מורא וכיבוד הורים ביד החזקה - שאלה

האם נתן להסביר כדלהלן?

מורא דומה להתנהגות שלי לאדם בכיר ממני (מלך למשל) לא אשב במקומו, לא אכנס לדבריו וכו', ואם יכלימני אשתוק. מצד שני לא אכפת לי שיזרוק את כל זהוביו לים.

כבוד נתן להשוות יותר למה שאדם מרגיש כלפי אשתו (בכל מקרה אמור להרגיש) מאכילה, מלבישה ואם היא זורקת/מבזבזת את זהוביה/זהוביו עליו לוותר.

ווטו,
דבריך בהחלט מסדרים לי את ההגדרה במחשבה, אך עדיין אני מחפש הגיון למה שאתה קורא "גינון". אני מחפש השוואה בין 2 המקרים של תחושת המורא
ובין 2 המקרים של תחושת הכבוד.

אמנם אפשר לאמר שיש 2 סוגים של מורא וכבוד וההגדרות בינהם אינן חופפות .

בכל אופן ישר כוח .
עזרת לי מאד לסדר את הדברים במוחי.

לווטו
בזריקת ארנקי אין איבוד ממון של הבן אלא של האב (עיין קדושין לב עמ א ) כך שהקל וחומר של אבוד ממון לעומת לא לישב במקומו אינו תופס.

אנשל
הנושא האם מדובר בממון משל אב או בן
נדון בנו"כ על הרמב"ם .

עיי"ש

Veto1 and the gang,

I still think that Yirah means afraid, ok, ok AWARE of the negative, yes negative aspects of the situation, the negative/bad things that are about to happen is what concerns the person who has Yirah.

I think that the onus of proof is on you, for after all you're going against such a seemingly obvious interpretation of the word
.
The above does not negate the possibility of you proving your point decisively, it just asks that you go ahead and do it.

Going back to my question as to the rationale of Respect and Fear of parents, the following thoughts may be of some value.

If the Torah condones the concept of one person Owning the other person as is seemingly evident with It's allowance of slavery, then it is not so farfetched to see Parents as Owners of their children, after all they created them (as a artisan who owns the artifact that he made).

So it's barbaric, you claim, well, so is slavery, no?
I once heard an explanation to the slavery question, that you can't change the whole structure of society in one blow, it's a process, and to completely abolish slavery was way too revolutionary, it just wouldn't have worked, the same goes for the place of women in the Torah, (the Rambam uses this rationale as reasoning for the Torah not to mention Techiat Hamesim, and finds evidence for this type of reasoning in the torah when Hashem does not lead Benei Yisroel through the Philistine land,)

So why not explain Kibud Horim in the same fashion? I'm not out on a diatribe against honoring parents; it's just that your argument about Drochehu Darkey Noam doesn't hold water.

It is a well-attested fact that in ancient times the father was the complete master/owner of his children, even in the more 'civilized' Roman culture, the law of Patria Potestas i.e. the parent's ownership of children, was upheld.

When Avrohom Avinu listened to Hashem to sacrifice Yitzchok, it doesn't seem that Yitschok had any say in the matter, (it was a Nisoyen for Avrohom not for Yitschok) the same goes for Yiftach Hagiladi ,Misha king of Moav, Mavir Bnoy Lemolech, or Reuven when he offers Yakov the death of 'his' two children if he won't return Binyomin.

We can actually liken it to Moreh Malchus, for in those days all children would live together and the father would be somewhat of a tribal chieftain, Rosh Lebais Ov (again this also was still the case in 'modern' Rome), doesn't this explain the death penalty for striking or cursing a parent?
The Ramban justifies Tamar's death sentence by the fact that Yehudah was somewhat of a tribal leader and a Mevazeh Malchus was a capital offense.
The laws of Ben Sorer Umoreh seems to fit nicely with this theory.
But the torah is Nitzchi you argue, well, what about the many many mitzvoth that are explained as ways to keep our inclination for pagan worship at bay? Is pagan worship really so prevalent today? Whatever explanation you'll come up there, please be so kind and apply it here.

By the way, on the issue of Nitzchiut Hatorah, we should maybe clarify a bit the rule of Yesh Koach Beyad Chachomim Laakor Dovor Min Hatorah Bshev Veal Taaseh. It seems to me that they can abolish a Torah law on a permanent basis, so if they find that the current and maybe future situation is so different from the original situation (i.e. the time of the giving of the Torah) as to necessitate an abolishment of a law, doesn't this tell us something about Nitzchiut Hatorah?

Maybe the Torah was given over to the Chachomim of EACH and EVERY generation, then and only then will Nitzchiot Hatorah prevail

אפ"מ,

היסטורית ישנן מיליון ואחת אפשרויות שלא נדען עד כי יבוא שילה אם נהיה מעוניינים בהן. אך הנוגע לדידן הוא כפיסקתך האחרונה, איך ראוי שהחכמה בימינו תפרש את התורה למען דעת השם והשכל אותו.

Veto1,
A Refuah Shleima Betoch Shar Choley Yisroel
Come on veto, you surely know how important it is to understand the historical context in which any law was given. You love etymology, no? Look at it as etymology of the human dimension in the root of the law.

Isn't the Rambam always rationalizing the Mitzvoth in a like fashion?

Knowing the true cause will at least keep us from conjuring up all kinds of speculative and questionable theories to explain the Mitzvoth.

I know that I may be going against the grain by debasing such a core value as honoring your parents, yet, Torah He Velilmod Ani Tsorach.

There are just so many Mitzvoth that somehow point in the direction mentioned above,

The death penalty for Ben sorer umorah, for striking or cursing a parent, etc. are some of the stronger ones. But there are other mitzvoth too that would be better understood with this explanation. Pidyon Haben (surely the way we do the ceremony with the Cohen asking Ma Boes Tefy as if there is a very serious transaction taking place), Omah Ivriyoh, the fathers rights in Meones and Mefateh, etc.

The general concept that parents, due to creating their children actually OWN them is made quite clear in the law that the master owns the children of his (female) slaves.

(As far as creating goes I would agree that the mother does it all regardless if the father is the catalyst, so the owner of the mother should be the owner of the child. The sovereignty of the father is more due to his mastery of his wife. [in a free man, that is])

The Torah has equaled fear of Hashem to fear of parents, and for good reason; Shlosho Shitfum Yesh Beodom, right?

It may very well be that to a modern moralist the concept of man being owned by anyone even by Hashem is repugnant too. So what, that He created me?
I know you'll have some very deep philosophical concepts that Hashem means Being, Existence, etc. But as beautiful as it may be, I'm just not convinced that this was the original meaning.

I know that ultimately the Torah does not give the father total Ownership of his children, which is really beautiful, taking into consideration the fact that Patria Potestas was still a law over a millennium later. My point only is that wherever we do see some mitzvoth that point in that direction we should understand in what context they were given. And as mentioned above, it just wasn't possible to completely change the social structure in one shot.

אפ"מ,

תודה

איני חושב שיש לנו איזה שהוא ויכוח, אלא שאנו מתעסקים בשני תחומים.

התחום בו הנך מתעסק הוא ספקולטיבי וגם לו היה לך מסמך המעיד על משמעות מצוה בעת נתינתה, לא יכולת לדעת את עמקי המנטליות דאז בלי לחוותה וממילא לא בדיוק את משמעות המצוה בחיים.

התחום בו אני מתעסק הוא מה ניתן להפיק מהתורה להתקרבות לדעת הווה נכונה ["השכל וידוע אותי"] מהיכן שעומדת מנטליותנו היום.

לפי"ז אין כאן אלא שתי התעסקויות ויש בהן כדי לסייע זו לזו.

אך אם תתעסק רק בתחום שלך ותתכחש להכרח בהתעסקותי, הרי "הלכה לה נצחיות התורה" ופג לו מושג "ישרים דרכי השם" כי הנך מצמצם את התורה למנטליות שכבר פגה לה וא"כ יש להתחיל הכל מאפס.

תוכל לטעון שגם לפי התעסקותי יתבררו הרבה שינויים נדרשים, אבל זה שונה:
כי עדיין תשמש התורה בסיס עקרוני ורחב והשינויים יהיו אך בפרטים כפי שעשו חז"ל לפי דרכם לעגן בדרשות ואנו נעגן בסברות.

[כמובן שאיני מדבר על הלכה למעשה כפי שהדגשתי באשכול האסכולות וכפי שהגדיר מיימוני את כתלי בית המדרש באשכולו של בוגי על כניעה לדעת תורה.]

האם ה"יד החזקה" כוללת התניית אהבת ההורה לילדו ביחס הילד להורה?
ה"דף השבועי" -
http://www.bac.org.il/ContentPage.aspx?id=206

_________________

בברכה