THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT. Fidelity, and modern society (Part 1).

In the third part of the Shema Israel we read a basic indication of the moral standards that the Tora demands of a Jewish person. VELO TATURU AHARE LEBABKHEM … This pasuq tells us that we should not be carried away by our instincts. And that these passions, are fed from what we see with our eyes. What happens around us, what we see, affects us and our thoughts and values, whether or not we are aware of it.

This is also the Biblical source from which the sexual code of conduct of Jewish men and women is learned. This code has as its main objective to teach us that in Judaism sexuality is confined “exclusively” to intimacy between husband and wife.

This simple but fundamental idea implies that the interaction between men and women, who are not spouses, should not go over the limits of cordiality. This should be reflected, for example, in the way a Jewish man speaks and looks at a woman. A Jewish man should not talk or behave sensually to any woman other than his wife. Or, in the way a Jewish woman dresses and presents herself when she is away from home. A Jewish woman should reserve her physical “appeal” to her husband.

This simple concept (comprehensive monogamy?) is NOT very friendly to modern society, where sexuality has become a commercial product through advertising, pornography, media, etc. These are all “industries” whose primary purpose is to make money. They sell by appealing to one of man’s most basic and powerful instincts. And this generalized exploitation of sexuality-for-profit has radically redefined the culture of the modern Gentile society, in a way that seems irreversible. Sex is no longer a “private” issue between husband and wife. It became a banal product, which, or through which, they sells more and better.

The industrialization of sex leaves psychological and emotional sequels. Girls, for example, from a young age are directly or indirectly indoctrinated to dress to direct the man’s eyes more towards her body than toward her eyes. Women lost the most in this sexual revolution, since, unfortunately, have been the victims of an “objectification” of their person.
Men also lost a lot. Young men are constantly bombarded with sensual images, pornography, and over-stimulation. In this context so hostile to the Jewish mores, values, and codes, how could Jewish young men and women associate the sexual with purity, with holiness, with the imitation of the Divine or at least with intimacy? It is very difficult to reach this level of understanding when one lives in a society where sexuality might not longer be even associated with love.

One of the most difficult challenges that the Jewish people face today is how to preserve our Jewish codes of conduct in a society with completely different values. This is a very profound subject that worries not only Rabbis and Jewish educators, but also fathers and mothers of Am Israel.

(To be continued, BH,  Monday)

 



THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT: Yihud, protecting conjugal fidelity

Yesterday we wrote about the seventh commandment: “You shall not commit adultery” and we explained how the Mitsva of Taharat haMishpaha helps to maintain and strengthen the attraction between husband and wife.
Today we will begin to see another aspect of the Jewish attitude towards sexuality. There are Jewish laws and codes of conduct that have as one of their fundamental objectives to safeguard marital fidelity. One of these important rules is called “Yihud”, or seclusion.
We read in the book of Shemuel II, chapter 13, about a young man named Amnon, son of King David. Amnon was obsessed with Tamar, also the daughter of David, but from a different mother. Amnon pretended to be ill, he locked himself in his room and asked his father David to ask Tamar to prepare for him something to eat. When Tamar arrived, Amnon demanded everyone to leave his room and asked Tamar to feed him. When Tamar arrived, Amnon, abused her. This affected King David, who felt partly responsible for not having avoided this tragedy. Together with his Court of Justice (דוד המלך ובית דינו) he established, or according to most opinions, “extended” this law of Yihud (גזרו על פנויה, let us clarify that the Jewish Courts of Justice have the right to establish new regulations, as any the Supreme Court in the modern world countries).
The law of Yihud states that a Jewish man should not be alone in a locked room with a woman other than his wife (or his mother, or daughter, etc.).
This rule belongs to the category of gedarim or siyaguim, that is, fences or Halakhic barriers, to prevent the risk of “falling” into a greater prohibition.
A “siyag” is what forest ranger establishes, erecting a fence a few steps before the cliff so that those who visit the forest do not get too close to the cliff, and by distraction or because of the attractiveness of the landscape, they come to close and fall.
There are many examples of this type of behavioral fences in modern society. A person who suffers from alcohol addiction and wants to be rehabilitated is advised not to frequent bars or parties where people drink or go out with friends who drink alcohol. All these additional restrictions and “fences” are necessary for those who want to recover from their addiction, to protect themselves from themselves, and from a temptation that can become irresistible. It is much easier to resist entering a bar than to resist drinking alcohol, once you have a drink in your hand.

The Rabbis of the Talmud expressed that the sexual instinct is so powerful that one should not rely only on his common sense and decency (אין אטוטרוסוס לעריות). But there must be additional norms, fences, in order to avoid facing a potentially destructive scenario. And while loyalty is fundamentally a matter of values and mores, if a man strictly respects the laws of Yihud, the possibility of committing adultery, especially without premeditation, would drastically diminish. Yihud’s law states that a man and a woman should avoid seclusion or remain alone in a room or office that is locked or inaccessible. However, the presence of other people in that scene, or even the fact that the room or office where they are, is accessible from the outside, significantly avoids or diminishes the possibility of any kind of temptation, harassment or sexual abuse.

The concept of Yihud is today, I believe, better known and more accepted than ever in the non-Jewish society as well.
At US airports, if someone passing security checks carries something unusual underneath his or her clothes, he will have to be escorted to a closed office, where he will be ordered to take off his clothes. And all that time, from the moment one enters until he leaves, he will be always accompanied not by one, but by “two” officers of his or her same gender. This simple rule reduces to the minimum the possibility that something inappropriate might happen. It is as if the concept of Yihud, far from out of fashion, is increasingly better understood and applied to avoid potentially improper situations.
I remember a few years ago I participated in a conference of rabbis organized by the Orthodox Union (OU), and in one of the lectures, a prestigious lawyer recommended to the rabbis that whenever we see a community member for counseling, etc. we should let the door of our office semi-open, or at least unlocked, as a general code of behavior. He told us that in the United States, there is a great awareness on this subject. And that many Jewish and non-Jewish professionals, doctors, dentists, psychologists have established similar rules in their offices, avoiding being alone with a patient or client in a closed room, to prevent potential inappropriate situations, cases or allegations of sexual abuse.
An American rabbi had an audience with the previous Pope, Benedict. It was at a time when the Boston Church had being sued for hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse, pedophilia, and so on. This rabbi suggested to the Pope that the church adopt the Jewish law of Yihud, and establish it as a Church’s policy: that no minister or priest can meet or be left alone with a student, a girl or a child, in a locked office. And that this simple rule would minimize the problems that had caused so much damage to hundreds or thousands of children.I do not know what happened in the end, and if the Pope followed or did not follow this advice, but I could appreciate, once again, the infinite wisdom of our Tora and our Sages that thousands of years ago established laws that today, the rest of the world, accepts, values and imitate.
(To be continued…)


THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT: How to Renew Passion in Your Marriage

תניא, היה רבי מאיר אומר מפני מה אמרה תורה נדה לשבעה? מפני שרגיל בה וקץ בה אמרה תורה תהא טמאה שבעה ימים כדי שתהא חביבה על בעלה כשעת כניסתה לחופה. נדה ל”א, ע”א

Yesterday, we began to explain the Seventh Commandment: “You shall not commit adultery.” The Tora teaches us that in order to reinforce fidelity, it is not enough to “keep this commandment in mind”. Our commitment to conjugal fidelity is strengthened by a particular attitude towards sexuality. First, knowing the nature of sexuality in marriage. Second, by having the appropriate behavior toward the people of the opposite sex. And thirdly, by exercising control over our thoughts and our eyes. B’H, we will talk about each of these three points in the next few days.

Let’s start from the beginning. The nature of sexuality in marriage.

One of the most important Mitsvot in the Jewish family is Taharat haMishpaha (or Nidda), which is usually translated by “family purity.” In Jewish marriage, intimate relationships are limited for about 12 days a month. The excluded days are related to the woman’s cycle and seven additional days. When the Sages of the Talmud explained the logic of this regulation, they said that after these days without physical contact, husband and wife are intimately reunited and they “feel the same [passion] as they felt on their wedding night.” In other words, this period of separation, far from affecting negatively sexual desire, renews and increases it. Avoiding falling into one of the greatest problems of modern marriage: sexual boredom.
This “boredom” has to do with the theoretically unlimited potentiality of sexual intimacy, and it is part of the “nature” of a marriage where sexuality is not regulated. The “sexual routine” syndrome is one of the factors that most influence the search for novelty, which can lead to adultery. By its very nature, the peak of sexual attraction occurs near marriage. But over the years (and I am NOT referring now to an age problem), physical attraction to one’s wife does not increase but almost inevitably diminishes. Sexual intimacy in marriage begins to become less intense, monotonous and too predictable. Passion progressively decreases. This phenomenon is very well known to psychologists and sexologists.

Close to 2000 years ago, Ribbí Meir explained that during the days of physical separation in a Jewish couple, the husband begins to “miss” his wife, and his physical attraction towards her grows more and more. As the day of the Mikve (the ritual immersion that concludes the days without sexual intimacy) approaches, his passion is renewed. And when his wife arrives from the Mikve, Ribbí Meir asserts that husband and wife, even years after their marriage, will be reunited with the same passion that they felt for each other on their wedding night. This cycle, which is repeated every month (except when the woman is pregnant) avoids the sexual routine and renews the sexula desire in marriage.

Let’s understand it better (from a man’s perspective). Imagine a young Jewish husband who is in his room alone with his wife whom he loves and to whom he is attracted. And without nothing more than this abstract Mitsva of Taharat haMishapaha (a delicate “Hedge of roses”, as rabbi Norman Lamm calls it) the young couple is able to say to themselves “Not now”. Would the husband’s desire for his own wife diminish or increase? His wife, as Ribbí Meir explains, becomes now the exclusive “object” of his desire, since what it is forbidden is more attractive. During those days of separation from the woman he loves, the husband can not even think of another woman, other than his own wife. Moreover, in these circumstances and during these days the young Jewish man goes through an excellent training in his ability to control his sexuality. Which is critical not to fall into a fatal attraction that might lead to adultery.
Lastly, this period of physical separation also promotes a very profound level of communication between husband and wife. In those days without sexual activity, and from the beginning of their marriage, the couple learns to communicate with affection but on a plane that we could well call “platonic.” In Judaism, the highest level a couple should aspire to is the level of “friendship” (re’ut), which will strengthen their marriage for the rest of their lives. Even in those years when hormonal passion declines (in modern society, more and more couples get divorced after 50 . According to the Huffington Post, in 2010 in the US, 1 in 4 couples who divorced belonged to this Group, see ). Contrary to biological sexual desire, friendship between husband and wife, supposed to grow over the years, and it is the greatest guarantee of fidelity and solidity in a marriage. This deep level of closeness in which your wife is also your best friend develops and grows in those days without sexual intimacy.

(To be continued)


THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT: You shall not commit adultery

לא תנאף

Two months ago, before the start of the month of Elul, we began to study the Ten Commandments (see this ), and we got to the Sixth: “You shall not murder”. Today we will continue with the seventh commandment: “You shall not commit adultery”, i.e., the prohibition of having intimate relations with any other person other than your spouse.

There is much to talk about this commandment, so B’H we will spend more than one email on it.

Let us clarify first that the Jewish view of sexuality, unlike other religions, is extremely positive. Our Sages explained that our behavior, in general, should lead us to be like God. He is compassionate, fair and generous, so we must also be compassionate, fair, generous, etc. This “imitation of God” reaches its maximum level when husband and wife become “creators” of a new life. Procreation allows us, more than any other act, to resemble HaShem.

In addition, sexuality has to do with reaching our physical and emotional fulfillment as individuals. When the Tora describes sexuality for the first time it says: “And man … will unite with his wife (this is a euphemism for sexual intimacy) and become one flesh (Genesis 2:24).” Hence a man or a woman are seen in Judaism as half a human being (Pelag Gufa). An individual reaches his or her fullness only when marrying. And in the sexual act, this fullness reaches its peak.

It is also very interesting to note that the first time the Tora describes the sexual act it says, “And Adam KNEW Eve his wife” (Gen. 4: 1). This word “knew” associated with sex, does not function here as a euphemism. It might be said that for Judaism the most important sexual organ is the brain. “Knowing” the other person, sharing the same ideals, values, objectives it is a sine qua non prerequisite for sexual intimacy. That is, there must be a common mental and spiritual goal shared between man and woman, and a mutual and formal commitment of both parties to create and maintain a family. This, of course, is marriage.

Because of its importance and its creative powers sexuality needs to be regulated. This Shabbat we read in the Tora the portion of Noah and the flood. Sexual violence and sexual abuse were the first symptoms of the moral degradation of the generation of the flood. For those individuals, sex was no longer an act that brings humans closer to the Divine. And it no longer had to do with love or the sacred. For that generation sexuality consisted in the unscrupulous search for satisfying a hormonal instinct, like animals.

Sexuality is a sacred act, but it is also vulnerable and corruptible. Here is a simple illustration to better understand this concept. Wine is a very important element in Jewish liturgy. We used wine to perform the Qiddush (sanctifying the Shabbat),  the ceremony of marriage (sanctifying our commitment to our spouse) in a Berit Mila, in the Pesah Seder, etc. In all these occasions wine is associated with holiness or sanctification, joy, and celebration. But when we abuse wine, or when alcohol is overused in other frameworks, the association of wine with holiness (qedusha) disappears. And alcohol can lead to profanity, and immorality and destruction. We read this Shabbat how alcohol excess led Noah to lose his scruples, his conscience, and his decency.

The same happens with sexuality (multiplied by 100!). Sexuality has its proper context: marriage. Within marriage, sexuality is an act of holiness, which allows us to imitate the Creator, and brings us closer than any other act to the person we love the most.

But in the case of adultery, outside of marriage, sex is destructive (in the modern world, in most cases of divorce, infidelity plays a vital role and usually represents the last red line that has been crossed). Cheating makes us lose our conscience, our decency, and our family. It drives us away, more than any other act, from HaShem and from the ones we love the most.

(To be continued)


SIXTH COMMANDMENT: You shall not murder and organ donation

We are finishing today exploring the Sixth Commandment, through examples which illustrate the extent and relevance of this commandant in our days, beyond the actual act of murder.
We will analyze today, very briefly a very complex subject: organ donation.  There are two types of organ donation: When the organs are taken from 1. living donors  and when they are taken from 2. cadaveric donors.
LIVING DONORS
This category includes for example, kidney donation; bone marrow and blood donation.

In the past, many rabbis, among them Rabbi Yitzchak Weiss and Rabbi Eliezer Yehuda Waldenberg z'”l, had certain reservations about the permission to donate a kidney, for example, because they thought that although a person can have a normal life with one kidney, the risks involved for the living donor, during and after surgery, were too high and would endanger his life.

In our days, however, donors are carefully screened physically and psychologically, and the surgical and post-surgical risks of complications for the donor have diminished dramatically, thanks to the advances of modern medicine. In one of his rabbinical response Rabbi Obadia Yosef z”l evaluates the objections of Rabbi Weiss and Rabbi Waldenberg, and asserts that since today the risks involved in kidney donation are so low, it is considered a great Mitsva to donate a kidney, fulfilling the commandment of saving a life, (piquah nefesh). Donating a kidney to save a life, he suggests, might be also required by the Tora’s commandment “lo ta’amod al dam re’ekha”, “You shall not stand still while your fellowman bleeds to death (i.e. is dying)” .
CADAVERIC DONORS
The most common form of organ donation and the one that is debated among modern Rabbis, is the cadaveric organ donation, i.e. donating the organs after one’s death. This is the organ donation which is alluded to in the driver licenses where one authorizes or not to remove his or her organs for donation.
With cadaveric donation there is a crucial point, entirely connected with the Sixth Commandment which needs to be defined. That is: the definition of “death”. Let me explain. Some organs, like the heart for example, cannot be transplanted after it stops functioning. The heart must be removed from the body of the donor while it is still beating. Up to the 1970s, this operation was impossible because irreversible cardiopulmonary failure was the only standard for determining death. But, later on, scientists developed ventilators and respirators which would maintain the breathing, avoiding the heart from stopping. In a situation known as ‘irreversible stem brain death’, the brain might completely stop its vital activities, while the patient would still be breathing and his heart still beating. Then, is this patient considered dead because his brain is dead, or is he considered to be still alive, because his heart is still functioning?
There are two opinions on this issue:
1. HEART. The stricter opinion holds that while the heart is beating and the person is breathing, the patient is still alive, even if the breathing is caused by a ventilator and even if his brain is dead. And therefore, taking his heart would be considered murder. The Biblical source for this opinion is that when man was created God insufflated in Adam’s earthly body a “breathing of life” (nishmat hayim), this indicates that life is determined by breathing.
2. BRAIN. The more lenient opinion also holds that breathing is the capital signal of life. But they explain that in order to be considered as a sign of life, breathing has to be autonomous. The Chief rabbinate of Israel issued a ruling a few years ago, indicating that in their opinion irreversible brain-death should be considered death, even if the patient is still attached to a ventilator, and his heart is still active.  They explained that although there seem to us that the patient is still breathing, once brain-stem death is determined, the control-center of autonomous breathing is irreversibly deactivated, and it has lost forever its control over the heart. Life is “breathing”, means, autonomous breathing, i.e. the capacity to breathe. A patient with a dead brain who still breathes is not really ‘breathing’. It is as if a decapitated body would be, somehow, connected to a ventilator: the heart would still beat because the hearth is an autonomous muscle and it could be kept functioning “mechanically” even when it is not controlled anymore by the brain-stem.  But, since there is no possibility for an autonomous breathing anymore, the patient is considered dead and under certain conditions, his organs might be removed for transplant.
ORGAN DONATION CARDS
In Israel (see https://www.adi.gov.il/en/) and in the US (https://www.hods.org/ ) there are two important institutions ADI and HODS which support halakhic organ donation and give the donor the choice to choose between the two above-mentioned opinions. Their websites have very important and serious sources of information on this issue.
Today’s halakha deals with a very delicate issues and it is written  for educational purposes only. For any practical issue,  please, consult with your community rabbi. 

 



SIXTH COMMANDMENT: Abortion and genetic diseases

We continue to analyze the Sixth Commandment and its application in complex medical situations. Yesterday we explained that the Talmud discusses and allows under certain conditions therapeutic abortion, i.e., when the mother’s life is in danger.

Now, except for medical reasons, abortion is strictly forbidden by Jewish law. However, Jewish law does not consider abortion as murder, i.e., a crime that would have deserved the death penalty in the days when the Jews courts applied execution. The Tora explicitly mentions the case in which a person negligently causes a pregnant woman to miscarriage her baby (Shemot 21:22) and does not consider this case as homicide, but considers other penalty for the perpetrator (ונתן בפלילים). In this regard, Judaism is different from other religions. For the Catholic church, for example, life begins at conception and it usually equates abortion with murder.
Abortion is viewed in Jewish law as injuring someone’s body or mutilation (חבלה), not murder (רצח, there are very few rabbis who disagree on this point). Since an individual is considered a legal person only once he or she is born. Before birth, the fetus is considered yerekh immo, a limb of the mother’s body . This consideration has implications, for example, for determining the legality of abortion when a congenital malformation of the fetus is detected. Such cases represent a new challenge in Jewish law. Why? Because obviously, the rabbis of the Talmud or the Middle Ages, Maimonides or Shulchan Aruch, did not address these cases, since only today we have the ability to determine the health of a baby in the mother’s womb. As it happens with other modern scenarios or medical situations such as organ transplant, etc. there is no Talmudic legislation which we can base upon to determine the law. And it is important to know that every time we can not find a direct precedent in Talmudic law, we will generally find more than one rabbinical opinion, which based on Talmudic analogies, not legal precedents, would usually arrive to different or opposite conclusions. The issue just mentioned, abortion in a case of genetic malformation is no exception to this rule. The case of Tay-Sachs, for example, a serious genetic disease that progressively destroys the nervous system and results in the death of the individual at a very young age, has been analyzed by modern rabbinical legislators (= posqim). And while most rabbis are inclined to authorize abortion in this specific case, there is no absolute consensus on the matter. Besides the type of malformation modern rabbis would also take into consideration for example, in what month of pregnancy the problem is detected; the emotional state and mental health of the family; how would the abortion be performed, etc.
From a halakhic point of view, in cases like this, where there are no direct Talmudic precedents and there is no consensus among the rabbinical authorities, each situation must be analyzed in particular, in consultation with the rabbis of one’s community, regarding the criteria to follow.

 



THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT: Abortion and homicide

The case of abortion primarily discussed by the Talmud refers to what we call today “therapeutic abortion”, i.e., when the life of the pregnant mother is in danger, and the doctors estimate that the only way to save her life is by taking out, sacrificing the unborn baby.  Independently of how Jewish Law considers the status of an unborn baby-we will analyze that later on-in this case, the early Talmudic sources (Mishna Aholot, 7:6, written ca.200 CE) already established unequivocally that if necessary, the unborn baby should be sacrificed in order to save the mother’s life.  The connection the Rabbis established between homicide and abortion, is not what most people would normally think.  The Mishna understand that this is a case of rodef (“chaser”, a potential killer) and therefore the principle of “self defense” is applied: If  A is attacked by B, if necessary, A can kill B to save his life (habba lehorgekha, hashkem lehorgo, Sanhedrin 72a). The baby, ironically, is viewed as an “involuntary” rodef.
A few generations later, the Talmud analyzes the Mishna’s statement and asks what happens when the baby is actually at the process of birth, and the doctors determine that if the delivery continues, the mother might die. Should we still apply the same criteria of self defense and allow to sacrifice the life of the baby to save the life of the mother? After all, in this extremely difficult situation, the mother is also a rodef toward the unborn baby! The answer of the rabbis, in very simple terms, is that before the baby is born, the life of the mother has priority, because the life of the baby is still a ‘potential life’. But once the baby is born, i.e. when at least the head and /or the majority of the body is already outside, his life could not be sacrificed, and both mother and baby are in an equal situation. The doctors should do their best to save both lives.

 



SIXTH COMMANDMENT: You shall not kill or You Shall not murder?

לא תרצח

The sixth commandment, at first glance seems to be the easiest commandment to understand. However, this is one of the most complex commandments, as it must be defined again and again to understand its extent, and is also one of the most relevant in modern times.
First, we should agree that You shall not”KILL” is a misleading translation. In English, as in Hebrew, there is a difference between killing and murdering. Killing may include ending the life of animals, while “murdering” is restricted to killing people. This command should then be translated then as “You shall not murder”.
As we said, although this commandment only includes two words, six letters, is very complex regarding its extent and inclusion.

To begin with, Jewish law, like American criminal law, distinguishes between different types of “murder”. In the following lines, we will see some of these categories, according to what the Rambam mentions.

First, there is a murder which is “permitted”; that is killing in self-defense. If someone approaches with the intention of killing me (in Hebrew: “rodef”) then I could kill the potential murderer to defend myself. The same happens if someone is about to kill an innocent person. I could kill the potential killer to prevent that murder.

Secondly, the case of accidental murder. This case is explicitly legislated in the Tora with the example of two people who go to work in the fields, to cut-down trees. One of the workers accidentally hits the other worker and causes his death. In this case, there is no intention to kill and not negligence. We could compare this case today with some types of traffic accidents, where the judges determine that the circumstances of the fatal accident were completely beyond the control of the driver. In this kind of cases, in biblical times, the unintentional murderer had to go into exile to the cities of refuge.

Third case, killing another person for negligence: “A” did not intend to kill “B”, but “A” should have taken some measures to avoid the accident. The classic example today is a person who drives his or her car at full speed and “accidentally” kills another person. This is called negligence, or in Hebrew: peshi’a. And the degree of responsibility of the perpetrator is obviously higher, although there was no intent to kill.

Fourth, a situation where a person intentionally hits another person without intent to kill him, but accidentally kills him.

And fifth, the case of premeditated murder, i.e., when “A” kills “B” intentionally. In this latter case, if the intentional murder is witnessed by two valid witnesses, death penalty would apply for the murderer (although, in the times of the Sanhedrin, the Supreme Court of the Jewish people, this individual was sent to prison and sentenced to death, but the actual execution would very rarely take place.)

Maimonides also mentions other types of homicide such as: intentionally causing the death of another person; murdering through a third party; suicide, etc.

Each of these cases deserves special analysis concerning intentionality, responsibility, punishment, etc. The interested reader can find all these cases and more in Mishne Tora, Sefer Neziquín, Hilkhot Rotseaj.
As you can see, we have summarized this complex issue in very few words. And we are just beginning exploring this commandment. In the coming days, we will see some other modern examples of the prohibition of murdering. Is abortion considered murder? Is euthanasia permitted in Jewish law? Can one disconnect the ventilator from a patient in a vegetative state? etc.


FIFTH COMMANDMENT: Honoring our parents, in special circumstances

כבד את אביך ואת אמך

The rabbis of the Talmud addressed the question of honoring one’s parents in special circumstances. We will see today two examples.
SENILE PARENTS
The Rabbis examined the case of Rab Asi, who lived with his elderly senile mother. He took very good care of her and did whatever he could to please her, honor her and not contradicting her. The Talmud illustrates his mother’s erratic behavior and Rab Asi’s reaction: one day she asked him to buy for her jewelry, and he brought her some. Another day she ask him to look for a husband for her. Trying to appease her, he told her, he will look for one… The situation got to a point where her requests were increasingly eccentric and her behavior turned more violent. Rab Asi then decided to leave her. The Rabbis explained that Rab Asi did not abandon her on her own, but left her with a kind person whom he hired to take care of his mother. The rabbis explained that Rab Asi believed that otherwise, in those circumstances, he will be forced to disrespect his mother and perhaps be coerced to physically restrain her. The Sages also explained that, for some reason, in this case Rab Asi’s mother’s behavior would turn more aggressive in his presence, but with somebody else she will be calmer. Based on this precedent the rabbis conclude that in certain circumstances the son or daughter might leave his elder parents under the care of another individual.  Obviously, each case is completely different from the other and must be addressed specifically.
I would recommend  that in no circumstances children will make this kind of decisions based just on intuition. Rather, one should consult with a social worker and with a Rabbi to determine what is the best thing one can do for his or her parents.
DISOBEYING PARENTS FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT
Honoring our parents includes obeying them and pleasing their wishes, especially when dealing with something they wish for their own benefit. But, what if the parents ask their son or daughter something which will be detrimental for them? For example: What should a son do if his father asks him to bring for him liquor, and the son knows the father will become intoxicated. Does the son still need to obey his dad and bring the liquor, following blindly his father’s order, or should he refuse to attend his father wishes?  The Rabbis agree that in this case the son should refuse to buy or get the liquor for his father, but he should do so with utmost respect, trying to dissuade his father reasoning with him. The son is not allowed to fight, yell at or disrespect his father in any way, even when the son is right. Modern rabbis bring a few other common cases. If the parent is diabetic and asks his son to bring him a sweet food, or when a father ask his son or daughter to bring cigarettes or anything that would cause a ‘significant’ damage to the father’s or mother’s health, i.e. anything the physician will forbid them to have. The rabbis agree that the son or daughter should refuse, but they insist that in all these cases, it is critical to maintain a respectful approach and avoid, God forbid, to offend or humiliate one’s parents while trying to protect them from harm. (Yalqut Yosef, Kibbud Ab va-Em, Bet, 46-60)

 



THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT: The way to honoring our parents

כבד את אביך ואת אמך… למען יאריכון ימיך

“Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live longer in the land that HaShem your God is giving you”.

To maintain the dignity of our parents while the Mitsva of honoring them is done, is something we learn from a passage in the Jerusalem Talmud, which states that “it is possible to feed one’s parents with exotic delicacies, and still be considered a wicked son; and it is possible to force a parent to work on milling, and still be considered a good son. ”

The Talmud illustrates these cases with two real stories:

The first case, a son fed his father very fancy food, exotic birds. One day the father asked the son: “where do you have the money from to afford these foods?” And the son said: “Quiet, old man. A dog eats quietly what he is giving, you also must eat your food without asking questions”. This son, the Rabbis said, will inherit hell.

The second case concerns a child who worked in the mill of his father. One day, the king summoned the mill workers to the palace to help with a very difficult job. The king asked each family to send one worker. The son decided to volunteer to work for the king, to avoid his father to be treated in an undignified way by the king’s workers, and asked his father to take his place in the grinding of the family. This son, who sent his father to work at the mill, the Sages said, “will inherit paradise .'”

When a son or daughter are assisting or helping their elderly parents, they must do so with joy and a positive body language. If a son or daughter helps her parents but makes the parents feel they are a burden, untold emotional pain is generated for the parents, especially when they depend exclusively on this child.
The rabbis explained that when we help our parents, we should talk to them with sweetness, with good words and with the respect that is due to a higher authority.

When elderly parents come to visit the house of their children, they must be received with love and honor. And the son or daughter should teach their own children to honor and respect their grandparents.

Finally, we quoted at the head of this article, the text of the 5th commandment that indicates the obligation to honor our parents. The Tora says: “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live longer in the land HaShem your God is giving you”, this is the conventional translation of this pasuq: when caring for our elderly parents, we will merit to enjoy a longer life.

There is a second alternative reading of this pasuq: Instead of translating lema’an ya-arikhun yamekha as “so that you may live longer” we can translate it as “so when you may live longer”. Briefly, and in my own words: If you honor your parents, when you grow older you will deserve to be honored by your children in the same way you have honored your parents. This is, of course, a huge “natural” reward. And in my experience as a rabbi, this is a rule that has almost no exceptions: as we age, we will be treated by our children in the same way we have treated and honor our parents. Our children may not always hear what we say, but certainly, they always see what we do, and they remember and imitate what we did.