Prohibiting
Aggression against Parents
Dedicated to the Memory of David Glick, Z"L
R. Yaakov
Bieler
Parashat
Mishpatim, 5766
Not only are positive Commandments
prominently stated in the Bible with regard to how a child is expected to treat
his/her parents,
Shemot 20:11; Devarim 5:15[1]
Honor your father and your
mother in order
that your days be lengthened on the land that the Lord your God Gives to
you.
VaYikra
19:3[2]
Every
person, his mother and his father you shall fear…I am the Lord your
God.
but
failure to treat parents with respect by avoiding physically assaulting them, is
punished extraordinarily harshly.
Shemot
21:15
One
who strikes his father or mother will surely
die.
Although
Kiddushin 31b defines the manner in which the statement concerning the respect
due parents in the Ten Commandments is to be fulfilled:
Kiddushin
31b
The
Rabbis taught: …What is “honoring”?
...Providing
food, providing drink, helping to get dressed, covering, assisting in bringing
in and going out.
it
could also be contended that Shemot
Sanhedrin
86a
The
Rabbis taught: (Shemot
Are
you insisting that the verse is prohibiting kidnapping, or perhaps it is only
referring to the stealing of property?
You
should say: Go and learn using the 13 hermeneutic principles[4]
by which the Tora is interpreted. “Something learned from its context”—What is
the Tora discussing? Capital offenses. So too this is a capital
offense.
One
biblical commentator clarifies the Talmud’s words in Sanhedrin in terms of more
specific examples:
RaShI
on Shemot 20:12
“Do
not steal”—the verse is dealing with kidnapping. (VaYikra 19:11) “Do not steal,
do not deny (the truth in a court of law), do not tell falsehoods, one person
against another”—this is stealing money.
Or
is this one (Shemot
You
should say, “Something learned from its context”. Just as (in two of the other
Ten Commandments) (Shemot 20:12; Devarim 5:16) “Do not murder”, (Shemot 20:12;
Devarim 5:16)“Do not commit adultery” matters that subject to the death penalty
are being prohibited, so too “Do not steal” is a matter that is subject to the
death penalty (i.e., kidnapping, as opposed to monetary
thievery).
Consequently,
by extension,[5]
regarding the prohibitions of the first five of the Ten Commandments, not only
is it obvious that violations of idolatry and Shabbat are capital offenses, but,
by inference, at least certain aspects of active failure to demonstrate respect
for parents can also lead to the death penalty.
A
textual proof that one is liable to be executed for only striking rather than
actually murdering a parent, is derived from the contents of Parshat
Mishpatim. Only a few verses before
the injunction against physically attacking parents is stated, a general
prohibition is introduced regarding striking human beings regardless of any
relationship between the victim and attacker.
Shemot
21:12
One
who hits another person and (the victim) dies, he (the
perpetrator) will surely die.
The
fact that the word “VaMeit” (and dies) is included in verse 12, but omitted in
verse 21:15 where striking parents is discussed, supports the establishment of a
lesser threshold, i.e., mere bruising as opposed to inflicting death,[6]
for meting out the death penalty as a result of aggressive acts directed against
parents. Whereas execution for murdering another person is fully in accordance
with the logical principle of “Mida KeNeged Mida” (an act should be responded to
in kind, in this case, one who inappropriately[7]
takes a life deserves to lose his own), it could be maintained that killing a
person for doing no more than striking his/her parent constitutes inordinate and
gratuitous punishment. The contrast
between the manner in which the cases of striking people in general as opposed
to striking one’s parents are adjudged emphasizes how parents are not to be
approached as ordinary human beings, but as “a cut above”.[8]
Nevertheless,
the Tora does not confine itself to discouraging[9]
physical attacks against parents; even when one “only” verbally abuses his/her
parent by pronouncing a curse against him/her, the action is categorized as a
heinous offense punishable by death.
Shemot
21: 17
One
who curses his father or mother will surely
die.
VaYikra
20:9
Because
every person who curses his father or his mother will surely
die. His father and his mother he cursed. His blood is upon
himself (i.e. the Tora will not protect his life since his actions have made
his life forfeit).
Devarim
27:16
Cursed
is
the one who belittles/curses his father and his
mother…
Furthermore,
by comparing the exact form of the death penalty called for in the instances of
striking (“Chenek”—strangulation) as opposed to cursing parents
(“Sekila”—stoning), the conclusion is drawn by Rabbinic commentators in
Sanhedrin 50b[10]
that the act of cursing a parent is a graver infraction than a
child’s physically striking a parent.
Bi’ur
HaGRA contrasts the impact of the two actions in order to account for the
difference in punishment.
Bi’ur
HaGrA on Shemot 21:15
A
physical blow affects the body, whereas a curse impacts the soul.
The
result of a physical blow is subject to healing, but there is no healing from a
curse.[11]
RaMBaN
presents two rationales for the increased severity of the punishment for cursing
one’s parents based upon the sin’s frequency as well as a theological aspect[12]
of this sin.
RaMBaN
on Shemot 21:15
…And
there is a stricter consequence with respect to the death of the curser compared
to that of the striker, because:
a) the sin of cursing is more ubiquitous,
because a fool, when he becomes angered, loses control and curses his king, his
father and his mother constantly throughout the day; concerning a sin, the more
frequently it occurs, the more severe the consequence must be in order to try to
prevent it from recurring,
or b) since the act of cursing is a much
greater sin, because it involves the invoking of the Name of God (Shavuot 36),[13]
it is necessary to punish the perpetrator for his sin against his parents since
he utilized the Name of God to engage in sin and iniquity.
R.
Yonatan Eibeshitz (quoted in Tallelai Orot, ed. Yissachar Dov Rubin, Benai
Berak, 5753, p. 23) expands on the second of the RaMBaN’s
hypotheses.
R.
Yonatan Eibeshitz on Shemot 21:15
An
individual who strikes his/her parents thinks that the world is devoid of
accountability. God does not Supervise His World. There is no law and there is
no Judge. This then becomes an action on the part of someone who essentially
denies God’s Existence.
But
one who curses is even worse, since per force s/he knows that God Supervises His
World since he invokes God’s Name as part of his curse, and bids Him to Assist
the curser in the intended evil coming to pass. Consequently, such a sin is
worse.
But
the most intriguing interpretation that has considerable homiletic implications
is R. Saadia Gaon’s comments, quoted by RaMBaN.
And
R. Sa’adia said: The Tora inserts the matter of kidnapping between the verses
dealing with striking and cursing parents,
(Shemot
21:15-17
One
who strikes his father or mother will surely die.
One
who steals another person and sells him,
and it is found in his hand, he will surely die.
One
who curses his father or mother will surely die.)
because
usually those who are kidnapped are very young, and they will grow up in a
different place (other from their true parents’ home), and they will not
recognize their parents, and consequently will come to strike them and curse
them. Therefore it is appropriate to punish the individual who originally
kidnapped them with the same degree of severity as the strikers and cursers
themselves, since he was the one who brought this sin upon his victims.
While
the scenario of an individual literally brought up by others not feeling any
particular respect for his biological forbearers is understandable, the converse
is also implied, i.e., that even if a child is brought up in his familial home,
if he has become so alienated from those who have raised him that he is capable
of striking or cursing his parents, it is as if he is a stranger to them, as if
he has grown up somewhere else. This would appear to be the assumption that lies
at the heart of the theme of the “Stubborn and Rebellious
Son”:
Devarim
21:18-21
If
a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his
father or the voice of his mother, and that when they have chastened him, will
not listen to them, then shall his father and mother lay hold of him, and bring
him out to the elders of the city and to the gate of his place. And they shall
say to the elders of his city, “This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will
not obey our voice. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” And all the men of his city
will stone him with stones, that he die. And so you will put evil away from
among you. And all
Although
Sanhedrin 71a states that either there never was an actual case of a “Ben Sorer
U’Moreh” or perhaps there was only one, nevertheless, the theoretical concept
presented by the Bible that parents might be obligated to play a role in the
execution of their biological progeny who ordinarily constitute their future and
allow them to feel that they will continue to live at least vicariously via
their children, once their own lives come to an end, is chilling. Once again, if
the child who is ready to strike or curse his parents is deemed alien and
culpable of the death penalty, the same is posited regarding a child who
repeatedly steals food and drink from his parents and pays no attention to their
rebukes.
A
Midrash asserts the interrelationship between not only each of the Ten
Commandments and the rest of the Tora, but between the Ten Commandments
themselves.
Eliyahu
Rabba, Chapt. 24
“Honor
your father and mother”; “Do not murder”.
Why
is one juxtaposed next to the other?
But
it comes to teach that if a person has a great deal of food in his home, and he
does not share it with his parents when they are older, it is as if he has
murdered before HaShem. For this reason the Tora states, “Honor your father and
mother”; “Do not murder”.
R.
Eliyahu Bar Shaul, Mitzva VaLev, Vol. 1, pp. 29-30.
An
individual who does not support his parents, it is as if they are not thought of
by him as his parents, and he is completely indifferent to the lot of their
lives. Therefore psychologically he has “murdered” them. He has “murdered” his
parents in terms of their status as his parents. Since their existence and their
needs do not arouse within him any sort of natural feeling, it implies that
within his heart he has a negative attitude to their very existence. A deep
investigation into the inner recesses of this insensitive and difficult
individual reveals a murderous attitude, the cruelty of the actual spiller of
blood.
(Similarly
concerning the Commandment, “Do not commit adultery”:) A person who does not
respect his parents, he does not view and value his parents as a couple from
Heaven that built a family in accordance with the holy ideal of the simultaneous
“Mitzva” and “Beracha”, “Peru U’Revu” (Be fruitful and multiply). But rather he
sees them as two representatives of opposite genders who became intimate
randomly, were blindly engaged in a biological activity, and were swept away by
the drunkenness of their emotions and lustful boredom. This was a coincidental
moment that brought this individual into the world. And it is possible that
originally, the news of the coming of this child was not greeted joyfully, and
perhaps they viewed him as an unwanted guest that would impose limitations upon
their freedom…
Consequently,
respecting one’s parents says not only something about how a child views them,
but also how he regards himself, in effect making the striking or cursing of a
parent also a blow rendered against oneself.
Shabbat
Shalom, and may we have pleasure from the children that we are fortunate enough
to be able to raise, as well as showing our proper appreciation for those who
raised us.
[1] Devarim
Honor your father and your mother
as the Lord your God has Commanded you, in order that you will lengthen
your days and in order that He will Be good to you on the land that the
Lord your God Gives to you.
However these differences appear to
be historical—the Commandment has been given at some previous point (see
Sanhedrin 56b commenting on Shemot
[2] It is possible to include within
the construct of respecting one’s parents sexual prohibitions associated with
parents, VaYikra 18:7-8. However, because there is a general rubric of
prohibited relations associated with close relatives, it is not definitive to
insist that these two specific prohibitions are particular functions of the
respect due to parents.
[3] The capital offense of cursing
parents, discussed subsequently in the essay, could also be implied in this
Commandment.
[4] The 13 hermeneutic principles of R.
Yishmael by which the verses of the Tora are explicated and Jewish law is
derived, are included as part of the daily morning liturgy leading up to
“Pesukei D’Zimra” (the verses of praise). Prayer books with translations, such
as ArtScroll and Birnbaum, typically not only translate these principles, but
also provide examples of how they are applied. The Birnbaum Siddur illustrates the principle of
“Something learned from its context” as follows:
The noun “Tinshamet” occurs in
Leviticus 11:18 among the unclean birds, and again (v. 30) among the reptiles.
Hence, it becomes certain that “Tinshamet” is the name of a certain bird as well
as of a certain reptile.
In Deuteronomy 19:6, with regard to
the cities of refuge where the manslayer is to flee, we read, “So that the
avenger of blood may not pursue the manslayer…and slay him, and he is not
deserving of death.” That the last clause refers to the slayer, and not to the
blood avenger is made clear by the subsequent clause: “inasmuch as he hated him
not in time past.”
(ArtScroll’s example of this
principle is the case being discussed in this essay of the juxtaposition of “Do
not steal” with “Do not murder” and “Do not commit
adultery.)
[5] It could be maintained that just
because “Do not murder” and “Do not commit adultery”, which immediately precede
“Do not steal” are capital offenses, does not per force extend such an extreme
punishment to all of the other Ten Commandments. Even though prohibitions
against making and worshiping idols (BaMidbar
a) falsely testifying against
another individual
(although Devarim 19:19 could serve
as the basis for a particular set of plotting witnesses to incur the death
penalty—if they accused another of a crime punishable by death, and it turns out
that they could not have been in a position to have observed the accused’s
crime—nevertheless this is only a single case out of many instances in which
witnesses could possibly testify falsely, and therefore would appear not to be
the type of paradigm for which we are searching),
and b)
coveting what belongs to another
(were we to take RaMBaN’s assertion
that violating the prohibition against coveting is the root evil that leads to
many, if not all, other transgressions—
RaMBaN on Shemot
21:1
”And these are the laws” [the
contents of Parshat Mishpatim] correspond to “You shall not covet” [i.e., these
laws are intended to prevent people from being tempted to act as a result of
their coveting], because if a person does not know the law regarding the house
or the field, and other monetary issues, he will think that these automatically
belong to him and he will lust after them and take them for himself. Therefore
HaShem Said: [Shemot 21:1] “You will place before them”, just laws they should
enact among themselves, and they therefore will not lust after that which is not
theirs based upon the law.”
—we could imagine a scenario where
coveting could lead one to violate another Commandment whose punishment is
death; however the act of coveting itself precisely because it does not
inherently entail any action as a result of such a feeling, would be categorized
as a “Lav SheEin Bo Ma’aseh” (a prohibition whose violation does not involve an
action) and therefore would not be subject to this-worldly punishment),
would similarly be punished.
Another reason to distinguish the
section in the Ten Commandments regarding parents from the prohibitions against
murder, sexual impropriety and stealing is that whereas the latter Mitzvot are
“Lo Ta’aseh’s” (negative prohibitions), respecting parents is a “Mitzvat Aseh”
(a positive Commandment). There are no other cases of Commandments in the Tora
where for the failure to fulfill a positive Commandment, the death penalty is
incurred. Even though the Talmudic rule “Michlal Hein Ata Shomeah Lav” (from the
positive one infers the negative, in this instance from the positive directive
to respect parents, one can conclude that disrespecting them by means of
striking or cursing them is not acceptable), nevertheless it is certainly not
readily apparent that the Ten Commandments are specifically prohibiting such
actions.
Finally, a Rabbinic tradition that
sees the Ten Commandments not as specific injunctions and obligations, but
rather major categories within which the entire corpus of Jewish law is
represented, would support the contention that not striking or cursing parents
are implicit in the obligation to respect them:
Yerushalmi Shekalim 6:1; Sota
8:3
Chanania son of my brother R.
Yehoshua says: Between each of the Commandments were written upon the Tablets
all of the details and letters of the Tora, as it is written, (Shir HaShirim
(Korban HaEida—He interprets the
verse in the following manner: His Hands, these are the Tablets, for these are the Works of the Hands of the
Holy One, Blessed be He, that were created “Bein HaShemashot” [at sunset, as in
Pirkei Avot 5:8] waves of gold, i.e., they resemble waves of gold [references
the golden light at sunset, that is reminiscent of the sea], these are the words
of Tora that are more precious than gold, filled with waves like those at
Tarshish [an ancient region mentioned in the Bible and believed to be on the
southern coast of Spain] where there are many waves)
R. Shimon ben Lakish, when he would
come to this verse, he would say: Beautifully has Chanania son of my brother R.
Yehoshua taught me. Just like this sea, between the great waves, there are
smaller waves; similarly between each of the Ten Commandments were the details
and letters of all the Commandments.
Consequently, even if one would
insist that the letter of the law regarding not striking and not cursing parents
was not explicitly stated within the Ten Commandments themselves, they were
certainly present in spirit.
[6] A blow that leaves no mark, which
is certainly not in accordance with the spirit of honoring and fearing one’s
parents, is not considered a violation of the capital offense where at least
some bruising has to be inflicted. The source for this postulate is Sifra,
Parshat Emor, Section 14:
…You might think that striking a
parent without creating a wound would be culpable? The Tora comes to teach a
connection (by means of placing two ostensibly different matters within a single
verse) between striking an animal and striking a person—(VaYikra 24:21) “One who
strikes an animal will pay and one who strikes a human being will die.” Just as
in the situation of striking an animal, there is no culpability until a wound is
created, so too in the matter of striking a person, until a wound is created.
Perhaps the act of striking is not
considered a “Ma’aseh” (an objective action that renders the individual open to
monetary or physical punishment) until some sort of impression is left after the
action’s completion. While striking another individual or living being might be
reprehensible in virtually all contexts except in self-defense, such an act
becomes actionable only when some sort of objective consequence remains as a
result of the action. And if this is the case, why cursing, where no apparent
objection impression is left following the infraction, is nevertheless also
considered a capital transgression, is not readily
apparent.
[7] Not all instances of killing
another person are considered transgressions. E.g., when a person in the course
of protecting himself from attack kills the attacker, he is not considered a
murderer. A physician who tries his best without negligence to save someone in
need of medical care, and fails to do so is similarly not held accountable for
the result of his/her actions.
[8] The special status of parents is
symbolically represented by where the Commandment to respect parents appears
within the context of the Ten Commandments (Shemot 20:2-13; Devarim 5:6-17). The
well-known dichotomy that is posited between the first 5 Commandments and the
latter 5, i.e., that the former deal with responsibilities between man and God,
while those that follow focus upon man and man relationships, squarely
disassociates parents from the rest of humanity, and calls upon their progeny to
view them as possessing status somewhere between man and God. Due to our belief
in God’s Incorporeality, there cannot be a parallel Commandment prohibiting
“striking God”, we do note that blasphemy, included even in the Noachide Code,
corresponds quite neatly to the prohibition against cursing parents. As for
cursing other people, while the prohibition against taking God’s Name in vein
would apply to all such verbal outbursts, there is no explicit Tora prohibition
against cursing another human being.
[9] In light of the Talmud’s contention
that execution was rarely carried out—
Makkot 7a
If a court executed someone once in
7, or there are those who say 70, years, it was considered a destructive
court.
it could be maintained that the
Tora’s numerous applications of the death penalty were intended to serve more as
deterrents, than punishments to be actually carried
out.
[10]
Sanhedrin 50b
Stoning is more severe than
strangulation, being the penalty of a blasphemer (VaYikra 24:14-16) and an
idolater (Devarim 17:2-5).
On the contrary, isn’t
strangulation more severe, since it is the penalty of one who strikes his mother
or father, the gravity of whose offense lies in the fact that their honor is
compared to the Honor due to HaShem (Shemot 20:12; Mishlei 3:9)?
Since the Divine Law excluded an
engaged woman convicted of adultery, who is the daughter of an Israelite (in
contrast to the daughter of a Kohen, who is treated more severely, as in VaYikra
21:9) from the penalty of a married woman who is the daughter of an Israelite,
changing it from strangling to stoning (the assumption of the Tora is that if
the woman is only engaged, then she is still living in her familial home, and
her indiscretion therefore reflects badly not only upon herself and her
husband-to-be, but also upon her parents) it follows that stoning is deemed more
severe.
[11] These dichotomies are not unique to
parents and could be applied to striking or cursing anyone. However, due to the
articulated commandments to respect and fear one’s parents, striking and cursing
them take on additional sinful implications, i.e., you have not only
disrespected another individual who is in God’s Image, but you have done so
vis-à-vis people whom the Tora specifically Commands you to treat most
respectfully.
[12] While all law could be understood
to reflect certain philosophies regarding the nature of property, human beings,
integrity, etc., there are classical examples within Jewish law that make such a
point quite pointedly. One example relates to the difference between the
punishment for, and therefore the intrinsic nature of a “Ganav” (a stealthy
thief) as opposed to a “Gazlan” (a brazen thief.)
Mechilta D’RaShBI, Parshat
Mishpatim, Masechet D’Nezikin,#15
The “Ganav” pays double (the value
of what he has taken), while the “Gazlan” does not (but is required to do no
more than return what he had illicitly taken). Why did the Tora see fit to be
stricter regarding the “Ganav” as opposed to the “Gazlan”? R. Yochanan ben Zakai
says: The “Gazlan” equated the honor of the servant (the human owner) to his
master (HaShem, i.e., this thief does not care about what anyone in this world
or in Heaven, thinks and is therefore irreverently consistent), while the
“Ganav” gives more honor to the servant than to the master (i.e., by his
stealthiness, he appears to only care about not being caught by human
authorities, while ignoring the fact that there will be Heavenly Accountability
for his deeds), as it were. The “Ganav” acts as if the Eye of Heaven does not
See, and the Ear does not Hear…
Moshe Greenberg, in “Some
Postulates Concerning Jewish Criminal Law” (appearing in The Jewish Expression,
ed. Judah Goldin, Bantam Books, New York, 1970, pp. 29-33), offers an
interesting explanation regarding the apparent redundancy in Parshat Mishpatim
with respect to the killing of a human being by an ox that has a track record of
violence. The essayist questions why Shemot
[13] Shavuot 36a
Mishna: …He who curses his mother or
father by any of them (“Alef Daled”; Shakai; “Tzeva’kot”; the Merciful and
Gracious One”; the Long Suffering One”; the One Abounding in Kindness”; by any
of the substitutes for the Name) he is liable. This is the opinion of R. Meir.
But the Scholars exempt him (if he uses any of the substitutes, and he is liable
only if he uses the Tetragrammaton, God, Lord, Almighty,
Hosts)…
Gemora: Who are the Scholars? R. Menachem
ben Yosi, for we learned: R. Menachem ben Yosi said, “(VaYikra 24:16) ‘When he
blasphemes the Name, he shall be put to death’. Why is it said, ‘Name’? (In
light of the first part of the verse in which it had already been stated that
the blasphemy being discussed involved invoking God’s Name, why repeat this at
the end of the verse?) It teaches us that he who curses his father or mother is
not liable unless he curses them by the Name (rather than a substitute
name).”