Instinctual versus acquired ethical knowledge and the irreducible rights and respect for the individual in society: two concepts of “yashrus” by Rabbi Meir Triebitz
This book is an extensive collection of sources covering all aspects of child abuse as it affects the traditional Jewish community. They range from medical and psychological issues to halachic and theological ones. It presents us with an impressive, almost overwhelming array of facts which open up an entire world which heretofore has remained hidden and obscured to most except to those individuals who have unfortunately been forced to confront its horrible realities.
However the real story told by this book lies behinds its many facts. It is the story of a community which is more and more being forced to confront its very own ethical reality. The ever increasing revelations of ethical and moral degeneracy seem to have brought about more confusion then resolve. This confusion is furthermore compounded when theological-legal arguments and excuses run contrary to commonsense logic and ethics. More and more people are increasingly feeling the tension of choosing between what they are told is right and what they instinctively believe to be true, or by being forced to choose between the prestige of institutions and the most basic respect for the individual.
The legitimacy of ethical commonsense and the irreducible respect for the rights of the individual is not an import from secular culture but is, in fact, a Torah concept itself whose origin is in Scripture and whose implications and consequences abound not only in the areas of Aggadata but also, if not primarily, in the realm of Halakha. It is to be found in Chazal, the classical commentaries, and in the Shulchan Aruch, the Jewish code of law. The common name given to both of the above concepts is yashrus. The very fact that two seemingly unrelated concepts are referred to by the same name is a clear indication of a deep relationship between the two which we will explore later. For the moment we will first introduce them. The first appears in a verse in Deuteronomy and is discussed in the Sifre. [...]
"It is the story of a community which is more and more being forced to confront its very own ethical reality. The ever increasing revelations of ethical and moral degeneracy seem to have brought about more confusion then resolve."
ReplyDeleteJust this morning, I went to the heimisher bagel store, as I often do when I don't have time to get a fancier coffee. New policy: The coffee cups are now kept behind the counter, and handed to you when you buy the coffee.
The reason? People were paying for a small and take a large; two friends would come and serve themselves coffee, but only one goes to the counter and paid for his own coffee afterward; etc...
-micha
Sounds like a valuable book that will lead to some useful soul searching and clarification. I would love to see a companion volume on "Shidduchim and Yashrus." The same tensions regularly arise around shidduchim and affect many more invididuals. Shidduchim both reflect what is valued and determine what is valued.
ReplyDelete"The legitimacy of ethical commonsense and the irreducible respect for the rights of the individual is not an import from secular culture but is, in fact, a Torah concept itself whose origin is in Scripture..."
ReplyDeleteIt is so refreshing to hear this. I've heard many kiruv rabbis say, "American culture is all about rights, but Judaism is superior because its all about responsibility," then go on to discuss why the American focus on rights is destroying morality.
Talking about the importance of responsibility is all well and good. However, implying that being concerned about the rights of individuals is somehow non-Jewish, anti-Torah and spiritually corrosive always struck me as fundamentally wrong, although I couldn't quite articulate why.
I finally got around to buying a copy of "Daas Torah" for myself. What an amazing book. Even with all of its typos, it's *still* the best money I've spent on a sefer in quite a while. This fact, in combination with how much I enjoyed the passage by R' Triebitz that you just posted here, makes it pretty much a done deal that I'll be buying a copy of your upcoming book on abuse.
ReplyDeleteOn rights vs responsibility, I proposed a three-way division: rights, duty to other, role in a covenantal union.
ReplyDeleteThe third way, the Torah's concept of beris avoids both the slippery slope from rights to a culture of entitlement that too much of the US slid down, as well as that from duty to totalitarianism that plague so many monarchies and dictatorships.
It might have its own dangers of abuse, but I haven't identified them yet. (Having likely routes of abuse doesn't make something wrong.)
-micha
Micha: Hopefully you're not one of those thoughtless individuals who carry their cup of HOT coffee onto a public area like a train or bus and put other people at grave risk of severe burns, right?
ReplyDeleteI've seen a number of people who should know better actually doing so!
"It might have its own dangers of abuse, but I haven't identified them yet. (Having likely routes of abuse doesn't make something wrong.)"
ReplyDeleteWhat about what occurred to the son of Rav Shimon ben Shetach?
Luke warm, generally. (My tongue is a wimp.) Thanks for the reality check, though.
ReplyDelete-micha
Moshe quoted me: "It might have its own dangers of abuse, but I haven't identified them yet. (Having likely routes of abuse doesn't make something wrong.)"
ReplyDeleteTo which he asked: What about what occurred to the son of Rav Shimon ben Shetach?
What does being killed by slanderous witnesses, or not accepting a recanting of testimony, have to do with whether the legal system is based on rights, duties or covenental responsibility?
-micha
Micha:
ReplyDeleteI don't think that there'd be any chancr of RSbS being killed by any justice system in America in the last 50 years (except maybe in the backwoods of Alabama?)...
Actually, I doubt there would be any chance of his being killed by a beis din. If once in 7 or 70 years would be called bloody. The narrative involves getting rid of witches -- there is far more going on between the medrash and the events it's based on, and between the medrash and halakhah than meets the eye.
ReplyDeleteStill don't see how this flows from covenental law as opposed to a rights-based law. Even the halakhah invoked about retracting testimony is a detail that could be justified or denied under either philosophy. Even a rights-based law could give more authority to cross examination than to things the witness themselves said after the trial. Maybe they were trying to cause problems for their own purposes.
-micha