Our Universe of Obligation

ByAJWS Staff

AJWS On1Foot

Babylonian Talmud, Baba Metzia 71a

בבא מציעא ע״א א:ג׳

דתני רב יוסף (שמות כ"ב) אם כסף תלוה את עמי את העני עמך, עמי ונכרי - עמי קודם, עני ועשיר - עני קודם, ענייך ועניי עירך - ענייך קודמין, עניי עירך ועניי עיר אחרת - עניי עירך קודמין.

Bava Metzia 71a:3

R. Joseph taught: If you lend money to any of my people that are poor with you: [this teaches, if the choice lies between] a Jew and a non-Jew, a Jew has preference; the poor or the rich the poor takes precedence; your poor [i.e. your relatives] and the [general] poor of your town, your poor come first; the poor of your city and the poor of another town the poor of your own town have prior rights. [Soncino translation]

1. This text lays out four binaries, four pairs of people who might be seeking economic aid. What are the four binaries and, in each case, which of the two people does the text privilege?

2. This text seems to provide a very clear set of rules for determining who should be helped first in any given circumstance. What significant omission makes it less clear? (HINT: How would the text suggest you should decide between a Jewish out-of-towner and a non-Jewish neighbor, all else being equal?)

3. How does this text define or shape the universe of obligation?

Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 61a

Translation	Original
Our Rabbis taught: We sustain the non-Jewish poor with the Jewish poor, visit the non-Jewish sick with the Jewish sick, and bury the non-Jewish dead with the Jewish dead, for the sake of peace. [AJWS translation]	ת"ר: מפרנסים עניי נכרים עם עניי ישראל, ומבקרין חולי נכרים עם חולי ישראל, וקוברין מתי נכרים עם מתי ישראל, מפני דרכי שלום.

1. How does this text define or shape the nature of our universe of obligation?

2. What might "for the sake of peace" mean?

3. How can this text be reconciled with Baba Metzia 71a?

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, "The Dignity of Difference", (London: Continuum, 2002), p.30

Original
David Hume noted that our sense of empathy diminishes as we move outward from the members of our family to our neighbors, our society and the world. Traditionally, our sense of involvement with the fate of others has been in inverse proportion to the distance separating us and them. What has changed is that television and the Internet have effectively abolished distance. They have brought images of suffering in far-off lands into our immediate experience. Our sense of compassion for the victims of poverty, war and famine, runs ahead of our capacity to act. Our moral sense is simultaneously activated and frustrated. We feel that something should be done, but what, how, and by whom?

Original

David Hume noted that our sense of empathy diminishes as we move outward from the members of our family to our neighbors, our society and the world. Traditionally, our sense of involvement with the fate of others has been in inverse proportion to the distance separating us and them. What has changed is that television and the Internet have effectively abolished distance. They have brought images of suffering in far-off lands into our immediate experience. Our sense of compassion for the victims of poverty, war and famine, runs ahead of our capacity to act. Our moral sense is simultaneously activated and frustrated. We feel that something should be done, but what, how, and by whom?

1. How does this text define or shape the universe of obligation?

2. Do you agree with Sacks that media exposure to people far away who are suffering has increased your feeling of empathy and/or compassion for those people? If not, why not?

3. What are some advantages and disadvantages of our greater exposure to distant suffering?