7-5769: Mitzvah N-43

Talmidav Shel Aharon
7-5769: Mitzvah N-43
December 15, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 43 – This is a negative commandment: Do not strike another Jew.

Hafetz Hayim: This prohibition is derived from the verse, “Forty lashes he may give him; he may not add more.” (Deut. 25:3) For this is an injunction to strike no man whatever in Jewry: it is a kal va-chomer, an inference by reasoning from the less to the more: When someone has become punishable by whiplashes, so that the Torah has given permission to strike him, Scripture commands to add nothing to the flogging when he is beaten. How much more certainly must this apply to other human beings.
If someone strikes his fellow-man entailing damages of less than a p’rutah,[the smallest coin] he should receive whiplashes. But if the damages amount to more than a p’rutah, [which means that he struck him a major blow for which he becomes obligated for damages of a p’rutah or more], since he becomes duty-bound to pay money he receives no flogging (but he does violate the prohibition). Even if a person only raises his hand against his fellow-man, he is called wicked. However, if someone delivers a blow in the course of discipline and education, he commits no transgression.

Before we begin to examine this law, we need to cover some background information. Kal va-chomer is an accepted way to analyze a Torah text. It is one of the 13 approved methods that Rabbi Ishmael listed at the beginning of the Sifra, one of the earliest of the legal explanations of the book of Leviticus. It says that if something is forbidden or permitted in an extreme case, then the rule applies “all the more so” in a lesser case. Here we have a law that is careful to regulate the number of lashes a person is to receive when convicted of a crime. There can be up to 40 lashes, and no more. The Sages were so concerned about going over this limit that they further extended it to require no more than 39 lashes lest someone miscount and a great sin occur. The kal va-chomer states that if in the case of lashes one is forbidden to go even one over the limit, “all the more so” in the case at hand where someone, outside of the legal system, would strike another human being.
When one is convicted of striking another human being, he becomes liable to pay for damages. These include the costs of healing, loss of wages, damages and embarrassment. These monetary payments are in the place of the flogging. A person who pays damages does not have the double punishment of the flogging. However, if the damages are so small, smaller than the smallest coin, then he does not have to pay but is subject to flogging. If he raises his fist in a threatening manner, he is not guilty of striking his fellow man but the threat is enough to label such a man as “wicked”.
There seem to be two exceptions to this law that need to be addressed. First is the fact that, according to the Hafetz Hayyim, the law only applies to striking a Jew. I can give him the benefit of the doubt here and say that in many places the laws for Jews and non-Jews were already stacked against the Jews. Striking a non-Jew could lead to prison for the offender and a pogrom for the community. Sadly, there are Jews today who take these kind of laws very literally and declare that the non-Jews are less than Jews and it is permitted to lie, cheat or strike a non-Jew. I hold that another Jewish law, that there is one law for the citizen and non citizen alike, means that we treat all people equally under the law. I am sure that there are halachic experts out there who could show me that I am wrong; I maintain that even if all other reasons in the world were presented that we are permitted to treat others differently than our own people, I would fall back and maintain that we should not treat others differently “mipnay darkay shalom” “for the sake of peace with our neighbors.” There are just some things that may be permitted but we do not make the world a better place if we hold by them. This is one of those cases.
There is an exemption in this law for striking a child as an act of discipline, or for educative purposes. My wife, the educator, tells me that there is no authority in education today that holds that a child will learn any better if they are struck by their teachers. My understanding is that it only teaches a child that one can strike another if they are bigger. I see no reason to strike a child in the name of education. One who does so should fall under the punishments of this law as stated above. A parent disciplining a child is a more difficult area. I wish I could say that one should never strike a child or even raise a hand to a child, but there are very rare exceptions that would make a blanket prohibition hard to make. I can say, however, that there is no reason that striking a child should leave any damage at all. A slap on the hand with an open hand may be appropriate once or twice in the lifetime of a child, but if the strike should leave a bruise, scar, or any damage whatsoever, it is clearly child abuse and the parent needs to step back and assess the management of their anger. Even hitting a child with mean words that strike at a child’s self esteem can be a form of abuse to the young mind. A child in need of punishment needs to understand the consequences of his or her action, and not that physical punishment is to be expected. It only teaches a child to do the action when the punisher is not around. A parent needs to be very careful in punishing a child by striking him or her. If the strike leaves any kind of damage, the parent would fall under the prohibitions of this law.

6-5769: Mitzvah N-42

Talmidav Shel Aharon
6-5769: Mitzvah N-42
December 9, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 42 – This is a negative commandment: Do not withhold “she’er”, “k’sut”, or “onah” from one’s wife.

Hafetz Hayim: for Scripture says, “her food, her raiment and her conjugal rights he shall not diminish.” (Exodus. 21:10) The term “she’er” denotes food, “k’sut” denotes clothing and this is the plain meaning of the words; “onah” denotes conjugal intimacy. Whoever withholds one of these three by his own will, in order to distress or pain her, violates this prohibition. By the law of the Sages he bears another seven obligations toward her, and these are: the principal payment of the marriage contract [in case of divorce or death], to cure her [if she becomes sick], to ransom her [if she is taken captive], to bury her [when she dies]; she is to stay in his house the entire time of her widowhood and is to be supported out of his property; her daughters are to be sustained out of his property after his death until they are married; and the right of her sons by him in the marriage contract [is to inherit the principal amount before equally dividing the remainder of the father’s inheritance with brothers of another mother]. By the law of the Sages, he has the right to the fruit of her handiwork, in exchange for her food; and the fruit or income from her property in her lifetime, in exchange for the duty of her redemption[from captivity if necessary]. He gains the right of whatever she finds, for the sake of [avoiding] enmity; and he becomes her heir, in exchange for the duty of providing for her burial. A man also has the duty of sustaining his small sons and daughters. It is in force everywhere and at all times.

Let us make the simple points first. When a man marries a woman, he takes on certain responsibilities. He has to allow her a monetary allowance she can spend on clothing. He can’t insist that she wear certain clothes or give her the clothing; she gets to buy what she desires. He has to also give her enough money to feed herself and the family. He cannot insist on a particular diet, but she has the right to choose what the family (and she herself) will eat. Finally, he cannot deny her sexual satisfaction. This has some far reaching implications. It implies first of all that she has sexual needs that he must fulfill. Since different occupations have different implications of his being home, he cannot change jobs if it will affect his conjugal duties. Businessmen are home every evening. If he decides to become a sailor and only be home once a month or once every six months, she can forbid him from being away so much or force him to pay off her Ketuba (more on this later) and divorce her. There is an assumption that the occupation he has when he marries her is known to her and she cannot force him into a new line of work, but if he wants to change and it will affect her conjugal rights, she can veto the change. The point here is that while Judaism says that a man “acquires” a woman, it is somewhat more complicated than that. She does not become his servant or slave and she has rights in his home that he is forbidden to deny. If, in any of these three areas, he limits her rights and causes her physical pain or mental anguish, he is forced to give her what she needs or pay her Ketuba and divorce her.
The Ketuba is central here. The Ketuba is the contract of marriage. It stipulates that the wife has these rights and that the man does not have to pay the “bride price” required in order to get married. The bride price becomes a primary mortgage on his estate. This means that when he dies, the wife is paid from the estate first, before any and all creditors. If the husband wants to divorce his wife, he can divorce her but the payment of the Ketuba is a heavy monetary debt that must be paid before he can send her away. Today the monetary amounts are symbolic but in ancient times, it could be used to convince angry husbands to fulfill their duties to their wives.
If you think this is a bit hard on husbands and wives, let me remind everyone that, even to this day, marriage is basically a monetary partnership in the eyes of the state. To get a marriage license you don’t have to profess love or devotion, only to let the state know who will be responsible for the family debts. Love and devotion are great, but marriage means responsibilities and the Ketuba spells them out.
The Sages expanded on the duties of a husband to prevent other abuses. He must pay the amount he owes on the Ketuba if he divorces her. If she dies, the debt is inherited by her children. If she gets sick, he must pay for her medical bills. If she is captured by brigands or pirates, he has to pay her ransom before he ransoms anyone else including children or his teacher. He has to pay for her funeral, give her the house to live in if he dies and leaves her a widow (the children can’t throw her out). If she has born him daughters, they are to be supported out of his estate until they are married even if his sons have to go begging to provide for them. The laws of inheritance do not apply to the Ketuba, its principal is paid to her sons that she bore to him (but not to sons from a previous marriage), and only then is the rest of the estate divided among all of his sons.
The Sages also provide the husband with some of her income to make sure that he will perform his duties. If she has a small business on the side he can claim her income as payment for the food he provides. If she owns property, he has the right to the income from that property or from the sale of that property (if sold in her lifetime) in exchange for the duty to ransom her from captivity. If she finds something of value, he can claim it. This is to prevent arguments between the two of them. He becomes her heir for the duty to bury her and if she leaves him with small children, he has to care for them and not treat them shabbily.
I suppose we could argue all day over these duties and whether they are fair to her and to him, but remember, like all laws, this applies only when there is trouble in the family. When couples love each other and are devoted to each other, these monetary issues are not a problem; they are often filled above and beyond the letter of the law. Wives and children are supported openly and lovingly. Only in cases of anger and discord do we find that couples argue over money and here the Sages have tried to spell out a fair way for the couple’s finances to be divided.
I should add here that in monetary cases, Jewish Law gives way to the law of the land. A Ketuba may be symbolic but to pay it out today, one would have to have a civil divorce and pay out all the financial details spelled out by the divorce court, only then could the Ketuba be paid (actually the symbolic amount is waived during the Jewish divorce (Get) process, since the money has already been allotted by civil courts). Judaism says that divorce is possible and sometimes necessary (even a Mitzvah) but it should not be so easy that a man would change wives as often as he changes a home or car.
The Sages did their best with the customs and traditions that were current in their day and age. Before we comment on the equality of the system or not, try and think how you might write this better. It is never as easy as it looks.

5-5769: Mitzvah N-41

Talmidav Shel Aharon
5-5769: Mitzvah N-41
December 2, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 41 – This is a negative commandment: Do not crave in one’s heart something that belongs to one's fellow-man.

Hafetz Hayim: for Scripture says, “Neither shall you crave etc.” (Deut. 5:18) This prohibition is separate from the injunction “You shall not covet” (see last lesson: 4-5769). For a person transgresses the prohibition against craving once he thinks in his heart how he can acquire that object, and his heart is persuaded in the matter to follow his plan. Then he violates the injunction, “Neither shall you crave…” since craving is but in the heart alone. If he then acquires that object, having importuned its owner and sent many friends to him, until he gets it, he violates also the injunction, “You shall not covet”. It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

This commandment is found as an extra word in Deuteronomy where Moses recalls the law against coveting in the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are found twice in the Torah, once in Exodus and repeated in Deuteronomy. The problem is that the two texts are not identical. The most famous difference between them is in the fourth commandment; Exodus says that we should “Guard” (Shamor) the seventh day, and Deuteronomy says that we should “Remember” (Zachor). If we were to look closely at the prayer on Friday night, “Lecha Dodi” we would see it mentions a Midrash that explains that God pronounced on Sinai only one commandment but spoke “Shamor” and “Zachor” at the same moment. Humans could not speak like that but God can and did. In the final commandment there is also a slight difference in the law concerning coveting. In Exodus the commandment states that we cannot covet our neighbor’s house, wife, male or female slave, or anything that is your neighbors. In Deuteronomy, the commandment reads, “do not covet your neighbor’s wife, crave his house, field, male or female slave, ox, ass or anything that is your neighbor’s.” It is the additional word “crave” that makes this prohibition separate from the injunction of coveting.
But the two laws are not really that separate. Craving takes place in your heart, and coveting takes place out in the real world. Craving leads to coveting. When it does, one is guilty of two sins.
We have to understand that neither of these laws can be easily explained in American law. In American law, you have to do something wrong to violate a prohibition. Thinking about something is not illegal until you actually do an illegal act. Americans sort of live by the creed that if you want something badly enough, you can work for it and get it through your own efforts. American advertising tells us that we can have anything we want. It is very unusual to want what another person has and not be able to get something similar or exactly the same without having to resort to nagging that person to give it up. (The possible exception here could be your neighbor’s wife. You can chase after any single woman [or man] who may have a similar physical appearance or be in a similar financial situation, but you cannot covet the person married to your neighbor.)
The war on Terror has led our country to go after those who are planning a terrorist attack before they can actually execute the plan. While it is difficult to prosecute someone for talking or acting like a terrorist, to defend our country, we have to stop the terror before it can begin. Similarly, the Secret Service goes after any person who makes any kind of a threat against the President or any other leader of this country. One does not have to carry out that threat to get the attention of the Secret Service. These two examples are the exceptions to the rule. In most cases, just wanting something in your heart does not trigger any attention by the civil authorities because the police can’t arrest people for what they think. I am not sure that Jewish Law could punish a person who only commits the sin of “craving” but if that person carried out the idea and performed an act of coveting, then Jewish Law would punish for both sins, since one sin implies the other.
We should all remember to pay less attention to what our neighbor has that we lack and be thankful for what we already have. That is an attitude that will keep us far from sin.

4-5769: Mitzvah N-40

Talmidav Shel Aharon
4-5769: Mitzvah N-40
November 20, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 40 – This is a negative commandment: Do not covet anything belonging to another person.

Hafetz Hayim: for Scripture says, “You shall not covet etc.” (Ex. 20:14) Now coveting denotes that a person invests effort to put his thought into action; he sends many friends to the fellow, and importunes him, until he takes it [the object of desire] from him. Even if he has given him a great price for it, he thus violates the commandment. This often occurs when a son-in-law pressures his father-in-law before the wedding that he should give him this or that object, which they did not stipulate when the t’naiim were written. Even if his father-in-law fulfills his demand, the son-in-law nevertheless violates this prohibition. It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

This commandment, another of the famous Ten Commandments, is one that is important for the sake of Peace. It is very hard for a legal system to lead people to do more than what the law allows. This is a prime example of the difference between a pure legal system and Jewish Law. Judaism is not only about the law, but about morality as well. There is a whole category of laws relating to bringing peace between two people, between husband and wife, between brothers, between friends and between business partners. It is not enough to do what is right, we have to do things that will not bring about strife with someone else.
Coveting has the capacity to create strife. When we desire what someone else has, so much that we will do almost anything to secure it, there is a big problem. I have seen people go on a campaign to get what they want from someone else. It does not matter if the person who is the point of this campaign finally gives in. The feelings of hurt and resentment remain.
What is coveting and what is not? It is not coveting if the person has the item for sale and you are negotiating the price. It is not coveting if all agree that this object is payment for some service you are providing. It is not coveting if you ask your neighbor to let you know when she is ready to sell an item as long as you don’t ask, “Are you selling it yet?” It is coveting when you want what belongs to someone else, no matter if it is an object or even a person. You can’t covet a person’s wife, imploring him to divorce her, convincing him that she is no good, and doing all this so you can have her. It applies to movable objects and even real estate. (see the story of King Ahab of Israel and Nabot’s vineyard in the Book of Kings).

I have to admit, when I first saw the Hafetz Hayim’s example of the son-in-law who desires something that belongs to his father-in-law, I first wondered if the Hafetz Hayim was having trouble with his own son-in-law! Weddings today are not done in quite the same way so some explanation is needed. Weddings for centuries in Judaism took over a year to complete. The couple would decide to marry and their families would then get together for a party and to set up the terms of the wedding. They decided at that time who would pay for the different parts of the wedding ceremony, and what each of the families would provide for the couple. The bride’s family might have to bring bedding, pillows and household items; the groom’s family might provide a house, animals, tools and even a job/support for the groom. These terms were spelled out in “te’naiim” a contract that specified when all the terms had to be completed, usually at the same time the families gathered again for the wedding. If one family did not fulfill their obligations, the wedding could be cancelled. To seal the “t’naiim” (agreement) the two families (usually the two mothers) would together, break a plate.
In our case, the son-in-law wants something from his father-in-law that is not part of the t’naiim. This demand by the groom is a problem because he is indirectly threatening that he may decide not to marry the daughter if the man does not give in to his demands. It puts the bride’s father in a very difficult position and even if he gives in to the demand, there is now resentment and anger that may, eventually, disrupt the marriage itself as one family is now angry at the other. (It is assumed that if the son asked his own parents for an object, they would give it to him out of family love.)
The idea here is to be thankful for what we have, rather than envy what someone else has.

3-5769: Mitzvah N-39

Talmidav Shel Aharon
3-5769: Mitzvah N-39
November 11, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 39 – This is a negative commandment: Do not give false testimony.

Hafetz Hayim: for Scripture says, “You shall not bear false witness against your fellow.” (Ex. 20:13) If someone give as testimony what he heard from others, even definitely trustworthy people, he likewise violates this prohibition. If a person hires false withesses, or if out suppresses his testimony [and does not go to give it] he is free, not punishable by the laws of man, but punishable by the laws of Heaven.
It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

This commandment, one of the famous Ten Commandments, is one that is important for the sake of Justice. Justice is one of the basic underlying assumptions that Judaism depends upon. Even God is called to justice by Abraham. Monotheism in our faith is important because it leads to justice. If there were more than one god, then we could say that we have not sinned, rather it was a requirement of the “other” god. Judaism insists on one God and one Law. It is the only way Justice can be insured.
False testimony undermines Justice. It is not only about testifying falsely. That is lying under oath. This not only is a breach of Justice but an act of blasphemy against God in whose name an oath was sworn to tell the truth. It is even more important to tell what you know to be the truth from your own experience. If your testimony is based on something someone else told you, it is not your testimony and you need to let the parties know that there is someone who has information that is important to this case. Hearsay testimony is not permitted and if you say it as if it were your own, you have given false testimony.
But what if you don’t lie under oath but hire someone to testify falsely or if you refrain from letting anyone know what you know will help or hurt their case? This is not a case of false testimony, but of subverting Justice. There is no Torah law that prohibits this but it is morally wrong to act in this way.
This underlines a major problem with prohibitions and laws in general. They can only speak to matters that are punishable. There is an entire way to live that goes beyond the letter of the law. Our duties as Jews and as responsible citizens are to do more than what the law can require. If we only fulfill the “letter of the law” then we are a disappointment to God. If you hire witnesses to testify falsely, you have not done anything wrong, the false witnesses have violated this commandment and will be punished. They are the evil ones in this situation. If you refrain from telling what you know or that you know anything, you have not lied, so you are not in violation of the commandment, but you have not helped secure Justice. You can’t expect G-d to be happy with that kind of an attitude.
It is important that we remember that while it is a sin to testify falsely, it is not good if you don’t help, in any way you can, to bring about justice.

2-5769: Mitzvah N-38

Talmidav Shel Aharon
2-5769: Mitzvah N-38
November 2, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 37 – This is a negative commandment: Do not delay the payment of a hired man’s wages.
Hafetz Hayim: for Scripture says, “The wages of a hired man shall not remain with you [all night] until the morning.” (Lev. 19:13). And it says further “neither shall the sun go down on it.” (Deut. 24:15) For if he was a hired man for the day, he is to collect his wages anytime during the entire night. [Since it says “all night until the morning”] And if he was hired for the night, he is to collect his wages anytime during the day [because it says “neither shall the sun go down upon it”]. A man hired for certain hours during the day can collect anytime during the day and a man hired for certain hours during the night is to collect anytime during the night.
In the case of a craftsman who is hired to repair an object, as long as the object is in the possession of the craftsman , even if the craftsman informed the owner that he completed it, the owner commits no transgression. If he does not demand his payment, from him the owner commits no transgression. And even if he demanded it of him and he did not have what to give him, or if the employer passed him on to another and the other person took it upon himself to pay, he is free of guilt.
If a person delays the wages of a hired man beyond the allotted time, he disobeys the positive commandment (see Mitzvah 66) and he violates this prohibition. If after the time he delays further, he violates a prohibition from the words of the later parts of Scripture “Do not say to your fellow, “Go and come again, etc” (Proverbs 3:28) It is all one whether it is the hire of man or a domestic animal or tools and instruments; these words of Scripture apply to it: “On the same day you shall give him his wage; neither shall the sun go down on it and the wages … shall not remain with you all night. .” If someone wrongfully retains the wages of a hired man, it is as though he takes his life, and he violates the injunctions (Mitzvot N-35 & N-37) “You shall not wrongfully deprive your fellow, nor rob him.
It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

The Hafetz Hayim is so clear here that I almost don’t need to comment at all. The law is simple, if a person does work for you; you have the obligation to pay him right away. A hired man, or a hired woman, or a tradesman or a craftsman, depends on those wages to feed himself and his families. We are talking about day laborers, hired in the morning and to be paid at the end of the day. We may have money in the bank and can wait to be paid until the end of the week or until the end of the next pay period, but these people depend on being paid immediately for the work they have completed. According to the Torah, you are endangering the hired man’s life if you delay payment. If you insist that he keep coming back day after day to collect his wages, you have caused him pain and embarrassment and are also in violation of the law.
It is my custom to pay my bills on time every month. Those who bill me are paid before the deadline printed on the bill. The hired people who do work for me are paid at once. We had a man, Willie Woods, who cut our lawn for many years. If I was home when he cut the grass, I would stop what I was doing and write the check for him so that he could have it as soon as he was finished. I didn’t like to force him to wait for me to write it later. I wanted to have the check ready so he could be free to go on to his next customer. If I was not home I knew Willie would be back at the end of the day and I tried to have the check ready for him when he came back. All Willie had was his lawnmower and his truck. If I did not pay him for the work he did, then how could he feed his family and buy gas for his equipment? In addition, I made it a point to always shake his hand and thank him for a job well done. He often protested that his hands were too dirty to shake my hand but I shook hands with him anyway. He was not “just a hired hand” but a reliable worker and the father of a family. He was not that different from me.
The exceptions to this law are technical in nature. If you give your watch to a craftsman to fix and he finishes it and tells you to come and pick it up, you don’t have to rush to his store. After all, he has the watch, if you default on the payment, he can sell the watch. If the craftsman does not demand his payment, then the owner is not required to pay. If the owner can’t pay because he has no money, then he does not violate the law because the craftsman still has the watch. This clearly does not apply to the hired man since the work is now finished and he must be paid. If the employer does not have the money, he should not have contracted that day to do the work. If someone else has given the hired man his wages for the day, the first employer is free from guilt if he does not pay the same day (but he still owes him money).
The law sides with the day laborer. If he goes to court, the court will demand immediate payment from the employer. It also applies to the man who employs an animal to help on his farm, or if he rents tools or instruments. The person who owns the items depends on the income to feed his family and maintain the animals or the tools. There is no leeway. Even if the man did a bad job and even if he damaged something, he needs to be paid for the day lest he go home and starve. A man deserves payment for a day’s work. It is a sin to withhold his wages

1-5769: Mitzvah N-37

Talmidav Shel Aharon

1-5769: Mitzvah N-37

October 28, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 37 – This is a negative commandment: Do not wrongfully keep anything belonging to your neighbor.

Hafetz Hayim: for Scripture says, “you shall not wrongfully deprive your fellow” (Lev. 19:13). This means that a person is not to withhold an item of monetary value of his fellow-man that came into his hand by the other’s wish, and now he retains it and does not return it to the other: for example, if he has in his possession a loan {tat the other lent him] or wages [that the other has earned] and the other cannot extract if from him because he is powerful, he thus violates this prohibition. It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

It is hard for us to imagine the issue here because we are so committed to acting in moral and correct fashion at all times. This law comes from an era where the rich and powerful oppressed the weak and the poor because they could do it and get away with it. I suppose that this kind of greed never really went away, now we have the financial instruments to get wealth from everyone equally rather than oppressing the poor.

Here are the examples. A rich man hires a worker to do some work. The work is finished and the worker wants to be paid. The worker tries and tries to get the man to pay but there is always some reason that the rich man can’t pay him. The work is finished and therefore the money already “belongs” to the worker, but he can’t get the money away from the rich man. There is a separate mitzvah to “not let the wages of a worker stay with you overnight.” That is, he should be paid the same day he finishes the work. The rich man is not stealing from the worker, he is just lording over him how rich and powerful he is and the worker can do nothing but beg to be paid. In ancient time, even calling the rich man to court may not insure that the man would be paid. Our lesson teaches us to promptly pay what we owe.

The other example is about taking advantage of a neighbor. A neighbor comes to a man and is worried about an object that will be left behind while the neighbor is on vacation. The man takes it into his house and guards it for the duration of the neighbor’s vacation. He may even have the right to use the object while the neighbor is gone. When the neighbor returns, he wants his object back but the man does not want to part with it so fast. To keep it would be stealing but again, he doesn’t claim the object as his own, he only delays returning it to its owner making the neighbor wait or beg for it to be returned. This is causing pain and humiliation to the neighbor and thus it is forbidden by this negative mitzvah. The rich and powerful cannot humiliate another human being.

33-5768: Mitzvah N-36

Talmidav Shel Aharon
33-5768: Mitzvah N-36
October 8, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 36 – This is a negative commandment: Do not deny [falsely] anything of value [owed]
Hafetz Hayim: for Scripture says, “neither shall you deal falsely” (Lev. 19:11). And this is an admonition against the lying denial of anything of value worth from a perutah on up. It includes all kinds of denial in monetary matters, whether about something entrusted for safekeeping or a loan; whether one person robbed another or cheated him; or he found a lost object and did not return it. If the other sued him for it and he gave a false denial, the thus violates this prohibition and becomes disqualified to be a witness and give testimony. It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

With all the troubles in the economy today, we can easily understand why a person would lie under oath over a monetary matter. Between greed and our nature to covet what other people have, it is not beyond belief that someone would lie or cheat to hang on to what was not his or hers. This is the reason we have courts, to determine who is lying and who is not and to make sure that those who lie, are punished properly.
This does not preclude the possibility that there may be a disagreement over who the object belongs to or who has the right to the money in question. That is not what is covered by this mitzvah. This refers so someone who knows that the object or the money does not belong to him but he wants to keep it. This person is a thief; there is no other name for it. We should also note that it also applies to someone who offers to safeguard an item and then, when the owner comes to claim it, says that the object is his and never belonged to the owner. It also applies to someone who would take a loan and then deny that he took the money or a person who collected a loan and then claimed later that he was never paid. One might think that he is justified in taking what is not his because the other person has so much and really would not miss this insignificant sum of money or that the other person is really a bad person who got this money or object in a questionable manner and does not deserve to own it. (You could think of O.J. Simpson here and his latest trial and conviction. This mitzvah does not apply to him only because Mr. Simpson is not Jewish.)
The Hafetz Hayim notes that the minimum amount for violating this mitzvah is a “perutah”, the smallest coin in use during the period of the Talmud. The value of the item in this dispute is irrelevant. It belongs to someone else and must be returned. If you find a lost object, and it is possible to determine who the owner is, you must do what is needed to return the object. Unless the object has no signs of ownership (lost cash for instance) it must be returned. A wallet can be identified by its owner so one can say a wallet was found and the person, who can identify it, can get it back. If one were to keep an object without trying to find the owner, that person is a thief.
Finally, if you are convicted of lying about an object, you not only loose the object, but you lose your reputation as well. You are a convicted liar and can never testify in court again.

32-5768: Mitzvah N-35

Talmidav Shel Aharon
32-5768: Mitzvah N-35
August 19, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 35 – This is a negative commandment: do not take anything in robbery from one’s fellow-man by main force.

Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “nor shall you rob him.” (Lev. 19:13). The prohibition of this injunction is on anything worth from a prutah [the smallest coin] and up, yet even less than that is forbidden [but not punishable] like anything less than a minimum amount. If a person takes even something worth a prutah from his fellow man, it as though he takes his life. It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

Stealing is a serious crime, but robbery, stealing by force, is much worse. Stealing can be done in secret; robbery is done in full view of the victim and it is as if the robber doesn’t care. It is one thing not to fear your fellow human being, but robbery also implies that the robber does not fear God either. The fact that robbery implies stealing as well as the threat to the life of the victim; this makes it one of the most terrible crimes. It is said that robbery was one of the three sins that caused the first Temple of Jerusalem to be destroyed.
On the one hand, it is clear that there must be a minimum value to the crime. Some items are so small that the threat to life could not be very great. Still, the minimum for robbery is the smallest coin. After all, even a penny or a dime could be a lot of money for someone who is very poor. Still, even something worth less could be considered robbery. It is said that this was one of the sins of the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. When a new merchant set up his grain shop in the marketplace, every person in the city would come and steal one grain of wheat from his shop. By the end of the day, he had nothing and there was nobody to arrest for the crime, after all, they had stolen only one grain of wheat!! It is so often that we steal from a friend or from our workplace simple small items, a box of paperclips, a stapler, a ream of paper, but no matter how small, it is still stealing and forbidden.
People also get very attached to their possessions. Even a small coin could be very important to a person. In the movie, “Throw Mama From the Train” actor, Danny D’Vito asks his friend, Billy Crystal, to come see his coin collection. He takes out a small box with just a few coins in it. “What are these coins?” asks Crystal. “Well,” says D’Vito, “this is the nickel that I got as change from when my father bought me my first ice cream cone. And this is a quarter that I won at Coney Island…” the value of the coin collection was not in the resale value of the coins, but in the memories they recalled in the mind of their owner. They were small coins but to D’Vito’s character, they were priceless. No wonder we are taught that one who robs another, it is as though he takes his life. Many have pined away for years over beloved objects which were stolen.
Finally, take note that this law is applied equally to Jews and non-Jews. Nobody is outside the protection of this law.

31-5768: Mitzvah N-34

Talmidav Shel Aharon
31-5768: Mitzvah N-34
August 12, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 34 – This is a negative commandment: do not steal objects or items whatever their monetary value.
Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “You shall not steal.” (Lev. 19:11). The prohibition applies to anything worth from a “perutah” [the smallest coin] and up. It is all one whether a person steals the item of monetary value of a Jew, a minor, or a non-Jew: he has to make compensation. It is forbidden to steal anything at all by the law of the Torah, as the law applies to anything half or less than the minimum amount. It is forbidden to steal anything by way of a joke, or with the intention of returning it, or with the intention of paying for it. It is forbidden to buy anything which can be firmly assumed to have been stolen. It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

As we saw last week, the prohibition against stealing items belonging to someone else is not from the Ten Commandments, it is from this source in Leviticus. In the Ten Commandments, the list includes laws that have capital punishment as their penalty. In this case, the Torah has a series of fines that are levied against those who would steal. For most items, one returns the object, or the value of the object (if it can no longer be returned) and pays a penalty of half the value of the item stolen. If the item is an animal, the penalty is different. For small animals he pays a penalty of 4 times the value of the animal. If it is a large animal, the fine is five times the value of the animal. The Sages comment on the difference in the penalty since they assume that he would carry away a small animal (sheep or goat) but the larger ones, (cow or ox) would be led away on their own power. Since it was more embarrassing to carry a sheep on one’s shoulders, the difference in fines was in recognition of this embarrassment. It seems to me, however, that if the thief chooses to steal the animal, it should not be a factor if he has to embarrass himself or not.
My mother would say, “Stealing is stealing”. The Hafetz Hayim agrees. The value of the item is not a mitigating factor. Stealing as a joke or prank or even with the intention to buy the item is all stealing and is forbidden. It causes pain to the owner and the pain is unnecessary. One does not play fast and loose with things that belong to another person. This includes pens that belong to the company we work for, shoplifting when there is no one to catch you, and tampering with time on a time card.
Stealing also does not depend on who you are stealing from. There is no justification for stealing from a minor (candy from a baby) or from a non-Jew. Stealing from a non-Jew may even be a bigger crime since it would also involve Hillul HaShem, the desecration of G-d’s name in the eye of the victim.
Finally, it does not matter if you did not do the stealing. One is forbidden to traffic in known stolen goods. If you are caught with stolen goods, you must return it and pay the penalty.

30-5768: Mitzvah N-33

Talmidav Shel Aharon
30-5768: Mitzvah N-33
August 5, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 33 – This is a negative commandment: do not kidnap a living Jew.

Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “You shall not steal.” (Ex. 20:13). The Sages of blessed memory learned (Talmud Sanhedrin 86a) that this is an admonition to one who would kidnap a living Jew. If he sells him into slavery he likewise violates a negative commandment, since that is covered by the injunction, “They shall not be sold as slaves” (Lev. 25:42) a kidnapper is not punishable by death until he steals away an Israelite, takes him into his domain and makes use of him, and sells him to others. If he sold the man to the father or brother of the one who was kidnapped, he would be free of punishment. It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

Once again, the Ten Commandments doesn’t say what we think it says. On the surface, when it says, “You shall not steal” we would think that it refers to the theft of someone’s “stuff” (chattels as it is called in the legal literature). But stealing property is covered by the law in Leviticus 19:11. The Rabbis also noted that the prohibition against stealing is found between the laws of murder and adultery, both capital crimes. Stealing property did not seem to fit, so they interpreted this law to be a ban on kidnapping.

There are two other places where this law is mentioned. Exodus 21:16 and Deut. 24:7 and there are some discrepancies between them. Exodus refers to the kidnapping of all people but Deut. seems to limit the law to kidnapping Jews. It reconcile the many differences between these two verses, the sages limited the charge of Kidnapping to those who abduct, detain, enslave and sell a human being. Without all four parts, a kidnapper could not be put to death. The crime may be reprehensible, but not a capital offence. This is the reason that the sale of the man to his father or brother would not make him guilty of any offence. The brother or father would be buying the man, not for slavery, but to redeem him from captivity. (Redeeming from captivity would be a positive mitzvahfor the family.)

Without all four elements, there could be no punishment for the kidnapper at all since any one element missing, would make the act incomplete and not a “real kidnapping.”

The Hafetz Hayim seems to limit this law to Jews but my sources informed me that it applies to all human beings. Kidnapping and the sale of those people into slavery is forbidden for all people.

29-5768: Mitzvah N-32

Talmidav Shel Aharon
29-5768: Mitzvah N-32
July 30, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 32 – This is a negative commandment: do not kill a living human being
Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “You shall not murder.” (Ex. 20:13). If someone kills a human being deliberately, his execution should be by the sword (decapitation). If he did not kill him with his own hand but only caused his death, he is not subject to execution by court verdict, but is punishable by death at heaven’s hands. If someone destroys even one living person in Jewry, it is as though he made a whole world perish. If someone closes a person’s eyes at the departure of his life (instead of afterward) he thus sheds blood (by shortening the other’s life, however briefly. It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

The Ten Commandments do not say, “You shall not kill” it says instead, “You shall not murder”. Murder here is the taking of another human life. It does not matter if that life is Jewish or not. Taking a human life is a capital crime in all cases. The Torah is clear, if you murder, you are executed. Of the four types of capital punishment, the one used for murder is decapitation. The later rabbis ruled that if you injure someone, even though the Torah requires “eye for an eye” we set a value on the injury and the one who injures pays that amount to the one injured. The Torah, however, forbids ransoming someone accused of murder. There can be no valuation placed on the taking of a life. The murderer must die. Maybe!
The Sages of the Talmud did not want to execute murderers. They declared that a court that sentences on person to death in seven years was a “hanging court”. Other Rabbis declared that if they were on that court, it would not happen once in seventy years. The Sages understood that such a position might encourage murder but then again, they could turn their condemned over to the Romans for punishment.
How could they reverse a plain, clear law from the Torah? They really didn’t. The law is still on the books, The Sages just made it very difficult to get a clear conviction. There had to be two witnesses to the murder, that is, they had to see the actual killing. (Seeing a man holding a bloody sword over a dead body was not proof enough for the court). That alone is rare. The witnesses could not be relatives of the victim or the killer making getting a witness very difficult. The witnesses had to be warned that if they were plotting to testify falsely, the execution they plotted for the defendant would be carried out on them instead. There were no jury trials but the court would have seventy one judges and to execute the defendant, they needed not a simple majority but 50% plus two. To acquit, however, they only needed 50% plus one. In all other cases the elder judges spoke before the younger colleagues. In capital cases, the younger colleagues voted first so as not to be swayed by their more experienced colleagues. A man was presumed innocent until proven guilty and once acquitted; the defendant could not be tried again for the same crime. We see that it was very hard to convict in a capital case. Why then did they just take capital punishment off the books? Because they felt that from time to time there may be a need to execute a criminal in unusual circumstances. In the Middle Ages, for example, the community might execute a person convicted of informing against the community to the non-Jewish authorities in order to bring down a pogrom or riot in which many could be killed. Even with all the terrorists in Israeli prisons, only one person has ever been executed in Israel, for a crime so great it warranted this one exception: Adof Eichmann.
Accidental killing is not the same as murder and the one who kills without premeditation is not put to death. It is in the hands of Heaven if he will die a premature death. Soldiers and those who were defending themselves or others from deadly force could use deadly force themselves to prevent killing. This too is allowed. This law, interestingly enough, is also used to allow an abortion to protect the health of the mother. The fetus endangering his mother is called “one who pursues with murderous intent” and can be killed before he kills his victim (in this case, his mother).
The Rabbis noted that G-d created only one person, Adam, in the divine image in order to teach that whoever takes one life, it is as if he has killed an entire world. The killer has not killed just one person but he has also killed all the descendants of that person. If a human being is created in the image of G-d, then the one who kills a person is guilty of desecrating the image of G-d as well as killing a human being. It is a very grave crime.
The final note has to do with euthanasia. We are not allowed to end a life even one moment before they are destined to die. Even when a person is breathing their last breaths, we don’t touch them or interfere with their passing. To close the eyes of someone who is dying but not yet dead, is a final insult to the dying and is declared to be as if one has hastened the death and therefore a murderer, even though the person was dying anyway. We can remove things that prevent a person from dying but we can not hasten the natural progression of death without being called a murderer.

28-5768: Mitzvah N-31

Talmidav Shel Aharon
28-5768: Mitzvah N-31
July 15, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 31 – This is a negative commandment: do not swear an oath of expression over a falsehood.

Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “and you shall not swear by my name falsely.” (Lev. 19:12). This is called an oath of expression. A person is punishable for this if he takes a [false] oath over things that are possible to do, whether in the future or the past. For example, “That I ate” or “I threw a stone into the sea.”or that so and so spoke to so and so” “that I did not eat” or “I did not throw a stone into the sea” or “so and so did not talk to so and so”. And in the future: for example, “ That I shall eat,” or “I shall not eat” or “I will throw a pebble or stone into the sea” or “I will not throw.” If a person swore to one of these statements, he would violate this prohibition. It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

In keeping with the theme of the importance of words, we have the rules about more standard oaths. When one would offer an oath, it would include the Name of G-d and would be spoken in the presence of the court or witnesses. The value of this oath was to testify about something when another witness was not present or about an intention that no one else can know. The examples here are the mundane activities of life. We don’t go around looking for witnesses every time we want to do something. We go to lunch, talk to those around us and take little notice of it until it becomes important. When someone else gets into trouble, we want to help if we can.
The reminder here is that we are forbidden to speak a falsehood even about the most mundane activity. G-d’s name is involved and we have to be meticulous about how we use that name. If we know that we are being asked to swear to something, even in the future, we have to make sure that we only speak what is true. Maybe you meant to eat but for some reason you didn’t eat that meal that day. Maybe you always see two people together for lunch but you are not sure that on the particular day in question, they were in their usual seat. Just because you always go on a picnic in the park during the summer, does not mean that you can swear that you will be in the park this coming weekend since weather and a host of family issues could prevent this from happening.
Do we really remember what we had for lunch last Tuesday? Even if we always eat at the same sandwich shop, are we sure that last Tuesday was the exception, or perhaps this coming Tuesday will be different. You could get sick, the office could close early, the diner could burn down. This mitzvah teaches us to watch our words and make sure that we don’t swear to something that, later, could prove to be wrong or false. This would damage our reputation and would damage G-d’s reputation as well. We need to keep our daily dairy current and refer back to it before we invoke it before we take any oaths.
The later Rabbis did not like oaths for this reason. It is too easy to make a false oath like these and they would undermine the entire legal system. Better to avoid as many oaths as possible.

27-5768: Mitzvah N-30

Talmidav Shel Aharon
27-5768: Mitzvah N-30
June 23, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 30 – This is a negative commandment: do not swear falsely over the denial of a monetary matter.
Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “nor shall you lie one to another.” (Lev. 19:11). If someone sues his fellow human being for something of value (excluding land or deeds) worth from a peruta (the smallest coin) and up, where if the other admitted it he would be obligated to pay (excluding cases of fines) but he denied it and took an oath, or the claimant (plaintiff) pronounced an oath on him and he denied it (falsely) - the defendant is punishable, even if he did not answer “amen”. This is known as an oath over a Pikadon (an object entrusted for safekeeping) and he is obligated to pay the principal (original amount) and a fifth. Whoever violates this prohibition violates also violates the injunction, “and you shall not swear by my name falsely,” (Lev. 19:12) which applies to an oath of expression. (See next week’s lesson). If a person denies his fellow human being’s claim to landed property or deeds and he swears falsely, although hi is free of penalty over an oath of pikadon, he is nevertheless liable on account of an oath of expression, since he swore to a lie. It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

In the ancient world, words were very important and an oath to G-d was a very serious legal matter. When there was something brought to court that could came down to a dispute between two parties and there was no other proof except for the claims that each was making. The court could demand an oath from one or the other or from both parties as to their side of the story. Many times someone would rather pay the damages than take an oath that perhaps could turn out to be false. In our case here a person has been given an object of value to safeguard for someone else. For example, you give a friend your antique vase to keep in their home while your house is under repair. For some reason the vase disappears or is damaged. Your friend is only liable for the disappearance or damage if it can be shown that he did not take due care with the vase. One can be pretty careful with something that belongs to someone else and still there could be damage. Clearly your friend is not responsible for an earthquake or a violent home invasion. It is still hard to prove if the friend did take good care of the object or not. Since the friend was not paid to guard the vase, rather he was just a volunteer, the court allows him to swear an oath that he was indeed careful with the vase and the friend cannot force him to page damages.
But if it can be proven in another way that the friend did not take all normal precautions, but carried it around all day and to show it off to friends and left it by an open window all day and night where the weather and thieves could easily damage it, then the friend has sworn a false oath and he must pay for the vase, pay a fine of 1/5th the value of the vase. He is also in violation of the law of swearing a false oath which we will deal with in our next lesson.
If land or property deeds were given over for safe keeping, the law different and one does not take an oath like the unpaid watchman of a movable object, rather the issue is usually who is the owner of the land. He can swear that he is the rightful owner. If it is found later that he lied about his ownership, then the only punishment is because he took a false oath, he does not pay damages or the fine.

27-5768: Mitzvah N-29

Talmidav Shel Aharon
27-5768: Mitzvah N-29
May 26, 2008

Negative Mitzvah 29 – This is a negative commandment: Do not swear in vain.
Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “You shall not take the name of the Lord your G-d in vain.” (Ex. 20:7). A vain oath is divided into four categories: 1. If one swears to a change in something known: for example, if he swears about a man that he is a woman or about a stone that it is gold. 2. if he swears to no purpose; for example, he takes an oath about a stone that it is a stone. 3. If he takes an oath to fail to observe a mitzvah. 4. If he swears to do something which is impossible to fulfill; for example, that he will not sleep for three days in a row, or that he will taste no food for seven days in a row. Over every one of these oaths, if he swore it willfully, he should receive whiplashes; and if it was unwittingly, he is free of penalty. If someone says a benediction in vain [needlessly] or he utters the name of G-d to no purpose, he violates the injunction, “You shall not take the name f the Lord your G-d in vain.” It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

When it comes to using G-d’s name, there are two possible uses. One is to invoke holiness and the other is using it improperly for shock value. The purpose of a vain oath is either for its shock value or else we have to assume that this person is a fool. Let’s take a look at the four examples. In the first case, he does not have to swear at all. Anyone can see for themselves what the correct answer is. Why should he have to use G-d’s name to prove that a man is a woman or a stone is really gold? It is easy to prove him right or wrong without his taking an oath. An oath would only be necessary if there was no other way to know the status; For example, if the person in question was missing at sea or if the stone in question were lost.
In the second case he is taking an oath about something that is already known to everyone. A proper oath would be to testify about something that nobody else would know. The testimony is the only proof of that can be obtained. If everyone knows the information and it is accepted by the court as true, then what reason would he have to swear in G-d’s name? In the third case, he is taking an oath to disobey the law. He thus gets stuck in a dilemma, should he keep the law, he breaks his oath (and the law), if he keeps his oath he has broken the law. The mitzvah is more important and the oath is in vain. Finally, in the last case, the oath is in vain because it can never be fulfilled. It is one thing to promise to give ten percent to charity if one wins a million dollars. This is a legitimate oath. But if he promises to give a million dollars to charity and does not have that kind of money to give, then the oath is in vain. All of these oaths are vain oaths. They are not only a waste of time, breath and court resources, but there is no holiness that comes from them. It is only the shock value of making such an oath and this is the sin involved.
We see the same issues arise at the end of the teaching, when it is extended to blessings or curses. There are some who interpret this prohibition against blessings broadly, explaining that you can only say a blessing one time. Such people get themselves in trouble if they forget if they said the blessing or not or discover that they may or may not have said it correctly. I prefer to keep this interpretation narrow. It is not an issue to me if one forgets if the blessing was said to say it over. The intention of the blessing remains the same; to bring holiness into the moment of prayer. If one is teaching a blessing than it is also permitted to say the blessing over and over again to learn it properly. If one has said the blessing and then leads others in the same blessing, I still believe that holiness is still being brought into the world. If one is making fun of the blessings or is mindlessly repeating it over and over this would be a violation of this mitzvah. (This is why we don’t make popular music out of the words of a blessing).
Cursing through the use of G-d’s name, with its ability to shock and without any aspect of holiness, is always a sin.
I should also mention that these laws do not apply to every name of G-d. There are actually dozens of names for G-d that appear in sacred literature. There are only seven names whose use is regulated by this mitzvah, and only the Hebrew words make one liable. This includes the four letter name of G-d that is never pronounced as well as Elohim and Shaddai. These names, in Hebrew, must be not be destroyed but placed in a Geniza (a special place for sacred texts) and may not be used in vain.

26-5768: Mitzvah N-28

Talmidav Shel Aharon
26-5768: Mitzvah N-28
May 12, 2008


Negative Mitzvah 28 – This is a negative commandment: Do not make gashes or incisions in one’s flesh in idol-worship or [in grief] over one’s dead.
Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “you shall not gash yourselves” (Deut. 14:1). Whoever cuts his flesh in grief over his dead violates this prohibition, whether he makes the gash by hand or with an instrument. In idol-worship, however, if he uses an instrument his is punished by whiplashes, but if he uses his hand, he is free of penalty. Included in this law is the warning not to separate into agudot, (groups). This teaches us that there should not be two religious courts in town, one following one practice and one following another practice. It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

The first part of this commandment is pretty easy to explain. First of all, in Judaism, we do not own our bodies. Our bodies are a gift from G-d and we use them as long as G-d is willing to let us. In this sense, we only rent our bodies for the duration of our life and we have, therefore an obligation to take care of our bodies. When we get sick, we must seek healing. We need to eat healthy foods, exercise and make sure our body is as healthy as can be. Drugs and excessive alcohol are forbidden as is tobacco. We are not permitted to over pierce our body or decorate it with tattoos. It only follows that we cannot scar or maim our bodies, especially in the name of an idol or on behalf of the dead. Cutting for idols is clearly forbidden and the punishment is set. Ritual gashing is done with a ritual knife, so if one gashes by hand, then this law does not apply. Gashing for the dead is a sign of grief so it does not matter how you do the slashing, it is all forbidden. Just as one should not spend too much to bury the dead, I can see here a similar problem. Just how much pain should I endure to show how much I loved the one who died? The more gashes, the more blood, the more love? We can see where this is going. Jewish law would have us rip our clothing to mourn the dead, one rip, over the heart. That is all that is allowed. Our grief is enough pain without the added pain of gashing our bodies.

The second part seems to be honored in the breach more than in reality. I can think of few times in Jewish History where the Jewish People were not divided into camps. Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist are only the most modern divisions. In Israel there are Sephardic and Ashkenazic communities, Hasidic and Mitnagdic, and the Hasidim are divided into even smaller camps. The sages were divided into the schools of Hillel and Shammai, into political camps of Pharisees and Sadducees. The priests who worked in the Temple were divided into “families” who were rivals of each other. You get the picture. We are not a very unified people. The trick is not to divide into sects that don’t talk to each other and who do not intermarry with each other. We may divide ourselves into groups that don’t agree with each other, but there are only rare moments in Jewish History where we were so divided that we stopped talking and intermarrying with each other. Underneath it all, we are still Jews.

The most famous schism was the one that opened up between Rabbinic Judaism and the Jews who were followers of Jesus of Nazareth. Eventually, there was no reconciliation possible and the two groups moved off in separate ways and began to see each other as new religions. Other than this one historical event, we may not agree on much but we agree that we are all Jews. The rest is just details. In Israel today, there is a movement against the official “Rabbanut” because they are becoming so particular in how one proves one is Jewish, that the rest of the country is almost in rebellion against them. We will see how it plays out. In any event, our communities, both here and in Israel have many different rabbinical courts. The Hafetz Hayim is making his pitch for Jewish unity, but that is an ideal, not the reality of Judaism, neither in history nor today.

25-5768: Mitzvah N-27

Talmidav Shel Aharon
25-5768: Mitzvah N-27
May 5, 2008


Negative Mitzvah 27 – This is a negative commandment: Do not prophesize in the name of an idol. Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “and make no mention of the name of other gods” (Ex. 23:13). His death (if one does prophesy so) is by strangulation, even if he spoke in the name of an idol and was in accord with Halacha (definitive law), to declare the defiled unclean and the pure clean. It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.
We can understand the prohibition against idolatry when it is commanding us to do something that is forbidden by Jewish law. But here, the real issue is when an idol commands us to do exactly what G-d would have us do. This sounds like a rather innocuous idol. What could be the harm in it? Does it really matter if we say we worship G-d or an idol as long as, in the end, we have the same moral laws and the same religious activities? If the result is the same, who cares how we get there?
I almost sounds like someone in a cult declaring that there is no difference between what they promote and what we already have. It is only slowly, over time that differences become apparent and we are encouraged to slowly “evolve” our understanding of Judaism to fit with the “new” or “ancient” “improvements” that the new religion entails. After all, this is how Christianity separated itself from Judaism, by slowly, over time, changing the rules for those who professed to be followers of Jesus. It is a time-honored way of enticing people away from the faith of their ancestors.
It is all the more effective if there is a “Jew” who is doing the enticing (and we can see why an group like Jews for Jesus uses “rabbis” in their churches) it makes it all the more comfortable when one begins and the changes can be slow and small until a whole new religion is being practiced.
Again, I want to state that Judaism does not see Christianity and Islam as pagan religions and they would not fall under this ban if someone were to teach a class, for example in Islamic theology. Those who don’t like what other Jews are teaching as differences in Jewish law have also abused it. One does not incur the death penalty for not holding a “glatt” standard when it comes to Kashrut.
Jews have been enticed for thousands of years to come and join other faiths that were “almost” the same as what we already practice. Our response has always been the same, “You can worship how and whom you please but for me and my family, we will follow the Lord our G-d and the G-d of our ancestors”.

24-5768: Mitzvah N-23-24-25-26

Talmidav Shel Aharon
24-5768: Mitzvah N-23-24-25-26
April 28, 2008


Negative Mitzvah 23 – This is a negative commandment: Do not entice a Jew to worship an idol.
Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “If your brother… entices you secretly, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods” … Then all Israel shall hear and shall fear, and shall never again do any such wickedness as this.” (Deut. 13:7,12). If anyone entices a Jew to worship idols , whether he entices him speaking in the plural or in the singular, he is to be stoned to death, even if neither the entices nor the enticed person worshipped any idols. – but [he deserves death] only because he instructed him to worship An enticer needs no prior warning to warrant the death penalty. It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.

Negative Mitzvah 24 – This is a negative commandment: Pay no attention to one who entices you to worship idols.
Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “You shall not befriend him.” (Deut. 13:9).

Negative Mitzvah 25 – This is a negative commandment: You shall not quit hating the enticer
Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “neither shall you listen to him.” (Deut. 13:9).

Negative Mitzvah 26 – This is a negative commandment: Do not rescue the enticer from danger.
Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “nor shall your eye pity him.” (Deut. 13:9).

The Torah starts in a difficult position. Israelites are about to enter a new land that has been promised to their ancestors. The problem is that it is filled with idolaters. Many of these will be killed in the conquest. Some will flee the invading Israelite army. Some will join with the invaders and become a part of the religion of Israel. But there will be some who will stay and in their own personal way, continue to worship the traditional idols of the area. Remember, idols were particular to a neighborhood. One worshiped the local gods who knew the specific needs of those who lived there. These secret idolaters are good people; they work hard and try to earn a living for themselves and their families. Maybe they do better than others and the local Israelites ask what is the secret to his success. Maybe there is a drought, or a flood, or a fire or blight and the Israelites wonder why things have turned bad. What is a secret idolater to do? He calls aside a trusted friend and confides that the local gods are angry with the Israelites and if they just go up that mountain over there and put a small offering on the large rock under the tree, things will get better. Nobody has to know.
In many ways it is like sharing gardening tips with your neighbors except that these tips involve corrupting your religion. It means having to make a choice between being faithful or being successful. Judaism knows that this kind of a choice will undermine all that our faith stands for. It takes our reason and laws and begins the slow slide into superstition and magic.
Now we can understand why there can be no compromise with pagans. Their faith needs to be removed from the land and we must not show them any pity. For they sit in waiting for our faith to falter and then they begin to creep in and cause us to question what we believe. This is not the same as living in an open society and letting each one practice what they believe, this is about an insidious undermining of what Judaism stands for.
The list of negative commandments appears to be strong and the punishments are strict. Even if we agree that the death penalty is no longer in use in Judaism, it still creates a strong wall of separation that can not be crossed even if want to treat the pagan as a human being.
I prefer to see this entire series as a reminder that we can not let even the slightest trace of other gods into the realm of true religion. It is not so much about how we treat one who would entice us away from our faith, but about how strong we must be in the face of religions that have as their only good point the fact that they are part of a majority culture. Is paganism a majority culture today? Well, let’s just say that “American Idol” would not be the same show if it was about a competition to find the greatest educator or the finest poet. Perhaps these laws remind us that just because someone declares “This is your god!” doesn’t make them anything other than a call to suspend our logic and our power of reason. These are hard lessons for the human psyche. We must not give even a toehold to those who preach magic and superstition. Don’t have pity on them, just walk away.

23-5768: Mitzvah N-21-22

Talmidav Shel Aharon
23-5768: Mitzvah N-21-22
April 14, 2008


Negative Mitzvah 21 – This is a negative commandment: Do not follow the customs of the heathen.
Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “And in their statutes you shall not walk” (Lev. 18:3). One is not to emulate them in any way of dress that is distinctive for them, nor let the locks of the hair grow. Neither is one to shave the hair at the sides, leaving the hair in the middle of the head, which is called a crest. Neither is one to shave the hair in apposition to the face, from ear to ear, leaving a long growth behind him. Whoever does any one of these, or anything similar, is to receive whiplashes. If someone is close to the ruling circles of government and he needs to dress in their kind of clothes and emulate them, he is permitted. It is in effect everywhere, at every time, for both men and women.

Negative Mitzvah 22 – This is a negative commandment: Pay no heed a person prophesying in the name of an idol.
Hafetz Hayim: For Scripture says, “You shall not listen to the words of that prophet.” (Deut. 13:4). One should not get into any long discussion with him or ask for a sign or a wonder. If he performed a sign or a wonder, no attention is to be paid him. Whoever thinks of a sign of his that perhaps it is true, violates this prohibition. It is in effect everywhere, at every time, for both men and women.

In Mitzvah 21, the Hafetz Hayim is concerned that by mimicking the practices of pagans, we will come to follow their lure. Judaism was a minority religion and if we do not maintain or special practices, than it is so easy to slip away into the majority religion. Even last weeks lesson, which spoke of intermarriage, it was always assumed in pre-modern times, that the majority religion would eventually pull the Jew away from the Jewish faith. Many Jewish rituals are designed to keep Jews separate and apart from the rest of the world and to uphold the unique elements of our faith.
The thrust of this mitzvah is not to go around looking like a pagan. It is not about refraining from a “Mohawk haircut” but trying to look like something that you are not. We have evidence, in Greco-Roman times of Jews, wanting to participate in gymnastic games that were always performed nude. Such Jews were embarrassed by their circumcision and actually had “surgery” (a very crude plastic surgery) to make it look like they were not circumcised. That is how far they were prepared to go to look like everyone else. Many cults insist on certain types of clothing and haircuts to this day to help identify followers. Jewish history is filled with people who dressed like pagans because they had jobs that put them in contact with pagans everyday and they needed to look like those they served (the Talmud often mentions Barbers as wearing their hair in pagan styles). It was not forbidden, but the Sages always tried to get Jews to look like Jews.
This is not about fashion necessarily. Much of what is fashionable today may be a violation of modesty rules in Judaism, but would not constitute looking like a pagan. But note that many signs of royalty and government also use religious symbols and if that is part of the “job” of working for government, this could be of help to the Jewish people in a time of trouble (think Queen Esther) and it is permitted to dress like a pagan.
In Mitzvah 22, the issue that it raises for us today relates directly to cults. Signs and wonders are very interesting things to see. There is no prohibition of attending a magic show or a “wonders of Science” show. The trouble begins in the interpretation of the “wonder”. If the result is given a “religious” interpretation, it is a sign that Jews need to get away quick. Cults depend on such interpretations to gather in members, using these wonders to convince others of the importance of the cult and its leader. For a long time Jews seemed to be the primary targets of such cults, unable to see that the connection between wonder and explanation was at fault. It does no good at all to enter into the discussions over the merit of the wonder or not. And here it does not matter if we are talking about cults, missionaries, or anyone else trying to convince a Jew that this religion is better because of this wonder or sign. We are not to argue with them, or show them the error of their ways, we are to pay no attention and walk away. We are not even allowed to consider if the wonder may be true or not.
So does this leave us in the dark about modern discoveries in science and the natural world? Again, the issue is not the wonder, but the explanation of the wonder. As long as it does not demand that we give up our faith, we can study and learn. As soon as it is used to “prove” that they are right and we are wrong, it is prohibited.