The Question:
R. Aharon Lichtenstein, “Does Judaism Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakhah?"
Essentially, then, the question is whether Halakhah is self-sufficient. Its comprehensiveness and self-sufficiency are notions many of us cherish in our more pietistic or publicistic moments. For certain purposes, it would be comfortable if we could accept Professor Kahana’s statement “that in Jewish civil law there is no separation of law and morals and that there is no distinction between what the law is and what the law ought to be.”
If, however, we equate Halakhah with the din, if we mean that everything can be looked up, every moral dilemma resolved by reference to code or canon, the notion is both palpably naןve and patently false. . . . Which of us has not, at times, been made painfully aware of the ethical paucity of his legal resources? Who has not found that fulfillment of explicit halakhic duty could fall well short of exhausting clearly felt moral responsibility?
אמר רבי לעזר כיני מתניתא על גבי כסא שלו ע"ג תיבה שלו. שמעון בן שטח הוה עסיק בהדא כיתנא אמרין ליה תלמידוי ר' ארפי מינך ואנן זבנין לך חדא חמר ולית את לעי סוגין. ואזלון זבנון ליה חדא חמר מחד סירקאי ותלי ביה חדא מרגלי. אתון לגביה אמרין ליה מן כדון לית את צריך לעי תובן. אמר לון למה אמרין ליה זבנינן לך חד חמר מחד סירקיי ותלי ביה חדא מרגלי. אמר לון וידע בה מרה אמרין ליה לא א"ל לון איזל חזר. לא כן אמר רב הונא ביבי בר גוזלון בשם רב התיבון קומי רבי אפילו כמאן דמר גזילו של עכו"ם אסור כל עמא מודיי שאבידתו מותרת. מה אתון סברין שמעון בן שטח ברברין הוה. בעי הוה שמעון בן שטח משמע בריך אלההון דיהודאי מאגר כל הדין עלמא.
Shimon ben Shetah was dealing with flax [as his profession]. His students said to him: ‘Master, leave it behind and we will buy you a donkey and you won’t need to work so much,’ and they bought him a donkey from an Arab, and it had a jewel hanging from it[s neck]. They came to him and said him: ‘from now on you won’t have to work again.’ He said to them: ‘why?’ They said to him: ‘ We bought you a donkey from an Arab and it had a jewel hanging from it[s neck]!’ He said to them: ‘Did the owner know?’ They said to him: ‘no.’ He said to them: ‘go return it.’ [Later students objected to this story:] But didn’t Rav Huna Bibi bar Gozlon say in the name of Rav, said they responded before Rabbi, even according to the one who says an item stolen from a gentile is prohibited, all agree that an item lost by a gentile is permitted!?’ ‘What, do you think Shimon ben Shetah is a barbarian? Shimon wished to hear ‘blessed be the God of the Jews’ more than all the wages of this world!’ Where did he [Shimon ben Shetah] know this from? Rabbi Hanina was dealing with the following situation: The elderly rabbis bought a kri of wheat from certain soldiers, and found inside it a sack of gold coins and returned it to them. They said: ‘Blessed be the God of the Jews!’ Abba Oshayah of Turaya [was in a similar situation where he found jewels in the queen’s wash] and she said: ‘They are yours. What are they worth to me? I have many and better things than that!’ He said: ‘The Torah decrees that we must return it!’ She said: “Blessed be the God of the Jews.’
Rav Lichtenstein and related views:
"קדושים תהיו" - ...ולפי דעתי אין הפרישות הזו לפרוש מן העריות כדברי הרב אבל הפרישות היא המוזכרת בכל מקום בתלמוד שבעליה נקראים פרושים והענין כי התורה הזהירה בעריות ובמאכלים האסורים והתירה הביאה איש באשתו ואכילת הבשר והיין א"כ ימצא בעל התאוה מקום להיות שטוף בזמת אשתו או נשיו הרבות ולהיות בסובאי יין בזוללי בשר למו וידבר כרצונו בכל הנבלות שלא הוזכר איסור זה בתורה והנה יהיה נבל ברשות התורה לפיכך בא הכתוב אחרי שפרט האיסורים שאסר אותם לגמרי וצוה בדבר כללי שנהיה פרושים מן המותרות ימעט במשגל כענין שאמרו (ברכות כב) שלא יהיו תלמידי חכמים מצויין אצל נשותיהן כתרנגולין ולא ישמש אלא כפי הצריך בקיום המצוה ממנו ויקדש עצמו מן היין במיעוטו כמו שקרא הכתוב (במדבר ו ה) הנזיר קדוש ויזכור הרעות הנזכרות ממנו בתורה (בראשית ט כא) בנח ובלוט וכן יפריש עצמו מן הטומאה אע"פ שלא הוזהרנו ממנה בתורה כמו שהזכירו (חגיגה יח) בגדי עם הארץ מדרס לפרושים וכמו שנקרא הנזיר קדוש (במדבר ו ח) בשמרו מטומאת המת גם כן וגם ישמור פיו ולשונו מהתגאל ברבוי האכילה הגסה ומן הדבור הנמאס כענין שהזכיר הכתוב (ישעיהו ט טז) וכל פה דובר נבלה ויקדש עצמו בזה עד שיגיע לפרישות כמה שאמרו על רבי חייא שלא שח שיחה בטלה מימיו באלו ובכיוצא בהן באה המצוה הזאת הכללית אחרי שפרט כל העבירות שהן אסורות לגמרי עד שיכנס בכלל זאת הצוואה הנקיות בידיו וגופו כמו שאמרו (ברכות נג) והתקדשתם אלו מים ראשונים והייתם קדושים אלו מים אחרונים כי קדוש זה שמן ערב כי אע"פ שאלו מצות מדבריהם עיקר הכתוב בכיוצא בזה יזהיר שנהיה נקיים וטהורים ופרושים מהמון בני אדם שהם מלכלכים עצמם במותרות ובכיעורים וזה דרך התורה לפרוט ולכלול בכיוצא בזה כי אחרי אזהרת פרטי הדינין בכל משא ומתן שבין בני אדם לא תגנוב ולא תגזול ולא תונו ושאר האזהרות אמר בכלל ועשית הישר והטוב (דברים ו יח) שיכניס בעשה היושר וההשויה וכל לפנים משורת הדין לרצון חבריו כאשר אפרש (שם) בהגיעי למקומו ברצון הקב"ה וכן בענין השבת אסר המלאכות בלאו והטרחים בעשה כללי שנאמר תשבות ועוד אפרש זה (להלן כג כד) בע"ה וטעם הכתוב שאמר כי קדוש אני ה' אלקיכם לומר שאנחנו נזכה לדבקה בו בהיותנו קדושים והנה זה כענין הדבור הראשון בעשרת הדברות (שמות כ ב) (ג) וצוה איש אמו ואביו תיראו (פסוק ג) כי שם צוה על הכבוד וכאן יצוה על המורא ואמר ואת שבתתי תשמרו כי שם צוה על הזכירה וכאן על השמירה וכבר פירשנו (שמות כ ח) ענין שניהם
You shall be holy: ...But according to my opinion, this separation is not to separate from sexual transgressions, like the words of the rabbi (Rashi). But [rather], the separation is the one mentioned in every place in the Talmud where its [practitioners] are called those that have separated themselves. And the matter is [that] the Torah prohibited sexual transgressions and forbidden foods, and permitted sexual relations between husband and wife and the eating of meat and [the drinking of] wine. If so, a desirous person will find a place to be lecherous with his wife or his many wives, or to be among the guzzlers of wine and the gluttons of meat. He will speak as he pleases about all the vulgarities, the prohibition of which is not mentioned in the Torah. And behold, he would be a scoundrel with the permission of the Torah. Therefore, Scripture came, after it specified the prohibitions that it completely forbade, and commanded a more general [rule] - that we should be separated from [indulgence of] those things that are permissible: ... And he should sanctify himself with this, until he comes to separation - as they said about Rabbi Chiya, that he never spoke idle conversation in his life. For these [things] and similar to them comes this general commandment - after it listed all of the sins that are completely forbidden - until he includes in this general rule the command of cleanliness of his hands and his body. As they stated (Berakhot 53b), "'And you shall sanctify yourselves' - these are the first waters (to wash hands before the meal), 'and be holy' - these are the last waters (to wash hands after the meal), 'since holy' - this is fragrant oil (to ward off bad odors)." As even though these commandments are rabbinic, the essence of Scripture prohibits things like these; that we should be clean and pure and separate ourselves from the masses of people, who dirty themselves with those things that are permissible and with those things that are ugly. And this is the way of the Torah to state the particulars and [then] the general rules. And similar to this is when after the prohibition of the specific laws of trade among men - do not steal, do not burglarize, do not deceive, and all of the other prohibitions - it states the general principle, "And you shall do the straight and the good" (Deuteronomy 6:18), so that it places into a positive commandment, uprightness, compromise and going beyond the letter of the law towards the will of his friend - as I will explain (there), when I get to its place, with the will of the Holy One, blessed be He...
(18) And do right and good in the eyes of the Lord. The contextual meaning of this verse is, keep God's commandments, testimonies, and laws, and prepare them to do what is good and right in God's eyes alone. And for "it may go well with you," (Deuteronomy 6:18b) it is a promise. It says, that by doing what is good in God's eyes it will be good for you, because God brings what is good to those who are good and right in their hearts. And our Rabbis in the beautiful midrash (BK 100a) said: This refers to a compromise, acting beyond the strict demands of the law. And the intention of this is that from the beginning God said to keep God's commandments, testimonies, and laws as God has commanded them. And now, it says: even regarding what God did not command, pay attention to do what is good and right in God's eyes, because God loves goodness and righteousness. And it is important because it is impossible to mention in the Torah (what should be) everyone's conduct; with their neighbors and friends, in any business matter, and regarding ordinances of any town or country, because the Torah already mentions many of these laws, such as: "Do not gossip" (Leviticus 19:16); "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge" (Leviticus 19:18); "You shall not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor" (Leviticus 19:16); "You shall not insult the deaf" (Leviticus 19:14); "You shall rise before the aged" (Leviticus 19:32), etc. Once more for emphasis, generally one should do what is good and right regarding everything, including compromise, acting beyond the strict demands of the law. - (Other examples of that can be found in rabbinic literature) like what was mentioned regarding "the law of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor" (BM 108a); and even what they said, (Regarding the depiction of the worthy prayer leader) “and his youth was becoming and he is humble and accepted by the people,” (Taanit 16a); and "he does not speak pleasantly with other people" (Yoma 86a) - until one reads about all matters of honesty and integrity.
R. Isaac of Corbeille (d. 1280), Sefer Miẓvot Kattan, 49:
Laʿasot : [Sefer Miẓvot Gadol, Positive Commandments, sec. 106] To act beyond the letter of the law, as it is written (Exodus 18:20): "That they must perform": And R. Yoḥanan says [in Bava Metzia 30b]: Jerusalem was destroyed solely [for the fact] that they adjudicated [cases there on the basis of] Torah law. [A question was raised]: But should they have ruled according to Magian [Sasanian] law? Rather [say]: That they established their rulings on Torah law [alone] and did not act beyond the letter of the law.
Aharon Lichtenstein, "Does Jewish Tradition Recognize an Ethic Independant of Halakha"
Traditional halakhic Judaism demands of the Jew both adherence to Halakha and commitment to an ethical moment that though different from halakha is nevertheless of a piece with it and in its own way fully imperative. What I reject emphatically is the position that, on the one hand, defines the function and scope of Halakha in terms of the latitude implicit in current usage and yet identifies its content with the more restricted sense of the term. The resulting equation of duty and din and designation of supralegal conduct as purely optional or pietistic is a disservice to Halakha and ethics alike.
Related views:
Introduction of the Netziv to Chafetz Chavim’s Ahavat Chesed
In truth, the principle of kindness is the foundation of the world, as is written “the world shall be built of kindness,” for it is the obligation of every person... Therefore, the nations of the world are also obligated to act kindly (and the fact that it is not included in Sanhedrin among the seven Noahide commandments is because only prohibitions are counted). Therefore the people of Sodom deserved destruction, for they did not support the poor and thereby undermined the form of mankind. And the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are naturally obligated in this commandments, as is written “the [Jewish] nation has three identifying signs: [they are] merciful, humble, and beneficent.
Nevertheless, there are positive commands in the Torah to support the poor, to teach us that separate from our obligation to act kindly due to our being human, we are additionally obligated due to the Torah, just like all the laws of the Torah that cannot be intuited.
The distinction can be seen in light of the verse “honor your father and mother, so you shall increase your days on the land the Lord your God gives to you.” This is not clear, for why did the Torah specify ‘on the land’? Rather, the verse comes to teach that even though honoring one’s parents is a command that can be intuited, such that gentiles are also obligated in it out of human obligation and recieve reward for it, as did the sons of Noah and Dama ben Netina, nevertheless God commanded us [to do so] in the Decalogue out of obligation towards the Torah. The distinction regards the reward. And in turn there is a legal distinction, for seeing as honoring one's parents is a Torah law, we, the nation of God, are to follow it based on the Torah and not based on human intuition. For example, if a non-Jewish man slept with a Jewish woman, such that the child has only a mother according to the Torah, the child would have a greater obligation to honor the mother than to honor the father.
Oppositional views:
J. David Bleich “Is There an Ethic Beyond Halakhah?” (1985, selections)
Does Judaism recognize a subjective morality? Is there room in Judaism for accommodation of the moral demands advanced by individual conscience? To that question the answer must be an emphatic no. Indeed, the question is unequivocally answered in the negative by R. Ovadia Bartenura in the opening section of his commentary on Ethics of the Fathers... It clearly follows from these comments of Bartenura that any valid system of ethics must be Sinaitic in origin. The very possibility of a subjective morality is dismissed out of hand. The contents of Tractate Avot are clearly regarded as being in the nature of halakhah le-Mosheh meSinai. As such, the content of a system of ethics of this nature is not only objective, rather than subjective, but is, accurately speaking, merely a sub-category of Halakhah...