EXOD555 See [[LEV429]] Leviticus 19:14 stumbling-block BLOCH 108-9

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD584 Abortion of a fetus, soon after conception, is an act of aggression prohibited in the Bible [this and following verse]. According to the Talmud, the killing of a fetus does not constitute murder and is not a capital offense (Sanhedrin 57b). A fetus may be aborted if the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy (Ohalot 7:6). Abortion for the sake of destroying a defective child is not permissible, unless it is essential to the preservation of the physical and emotional health of the mother.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD591 (Continued from [[DEUT619]] Deuteronomy 13:7 friend BLOCH 141). An analysis of the concept of compassion in Judaism is incomplete without a discussion of the areas in which the Bible calls for stern justice. We must also explore such biblical injunctions as the expulsion of the indigenous Canaanites from Palestine and the eradication of the Amalekites, which appear unduly harsh by the standards of enlightened civilized behavior. Why does the Bible tolerate capital punishment and war? How does one explain the law of the blood-avenger (Numbers 35:21) or the so-called lex talionis [this verse]? The answer to these questions rests on two assumptions. (1) Some biblical moral perceptions were not intended to establish a permanent normal ethical behavior. They were merely responses to the temporary exigencies of a particular moment. [2) Biblical ethical values are expressed in terms comprehensible to primitive man, who was heir to long-established, ancient concepts of morality. New ethical concepts, designed to raise the moral level of human behavior, can be effective only if they do no violence to the generally accepted values of society at any given stage of man's development. New standards must be endowed with elasticity that permits them to keep pace with the growth and progress of civilization. This view is correlated to the talmudic maxim: "The Torah adopted language which is understandable to human beings" (Berachot 31b). In its brighter connotation, the teaching of ethics was linked to man's capacity of understanding and acceptance. Each stage of human advancement permits an upgrading of moral perceptions by an evolutionary process.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD592 (Continued from [[NUM408]] Numbers 35:19 death BLOCH 65-6). The lex taionis ("an eye for an eye") has been singled out as a classic example of biblical harshness. The criticism of this law that appears in the New Testament (Matthew 5:38-42) has given it a wide prominence which no anti-Pentateuchal polemicist has dared ignore. It is incontrovertible that the mutilation of the human body is repugnant to modern minds. Yet, even while rejecting the practice of an eye for an eye, the law of a life for a life was never put in question by critics of the lex talionis. Is the taking of a life less cruel than the taking of an eye? Is capital punishment more acceptable because the executed criminal is buried and forgotten, while a maimed criminal survives as a visible monument to society's barbarism? Was the lex talionis ever practiced in ancient Israel? The answer is no. Ancient Middle Eastern nations supported the lex talionis as a punishment which fits the crime. The Babylonian and Assyrian codes approved of it. The inclusion of this law in the Pentateuch [this verse] did not shock the ancient Hebrew. On the contrary, its omission would have puzzled him. However, while the law was left intact, it was, to all intents and purposes, voided by an alternative option, the payment of damages, which was the case in all tort actions. The provision for the payment of damages was attached to the law prescribing the punishment of the owner of a goring ox which killed a human being. The owner's negligence carried the death penalty (Exodus 21:29). However, he was permitted to redeem his life by the payment of damages (Exodus 21:30). That the alternative of payment of damages applied to all cases of tort is made clear in Numbers (35:31), which singles out murder as a crime that cannot be expiated by the payment of damages.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD600 See [[EXOD401]] Exodus 20:10 slave BLOCH 58-59

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD603 See [[EXOD401]] Exodus 20:10 slave BLOCH 58-59

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD605 A willful murder was punished by the courts. An accidental killer, however, was not deemed legally guilty of any crime. Yet there was a common perception of a moral guilt attached to a person who causes another man's death, even if he was not negligent in the legal sense of the word. This view was supported by the biblical law of the goring ox. An ox which killed a human being must be destroyed [this verse]. The destruction of the ox is justified by the need to prevent future mishaps. However, the law has an additional proviso. The meat of the ox is unfit for human consumption, even if the animal was ritually slaughtered. Rabbi Aaron of Barcelona (13th cent.) explained the prohibition on moral grounds. It is a pointed lesson, he alleged, that an animal which caused a human death is an odious creature, repugnant to all men. This will teach us to be extremely careful not to be the cause of the loss of a life, even in the absence of negligence (Chinuch 52).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD607 See [[EXOD592]] Exodus 21:24 eye BLOCH 66-67

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD611 See [[EXOD592]] Exodus 21:24 eye BLOCH 66-67

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD627 See [[EXOD454]] Exodus 20:13 murder BLOCH 262

SHOW FULL EXCERPT