EXOD655 See [[EXOD1030]] Exodus 34:6 compassion BLOCH 57-8

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD675 See [[DEUT1406]] Deuteronomy 24:17 widow BLOCH 260-1

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD676 See [[EXOD1030]] Exodus 34:6 compassion BLOCH 57-8

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD710 Maimonides lists seven biblical Commandments enjoining the giving of charity (Sefer HaMitzvot 120-124, 130, 197). These multiple laws attest to the great importance attached to charity in Judaism and also to the need for overcoming a well-entrenched natural reluctance to part with one's hard-earned money. Of the seven commandments, six are obligatory levies raised from the produce of the soil. Interestingly, the single voluntary charity specified in the Bible is not an outright gift of money but a loan [this verse]. Judaism regards help extended to the poor with a view toward enabling them to become self-supporting as the most laudable form of charity (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 10:7). The Book of Psalms brackets making an interest-free loan with giving alms as an act whose merit shall endure forever (112:5, 9). (Continued at [[LEV1031]] Leviticus 25:35 kinsman BLOCH 51-2)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD723 See [[EXOD1030]] Exodus 34:6 compassion BLOCH 57-8

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD764 See [[LEV525]] Leviticus 19:16 talebearer BLOCH 148-9

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD770 Strong talmudic opposition to gambling was responsible for a rabbinical law which put the integrity and trustworthiness of gamblers into question. As a result, gamblers were barred from appearing as witnesses in most judicial proceedings. … Specifically, gamblers were not accepted as witnesses in civil cases involving financial claims (Rosh HaShanah 22a). The impaired credibility of gamblers constituted a public stigma strong enough to discourage all but the addicts from gambling. Rabbi Judah (2nd cent.) eased somewhat the stringency of the law of the ineligibility of gamblers. According to him, the law applies only to gamblers "who have no other means of livelihood [i.e., professional gamblers]. If they have another gainful occupation, they are eligible" (Sanhedrin 24b). The divergence of rabbinic views stemmed from two distinct perspectives of the evil of gambling, the legal and moral aspects. Rabbi bar Chana (4th cent.) based the rule of disqualification of gamblers on the principle that money gained by gambling is tainted with the smell of robbery. The biblical definition of robbery is limited to the forceful appropriation of money without the consent of the owner. Acceptance of gambling gains does not constitute robbery in the biblical sense of the word. After the spread of gambling the rabbis broadened the definition of robbery to include money won by gambling. They justified the broader definition by the fact that gamblers do not truly and willingly consent to the giving up of their money. Gamblers enter a game with hopes of winning. A gambler's agreement to forfeit his money if he loses is qualified by mental reservations. One lives up to the terms of the agreement under conditions which amount to quasi-compulsion. It is therefore proper to regard money won by gambling as tainted with the smell of robbery. Individuals guilty of violent robbery (the biblical definition) are wholly disqualified from ever giving testimony in court [this verse]. Individuals accepting gambling profits (rabbinical definition of robbery) are only partially deprived of their eligibility. Rav Sheshet (4th cent.) disputes the legal premise of the opinion which holds a gambler culpable of rabbinically prohibited robbery. In his view, gambling agreements are entered into voluntarily and hence are legal, though not necessarily enforced by the courts. However, gambling is morally wrong because it is against public policy. It is God's will that people engage in constructive work which contributes to the welfare of society. The professional gambler is a parasite who does not serve the interests of the community. A social gambler, on the other hand, if he has a gainful occupation, is surely not guilty of a parasitic mode of life and hence does not incur the penalty which bars him from testifying in a court of law. [Note: Additional discussion of gambling in the source both precedes and follows this excerpt - AJL).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD797 Personal dislikes and animosities do not affect one's social obligations to his fellow man. This rule is expressed forcefully in the Book of Proverbs: "If thy enemy is hungry give him bread to eat, and if he is thirsty give him water to drink" (Proverbs 25:21). All biblical social commands are applicable to friend and foe alike [this and following verses]. The temptation to disregard an enemy in need is very intense. Indeed it requires much character training to ignore one's normal inclination to look the other way. To emphasize the urgency of such character training, the rabbis promulgated an amendment to an established law: "If a friend requires unloading [of an animal which has fallen because the burden was too heavy for it--normally such an obligation has priority], and an enemy requires loading, one's [prior] obligation is toward his enemy, in order to subdue his evil inclination" [to offer no help to an enemy] (Baba Metzia 32b).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD800 Biblical consideration for animals was the basis for the following laws: … A passer-by who comes across a fallen beast of burden, which is unable to rise due to its heavy load, must stop to help unload the burden [this verse]. The Talmud bases this injunction on the broad principle of prevention of pain to animals (tzaar baalei chaim; Baba Metzia 32b). Medical research on animals was exempted by the medieval rabbis from the restrictions of this principle (Rema, Even HoEzer 5:14). Hunting as a sport, not for the purpose of procurement of food, is considered cruel and sinful (Avodah Zarah 18b).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD879 Bibical consideration for animals was the basis for the following laws: … Animals must be permitted to forage for food in fields and farms which lie fallow in a sabbatical year [this verse].

SHOW FULL EXCERPT