Just received the following nasty put down regarding a recent posting regarding the Divine punishment of those who could but don't protect the helpless against molesters and abusers (Shemos 22:21-23) There are those who have eyes and don't see and brains but fail to understand.
DF has left a new comment on your post "Rashi indicates one's children are punished for no...":
I dont think've I seen a more dishonest heading for a blog post -on a blog purportedly run by a frum man, that is - than this one. Rashi's comment has nothing to do with molestors. As a man with a hammer sees a nail everywhere, your unhealthy obsession with molesters leads you to see references to them everywhere.
---------------------------
You clearly missed the point of Rashi's commentary.
Let me explain what Rashi is saying. The Torah is explicity saying that a man who allows widows and orphans to be tormented with be punished by being killed by G-d and thus his wife will become a widow and his children orphans. It is not enough that he be killed but his family must suffer too.
This is mida keneged mida. He failed to protect widows an orphans so he is punished that his wife and children suffer in the same way.That is the lesson of this verse according to Rashi.
In addition Rashi accepts the view of R' Yishmael that this verse is not limited to widows and orphans - but it includes all those who are weak and defenseless.
So what is the mida keneged mida for one who fails to protect a child from being molested? Is it enough that his wife is made into a widow and his children orphans? But how is the mida keneged mida aspect fulfilled? The punishment must be directly linked to what their father and husband failed to do.
I think it is reasonable to deduce from this Rashi that his wife and children will be put into situations that they suffer that which he failed to protect others from.
Similarly in all cases of the torment of the weak and unprotected - his family deserves suffering the indignity that he failed to protect others from.
This is simple pshat
"These are the horns of the dilemma
ReplyDeleteWhat truth is proof against all lies?
When sacred fails before profane?
The wisest man is deemed insane"
Gerrit Graham (American songwriter b 1949) wrote these words inspired by Genesis 32:24-32
The song was first performed by Bobby and the Midnites in 1983.
Thank you for posting this.Our mother taught it to us as children. I always thought it was pshat, but that was before I noticed that the world has turned upside down.
hello there is a diffrence between one who opresses and one who failes to protect . although they are both wrong one who oppresses and is directly mitzaer is much worse
ReplyDeleteYour heading was that Rashi "indicated" that one's children would be punished for not fighting molesters. Originally you wrote one's children would be "molested", but you were smart enough to get rid of that. You should have excised the whole post.
ReplyDeleteRashi is not talking about molesters. He could have if he wanted to. There are places in shas which mention such things. But he didnt mention it. You, because of your strange obsession with this topic, read it into rashi. In this post you defend your comments by saying that molested children are an extension of defenseless persons. The Cambodians in the period of the Khmer rouge were also defenseless. So by this logic you could also have posted "Rashi indicates one will be punished for not fighting the Khmer Rouge."
Listen to me. There's pshat and there's drash. In the world of drash you can say whatever you want, and be masmich it on any possuk or mamer chazal you want. Happens all the time. But if you try to read your personal interest into rashi and try to pass it off as pshat, then you dont know how to learn.
Hope you dont take this personally. I think it was a mistake of yours to take my comment and turn it into a post. Since you do so, I respond. For the record, I do not think this blog is altogether worthless.
1. I noticed that your understanding of מידה כנגד מידה is corroborated explicitly by רשב"ם and ספורנו.
ReplyDelete2. DT: "There are those who have eyes and don't see and brains but fail to understand."
Thank you. Right in the phenomena we know that molesters quintessentially "zero-in" on אומללים. The reports from places like Boston and Ireland repeat this over and over again. I fear "our" report is coming any day now.
Jersey Girl: "... the world has turned upside down."
ReplyDeleteIn old-age homes, etc., you can still hear first-hand testimony that this occurred in Europe before the Churban. I'm not sure anyone knows how prevalent it was.
He deserves the suffering of watching helplessly when its his family who is victimized. They don't deserve being victims just because their father or husband was callous.
ReplyDeleteDF mentioned:"Rashi is not talking about molesters. He could have if he wanted to."
ReplyDeleteYes Rashi does not explicitly talk about molestation. But implicitly, Rashi clearly does say that the Posuk includes all people who are weak and vulnerable to abuse/affliction.
'Hu hadin lekol adam, ela shediber HaKosuv behoiveh' Hence, Rashi is stating a 'Klal' (principle) with relevance to 'Dinei Shamayim', with wider application, 'alibei' to R Yishmael, 'leafukei' R Akiva's shita which only applies to the widow and orphan, as the Malbim explained.
I'm pretty sure that R Eidensohn wasn't saying that Rashi was exclusively talking about victims of molestation. (R Eidensohn, please correct me if I'm wrong!) But rather such people were obviously included within Rashi's wide ranging principle of the weak and vulnerable.
This as far as I'm aware, constitutes a limud according to 'Peshat' not 'Derush'. In other words, this is a conceivable explanation regarding the overt meaning of the posukim in question. Perhaps DF is confusing the definition of Peshat with that which we refer to as literal translation. If this is the case, then much of what we call the 'Pashtonim' such as Rashi, would be speaking in 'Derush' not 'Peshat'.
DF also mentioned the following: "...You, because of your strange obsession with this topic, read it into rashi" Also from the previous post
"your unhealthy obsession with molesters leads you to see references to them everywhere."
Less understandable to me, is DF's description of R Eidensohn's 'strange and unhealthy obsession'. As far as I can see, he is providing a much needed resource, (both his seforim and this blog) for our Torah observant communities. Yes abuse is a very very uncomfortable topic for most people to really grapple, understandably so. But alas, what can we do, abuse in our communities is alive and kicking. We live in a generation whose time and place Hashgochas Hashem has deemed appropriate that these horrors be wrenched out into the light of day for us to face up to.
Are we expected to play a game of denial and pretend its not there? Or are we to take a stand, such as R Eidensohn has, to say that Shmiras HaTorah does not tolerate these types of repugnant behaviors nor does it give license for us to turn a blind eye towards members of our community that behave as such?
Well, incest is a straight mida keneged mida: You rape your daughter, your daughter will raped.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that specific person really,it referes to society as a whole.
ReplyDelete