Please read message at the end of this article written by Dr. Michael J. Salamon
Honoring Parents Who Are Abusive?
© (2003) Benzion Sorotzkin, Psy.D.
As a clinical psychologist in the frum community I
have frequently been asked by patients to address the question of the obligation
to honor abusive parents. As a result, I have researched the issue and have
discussed it with some prominent Rabbonim. I would like to share some of
what I have learned with other clinicians and anyone else who needs to address
this issue.
It goes without saying that kibbud av va'eim is a very
important and complex mitzvah. Any particular situation will involve specific
clinical and halachic issues that have to be evaluated by a knowledgeable
Rov for specific guidance. It does help, however, if the questioner is as
knowledgeable as possible about the issues involved. It is for that reason
that I would like to share with the readers some interesting and not so well
known dimensions of this issue.
Talmud Kiddushin 31a
A frequently quoted Talmudic passage regarding the
extent to which one is obligated to honor even an abusive parent is the story
in Kiddushin (31a) where a Roman officer is praised for maintaining his composure
even after his mother tore his clothes off and spit in his face in public.
Unfortunately, the comment of the Tosafos there that, according to the Midrash,
the mother in the story was meturefes b'daata (e.g., insane or suffering
from Alzheimer's disease) is usually not cited. This fact certainly puts
the story in a very different light. Certainly, an Alzheimer's patient cannot
be held responsible for such behavior. (Yet, it was terribly embarrassing
to the son and therefore he is commended for remaining passive. Anyone who
has cared for such a patient will testify as to how difficult it is not to
respond harshly). It is unfortunate that this Gemara is cited as evidence
that a child is required to passively submit to chronic abuse by a parent
(who is not meturefes b'daata) in the name of kibbud av va'eim!
The well-known commentary on the Talmud, the Yam Shel
Shlomo ( R' Shlomo Luria, the Maharshal), cites the Tosafos and adds (free
translation):
I agree that this mother must have been meturefes b'daata
since this story is cited in order to teach us the laws of kibbud av va'eim
and if she wasn't meturefes b'daata the son would be permitted to protest
in order to prevent his mother from causing him financial harm and certainly
he can prevent her from causing him bodily harm. And even if she had already
harmed him he can sue for damages in bais din..... So we must say that she
was meturefes b'daata and that's why he couldn't protest and that's why he
didn't rebuke ["go'ar"] her [the implication is that if she wasn't meturefes
b'daata the son would be permitted to protest and rebuke her in order to
prevent her attack].
The Yam Shel Shlomo then comments on the Tur who also
cites this Gemara (without the qualification that the parent was meturefes
b'daata):
This ruling of the Tur [that one should remain passive
in response to such a parental attack] must be referring to a situation where
he is unable to protest because it is already after the fact, and therefore
he shouldn't insult [kelimah] or rebuke his parent.
We see that this widely quoted event that supposedly
mandates that children need to passively submit to chronic abuse, is in fact
limited to where the parent is insane or where it's after the fact.
The sefer Kibbud Av Va'eim (Rabbi Hillel Litwack, p.
32) asks how a child can permit his parent to violate a Torah law by submitting
to being hit and embarrassed in public by his parent. He also suggests that
the child is not even permitted to be mochel [to allow, to forgive] the parent
since a person is not permitted to harm himself. Likewise it's possible that
one is not permitted to allow a parent to embarrass him in public since it
is comparable to murder. He also concludes that it must be after the fact.
Rabbi Litwack also asks why the Mechaber doesn't discuss the issue if the
child is permitted to try to stop the parent before the fact as he does in
a different case involving monetary loss. He cites one authority who suggested
that it may be too obvious to mention that the child is not obligated to
allow the parent to hit him for no good reason.
Wicked parents
The Yam Shel Shlomo, suggests that perhaps it would
be a meritorious act (midas chasiddus – i.e., beyond the letter of the
law) not to protest even before the fact, providing the parent truly (and
erroneously) believed that this was an appropriate educational intervention,
for if the parent simply acted in a fit of anger then he is a rosha [wicked
person]. In the Chidushei Rabbeinu Yaakov me'Lublin ve'Rabbeinu Heshel me'Krakaw
(in the Tur Hachodosh) it states that if the father is acting like a rosha
then the son is permitted to insult him [lehachlimo]. While the Rambam and
the Mechaber rule that there is an obligation to honor a wicked parent, the
Ramo and the majority of poskim disagree. The Oruch Hashulchan rules like
the Ramo. A very prominent posaik told me that the normative Halacha is like
the Ramo.
The Yam Shel Shlomo then relates a dispute between
the Rambam and Ravad regarding the obligation to personally care for a parent
who acts inappropriately. He distinguishes between such behavior when it
is due to tiruf ha'daas (e.g., suffering from Alzheimer's disease) where
according to the Ravad there is such an obligation, and where the parent
is acting out of ro'ah lev (a wicked heart) where there is no such obligation.
While we do not hesitate to describe acting out teens
as having a lev rah (wicked heart), we resist thinking of abusive parents
as acting out of ro'ah lev. However, the Yam Shel Shlomo and others recognize
this possibility and make it clear that there is no obligation for a child
to honor such a parent. Where possible, it is best for the child to move
away. However when not possible, according to these poskim a child is permitted
to take steps to protect himself from abuse and can seek recourse in a beis
din after the fact. It is very unfortunate that some teachers may (inadvertently)
imply to children that the Torah obligates children to passively tolerate
chronic abuse by parents when this is not the case.
I heard that someone wanted to prove that there is
an obligation to honor abusive parents from the fact that the commandment
to honor parents was given to the generation of the Exodus in spite of the
fact that their parents brought on them great pain and suffering. The parent's
sinned with the Golden Calf and with the spies and so the children had to
wander in the desert for 40 years. I, however, don't see how one can compare
parents who indirectly cause their children suffering to parents who directly
abuse their children.
The petur of choleh
Harav Dovid Cohen shlit"a has stated that if interacting
with an abusive parent makes a person emotionally ill then the child is exempt
from this obligation. Since one is not required to spend more than a fifth
of his assets for a mitzvas aseh then certainly one is not required to make
himself sick. Obligating abused children to honor their abusing parents
unconditionally will almost certainly exacerbate their emotional distress
and/or disability. When presenting a particular abusive parent question to
a Rov it is imperative to be completely open regarding the extent of the
abuse and the degree to which the abuse is causing the child emotional distress
and disability. Often children find it very difficult to be fully open even
with themselves in this regard and it then becomes the clinician's duty to
help the patient to formulate his/her question fully and accurately.
Defending oneself
Many children feel that defending oneself from a false
accusation is a violation of kibbud av va'eim. This is not so. In the Sefer
Ben Yechabed Av (p. 91) he states that a child is permitted to respectfully
state that the accusation is false.
The obligation to admonish [hochocha]
Rabbi Litwack (p.34, and p. 47 in the name of the sefer
Chadrei Daiah) suggests that just like a child is obligated to admonish his
parent if he is violating a Torah commandment here too if the parent is speaking
to the child abusively – clearly a violation of halacha – the child
is obligated to rebuke the parent [as respectfully as possible under the
circumstance].
Clinical consideration
I have elsewhere discussed at length the clinical
challenges of treating Orthodox adolescents with abusive parents. One area
of conflict is the kibbud av va'eim obligation. I explain why children are
so resistant to acknowledging the abusive nature of their parent's behavior
(even when it is blatant) and why it is important to help the child to overcome
this resistance. I also elaborate on why it is imperative that abused youngsters
be told clearly that what their parents are doing is abusive, against the
Torah and inexcusable. Likewise, they need to be told that the parental abuse
does mitigate their kibbud av va'eim obligations (the degree and nature of
mitigation needs to be determined by a knowledgeable Rov).
The Maharik on the limits of the kibbud av va'eim
obligation
The popular perception (often reinforced by self-serving
parents) is that the mitzvah of kibbud av va'eim is all-encompassing and
without limits or qualifications. It is important to realize that there are
clear parameters to this obligation. For example, the Maharik states that
a father does not have the authority to forbid his son to marry the women
he desires and the Ramo rules like the Maharik.
The Maharik gives three reasons for his ruling and
I believe these reasons are clearly applicable to a child contending with
an abusive parent.
-
The halacha is that the parent has to bear the financial
burden of the son's fulfillment of the mitzvah of kibbud av va'eim (e.g.,
the son has to prepare and serve the food for his father but the father pays
for the food). If the child is not required to undergo a financial loss then
he certainly does not have to endure personal suffering by not marrying the
women of his choice.
-
We see in many places in the Talmud that the Rabbis
are concerned that a wife find favor in her husbands eyes so that they have
a good marriage. By trying to force his son to forgo his choice in a wife
it is as if the father is ordering his son to go against the Torah since
he is not likely to have a good relationship with a choice forced upon him.
[One can perhaps likewise argue that abused children frequently rebel against
their parent's religious beliefs, or develop serious emotional disorders,
neither of which is desired by our Rabbis].
-
The Maharik rules [and this is the normative halacha]
that the obligation to honor parents applies only when the parent asks for
something that benefits the parent directly. The obligation does not require
obeying commands that do not directly benefit the parents, for example, whom
the child marries.
Defending the strong at the expense of the
weak
It is sad that, as a society, our religious sensitivities
causes us to be more concerned with the obligation of abused children to
honor their parents than with the serious violations of halacha being committed
by abusive parents! We are very comfortable saying to an abused boy, "Sure,
it's unfortunate that your father is abusive, but that's how he is and he
isn't going to change. You are obligated by the Torah to honor him so just
get over it." What's more, abused children are often told that they are obligated
to forgive their abusive parents even when their parents never acknowledged
the abuse and have certainly never apologized for it. What's more, they are
often compelled to apologize for getting angry over the abuse.
In contrast, we seem to be too intimidated to say to
the abusive father, "It's unfortunate that you are having difficulties with
your boy, but every time you speak to him abusively you are violating numerous
Torah commandments (e.g., V'ahavta l'rayacha komocha), and these violations
are especially egregious because the victim is a family member.
As Harav Dovid Cohen pointed out in his address to
the Young Israel Council of Rabbis, when a prominent person is arrested for
molesting children there is often more concern in the community for the fate
of the molester than for the wellbeing of the child victims.
The abused become abusers
A substantial body of research has shown that, while
far from inevitable, children who are emotionally abused tend to develop
a variety of emotional and behavioral problems including drug abuse, addictions
and "revictimization". They also are more likely to be emotionally abusive
of their own children later in life as compared to children who are not
abused.
Research by Briggs on sexually abused children found
that those victims who minimized the depravity and negative consequences
of their abuser's actions were substantially more likely to become abusers
themselves in adulthood. It is as if they say to themselves, "If what was
done to me wasn't such a terrible act, then it won't be so terrible if I
do it to someone else."
Children have a natural tendency to deny and/or minimize
the harmful nature of parental abuse. It would seem likely that compelling
children to honor their abusive parents would reinforce this tendency by
indicating that abusing children does not diminish a person's honor. This
would likely increase the likelihood of perpetuating this type of behavior.
When the community starts putting more pressure on
parents not to be abusive than on children to honor abusive parents, we may
begin to make a dent in the ever increasing tide of youngsters with serious
emotional and behavioral disorders.
Addendum
Excerpts from a speech by Harav Dovid Cohen
shlit"a.
"Counseling the contemporary Orthodox Jewish
family."
Young Israel Council of Rabbis Annual Conference,
February, 2000.
.......It happened in our community [that] the person
who was [sexually] abused was made to suffer by the community. [They were
not so concerned] about the person that was being abused, [rather they were]
worrying about the abuser that he not Chas V'Shalom go to
jail...........
To address some of the questions [presented by] Dr.
Sorotzkin [regarding the obligation of Kibbud Av Va'Eim when parents are
abusive]..... In a case where children were abused by their parents. Now
I maintain there is a difference as far as the type of abuse concerned. Kibbud
Av Va'Eim comes with Nisyonos, as the Gemara in Kedushin tells us, Ad Heychan
Kibbud Av Va'Eim the Gemara tells us where the mother of the Melech came
and took off this chashuva beged and spat at him, so the Tosfos brings that
she was a meturefes, she was insane. So, of course, that has a lot to say
why the son, the Melech, did not really feel that his mother was embarrassing
him, maybe he felt a tinge of embarrassment, but everyone understood because
they saw she was a Meturefes. But, in a situation where a child was [sexually]
abused by a parent.... we know it is worse than being a choleh [ill person].
A child who has to deal with a parent, who sexually abused that child, it's
almost to say that that child will never become meshuchrar [freed], it's
very difficult to get the damage out, and if the person has to deal with
the parent, there are very few people that can possibly do so. So certainly
when it comes to sexual abuse, I feel that it is not worse that a Mitzvah
where most Poskim will tell you that a choleh is potur [exempt], we are talking
about Mitzvas Aseh now, just as there is a shiur of mitzvos ad chomesh [one
is only obligated to spend one fifth of his assets for a positive
commandment]...., so the Poskim say when it is a question of being a choleh
that it is the same thing, that being a choleh is like ad chomesh, so that
there is really no chiyuv [to make one's self ill for the sake of Kibbud
Av]......
There is another snif to be matir [reason for leniency],
because when a parent is a Rosha [wicked person], in sexual abuse the parent
has a Din of a Rosha.... So in the case of a Rosha, even though there are
two daos [opinions] in the Shulchan Aruch, which is a little strange, because
rov Rishonim disagree with the Rambam, and they hold like the pashtus of
the Gemora, that there is no Chiyuv Kibud Av by Eino Oseh Maaseh Amcha [i.e.,
a rosha]. The Rambam says there is a chiyuv. But there are many, and the
Bach is clear on this that the Rambam only meant this that it is a D'Rabanon.
So again we have an extra kula [leniency], we have a machlokes Rishonim [most
Rishonim rule that there is no obligation of Kibbud Av by a wicked parent]
, and we also have the kula that it is only M'Darabonin, so we can be meikil,
as far as that is concerned.
[Regarding the question if it is permissible for a
child to speak negatively about his or her parents in therapy]. In a situation
of speaking to a therapist concerning these things, I'm not speaking [only]
of sexual abuse necessarily, but all [issues] where the therapist feels that
by discussing these things they can turn the patient around, [for example]
where the patient could acquire affection from the parent, even though the
patient has various tainus [complaints] on the parent, I believe the mekor
[source to permit this] is the Gemora in Sanhedrin (84b), where the Gemora
speaks about a child taking a splinter from a parent, where it can cause
a chabura [wound] and the Gemora says a very interesting heter [reason for
leniency] - V'Ahavta L'Rayacha Komocha [love your neighbor like yourself].
The way Rashi explains it to mean [that one is only prohibited to do to others
that that he would not want done to himself – this excludes being "wounded"
in the process of having a splinter removes]. This to my mind [is similar
to when] the Poskim speak about Lashon Harah L'Toeles [for a helpful purpose],
which is not limited to Loshan Harah. Any [transgression of] Bein Adam L'Chaveiro
[when it is] L'Toeles is Mutar..... Indeed, the heter of a parent to hit
a child is because it is L'Toeles for the hadracha [guidance] of the child.
All [transgressions of] Bein Adom L'Chaveiro is Mutar [permissible] when
it's L'Toeles. That's why a parent [is only permitted] to hit a child [if
it's] L'Shem Shamayim. And from that Gemora you see, and it's a Safek, that
Kibbud Av Va'Em has a Din of Bein Adom L'Chaveiro. So this of course, there
are many other sevaros [reasons] to be Matir [be permissive], but I feel
it is certainly Mutar Be Che'hai Gavna.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Response from Michael J. Salamon, Ph.D.,
FICPP
Please note: Dr. Salamon is a member of The
Awareness Center's Executive Board of Directors
The abused become abusers:
Dr. Sorotzkin presents some interesting points regarding
the limits of the Commandment's directive to Honor One's Father and Mother.
It should be noted that the focus of his paper remains on the issue of children
who were abused becoming abusive parents. While there is of course a likelihood
of that occurring it is not the most frequent outcome. Observational findings
reported through the early 1970's implied that this was an inevitable outcome.
More recent research (cf. US Dept. of HHS, Administration for Children &
Families; Kaufman & Zigler, 1986; Gershaw, 1992; Hunt, 2000; Bavolek;
2000) indicate that in the general population five percent of the population
become abusive parents, whereas children who are abused are about 20% likely
to become abusive parents. A significantly larger number, of course, but
other outcomes are even more likely. These other outcomes of childhood abuse
include higher rates of substance abuse, sexual acting-out and other self
destructive behaviors.
I would suggest that Dr. Sorotzkin's work be viewed
from a broader perspective. Children who are abused should be protected for
a multitude of reasons. All of these reasons are perhaps sufficient to warrant
a changed perspective on the commandment to honor parents.
