(All rights reserved to Keren Yishai)

The transition from Parashat Yitro to Parashat Mishpatim is actually the transition from the general to the particular. We are moving from the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai, to the details of the 613 commandments. The connection between the two is encapsulated in the “vav” which opens the parasha: “Ve’eleh hamishpatim”. This ‘vav’ links Mt. Sinai, the lightning, the thunder – to the 53 mitzvot in Parashat Mishpatim.

Out of all these, I want to focus on a primary mitzvah – the mitzvah to honor one’s parents. It appears in the Ten Commandments in somewhat unique form, and in Parshat Mishpatim it also appears in somewhat unusual mode.

Before I begin, I want to preface with one remark. We remember the beginning of Parashat Yitro: “Yitro, priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moses and for Israel His people, that He had brought Israel out of Egypt…. and he came…”. Rashi asks what prompted Yitro to come? And he answers: ‘The division of the Red Sea and the war with Amalek.’ Sometimes, when we learn about Yitro we get the impression that he had special privileges, ‘proteksia’ even, and I’m not sure it was entirely deserved. It’s true that he was well connected, that his lineage was distinguished, but still – why was he accorded such respect? What, in fact, did he do to deserve it? He made a very clever suggestion that Moses divide up the work by appointing officers, but someone else could easily have come up with the same proposal. It was a good idea, and it was accepted (which was a miracle in itself – that a proposal to organize the Jews was approved by them). But, despite this – what’s so special about Yitro?

I think that’s what Rashi is telling us. ‘What was the report which he heard… the division of the Dead Sea and the war with Amalek.’ This has always disturbed me. Why doesn’t Rashi simply continue with the verse, which plainly tells us that Yitro heard all that God did for Moses and His people? What concerns Rashi? What did he hear about the division of the Dead Sea? Remember this was not only the actual parting of the waters. It included an extremely accurate and detailed weather forecast – ‘God caused the sea to go back by a powerful east wind’. A powerful east wind, mighty storms, winds at a high rate of speed – everyone witnessed the unusual weather, including the Egyptians, who proceeded right into the teeth of the storm, and including Amalek. But there was one who, as a result of witnessing and hearing the storm, experienced a change of nature. Something happened to him in the wake of the storm – he heard it, and as a result he came, he took action. Everyone saw and heard – we often see and hear things, but the question here is: what effect do they have on us?

Both Yitro and Amalek heard about the parting of the waters of the Red Sea. Amalek symbolizes all those who, despite witnessing these wonders, had only one thing in mind – the need to fight against Israel at Rephidim. Amalek’s sole purpose was to minimize everything that happened. So what if there was a storm, unusual weather, a strong east wind, great disturbances at sea… it can all be explained! The question is, did what you hear have any effect on you? “People shall hear, they shall become agitated, pangs shall seize the inhabitants of Pelasheth” – these are fine phrases, but what really happened? Yitro’s greatness lies in his ability to listen and to hear. He sees, he absorbs, he internalizes, he interprets what he sees and hears, he comprehends what it is the Almighty wants of him. The continuation of Parashat Yitro concerns itself with what the Jewish people heard. Many people were assembled at Mt. Sinai, including some who heard “You shall not steal” and proceeded to steal nevertheless. There were those who heard “The children of Israel are My servants” and promptly bought their own slaves. What really happened at Mt. Sinai was that we learned to hear - ‘the particular report which he heard so that he came’…

I think this basis of Parashat Yitro, of the Ten Commandments, begins its detailed breakdown at the practical level of Parashat Mishpatim. I will deal with one specific mitzvah which holds a significant place in the Ten Commandments. I think it has even more significance for us today. “Honor your father and your mother” – this, basically, is the commandment, no details, no punishment, no instructions how to go about it – “that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God has given you.” Even before we delve deeper into this mitzvah, there is already something here that needs to be understood. This is the only one of the Ten Commandments that applies specifically to certain people. Some of the commandments apply generally – for example, “You will not bear false witness against your fellow man” or “you shall not covet your fellow man’s wife”, both of which refer to everyone. You shall not steal – from your fellow man. You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery… Then there are those commandments which are between man and God. It is true that in any discussion about honoring one’s parents, reference will always be made to the certainty that by honoring one’s parents one honors God, which is why this, the fifth commandment, finds it place among the commandments between man and God. But our parents are specific, flesh and blood people. All the other commandments are very general. We also have mitzvot pertaining to presidents, to the Beth Din, to elderly people and so on, but none of them appear among the Ten Commandments. Only this one.

Another unique aspect of this commandment is that it includes the outcome, the reward - “that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God has given you.” This is the only reference in the Ten Commandments to the land of Israel, the land which the Almighty has given you. This is a positive mitzvah, referring to specific people in regard to certain other people, and including the reward for its observance. Furthermore, the reward is directly linked to the relationship between the nation and the land. None of the other commandments contain these elements. What’s the connection between the land and one’s parents?

The Ramban’s commentary on Yitro includes this important observation: “Honor your father and your mother. This concludes all that we are obligated regarding the Creator….” The reference is to the first four commandments – “I am the Lord…. You shall have no other gods…. You shall not take the name of your God in vain… Remember the Sabbath day.” The Ramban continues: “… and goes on to command us in matters pertaining to those who were created, beginning with the father, who is to his generation as the creator is to that which is created.” In other words, my parents are both creators and created. As regards the world, they were created, but they also participated in my creation. Without them, I would not exist. “Because God is our First Father, and he who caused [us] to be born is our last father.” This commentary of Ramban brings us closer to the concepts of honor for one’s parents. “And so it is written in the Mishne Torah (the Ten Commandments as they appear in the book of Deuteronomy).” There the text reads ‘Honor your father and your mother’ etc… ‘As I commanded you.’ According to the Ramban, this means: ‘Just as I commanded you in My honor, so I command you regarding the honor of those who participated with me in your creation.’ Your father and mother are the last creators and I am the First Creator. Through us you, the created, must continue your relationship with the world. Before we continue with the other commandments, pertaining to your relationship with the rest of the world, we must conclude those pertaining to your relationship with the First Creator and he who caused us to be born – the last creator.

He concludes as follows: “Although it is not plainly stated, it should be understood that one must relate to one’s parents with the same respect as that which we accord to the Holy One, blessed be He. For instance, one must acknowledge his father. One should not deny him, saying of another man that he is his father. He should not serve him as a son for the sake of his inheritance or any other thing that he expects from him. He shall not swear falsely on his father’s life. This precept includes other things, because as we honor our Creator, so must we honor our parents. These things are explained by our sages, who say that honoring one’s parents can be compared to honoring the Almighty. The reward for so doing is that your days will be long in the Land that He will give us. The sages relate to these matters by saying that fulfillment of this mitzvah will ensure that all our days will be long, both in this world and the next world, which is entirely long. We will dwell for ever on the good Land which will be granted to us. The Mishne Torah reads ‘that your days may be prolonged and that it may go well with you in the Land that the Lord your God gives you’. This should be understood as two separate promises.” The Ramban is telling us the last creator – our parents – can be compared to the First Creator – God – the transition from creator to created. He is also making another profound yet fundamental point: It is sometimes difficult to honor the First Creator, but it is often far more difficult to honor the last creator, who is flesh and blood like you. Furthermore, sometimes you are right and he is wrong.

Let us now turn our attention to how “honor your father and your mother” is interpreted on a practical and technical level. This applies to the legal aspects of the rules of punishment. How does ‘honor your father’ descend into the practical world of Parashat Mishpatim? Let’s take a look at the text: “He that smites a man, so that he die, shall be put to death. And if a man lies not in wait, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint you a place where he shall flee. But if a man acts presumptuously against his fellow man to kill him with guile, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die. And he that smites his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.”

‘He that smites a man’ - Rashi proves, from verses in Parashat Vayikra, that this applies to everyone, man and woman, young and old. If the man does not die but sustains a wound, it becomes a legal matter pertaining to injury, and the laws of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” apply, as they appear in our Parashah. Our sages are swift to point out that the reference is not to an actual eye or tooth, but to monetary compensation for damages, including medical expenses, pain, losses incurred and so on. However, the text here refers to someone who inflicts harm on another culminating in his death, and the punishment is death. The subject is murder, which is why the next verse follows on directly: “if a man lies not in wait” – he did not set an ambush, the death was accidental, “I will appoint you a place where he shall flee”, referring to the cities of refuge, which are dealt with elsewhere. “But if a man acts presumptuously against his fellow man to kill him with guile, you shall take him from My altar that he may die.” There is no escape for him, even if he is a priest, clinging to the horns of the altar itself. He must die. We continue: “And he that smites his father and his mother shall surely be put to death.” Unlike the previous verses, this is not conditional on the death of the parent. The transgressor will be put to death irrespective of whether or not the parent dies. The same punishment awaits one who “steals a man and sells him, and he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.” The punishment remains the same, regardless of whether the victim was a man, woman or child. By the way, what is meant here by ‘found in his hand’? Whose hand? He has, after all, been sold. The explanation can only be that the kidnapper was caught in the act before the transaction was completed. We continue: “He that curses his father and his mother shall surely be put to death.” Despite the fact that so many deeds listed in Parashat Mishpatim were punishable by death, we should bear in mind that if a Beth Din sentenced even one person to death in the space of 70 years, it became known as a murderous Beth Din.

Note that ‘he who steals a man’ appears between ‘he that smites his father’ and ‘he that curses his father’ – it seems incongruous in this particular location. The preceding verses were sequential, but this strikes a jarring note. Rashi explains ‘he that smites his father and his mother’ to mean ‘either his father or his mother.’ ‘Shall surely be put to death” - as a rule, the death penalty was strangulation, according to Rashi. This was considered to be the easiest death of the four – strangulation, stoning, burning and slaughter.

He who curses his parent will also be put to death – by stoning,, maintains Rashi. This is the harshest form of death. Why stoning for cursing and strangulation for smiting? Rashi explains that wherever the term “his blood is upon him” is used in connection with the death penalty, execution by stoning is intended. Where is it written in this context? In Parashat Kedoshim the text reads: ‘Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am the Lord your God. You shall keep my statutes and do them, I am the Lord who sanctifies you. Every one that curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, his blood shall be upon him.’ ‘Blood’ refers to stoning. What is worse – to smite or to curse? Apparently, to smite, yet the more severe punishment is reserved for cursing. And another question: The text has already told us that the transgressor is one who cursed his father or mother, so why does the verse repeat that ‘he has cursed his father or his mother’? Rashi explains it to mean, he who curses his parent after his death. ‘Every one that curses’… usually means one who in God’s name has cursed his parent so he will die. However, according to this explanation, if he curses his parent after his death, no matter how long after, he is still liable for the death penalty. The injunction remains in force not during his parents’ lifetime, but even after the death of his parents, for as long as he lives. Nobody smites his parents after their death, that’s abnormal – but if it happens, Rambam decrees the offender exempt. From this we can see that cursing is far more serious that smiting.

If you look to Rambam for the laws pertaining to conduct towards parents, you will find them among the laws pertaining to one who goes against the word of God or defies the decree of the High Bet Din, located in the book of Judges, between the laws regulating kings and those regulating the Bet Din. I think the phrase ‘ so your days will be long upon the earth’ in connection with honoring one’s parents, is the basis for power and rule, social and political systems. Rambam introduced these laws in a place dealing not with relationships in society, but the relationship between the citizen and the ruling power, God’s representatives – the High Bet Din, the king, the anointed one, the Temple, wars – this is the company in which the laws of kibud av va’em are to be found.

Rambam says as follows: “The Torah is not only meticulous about the actual smiting or cursing, but also regarding the contempt displayed by the one who treats his parents in this manner, even in speech. This is to be condemned even if it is merely insinuated and hinted at, as it is written: Cursed is he whose parents are disregarded in his eyes, for he mocks his father and treats his mother with contempt. The Bet Din must punish such a one severely, according to what is appropriate.” This is not the law of the Torah, the intention here is to administer suitable punishment.

I return to my previous questions – why is the issue of stealing a man interposed between ‘he who smites’ and ‘he who curses’? and why is it a graver offence to curse than to smite? Ibn Ezra, in the name of the Gaon – R’ Sa’adia Gaon, offers a wonderful explanation for the first question. Regarding one who steals a man, Ibn Ezra says that it does not speak only of the present “because those who are stolen were once young children, and since they were raised in a strange land they never knew their parents. Thus it is possible that they may smite them and curse them”. The punishment applies to the man who stole them. The Torah starts by saying “he who smites his father and mother” and suddenly pauses, so to speak, and remarks, ‘wait a minute. It’s inconceivable that such a thing could every happen. The parent is the final creator – how then can a man raise his hand against his parent?’ So, before going on to deal with the issue of one who curses his parents, the Torah says, ‘let’s try to explain this phenomenon. Sometimes an occasion arises where a child is not aware of his parents – an instance of a kidnapped child, for example. The kidnapper in effect caused a short circuit in the family’.

Technically, the Ibn Ezra is referring to someone who stole a man to sell him, but there is also a deeper meaning. The thief need not necessarily be someone with big eyes and teeth – the bogeyman who frightens children in their dreams. Sometimes the social system creates a situation where children don’t know their parents, a situation which can definitely result in the child’s cursing his parents, because he doesn’t regard them as parents.

We return to ‘every one that curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother...’ Our sages are of the same opinion as Ibn Ezra, but they are more basic in educational, social and legal terms. The passage begins: ‘Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am the Lord your God.’ Our sages accept this as axiomatic. The concept of ‘holiness’, where it is not preceded by a specific reference, usually alludes to forbidden relations. Kedoshim tih’yu is the phrase immediately following the chapter on forbidden relationships at the end of Aharei mot. This parashah is read at Mincha on Yom Kippur. Basing themselves on this, our sages therefore maintain that the first item following ‘sanctify yourselves’ must be forbidden relations, since it is linked to the concept of ‘sanctify yourselves and be holy’ – but it isn’t. What do find instead? ‘Every one that curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother...’ This is not a reference to incest. The second in the list is: ‘And the man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, even he that commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death’. Our sages feel that something is out of place, in the same way that something is out of place in Parashat Mishpatim. The issue of adultery should have followed immediately after ‘sanctify yourselves and be holy’, yet once again the issue of one who curses his parents has been inserted. Why?

In the Midrash Rabah, Parshat Sotah, the sages explain as follows: “How do we know that Israel are called ‘holy’ so long as they protect themselves from adultery? Because it is written ‘Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am the Lord your God.’ From here we learn that when they are holy He is God unto them. And it continues, ‘and you shall keep My statutes and do them, I am the Lord who sanctifies you’. When does the Almighty sanctify Israel? When they keep His statues. And what are these statutes? The laws against forbidden relations, beginning with adultery.” But we have just seen that this is not the case – adultery is the second statute, the first being ‘he who curses his mother or his father…’

The explanation continues: “And why does ‘he who curses his father or mother’ appear between ‘sanctify yourselves’ and ‘he who commits adultery’? Because the Almighty said: ‘what is it that caused the son to curse his father? Adultery! For he is sure that the husband of his mother is his father… and sure that the adulterer is not his father.’ He can’t tell anymore who is his father and who isn’t his father. A system has been established involving an adulterer and an adulteress.

You remember ‘honor your father and your mother so that your days may be long on the Land?’ If you hope to arrive to a state of dominion over the land, you must be aware that the first institution, the one from which everything originates, and upon which everything can founder, God forbid, is the institution of father, mother, child, the system where God, the First Creator, appears to you through the final creator. When this system is disregarded and held in contempt, the result is not a sexual problem but a problem of children cursing their parents.

The Midrash continues: “ In consequence you say ‘he who smites his father or his mother and he who steals a man and sells him’ - why does the one who steals a man come between one who smites his parent and one who curses his parent? There should not be an interruption between them, seeing that both refer to punishments deserved by those who transgress against parents. This comes to teach us that we will hold the thief responsible after the offender strikes his parents and curses them, because he did not grow up with them. He does not recognize them.” Here the Torah is plainly relating to the educational and sociological background of the phenomenon of one who curses his parents.

The Ramban spoke of the First Creator and the final creator. We once discussed the text “every man shall fear his mother and his father, and you shall observe My Sabbaths.” Our sages offer a well-known explanation: You shall fear your mother and your father BUT you shall observe My Sabbaths. If your parents instruct you to desecrate the Sabbath, you are not obligated to obey them. Why? Because “I am the Lord your God” and you and your father are obligated to honor Me. He is the final creator, in the language of the Ramban, but I am the First Creator. When there is a conflict of interests between the two, it is always incumbent upon you to heed the First Creator.

Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, author of the “Hemshech Chochmah”, asks a wonderful question. Let’s define it in Talmudic terms. How did you reach the conclusion that if your father tells you to desecrate the Sabbath you need not obey? Because of the parallel between “every man shall fear his mother and his father” and “you shall observe My Sabbaths.” Says the “Hemshech Chochmah” – I don’t understand. Does this mean that, were it not for the analogy, one must obey one’s parents and yet desecrate the Sabbath, logically speaking? With all due respect to our parents, they are the final creators, not the Original Creator, they are flesh and blood. Is it necessary for the Torah to come and tell us, ‘we’ve forgotten to mention something – if the Almighty tells you to do something and mortals tell you to do the opposite, the Almighty is right and you should do as He says’? Isn’t that self-evident? Moreover, if it’s necessary to spell it out, then perhaps we need many more such injunctions, for example: If the Almighty tells you to observe the Sabbath and the king orders otherwise, you must heed the Almighty. It’s quite clear that we’re not talking about pikuach nefesh (saving of life) here, since it doesn’t say: ““every man shall fear his mother and his father, and you shall observe My Sabbaths”, even if your parents kill you’. The situation presented here is straightforward: you father tells you to desecrate the Sabbath, but you say you don’t want to. You don’t harm your father, you simply explain that you don’t want to desecrate the Sabbath. You aren’t telling him what to do, merely what you yourself intend to do.

The “Hemshech Chochmah” wants to understand the underlying motive. Why is an analogy necessary here? His answer is remarkable. It goes a long way towards furthering our understanding of the entire issue of honoring one’s parents. He says that if there was no analogy – if we were not instructed to disobey our parents on the issue of desecrating the Sabbath – then we would simply be obliged to obey our parents when they so required, and not the opposite. How come? The logic is simple: How do you know you must keep the Sabbath? Because your father instructed you to do so. Who assembled at Mt. Sinai? Your father, or his father… What is important here is that the injunction to observe the Sabbath came to you from your father. There is a simple rule that states: the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permits. If your father now comes to you and says, ‘it’s true that I told you to observe the Sabbath, but that’s all over now. I’m telling you not to observe the Sabbath.’ Seeing that he was the one who forbade you in the first place, if he changes his instructions to you, you are bound by his new ruling. That’s why we need a written ruling to overrule this logic – a written ruling that maintains, ‘despite this, I say to you “every man shall fear his mother and his father, and you shall observe My Sabbaths.”’ Your parents are not only the last creators, according to the “Hemshech Chochmah”. It is through them that you receive the word of the First Creator, thus there is no world of faith without them. “I am the Lord your God” is relevant and real because it has been transmitted to you by your father, who heard these words at Mt. Sinai.

By honoring one’s parents one is, indirectly, honoring the First Creator. On the other hand, what happens when our parents wrongly exploit their authority? We are all familiar with such instances. The Rambam has the following to say:

“How far does honor of one’s parents go? Even if they take his bag of gold and throw it into the sea, in his presence, he shall not shame them or express his pain, neither shall he be angry with them, but he shall accept their ruling and remain silent. And how far does fear of one’s parents go? Even if he (the son) wears fine clothing and sits at the head of the community, if his parents come to him and tear his clothing and beat him on his head and spit in his face, he shall not shame them, but he shall remain silent and fearful before them, for the King of Kings has thus commanded. For if a king of flesh and blood were to impose upon him something more grievous that this, he would not be able to refute any part of it, how much more so for Him who spoke and the world was created to His will.”

The Gemara asks: ‘How far does honor of one’s parents go?’ and introduces an interesting ruling: If the father foregoes his honor, the obligation to honor him is removed. Does this mean that if my father does not stand on his honor I am not obligated to honor him? And how exactly does a father forego his honor? We have just concluded that by honoring our parents we are honoring the Almighty – how can He forego His honor? If a king foregoes his honor, his honor is not taken away, because by so doing he is eliminating the honor of his kingship, and he has no right to do so. By virtue of the fact that he is king, it is incumbent upon him to preserve the honor of his sovereignty. So how can it be that a father who desires to waive his honor can do so, when he is, after all, the final creator?

The Rambam says: “Even though we have been so commanded, it is forbidden for a man to increase the burden on his children by being demanding of his honor, so that it becomes an obstacle to them. He should be forgiving and condoning, because if a father foregoes his honor, his honor is eliminated.” In other words, the Rambam now turns to the parents, saying, in effect, you are parents, but you are also mortal – “it is forbidden for a man” – referring here to the parents. There is a saying: ‘A man should always be God-fearing, first of all he must be a man, and after that he must be God-fearing.’ First be a mentsch, then fear God. Why are you placing obstacles in front of your children? We live in a society, with systems and rules. You are certainly the final creator, you must undoubtedly educate your child, it is true that a society which permits children to curse their parents is falling apart. But you must know how to be flexible. And if the father asks – who gives me the right to be flexible, am I permitted to be flexible with the honor of the Almighty? The Holy One replies: I gave you permission to be flexible – I am the Father who foregoes His honor, and His honor is therefore relinquished.

This ruling of the Rambam has legal status. It is a Jewish law, from the Torah, and as such it is immutable. Honor of one’s parents does not depend on a particular period in time, on the prevailing atmosphere, the mores of society or a particular mentality. If it is in any way changed, all is lost. The legal definition for honoring one’s parents is simply this: the King of Kings has so commanded. How far does it go? ? Even if they take his bag of gold and throw it into the sea, in his presence, he shall not shame them or express his pain. Now the Rambam turns to us, in a sort of PTA meeting, and speaks to us in the first person plural – ‘even though we have been so commanded…, let’s be reasonable, let’s think how we can find an educational method for carrying out this injunction, because the injunction is immutable, it doesn’t change. A society that has ceased observing the injunction to honor one’s parents has in effect closed shop. We must find a way to carry it out. Let’s think about it, let’s discuss it. Let’s be flexible, let’s find suitable methods. By the way, the rule also applies to a rabbi – if a rabbi foregoes his honor, his honor is removed. So if a rabbi tells his students: the injunction to make yourself a teacher is outdated and no longer applies, we are all equal now – he is destroying everything. But if the rabbi is wise, and aware of the injunction regarding waiving his honor, he will have the ability to be flexible when imparting Torah to his students. In this case the rabbi is not foregoing his honor, he is continuing the tradition of Moses, Joshua, the elders, the prophets, and the men of the Great Assembly, yet he is being flexible, although he can never alter the principle.

This is the reason why the Rambam, regarding the ruling on a man who is sentenced to death (this does not happen more than once in seventy years, so consider, if you will, what kind of hardened criminal, what kind of gangster, such a man must be), ruled that such a man’s honor need not be taken into consideration. Despite the fact that the court decreed “you shall love your fellow as yourself’, the death of such a man shall not be ‘lenient’, but according to the law. But what happens in the case of the following tragedy: “One whose parents are outright criminals and lawbreakers, if they have been sentenced to death and are now being taken out to be executed, he is forbidden to hit them and curse them.” Another example: “If his parents have committed a crime, the punishment for which is flogging, and his task in the court is to execute the punishment – he is forbidden to beat them”, for they are his parents. The Rambam continues: “And if it is his duty to convey letters in the court, he shall not be the messenger bearing the sentence, neither shall he jostle his parents or degrade them while fulfilling his duties in the court, despite the fact that they are deserving of such behavior and have not repented”. Whether they have stolen, robbed, violated – it makes no difference. They are his parents.

A social system that believes in freedom and liberty must be even more aware of the dangers inherent in the concept of honoring and fearing one’s parents. In Russia, the Former Soviet Union, in the 1920’s, as some of you may remember, there was a famous symbol. A young boy, ten years old, named Pavlek Morozhov, was considered to be a great hero at the time when Stalin issued his edict of collectivization for all the farmers, introducing the concept of the kholkhoz into the USSR. The underlying purpose was to make all produce the property of the authorities – which really meant the good of the party. As a rule, most people did their utmost to ignore this decree as much as possible. It happened that in one kholkhoz, one farmer hid part of his harvest, because apparently he didn’t entirely accept the idea that the harmony of all people came before his own supper. His young son, who was a member of the Pioneer Movement, turned his father in to the authorities for withholding the property of the state. The following night the father was arrested and exiled to Siberia. The outcome was the same as for the other fifty million murdered by this man in the name of good and justice. The other farmers in that kholkhoz secretly murdered Pavlek, the child who informed on his parents. Pavlek Morozhov became a legend in the USSR, a national hero, the one who taught his parents that all are equal, and he died because he was the son of his parents.

When I told this story some time ago, an elderly Jew approached me in tears, and said, “Rabbi, this is not a story about the USSR. I grew up with the story of Pavlek Morozhov, fifty years ago.” He began to recite, in Russian, all the songs and poems about Pavlek Morozhov. Then he said: “At a gathering of friends, ten years later, I saw a boy arguing with his father. He stood up, walked over to his father, and slapped him hard on the cheek, to the accompaniment of cheers from all those present. Only then did I realize that I didn’t belong there.” Pavlek Morozhov isn’t a story, it’s a world where honoring one’s parents is not a commandment. It’s a world where one passes from the creator to the creations, all of them equal. Everyone is equal, including you and your father.

I am most distressed. Usually I refrain from doing so, but this time I have no choice - after I heard the Supreme Court verdict last week on the subject of corporal punishment, I carefully read over the fifty pages that comprised the verdict. I read them from beginning to end, seeking one paragraph that pertained to beating and honoring one’s parents, perhaps one reference by one Jew in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel. One word, even. Something. One letter, perhaps. There is a reference to the Ibn Shushan dictionary for the definition of ‘abuse’. Fifty pages! I hoped there would be at least one judicial reference, before we officially go over to the method of Pavlek Morozhov. I hoped that before this step is legally taken, they would set aside a short time for deliberation on what the Jewish people has to say about the concept of parenthood. Even if you don’t think it’s important, at least consider it for a brief moment. I went over the verdict again – not one word did I find!

“Honor your father and your mother, that your days be long upon the Land.” Whoever is concerned with the duration of society on its land must examine this topic very, very carefully. There is a First Creator and a final creator, and in between we sometimes find people who steal others and sell them. It is important that we pay attention and comprehend the importance of these things. We must listen and hear, as Yitro did. We must hear how far the honor of parents goes, we must study the laws of man and how to be flexible in changing circumstances, in shifting societies and social systems.

There is an interesting discussion in the verdict, including quotes. The judge who wrote it said that she was aware that it was innovative, and she introduced rulings from the American, Canadian and British Supreme Courts, all of which contradicted her ruling. She also quoted the late President of the Supreme Court, who claimed that one must be careful not to harm the system. Then she wrote: “But the rulings of the late President of the Supreme Court are no longer relevant in a modern world. ‘The culture changes, everything changes.’”

Before we take this step we would be well advised to remember whence we came, in order to know where we are bound and before whom we will be accountable.

Home | Contact Us | Keren Yishai | Rav Mordechai Elon
Learn the Mekorot | Read the Shiur