Chasam Sofer (Bereishis 3:17): In Pesachim (118a), When G‑d told Adam that thorns and brambles will grow for you – his eyes welled up in tears and he said – I and my donkey will now eat from the same trough. When He said to him that with the sweat of your your brow...he regained his composure. Why did G‑d change what he had originally told Adam due to his difficulty that “I and my donkey...?” Furthermore if it were in fact a just consequence that he and his donkey should eat from the same trough - then of necessity he should simply accept his punishment. A possible explanation is to notice why there were differences in the punishment of the Snake, the Eve and the Adam. It is clear that the punishment of the snake very precisely matched the crime. For example corresponding to this that he sinned with limbs to push Eve into the Tree – the Snake permanently lost its arms and legs. Corresponding to what the Serpent sinned in speech by slandering G‑d saying “G‑d knows....” he was told that his punishment for the lashon harah would be that his food would now be dirt. And this that he sinned in thought – that he thought he would marry Eve – therefore as punishment hatred was placed between the Snake and Eve – the opposite of love. In contrast the punishment of Adam and Eve requires a bit of explanation as to how it fit the crime. First let me present what a major talmid chachom asked me. Why did G‑d add a punishment to Adam more than what was already announced that , “For in the day that you eat from it you will surely die... Why were additional cursed added? It seems to me that if he had simply eaten the fruit on his own - without the advise of his wife – it would have been sufficient if he had received the original punishment. However now he received a greater punishment - because he had followed his wife’s advice which in itself was a great sin. This is the reason that G‑d said, “Because you listened to the voice of your wife...” (Bereishis 3:17). The reason that this was a great sin was that G‑d created the woman to serve the man so that he would be free to serve G‑d. Consequently it was not correct that the master should follow after the advice of his servant and attendant. This is what Chazal say (Yevamos 63a) that she was created to lighten his eyes with services. Chazal say there that she turns flax into clothing and grinds the wheat... However it could be that Adam and Eve thought she was created to have children or to guard him from the yetzer harah. If so - they would be equal - rather than one being subordinate. In fact that was the understanding of Adam when he replied to G‑d, “The woman which you gave with me ( i.e., she is my equal ) and therefore I listened to her voice.” G‑d showed them that they were wrong. If in fact according to them the most important issue was to have children – then why did only the man have a mitzva to have children and not the woman? Therefore He cursed her that she would have suffering in giving birth. It is well known that there is not a single mitzva that is performed by the slightest suffering since it says, “Your ways are paths of pleasantness” (Sukkah 32a). Consequently the man was the only who had the mitzva to have children and was not cursed at all in regard to anything connected with the birth process. In contrast she was cursed regarding giving birth to teach clearly that she did not have a mitzva to give birth. In regard to the fact that she thought that she had been created to guard against the yetzer harah, G‑d showed her that even if it were true, nevertheless she was commanded to guard Adam from the yetzer harah and not Adam to guard her. The verse says, And to your husband will be your desire and he will rule over you. Rashi explains that she was embarrassed to ask for sexual intercourse while he was not. Consequently we see a major disparity between them in that he was protected by her but she was not protected by him. Nevertheless man was cursed also in this because G‑d that it would be good for her that the man would dwell in tranquility and study the service of G‑d and she would exert herself in all manner of work. However man had a different understanding. He thought that the woman which G‑d gave him was to be equal with him and therefore there would be no respite from the struggle of “the sweat of your brow you will eat bread.” With this introduction let us return to what we started with. That was Adam had the claim that even though he acknowledged that Eve was created to serve him – nevertheless he claimed she was not inferior to him. Rather he assumed that in the dimension of serving G‑d that the servant is also important and not inferior. Thus he thought that between the both of them they would produce praise for G‑d. That is why G‑d said that thorns and thistles will grow for you. When Adam heard that he cried that was he the equal of his donkey - as Chazal say at the end of Kiddushin that the donkey was created to serve man. G‑d told him now that the servant is in fact inferior to the master so how could he have equated < the woman to himself? G‑d said, “Since you have declared that she was not created to serve you but rather you are equal to her - therefore you are condemed to eat by the sweat of your brow.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
Very Interesting chazal...
ReplyDeleteCan see this one going over well in Yeshivos and being deleted by the Beis Yakovs/Seminaries.
Oh no, the Torah is not "up to date" with 21st Century norms. We must hide under our bunkers and pretend men and women are equal. Otherwise the goyim will think lowly of us Jews. We shouldn't say the Torah out loud for that reason. We should pretend the Torah is otherwise.
ReplyDeleteYou have not yet posted the bit by Rambam, where it says that wives should be beaten regularly. I'm sure you will soon...
ReplyDeletebecause the Rambam never said such a thing!
DeleteBatmelech,
DeleteTry to control your feminist contempt for the Rambam Z"TL, one of the greatest rabbis and greatest intellects in human history.
As per the feminist methodology, you emotionally blurt out false, mindless accusations without even bothering to cite an actual source in the Rambam (in fact no such source exists).
If the Rambam were alive today, perhaps he would pasken that Jewish feminists should receive a little swat on their bottoms every day!
Thanks for proving why Jewish men should never listen to the grossly inferior opinions of Jewish feminists.
Well, I think that your rebuttal was more to the point and a lot better. I am happy to learn (thanks to your rebuttal) that this text should not be taken at face value.
DeleteRambam said that a woman should not leave her house more than once per week, and I suspect he said something about being allowed to hit one's wife too.
I don't think "suspect" is the word you need here. Perhaps,"I think I remember hearing" or "doesn't the Rambam say"?
DeleteYes the Rambam does talk about hitting a wife - as well as hitting a husband.
This Chasam Sofer is meant at face value - but it doesn't mean that it is the only word on the subject or that it is appropriate for producing a productive Torah home and marriage in the 21st century.
For example Rav Hirsch does talk about equality and partnership between husband and wife - just that they have different jobs. I'll hope to post his view soon.
Rambam did speak about allowing a woman to leave purdah (her living quarters) once per week. This was liberal for the Muslim culture in which Rambabm lived, in which a married woman could expect never to see her female relatives again unless she or they were escorted to one another's dwelling places. When trying to read historical documents it is helpful to have an understanding of the time and place where they were written. That doesn't really help with this teshuvah of the Chatam Sofer, but without checking the context the text can be badly misread.
DeleteRe: "Consequently it was not correct that the master should follow after the advice of his servant and attendant."
ReplyDeleteThis perush by the Chasam Sofer appears to contradict both the Chumash and also several statements by Chazal.
- The Torah refers to Adam's wife as an "ezer k'negdo" (helper), not an "eved k'negdo" (servant).
- In Berachos 10a, Rabbi Meir, one of the greatest of the rabbis, followed his wife Bruria's advice in a spiritual matter.
- The sefer Shalom Bayis by Rav Aharon Zachai (p. 129) recommends that a man should accept the advice in Baba Metsia 59a that a man should follow his wife's advice in worldly matters.
- In Sanhedrin 109b & 110a, it explains how On Ben Peles's wife was a wise woman, and her advice saved her husband's life.
It seems that Chazal is saying that if a man's wife is wise, he can listen to her advice. I do not believe this perush by the Chasam Sofer is a "mainstream" opinion, and we should not rush to embrace it.
On the subject of Rambam's views on women: Rambam did suggest that women are intellectually incapable of learning Torah. However, this has been interpreted in various ways. See here for an interesting interpretation that is more palatable for those of us who recognize women's cognitive abilities:
ReplyDeletehttp://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com/2009/11/mitzvah-of-talmud-torah-for-women.html
Very interesting. But I think I prefer the view of Rabbi Yehuda Herzl Henkin in Equality Lost: Rabbi Henkin notes that according to the midrash, Adam lied to Eve and told her that it was forbidden to touch the tree, whereas in fact it was forbidden only to eat it. The snake pushed Eve against the tree and showed her that she was still alive. Therefore, she thought, the prohibition must be null. Ultimately, then, the result was that because of a fence which Adam added onto the prohibition, but which he crucially did not tell her was merely a fence - and that is the key - therefore she sinned. What Rabbi Henkin derives from this is that ultimately, the sin came about because Adam did not trust Eve with the truth. If he had told her the truth, that only eating was forbidden, she would not have sinned. But because he lied to her and didn't trust her with the truth, therefore, she sinned. The entire sin, says Rabbi Henkin, comes down to Adam's not trusting Eve and not treating her as an equal. The sin came about because of sexism.
ReplyDeleteNo, not sexism, MD; just a reluctance to trust another with the whole truth.
DeleteHe might have done the same thing with a brother.
Interesting - this unknown midrash is the opposite of Rash"i who says she made up the fence on her own...
DeleteInteresting to those who interpret Knego as with equality compared to what we see today too often the holy women of the past were respectful and served their husbands in meekness this we see throughout most of history ... until the rise of feminism in the last 100 years or so and look is the world better off in this generation or not. The evidence of the western society's decline is more than evident over this period of time and every where it is exported traditional societies are worse off.
ReplyDeleteI would rather view this in the manner of Rav Kook and his concept of progressive revelation in history:
DeleteRabbi Dr. Eliezer Berkovits notes that his own father treated the family servant better than the halakhah says to treat one's own wife - for example, the halakhah says that a wife must wash her husband's face and feet, whereas Rabbi Berkovits's father forbade the family to ever specifically instruct the servant to do anything which was not on her regularly scheduled list of tasks - and he says that his father learned little other than traditional halakhic literature. Therefore, he says, it was not "modernity" that had his father treat the servant better than one is required to treat his wife, but rather, it was the Torah and Judaism that made him this way. The Rambam instructed us to treat one's wife better than his contemporaries did, and the progressive historical trend in Torah and Judaism is ever greater appreciation of everyone's humanity, not because of modernity but because this is what the Torah makes us. Every generation, we see new moral truths in the Torah we never even realized were there.
Don't understand your point. Rav Kook had the same view as the Chasam Sofer - where it the progressive revelation?! See my posting on Rav Kook and women's education
Deletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/05/rav-kook-yeshiva-as-hospital-women.html
Who is expressing the "new moral truths in the Torah we never even realized were there."
Rav Kook in general uses the idea of progressive revelation, not necessarily in this area. I think that what Rabbi Berkovits said, however, is strikingly Kookian.
DeleteI just meant that in general - not necessarily here - Rav Kook used the concept of progressive revelation in history. Thus, Rabbi Berkovits's idea seems strikingly Kook-ian.
DeleteOf course, Rav Kook was not always a "Kook-ian"; for example, on the question of women's suffrage, Rabbi Benzion Uziel gave the answer which everyone thought Rav Kook would.