WHEN YOU SEE THE ASS OF

YOUR ENEMY LYING UNDER ITS BURDEN AND WOULD REFRAIN FROM RAISING IT, YOU MUST

NEVERTHELESS RAISE IT WITH HIM.

(Shemot 23:5)

When you meet, when you see – Outside the law-court you must

save and help the possessions of even your enemy and hater… Even if the owner

has done you real harm, you should still save him from the loss. But an ass

lying under its burden is, at the moment only a difficulty in which he

finds himself, there it says your enemy, the owner is one who does not

wish you well, he would be pleased to see you in similar straits; in you too,

you feel something of malicious joy – you would refrain – but you may

not let it continue. You must cease, you must leave all considerations which

would keep you from helping him, and jump to help him… Moreover, the Halakha sees in his unloading of the animal not only a duty

you have to carry out towards your fellow-men in difficulty, but also towards

the suffering animal, that prevention of the suffering of animals is a

commandment from the Torah. To help his fellow-man he would

only be obliged [to raise it] with

him, if the man himself is doing all he can himself. But for the animal's

sake, he must render assistance even if the master wrongfully and lazily stands

there doing nothing, and leaves the whole of the work to him.

(Rabbi S. R. Hirsch on Shemot

23:4-5, following the Levy translation)

Respect for

Parents and Teachers

Devorah Greiniman

One

who hits his father or mother shall surely die… and one who curses his father

or mother shall surely die. (Shemot

21:15, 17)

The

prominent place given to respect for parents in the Ten Commandments and in parashat Kedoshim in Sefer Vayikra makes it clear that

this duty stands at the forefront of the concerns of biblical law. In the

context of our parasha, which constitutes a normative

broadening of the Ten Commandments, respect for parents appears in negative

formulations; hitting and cursing parents find their place within a short list

of capital crimes, along with murder and illegal enslavement, the very worst of

criminal acts.

In light

of the profound importance attributed to the duty of respect for parents, it is

interesting to note that the Torah does not discriminate between fathers and

mothers with regard to the honor due them. Rashi

points out, moreover, that the generic language of the verse – one who

curses his father or mother – comes to emphasize that that the law does not

discriminate between the duties of sons and the duties of daughters towards

their parents. The formulation of the commandment in Vayikra

even mentions mothers before fathers. Is there some connection between

the importance of respect for parents and the egalitarian nature of its

application?

The

legal formulation found in our parasha, One who curses his father or mother shall surely

die, illuminates the meaning of the command to respect parents. In his

study, The Problem of "Curse" in the Hebrew Bible (Philadelphia 1963), J.C. Brichto explains that "to

curse" in the biblical context was not simply a matter of uttering imprecations.

The root of the word kilel [curse] is kal [light] – the opposite of kaved [heavy], which is the root of kavod [honor, respect]. Mekalel

behavior towards them. Accordingly, Gerald Blidstein

understands the law of the ben sorer umoreh [the wayward and defiant son], whose actions are

also considered a capital crime, as an extension of the law against "cursing"

one's parents (see his Honor Thy Father and

Mother: Filial Responsibility in Jewish Ethics, New York 1975). This

son is not described as directly attacking his parents; rather, his behavior

disgraces them and the social institutions they represent. Perhaps the law

regarding a girl who fornicates in her father's house, who is similarly subject

to the death penalty, should also be viewed as belonging to this context.

Blidstein contrasts the biblical view of respect for

parents with the Roman institution of patria potestas

[the power of the father], the archetype of the patriarchal world-view. According

to the traditional Roman conception, the father held absolute control over the

bodies, souls, and property of his wife and children, even after they reached

adulthood. In opposition to this, as we find repeatedly in our parasha, the biblical notion of the sacredness of human

life allows no one to wield this kind of ultimate power over another. Thus,

while respect for parents is an ethical-normative duty involving harsh

sanctions, it does not provide a legal basis for domination by parents over their

children.

Why

does the Torah relate so sternly to behavior which, to modern eyes, might

appear unseemly but not criminal, and certainly not to invite the death

penalty? Scripture in general, and the Torah in

particular, do not speak only of respect for parents. They also speak of

parental obligations towards children: and you shall tell your children (Shemot 13:8), and

you shall instruct your children (Devarim 6:7), [who] does not listen to his

father and mother (regarding the rebellious

son, Devarim 21:18),

listen, my son, to your father's instruction, and do not set aside your

mother's law (Proverbs 1:8–9).

The role

of a parent [horeh] is to instruct [lehorot]: to relay society's norms to the young,

first and foremost amongst them the duty of loyalty to God's Torah (also

derived from lehorot]. The relationship is

egalitarian in these contexts: In the passages cited above, the mother's

educational role is identical to that of the father. Instead of the absolute

patriarchy of patria potestas, the Torah sets

down a dual social hierarchy based upon the instructional role: on the one

hand, an essentially masculine ritual-political hierarchy in the form of

God-priest-Levite-Israelite, and on the other, an intimate hierarchy in the

form of God-parents-children. This second hierarchy is of no less conceptual

and moral importance than the first, as evidenced by the sanctions that protect

it. It is by virtue of their instructive role that those expected to pass on

society's norms are owed respect – a respect viewed as fundamental to the

social order.

Note

that the applicability of the penalties laid down by the law for violating the

duty of respect towards one's parents is independent of the extent to which one's

parents have actually fulfilled their educational roles. Even if the parents

have utterly failed to instruct their children – because they have died or lost

all contact with their children, or because they have behaved immorally – the

duty of their sons and daughters to honor them remains in effect. (Several commentators

point out that the verse prescribing the death penalty to one who steals a

man is sandwiched between two verses describing offenses against parents, because

it relates to one who kidnaps children and sells them into slavery or prostitution.

Such offenders separate children from their parents, making it impossible for

the children to perform their duty of respect.) Needless to say, parents who

treat their children and other people respectfully, and who behave with self-respect,

make it much easier for the younger generation to respect them in turn. However,

even a parent who does not instruct in practice still represents the instructional

role, which is crucially important in a society that sees itself as founded

upon God's Torah. Even if the parent does not exemplify the value of respect,

the son or daughter can still exemplify his/her own commitment to the social

value of respect, by respecting the delinquent parent.

These

thoughts lead me to an issue that makes headlines these days: respect for

teachers, which, on account of the teachers' educational function, parallels respect

for parents. The leaders of our school system, and

even the leaders of government and society in general, ask: how can we restore

the attitude of respect towards teachers? Much of this discussion revolves

around the need to increase the teachers' pay, which certainly should be done. However,

this preoccupation with the material aspect of the problem is perhaps more telling

as an indicator of the general crisis of values in modern society than as a solution

to the problem itself.

A

Question of Honor: Israeliness and Human Dignity

(2004) is a new book by the Israeli jurist Orit Kamir. In its opening chapter, Kamir

analyzes the concept of kavod [honor/dignity],

in the Israeli context, as branching off into four sub-definitions. The first, hadrat kavod, marks

the old-fashioned, traditional notion of kavod,

as expressed in the English word honor. Hadrat

kavod is a function of social status, and a

person achieves it by behaving in accordance with societal norms. This kind of kavod rests on a powerfully patriarchal foundation. A

man may lose his hadrat kavod

by being shamed by another man, or as a result of sexually "dishonorable"

behavior on the part of his wife or female relatives. A woman's hadrat kavod, on

the other hand, is summed up in the popular expression kevod

bat melekh penima [the

princess's honor dwells within]; that is, it is preserved through modest,

unassertive behavior.

Kavod seguli [dignity]

belongs to the vocabulary of the liberal/humanist/modernist world-view. It

refers to the concept of human dignity as established by the U.N. following

World War II – a minimum standard, as Kamir herself

describes it, for the treatment of human beings. They should not be dehumanized

through humiliation, torture, deprivation of freedom or of the means to make a

living, or through objectification (e.g., by being lured or forced into

prostitution). The third kind of kavod, kavod mehayyeh is

also taken from the liberal/humanist vocabulary. It is equivalent to the

English term respect, and it refers to respect for the differences among

people and for the special needs resulting from those differences. Finally, in

Israeli society, hilat kavod

divine image. Unlike kavod seguli, which derives from a person's humanity, it

derives from the honor of the Creator.

This

analysis is lucid and enlightening in itself; however,

I did not find a place among these definitions for the notion of "respect

for parents," as I have discussed it above. The closest category is hadrat kavod – but

respect for parents does not derive from their social status or even from their

proper behavior. It derives from the instructional role represented by parents in

society. In Kamir's account, hadrat

kavod that is not diminished by its bearer's

actual behavior is reserved for persons in extremely high positions, such as kings

– and not, in equal terms, for any mother or father, whosoever s/he may be. In

any case, this kind of respect, following Kamir's

discussion, has little place in the liberal/humanist world view.

If I

found no peg here upon which to hang respect for parents, what of respect for

teachers, who represent a similar social function? If the latest book on the

concept of honor in Israeli culture – a brilliant and instructive volume in

many ways – does not even offer a vocabulary with which to speak of this kind

of respect, how can we re-establish it in society?

It

seems to me that even if notions such as "respect for parents" and

respect for teachers do not fit comfortably with the liberal/humanist

world-view, they perform a social function whose lack is deeply felt by many. They

lend society moral/normative stability, not to speak of their importance for

the inculcation of our beloved Torah. We are highly conscious of the dangers

that attend rejection of the liberal/humanistic world-view, which calls for

critical appraisal also of those whose role it is to impart societal norms to

future generations. However, contentment with the minimal requirements of kavod seguli, as

set out in Kamir's book, is likely to leave people frustrated

with the level of respect in social and interpersonal relations – and that frustration

may well lead to the rise of anti-humanist trends. We are in need of a balance among

the different types of respect that Kamir discusses, to

which, in balance, must be added the notion of respect for those who impart the

values on which society must rest.

My thanks to Prof. Moshe Greenberg, under whose guidance I collected

the sources and formulated the thoughts presented in the first part of these

remarks.

Deborah Greinman is Managing Editor of Nashim: A Journal of Jewish Women's Studies & Gender

Issues. She edits English-language scholarly publications at the Israel Academy

of Sciences and Humanities, and she also writes and translates.

God's Word is Found in the Small Details that

Repair the World

Why was the section

dealing with judges written next to the section dealing with the altar? To tell

you: Place the Sanhedrin by the Temple.

(Rashi on Shemot 21:1)

… And so one should

interpret the verse Moses went and told the people all the words of the Lord

and all of the laws (Shemot

24:3), that is to say, he told the people all of God's words, which are

included in all of the commandments…for they are the continuation of the

Infinite, may His Name be blessed. By actively observing the laws, they

automatically draw eternal life to their souls. That is why He told them of the

eternity of God's words, telling them the law.

(R. Tzvi Elimelekh

MeDinov's Agra De'Kallah 209b)

Peace is Achieved through Proper Legal Proccesses

and the Overcoming of Acrimonious Feelings

You established

equity [meisharim] (Tehillim 99:4). R. Alexandri

said: You established straight ways [yesharot]

in your world. Someone has a legal dispute with his fellow. They go to court

together, accept the verdict, and make peace between them – that is what is

meant by You established equity. Someone

takes to the road and sees his fellow's ass crouching under its load, he goes

and lends a hand, helping him load and unload [the beast]. They enter an inn

and he says: "So he loves me, and I thought he hated me!" They

immediately begin to converse with each other, and peace dwells between them. What

brought peace to them, making them love each other? The fact that he observed

that which is written in the Torah: When you see the ass of your enemy lying

it with him (Shemot23:5) as it is

written: Its ways are ways of pleasantness, and all of its paths are peace

(Proverbs 3:17).

You who worked righteous judgment in Jacob (Tehillim 99:4), And

these are the laws that you shall place before them (Shemot 21:1)

(Midrash Tehillim

99)

Some Commandments are to be Observed when Opportunities Present Themselves, while Others Require that we Pursue

Opportunities to Observe Them

Hillel

says: Be of Aaron's students; love peace, pursue peace, love [your fellow] creatures,

and draw them near to Torah. "Love peace" is understandable, as we

have said, but what of "pursue peace"? It is as we have learned, seek

peace and pursue it (Tehillim,34:15). And how is it different? All other

commandments only apply to a person when an opportunity presents itself, as is

written when you come across your enemy's ox (Shemot 23:4), when you build a new

house (Devarim

22:8). But peace must always [be pursued]: seek peace and pursue it.

(Massekhet Kallah Rabati, 3:5)

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom,

please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew

  edition distributed in Israel $700

• English

  edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor

of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be

made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear

in the English email.

In Israel,

checks made out to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B. 4433, Jerusalem

91043. Unfortunately there is no Israeli tax-exemption for local donations.

US and British tax exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through the New Israel Fund.

Contributions should be marked

as donor-advised to OzVeShalom, the Shabbat Shalom

project.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NEW ISRAEL FUND IS NO LONGER ACCEPTING DONATIONS UNDER

$100.

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel

Fund of Great Britain,

26 Enford Street, London

W1H 2DD, Great Britain

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of

tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts which have always been central to

Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central

religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national

obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law

clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence

between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom's programs include both educational and

protest activities. Seminars, lectures, workshops, conferences and weekend

programs are held for students, educators and families, as well as joint

seminars for Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Protest activities focus on

issues of human rights, co-existence between Jews and Arabs, and responses to

issues of particular religious relevance.

5,000 copies of a 4 page peace

oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz

VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to

over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web

site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom's educational forums draw people of different

backgrounds, secular and religious, who are keen to deepen their Jewish

knowledge and to hear an alternative religious standpoint on the subjects of

peace and social issues.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom fills an

ideological vacuum in Israel's

society. Committed both to Jewish tradition and observance, and to the

furthering of peace and coexistence, the movement is in a unique position to

engage in dialogue with the secular left and the religious right, with Israeli

Arabs and with Palestinians.