Vayishlach 74 Autonomy – the Key to Character Education by Allan Katz

Allan Katz

During the night preceding the meeting between Jacob- Ya'akov and his brother Esau, a confrontation takes place between Jacob and Esau's angel guardian. The verse Genesis 32:25 says that Jacob remained 'alone' - le'vado' and he wrestled with a man until the outbreak of dawn. The Medrash commentary notes that in Isaiah 2 – and on that day G-d ' alone' –le'vado will be exalted, the same word, a G-dly attribute le'vado= alone is also ascribed to Jacob. On that night Jacob achieved the G-dly attribute of le'vado.

Le'vado =alone cannot be talking about being hermits and independent , as human beings are interdependent, supporting each other to create caring communities. Rabbeinu Yeruchum says that le'vado =alone means man using only his intrinsic qualities, in an autonomous and self directed way. A teenager can react to parental control by seeking independence. This is a reaction and not an autonomous decision by the teenager. It is not something that originates within himself. The teenager is reacting to his parent's agenda. Rabeinu Yeruchum then shares Ethics Of our Fathers =Pikei Avot 4:1 as examples of a person's expression of his ' autonomy and intrinsic value'. This is based on the Marahal from Prague 's understanding of the Mishnah.

The Mishnah says – who is a wise man – he who learns from every person. Who is a strong person – a man who subdues his evil inclination, who is rich – a man who is happy with his lot, who is honored – he who honors other people.

In the Self Esteem essay I described 2 types of people. The ' To have ' people who are concerned with achievement and having. They see' the self 'as an object and their self esteem is usually contingent on how others see them and their achievements. They usually suffer from what Brene Brown calls the scarcity syndrome of not being good enough, not perfect enough or being just ordinary. The 'To Be' people focus on experience and the process. They see the self as a process and their self esteem is something deep and constant.

The 'To Have' person defines a wise person as having much knowledge, the strong person as having much strength, and the rich person – as having all the money and things that are entertaining and can make a person feel rich and happy. A person who is honored is one for eg is honored by many people and whom the government honors. The wise person has more knowledge, the rich person has more wealth, the honored person has more honors and awards, in comparison with others. But this is all extrinsic and external to the person and becomes important only when we are able to compare to others. 'Having' does not say anything about your attributes or character nor does it change you. Honoring a person, does not intrinsically change them- they remain the same. Winning a lottery does not turn a miser into a 'giving' person, or exercising in a gym cannot transform one into a person of character and therefore become a ' To Be 'person. It can just give a person a distorted sense of self esteem and self worth.

The To Be person is not concerned about achievement but the process. He is a wise man because he has a passion for learning, he is a life- long learner who is continually active learning from all. He is not an 'object ' dependent on a teacher and focused on quantity of knowledge and achievement.

He is a strong person not because he can lift 200 kg , but he is able to subdue his evil inclinations and use them positively. The battle against the ' Yetzer Ha'ra is a life-long battle so he needs to have strength of character to be self –directed and not be subject to his passions and inclinations . The truth is that dealing with the evil inclination has more to do about having a clever plan to outwit the evil inclination and less about grit, self control and self discipline.

He is a rich person because he is always happy and content with his lot – whatever it is. His happiness comes from his intrinsic passion for life and making meaning from everything he does and learns. He is self-directed, competent and a builder of relationships. He acts wealthy and ' being wealthy ' he is not attached to his money and possessions and expresses this by giving of his wealth to more needy people. New wealth may lead to a feeling of being wealthy in the short-term but people soon get used their new standards of living and the feeling dissipates.

The respected and honored person is one that honors others. Being honored by others does not say anything about the person – he may be worthy or unworthy of the honor given. But the person who honors others is giving expression to an intrinsic part of his personality – he is somebody who has the attribute of honor.

Being wise, strong, rich and honored means 'acting' as a wise man continuously learning, acting as a rich man, being happy, content and 'giving', acting as a strong man means giving expression to your strength of character and an honored man –acting as one who gives expression to his attribute of honor.

The goal of education and character education is to help kids become passionate life-long learners, people who honor others and can build relationships, have strength of character to become caring and competent people, happy, content, intrinsically motivated and giving.

This can be done addressing the 3 needs of people vital to their happiness and development. The 3 needs according to the ' Self –Determined theory are autonomy, competence and relatedness=belonging. When kids feel they are self directed , competent and have a sense of belonging to people they will become life-long learners who have strength of character, are happy, content and giving and who honor the needs of others by being caring and respectful.

Trump's bullying continues: Department of Energy refuses to reveal names of climate scientists to Trump

C.S. Monitor

The Department of Energy (DOE) has refused to give the individual names of workers associated with work on climate change in response to a request from President-elect Donald Trump.

While a request for information for an incoming president is not unusual, questions from the Trump team asking for lists of who was involved with climate change research and negotiations under the Obama administration raised fears of a "witch hunt" among many DOE employees. Mr. Trump has called human-caused climate change a "hoax" on multiple occasions, putting him at odds with the majority of the scientific community.

While most politicians prefer agencies under their control to be staffed by employees and researchers sympathetic to their ideas and causes, the specific nature of the request and potential high cost of climate change denial have made this situation unprecedented. Few, if any, credible climate scientists still doubt that human activity contributes in some way to global warming, and most world powers agree that immediate action is necessary on a global scale in order to prevent warming to dangerous levels. In addition to the environmental concerns, many critics of Trump are also worried that his transition team's request indicates that climate change workers who are just doing their jobs could be unjustly marginalized by the incoming administration.

Last week, the Trump team sent a questionnaire to the DOE asking for details about various aspects in the agency's policies, not in itself an unusual occurrence. But as as The Christian Science Monitor previously reported:

The questionnaire specifically asked for the names of all DOE employees who attended the United Nation’s annual climate talks for the past five years, employees who helped develop the President Obama’s social cost of carbon metrics, and which programs are essential to President Obama’s Climate Action Plan.

All of which raises concerns that Trump’s administration will target employees involved in Obama-era policies that the president-elect spent his campaign promising to dismantle, including the Paris Climate Agreement, Clean Power Plan, and various other DOE and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations.

"The identity of employees that worked on climate change projects may be a reasonable administrative request; however, their affiliations would seem to be beyond the pale, and an implicit statement that the employees are motivated by small 'p' politics rather than science." Daniel Riesel, principal of the environmental law firm Sive, Paget & Riesel, tells the Monitor in an email. "The new administration should be able to evaluate the climate change work without meddling in the employees’ personal predilections – unless of course that is the basis of the new Administration’s approach to climate change science."[...]

In an act of defiance to protect these employees, no less unprecedented than the initial questionnaire itself, the Department of Energy has refused to give Trump the names of specific employees requested by the team.[...]

But despite the evident strong feelings of the current administrators of the department, Eberly says the DOE would likely not be able to refuse or ignore a similar request under the Trump administration.[...]

The unfortunate case of Meir and Lonna Kin - Perspective of Rav Gestetner

The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S.

NY Times

When Special Agent Adrian Hawkins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation called the Democratic National Committee in September 2015 to pass along some troubling news about its computer network, he was transferred, naturally, to the help desk.

His message was brief, if alarming. At least one computer system belonging to the D.N.C. had been compromised by hackers federal investigators had named “the Dukes,” a cyberespionage team linked to the Russian government.

The F.B.I. knew it well: The bureau had spent the last few years trying to kick the Dukes out of the unclassified email systems of the White House, the State Department and even the Joint Chiefs of Staff, one of the government’s best-protected networks.

Yared Tamene, the tech-support contractor at the D.N.C. who fielded the call, was no expert in cyberattacks. His first moves were to check Google for “the Dukes” and conduct a cursory search of the D.N.C. computer system logs to look for hints of such a cyberintrusion. By his own account, he did not look too hard even after Special Agent Hawkins called back repeatedly over the next several weeks — in part because he wasn’t certain the caller was a real F.B.I. agent and not an impostor.[...]

An examination by The Times of the Russian operation — based on interviews with dozens of players targeted in the attack, intelligence officials who investigated it and Obama administration officials who deliberated over the best response — reveals a series of missed signals, slow responses and a continuing underestimation of the seriousness of the cyberattack.

The D.N.C.’s fumbling encounter with the F.B.I. meant the best chance to halt the Russian intrusion was lost. The failure to grasp the scope of the attacks undercut efforts to minimize their impact. And the White House’s reluctance to respond forcefully meant the Russians have not paid a heavy price for their actions, a decision that could prove critical in deterring future cyberattacks.

The low-key approach of the F.B.I. meant that Russian hackers could roam freely through the committee’s network for nearly seven months before top D.N.C. officials were alerted to the attack and hired cyberexperts to protect their systems. In the meantime, the hackers moved on to targets outside the D.N.C., including Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta, whose private email account was hacked months later.

Even Mr. Podesta, a savvy Washington insider who had written a 2014 report on cyberprivacy for President Obama, did not truly understand the gravity of the hacking.[...]

In recent days, a skeptical president-elect, the nation’s intelligence agencies and the two major parties have become embroiled in an extraordinary public dispute over what evidence exists that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia moved beyond mere espionage to deliberately try to subvert American democracy and pick the winner of the presidential election.

Many of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides believe that the Russian assault had a profound impact on the election, while conceding that other factors — Mrs. Clinton’s weaknesses as a candidate; her private email server; the public statements of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, about her handling of classified information — were also important.

While there’s no way to be certain of the ultimate impact of the hack, this much is clear: A low-cost, high-impact weapon that Russia had test-fired in elections from Ukraine to Europe was trained on the United States, with devastating effectiveness. For Russia, with an enfeebled economy and a nuclear arsenal it cannot use short of all-out war, cyberpower proved the perfect weapon: cheap, hard to see coming, hard to trace.

“There shouldn’t be any doubt in anybody’s mind,” Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency and commander of United States Cyber Command said at a postelection conference. “This was not something that was done casually, this was not something that was done by chance, this was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily,” he said. “This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect.”[...]

The United States, too, has carried out cyberattacks, and in decades past the C.I.A. tried to subvert foreign elections. But the Russian attack is increasingly understood across the political spectrum as an ominous historic landmark — with one notable exception: Mr. Trump has rejected the findings of the intelligence agencies he will soon oversee as “ridiculous,” insisting that the hacker may be American, or Chinese, but that “they have no idea.”

Mr. Trump cited the reported disagreements between the agencies about whether Mr. Putin intended to help elect him. On Tuesday, a Russian government spokesman echoed Mr. Trump’s scorn.[...]

Over the weekend, four prominent senators — two Republicans and two Democrats — joined forces to pledge an investigation while pointedly ignoring Mr. Trump’s skeptical claims.

“Democrats and Republicans must work together, and across the jurisdictional lines of the Congress, to examine these recent incidents thoroughly and devise comprehensive solutions to deter and defend against further cyberattacks,” said Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Schumer and Jack Reed.

“This cannot become a partisan issue,” they said. “The stakes are too high for our country.”[...]

Shawn Henry, who once led the F.B.I.’s cyber division and is now president of CrowdStrike Services, the cybersecurity firm retained by the D.N.C. in April, said he was baffled that the F.B.I. did not call a more senior official at the D.N.C. or send an agent in person to the party headquarters to try to force a more vigorous response.

“We are not talking about an office that is in the middle of the woods of Montana,” Mr. Henry said. “We are talking about an office that is half a mile from the F.B.I. office that is getting the notification.”

“This is not a mom-and-pop delicatessen or a local library. This is a critical piece of the U.S. infrastructure because it relates to our electoral process, our elected officials, our legislative process, our executive process,” he added. “To me it is a high-level, serious issue, and if after a couple of months you don’t see any results, somebody ought to raise that to a higher level.”[...]

Mr. Obama was briefed regularly on all this, but he made a decision that many in the White House now regret: He did not name Russians publicly, or issue sanctions. There was always a reason: fear of escalating a cyberwar, and concern that the United States needed Russia’s cooperation in negotiations over Syria.

“We’d have all these circular meetings,” one senior State Department official said, “in which everyone agreed you had to push back at the Russians and push back hard. But it didn’t happen.”

So the Russians escalated again — breaking into systems not just for espionage, but to publish or broadcast what they found, known as “doxing” in the cyberworld.

It was a brazen change in tactics, moving the Russians from espionage to influence operations. In February 2014, they broadcast an intercepted phone call between Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state who handles Russian affairs and has a contentious relationship with Mr. Putin, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the United States ambassador to Ukraine. Ms. Nuland was heard describing a little-known American effort to broker a deal in Ukraine, then in political turmoil.

They were not the only ones on whom the Russians used the steal-and-leak strategy. The Open Society Foundation, run by George Soros, was a major target, and when its documents were released, some turned out to have been altered to make it appear as if the foundation was financing Russian opposition members.

Last year, the attacks became more aggressive. Russia hacked a major French television station, frying critical hardware. Around Christmas, it attacked part of the power grid in Ukraine, dropping a portion of the country into darkness, killing backup generators and taking control of generators. In retrospect, it was a warning shot.[...]

But asked whether he believed the leaks were one reason for Mr. Trump’s election, Mr. Assange seemed happy to take credit. “Americans extensively engaged with our publications,” he wrote. “According to Facebook statistics WikiLeaks was the most referenced political topic during October.”

Though Mr. Assange did not say so, WikiLeaks’ best defense may be the conduct of the mainstream American media. Every major publication, including The Times, published multiple stories citing the D.N.C. and Podesta emails posted by WikiLeaks, becoming a de facto instrument of Russian intelligence.

Mr. Putin, a student of martial arts, had turned two institutions at the core of American democracy — political campaigns and independent media — to his own ends. The media’s appetite for the hacked material, and its focus on the gossipy content instead of the Russian source, disturbed some of those whose personal emails were being reposted across the web.

“What was really surprising to me?” Ms. Tanden said. “I could not believe that reporters were covering it.”[...]

As the year draws to a close, it now seems possible that there will be multiple investigations of the Russian hacking — the intelligence review Mr. Obama has ordered completed by Jan. 20, the day he leaves office, and one or more congressional inquiries. They will wrestle with, among other things, Mr. Putin’s motive.

Did he seek to mar the brand of American democracy, to forestall anti-Russian activism for both Russians and their neighbors? Or to weaken the next American president, since presumably Mr. Putin had no reason to doubt American forecasts that Mrs. Clinton would win easily? Or was it, as the C.I.A. concluded last month, a deliberate attempt to elect Mr. Trump?

In fact, the Russian hack-and-dox scheme accomplished all three goals.

What seems clear is that Russian hacking, given its success, is not going to stop. Two weeks ago, the German intelligence chief, Bruno Kahl, warned that Russia might target elections in Germany next year. “The perpetrators have an interest to delegitimize the democratic process as such,” Mr. Kahl said. Now, he added, “Europe is in the focus of these attempts of disturbance, and Germany to a particularly great extent.”

But Russia has by no means forgotten its American target. On the day after the presidential election, the cybersecurity company Volexity reported five new waves of phishing emails, evidently from Cozy Bear, aimed at think tanks and nonprofits in the United States.

One of them purported to be from Harvard University, attaching a fake paper. Its title: “Why American Elections Are Flawed.

Two haredi sex-abuse suspects live in capital without restriction

Jerusalem Post

If two men accused of sexual molestation and sodomy against minors were living freely in your neighborhood for three months without any court restrictions, you might be justifiably concerned.

If the presiding judge had stated that, after the initial police investigation the evidence against one of the suspects was “of considerable strength” and a written admission of guilt by the other suspect had been submitted to the police, the ongoing freedom of the accused might be more worrisome still.

And if there were at least seven complainants against the two suspects, the confusion, disquiet, and anger of the families of the alleged victims might be well understandable.

Yet this is the current situation of two ultra-Orthodox men who were arrested almost four months ago and investigated by the police on suspicion of sexual abusing teenage boys in Jerusalem’s Mea She’arim neighborhood.

Since their release from jail at the end of August, the suspects have been living in Mea She’arim without police or court restrictions.

During 2016, and for a period of at least six months, it appears that the two suspects, age 27 and 23, routinely had boys as young as 13 over to their apartments in the haredi neighborhood and allegedly engaged in various sex acts, including sodomy, with their victims.

Evidence also exists that the two men paid the boys to perform these acts.

According to a source in the State Attorney’s Office, there are at least seven complainants against the two men, and it is possible that other victims have yet to come forward. [...]

Both men were arrested in August, and were released after several days in prison to house arrest. However, the house arrest term expired at the end of August, and neither man has since been under any police or court restrictions.

The State Attorney’s Office declined to answer why four months since the two were arrested, and with so many complainants and other evidence, indictments have not yet been handed down or the case closed.

The State Attorney’s Office said merely that the case involving the two suspects had been investigated by the police, and the findings and evidence passed to the Jerusalem district office last week, with a decision still pending.[...]

Speaking to the Post, Haim’s father said that the entire episode had put severe strain on the family and caused great anguish for himself and his wife.

Haim’s mother had what he described as a nervous breakdown, and was hospitalized on two occasions for almost three weeks. His wife is in therapy, as are some of the other children in the family and Haim himself.

“The whole house just got turned upside down,” he said. “My wife is a mother of eight children, and she can’t cope. She’s gone from being a very high-functioning person to a low-functioning person.

“My son is messed up. He’s very angry, he’s confused, and he’s in major therapy right now.

He’s not calm, he’s very edgy, he’s not trusting and he’s having a difficult time in school. He’s hard to be around, any little thing sets him off; it’s really hard.”

For his father, the suffering caused to Haim and his family is made worse by the fact that the men who allegedly abused his son are living without restrictions and are yet to be indicted.

One one occasion, he and Haim were driving through Mea She’arim and actually spotted one of the suspects walking into a synagogue.

Teacher from Beitar Illit convicted of molesting 3 students

Kikar HaShabbat

בית המשפט המחוזי בירושלים הרשיע הבוקר (ראשון) את משה אהרון ליסון, תושב ביתר עילית בן 34, בביצוע מעשים חמורים בנערים שאותם לימד.

ליסון, שימש כמלמד בתלמוד תורה "אוהלי מנחם" בביתר עילית ושם תקף שלושה אחים, שהיו בני 15-13 בעת המעשים. על פי כתב האישום, בין השנים 2014-2011 הזמין ליסון לביתו את הנערים כדי לסייע לו בנושאים שונים ואז ביצע בהם מעשים חמורים.

הרשעתו של ליסון אירעה בשל התעקשותה של אמם של השלושה שהחליטה ללחום באיש ובתופעה למרות הקושי בהתמודדות עם הנושא ואף הצעות כספיות שהוצעו לה על ידי משפחתו.

[...]

רות, אמם של שלושת הילדים אמרה הבוקר לעיתון 'ידיעות אחרונות': "כשבאנו להגיש תלונה הבטיחו לשמור על הפרטיות שלנו אבל ברגע שפורסמו פרטים כמו 'שלושה אחים', כל הסביבה הבינה שמדובר בנו".

לדבריה: "התגובות מהקהילה היו קשות מאוד. האשימו אותנו שאנחנו הורסים לו את החיים. הפסיקו לצרף את הילדים למניין; הטיחו בהם שהם 'מויסר', מלשינים; רבנים מהקהילה הגיעו לחזק אותו בדיונים. זה שבר את הילדים, הם עזבו את הישיבות ובקושי יצאו מהבית. הרגשנו מנודים ודחויים".

"באחד הערבים יוסי חזר מהישיבה ונראה מעט נסער. למחרת הוא ניגש למקום העבודה של בעלי ואמר לו שהוא רוצה לספר לו משהו חשוב: 'הרב ליסון פגע בי', הוא אמר אבל סירב להוסיף. בעלי היה מאוד נסער. הוא חשש לשתף אותי אבל ראיתי שעובר עליו משהו ושהבן לא הולך לישיבה, ולא הבנתי מה קורה. אחרי יומיים הוא סיפר לי: 'אני לא יכול להסתיר ממך אבל את חייבת להיות חזקה. מישהו פגע בבן שלנו'. באותה שנייה עלה לי לראש הרב ליסון. הרגשתי שהטוב לב שלו, המתנות והיחס החם הזה אלינו לא לחינם. כשבעלי אישר שזה הוא התחלתי לרעוד.

"ניגשתי לבן ששכב במיטה. הוא ראה שאני בוכה ורועדת ואמר 'אמא, אבא דיבר איתך?' אמרתי לו: 'יוסי, תגיד לי את כל האמת. אמא רק איתך'. הוא משך את השמיכה מעל הראש ואמר: 'אני לא יכול לדבר על זה'. אמרתי לו: 'בבקשה תגיד לי מה הוא עשה לך, שאני אתחיל להבין'. ואז הוא אמר: 'הוא פגע בי במקווה. אני לא יכול לדבר על זה. בבקשה תבדקי את האחים שלי'".

Is women's subordinate position obligatory, the optional ideal or temporary?

Lehrhaus Blog

"She Should Carry Out All Her Deeds According to His Directives:" A Halakhah in a Changed Social Reality

by Rabbi Yosef Bronstein is a professor of Jewish philosophy at Yeshiva University’s Stern College for Women and Isaac Breuer College of Hebraic Studies (IBC) Honors Program.

Similarly, our Sages commanded that a man honor his wife more than his own person, and love her as he loves his own person ... And similarly, they commanded a woman to honor her husband exceedingly and to be in awe of him. She should carry out all her deeds according to his directives, considering him to be [like] an officer or a king. She should follow the desires of his heart and shun everything that he disdains. This is the custom of holy and pure Jewish women and men in their marriages. And these ways will make their marriage pleasant and praiseworthy.

— Rambam, Hilkhot Ishut 15:19-20

In his description of the ideal Jewish marriage, Rambam differentiates the interpersonal relationship between the husband and wife from the proper hierarchy that is to be put in place. While on the interpersonal level marriage is defined by love and mutual respect, the decision-making authority remains with the husband. The wife is enjoined to act in accordance with her spouse’s will, even in instances where she disagrees. Practically, this would mean that if a couple disagrees on issues ranging from where to live, choosing a school for their children, to simply whether or not to invite guests to a Shabbat meal, the final word would be the husband’s.[1] Obviously, this description does not accord with the manner in which Western society conceives of an ideal marriage.

As is often the case, Orthodox rabbis in modern times have grappled with this problem. Does Rambam really mean what he seems to imply? If so, are his words binding for all generations? Out of this conundrum, at least three distinct interpretive approaches emerge. Part I of this essay will outline these interpretations. Part II will then use this case study to analyze a broader conceptual issue. Though these interpretations originate in an attempt to resolve a single point of conflict between one line of Rambam and a social reality, important methodological and theological assumptions can be identified in each approach. In particular, I will analyze a central debate between R. Soloveitchik and R. Kook regarding how to navigate conflicts between the words of Hazal and a changed social reality.

Part I: Three Approaches

Rav Avraham Arlinger

The simplest approach to unraveling the tension between the Rambam and contemporary mores is to undermine the validity of one of these two poles. In this vein, R. Avraham Arlinger, the former Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Kol Torah and the author of the popular series Birkat Avraham, forcefully rejects Western society’s conception of the authority-dynamic within a marriage and instead advocates adhering fully to the words of the Rambam. He writes the following:

In Tanna de-Vei Eliyahu [it states] “a proper woman is one who performs the will of her husband,” and it is cited in Rema in Shulhan Arukh (Even ha-Ezer 10:9). It appears that, since this is the way Hazal defined a proper woman, and without this quality she is not acting properly, it is fitting to educate girls from their young age for this [role], against the spirit of the time that women are partners with equal rights. Rather, they should act in accordance with the wisdom of Torah in all matters, i.e. that they are secondary (tefeilot) to men. Modesty regarding clothing is insufficient; [women] also need modesty of the mouth and heart, recognizing that in the future they will act based on their husband (see Rambam, Hilkhot Ishut 15:20), even regarding cases where her father’s behavior is different than the husband’s.[2] [...]

R. Aharon Lichtenstein

A second approach disentangles the tension by neutralizing the import of Rambam and relegating this halakhah to the realm of rabbinic advice which is not normative. While most of Rambam’s Code is clearly intended to be binding law, the above passage is introduced with the relatively rare phrase “the sages commanded.” R. Mordechai Willig, among others, surveyed Rambam’s usage of this expression and concluded that it refers to rabbinic advice as opposed to “a formal issur.”[4] Therefore, while Hazal, the Rambam felt, counselled a wife to ultimately submit to his opinion, this is not an obligatory model for Jewish marriage. As much as the original model was based on the counsel of the sages and not strict halakhah, a contemporary Torah sage can offer differing advice based on the changed societal circumstances.[5]

R. Aharon Lichtenstein presented a similar line of interpretation, though one broader in its scope.[6] He notes that there is little material in the Gemara regarding the proper relationship between husband and wife, and much of what does exist is internally contradictory. Even regarding the stories and statements that are recorded, R. Lichtenstein writes that traditional Jewish interpretation has not deemed them to be fully normative:

There exist, admittedly, some directives regarding some of these concerns. For the most part, however, they have been relegated to the realms of devar ha-reshut, an area not axiologically neutral but neither fully normative, with regard to which personal preference, with a possible eye upon meaningful variables, is characteristic. In a word, they are subject to the discussion, predilection, and decision of individual couples ... My point is simply that there is room for flexibility and mutual choice. Whether the character of a marriage is dictated by convention, contemporary mores, or conscious limning is another matter.[...]

R. Yehoshua Shapira

A third approach contends that the Torah allows for—and even anticipates—major developments in the husband-wife relationship over the course of history. Rambam, in the twelfth century, wrote that the husband should have the final word when disagreements arise. Situated as we are in a different stage of history, this position maintains, we need to find our marital guidance embedded in other Torah statements. For example, R. Yehoshua Shapira, the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Ha-Hesder Ramat Gan, was asked the following question:

“A proper woman performs the will of her husband.” [Does this mean that] a woman needs to be completely nullified without desires?

He responded as follows:

The Torah’s statement “and he will rule over her” is a curse and not a blessing. Throughout all of history this curse lay strongly on humanity and diminished the female personality. In a non-negligible way it caused the male to act like a ruler, causing, at times, the development of bad character traits. Towards the redemption we merit the removal of the curses in Genesis. [The curse] “[b]y the sweat of your brow you shall eat bread” is continuously dissolving.[7] Also, a large percentage of the dangers of childbirth and the pain of “in pain you will bear children,” is being solved with the help of medicine. So too regarding the verse “and he will rule over you.” We correctly feel that the change is taking place in our midst, but nowadays it is accompanied by a sense of anarchy as is the way of any fruit that the hard shell precedes the growth and only afterwards comes the sweet fruit about which the prophet said that in the future “female will encircle male.”[8]

R. Shapira sees the changes in Western society’s conception of the ideal power dynamic between husband and wife as the slow dissolution of a divine curse. Rambam records that a wife should submit to her husband’s will in part because of Eve’s punishment. This was reflected in the structure of marriages throughout history. Much, though, has changed. Nowadays, as the ultimate redemption draws near, the power of the curse is waning and the “pre-curse” reality of the ideal, separate-but-equal relationship is set to emerge. In such a reality, clinging to older sources as our sole navigational tools would be a rejection of redemption’s social manifestations.[...]

Rav Moshe Feinstein's views on Feminism O.C. 4:49

Concerning the Feminist Movement (translation is copyrighted)

Igros Moshe (O.C. 4:49):Question: Concerning the international Feminist movement and in particular the religious women who want to fight against matters that are governed by Torah - for example some wish to pray in a talis - you want to know my views concerning this and how to respond to it?

Answer: First of all it is necessary to know that it is one of the foundations of our pure faith that the entire Torah - both  Written or Oral were given by G-d Himself at Mt. Sinai through Moshe Rabbeinu. And that it is impossible to change even the smallest detail - either for leniency or strictness. However we have been commanded that when there is the need for protective measures and decrees then the Sanhedrin and Torah scholars are to make decrees prohibiting certain matters or to obligate doing certain matters - with the clear understanding that this is only an emergency matter for a paricular crises. However from the time we have been scattered in Exile all over the world, we no longer have this ability to impose measures on the entire Jewish nation. But we still retain the ability on the local level for the scholars to make decrees for their communities – but only for a short time.

Consequently this that the Torah exempts women from time- bound commandments - is a Torah law. And the rabbis have not made a decree to obligate them because they did not see any necessity to do so. In fact they clearly understand the need to exempt them for the reasons that the Torah exempts them as well as for reasons which are not known to the masses or even to great scholars. And we are required to believe that G-d the giver of the Torah has great reasons.   There are reasons that the masses understand e.g., that the average woman is not rich and she has the obligation to raise the children which is a task which is most important to G-d and to the Torah. Furthermore G-d created the nature in every specieis  of living things that the female raise the children - and man is no exception - and woman are the most suitable to raise the children. Because of this they have the leniency of not being obligated in Torah study as well as time bound mitzvos.

Therefore even if the nature of society changes even for all women and the rich in every generation and it is possible to give the task of raising the children to certain men and women such as in our country - the Torah law does not change and not even a rabbinic law.

Therefore it doesn't help to have any campaigns concerning this matter - because we have absolutely no ability to change the halacha - even if the entire world  agrees. Consequently those women  who are stubborn and want to fight to bring about change in these matters are considered deniers (kofrim) against the Torah.

Look at the Rambam(Hilchos Teshuva 3:8), There are three who are called deniers  in the Torah. 1) One who says that there is even one word that Moshe wrote in the Torah on his own initiative 2) One who denies an explanation which is part of the Oral Torah 3) And one who says that G-d changed a mitzva.  Each of these three  is a denier of Torah and does not have a portion of the World to Come. Even though the Rambam says that “One who says that G-d changed a mitzva,” it is obviously telling us that  the same applies even if a person claims that man has the ability to change a mitzva. That is because it is also saying that the Torah is not eternal and there a number of verses which teach us that the Torah is eternal as the Kesef Mishna explains.

It is a fact that all women can fulfill even the mitzvos that the Torah doesn't obligate and they are regarded as keeping the mitzva and they also receive reward for doing these mitzvos. In addition, according to the view of Tosfos, they also can say the beracha on these mitzvos. According to our custom they fulfil the mitzva of Shofer and Lulav and they also say the appropriate beracha. Even the mitzvva of tzitzis, it is relevant for a woman to keep - as long as the garment has  a different appearence than that worn by men -   if she wears a four cornered garment that she put tzitzis on it. It is only problematic if she wants to put on tefillin - as Tosfos (Eiruvin 96a) states that it is necessary to protest women wearing Tefilin because  extra care is required to ensure that the body is clean and that it is necessary to be aware at all times that the person is wearing tefilin. In fact it is because of these concerns that men who are obligated to wear tefilin all day only wear tefilin the short tiime while they are saying the morning prayers. That in fact is the psak of the Rema (O.C. 38:3). An additional problem is that the Targum Yonasan on the verse "that a woman should not wear that which is worn by men" says it means that women should not wear tzitzis or tefilin because they are what men wear. This disagrees with Tosfos who apparently views that this desciption is not actually part of Targum Yonason.

Nevertheless it is obivous that doing this is only for women who have a strong desire to keep the mitzvos - even those which she is not commanded to keep. Thus if this is not her motivation but rather because she has complaints against G-d and His Torah - then it is not considered fulfilling the mitzva at all and in fact the opposite is true - it is viewed as prohibited. It is prohibited as an act of heresy that she thinks it is possible that there can be changes in Torah law even when she is being stringent.

Second of all it is necessary to know that the reason that they are exempt from time bound mitzvos is not because women are on a lower level of holiness than men. Because as regarding holiness they are equal to men in terms of the relevance of being obligated in mitzvos. Because it is only from the aspect of holiness that exists in all Jews that there is an obligation to do mitzvos. Because all the verses about holiness are also said about women - whether it was at the beginning of the acceptance of Torah "And they should be for me a treasure and you shall be for me a holy people" which was said to Beis Yaakov i.e., the women and "Tell the Children of Israel" i.e., the men or whether "Holy men you shall be to Me" said in Mishpatim or "And you shall be holy" which was said in Shemini or "And holy shall you be" and "you shall be holy" in parshas Kedoshim. Or "You are a holy people for G-d" in parshas Re'ah. The rule is that every place which mentions the holiness of Jews applies also to the women. Consequently women also say the beracha with the language , "who has sanctified us with His mitzvos" as the men say on the mitzvos - even on those mitvzos which the Torah does not obligate women to do.

The reason that the Torah does not require women to perform these mitzvos is only because of a leniency that G-d decided should exist for them as we discussed before - and not because they are inferior - G-d forbid.

And amongst the obligations between a man and his wife there is the obligation that a man needs to honor and respect her and she needs to honor and respect him - without any differential. There were many women who were prophetesses and they had the full status of prophet as that found amongst the men. Furthermore in many things - whether in the Bible or the words of our Sages - they were praised more than the men. There is no degradation of the honor of women.

And in all matters in which we find that they were exempt from Torah study and time bound mitzvos - there is absolutely no cause to complain at all. Therefore you should explain in every instance and be firm and strong in your mind that these are like the laws of the Torah and to protest against those women who after all this is explained - stubbornly insist on keeping their foolish and twisted views. It is important that nothing be changed from the holy Jewish conduct.

Did Russia interfere with U.S. elections? Trump - doesn't need facts. He truly believes that he knows more than the CIA

Washington Post

The simmering distrust between Donald Trump and U.S. intelligence agencies escalated into open antagonism Saturday after the president-elect mocked a CIA report that Russian operatives had intervened in the U.S. presidential election to help him win.

The growing tensions set up a potential showdown between Trump and the nation’s top intelligence officials during what some of those officials describe as the most complex threat environment in decades.

The Washington Post reported Friday that the Central Intelligence Agency had determined that Russia had intervened in the presidential election not just to make mischief but to boost Trump’s chances.

Trump’s reaction will probably deepen an existing rift between Trump and the agencies and raised questions about how the government’s 16 spying agencies will function in his administration on matters such as counterterrorism and cyberwarfare. On Friday, members of Trump’s transition team dismissed the CIA’s assessments about Iraq’s stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

“Given his proclivity for revenge combined with his notorious thin skin, this threatens to result in a lasting relationship of distrust and ill will between the president and the intelligence community,” said Paul Pillar, former deputy director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center.

U.S. intelligence officials described mounting concern and confusion about how to proceed in an administration so openly hostile to their function and role. “I don’t know what the end game is here,” a senior U.S. intelligence official said. “After Jan. 20,” the official said, referring to Inauguration Day, “we’re in uncharted territory.”

Pillar added: “Everything Trump has indicated with regard to his character and tendencies for vindictiveness might be worse” than former president Richard Nixon, who also had a dysfunctional relationship with the intelligence community.

The tensions between Trump and spy agencies could escalate even further as dozens of analysts begin work on a project, ordered by President Obama, to deliver a comprehensive report on Russian intervention in the election before Trump’s inauguration in January.

Led by Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., the investigation is aimed at reaching a definitive judgment about the Russian role in the election. Obama aides have pledged to make as much of the report public as possible once it is completed.

“We want to make sure we brief Congress and relevant stakeholders, like possibly state administrators who actually operationalize the elections,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz told reporters Friday.

But such a report could also pose a more complicated challenge for Trump, potentially pitting the entire U.S. intelligence community against a newly sworn-in president who has repeatedly denigrated their work.

The Post reported late Friday that the CIA had concluded that individuals with close ties to the Russian government delivered thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee, including from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, to WikiLeaks a few weeks before the election. Intelligence officials have determined that Russia’s goal was to help Trump win, rather than simply undermine confidence in the election.

In a statement, Trump suggested that the CIA had discredited itself over faulty intelligence assessments about Iraq’s weapons stockpile more than a dozen years ago.

“These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” he said.

The belittling response alarmed people in the intelligence community, which already had questioned Trump’s temperament and lack of national security experience. Despite mounting evidence over Moscow’s involvement in a hack of the Democratic National Committee, Trump has consistently refused to entertain any doubts about the Russians’ role or about Russian President Vladi­mir Putin.

The president-elect has spoken admiringly of Putin in the past, calling him a stronger leader than Obama, and one of Trump’s former campaign managers had business associations with Russian companies.

“I don’t believe it. I don’t believe they interfered,” Trump told Time magazine of the Russians in a recent interview during which he suggested the accusations from the United States were politically driven.

Instead, Trump took direct aim at the professional spies charged with assessing what Clapper in September called the “most complex and diverse array of global threats” in his 53 years of service.[...]

Since his electoral triumph last month, Trump has attended only a limited number of intelligence briefings, and he appointed as his national security adviser retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, who was forced out of his job as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency by Obama administration officials. [...]

Trump’s transition aides have explained his unwillingness to make time for more intelligence briefings as a consequence of his busy schedule building an administration and selecting Cabinet members. Vice President-elect Mike Pence has reportedly attended such briefings most days.

But Trump’s approach has contrasted with that of his predecessors, including Obama and George W. Bush, who attended multiple briefings each week leading up to their inaugurations.

In his statement, Trump emphasized that the election was over and vowed to “move on,” and he did not, as is his habit, react to the CIA story on social media in the hours after it was published.

Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: Who should be honored with sandek for the mamzer?

There have been rumors circulating Philadelphia about the birth of a mamzer.

Since both R Kaminetsky and R Greenblatt have accepted Tamar's illegitimate marriage that occurred without getting divorced from her first husband, what does the halacha say about the priority of honoring these rabbis when she gives birth to a mamzer. Should it be R Kaminetsky because he was responsible for conceiving and engineering the "heter" or should it be R Greenblatt for giving the "heter" and marrying her to her second husband. Or perhaps it should be R Sholom Kaminetsky for doing all the work of running around the world shopping for a posek who would rubber stamp the "heter" that he and his father cooked up based on the phony psychiatrist report? After all there are not that many poskim who would be so irresponsible as to refuse to investigate any of the "facts" by claiming to do so would be an insult to Daas Torah. Truly an Ish Tam!

I am sure they are as proud of their success in producing a mamzer as are their many students and supporters. Perhaps the Aguda should declare a joint day of rejoicing for the corruption of halacha with the Philly Yeshiva - maybe even get Lakewood involved. After all their own heroic silence in the face of such a blatant violation of halacha surely should not go unrewarded? I am sure they will also give proper recognition to Rav Dovid Feinstein - who have after carefully establishing that the "heter" was garbage - restrained his halachic instincts and said nothing to the couple about separating - merely noting he gave a private psak for R Shmuel! After all, "It's not in my back yard." Something I am sure he learned from the Noviminsker Rebbe's pronouncement on sexual abuse in Yeshiva Torah Temima.

Of course we can't leave out ORA from the honorees for this event nor their halachic advisor R Herschel Schacter - who has been uncharacteristically silent about his alleged disapproval for the heter. We should also include not only the Washington Beis Din for improper interference in the matter but the Silver Springs community - that has continued to show that they are people of principle - though not of halacha - by boycotting Aharon Friedman for not given a get. This despite the fact that the authorized Baltimore Beis Din said that he had no obligation to give one.

Yes I am sure that there will be many people who will join in celebrating the birth of this mamzer - after all the hard work they have put in to help produce it.  I am sure everyone will want to contribute - not only a donation to the Philly Yeshiva but also send a present to the mamzer himself.  Don't forget to include a personal note of appreciation and gratitude for such gedolim. And of course don't forget to include a line that you are sure that Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky zt"l is getting much nachas from his son's and grandson's activities.

Yes with such an inspiring support of Daas Torah - this mamzer has a bright future ahead of him. I am sure he can look forward to one day marrying one of the granddaughters of these gedolim.

SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL, SPEAK NO EVIL!

Police arrest R' David Harrison on charges of rape at a Jerusalem seminary

Haaretz

Jerusalem police arrested a 60-year-old local rabbi on Wednesday on suspicion of raping a 14-year-old student several years ago at the ulpana (religious girls’ high school) in which he taught. His remand was extended until next Wednesday.

The woman, now aged 20, filed a complaint with the police a few days ago. She claimed that the suspect, Rabbi David Harrison, committed various sexual crimes against her, including rape, when she was 14. Harrison was arrested following a police investigation, during which they questioned the woman’s family and people from the school.

The Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court extended his remand until next Wednesday, with the judge rejecting a request by Harrison's attorney that he not be identified publicly.

A police representative testified at the hearing that, “a woman of about 21 filed a lengthy and detailed complaint against the respondent in early December. She said that when she was in ninth grade in the ulpana, the respondent was a rabbi there and started committing sexual acts on her until one time he had intercourse with her. She said this happened to her numerous times, inside the school, under intimidation.”

At one point in the hearing, Harrison's attorney Yehuda Shoshan suggested that the woman had filed the complaint as a way of explaining to her husband why she was not a virgin. He argued that the plaintiff’s claims were not credible, given the structure of the school and its schedule.

“It doesn’t make sense, which is why I asked if she had intercourse with anyone else, because it’s a known thing that when religious women marry young and they’ve already lost their virginity, they find a way to explain this away,” Shoshan said. “If they were to admit that they’d had sex outside of marriage, they would be considered untouchable in their society, so it’s not farfetched to point out that this complaint arose close to the time of the plaintiff’s marriage.”[...]

The judge accepted the position of the police that there was reasonable suspicion that crimes were committed. “On the basis of the investigative material presented to me, it appears that the respondent, when he was a staff member at the ulpana, did commit the alleged offenses, which are serious sex crimes, against a 14-year-old girl," he said.

"The minor’s emotional state was shaken and her functioning was adversely affected at the time... The complainant has provided very detailed testimony, which has been verified by external factors.”

Russian Hackers Acted to Aid Trump in Election, U.S. Says

NY Times

American intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials.

They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.

In the months before the election, it was largely documents from Democratic Party systems that were leaked to the public. Intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russians gave the Democrats’ documents to WikiLeaks.

Republicans have a different explanation for why no documents from their networks were ever released. Over the past several months, officials from the Republican committee have consistently said that their networks were not compromised, asserting that only the accounts of individual Republicans were attacked. On Friday, a senior committee official said he had no comment.[...]

“We now have high confidence that they hacked the D.N.C. and the R.N.C., and conspicuously released no documents” from the Republican organization, one senior administration official said, referring to the Russians.[...]

The finding about the Republican committee is expected to be included in a detailed report of “lessons learned” that Mr. Obama has ordered intelligence agencies to assemble before he leaves office on Jan. 20. That report is intended, in part, to create a comprehensive history of the Russian effort to influence the election, and to solidify the intelligence findings before Mr. Trump is sworn in.

Mr. Trump has repeatedly cast doubt about any intelligence suggesting a Russian effort to influence the election. “I don’t believe they interfered,” he told Time magazine in an interview published this week. He suggested that hackers could come from China, or that “it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey.”[...]

Thank you, Trump voters, for this wonderful joke

Washington Post  By Garrison Keillor 

It’s a wonderful satire right out of Twain or Thurber. A minority of the electorate goes for the loosest and least knowledgeable candidate, certain that he will lose and their votes will be only harmless protest, a middle finger to Washington, and then — whoa. The joke comes true. You put a whoopee cushion on your father’s chair and he sits down and it barks and he has a massive coronary. You wanted to get a rise out of him and instead he falls down dead. Very funny.

Thank you, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for this wonderful joke. Voters in high dudgeon against Wall Street manipulators and the Washington aristocracy vote for the billionaire populist who puts tycoons in power and the Republican hierarchy who owned the logjam that the voters voted against. If Billy the Kid had been smart, he’d’ve run for sheriff.

And now we sit and watch in disbelief as the victor drops one piece of china after another, spits in the soup, sticks his fist through a painting and gobbles up the chocolates. Not satisfied with the usual election night victory speech, he stages a post-election victory tour and gloatfest, a series of rallies in arenas where he can waggle his thumbs and smirk and holler and point out the journalists in their pen for the mob to boo and shake their fists at. He puts the Secret Service through their paces, highways are closed, planes diverted, cities disrupted, just so the man can say how much fun it was to defeat Hillary Clinton and confound the experts.

I stood in an airport last Thursday and watched live cable news coverage of his first stop in Indiana where he toured a factory whose owner had been promised a $7 million tax break in return for not laying off 800 workers. In November, 178,000 jobs were created and unemployment fell, and here was a platoon of journalists in Indiana trailing a big galoot with a red tie who offered a corporation $7 million not to lose 800 workers. No gain, simply a non-loss. It was a classic TV moment, extensive live coverage of essentially nothing whatsoever and we all stood in a stupor and watched, like people mesmerized by drops of rain sliding down a windowpane.

Eighty thousand Trump voters in three states gave us this man, which goes to show you how much damage a few people can do. It takes 12 million to provide health care, 3 million to run the public schools, but 19 men with box cutters can turn the country upside down and empower the paranoid right and create the pretense for wars that will cost billions and kill a million people and give us a permanent army of blue uniforms yelling at us to take off our shoes and put our laptops into plastic trays.

He is a showman, and oddity has paid off for him, as it did for Lady Gaga and Gorgeous George and Liberace. But the public demands new tricks. Today, railing at the journalists who slavishly cover him is, like bear-baiting or lion-taming, entertainment enough, but by next fall he will need to pull canaries out of his ears, and by 2018 he’ll be diving on horseback from a high tower into a pool of water while playing “Malagueña” on a trumpet. Meanwhile, the Democrats wander in the woods, walking into trees. A wealthy San Francisco liberal is reelected as minority leader in the House, having flung millions into the wind and gotten skunked in 2014 and drubbed this fall, and a lackluster black Muslim congressman from Minneapolis is a leading candidate for chair of the Democratic National Committee, the person who will need to connect with disaffected workers in Youngstown and Pittsburgh. Why not a ballet dancer or a Buddhist monk?

Meanwhile, the emperor-elect parades in the nude while his congressional courtiers admire him and the nation drifts toward the rapids. The one bright spot is the old draft-dodger’s newfound fondness for generals, including the one who talked him out of the idea of torturing prisoners of war. Military experience does encourage a certain respect for reality. There is hope that if the showman should decide late one night to incinerate Iran or North Korea and get it over with, someone might say, “Hold on. Let’s think this through.”

Woman's purpose is to be subordinate and supportive of the Man: Rav Dessler

It has become obvious that the true attitude of Judaism towards women has become deliberately obscured or ignored in the modern age. The consensus that women are subordinate to men is a message is that not welcome by many and clearly goes against the values of our present society. There are those who try to explain that this subordination means that  women are more important, or more spiritual or at least equal to a man. However that is not an accurate understanding of the consensus of accepted Torah sources and it is at best a distortion of what words mean. The question and challenge for us is whether we accept this message or we develop an alternative view of true equality and individuality or do we simply continue in a state of confusion and denial?



Update: The Maharal states that women do not accept being subordinate and consequently are more devastated when not treated properly

Maharal (Bava Metzia 59a): Rav said that a person should always be carefully not to oppress his wife because since she is sensitive and readily cries it is easy to make her feel oppressed. Thus we see that it is only his wife that he needs to be exceedingly careful not to hurt her feelings since she is ruled by him and therefore is much more likely to cry than other people who are not so easily oppressed. In other words because his wife is under his control she is more likely to be hurt by his words and cry when he wrongs her. In contrast a non Jewish slave is by nature not so affected by oppression and even a female Jewish slave does not readily cry because she has accepted the servitude to her master. Furthermore a female slave was not created for the purpose of being under his domain. It is only the wife who was created to be under the rule of her husband and as it says (Bereishis 3:16), And he shall rule over you. Therefore when she is oppressed it has a very strong impact on her. Furthermore in truth a wife does not accept being ruled by her husband because she views herself as his equal. In contrast a slave fully accepts that his master rules over him and therefore is not impacted as much as a wife who views herself as important and therefore is devastated when she is not treated with care.

Maharal (Nesiv Ahavas Re’ah 2): Bava Metzia (59a): All the heavenly gates are locked except the gate for those who have been verbally abused (ona’ah)…R’ Eliezar said that every transgression is punished by means of an intermediary except for that of ona’ah which is punished directly by G d. R’ Abahu said that there are three things for which access to heaven is not blocked – ona’ah, theft and idolatry… These are the words of the gemora. It is important to understand these words because the Sages are alluding to a very deep understanding of the nature of ona’ah. First of all it is important to know that there is a major difference between verbal ona’ah and hurting somebody through a physical beating. That is because verbal ona’ah specifically affects the soul of man when he is insulted. On the other hand there is no such thing as ona’ah in reference to the physical body. There is nothing that ona’ah can do to the body. We see this idea in Shemos (22:9): Don’t wrong the ger or oppress him but you know the soul of the ger. The Torah connects ona’ah with the soul which receives the ona’ah. Also all embarrassment is to the soul, as we will explain. Furthermore since ona’ah is to the soul and the soul is in G d’s hand as is stated in Vayikra Rabba (4:1)…the soul and justice are in G d’s left hand… Because of this the soul which suffers wrong is in fact in G d’s hand…Furthermore someone who insults and abuses another person shows that he does not consider that his victim has any importance or existence at all. He treats the victim as a non-entity… There are other matters for which the ona’ah is ever more severe. Bava Metzia (59a): A person should always be careful not to distress his wife because since she readily cries she is more readily distressed. The explanation of this that a person should be particularly careful with his wife because the woman is controlled by her husband and therefore her tears are much more common. Distressing another person is not so devastating. But concerning his wife since she is under his domain and if he should distress her verbally – she readily cries. In contrast the Jewish slave is not so affected by nature. Even a Jewish woman slave does not readily cry because she has accepted the state of servitude to her master on her own. However even though the wife is under the control of her husband, nevertheless she views her self as being a important. Therefore if there were any distress or insult against her from her husband she is strongly devastated – consequently she readily cries.


Additional sources of wife's is required to be subordinate to husband:

Rashi (Bereishis 1:28): And conquer the world – this word is spelled without a “vav” which allows it to be read as “he should conquer her”. This teaches that the male should conquer the female so that she doesn’t go out freely and regularly. (Bereishis Rabba 8:12). It also teaches that it is the man whose nature is to conquer is given the command to have children and not the woman (Yevamos 65b).

Tanna D'Vei Eliyahu Rabba (9): Why was Yael different than all the other women in that a great salvation of Israel came about through her hands and she killed the enemy general Sisra? Our Sages say that it was because she was a proper (kosher) woman and did the will of her husband. From this our Sages say that there is no proper woman except one who does the will of her husband.

Sefas Emes (Bereishis 3:16): And even though this is a good characteristic for a woman [not to ask directly for sexual intercourse]. The gemora that states that it is a good characteristic for a woman might be understood to mean that it is good because she hasn’t deviated from that which G d commanded and therefore she doesn’t ask directly for sexual relations as the result of being cursed by G d (Maharsal). And the reason that Rashi goes into what seems unnecessary length since he has already explained that she is not brazen...is to emphaze that everything in their relationship is up to the husband. Thus even though she doesn’t want intercourse but he does he can pressure her to comply. Or if he isn’t interetested in sexual relations, then even though she is interested she can not force him. That is the significance of Rash stating, “It is from him and not from her.”

Toras Chaim (Eiruvin 18a): Originally G d thought to create two human beings but in the end He only created one. Because if He created two, then both would be on the same level and the wife would not be subordinate to her husband and there would be fights between them. Therefore He only created one and the woman was created from the tail so that the husband should be the more important one and she should be subordinate to him. But what is the need to have a verse describing G d’s thoughts since it didn’t actually happen – and it seems to be just a history lesson. A possible answer is that the thoughts of G d are definitely brought into fruition. That means that a person who doesn’t merit, his wife will rule over him and she will not be subordinate to him – just as the initial thoughts of G d. This is expressed by the statement that if he merits she will help him and be subordinate to him. If he does not merit she will be his opponent because they are now equal in level and she will not obey him.

Bereishis Rabbah (8:12): And subdue her – A man is required to rule over his wife so that she doesn’t go out to the market. That is because every woman who goes out to the market place will eventually come to grief. This is learned from Dina as it says in Bereishis (34:1) And Dinah went out…and she got into trouble as it says and Shechem saw her. R’ Chanina says the law is in accord with this view.

Eiruvin (100b): She is wrapped like a mourner, banished from all man and imprisoned in a jail [because the honor of the king’s daughter is within – Rashi].

Menoras Hame’or (2:176): 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.

Menoras HaMe’or (Marriage Chapter 10 page 34): There was a certain woman who made a wedding for her daughter. When she took her to her chasan’s house she said to her, “My daughter you should stand before your husband and serve him with awe and then he will lower himself with you and will become like your servant and honor you as royalty. However if you insist on dominating him then he in turn will dominate you and will not consider you have any significance and he will act as your master and you will be in his eyes debased like as slave.”

Ohr HaChaim (Bereishis 3:16): And to the woman He said...Corresponding to the issue of lust... G d said, And to your husband will be your desire that you will lust after him constantly. There is in this two aspects of the curse. 1) She will lust but will not have the freedom to satisfy it rather it will all depend on her husband and this aspect is also included in the statement “He will rule over you.” 2) In reality her desire is never fully satiated. This is a major difference between men and women. A man is capable of being fully satiated while a woman can not. It is truly a great curse that she is never able to satisfy her desires. ... In addition she thought she would remove G d’s great control because she wanted to be like G d...and as punishment G d added another layer of control and subjugation - 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.

Melamed HaTalmidim (Miketz): And thus it is proper that every husband should rule over his wife. It is an embarrassment for him when his wife rules over him. And surely when his wife is constantly with him it is necessary to rule over her. If he does so then it is proper that he be included in the group of the perfectly righteous.

Rav S. R. Hirsch (Bereishis 4:7): And to your husband will be your desire and he will rule over you. This versus describes the relationship between the woman and her husband. The intent or this verse is clearly not describing a situation of constant warfare. As if the woman is always plotting against the man and tries to conquer him but the man is stronger and because of that he always is the dominant partner. Rather the verse is describing the longing the wife has for her beloved husband and she finds fulfillment to her essential being by devoting herself totally to the desires of the man and accepting the activities of her husband.

Rabbeinu Bachye (Bereishis 3:16): And he will rule over you – this punishment – that the husband should be the ruler and tells her what to do – is because she ordered him to eat from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and thus it was measure for meaure.

Rabbeinu Bachye (Bereishis 3:16): And towards your husband will be your desire – Even though the wife is enslaved under the control of her husband and the normal situation is that a slave escapes from its master in order not to be enslaved – but there was a Divine decree that her desire should be to her husband. She therefore wants to be enslaved by him. Thus her behavior is the opposite of the normal way.

Ibn Ezra (Bereishis 3:16): And your desire – meaning your obediance. The reason why you will obey all that he commands you is because you are in his control to do as he wants.

Esther (1:22): Every man should be the master of his house and his household should speak his language.

Rashi (Esther 1:22): And speak his language - He can force his wife to learn his language if she is only fluent in another language.

Ibn Ezra (Esther 1:22): He should be the master of the house - That means he rules over his wife and she should not deviate from the customs of those who speak his language – not even to speak a different language...

Rashi (Devarim 22:16): And the father of the girl spoke – This teaches that a woman is not allowed to speak in the presence of a man [if the matter concerns him also].

Redak (Bereishis 3:16): And to your desire will to your husband - And even though giving birth will be painful, nevertheless you will still have a strong lust to have sexual intercourse with your husband. And he will rule over you – to order you to do what he wants like a master rules his slave.

Rashi (Bereishis 3:16): And your desire will be to your husband – to have sexual relations even though you are not so arrogant as to directly ask for it. And he will rule over you because everything is from him and not from you.

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.

Torah Temima (Bereishis 3:16): And he will rule over you - we learn from this that a woman asks for intercourse through her actions while the man asks for it directly and this is a good trait for women (Eiruvin 100b). Even though the trait of modesty is a good trait, nevertheless it is a curse that she can’t openly express her desires to her husband. It should be noted that this doesn’t explain the language “And he will rule over you” in terms of its literal meaning of having a master… Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezar (Chapter 14) notes that this is one of the curses of a woman and she should have her ear bored as a permanent slave and as a maidservant. The Radal says that this teaches that it has been decreed that a woman always has to pay attention to the words of her husband. It is logical that the reason for the practice of piercing a woman’s ears for jewelry is an allusion to the fact that she is enslaved to her husband as is noted in Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezar. If so then why isn’t the expression in this verse “He shall rule over you” explained according to this understanding [and instead the gemora says it means that she can’t asked openly for intercourse]? … Nevertheless it definitely would appear that the verse doesn’t lose its literal meaning and that is also meant. Therefore in terms of the relationship of a husband and wife, the wife is obligated to accepted the authority of her husband as we find in the Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 15:20): “Our Sages have commanded that the wife view her husband as a king and lord.” Aside from the language of this verse this idea of ruler ship can also be seen in the Sifre…that a woman does not have permission to speak before her husband. This is also possibly the source that Pesachim (108a) that a woman does not have to recline at the Pesach Seder in the presence of her husband. The reason being that he rules over her. She is exempt in the same way that a student is in the presence of his teacher. He cannot recline in the manner of freedom because of his fear and respect of his teacher. It is logical that this is the reason that a woman who does not fulfill the wishes of her husband is called a moredes (rebel). Since it is an obligation to accept him as king and lord [as stated in Rambam] therefore when she does the opposite - it as if she had rebelled against the kingdom. …

Chasam Sofer (Chullin 142a): There is no question that the main issue at Mt. Sinai was that men listen. In other words that they listen and accept the yoke of Torah and mitzvos in their hearts. However in contrast to the women, there was no such concern for their acceptance in their hearts. Women needed to learn enough so that they would not say, “I don’t know” or “I didn’t hear” about this mitzva ever. However there was no concern for their acceptance of the yoke of Torah. That is because it is the obligation of the husband to force all the members of his household to serve G d. G d wants it that way so that the Torah is not dependent on women who are not serious. She needs to follow after the direction of her husband. Therefore the hearing and accepting of the Torah was connected to the men while only superficial learning was associated with the women. Then the children would come and see this amazing thing of how their fathers subjugated themselves to G d and His Torah and they would grow up also being G d fearing

Daas Zekeinim of Baalei Tosfos (Bereishis 3:16): There is a difficulty: why was the woman created from a rib, and not some other organ? So that she should be bent at the ribs and subservient to her husband.

Zohar (1:22a): A woman can not doing anything without the consent of her husband.

Michtav M’Eliyahu (volume 4 page 116): Eiruvin(18a) states that initially Adam and Eve were created with a single body that had two faces (partzuf) and that afterwards they were separated into two distinct individuals. The “body” (guf) is defined as the lowest aspect of the soul (as we explain elsewhere). And that is where man has his free-will. And this that Adam and Eve shared a common body means that initially the woman was not created except to enable man to have offspring – and therefore she didn’t have independence and free-will. But rather their free-will i.e., their body was one. It is important to understand that Adam was extremely wise i.e., his comprehension of truth was great. We can see this from that fact that he gave names to all the living creatures. That means that he was able to recognize the true nature and purpose of all creation. Thus the Torah says that all the names that Adam gave – that in fact was the creature’s name i.e., that Adam’s understanding was in agreement with that of G-d’s. (Chizkuni). In addition Adam himself had not sinned in any manner and in fact had not even thought of sinning. This can be seen from the fact that later he did not eat from the Tree of Life except to do what his wife wanted. That is because his comprehension was so great that when he was the sole agent of free-will it was impossible to seduce or corrput him. At that point before they were separated, there was no equality between the force of the Good Inclination and the force of the Bad Inclination. Therefore G-d separated the woman from him and gave the woman her own free-will. By this separation G-d strengthened the power of the Evil Inclination until between the both of them there was now an equality between the strength of the Good Inclination and the Bad Inclination. (This of course is understood to be according to their level in the Garden of Eden.) The question is why were they created in this manner with a single body and then separated – in a manner that the Evil Inclination was not a meaningful force against the Good Inclination? The answer was that it was done in order to establish the predominance of the Good Inclination and to strengthen man’s recognition of truth. In this way he would be aided later on against the seduction of the Evil Inclination. So in the initial creation, woman was only a utensil for the man and she had no independent free-will as we explained before.

In truth, even now the woman’s nature and free-will is to be a utensil for the man as it states in (Sanhedrin 22a), A woman is unformed (golem) and doesn't not establish a covenant except with the man who makes her into a utensil. Thus the nature of woman is to experience respect and importance through the respect and importance given to her husband. [This can be explained by saying that the purpose of the woman is from the aspect of “ner mitzvah” (the candle of a mitzva) while that of the man is from the aspect of “Torah ohr” (the light of the Torah). [See Zohar Teruma 166a). Thus the work of the woman is in preparing and fixing the material aspects of the mitzva and good deeds i.e. the preparation of the candle (the physical needs i.e., the home). In contrast the work of the man is to become elevated in Torah and to light the candle with the light of the Torah so that the spiritual light of the Torah fills the home. And just like a candle with the fire is nothing so is the fire without a candle – because it can not provide illumination (Zohar Teruma 166a). Thus the work of the man and the work of the woman complement and complete each other].