Q&A: Override Based on Halakhic Territory
Override Based on Halakhic Territory
Question
For example, honoring parents. There are two types of override:
Logical: since honoring parents is an expression of honoring God, it follows that where there is no honoring of God there will be no honoring of parents.
Normative: there is honoring of parents. But there is also another value. Now one must weigh which of them takes precedence.
And you added a third type of override: override based on considerations of halakhic territory. And you wrote, in the book To Perform Your Commandment, p. 228, that this is not the same character as logical override: “There there is a logical consideration which says that where there is no root there will be no branch. By contrast, the consideration of halakhic territory is not the result of a logical dependence of the obligations on one another, but the result of a consideration of value-preference. The obligation to honor parents does not take precedence over the son’s right to self-realization. […] That is, the obligation to honor parents is in the category of ‘permitted’ and not ‘overridden,’ but the reason is not logical dependence but a relation between values.”
I didn’t understand. It seems to me that this really is a kind of logical override and not value-preference. When the son’s self-realization clashes with honoring parents, it is not that both values are valid but one prevails; rather, the obligation of honoring parents here does not exist at all, since this is not their territory! It is indeed the result of a logical dependence of the obligations on one another: the obligation to honor parents depends on whether they are in their territory or not.
I don’t agree with your last sentence. It seems to me that the reason is not a relation between values but logical dependence! Because the value of honoring parents does not exist here at all, since they are commanding something that is not in their territory!
I’d be happy for a clarification please—where exactly does override based on halakhic territory stand?
Answer
It’s a matter of definition. Indeed, as a result of the territorial consideration, the opposing value does not exist. But it is more accurate to say that in the other territory it does exist, but has no validity. That is, the value of human life exists even if it requires me to steal in order to save someone, but theft is an intrusion into another domain and therefore it cannot be done. It is somewhat similar to the logical category, but also to preferences. That is why I defined it as a third category. It is not permitted because of an opposing value, but because it is outside the domain of its validity. Moreover, territorial considerations are not the result of a logical consideration like the one you mentioned regarding honoring parents. This is a meta-halakhic consideration, but not a logical one. That is the decisive difference between them, even if in the end one value disappears or does not exist, as in the logical consideration.
Discussion on Answer
One that underlies Jewish law.
Wonderful, wonderful—I understand. Thank you very much.
So am I right that by “a meta-halakhic consideration” you mean that this is not a consideration that appears formally within Jewish law, but rather a consideration within which Jewish law takes place?