Judgement and Matchmaking

“I really don’t know her,” was the reply on WhatsApp from a Rabbi in New York about a woman who was suggested as a marriage partner for one of my sons. The Rabbi was listed on the young woman’s “Shidduch” (match-making) resumé as a reference. He was replying to my message from July 2024, about setting a time to do a reference check about a potential bride. The delayed response is a funny illustration of the challenges of Modern Orthodox Jewish matchmaking.

Jewish marriage is regarded as a sacred reunion between two half souls, separated prior to birth (1). It is the fulfilment of divine design that “a man will leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife, and will become as one flesh.” (2) The tomb in which Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca and other Jewish forebears were buried was named the “double cave” because the couples buried there were profoundly united and became part of a set (3).  Abraham cried for his beloved Sarah when she died (4).   

Ultra-Orthodox Jewish matchmaking to set up such unions has changed in the 30 -plus years since I got married. At that time, a matchmaker who knew the two families made a suggestion. The parents of the prospective young couple made a few calls to check if the young man and woman had compatible values and goals and checked out the families.

I don’t know when it changed, but we now have the “Shidduch resumé”. Men and women prepare a resumé that lists where they went to school, Yeshiva (Talmudic college post high school) or girls Torah seminary, summer jobs, some will include a short description of their qualities and those they are seeking in a partner, and a list of names of references with their phone numbers.  The parents will usually make multiple reference calls before suggesting to the young couple that they consider meeting. If they agree, they begin a series of dates.

The Shidduch process involves serious judging, but with limited information. Some references are afraid to paint their friend in a bad light. Many times, I was told, “She is not the loudest person in the room … but she is not quiet either.” I have found that it was often the little anecdotes that gave me a sense of the prospective partner’s values and character.

There is a great precedent for that. When Abraham’s servant was seeking to find a match for his master’s son Isaac, he focused on observing how helpful Rebecca was at a well. When she offered him and his camels water to drink, he decided she was a suitable wife (5).

We might feel uncomfortable making judgments; as Pirkei Avot teaches us, “Do not judge another person until you have been in their situation.” (6) However, the rules are different when there is a legitimate purpose for the judging. Choosing to spend one’s life together with another person (or advising a son or daughter about this) involves a judgement about how that person measures up against one’s own most cherished values, principles and ideals.

It sounds very unromantic but the initial part of orthodox Jewish matchmaking is similar to recruitment to fill a position in a work context. The critical question in both cases is, is it a good fit?  

In both cases there is a risk that emotion will cloud our judgement. Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kaheneman (6) writes about one way to stuff up an interview process. If you do the emotional stuff first, you might feel good about a candidate because they are similar to you, even if they lack the skills for the job. The emotional connection creates a bias. To avoid that problem, he suggests, do the boring bits first. In the Shidduch process, some young people will want to know more about the person to decide if it is a likely fit before looking at the photo and being swayed by someone’s appearance.

This might sound like a hit-or-miss approach, but if we apply Kahenman’s logic to matchmaking it is more likely to work than being guided by emotions alone.

Once the couple are deemed likely to be technically compatible, they then need to work out if they are emotionally drawn to each other.

Another element in all this is the idea of “Bashert” – that the couple are divinely destined for each other.

In the case of Isaac and Rebbecca, the match certainly seemed “bashert”. They got married and the Torah states that Isaac loved Rebecca (7).

In addition to Rebecca being a kind and sensitive woman, she was a good fit for another reason. Isaac was a reserved man who spoke little and is associated with judgement. Rebecca’s character is also associated with judgement (8). She made a snap judgment (10) about going ahead with the proposed marriage with Isaac; without hesitation, she simply said, “I will go” (11). When her husband seemed to be fooled about his eldest son’s character, because of the delicious meat Esau brought her from his hunt, Rebecca discerned the truth about both her sons (12). 

The marriage between Rebecca and Isaac was not one of constant agreement or acquiescence (13). But there was love and care, based on a sound foundation of compatibility, discovered through sound judgement.

Returning to the young woman who was the subject of the delayed WhatsApp message, at the time of my evaluation process, I was fortunate to get through to most if not all of the other eight references listed on the resumé. They provided enough information for my wife and me to suggest to my son that he should meet her. After the young people spent time dating, they made a decision by using their heads and their hearts. They are now happily married.

1)       https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/2634/jewish/The-Half-Shekel-of-Marriage.htm

2)       Genesis 2:24  

3)       Genesis 23:1

4)       The Shaloh on Chayei Sarah

5)       Genesis 24:12-20

6)       Pirkey Avot 2:4

7)       Kahneman, D., (2021) Noise, William Collins

8)       Genesis 24:67

9)       The Shaloh on Chayei Sarah

10)    Genesis 24:55

11)    Gladwell, M, (2005), Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking

12)    Genesis 25:25 and commentary

13)    Genesis 27, Shlomo Riskin 

Women and men in Jewish marriage has anything changed

 On Wednesday, a group of Muslim students, a learned Muslim colleague and I discussed marriage. A question from one of the students was “how has Jewish marriage adapted to modern understandings of gender equality and LGBTQ+ rights while maintaining traditional marital practices? are there any contemporary interpretations or adaptations within Jewish communities?” The timing was great because I am currently reading “This Is How Your Marriage Ends” by Matthew Fray about how men fail to honour women’s perspectives and pull their weight in thinking about and doing housework.

While the positions of Orthodox and Progressive Judaism are clear regarding same sex marriage, other adaptations are more subtle.

The most interesting of these are two ways of interpreting a traditional phrase about marriage:

“Who is a Kosher woman? The one who does [whatever is] her husband’s will”. [i]

In 1962, a whole new way of reading this same verse was put forward by the Lubavitcher Rebbe. The new reading involves some word play made possible by the fact that the Hebrew word for “does” also means “makes”.  “Who is a Kosher woman? The one who makes [moulds and influences] her husband’s will” [ii].

In the Rebbe’s new interpretation, a wife is encouraged to influence her highly hassled husband who lacks the will to do what is appropriate. She is “obligated, in ways of pleasantness and peace” to “make and reveal” the husband’s will to do what God wants of him.

It can be argued that this is not a completely modern innovation. Abraham was instructed by God that everything Sara tells you, obey her voice [iii] . But there is a reasonable counter argument, in quoting God’s words to Eve. Your longing will be to your husband, and he shall rule over you [iv]. I would argue that the phrase that a man will rule over his wife is a curse and a prediction, rather than a prescription. As much as I don’t like it, it is hard to escape the sense that Judaism sees a man as having authority in the home. Consider this disturbing law written by Maimonides: “Whenever a woman refrains from performing any of the tasks that she is obligated to perform, she may be compelled to do so, even with a rod [v] ”.

I explained to the students that Jewish law responds to the context of when it is applied. I can’t imagine any Rabbi today would be ok with a man hitting his wife with a rod for failure to do the dishes.

Mathew Fray has much to say about dishes. Before his transformation into a reflective remorseful ex-husband, he was a bitter man who blamed his ex-wife for his problems in a blog post entitled, “my wife divorced me because l left dishes by the sink [vi] ”. He now realises that the dishes by the sink represented something more - a lack of consideration of her needs and perspective. He wrote, “I remember my wife saying how exhausting it was for her to have to tell me what to do all the time… She wanted me to figure out what needed to be done… without making her responsible for orchestrating everything”.

In 2024, for many women to feel respected and loved, a man needs to do more housework and more of the thinking and orchestrating than their parents or grandparents did. This is not a reform of Judaism, but the application of timeless principles to our time. The commandment to love others like ourselves [vii]  requires all of us taking other peoples’ wants, needs and points of view into account as much as we want ours taken into account. This applies to spouses as well.

Similarly, when couples disapprove of each other’s behaviour, rather than find a rod, it is appropriate to draw the spouse’s attention to whatever we are concerned about [viii] , but in a way that does not humiliate them [ix].  

Also on Wednesday, it was Rosh Chodesh, the beginning of a new month when Jewish custom dictates that women not do house work if possible. I won’t disclose too much personal, but I did pay extra attention to this custom this time. Hopefully, I will make a habit of it.

Another modern Rabbi pointed out that when the Torah described the role of women as helping men, it states that she would be “opposite him”. A marriage partner is not a geisha girl or guy who serves drinks and sets the table.  A life partner must be able to say no if necessary—the ‘kenegdo- opposite’ part—because if you marry a yes-sayer, you aren’t really being challenged by another. Moreover, the lips may be moving one way, but the heart may be saying ‘no’ silently until the heart breaks from the weight of ’nos.’ In the end, a "help-opposite" creates its own synthesis, and a new oneness is born. The couple must drink together but not always from the same cup, so that one can correct the other, complement the other, cheer and comfort the other, help and be helped by the other. Only then is the one not alone [x].

My scholarly Muslim colleague shared her perspective on all these matters as it relates to nuances and misunderstandings of Islamic traditions, but that is her story to tell.

The students were delightful.

 

---

[i] Tana Dbei Eliyahu Rabba 9

[ii] The Lubavitcher Rebbe, (1962), a talk on parshat Balak and Likutei Sichos vol 4. איזוהי אשה כשרה? כל שעושה רצון בעלה" (תדא"ר פ"ט). שני פירושים למאמר זה. א.   הבעל ברובו של היום אינו בבית, צריכה איפוא האשה "לעשות" את רצון בעלה - להוריד את הרצון לידי עשיה בפועל. לבעל יש רצונות טובים בעניני חינוך הילדים, הכנסת אורחים, נתינת צדקה וכדומה; אך ההוצאה לפועל של רצונות אלו תלויה באשה. ב.   לפעמים, צריכה האשה "לעשות" - ליצור - את רצון בעלה. כשהבעל טרוד מאד וחסר לו הרצון לעשות את הראוי, חייבת האשה, בדרכי נועם ובדרכי שלום, לעשות ולגלות את רצונו הפנימי של הבעל, שהרי כל יהודי רוצה לעשות רצון קונו...(משיחת ש"פ בלק תשכ"ב - לקו"ש ד עמ' 1069

[iii] Genesis 21:12

[iv] Gensis 3:16

[v] Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, laws of Marriage 21:10

[vi] Fray, M. (2022), This Is How Your Marriage Ends, Souvenir press, p. 50

[vii] Leviticus 19:18

[viii] Leviticus 19:17 see

[ix] Arakhin 16b

[x] Rabbi Shlomo Riskin – I believe. I have been unable to find the source. 

Conceived in Sin - A Lack of Soul Connection

I was intrigued by how Jewish teachings interpret King David’s lament in the Psalms that “in sin my mother conceived me (1)”. Surely, Judaism does not regard sex as a sin. I was pleased to find an interpretation that made a lot more sense to me and expressed Judaism’s guidance about genuine intimacy.  

Let us begin with the context of David’s exclamation. It is part of “a psalm by David…after he had come to Bathsheba” (2). David, a passionately religious (3) married man, had become interested in a married woman - Bathsheba. He slept with her, and used his royal power to ensure her husband died in battle (4). In this psalm, David expressed remorse, acknowledged his sins and continuing guilt, and pleaded with G-d for forgiveness.

A Midrash adds some explanation of what David meant. “David said to God; “Master of the worlds, did my father Yishai intend to cause me to stand [be born]?! …his intention was only for his own pleasure. Know that this is so, because after they did their needs, this one turned his face this way and that one turned her face there (5)”.

This seems to imply that David was not concerned about the act itself, but its intention - for pleasure rather than procreation (6).

This is problematic on two counts. The Torah mandates intercourse as a husband’s obligation and a wife’s right (7), regardless of the potential for procreation, for example, when a woman is past menopause (8). A husband’s priority during intimacy should be maximising his wife’s pleasure and he is encouraged to delay his own pleasure so that his wife climaxes first (9). The Torah portrays intercourse as pleasurable, using the euphemism ‘playing’ or ‘laughing’, regarding Isaac and Rebecca being sexually intimate (10). According to Raphael Aron, an Australian Chasidic Rabbi and counsellor, the Torah teaches that the “intimate relationship must be pleasurable (11)”. In 2008 Rabbi Aron wrote that “it is a serious mistake to think that the best way is the strictest way; that denial is the most effective means by which to achieve a ‘Kosher’ marriage (12)”.

To understand what ‘Kosher’ intimacy is, it is worth looking at its opposite. The Talmud lists nine types of children, conceived in situations that were, mostly, not accompanied by a full emotional union. These include children of fear, i.e., where the wife was afraid of her husband and engaged in sexual intercourse with him out of fear; children of a woman who was forced into intercourse by her husband; children of a hated woman; children of drunkenness (and thus the partners are not able to be emotionally present with each other); children of a woman who was divorced in the heart, i.e., the husband had already decided to divorce her when they engaged in intercourse; and children of substitution, i.e., while engaging in intercourse with the woman, the man thought that she was another woman (13).

Considering this list, further commentary written in the 19^th century, on the midrash above, can advance our understanding of David’s lament.

This commentary cited a different midrash that relates that ‘Yishai, David’s father, separated from his wife Nitzevet [because of a technical religious concern] (14). Instead, he decided to sleep with his maidservant. The maidservant told her mistress, Yishai’s wife Nitzevet.  Nitzevet then went into the bed, instead of the maidservant, and was intimate with her husband Yishai while Yishai thought he was sleeping with his maidservant. From this deed, David was born’ (15).

The nature of his conception rang in David’s mind during his situation with Bathsheba. Because he felt like he was inherently damaged goods, like a child of a substitution. [one of the nine mentioned above]. …David referenced this in this psalm about his sin with Bathsheba. …David said to God, “I had to sin with Bathsheba (16) because there is, in me, a side of sin, from my father’s side, in that he had no intention of creating me, but only his own pleasure, as he thought he was sleeping with his maidservant. …In this, my father made me like the ‘child of a substitution’. This rumbled inside of me when I sinned with Bat Sheva.” [perhaps, also, that he felt additional shame as he reflected on his sin, because he saw it as linked to his essentially damaged spiritual state because of the nature of his conception (17)].

This remarkable commentary can be understood to be critical of an act that was completely selfish. Yishai was not cementing his relationship with his wife in an act of love and togetherness – in the way the Torah says a man will leave his parents and cleave to his wife and become one flesh (18). He didn’t even know who he was sleeping with! (It is also unlikely that he had quickly formed a deeply committed relationship with his maidservant.) This understandably ‘messed’ with the head of his son, David, who regarded it as sinful.

I find this explanation very useful in an age that, although shameless in some ways, is in other ways excessively shame prone. So many of us feel ashamed of our bodies, telling ourselves we are fat etc. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for people to feel ashamed of themselves when they violate valid standards. However, for a religious Jew, being a considerate lover, giving and receiving intimate pleasure, in a committed loving relationship, sanctioned by marriage, is certainly not one of them.   

 

Notes

1)   Psalms, 51:7

2)   Psalms, 51:1-2

3)   Samuel II, 6:14 is one example, his authorship of the psalms is another.

4)   Samuel II, 11

5)   Midrash Rabbah, Vayikra 14:5

6)   Chanoch Zundel Ben Yosef (1829) in Anaf Yosef commentary on Midrash Rabba, Vayikra 14:5, in his first comment. Anaf Yosef links the objection to pleasure to a comment in the Talmud whose context suggests it does not mean what he suggests it means. The Talmud in Nedarim 20b relates a description of intercourse by a woman named Ima Shalom who described her husband’s behaviour as follows… My husband does not converse with me [a euphemism for sex] neither at the beginning of the night nor at the end of the night, but rather at midnight. And when he ‘converses’ he reveals a handbreadth and covers a handbreadth, and it [the sexual experience] is as though he were being forced by a demon. And I said to him: What is the reason? And he said to me: It is so that I will not set my eyes on [think about] another woman, which would then result in his children consequently come to a mamzer [bastard] status. [i.e., the nature of their souls is tantamount to that of a mamzer. Therefore, he engaged in sexual intercourse at an hour when there are no people in the street that might distract him from his attention on his wife because he was afraid of not being fully focused on her]. From his explanation, it is clear that he was not worried about how much pleasure he was having but about his degree of emotional connection with his wife, and that it is not diluted by thoughts of other women.

7)   Exodus 21:10, Maimonides, Book of Women, Hilchot Ishut, 12:2

8)   In Aron, R. (2008), Spirituality and Intimacy, Devora Publishing, p. 81

9)   Talmud Nida 31a, see Rashi there and Raavad quoted in Magen Avraham on Orach Chayim 240:8

10) Genesis 26:8

11) Based on a comment by Rashi on Genesis 2:24 and the Netziv- HaEmek Davar on Genesis 2:23, in Aron, R., p. 84, he also cited Nachmanides that Intimacy should be “amidst an abundance of love and desire”

12) Aron, R., p. 85

13) Talmud Nedarim, 20b

14) As a descendant of Ruth, who was a Moabite woman, he was unsure if the Torah forbids only Moabite men or also Moabite women from marrying into the Jewish people.

15) Yalkut HaMachiri, and Sefer HaTodaah, Sivan and Shavuot, cited by Chanoch Zundel in Anaf Yosef and Rabbi Yisroel Roll in https://torah.org/learning/torahtherapy-alone13/?printversion=1

16) Maharal of Prague in Derekh Chayim (commentary on Pirkey Avot) 3:1:15 explained that David’s intention was not to excuse his behaviour- in the psalm he expressed genuine remorse. It is more an argument of mitigating circumstances.

17) Chanoch Zundel Ben Yosef (1829) in Anaf Yosef commentary on Midrash Rabba, Vayikra 14:5, see more on this in this article, cited by Rabbi Yisroel Roll in https://torah.org/learning/torahtherapy-alone13/?printversion=1

18) Genesis 2:24

Speech at the wedding of my son, Aaron, and daughter- in-law, Tzippy

Wow! What joy for the bride and groom, for family and friends! It is the happiest day of my life. Today we witnessed an outstandingly significant spiritual event. Not only were two halves of a soul reunited, but a serious spiritual wrong has been corrected.

In the story of creation (1), God looked at his creation and repeatedly said it was good, except for one thing, about which he said the opposite: “it is not good for the human to be alone (2)”.

If man is alone he can be mistaken for a God, because he would be alone on earth like God, who is alone in the heavens (3). Thus, it is not proper for humans to be alone. It does not fit the essential spiritual role of humans to be alone (4). We were meant to be social beings, not alone.

So how was this problem solved? God created a woman and marriage. Half-jokingly, I proclaim that no husband would ever make the mistake again that he is God, once he is married!

Seriously though, why create woman? If men need companionship, God could have simply created more men. But it is precisely living with someone from the opposite gender that advances personal growth (5); that is, when men and women are challenged by difference, to accommodate and negotiate different norms from their families, different ways of processing emotions, for example.

I once met an old-fashioned man, who got annoyed with his wife shortly after they got married because she opened mail that was addressed to him. His wife explained that she grew up in a big family where it was normal, when the post was delivered, for someone to run, get and open everyone’s letters. However, she changed her customary behaviour to follow her husband’s norm. I asked this man how he reciprocated his wife’s sacrifice. ‘Oh, I don’t read her mail either’ he replied! He completely missed the point about self-transcendence achieved through accommodation.

Unlike this man, what is required from us is to rise to the challenge designed for us: to put aside our ego, make space for each other and in that way grow in the way God intended for us.

This begs the question: if God knows everything, why did He create man alone in the first place and then say it was not good? Why not simply create man with a mate like He did with all the animals?

The truth is that, although in one sense it is not good for man to be alone, in another sense, for humans to be alone and unique - the quality of oneness and independence - is appropriate. “It is fitting for man to have a little oneness” (6). To be a little God-like. As the psalmist states:

מאלוקים ותחסריהו מעט

 “You have made him [man] little less than divine” (7). Just as God has the ultimate free choice, it is appropriate for a human to march to your own drum, at least some of the time to dream your dreams, to retreat into a man-cave, a little. Then, to return to marriage, to the social contract and to dissolve your ego in awareness of the other. To be “very married” (8).

To illustrate the two modes humans are meant to operate in – the independent and wild on the one hand and, on the other hand, the domesticated, interdependent and responsible - I share the following poem by Zelda.

The flame says to the cypress:

“When I see how calm, how full of pride you are,

Something inside me goes wild –

How can one live this awesome life,

without a touch of madness,

of spirit,

of imagination,

of freedom,

with only a grim, ancient pride?

If I could, I would burn down the establishment that we call the seasons,

along with your cursed dependence

on earth and air and sun, on rain and dew.”

 

The cypress does not answer.

He knows there is madness in him,

and freedom,

and imagination,

and spirit.

But the flame will not understand,

the flame will not believe. (9)

The cypress looks "very married": the epitome of the ‘baalabus’ - domesticated! But lurking beneath is the solitary man, a little crazy and wild, alive with holy craziness (10).

So, I wish the groom and bride love and companionship, spiritual growth together and, as appropriate, also separately. May you lose your egos in care for each other and find just enough ego for some individual greatness.   

Notes                             

1)     Genesis 1

2)     Genesis 2:18

3)     Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer, cited in Rashi on Genesis 2:18

4)     Maharal of Prague in his commentary Gur Aryeh about Genesis 2:18

5)     Eisenblatt, D. (1988), Fulfilment in marriage, Feldheim Publishers, p. 18- 29

6)     Maharal, ibid

7)     Psalms 8:6

8)     The term very married comes from an anecdote I heard from Sholom Popper about a young Chabadnik in Russia with limited command of the Russian language. When someone asked to speak to the Rabbi, the young fellow mixed up the words for busy and married. He told the visitor that the Rabbi was “married”. The visitor insisted they only need a few minutes. The young Chabadnik tried to explain that the Rabbi was very busy, so he told the visitor the Rabbi was very married!

9)     Zelda, Translation: 2004, Marcia Lee Falk, From: The Spectacular Difference, Publisher: Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, 2004, https://www.poetryinternational.com/en/poets-poems/poems/poem/103-3281_TWO-ELEMENTS/

10)   שטות דקדושה discussed in the Maamar Baasi Lgani, by the 6^th Lubavitcher Rebbe. 

 

Equality, Desire and Being Known – Eve’s Perspective

I am Eve, known as Hawah to Muslims and Chavah in the Torah. My husband named me Chavah, because I am the Mother of all life (1). Thousands of years later, too many of my grandsons still behave chauvinistically, and many of my descendants also struggle with desire and intimacy.
 
Do not dismiss me as out of date. Yes, I was named by a man, but this does not imply ownership or superior/inferior status. On the contrary, it was an expression of respect (2). However, there was a journey that began with exploring questions of the status of the genders before Adam and I reached a level of respectful intimacy.
 
Before Adam and I met, Adam married another woman named, Lilith. Lilith was created from the earth just like Adam, so she thought she was equal to him and refused to be her husband’s “helper”. They fought, and she ran away (3).
 
In replacing Lilith, God declared that he would make Adam “a helper, opposite [or against] him” (4). This time the woman would be derived from Adam rather than the earth. This could change the power dynamic between the genders to favour men (5).  However, being a “helper-opposite” at least hints at the need to allow the spouse …”to occasionally stand opposite, to feel opposite, to think opposite… A life’s partner must be able to say no… [otherwise] the lips may be moving one way, but the heart may be saying no silently until the heart breaks from the weight of "nos" (6).  Perhaps "occasionally opposing" is not enough for equality, but it is a good start.
 
Well, the idea of me being constructed from Adam’s rib is not the only version of how I came to be. In another telling, Adam and I were both an individual and a pair at the same time. One side of the first human was male - Adam and the other female - me (7).  That explains the seemingly self-contradictory verse about us: “…in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (8). However, because we could not face each other God declared that “it was not good for the human to be alone” (9). Only once we were separated and could face each other would we [potentially] be able “to receive light in light, face in face”, and arise “satisfied as one” (10).
 
Great idea, but when Adam and I first met, he initially failed to fully appreciate me as a person despite us being ‘face to face’. Instead he thought of me as an extension of himself (11). Adam first called me woman, “Isha”, which is a variation of the Hebrew word for man, stating “this [not she, or you] will be called woman, because this was taken from man” (12). 
 
I was far from satisfied with this attitude. When I gave birth to my oldest son, I named him Cain and I declared “I have created (13) a man” (14). I rejected the argument that woman should be considered inferior on account of having come from a man, as I have demonstrated now that man has come from woman (15)! This naming speech was my rejection of male chauvinism (16).
 
My claims to equality were set back by our eating forbidden fruit, which Adam blamed on me (17). In response to that sin, God declared that women would desire their husbands, and husbands would rule their wives (18). This should not be taken as an instruction but as a prediction of an unfortunate problem, for humanity to address (19).
 
Despite the unfortunate aspect of that situation, it had a silver lining. Eating fruit from the tree of “knowledge of good and evil” introduced a new element of sexual desire between Adam and me (20). After “our eyes were opened” (21) and our innocence lost, Adam finally noticed me as a person in my own right and gave me an individual and personal name, Eve/Chavah (22).  To celebrate our arrival as a loving couple of equal and unique people who deeply respect each other, God clothed us in garments of light (23). For us, despite the difficulties, we found the possibility of true love and respect. I wish you the same.
 
 Love, Grandma Eve-Chavah-Hawah
 
Notes
1)       Genesis 3:20
2)       Sacks, J. (2009), Covenant and Conversation, Genesis, Magid Books and the Orthodox Union, Jerusalem, p. 33-37
3)       Alef Bet of Ben Sira, Zohar Bereshit, 34b and Vavyikra 19a, Torat Hachida Bereshit, 70, p. 23
4)       Genesis 2:27
5)       Torat Hachida Bereshit, 70, p. 23
6)       Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, in Lubotzky, Y. & Mark, R.  https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0272/7831/1512/files/brushes-all_03r.pdf?v=15699884950348939191,  p. 18
7)       Talmud, Brachot 61a
8)       Genesis 1:27, note the shift from singular to plural
9)       Genesis 2:27,
10)    Zohar, part 3, 44b.
11)    Sacks, J. (2009), Covenant and Conversation, Genesis, Magid Books and the Orthodox Union, Jerusalem, p. 35-36
12)    Genesis 2:23
13)    Translation follows Radak
14)    Genesis 4:1
15)    Abarbanel
16)    Casuto, in Pardes, Ilana. "Creation According to Eve: Beyond Genesis 3." Jewish Women: A Comprehensive Historical Encyclopedia. 27 February 2009. Jewish Women's Archive. (Viewed on October 5, 2020) <https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/creation-according-to-eve-beyond-genesis-3>.
17)    Genesis 3:12
18)    Genesis 3:16
19)    Bernbaum, T. https://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/90765/jewish/The-Curse-of-Eve.htm
20)    Radak
21)    Genesis 3:7
22)    Sacks, J. (2009), Covenant and Conversation, Genesis, Magid Books and the Orthodox Union, Jerusalem, p. 36
23)    Bereshit Rabba 20:12 as explained in Sacks

Love flourishing or turned to hate - The cases of two prince-rapists Amnon & Shechem and the war beauty

I have been thinking about the struggles of couples to realise true love of each other in light of the craving to have their own needs and desires met, and the various pressures each of us deals with. The Torah reading this week mentions hatred of wives seven times (1) as well as some guidance for newlyweds, so it might contain some clues. I also investigate the cases of the Bible's two prince-rapists who claimed to love their victims. 

The first lesson is deceptively simple, although I will argue below that the truth is more complex. Physical desire that inspires feelings of instant “love” (2) might soon be replaced by loathing (3). This message is conveyed by the juxtaposition of two cases in the Torah. The first is about a soldier who sees a “beautiful woman” captive, and craves her, then marries her (4). This case is immediately followed by the case of a man with two wives, one of whom is referred to as “the hated one” (5). The hint is that the former is likely to end up the latter.

The replacement of self centred “love” by hate is tragically illustrated in the story of the princess, Tamar, who was raped by her half brother Amnon. Amnon was so in “love” with Tamar that he felt sick (6). He grabbed her, and despite her impassioned pleas, Amnon overpowered Tamar and raped her (7). However, immediately after the crime, “Amnon hated her with very great hatred, for greater was the hatred with which he hated her than the “love” with which he had “loved” her” (8). Tamar was utterly devastated, tearing her clothes and “screaming as she goes” (9). Amnon’s shift from “love” to hatred is attributed to shame and self-loathing, projected onto the person -“object” - that he used in his self-debasement (10). 

The prudish inference that body-based “love” and sexual desire is bad, but mind-spirit love is good, is disproven in the case of the other biblical prince-rapist (11) Shechem. Shechem is not motivated by animal desire of his body, but a higher attraction in his soul (12) to his victim’s spirit (13). After he raped her, he did not hate her, on the contrary, we are told that he loved her and that he, sickeningly, spoke to “her heart” (14), perhaps expressing his twisted soulful desire in fancy love poems. Shechem’s lack of hatred and self-loathing is an interesting contrast to Amnon’s post rape reaction. In the end, however, what matters is the common lack of consent by their “love interests,” and their shared, utterly selfish disregard of their victims’  will and dignity. In fact, the Midrash puts Tamar’s exact words (15) into Dina’s mouth, she too says “and I, where will I take my shame?” (16). If we are ever caught up in our inner spiritual needs in our relationships, let us remember that spiritual narcissism is contemptible!  

The message of tuning in to one’s partner is conveyed strongly in the law of the exemption from war given to newlywed men who must, instead, spend a year making their wife happy (17). This message is read in three ways. One translator alters the meaning somewhat to replace a man selflessly making his wife happy to say that he should rejoice with his wife (18). It is healthy when joy is mutual and for spouses to be assertive and proactive about meeting their own needs and desires, while also being attentive to their partner. This variation from the plain meaning of the text is emphatically rejected as a “mistake” by another commentator, perhaps seeking to keep the emphasis on the value of focusing on the needs of one’s spouse (19). A third commentary suggests that physical intimacy for 364 nights over that first year is hinted at in the numerical value of the Hebrew word “VSimach” ושמח - to make happy (20). The bottom line is that it is not about how one expresses care and true love of another, but the authenticity of truly loving them, rather than loving only one’s self.    

For the full lesson on this topic click here  

Notes

1. Deuteronomy 21:15, 21:6, 22:13, 22:16, 24:3
2. Alshich - beginning of Ki Tetze, p. 237
3. Rashi to Deuteronomy 21:14, based on Sifre to 21:14 and Talmud Sanhedrin 107a
4. Deuteronomy 21:10-14
5. Deuteronomy 21:15
6. Samuel II, 13:1-2
7. Samuel II, 13:11-14
8. Samuel II, 13:15-17
9. Samuel II, 13:18-20
10. Abarbanel and Malbim’s commentary. 

אברבנל: הפועל המגונה זה דרכו שבהשלמתו יקנה האדם  ממנו חרטה רבה ושנאה גדולה, וכמאמר המדיני הרשעים מלאים חרטות, ולכן אמנון לא עצר כח לראותה עוד בהתחרטו ממה שעשה.
מלבים: וישנאה אחר שהיה תאוה כלביית מיד שנכבה רשף התאוה חלפה האהבה שלא היתה אהבה עצמיית, ואז בהכירו תועבת הנבלה הזאת שב לשנוא את הנושא שעל ידו נסבב לו זאת, וזה שכתוב גדולה השנאה מהאהבה שהאהבה בעצמה סבבה את השנאה שכשזכר תועבת האהבה הזאת, אשר היתה עתה לזרה בעיניו, נהפך לבו בקרבו לשנאה גדולה:

11.           The designation of Shechem as a rapist in Genesis 34:1-11  is less clear than the case of Amnon but is supported by Ramban’s commentary to Genesis 34:2 

12.           Genesis 34:3 & 8

13.           Alshich to Genesis 34, p. 305

14.           Genesis 34:3  

15.           Samuel II, 13:13

16.           Bereshit Rabba to Genesis 34, 80:10 

17.           Deuteronomy 24:5   

18.           Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel  

19.           Rashi to Deuteronomy 24:5 

20.           Baal Haturim, the Gematria of the word ושמח is 364. The night of Yom Kippur is the one exception to this recommended daily expression of love.