GEN732 The Torah’s concern for animals, reflected in many specific laws in the Pentateuch, can be seen as an expression of both the universality of Jewish morality and its quality of depth. If undeserved and unnecessary pain is evil, then it should make no difference whether those suffering are human beings or animals. Common sense tells us that animals are sentient beings subject to the same physical pain that we human beings are subject to and perhaps to certain forms of psychological stress as well. It follows, therefore, that human beings are morally obliged to refrain from any act that might cause pain or discomfort to animals, have a positive obligation to relieve animals of pain, and carry a responsibility to provide for the needs of the animals that come within their orbit. Even as God’s mercy and goodness extend to all creatures so must man’s. “The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works”; therefore, “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast.” Psalms 145:9, Proverbs 12:10  Animals are a form of life, and life in all of its forms, plant and animal s well as human, is a source of value. The “living God” points man in the direction of value and bids him: “…and ye shall choose life!” In the course of creation, animals received a special blessing from God, and after the deluge, God established His covenant specifically with them. [this verse]  The psalmist praises God for His concern for the beast: “He giveth to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry.” Psalms 147:9 This is in no way in conflict with the principle implicit in the Torah that man is the ultimate purpose of creation and that the lower forms serve man in certain specified but regulated ways. Judaism’s concern for animals is prompted not only by moral regard for the beast per se but also by consideration of the consequences of tender concern for animals and of cruelty toward animals for the personality of man as a moral agent. SPERO 150

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN733 (Continued from DEUT1121]] Deuteronomy 22:5 clothing BLOCH 268-9) To what extent may science be permitted to alter the laws of nature in disregard of the potential dangers which may ensue? It is the function of nature to provide a healthy environment to sustain life. Is the manipulation of natural laws, with the intent of creating catastrophic destructive forces, an attack upon the established order of the universe? The existence of nuclear weapons, posing the greatest menace ever faced by mankind, brings to mind several questions. Is the atomic bomb a legitimate defensive implement of war or a criminal and immoral weapon? The moral question of the legitimacy of weapons capable of total destruction is resolved in the Biblical account of the Flood.  God used the Flood, the ancient equivalent of the atomic bomb, to eradicate mankind, which had degenerated into a state of utter corruption. Yet in the aftermath of the frightful devastation of the flood, God resolved never to use such a weapon again. He formalized this resolution in a covenant with Noah and his sons [This verse]. The condemnation of the atomic bomb is clearly implicit. The next question is, was the initial American production of the atomic bomb immoral? The answer is definitely no.  In view of reliable reports of the imminent acquisition of a nuclear missile by a ruthless enemy, the preemptive production of that weapon by a nation at war was legitimate under the universally accepted principle of self-defense. Was the use of the bomb against Japan immoral? There were no nuclear weapons in the enemy’s arsenal. Nevertheless, the principle of self-defense lends a degree of legitimacy to the dropping of the bomb. It has been estimated that about 100,000 American lives would be lost in the invasion of Japan in an attack with conventional weapons. Despite the knowledge of inevitable defeat, the enemy refused to sue for peace. To the end of terminating the needless carnage, it was proper to use every means at one’s disposal, provided that adequate warning was given to the enemy to evacuate the civilian population. Is the possession of nuclear weapons by nations at peace morally justifiable? The answer is no. Nevertheless, the principle of self-defense precludes any unilateral nuclear disarmament. The only way out of this dilemma is to follow the biblical precedent. God made a covenant outlawing his weapon of wholesale destruction. Nuclear weapons must be outlawed by an international covenant to which all nations must be signatories. The morality of every nation will be judged by its active pursuit of such a covenant. Is the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes justifiable, in view of the potential risks of accidents? Energy is essential to the survival of mankind. Considering the rapid depletion of natural sources of energy, until such time as alternative sources are available all precautions must be taken to minimize the risks. Financial considerations must not influence the relaxation of safeguards. To prevent the element of profit from entering into judgments of safety, Power plants should be owned by the government. BLOCH 269

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN734 … Foundation is the sign of the covenant of the bow [Both circumcision, (Genesis 17:10) and the rainbow (Gen. 9:12-13) are described as a covenant.  Furthermore, the word ‘bow’ is used in the Rabbinic literature as a synonym for penis] and the Bow of the Upper World is only outstretched in order to shoot arrows into the quality of Sovereignty, which is ‘the target for arrows,’ preserving the drop which shoots as an arrow to bring forth branches and to bear fruit. Now, just as the Supernal Bow is never stretched except it be toward this target, so, too, man should not stretch his bow and allow himself an erection under any circumstances except it be it for the proper purpose, namely, for his wife when she is clean, which is the time of union. And not more than this, for it causes a flaw in this quality, God forfend.  Exceedingly great care must be taken and the main precaution is to guard oneself from sexual imaginings.  CORDOVERO 112

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN735 The Bible tells us that after the Flood, the blessing of fruitfulness was once more conferred upon man. This time the animals were not included in the blessing. They were, however, included in the covenant which protected them from extinction. Genesis 9:1-17 The blessing of fertility was later extended to Abraham and Sarah,

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN736 In the scriptures and in rabbinic sources, there are actually many negative comments about the use of win.  The Torah Leviticus 10:8-11 prohibits any priest from drinking wine prior to partaking in any aspect of the Temple service.  Various statements in the Proverbs disparage drinking win.  Wine will make a person arrive late. Proverbs 23:30. Wine will cause a person to mock others. Proverbs 20:1.  Drinking wine will cause a person to become poor (from a habit?) Proverbs 21:17. Wine will pervert a person’s judgment. Proverbs 31:4-5.  According to a number of opinions, the reason the sons of Aaron the High Priest were killed by God Leviticus 10:1-2 was because they entered the sanctuary drunk. Leviticus Rabbah 12.  In a fascinating midrash Tanchuma, Noach 13 the story of Noah’s drunken episode, recorded in Genesis 9:20-24, is amplified.  The midrash records a dialogue between Noah and Satan about the positive and negative effects of wine.  Satan slaughters a sheep, lion, pig, and monkey in the vineyard and uses their blood to grow the grapes.  The midrash ends by saying that when a person first starts to drink, he or she is like s sheep.  Then as the drunk progresses, a person feels like a lion.  A little later, the person is like a pig who wallows in the dirt.  Finally, a person becomes like a monkey that dances foolishly before people.  This is what occurred to Noah, whom the Torah had praised as a righteous person, indicating the negative influence of wine even on a righteous person.  On the other hand, there are sources that indicate that wine is good for man.  The Psalms say that wine gladdens the heart of man. Psalms 104:15. Wine has the ability to satisfy like a full mean. Berachot 35b. After revealing to the brothers who he was, Joseph sent back gifts to his father; one of the gifts sent, called “from the best of Egypt, Genesis 45:23, was wine.  Wine was even used as a medicine to heal. Baba Batra 58b.  What, then, is the true Jewish attitude to wine?  It seems clear that Judaism is in favor of drinking wine if it is done in moderation only.  AMEMEI 59

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN737 What is the intent of “a man of the earth”? The Holy One Blessed be He said to Noah: “Noah, should you not have learned [not to drink wine] from Adam, whose undoing was caused by wine?” [This, according to the view that the tree of knowledge was a grapevine]. Sanhedrin 70a  TEMIMAH-GEN 48

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN738 It was taught: “R. Meir said: ‘The tree from which Adam ate was a grapevine, for there is nothing that brings woe upon one as wine, as it is written: [this verse].  Berachot 40a TEMIMAH-GEN 49

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN739 Judaism clearly separates between the desire to sin and sin itself.  In every realm of life, Judaism recognizes that Jews, as normal human beings, have desires to commit sins.  The premise of the concept of the inner battle between the good inclination and the bad inclination is based on man’s normal desire to sin, alluded to in [this verse].  AMJV 142

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN740 Of Ham, the son of Noah, we are told that “he saw the nakedness of his father” and told his two brothers [this verse]. Why should this act have warranted the harsh imprecation hurled at Ham by his father? The rabbis offer two answers: one, that the text implied that Ham castrated Noah: second, that the Biblical expression is an idiom for homosexual intercourse (see Rashi). On the scriptural story of Potiphar’s purchase of Joseph as a slave Genesis 39:1, the Talmud comments that he acquired him for homosexual purposes, but that a miracle occurred and God sent the angel Gabriel to castrate Potiphar Sotah 13b. (Continued at [[LEV254]] Leviticus 18:22 male ROSNER-BLEICH 202) ROSNER 201-2

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN741 The generation of Noah was condemned to eradication by the Flood because they had sunk so low morally that, according to midrashic teaching, they wrote out formal marriage contracts for sodomy and buggery—a possible cryptic reference to such practices in the Rome of Nero and Hadrian. Of Ham, the son of Noah, we are told that “he saw the nakedness of his father” and told his two brothers [this verse]. Why should this act have warranted the harsh imprecation hurled at him by his father? The Rabbis offer two answers: one, that the text implied that Ham castrated Noah: second, that the biblical expression is an idiom for homosexual intercourse (see Rashi, ad loc.). On the scriptural story of Potiphar’s purchase of Joseph as a slave Genesis 39:1, the Talmud comments that he acquired him for homosexual purposes, but that a miracle occurred and God sent the angel Gabriel to castrate Potiphar Sotah 13b.  Leviticus Rabbah 18:13. (By Norman Lamm, "Judaism and the Modern Attitude to Homosexuality") KELLNER 380

SHOW FULL EXCERPT