Torah Emet
6-5770 Mitzvah N-64
December 27, 2009
Negative Mitzvah 64 – This is a negative commandment: Do not appoint a judge who is unsuitable.
Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “You shall not respect persons in judgment.” (Deut. 1:17). And it was explained in the Midrash Sifre that this is addressed to the man assigned to appoint judges, that he should not respect persons: He should not say, “So and So is strong” or handsome, or wise in other fields of knowledge or other areas of excellence, which are not related to the Torah and the reverent fear of Heaven (God). For a judge needs to be wise in the Torah, reverent toward Heaven, with a hatred of bribery, who subdues his evil impulse; and he should have a strong fearless heart to rescue an exploited or victimized person from the one who oppresses him. These are the noble qualities that a judge needs to have. If, however, someone appoints judges on account of other qualities, he violates this prohibition. It is in force everywhere, at every time.
The plain meaning of the verse from Deuteronomy teaches that when litigants come before a judge in court, he should not administer justice based on the different statuses of the litigants. A judge should not say, “This man is a well respected man in town, he must be right in this case, how could I even think to rule against him?” nor should a judge think, “This man is poor and the other is rich; the rich man will not miss the money and the poor man needs it so I will rule against the rich man to aid the poor one.” In both cases the judge has not acted correctly and would be basing the judicial decision on the circumstances of the litigants and not the facts of the case. Rich or poor, one must not favor one side over the other in court.
The Hafetz Hayim, however, basing his interpretation on the Sifre, sees this Mitzvah in a very different circumstance. The Sifre is a collection of Midrashim, sermons and other extra-legal stories that expand or limit the context of the verses in the Torah. The Sifre is part of the “Midrash Halacha” one of the earliest collections of interpretations of the Torah. [The parts of Midrash Halacha are: The Mechilta (on Exodus), the Sifra (on Leviticus), and the Sifre (on Numbers and Deuteronomy). It does not include Genesis because there are very few Halachot, or laws based on the verses of Genesis.] According to the Sifre, our verse in the Torah from Deuteronomy does not refer to the actions of judges but to the one who is appointing judges.
In ancient times, judges were appointed by the ruling party and were supposed to follow the demands of those who appointed them. In many cases rich men (never women) would pay to be appointed to these posts which came with easy salaries and one could “take care” of friends and punish enemies. As long as you paid your patron and did not anger him, you could be appointed for life and everyone would have to honor you or face your wrath. Another point in the ancient judicial world was that, for pagans, justice depended on the god who was behind the judge. Since the many gods often fought with each other, human justice could also reflect this disagreement and a final decision could depend on which god the judge saw as the “patron” of his court.
Justice in Judaism was a very different process. The fact that there is only one God means that there is only one law, for all the people. That law is based on the single text from that God and the judges are only responsible for upholding the law. Moses, who appointed the first judges, was looking for men who were upright and honest. Jewish literature is filled with judges who were not afraid to judge a king or a powerful man in the community. They believed that God stood behind them in justice and if someone were to subvert their rulings, then God would punish those who would defy God’s judge.
In this tension, between the Jewish version of justice and the pagan view of justice, is the core of our Mitzvah. There could be all kinds of reasons someone would want to appoint a person to be a communal judge. The Sifre tells us that there is really only one correct reason, that the person is wise in the law, hates bigotry, too honest to accept a bribe and with a pious reverence for God and Judaism. It is hard enough to weigh justice and mercy when ruling in court. To be distracted by other extraneous ideas and indebted to other people just can not be tolerated. To bring any other qualification to the table when appointing judges would be an affront to God and a violation of this Mitzvah.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
5-5770 Mitzvah N-63
Torah Emet
5-5770 Mitzvah N-63
Negative Mitzvah 63 – This is a negative commandment: Do not curse a judge.
Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “You shall not revile God.” (Exodus 22:27). (This is interpreted to mean judges.) If someone curses a judge by the Divine name or by a substitute name of God, he should receive whiplashes twice (over this prohibition) and over the prohibition not to curse a fellow Jew (Mitzvah N-45).
This verse of the Bible is also an admonition not to blaspheme Hashem. If someone blasphemed Hashem by a substitute Divine name, he would transgress a prohibition. If someone blasphemed Hashem by the Divine name itself, his punishment is stated explicitly: “And he who blasphemes the name of Hashem shall surely be put to death; the entire community shall stone him” (Lev. 24:16). This is the case if one blasphemes even if he retracts in the time it takes to say a few words. At the present time, however, when we do not judge capital cases, he is excommunicated and we keep our distance from him. It is in force everywhere, at every time for both men and women.
In Mitzvah N-45 the law noted that it is forbidden to use God’s name to curse other people. Here we raise the stakes another notch. If cursing a fellow Jew is bad, how much more sinful can it be to curse a judge. Now the curse is not directed only to an individual, but to the institution in which the judge operates. This curse is directed to the whole structure in which justice is provided in the community.
We can see why a person might want to curse a judge. After all, if a ruling does not go the way we would like it to go, we might get angry, not at ourselves for errors we may have committed, but blaming the judge for not understanding our case well enough to rule the way we wanted him or her to rule. Being a judge does not imply that you will win any popularity contests, rather, more often than not, both sides will be unhappy with your rulings and say nasty things about you and the whole legal system.
Anger is one thing, cursing is another. Words have power, and if we are not careful, our words could be twisted by someone else and much harm can befall the judge or other judges who get swept up in our curse. Getting mad and saying things you might regret is bad, but it is criminal if our words go on to bring harm, through our actions or through the actions of one who hears our curse. King David says a few ill chosen words against King Saul’s heir Ishboshet, and a well meaning soldier takes that to mean the young man should be assassinated. We have to watch our words.
The Torah equates judges with God. One of the words used, “elohim”, could refer to either God or judges. If our verse from Exodus is taken in a literal way, it refers to cursing God, which would be a capital offence.
The issue of substitute names of God was raised in Mitzvah N-45. It refers to any name that is usually associated with God. It can be a distinctly Jewish name for God or a common name for God used by non-Jews. Using a substitute name is punished by whiplashes, but using one of the direct names of God makes one liable for death by stoning.
The Hafetz Hayim understands that Jewish courts do not impose the death penalty anymore. The Rabbis made a series of rulings that make it difficult, if not impossible, to get a conviction in a capital case. He rules, therefore, that while we do not put the one who blasphemes God to death, we do remove him from our community. The blasphemer’s attitude to God can not exist in a community of faith. It is not so much that we wish to censer his words; rather, he undermines the very heart of what the community believes in and can no longer be allowed to spread his blasphemy to others. He must be avoided by all who are faithful to God.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
4-5770 Mitzvah 62
Torah Emet
4-5770 Mitzvah 62
Negative Mitzvah 62 – This is a negative commandment: Do not harden your heart and do not shut your hand toward a poor Jew.
Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your needy brother.” (Deut. 15:7). [http://toratemetlessons.blogspot.com/2006/12/09-5767-mitzvah-38.html]. It is in force everywhere, at every time for both men and women.
In the positive Mitzvah, the Hafetz Hayim writes at length about the many different ways the Torah tells us that we need to be responsible for the poor in our community. He tell us there (you can look it up in the Archives on
There are many reasons that we might fail in our obligation to the poor. We might think that the person is not really poor; we think he is guilty of trying to make his money by scamming those of us who take our Tzedakah seriously. Perhaps we have already given many times in recent days. Maybe we had a bad month and we are worried about our family income. Maybe we are not feeling very generous this week. As far as this commandment is concerned, there is no excuse for closing our hand to those who are in need. It is not just a positive commandment; there is also a negative commandment that tells us that we have sinned if we close our hand to the poor.
The Mitzvah only mentions poor Jews and we do have an obligation to Jews who are in need before those who are not Jewish. We can fulfill this part of the Mitzvah through our contributions to the Jewish Federation. Still, we should support all the poor in our community if, for no other reason, for the sake of peace. We can fulfill this part of the Mitzvah through our contributions to the
Sunday, December 6, 2009
3-5770 Mitzvah 61
Torah Emet
3-5770 Mitzvah 61
Negative Mitzvah 61 – This is a negative commandment: Do not withhold from its owner an object taken in pledge, at the time that he needs it.
Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “you shall not sleep with his pledge.” (Deut. 24:12). Which means: do not go to sleep while his pledged object is with you (see positive commandment #63) http://toratemetlessons.blogspot.com/2007/06/29-5767-mitzvah-63.html . It is in force everywhere, at every time for both men and women.
The above link has my comments on the positive side of this Mitzvah. It is a positive Mitzvah to return an object, given as a pledge on a loan, if the object is something a person needs for his daily life or to make a living. It can include clothing, tools of his trade, bedding, or kitchen utensils. Most times a person will pawn something that he doesn’t need but which has a value if it were to be sold. The borrower might not want to sell it for sentimental reasons or that market for the item may not be favorable at the time the borrower needs the money. In this case, the pawned object stays with the lender until the loan is paid.
But if the object is something that is vital to the borrower for his daily life or to earn a living, he may need that object to earn what is needed to pay back the loan. Jewish law commands us to give him the object when he needs it and he will return it when he is finished. We should return his tools in the morning when he goes to work and he will return them at the end of the day. We can hold his bedding by day but we need to return it to him each evening before he goes to sleep.
It is a positive Mitzvah to return to the borrower such necessary objects. It is a negative Mitzvah not to return them. This is how seriously Judaism takes this part of Jewish law. This law had to be stated both as a positive Mitzvah as well as a negative Mitzvah. It is not just a nice thing to return the object. It is not just a “charitable” act on the part of the lender. It is a requirement of the law to act in a moral way and there will be punishment if we refuse to do what is right. We are not dealing with rich people needing to raise some capital to cash in on some investment. We are dealing here with poor people who are taking a loan in desperate financial times. We must take care not to create for them impossible situations or embarrassing moments lest God, who watches out for the poor, the orphan and the widow, will take up their case and act against the heartless lender who causes these defenseless people such pain.
In Judaism we do not say “business is business.” We conduct our business practices with humanity and morality.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
2-5770 Mitzvah 60
Torah Emet
2-5770 Mitzvah 60
November 23, 2009
Negative Mitzvah 60 – This is a negative commandment: Do not take as a pledge (or take as collateral for pawn) the garment of a widow.
Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “nor shall you take a widow’s raiment to pledge.” (Deut. 24:17). This applies whether she is poor or rich; and neither at the time of the loan nor after the loan was made, nor through the court. If he (the creditor) took an object in pledge from her, it is taken back from him against his will. If the object taken was lost before he returned it, he would violate this prohibition irrevocably, since he can no longer fulfill his duty to return the object taken in pledge. It is in force everywhere, at every time for both men and women.
One of the hallmarks of the Torah’s legislation is its protections for the poor. While it is true that the law of the Torah applies to both the rich and poor alike, God is seen as the defense attorney and protector of the poor and those who have no one else to protect them. This includes widows, orphans and the homeless.
In this mitzvah, we are reminded that a widow is already in a precarious financial position. To offer her financial support is the mark of one who is committed to Tzedakah, acts of Justice. To offer a loan with collateral is considered to be taking advantage of her unprotected status. Especially in the case where the collateral is an article of clothing; one does not take clothing as a pledge as this would cause too much pain for the widow who is forced to sell her clothing to cover her debts. She is to be supported because it is the right thing to do.
But even if she is not poor, a creditor cannot take an article of clothing in pledge. First of all it is a bad policy, since if we allow it in one case it would be too hard to convince people not to take an item in pledge when the widow is poor. Also, even a rich widow has a certain amount of dignity that you rob from her if you take an item of clothing in pledge.
I do note that the Hafetz Hayim does not distinguish clearly between an item of clothing taken in pledge and any other item taken in pledge. I understand this his way of saying that while the Torah mentions only articles of clothing, it is the responsibility of the community to support the widows in their midst and clothing is just one of the items that are included in the prohibition. Tzedakah is what is called for here, not a loan. We must look out for those who are at risk in our community and help them get back on their feet without crushing them under further debt.
2-5770 Mitzvah 60
November 23, 2009
Negative Mitzvah 60 – This is a negative commandment: Do not take as a pledge (or take as collateral for pawn) the garment of a widow.
Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “nor shall you take a widow’s raiment to pledge.” (Deut. 24:17). This applies whether she is poor or rich; and neither at the time of the loan nor after the loan was made, nor through the court. If he (the creditor) took an object in pledge from her, it is taken back from him against his will. If the object taken was lost before he returned it, he would violate this prohibition irrevocably, since he can no longer fulfill his duty to return the object taken in pledge. It is in force everywhere, at every time for both men and women.
One of the hallmarks of the Torah’s legislation is its protections for the poor. While it is true that the law of the Torah applies to both the rich and poor alike, God is seen as the defense attorney and protector of the poor and those who have no one else to protect them. This includes widows, orphans and the homeless.
In this mitzvah, we are reminded that a widow is already in a precarious financial position. To offer her financial support is the mark of one who is committed to Tzedakah, acts of Justice. To offer a loan with collateral is considered to be taking advantage of her unprotected status. Especially in the case where the collateral is an article of clothing; one does not take clothing as a pledge as this would cause too much pain for the widow who is forced to sell her clothing to cover her debts. She is to be supported because it is the right thing to do.
But even if she is not poor, a creditor cannot take an article of clothing in pledge. First of all it is a bad policy, since if we allow it in one case it would be too hard to convince people not to take an item in pledge when the widow is poor. Also, even a rich widow has a certain amount of dignity that you rob from her if you take an item of clothing in pledge.
I do note that the Hafetz Hayim does not distinguish clearly between an item of clothing taken in pledge and any other item taken in pledge. I understand this his way of saying that while the Torah mentions only articles of clothing, it is the responsibility of the community to support the widows in their midst and clothing is just one of the items that are included in the prohibition. Tzedakah is what is called for here, not a loan. We must look out for those who are at risk in our community and help them get back on their feet without crushing them under further debt.
Monday, September 21, 2009
1-5770 Mitzvah 59
Torah Emet
1-5770 Mitzvah 59
September 21, 2009
Negative Mitzvah 59 – This is a negative commandment: Do not take as a pledge (or take as collateral for pawn) any object by main force from a debtor.
Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “You shall not go into his house to take his pledge.” (Deut. 24:10). The lender is not to take a pledged object from the borrower except through the court. And even the representative of the court who comes to remove it is not to enter his house to take it but is to remain outside as Scripture says, “You shall stand outside” (Deut 24:11) The borrower is to go into his house and bring the pledged object to him, as Scripture says, “and the man to whom you make the loan shall bring forth the pledge out to you”, (ibid). As for a guarantor, it is permissible to take an object in pledge from him by force, and to go into his house and take the pledge for it says, “Take his garment, for he has given surety for a stranger (Proverbs 20:16.) So too, if someone has remuneration due him from his fellow-man, whether it is wages for his labor or payment for the hire of his animal, his tools, or his house: he is permitted to take a pledge without the action of the court. He may enter the other’s house and take an article in pledge for his payment. But if he has converted the fee due him into a loan for the other to pay, it is forbidden. It is in force everywhere, at every time for both men and women.
In keeping with our trend to spare the feelings of one who has taken out a loan, we come to the issue of collateral. If the loan was made based on some article possessed by the borrower being chosen as collateral for the loan, and if the borrower defaults on the loan, then the lender is entitled to the collateral. The collateral is held by the borrower until it is needed. ( I don’t think that there is any reason that the lender cannot hold the collateral while waiting for payment on the loan, but that is not the issue here.) If the lender wants to claim the collateral, he cannot force his way into the house to take it. That is a direct violation of the Torah. He must go to the court, prove that he is owed the collateral and then the court sends a bailiff to get the object to give to the lender.
But note that even here the agent for the court cannot enter the home to take the collateral. He must ask the borrower to bring out the object and give it to the agent. While it is possible for the borrower to refuse to bring it out, it would bring on him communal penalties in addition to the monetary one that the court has awarded.
All of this is to protect the borrower from intrusion into his private domain and the pain of having his personal property seized. It must be turned over to the court by the borrower to fulfill his contract with the lender.
The second part of this Mitzvah has to do with a third party, the guarantor of the loan. If someone has guaranteed the loan to the lender on behalf of the borrower, and the guarantor has paid the lender the money owed on the loan, the guarantor does have the right to enter into the borrower’s home to take out an object in pledge. It is telling that this law is derived not from the Torah but from Ketuvim, the third section of the Hebrew Bible. Those who have been reading these lessons a long time know that it is rare to see a quote from outside the Torah. In this case, because of the verse from Proverbs, the guarantor can enter the home of the borrower and take an object of value to reimburse his payment on the loan.
Why can the guarantor do what the lender cannot? The lender and borrower are engaged in a contract. The guarantor is doing the borrower a favor. If he has to make good on the pledge he has fulfilled his position regarding the loan and is entitled to speedy restitution. The guarantor can enter the home of the lender and if he finds an object of value, he can take it and sell it in the market to recoup his expenditure on behalf of the borrower. He can do this unless he converts the money he gave to the lender into a new loan from the borrower; he then is no better than any other creditor and can be refused entry into the home just as the original lender was refused entry. This is all similar to the rules of a paid watchman verses the simple guardian who guards as a favor. If the object is lost, the paid watchman has to reimburse the owner for the loss. If the guardian, who is watching the object as a friend, loses the item, he only has to make an oath that he has no idea where the object is and he is clear of having to pay any restitution.
Best wishes to my readers for a happy, healthy and sweet New Year.
1-5770 Mitzvah 59
September 21, 2009
Negative Mitzvah 59 – This is a negative commandment: Do not take as a pledge (or take as collateral for pawn) any object by main force from a debtor.
Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “You shall not go into his house to take his pledge.” (Deut. 24:10). The lender is not to take a pledged object from the borrower except through the court. And even the representative of the court who comes to remove it is not to enter his house to take it but is to remain outside as Scripture says, “You shall stand outside” (Deut 24:11) The borrower is to go into his house and bring the pledged object to him, as Scripture says, “and the man to whom you make the loan shall bring forth the pledge out to you”, (ibid). As for a guarantor, it is permissible to take an object in pledge from him by force, and to go into his house and take the pledge for it says, “Take his garment, for he has given surety for a stranger (Proverbs 20:16.) So too, if someone has remuneration due him from his fellow-man, whether it is wages for his labor or payment for the hire of his animal, his tools, or his house: he is permitted to take a pledge without the action of the court. He may enter the other’s house and take an article in pledge for his payment. But if he has converted the fee due him into a loan for the other to pay, it is forbidden. It is in force everywhere, at every time for both men and women.
In keeping with our trend to spare the feelings of one who has taken out a loan, we come to the issue of collateral. If the loan was made based on some article possessed by the borrower being chosen as collateral for the loan, and if the borrower defaults on the loan, then the lender is entitled to the collateral. The collateral is held by the borrower until it is needed. ( I don’t think that there is any reason that the lender cannot hold the collateral while waiting for payment on the loan, but that is not the issue here.) If the lender wants to claim the collateral, he cannot force his way into the house to take it. That is a direct violation of the Torah. He must go to the court, prove that he is owed the collateral and then the court sends a bailiff to get the object to give to the lender.
But note that even here the agent for the court cannot enter the home to take the collateral. He must ask the borrower to bring out the object and give it to the agent. While it is possible for the borrower to refuse to bring it out, it would bring on him communal penalties in addition to the monetary one that the court has awarded.
All of this is to protect the borrower from intrusion into his private domain and the pain of having his personal property seized. It must be turned over to the court by the borrower to fulfill his contract with the lender.
The second part of this Mitzvah has to do with a third party, the guarantor of the loan. If someone has guaranteed the loan to the lender on behalf of the borrower, and the guarantor has paid the lender the money owed on the loan, the guarantor does have the right to enter into the borrower’s home to take out an object in pledge. It is telling that this law is derived not from the Torah but from Ketuvim, the third section of the Hebrew Bible. Those who have been reading these lessons a long time know that it is rare to see a quote from outside the Torah. In this case, because of the verse from Proverbs, the guarantor can enter the home of the borrower and take an object of value to reimburse his payment on the loan.
Why can the guarantor do what the lender cannot? The lender and borrower are engaged in a contract. The guarantor is doing the borrower a favor. If he has to make good on the pledge he has fulfilled his position regarding the loan and is entitled to speedy restitution. The guarantor can enter the home of the lender and if he finds an object of value, he can take it and sell it in the market to recoup his expenditure on behalf of the borrower. He can do this unless he converts the money he gave to the lender into a new loan from the borrower; he then is no better than any other creditor and can be refused entry into the home just as the original lender was refused entry. This is all similar to the rules of a paid watchman verses the simple guardian who guards as a favor. If the object is lost, the paid watchman has to reimburse the owner for the loss. If the guardian, who is watching the object as a friend, loses the item, he only has to make an oath that he has no idea where the object is and he is clear of having to pay any restitution.
Best wishes to my readers for a happy, healthy and sweet New Year.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
18-5769 Mitzvot 56-57
Torah Emet
18-5769 Mitzvot 58
August 31, 2009
Negative Mitzvah 58 – This is a negative commandment: Do not take as a pledge (or take as collateral for pawn) any utensils with which sustaining food is made.
Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “No man shall take the lower or upper millstone to pledge, for he takes a man’s life to pledge.” (Deut. 24:6). Whether he (the creditor) gave the loan for the pledged object, or he took the object after the loan was made, by his own hand or through the court, he would violate this prohibition. If the object taken in pledge was lost or stolen, he would violate this prohibition (irrevocably, past all rectification). Punishment would be deserved for the lower millstone by itself, and for the upper one by itself. And just as the distinctive characteristics of the lower and upper millstones are that they are two articles serving for one purpose, and there is punishment for the one by itself and for the other by itself, so with any two utensils that serve for one purpose: there is a penalty for each by itself. It is in force everywhere, at every time for both men and women.
In this country, we operate by the maxim “Business is Business” and that there is little relationship between what might be the moral and correct path in life and what we need to do to be successful in business. This Mitzvah is a classic example of how Judaism says that this attitude is wrong. Loaning money to someone in need is a great mitzvah. It is forbidden to charge interest on the loan. Good business practice would tell us to get some collateral on the loan. Here the Torah is teaching that there are just some objects that can not be taken as a pledge. The Torah teaches that one can not accept a millstone; neither the upper nor the lower parts are acceptable as security on the loan.
If you have never seen an ancient mill, it consists of two round stones. The lower one is fixed on the ground and the upper is tied to a windmill or a water wheel that turns, grinding the corn/wheat between the two stones and creating flour. Millstones can not work except as a pair. To take either one as a pledge would leave the mill useless and the miller without a livelihood. To create smaller amounts of flour, some homes had smaller “mills” that would be moved by hand to grind the wheat. Without it, how could the family bake bread for their meals?
This is the crux of the matter. Taking the millstone would not only leave the miller without means of earning a living, but would prevent the miller from feeding his family. Thus all items used in making basic food elements are not allowed to be taken as collateral; you cannot leave a family unable to provide itself with food. That is why if you take both millstones, you are also in violation because it, all the more so, makes it impossible to make food to feed the family. Violating this commandment by taking both as collateral would mean a separate violation for each part of the whole that was taken in pledge. You can’t take the water wheel nor interfere in any way to take from a person what a family needs to survive.
Like modern bankruptcy laws, there are some items that are protected from creditors. So too here, Jewish law insists that items needed for food preparation are not acceptable as a pledge. We don’t leave borrowers without the means to survive.
Business cannot be only about making money. It is also about customer relationships, community building and making the world a better place. When a person finds themselves in a difficult economic condition, we don’t take advantage of their situation; we lend a helping hand to lift them back on their feet.
18-5769 Mitzvot 58
August 31, 2009
Negative Mitzvah 58 – This is a negative commandment: Do not take as a pledge (or take as collateral for pawn) any utensils with which sustaining food is made.
Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “No man shall take the lower or upper millstone to pledge, for he takes a man’s life to pledge.” (Deut. 24:6). Whether he (the creditor) gave the loan for the pledged object, or he took the object after the loan was made, by his own hand or through the court, he would violate this prohibition. If the object taken in pledge was lost or stolen, he would violate this prohibition (irrevocably, past all rectification). Punishment would be deserved for the lower millstone by itself, and for the upper one by itself. And just as the distinctive characteristics of the lower and upper millstones are that they are two articles serving for one purpose, and there is punishment for the one by itself and for the other by itself, so with any two utensils that serve for one purpose: there is a penalty for each by itself. It is in force everywhere, at every time for both men and women.
In this country, we operate by the maxim “Business is Business” and that there is little relationship between what might be the moral and correct path in life and what we need to do to be successful in business. This Mitzvah is a classic example of how Judaism says that this attitude is wrong. Loaning money to someone in need is a great mitzvah. It is forbidden to charge interest on the loan. Good business practice would tell us to get some collateral on the loan. Here the Torah is teaching that there are just some objects that can not be taken as a pledge. The Torah teaches that one can not accept a millstone; neither the upper nor the lower parts are acceptable as security on the loan.
If you have never seen an ancient mill, it consists of two round stones. The lower one is fixed on the ground and the upper is tied to a windmill or a water wheel that turns, grinding the corn/wheat between the two stones and creating flour. Millstones can not work except as a pair. To take either one as a pledge would leave the mill useless and the miller without a livelihood. To create smaller amounts of flour, some homes had smaller “mills” that would be moved by hand to grind the wheat. Without it, how could the family bake bread for their meals?
This is the crux of the matter. Taking the millstone would not only leave the miller without means of earning a living, but would prevent the miller from feeding his family. Thus all items used in making basic food elements are not allowed to be taken as collateral; you cannot leave a family unable to provide itself with food. That is why if you take both millstones, you are also in violation because it, all the more so, makes it impossible to make food to feed the family. Violating this commandment by taking both as collateral would mean a separate violation for each part of the whole that was taken in pledge. You can’t take the water wheel nor interfere in any way to take from a person what a family needs to survive.
Like modern bankruptcy laws, there are some items that are protected from creditors. So too here, Jewish law insists that items needed for food preparation are not acceptable as a pledge. We don’t leave borrowers without the means to survive.
Business cannot be only about making money. It is also about customer relationships, community building and making the world a better place. When a person finds themselves in a difficult economic condition, we don’t take advantage of their situation; we lend a helping hand to lift them back on their feet.
Monday, August 17, 2009
17-5769 Mitzvot 56-57
Torah Emet
17-5769 Mitzvot 56-57
Negative Mitzvah 56 – This is a negative commandment: Do not refrain from lending money to another Jew for fear of the year of sh’mittah (release), and that the loan will be cancelled.
Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “Beware lest there be a base thought in your heart, saying, “The seventh year, the year of release is at hand” and your eye may be evil, etc. (Deut. 15:9). This is a great sin since the Torah disapproves, calling it base and scoundrelly. It applies to both men and women: by the law of the Torah, at the time that the rule of the jubilee is in effect; and at the present time, by the law of the Sages. Now, Rabbenu Yonah wrote: “At a time when he will not lose his loan, how much more certain it is that if someone hardens his heart not to grant a loan, his sin will be very great.”
Negative Mitzvah 57 – This is a negative commandment: Do not demand payment of a loan over which the seventh year (sh’mittah) has passed.
Hafetz Hayim – As Scripture says: “He shall not exact it of his fellow and his brother because Hashem’s release has been proclaimed (Deut. 15:2)” All this applies at the time that the rule of the jubilee is in effect. In the present, however, when the law of sh’mittah (release) in money matters is only by the ruling of the Sage, one would not violate a prohibition but would rather be doing something forbidden by the Sages.
Let us start with the background. Just as every seventh day is a day of rest and we count seven weeks from Pesach and end with the holiday of Shavuot; so too we count seven years to the year of Sh’mittah, the year of release, when debts would be cancelled and planting/harvesting would be forbidden. At the end of 49 years, that is, seven seven-year cycles, there is a Jubilee year proclaimed where not only debts were cancelled but slaves when free and land sold would revert to its original owner.
In an agricultural society, such laws are needed to prevent land from being collected into large holdings that crowd out the smaller farmers. It prevents farmers from bad crop years and from crushing debt. It also makes sure that anyone who sells their land or their bodies to escape debt, once every 50 years they get a chance to start life over again.
It is not easy to ask someone to forgive a debt. A loan is a business agreement and to ask a lender to forgive a debt is to cost his business money. It should not surprise us that a lender might think, “the year of sh’mittah (release) is almost here and any loans I make may end up cancelled. I think I will not make any more loans until the year has passed.” Who could blame a lender from wanting to make a loan that is almost sure to be cancelled by law?
But, under Jewish law, a loan to a fellow Jew is not really a loan; it is an act of Tzedakah, an act that makes the world a kinder and more just place. The loan is not really being cancelled rather it is transformed into a charitable gift. This is why the Torah considers one who would refrain from loaning money when the year of release is near as one who is “hard hearted”. He is thinking only of his own business and not being considerate of the hard times the borrower is going through. It is therefore a great sin to demand payment of a loan that was cancelled in a sh’mittah year and to not allow it to be cancelled.
As the economy of ancient
Friday, August 14, 2009
16-5769: Mitzvah N-54-55
Torat Emet
16-5769: Mitzvah N-54-55
August 9, 2009
Negative Mitzvah 54 - This is a negative commandment: Do not lend to another Jew and charge him interest, be it money, something to eat or anything else. Hafetz Hayim: Scripture says, “You shall not give him your money at interest, nor give him your provisions of food in usury” (Leviticus 25:37). The terms “Neshech” and “Marbit” (interest and usury) are one thing but Scripture divided them into two terms to make the lender the transgressor of two prohibitions. The lender also violates the prohibition: “Neither shall you put interest upon him” (Exodus 22:24) as well as the injunction: “Do not take interest or increase from him” (Leviticus 25:36) It is in force everywhere, in every time, for both men and women.
Negative Mitzvah 55 – This is a negative commandment: Do not borrow from another Jew at interest. Hafetz Hayim: Scripture says, “You shall not give interest to your brother.” (Deuteronomy 25:36) Which is an admonition to the borrower. He would also violate the injunction “nor shall you put a stumbling-block before the blind.”(Lev. 19:14) This is in effect everywhere, at every time for both men and women.
As I wrote in the last installment: “Jewish law forbids charging interest to another Jew. In an agricultural society, loans are what make farming possible. The need to buy seed, invest in machinery and fertilizer and the constant threat of draught and disease means that a farmer needs money to be able to support his family. Think back to the story of Joseph in Egypt. He taxes the farmers in the years of plenty and then distributes the grain during the seven years of famine. At the end of the famine, he knows that he needs to supply the famers with seed in order for them to once again earn a living from farming.
In this setting, loans are really a form of charity. The farmer is in need and if interest is charged, it will only make it more difficult to earn a living from farming. If the farmer gets too far into debt, he can only sell his field and then himself as an indentured servant to pay off what he owes. Charging interest only speeds up the amount of debt the farmer has to pay and causes him to lose land and freedom sooner. To make a loan without charging interest is a way of helping the farmer and prevents poverty in society. This is why the Torah forbids charging interest to other Jews.
We can see from the Mitzvot above, that the Sages had only the harshest words for someone who would charge interest to another Jew. Such a Jew clearly had no intention of helping a fellow Jew without making a profit on the transaction. The Sages thus found a way to heap one sin on top of another. There are no less than four separate sins for a Jew who would charge interest to another Jew.
I can only speculate that this must have been a common occurrence to charge interest to another Jew. That is why it is mentioned no less than four times in the Bible. If you add Negative Mitzvah 55, you see that even the borrower who accepts this arrangement is charged with two sins. He has taken illegal interest and has caused the lender to sin when he accepts the loan. The lender may not be inclined to charge interest but the loan is so risky that the borrower offers to accept a loan with interest. The lender is thus encouraged to make the loan and incur all four sins.
It is better to give the money as charity rather than try and profit from the tribulations of another Jew. The Sages clearly had nothing good to say about money lending in the Jewish community.
16-5769: Mitzvah N-54-55
August 9, 2009
Negative Mitzvah 54 - This is a negative commandment: Do not lend to another Jew and charge him interest, be it money, something to eat or anything else. Hafetz Hayim: Scripture says, “You shall not give him your money at interest, nor give him your provisions of food in usury” (Leviticus 25:37). The terms “Neshech” and “Marbit” (interest and usury) are one thing but Scripture divided them into two terms to make the lender the transgressor of two prohibitions. The lender also violates the prohibition: “Neither shall you put interest upon him” (Exodus 22:24) as well as the injunction: “Do not take interest or increase from him” (Leviticus 25:36) It is in force everywhere, in every time, for both men and women.
Negative Mitzvah 55 – This is a negative commandment: Do not borrow from another Jew at interest. Hafetz Hayim: Scripture says, “You shall not give interest to your brother.” (Deuteronomy 25:36) Which is an admonition to the borrower. He would also violate the injunction “nor shall you put a stumbling-block before the blind.”(Lev. 19:14) This is in effect everywhere, at every time for both men and women.
As I wrote in the last installment: “Jewish law forbids charging interest to another Jew. In an agricultural society, loans are what make farming possible. The need to buy seed, invest in machinery and fertilizer and the constant threat of draught and disease means that a farmer needs money to be able to support his family. Think back to the story of Joseph in Egypt. He taxes the farmers in the years of plenty and then distributes the grain during the seven years of famine. At the end of the famine, he knows that he needs to supply the famers with seed in order for them to once again earn a living from farming.
In this setting, loans are really a form of charity. The farmer is in need and if interest is charged, it will only make it more difficult to earn a living from farming. If the farmer gets too far into debt, he can only sell his field and then himself as an indentured servant to pay off what he owes. Charging interest only speeds up the amount of debt the farmer has to pay and causes him to lose land and freedom sooner. To make a loan without charging interest is a way of helping the farmer and prevents poverty in society. This is why the Torah forbids charging interest to other Jews.
We can see from the Mitzvot above, that the Sages had only the harshest words for someone who would charge interest to another Jew. Such a Jew clearly had no intention of helping a fellow Jew without making a profit on the transaction. The Sages thus found a way to heap one sin on top of another. There are no less than four separate sins for a Jew who would charge interest to another Jew.
I can only speculate that this must have been a common occurrence to charge interest to another Jew. That is why it is mentioned no less than four times in the Bible. If you add Negative Mitzvah 55, you see that even the borrower who accepts this arrangement is charged with two sins. He has taken illegal interest and has caused the lender to sin when he accepts the loan. The lender may not be inclined to charge interest but the loan is so risky that the borrower offers to accept a loan with interest. The lender is thus encouraged to make the loan and incur all four sins.
It is better to give the money as charity rather than try and profit from the tribulations of another Jew. The Sages clearly had nothing good to say about money lending in the Jewish community.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
15-5769: Mitzvah N-53
Torat Emet
15-5769: Mitzvah N-53
July 19, 2009
Negative Mitzvah 53 - This is a negative commandment: Have no part in dealings between a lender and a borrower at interest.
Hafetz Hayim: Scripture says, “Neither shall you put interest upon him” (Exodus 22:24). This means one should not be a guarantor or a witness between them; and the lender is also included in the scope of this prohibition, apart from the injunction not to lend at interest to a Jew (see next lesson). Any intermediary between them who brings them together or helps them arrange the loan violates the injunction “nor shall you put a stumbling-block before the blind.”(Lev. 19:14) This is in effect everywhere, at every time for both men and women.
Jewish law forbids charging interest to another Jew. In an agricultural society, loans are what make farming possible. The need to buy seed, invest in machinery and fertilizer and the constant threat of draught and disease means that a farmer needs money to be able to support his family. Think back to the story of Joseph in Egypt. He taxes the farmers in the years of plenty and then distributes the grain during the seven years of famine. At the end of the famine, he knows that he needs to supply the famers with seed in order for them to once again earn a living from farming.
In this setting, loans are really a form of charity. The farmer is in need and if interest is charged, it will only make it more difficult to earn a living from farming. If the farmer gets too far into debt, he can only sell his field and then himself as an indentured servant to pay off what he owes. Charging interest only speeds up the amount of debt the farmer has to pay and causes him to lose land and freedom sooner. To make a loan without charging interest is a way of helping the farmer and prevents poverty in society. This is why the Torah forbids charging interest to other Jews.
When Jews started living in cities and a more urban economy came to be, the Sages were concerned that without loans and interest, the merchants would be at a disadvantage in the marketplace. Since the Torah forbids charging interest, the Rabbis created a new kind of loan, where the borrower makes the lender a partner in the business and thus is due a percentage of the profits. It is not interest but investment!
What happens though, when a Jew goes to a non-Jew for a loan? The non-Jew is permitted to charge whatever interest the market will bear. In the quest for capital, it would be common for a Jew to get the money needed for business from whoever will lend it. Our Mitzvah warns Jews not be become loan brokers in this trade. Jews must not be middlemen in the loan market and not lend name or reputation in such a transaction. Jews must not guarantee such a loan nor serve as a witness to the transaction and thus appear in court on behalf of the lender if the borrower cannot repay the debt.
The concept of “not putting a stumbling-block before the blind” is an important concept in Judaism in its own right. We will investigate this more fully in the future. Here the middleman between lender and borrower is motivating a sin. He is not sinning himself, but he is causing a desperate Jew to pay interest, which is a sin, and thus he is, through his actions, causing another person to sin. This too is illegal.
The fact is that in the Middle Ages, Jews were limited in occupations to the extent that many became active in lending money; they did charge interest to non-Jews and no good came of it. It caused much pain and misery to Jews all over Europe. The Hafetz Hayim was wise to remind Jews that this is not a business for a nice Jewish boy (or girl).
15-5769: Mitzvah N-53
July 19, 2009
Negative Mitzvah 53 - This is a negative commandment: Have no part in dealings between a lender and a borrower at interest.
Hafetz Hayim: Scripture says, “Neither shall you put interest upon him” (Exodus 22:24). This means one should not be a guarantor or a witness between them; and the lender is also included in the scope of this prohibition, apart from the injunction not to lend at interest to a Jew (see next lesson). Any intermediary between them who brings them together or helps them arrange the loan violates the injunction “nor shall you put a stumbling-block before the blind.”(Lev. 19:14) This is in effect everywhere, at every time for both men and women.
Jewish law forbids charging interest to another Jew. In an agricultural society, loans are what make farming possible. The need to buy seed, invest in machinery and fertilizer and the constant threat of draught and disease means that a farmer needs money to be able to support his family. Think back to the story of Joseph in Egypt. He taxes the farmers in the years of plenty and then distributes the grain during the seven years of famine. At the end of the famine, he knows that he needs to supply the famers with seed in order for them to once again earn a living from farming.
In this setting, loans are really a form of charity. The farmer is in need and if interest is charged, it will only make it more difficult to earn a living from farming. If the farmer gets too far into debt, he can only sell his field and then himself as an indentured servant to pay off what he owes. Charging interest only speeds up the amount of debt the farmer has to pay and causes him to lose land and freedom sooner. To make a loan without charging interest is a way of helping the farmer and prevents poverty in society. This is why the Torah forbids charging interest to other Jews.
When Jews started living in cities and a more urban economy came to be, the Sages were concerned that without loans and interest, the merchants would be at a disadvantage in the marketplace. Since the Torah forbids charging interest, the Rabbis created a new kind of loan, where the borrower makes the lender a partner in the business and thus is due a percentage of the profits. It is not interest but investment!
What happens though, when a Jew goes to a non-Jew for a loan? The non-Jew is permitted to charge whatever interest the market will bear. In the quest for capital, it would be common for a Jew to get the money needed for business from whoever will lend it. Our Mitzvah warns Jews not be become loan brokers in this trade. Jews must not be middlemen in the loan market and not lend name or reputation in such a transaction. Jews must not guarantee such a loan nor serve as a witness to the transaction and thus appear in court on behalf of the lender if the borrower cannot repay the debt.
The concept of “not putting a stumbling-block before the blind” is an important concept in Judaism in its own right. We will investigate this more fully in the future. Here the middleman between lender and borrower is motivating a sin. He is not sinning himself, but he is causing a desperate Jew to pay interest, which is a sin, and thus he is, through his actions, causing another person to sin. This too is illegal.
The fact is that in the Middle Ages, Jews were limited in occupations to the extent that many became active in lending money; they did charge interest to non-Jews and no good came of it. It caused much pain and misery to Jews all over Europe. The Hafetz Hayim was wise to remind Jews that this is not a business for a nice Jewish boy (or girl).
Monday, June 15, 2009
14-5769: Mitzvah N-52
Talmidav Shel Aharon
14-5769: Mitzvah N-52
June 14, 2009
Negative Mitzvah 52 - This is a negative commandment: Do not demand of a borrower to pay his debt when you know that he does not have the means to pay.
Hafetz Hayim: Scripture says, “You shall not be to him as a collector” (Exodus 22:24). It is forbidden for the lender to pass by before the borrower when he knows that the other has not the means to pay, so that he should not put him to shame. Yet just as a lender is forbidden to make demands, so is the borrower forbidden to suppress the money due his fellow man, to tell him, “Go and come back,” when he has it. This is a prohibition from the words of the later parts of Scripture; for it states, “Do not say to your fellow ‘Go and come again, and tomorrow I will give’ when you have it with you.” (Proverbs 3:28) It is likewise forbidden for the borrower to spend the borrowed money needlessly until he is unable to repay it; he is called wicked, as Scripture says, “The wicked man borrows and does not pay.” (Psalms 37:21) This is in effect everywhere, at every time for both men and women.
The world of lenders and borrowers can be tough to negotiate. On the one hand the one who lends money is helping his fellow human being negotiate in a difficult time for his business or helping the borrower to take advantage of an important business opportunity. One is not required to lend money so the lender, it seems, should be protected from those who would not repay the loan.
On the other hand the borrower may be poor and defenseless against the demands of the lender. The lender stands to make money from the interest on the loan and the sooner the lender gets his money back, the sooner he can lend it again to another and make more money. Sometimes the return on the borrower’s money takes time to arrive. Sometimes the opportunity fails. The lender is then a greedy ogre who does not really care about the borrower, but cares only for the money he can make.
Then again, perhaps the borrower is a scoundrel and a thief, taking advantage of the lender to get his hand on the money with no intention of ever paying the money back. The borrower may squander the money on an investment that has no chance of paying off or he could gamble it away, or spend it on some frivolous items knowing that the lender can’t ever make him pay.
So when this issue comes to court, the judges (or judges in a Jewish court) have to determine who is right and who is wrong. The multiple quotes from the Bible tell us that sometimes the lender and sometimes the borrower is the one who needs protection. The lender does have the right to his money back and the borrower must be protected from abuse by his creditors.
The law in most cases must follow the one who has followed all the right procedures. If the lender has written a valid promissory note and the borrower has signed it, then the borrower needs to pay what he owes. If the lender tries to swindle the borrower, then the court can invalidate the transaction and the lender loses his money. In any case, the court must find for the one who has the most valid claim.
This is why our Mitzvah is so important. It says that in spite of all claims, if the lender knows that the borrower can’t pay, he must not harass the borrower nor press him for the money. It is not a legal claim, but a moral practice. You can’t squeeze blood from a stone. If the money is not there, you just have to wait for it. But the Hafetz Hayim also notes that if the borrower attempts to take advantage of this limitation on the lender, the borrower could be in violation of other moral mitzvot that speak to this kind of fraud.
From a historical point of view, it is interesting to me that the lender laws are in the Torah and the anti-borrower verses are from Ketuvim, the later writings in the Bible. Proverbs and Psalms are not well known “legal” sections of the Bible. They stress the anecdotal and moral obligations that cannot always be legislated. It is easier in a law code to put the legal obligations on the lender, but the borrower has moral obligations too and apparently later writers saw an inequality in the law between lenders and borrowers and moved to speak to that issue.
Credit is what moves a capitalistic economy. Lenders and borrowers have legal and moral obligations. It is important for the governing body to take note of these necessary obligations and make sure that capital can flow with the law defending both the lenders and the borrowers equally. In a just society, it really can’t be any other way.
14-5769: Mitzvah N-52
June 14, 2009
Negative Mitzvah 52 - This is a negative commandment: Do not demand of a borrower to pay his debt when you know that he does not have the means to pay.
Hafetz Hayim: Scripture says, “You shall not be to him as a collector” (Exodus 22:24). It is forbidden for the lender to pass by before the borrower when he knows that the other has not the means to pay, so that he should not put him to shame. Yet just as a lender is forbidden to make demands, so is the borrower forbidden to suppress the money due his fellow man, to tell him, “Go and come back,” when he has it. This is a prohibition from the words of the later parts of Scripture; for it states, “Do not say to your fellow ‘Go and come again, and tomorrow I will give’ when you have it with you.” (Proverbs 3:28) It is likewise forbidden for the borrower to spend the borrowed money needlessly until he is unable to repay it; he is called wicked, as Scripture says, “The wicked man borrows and does not pay.” (Psalms 37:21) This is in effect everywhere, at every time for both men and women.
The world of lenders and borrowers can be tough to negotiate. On the one hand the one who lends money is helping his fellow human being negotiate in a difficult time for his business or helping the borrower to take advantage of an important business opportunity. One is not required to lend money so the lender, it seems, should be protected from those who would not repay the loan.
On the other hand the borrower may be poor and defenseless against the demands of the lender. The lender stands to make money from the interest on the loan and the sooner the lender gets his money back, the sooner he can lend it again to another and make more money. Sometimes the return on the borrower’s money takes time to arrive. Sometimes the opportunity fails. The lender is then a greedy ogre who does not really care about the borrower, but cares only for the money he can make.
Then again, perhaps the borrower is a scoundrel and a thief, taking advantage of the lender to get his hand on the money with no intention of ever paying the money back. The borrower may squander the money on an investment that has no chance of paying off or he could gamble it away, or spend it on some frivolous items knowing that the lender can’t ever make him pay.
So when this issue comes to court, the judges (or judges in a Jewish court) have to determine who is right and who is wrong. The multiple quotes from the Bible tell us that sometimes the lender and sometimes the borrower is the one who needs protection. The lender does have the right to his money back and the borrower must be protected from abuse by his creditors.
The law in most cases must follow the one who has followed all the right procedures. If the lender has written a valid promissory note and the borrower has signed it, then the borrower needs to pay what he owes. If the lender tries to swindle the borrower, then the court can invalidate the transaction and the lender loses his money. In any case, the court must find for the one who has the most valid claim.
This is why our Mitzvah is so important. It says that in spite of all claims, if the lender knows that the borrower can’t pay, he must not harass the borrower nor press him for the money. It is not a legal claim, but a moral practice. You can’t squeeze blood from a stone. If the money is not there, you just have to wait for it. But the Hafetz Hayim also notes that if the borrower attempts to take advantage of this limitation on the lender, the borrower could be in violation of other moral mitzvot that speak to this kind of fraud.
From a historical point of view, it is interesting to me that the lender laws are in the Torah and the anti-borrower verses are from Ketuvim, the later writings in the Bible. Proverbs and Psalms are not well known “legal” sections of the Bible. They stress the anecdotal and moral obligations that cannot always be legislated. It is easier in a law code to put the legal obligations on the lender, but the borrower has moral obligations too and apparently later writers saw an inequality in the law between lenders and borrowers and moved to speak to that issue.
Credit is what moves a capitalistic economy. Lenders and borrowers have legal and moral obligations. It is important for the governing body to take note of these necessary obligations and make sure that capital can flow with the law defending both the lenders and the borrowers equally. In a just society, it really can’t be any other way.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
13-5769: Mitzvah N-51
Talmidav Shel Aharon
13-5769: Mitzvah N-51
May 17, 2009
Negative Mitzvah 51 – This is a negative commandment: Do not inflict suffering on any widow or orphan
Hafetz Hayim: This prohibition is derived from the verse, “you shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child” (Exodus 22:21). Even if they are wealthy, even the widow of a king or his orphan children, it is necessary to treat them with respect. One is not to cause them distress or anguish to their hearts with harsh words. He is to be more protective of their property than of his own. If anyone brings them to rage or brings anguish to their hearts and all the more certainly, if he strikes them or curses them, he violates this prohibition: and his punishment is given explicitly in the Torah: ‘then my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword ; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.’
Whether a child is without a father or without a mother; he is called an orphan, until he grows up and attends to to all his needs alone, like other adults. It is permissible to chasten them in the learning of Torah or a craft, so as to guide them in a straight and decent path. Nevertheless, one should be solicitous with them, to rear them slowly [patiently] with kindness and compassion.
This is in effect everywhere, at every time for both men and women.
In the ancient world, in a patriarchal society, a woman or a child without a husband or a father was at a serious disadvantage. Much of the give and take of the marketplace, the protection of personal property and personal safety were dependant on a male head of household. If this man should die or be missing, the rest of the family was living without this important protection. Unable to represent themselves, the widow and the orphan were in danger of losing their property and being evicted from their homes. If the husband/father left debts, there were almost no sources of revenue for the widow or orphan to fall back on. Since a child and a woman were not expected to be wise in the way of business, they were in danger of someone cheating them literally out of house and home.
For this reason, the Torah takes up the cause of the widow and orphan, declaring that God has appointed the divine self to be the protector of these survivors. The Torah declares that any man who would afflict the widow or the orphan would be punished by having his own wife and children become a widow and orphans. In other words, he would be struck down dead.
So what does this mean for those of us who live in a pluralistic egalitarian society? First it declares that it is a divine moral imperative that we take up the cause of those who are weak and helpless in our society: the undereducated, the dropout, the child who grows up in the street or the latchkey child. It would include a single parent tying to raise a child, a widow forced back into the workplace without up to date job skills, men and women terrorized by abusive spouses. It includes those on welfare, laid off, with few skills and without a financial cushion. It is our duty as moral human beings to help them in whatever way we can, and to be cautious in our business that we do not cause them any additional harm or pain. We can’t take advantage of them, we can’t call them names, and we can’t make them feel more miserable than they already feel.
The loss of a spouse is so traumatic that even if there is no financial or safety issues, when the widow or orphan is left well off and in good hands, we still don’t add to their pain through our words or actions.
Additionally, it reminds us that, as a society, we need to make sure that we have adequate protections for those who may be at risk. We need to make sure that there is enough bread to put on each table and that each child has the opportunities that all other children may have. We need to make sure that our government has an adequate safety net and that the social service agencies have the resources to help those who have fallen on hard times pick themselves back up. If we turn our back on those who are defenseless in society, then we can expect that soon enough we may fall into the same problems and be in need of others to lend us a hand.
While we may no longer believe that the wicked will always get their just punishments, we need to insure that there are the proper laws against oppression and fraud to protect those who are in need. There is no reason to price gouge the helpless in our society, and those who do, should be liable for punishment under the law.
And finally, let us remember that it costs far less money to support someone who is falling, than someone who is already down and out. We need to always look out for one another and to be a friend to someone who really needs one.
13-5769: Mitzvah N-51
May 17, 2009
Negative Mitzvah 51 – This is a negative commandment: Do not inflict suffering on any widow or orphan
Hafetz Hayim: This prohibition is derived from the verse, “you shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child” (Exodus 22:21). Even if they are wealthy, even the widow of a king or his orphan children, it is necessary to treat them with respect. One is not to cause them distress or anguish to their hearts with harsh words. He is to be more protective of their property than of his own. If anyone brings them to rage or brings anguish to their hearts and all the more certainly, if he strikes them or curses them, he violates this prohibition: and his punishment is given explicitly in the Torah: ‘then my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword ; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.’
Whether a child is without a father or without a mother; he is called an orphan, until he grows up and attends to to all his needs alone, like other adults. It is permissible to chasten them in the learning of Torah or a craft, so as to guide them in a straight and decent path. Nevertheless, one should be solicitous with them, to rear them slowly [patiently] with kindness and compassion.
This is in effect everywhere, at every time for both men and women.
In the ancient world, in a patriarchal society, a woman or a child without a husband or a father was at a serious disadvantage. Much of the give and take of the marketplace, the protection of personal property and personal safety were dependant on a male head of household. If this man should die or be missing, the rest of the family was living without this important protection. Unable to represent themselves, the widow and the orphan were in danger of losing their property and being evicted from their homes. If the husband/father left debts, there were almost no sources of revenue for the widow or orphan to fall back on. Since a child and a woman were not expected to be wise in the way of business, they were in danger of someone cheating them literally out of house and home.
For this reason, the Torah takes up the cause of the widow and orphan, declaring that God has appointed the divine self to be the protector of these survivors. The Torah declares that any man who would afflict the widow or the orphan would be punished by having his own wife and children become a widow and orphans. In other words, he would be struck down dead.
So what does this mean for those of us who live in a pluralistic egalitarian society? First it declares that it is a divine moral imperative that we take up the cause of those who are weak and helpless in our society: the undereducated, the dropout, the child who grows up in the street or the latchkey child. It would include a single parent tying to raise a child, a widow forced back into the workplace without up to date job skills, men and women terrorized by abusive spouses. It includes those on welfare, laid off, with few skills and without a financial cushion. It is our duty as moral human beings to help them in whatever way we can, and to be cautious in our business that we do not cause them any additional harm or pain. We can’t take advantage of them, we can’t call them names, and we can’t make them feel more miserable than they already feel.
The loss of a spouse is so traumatic that even if there is no financial or safety issues, when the widow or orphan is left well off and in good hands, we still don’t add to their pain through our words or actions.
Additionally, it reminds us that, as a society, we need to make sure that we have adequate protections for those who may be at risk. We need to make sure that there is enough bread to put on each table and that each child has the opportunities that all other children may have. We need to make sure that our government has an adequate safety net and that the social service agencies have the resources to help those who have fallen on hard times pick themselves back up. If we turn our back on those who are defenseless in society, then we can expect that soon enough we may fall into the same problems and be in need of others to lend us a hand.
While we may no longer believe that the wicked will always get their just punishments, we need to insure that there are the proper laws against oppression and fraud to protect those who are in need. There is no reason to price gouge the helpless in our society, and those who do, should be liable for punishment under the law.
And finally, let us remember that it costs far less money to support someone who is falling, than someone who is already down and out. We need to always look out for one another and to be a friend to someone who really needs one.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
12-5769: Mitzvah N-49-50
Talmidav Shel Aharon
12-5769: Mitzvah N-49-50
May 13, 2009
Negative Mitzvah 49 – This is a negative commandment: Do not oppress a righteous proselyte with words
Hafetz Hayim: This prohibition is derived from the verse, “and a ger you shall not wrong” (Exodus 22:20).
Negative Mitzvah 50 - This is a negative commandment: Do not wrong a righteous proselyte in matters of monetary value.
Hafetz Hayim: Scripture says, “ neither shall you oppress him.” (Exodus 22:20). These prohibitions are in addition to the negative precepts that admonish us about the rest of Jewry [which apply equally to proselytes.] This is in effect everywhere, at every time for both men and women.
Laws like these should be easy to understand. We should not need special laws to cover proselytes, or any other people. The law should apply equally to all. That has not been the case in Jewish law for a long time. Jewish law has often been interpreted to apply only to Jews and not to those outside the Jewish community. Especially when it comes to business law, Jewish law has not held the same standards outside the Jewish community as it has for those inside the Jewish community. I will give the Rabbis the benefit of the doubt here and try to understand this inequality as the result of centuries of oppression by the non-Jewish world. In Christian Europe and Islamic Africa/Middle East Jews lived under harsh restrictions of business and commerce. “Civil” law was, more often than not, stacked against the Jews who could have their property confiscated at a moment’s notice and they could be expelled for the most minor infractions. Jewish law has to protect the members of the Jewish community but was less likely to extend those laws to those who oppressed them.
Needless to say, the reason for such laws are now gone. To hold by them is the most blatant form of discrimination and should not be observed by any Jew who wishes to live a religious life. One of the reasons the Jewish community should be embarrassed over the fiasco in Postville, IA is because of the way so called “religious Jews” treated the workers at their meat packing plant.
It is important that those who convert to Judaism should have their situation added with these two Mitzvot. Because they span two worlds, and because of a tendency in human nature to distrust those who convert, it is important that we be clear on how a Jew by choice is to be treated.
I have seen parents reject a proselyte as a suitable spouse for their child. I have heard of families who treat proselytes shabbily, offering fresh cake to the family but stale cake to the “convert”. Jews who never fail to mention that this person was once a “goy”. Jews who seem to think that every convert is really not a Jew in his/her heart.
All of this is clearly against Jewish law. One is not allowed to remind a proselyte of his/her past. It happened once among the rabbis of the Talmud, Rabbi Yonatan made an offhand comment about the past life, before conversion, of his best friend and brother-in-law Rabbi Shimon of Lakish. The comment literally embarrassed his friend to death and perhaps caused the death of Rabbi Yonatan of a broken heart. The rabbis took this prohibition seriously.
A proselyte is also to be considered a Jew in all respects. There is no waiting period, no levels of commitment, and no trial periods when it comes to conversion. Once the conversion is completed, Judaism does not deny the new Jew any privileges it offers to any other Jew. This is why some who convert tend to hide the fact of their conversion so that they will not be treated any differently than any other Jew. (Others put their conversion documents in frames on their wall, celebrating the conversion as a major life accomplishment.)
These two Mitzvot remind us that we must be careful in the way we treat those who come seeking shelter under the wings of Judaism. To treat them differently would be a terrible misuse of Jewish law and bring desecration to the Jewish faith. Let us celebrate the arrival of these new Jews to our community and may we never have reason to be accused of violating these two Mitzvot.
12-5769: Mitzvah N-49-50
May 13, 2009
Negative Mitzvah 49 – This is a negative commandment: Do not oppress a righteous proselyte with words
Hafetz Hayim: This prohibition is derived from the verse, “and a ger you shall not wrong” (Exodus 22:20).
Negative Mitzvah 50 - This is a negative commandment: Do not wrong a righteous proselyte in matters of monetary value.
Hafetz Hayim: Scripture says, “ neither shall you oppress him.” (Exodus 22:20). These prohibitions are in addition to the negative precepts that admonish us about the rest of Jewry [which apply equally to proselytes.] This is in effect everywhere, at every time for both men and women.
Laws like these should be easy to understand. We should not need special laws to cover proselytes, or any other people. The law should apply equally to all. That has not been the case in Jewish law for a long time. Jewish law has often been interpreted to apply only to Jews and not to those outside the Jewish community. Especially when it comes to business law, Jewish law has not held the same standards outside the Jewish community as it has for those inside the Jewish community. I will give the Rabbis the benefit of the doubt here and try to understand this inequality as the result of centuries of oppression by the non-Jewish world. In Christian Europe and Islamic Africa/Middle East Jews lived under harsh restrictions of business and commerce. “Civil” law was, more often than not, stacked against the Jews who could have their property confiscated at a moment’s notice and they could be expelled for the most minor infractions. Jewish law has to protect the members of the Jewish community but was less likely to extend those laws to those who oppressed them.
Needless to say, the reason for such laws are now gone. To hold by them is the most blatant form of discrimination and should not be observed by any Jew who wishes to live a religious life. One of the reasons the Jewish community should be embarrassed over the fiasco in Postville, IA is because of the way so called “religious Jews” treated the workers at their meat packing plant.
It is important that those who convert to Judaism should have their situation added with these two Mitzvot. Because they span two worlds, and because of a tendency in human nature to distrust those who convert, it is important that we be clear on how a Jew by choice is to be treated.
I have seen parents reject a proselyte as a suitable spouse for their child. I have heard of families who treat proselytes shabbily, offering fresh cake to the family but stale cake to the “convert”. Jews who never fail to mention that this person was once a “goy”. Jews who seem to think that every convert is really not a Jew in his/her heart.
All of this is clearly against Jewish law. One is not allowed to remind a proselyte of his/her past. It happened once among the rabbis of the Talmud, Rabbi Yonatan made an offhand comment about the past life, before conversion, of his best friend and brother-in-law Rabbi Shimon of Lakish. The comment literally embarrassed his friend to death and perhaps caused the death of Rabbi Yonatan of a broken heart. The rabbis took this prohibition seriously.
A proselyte is also to be considered a Jew in all respects. There is no waiting period, no levels of commitment, and no trial periods when it comes to conversion. Once the conversion is completed, Judaism does not deny the new Jew any privileges it offers to any other Jew. This is why some who convert tend to hide the fact of their conversion so that they will not be treated any differently than any other Jew. (Others put their conversion documents in frames on their wall, celebrating the conversion as a major life accomplishment.)
These two Mitzvot remind us that we must be careful in the way we treat those who come seeking shelter under the wings of Judaism. To treat them differently would be a terrible misuse of Jewish law and bring desecration to the Jewish faith. Let us celebrate the arrival of these new Jews to our community and may we never have reason to be accused of violating these two Mitzvot.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
11-5769: Mitzvah N-47-48
Talmidav Shel Aharon
11-5769: Mitzvah N-47-48
April 1, 2009
Negative Mitzvah 47– This is a negative commandment: Do not cheat one another in buying and selling.
Hafetz Hayim: This prohibition is derived from the verse, “and if you sell something … or buy something from your fellow’s hand, you shall not wrong one another” (Lev. 25:14). Whether a person cheated deliberately, or he did not know that there was an overcharge in this sale, he is duty bound to make compensation. This applies in every place and time, for both man and woman.
Negative Mitzvah 48- This is a negative commandment: Do not oppress one’s fellow-man with words.
Hafetz Hayim: Scripture says, “And you shall not wrong one another” (Lev.25:17). This means that we should not say to a penitent person, “Remember your original actions” or to the son of converts to Judaism, “Remember the behavior of your forefathers” or to ask a matter of wisdom from someone who does not know any wisdom, in order to distress him – and so any similar way of wronging him with words.
It seems that positive mitzvot are often not easily understood but the negative commandments are usually crystal clear. We have two similar mitzvot that pretty much seem to say exactly what they mean. Mitzvah 47 is the law that prevents cheating one another in business. In Western countries we have the notion of “buyer beware;” that buyers need to do their research and spend some time comparison shopping so that they get the best deal. A shopkeeper can ask any price and anyone too naive or unknowledgeable in buying and selling will find that they have been cheated. The only blame is on the buyer, not on the seller, who has the right to charge whatever he thinks the market will bear. Certainly there are laws that limit the shopkeeper from “bait and switch” and from selling defective or fraudulent goods, but under normal circumstances in the West, sellers can set the terms of the sale and if the buyer accepts them, then the sale is good and cannot be recalled. (Shopkeepers who have a liberal return policy are morally better but there is no law that forces them to be this way, only a “need” to keep the customer happy).
Jewish law is different. A shopkeeper has the right to earn a profit, but not an excessive one. If he has spiked a price to defraud a shopper or if he sells something at a price that turns out to be higher than reasonable, then the shopkeeper must return the overcharge. Judaism insists that we cannot take advantage of anyone.
In Mitzvah 48, we are reminded that we are forbidden to goad or ridicule our fellow human beings. I am reminded of a quote from the old movie, “Sweet Charity,” where the lead character says, “I can change the way I dress and I can change the way I talk but don’t ask me to change my past because the past is something I can’t change.” To remind a convict of his past behavior after he has served his time, is not only frustrating for the man, but causes him anguish that no matter what he may do to repent, the rest of the world will never forgive him. The same holds true for a convert. We are forbidden to remind a convert of his or her life before the conversion. How can a person feel like they are part of the Jewish people if someone is constantly reminding them of their former life?
The third example cited is a bit different. Here the simple man is taunted by another who asks him a question that everyone knows he cannot answer. This only serves to highlight his ignorance. It is not only rude; it is hurtful and causes embarrassment. Embarrassment is considered to be a kind of “murder” which causes the blood to drain out of a person’s face leaving it as white as death.
This kind of speech has so many different possibilities that the law cannot list them all. Any kind of hurtful speech, speech that is meant to hurt, embarrass, or goad another person, even if the topic is true, is forbidden by Jewish Law. The Mitzvah is to be sensitive to the feelings of others
11-5769: Mitzvah N-47-48
April 1, 2009
Negative Mitzvah 47– This is a negative commandment: Do not cheat one another in buying and selling.
Hafetz Hayim: This prohibition is derived from the verse, “and if you sell something … or buy something from your fellow’s hand, you shall not wrong one another” (Lev. 25:14). Whether a person cheated deliberately, or he did not know that there was an overcharge in this sale, he is duty bound to make compensation. This applies in every place and time, for both man and woman.
Negative Mitzvah 48- This is a negative commandment: Do not oppress one’s fellow-man with words.
Hafetz Hayim: Scripture says, “And you shall not wrong one another” (Lev.25:17). This means that we should not say to a penitent person, “Remember your original actions” or to the son of converts to Judaism, “Remember the behavior of your forefathers” or to ask a matter of wisdom from someone who does not know any wisdom, in order to distress him – and so any similar way of wronging him with words.
It seems that positive mitzvot are often not easily understood but the negative commandments are usually crystal clear. We have two similar mitzvot that pretty much seem to say exactly what they mean. Mitzvah 47 is the law that prevents cheating one another in business. In Western countries we have the notion of “buyer beware;” that buyers need to do their research and spend some time comparison shopping so that they get the best deal. A shopkeeper can ask any price and anyone too naive or unknowledgeable in buying and selling will find that they have been cheated. The only blame is on the buyer, not on the seller, who has the right to charge whatever he thinks the market will bear. Certainly there are laws that limit the shopkeeper from “bait and switch” and from selling defective or fraudulent goods, but under normal circumstances in the West, sellers can set the terms of the sale and if the buyer accepts them, then the sale is good and cannot be recalled. (Shopkeepers who have a liberal return policy are morally better but there is no law that forces them to be this way, only a “need” to keep the customer happy).
Jewish law is different. A shopkeeper has the right to earn a profit, but not an excessive one. If he has spiked a price to defraud a shopper or if he sells something at a price that turns out to be higher than reasonable, then the shopkeeper must return the overcharge. Judaism insists that we cannot take advantage of anyone.
In Mitzvah 48, we are reminded that we are forbidden to goad or ridicule our fellow human beings. I am reminded of a quote from the old movie, “Sweet Charity,” where the lead character says, “I can change the way I dress and I can change the way I talk but don’t ask me to change my past because the past is something I can’t change.” To remind a convict of his past behavior after he has served his time, is not only frustrating for the man, but causes him anguish that no matter what he may do to repent, the rest of the world will never forgive him. The same holds true for a convert. We are forbidden to remind a convert of his or her life before the conversion. How can a person feel like they are part of the Jewish people if someone is constantly reminding them of their former life?
The third example cited is a bit different. Here the simple man is taunted by another who asks him a question that everyone knows he cannot answer. This only serves to highlight his ignorance. It is not only rude; it is hurtful and causes embarrassment. Embarrassment is considered to be a kind of “murder” which causes the blood to drain out of a person’s face leaving it as white as death.
This kind of speech has so many different possibilities that the law cannot list them all. Any kind of hurtful speech, speech that is meant to hurt, embarrass, or goad another person, even if the topic is true, is forbidden by Jewish Law. The Mitzvah is to be sensitive to the feelings of others
Monday, March 16, 2009
10-5769: Mitzvah N-46
Talmidav Shel Aharon
10-5769: Mitzvah N-46
March 15, 2009
Negative Mitzvah 45 – This is a negative commandment: Do not curse your father or your mother
Hafetz Hayim: This prohibition is derived from the verse, “And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death” (Exodus 21:17). If one cursed his father by the Divine name, he would deserve death by stoning, and this even if he cursed his parents using the Divine name after their death. If he cursed them with a substitute Divine name, he should receive whiplashes. One should not impose an oath on his father that contains an imprecation; nor should he be the emissary of a religious court to excommunicate him. It is forbidden to disgrace them; for whoever disgraces his father or his mother, even by a hint, is accursed by the word of the Almighty, since Scripture says, “Cursed be he who dishonors his father or his mother” (Deut. 27:16). This applies in every place and time, for both man and woman.
I think the basic idea is clear, we are forbidden to say or do anything that will bring dishonor to our parents. We can’t curse them, with or without the Divine name. We can’t be sent by a court to serve them with a lawsuit, to bring them a judgment in a case or bring them a ruling of excommunication. We are not allowed to force our parents to take an oath using the Divine name nor can we do anything that would cause disgrace to our parents. I can imagine the guilt that a parent can put on a child for all the things he or she does that the parent claims is bringing disgrace to the “family” but I think in this case the law is referring to actions that will clearly cause personal disgrace or embarrassment to the parents.
I want to take some time to discuss what Judaism says should happen if a parent is abusive or evil. Can one repudiate their parent? Can one disassociate from a parent? Can one remove oneself from responsibility for an abusive parent? The short answer is no, a person can never be released from responsibility for a parent. There is no blessing to recite before honoring a parent because there is never a time when we are not obligated to honor our parents and not to curse or abuse them. The Talmud records a case where a Sage had a mother who would spit and curse him all day long. He never rebuked her but the one time she abused him in public, he said quietly and simply, “That’s enough Mother.”
I hasten to add that while we have responsibilities for our parents, the responsibility does not supersede our responsibility for our own health. If an abusive parent is destroying a child’s life, the child can turn the daily care of his parent over to a surrogate or hire a helper to insure that the parent is cared for and that he is removed from being the brunt of the parent’s perpetual anger and abuse. I think that the reason Jewish Law does not relieve us from responsibility for a parent is not for parent’s sake but for our own. Biting words, verbal abuse and physical abuse often do not end just because our parent has died. The pain and hurt can go on for the rest of our own lives. If we abandon our parent, then we will certainly feel the guilt and shame that we were not able to fulfill our responsibilities for their care and sustenance. That guilt can be as debilitating as the abusive parent and has the capacity to go on for the rest of our life. If, on the other hand, we fulfill our duties as best we can, even if we put another person in the middle to buffer us from their direct attacks, at least, when the end comes, we can say that we did do all we could. There is a sense of comfort and relief that can be healing after the abusive parent is gone if we know that we did what we could.
Our parents gave us life. It is a great gift. We are given a mandate from the Torah to do all we can for them as long as we and they are alive. We can’t repay them for the gift they gave us, so we honor them and refrain from cursing them as a constant way to thank them for our most precious gift, our very lives.
10-5769: Mitzvah N-46
March 15, 2009
Negative Mitzvah 45 – This is a negative commandment: Do not curse your father or your mother
Hafetz Hayim: This prohibition is derived from the verse, “And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death” (Exodus 21:17). If one cursed his father by the Divine name, he would deserve death by stoning, and this even if he cursed his parents using the Divine name after their death. If he cursed them with a substitute Divine name, he should receive whiplashes. One should not impose an oath on his father that contains an imprecation; nor should he be the emissary of a religious court to excommunicate him. It is forbidden to disgrace them; for whoever disgraces his father or his mother, even by a hint, is accursed by the word of the Almighty, since Scripture says, “Cursed be he who dishonors his father or his mother” (Deut. 27:16). This applies in every place and time, for both man and woman.
I think the basic idea is clear, we are forbidden to say or do anything that will bring dishonor to our parents. We can’t curse them, with or without the Divine name. We can’t be sent by a court to serve them with a lawsuit, to bring them a judgment in a case or bring them a ruling of excommunication. We are not allowed to force our parents to take an oath using the Divine name nor can we do anything that would cause disgrace to our parents. I can imagine the guilt that a parent can put on a child for all the things he or she does that the parent claims is bringing disgrace to the “family” but I think in this case the law is referring to actions that will clearly cause personal disgrace or embarrassment to the parents.
I want to take some time to discuss what Judaism says should happen if a parent is abusive or evil. Can one repudiate their parent? Can one disassociate from a parent? Can one remove oneself from responsibility for an abusive parent? The short answer is no, a person can never be released from responsibility for a parent. There is no blessing to recite before honoring a parent because there is never a time when we are not obligated to honor our parents and not to curse or abuse them. The Talmud records a case where a Sage had a mother who would spit and curse him all day long. He never rebuked her but the one time she abused him in public, he said quietly and simply, “That’s enough Mother.”
I hasten to add that while we have responsibilities for our parents, the responsibility does not supersede our responsibility for our own health. If an abusive parent is destroying a child’s life, the child can turn the daily care of his parent over to a surrogate or hire a helper to insure that the parent is cared for and that he is removed from being the brunt of the parent’s perpetual anger and abuse. I think that the reason Jewish Law does not relieve us from responsibility for a parent is not for parent’s sake but for our own. Biting words, verbal abuse and physical abuse often do not end just because our parent has died. The pain and hurt can go on for the rest of our own lives. If we abandon our parent, then we will certainly feel the guilt and shame that we were not able to fulfill our responsibilities for their care and sustenance. That guilt can be as debilitating as the abusive parent and has the capacity to go on for the rest of our life. If, on the other hand, we fulfill our duties as best we can, even if we put another person in the middle to buffer us from their direct attacks, at least, when the end comes, we can say that we did do all we could. There is a sense of comfort and relief that can be healing after the abusive parent is gone if we know that we did what we could.
Our parents gave us life. It is a great gift. We are given a mandate from the Torah to do all we can for them as long as we and they are alive. We can’t repay them for the gift they gave us, so we honor them and refrain from cursing them as a constant way to thank them for our most precious gift, our very lives.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
9-5769: Mitzvah N-45
Talmidav Shel Aharon
9-5769: Mitzvah N-45
March 3, 2009
Negative Mitzvah 45 – This is a negative commandment: Do not curse another Jew.
Hafetz Hayim: This prohibition is derived from the verse, “You shall not curse the deaf.” (Leviticus 19:14) It speaks of a deaf person to make a stronger point – that even though this individual does not hear and suffers no distress from the curse, nevertheless one transgresses by cursing. If a person curses himself, he likewise violates this. However, one who utters a curse does not commit the transgression unless he does so with the Divine name or a substitute name of God. If it was even with any term by which the heathen calls the Holy one, blessed be He, that is like any of the substitute holy names. This applies in every place and time, for both man and woman.
Here we have a law that is written about a specific case that the Sages have extended into the larger world. The Torah is specific that one should not curse someone who is deaf (nor put a stumbling block in front of a blind person). The Sages note that if one puts a stumbling block before the blind, the blind woman could still get hurt; but what hurt comes from cursing the deaf? The deaf man can’t hear the curse so what harm can it do?
The direct answer is that it causes embarrassment to those who are present and do hear the curse. It also shows the insensitivity and boorishness of the person who would pronounce such a curse. It is not a sign of wisdom or maturity to offer such a curse since the only purpose of this curse is to cause the deaf person to be humiliated no matter if he knows it or not.
The Rabbis then extend the prohibition to those who can hear. If it is a sin to curse a deaf man who cannot hear, how much more is it forbidden to curse a person who can hear, for not only is he still humiliated in front of others, but he also is hurt by the words that are hurled at him. By cursing another, one has violated a serious commandment that cuts to the very core of what it takes to be part of a community. The damage is terrible and thus this is not to be permitted.
Here we also see that one cannot even curse him/herself. In the heat of anger or frustration, we are not even allowed to call heavenly wrath upon ourselves. This is not just a form of self humiliation, but it can lead a person to give up on society and may even be akin to committing suicide. We may not believe that words can bring down death upon a person, but one who is so without hope that he or she wishes to be condemned in the worst way possible, will have no reason to want to repent, or rebuild his or her life. It is not a way we should even talk to ourselves.
Finally, we have to define what it means to curse. We are not talking about using swear words or hate speech. This law refers to calling down the “wrath of Heaven” by using the name of God to bring about hurt or disaster upon someone else. This means that the name of God must actually be used in order for the speech to be called a “curse”. One is liable for transgressing this law if he or she uses any common or customary name for God, not just one or two names, and even if an unconventional name is used, one that is a “nickname” of God or a commonly used word that stands for God.
To the Hafetz Hayim the law implies a prohibition between Jews, for the community he speaks of is the Jewish community. However, in the same way that the Sages extended the prohibition from a specific case to a general case, it should be considered forbidden to invoke a curse upon non-Jews as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)