The right to be respected and the duty to respect

The Parasha in our everyday life – Parashat Matot 5782

Rabbi Eliezer Shenvald - Rosh Yeshivat Hesder 'Meir Harel' Modi'in

Dedicated in memory of a Dear Man, our dearest Friend, 

Supporter of our Yeshiva, loved Am Israel and Eretz Israel

Rabbi Gershon (Kurt) Rothschild, son of the late Avraham Mordechai,

Yehi Zichro Baruch

Several decades ago, the name of an annual Educational Program in the education system was 'The right to be respected and the duty to respect'. Last weekend a storm flooded the media and social networks. It touched on what has been a sensitive issue for many years, since in European and American cultures the custom has been to shake hands as a polite gesture of respect and greeting, also between men and women. The singer Yuval Dayan (who is a Ba’alat Teshuva) appeared before the Presidents of the State of Israel and the United States, and when he asked to shake her hand as a tribute to her singing, she bowed to him as a sign of respect and polite thanks but refrained from shaking his hand. The singer explained that she undertook to be ‘Shomeret Negiah’^*1 as part of the process of religious strengthening she is in, and thus she also feels more complete with her own modesty, and did not in any way intend to offend his dignity. It turned out that she also asked many times before the show to inform the US President about this so that he would not ask to shake her hand. It is not clear why this happened anyway. Judging by the president's body language he did not appear to be offended or felt his honor was harmed. The president's staff includes several ultra-Orthodox women and he himself is connected to the Jewish and ultra-Orthodox world in the United States and in general, due to his many years of political activity, and also due to the fact that his children are married to Jews, and some of his grandchildren are even considered Jewish by the Halacha.

In the media and on social networks, there were those who respected and praised her gentle and determined adherence to her principles, and to her adherence to the observance of Halacha in this matter (although there were those who objected to the very act of singing in front of men). And there were quite a few who condemned, some even in blatant, contemptuous and disrespectful language, for "insulting the honor of the President of the United States", "Israel’s Friend". Even on the part of feminists who constantly preach that a woman has the right to set her boundaries with herself and in relation to herself, her body and her dignity.

Among the critics were also religious, who called her behavior 'extreme' and disproportionate. And some even exaggerated and claimed that she harmed the president in a way that could also harm his good attitude toward Israel. Mostly those who caught the attention were those ‘impulsive writers’ who for a short time became certified halachic judges, who ‘argued’ with halacha and 'determined' with decisiveness that acting this way, she 'violated the halacha'! No less and no more, because she humiliated the US President and as is known,

כל המלבין פני חבירו ברבים כאילו שופך דמים

"Anyone who humiliates another in public, it is as though he were spilling blood”. (Bava Metziah 58b)

אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא

“… and has not a share in the world to come.” (Pirkei Avot 3:11)

Those who preached morality to her, in a disparaging and disrespectful manner with quite a bit of condescension, towards someone who on the one hand sings in front of men and on the other hand seeks to be respected as ‘Shomeret Negiah”.

There were also reactions to comments. As one who wrote (with changes in wording): that 'a person's faith is also his honor'. Does he have to give up his right to dignity over the respect for others? Especially if the other does not value his faith and does not respect it?!

Or whoever wrote: If someone honors you with food that is known to be non-kosher, would a polite refusal to eat it be considered a ‘humiliation'?! And if not, what's the difference?!

Or another who wondered about the religious people who attack and condemn doing so: are the laws of Negiah important to them and they adhere to them, but in their opinion 'human dignity' goes above it all; or is this prohibition in particular and the observance of halacha in general less important to them, and therefore for them 'human dignity' is more important?!

This question mark reminded me of the preface of Rabbeinu Bahya to the interpretation of the Parasha. Our Parasha opens with the laws of vows and oaths and the breaking of them. In his introduction, Rabbeinu Bahya deals with the severity of the false oath, and the hierarchical ladder between awe of human beings and awe of G-d. He who swears to a lie seeks to prove to people the righteousness of his words, but he denies the fear of G-d, who knows that he is lying. This means that his fear of mankind is stronger than his fear of G-d.   

יְרָֽא־אֶת ה' בְּנִ֣י וָמֶ֑לֶךְ עִם־שׁ֝וֹנִ֗ים אַל־תִּתְעָרָֽב׃

“Fear Hashem, my son, and the king, and do not mix with dissenters”. (Proverbs 24:21)

 שלמה המלך ע"ה יזהיר בכתוב הזה את האדם שיירא מן המלך העליון יתעלה תחילה ואחריו שיירא מן המלך בארץ וכו'.  'עם שונים אל תתערב' - יזהיר שלא ישנה הדבר. כי יש עוברין על רצון ה' יתברך ליראתו של מלך, והנה הם יראים מאדם תחילה ועושין יראתו עיקר, ולא יתכן לעשות כן. אבל הראוי שיהיה ד' יתברך תחילת יראתו ועיקר מחשבתו ופעולותיו כולן. וכו'. וידוע כי ענין השבועה מגדר היראה שלא ישבע אדם בקב"ה כל עיקר ואפילו על האמת, אין צריך לומר על שקר. וכו'. ואיך יהיה האדם זהיר במדת היראה אם ישבע בהקב"ה לשקר או על האמת לבטלה".

“In this verse Solomon warns man to fear Hashem, first and foremost, and to fear the mortal king only as someone subordinate to Hashem. He applies the same term יראה, “fear, awe,” as applicable to man’s relations with higher authority be it celestial or terrestrial. The message is: “just as you must fear Hashem Who is everywhere at all times and you must abstain from sin because you know you are being watched although you cannot see the One Who watches you, so you must be in awe of the terrestrial king even when he is not present seeing he can decree death upon you even when he personally has not seen you sin.” It is simply not possible for a mortal king to be in all parts of his domain all the time. Instead of taking advantage of his temporary absence to violate his laws you must engrave in your heart the appropriate degree of awe and fear to help you not to transgress his laws. Simply remember that this is the way you relate to the supreme authority whom you cannot see but whose eye is upon you all the time.  “Do not associate with the ones who keep changing” This is a warning not to display more fear for the visible terrestrial king (because he is visible) than for the invisible celestial king in the event the decrees of the celestial king and those of the terrestrial king are in conflict with one another. There are many people who are concerned first and foremost with what they perceive to be the danger from the local authority. They fear for their lives perceiving the power of terrestrial authority to be immediate and that of G-d to be relatively remote. Solomon warns against such perceptions and conduct based on such faulty perceptions. Seeing that G-d is not only the ultimate authority of the private citizen but also that of the terrestrial king it would be foolish to be more afraid of mortal kings than of immortal G-d… It is a well-known fact that the whole subject matter of an oath is related to fear of and reverence for Hashem. Man is not supposed to utter the name of Hashem even in an oath which testifies to the truth, much less so in an oath in which he perjures himself by using the name of Hashem... If this is what happens to people to swear truthfully, we can imagine what must be in store for people who swear falsely. The story teaches how very careful we must be not to render a needless oath. There is no sin as great as that of swearing falsely or merely using the name of Hashem in an unnecessary oath.” (Rabbeinu Bahya Bamidbar 30:2)

*1- Shomer Negiah - (Observant of Negiah- Jewish Halacha that forbids sensual physical contact with a member of the opposite sex).