Ethical Mitzvot Beyond Torah

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: With regard to an animal that fell into an aqueduct, one brings cushions and blankets, and throws them into the water ditch, and places them beneath the animal in the aqueduct. And if the animal thereby emerges, it emerges. The Gemara raises an objection from a Tosefta: With regard to an animal that fell into an aqueduct on Shabbat, one provides it with sustenance in its place so that it will not die. This implies that providing it with sustenance, yes, that is permitted, providing it with cushions and blankets, no, that it is prohibited.

...

Causing a living creature to suffer is a Torah prohibition. And a matter prohibited by Torah law comes and overrides a matter prohibited by rabbinic law.

Let us say that a baraita supports Rava’s opinion that the requirement to prevent suffering to animals is by Torah law: If one encounters the animal of a gentile collapsed under its burden, he tends to it and unloads its burden, as he would the animal of a Jew. The Gemara reasons: Granted, if you say that the requirement to prevent suffering to animals is by Torah law, it is due to that reason that he tends to it as he would the animal of a Jew. But if you say that the requirement to prevent suffering to animals is not by Torah law, why does he tend to it as he would the animal of a Jew? The Gemara rejects the proof: There one tends to the animal due to enmity that would arise if gentiles see Jews assisting their own people and not gentiles.

(7) Feeding the hungry should precede clothing the naked.

(8) If a man and a woman ask for food, the woman is given the preference; and so, too, if they ask for clothing. So also, if two orphans, a man and a woman, come to be married off, the woman is given the precedence.

(9) If many poor seek help and there is not enough money in the treasury to help them all, a priest is given preference before a Levite; a Levite before an ordinary Israelite; an Israelite before a Halal (The issue of a marriage forbidden to priests. See Levit. 21 : 7, 14). a Halal before a child of unknown fatherhood; such a one before a foundling; a foundling before a bastard; a bastard before a Nathin (A descendant of the Gibeonites. Joshua 9:27; Zebahim 78b.) a Nathin before a proselyte; a proselyte before an emancipated slave.

This applies only in case they are equal in learning. But between a bastard a scholar and a high priest an ignoramus, the scholarly bastard is given the preference; and so whosoever is greater in learning is preferred. However, if the father or teacher of the charity distributor is among the poor seeking aid, the teacher, or the father (provided he too is a scholar) is given the preference, even if there is a far greater scholar among them.

(10) If one comes and says, "Give me food," no investigation is made to see that he is not an impostor, but he is given food at once. If he is destitute and asks for clothing, the case is investigated, and if he is found worthy, he is immediately furnished with raiment.

(11) Rabbi [Judah the Prince] grieved that he had given his bread to an illiterate, (Baba Bathra 8a.) because those years were years of dearth and what the illiterate ate might have been given to a scholar. But if it had not been a time of scarcity, he would have been obliged to sustain him. However, if one is on the point of starvation, he must be given food, even though there is a possibility that a scholar will later be in need on account of it.

(12) Two poor men who are required to give to charity, may pay their obligations by giving alms to one another.
RMI.—This refers to Charity in the ordinary sense. But if the community imposes it as a fine upon them for some misdemeanor that they give a certain sum to Charity, they can not give it to one another; for that would not be paying a fine.

(1) These are the things that have no definite quantity: The corners [of the field]. First-fruits; [The offerings brought] on appearing [at the Temple on the three pilgrimage festivals]. The performance of righteous deeds; And the study of the torah. The following are the things for which a man enjoys the fruits in this world while the principal remains for him in the world to come: Honoring one’s father and mother; The performance of righteous deeds; And the making of peace between a person and his friend; And the study of the torah is equal to them all.

(3) "to your brother, your poor one, and your pauper in your land.": Why are all of these mentioned? Scripture apprises us: One whom it befits to give a loaf, give a loaf; one whom it befits to give dough, give dough; one whom it befits to give money, give money; one whom it befits to be fed, feed him.

(25) "and the poor of your people shall eat it." And elsewhere it is written (Leviticus 25:6) "for you and your man-servant and your maid-servant." How are these verses to be reconciled? When the fruits are many, all eat. When they are few, "for you and your man-servant and your maid-servant," (your life taking precedence).

(26) R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: Before the time of removal arrived, all ate of it, the poor and the rich. Once the time of removal arrived only the poor ate of it and not the rich.

(8) Judah ben Tabbai and Shimon ben Shetach received [the oral tradition] from them. Judah ben Tabbai said: do not [as a judge] play the part of an advocate; and when the litigants are standing before you, look upon them as if they were [both] guilty; and when they leave your presence, look upon them as if they were [both] innocent, when they have accepted the judgement.

(2) Rabbi Hanina, the vice-high priest said: pray for the welfare of the government, for were it not for the fear it inspires, every man would swallow his neighbor alive.

Samuel said, if two men acted as judges, their judgment stands, but they are called an insolent court

36 Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are instructing: Even

37Even if the parties accepted them as judges. if two men acted as judges, their judgment is no judgment

39 The Mishnah refers to a person who did not pass the required examinations and was not formally qualified as a judge.: “If he rendered judgment, acquitted the guilty and condemned the innocent, declared the pure impure or the impure pure, what he did is done but he has to pay from his own pocket.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: if they told him, we accept you as if you were two

40 Since R. Abbahu follows his teachers and holds that any judgment passed by a court of two judges is void, as well as from the following quote, it is clear that one has to read “three” in place of “two”.. What are we dealing with? If his error was that he judged them on his discretion

41 If there exists no clear precedent for the case; different schools promulgate different rules and he followed a minority opinion because it seemed to him to be the correct one, his judgment is valid but there is no reason why he should have to pay. The Babli, 33a, declares a judgment against a clear majority of opinions as an error in law., then what he did is done. If his error was that he judged them by Torah law

42 If his judgment contradicted a Mishnah or a clear precedent, in Israel a judgment of the Patriarch’s court or in Babylonia a concurrent judgment of both Yeshivot, his judgment is void (cf. Ketubot 9:2, Note 100). If any money changed hands as a consequence of the erroneous judgment, it has to be returned., why should he pay from his own pocket? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: if they told him, we accept you as if you were three on condition that you judge us by Torah law. He erred and judged them on his discretion. What he did is done, but since he erred and judged them on his discretion, he has to pay from his own pocket

43 As a fine. because he was presumptuous to judge alone by Torah law, as we have stated

44 Mishnah Avot 4:8.: “Do not judge sitting alone, for only One judges sitting alone.” Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, even the Holy One, praise to Him, does not judge alone, as it is said

45 1K. 22:19. In MT, “was standing.”: all the hosts of Heaven were standing by Him, to His right side and to His left. These vote to acquit, those to convict. Even though He does not judge alone, He signs alone, as it is said: really I shall tell you what is noted in true writing.

46 Dan. 10:21. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Holy One, praise to Him, never does anything in His world unless He took counsel with the Heavenly Court

From where that judges may not be relatives of one another? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of judges. Since witnesses may not be relatives of one another, neither may judges be relatives of one another.

And those who cast their fear over the land of the living, who are they? Rav Ḥisda said: This is referring to a communal leader [parnas] who casts excessive fear on the community not for the sake of Heaven. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Any community leader who casts excessive fear on the community not for the sake of Heaven will be punished and not see any Torah scholar among his sons, as it is stated: “Men do therefore fear him; he sees not any who are wise of heart” (Job 37:24). One who brings others to fear him will not merit having wise-hearted people in his family.

(1) (Deut. 16:18:) “[You shall appoint] judges and law officers,” “judges” are magistrates, and “law officers” are administrators that supervise the people. R. Eleazar said, “If there is no law officer, there is no judge. How so? When someone is found by a court to have a legal obligation to his companion, if there is no law officer who will collect from him when he withdraws from the court, there is no power in the hands of the judge to do anything to him. If, however, [a law officer is present], he delivers him into the hand of the law officer, and the law officer extracts compliance from him.”

It says "chiefs of thousands" etc. because there were four types of leaders in Israel. Judges and officers: Judges [shoftim] are the adjudicators [dayanim], and officers [shotrim] who roam around the people enforcing the decisions of the judges. They also had over them "heads" [rashim] who would lead the people in every matter going and coming. And they also had elders who would teach Torah in public. This is their order: chiefs of thousands would lead the people and were the real heads. Chiefs of hundreds were the real judges, chiefs of tens were the roaming officers who enforced the judges' decisions. The chiefs of fifties were the elders who taught Torah in public. Even though it is written about all of them "let them judge the people" that they were all judges, nevertheless each appointment had its own essence, all three heads would lead the people, and also in war they would lead the people, as it is written "Moses became angry with the commanders of the army, the officers of thousands and the officers of hundreds, who had come back from the military campaign." [Numbers 31:14].

The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that society must establish judges for the Jewish people? The verse states: “You shall place judges and officers over you in all of your gates that the Lord your God gives you for your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment” (Deuteronomy 16:18). From where is it derived that society must also establish officers for the Jewish people? The same verse states: “You shall place judges and officers.” From where is it derived that society must also establish judges not only for the entire Jewish people but also for each and every tribe? The verse states: “You shall place judges and officers…for your tribes.” From where is it derived that society must also establish officers for each and every tribe? The same verse states: “You shall place judges and officers…for your tribes.” From where is it derived that society must also establish judges for each and every city? The verse states: You shall place judges and officers…for your gates, as the gate of the city is the seat of the elders of the city and its judges. From where is it derived that society must also establish officers for each and every city? The verse states: You shall place Judges and officers…for your gates.

(4) 4. The court must appoint officers who will walk around patrolling gardens, orchards, and rivers, so that men and women will not gather there to eat and drink and end up sinning. They should similarly warn the whole nation about this - that men and women should not joyously mix in houses and overindulge in wine, lest they come to sin. Rather, all should be holy.

MISHNA: Four types of the death penalty were given over to the court, with which those who committed certain transgressions are executed. They are, in descending order of severity: Stoning, burning, killing by decapitation, and strangulation. Rabbi Shimon says: They are, in descending order of severity: Burning, stoning, strangulation, and killing.

(7) How did they examine the witnesses? It is written: Then thou shalt inquire, and make search, and ask diligently, and behold if it be true (Deut. 13:15). At the time they examined the witnesses concerning a sin an individual had committed, the Sanhedrin and all the Israelites would go out into the public square. They brought there the individual who had been charged with the offense which required stoning or one of the four death penalties that were imposed by the Beth Din. Two or three of the most distinguished leaders of the community would come forth and would question the witness. After they returned from the cross-examination, a member of the Sanhedrin would say to them: “What is your decision?” They would announce whether he was to live or to die. If he were to be sentenced to stoning, they would bring a pleasant-tasting but potent wine, and give it to him to drink so that he would not suffer pain from the stoning. Then the witnesses would come, bind his hands and feet, and place him where the stoning was to occur. The witnesses would then take a large stone, (large) enough to kill him, and would place it upon his heart. How did they place it on his heart? They did so simultaneously in order that no one of them might lower his portion of the stone before his companion. (And therefore be solely responsible for his death.) They would place it on his heart together to conform to the verse: Thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death (Deut. 13:10). After that all the Israelites were free to pelt him with stones. They did this to everyone condemned to death by the Beth Din.

With regard to all those liable to be executed with different court-imposed death penalties who became intermingled with each other and it cannot be determined which individual was sentenced to which death, they are all sentenced to the most lenient form of execution to which any of them was sentenced.

(2) Whether the accused is scholarly or ignorant, a warning is required, inasmuch as the purpose of warning is that of distinguishing between the unwitting and the willful transgressor, since he might have committed the offense unintentionally. How should he be warned? The witnesses should say to him : "Abstain, you must not do this; it is an offense for which you are liable to suffer death at the hands of the court of justice, or be lashed." If he abstained, he is free.— — He is liable only in case he commits the offense immediately after the warning and he must acknowledge that he is aware that the court imposes capital punishment for murder,and he must release himself to death i.e. he must say i am doing is any way, and he must do it within as much time as is needed for an utterance. But if the interval is longer than the duration of an utterance, another warning is required.

§ The baraita teaches that one of the questions the court asks of the witnesses is: Did he release himself to death, i.e., did he acknowledge that he is aware that the court imposes capital punishment for murder? The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that he must release himself to death? Rava said, and some say it was Ḥizkiyya who said, that the verse states: “By the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall the dead be put to death” (Deuteronomy 17:6). By referring to the transgressor as dead even before he is executed, the verse indicates that he is not executed until he releases himself to death, by stating that he is aware that he will be executed for his transgression.

(10) If someone whose judgement was final [sentenced to death], and ran away but came back to the same Beit Din, we do not re-evaluate his old judgment. Any time that two witnesses came and say, "We testify that this person had a judgement passed against him in a certain court," so and so were the witnesses, we execute him [the defendant on this testimony]. A Sanhedrin that would execute somebody once in seven years would be considered destructive. Rabbi Elazar Ben Azariah says: "Once in seventy years." Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva said: "If we were on the Sanhedrin, nobody would have ever been executed." Rabban Shim'on Ben Gamliel said: "They too would have increased violence in Israel."

And this is what Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “It has been told you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord does require of you; only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8)? “To do justly”; this is justice. “To love mercy”; this is acts of kindness. “To walk humbly with your God”; this is referring to taking the indigent dead out for burial and accompanying a poor bride to her wedding canopy, both of which must be performed without fanfare.

(5) The mishna continues its discussion of the speech given before battle. “And the officers shall speak further to the people, and they shall say: What man is there that is fearful and fainthearted? Let him go and return unto his house” (Deuteronomy 20:8). Rabbi Akiva says: “That is fearful and fainthearted” is to be understood as it indicates, that the man is unable to stand in the battle ranks and to see a drawn sword because it will terrify him. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: “That is fearful and fainthearted”; this is one who is afraid because of the sins that he has; he, too, returns. Therefore, the Torah provided him with all these additional reasons for exemption from the army so he can ascribe his leaving to one of them. In this way, the sinner may leave the ranks without having to publicly acknowledge that he is a sinner.

(7) The mishna adds: In what case are all of these statements, with regard to the various exemptions from war, said? They are said with regard to elective wars. But in wars whose mandate is a mitzva, everyone goes, even a groom from his room and a bride from her wedding canopy. Rabbi Yehuda said: In what case are all of these statements, with regard to the various exemptions from war, said? They are said with regard to wars whose mandate is a mitzva. But in obligatory wars, everyone goes, even a groom from his room and a bride from her wedding canopy.

(10) This prohibition does not apply to trees alone. Rather, anyone who breaks utensils, tears garments, destroys buildings, stops up a spring, or ruins food with a destructive intent transgresses the command 'Do not destroy.' However, he is not lashed. Instead, he receives stripes for rebellious conducts instituted by the Sages.

MISHNAH: If one was working on figs he may not eat grapes, on grapes he may not eat figs; but he may restrain himself until he reaches the place of the good ones and eat there28The farmer cannot hinder his agricultural worker from eating of his best produce.. In all cases they only referred to the time of finishing29This is also the reading of Alfasi and Maimonides; the latter infers from here (Śekhirut 12:2–3) that at harvest time the worker may eat only during breaks in harvesting, not while he is actually working; he may not harvest with his right hand and eat with his left.

30In order to minimize the time for which the employer pays but which the worker uses to eat during working hours, traditional rules encourage him to eat only while going from one job to another or waiting for others to finish a task from where he can start his work. A worker who does not follow this rule is within his rights but cannot be expected to be rehired. they said that workers may eat when they go from row to row, and when they return from the wine press, and a donkey while offloading.

(11) Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement, that it is necessary to clean a measuring vessel, said? With regard to moist items, which are likely to adhere to the measuring vessels. But with regard to dry goods, which do not adhere to the measuring vessels, one does not need to clean his measuring vessels. And before adding the weights and merchandise the seller is obligated to let the pans of the scale that will hold the merchandise tilt an extra handbreadth for the buyer by adding a weight to that side. If the seller weighed for him exactly, i.e., with the scales equally balanced initially, instead of allowing the scales to tilt an extra handbreadth, he must give the buyer additional amounts [geirumin]

The mishna continues to discuss the correct method of weighing: In a place where they were accustomed to measure merchandise in several stages with a small measuring vessel, one may not measure all the items at once with a single large measuring vessel. In a place where they measure with one large measuring vessel, one may not measure with several small measuring vessels. In a place where the custom is to level the top of the measuring vessel to remove substances heaped above its edges, one may not heap it, and where the custom is to heap it, one may not level it.

(12) The prohibition against mixing different types of produce applies only to an individual selling the produce of his field. By contrast, a merchant may take grain from five threshing floors belonging to different people, and place the produce in one warehouse. He may also take wine from five winepresses and place the wine in one large cask [pitom], provided that he does not intend to mix low-quality merchandise with high-quality merchandise. Rabbi Yehuda says: A storekeeper may not hand out toasted grain and nuts to children who patronize his store, due to the fact that he thereby accustoms them to come to him at the expense of competing storekeepers. And the Rabbis permit doing so. And one may not reduce the price of sale items below the market rate. And the Rabbis say: If he wishes to do so, he should be remembered positively. One may not sift ground beans to remove the waste, lest he charge an inappropriately high price for the sifted meal, beyond its actual value; this is the statement of Abba Shaul. And the Rabbis permit doing so. And the Rabbis concede that one may not sift the meal only from the beans that are close to the opening of the bin to create the impression that the contents of the entire bin were sifted, as this is nothing other than deception. One may neither adorn a person before selling him on the slave market, nor an animal nor vessels that he seeks to sell. Rather, they must be sold unembellished, to avoid deceiving the buyer.

(10) You must measure according to the local custom and not deviate from it. Where it is the custom to give a heaping measure, you should not give a level measure, even with the buyer's approval who [now] pays less than the full price; and where it is the custom to give a level measure, you should not give heaping measure, even when [you], the seller, are glad to do so and charge more for it, because the Torah is very strict with regard to fraudulent weights and measures, lest this will create a pitfall [for others], since a [stranger] may notice the way of measuring and get the impression that this is the norm in this town; then he, too, will give such a measure to someone who is also unfamiliar with the local custom and thus he will deceive him.

(1) (Devarim 25:13) "There shall not be unto you in your pocket a stone and a stone, great and small": I might think that one should not make a litra, a half-litra, or a quarter-litra weight; it is, therefore, written "great and small" — a great weight which "falsifies" the small, i.e., he should not take with the great weight and return with the small, (giving the impression that he is using the same weight).

(24) “One who does business either with a Jew or with an Akum, if he measured or weighed short of the correct amount, he has transgressed a negative commandment and is obligated to make restitution. One is also forbidden to cheat the Akum as to the price, but one must be precise with him; as it is written, and he shall reckon with his client (Lev. 25:50): even if he is your subordinate. All the more so if he is not in subjugation to you. Such a one comes under the category of “All those who do these things are an abomination before the Lord (Deut. 22:5) – whoever does such a thing, no matter where.” (Laws of Theft 7:8).