Dinah went out: Meaning of Yatz'anit in Rashi's commentary

This is a continuation of a previous post regarding our Sage's  attitude towards Leah. It is clear that there are two opposing and conflicting views whether Leah was a model of modesty or whether she was too assertive and free in her behavior. This attitude is clearly reflected in their attitude towards her daughter Dinah and how they discuss her rape and the context which is presented in detail in the Torah - and the two are linked.

This is the Medrash that Rashi utilized in his commentary

רש"י בראשית (לד:א) בת לאה - ולא בת יעקב, אלא על שם יציאתה נקראת בת לאה, שאף היא יצאנית היתה, שנאמר (ל טז) ותצא לאה לקראתו (ועליה משלו המשל (יחזקאל טז מד) כאמה כבתה

    Bereishis Rabbah (80:1):    1. AND DINAH THE DAUGHTER OF LEAH WENT OUT (XXXIV, 1). Behold,everyone that useth proverbs shall use this proverb against thee, saying: As the mother, so her daughter (Ezek. XVI, 44). Jose of Maon1 expounded in the synagogue of Maon: Hear this, O ye priests, and attend, ye house of Israel, and give ear, O house of the king, for unto you pertaineth the judgment  (Hosea V, 1). Said he: In the future the Holy One, blessed he He, will make the priests stand in judgment, saying to them, ‘Why did ye not toil in the Torah: did ye not enjoy from My children the twenty-four priestly dues?2 To which they will reply, ' They gave us nothing.’ Then ' " Attend, ye house of Israel ": why did ye not give them the twenty-four priestly dues, as I prescribed for you in the Torah? ' To which they will answer: ‘Because the members of the house of the Nasi3 took away everything.’ Thereupon, Give ear, O house of the king,’ for unto you pertaineth the judgment: [were those privileges] yours, [which I intimated in the verse], And this shall be the priests’ due [lit. ‘judgment’] from the people (Deut. XVIII, 3)? Therefore against you will judgment be turned. When Rabbi heard of this, he became enraged.5 Toward evening Resh Lakish went up to pay his respects to him and to pacify him. Said he: ‘Rabbi, we ought to be thankful to the heathens who bring clowns into their theatres and circuses and amuse themselves with them, so that they should not converse with each other; yet Jose of Maon spoke words of Torah, and you become angry with him!’ ‘Does he then know [anything of the Torah]?’ he asked. ‘Yes,’ was the reply. ' Has his instruction been transmitted to him [by proper teachers]? ' ' Yes.’ ' And if I question him, will he be able to answer? ' ‘Yes,’ he replied. ‘If so, let him come here.’ So he went up to him, and he asked him: ' What is meant by the verse."Behold, every one that useth proverbs shall use this proverb against thee, saying: As the mother, so the daughter "? ’ Said he: ‘Like the daughter so is the mother, like the generation so is its leader (nasi), like the altar so are its priests.’ Kahana saysl: According to the garden so is its gardener. ‘You have not yet completely appeased him for the first,’ Resh Lakish exclaimed, ‘and you are already bringing him another! What is really the meaning of this verse? ' ' A cow does not gore unless her calf kicks; a woman is not immoral until her daughter is immoral,’ he replied.2 ‘If so,’ said he, ‘then our mother Leah was a harlot! ‘3 ' Even so,’ he replied; ‘because it says, And Leah went out to meet him  (Gen. XXX,16), which means that she went out to meet him adorned like a harlot’; therefore AND DINAH THE DAUGHTER OF LEAH WENT OUT. 

In contrast to this Rashi & Medrash, Abarbanel and Malbim insist that Leah & Dinah were both the epitome of modesty.  

This is an article written by R' GILAD J. GEVARYAHU which appeared in JEWISH BIBLE QUARTERLY

Bishop convicted of shielding pedophile priest

NYTimes   KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A Roman Catholic bishop was found guilty on Thursday of failing to report suspected child abuse, becoming the first American bishop in the decades-long sexual abuse scandal to be convicted of shielding a pedophile priest. 

In a hastily announced bench trial that lasted a little over an hour, a judge found the bishop, Robert W. Finn, guilty on one misdemeanor charge and not guilty on a second charge, for failing to report a priest who had taken hundreds of pornographic pictures of young girls. The counts each carried a maximum penalty of one year in jail and a $1,000 fine, but Bishop Finn was sentenced to two years of court-supervised probation. 

The verdict is a watershed moment in the priest sexual abuse scandal that has plagued the church since the 1980s. Bishops have been eager to turn the page on this era and have put in place extensive abuse prevention policies, which include reporting suspected abusers to law enforcement authorities. But the Kansas City case has served as a wake-up call to Catholics that the policies cannot be effective if the bishops do not follow them.

Exonerated charedi soldiers to receive compensation

YNet  A military appeals court in the Kirya base in Tel Aviv ruled this week that the military would compensate two troops in the Netzah Yehuda haredi battalion with a total sum of NIS 24,000 ($5,980) who were falsely accused of assaulting a Palestinian police officer in 2008.

The Palestinian police officer who filed the original complaint testified during the trial that the two soldiers were "unquestionably and resolvedly" not the two that assaulted him. Yet in spite of his testimony, the military prosecution chose to go ahead with the indictment.

The two, now civilians, decided to demand compensation from the IDF after they were incarcerated in military prison for nearly two months after the launch of the investigation against them and their subsequent indictment.

The two were accused of aggravated assault and if convicted they faced a long sentence in military prison. They were also accused of conduct unbecoming due to claims that they assaulted the Palestinian police officer when they were on duty at the Bekaot checkpoint.  

Ultimately the charges were dropped by the deputy Military Advocate General. The soldiers claimed during the trial that saw them exonerated that "we were severely hurt (by the case), our reputation and liberty and the fact that we were suspended from our duties as combat soldiers." 

Rav Steinman says to shun secular studies

Haaretz   "What is education today? Education is Torah! And more Torah! Whoever seeks happiness should teach his son Torah." This statement was made earlier in the week by Israeli Haredi leader Rabbi Aharon Leib Shteinman during a brief visit to France. Israelis might be accustomed to hearing such sentiments from the Lithuanian religious authority of Bnei Brak, but in France the declaration took on heightened significance, and was seen as a Haredi challenge to the French law mandating study of core subjects such as mathematics, science, language and history in all private schools.[...]

Shteinman's visit came at a time when the French public is engaging in a sensitive discussion about private education. France's Jewish community is also embroiled in a debate over whether Haredi institutions should teach core secular subjects. Most Orthodox Jewish institutions in France integrate general studies in the curriculum, but as many as 10 Haredi institutions reject core studies, and are financed entirely by private donations. The object of Shteinman's visit was to strengthen these institutions. 

Children's Book on Child Abuse sells out

Haaretz   The success of a new book aimed at helping ultra-Orthodox parents teach their children how to protect themselves from sexual abuse is a strong indication that a community once reluctant to acknowledge the crime is now beginning to face reality. 

The book, "Mutav Lehizaher K'dei lo Lehitzta'er" (which translates roughly as "Better Safe Than Sorry" ), published privately by Ella Bargai and Nitai Melamed, appears to be making significant progress in making the issue less of a taboo topic within the Haredi world. 

The book has the backing of rabbis across the Haredi spectrum - Hasidic, Lithuanian and Sephardi leaders alike - and copies were snapped up as word of it spread. The book has sold out its first printing and will be reissued soon. 

"In this book we want to talk about your body's private areas. Do you know what your private areas are?" the book asks. "Your private areas of your body are those that are supposed to be covered when you are dressed. Nobody has any right to touch your body's private areas and you are not supposed to touch those areas on anyone else."

The book's biggest accomplishment, according to Melamed, is that it gives parents and teachers a language with which to discuss issues that the Haredi community generally ignores. 

כיצד הסביר הרב אלישיב את כהונתו בהיכל שלמה

.kikarhashabat.co.il/video          kikarhashabat.co.il

Rav Nosson Kamenetsky discusses various incidents of Jewish History

Trauma doesn't cause PTSD in all cultures

One of the real problems when  dealing with trauma such as child abuse or rape or war - is the assumption that there is a universal scientific model of psychological trauma. "Trauma in - PTSD out." The traumatized individual is assumed to have been betrayed, his/ her personal boundaries crossed, felt helpless, experienced depression, lost self-esteem and ability to trust others. The intrapsychic needs to be dealt with, understood and repaired when a wide variety of trauma occurs. In fact, however, in non-Western societies trauma might be not even be experienced or is manifest primarily in somatic symptoms or rejection by family and society resulting more in shame than personal degradation. Torture in some communities is best understood by reference to political or social concepts rather than psychological ones. This is I believe the major cause of dissatisfaction of Modern Western educated observant Jews who are embarrassed to find that the "obvious" traumas of child abuse, rape and other indignities - are apparently not a significant concern in the traditional Jewish literature. They readily assume that there is a coverup and ignoring or ignorance of PTSD resulting from various traumatic situation- or that G-d or rabbis don't care. In fact it seems that much of the trauma in traditional Jewish society was damage to social status or betrayal of religious norms of either the victim or perpetrator - rather than to the psyche. This is a major topic and one that Western mental health workers have trouble accepting or even understanding.

 The issue is what is the trauma? If it primarily comes because of psychological damage- then an event such as abuse or rape will have a wide range of consequences in different cultures - especially ones in which the psychological dimension is relatively small.

See Victor Frankl who was shocked to discover that the impact of being in a concentration camp varied greatly - depending on how the events were perceived. See Gail Sheehy's book  Spirit of Survival (1987) about her adopted Cambodian daughter - who experienced the horror of the "killing fields" and yet didn't seem to have been traumatized by the events.

The article is saying to stop viewing certain events as if they were objective and clearly defined forces. The impact of these events is mediated by the victims perception and it is not a mechanical cause and effect paradigm. This is a major theme in Jewish writings about suffering

To put it another way - should rape and war be viewed as being equivalent to being beaten. Depending upon where the blows fall and the person's strength - a particular blow will have varying effects. However  for the same blow in the same spot and the same personal strength - there will be a high degree of consistency of damage.

This other model says that the impact of rape or abuse is largely determined by how it is viewed in a particular culture by a particular individual. For some it will be totally devastating but for others the impact will be minimal.

There is also a consequence for therapy. A mechanical model says that all traumatic events produce serious damage. Therefore the therapy looks for and encourages acknowledgement of this damage - catharsis.

The other model says that the main focus should be on developing cognitive frames that minimize the impact of these events and that it is possible that little or no damage has actually occurred and therefore encourage catharsis or talking about these events actually is more damaging than the original events.

There is evidence that the cathartic focus in catastrophe counselling is actually counterproductive - even in Western society.

 
The following article just provides a brief - but very intelligent - introduction to the topic.

==========================================

Psychological Responses to War & Atrocity

Psychotherapy, as practiced in western countries, largely takes the form of an individual client consulting a therapist. In Africa and other Third World settings most therapy directly involves other family members and sometimes the wider community. When it comes to responding to the effects of violence western style psychotherapy can have the effect of 'individualising' the suffering of the person involved. Psychotherapy of this mode might be inappropriate and indeed harmful in more "sociocentric" societies where the individual's recovery is intimately bound up with the recovery of the wider community. This is true for individuals and communities still living in the Third World but also for refugees who are living in western countries. 

Thus it is apparent that what will be effective healing healing for victims of violence, will be largely determined by the cultural and social context. Such factors will also determine what types of healing are available. Indeed Herman makes the point that the therapeutic strategies associated with the western discourse on trauma have only become available because of particular political developments during the past 20 years:

The systematic study of psychological trauma therefore depends on the support of a political movement. Indeed, whether such study can be pursued or discussed in public is itself a political question. The study of war trauma becomes legitimate only in a context that challenges the sacrifice of young men in war. The study of trauma in sexual and domestic life becomes legitimate only in a context that challenges the subordination of women and children 

Conclusion

All scientific approaches to understanding use metaphors at a very basic level. Certain metaphors underlie the approaches of modern biomedicine and psychiatry. Even though these metaphors may be the source of problems for the conceptualisation of psychiatric illness in the West, at least in this part of the world they are metaphors widely used and endorsed by society. In parts of the world where such forms of understanding are not the norm the introducing of concepts such as PTSD based as it is on a likening of the mind to an 'information processing instrument' may be at best confusing. Fear and suffering are facts of human life that belie simple explanatory models, and attempts to account for them in terms of such models have to be, at most, tentative.

If we ignore these problems, we are at risk of introducing inappropriate treatment models and strategies in our attempt to help the rehabilitation of individuals and communities who are the victims of violence and trauma. In addition, because such models of therapy involve expertise, training and a new 'language', the possibility of creating a new 'expert syndrome' arises and with it the possibility of undermining already existing medical and non-medical approaches to the alleviation of distress caused by organised violence. This in turn may have the effect of undermining local community structures, the very forces which act as 'protective' elements with regard to the effects of trauma and the very structures which need to bear testimony in their own terms.

Beracha "Didn't make me a woman" - Magen Avraham

Magen Avraham (O.C. 46:9):... The Bach asks why we don’t say a beracha “that G‑d has made me a Jew” [rather than the negative version that He hasn’t made us a non-Jew] which would be similar in structure to the other morning berachos such as “gives sight to the blind” in which we bless the good? Some answer it is because our Sages concluded that it would have been better that Man had not been created. Thus we are say it would have been better if we hadn’t been created but now that we exist I bless G‑d that at least He did not make me a non-Jew, slave or woman. In addition I think that if a person said “Who has made me a Jew” he would not be able to also say “Who has made me a free man” or “Who has made me a man” because that would be included. The intent therefore is to say a blessing on each detail.... These are the words of the Bach. His words imply that if a person erred and said “Who has made me a Jew” - that he would no longer be able to say the beracha of not being made a slave or a woman. It also seems to me that even if he said Yisroel or Jew – a woman is included. That is because the entire Torah is expressed in the masculine form and nevertheless it includes women. We see this from Tosfos who says that only when the Torah says the Children of Israel it implies an exclusion of the Daughters of Israel. Nevertheless Sanhedrin (84) implies that this is because the Torah equates a woman to a man. In Bava Kama (15), Menachos (93) and the beginning of Erachin – it indicates that “slave” should be said before “woman” since it states that a slave is inferior to a woman. It is also implied in the Bach according to what is says in Sefer Chassidim concerning “freeing the prisoners that it is the same here. If a person says “who has not made me a woman” first he can no longer say the beracha concerning a non-Jew or a slave.

Mitt Romney at Yeshiva University

The Left fears Israel's demographics

Haaretz   This week, as children returned to school, another public servant, Deputy Education Minister Rabbi Menachem Eliezer Moses, was quoted at a gathering of Haredi school principals saying with satisfaction that this year, for the first time, a majority of children in Israeli kindergartens are either ultra-Orthodox or religious. It was a misleading statistic - Moses was not including Arab children in his calculations and not all the children enrolled in religious kindergartens are actually religious. Many parents place them there for the longer hours or simply because they are closer to their homes and next year they will continue in secular schools. But the Haredi rabbis who privately despise the national-religious for their compromises with modernity are happy to include them in their camp when it pushes secular Israelis into a minority. Today the kindergarten - tomorrow the Knesset. 

But despite Malthusian demographic trends indicating a joint Haredi-settler majority in Israel by 2050, both Moses and Levanon are aware how tenuous their advantage could be. None of the current trends are inexorable. As the Haredi community grows, the hold of its ancient leaders over a generation who have grown up in the 21st Century is rapidly eroding and the trickle of defections will increase to a torrent. The growing number of West Bank settlers is also misleading. Three-quarters live in comfortable suburbs by the Green Line, easily absorbed into the sovereign Israeli state as part of a two-state solution which a clear majority of Israelis still support. 

The fundamentalists see their majority beckoning on the horizon if only they can hold on for another 20 years, perpetuating the settlement program and shutting off their young from outside influences. It is impossible to foresee whether they will prevail, but we are giving them a much better chance of success by not listening to what they say.

Priest-Therapist blames some Victims of Sexual Abuse

NYTimes   A prominent Roman Catholic spiritual leader who has spent decades counseling wayward priests for the archdiocese provoked shock and outrage on Thursday as word spread of a recent interview he did with a Catholic newspaper during which he said that “youngsters” were often to blame when priests sexually abused them and that priests should not be jailed for such abuse on their first offense.

“Suppose you have a man having a nervous breakdown, and a youngster comes after him,” Father Groeschel, now 79, said in the interview. “A lot of the cases, the youngster — 14, 16, 18 — is the seducer.”

He added that he was “inclined to think” that priests who were first-time abusers should not be jailed because “their intention was not committing a crime.”

Assault on Aharon Friedman - reward for information

Reward Poster

Modesty in requesting marital relations

 This is material that I am trying to understand for my latest sefer on the Torah understanding of gender and sexuality. The point is that we have what is an accepted halacha and yet the Seforno, Malbim and Torah Temima acknowledge the pshat of the verse is against the halacha.

Leah is used in Eiruvin 100b as proof that a woman is not supposed to verbalize her desires - and yet Leah apparently did. The gemora indicates that are apparently two views in Chazal and yet it concludes there is only one.

=====================================
Meiri (Eiruvin 100b):  Even though the attribute of modesty (tznius) is praiseworthy for everyone – nevertheless it is more praiseworthy for women.  In spite of this whoever makes themselves beloved to their husbands and entice them to the mitzva of sexual relations – this is not considered pritzus (immodesty) but rather zariz (alacrity) to do the mitzva and it is a desirable characteristic. She is rewarded for her concern with this mitzva by having proper children. That is because her intent is only for children. The Torah has already given an example of the appropriateness of this concerning Leah, And Leah went out to meet Yaakov and told him that he was to sleep with her that night instead of Rachel (Bereishis 30:16).

Bereishis (30:16):  And Yaakov came from the field in the evening and Leah went out to meet him. And she said to him, You shall come to me [tonight] because I have paid for you with the mandrakes of my son. And he lay with her that night.

Eiruvin (100b): R. Samuel b. Nahmani citing R. Johanan stated: A woman who solicits her husband to the [marital] obligation will have children the like of whom did not exist even in the generation of Moses. For of the generation of Moses it is written: Get you from each one of your tribes, wise men and understanding, and full of knowledge, and then it follows: So I took the heads of your tribes, wise men and full of knowledge. while men of ‘understanding’ he could not find, whereas in the case of Leah it is written in Scripture, ‘And Leah went out to meet him, and said: Thou must come unto me, for I have surely hired thee, and subsequently it is written, ‘And of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do, the heads of them were two hundred, and all their brethren were at their commandment. But can that be right? seeing that R. Isaac b. Abdimi stated: Eve was cursed with ten curses, ... ’ And he shall rule over you - this teaches that a woman asks with her heart while her husband asks directly for intercourse. This is a good attribute in women. In other words she acts seductive and ingratiates herself with him but does not directly say what she wants.

Torah Temima (Bereishis 9:16.4): In other words from this pregnancy Yissachar was born as is states explicitly in the Torah. The gemora (Eiruvin 100b)  asserts  that she didn’t ask Yaakov directly for sexual intercourse because to do so is a disgusting behavior and her children would have been called the children of brazeness [ instead of praising her]. In fact she seduced him by showing her strong feelings of love. But the language of the Torah apparently contradicts this explanation since she is quoted as saying, “You shall come to me [i.e., have sexual relations]”. However this phrase is to be understood that she meant that he should come to her tent but not that she was saying she wanted sexual intercourse....

In contrast others sources seem to assume Leah spoke bluntly and directly - but since she was on a much higher spiritual level - we can not learn that it is permitted for women today to speak this way.

Rashi (Bereishis 30:16): I hired you tonight – I paid Rachel [to be with you tonight]. 

Malbim (Bereishis 30:16): And she said to Yaakov , You are to come to me. This teaches that her intent was solely for the sake of Heaven. Therefore she wasn’t embarrassed to speak this way. That is because she had no lust which would have caused her embarrassment. This was like Adam prior to the Sin that he and Eve were naked and did not feel shame.

Seforno (Bereishis 30:16): You are to come to me since I hired you. And she did not do an injustice with her behavior in taking away the sexual rights of her sister since it was done with her knowledge and agreement. At first glance this story seems to be disgusting to those who look for excuses to say negative things about the Torah. In fact we learn from this that the Avos were similar to Adam and Eve prior to the Sin. Their intent was not at all for their own pleasure but was solely for the sake of Heaven to establish descendants for the honor of G‑d and to serve Him. We learn from this that since the intent of the Matriarchs was pleasing to G‑d in their efforts ... Their prayers were accepted. That is because it is appropriate for a tzadik to make efforts according to nature as much as possible to obtain that which he desires and to also pray that he succeed. Our Sages note that G‑d desires the prayers of Tzadikim (Yevamos 64a).

Religious leaders decree tight clothing inappropriate for men

YNet  A new decree signed by top Israeli rabbis this week prohibits devout men from wearing tight pants.

"Every Jewish man is mandated by the holy Torah to dress modestly in loose-fitting clothing," read the edict, which was published in the ultra-Orthodox media. 

The public service messages were accompanied by pictures of Jewish men in times of old dressed in loose, gown-like attire.