(20) You shall not wrong a ger or oppress him, for you were gerim in the land of Egypt. (21) You shall not ill-treat any widow or orphan.
(17) For Ad-nai your God is God supreme and Lord supreme, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who shows no favor and takes no bribe, (18) but upholds the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the ger, providing him with food and clothing.— (19) You too must love the ger, for you were gerim in the land of Egypt.
What are the three categories in these verses, and what do they have in common?
How do you understand the term "ger", as used in these verses?
(ד) אַהֲבַת הַגֵּר שֶׁבָּא וְנִכְנָס תַּחַת כַּנְפֵי הַשְּׁכִינָה שְׁתֵּי מִצְוֹת עֲשֵׂה. אַחַת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בִּכְלַל רֵעִים וְאַחַת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא גֵּר וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה (דברים י יט) "וַאֲהַבְתֶּם אֶת הַגֵּר". צִוָּה עַל אַהֲבַת הַגֵּר כְּמוֹ שֶׁצִּוָּה עַל אַהֲבַת עַצְמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ו ה) "וְאָהַבְתָּ אֵת ה' אֱלֹקֶיךָ". הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַצְמוֹ אוֹהֵב גֵּרִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים י יח) "וְאֹהֵב גֵּר":
(4) The loving of a ger who came and entered under the wings of the Divine Presence is [comprised of] two positive commandments - one because he is included in "neighbors" [and we must love our neighbor as ourselves], and one because he is a ger and the Torah stated (Deuteronomy 10:19), "And you shall love the ger." [God] commanded regarding the love of the ger like He commanded regarding the loving of Himself, as it stated (Deuteronomy 6:5), "And you shall love Ad-nai, your God." The Holy One, Blessed be He, Himself loves gerim, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 10:18), "and loves the ger."
How does Maimonides, in Egypt, 12th century, understand the term "ger"? What are the consequences of his approach? What are the inconsistencies that this approach regarding the verse in Exodus?
(1) And a ger – once the ger accepts not to worship idolatry, you cannot oppress him in your country/land, because you are more powerful than him. And remember! You were gerim like him. And the same way that the text reminds you that the ger does not have power, so too the widow and the orphans, who are Israelites, have no power. And after the text says you shall not wrong, it uses the plural form, but then it says if you do wrong them, uses the singular. This is because whoever sees a person oppressing an orphan or a widow and does not help the orphan and the widow, he too is considered as an oppressor.
How does Ibn Ezra, in Spain, 1089-c. 1167, understand the term "ger"? What are the consequences of his approach? How well does this approach map back to the verse in the Torah?
(א) שלא להונות הגר בדברים - שנמנענו מלהונות הגר אפילו בדברים, והוא אחד מן האמות שנתגיר ונכנס בדתנו, שאסור לו לבזותו אפילו בדברים, שנאמר (שמות כא ב) וגר לא תונה. ואף על פי שאנו מזהרים בזה בישראל וזה כיון שנכנס בדתינו הרי הוא כישראל, הוסיף הכתוב לנו אזהרה בו, וגם נכפלה האזהרה עליו דכתיב (ויקרא יט לג) ''לא תונו'' פעם אחרת, לפי שענין ההונאה אליו קרובה יותר מבישראל, כי הישראל יש לו גואלים שתובעים עלבונו. ועוד טעם אחר בו, שיש בו חשש שלא יחזור לסורו מכעס הבזיונות. ואמרו בספרא (קדושים ח) שלא תאמר לו אמש היית עובד עבודה זרה ועכשיו נכנסת תחת כנפי השכינה.
(ב) משרשי המצוה, מלבד מה שכתבנו, כדי לכף את יצרנו לעולם לבל נעשה כל אשר נמצא בכחינו לעשות לרעה, על כן הזהירתנו בזה האיש שהוא בינינו בלי עוזר וסומך ויש כח ביד כל אחד ואחד ממנו עם אוהביו עליו לבל נעביר עליו את הדרך כלל אפילו בדברים כאלו הוא כאחד ממנו, ומתוך גדרים כאלו נקנה נפש יקרה ומסלסלת ומעטרת המדות הראויה לקבלת הטוב, וישלם בנו חפץ השם יתברך שחפץ להטיב.
(ג) דיני המצוה, כגון רב האזהרות שהזהירונו זכרונם לברכה עליו, והודיעונו להזהירנו עוד בדבר שבעשרים ואחד (עי' דפוס לעמבערג שגרס בכ''ד) מקומות הזהירה התורה עליו (ב''מ, לט ב, ע''ש) וכתבו גם כן לחזוק המצוה שבאותו לשון שנצטוינו באהבת המקום, נצטוינו באהבת הגר, שבאהבת המקום כתיב ואהבת את ה', ובגר כתיב ואהבתם את הגר. והרבה דברים כאלו במדרשים ובקצת מקומות בגמרא. (ח''ה סימן ש''ז)
(ד) ונוהגת בכל מקום ובכל זמן, בזכרים ובנקבות. והעובר עליה ובזהו, עבר על לאו, ואין לוקין עליו לפי שאין בו מעשה.
(1) Not to oppress the ger with words: That we have been prevented from oppressing gerim, even [only] with words - and that is one from the [other] nations who converted and entered our religion - such that is forbidden for [one] to disgrace him even with words, as it is stated (Exodus 22:20), "and you shall not oppress a ger." And even though we are warned about this with [Jews] and since this one entered our religion, behold is like [any other Jew], Scripture added a warning to us and also redoubled the prohibition for him, as it is written (Leviticus 19:33), "do not oppress" another time, because the issue of oppression is more relevant to a ger than it is to someone [born] Israelite, as someone [born] an Israelite has redeemers who will redress his insult. And there is another reason, [and that is] because there is a concern that [the convert] might return to his deviation out of anger over the disgraces. And they said in the Sifra (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 8 2) that one shouldn't say, "Yesterday you were an idolater and today you are entering under the wings of the Divine Presence."
(2) From the roots of the commandment, aside from what we have [already] written, is that it is in order to permanently train our negative inclination not to do whatever evil is in our power to do. Therefore we are warned regarding this person who is among us without someone to help and support him and over whom each and every one of us - with his friends - can exert some power, that we not exclude him from the general even in words, as if he is one of us. And through boundaries such as these we will acquire a soul of higher worth, raised-up and crowned with positive characteristics [midot], worthy of receiving good. And we will fulfill in ourselves the desire of God, may He be blessed, who desires to give benefit.
(3) The laws of the commandment - for example, the many prohibitions that they, may their memory be blessed, prohibited us about, and [also] made known to us in order to warn us more about the thing, that the Torah warned about it in twenty-one (and see the Lemberg edition, that reads, twenty-four) places (Bava Metzia 39b); and also wrote to strengthen the commandment, that with the same expression that we were commanded about the love of the Omnipresent, we were [also] commanded about the love of the convert, as with the Omnipresent, it is written (Deuteronomy 6:5), "And you shall love your God," and with the convert, it is written (Deuteronomy 10:19), "And you shall love the ger"; and many things like this - are in Midrash and in a few places in the Gemara (see Tur, Choshen Mishpat, 307).
(4) And [this law] is practiced in all places and at all times by males and by females. And one who transgresses it and disgraces him, has transgressed a negative commandment. But we do not give lashes for it, since it does not have an act.
How does the Sefer HaChinuch (Anonymous, 13th c. Spain) understand the term "ger"? What are the conflicts with the other two understandings? How well does it map back to the verses in the Torah?
Based on these three sages, what are the laws regarding the ger, the widow and the orphan trying to accomplish?
Modern States and the Law
Thanks to modern research we are in a position to survey fifteen centuries of Western public law. The picture has, however, been interpreted in very different ways. Some scholars - particularly in the nineteenth century - saw history as a rectilinear march forward of a great idea: the progress of freedom ... Others discern a cyclical pattern. They point at the succession of freedom, followed by oppression and restoration of freedom through revolt, followed by a new cycle of oppression and rebellion. (R.C. van Caenegem, A Historical Introduction to Western Constitutional Law - in: Warren Goldstein, Defending the Human Spirit, Feldheim, p. 33)
The basic shift [in the institution of rulership] has been "from personal rule to the law-based state." Law has become a great protector of freedom... The concept of Rechsstaat, a "government bound by the law in its dealings with the citizens: its power is in other words limited by the individual rights of the people."
That the citizens are bound by law in their contact with each other is obvious: if this were not the case there would be anarchy. The idea that the rulers also have to operate under the law was for a long time not obvious at all; it was in fact frequently rejected in principle.
...
The opposite of the Rechsstaat is the polizeistaat (police state) or the machtsstaat (state based on might), where the arbitrary will of the persons in power prevails and the rulers do not have to observe legal norms. In one case the citizens are governed by laws rather than by people, in the other the opposite applies.
...
A judiciary which is independent of the political and administrative authorities is an essential element of the Rechsstaat.Only judges can in conscience and complete freedom reprimand the government and even force it to obey the law and redress injustice. A judiciary which is in the hands of the governemtn would turn the rechsstaat into a hypocritical farce. Hence the separation of powers - a fruit of the 18th century theory - is an inseparable element of the rule of law.
(Van Caenegem, ibid., pp15-21, in Goldstein, pp.43-45)
(1) Everyone on earth had the same language and the same words. (2) And as they migrated from the east, they came upon a valley in the land of Shinar and settled there. (3) They said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly.”—Brick served them as stone, and bitumen served them as mortar.— (4) And they said, “Come, let us build us a city, and a tower with its top in the sky, to make a name for ourselves; else we shall be scattered all over the world.”
(1) One language - that is what caused the first sin. This is that they agreed to stop in one single place. And this is against the will of God that said to "fill the land and replenish it" - that is, to walk to all its places, since the land was created to be settled.
(2) And the same words - The text did not explain what those words were, rather, it leaves as a hint, as explained in midrashim. But the words themselves are not explained by the text, it just tells us that they were the same words, to teach us that it wasn't because of the content of the words themselves that the Holy One of Blessing was distressed. They were what they were, and in its simplicity there is not sin, and on the contrary all appears well. But here what happened is that all thought the same thing, and this came to be the problem of the settlement.
(א) ונשרפה לשרפה וגו׳. כל המקרא אין בו ענין שראוי להודיע לענין הספור ומה לי אם היו להם אבנים לבנין או בנו בעץ או עשו שריפת לבנים וכבר לפני המבול כתיב ויהי בנה עיר. ונראה בכאן מרומז קבלת חז״ל דהפילו לא״א לכבשן האש. ומגוף המקרא אשר הוצאתיך מאור כשדים אין הכרח. דלפי הפשט הוא מקום נקרא הכי וכמו דכתיב בארץ מולדתו באור כשדים ויצאו אתם מאור כשדים וגו׳ אלא כאן מרומז הענין דהא ודאי דלפי הקבלה שהפילו את א״א לכבשן האש. לא עשו כבשן האש בשביל זה אלא היה אתון נורא יקידתא לצורך הבריות. והודיע זה הכתוב שהיה כבשן לצורך העיר והמגדל. ומזה נבין כמה גדול ועמוק היה הכבשן ומזה הכבשן ניצול א״א. והא שלא פירש המקרא זה הנס באר היטב יבואר להלן י״ב י״ז:
Burn them thoroughly - There is no place in the Text where something is told that has no impact in the story [therefore, ask:] Why do I care if they were using stones; bricks; were constructing using wood; or made their brick by burning? Even before the Flood it is written "and afterward he build a city" (Genesis 4:17)! And it appears that here there is a hint regarding our sages' tradition that Avraham Avinu was thrown in the fiery furnace - and from the verse "that took you out from Ur Kasdim" (Genesis 15:7) there is no real proof, since from the simple meaning it is simply the name of a place, as it is written "in the land of his birth, Ur Kasdim" (Gen. 11:28) "and went out with them from Ur Kasdim" (Gen. 11:31) etc. But from here we have a hint to the issue of what obviously was happening before the tradition saying that they threw Avraham Avinu into the fiery furnace: they did not make the furnace for this need [of bricks], rather this was the fiery furnace (in Daniel, see Dan. 3:6) done for the need of [burning] people. And the Text is informing that this furnace was for the need of the city and the tower, and from this we understand how big and deep was this furnace, and from this furnace Avraham Avinu was saved. ...
(א) וראשו בשמים. זה ודאי לא יעלה עה״ד שיהיה עיר אחת לכל העולם אלא כסבורים שיהיו כל הערים סמוכות וטפלות לאותו העיר שבה המגדל ויהיה המגדל לצפות ממנו למרחוק אחר כל הישוב שלהם שלא יהיו נפרדים בארץ אחרת. ע״כ נצרך שיהיה ראשו בשמים.
And its top in the sky - It is obvious that you should not think that this would be one city to the whole world, rather they thought that the other nearby cities would be subjects to that city that had the tower, that they would be able to see from it to the distance, over all their settlement, so that no one would be able to separate themselves and go to another land. That's why they needed its top reaching the sky.
(ב) ונעשה לנו שם. אנשים משגיחים וממונים על הדבר ויהיו שרי צבא להעניש את העובר. דבל״ז אינו מועיל המגדל. כ״ז היה לחשש.
And we will make a name for ourselves - people were set up to watch and be in charge of the thing, and they were army chiefs in charge of punishing those who would cross, since if this is not the case there would be no need for the tower. And all that was due to fear/suspicion.
What are, according to the Netziv, the many needs for the tower? In other words, what are the tower's many uses?
Who are the classes of people involved in the building of the tower?
What is his use of the apparently superfluous information regarding the furnace?
How is the wording of this mitzvah different than others? Is this a completely clear command? Is this a permission? How do you understand the application, in time and space, of this mitzvah?
To say that the prophet Shmuel is ambivalent about the institution of the king is an understatement. What are the pitfalls of that institution, according to this chapter? What are the limits placed in the king's power, taking Deuteronomy 17 and I Samuel 8 together?
(17) And the king [Shaul] commanded the guards standing by, “Turn about and kill the priests of the LORD, for they are in league with David; they knew he was running away and they did not inform me.” But the king’s servants would not raise a hand to strike down the priests of the LORD. (18) Thereupon the king said to Doeg, “You, Doeg, go and strike down the priests.” And Doeg the Edomite went and struck down the priests himself; that day, he killed eighty-five men who wore the linen ephod. (19) He put Nob, the town of the priests, to the sword: men and women, children and infants, oxen, asses, and sheep—[all] to the sword.
Clarifying note on Avner: We met Avner when we dealt with self-defense, he killed Asahel and was killed later by Yoav. David does not forget or forgive this.
Avner introduced David to Saul following David's killing of Goliath. He is not mentioned in the account of the disastrous battle of Gilboa when Saul's power was crushed. Seizing the youngest but only surviving of Saul's sons, Ish-bosheth, Abner set him up as king over Israel at Mahanaim, east of the Jordan. David, who was accepted as king by Judah alone, was meanwhile reigning at Hebron, and for some time war was carried on between the two parties.
The only engagement between the rival factions which is told at length is noteworthy, inasmuch as it was preceded by an encounter at Gibeon between twelve chosen men from each side, in which the whole twenty-four seem to have perished (2 Samuel 2:12). In the general engagement which followed, Abner was defeated and put to flight. He was closely pursued by Asahel, brother of Joab, who is said to have been "light of foot as a wild roe" (2 Samuel 2:18). As Asahel would not desist from the pursuit, though warned, Abner was compelled to slay him in self-defence. This originated a deadly feud between the leaders of the opposite parties, for Joab, as next of kin to Asahel, was by the law and custom of the country the avenger of his blood. However, according to Josephus, in Antiquities, Book 7, Chapter 1, Joab had forgiven Abner for the death of his brother, Asahel, the reason being that Abner had slain Asahel honorably in combat after he had first warned Asahel and had no other choice but to kill him out of self-defense. This battle was part of a civil war between David and Ish-bosheth, the son of Saul. After this battle Abner switched to the side of David and granted him control over the tribe of Benjamin. This act put Abner in David's favor. The real reason that Joab killed Abner was that he became a threat to his rank of general. [Text from Wikipedia]
How does Uriah compare to David?
What has David done?
Do you know how the story ends?
What is the role that the prophet Natan will have in this story?
Why doesn’t Naboth agree to Ahab’s request?
What is Elijah's function in this story?
What can you infer about society from the way it is described?
How many specific sins can you find in these passages?
Is there a proxy for transgressions? Who gets to be liable? Why?
Why do you think Hilel the Elder brings David as proof?
How does the the sages of the gemara limit the rule of not cursing a king/leader/chieftain? Why do you think it does so?
פרתו של רבי אלעזר בן עזריה: וחדא פרה הויא ליה והא אמר רב ואמרי לה אמר רב יהודה אמר רב תריסר אלפי עגלי הוה מעשר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מעדריה כל שתא ושתא תנא לא שלו היתה אלא של שכינתו היתה ומתוך שלא מיחה בה נקראת על שמו רב ורבי חנינא ור' יוחנן ורב חביבא מתנו בכוליה דסדר מועד כל כי האי זוגא חלופי רבי יוחנן ומעייל רבי יונתן כל מי שאפשר למחות לאנשי ביתו ולא מיחה נתפס על אנשי ביתו באנשי עירו נתפס על אנשי עירו בכל העולם כולו נתפס על כל העולם כולו אמר רב פפא והני דבי ריש גלותא נתפסו על כולי עלמא כי הא דאמר רבי חנינא מאי דכתיב (ישעיהו ג, יד) ה' במשפט יבא עם זקני עמו ושריו אם שרים חטאו זקנים מה חטאו אלא אימא
R. ELEAZAR B. 'AZARIAH'S COW [USED TO GO OUT WITH A THONG BETWEEN ITS HORNS, BUT NOT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE RABBIS]. Did he have just this one cow? Surely Rav (others say in the name of Rav Yehudah in Rav's name) said: The tithe of R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah's flocks amounted to thirteen thousand calves every year! — It was taught: This cow was not his, but it belonged to a female neighbor of his; yet since he did not protest, it was designated as his.
Rab and R. Hanina, R. Johanan and R. Habiba taught ...: Anyone who is able to influence the people of their home, and does not, is punished for the sins of the people of their home. Their city, are punished for the sins of their city. The whole world, are punished for the sins of the whole world. Said R. Papa: "These, the rulers of the kingdom in exile, are punished for the sins of the whole world." For this R. Hanina said: "Why is it written: 'Hashem will enter into judgment with the elders of his people, and the princes thereof'? (Isaiah 3:14) //
זקנים מה חטאו אלא אימא על זקנים שלא מיחו בשרים רב יהודה הוה יתיב קמיה דשמואל אתאי ההיא איתתא קא צווחה קמיה ולא הוה משגח בה א"ל לא סבר ליה מר (משלי כא, יג) אוטם אזנו מזעקת דל גם הוא יקרא ולא יענה א"ל שיננא רישך בקרירי רישא דרישיך בחמימי הא יתיב מר עוקבא אב ב"ד דכתיב (ירמיהו כא, יב) בית דוד כה אמר ה' דינו לבקר משפט והצילו גזול מיד עושק פן תצא כאש חמתי ובערה ואין מכבה מפני רוע מעלליהם וגו' א"ל ר' זירא לר' סימון לוכחינהו מר להני דבי ריש גלותא א"ל לא מקבלי מינאי א"ל אע"ג דלא מקבלי לוכחינהו מר דא"ר אחא בר' חנינא מעולם לא יצתה מדה טובה מפי הקב"ה וחזר בה לרעה חוץ מדבר זה דכתיב (יחזקאל ט, ד) ויאמר ה' אליו עבור בתוך העיר בתוך ירושלים והתוית תיו על מצחות האנשים הנאנחים והנאנקים על כל התועבות הנעשות בתוכה וגו' א"ל הקב"ה לגבריאל לך ורשום על מצחן של צדיקים תיו של דיו שלא ישלטו בהם מלאכי חבלה ועל מצחם של רשעים תיו של דם כדי שישלטו בהן מלאכי חבלה אמרה מדת הדין לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע מה נשתנו אלו מאלו אמר לה הללו צדיקים גמורים והללו רשעים גמורים אמרה לפניו רבש"ע היה בידם למחות ולא מיחו אמר לה גלוי וידוע לפני שאם מיחו בהם לא יקבלו מהם (אמר) לפניו רבש"ע אם לפניך גלוי להם מי גלוי והיינו דכתיב (יחזקאל ט, ו) זקן בחור ובתולה טף ונשים תהרגו למשחית ועל כל איש אשר עליו התיו אל תגשו וממקדשי תחלו וכתיב ויחלו באנשים הזקנים אשר לפני הבית
how did the elders sin? But say, [He will bring punishment] upon the elders because they do not forbid the princes.
Rab Judah was sitting before Samuel. [when] a woman came and cried before him,1 but he ignored her. Said he to him, Does not the Master agree [that] 'whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry, but shall not be heard'? 'O keen scholar!' he replied. 'Your superior [will be punished] with cold [water]. but your superior's superior [will be punished] with hot. Surely Mar 'Ukba, the Ab-Beth din is sitting!' For it is written, O house of David, thus saith the Lord. Execute judgement in the morning, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor, lest my fury go forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doing, etc R. Zera said to R. Simeon, Let the Master rebuke the members of the Resh Galutha's suite. They will not accept it from me, was his reply. He replied: Even though they will not accept it, you should rebuke them - R. Aha b. R. Hanina said: Never did a positive word came out from the mouth of the Holy One of blessing which He retracted for evil, but for what is written (Ezek. 9:4) And the Lord said to him [the destroying angel] 'Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark [taw] upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof, etc.' The Holy One of Blessing said to Gabriel: 'Go and set a tav of ink upon the foreheads of the righteous, that the destroying angels may have no power over them; and a tav of blood upon the foreheads of the wicked, that the destroying angels may have power over them.' Said the Attribute of Justice before the Holy One of Blessing: 'Sovereign of the Universe! Why are these different from those?' 'Those are completely righteous men, while these are completely wicked,' God replied. 'Sovereign of the Universe!' it continued, 'they had the power to protest but did not.' 'It was fully known to Me that had they protested they would not have heeded them.' 'Sovereign of the Universe!' said he, 'If it was revealed to You, was it revealed to them?' Because of this it is written (Ezek. 9:6): '[Slay utterly] the old man, the young and the maiden, and little children and women; but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my Sanctuary [mikdashi]. Then they began at the elders which were before the house.
וא"ר אבהו שאלו את שלמה איזהו בן העולם הבא אמר להם כל (ישעיהו כד, כג) שכנגד זקניו כבוד כי הא דיוסף בריה דר' יהושע חלש אינגיד א"ל אבוה מאי חזית אמר ליה עולם הפוך ראיתי עליונים למטה ותחתונים למעלה אמר ליה עולם ברור ראית ואנן היכי חזיתינן [א"ל] כי היכי דחשבינן הכא חשבינן התם ושמעתי שהיו אומרים אשרי מי שבא לכאן ותלמודו בידו ושמעתי שהיו אומרים הרוגי מלכות אין כל בריה יכולה לעמוד במחיצתן מאן נינהו
R. Abbahu also said: Solomon was asked: Who has a place in the future world? He answered: He to whom are applied the words: 'and before his elders shall be glory.' (Isaiah 24:23) A similar remark was made by Yosef the son of R. Yehoshua. He had been ill and fell in a trance. [After he recovered], his father said to him: 'What vision did you have?' He replied, 'I saw a world upside down, the upper below and the lower above. He said to him: 'You saw a well regulated world.' [He asked further]: 'In what condition did you see us [students of Torah]?' He replied: 'As our esteem is here, so it is there! I also heard them saying: 'Happy the one who comes here with his learning in his hands'. I also heard them saying: 'No creature can attain to the place [in heaven] assigned to the martyrs of the [Roman] Government.'
Who are these? Shall I say R. Akiba and his comrades? Had they no other merit but this? Obviously even without this [they would have attained this rank]. What is meant therefore must be the martyrs of Lud.
עליונים למטה ותחתונים למעלה. פי' ר"ח דאמרו הגאונים שקבלה בידם רב מפי רב דעולם הפוך היינו שראה שמואל דהוה יתיב קמיה דרב יהודה תלמידיה משום דמיחה בשמואל בפר' במה בהמה (שם דף נה.) גבי ההיא איתתא דאתיא וצוחא קמיה דשמואל ולא אשגח בה א"ל רב יהודה לית ליה למר אוטם אזנו מזעקת דל וגו':
The high ones below and the low ones on high ~ The explanation of Rabeinu Chananel is that the Geonim said that they received a tradition from Rav himself that this upside down world [that he saw] is that he saw Shmuel sitting in front of Rav Yehudah (learning from him) because Rav Yehudah protested against Shmuel's indifference regarding the woman that came and screamed out, saying: 'doesn't the master hold by 'the one who stops his cries to the scream of the poor' etc.
(א) הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְהִגִּיעַ בַּשָּׁלִיחַ, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁלַח אַחֲרָיו שָׁלִיחַ וְאָמַר לוֹ, גֵּט שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לְךָ בָּטֵל הוּא, הֲרֵי זֶה בָטֵל. קָדַם אֵצֶל אִשְׁתּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁלַח אֶצְלָהּ שָׁלִיחַ וְאָמַר לָהּ, גֵּט שֶׁשָּׁלַחְתִּי לִיךְ בָּטֵל הוּא, הֲרֵי זֶה בָטֵל. אִם מִשֶּׁהִגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ, שׁוּב אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְבַטְּלוֹ:
(ב) בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה בֵית דִּין בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר וּמְבַטְּלוֹ. הִתְקִין רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ עוֹשִׂין כֵּן, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיָה מְשַׁנֶּה שְׁמוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ, שֵׁם עִירוֹ וְשֵׁם עִירָהּ. וְהִתְקִין רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁיְּהֵא כוֹתֵב, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וְכָל שֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ, אִשָּׁה פְלוֹנִית וְכָל שׁוּם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם:
(1) [With regard to] one who sends a bill of divorce to his wife [via a messenger], and then catches up with the messenger, or sent [another] messenger after the first, and said, "The bill of divorce that I gave to you is cancelled," then it is cancelled. If the husband preceded the messenger [in getting] to the woman, or if he sent [a second] messenger, and he said to her, "The bill of divorce that I sent you is cancelled," then it is cancelled. If [he makes this statement] from, [i.e., after,] the moment that the bill of divorce reached her hands, he can no longer cancel it.
(2) At first, a man [who had already sent his wife a bill of divorce by means of a messenger] would set up a religious court in a different place [from where the wife lived] and cancel [the bill of divorce]. Rabban Gamliel the Elder enacted that they not be able to do this, due to [the need for] repairing the world [Tikkun HaOlam]. At first, a man could change his name and her name, the name of his city, or the name of her city. Rabban Gamliel the Elder enacted that one would write: "The man, So-and-so, and any other name that he has, and the woman, So-and-so, and any other name that she has," due to Tikkun HaOlam.
(ה) מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין, עוֹבֵד אֶת רַבּוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד, דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, תִּקַּנְתֶּם אֶת רַבּוֹ, וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ לֹא תִקַּנְתֶּם. לִשָּׂא שִׁפְחָה אִי אֶפְשָׁר, שֶׁכְּבָר חֶצְיוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין. בַּת חוֹרִין אִי אֶפְשָׁר, שֶׁכְּבָר חֶצְיוֹ עָבֶד. יִבָּטֵל, וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא לִפְרִיָּה וְלִרְבִיָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה מה) לֹא תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ, לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ. אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם, כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין, וְכוֹתֵב שְׁטָר עַל חֲצִי דָמָיו. וְחָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי:
(ו) הַמּוֹכֵר עַבְדּוֹ לְגוֹי אוֹ לְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, יָצָא בֶן חוֹרִין. אֵין פּוֹדִין אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיִים יוֹתֵר עַל כְּדֵי דְמֵיהֶן, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. וְאֵין מַבְרִיחִין אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיִין, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, מִפְּנֵי תַקָּנַת הַשְּׁבוּיִין. וְאֵין לוֹקְחִים סְפָרִים, תְּפִלִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת מִן הַגּוֹיִם יוֹתֵר עַל כְּדֵי דְמֵיהֶן, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם:
(5) One who is half slave and half free-man, serves his master one day and [works for] himself one day. These are the words of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai said to them: "You have repaired [the situation] for his master, but for himself you have not repaired it. To marry a maidservant is impossible [i.e., forbidden], for he is half-free. [To marry] a free-woman is impossible, for he is half-slave. And was not the world created for the sake of reproduction, as it says (Isaiah 45:18) "Not for emptiness did He create it, but for settlement He formed it." Rather, due to Tikkun HaOlam, we force his master and he makes him a free-man, and [the slave] writes a document [of debt] for half his value. Beit Hillel retracted and ruled in accordance with the words of Beit Shammai.
(6) [With regard to] one who sells his slave to a non-Jew or to someone outside Eretz Yisrael, [the slave automatically] goes free. We do not ransom captives for more than they are worth, due to Tikkun HaOlam. We do not help captives escape, due to Tikkun HaOlam. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: "[It is] due to the enactment of the captives. We do not buy sefarim [books of the Tanach written in holiness, on parchment, and used for personal or public study, or for reading aloud in public. Sometimes the intent is specifically Torah scrolls], tefillin, and mezuzot from the non-Jews for more than their worth, due to Tikkun HaOlam.
How would you define "tikkun olam" in these sources?
Does it matter that this sources are the first ones using "tikkun haolam"? How far are we from how the term is used today?
(ט) וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל עַמּוֹ, הוּא הִתְחִיל בְּעֵצָה תְּחִלָּה לְכָךְ לָקָה תְּחִלָּה, הוּא הִתְחִיל בְּעֵצָה תְּחִלָּה, דִּכְתִיב: וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל עַמּוֹ, וְהוּא לָקָה תְּחִלָּה, דִּכְתִיב (שמות ז, כט): וּבְךָ וּבְעַמְּךָ וּבְכָל עֲבָדֶיךָ. .. אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא אָמַר רַבִּי סִימוֹן, שְׁלשָׁה הָיוּ בְּאוֹתָהּ עֵצָה, בִּלְעָם, וְאִיּוֹב, וְיִתְרוֹ. בִּלְעָם שֶׁיָּעַץ, נֶהֱרַג. אִיּוֹב שֶׁשָּׁתַק, נִדּוֹן בְּיִסּוּרִין. יִתְרוֹ שֶׁבָּרַח, זָכוּ בָּנָיו וְיָשְׁבוּ בְּלִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית, דִּכְתִיב (דברי הימים א ב, נה): וּמִשְׁפְּחוֹת סוֹפְרִים ישְׁבֵי יַעְבֵּץ תִּרְעָתִים שִׁמְעָתִים שׂוּכָתִים הֵמָּה הַקִּינִים הַבָּאִים מֵחַמַּת אֲבִי בֵית רֵכָב וגו'...
"And he said to his people" (Shemot 1:9) - he begun with a gathering for advice first, and was punished first, as it is written "on you,and your people and all your servants" (Shemot 7:29). ... Rabbi Hiya said that Rabbi Simon said: there were three people in that gathering: Bilam, Yov and Yitro.
Bilam who advised it - was slain; Yov who was silent - was afflicted with sufferings; Yitro who fled - his descendants were rewarded with seating on the Chamber of Hewn Stone, as it is written "And the families of scribes that dwelt at Jabez: the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, the Sucathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab". ...
(יט) הששי: מי שיש בידו למחות ואינו מוחה, ואינו נותן לב על מעשה החטאים – זה הדבר קרוב לחניפות. כי הם החוטאים חושבים: כיון שאינם מוחים בידינו ואינן מקנטרים אותנו, כל מעשינו הם טובים. ונצטווינו לבער הרע מקרבנו, שנאמר (דברים יג ו): "ובערת הרע מקרבך". ואמרו רבותינו זיכרונם לברכה (שבת נד ב): מי שיש בידו למחות על אנשי בתו, ואינו מוחה – נתפס על אנשי ביתו; באנשי עירו, ואינו מוחה – נתפס על אנשי עירו; בכל העולם כולו, ואינו מוחה – נתפס על כל העולם כולו, שנאמר (ויקרא כו לד): "וכשלו איש באחיו"; ודרשו רבותינו זיכרונם לברכה: איש בעוון אחיו. ואמרינן (סנהדרין כז ב): מלמד שכולן ערבים זה בזה.
If one could protest, but neither protests nor pays attention to acts by sinful people, then it is akin to flattery, because the sinners think [to themselves]: since they are neither protesting nor reproaching us, all our deeds are good. And we were commanded to destroy evil among us, as it is written "and you will burn the evil in your midst" (Deut. 13:6). And our sages of blessed memory said (Shabbat 54b): those who are able to protest regarding wrongdoings in his house and does not protest is seized for the wrongdoings of his house; in his city and does not protest - seized for the wrongdoings of his city; in the entire world and does not protest - seized for the wrongdoings of the world, as it is written "and one will stumble in his brother" (Lev. 26:34), and our sages of blessed memory: will stumble in the sin of his brother. And we say (Sanhedrin 27b): it teaches that all are responsible for one another.
ר' אחא בשם ריש לקיש כהן גדול שחטא מקלין אותו. אין תימר בעשרים ושלשה נמצאת עלייתו ירידתו. וריש לקיש אמר נשיא שחטא מלקין אותו בב"ד של שלשה. מה מחזרן ליה א"ר חגיי משה אין מחזרין ליה די קטל לון. שמע ר' יודן נשייא וכעס שלח גנתן למיתפוס לריש לקיש טרפון. ערק לדא מוגדלא ואית דמרין להדא כפר יטיא. למחר סלק ר' יוחנן לבית וועדא וסלק רבי יודן נשיא לבית וועדא. א"ל למה לית מרי אמר לון מילא דאורייא. שרי טפח בחדא ידיה א"ל ובחדא טפחין אלא א"ל לא ולא בן לקיש לא.
Rav Acha said in the name of Resh Lakish: 'a kohen gadol that sinned is flogged'. ... Resh Lakish said that if a Nasi (Patriarch) sinned, he is flogged by a court of three. ... Rabi Yudan Nesiah heard this and was furious and issued a warrant for his arrest. Resh Lakish fled to Mugdala, and others say to Kfar Yitia . In the morning Rabi Yochanan went to the House of Meeting and Rabi Yudan Nesiah went to the House of Meeting. [Rabi Yudan] asked Resh Lakish: Why did you do this? Resh Lakish said [to R. Yudan]: "Did you think that for fear of you I would stop [proclaiming] the teaching of God?!"
(ו) בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי נָשִׂיא לִבְנֵי מְנַשֶּׁה גַּמְלִיאֵל בֶּן פְּדָהצוּר, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (קהלת ח, ב): אֲנִי פִּי מֶלֶךְ שְׁמֹר וגו'... הָאֲנִי שֶׁיֹּאמַר לְךָ פִּי הַמֶּלֶךְ, שֶׁתְּהֵא אֵימָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ, שְׁמֹר שֶׁלֹא תִּמְרֹד עַל צִוּוּיוֹ, יָכוֹל אֲפִלּוּ יֹאמַר לְךָ לַעֲבֹר עַל דִּבְרֵי הַמָּקוֹם, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (קהלת ח, ב): וְעַל דִּבְרַת שְׁבוּעַת אֱלֹקִים, בָּא הַכָּתוּב לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ שֶׁדִּבְרַת שְׁבוּעַת אֱלֹקִים יִהְיֶה עֶלְיוֹן עַל צִוּוּי בָּשָׂר וָדָם
On the eight day the prince of the tribe of Menashe, Gamliel Ben Pedahtzur. ... This is written "I obey the king's orders [and uttering an oath by God]" (Kohelet 8:2). that you should not rebel against his command... Does this mean even if he tells you to transgress the words of God? Therefore it says "and uttering an oath by God" - the verse comes to inform you that the [utterance of God] takes precedence over the command of flesh and blood [=the King].