(a.) Duties towards our Fellow-men in General.
“Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?” (Mal. ii.
10). “Thou shalt love thy fellow-man as thyself” (Lev. xix. 18). These
are the sentiments which, according to the Will of God, ought to guide
us in our relation to our fellow-men. When, therefore, a Gentile came
to Hillel and asked him to explain to him in one moment the duties
which Judaism enjoins on its adherents, he replied, “What is
displeasing to thee, that do thou not to others. This is the text of
the Law; all the rest is commentary; go and learn” (Babyl. Talm.
Shabbath 31a). In a different form this idea has been expressed by
Rabbi Akiba and by Ben-Azai, who respectively quoted as a fundamental
principle of the Law, “Love thy neighbour as thyself,” and “This is the
book of the generations of man; in the day that God created man, he
made him in the likeness of God” (Yalkut on Gen. v. 1).
From this principle we derive the following general maxims with regard
to our neighbour’s (1) life and health, (2) property, (3) honour, and
(4) well-being:—
1. Life and Health of our Fellow-man.—Life is a precious treasure which
the Almighty has given us; if it is once taken from us, no man is able
to restore it. Among the first lessons revealed to man in Scripture is
the value of the life of a human being, created by God in His own
likeness, and when the first murder had been committed, God said to the
murderer, “What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood is
heard that crieth unto me from the ground” (Gen, iv. 10). The first
commandment in the second section of the Decalogue is directed against
this crime: “Thou shalt not murder.” The significance of these words,
the general lessons implied in this commandment, and the extent to
which a person, though not an actual murderer, may become guilty of
having broken this commandment, have already been explained in the
chapter on the Ten Commandments (p. 261). It has been shown how the
sixth commandment forbade—
(1.) The taking of the life of a fellow-man by violent means.
(2.) The doing of anything by which the health, the peace, and the
well-being of our fellow-man is undermined.
(3.) The omission of any act in our power to save our fellow-man from
direct or indirect danger of life.
2. The Property of our Neighbour.—The eighth commandment in its wider
sense comprehends all our relations to our neighbour’s property. It
prohibits, as has been shown above (p. 263), the appropriation of
anything that belongs to our neighbour—
(1.) By theft and robbery, or
(2.) By any kind of fraud and dishonesty.
Our Sages teach: “Let the property of thy fellow-man be as dear to thee
as thine own” (Aboth ii. 12); i.e., you do not like to see your own
property damaged, diminished, or destroyed; so it would be wrong if you
were to cause loss and ruin to your fellow-man, whether you did it
directly or indirectly. [37] Let every one enjoy the labour of his
hands; partake of the gifts of the earth and the Divine blessings as
much as his physical and mental powers enable him to do in a righteous
manner.
It is not only direct illegal appropriation of our neighbour’s goods
that is condemned as theft or robbery; it is equally wicked to buy
things which one knows to have been stolen by others. [38] He who does
it is worse than the thief; for, whilst the latter injures only the
person whom he robs, the former encourages and corrupts the thief,
hardens his heart, helps to silence the voice of his conscience, and
thus obstructs the way to repentance and improvement.
There are transactions which are legal and do not involve any breach of
the law, and which are yet condemned by the principles of morality as
base and disgraceful. Such are all transactions in which a person takes
advantage of the ignorance or embarrassment of his neighbour for the
purpose of increasing his own property. Usurers frequently belong to
this low and heartless class of society. The worst thing, however, they
do is, that they plan the ruin of others; in many cases they bring
about disaster by inducing young and inexperienced persons to borrow
money and to spend it in luxuries, or increase the embarrassment of the
distressed by charging exorbitant interest and imposing cruel
conditions, which make it impossible for those who have once fallen
into the hands of usurers to free themselves from their bondage.
It makes no difference whatever whether the victim be a Jew or a
non-Jew; the transaction is equally condemnable, and the usurer equally
wicked. This statement would be superfluous, were it not for the
misunderstanding that exists both among some of our co-religionists and
among non-Jews with regard to the principle it involves. Great stress
is laid in the Pentateuch on the prohibition of taking interest for
advances of money or articles of food. “And if thy brother be waxen
poor and fallen in decay with thee, then thou shalt relieve him: yea,
though he be a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with thee.
Take thou no interest of him, or increase: but fear thy God, that thy
brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon
usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase. I am the Lord your God,”
&c. (Lev. xxv. 35–38; comp. Exod. xxii. 24).—It is one of the
characteristics of the pious who is worthy to “abide in the tabernacle
of God,” that “he putteth not out his money to usury” (Ps. xv. 5).
The strict prohibition to take interest on advances of money or goods
served a twofold purpose. In the first place, the surplus money of the
wealthy was to be employed in disinterested charity. Secondly, labour
and activity, both physical and mental, were to be the sources of
income and wealth for the individual as well as for the whole nation;
money without labour was not to bear any fruit or produce any increase.
An exception from this law was made for the benefit of the stranger.
The inhabitants of a town or a country who lived in the midst of their
relatives, friends, and countrymen could, as a rule, be trusted to
return the loan in due time. If they were not known themselves, they
could find persons who would recognise them or even offer themselves as
security for them. It was different with the stranger (הנכרי) “who
came from a far land” (Deut. xxix. 21); he was not known; he was, as a
rule, without friends; he had none to offer security for him. [39] When
in need, therefore, he would be unlikely to obtain a loan, if the
lender were not permitted in such cases to take interest as
compensation for risking the capital itself. The same reason explains
also a second exception made in the law with regard to a stranger when
a debtor. The payment of old debts is, as a rule, a great hardship to
the insolvent, especially at a time when the benefit derived from the
loan has already been forgotten. It was therefore ordained that every
seven years a remission of all debts should take place. The debtor that
lived in the country could easily be urged or forced to pay his debts,
and the creditor could safely expect that he would receive his money
before the year of release began. This was not the case with the
stranger, who might with impunity keep out of sight for some time
before the beginning of the seventh year: a circumstance that increased
the uncertainty of the repayment, and would have rendered it almost
impossible for a stranger to enjoy the benefit of a loan in times of
temporary embarrassment, but for the exception made in his case from
the law commanding the remission of all debts in the seventh year.
We see here a difference made in our duties towards our fellow-men
between an Israelite and a stranger, but solely for the benefit of “the
stranger.” At present, when the original relation between the Israelite
and the stranger has ceased, the spirit of charity and justice towards
the stranger (נכרי) or non-Jew, which is the basis of this law, must
continue to regulate our intercourse with our neighbours, and if the
non-Jew would recognise the prohibition of taking interest as equally
binding upon him as upon the Jew, the latter would not be allowed to
take any kind of interest from a non-Jew. At all events, if any of our
co-religionists take this law as a pretext for imposing upon their
non-Jewish fellow-men, and injuring and ruining them by exorbitant
usury, they pervert alike the letter and the spirit of the Divine
command; they do not act in a Jewish spirit, and instead of being
members of a holy nation or the people of the Lord, they are guilty of
חלול השם, the profanation of the name of God, and do not deserve to
be honoured by the name of Jews.
Denunciations are sometimes levelled against the Jews, on account of
the misdeeds of some individuals, as cruel usurers. Those non-Jews who
would take the trouble of thoroughly studying Jews and Judaism would
soon discover the error and the baselessness of such denunciations.
Judaism has never sanctioned usury, but, on the contrary, always
condemned it. [40]
With regard to the property of our neighbour our Sages expressed the
following maxim:—
“There are four characters among men: he who says, ‘What is mine is
mine and what is thine is thine,’ his is a neutral character; some say
this is a character like that of Sodom; he who says, ‘What is mine is
thine and what is thine is mine’ is a boor; he who says ‘What is mine
is thine and what is thine is thine’ is a saint; he who says ‘What is
thine is mine and what is mine is mine’ is a wicked man” (Aboth v. 10).
We are not only commanded to abstain from injuring our neighbour with
regard to his property, but we are exhorted to protect it as far as
lies in our power. “If thou meetest the ox of thine enemy or his ass
going astray, bring it back to him” (Exod. xxiii. 4). “Thou shalt not
see thy brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from
them: thou shalt surely bring them again unto thy brother” (Deut. xxii.
1). “Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ass or his ox fallen down by the
way, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt surely help him to lift
them up again” (ibid. ver. 4).
3. The Honour of our Fellow-man.—“Let the honour of thy fellow-man be
as dear to thee as thy own” (Aboth ii. 10). We are very sensitive about
our own honour; and many of us—nay, all right-minded persons—are more
anxious for the good name acquired through integrity of character than
for the safety of their property. We must be equally sensitive about
the honour of our fellow-man, and take good care lest we damage his
repute by falsehood, slander, or spreading evil reports in apparently
innocent gossip. An evil tongue (לשון הרע) is a serious failing from
which few are exempt; even if a person is not guilty of the sin of evil
speech, he does not entirely escape “the dust of the evil tongue”
(Babyl. Talm. B. Bathra 165a). Calumny, it is said, kills three—the
slanderer himself, him who listens, and the person spoken of. We
therefore add to the Amidah the words: “My God, guard my tongue from
evil, and my lips from speaking guile;” and in one of the Psalms we
read: “Who is the man that desireth life, and loveth days, that he may
see good? Keep thy tongue from evil and thy lips from speaking guile”
(Ps. xxxiv. 13, 14).
Our Sages are very severe against those who attack the honour of their
fellow-men. In one passage it is said: “Whoever causes by offensive
words the face of his fellow-man to turn pale is almost guilty of
shedding blood” (Babyl. Talm. B. Metsia 58b). Another passage runs
thus: “Rather let a man throw himself into a furnace than publicly
offend his fellow-man” (ibid. 59a).
The Law does not only forbid the utterance of evil reports, but also
the encouragement given to the tale-bearer by listening to his stories.
“Thou shalt not take up a false report” (Exod. xxiii. 1). In the Book
of Proverbs the evil consequences of listening to slander are thus
depicted: “If a ruler hearkeneth to falsehood, all his servants are
wicked” (Prov. xxix. 12). “He who giveth heed to wicked lips causeth
evil-doing; he who giveth ear to a mischievous tongue feedeth lies”
(ibid. xvii. 4).
When we hear evil reports about our neighbour, we should try to defend
him; when we are convinced that he has done wrong, we must rebuke him,
lead him back to the right way, and not utterly reject him; we may
still find some redeeming feature in his character that makes it worth
our while to save him. Thus Joshua, the son of Perachjah, teaches us:
“Judge every man favourably” (Aboth i. 6); that is, if you are
uncertain as to a man’s faults, let him have the benefit of the doubt.
When we criticise our neighbour’s character—and idle gossip frequently
leads to this practice—we are too often inclined to dwell upon his weak
points—his vices—and to pass over his merits in silence; but we ought
to consider how little we should like to see the same treatment applied
to ourselves. Another fault of ours is to judge the doings of other
people without fully understanding all the circumstances and the causes
that led to such actions. Hillel said, “Do not judge thy neighbour
until thou hast come into his place;” that is, do not pass judgment
upon your neighbour before you are able to place yourself in his
position, and to say with certainty what, you would have done under the
same circumstances. The Law forbids us to use divers weights and divers
measures in our business transactions, lest we damage the property of
our neighbour; equally unlawful is the use of one kind of weights and
measures for weighing our own words and deeds, and another kind for
weighing the words and the deeds of others, to the injury of our
fellow-man’s name and repute. Contrary to the usage of courts of
justice, our neighbour’s words and deeds are generally reported by us,
interpreted, tried and condemned in his absence, when he is unable to
defend himself, to show his innocence, or to prove the falsehood of the
report, the error of the interpretation, and the injustice of the trial
and the condemnation.
The perversity of such conduct is evident, especially in the case of
the departed. The prohibition, “Thou shalt not curse the deaf” (Lev.
xix. 14) has been interpreted to apply to all kinds of slander about
those absent or dead. Our respect for the memory of the dead is
expressed in the Latin maxim, “De mortuis nil nisi bonum;” or in the
Hebrew, אחרי מות קדשים אמור [41] “After their death say of them
‘saints.’” Similar maxims are the following: “We must not refute the
lion after his death;” מיתה מכפרת “Death atones for all offences.”
4. The Well-being of our Fellow-man.—The duties expounded in the above
are of a negative character. The commandment, “Love thy neighbour as
thyself” implies also certain positive duties, which are comprehended
in the terms, צדקה and גמלות חסד “charity.”
The literal meaning of the term tsedakah is “righteousness,” but it
occurs also frequently in the sense of “charity;” and we may infer from
this that charity was to the Hebrew a mere act of righteousness. In the
Book of Daniel and in post-Biblical Hebrew tsedakah is “alms,” and
distinguished from gemilluth-chesed, “charity.” The former is given to
the poor; the latter to poor and rich alike: tsedakah, consisting of
money or things that can be purchased for money, is a duty chiefly
incumbent on the wealthier class; gemilluth-chesed, consisting of
personal acts of kindness, is a virtue that can be acquired and
practised by every one, whether he be poor or rich; and whilst tsedakah
can only be given to those that live, gemilluth-chesed can be shown
even to the departed. When Jacob asked his son for a burial in the cave
of Machpelah, he relied on his son’s חסד ואמת, “Kindness and truth;”
and the Midrash adds the remark, “Kindness shown to the dead is an act
of true love, as there can be no prospect of gratitude or repayment.”