Parshat Beresheet
by Rabbi Avi Billet
After describing the Tree of Knowledge and the instruction
for how it is to be treated, the Torah describes God as saying, "It is not
good for the man to be alone. I will make for him an "ezer" opposite
him." [In the interest of being politically correct, we will not translate
the word "ezer" right now.]
One would expect that the "ezer" would be created
immediately. However, there is a strange interlude during which God fashions
all of the animals of the earth, and the birds of the heavens to see what the
man would name them. After naming the animals, we are told he did not find an
"ezer" opposite him. In other words, after meeting all the animals,
he felt none had been made as a partner for himself.
Only after this discovery does the Torah continue where it
left off with God's "thought process" as it describes the process of
how woman was formed.
Why the interlude? Was the post-creation party meant to
assert who was created first? The dominion of man over animals? Was it meant to
make clear how much Adam was missing in not having an "ezer"?
The Netziv describes the difference between the
"ezer" that Adam was missing, and the companions he saw in all the animals. What Adam saw was that every animal's partner was essentially a
partner for procreation, while there was no partnership or companionship beyond
the achievement of that goal of reproduction.
Humans, on the other hand, have a need for companionship
that goes beyond a simple, physical act. In a sense, this is what we call the
"human connection" in which a real bond beyond words and physical acts
makes a relationship special.
The interpretation of Rashi that "If a man merits, she
is an 'ezer,' and if he does not merit then she is 'opposite him,'" is
known. However, Netziv explains, the Torah is not describing two options, that
she can either be an 'ezer' or she can be against him.
Rather, it is to be understood that her
"opposition" can help him. A man with a temper can have his wife
"help him." Either his temper helps him feel good, or his wife steps
in to cover his ineptitude when his temper overtakes his emotions. In this way,
she is his "ezer." (supporting a bad character trait) However, when the mood passes, Netziv explains, his
guilt is even worse on account of the fuel his wife poured on the fire of his
emotions, and that works against him.
On the other hand, if she opposes his anger from the
beginning and brings him to calm down, even though she is acting against him,
this is the true form of what it means to be an "ezer."
The Netziv's message is that the concept of a wife being an
"ezer" and against him puts a tremendous amount of pressure on the
woman to help her husband become a better person. Does it always work? Is her
ability to discern when he is wrong a perfect ability? Depends who you ask.
(I'm going to get it for this one!)
But the fact remains – in Netziv's approach – that sometimes
being "against him" is a way of being his "ezer," helping
him to improve his ways and become a better person. Or a more fulfilled person.
This is why the interlude is so important. Adam needed to
understand the animal kingdom and to see that he and they are very different.
We live in a world in which people see their pets as children and value their
animals' lives, in some cases, more than
the lives of human strangers.
So Adam's first lesson is – "You are not an animal.
You may share certain characteristics, but the bottom line is that you can
never achieve with an animal what you can achieve with another human
being." And a human being must be treated on a much higher level than how you will treat an animal.
Adam's second lesson is – "Don't view every
confrontation that you have with a spouse as the end of the game. It is merely
a means of helping you draw closer to one another."
It is this second lesson which is so difficult for partners
who squabble to remember. There are some people who do not know how to move
past a fight. They don't talk to each other for days and weeks, and may bring
about divorce or worse if they don't see their fights are meant to bring them
closer together.
But those whose attitude is, "I am in this for the
long haul and will stick through this" must also realize that while adults
will argue and fight, if their running theme is that they are on the same team,
as opposed to adversaries, then even the fights can bring them closer together
as their relationship is improved through the strengths they each bring to the
table.
Showing posts with label husbands and wives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label husbands and wives. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Friday, May 25, 2012
Shavuot: Why Stay Up? Or Not...
by Rabbi Avi Billet
There is a widespread custom to stay up on Shavuot evening learning Torah. Obvious, you'll say, but the truth is that the custom is mostly kabbalistic in nature. It is most likely that the custom was not practiced outside of kabbalistic circles until the 17th centuries when certain kabbalistic practices somehow went mainstream.
That kabbalistic practices "went mainstream" does not suggest the practices are halakhic in nature – just that they were picked up by a more general population.
One of the reasons given for staying up all night on Shavuot eve is to fix the "mistake" made by those who were waiting in anticipation at the bottom of a mountain, and fell asleep – only to come late to experience Revelation (Shir HaShirim Raba 1:2). As the Kabbalists viewed the holiday of Shavuot as "Zman Matan Torateinu" (a notion which has barely any support in the Torah's account of this agriculturally-focused holiday - though it is mentioned in the Talmud), the dedication to Torah on this date was meant to look like a rededication of our collective commitment to the Torah itself, and our hopes that we could correct the error made by our ancestors at that fateful moment.
However, there are apparently a number of days that contain such a practice of staying up all night. And interestingly enough, they all carry with them another recommended practice – the separation of husbands and wives.
Before getting all upset, it is important to note the words of the Aruch HaShulchan (OC 240), who wrote, "it is only an extremely pious custom (minhag chasidut) to avoid relations on the first night of Pesach, Shavuot, on Shmini Atzeret, and on Rosh Hashana."
The Mishneh Brurah qualifies this ruling similarly as for those "who are extremely God-fearing" (maleh b'yirah). Otherwise one should always bear in mind that the only mandated separation periods are Yom Kippur evening, Tisha B'Av evening, during a niddah period, and when either he or she is in the mourning period of shiva.
Other evenings that are mentioned in halakhic works (to stay up learning, that is) are Hoshana Rabba (Rama OC 664), the 7th night of Pesach (see Birkei Yosef 240), and the Kohen Gadol on the evening of Yom Kippur. It is interesting to note that one approach associated with the 7th night of Pesach ascribes the practice to the phrase "V'lo karav zeh el zeh kol halaylah" (Shmot 14:20), which means "This did not come close to this all night" – seemingly referring to the camps of the Israelites and Egyptians that stood on opposite sides of a pillar of fire during the evening in which the sea was splitting.
The rabbis would not let a verse like that go to waste, and suggested that "This not coming close to this" refers to husbands and wives. This would make it a custom to have husbands and wives separate on the 7th night of Pesach. And of course, once separate, one may as well learn Torah.
The separation in preparation for Shavuot is a little more palatable. After all, God mandated that husbands and wives have a three-day separation in advance of Revelation. (Shmot 19:15) While I do not believe such an act is necessary beyond that one-time in the wilderness, if people want to commemorate such a separation in advance of Shavuot, I guess they are entitled to do as they please.
The bottom line is that it seems the staying up learning idea is often directly correlated to a husband and wife separation.
The Magen Avraham describes what is meant to be the scholars pursuit during the week – namely to study Torah at night.
Not all of us have the luxury to make "Toirahseinu Umanoseinu" – the Torah our regular pursuit. But we do have a charge to study it and learn from it at whatever turn.
I don't know for sure which idea came first – separation from spouses or the idea to learn all night. But a message that could be taken is "when you are looking for some way to spend your time, because other options are taken away from you, pursue the Torah and the study of Torah." That is certainly a lesson to take to the bank all year long - not just Shavuot night.
Whether one does stay up learning or one goes to sleep at the regular hour, may we be blessed to dedicate much of our Shavuot experiences to Torah learning.
Friday, May 21, 2010
In Good Faith
Parshat Naso - Being Faithful
by Rabbi Avi Billet
I cherish the fact that the Torah does not hide from truths, and does not whitewash unpleasant situations. Biblical narratives in and beyond the Torah include examples of individuals who struggled with the most primal of human urges. More than monetary fraud and tax evasion, this sin remains, to this day, one that ends even the greatest of political careers (unless you were U.S. president for most of the ‘90s).
Yosef, Shimshon, and King David are three examples of great Jewish leaders who faced these challenges. Yosef triumphed, David failed, and Shimshon dealt with his desires through a faithful intermarriage in order to infiltrate the enemy’s inner circle.
With this background, however, one can still argue that nothing about the circumstances surrounding the Sotah, the suspected adulteress, is particularly pleasant. It is nice that our parsha instructs in how to deal with a real-life possibility of unfaithfulness, but the focus is on exposing the unfaithful married woman, and there is no particular focus on her partner-in-sin, nor whether he is likewise married.
Not to say that he is faultless, blameless, or unpunished in the Torah’s presentation of the case or in the Talmud’s subsequent analysis of the circumstances. [Aish.com takes a stab at explaining this conundrum]
But in the Torah’s depiction of the particulars, it seems translators have a debate as to what really happened.
Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s translation of the verses (5:12-13) reads thus:
“[This is the law] if any man's wife is suspected of committing adultery and being false to her husband. A man may have lain with her carnally, keeping it hidden from her husband, and they may have acted secretly so that there could be no witness against [the woman]. [The woman] was not raped.”
ArtScroll translates the same words, “Any man whose wife may go astray and commit treachery against him; and a man could have lain with her carnally, but it was hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she became secluded and could have been defiled — but there was no witness against her — and she had not been forced.”
Rabbi J.H. Hertz translates the same words, “If any man’s wife go aside, and act unfaithfully against him, and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, she being defiled secretly, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken in the act.”
The husband’s jealousy follows, and the Torah then says she may have or may have not actually committed the act.
In all cases, she is brought to the temple, and the procedure with the kohen and the special waters follows.
Clearly there is talk of her husband being suspicious. The Hebrew text (5:13) says “V’shakhav ish otah shikhvat zera, v’ne’elam me’einei ishaH.”
Where Rabbi Kaplan and ArtScroll translate “a man may have” and “a man could have,” Rabbi Hertz writes “and a man lie with her.” The question therefore goes beyond, ‘does her husband have real grounds to suspect, beyond his warning to her?’ The question is, “Did she or didn’t she? And is it only because her husband warned her that she goes through this process?”
Hertz’s translation is the most literally accurate. The Torah does seem to suggest at the outset that the woman is guilty, before it retracts and says she may have or she may have not committed the sinful offense against her husband. Could it be, then, that she might maintain a complete secret from her husband, and though personally guilty of adultery, nonetheless get away with it on the human level?
It would seem so.
In our Jewish community, we value and focus on the nuclear family, and are meant to do our utmost to preserve its sanctity. Some of our communities have a standard of conduct that prevents married men from becoming too “familiar” with married women, and vice versa. The Mishnah in Avot 1:5 (see part I and part II) even suggests a healthy distance, to avoid problems.
In explaining the custom that women would not work in the evenings of Sefirat Haomer (Shulchan Arukh 493:4), Shibbolei Haleket (Pesach laws 235) compares the Omer offering to the Sotah offering — both are a tenth of an eiphah of barley — and says because the Omer offering might cause us to think of a Sotah and thus arouse suspicion that our righteous women are unfaithful, it is to their continued honor and glory that they refrain from work during these evenings, because they are above suspicion.
May all of us, men and women, continue to live up to the category of “above suspicion” of the Shibbolei Haleket, as we model ideal family life for ourselves and for our children.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
I cherish the fact that the Torah does not hide from truths, and does not whitewash unpleasant situations. Biblical narratives in and beyond the Torah include examples of individuals who struggled with the most primal of human urges. More than monetary fraud and tax evasion, this sin remains, to this day, one that ends even the greatest of political careers (unless you were U.S. president for most of the ‘90s).
Yosef, Shimshon, and King David are three examples of great Jewish leaders who faced these challenges. Yosef triumphed, David failed, and Shimshon dealt with his desires through a faithful intermarriage in order to infiltrate the enemy’s inner circle.
With this background, however, one can still argue that nothing about the circumstances surrounding the Sotah, the suspected adulteress, is particularly pleasant. It is nice that our parsha instructs in how to deal with a real-life possibility of unfaithfulness, but the focus is on exposing the unfaithful married woman, and there is no particular focus on her partner-in-sin, nor whether he is likewise married.
Not to say that he is faultless, blameless, or unpunished in the Torah’s presentation of the case or in the Talmud’s subsequent analysis of the circumstances. [Aish.com takes a stab at explaining this conundrum]
But in the Torah’s depiction of the particulars, it seems translators have a debate as to what really happened.
Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s translation of the verses (5:12-13) reads thus:
“[This is the law] if any man's wife is suspected of committing adultery and being false to her husband. A man may have lain with her carnally, keeping it hidden from her husband, and they may have acted secretly so that there could be no witness against [the woman]. [The woman] was not raped.”
ArtScroll translates the same words, “Any man whose wife may go astray and commit treachery against him; and a man could have lain with her carnally, but it was hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she became secluded and could have been defiled — but there was no witness against her — and she had not been forced.”
Rabbi J.H. Hertz translates the same words, “If any man’s wife go aside, and act unfaithfully against him, and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, she being defiled secretly, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken in the act.”
The husband’s jealousy follows, and the Torah then says she may have or may have not actually committed the act.
In all cases, she is brought to the temple, and the procedure with the kohen and the special waters follows.
Clearly there is talk of her husband being suspicious. The Hebrew text (5:13) says “V’shakhav ish otah shikhvat zera, v’ne’elam me’einei ishaH.”
Where Rabbi Kaplan and ArtScroll translate “a man may have” and “a man could have,” Rabbi Hertz writes “and a man lie with her.” The question therefore goes beyond, ‘does her husband have real grounds to suspect, beyond his warning to her?’ The question is, “Did she or didn’t she? And is it only because her husband warned her that she goes through this process?”
Hertz’s translation is the most literally accurate. The Torah does seem to suggest at the outset that the woman is guilty, before it retracts and says she may have or she may have not committed the sinful offense against her husband. Could it be, then, that she might maintain a complete secret from her husband, and though personally guilty of adultery, nonetheless get away with it on the human level?
It would seem so.
In our Jewish community, we value and focus on the nuclear family, and are meant to do our utmost to preserve its sanctity. Some of our communities have a standard of conduct that prevents married men from becoming too “familiar” with married women, and vice versa. The Mishnah in Avot 1:5 (see part I and part II) even suggests a healthy distance, to avoid problems.
In explaining the custom that women would not work in the evenings of Sefirat Haomer (Shulchan Arukh 493:4), Shibbolei Haleket (Pesach laws 235) compares the Omer offering to the Sotah offering — both are a tenth of an eiphah of barley — and says because the Omer offering might cause us to think of a Sotah and thus arouse suspicion that our righteous women are unfaithful, it is to their continued honor and glory that they refrain from work during these evenings, because they are above suspicion.
May all of us, men and women, continue to live up to the category of “above suspicion” of the Shibbolei Haleket, as we model ideal family life for ourselves and for our children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)