DISTINCTIONS IN HONOUR There are
actually many different factors that we are to apply in distinguishing one from
another. One, for example, is family – we differentiate in how we behave
towards another based upon our relationship with this person. A halachic illustration of this principle
would be the directive that we are to prioritize family members in our
distributions of tzedakah, charity.4 Another
example would be the honour that we are to extend to Torah scholars as
reflected in the directive to stand in their presence.5 A
problem emerges, however, when these two principles of distinction conflict in
any given situation. What are we to do when we are confronted with the honour
due a parent and the honour due a Torah scholar? Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Talmud Torah 5:1 clearly addresses
this issue in regard to a rebbi muvchak,
one from whom a person has learned most of his Torah, stating that the rebbi muvchak has precedence over a
father. However, even within this halacha,
Rambam makes clear that if the father is a scholar in his own right, he
actually has greater precedence even if he did not teach his child the most. It
is also specifically this teacher, not a generic Torah scholar, who is given
this precedence over a father – although if we consider the leader of the
generation, the matter may become more difficult. The fact is that the
determination of which standard of distinction to award precedence in any given
situation is a most challenging issue. T.J. Hurayot 3:5 actually presents a
clear example of this type of challenge in portraying how Moshe and Yehoshua,
in their respective last charges to the nation, presented different orderings
in the honour they bestowed on segments of the nation. In Devarim 29:9, Moshe addresses the roshim, the political leaders within the nation,6 before
the zekanim, while, in Yehoshua 24:1, Yehoshua addresses the zekanim before the roshim.7
The gemara is bothered by the
different conclusions reached by these two great leaders of Klal Yisrael in regard to which grouping
in the nation should be given precedence in honour, the Torah scholars or the political
leaders of the nation. Moshe Rabbeinu’s
choice would seem to have been the latter; Yehoshua’s would seem to have been
the former. In attempting to answer this question, the gemara actually presents four different possible explanations for
the different conclusions and why Yehoshua favoured the zekanim and Moshe the roshim.8 The
fact is that, in viewing this, the gemara
actually touches upon objective and subjective considerations and looks at the
uniqueness of the two different situations. There would seem to be no one right
answer to apply in all circumstances. It would
seem that what is of first importance is just simply the recognition of these
factors that affect our consideration of others – to know the various values
that must be measured in our response to another. Then, though, it would seem
we cannot rely upon a simple formula or codified direction as to what is proper
for what is demanded would seem to be our personal evaluation of the situation
and determination, with guidance from the sources, as to the proper conclusion.
Sometimes, we must even considerer who we are as we also attempt to understand
the other. The specifics of the situation must also, always, be a factor. Meshech Chochma, Devarim 29:9, while
not specifically addressing our issue, also notes the need to recognize a
distinction between the individual and communal persona. There are times when a person is simply a person and times
when he/she represents a group or even the nation. That is often a judgment
call as are often most of these questions. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, Kol Ram, Vol. 3,
Devarim 29:9, in conclusion, adds an interesting perspective to this
exercise. It is obviously important to make correct decisions in regard to our
determination of priority and honour for we thereby instruct ourselves and
others as to what is important. We, furthermore, lay down thereby the
foundations for the society in which we live. Rav Moshe adds another, most
important, perspective. We also learn thereby how to look at ourselves.10 The
challenge of Torah is one of personal growth, not just over our lifetime but
from minute to minute. The call is not an objective one but a subjective one.
How have we done – pursuant to our personal challenges? Teshuva is not just an objective evaluation but it is a subjective
judgment call. Part of the manner by which we learn to properly look at
ourselves and make the proper judgment calls in this regard is from how we look
and make the proper judgment calls in regard to others – the challenges of
which we speak. Rabbi
Benjamin Hecht Footnotes 1 See T.B. Sanhedrin 74a. 2 For an interesting
presentation on this, including a discussion on this entire issue of this
challenge of prioritization, see Dr.
Fred Rosner, The Rationing of Medical Care: The Jewish View, Journal of Halacha
and Contemporary Society 6:21. 3 A greater challenge
may actually be how to reflect these two principles at the same time which may
often indeed be the Torah requirement. 4 See Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Matanot
Ani’im 10:16. 5 See Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Talmud
Torah, Chapter 6. 6 Rashi refers to them as the heads of
the tribes. 7 See, also, Yehoshua 23:2. 8 The reader is
invited to view these various reasons as they each demand further study in
their own right. 9 Two examples of subjective considerations would
be that (a) all the scholars were students of Moshe while all were not
necessarily students of Yehoshua (so Moshe placed the roshim first), and (b) that Yehoshua extended more yegi’ah, effort, than Moshe in his
acquisition of Torah knowledge (and so Yehoshua placed the zekanim first). One can also see, from these examples, why these
explanations do indeed demand further study. 10 See, also, Ntziv, HaEmek Davar. © Nishma 2012 Return to top |
© 2010 NISHMA