanides disagrees with this approach. He makes no distinction between hatred that is kept in one’s heart and hatred that is expressed openly.  Nachmanides commentary on Leviticus 19:17-18 129.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1485 Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 240) calls the pain that comes from embarrassment the greatest pain of all.  Even when punishing a sinner in a Jewish court, Judaism is sensitive to the embarrassment of the sinner.  Therefore, the person who is designated to administer the lashes to the sinner must have a demeanor that is weak and not strong, in order not to embarrass the sinner.   And if the course of the lashes, the sinner begins to urinate or defecate, the punishment must cease immediately in order not to embarrass this sinner and cause him undue psychological pain.   Laws of Sanhedrin 16:9, 17:5.   Therefore, it is clear that embarrassment is a form of pain that should be avoided whenever possible.   AMJV 247

SHOW FULL EXCERPT