Talmidav Shel Aharon
7-5769: Mitzvah N-43
December 15, 2008
Negative Mitzvah 43 – This is a negative commandment: Do not strike another Jew.
Hafetz Hayim: This prohibition is derived from the verse, “Forty lashes he may give him; he may not add more.” (Deut. 25:3) For this is an injunction to strike no man whatever in Jewry: it is a kal va-chomer, an inference by reasoning from the less to the more: When someone has become punishable by whiplashes, so that the Torah has given permission to strike him, Scripture commands to add nothing to the flogging when he is beaten. How much more certainly must this apply to other human beings.
If someone strikes his fellow-man entailing damages of less than a p’rutah,[the smallest coin] he should receive whiplashes. But if the damages amount to more than a p’rutah, [which means that he struck him a major blow for which he becomes obligated for damages of a p’rutah or more], since he becomes duty-bound to pay money he receives no flogging (but he does violate the prohibition). Even if a person only raises his hand against his fellow-man, he is called wicked. However, if someone delivers a blow in the course of discipline and education, he commits no transgression.
Before we begin to examine this law, we need to cover some background information. Kal va-chomer is an accepted way to analyze a Torah text. It is one of the 13 approved methods that Rabbi Ishmael listed at the beginning of the Sifra, one of the earliest of the legal explanations of the book of Leviticus. It says that if something is forbidden or permitted in an extreme case, then the rule applies “all the more so” in a lesser case. Here we have a law that is careful to regulate the number of lashes a person is to receive when convicted of a crime. There can be up to 40 lashes, and no more. The Sages were so concerned about going over this limit that they further extended it to require no more than 39 lashes lest someone miscount and a great sin occur. The kal va-chomer states that if in the case of lashes one is forbidden to go even one over the limit, “all the more so” in the case at hand where someone, outside of the legal system, would strike another human being.
When one is convicted of striking another human being, he becomes liable to pay for damages. These include the costs of healing, loss of wages, damages and embarrassment. These monetary payments are in the place of the flogging. A person who pays damages does not have the double punishment of the flogging. However, if the damages are so small, smaller than the smallest coin, then he does not have to pay but is subject to flogging. If he raises his fist in a threatening manner, he is not guilty of striking his fellow man but the threat is enough to label such a man as “wicked”.
There seem to be two exceptions to this law that need to be addressed. First is the fact that, according to the Hafetz Hayyim, the law only applies to striking a Jew. I can give him the benefit of the doubt here and say that in many places the laws for Jews and non-Jews were already stacked against the Jews. Striking a non-Jew could lead to prison for the offender and a pogrom for the community. Sadly, there are Jews today who take these kind of laws very literally and declare that the non-Jews are less than Jews and it is permitted to lie, cheat or strike a non-Jew. I hold that another Jewish law, that there is one law for the citizen and non citizen alike, means that we treat all people equally under the law. I am sure that there are halachic experts out there who could show me that I am wrong; I maintain that even if all other reasons in the world were presented that we are permitted to treat others differently than our own people, I would fall back and maintain that we should not treat others differently “mipnay darkay shalom” “for the sake of peace with our neighbors.” There are just some things that may be permitted but we do not make the world a better place if we hold by them. This is one of those cases.
There is an exemption in this law for striking a child as an act of discipline, or for educative purposes. My wife, the educator, tells me that there is no authority in education today that holds that a child will learn any better if they are struck by their teachers. My understanding is that it only teaches a child that one can strike another if they are bigger. I see no reason to strike a child in the name of education. One who does so should fall under the punishments of this law as stated above. A parent disciplining a child is a more difficult area. I wish I could say that one should never strike a child or even raise a hand to a child, but there are very rare exceptions that would make a blanket prohibition hard to make. I can say, however, that there is no reason that striking a child should leave any damage at all. A slap on the hand with an open hand may be appropriate once or twice in the lifetime of a child, but if the strike should leave a bruise, scar, or any damage whatsoever, it is clearly child abuse and the parent needs to step back and assess the management of their anger. Even hitting a child with mean words that strike at a child’s self esteem can be a form of abuse to the young mind. A child in need of punishment needs to understand the consequences of his or her action, and not that physical punishment is to be expected. It only teaches a child to do the action when the punisher is not around. A parent needs to be very careful in punishing a child by striking him or her. If the strike leaves any kind of damage, the parent would fall under the prohibitions of this law.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
6-5769: Mitzvah N-42
Talmidav Shel Aharon
6-5769: Mitzvah N-42
December 9, 2008
Negative Mitzvah 42 – This is a negative commandment: Do not withhold “she’er”, “k’sut”, or “onah” from one’s wife.
Hafetz Hayim: for Scripture says, “her food, her raiment and her conjugal rights he shall not diminish.” (Exodus. 21:10) The term “she’er” denotes food, “k’sut” denotes clothing and this is the plain meaning of the words; “onah” denotes conjugal intimacy. Whoever withholds one of these three by his own will, in order to distress or pain her, violates this prohibition. By the law of the Sages he bears another seven obligations toward her, and these are: the principal payment of the marriage contract [in case of divorce or death], to cure her [if she becomes sick], to ransom her [if she is taken captive], to bury her [when she dies]; she is to stay in his house the entire time of her widowhood and is to be supported out of his property; her daughters are to be sustained out of his property after his death until they are married; and the right of her sons by him in the marriage contract [is to inherit the principal amount before equally dividing the remainder of the father’s inheritance with brothers of another mother]. By the law of the Sages, he has the right to the fruit of her handiwork, in exchange for her food; and the fruit or income from her property in her lifetime, in exchange for the duty of her redemption[from captivity if necessary]. He gains the right of whatever she finds, for the sake of [avoiding] enmity; and he becomes her heir, in exchange for the duty of providing for her burial. A man also has the duty of sustaining his small sons and daughters. It is in force everywhere and at all times.
Let us make the simple points first. When a man marries a woman, he takes on certain responsibilities. He has to allow her a monetary allowance she can spend on clothing. He can’t insist that she wear certain clothes or give her the clothing; she gets to buy what she desires. He has to also give her enough money to feed herself and the family. He cannot insist on a particular diet, but she has the right to choose what the family (and she herself) will eat. Finally, he cannot deny her sexual satisfaction. This has some far reaching implications. It implies first of all that she has sexual needs that he must fulfill. Since different occupations have different implications of his being home, he cannot change jobs if it will affect his conjugal duties. Businessmen are home every evening. If he decides to become a sailor and only be home once a month or once every six months, she can forbid him from being away so much or force him to pay off her Ketuba (more on this later) and divorce her. There is an assumption that the occupation he has when he marries her is known to her and she cannot force him into a new line of work, but if he wants to change and it will affect her conjugal rights, she can veto the change. The point here is that while Judaism says that a man “acquires” a woman, it is somewhat more complicated than that. She does not become his servant or slave and she has rights in his home that he is forbidden to deny. If, in any of these three areas, he limits her rights and causes her physical pain or mental anguish, he is forced to give her what she needs or pay her Ketuba and divorce her.
The Ketuba is central here. The Ketuba is the contract of marriage. It stipulates that the wife has these rights and that the man does not have to pay the “bride price” required in order to get married. The bride price becomes a primary mortgage on his estate. This means that when he dies, the wife is paid from the estate first, before any and all creditors. If the husband wants to divorce his wife, he can divorce her but the payment of the Ketuba is a heavy monetary debt that must be paid before he can send her away. Today the monetary amounts are symbolic but in ancient times, it could be used to convince angry husbands to fulfill their duties to their wives.
If you think this is a bit hard on husbands and wives, let me remind everyone that, even to this day, marriage is basically a monetary partnership in the eyes of the state. To get a marriage license you don’t have to profess love or devotion, only to let the state know who will be responsible for the family debts. Love and devotion are great, but marriage means responsibilities and the Ketuba spells them out.
The Sages expanded on the duties of a husband to prevent other abuses. He must pay the amount he owes on the Ketuba if he divorces her. If she dies, the debt is inherited by her children. If she gets sick, he must pay for her medical bills. If she is captured by brigands or pirates, he has to pay her ransom before he ransoms anyone else including children or his teacher. He has to pay for her funeral, give her the house to live in if he dies and leaves her a widow (the children can’t throw her out). If she has born him daughters, they are to be supported out of his estate until they are married even if his sons have to go begging to provide for them. The laws of inheritance do not apply to the Ketuba, its principal is paid to her sons that she bore to him (but not to sons from a previous marriage), and only then is the rest of the estate divided among all of his sons.
The Sages also provide the husband with some of her income to make sure that he will perform his duties. If she has a small business on the side he can claim her income as payment for the food he provides. If she owns property, he has the right to the income from that property or from the sale of that property (if sold in her lifetime) in exchange for the duty to ransom her from captivity. If she finds something of value, he can claim it. This is to prevent arguments between the two of them. He becomes her heir for the duty to bury her and if she leaves him with small children, he has to care for them and not treat them shabbily.
I suppose we could argue all day over these duties and whether they are fair to her and to him, but remember, like all laws, this applies only when there is trouble in the family. When couples love each other and are devoted to each other, these monetary issues are not a problem; they are often filled above and beyond the letter of the law. Wives and children are supported openly and lovingly. Only in cases of anger and discord do we find that couples argue over money and here the Sages have tried to spell out a fair way for the couple’s finances to be divided.
I should add here that in monetary cases, Jewish Law gives way to the law of the land. A Ketuba may be symbolic but to pay it out today, one would have to have a civil divorce and pay out all the financial details spelled out by the divorce court, only then could the Ketuba be paid (actually the symbolic amount is waived during the Jewish divorce (Get) process, since the money has already been allotted by civil courts). Judaism says that divorce is possible and sometimes necessary (even a Mitzvah) but it should not be so easy that a man would change wives as often as he changes a home or car.
The Sages did their best with the customs and traditions that were current in their day and age. Before we comment on the equality of the system or not, try and think how you might write this better. It is never as easy as it looks.
6-5769: Mitzvah N-42
December 9, 2008
Negative Mitzvah 42 – This is a negative commandment: Do not withhold “she’er”, “k’sut”, or “onah” from one’s wife.
Hafetz Hayim: for Scripture says, “her food, her raiment and her conjugal rights he shall not diminish.” (Exodus. 21:10) The term “she’er” denotes food, “k’sut” denotes clothing and this is the plain meaning of the words; “onah” denotes conjugal intimacy. Whoever withholds one of these three by his own will, in order to distress or pain her, violates this prohibition. By the law of the Sages he bears another seven obligations toward her, and these are: the principal payment of the marriage contract [in case of divorce or death], to cure her [if she becomes sick], to ransom her [if she is taken captive], to bury her [when she dies]; she is to stay in his house the entire time of her widowhood and is to be supported out of his property; her daughters are to be sustained out of his property after his death until they are married; and the right of her sons by him in the marriage contract [is to inherit the principal amount before equally dividing the remainder of the father’s inheritance with brothers of another mother]. By the law of the Sages, he has the right to the fruit of her handiwork, in exchange for her food; and the fruit or income from her property in her lifetime, in exchange for the duty of her redemption[from captivity if necessary]. He gains the right of whatever she finds, for the sake of [avoiding] enmity; and he becomes her heir, in exchange for the duty of providing for her burial. A man also has the duty of sustaining his small sons and daughters. It is in force everywhere and at all times.
Let us make the simple points first. When a man marries a woman, he takes on certain responsibilities. He has to allow her a monetary allowance she can spend on clothing. He can’t insist that she wear certain clothes or give her the clothing; she gets to buy what she desires. He has to also give her enough money to feed herself and the family. He cannot insist on a particular diet, but she has the right to choose what the family (and she herself) will eat. Finally, he cannot deny her sexual satisfaction. This has some far reaching implications. It implies first of all that she has sexual needs that he must fulfill. Since different occupations have different implications of his being home, he cannot change jobs if it will affect his conjugal duties. Businessmen are home every evening. If he decides to become a sailor and only be home once a month or once every six months, she can forbid him from being away so much or force him to pay off her Ketuba (more on this later) and divorce her. There is an assumption that the occupation he has when he marries her is known to her and she cannot force him into a new line of work, but if he wants to change and it will affect her conjugal rights, she can veto the change. The point here is that while Judaism says that a man “acquires” a woman, it is somewhat more complicated than that. She does not become his servant or slave and she has rights in his home that he is forbidden to deny. If, in any of these three areas, he limits her rights and causes her physical pain or mental anguish, he is forced to give her what she needs or pay her Ketuba and divorce her.
The Ketuba is central here. The Ketuba is the contract of marriage. It stipulates that the wife has these rights and that the man does not have to pay the “bride price” required in order to get married. The bride price becomes a primary mortgage on his estate. This means that when he dies, the wife is paid from the estate first, before any and all creditors. If the husband wants to divorce his wife, he can divorce her but the payment of the Ketuba is a heavy monetary debt that must be paid before he can send her away. Today the monetary amounts are symbolic but in ancient times, it could be used to convince angry husbands to fulfill their duties to their wives.
If you think this is a bit hard on husbands and wives, let me remind everyone that, even to this day, marriage is basically a monetary partnership in the eyes of the state. To get a marriage license you don’t have to profess love or devotion, only to let the state know who will be responsible for the family debts. Love and devotion are great, but marriage means responsibilities and the Ketuba spells them out.
The Sages expanded on the duties of a husband to prevent other abuses. He must pay the amount he owes on the Ketuba if he divorces her. If she dies, the debt is inherited by her children. If she gets sick, he must pay for her medical bills. If she is captured by brigands or pirates, he has to pay her ransom before he ransoms anyone else including children or his teacher. He has to pay for her funeral, give her the house to live in if he dies and leaves her a widow (the children can’t throw her out). If she has born him daughters, they are to be supported out of his estate until they are married even if his sons have to go begging to provide for them. The laws of inheritance do not apply to the Ketuba, its principal is paid to her sons that she bore to him (but not to sons from a previous marriage), and only then is the rest of the estate divided among all of his sons.
The Sages also provide the husband with some of her income to make sure that he will perform his duties. If she has a small business on the side he can claim her income as payment for the food he provides. If she owns property, he has the right to the income from that property or from the sale of that property (if sold in her lifetime) in exchange for the duty to ransom her from captivity. If she finds something of value, he can claim it. This is to prevent arguments between the two of them. He becomes her heir for the duty to bury her and if she leaves him with small children, he has to care for them and not treat them shabbily.
I suppose we could argue all day over these duties and whether they are fair to her and to him, but remember, like all laws, this applies only when there is trouble in the family. When couples love each other and are devoted to each other, these monetary issues are not a problem; they are often filled above and beyond the letter of the law. Wives and children are supported openly and lovingly. Only in cases of anger and discord do we find that couples argue over money and here the Sages have tried to spell out a fair way for the couple’s finances to be divided.
I should add here that in monetary cases, Jewish Law gives way to the law of the land. A Ketuba may be symbolic but to pay it out today, one would have to have a civil divorce and pay out all the financial details spelled out by the divorce court, only then could the Ketuba be paid (actually the symbolic amount is waived during the Jewish divorce (Get) process, since the money has already been allotted by civil courts). Judaism says that divorce is possible and sometimes necessary (even a Mitzvah) but it should not be so easy that a man would change wives as often as he changes a home or car.
The Sages did their best with the customs and traditions that were current in their day and age. Before we comment on the equality of the system or not, try and think how you might write this better. It is never as easy as it looks.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
5-5769: Mitzvah N-41
Talmidav Shel Aharon
5-5769: Mitzvah N-41
December 2, 2008
Negative Mitzvah 41 – This is a negative commandment: Do not crave in one’s heart something that belongs to one's fellow-man.
Hafetz Hayim: for Scripture says, “Neither shall you crave etc.” (Deut. 5:18) This prohibition is separate from the injunction “You shall not covet” (see last lesson: 4-5769). For a person transgresses the prohibition against craving once he thinks in his heart how he can acquire that object, and his heart is persuaded in the matter to follow his plan. Then he violates the injunction, “Neither shall you crave…” since craving is but in the heart alone. If he then acquires that object, having importuned its owner and sent many friends to him, until he gets it, he violates also the injunction, “You shall not covet”. It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.
This commandment is found as an extra word in Deuteronomy where Moses recalls the law against coveting in the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are found twice in the Torah, once in Exodus and repeated in Deuteronomy. The problem is that the two texts are not identical. The most famous difference between them is in the fourth commandment; Exodus says that we should “Guard” (Shamor) the seventh day, and Deuteronomy says that we should “Remember” (Zachor). If we were to look closely at the prayer on Friday night, “Lecha Dodi” we would see it mentions a Midrash that explains that God pronounced on Sinai only one commandment but spoke “Shamor” and “Zachor” at the same moment. Humans could not speak like that but God can and did. In the final commandment there is also a slight difference in the law concerning coveting. In Exodus the commandment states that we cannot covet our neighbor’s house, wife, male or female slave, or anything that is your neighbors. In Deuteronomy, the commandment reads, “do not covet your neighbor’s wife, crave his house, field, male or female slave, ox, ass or anything that is your neighbor’s.” It is the additional word “crave” that makes this prohibition separate from the injunction of coveting.
But the two laws are not really that separate. Craving takes place in your heart, and coveting takes place out in the real world. Craving leads to coveting. When it does, one is guilty of two sins.
We have to understand that neither of these laws can be easily explained in American law. In American law, you have to do something wrong to violate a prohibition. Thinking about something is not illegal until you actually do an illegal act. Americans sort of live by the creed that if you want something badly enough, you can work for it and get it through your own efforts. American advertising tells us that we can have anything we want. It is very unusual to want what another person has and not be able to get something similar or exactly the same without having to resort to nagging that person to give it up. (The possible exception here could be your neighbor’s wife. You can chase after any single woman [or man] who may have a similar physical appearance or be in a similar financial situation, but you cannot covet the person married to your neighbor.)
The war on Terror has led our country to go after those who are planning a terrorist attack before they can actually execute the plan. While it is difficult to prosecute someone for talking or acting like a terrorist, to defend our country, we have to stop the terror before it can begin. Similarly, the Secret Service goes after any person who makes any kind of a threat against the President or any other leader of this country. One does not have to carry out that threat to get the attention of the Secret Service. These two examples are the exceptions to the rule. In most cases, just wanting something in your heart does not trigger any attention by the civil authorities because the police can’t arrest people for what they think. I am not sure that Jewish Law could punish a person who only commits the sin of “craving” but if that person carried out the idea and performed an act of coveting, then Jewish Law would punish for both sins, since one sin implies the other.
We should all remember to pay less attention to what our neighbor has that we lack and be thankful for what we already have. That is an attitude that will keep us far from sin.
5-5769: Mitzvah N-41
December 2, 2008
Negative Mitzvah 41 – This is a negative commandment: Do not crave in one’s heart something that belongs to one's fellow-man.
Hafetz Hayim: for Scripture says, “Neither shall you crave etc.” (Deut. 5:18) This prohibition is separate from the injunction “You shall not covet” (see last lesson: 4-5769). For a person transgresses the prohibition against craving once he thinks in his heart how he can acquire that object, and his heart is persuaded in the matter to follow his plan. Then he violates the injunction, “Neither shall you crave…” since craving is but in the heart alone. If he then acquires that object, having importuned its owner and sent many friends to him, until he gets it, he violates also the injunction, “You shall not covet”. It is in force everywhere and at all times for both men and women.
This commandment is found as an extra word in Deuteronomy where Moses recalls the law against coveting in the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are found twice in the Torah, once in Exodus and repeated in Deuteronomy. The problem is that the two texts are not identical. The most famous difference between them is in the fourth commandment; Exodus says that we should “Guard” (Shamor) the seventh day, and Deuteronomy says that we should “Remember” (Zachor). If we were to look closely at the prayer on Friday night, “Lecha Dodi” we would see it mentions a Midrash that explains that God pronounced on Sinai only one commandment but spoke “Shamor” and “Zachor” at the same moment. Humans could not speak like that but God can and did. In the final commandment there is also a slight difference in the law concerning coveting. In Exodus the commandment states that we cannot covet our neighbor’s house, wife, male or female slave, or anything that is your neighbors. In Deuteronomy, the commandment reads, “do not covet your neighbor’s wife, crave his house, field, male or female slave, ox, ass or anything that is your neighbor’s.” It is the additional word “crave” that makes this prohibition separate from the injunction of coveting.
But the two laws are not really that separate. Craving takes place in your heart, and coveting takes place out in the real world. Craving leads to coveting. When it does, one is guilty of two sins.
We have to understand that neither of these laws can be easily explained in American law. In American law, you have to do something wrong to violate a prohibition. Thinking about something is not illegal until you actually do an illegal act. Americans sort of live by the creed that if you want something badly enough, you can work for it and get it through your own efforts. American advertising tells us that we can have anything we want. It is very unusual to want what another person has and not be able to get something similar or exactly the same without having to resort to nagging that person to give it up. (The possible exception here could be your neighbor’s wife. You can chase after any single woman [or man] who may have a similar physical appearance or be in a similar financial situation, but you cannot covet the person married to your neighbor.)
The war on Terror has led our country to go after those who are planning a terrorist attack before they can actually execute the plan. While it is difficult to prosecute someone for talking or acting like a terrorist, to defend our country, we have to stop the terror before it can begin. Similarly, the Secret Service goes after any person who makes any kind of a threat against the President or any other leader of this country. One does not have to carry out that threat to get the attention of the Secret Service. These two examples are the exceptions to the rule. In most cases, just wanting something in your heart does not trigger any attention by the civil authorities because the police can’t arrest people for what they think. I am not sure that Jewish Law could punish a person who only commits the sin of “craving” but if that person carried out the idea and performed an act of coveting, then Jewish Law would punish for both sins, since one sin implies the other.
We should all remember to pay less attention to what our neighbor has that we lack and be thankful for what we already have. That is an attitude that will keep us far from sin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)