LEV372 Another biblical verse that is seemingly addressed only to those dealing with the blind--such as [this verse]--condemns by implication all those who offer people harmful advice: "Cursed be he who misleads the blind man on the road" (Deuteronomy 27:18). The figurative meaning of this verse is, indeed, frequently violated. For anybody who is lost and needs directions is, for all practical purposes, a "blind man on the road," yet many people who are not certain of the facts offer directions anyway.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV375 The Rabbis also root the prohibition against intentionally giving bad advice in another Torah Law: [this verse]. Jewish tradition understands this as not only outlawing playing a cruel trick on a blind person, but also as taking advantage of one who is "blind" to the matter at hand. Thus, anyone who takes advantage of another's ignorance and gives that person inappropriate advice is regarded as having violated this biblical law (It applies as well to one who takes advantage of another's addiction or lack of self-control. Thus, providing liquor to an alcoholic is a violation of this law.) A rabbinic commentary explains: "If a man seeks your advice, do not give him counsel that is wrong for him. Do not say to him, 'Leave early in the morning,' so that thugs might mug him. Do not say to him, 'Leave at noon,' so that he might faint from heat. Do not say to him, 'Sell your field and buy a donkey,' so that you may circumvent him, and take the field away from him" (Sifra, Leviticus 19:14). As the first examples make clear, don't play cruel practical jokes on people, and as the last example teaches, if you have a personal interest in the matter, you must disclose it.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV431 "Do not favor the poor nor show deference to the rich" [this verse]. "You shall neither side with mighty to do wrong nor shall you show deference to a poor man in his dispute" (Exodus 23:2-3). The many Jewish laws commanding the compassionate treatment of the poor (see, for example, chapters 12, 13, and 18), are applicable outside, but not inside, the courtroom. In a judicial setting, there must be one standard of justice for poor and rich alike. Thus, a judge should not reason to himself: "Since this man is poor and both I and this rich man are obliged to support him, I shall decide the case in his favor so that he will receive support in a clean [and non-embarrassing] manner" (Sifra on this verse). The Talmud holds up King David as a model of someone who showed both justice and charity. In the courtroom, he judged strictly on the basis of law, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty. But after pronouncing a ruling in which he sentenced a poor man to pay damages, he would help the man out of his own pocket, thereby fulfilling the demands of both justice and kindness, justice to the injured party by ensuring him that he received what was due him, and kindness to the poor man by enabling him to pay his debt (Sanhedrin 6b). (This Talmudic teaching is offered in explanation of the biblical verse: [King] David administered justice and kindness to all of his people" (II Samuel 8:15).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV448 Even though many of the laws [in Leviticus] relate judicial procedures, they are not relevant only to judges and lawyers. Indeed, laws ordaining that we judge people fairly, stay far away from falsehood, and not be intimidated by others are applicable, on a daily basis, to all our lives. ... The most all-encompassing command to judges is "In justice shall you judge your fellow man" [this verse].

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV495 See [[EXOD549]] Exodus 21:14 neighbor SPERO 126-30

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV494 [Regarding this verse the] Torah makes it clear that its greatest heroes were concerned with all suffering, not just that of their own people. When Abraham learns that God intends to destroy the city of Sodom for its acts of cruelty, he argues with God not to do so if there are at least a few righteous people living there (Genesis 18:22–33). Later, when Moses sees the Midianite male shepherds mistreating Midianite female shepherds trying to water their flock, he stands up for the women and secures their rights (Exodus 2:16–17). It is fitting, therefore, that Jews have played such a prominent role in a leading the campaign to stop the genocide in Darfur. In addition to providing humanitarian aid to many of the displaced and traumatized people forced from their homes and living in camps in Sudan and Chad, the American Jewish World Service (headed by Ruth Messinger), which founded the Save Darfur coalition in 2004, has used public education and political advocacy in the United States to try to end the crisis. In a statement issued at the time, AJWS said: "As Jews, we have a particular moral responsibility to speak out and take action against genocide. We must respond and save as many lives as we can."

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV497 The biblical law [this verse] mandates that we intervene and extend help when another's life or well-being is at risk. As the Talmud teaches: "From where do we know that if one sees someone drowning in a river, or if one sees a wild beast attacking a person or bandits coming to attack him, that he is obligated to save the person? The Bible teaches, 'Do not stand idly by while your brother's blood is shed'" (Sanhedrin 73a). However, Jewish law does not oblige us to sacrifice our life for another; intervention is required only when our actions will not put our own life at risk. Thus, in the case of a drowning person, if you can't swim, or if you can but the river's current is dangerously fast, you are obligated to do all that you can (i.e., extend a pole or summon help), but not to risk your own life (see Sefer Chasidim, paragraph 674). In a case where a person is present who can swim, for example, you are obligated to offer money to try to induce them to do so (Sanhedrin 73a) (The victim--if he has the means--is required to repay the person who laid out the money to help save him (Ramah, Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 252:12). The Talmud notes that the obligation to help also applies in a case where you witness a person being attacked by a wild animal. For example, if you can distract the animal without putting yourself at serious risk, you must do so. In the case of muggers or gang members, if it is too dangerous to intervene, you must, at the very least, summon the police. While this would seem self-evident, no such requirement exists under American law.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV656 Even though the Torah ascribes no special significance to the verse "Love your neighbor as yourself," Jewish sources have long understood this commandment as having special --and in some ways preeminent--significance. Rabbi Akiva (second century) declared that the injunction to love your neighbor "is the major principle of the Torah"(Jerusalem Talmud, Nedarim 9:4). More than a century before Akiva, Hillel presented a negative formulation of this law, "What is hateful to you, do not do your neighbor." He also declared this to be Judaism's central teaching: "This is the whole Torah! All the rest is commentary" (Shabbat 31a). Occasionally, I have heard people describing Hillel's formulation of the Golden Rule as representing a lower, more pragmatic ethic than the positive but vaguely phrased "Love your neighbor." But, in fact, Hillel was concerned with offering people practical guidance on how to make this law part of their daily behavior, and he understood that it is first necessary to teach people what not to do. ... In defining Judaism initially by what one shouldn't do, Hillel may have been emulating God's articulation of the Ten Commandments. Thus, my friend Dr. Isaac Herschkopf notes that "God did not command us to be honest, truthful, and faithful. Rather, He commanded us, 'Don't steal,' 'Don't bear false witness,' 'Don't commit adultery.' It might be less positive, but it is undeniably more effective."

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV693 The medieval biblical exegete Rashbam commented on the words "Love your neighbor" that "if your neighbor is good [love him], but if he is evil, 'The fear of the Lord is to hate evil'" (Proverbs 8:13). Nechama Leibowitz, perhaps the greatest Bible teacher of the twentieth Century (see also pages 21-23) has argued that although Rashbam's fame for his "strict adherence to the plain sense of the text," in this instance he has violated his own principle since "the text itself affords no hint of any such distinction between a good and evil man. On the contrary, it employs a neutral comprehensive term, 'neighbor.'" (Leibowitz, Studies in Yayikra (Leviticus), 195.) [Although I prefer Rashbam's understanding of the text to that of Leibowitz's, the fact that he does not define what he means by "evil" is problematic. Thus, on occasion, I have heard some observant Jews refer to Jews who don't observe Judaism's ritual laws as resha'im, evil people, and who seem to believe, in consequence, that the law commanding love of neighbor does not apply to them. This is very unfortunate and morally wrong. The word "evil" should apply in the general sense in which people use this term, as referring to people who engage in cruel and harmful behavior to others. In modern times, the ultra-Orthodox sage, the Chazon Ish, ruled that since God is not as evident in the world today as He was, for example, during the revelation at Mount Sinai, observant Jews should not regard non-observant Jews as apikorsim, heretics, people who knew God and rejected Him. The late Rabbi Joseph Lookstein often said that he loved all Jews except for Jews who didn't love other Jews.] In this instance, it could be argued that Leibowitz herself is being overly literal. "Love your neighbor" is given as a general command without restrictions, in the same way as "Honor your father and mother." However, does Leibowitz assume that this law enjoins a child to act lovingly and respectfully toward a parent who, for example, sexually abused her? Sixteen verses after "love your neighbor," the Torah similarly places no restrictions on the command to love "as yourself" the stranger whose resides with you [this verse]. This implies, for example, that Israeli Jews have a biblical obligation to love Arabs who live among them in peace. But I suspect that Leibowitz does not believe that this command also applies to those Arabs who engage in acts of terror or who support groups or countries that seek to destroy Israel. To insist that a child is obligated to love and respect a father who sexually abused her or that an Israeli must love a "stranger" who commits acts of terror is to turn a beautiful and generally applicable Torah law into a self-destructive statute. In short, as Rashbam teaches, we are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves in a large majority of instances, but not all.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV701 There is no specific verse in the Torah commanding us to visit the sick. Maimonides cites the obligation to do so, along with obligations such as extending hospitality and comforting mourners, as logical outgrowths of the commandment [this verse]. "[These words imply that] whatever you would like other people to do for you [such as visiting you when you are sick], you should do for your fellow ... ("Laws of Mourning" 14:1). Although Maimonides' language suggests that he understands the commandment ordaining love of neighbor as applying only to fellow Jews, twice in his code he specifies that Jews should visit non-Jewish sick as well ("Laws of Mourning" 14:12; "Laws of Kings" 10:12).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT