Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

In our previous posting, somebody asked the question: How is it possible to respect the Ultra-Orthodox in Israel, when many of them behave so violently toward the non-Haredi community?

A different reframing of the question might read: Must respect be earned, or is respect given carte blanche? Moreover, what does Jewish tradition say about these important questions?

According to Hillel’s famous advice, “What is hateful unto you, do not do to your fellow man,” Hillel demands that we treat each person with respect. Authentic religion begins with the cultivation of respect toward others. Whenever religious teachers fail to instill within their followers a reverence for life, religion becomes a sham.

Two Jewish ethical philosophers, Martin Buber and Emmanuel Lévinas,, develop Hillel’s message howbeit through different paths. Buber maintains that God is the third partner in every human relationship. The way we treat our fellow human beings says much about the way we feel about God. Anyone who mistreats his neighbor paradoxically behaves like an atheist.

Lévinas adds that the human face reflects the Divine face, and each person must act ethically toward the Other—even if he is not necessarily deserving of respect. He further argues if somebody mistreats you, you have no ethical right to mistreat another human being. Two wrongs do not make a right. The human face is the ultimate moral signifier according to Lévinas. In all its nudity, the face calls out-but not in words-”Respect me . . . do not kill me.”

In practical terms, Lévinas, makes a good point. If your employer acts like a jerk, that does not entitle you to act like one also. Standing up to abuse is one thing; you have every right to question his judgement-however, you need not act like a jerk in the process!

The question gets more complicated when you have an entire ethnic group misbehaving, rioting, and threatening the lives of innocent bystanders because of religious reasons.

In this instance, Lévinas’s ethical approach breaks down and loses some (but certainly not all) of its validity. Buber’s criticism of Lévinas, is well known, for Buber claims morality is like a two-way street. If somebody mistreats you, there is no a priori responsibility to play the role of victim. You have no obligation to show that person respect. Morality operates on a symmetrical principle of mutual give and take-contra Levinas! For Buber, ethical relation implies a “symmetrical co-presence,” but for Lévinas, the relation with the Other exists as something that is inherently asymmetrical.

Let us return to our original question: Must respect be earned before it is given?

Not necessarily.

As mentioned above, respect is something we must show to all people; however, if the Other acts in an anti-social manner, society has the duty to incarcerate its offenders, criminals, and deviants. The victimizer is unworthy of respect.

This is exactly the problem we now have with the Haredim rioting in Israel.

One of my congregants asked a recent synagogue class, “How can we try to be respectful and understanding of the ultra-Orthodox when they are at the forefront of hostile activities like rioting at places which are open on Shabbat and more recently, vandalizing a girls’ school in Bet Shemesh because it bordered their neighborhood?”

The short answer is simple: Everybody deserves respect, provided one acts in a manner that is respectful. Since the Haredim do not behave in a manner that is respectful, they need to change and improve their behavior to win our respect back.

They may want to start the process of healing by following Maimonides’ prescription for repentance. The first step is an acknowledgement of responsibility and fault. The second step involves a change in behavior for the better-no more attacks on innocents. The third step requires restitution to the city and school property, which were damaged. Arresting and incarcerating those responsible for the violence might also be included in this step. Forgiveness comes only in the end when all the other steps have been carried out to fruition.

Platitudes and empty promises mean nothing. Without a change in behavior, they are analogous to Maimonides’s example of the individual who immerses himself in the mikveh, while holding on to a rat-the symbol of ritual defilement. Immersion means nothing so long as the individual is still holding on to dysfunctional attitudes and deeds. [2]

Some law-abiding Haredim in Israel find their cohorts’ religious behavior embarrassing. Yet, despite the condemnations we have heard from the leading Chief Rabbis of Israel, we have yet to hear a universal condemnation from all of the Haredi scholars and leaders—and this attitude is most disturbing. Some have even done the opposite!

Eidah Haredit [the Haredi ecclesiastical authority of Jerusalem]released a letter earlier this week, “The arrests of violent Haredim who attacked police, women and girls is yet another chapter in the worst of all the exiles, the one imposed by the evil State of Israel . . . they harbor a deep jealousy for those who fear God . . .who serve God in truth and purity . . .”

Houston, we’ve got a problem . . .

How can constructive change occur if the leaders of the Haredi deny all responsibility? Not only do they enable poor behavior by saying nothing, many of them have even actively encouraged violent behavior.

How can constructive change occur if the leaders of the Haredi deny all responsibility? Not only do they enable poor behavior by saying nothing, many of them have even actively encouraged violent behavior. The ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius said, “When a man in his own person is guilty of doing evil, a superior man will not associate with him” (Analects 7:1). Jewish tradition has similar teachings, “You shall not join hands with the wicked to act as a malicious witness” (Exod. 23:1); “I hate the company of evildoers, and will not sit with the wicked” (Ps 26:5). The Sages sum up this idea well, “‘Woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor!’ (Numbers Rabbah 3:12). A person is judged by the company one keeps.

We seem to be reliving a chaotic period of Jewish history, “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what he thought best” (Judges 21:25).

======

[1] MT Hilchot Teshuvah 1:1

[2] Ibid., 2:3.