For those who struggle with infertility, the battle is one which is often waged in private, with very little support from family or friends, unless a choice is made to share the information. I don't think it is anyone's place to impose their advice or opinions (or to say such insensitive things like "So when are you guys going to have a baby?"), unless said advice or opinions are sought by those who struggle. While I certainly don't have answers beyond doing research, preparing the body with the proper nutrition and vitamins, and seeking out the best medical help possible, here is a religious approach that suggests there is more to what meets the eye than medical charts.
Parshat Tazria
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Last week I quoted the Midrash Aggadah on “Yom HaShmini” who raised the possibility that one of the interpretations of Kohelet 11:2 which speaks of seven becoming eight, is that of Rabbi Yehuda bar Simone who said that "Seven" refers to the days of the Niddah period. If the laws of Niddah are followed (7), the Midrash suggests in the name of God, a child will be born who will be circumcised on the 8th day.
Sounds like a pretty good guarantee.
In another passage in the Midrash Aggadah on our parsha, we are reminded of how there are three partners in the creation of a human being: the father, the mother and God. This notion comes from the Talmud (Kiddushin 30b, Niddah 31a), and many homiletical teachings emerge from it.
But perhaps the most profound thought, certainly one that crosses the mind of God-fearing parents when their children are born, is how clearly one can understand that God is in this world when one observes a newborn.
Of course the initial passage above is a nice thought. But there are plenty of people who observe these laws meticulously and still struggle with infertility (as well as those who don't follow them, who have no problems). If only such a guarantee came with a warranty.
Alas, as everyone knows, it’s not always so simple.
In his Toldot Yitzchak, Rabbi Yitzchak Caro utilized a Talmudic teaching to explain how an expectant parent must pray for the fertilization to take root in the first three days, from day 3 to day 40 pray for a male child, from day 40 to the end of the first trimester pray that it shouldn’t be a miscarriage, from 3 months to 6 months pray that it should not be a stillborn, from 6 months pray that it should be born in peace.
If so, he concludes, it seems that the health of the child and success of the pregnancy is dependent on prayer much more than on nature.
With regard to the praying for a “male” child – well, this passage is on the segment that says “When a woman conceives and gives birth to a male.” (For those who like “The Godfather,” think of the blessing Luca Brasi gave Don Corleone at the Godfather’s daughter’s wedding.) [Of course there are people who "want" to have a boy. There are also people who "want" to have a girl. Most people are happy to have a child and gender does not matter.]
Otherwise, the passage speaks for itself about prayer’s role in all of this.
When I was in his class, Rabbi Moshe Tendler would often tell us that there are so many possible genetic mutations that could take place in the development of a fetus, it is a miracle that anyone is born without some kind of problem. Baruch Hashem.
In our world of science and rationalism, we tend to aim to find explanations for why things go right, and even moreso for when things go wrong.
But maybe, just maybe, we don’t have all the answers because some causes and cases go beyond the realm of the natural world. An unhealthy woman gives birth to a completely healthy and normal baby. A healthy woman can’t carry a baby to term. What’s wrong with this picture?
I don’t have the answers. But the Toldot Yitzchak did offer a suggestion, which I believe is only highlighted due to Rabbi Tendler’s insight about genetics. There is a need for prayer that goes far beyond our understanding, and enters the realm of the cosmos in terms of where it sits, lies and waits, and then returns to influence the world.
Are following the laws of Niddah and committing to prayer guarantees that a child will be born, and in good health? Of course not.
But as the old Jewish joke goes: a performer in a live show has a heart attack and dies on stage. As the stage manager comes out to give mouth-to-mouth, a woman in the audience yells out “Give him an enema! Give him an enema!” She is told, “This man is dead. An enema won’t help.” “Well, it wouldn’t hurt!”
While the punchline of the joke, "It can't hurt" is more than likely true with respect to prayer and Niddah observance, the other side of it, "That maybe it can really help" is certainly not worth dropping at the wayside.
Let those who are struggling to have that child find fulfillment in a more dedicated commitment to the laws of Niddah and to prayer. Especially praying for someone else who has similar needs . Who knows? Maybe sooner than later, prayers will be answered.
Amen. May it only be so for all of us.
Showing posts with label niddah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label niddah. Show all posts
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Friday, March 4, 2011
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.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Will Die During Childbirth?
One of the more difficult passages to understand is the one in the mishnah in Shabbat 31b -There are three trangressions for which women die during childbirth: Not being careful about niddah (the laws concerning conduct during the menstrual period, taking challah [from dough], and the lighting of candles [Friday night].
Does it literally mean a woman will die during childbirth if she does not fulfill these? Can't be! There are many women who do not fulfill these (who even transgress), yet who live long lives, long past their childbearing years. And there are those who fulfill these in upstanding fashion, yet who die at a young age! How is this possible?
Clearly the mishnah is not meant to be taken literally. What then?
The answer lies in this lesson from the Medrash Tanchuma:
The commandment of Challah comes from the fact that she brought tumah (spiritual impurity) to the first person (chalato shel olam - the "challah" of the world). Not only that, but he is compared to dough. In the Garden of Eden, there was all this mist moistening the world and then God fashioned Man out of dust of the earth. Just as a woman kneads her dough, God kneaded man. So woman has to make sure to remove the "challah" to make tribute to this "fixing."
Candles are because "The candle of God is the soul of the human being." Since she snuffed out the soul of the human being, she must make up for it by lighting candles and rekindling souls.
The Mishnah, therefore, is not saying a woman will die for transgressing any of the three. It is explaining that the idea of labor pains, which could cause death, stems from the original sins of Chava. [See a related teaching here - of how this may inform a sample of how to live a meaningful life]
While it might not be fair to suggest all women carry the burden of Chava's sin, it does follow that the specific trangressions in question are all part of a categorical response to Chava, and that the notion of "dying in childbirth" refer to the idea that childbirth is a difficult experience unique to the female experience, which stems (at least according to the Torah) from the original punishment handed to Chava upon her exit from the Garden of Eden. It should have been an easy, natural, process. Instead it could be tremendously painful - and the danger of death during labor is always lurking in the shadows. Even though it is, thankfully, increasingly uncommon in our modern medical system.
Perhaps these three stand as a reminder to women of the tremendous power they have, and the tremendous influence they yield and can hold over their husbands. Married women certainly do have the wherewithal to determine, in many ways, whether husbands will sin or not.
Perhaps it is incumbent upon women to yield their power for good, to fulfill their unique commandments, and to make sure, in the process, that their earth-originating husbands not give in to temptation, and are as protected from sinning as their wives can help them be.
Does it literally mean a woman will die during childbirth if she does not fulfill these? Can't be! There are many women who do not fulfill these (who even transgress), yet who live long lives, long past their childbearing years. And there are those who fulfill these in upstanding fashion, yet who die at a young age! How is this possible?
Clearly the mishnah is not meant to be taken literally. What then?
The answer lies in this lesson from the Medrash Tanchuma:
מדרש תנחומא (ורשא) פרשת נח סימן א
(א) ילמדנו רבינו על כמה עבירות נשים מתות בשעת לדתן, כך שנו רבותינו על שלשה וכו' ושלשתן מן התורה, נדה דכתיב (ויקרא טו) ואשה כי יזוב, חלה (במדבר טו) ראשית עריסותיכם, הדלקת הנר דכתיב (ישעיה נח) וקראת לשבת עונג זו הדלקת הנר בשבת, וא"ת לישב בחשך אין זה עונג שאין יורדי גיהנם נדונין אלא בחשך שנאמר (איוב י) ארץ עיפת' כמו אופל, ומה ראו נשים להצטוות על שלש מצות האלו, אמר הקב"ה אדה"ר תחלת בריותי היה ונצטווה על עץ הדעת וכתיב בחוה (בראשית ג) ותרא האשה וגו' ותתן גם לאישה עמה ויאכל וגרמה לו מיתה ושפכה את דמו, וכתיב בתורה (שם /בראשית/ ט) שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך תשפוך דמה ותשמור נדתה כדי שיתכפר לה על דם האדם ששפכה, מצות חלה מנין היא טמאה חלתו של עולם דא"ר יוסי בן דוסמקא (נ"א קצרתא) כשם שהאשה מקשקשת עיסתה במים ואח"כ היא מגבהת חלתה כך עשה הקב"ה לאדם הראשון דכתיב (שם /בראשית/ ב) ואד יעלה מן הארץ והשקה ואח"כ וייצר ה' אלהים את האדם עפר וגו', הדלקת הנר מנין היא כבתה נרו של אדם דכתיב (משלי כ) נר אלהים נשמת אדם לפיכך תשמור הדלקת הנר.
(א) ילמדנו רבינו על כמה עבירות נשים מתות בשעת לדתן, כך שנו רבותינו על שלשה וכו' ושלשתן מן התורה, נדה דכתיב (ויקרא טו) ואשה כי יזוב, חלה (במדבר טו) ראשית עריסותיכם, הדלקת הנר דכתיב (ישעיה נח) וקראת לשבת עונג זו הדלקת הנר בשבת, וא"ת לישב בחשך אין זה עונג שאין יורדי גיהנם נדונין אלא בחשך שנאמר (איוב י) ארץ עיפת' כמו אופל, ומה ראו נשים להצטוות על שלש מצות האלו, אמר הקב"ה אדה"ר תחלת בריותי היה ונצטווה על עץ הדעת וכתיב בחוה (בראשית ג) ותרא האשה וגו' ותתן גם לאישה עמה ויאכל וגרמה לו מיתה ושפכה את דמו, וכתיב בתורה (שם /בראשית/ ט) שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך תשפוך דמה ותשמור נדתה כדי שיתכפר לה על דם האדם ששפכה, מצות חלה מנין היא טמאה חלתו של עולם דא"ר יוסי בן דוסמקא (נ"א קצרתא) כשם שהאשה מקשקשת עיסתה במים ואח"כ היא מגבהת חלתה כך עשה הקב"ה לאדם הראשון דכתיב (שם /בראשית/ ב) ואד יעלה מן הארץ והשקה ואח"כ וייצר ה' אלהים את האדם עפר וגו', הדלקת הנר מנין היא כבתה נרו של אדם דכתיב (משלי כ) נר אלהים נשמת אדם לפיכך תשמור הדלקת הנר.
The midrash quotes the sources of the three commandments - Leviticus 15, Numbers 15, and Isaiah 58. Then it explains that these three commandments were specifically given to women on account of the actions of the first woman ever, Chava (Eve). In Genesis 3 she violated the one commandments she and her husband had been given: not to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree. Since she did and caused her husband too as well, she brought mortality to the world (this midrash follows the teaching that Adam was supposed to live forever, and eating the forbidden fruit brought about that he would die one day). As the verse in Genesis 9 says that one who spills "Adam"'s blood (either a person, or literally "Adam") will have their own blood spilled, the midrash argues this is the source for the concept of menstruation (in which blood flows) and the need to monitor activities and behavior during this period.
The commandment of Challah comes from the fact that she brought tumah (spiritual impurity) to the first person (chalato shel olam - the "challah" of the world). Not only that, but he is compared to dough. In the Garden of Eden, there was all this mist moistening the world and then God fashioned Man out of dust of the earth. Just as a woman kneads her dough, God kneaded man. So woman has to make sure to remove the "challah" to make tribute to this "fixing."
Candles are because "The candle of God is the soul of the human being." Since she snuffed out the soul of the human being, she must make up for it by lighting candles and rekindling souls.
The Mishnah, therefore, is not saying a woman will die for transgressing any of the three. It is explaining that the idea of labor pains, which could cause death, stems from the original sins of Chava. [See a related teaching here - of how this may inform a sample of how to live a meaningful life]
While it might not be fair to suggest all women carry the burden of Chava's sin, it does follow that the specific trangressions in question are all part of a categorical response to Chava, and that the notion of "dying in childbirth" refer to the idea that childbirth is a difficult experience unique to the female experience, which stems (at least according to the Torah) from the original punishment handed to Chava upon her exit from the Garden of Eden. It should have been an easy, natural, process. Instead it could be tremendously painful - and the danger of death during labor is always lurking in the shadows. Even though it is, thankfully, increasingly uncommon in our modern medical system.
Perhaps these three stand as a reminder to women of the tremendous power they have, and the tremendous influence they yield and can hold over their husbands. Married women certainly do have the wherewithal to determine, in many ways, whether husbands will sin or not.
Perhaps it is incumbent upon women to yield their power for good, to fulfill their unique commandments, and to make sure, in the process, that their earth-originating husbands not give in to temptation, and are as protected from sinning as their wives can help them be.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Why We Read the "Arayot" on Yom Kippur
Why do we read about the arayot, forbidden relations, at mincha on Yom Kippur (Vayikra 18)?
With all the hype over being like angels, and all the hysteria driven teshuva we’ve worked at since Rosh Hashana, one would think the farthest thing from our minds is any desire for incestuous relations, or any other crossing-very-strong-borders intimacy.
Or HaChaim says this is precisely why we read this section on the holiest day of our calendar, because of all the human frailties and desires we have, the attraction of the opposite gender is so strong it is the most difficult to overcome.
As repulsive as the idea of some of the forbidden relations may be to some of us (for example, a man with his mother, step-mother, aunt, grand-daughter) Or HaChaim nevertheless points out a weakness, a human frailty, that sometimes people are attracted and drawn to the people closest to them. Most of us automatically reject such impulses, while some may have to work very hard to overcome them.
Very well. What does this have to do with Yom Kippur? On Yom Kippur I am devoted to one overarching theme: my teshuva, my tefillah, and my promise to be a better Jew.
So what gives? Why on our holiest day do we read these laws?
Commentaries devote much attention to the underlying theme of this segment of the Torah. Is it all to be taken literally? How many prohibited relations are implied from the text, beyond those explicitly spelled out?
Perhaps there are three points where we can focus our attention to understand the significance to applying this reading to this specially holy day.
Firstly, the last two prohibited relations refer to homosexulaity and bestiality (18:22-23). While the treatment of individuals who practice such is a hot-topic these days (see my father's contribution to that discussion here), the Torah clearly forbids such behavior in the strongest terms.
Secondly, the two forbidden relationships prior to these do not deal with internal family members. They refer to the forbidden relations of a man with any woman during her state of niddah/menstruation (and a woman with any man while she is a niddah), and the prohibition against having an adulterous affair with one’s neighbor’s wife. (18:19-20)
There are rules we are meant to follow. [Here is a nice overview to the laws of sexuality in general] While the desire a man has for his aunt may be a non-issue, there are elements of our society in which we develop a familiarity with our friends’ spouses that go beyond a general cordiality. While it may seem harmless enough, it can be entirely inappropriate. It is important to be friend-LY and to treat all humans with respect, but the degree to which we take such friendliness can be the source of problems. As much as we think some “acceptable” social etiquettes are harmless, one never knows what a single crossed boundary can lead to. [I won't post links here, but it is frightening what you can find when you google "slept with best friend's wife."]
The laws of niddah as practiced between spouses are extremely important. [See here, click "conduct while niddah" on the toolbar] - While the mikvehs are used regularly, thank God, the fact remains that the laws surrounding the relationship of the husband and wife during the niddah time are among the few we face regularly that carry a punishment of karet, excision from the Jewish people, along with them if not followed.
The last point is the final message of Vayikra chapter 18. All of these prohibitions are to be avoided because they smack of the behavior of the people of ancient Egypt and Canaan.
In other words, where the pervading elements of “culture” say sexuality, the most base human desire, should be free, rampantly immoral, no holds barred, everything goes, this model serves only one purpose: to destroy everything an upstanding culture can stand for. When even government leaders (other than financial corruption, I think sex-scandals are the top items that ruin political careers (unless your name is Bill Clinton)) and every "role model" (such as sports figures and celebrities) are involved in sex scandals, we see how “advanced” our culture is. We can accomplish whatever we want. But adults still can not control the most basic human desire – overcoming the desire for such prowess is undeniably a very big challenge.
On Yom Kippur, when we do feel our holiest, we are compared to angels. But at our core, we are still humans and we need to be reminded that Yom Kippur is already in its waning hours. Mincha time is our last hurrah before we are swept into the power of Ne’ilah. We need to be reminded that our most basic desires, be they repulsive or repressed, can be dangerous.
We need to know there are very important rules that govern how we live. We need to know we are meant to be a model of a higher order, that we are supposed to march to the beat of our own drum. We do not have to accept social norms, just because society thinks they are normal.
This relates to how we dress all the time, how we relate to our friends and their spouses.
The reading specifically focuses on the immoral relations because they are presumed, as Or HaChaim says, to be the hardest to overcome. Hopefully, if we can take the lesson of God’s last “Hurrah” to us through the Torah portion we read on Yom Kippur afternoon, we will merit to overcome all desires, difficult and easy, so we can come to next Yom Kippur with a confidence that we have a much cleaner slate than the one we enter Yom Kippur with today.
With all the hype over being like angels, and all the hysteria driven teshuva we’ve worked at since Rosh Hashana, one would think the farthest thing from our minds is any desire for incestuous relations, or any other crossing-very-strong-borders intimacy.
Or HaChaim says this is precisely why we read this section on the holiest day of our calendar, because of all the human frailties and desires we have, the attraction of the opposite gender is so strong it is the most difficult to overcome.
As repulsive as the idea of some of the forbidden relations may be to some of us (for example, a man with his mother, step-mother, aunt, grand-daughter) Or HaChaim nevertheless points out a weakness, a human frailty, that sometimes people are attracted and drawn to the people closest to them. Most of us automatically reject such impulses, while some may have to work very hard to overcome them.
Very well. What does this have to do with Yom Kippur? On Yom Kippur I am devoted to one overarching theme: my teshuva, my tefillah, and my promise to be a better Jew.
So what gives? Why on our holiest day do we read these laws?
Commentaries devote much attention to the underlying theme of this segment of the Torah. Is it all to be taken literally? How many prohibited relations are implied from the text, beyond those explicitly spelled out?
Perhaps there are three points where we can focus our attention to understand the significance to applying this reading to this specially holy day.
Firstly, the last two prohibited relations refer to homosexulaity and bestiality (18:22-23). While the treatment of individuals who practice such is a hot-topic these days (see my father's contribution to that discussion here), the Torah clearly forbids such behavior in the strongest terms.
Secondly, the two forbidden relationships prior to these do not deal with internal family members. They refer to the forbidden relations of a man with any woman during her state of niddah/menstruation (and a woman with any man while she is a niddah), and the prohibition against having an adulterous affair with one’s neighbor’s wife. (18:19-20)
There are rules we are meant to follow. [Here is a nice overview to the laws of sexuality in general] While the desire a man has for his aunt may be a non-issue, there are elements of our society in which we develop a familiarity with our friends’ spouses that go beyond a general cordiality. While it may seem harmless enough, it can be entirely inappropriate. It is important to be friend-LY and to treat all humans with respect, but the degree to which we take such friendliness can be the source of problems. As much as we think some “acceptable” social etiquettes are harmless, one never knows what a single crossed boundary can lead to. [I won't post links here, but it is frightening what you can find when you google "slept with best friend's wife."]
The laws of niddah as practiced between spouses are extremely important. [See here, click "conduct while niddah" on the toolbar] - While the mikvehs are used regularly, thank God, the fact remains that the laws surrounding the relationship of the husband and wife during the niddah time are among the few we face regularly that carry a punishment of karet, excision from the Jewish people, along with them if not followed.
The last point is the final message of Vayikra chapter 18. All of these prohibitions are to be avoided because they smack of the behavior of the people of ancient Egypt and Canaan.
In other words, where the pervading elements of “culture” say sexuality, the most base human desire, should be free, rampantly immoral, no holds barred, everything goes, this model serves only one purpose: to destroy everything an upstanding culture can stand for. When even government leaders (other than financial corruption, I think sex-scandals are the top items that ruin political careers (unless your name is Bill Clinton)) and every "role model" (such as sports figures and celebrities) are involved in sex scandals, we see how “advanced” our culture is. We can accomplish whatever we want. But adults still can not control the most basic human desire – overcoming the desire for such prowess is undeniably a very big challenge.
On Yom Kippur, when we do feel our holiest, we are compared to angels. But at our core, we are still humans and we need to be reminded that Yom Kippur is already in its waning hours. Mincha time is our last hurrah before we are swept into the power of Ne’ilah. We need to be reminded that our most basic desires, be they repulsive or repressed, can be dangerous.
We need to know there are very important rules that govern how we live. We need to know we are meant to be a model of a higher order, that we are supposed to march to the beat of our own drum. We do not have to accept social norms, just because society thinks they are normal.
This relates to how we dress all the time, how we relate to our friends and their spouses.
The reading specifically focuses on the immoral relations because they are presumed, as Or HaChaim says, to be the hardest to overcome. Hopefully, if we can take the lesson of God’s last “Hurrah” to us through the Torah portion we read on Yom Kippur afternoon, we will merit to overcome all desires, difficult and easy, so we can come to next Yom Kippur with a confidence that we have a much cleaner slate than the one we enter Yom Kippur with today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)