From: ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
Subject: Re: Missionary Aid
Reply-To: ask@cblph.att.com
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories,  Columbus, Ohio
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:22:37 GMT

In article <199209031243.AA18098@das.wang.com> MASH@WEIZMANN.WEIZMANN.AC.IL (Michael Shimshoni) writes:
>In: <1992Sep2.193517.20690@cbnews.cb.att.com>
>ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet) warns:
>
>>In article <1992Sep2.130449.7437@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (
>>>
>>>Ask if he accepts _everything_ in his bible.  If he says yes, slap him
>>>once.  If he gets angry, ask him about the verse about turning the
>>>other cheek.  If he agrees that its part of his bible and that he
>>>believes it, slap his other cheek, even harder.
>>
>>Caution:  Be careful he doesn't then slap you, since he can claim to
>>find this verse in the Hebrew Bible.
>
>He cannot, unless Art means by  "Hebrew Bible" a Hebrew translation of
>the NEW TESTAMENT!

The reference is to Lamentations: 3.  It does NOT have the meaning
which Christians use for their "the other cheek" reference, but
phrases taken out of context can be misused by missionaries or
anyone else.

I posted this article in June:

  Message-ID: <1992Jun17.224900.15040@cbnews.cb.att.com>
  References: <1992Jun16.162135.16676@cs.brown.edu> <1992Jun16.185115.21142@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>

In article <1992Jun16.185115.21142@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> aryk@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (a.j.s. nusbacher) writes:
>In article <1992Jun16.162135.16676@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:
>>Of course everyone has to make his own mind. If I am not wrong, the
>>Jewish code specifies that only the following are not to be committed,
>>even if it should result in death:
>>1) Murder of innocent.
>>2) Worshipping another God.
>>3) Having sexual relation with one's close family (I am not sure HOW
>>   close this means).

Included in this category is adultery.

>Note that in times of mass conversion (sha'at ha-shemad), many more
>mitzvot come under the heading of "you will be killed and you will not
>transgress" (yehareg ve'al ya'avor), but only in public places.  For
>instance, if the local Wazoovians have rounded up all the Jews in town
>and gathered them in the town square, and the High Priest of the Wazoovians
>points his war-spoon at you, Ya'akov Yid, and tells you to eat this
>Big Mac or be killed, and all the other Jews in town are watching, you
>have to smile and tell him to kill you.

I had learned this is not so; that we must do all we can to defend
our lives, except for the three items above.

Perhaps it is a good time to ask if Judaism has the concept of
"turning the other cheek?"  -- especially in the situation where the
Wazoonians will clearly kill you if you don't. 

I think the general rule tells us that when we are ourselves
attacked or when we see others attacked, by one who persues us
to do evil, (a rodef -- a persuer -- who persues for evil), we
have a positive duty to stop that person/persons, even if they have
to be killed when no other form of prevention will work.  Even at
risk to our own lives.  But there's a difference between "risk" and
certain death.

What if, as stated above, there is no hope?  If there is no hope
of stopping the rodef?  If attempting to stop the rodef will itself
result in death?  In short, if beaten on one cheek should we offer
the other cheek?   Doesn't sound Jewish?

But that's the sad situation we read of each Tisha B`Av -- We read
in Lamentations of the death and savagery and murder and
destruction in a case where our ancestors knew if they resisted
they would be killed and if they were struck once they could offer
the other cheek, and just maybe live on to see another day.

And so -- in this restricted situation, whether Babylonians or
Wazoonians seek to terrorize and murder and there is hope of living
by giving in, by offering the other cheek, and there's certain
death in resisting,  then the Prophet instructs us (Lamentations 3)
to offer the cheek.
_____

I'm not sure of the meaning of cheek, as in: strike on the cheek.
The cheek seems to be used as a metaphor throughout scripture for
being attacked by one close enough to get to your cheek and do you
harm.  Perhaps one who is stuck on the cheek is in grave danger of
being killed?  Or similarly, one who strikes on the cheek has proven
he could have killed if he wanted to? (Ps 3; I Kings 22; Micha 5;
Job 16).  Even G-d is said to strike the cheek.
-- 
Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish