Lesson of Pinchas: Leaders must protest evil!

G-d told Moshe was told Bamidbar (25:4). And the Lord said to Moses, Take all the chiefs of the people, and hang them up before the Lord in the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel. Rashi says that this should not be understood literally that the leaders were killed but rather that the leaders should make sure that those who were involved in sexual crimes should be killed.

However it seems that this a dispute in Bamidbar Rabba (20:23)/Tanchuma (Balak 28) whether the verse means that the leaders should judge the guilty and execute them or whether the leaders are the ones who were killed. Abarbanel, Seforno, Panim Yafos, Rekanti and others say in fact that it means the leaders should be killed. Why should Moshe be told to kill the leaders of the Jewish People if they weren’t involved in the depravity? They answer because the leaders didn't protest against the sexual depravity of the people. The failure of the leaders to protest and instead remain complacent was actually a greater sin than the sin of the sexual depravity of the people  and therefore the only way to prevent G‑d’s anger from destroying the people was for the leaders to be executed  (those who sinned and those who failed to stop the sin). This is what motivated Pinchas in his vigilante action against the leader Zimri.

Abarbanel (Bamidbar 25:04): G-d said to Moshe, Take all the leaders and kill them in broad daylight. It was appropriate that when G-d saw this terrible sin being done openly amongst the Jewish people and the leaders and police did not even protest or criticize or punish the sinners. G-d said to Moshe it was proper to give a major punishment to the leaders for ignoring their duty for what was being done before them.

Igros Moshe:Wife refuses Get /Husband remarry without heter 100 Rabbis?

Igros Moshe (E.H. 2:2): Question: (E.H. 2:2): Question: In the case of a moredes (rebellious wife) who obtained a civil divorce as well as many thousands of dollars in the settlement from the secular court and refused to accept a Get in order to torment her husband. Is it possible to permit the husband to remarry without first obtaining permission from 100 Rabbis? Answer: Concerning the case of a moredes who obtained a civil divorce and also $30,000 cash as well as the house and furnishings which she sold for $20,000. The secular court judge blocked her access to $20,000 of the $30,000 that the husband is required to pay and made the access conditional on her accepting the get that is required by the halacha and which she has already agreed to do and which was arranged in Seattle. The letter writer was made the agent to divorce her. However when he returned to Portland and notified the woman that he had the Get in his hand, she reneged on the deal and said that she did not want to free her husband under any circumstances and that she will never accept the Get because she wants to torment him. There is no question even if we don’t believe that she caused the fights between but he was the one who started them and that led to her trying with a lawyer in civil court to obtain a secular law. But since she agreed to take accept the Get and then reneged in order to torment him – she is considered a moredes since she has no interest in living with him as his wife and she also doesn’t want to divorce him. This is explicitly stated in Shulchan Aruch (E.H 77:20), If she rebels against him in order to torment him and she declares that she is tormenting him because of the wrongs he did to her or because he cursed her or because he fought with her - then she has the full status of a moredes. The Rema concludes that after 12 months if he wants to divorce her she must accept the Get even against her will or else he is given permission to marry another women. So surely in this case where she started the fight and then went to civil court to get a secular divorce. Regarding the question of whether he needs a heter of 100 Rabbis. From the language of the Rema is would seem that he permitted the husband of a moredes to remarry even if there is no heter of 100 Rabbis because it is not mentioned either in the Rema or the commentaries. The Maharshdam (E.H. 120) states that Rabbeinu Gershom never applied the cherem to a case of moredes. It would seem that his view is that the husband should not be allowed to remarry unless a number of years have passed so it is clear that she is a moredes. I saw in the Otzer Poskim (E.H. 1:73.24) where Rabbi Akiva Eiger is cited and other Achronim that permit remarriage in such a case even with a heter of 100 Rabbis. Nonetheless, l’chatchila it is best to obtain a heter of 100 Rabbis and that is the accepted practice. However if it is impossible to obtain one – as you write – then he can remarry without the heter of 100 Rabbis since it has now been 5 years that she left her husband and extracted $50, 000 from him in civil court and agreed to accept the Get and it was written according to her wishes and then she reneged in order to torment him. Such a case is rarer than the circumstances cited by the Maharshdam and others. The husband should deposit the Get and have it guarded until she comes and receives it from the agent.

Ben Ish Chai: Lashon harah about yourself?

Ben Ish Chaim (Torah Leshma #409): Question: Is it permitted to speak lashon harah about yourself? Reuven has a visible blemish on his body and he was discussing this blemish with a group of people. Shimon commented that he also had a blemish on his body but that it was covered up. Another person told Shimon that revealing that information was lashon harah since it served no purpose and no one knew about his hidden blemish – so why should he reveal it to others? Shimon responded that since he was testifying about himself and not others – it is not included in the prohibition of lashon harah. Is Shimon correct or not? Answer: There is no question that Shimon did something improper by revealing the existence of a hidden blemish – even though the blemsih he revealed was his own and not that of others. The proof for this is the Yevamos (64b), “The Rabbis told Rav Aba bar Zabda that he should get married to another wife and have children. He responded that if he had the merit he would have had children with his first wife. This in fact was not true but he wanted to conceal the fact that he had become impotent from attending the long lectures of Rav Huna where he was not able to urinate during the time of the lecture.” We see that he concealed the problem and did not want to reveal that he was impotent even to the Rabbis who were his peers who were pressuring him to get married. Nevertheless we see that he did not reveal that he was impotent....
 ================================================
 I am not sure how this is evidence to justify his point. The  gemora itself reveals by names that a number of scholars became impotent because of Rav Huna's lectures and in addition it concludes with Rav Acha who said that the whole group of 60 students became impotent except for himself. Why isn't that lashon harah according to the Ben Ish Chai since it was said about others? If it is permitted to relate this information about others than why should it be considered lashon harah when said about yourself?


Yevamos (64b): With regard to the assumption that ‘it is possible that it was he who was unworthy to have children from her’, is it not possible that it was she who was unworthy? — Since she is not commanded to fulfil the duty of propagation she is not so punished. But surely it is not so! For the Rabbis once said to R. Abba b. Zabda, ‘Take a wife and beget children’, and he answered them, ‘Had I been worthy I would have had them from my first wife’! — There he was merely evading the Rabbis; for, in fact, R. Abba b. Zabda became impotent through the long discourses of R. Huna.     R. Giddal became impotent through the discourses of R. Huna;20 R. Helbo became impotent through the discourses of R. Huna, and R. Shesheth also became impotent through the discourses of R.Huna.  R. Aha b. Jacob was once attacked by dysuria, and when he was supported on the college cedar tree a discharge issued like a green palm shoot.  R. Aha b. Jacob stated: We were a group of sixty scholars, and all became impotent through the long discourses of R. Huna; with the exception of myself who followed the principle, Wisdom preserveth the life of him that hath it.

Rav Sternbuch: Father's sins atoned by son's suffering?

Rav Sternbuch (2:447): Question: Is someone whose father died obligated to say during the entire first year “I am the atonement for the deceased?” Answer: Kiddushin (31b), If someone is reporting something he heard from his father he should say “I am the atonement for the deceased.” It seems to me that many people do not conduct themselves according to this gemora. But it seems that this is meant as actual halacha by the gemora and in fact the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 240:9) rules that way? Thus we need to find the justification for why people don’t say it within the first year of their father’s death. In fact, however, this halacha is puzzling and in particular according to Rashi who says that the son means to say,” All the bad that my father deserved should come on me instead.” Where do we find that there is an obligation to accept the punishment of Gehinom that his father deserves? And an even greater difficulty for this halacha is even if the son accepts the punishments – how does it help his father. Can a son actually save his father by accepting the father’s punishment in Gehinom? We know that the son has the ability to give merit to his father through Torah study and doing good deeds. But how can he get punished instead of his father by saying “I am the atonement for the deceased. It apparently has no effect so why should he be obligated to say it? I saw in the Ri HaZakein that the obligation to say this is only after repeating a halachic matter that was stated in the name of his father. But regarding secular matters he does not have to say, “I am the atonement for the deceased.”... According to this, saying that he will atone for his father’s sins is not an acceptance of punishment that the father deserves. Rather if someone states a halacha that has been stated in his father’s name, there is a possibility he will err in reporting it especially since it is a verbal report. That is why he says “ I am the atonement for the deceased.” In other words all the bad that his father will receive because of what he is saying father’s name – his father should not be punished if it is mistaken. In addition this obligation to say it is only for the first 12 months after death because those are special days of very strict judgment against his father. However after this period is finished and his father has received his punishment there is no longer concern that he will receive additional punishment for the mistakes of his son – there is no longer a need to say it. (While the Rema says this halacha is also relevant for his mothers even though it is not relevant to say halacha over in her name, but it is relevant to relate minhagim or practicies in her name which are not precise.). Therefore this explains why the phrase is said whenever he is reporting a halacha from his father – as is the plain meaning of the poskim.  But also those who refrain from saying “I am an atonment for the deceased” when it is not a report of a halachic matter said in the name of his father are justified. Only zichrono l’bracha is said because it is meaningless in that case to claim to being accepting punishment [since there is no punishment in that case.

Rav Sternbuch (4:272): ...  It would appear that the intent of the statement is that he is obligating himself in fact to do that which will give merit to his father. For example to say kaddish, to learn Mishna, to give charity and to improve his own deeds. Such is a very great thing and it helps to reduce the suffering the father receives in Gehinom and elsewhere. He is also accepting on himself that if he doesn’t actually do things to benefit his father in these ways we mentioned then - he should receive on himself that evil that he could have saved his father from. Therefore when he mentions his father he says, “Behold I will be an atonement for the deceased.” In other words, “I can be concerned for my father’s atonement and if I am not worried at all – then according to Rashi he is punished. However if he acts appropriately for the sake of his father’s soul then it is literally an atonement for this father. According to this explanation, the statement of “I am an atonement for the deceased” is not an acceptance on himself of the punishment his father. Rather it is a motivation to conduct himself properly by announcing that he is obligated to act for his father’s soul and with this he literally fulfills “Behold I am an atonement for the deceased.”  Conversely by refraining from giving his father additional merit he will be punished for not helping his father. See an alternative explanation in volume 2 simon 447.  This this is a direct rebuke to those who are not concerned with showing respect to their parents after they have died. They view it as sufficient to say kaddish or to be the shliach tzibor. In fact they should increase their giving of charity and good deeds as well as increased their Torah study as well as to be extra careful to avoid sin. Such an approach is a great benefit for his parents after their death. In this he fulfills honoring his father after death – according to the halacha.

Rav Sternbuch: Divorce:Who gets custody of Kids?

Rav Sternbuch (1:783):Question: In the case of a couple getting divorced, who gets the custody of the children? Answer: It would seem that according to Torah law it depends upon what is best for the children. Kesubos (102b) states that the daughter typically goes to the mother – because that is best for her as is explained in Rema (E.H. 82:7). The son typically goes to the father after the age of six as is explained in the Be’er haGolah. That is because the father teaches his son Torah and provides him with guidance. Consequently it is typically best for the son to be with the father. However beis din always must decide what is best for the children as is stated in a responsa ascribed to the Ramban (#38) as well as the Radvaz which is cited in Pischei Teshuva (2:7). Look at Rambam and Ravad (Hilchos Ishus 21:13) whether a son should go to his father when he is less then six when he has already taught him Torah. Also see Noda B’Yehua (E.H. #89), that if they are not in the same city then the son should be with the father even when he is less than six. In modern times since yeshivos are readily available, there are times when it is best for the mother to have custody to educate her son and to send him to yeshiva and he will be as well educated as if the husband had custody. See Rashdam (E.H. 123), that it is obvious that everything is done for the good of the education of the children. And today there are excellent schools also for girls. The main point is to judge what is the best place for the education of the children and their welfare. Therefore in the present case, I advised that for the time being that the custody be reversed so that the son goes to his mother because she will supervise him and send him to an excellent yeshiva. Whereas the daughter should go to the father who will watch her since she has grown some and wants to be with him and he will supervise her. This is according to the Chelkos Mechokek (2:10) that in the case where the daughter says she prefers the father that it is to her benefit and her wishes should be complied with. This is also the view of the Maharshdam we mentioned before – that everything depends on what is good for her. We have also decided that in another year, there were will be a new evaluation to decide what arranged is in their best interest.

Marriage: Man takes - Wife doesn't give herself

Torah Temima(Devarim 24:1.3): If she gives him something and she says I am betrothed to you because of what I gave you - then it is not a valid marriage (Kiddushin 4b). Rashi explains that she says to him “You are sanctified to me.” But Tosfos questions this since the language of kedusha doesn’t apply to a man since marriage doesn’t prohibit him to other women [See Kiddushin (2b), What is the connotation of the term kiddushin? It means that she is prohibited to the whole world like hekdash.] Therefore Tosfos explains that it means that she says to him, “I am sanctified to you.” However in my opinion the language of “kidashto” does not indicate that she is saying,” I am sanctified to you.” If it did mean that then the gemora should have said that she sanctified herself to him. But in general it is not clear where you learn that a woman can sanctify herself to him - since it is well known in many places in the Torah that in marriage the husband is the acquirer or purchaser! It would appear according to Kiddushin (9a), “How is a woman married through a document? The husband writes to the father, Your daughter is sanctified to me – then it is a valid marriage.” Thus we see explicitly that even though in commercial documents the seller writes, I am selling you my field, but here the husband is writing, Your daughter is sanctified to me - and the father doesn’t write, My daughter is sanctified to you. That is because in commercial documents the seller writes that he is selling his property because the Torah makes everything dependent on the seller. In contrast concerning marriage, it says, When a man will take a wife and thus the Torah makes marriage dependent on the husband.” Thus it is clear from this gemora that if the Torah hadn’t stated “when a man will take” the Torah would be understood and logic would support this - that in truth a woman could betroth herself to her husband because it would be equivalent to her selling herself to him – as it states, “And he will rule over you” and well as Tehilim (45), “Because he is your master...” In fact the Rashbam (Bava Basra 48b) explicitly writes that the betrothal of a woman is equivalent to the case of the seller selling himself to the purchaser. [see my explanation in ohs 6]. The normal way of acquisition is that the seller indicates what rights he is transferring to the seller. However since the Torah added in the case of marriage, “When a man acquire a wife” - the husband is the one who has to be described as acquiring rather than the seller writing that he is selling his rights to the purchaser. This point is the intent of the gemora before us. That if the wife says she is giving her rights to herself to him and she says that he now possesses the rights to her in the normal manner of commerce where the seller says to the purchaser, Go and establish possession – the marriage isn’t valid. Since the Torah states, “when he will acquire a wife,” that makes the validity of marriage totally dependent on his taking the initiative in what he says and his act of acquisition.

Sex as a metaphor for love of Torah & G-d

In researching my present sefer on sexuality  - it has become obvious that the current attitude towards sexual issues is different then it was in Biblical and Talmudic times. Then it was not only more openly discussed and used as a metaphor in Biblical and Talmudic texts as well as Kabbalistic writings  - but there was also a very positive appreciation of sexual attraction and pleasures. In fact love of Torah and love of G-d are expressed as sexual feelings. Is it just a metaphor or is it that intense spirituality is on a continuum with  human sexuality? Below is just a small sampling of texts.

Sanhedrin (106a): R. Johanan said: Woe to the nation that may be found [attempting to hinder], when the Holy One, blessed be He, accomplishes the redemption of his children: who would throw his garment between a lion and a lioness when these are copulating!

Ramban (Shemos 30:13): The reason that our Sages have called the language of the Torah “the Holy Language” is because the words of the Torah and the Prophets and all issues of holiness were said in this language. It is the language that G‑d speaks in with His prophets and his congregations – including the Ten Commandments and other prophecies. The various names of G‑d are in Hebrew including that which created the world…The different parts of the universe were all originally given their names in Hebrew…. However the Rambam writes in Moreh Nevuchim (3:8): Don’t think that Hebrew is called the holy language out of pride or to fool people. Rather it is correctly called that because there are no words in it for either male or female sex organs… except as metaphor. Don’t make the mistake that from “sheigal” in Tehilim (45:10). That is referring to a woman who is set-aside for sex – and not intercourse itself. Similarly what it says in Devarim (28:30) is referring to taking a wife for a concubine. In fact there is no need for his explanation because it is quite obvious that the explanation is as I have explained. Furthermore the explanation he has given is not true. The cases involving “sheigal” indicate that in fact it is describing sexual intercourse and not just alluding to it… The Sages do speak in “a clean way” but that just indicates that normal Hebrew is in fact describing sexual intercourse…

Rambam(Hilchos Teshuva 10:3): What is the nature of the love that man should have for G‑d? It should be an extreme and excessive love to the degree that his soul is totally bound up with the love of G‑d and he is constantly obsessed with it as if he is lovesick. A lovesick person is never free from the passion of his love for that woman and he thinks about her constantly whether he is sitting or standing or at the time that he is eating and drinking. The love of G‑d should be even greater than this and should be implanted in the heart of those that love Him and are obsessed with Him constantly as we are commanded to, “Love Him with all your heart and all your soul” (Devarim 6:5). This concept was expressed by Shlomo (Shir HaShirim 2:5), “I am lovesick.” In fact all of Shir Hashirim is a parable describing the love of G‑d [with the metaphor of love of a woman].

Rosh HaShanna(4a): With the reward from the fact that Torah is as cherished to Jews as shegel (sexual intercourse) is to non‑Jews – you have merited the precious jewelry of Ophir.

Eiruvin(54b): Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani asked why are the words of Torah compared to a hind in Mishlei (5:19) “Let her be like the loving hind and a graceful roe..”? It is to inform you just as a hind has a narrow womb and is therefore loved by her mate at all times as the very first hour- so are the words of Torah beloved by those that study them at all times as they did from the first. And why are the words of Torah compared to a “graceful roe?”That is because Torah confers grace on those who study it. "Her breasts will satisfy you at all times” (Mishlei 5:19). Why were the words of the Torah compared to a breast? Just as a breast – whenever the child sucks it he finds milk in it – so it is with the words of the Torah. Whenever a man thinks about them he finds deep reasons and ideas in them. “And he will be lovesick and obsessed with her always (Mishlei 5:19) [and he will act like a fool and a crazy person and abandon his work in order to run to learn Torah and the Torah will protect him – Rashi, Maharasha]. For example R’ Eleazar ben Pedas. They say about R’ Eleazar that he sat and studied Torah in the lower market of Tzippori while his cloak lay in the upper market of Tzippori [he forgot it because of his preocuppation with Torah – Rabbeinu Chananel]. R’ Yitzchok said that once a man came to take the cloak and found a poisonous snake in it.

Rav Tzadok(Shaar HaYichud): And thus I have seen written in a book which was written by a holy man and he said that the sect of Shabtsai Tzvi which did that which it did- because they were involved in the study of Kabbala when their hearts were full of the lusts of this world. Consequentially they took literally the metaphors of kabbala. Thus when they saw in the Kabbala literature terms such as sexual relations, hugging, kissing and others similar expressions it aroused in them lusts and adultery until they became very wicked people. And similarly I am aware of one rav from the previous generation who was considered to be a scholar and kabbalist and he printed a book on kabbalistic matters with the haskomos of the gedolim of that generation. And afterwards he sinned by committing adultery. There is no question that this was caused by his involvement in kabbala and his taking literally the metaphors of kabbala as is clear from what he wrote in his book. I am writing this in order that people are warned how carefully they must be when studying esoteric material as our Rabbis have said.

Rav Sternbuch: Destroying Television to Stop Sin?

Rav Sternbuch (1:368):Question: A baal teshuva, when visiting his parents who have a television, damages it in order that the family members will not watch it. Is it permitted for him to damage so? Answer: The prohibition of watching television is very serious and it is an aspect of sexual immorality. That is because as the result of watching this impure device it increases his attraction to sexual sins. Therefore it is definitely necessary to stop a person from watching television in various ways. It is literally a psik reisha ( a direct cause of sinning) for someone who lives in a house with a television which degrades those who watch it. However there is a dispute between the Ketzos and the Nesivos (C.M. 3) whether the ability to force someone to do keep a mitzva is uniquely permitted to beis din or whether every single person is allowed to force others to keep mitzvos. According to the Ketzos it is only permitted for beis din while the Nesivos says that every person has a mitzva to prevent others from sinning.... Accordingly the Nesivos would permit in our case to carry out whatever activity is needed to stop television watching. In contrast the Ketzos says that only beis din has the power to decide and therefore the individual can not act on his own initiative to harm another’s property. However it would seem that those poskim who require permission from beis din are correct. We also see from the Yereim (#278) that coercing that might involve death is considered a knas which can not be done by the layman but requires mumchin (expert judges) in Israel. See also Minchas Chinuch (Parashas Bo). And even if the actual halacha was that each individual has to obligation to force mitzva observance, it would appear that we shouldn’t have a system of anarchy where one person can decide to harm to property of another. Therefore even if it were allowed – it is necessary to consult with a beis din before doing anything. That is because pragmatically there are times that this vigilante action against another’s property will cause the other person to be turned off by Judaism rather than making him more observant. Thus no one should take the property of others with the claim that they were only doing it for the sake of Heaven in order to stop him from sin. Furthermore it could be that the halacha only would permit taking another’s property when the sin is a monetary one. However in this case where the obligation is to prevent him from doing a sin, it is not relevant for an individual to force compliance by taking another’s property. However in our case property is not being taken to force him to behave. Rather the question is whether to destroy an impure device which causes spiritual harm and encourages transgressing severe sins. Thus it seems we are only destroying evil. Support for this view is found in Berachos (20a) which says there was the case of a certain pious individual who ripped off an immodest red garment from a woman that was worth 400 zuz. It seem from the gemora that such an action of stopping immorality is proper in a case of chilul haShem– even though it caused the pious person to have to repay the 400 zuz. So surely in the case of the television which causes much greater impurity. Similarly we see that Rachel stole her father’s idols to stop him from involvement with idolatry as Rashi (Bereishis 31:19) explained.

However despite these apparent proofs that an individual can act on his own initiative, I feel that every such action requires a consultation with a rav. We see clearly in the above gemora, that the pious person indicated that he should have been more patient and not have been so hasty to rip the garment. Also we see that Yaakov did not approve of this theft which Rachel kept concealed from him and in fact he cursed the person who stole the idols – and she died from the curse. (We see that sometimes a pious act causes much more spiritual harm then if no action were taken. And that instead of glorifying G‑d – the reverse happens as is known from many incidents.). It could also be that in our case it is not the appropriate time to stop them from watching television and an act that is premature can cause much harm. Thus even if the act itself is permitted it might be at the wrong time. Therefore the act can not be done in isolation of context and it is necessary to get permission with a wise person as to what is appropriate and to follow his words. It is also a good idea to speak with the parents and to try to explain to them that television causes much harm. And so even if they enjoy it for the moment – it will eventually cause severe harm to the entire family. In fact there is nothing comparable to its harmfulness. In conclusion, concerning damaging or destroying the television, even if he is willing to pay for it, it is best if he asks a posek before he does anything. One who acts according to the rabbis will always merit success.

קצות החושן (סימן ג ס"ק א):  ואפילו לפי מ"ש הרמב"ן בחידושיו סוף ב"ב (קעה, ב ד"ה הא דאמר רבה) דגם למ"ד שעבודא לאו דאורייתא יורדין לנכסיו, טעמא דידיה לפי דהב"ד רשאין לכוף אותו בכל מילי דכפיה לקיים מצוותו ולהכי נמי יורדין לנכסיו משום כפיה והיינו כפייה דידיה לקיים המצוה בעל כרחו, וא"כ כיון דאינו אלא מתורת כפיה דהא הנכסים אינם משועבדים וא"כ מוכח דשליחותייהו דקמאי קא עבדינן.

נתיבות המשפט (ביאורים סימן ג ס"ק א ): גם מה שכתב [בסק"א] דאי שעבודא לאו דאורייתא והבית דין כופין בעי בי"ד [מומחין] דוקא לכפותו דהדיוטות לאו בני עישוי נינהו. נראה לפענ"ד דליתא, דכיון דדמי לעשה סוכה ואינו עושה דכופין אותו לקיים המצוה, כל אדם מצווה להפריש חבירו מאיסור אפילו מי שאינו בכלל בית דין, כדמוכח בב"ק כ"ח [ע"א] גבי נרצע שכלו ימיו, דיכול רבו להכותו כדי להפרישו מאיסור שפחה, ע"ש. ואי בעינן בגמר דין ג' והיינו לומר פלוני זכאי, יבואר אי"ה בסימן ה' [סק"ב].

Women reach perfection only through men

Rav Tzadok(Dover Tzedek page 41): Berachos (17a) asks, What is the merit that women have – to achieve the World to Come? [Concerning the pshat see Sotah 21a] The reason that this is a question is that women don’t have a mechanism for self-perfection as men do with Torah study. The gemora replies that their merit comes from assisting their husband and children in learning Torah... In other words their perfection is not acquired directly but only through their husbands and children. The husband is oblgated to provide her food, clothing and sexual relations while the son is obligated to honor her and fear her as is said in Kesubos (64a), A woman asks for a staff in her hand (son to support her) while alive and a spade for her burial. In other words her faults and imperfections are completed by the actions of others. Thus she draws perfection from them and her defining nature is being controlled or taken care of by others.

That is why the Torah says your husband “will control you.” In contrast the woman is described in Kiddushin (30b), That she is in the domain of others and she has no control or any power and that is why whatever she acquires is automatically acquired by her husband. In fact the only genuine power she has is that her husband is obligated to her in order that he provide what she lacks and this is also true for the son as we mentioned before.
========================
Pnei Yehoshua(Berachos 17a): Greater is the promise that G‑d made to women then to men...Rav asked R’ Chiya, “How do women merit getting the World to Come? By making their children go to synagogue...” It would seem that there is problem here. What was Rav’s original problem that cause him to ask, “Why do women merit the World to Come? Isn’t it obvious since they are commanded to observe all the negative commandments like men as well as all positive commandments which are not time bound – so why was it necessary to answer that it is because they take their children to synagogue to read...? Furthermore it seems Rav not only asked the question but he also answered it the gemora doesn’t say that R’ Chiya replied to Rav that it was because they take their children to synagogue. It would also seem reasonable that the opening statement of “Greater is the promise” was also said by Rav himself since this was something he frequently said. Thus all these statements all go back to a single source – Rav – according to what I explained. The message is that it is necessary for everyone to purify 248 limbs and 365 sinews in this world by means of observe the 248 positive commandments and the 365 negative commandments. This is a prerequisite if a person wants to enjoy being in the Divine presence as I have already explained. Consequently this would only be relevant for men since they fulfill all 248 positive commandments while women are missing the time bound mitzvos which they are exempt. Thus those limbs which are not purified by obligatory mitzvos are not purified and remained damaged and thus can not benefit from the Divine presence. Despite this Rav concluded from the verse that despite this lack of purification the promise that G‑d gave to women was greater. Therefore Rav was not asking a question of R’ Chisda but in fact was explaining the meaning of the verse. He was telling R’ Chisda that reason that they have a greater promise is because they cause their children and husband to learn Torah.  Thus his explanation is that since they are aiding their husbands and children to learn Tporah and keep and do all the 613 mitzvos – they receive reward even for those mitzvos that they themselves are not commanded to keep. Similarly for Torah study – even though they are not commanded to study and the reward of Torah is equal to the rest – nevetheless the women do in fact receive reward for all mitzvos. We find such an explanation by R’ Eliezar ben Azariah in Chagiga (3a) by Hakeil – Why are children brought – to give reward to those who bring them. That is also the explanation here in in resolving the difficulties in this aggada.

How a Rav determines abuse Allegations are False

While the Aguda had been very emphatic that a rabbi needs to be consulted before going to the police - the question is why? It isn't likely to be a determination of guilt or innocence since the rabbi typically will not be convening a beis din. An alternative justification is that there is a need for an objective voice to establish whether the evidence rises to a certain level of credibility known as "raglayim l'davar".   Most of you are aware that rabbinical training provides no special skills in investigation of crimes or evaluation of psychological states or crimes which are manifestations of a sick mind. In short, he has no forensic training and no psychological training. Thus there is a distinct possibility that the rabbi will not understand the seriousness of the matter. As a minimum a rabbi needs to have mental health and legal professionals available to consult in these types of cases.

An example of why a rabbi untrained in mental health or forensic issues is not the one to consult - no matter how knowledgeable in halacha -   is the following composite of incidents that I have heard directly or were reported to me by involved parties. There is no exaggeration for dramatic effect - this is typically how these cases are described.

I met a prominent rav at a bris. In the course of talking he mentioned that he was on his way to a meeting regarding a false accusation by a wife against her husband. She was claiming that her husband had been sexually abusing their 12 year old daughter for 2 years.  I asked the rav on what basis had he had already decided that the allegations were false and that the wife was lying? In general I told him I would like to know the criteria he used for evaluating these type of cases.

He answered in a slightly condescending tone that it was obvious that the allegations were not true. 1) First of all he said that he personally knew the man and he was very midakdek in mitzvos and a tremendous talmid chachom who had learned in kollel for 20 years.  It was inconceivable that such a tzadik would do something so clearly in violations of the Torah. 2) He said that the circumstances themselves were clearly a basis to question the validity of her claim. The wife said that this wasn't a new behavior but in fact she was aware of his abusing their daughter for two years and she said she had been trying to get him to stop by threatening to expose him. The Rabbi asked me, "What normal wife would wait two years to report such disgusting behavior if it were true?" 3) He said that recently the wife had requested a Get This is also proof that the charges are not valid because everyone knows that women make up abuse charges as leverage to obtain a get 4). The agreement of the daughter with the her mother that her father was abusing her - also proved that the charges were false. Everyone knows that the daughter has been acting strangely for the last two years and obviously suffers from depression or some other mental health problem. She obviously also is supporting these charges because her father has been very strict with her level of tznius now that she is getting more mature - and has embarrassed her a number of time regarding this in front of her friends. 5) Finally the rav said the biggest proof that the charges were false were the charges themselves. He said such a horrendous charge can not be accepted as valid. He said, "We all know that there are sick individuals who prey on strange kids. But in this case a normal father was being charged with raping his own daughter. That is just too incredible - there is just no way that a father who is a ben Torah could do such a thing to his own daughter!"

Saving kids: Lashon harah is "high price to pay"?!

The following is an excerpt from an interview Mishpacha [May 2012] recently conducted with Rabbi Zweibel executive vice president of the Aguda. The man who actually runs the Aguda. It shows a good man with true generosity of spirit. An intelligent and idealistic man who has  devoted his life to help the Jewish people by working with gedolei Yisroel. A humble man who cares deeply about others.

Unfortunately what he says is one of the most incredible and disgusting perversions of Yiddishkeit that I have ever read. It shows not the slightest awareness of the halachic issues or the horrible consequences of abuse. He is totally clueless as to what a chilul hashem his words are as well lacking any understanding of why the Aguda's handling of this issue - including the actions of their gedolim - is so incredibly shameful. And despite the egregious errors of judgment that he unwitting reveals about the Aguda's gedolim he concludes "that the process of decision-making through the Moetzes is as close to perfect as can be."

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

Rabbi Zwiebel speaks with his characteristic softness, but there is fire in his eyes. "Look, I don't write off the bloggers as leitzanim and reshaim, because they will be judged, as we all will, after 120 years for their motivations and techniques. I'm not a condemner, by nature. "I do believe that among them there are people who are deeply pained about certain issues and feel that this is the way they can express their pain. I will even go a step further and say that through the pressure they've created, communal issues that needed to be confronted were moved to the front burner and taken seriously. A case in point is abuse and molestation issues. The question is, if the fact that they've created some degree of change is worth the cost. At the very least, it's rechilus, lashon hara, and bittulzman. That's a high price to pay. "Then there is the damage wrought to the hierarchy of Klal Yisrael. We've always been a talmid chacham-centered nation, and it's dangerous to ruin the fabric of Klal Yisrael by denigrating the ideal of daas Torah and by allowing personal attacks on gedolei Torah." What about personal attacks against Rabbi Zwiebel himself? He shrugs. "Rabbi Sherer used to say that a nail that sticks out of the wall gets hammered. When you're in the public eye, criticism is inevitable. It's not pleasant, but it comes with the territory." He readily concedes that Agudah hasn't done a great job of spreading its message. "It's part of our mandate to communicate the perspective of gedolim on contemporary issues, and we are aware that we have been handicapped since the Jewish Observer closed down. We take the challenge seriously, and are constantly working on improving our communications." Reb Chaim Dovid believes that the process of decision-making through the Moetzes is as close to perfect as can be. "It's a homogeneous group of the most intelligent, empathetic individuals — all great talmidei chachamim — and they grasp all aspects of an issue right away."   

Original sin was to think woman equal to man - Chasam Sofer

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.

Torah is the word of G-d - no need to apologize

Rav S. R. Hirsch (Judaism Eternal vol 2 page 216): Let us not deceive ourselves. The whole question is simply this. Is the statement, “ And G‑d spoke to Moses saying,” with which all the laws of the Jewish Bible commence, true or not true? Do we truly believe that G‑d, the Omnipotent and Holy, spoke thus to Moses? Do we speak the truth when in front of our brethren we lay our hand on the scroll containing these words and say that G‑d has given us this Torah, that His Torah, the Torah of truth and with it  eternal life is planted in our midst? If this is to be no mere lip service, no mere rhetorical flourish, then we must keep and carry out this Torah without omission and without carping, in all circumstances and at all times. This word of G‑d must be our eternal rule superior to all human judgment, the rule to which all our actions must at all times conform; and instead of complaining that it is no longer suitable to the times, our only complaint must be that the times are no longer suitable to it. And if, again, in carrying out this word of G‑d we choose to follow the teachings and instructions that have come down to us from the Rabbis, we can and must do this only if and because we recognize in them the same divine origin as in the written word of G‑d. They have been handed down to us by previous generations with the same guarantee, as a tradition transmitted from G‑d, from the same omnipotent and holy G‑d, to Moses, and from Moses orally through every succeeding generation for the purpose of regulating the practical observance of the word of G‑d. This tradition again is nothing more than tradition, than the orally transmitted word of G‑d, as Rabbinic Judaism has taught throughout the centuries of its history. But if this tradition is no tradition, if it is only a pious mask under which a priestly caste has imposed its views on the people as the orally transmitted word of G‑d, if the fathers have with it deceived their sons and grandsons, they have let them live and suffer, endure and die, for a fraud and an illusion, and if it is permissible to us also to be each one his own oracle and to remodel Biblical law according to his own views and opinions, then it can and ought to be no longer the word of G‑d; then G‑d did not speak to Moses; then we have not the word of G‑d in our possession; then we, and with us the whole of mankind whose hopes of salvation are rooted in this word are all deceived and deceivers, and it is time to shake off openly the whole miserable encumbrance. This is the alternative; there is no other course open. If Judaism has been established by G‑d then it is destined to teach the age, but not to let itself be taught by the age.

---

Good wife views her husband as her master - Menoras HaMe'or

I am not posting these as extreme curiosities - they are normative descriptions in the rabbinic literature - including contempory authorities. If anyone has sources that say otherwise - please let me know.

Menoras Hame’or(2:176): [© Translation by Daniel Eidensohn] Even though the woman is the mate of the man – she should not view her husband as an equal but rather as her master as it says in Tehilim (45:12), Because he is your master and you should bow down to him. And the woman should love her husband and he rules over her as it says (Bereishis 3:16), And your desire shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you. And if you view him as your master he will love you and you will be in his eyes as a sister as we see that Sarah refered to Avraham as master (Bereishis 18:12) and if you minimize talking to what is necessary then you will be even more beloved to your husband. And if you speak before him with grace and humility and if your eyes are attentive to him in the manner that a servant is attentive to her mistress – then you will be greatly valued and honored in his eyes. It relates in a Medrash that a certain Sage told his daughter when she was being taken her husband’s house, “My daughter, stand before him as you would before the king and serve him. And if you should act as a mother to him, he will be to you as a servant and will honor you as a privileged lady. However if you dominate him, he will be forced to act as your master and then you will be degraded in his eyes like a common servant. Embellish and praise him amongst his friends. And if guests come to him, whether relatives or friends – welcome them graciously and offer them generously in order to honor you husband in their eyes. Take good care of his house and all that he has and in this way you will find favor in his eyes and you will be the crown of your husband. Thus it says in Misheli(12:4), A virtuous wife is a crown to her husband.

Rambam(Hilchos Ishus 15:20): And thus our Sages have commanded that the woman honor her husband to an extreme degree and the fear of him should be on her and she should do all her deeds according to what he says and he should be in her eyes as a ruler or king. She should orient her activities according to that which he desires and stay away from that which he hates. This is the manner of the daughters of Israel and the children of Israel who are holy and pure in their marriages. In this way the community will be pleasant and praiseworthy.