Parshat Shmini
by Rabbi Avi Billet
In the aftermath of the massacre of the Fogel family in Itamar, Parshat Shmini couldn't be more timely in its arrival. While the impetus for the deaths of Aharon's sons, Nadav and Avihu, is obviously not comparable to the heinous crime committed in Israel, it is the aftermath of their demise which is most instructive.
What brought about the deaths of Aharon's older sons? Most discussions analyze the specific nature of the particular service they were performing. Were they drunk? Were they wearing the proper clothing? Did they enter an area prohibited to them? Did they perform a service reserved for their father alone? Did they merely bring a strange fire?
The different approaches curtail our ability to know exactly what triggered their deaths. A thorough analysis, however, helps paint entirely different pictures, suggesting that, perhaps, Aharon's sons died for other reasons.
Picture #1: Shmot 29:43 says that when the Mishkan will be dedicated, "It is there that I will commune with the Israelites, and [the tabernacle] will thus be sanctified with My glory." In other words, something grand will happen which will demonstrate God's awesome power. A sacrifice of some kind will be offered, which will consecrate the Tabernacle. It may or may not relate to the actions of individuals.
Picture #2: Shmot 19:22 says, "The priests, who [usually] come near the Divine must also sanctify themselves, or else God will send destruction among them." This verse leads us to believe that somehow, Nadav and Avihu did not properly sanctify themselves.
Picture #3: Shmot 24:9-11 presents a strange narrative of the actions of some of the leading figures of Israel. "Moses then went up, along with Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, and seventy of Israel's elders. They saw a vision of the God of Israel, and under His feet was something like a sapphire brick, like the essence of a clear [blue] sky. [God] did not unleash His power against the leaders of the Israelites." Targum Yonatan explains that God saved his punishment for them until the Yom HaShmini, 'the eighth day' of our parsha, while Rashi explains that they deserved to be killed at that time, based on the verse "And [God] said you may not see My face, for a human can not see me and live." (Shmot 33:20)
Picture #4: When describing why Elazar and Itamar are described by the Torah as "the remaining, or spared sons", Rashi on Vayikra 10:12 says "Those spared – from death. It teaches us that the death was also decreed upon [Elazar and Itamar] over the sin of the Golden Calf as it says 'And God was angry enough with Aharon to destroy him.' 'Destruction' refers to the deaths of his sons, as it says (Amos 2) 'I destroyed his fruits from above.' Moshe’s prayer canceled half of the decree as it says 'And I prayed on Aharon’s behalf at that time.'"
In other words, all of Aharon's sons should have died as punishment for his behavior in the Golden Calf story, but on account of Moshe, Aharon's punishment was reduced. He only lost two sons instead of all four. [This is not the forum to discuss the theological or philosophical implications of a punishment in which the father loses his children, or in which children have to die on account of the sins of the father.]
The point of the analysis is that we have no idea why things happen, or what truly constitutes God's Master Plan. And it is obvious that in many cases, it is impossible for us to understand.
The possible reasons for Aharon's son's deaths, as presented, have nothing to do with the story in Itamar. The parallel of half of Aharon's sons is coincidental to the fact of half of the family's children being lost. The fact remains - there is no comparison. Nadav and Avihu were taken by God, while the five Fogels were taken by monsters disguised as human beings.
The brutal nature of the murders of the Fogel family has all of the Jewish people shuddering with revulsion at the abhorrent nature of the crime. How divorced from humanity does one need to be to see any shred of justification in such a despicable act?
In Aharon's case, he carries on. The lesson is learned. He must find solace in his other children, and do all he can to protect them. He must make sure they follow the laws, and adhere to the instructions outlined for them by God. And they grow, in time, to become great men. In Elazar's case, he fills his father's shoes more than adequately.
In the case of the Fogel family, as for all of Israel, the lesson must be learned as well. Security must be a top priority. The care of the remaining children, of this and all attacks, are the responsibility of all the Jewish people. One supermarket owner, Rami Levy, has apparently committed to keep the family's pantry stocked with food until the youngest Fogel child turns 18. This form of generosity knows no bounds.
Israel must have a more forceful response than "they kill, we build" to send the message that the blood of its citizens, on all sides of the Green Line, is not cheap. We want all of our people to have the opportunity to grow up, and like Aharon's surviving sons, to have the chance to become great people.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Moral Values - The Torah Way
Parshat Tzav
In the first chapter of our parsha, Moshe is told to (6:18) "Relate the following message to Aaron and his descendants: This is the law of the sin offering: The sin offering (korban chatat) must be slaughtered before God in the same place that the burnt offering (korban olah) is slaughtered. It is holy of holies."
The term "holy of holies" often refers to the partitioned area where the Ark of the Covenant lay. On the other hand, many pieces of the sacrificial puzzle are also referred to as "holy of holies" – Kodesh Kodashim. The most common use beyond the room housing the Ark is the Mizbeach, the altar upon which animal offerings (korbanot) were to be burned, which is often defined as being the holiest of places. Beyond that, different foodstuffs that the kohanim are instructed to eat, and not to leave over, are also considered to be "kodesh kodashim."
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch explains this verse in a way which, perhaps unknowingly, is quite profound.
"The burnt offering is occasioned by the failure to actualize moral aims. The sin offering is occasioned by the lack of adherence to moral values. And the source of the problem in both instances is the heightened influence of material and of the senses. Only self-sacrifice in the material and sensual side of life leads to adherence to moral values, as it also leads to ascent and advancement. It is Holy of Holies because the basis of the sin offering, like that of the burnt offering, is the consecration of actions, and what underlies this consecration is the sanctification of the material and the sensual."
The sin stems from a lack of adherence to moral values. The problem stems from the influence of the material and the senses. I think I begin to understand.
This week has been tremendously devastating for me. I am sure it is true for many of us as well.
A few too many korban olahs were brought in Israel this past shabbos. I am beginning to think that this is bothering me more than a suicide bomb of a bus or a pizza store, even though that method typically results in more killed, and many more maimed for life. The goal in that case is wanton destruction, with no real aim in mind, which makes it less real, more distant. At the same time, there is nothing new in many members of one family dying together in one attack.
I think that here, it was mostly the method which got to all of us. In the "comfort" of their own home, while they were resting or sleeping, where they had no opportunity to even attempt to be vigilant because the cowards came in after bedtime, stabbed and slit throats of parents, children and baby.
Hirsch said it exactly right – there is a lack of adherence to moral values. The monster(s) who perpetrated the crime are the lowest form of life on this earth. The political pundits who say "we condemn such murders, but they are because of the occupation" don't rank that much higher on the totem pole. Such justifications, in Hirsch's words "must stem from the influence of the material and their morally corrupt senses." In actuality, such thoughts make NO sense (aside from being morally corrupt).
What will make this right? Nothing will bring back the lost members of the Fogel family. Not even the capture of their killer, whoever he or they may be.
Taking a homiletical leap off of the Torah's written page, might I suggest that the next step is to (find and) slaughter the sin offering at the same spot where the burnt offering took place? No, in this case it will not make anything "Holy of Holies," most certainly not the sin offering.
In Hirsch's words, the offerings achieve "the consecration of actions, and what underlies this consecration is the sanctification of the material and the sensual." On a simple level, actions speak louder than words. And Israel needs to achieve a better understanding of moral clarity, and needs to take action that will send a message loud and clear that Israel will not accept "korban olahs" any more, unless the Arabs are willing to become the "Korban Chatat" who is killed at the same spot, to have everything come full circle. I speak not of suicide bombers, who take their own lives, but of capital punishment for heinous crimes against humanity and the Jewish people.
If Samir Kuntar can get life in prison without parole, and is now living free as you and me, and if Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (Pan Am 103), who also had a life sentence, is now alive and well in Libya*, there is something very wrong with the legal system that allows people who should never have a free breath on earth to once again enjoy freedom. They and their ilk should perish from the earth.
In these days before Purim, as we recall the efforts of Haman to wipe out "All the Jews, young and old, children and women" (Esther 3:13), we must recall how the evil people of his time met their respective ends. Haman met his end four days after his decree was written, at the end of a rope that was displayed high for all to see.
His sons and cohorts met their ends on the 13th of Adar 11 months later, when those with moral clarity and an understanding that you can't just kill Jews because they're Jews and expect to get away with it stood up to fight and kill (no drawn out trial, no justification for their hate necessary) the filled-with-hate enemies.
May we merit to see moral clarity enter the eyes, minds and hearts of the morally blind. And may the crimes of these hateful terrorists be viewed by Israel as crimes against the Jewish people, with an end no different than the one meted out to the only prisoner who ever found himself at the short end of an Israeli noose. His name was Adolf Eichmann.
* Abdelbaset al-Megrahi died 5/20/2012 - more than a year after this was written
In the first chapter of our parsha, Moshe is told to (6:18) "Relate the following message to Aaron and his descendants: This is the law of the sin offering: The sin offering (korban chatat) must be slaughtered before God in the same place that the burnt offering (korban olah) is slaughtered. It is holy of holies."
The term "holy of holies" often refers to the partitioned area where the Ark of the Covenant lay. On the other hand, many pieces of the sacrificial puzzle are also referred to as "holy of holies" – Kodesh Kodashim. The most common use beyond the room housing the Ark is the Mizbeach, the altar upon which animal offerings (korbanot) were to be burned, which is often defined as being the holiest of places. Beyond that, different foodstuffs that the kohanim are instructed to eat, and not to leave over, are also considered to be "kodesh kodashim."
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch explains this verse in a way which, perhaps unknowingly, is quite profound.
"The burnt offering is occasioned by the failure to actualize moral aims. The sin offering is occasioned by the lack of adherence to moral values. And the source of the problem in both instances is the heightened influence of material and of the senses. Only self-sacrifice in the material and sensual side of life leads to adherence to moral values, as it also leads to ascent and advancement. It is Holy of Holies because the basis of the sin offering, like that of the burnt offering, is the consecration of actions, and what underlies this consecration is the sanctification of the material and the sensual."
The sin stems from a lack of adherence to moral values. The problem stems from the influence of the material and the senses. I think I begin to understand.
This week has been tremendously devastating for me. I am sure it is true for many of us as well.
A few too many korban olahs were brought in Israel this past shabbos. I am beginning to think that this is bothering me more than a suicide bomb of a bus or a pizza store, even though that method typically results in more killed, and many more maimed for life. The goal in that case is wanton destruction, with no real aim in mind, which makes it less real, more distant. At the same time, there is nothing new in many members of one family dying together in one attack.
I think that here, it was mostly the method which got to all of us. In the "comfort" of their own home, while they were resting or sleeping, where they had no opportunity to even attempt to be vigilant because the cowards came in after bedtime, stabbed and slit throats of parents, children and baby.
Hirsch said it exactly right – there is a lack of adherence to moral values. The monster(s) who perpetrated the crime are the lowest form of life on this earth. The political pundits who say "we condemn such murders, but they are because of the occupation" don't rank that much higher on the totem pole. Such justifications, in Hirsch's words "must stem from the influence of the material and their morally corrupt senses." In actuality, such thoughts make NO sense (aside from being morally corrupt).
What will make this right? Nothing will bring back the lost members of the Fogel family. Not even the capture of their killer, whoever he or they may be.
Taking a homiletical leap off of the Torah's written page, might I suggest that the next step is to (find and) slaughter the sin offering at the same spot where the burnt offering took place? No, in this case it will not make anything "Holy of Holies," most certainly not the sin offering.
In Hirsch's words, the offerings achieve "the consecration of actions, and what underlies this consecration is the sanctification of the material and the sensual." On a simple level, actions speak louder than words. And Israel needs to achieve a better understanding of moral clarity, and needs to take action that will send a message loud and clear that Israel will not accept "korban olahs" any more, unless the Arabs are willing to become the "Korban Chatat" who is killed at the same spot, to have everything come full circle. I speak not of suicide bombers, who take their own lives, but of capital punishment for heinous crimes against humanity and the Jewish people.
If Samir Kuntar can get life in prison without parole, and is now living free as you and me, and if Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (Pan Am 103), who also had a life sentence, is now alive and well in Libya*, there is something very wrong with the legal system that allows people who should never have a free breath on earth to once again enjoy freedom. They and their ilk should perish from the earth.
In these days before Purim, as we recall the efforts of Haman to wipe out "All the Jews, young and old, children and women" (Esther 3:13), we must recall how the evil people of his time met their respective ends. Haman met his end four days after his decree was written, at the end of a rope that was displayed high for all to see.
His sons and cohorts met their ends on the 13th of Adar 11 months later, when those with moral clarity and an understanding that you can't just kill Jews because they're Jews and expect to get away with it stood up to fight and kill (no drawn out trial, no justification for their hate necessary) the filled-with-hate enemies.
May we merit to see moral clarity enter the eyes, minds and hearts of the morally blind. And may the crimes of these hateful terrorists be viewed by Israel as crimes against the Jewish people, with an end no different than the one meted out to the only prisoner who ever found himself at the short end of an Israeli noose. His name was Adolf Eichmann.
* Abdelbaset al-Megrahi died 5/20/2012 - more than a year after this was written
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Looking to Find Real Happiness
Parshat Vayikra
by Rabbi Avi Billet
To state the obvious, we don't bring korbanot (sacrificial offerings) without a Holy Temple in Jerusalem. Maybe, in a media driven society, this is a good thing.
But the Torah views the bringing of korbanot as an important ingredient in one's lifelong goal of getting close to God.
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch explains (Vayikra 1:2) that the word "Korban" comes from the word "Karev," which literally means to draw closer. The purpose of korbanot is therefore a positive attainment, a realization of a more noble existence, and should not be viewed as animal rights people might view it – as destruction, annihilation or loss.
More importantly, the Korban was meant to serve the needs of the one bringing it, as opposed to the One receiving it.
The verse in Tehillim 73:28 says "For me, God's nearness is good for me; I have placed my refuge in the Lord God." Other elements of this chapter serve to indicate what a person is like if he does not seek out God or attempt to have a closer relationship with Him. Hirsch write, "In God's sanctuary a man will understand that closeness to God is the sole criterion for shaping his outlook on life and for evaluating true happiness, as it says (Tehillim 73:17), 'Until I came to the sanctuaries of God, and I understood their end.'"
What does it take to get close to God? According to Hirsch, one might consider the following bullet points as to what one might realize through being present in the courtyard of the temple:
This past weekend, Catherine Rampell published an article in the New York Times entitled, "Discovered: The Happiest Man in America."
She describes the summary reached by a Gallup poll as to what are the most common criteria of people who claim to be most happy. Turns out, the happiest person is a man.
To quote Rampell, "Gallup’s answer: he’s a tall, Asian-American, observant Jew who is at least 65 and married, has children, lives in Hawaii, runs his own business and has a household income of more than $120,000 a year. A few phone calls later and ..."
You guessed it. There is a man living in Honolulu who apparently fits this description (who has apparently been getting much media attention). God bless those tall, Asian-American, observant Jews.
I would venture a bet that most of those reading this do not exactly fit this description. And yet, is it not compelling that in a country filled predominantly with Christians, and on the other hand, at least the way the media tilts things, non-observing secular individuals, that the happiest person's religious conviction, out of over a million surveyed (one thousand people a day for three years), is an "observant Jew?"
Even without bringing korbanot!
Truth be told, we sacrifice a lot for our faith, for our dedication, for the sake of our children. We do it on account of our dedication to God, and our eternal effort to get close to Him.
So we can't eat in every restaurant, and our tuition rates are higher (maybe the over 65 year-old is happier because he is finished paying tuition!), and people look at us funny when we leave work early on Friday or take off random days in September for a non-ending string of holidays, and schools are petitioned to accommodate the schedules of observant Jews who can't take exams on Saturday or some holiday that falls out in April or May. And we can all go on and on
This is our life. We embrace it, we love it, we seek that relationship with God. With God's help we'll use the elements of Gallup's poll that we already have to achieve true happiness. And, maybe one day, we'll at least visit Honolulu.
- God nearness is achieved through total dedication to the illuminating, purifying, life-giving fire of the Torah.
- The measure of one's happiness is determined by the measure of one's closeness to God and the rule of His law.
- Body and spirit yearn for the living God and learn to know Him (73:26).
- Distancing from God brings ruin (73:27).
Friday, March 4, 2011
But My Rebbe Said
Parshat Fekudei
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Shortly before Thanksgiving, a video entitled "Yeshiva Guy Says Over a Vort" was posted on youtube and made its rounds through many of our emails. In it, two animated bears discuss a Torah thought related to the traditional interpretation that the forefathers kept the commandments of the Torah before Sinaitic revelation. The darker bear begins the conversation saying, "Can I say over a vort that I heard by my rebbe's house last shabbos?"
The listening bear asks several questions, raises important challenges to the premise of the original speaker, and seems to come out the victor in a mini-debate.
Some viewed the dialogue as a spoof, many took it as a joke, and others were offended by the video's premise: that a person who listens to his rebbe and repeats thoughts without questioning anything is a fool.
There were several video responses, including "Yeshiva Guy Responds," in which an attempt is made to say that in an argument of ideas one first has to respect the other's right to an opinion. Then respect that the opinion has validity, then argue with it. There are more rules of engagement when it comes to arguing, of course, but this is a summary of bear dialogues.
To illustrate, let us first read through the Midrash Yalkut Shimoni 415 on our parsha:
"'Betzalel son of Uri son of Hur of the tribe of Judah did all that God commanded.' It does not say 'that Moshe commanded'; it says 'that God commanded.' Even things he did not hear from his teacher (his 'rebbe'), his understanding followed that which was told to Moshe at Sinai. Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Benayahu, 'As God commanded Moshe, so did Moshe command Yehoshua, and so did Yehoshua do. He did not neglect a single thing from all that God commended Moshe.' It does not refer to 'all that Moshe commanded.' It says, 'All that God commanded Moshe.' This includes even things Moshe did not personally tell him. Rabbi Huna said [quoting Malachi 2:6], 'The Torah of truth was in his mouth' – these are the things he heard from his rebbe. 'And no falsehood could be found on his lips' – refers to things he did not hear from his rebbe."
Betzalel was in charge of creating every item for the Mishkan. And he relied heavily on the instructions Moshe gave him. But while Moshe may have known every detail himself, he may not have given Betzalel adequate instructions for each item. This caused Betzalel to find the answers himself, answers which the Torah tells us were exactly what God had commanded.
I believe it extremely important for every person to have a "rebbe" or mentor or guide to help a person find answers to important questions or to give a "Torah perspective" on issues which arise in our lives.
But we have to remember that we cannot guide our lives by "My Rebbe said" as much as we have to live our lives based on "What God commanded."
Firstly, we must all become thinking individuals in our own right.
Secondly, we must challenge our teachers to show us the sources for different things they say, or prove to us how the Torah supports their opinions.
Thirdly, we must not become complacent in our own search for truth. One rebbe's or teacher's opinion is always a great start. Seek out two, three, four opinions. And open the books they open and read the texts for yourself.
Finally, we must strive to reach the levels of Betzalel and Yehoshua insofar as how their relationship with their master-teacher developed. If we can become completely in tune to the teachings of our mentors, we too will be able to do God's bidding exactly right, even when we have not been given complete instructions, and all the details, from our teachers.
Because we'll have found the answers for ourselves.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Shortly before Thanksgiving, a video entitled "Yeshiva Guy Says Over a Vort" was posted on youtube and made its rounds through many of our emails. In it, two animated bears discuss a Torah thought related to the traditional interpretation that the forefathers kept the commandments of the Torah before Sinaitic revelation. The darker bear begins the conversation saying, "Can I say over a vort that I heard by my rebbe's house last shabbos?"
The listening bear asks several questions, raises important challenges to the premise of the original speaker, and seems to come out the victor in a mini-debate.
Some viewed the dialogue as a spoof, many took it as a joke, and others were offended by the video's premise: that a person who listens to his rebbe and repeats thoughts without questioning anything is a fool.
There were several video responses, including "Yeshiva Guy Responds," in which an attempt is made to say that in an argument of ideas one first has to respect the other's right to an opinion. Then respect that the opinion has validity, then argue with it. There are more rules of engagement when it comes to arguing, of course, but this is a summary of bear dialogues.
Bearing all this in mind (pardon the pun), and without passing judgment on these videos per se, there is an ailment which plagues individuals in our communities, in particular a significant population of recent products of yeshiva and seminary education.
To illustrate, let us first read through the Midrash Yalkut Shimoni 415 on our parsha:
"'Betzalel son of Uri son of Hur of the tribe of Judah did all that God commanded.' It does not say 'that Moshe commanded'; it says 'that God commanded.' Even things he did not hear from his teacher (his 'rebbe'), his understanding followed that which was told to Moshe at Sinai. Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Benayahu, 'As God commanded Moshe, so did Moshe command Yehoshua, and so did Yehoshua do. He did not neglect a single thing from all that God commended Moshe.' It does not refer to 'all that Moshe commanded.' It says, 'All that God commanded Moshe.' This includes even things Moshe did not personally tell him. Rabbi Huna said [quoting Malachi 2:6], 'The Torah of truth was in his mouth' – these are the things he heard from his rebbe. 'And no falsehood could be found on his lips' – refers to things he did not hear from his rebbe."
Betzalel was in charge of creating every item for the Mishkan. And he relied heavily on the instructions Moshe gave him. But while Moshe may have known every detail himself, he may not have given Betzalel adequate instructions for each item. This caused Betzalel to find the answers himself, answers which the Torah tells us were exactly what God had commanded.
I believe it extremely important for every person to have a "rebbe" or mentor or guide to help a person find answers to important questions or to give a "Torah perspective" on issues which arise in our lives.
But we have to remember that we cannot guide our lives by "My Rebbe said" as much as we have to live our lives based on "What God commanded."
Firstly, we must all become thinking individuals in our own right.
Secondly, we must challenge our teachers to show us the sources for different things they say, or prove to us how the Torah supports their opinions.
Thirdly, we must not become complacent in our own search for truth. One rebbe's or teacher's opinion is always a great start. Seek out two, three, four opinions. And open the books they open and read the texts for yourself.
Finally, we must strive to reach the levels of Betzalel and Yehoshua insofar as how their relationship with their master-teacher developed. If we can become completely in tune to the teachings of our mentors, we too will be able to do God's bidding exactly right, even when we have not been given complete instructions, and all the details, from our teachers.
Because we'll have found the answers for ourselves.
Rabbinic Chauvinism - Pirkei Avot 1:5 (Part II)
Read my original posting on the subject here.
The online conversation got a little out of hand, as some people thought my original comments to be outlandish, if not just pulled out of left field. I admit the actual interpretation of אשה v האשה in the mishnah is my own application from someone else's idea in a different context, but I stand by the argument that the word האשה certainly does not refer to all women, minimally refers to a specific kind of woman, and may refer to - as is the interpretation that says Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi exposited the middle third of the mishnah - one's wife.
OK. That said... here is my follow up to the comments of others.
To the Moderator:
This has been an interesting week, and the exploration of this mishnah has brought me down roads I have never traveled. Some have taken the thoughts I originally posted to task, so I appreciate the opportunity to respond in kind.
To [the person] who asked if I can produce any evidence for this reading in the vast literature of commentary on perki avot spanning the centuries. We had the conversation offline, but I will share the sources I shared with him:
An important source in all of this discussion (as he is quoted by many many people) is the Midrash Shmuel on Avos 1:5.
No one says the exact interpretation regarding "Ha'Ishah," however the reference to the pesukim in Kohelet that I mentioned are made by the Midrash Shmuel above, and Rabbenu Yonah in his commentary on Mishlei 6:24. Rabbi Yaakov Emden's comments on the mishnah also include a focus on the difference between "Ha'Ishah" and "Ishah."
The ShLa"H (Shnei Luchos Habris) in Shaar ha'osiyos, Emek Bracha 5 talks about the connection to the Rabbi Akiva mishnah of Avos 3:13 in which he talks about how schok v'kalos rosh bring one to violate ervah sins.
[Another respondent] speaks of Judaism's beautiful views of women. I agree with these views and his overall assessment of rabbinic Judaism's presentation of women. But as others will point out, there are many quotations, which when viewed out of context could seem to be disparaging to women. I will proceed to demonstrate, like you, that perhaps this mishnah is more disparaging to men. In the meantime, you asked me to "explain what “problems” with biblical Judaism needed addressing by Rabbi Akiva."
I had mentioned Rabbi Jonathan Duker's book, so I will just quote from his book:
To [the woman who found fault in "men discussing this mishnah" and doing a poor job of it], While I do not know what it takes for "a woman to become the hostile type who wants to seduce a man," I have found quite a few interpretations (and I said this as well in my original posting) that say this mishnah is as much a warning to men in terms of their own behavior, as much as it might be of what to "watch out" for.
Examples of the point I just made about "warnings" include:
The ShLa"H (mentioned above) who writes " anyone who has true fear of sin should save himself from actions which will bring a person to violate znus prohibitions. Both man and woman who participate in such activities are equally guilty – it takes two to tango." . כי כולם אפשר לו לאדם לעשותם לבדו, והזנות אי אפשר לעשות אלא עם שנים איש עם אשה או אשה עם איש, נמצא שניהם חוטאים ומחטיאים
Sefer HaPliah (sv "va'asah l'hadbik b'darkheihem hatovim") writes " Just as a woman could be the cause for a man to fall, the man could be equally at fault. He should not dress himself up in such a manner, and walk in front of the ladies, in a manner that he might be attractive to them."
Finally Akeidat Yitzchak 45 – "It seems to me that this mishnah is much more damning of the actions of males, because they are the ones who pursue the aveirah to its fruition"
ספר עקידת יצחק - שער מה
אבל אני רואה שאין עקר התלונה כי אם על האנשים, כי הם הרודפים אחרי העבירה עד רדתה
And finally, to the original professor who triggered my involvement in this conversation, The Alshikh (Vayikra 9:23-24) agrees with you (As does the Tosfot Yom Tov who quotes the Midrash Shmuel) that Yose ben Yochanan said his list of three items. Rabbi Judah the Prince added the part about "B'ishto Amru Kal Va'Chomer B'Eishet Chaveiro," most likely following the inference made by many, including the Midrash Shmuel and Bartenura on the mishnah, that the "Hay Ha'y'diah" in the word Ha'Ishah is specific and refers to one's wife..
You write "And in any case the commentary [referring to Rabbi Judah's the Prince's line - AB] itself must be taken seriously as part of the Mishnah." And I agree with you. But the question of why men are instructed not to have excessive conversations with one's own wife, which you claim you "don't think is defensible" is one I would still like to address.
You say "the argument about isha vs ha'isha is not credible." Then how would you explain Kohelet? You claim "the mishnah itself explains that "haisha" at the beginning refers to "ishto," one's wife, not some other and wicked woman." While that is certainly one way to read it, according to the idea that Rabbi Judah the Prince added the second phrase, it could certainly be understood that that was his interpretation, and not the only way to read the mishnah.
Regarding your second argument that "'ha'isha' not necessarily negative in the Tanach…" Again, I agree with you in your sentiment. But I specifically brought examples from the perspective of one author, Shlomo Hamelekh in Kohelet, who presents a contradictory notion in a few short chapters, to make the Ha'Ishah vs Ishah comparison.
As far as "why men are instructed not to have excessive conversations with one's own wife," I will share a few teachings I have found that perhaps shed light on this odd piece of instruction, concluding with a notion that is not as much practiced in our 21st century existence. Some may seem anachronistic, but I think that they may still apply to some men and some women, and the particular relationships they may have.
Ibn Ezra Mishlei 5:20 – Focuses on the word "Tarbeh" - Talking too much, on account of loving too much – this removes a person from [adequately] serving God
Me'iri Avos 1:5 – The conversation referred to is "idle chatter." David says regarding the Torah מה אהבתי תורתיך כל היום היא שיחתי (all day it is my conversation) – these are the kinds of conversations we are supposed to have. "Conversations of a necessary nature – topics related to the home, care, details of his business, etc. – none of these conversations lead to anything bad because they are purposeful, seeking advice, counsel, etc."
Sefer Charedim 47 – Too much conversation, even with men, is prohibited. Rather, conversations men have with women should be to the point (see Eruvin 53b – the story of Bruriah and Rabbi Yosi Haglili)
Midrash Shmuel 1:5 – Explains that it refers to a certain kind of conversation not to have with one's wife - Not to talk about tzedakah with her, because she'll prevent him from doing what he has to do… [Again, this may seem anachronistic as there are quite a few women who are heavily invested in making sure to give tzedakah. On the other hand, there are those who are not, who might not be as in tune to a. family finances, and b. the nature of the particular tzedakah and the connection the man may have to the recipient and to the mitzvah]
Midrash Shmuel 1:5 – If a man is so dedicated to the conversations he has with his wife, he might neglect the important mitzvah of welcoming and bringing guests indeed (IOW – don't let these conversations prevent you from fulfilling this mitzvah)
Rabbenu Yonah Mishlei 6:24 – One should not be drawn to his wife all the time – one difference between humans and animals in this regard is that our unions are for a purpose. As Talmud Brachos 22 says, we should not be running to our wives like chickens… Talmud Avodah Zara 20b says a little self-control (healthy separation) brings about greater purity
Sefer Hapliah –Frankly, there are times she needs (prefers) to operate without a man around.
Rabbenu Yonah Mishlei 6:24 – "Thoughts of Torah will not materialize in front of his eyes as long as he is drawn to these conversations. They are two diametrically opposed thoughts which the heart cannot process at once."
Bartenura Avos 1:5 – Hagiga 5 – a person is accountable [to God] for all conversations. [Which is why even the conversations one has with one's wife need to be to a point, and serving a particular purpose]
Sefer Ha'pliah – One is supposed to love his wife more than his own body (Rambam discusses this Ishus 15:19-20). Don't ask your wife for permission to go learn Torah because she always prefers spending time (etc), and doesn't realize how much good he is doing for her (and for them) when he goes to study Torah
Alshich Vayikra 9:23-24 – The Mishnah has three instructions which are to be done together – open house, poor people welcome, but don't talk too much with your own wife in their presence so the guests will learn not to extend familiarity towards her (for them – she eishes chaveiro) [Think of how Avraham related to Sarah when the 3 angels came to visit. She was in the tent, and all he said to her was "Maher, Shlosh S'im Kemach Soles Lushi Va'asi Ugos." Even when they asked about her, he said "She' in the tent." He did not want to call attention to her. And she knew how important this mitzvah was to him. - AB]
Midrash Shmuel – If she's a niddah, the conversation can lead to sin
If she's "tehorah," rather than have an idle conversation, one could be learning Torah "and this is the meaning of the phrase 'wastes time from Torah study' – it refers to talking too much with one's wife."
Sefer Derekh HaChaim 1:5 – Talks about the difference in nature of women v man – how the women is more "material" (not materialistic)… WHEN A MAN PURSUES A WOMAN, she wants something. But THIS IS NOT A FLAW IN THE WOMAN – this is how Man falls from his level, to be drawn to the woman on account of extra conversations. OBVIOUSLY HE IS SUPPOSED TO LOVE HIS WIFE – One has nothing to do with the other. But it is the over-conversing, which removes him from the level of being a male and draws him to pursue "material" in which he too "wants" something (העדר) – and this is what is גורם רעה.
Rabbi Heshy Grossman shared with me an article he wrote which includes this segment:
I realize, of course, that some of these ideas do not jive well with the way some or many of us have chosen to live our lives. Some view the Rabbis views of men and women as antiquated and extremely out of touch with reality. I do believe that the de-emphasis on Torah as the focus on one's life is one of the biggest challenges we face in our collective Jewish communities, and that perhaps an overfamiliarity with others breeds a tremendous amount of wasted time. I readily admit I am as guilty as everyone at this.
Most of us might prefer to hang out with our friends and to chat and shoot the breeze than to say, "You know what? I'm going to pick up a sefer and study Torah now that I have a few minutes. Hey – why don't you join me?" (See Sefer Charedim above)
The major points that are brought out are that conversations are meant to be focused and pointed and should go as smoothly as possible to serve a purpose. Beyond that purpose, one's goal and focus is meant to be on God and Torah study. In this respect, frivolous conversations (especially those that lead to sin) are viewed as a waste of time – and lead to the point the rabbis said, that they bring bad upon oneself, cause Bittul Torah, and lead one gehinnom-ward.
Does the mishnah suggest one should never speak with one's wife? Not at all.
And I would venture to say that speaking with one's wife is very very important. But it is suggesting that a line needs to be drawn between shooting the breeze and unnecessary idle chatter, and conversations which serve a purpose for the furtherance of raising children and taking care of important matters related to one's home.
Please do not misunderstand me. I hope I am making clear that while some conversations are important, some are not. And both men and women, in a marriage, can use a little space every now and then. [I may be going out on a limb here, but I would extend this idea to say that even the "abuse" of cellphones contributes to the problem, as no one has any space – always available at beck and call. Because if you turn it off or don't answer, "Where WERE you?"]
And no, I don't think this mishnah is the best piece of advice for marriage therapy. But when a man and woman in a marriage are on the same page in many more ways than many fewer ways, and Torah is extremely important to them, then this mishnah is a good guide for how to conduct oneself, with modesty and fear of God as their crowning achievements in their pursuit of a life of Avodas Hashem.
AFTER THIS - someone challenged me to bring halakhic sources to prove the point. I provided the following. (all in Shulchan Arukh. YD = Yoreh De'ah, EH = Even ha'Ezer)
There are several, and I bring up different halakhos based on elements of the conversation that were raised.
YD 182:5 – With regard to man making attempts to attract women
With regard to ability to study Torah and the issue related to the presence of women
YD 246:2
YD 246:24
YD 246:25
With regard to how to behave/interact with other women, including one's own wife
EH 21:1
EH 21:4 – For those who feel "Sicha" constitutes "Kalut rosh"
EH 21:6
And when the same challenger rejected this argument saying "the Halachot in Shulchan Aruch that Avi Billet quotes have nothing to do with "talking" – either a little or a lot – with women. Nor are they derived from the Mishnah in Avot. Indeed R. David Shlomo Eybeschuetz in his Arvay Nachal, Derush 4 on Ha'Azinu, quotes the Midrash Shmu'el on Avot as saying that the statement in the Mishnah is "Mussar Haskel," which is a far cry from Halacha."
I penned the following email to him
Hi. I happened to notice your latest response to the Avot 1:5 discussion, and I disagree with you. I write to you directly because I've posted enough to lookjed on the subject.
In the post in which I mentioned the different halakhot of Shulchan Arukh, I specifically wrote "There are several, and I bring up different halakhos based on elements of the conversation that were raised."
I don't know if you read the posting I had submitted prior, but it was with those thoughts in mind that I offered the different sources.
To prove the point - Rambam in Issurei Biah 21:2,4 makes similar points to the ones I referred to in Shulchan Arukh EH 21. The Maggid Mishneh on that Rambam (21:2) quotes Avos D'Rabi Nosson, but is essentially combining the mishnah I quoted of Rabbi Akiva in Avos 3, and our mishnah of Avos 1:5 to say that "Schok and Kalus rosh" bring one to violate ervah, and he quotes "al arbeh sicha im ha'isha" is an example of "schok and kalus rosh." Which gets me back to the SA EH 21:4, where he is clearly referring to how one relates to his niddah wife. I would like to assume that when Shulchan Arukh says not to engage in "schok and kalus rosh" with one's niddah wife, we can agree that he does not even imagine someone would be engaging in some physical activity that would constitute "schok and kalus rosh." Instead he refers to a conversation which would constitute a form of "schok and kalus rosh" which is forbidden because it might lead to (again), what Rabbi Akiva talks about in Avos 3.
I mentioned a few sources who discuss how "al tarbeh" might be referring to talking to one's niddah wife during that period (which I also mentioned is not a good ingredient for a marriage -- that is perhaps the 'best' time to 'talk' about 'other' things - to have an intellectual conversation, perhaps, as opposed to one which might lead to 'schok' and 'kalus rosh' -- or to talk about matters related to the home which do not fall into the category of "tarbeh sicha." Talking about one's sex life with one's niddah wife on the other hand is an example of a frivolous and idle conversation that the mishnah flatly disapproves of).
My point simply is that I feel you flippantly took the sources I quoted out of the context in which I brought them. Frankly, I don't believe I suggested that the mishnah referred to any kind of "prohibtion against talking to women." (I even pointed out in my first post that the mishnah does not say "al tarbeh sicha im nashim")
In my first post, I suggested it referred to specific kind of women (the mantrap kind)
And in my second post, I suggested it referred to talking too much to one's wife, which would take one away from Torah study, a thought I concluded with a lament that most men who opt not to talk to their wives are not usually running to the beis medrash in place of having that conversation.
I appreciate your sentiment from the drashos that it may be mussar haskel. But I also think in my heart of hearts that if people were to engage in Torah in place of what would constitute unnecessary conversations with their spouses, the Jewish people as a learned, thinking (and yes, halakhic) group of people would be a lot better off.
Thanks for listening.
The online conversation got a little out of hand, as some people thought my original comments to be outlandish, if not just pulled out of left field. I admit the actual interpretation of אשה v האשה in the mishnah is my own application from someone else's idea in a different context, but I stand by the argument that the word האשה certainly does not refer to all women, minimally refers to a specific kind of woman, and may refer to - as is the interpretation that says Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi exposited the middle third of the mishnah - one's wife.
OK. That said... here is my follow up to the comments of others.
To the Moderator:
This has been an interesting week, and the exploration of this mishnah has brought me down roads I have never traveled. Some have taken the thoughts I originally posted to task, so I appreciate the opportunity to respond in kind.
To [the person] who asked if I can produce any evidence for this reading in the vast literature of commentary on perki avot spanning the centuries. We had the conversation offline, but I will share the sources I shared with him:
An important source in all of this discussion (as he is quoted by many many people) is the Midrash Shmuel on Avos 1:5.
No one says the exact interpretation regarding "Ha'Ishah," however the reference to the pesukim in Kohelet that I mentioned are made by the Midrash Shmuel above, and Rabbenu Yonah in his commentary on Mishlei 6:24. Rabbi Yaakov Emden's comments on the mishnah also include a focus on the difference between "Ha'Ishah" and "Ishah."
The ShLa"H (Shnei Luchos Habris) in Shaar ha'osiyos, Emek Bracha 5 talks about the connection to the Rabbi Akiva mishnah of Avos 3:13 in which he talks about how schok v'kalos rosh bring one to violate ervah sins.
[Another respondent] speaks of Judaism's beautiful views of women. I agree with these views and his overall assessment of rabbinic Judaism's presentation of women. But as others will point out, there are many quotations, which when viewed out of context could seem to be disparaging to women. I will proceed to demonstrate, like you, that perhaps this mishnah is more disparaging to men. In the meantime, you asked me to "explain what “problems” with biblical Judaism needed addressing by Rabbi Akiva."
I had mentioned Rabbi Jonathan Duker's book, so I will just quote from his book:
"[Rabbi Akiva insisted] on openly expressing love for one's wife, a view that often clashed with that of his colleagues. 'Rabbi Akiva taught, Who is wealthy? One who has an exemplary wife.' (Shabbat 25b) Rabbi Akiva's affection for his Rachel caused the wives of the other scholars to feel jealous. (JT Shabbat 6:1)"I don't believe it was Rabbi Akiva who did this, but once upon a time a woman who was given a "get" could receive it even against her will and it was valid. Now the law is that she (or her shaliach) must accept it for it to be valid.
"Where earlier scholars had ruled that women should not wear makeup or attractive clothing during the time when they may not have relations with their husbands, Rabbi Akiva changed the law so that wives could be attractive to their husbands at all times (Shabbat 64b)."
To [the woman who found fault in "men discussing this mishnah" and doing a poor job of it], While I do not know what it takes for "a woman to become the hostile type who wants to seduce a man," I have found quite a few interpretations (and I said this as well in my original posting) that say this mishnah is as much a warning to men in terms of their own behavior, as much as it might be of what to "watch out" for.
Examples of the point I just made about "warnings" include:
The ShLa"H (mentioned above) who writes " anyone who has true fear of sin should save himself from actions which will bring a person to violate znus prohibitions. Both man and woman who participate in such activities are equally guilty – it takes two to tango." . כי כולם אפשר לו לאדם לעשותם לבדו, והזנות אי אפשר לעשות אלא עם שנים איש עם אשה או אשה עם איש, נמצא שניהם חוטאים ומחטיאים
Sefer HaPliah (sv "va'asah l'hadbik b'darkheihem hatovim") writes " Just as a woman could be the cause for a man to fall, the man could be equally at fault. He should not dress himself up in such a manner, and walk in front of the ladies, in a manner that he might be attractive to them."
Finally Akeidat Yitzchak 45 – "It seems to me that this mishnah is much more damning of the actions of males, because they are the ones who pursue the aveirah to its fruition"
ספר עקידת יצחק - שער מה
אבל אני רואה שאין עקר התלונה כי אם על האנשים, כי הם הרודפים אחרי העבירה עד רדתה
And finally, to the original professor who triggered my involvement in this conversation, The Alshikh (Vayikra 9:23-24) agrees with you (As does the Tosfot Yom Tov who quotes the Midrash Shmuel) that Yose ben Yochanan said his list of three items. Rabbi Judah the Prince added the part about "B'ishto Amru Kal Va'Chomer B'Eishet Chaveiro," most likely following the inference made by many, including the Midrash Shmuel and Bartenura on the mishnah, that the "Hay Ha'y'diah" in the word Ha'Ishah is specific and refers to one's wife..
You write "And in any case the commentary [referring to Rabbi Judah's the Prince's line - AB] itself must be taken seriously as part of the Mishnah." And I agree with you. But the question of why men are instructed not to have excessive conversations with one's own wife, which you claim you "don't think is defensible" is one I would still like to address.
You say "the argument about isha vs ha'isha is not credible." Then how would you explain Kohelet? You claim "the mishnah itself explains that "haisha" at the beginning refers to "ishto," one's wife, not some other and wicked woman." While that is certainly one way to read it, according to the idea that Rabbi Judah the Prince added the second phrase, it could certainly be understood that that was his interpretation, and not the only way to read the mishnah.
Regarding your second argument that "'ha'isha' not necessarily negative in the Tanach…" Again, I agree with you in your sentiment. But I specifically brought examples from the perspective of one author, Shlomo Hamelekh in Kohelet, who presents a contradictory notion in a few short chapters, to make the Ha'Ishah vs Ishah comparison.
As far as "why men are instructed not to have excessive conversations with one's own wife," I will share a few teachings I have found that perhaps shed light on this odd piece of instruction, concluding with a notion that is not as much practiced in our 21st century existence. Some may seem anachronistic, but I think that they may still apply to some men and some women, and the particular relationships they may have.
Ibn Ezra Mishlei 5:20 – Focuses on the word "Tarbeh" - Talking too much, on account of loving too much – this removes a person from [adequately] serving God
Me'iri Avos 1:5 – The conversation referred to is "idle chatter." David says regarding the Torah מה אהבתי תורתיך כל היום היא שיחתי (all day it is my conversation) – these are the kinds of conversations we are supposed to have. "Conversations of a necessary nature – topics related to the home, care, details of his business, etc. – none of these conversations lead to anything bad because they are purposeful, seeking advice, counsel, etc."
Sefer Charedim 47 – Too much conversation, even with men, is prohibited. Rather, conversations men have with women should be to the point (see Eruvin 53b – the story of Bruriah and Rabbi Yosi Haglili)
Midrash Shmuel 1:5 – Explains that it refers to a certain kind of conversation not to have with one's wife - Not to talk about tzedakah with her, because she'll prevent him from doing what he has to do… [Again, this may seem anachronistic as there are quite a few women who are heavily invested in making sure to give tzedakah. On the other hand, there are those who are not, who might not be as in tune to a. family finances, and b. the nature of the particular tzedakah and the connection the man may have to the recipient and to the mitzvah]
Midrash Shmuel 1:5 – If a man is so dedicated to the conversations he has with his wife, he might neglect the important mitzvah of welcoming and bringing guests indeed (IOW – don't let these conversations prevent you from fulfilling this mitzvah)
Rabbenu Yonah Mishlei 6:24 – One should not be drawn to his wife all the time – one difference between humans and animals in this regard is that our unions are for a purpose. As Talmud Brachos 22 says, we should not be running to our wives like chickens… Talmud Avodah Zara 20b says a little self-control (healthy separation) brings about greater purity
Sefer Hapliah –Frankly, there are times she needs (prefers) to operate without a man around.
Rabbenu Yonah Mishlei 6:24 – "Thoughts of Torah will not materialize in front of his eyes as long as he is drawn to these conversations. They are two diametrically opposed thoughts which the heart cannot process at once."
Bartenura Avos 1:5 – Hagiga 5 – a person is accountable [to God] for all conversations. [Which is why even the conversations one has with one's wife need to be to a point, and serving a particular purpose]
Sefer Ha'pliah – One is supposed to love his wife more than his own body (Rambam discusses this Ishus 15:19-20). Don't ask your wife for permission to go learn Torah because she always prefers spending time (etc), and doesn't realize how much good he is doing for her (and for them) when he goes to study Torah
Alshich Vayikra 9:23-24 – The Mishnah has three instructions which are to be done together – open house, poor people welcome, but don't talk too much with your own wife in their presence so the guests will learn not to extend familiarity towards her (for them – she eishes chaveiro) [Think of how Avraham related to Sarah when the 3 angels came to visit. She was in the tent, and all he said to her was "Maher, Shlosh S'im Kemach Soles Lushi Va'asi Ugos." Even when they asked about her, he said "She' in the tent." He did not want to call attention to her. And she knew how important this mitzvah was to him. - AB]
Midrash Shmuel – If she's a niddah, the conversation can lead to sin
If she's "tehorah," rather than have an idle conversation, one could be learning Torah "and this is the meaning of the phrase 'wastes time from Torah study' – it refers to talking too much with one's wife."
Sefer Derekh HaChaim 1:5 – Talks about the difference in nature of women v man – how the women is more "material" (not materialistic)… WHEN A MAN PURSUES A WOMAN, she wants something. But THIS IS NOT A FLAW IN THE WOMAN – this is how Man falls from his level, to be drawn to the woman on account of extra conversations. OBVIOUSLY HE IS SUPPOSED TO LOVE HIS WIFE – One has nothing to do with the other. But it is the over-conversing, which removes him from the level of being a male and draws him to pursue "material" in which he too "wants" something (העדר) – and this is what is גורם רעה.
Rabbi Heshy Grossman shared with me an article he wrote which includes this segment:
" This dual purpose of Torah study - knowing how to live as a Jew on earth, and study as an exercise in non-earthly concerns - reflects the different roles of women and men in creation. While the success of the man is measured by the extent to which his mind is fully occupied with Torah, the success of the woman is measured by the extent to which she gives material life to that Torah.In the letter he sent me, he mentioned the idea of "Chomer" (material) to describe female, while Tzurah (kabbalistically) refers to man's role in the world. The Maharal wrote along similar lines.
Certainly a woman's mind is capable of comprehending Talmudic analysis. This is not the issue. The issue is that Talmud study - Torah sheb'al peh -symbolizes un-actualized ideas - and is not congruent with the woman's role of "actualizer-on-this-earth."
I realize, of course, that some of these ideas do not jive well with the way some or many of us have chosen to live our lives. Some view the Rabbis views of men and women as antiquated and extremely out of touch with reality. I do believe that the de-emphasis on Torah as the focus on one's life is one of the biggest challenges we face in our collective Jewish communities, and that perhaps an overfamiliarity with others breeds a tremendous amount of wasted time. I readily admit I am as guilty as everyone at this.
Most of us might prefer to hang out with our friends and to chat and shoot the breeze than to say, "You know what? I'm going to pick up a sefer and study Torah now that I have a few minutes. Hey – why don't you join me?" (See Sefer Charedim above)
The major points that are brought out are that conversations are meant to be focused and pointed and should go as smoothly as possible to serve a purpose. Beyond that purpose, one's goal and focus is meant to be on God and Torah study. In this respect, frivolous conversations (especially those that lead to sin) are viewed as a waste of time – and lead to the point the rabbis said, that they bring bad upon oneself, cause Bittul Torah, and lead one gehinnom-ward.
Does the mishnah suggest one should never speak with one's wife? Not at all.
And I would venture to say that speaking with one's wife is very very important. But it is suggesting that a line needs to be drawn between shooting the breeze and unnecessary idle chatter, and conversations which serve a purpose for the furtherance of raising children and taking care of important matters related to one's home.
Please do not misunderstand me. I hope I am making clear that while some conversations are important, some are not. And both men and women, in a marriage, can use a little space every now and then. [I may be going out on a limb here, but I would extend this idea to say that even the "abuse" of cellphones contributes to the problem, as no one has any space – always available at beck and call. Because if you turn it off or don't answer, "Where WERE you?"]
And no, I don't think this mishnah is the best piece of advice for marriage therapy. But when a man and woman in a marriage are on the same page in many more ways than many fewer ways, and Torah is extremely important to them, then this mishnah is a good guide for how to conduct oneself, with modesty and fear of God as their crowning achievements in their pursuit of a life of Avodas Hashem.
AFTER THIS - someone challenged me to bring halakhic sources to prove the point. I provided the following. (all in Shulchan Arukh. YD = Yoreh De'ah, EH = Even ha'Ezer)
There are several, and I bring up different halakhos based on elements of the conversation that were raised.
YD 182:5 – With regard to man making attempts to attract women
With regard to ability to study Torah and the issue related to the presence of women
YD 246:2
YD 246:24
YD 246:25
With regard to how to behave/interact with other women, including one's own wife
EH 21:1
EH 21:4 – For those who feel "Sicha" constitutes "Kalut rosh"
EH 21:6
And when the same challenger rejected this argument saying "the Halachot in Shulchan Aruch that Avi Billet quotes have nothing to do with "talking" – either a little or a lot – with women. Nor are they derived from the Mishnah in Avot. Indeed R. David Shlomo Eybeschuetz in his Arvay Nachal, Derush 4 on Ha'Azinu, quotes the Midrash Shmu'el on Avot as saying that the statement in the Mishnah is "Mussar Haskel," which is a far cry from Halacha."
I penned the following email to him
Hi. I happened to notice your latest response to the Avot 1:5 discussion, and I disagree with you. I write to you directly because I've posted enough to lookjed on the subject.
In the post in which I mentioned the different halakhot of Shulchan Arukh, I specifically wrote "There are several, and I bring up different halakhos based on elements of the conversation that were raised."
I don't know if you read the posting I had submitted prior, but it was with those thoughts in mind that I offered the different sources.
To prove the point - Rambam in Issurei Biah 21:2,4 makes similar points to the ones I referred to in Shulchan Arukh EH 21. The Maggid Mishneh on that Rambam (21:2) quotes Avos D'Rabi Nosson, but is essentially combining the mishnah I quoted of Rabbi Akiva in Avos 3, and our mishnah of Avos 1:5 to say that "Schok and Kalus rosh" bring one to violate ervah, and he quotes "al arbeh sicha im ha'isha" is an example of "schok and kalus rosh." Which gets me back to the SA EH 21:4, where he is clearly referring to how one relates to his niddah wife. I would like to assume that when Shulchan Arukh says not to engage in "schok and kalus rosh" with one's niddah wife, we can agree that he does not even imagine someone would be engaging in some physical activity that would constitute "schok and kalus rosh." Instead he refers to a conversation which would constitute a form of "schok and kalus rosh" which is forbidden because it might lead to (again), what Rabbi Akiva talks about in Avos 3.
I mentioned a few sources who discuss how "al tarbeh" might be referring to talking to one's niddah wife during that period (which I also mentioned is not a good ingredient for a marriage -- that is perhaps the 'best' time to 'talk' about 'other' things - to have an intellectual conversation, perhaps, as opposed to one which might lead to 'schok' and 'kalus rosh' -- or to talk about matters related to the home which do not fall into the category of "tarbeh sicha." Talking about one's sex life with one's niddah wife on the other hand is an example of a frivolous and idle conversation that the mishnah flatly disapproves of).
My point simply is that I feel you flippantly took the sources I quoted out of the context in which I brought them. Frankly, I don't believe I suggested that the mishnah referred to any kind of "prohibtion against talking to women." (I even pointed out in my first post that the mishnah does not say "al tarbeh sicha im nashim")
In my first post, I suggested it referred to specific kind of women (the mantrap kind)
And in my second post, I suggested it referred to talking too much to one's wife, which would take one away from Torah study, a thought I concluded with a lament that most men who opt not to talk to their wives are not usually running to the beis medrash in place of having that conversation.
I appreciate your sentiment from the drashos that it may be mussar haskel. But I also think in my heart of hearts that if people were to engage in Torah in place of what would constitute unnecessary conversations with their spouses, the Jewish people as a learned, thinking (and yes, halakhic) group of people would be a lot better off.
Thanks for listening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)