According to the Torah there is no obligation of father to feed his children. Nevertheless, Jewish law obligates the father to feed his children up to the age of six because he is obligated to sustain his wife. Up to the age of six the children are considered an extension of the mother; consequently, just as the must sustain his wife he too must sustain her children. From six years old onward, the children are on their own. Quoting a baraita, two out of three tannaim on today’s daf TB Ketubot 49 hold that a father feeding his children is the proper thing to do.
“As
it is taught in a baraita, it is a mitzva to sustain daughters,
and the same applies by an a fortiori inference to sons, who
are engaged in the study of Torah. This is the statement of Rabbi
Meir. Rabbi Yehuda
says: It is a mitzva to sustain sons, and the same applies by an a
fortiori inference with regard to daughters, due to the dishonor
they will suffer if they are forced to go around begging. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: It is an
obligation to sustain the daughters after their father’s death; however, during
their father’s lifetime both these and those, sons and daughters
alike, are not sustained.” (Sefaria.org translation)
After
the destruction of the Second Temple, the Sanhedrin went into exiled as is
recorded in TB massekhet Rosh
Hashanah. “The
Sanhedrin was exiled from the Chamber of Hewn Stone (in the Temple)…to Yavne,
and from Yavne to Usha (in the Galilee)…and from Usha to Shefaram, and from
Shefaram to Bet She’arim, and from Bet She’arim to Tzippori, and from Tzippori
to Tiberias” (Talmud Rosh HaShana 31a).” In Usha, the sages made a
series of takanot, rabbinic
enactments. The first takana on our
daf ordained that fathers should sustain their children until the age of bar/bat
mitzvah. “Rabbi
Ile’a said that Reish Lakish
said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Ḥanina: In Usha the Sages instituted
that a man should sustain his sons and daughters when they are minors”
(Sefaria.org translation)
The
Gemara wonders whether this was an obligation of a father or just the proper
thing to do. It cites three different cases where the Rabbi involved didn’t
force the father to feed his minor children, but rather used social pressure or
shaming to achieve the appropriate end. These cases leads us to believe that a
father is still not obligated to feed his children past the age of six years
old.
“When they would come before Rav
Yehuda
to complain about a father who refused to sustain his children, he would
say to them: The jackal [yarod] bears offspring and casts
the obligation to feed them on the residents of the town? Even a jackal
feeds its young, and it is certainly proper for a father to support his
children.
“When they would come before Rav Ḥisda to register a similar complaint, he
would say to them: Turn over a mortar for him in public, as a raised
platform, and let that father stand up and say about himself: The
raven wants to care for its sons, and yet this man does not want
to support his sons…
“When an incident of this kind would come before Rava, he would say to
the father: Is it satisfactory to you that your sons are sustained through
charity? All these incidents prove that the halakha is not in
accordance with the enactment of Usha; although these Sages stated forcefully
that it is proper for a father to support his children, they did not force him
to do so by the authority of the court. The Gemara adds: And
we said this halakha only when he is not wealthy and must
toil hard to provide food for his children, but if he is wealthy we
coerce him against his will to sustain them. Like this case of
Rava, who coerced Rav Natan bar Ami, who was a wealthy man, to donate to
charity, and collected from him four hundred dinars for charity. This
shows that even in the absence of a particular obligation, the court will
compel a person to give charity if he can afford it. The same reasoning
certainly applies to a man’s own children.”
(Sefaria.org translation)
Shaming
the father rather than forcing him to sustain his children is the more usual
course of action codified by the Shulkhan Aruk. “A man is obligated to provide
sustenance to his sons and daughters until they are 6 years of age, even if
they own property that came to them through their mother's father's house. From
then and on, we provide for them as a decree of the sages until they are
adults. If he does not want to, we denounce him and shame him and antagonize
him [until he does]. If he [still] does not want to, we denounce him in public
and say, "So-and-so is cruel and does not want to provide for his
children! He is worse than a non-kosher bird that [at least] provides for its
chicks!" But we do not force him to provide them sustenance. When does
this ruling apply? When there is no economic estimation. But if the estimate
shows that there is enough money for them to get charity, we remove it from him
by force, for charity purposes, and we feed them until they become adults” (Even
Ha’Ezer, 71:1)
We have to ask ourselves the question “Does public
shaming achieve its goals?” “Public shaming is nothing new. It has been
effectively used as punishment across societies for centuries. Aided by the
rise of technology and accessibility of information, public shaming has evolved
and moved on from pillories to social media platforms. Twitter, Facebook and
Instagram now all serve as the modern mediums through which digital mob justice
is served.
“Singapore even has its very own portal for
social justice warriors, Stomp, which has over 600,000 likes on Facebook. The
phrase “after you kena Stomp” has even become part of the Singaporean
consciousness and colloquial vernacular, serving as a warning to others on the
risks of being shamed through the platform for their behaviour.
“Public shaming has proved itself as a
capable deterrent to prevent bad or inappropriate behaviour. It has made a
difference to problems such as animal cruelty and copyright issues, while also
increasing awareness of social and safety problems. This is evident from the
rise of public mask shaming in Singapore, in the wake of COVID-19. Since April
2020, there were 80 reported cases of disputes involving commuters who did not
mask up in public, with many of them going viral, and about 40 of them being
fined[1].
“But it is not without drawbacks. Public
shaming has also given rise to modern-day character assassinations, witch hunts
and occurrences where decent people are punished for minute transgressions, or
for what amounts to no real transgressions at all. Some are even punished for
just their opinions. In the end, all it does is create an environment of
surveillance, fear and conformity.
“The ability to wield such a form of
humiliation and the potential cost leads to many questions. Is it a means for
positive social change? Or a form of toxic harassment? How does it all play out
in Singapore? To find answers, we turn to Dr Brandon Koh, an
Industrial-Organisational Psychologist and Lecturer in Human Resource Management programme at SUSS, to
provide insights.
“The anticipation of being publicly shamed may be a
useful deterrent against violating social norms. That said, public shaming can
be harmful.
“Whilst public shaming is intended at reducing undesired behaviours, the
recipient of public shame often suffers a loss of reputation, self-esteem, and
sense of belonging to the community. These effects may be long-lasting and
disproportionate to the act. For instance, the shamed behaviour may be a single
mistake or momentary accident that does not truly reflect a person’s moral
character. Yet, when netizens view or react to public shaming social media
posts, they may over generalise, condemning the person as a whole. To make
matters worse, some netizens may treat such content as light-hearted
entertainment and gossip, even though the consequences to the shamed individual
are very real. This further exacerbates the negative effects of public shaming.
“How has technology and social media
changed and enabled public shaming behaviour?
“Koh: Firstly,
technology and social media platforms can offer people a shroud of anonymity,
lowering the barrier to initiate or participate in public shaming. Secondly,
follow-up comments often echo the original message whilst those who oppose
rarely express their objections. This provides a biased perception that the
masses endorse the public shaming of a certain incident or person, which could
be untrue. Thirdly, social media magnifies the reach of such public shaming
acts to a wider audience.
“In short, social media amplifies the negative effects of public shaming. In
fact, one might notice the resemblance between public shaming on social media
and cyberbullying…
“During the COVID-19 pandemic, is
shaming those who do not wear a mask on social media a reasonable action? Do
you think individuals who engage in public shaming sometimes cross the line
when it comes to taking the law into their own hands?
“Koh: To be fair, people
may express their own opinions on social media platforms. Instead, I would
question the newsworthiness and impact of public shaming. As I alluded to
earlier, public shaming generates much negativity, causing disproportionate
harm to the targeted individual, whilst on-lookers may use these contents for
personal entertainment or social gossip. To top it off, public shaming may not
even really reduce the undesired norm-breaking behaviour because it reaches a
limited audience.
“Is public shaming the way forward for
keeping the bad behaviour in check
“Koh: Certainly
not. I hope that we can cultivate positive norm-abiding behaviours through
fostering a sense of belonging and shared responsibility in our communities. We
can also exemplify desired behaviours through education, cultural teachings,
and role models instead of punishing undesirable ones via public shaming.
“However one views the act of public
shaming, be it as a useful deterrent, cyberbullying in disguise or a slippery
slope which requires treading with caution and control, there is no doubt that
it is here to stay. While being an activist for a cause or calling someone out
on their error may be admirable acts, there is ultimately never a reason to
gang up and shame someone online or to support and engage in doxxing.
“Jon Ronson perhaps sums it up best in his
book So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed, stating that “Well-meaning people, in a
crowd, often take punishment too far.[2]”
We have to know and do better. It is important to keep our own behaviour in
check and not engage in public shaming. If not, what does it actually say of us?”
https://www.suss.edu.sg/blog/detail/putting-public-shaming-to-shame#:~:text=Public%20shaming%20has%20proved%20itself,of%20social%20and%20safety%20problems.
Would you shame a person in public?
No comments:
Post a Comment