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 [cursing] thus refers to contempt for one's parents, to insulting or insolent 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 [glory] refers to the traditional notion that human beings are created in the 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 under its burden and would refrain from raising it, you must nevertheless raise 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.