Torat Emet
16-5769: Mitzvah N-54-55
August 9, 2009

Negative Mitzvah 54 – This is a negative commandment: Do not lend to another Jew and charge him interest, be it money, something to eat or anything else. Hafetz Hayim: Scripture says, “You shall not give him your money at interest, nor give him your provisions of food in usury” (Leviticus 25:37). The terms “Neshech” and “Marbit” (interest and usury) are one thing but Scripture divided them into two terms to make the lender the transgressor of two prohibitions. The lender also violates the prohibition: “Neither shall you put interest upon him” (Exodus 22:24) as well as the injunction: “Do not take interest or increase from him” (Leviticus 25:36) It is in force everywhere, in every time, for both men and women.
Negative Mitzvah 55 – This is a negative commandment: Do not borrow from another Jew at interest. Hafetz Hayim: Scripture says, “You shall not give interest to your brother.” (Deuteronomy 25:36) Which is an admonition to the borrower. He would also violate the injunction “nor shall you put a stumbling-block before the blind.”(Lev. 19:14) This is in effect everywhere, at every time for both men and women.
As I wrote in the last installment: “Jewish law forbids charging interest to another Jew. In an agricultural society, loans are what make farming possible. The need to buy seed, invest in machinery and fertilizer and the constant threat of draught and disease means that a farmer needs money to be able to support his family. Think back to the story of Joseph in Egypt. He taxes the farmers in the years of plenty and then distributes the grain during the seven years of famine. At the end of the famine, he knows that he needs to supply the famers with seed in order for them to once again earn a living from farming.
In this setting, loans are really a form of charity. The farmer is in need and if interest is charged, it will only make it more difficult to earn a living from farming. If the farmer gets too far into debt, he can only sell his field and then himself as an indentured servant to pay off what he owes. Charging interest only speeds up the amount of debt the farmer has to pay and causes him to lose land and freedom sooner. To make a loan without charging interest is a way of helping the farmer and prevents poverty in society. This is why the Torah forbids charging interest to other Jews.
We can see from the Mitzvot above, that the Sages had only the harshest words for someone who would charge interest to another Jew. Such a Jew clearly had no intention of helping a fellow Jew without making a profit on the transaction. The Sages thus found a way to heap one sin on top of another. There are no less than four separate sins for a Jew who would charge interest to another Jew.
I can only speculate that this must have been a common occurrence to charge interest to another Jew. That is why it is mentioned no less than four times in the Bible. If you add Negative Mitzvah 55, you see that even the borrower who accepts this arrangement is charged with two sins. He has taken illegal interest and has caused the lender to sin when he accepts the loan. The lender may not be inclined to charge interest but the loan is so risky that the borrower offers to accept a loan with interest. The lender is thus encouraged to make the loan and incur all four sins.
It is better to give the money as charity rather than try and profit from the tribulations of another Jew. The Sages clearly had nothing good to say about money lending in the Jewish community.

Torat Emet
15-5769: Mitzvah N-53
July 19, 2009

Negative Mitzvah 53 – This is a negative commandment: Have no part in dealings between a lender and a borrower at interest.
Hafetz Hayim: Scripture says, “Neither shall you put interest upon him” (Exodus 22:24). This means one should not be a guarantor or a witness between them; and the lender is also included in the scope of this prohibition, apart from the injunction not to lend at interest to a Jew (see next lesson). Any intermediary between them who brings them together or helps them arrange the loan violates the injunction “nor shall you put a stumbling-block before the blind.”(Lev. 19:14) This is in effect everywhere, at every time for both men and women.

Jewish law forbids charging interest to another Jew. In an agricultural society, loans are what make farming possible. The need to buy seed, invest in machinery and fertilizer and the constant threat of draught and disease means that a farmer needs money to be able to support his family. Think back to the story of Joseph in Egypt. He taxes the farmers in the years of plenty and then distributes the grain during the seven years of famine. At the end of the famine, he knows that he needs to supply the famers with seed in order for them to once again earn a living from farming.
In this setting, loans are really a form of charity. The farmer is in need and if interest is charged, it will only make it more difficult to earn a living from farming. If the farmer gets too far into debt, he can only sell his field and then himself as an indentured servant to pay off what he owes. Charging interest only speeds up the amount of debt the farmer has to pay and causes him to lose land and freedom sooner. To make a loan without charging interest is a way of helping the farmer and prevents poverty in society. This is why the Torah forbids charging interest to other Jews.
When Jews started living in cities and a more urban economy came to be, the Sages were concerned that without loans and interest, the merchants would be at a disadvantage in the marketplace. Since the Torah forbids charging interest, the Rabbis created a new kind of loan, where the borrower makes the lender a partner in the business and thus is due a percentage of the profits. It is not interest but investment!
What happens though, when a Jew goes to a non-Jew for a loan? The non-Jew is permitted to charge whatever interest the market will bear. In the quest for capital, it would be common for a Jew to get the money needed for business from whoever will lend it. Our Mitzvah warns Jews not be become loan brokers in this trade. Jews must not be middlemen in the loan market and not lend name or reputation in such a transaction. Jews must not guarantee such a loan nor serve as a witness to the transaction and thus appear in court on behalf of the lender if the borrower cannot repay the debt.
The concept of “not putting a stumbling-block before the blind” is an important concept in Judaism in its own right. We will investigate this more fully in the future. Here the middleman between lender and borrower is motivating a sin. He is not sinning himself, but he is causing a desperate Jew to pay interest, which is a sin, and thus he is, through his actions, causing another person to sin. This too is illegal.
The fact is that in the Middle Ages, Jews were limited in occupations to the extent that many became active in lending money; they did charge interest to non-Jews and no good came of it. It caused much pain and misery to Jews all over Europe. The Hafetz Hayim was wise to remind Jews that this is not a business for a nice Jewish boy (or girl).

Talmidav Shel Aharon
14-5769: Mitzvah N-52
June 14, 2009

Negative Mitzvah 52 – This is a negative commandment: Do not demand of a borrower to pay his debt when you know that he does not have the means to pay.

Hafetz Hayim: Scripture says, “You shall not be to him as a collector” (Exodus 22:24). It is forbidden for the lender to pass by before the borrower when he knows that the other has not the means to pay, so that he should not put him to shame. Yet just as a lender is forbidden to make demands, so is the borrower forbidden to suppress the money due his fellow man, to tell him, “Go and come back,” when he has it. This is a prohibition from the words of the later parts of Scripture; for it states, “Do not say to your fellow ‘Go and come again, and tomorrow I will give’ when you have it with you.” (Proverbs 3:28) It is likewise forbidden for the borrower to spend the borrowed money needlessly until he is unable to repay it; he is called wicked, as Scripture says, “The wicked man borrows and does not pay.” (Psalms 37:21) This is in effect everywhere, at every time for both men and women.

The world of lenders and borrowers can be tough to negotiate. On the one hand the one who lends money is helping his fellow human being negotiate in a difficult time for his business or helping the borrower to take advantage of an important business opportunity. One is not required to lend money so the lender, it seems, should be protected from those who would not repay the loan.
On the other hand the borrower may be poor and defenseless against the demands of the lender. The lender stands to make money from the interest on the loan and the sooner the lender gets his money back, the sooner he can lend it again to another and make more money. Sometimes the return on the borrower’s money takes time to arrive. Sometimes the opportunity fails. The lender is then a greedy ogre who does not really care about the borrower, but cares only for the money he can make.
Then again, perhaps the borrower is a scoundrel and a thief, taking advantage of the lender to get his hand on the money with no intention of ever paying the money back. The borrower may squander the money on an investment that has no chance of paying off or he could gamble it away, or spend it on some frivolous items knowing that the lender can’t ever make him pay.
So when this issue comes to court, the judges (or judges in a Jewish court) have to determine who is right and who is wrong. The multiple quotes from the Bible tell us that sometimes the lender and sometimes the borrower is the one who needs protection. The lender does have the right to his money back and the borrower must be protected from abuse by his creditors.
The law in most cases must follow the one who has followed all the right procedures. If the lender has written a valid promissory note and the borrower has signed it, then the borrower needs to pay what he owes. If the lender tries to swindle the borrower, then the court can invalidate the transaction and the lender loses his money. In any case, the court must find for the one who has the most valid claim.
This is why our Mitzvah is so important. It says that in spite of all claims, if the lender knows that the borrower can’t pay, he must not harass the borrower nor press him for the money. It is not a legal claim, but a moral practice. You can’t squeeze blood from a stone. If the money is not there, you just have to wait for it. But the Hafetz Hayim also notes that if the borrower attempts to take advantage of this limitation on the lender, the borrower could be in violation of other moral mitzvot that speak to this kind of fraud.
From a historical point of view, it is interesting to me that the lender laws are in the Torah and the anti-borrower verses are from Ketuvim, the later writings in the Bible. Proverbs and Psalms are not well known “legal” sections of the Bible. They stress the anecdotal and moral obligations that cannot always be legislated. It is easier in a law code to put the legal obligations on the lender, but the borrower has moral obligations too and apparently later writers saw an inequality in the law between lenders and borrowers and moved to speak to that issue.
Credit is what moves a capitalistic economy. Lenders and borrowers have legal and moral obligations. It is important for the governing body to take note of these necessary obligations and make sure that capital can flow with the law defending both the lenders and the borrowers equally. In a just society, it really can’t be any other way.

Talmidav Shel Aharon
13-5769: Mitzvah N-51
May 17, 2009

Negative Mitzvah 51 – This is a negative commandment: Do not inflict suffering on any widow or orphan
Hafetz Hayim: This prohibition is derived from the verse, “you shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child” (Exodus 22:21). Even if they are wealthy, even the widow of a king or his orphan children, it is necessary to treat them with respect. One is not to cause them distress or anguish to their hearts with harsh words. He is to be more protective of their property than of his own. If anyone brings them to rage or brings anguish to their hearts and all the more certainly, if he strikes them or curses them, he violates this prohibition: and his punishment is given explicitly in the Torah: ‘then my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword ; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.’
Whether a child is without a father or without a mother; he is called an orphan, until he grows up and attends to to all his needs alone, like other adults. It is permissible to chasten them in the learning of Torah or a craft, so as to guide them in a straight and decent path. Nevertheless, one should be solicitous with them, to rear them slowly [patiently] with kindness and compassion.
This is in effect everywhere, at every time for both men and women.

In the ancient world, in a patriarchal society, a woman or a child without a husband or a father was at a serious disadvantage. Much of the give and take of the marketplace, the protection of personal property and personal safety were dependant on a male head of household. If this man should die or be missing, the rest of the family was living without this important protection. Unable to represent themselves, the widow and the orphan were in danger of losing their property and being evicted from their homes. If the husband/father left debts, there were almost no sources of revenue for the widow or orphan to fall back on. Since a child and a woman were not expected to be wise in the way of business, they were in danger of someone cheating them literally out of house and home.
For this reason, the Torah takes up the cause of the widow and orphan, declaring that God has appointed the divine self to be the protector of these survivors. The Torah declares that any man who would afflict the widow or the orphan would be punished by having his own wife and children become a widow and orphans. In other words, he would be struck down dead.
So what does this mean for those of us who live in a pluralistic egalitarian society? First it declares that it is a divine moral imperative that we take up the cause of those who are weak and helpless in our society: the undereducated, the dropout, the child who grows up in the street or the latchkey child. It would include a single parent tying to raise a child, a widow forced back into the workplace without up to date job skills, men and women terrorized by abusive spouses. It includes those on welfare, laid off, with few skills and without a financial cushion. It is our duty as moral human beings to help them in whatever way we can, and to be cautious in our business that we do not cause them any additional harm or pain. We can’t take advantage of them, we can’t call them names, and we can’t make them feel more miserable than they already feel.
The loss of a spouse is so traumatic that even if there is no financial or safety issues, when the widow or orphan is left well off and in good hands, we still don’t add to their pain through our words or actions.
Additionally, it reminds us that, as a society, we need to make sure that we have adequate protections for those who may be at risk. We need to make sure that there is enough bread to put on each table and that each child has the opportunities that all other children may have. We need to make sure that our government has an adequate safety net and that the social service agencies have the resources to help those who have fallen on hard times pick themselves back up. If we turn our back on those who are defenseless in society, then we can expect that soon enough we may fall into the same problems and be in need of others to lend us a hand.
While we may no longer believe that the wicked will always get their just punishments, we need to insure that there are the proper laws against oppression and fraud to protect those who are in need. There is no reason to price gouge the helpless in our society, and those who do, should be liable for punishment under the law.
And finally, let us remember that it costs far less money to support someone who is falling, than someone who is already down and out. We need to always look out for one another and to be a friend to someone who really needs one.

Talmidav Shel Aharon
12-5769: Mitzvah N-49-50
May 13, 2009

Negative Mitzvah 49 – This is a negative commandment: Do not oppress a righteous proselyte with words
Hafetz Hayim: This prohibition is derived from the verse, “and a ger you shall not wrong” (Exodus 22:20).
Negative Mitzvah 50 – This is a negative commandment: Do not wrong a righteous proselyte in matters of monetary value.

Hafetz Hayim: Scripture says, “ neither shall you oppress him.” (Exodus 22:20). These prohibitions are in addition to the negative precepts that admonish us about the rest of Jewry [which apply equally to proselytes.] This is in effect everywhere, at every time for both men and women.

Laws like these should be easy to understand. We should not need special laws to cover proselytes, or any other people. The law should apply equally to all. That has not been the case in Jewish law for a long time. Jewish law has often been interpreted to apply only to Jews and not to those outside the Jewish community. Especially when it comes to business law, Jewish law has not held the same standards outside the Jewish community as it has for those inside the Jewish community. I will give the Rabbis the benefit of the doubt here and try to understand this inequality as the result of centuries of oppression by the non-Jewish world. In Christian Europe and Islamic Africa/Middle East Jews lived under harsh restrictions of business and commerce. “Civil” law was, more often than not, stacked against the Jews who could have their property confiscated at a moment’s notice and they could be expelled for the most minor infractions. Jewish law has to protect the members of the Jewish community but was less likely to extend those laws to those who oppressed them.
Needless to say, the reason for such laws are now gone. To hold by them is the most blatant form of discrimination and should not be observed by any Jew who wishes to live a religious life. One of the reasons the Jewish community should be embarrassed over the fiasco in Postville, IA is because of the way so called “religious Jews” treated the workers at their meat packing plant.
It is important that those who convert to Judaism should have their situation added with these two Mitzvot. Because they span two worlds, and because of a tendency in human nature to distrust those who convert, it is important that we be clear on how a Jew by choice is to be treated.
I have seen parents reject a proselyte as a suitable spouse for their child. I have heard of families who treat proselytes shabbily, offering fresh cake to the family but stale cake to the “convert”. Jews who never fail to mention that this person was once a “goy”. Jews who seem to think that every convert is really not a Jew in his/her heart.
All of this is clearly against Jewish law. One is not allowed to remind a proselyte of his/her past. It happened once among the rabbis of the Talmud, Rabbi Yonatan made an offhand comment about the past life, before conversion, of his best friend and brother-in-law Rabbi Shimon of Lakish. The comment literally embarrassed his friend to death and perhaps caused the death of Rabbi Yonatan of a broken heart. The rabbis took this prohibition seriously.
A proselyte is also to be considered a Jew in all respects. There is no waiting period, no levels of commitment, and no trial periods when it comes to conversion. Once the conversion is completed, Judaism does not deny the new Jew any privileges it offers to any other Jew. This is why some who convert tend to hide the fact of their conversion so that they will not be treated any differently than any other Jew. (Others put their conversion documents in frames on their wall, celebrating the conversion as a major life accomplishment.)
These two Mitzvot remind us that we must be careful in the way we treat those who come seeking shelter under the wings of Judaism. To treat them differently would be a terrible misuse of Jewish law and bring desecration to the Jewish faith. Let us celebrate the arrival of these new Jews to our community and may we never have reason to be accused of violating these two Mitzvot.

Talmidav Shel Aharon
11-5769: Mitzvah N-47-48
April 1, 2009

Negative Mitzvah 47– This is a negative commandment: Do not cheat one another in buying and selling.
Hafetz Hayim: This prohibition is derived from the verse, “and if you sell something … or buy something from your fellow’s hand, you shall not wrong one another” (Lev. 25:14). Whether a person cheated deliberately, or he did not know that there was an overcharge in this sale, he is duty bound to make compensation. This applies in every place and time, for both man and woman.

Negative Mitzvah 48- This is a negative commandment: Do not oppress one’s fellow-man with words.
Hafetz Hayim: Scripture says, “And you shall not wrong one another” (Lev.25:17). This means that we should not say to a penitent person, “Remember your original actions” or to the son of converts to Judaism, “Remember the behavior of your forefathers” or to ask a matter of wisdom from someone who does not know any wisdom, in order to distress him – and so any similar way of wronging him with words.

It seems that positive mitzvot are often not easily understood but the negative commandments are usually crystal clear. We have two similar mitzvot that pretty much seem to say exactly what they mean. Mitzvah 47 is the law that prevents cheating one another in business. In Western countries we have the notion of “buyer beware;” that buyers need to do their research and spend some time comparison shopping so that they get the best deal. A shopkeeper can ask any price and anyone too naive or unknowledgeable in buying and selling will find that they have been cheated. The only blame is on the buyer, not on the seller, who has the right to charge whatever he thinks the market will bear. Certainly there are laws that limit the shopkeeper from “bait and switch” and from selling defective or fraudulent goods, but under normal circumstances in the West, sellers can set the terms of the sale and if the buyer accepts them, then the sale is good and cannot be recalled. (Shopkeepers who have a liberal return policy are morally better but there is no law that forces them to be this way, only a “need” to keep the customer happy).

Jewish law is different. A shopkeeper has the right to earn a profit, but not an excessive one. If he has spiked a price to defraud a shopper or if he sells something at a price that turns out to be higher than reasonable, then the shopkeeper must return the overcharge. Judaism insists that we cannot take advantage of anyone.

In Mitzvah 48, we are reminded that we are forbidden to goad or ridicule our fellow human beings. I am reminded of a quote from the old movie, “Sweet Charity,” where the lead character says, “I can change the way I dress and I can change the way I talk but don’t ask me to change my past because the past is something I can’t change.” To remind a convict of his past behavior after he has served his time, is not only frustrating for the man, but causes him anguish that no matter what he may do to repent, the rest of the world will never forgive him. The same holds true for a convert. We are forbidden to remind a convert of his or her life before the conversion. How can a person feel like they are part of the Jewish people if someone is constantly reminding them of their former life?

The third example cited is a bit different. Here the simple man is taunted by another who asks him a question that everyone knows he cannot answer. This only serves to highlight his ignorance. It is not only rude; it is hurtful and causes embarrassment. Embarrassment is considered to be a kind of “murder” which causes the blood to drain out of a person’s face leaving it as white as death.

This kind of speech has so many different possibilities that the law cannot list them all. Any kind of hurtful speech, speech that is meant to hurt, embarrass, or goad another person, even if the topic is true, is forbidden by Jewish Law. The Mitzvah is to be sensitive to the feelings of others

Talmidav Shel Aharon
10-5769: Mitzvah N-46
March 15, 2009

Negative Mitzvah 45 – This is a negative commandment: Do not curse your father or your mother
Hafetz Hayim: This prohibition is derived from the verse, “And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death” (Exodus 21:17). If one cursed his father by the Divine name, he would deserve death by stoning, and this even if he cursed his parents using the Divine name after their death. If he cursed them with a substitute Divine name, he should receive whiplashes. One should not impose an oath on his father that contains an imprecation; nor should he be the emissary of a religious court to excommunicate him. It is forbidden to disgrace them; for whoever disgraces his father or his mother, even by a hint, is accursed by the word of the Almighty, since Scripture says, “Cursed be he who dishonors his father or his mother” (Deut. 27:16). This applies in every place and time, for both man and woman.

I think the basic idea is clear, we are forbidden to say or do anything that will bring dishonor to our parents. We can’t curse them, with or without the Divine name. We can’t be sent by a court to serve them with a lawsuit, to bring them a judgment in a case or bring them a ruling of excommunication. We are not allowed to force our parents to take an oath using the Divine name nor can we do anything that would cause disgrace to our parents. I can imagine the guilt that a parent can put on a child for all the things he or she does that the parent claims is bringing disgrace to the “family” but I think in this case the law is referring to actions that will clearly cause personal disgrace or embarrassment to the parents.
I want to take some time to discuss what Judaism says should happen if a parent is abusive or evil. Can one repudiate their parent? Can one disassociate from a parent? Can one remove oneself from responsibility for an abusive parent? The short answer is no, a person can never be released from responsibility for a parent. There is no blessing to recite before honoring a parent because there is never a time when we are not obligated to honor our parents and not to curse or abuse them. The Talmud records a case where a Sage had a mother who would spit and curse him all day long. He never rebuked her but the one time she abused him in public, he said quietly and simply, “That’s enough Mother.”
I hasten to add that while we have responsibilities for our parents, the responsibility does not supersede our responsibility for our own health. If an abusive parent is destroying a child’s life, the child can turn the daily care of his parent over to a surrogate or hire a helper to insure that the parent is cared for and that he is removed from being the brunt of the parent’s perpetual anger and abuse. I think that the reason Jewish Law does not relieve us from responsibility for a parent is not for parent’s sake but for our own. Biting words, verbal abuse and physical abuse often do not end just because our parent has died. The pain and hurt can go on for the rest of our own lives. If we abandon our parent, then we will certainly feel the guilt and shame that we were not able to fulfill our responsibilities for their care and sustenance. That guilt can be as debilitating as the abusive parent and has the capacity to go on for the rest of our life. If, on the other hand, we fulfill our duties as best we can, even if we put another person in the middle to buffer us from their direct attacks, at least, when the end comes, we can say that we did do all we could. There is a sense of comfort and relief that can be healing after the abusive parent is gone if we know that we did what we could.
Our parents gave us life. It is a great gift. We are given a mandate from the Torah to do all we can for them as long as we and they are alive. We can’t repay them for the gift they gave us, so we honor them and refrain from cursing them as a constant way to thank them for our most precious gift, our very lives.

Talmidav Shel Aharon

9-5769: Mitzvah N-45

March 3, 2009

Negative Mitzvah 45 – This is a negative commandment: Do not curse another Jew.

Hafetz Hayim: This prohibition is derived from the verse, “You shall not curse the deaf.” (Leviticus 19:14) It speaks of a deaf person to make a stronger point – that even though this individual does not hear and suffers no distress from the curse, nevertheless one transgresses by cursing. If a person curses himself, he likewise violates this. However, one who utters a curse does not commit the transgression unless he does so with the Divine name or a substitute name of God. If it was even with any term by which the heathen calls the Holy one, blessed be He, that is like any of the substitute holy names. This applies in every place and time, for both man and woman.

Here we have a law that is written about a specific case that the Sages have extended into the larger world. The Torah is specific that one should not curse someone who is deaf (nor put a stumbling block in front of a blind person). The Sages note that if one puts a stumbling block before the blind, the blind woman could still get hurt; but what hurt comes from cursing the deaf? The deaf man can’t hear the curse so what harm can it do?

The direct answer is that it causes embarrassment to those who are present and do hear the curse. It also shows the insensitivity and boorishness of the person who would pronounce such a curse. It is not a sign of wisdom or maturity to offer such a curse since the only purpose of this curse is to cause the deaf person to be humiliated no matter if he knows it or not.

The Rabbis then extend the prohibition to those who can hear. If it is a sin to curse a deaf man who cannot hear, how much more is it forbidden to curse a person who can hear, for not only is he still humiliated in front of others, but he also is hurt by the words that are hurled at him. By cursing another, one has violated a serious commandment that cuts to the very core of what it takes to be part of a community. The damage is terrible and thus this is not to be permitted.

Here we also see that one cannot even curse him/herself. In the heat of anger or frustration, we are not even allowed to call heavenly wrath upon ourselves. This is not just a form of self humiliation, but it can lead a person to give up on society and may even be akin to committing suicide. We may not believe that words can bring down death upon a person, but one who is so without hope that he or she wishes to be condemned in the worst way possible, will have no reason to want to repent, or rebuild his or her life. It is not a way we should even talk to ourselves.

Finally, we have to define what it means to curse. We are not talking about using swear words or hate speech. This law refers to calling down the “wrath of Heaven” by using the name of God to bring about hurt or disaster upon someone else. This means that the name of God must actually be used in order for the speech to be called a “curse”. One is liable for transgressing this law if he or she uses any common or customary name for God, not just one or two names, and even if an unconventional name is used, one that is a “nickname” of God or a commonly used word that stands for God.

To the Hafetz Hayim the law implies a prohibition between Jews, for the community he speaks of is the Jewish community. However, in the same way that the Sages extended the prohibition from a specific case to a general case, it should be considered forbidden to invoke a curse upon non-Jews as well.

Talmidav Shel Aharon
9-5769: Mitzvah N-44
February 2, 2009

Negative Mitzvah 44 – This is a negative commandment: Do not curse another Jew

Hafetz Hayim: This prohibition is derived from the verse, “you shall not curse the deaf.” (Lev. 19:14) It speaks of a deaf person to make a stronger point – that even though this individual does not hear and suffers no distress from the curse; nevertheless one transgresses by cursing him. If a person curses himself, he likewise violates this. However, one who utters a curse does not commit the transgression unless he does so with the Divine name or a substitute name of God. If it was even with any term by which non-Jews call the Holy One, blessed be He, that is like any of the substitute holy names. This applies in every place and time, for both man and woman.

The Sages noted that with the verse quoted above, cursing the deaf is not like putting a stumbling block in front of the blind. A stumbling block causes the blind man to be hurt and hurts his feelings as well. The deaf person, who does not hear the curse, suffers no harm at all. Why then is it forbidden? Here we have one answer. It shows us that if we are not permitted to curse the deaf, how much more so we are not permitted to curse anyone at all. It is even prohibited to curse oneself, as this would be an act that would, at the very least, destroy one’s self esteem. Since curses were considered to have power, it would be as if the person was being self destructive and this is forbidden.
So what is this “curse”? Cursing, to the Rabbis was not about using foul language or nasty speech. A curse is a specific statement of harm that invokes God’s retribution on the person who is the object of the curse. It is a severe statement of ill will that is almost unknown in modern life. In ancient days, words were believed to have more power than they do today. We see only a small part of this idea when we come across a young child who lashes out with angry words to a parent just before some terrible thing happens to the parent. The child is frightened because the child thinks that his or her words caused the terrible thing to happen. We adults may understand that it is all a coincidence, but to the child, the words have more power then he or she can believe.
The key to a curse is the use of God’s name. “I hope you fall into a pit” is not a curse. “May God reach out and throw you into the pit” is a curse. “May you rot in hell” is not a curse. “May God let you rot in hell” is a curse. The key is changing our angry message into a “prayer” that God should punish the offender on our behalf. Since physically harming another person is forbidden, this is a way of bringing harm to another by invoking God to validate your anger by harming the person on your behalf. Note, that it does not matter what name you invoke God with, what matters is that you have the intention to invoke God in this matter.
So what are we to make of this ancient prohibition? We learn that we should watch our anger, so that we never invoke upon another person this kind of punishment. It is a stain on our soul that we should be so angry and bring hurt and perhaps embarrassment upon the person we are cursing. It is permitted to get angry from time to time, but we need to set limits on our anger and not invoke God into our personal relationships.
One last note, as usual, the Hafetz Hayim only applies this law to cursing other Jews. In our multi-cultural world, in a world where we must all live together in peace, it should be extended to all human beings. Even our worst enemies should not be subject to these kinds of curses for all the reasons listed above.

Talmidav Shel Aharon
8-5769: Mitzvah N-44
January 17, 2009

Negative Mitzvah 44 – This is a negative commandment: Do not strike your father or mother.

Hafetz Hayim: This prohibition is derived from the verse, “And he that strikes his father or mother shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:15) The admonition against it derives from the verse “he may not add more.”(Deut. 25:3) as indicated in our last mitzvah. If a person inflicted a wound on his father or his mother and there were witnesses and a prior warning, his execution should be by strangulation. If he struck a parent on the ear and deafened, he would deserve death, since it is impossible that a drop of blood was not shed within. If he struck him without inflicting a wound, he is punishable as for striking any other Jew. If someone struck his father or his mother after their death, he is free of penalty. It is forbidden to do bloodletting for reasons of health on one’s own father or mother (and so, of course, surgery). If there is no other physician there, he is to do as they order him. This applies in every place and time, for both man and woman.

Respect and Honor of parents is part of the Ten Commandments and this is just the negative side of that commandment. Parents are handled differently than all other Jews regarding damage done to their bodies. We have to understand that this is not referring to a small child who strikes a parent in anger or frustration. A person does not come under the punishment for this violation until he or she reaches legal age in Judaism, which is 13 for boys and 12 ½ for girls. The real issue is when a child grows to be bigger and/or stronger than the parent. Note that there is no age limit given to this law. It therefore also applies to parents when they may become frail and elderly.
I have referred to the limits of capital punishment before but I want to mention it again since this is such a good example. The Sages were very uncomfortable with the death penalty and worked very hard to limit it. This was difficult since there are so many sins in the Torah that require the death penalty. Since the Torah could not be changed, the Sages tried to limit when the punishment could be invoked. There had to be witnesses who actually saw the crime committed. If a witness saw a man chase his father into a barn and when the witness followed him in, the father was injured, the witness did not see the crime and cannot testify how the father became injured. In addition, if witnesses were present (there have to be at least two witnesses) they are also required to warn the man that hurting his parent is a capital offense and they will have to testify at the trial. If any of these were not performed, the death penalty could not be applied.
Short of wounding a parent, if there were no damages to the parent’s body, then the rules of damages to others apply and there could be compensation for public embarrassment, loss of wages, etc. One cannot hurt or embarrass the dead so there can be no penalty for striking the dead body of a parent.
I pause here to mention that even if a parent is abusive, one is not allowed to strike a parent. One should put as much space between themselves and an abusing parent and should fulfill whatever duties a child needs to perform for a parent through proxies. While there is no limit on honoring a parent, one need not risk physical or emotional pain to fulfill this mitzvah. One should do what is necessary through others.
Because the Torah does not place any restrictions on this law, a doctor could not perform surgery of any kind on his or her parent without falling under this ban. Other doctors should be brought in so that the child will not have to “wound” their own parent. I know that doctors do not routinely operate on their close family members because they have too much emotional connection to the family. Here the reason is the prohibition of wounding the parent.
If the doctor is the only one nearby who can save the parent, he or she is to do as commanded. It really does not matter whether the doctor is being commanded by his or her parent or by others in the community; by following the command of others, the doctor is no longer responsible alone for “wounding” the parent and is allowed to do the surgery. In fact, if the parent tells him to operate, to refuse would be a violation of the command to honor one’s parents.