LEV1016 When Violations of Dignity Nullify Consent. The concerns are different when we consider the other sexual behaviors over which Jim and Sarah disagree [in case study-AJL]. First, even the more liberal school of thought in Jewish tradition, which allows for a wide range of sexual expression, requires mutual consent. And, second, we are dealing here with fetishes such as demeaning talk, spanking, and sado-masochism, which are by their very nature and design degrading. These kinds of behaviors violate the principles outlined above of dignity, respect, and modesty. They are, in fact, a violation of kevod ha-beriyot, the universal standards of dignity and respect that are due to everyone. Because respect for kevod ha-beriyot is really respect for God, as humans are created in the divine image, this is not a subjective matter. Just because I want something and I do not consider it degrading to me does not mean that it is not a violation of human dignity. “Do not wrong one another” (Leviticus 25:17) prohibits me from causing any kind of emotional distress to another person. This is called ona’at devarim (verbal wronging), under which rabbinic interpretation includes not only speech, but any action that damages others’ emotional well-being (See Rashi to Leviticus 25:17) or causes them emotional or psychological pain (See Rashi, Bava Metzi’a 59b, s.v. hutz; Maimonides, Sefer ha-Mitzvot, no. 251.) The rabbis of the Talmud punished the sage R. Rehumi for causing his wife to cry because they knew how damaging the emotional pain one person inflicts on another can be (Babylonian Talmud, Ketubbot 62b). Furthermore, physical violence is prohibited by the Torah. Not only may we not harm another, we may not harm ourselves (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Shevu’ot 5:17, Hilkhot Hovel u-Mazik 5:1; Bava Kamma 92a]. Even raising a hand against anyone in a threatening way is outlawed (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 58b). Technically, these acts—ona’at devarim and assault--are prohibited only if they are committed in a malicious or harmful manner. If they are done to achieve a positive benefit, they may be permissible. In this case, Sarah and Jim claim that these acts will give them sexual pleasure. However, these acts are not benign; they violate the spirit of the law, which frowns on violence, aggression, and cruelty. They are also harmful to this relationship. While Sarah likes to be spanked, Jim personally finds the thought of spanking his wife to be degrading to her. What may appear to be a positive benefit to one partner causes hurtful distress to the other. Degrading speech, slapping, sado-masochism and the like are degrading acts and are a violation of the human dignity of both the actor and the person being acted upon. We may not violate others’ dignity, and we may not violate our own either. It is for this reason, suggests rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, that Jewish law compares those who behave in undignified ways to dogs (Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 40b. See, The Lonely Man of Faith, 13). We must insist that others treat us with respect. The first chief rabbi of pre- state Israel, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, insisted that “protecting [the respect] one rightfully deserves is not a matter of arrogance; on the contrary, there is a mitzvah to do so.” Finally, cross-dressing and menage a trois are both violations of local prohibitions. Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits cross-dressing, especially when done to elicit erotic pleasure (See Rashi to Deuteronomy 22:5). And marriage is designed to be monogamous and modest: the Ten Commandments ban adultery (Exodus 20:13), even when consensual. A person may not think of one person while being intimate with another (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayyim 240:2); and a couple may not have intercourse, a private and intimate act that demands modesty, when someone else is present (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayyim 240:6). Jewish law prohibits someone from even sleeping in the same room with a married couple for fear that another's presence might restrain the couple from intimacy (Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 63b; Shulchan Arukh, Even ha-Ezer 25:5; Mishneh Brurah to Orach Chayyim 240:52). These forbidden acts are viewed as violations of the mandates of respect, dignity, and modesty owed to one's partner and due to oneself. (By Mark Dratch).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1014 Verbal abuse of anyone is forbidden by the Jewish tradition under the biblical command, "and you shall not wrong one another" (this verse). This prohibition precludes verbal abuse of minors as well as adults, (B. Bava Kamma 90a; M.T. Laws of Assault and Injury 3:5; and S.A. Hoshen Mishpat 420:38)) an important point to note especially by teachers and parents. In addition to these general interdictions of verbal abuse, Jewish sources tell a man to be especially careful not to abuse his wife verbally, "for since she cries easily, it is all too easy to oppress her." (B. Bava Metzia 59a. Literally, "for since her tears are common, her oppression is near.") Similarly, the Talmud says that a man's wife is given to him so that he might realize life's plan together with her; he certainly does not have the right to vex or grieve her continually and without cause. "Vex her not, for God notes her tears." (B. Ketubbot 61a). These commands are derived, in part, from the promise that the man is required to make in the wedding contract to honor his wife. Indeed, "He who loves his wife as himself and honors her more than himself is granted the scriptural promise, 'You shall know that your tent is in peace.'" (B. Yevamot 62b; the biblical verse quoted is Job 5:24). Contemporary readers may be justifiably offended by the sexism of some of these remarks, but that modern sensitivity should lead us to argue that wives as well as husbands are duty-bound to avoid verbally abusing their spouses, for husbands, too, can and do feel hurt by such shaming.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1004 [Continued from [[EXOD748]] Exodus 23:1 false HTBAJ 205-6]. The second category [of gossip]; he who speaks gossip that is true. Even if he should remind another in private of some evil deed of his ancestors, he transgresses what is written in the Torah, "And you shall not wrong one another" (this verse); it is concerning wrongs done with words that the Scripture speaks. Baba Metzia 58b.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1011 The biblical admonition, "You shall not wrong one another" (this verse) has been interpreted to apply to all kinds of deception, including deceptive business practices. Hullin 94a. For example, Moses Hayyim Luzzatto interprets this verse to relate to one who advertises one's wares with extravagant praise that actually amounts to the deceit of potential customers. Luzzatto refers also to the talmudic prohibition against painting old goods to look like new goods. Luzzatto, following talmudic precedent, further distinguishes between appropriate and inappropriate advertising strategies. It is appropriate to praise good qualities that merchandise actually has, to make good merchandise more attractive for sale by the manner of its presentation to the potential customer, to proclaim the good value of a sale when such value is offered. However, any deviation from integrity or honesty is not deemed acceptable. Baba Metzia 60a-b One should not, for example, camouflage defects in one's goods; one should not indiscriminately "mark up" goods, thereby trying to convince shoppers that they are worth more than they are. In other words, honest persuasion is permitted; deception is forbidden. Luzzatto, Mesillat Yesharim --The Path of the Upright, Mordecai M. Kaplan, trans. (Philadelphia: JPS, 1936), chap. 11, pp. 144-156.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1005 A baraita on B. Bava Metzia 58b roots the prohibition of oppressive speech in [this verse]. M. Bava Metzia 4:10 begins with an example of "oppressive speech" in a commercial context: a person should not inquire about an item's price if he has no intention of buying it. The Mishnah also prohibits reminding the penitent of his prior bad deeds and reminding the convert of his ancestors' non-Jewish past. The aforementioned baraita on B. Bava Metzia 58b goes further than the mishnah. The baraita directs that if a convert comes forward to study Torah, one should not say to him, "The mouth that ate [forbidden foods] comes to study [the] Torah that was given from the mouth of the Power [God]!" Also, if illnesses come upon a person or he has buried his children, speaking to him in a manner of Job's companions (Job 4:6-7) is considered oppressive speech: "Is not your piety your confidence.… Think now, what innocent man ever perished?" Three talmudic sages go so far as to say that oppressive speech is even worse than commercial overreaching. One reason given for this is that [this verse] (oppressive speech] says "but fear your God," an admonition missing from Leviticus 25:14 (commercial overreaching). A second reason is that while commercial overreaching is only a matter of money (b'mamono), oppressive speech is something one does with oneself (b'gufo). Ultimately, the baraita says that the matter of oppressive speech is given over to the heart. R. Vidal di Toulousa (fourteenth century), commenting on M.T. Law of Sales 14:18, explains that a person may claim that the words he had spoken were intended for good, or that he had meant something other than what the hearer thought. Whatever the speaker claims about his own speech, ultimately God will look to the inner intentions behind what was said. The Talmud on B. Bava Metzia 58b-59a juxtaposes a discussion of embarrassing someone in public ("whitening their face") to the treatment of oppressive speech. Embarrassing someone in public is also linked to a prohibition against calling someone by an evil name. The Talmud asks why the latter is singled out, being a subset of the former, but the response is given that even if a person has become accustomed to being called by that name, one who uses it is still guilty of publicly embarrassing him. This latter point is psychologically insightful: at the stage at which someone is no longer visibly embarrassed by the name, he is probably so humiliated that he no longer reacts to it. (By Alyssa M. Gray, "Jewish Ethics of Speech")

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1010 See [[LEV981]] Leviticus 25:14 wrong PATH 69

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1003 "You shall not wrong one another" This verse forbids us to say anything that will insult or anger another person (Bava Metzia 58b). Some examples of this would be: (1) reminding someone about his previous misdeeds; (2) embarrassing someone for his family background; (3) ridiculing someone for his lack of Torah knowledge; (4) insulting someone for his lowly status; (5) asking someone how he would answer a certain question when you know that he is not competent to reply. If you relate loshon hora to others in the presence of the victim, besides being guilty of speaking loshon hora, you also violate this prohibition.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1012 The command "And ye shall not wrong one another" was interpreted to mean, "wrongdoing through words." Thus, if a person is a penitent, do not say to him: "Remember your past deeds!" If he is a convert, do not say to him: "Remember the deeds of your father!" [this verse; Bava Metzia 58b].

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1009 See [[LEV970]] Leviticus 25:14 wrong TAMARI 96-7

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1013 The Rabbis taught: The verse (14) "And if you sell a selling to your fellow…you shall not wrong" already speaks of wronging in money matters. How, then are we to understand [here]: "And you shall not wrong, one man his fellow"? As "wronging" with words (Bava Metzia 58b)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT