Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses when the punishment of lashes begins, which has implications for whether an interruption means it is considered sufficiently administered. This has further implications, such as the principle that a vow cannot be annulled if it is no longer relevant. If a person is still awaiting the administration of lashes or even potentially liable for conviction, the oath remains relevant and can still be annulled. Regarding this, Shmuel rules:
If one had already been tied to the stake to receive lashes and he ran away from the court and escaped, he is exempt from receiving lashes, as being tied to the stake is regarded as the beginning of receiving the lashes; once he has escaped, he is treated as though he were already flogged.
However, the Gemara limits this escape clause:
Even if he was tied to the stake, he can still have his oath dissolved. There, with regard to his exemption from receiving lashes after he ran away, the original flogging is over, and there is no need to initiate a new one. Here, with regard to dissolving the oath, he did not run, and since he is still subject to lashes, he can still have his oath dissolved.
Rashi explains that a certain threshold of humiliation occurs through the process of flogging, and that threshold is sufficiently reached if he runs away or if he ultimately endures the flogging. If he is tied up and about to receive the flogging, though humiliating, that is not sufficient, and therefore the punishment has not yet been administered. It is apparent from Rashi’s understanding that there is a particular mortification the person undergoes when he runs away. It seems to me we’re talking about the loss of dignity and the cowardice he displays publicly.
This is not merely a vain instinct to appear tough and macho but a legitimate Torah ethic to remain dignified and composed, even in the most extreme circumstances. Gemara Sanhedrin (92b) praises Chananiah, Mishael, and Azarya, who chose to be thrown into the furnace rather than bow to Nebuchadnezzar’s idol. The Gemara notes a specific aspect of their demeanor:
Even during a period of danger, a person should not change his projection of leadership and demean himself, as it is stated: “Then these men were bound in their mantles, their tunics, and their hats, and their other garments, and they were cast into the blazing fiery furnace” (Daniel 3:21). Even when cast into the furnace, they donned garments befitting their noble status.
We see it is a Torah value to maintain composure, even under the most dire circumstances. When we look at the commentaries, we see different ideas as to why this is so, each reflecting on the human condition. Rashi says that by remaining calm, this rattles and humiliates the enemy. I imagine Rashi suggesting a Gandhi-style passive resistance that frustrates and humiliates the enemy despite their physical power and aggression. Maharsha adds a moral-religious theme, stating that maintaining calm and composure indicates one is accepting God and His punishment. Meiri speaks from a psychological perspective, stressing the basic value of maintaining self-control and focus, even under enormous stress, which is intrinsically empowering and dignified. The Ohr Tzafun (Bereishis, Derech Eretz Kadmah LaTorah) expands on this theme dramatically, even drawing from Midrashim that criticize Esav for mildly losing composure during a frustrating hunting expedition on the day of his father’s death. He maintains that the ethic of “not losing oneself” and self-control is so basic and self-evident that it is even considered an obligation for all peoples of the world, not just under the Jewish covenant and 613 Mitzvos.
The secular version of the Holocaust narrative is that the majority of Jews went peaceably and passively to their slaughter, with a smaller group of occasional “heroes” who fought back. I have no problem with the narrative that those who fought back were heroes; we have enough models in our own Jewish history for the value of military rebellion and self-defense, such as the Maccabees and the Bar Kochba rebellion, though the sages were often ambivalent about such actions (as recorded in Maccabim 2:29–41). However, secular and Western attitudes have not given enough credence to the heroes who died quietly and passively. While on the outside, it might appear as if they had given up or retreated into a catatonic state, in fact, this was their final act of defiance. Even as their enemies sought to rob them of all aspects of human dignity, they refused to lose themselves and contemplated and prepared to meet their Maker. They were more alive and more human than their diabolical tormentors. Although most of the great and pious Jews who met their death never read Socrates, his final speech to his executioners comes to mind:
I leave you now, condemned to death by you, but you are condemned by truth to wickedness and injustice.
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation
Free resource for couples/families:
Over 80 lectures on heathy communication, marriage and sexuality from a Torah perspective Click here
If you liked this, you might enjoy my Relationship Communications Guide. Click on the link above.
Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, LCSW-R, LMFT, DHL is a psychotherapist who works with high conflict couples and families. He can be reached via email at simchafeuerman@gmail.com