Michal & Palti: Sansa & Tyrion

Those of you who read A Song of Ice and Fire, now more popularly known as the books that spawned the 'Game of Thrones' TV show, may have noticed by now that the book is positively biblical, which is probably why those of us who are Tanakh lovers enjoy it so much. In any case, I thought of a connection between Sansa & Tyrion and the Talmudic interpretation of Michal and Palti ben Layish.

(This is spoilery for people who have not read the books, although it will most likely come up in tonight's show).

In A Storm of Swords, Tyrion, a dwarf, is to be wedded to Sansa Stark. After they actually are wedded, the following very poignant speech is given by the dwarf:

"Sansa." The hand was gone. "Open your eyes." 

She had promised to obey; she opened her eyes. He was sitting by her feet, naked. Where his legs joined, his man's staff poked up stiff and hard from a thicket of coarse yellow hair, but it was the only thing about him that was straight. 

"My lady," Tyrion said, "you are lovely, make no mistake, but … I cannot do this. My father be damned. We will wait. The turn of a moon, a year, a season, however long it takes. Until you have come to know me better, and perhaps to trust me a little." His smile might have been meant to be reassuring, but without a nose it only made him look more grotesque and sinister. 

Look at him, Sansa told herself, look at your husband, at all of him, Septa Mordane said all men are beautiful, find his beauty, try. She stared at the stunted legs, the swollen brutish brow, the green eye and the black one, the raw stump of his nose and crooked pink scar, the coarse tangle of black and gold hair that passed for his beard. Even his manhood was ugly, thick and veined, with a bulbous purple head. This is not right, this is not fair, how have I sinned that the gods would do this to me, how? 

"On my honor as a Lannister," the Imp said, "I will not touch you until you want me to."
it took all the courage that was in her to look in those mismatched eyes and say, "And if I never want you to, my lord?" 

His mouth jerked as if she had slapped him. "Never?" 

Her neck was so tight she could scarcely nod. 

"Why," he said, "that is why the gods made whores for imps like me." He closed his short blunt fingers into a fist, and climbed down off the bed.

Even though Tyrion is Sansa's lawful husband, and for the sake of the kingdom and his father Tywin he needs to sleep with Sansa, he prefers to wait for her acquiescence rather than consummating the marriage. And he will wait forever, if need be.

It occurred to me that this scene nicely parallels the Talmudic interpretation of Palti ben Layish's marriage to Michal, daughter of Saul and wife of David. In Sanhedrin 19b, we read:

 כתיב פלטי וכתיב פלטיאל אמר ר' יוחנן פלטי שמו ולמה נקרא שמו פלטיאל שפלטו אל מן העבירה מה עשה נעץ חרב בינו לבינה אמר כל העוסק בדבר זה ידקר בחרב זה והכתיב (שמואל ב ג) וילך אתה אישה שנעשה לה כאישה והכתיב (שמואל ב ג) הלוך ובכה על המצוה דאזיל מיניה עד בחורים שנעשו שניהם כבחורים שלא טעמו טעם ביאה אמר רבי יוחנן תוקפו של יוסף ענוותנותו של בועז תוקפו של בועז ענוותנותו של פלטי בן ליש תוקפו של יוסף ענוותנותו של בועז  

[The second husband of David's undivorced wife] is variously called Palti⁴²  and Paltiel!⁴³  — R. Johanan said: His name was really Palti, but why was he called Paltiel? Because God saved him from transgression.⁴⁴  What did he do [to be delivered from sin]? He planted a sword between her [Michal] and himself, and said, Whoever [first] attempts this thing,⁴⁵  shall be pierced with this sword. But is it not stated: And her husband [Palti] went with her?⁴⁶  — This means that he was to her like a husband.⁴⁷  But is it not written, He went weeping? — This was for losing the good deed [of self-restraint]. Hence [he followed her] to Bahurim, implying that they both had remained like unmarried youths⁴⁸  and not tasted the pleasure of marital relations.
R. Johanan said: Joseph's strong [temptation]⁴⁹  was but a petty trial to Boaz;⁵⁰  and that of Boaz was small in comparison with that of Palti son of Layish.
  

In both of these situations, a man who ostensibly wishes to sleep with his beautiful wife refrains from doing so, either because a) it was not her choice to wed him, and he does not wish to force her or b) she is still married to another man. Each man exercises supreme self control, and it's always cool to see a modern example of an ancient event.

The Great Gatsby: A Film Review

This review is chock full of spoilers.

I just came back from "The Great Gatsby" as directed by Baz Luhrmann. I have not enjoyed a book-to-movie adaptation this much since "Atonement," which came out in 2007. I know a movie is good when as I walk out of the theater, I want to walk back in again in order to watch it once more.

Luhrmann's production is ingenious for many reasons. First, all of the actors are superbly cast (with the possible exception of George, who seemed a bit melodramatic to me). Second, the opulence and decadence of the New York lifestyle in the 1920s is stunningly displayed. Colors could not be more vivid, costumes could not be more grand, and houses could not be more magnificent. But what I found particularly superb was the way that Luhrmann was able to marry contemporary music and figures to a story set within a certain period.

I believe great literature is timeless, and therefore that its messages should be able to reach us regardless of time or setting. What Luhrmann has done by using music by Jay-Z, Florence and the Machine and others is contemporize a book that would otherwise simply appear dull to the masses. I looked around the movie theater and I saw people of all walks of life and all ages, and it's fantastic that so many people are coming out to partake of a film which is steeped in culture. The messages of decadence, hypocrisy, opulence, obsession and the promise of the great American dream remain, and they are transformed by the music and the rich color into becoming relevant. And that is what great literature should be, at the last: relevant. 

There were some scenes I particularly loved in the movie. First, Nick Carroway is meant to be an unreliable narrator, and I was curious to see how they would portray that in the film. They had the film open in a Sanitarium where Nick's patient file is seen, under which there are the headings 'Morbid alcoholism' and 'instigator of fights' and so forth, so you automatically know he may not be entirely trustworthy. I also loved the contrast between the winter season in which the sanitarium is set and Nick's weary, timeworn face (creased, with a 5 o'clock shadow or actual stubble) and the vivid, energetic parties that Gatsby throws.

The scenes that focus on the lower-class or working-class were also brilliant in that the entire setting was washed out in comparison to the wealthy upper-class. When the car traveled there, you saw a shift between technicolor and dark black-and-white scenes. Everyone is layered in dirt, grime and coal; the clothing looks washed out. Tom's mistress' clothing and attitude is portrayed as raunchier and dirtier than those of her counterparts attending Gatsby's parties. Her lipstick and her makeup is too gauche.

There's a set of eyes painted on a blue canvas that represent the advertisement of an ocular shop (Doctor T. J. Eckleburg), but in the movie symbolize the eyes of God. While some of the symbolism in the film is extremely overt (such as the eyes and the green light that Gatsby sees), some of them are exquisitely subtle. For instance, when Tom marries Daisy, we learn he has purchased pearls for her that cost something in the realm of $300,000 dollars. We see his hand on the pearls, gripped around her neck, and it's a clear symbol of her subservience to him and the fact that she is a trophy wife. It's deliciously ironic, of course, that his mistress is also wearing pearls when she is hit by Daisy and dies.

Gatsby is portrayed in the film as an obsessive romantic. There are moments of humor in his obsession, especially when he asks Nick to invite Daisy over for tea at his cottage. (Incidentally, all of the settings are meant to depict the owner's status. Gatsby's wildly opulent mansion shows that he is new money, Nick's sweet cottage that he is poor but respectable, and Buchanan's orderly, manicured lawns depict his conservative old money wealth/ attitude). The scene where the four of them are in the hotel was fantastic- especially because of Tom's contempt for Gatsby when Gatsby is about to resort to using his fists.

Now let's talk about Daisy. In this film's interpretation of Daisy, she is a victim throughout. She is torn between Gatsby and Tom and cannot choose; she is too frail, too fragile. She loves illusion and cannot surrender it. She is a woman without much will; she does whatever the dominant man in her life tells her to do. Of course, she is also careless, as Nick characterizes her, and smashes things and doesn't fix them. We see she is an irresponsible mother. But in my reading of the book, Daisy is far more manipulative, much more to blame, much more evil. In this film adaptation we see her sweetness; in my reading, she is more subtle, dangerous, easier to hate, much more culpable for everything that befalls her. (For example, in the famous scene in the hotel, some interpret Daisy as having been moved by Tom's 'husky' declaration of ardent love; I always thought that she just didn't want to tie her fortunes to those of a bootlegger and therefore she changed her tune.) While I don't agree with this portrayal of her, I found the acting compelling nonetheless. I loved the scene where we met her with all the billowing white curtains, and also the scene with the shirts. But I don't think the movie did a good enough job of showing her distaste with the new money, as portrayed in the book:

“I like her,” said Daisy, “I think she’s lovely.”

But the rest offended her — and inarguably, because it wasn’t a gesture but an emotion. She was appalled by West Egg, this unprecedented “place” that Broadway had begotten upon a Long Island fishing village — appalled by its raw vigor that chafed under the old euphemisms and by the too obtrusive fate that herded its inhabitants along a short-cut from nothing to nothing. She saw something awful in the very simplicity she failed to understand.

I loved the ending to the movie, because they allowed the typewritten letters that form the last sentences of the book to float over the scenery, and the effect was incredible. They also used this when they showed Gatsby first falling in love with Daisy and realizing his mind would never romp like that of God's again. It was just really beautiful.

Mother's Day: A Painful Day?

As a child, I really enjoyed Mother's Day. I would take out my chalk and mark up the sidewalk in front of our house and our neighbor's house in giant letters, spelling out the words 'Happy Mother's Day.'

If any neighbors of mine did not have children right away, I in my innocence assumed they were having difficulty and prayed for them to have children.

There was an event recently that I attended where mothers were honored. And as I watched all the mothers take the dais, what went through my mind was: Mother's Day is really hard on some people.

Because now I know. I've been introduced to the world where people I know, people I am friends with, are struggling to become mothers, to stay mothers.

There is an individual that I know, who I went to school with, who has been struggling to become a mother over the past five years. Not only has she been struggling with infertility, but she has also been struggling with the death of her children once they were born. You can read an incredibly soul-wrenching post that she wrote here. I look at her, at her struggle, at her journey, and I just think that Mother's Day must feel like a punch in the gut to her. She must look at all the advertisements, the cards, balloons and happy flowers, and it must just hurt.

Then we have another friend who lost her daughter to SIDS. She wrote about her daughter here and about learning how to mother again after losing her daughter to SIDS here.  This woman is now a mother to other adorable children, but I imagine that every Mother's Day, as her children present her with her cards and gifts, she remembers her other child, her daughter, and that this hurts, too.

And this is to say nothing of the children who have lost their mothers. I have a good friend whose mother died of cancer, and it must be hard to watch the world as a whole celebrate this day while missing your own parent.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have this holiday or shouldn't appreciate our mothers. But I now have a different perspective on it. The holiday that brings so much joy to some causes pain to others. I feel it's appropriate to publicly note and honor those individuals struggling to become mothers, struggling to mother through the pain of losing a child, or struggling because they do not have a living mother. For them, too, it's Mother's Day- but their associations with the day may be much sadder.

If it is at all possible on this day to reach out to someone you know who might be struggling, that might be appropriate as well. Just to say: Hey. I know this day is hard on you. I'm there for you. I love you. Tomorrow will be a better (and hopefully less painful) day.

Poetic Justice in the Deaths of Avner and Amassa?

I had a thought.

In the story of the massacre of the Kohanim of Nov by Doeg, King Saul first asks his advisors to put the priests to death. We find this in I Samuel 22:17:

יז  וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ לָרָצִים הַנִּצָּבִים עָלָיו סֹבּוּ וְהָמִיתוּ כֹּהֲנֵי יְהוָה, כִּי גַם-יָדָם עִם-דָּוִד, וְכִי יָדְעוּ כִּי-בֹרֵחַ הוּא, וְלֹא גָלוּ אֶת-אזנו (אָזְנִי); וְלֹא-אָבוּ עַבְדֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ, לִשְׁלֹחַ אֶת-יָדָם, לִפְגֹעַ, בְּכֹהֲנֵי יְהוָה.  {ס}

17 And the king said unto the guard that stood about him: 'Turn, and slay the priests of the LORD; because their hand also is with David, and because they knew that he fled, and did not disclose it to me.' But the servants of the king would not put forth their hand to fall upon the priests of the LORD. {S}

Rashi and other commentators identify these men who refused to kill the priests of God as Avner and Amassa. One thing that I find interesting is that they were unwilling to do the actual killing, but it does not seem that they interceded in order to stop it once Doeg decided to do it. Of course, it is possible that King Saul removed them from the room or tied them up in order to prevent them from interfering.

But if we go with the plain sense of the text, where they were unwilling to kill defenseless priests, but did not step in and try to execute Doeg and/or defend the priests, then perhaps their deaths make sense.

Both of these men are killed by Yoav, and they are killed through deception and trickery. They do not die in combat; rather, they die defenseless, unprepared and unwarned of their impending doom. Perhaps the reason this is so is because they did not defend the priests. Just as the priests died defenseless, so too Avner and Amassa die defenseless and this is an example of middah k'neged middah, measure for measure.

Here are the scenes of their deaths.

1) Avner's death in 2 Samuel 3:17.

כז  וַיָּשָׁב אַבְנֵר, חֶבְרוֹן, וַיַּטֵּהוּ יוֹאָב אֶל-תּוֹךְ הַשַּׁעַר, לְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ בַּשֶּׁלִי; וַיַּכֵּהוּ שָׁם, הַחֹמֶשׁ--וַיָּמָת, בְּדַם עֲשָׂהאֵל אָחִיו.

27 And when Abner was returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside into the midst of the gate to speak with him quietly, and smote him there in the groin, that he died, for the blood of Asahel his brother.

David's lament is suggestive of the defenseless, ignominious nature of the death:

לד  יָדֶךָ לֹא-אֲסֻרוֹת, וְרַגְלֶיךָ לֹא-לִנְחֻשְׁתַּיִם הֻגָּשׁוּ, כִּנְפוֹל לִפְנֵי בְנֵי-עַוְלָה, נָפָלְתָּ; וַיֹּסִפוּ כָל-הָעָם, לִבְכּוֹת עָלָיו.

34 Thy hands were not bound, nor thy feet put into fetters; as a man falleth before the children of iniquity, so didst thou fall. And all the people wept again over him.

2) Amassa's death in 2 Samuel 20:10.

ט  וַיֹּאמֶר יוֹאָב לַעֲמָשָׂא, הֲשָׁלוֹם אַתָּה אָחִי; וַתֹּחֶז יַד-יְמִין יוֹאָב, בִּזְקַן עֲמָשָׂא--לִנְשָׁק-לוֹ.	9 And Joab said to Amasa: 'Is it well with thee, my brother?' And Joab took Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him.
י  וַעֲמָשָׂא לֹא-נִשְׁמַר בַּחֶרֶב אֲשֶׁר בְּיַד-יוֹאָב, וַיַּכֵּהוּ בָהּ אֶל-הַחֹמֶשׁ וַיִּשְׁפֹּךְ מֵעָיו אַרְצָה וְלֹא-שָׁנָה לוֹ--וַיָּמֹת; וְיוֹאָב, וַאֲבִישַׁי אָחִיו, רָדַף, אַחֲרֵי שֶׁבַע בֶּן-בִּכְרִי.	10 But Amasa took no heed to the sword that was in Joab's hand; so he smote him therewith in the groin, and shed out his bowels to the ground, and struck him not again; and he died. And Joab and Abishai his brother pursued after Sheba the son of Bichri.

Both of these men die by treachery. They don't see their deaths coming; it is all entirely unanticipated.

This is exactly what happened to the Kohanim of Nov. Achimelech had no idea as to why he had been summoned before the king. Once there, he explained that he had nothing to do with the treason the king suspected him of. But he still died, alone and defenseless, laid low by Doeg's vicious testimony and (at least in my possible interpretation), the fact that Avner and Amassa did not choose to save them, so perhaps they were deemed complicit.

So: Has anyone seen this idea in any of the commentaries?

Massacres in the Tanakh

1. Avimelech vs. His Brothers in Judges 9

ה  וַיָּבֹא בֵית-אָבִיו, עָפְרָתָה, וַיַּהֲרֹג אֶת-אֶחָיו בְּנֵי-יְרֻבַּעַל שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ, עַל-אֶבֶן אֶחָת; וַיִּוָּתֵר יוֹתָם בֶּן-יְרֻבַּעַל, הַקָּטֹן--כִּי נֶחְבָּא.  {ס}

5 And he went unto his father's house at Ophrah, and slew his brethren the sons of Jerubbaal, being threescore and ten persons, upon one stone; but Jotham the youngest son of Jerubbaal was left; for he hid himself.

2. Doeg vs. the Priests of Nov in I Samuel 22.

יח  וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ, לדויג (לְדוֹאֵג), סֹב אַתָּה, וּפְגַע בַּכֹּהֲנִים; וַיִּסֹּב דויג (דּוֹאֵג) הָאֲדֹמִי, וַיִּפְגַּע-הוּא בַּכֹּהֲנִים, וַיָּמֶת בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא שְׁמֹנִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה אִישׁ, נֹשֵׂא אֵפוֹד בָּד.	18 And the king said to Doeg: 'Turn thou, and fall upon the priests.' And Doeg the Edomite turned, and he fell upon the priests, and he slew on that day fourscore and five persons that did wear a linen ephod.
יט  וְאֵת נֹב עִיר-הַכֹּהֲנִים, הִכָּה לְפִי-חֶרֶב, מֵאִישׁ וְעַד-אִשָּׁה, מֵעוֹלֵל וְעַד-יוֹנֵק; וְשׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר וָשֶׂה, לְפִי-חָרֶב.	19 And Nob, the city of the priests, smote he with the edge of the sword, both men and women, children and sucklings, and oxen and asses and sheep, with the edge of the sword.
כ  וַיִּמָּלֵט בֵּן-אֶחָד, לַאֲחִימֶלֶךְ בֶּן-אֲחִטוּב, וּשְׁמוֹ, אֶבְיָתָר; וַיִּבְרַח, אַחֲרֵי דָוִד.	20 And one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped, and fled after David.

3. Assalya vs. the Royalty in 2 Kings 11.

א  וַעֲתַלְיָה אֵם אֲחַזְיָהוּ, וראתה (רָאֲתָה) כִּי מֵת בְּנָהּ; וַתָּקָם, וַתְּאַבֵּד, אֵת, כָּל-זֶרַע הַמַּמְלָכָה.	1 Now when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she arose and destroyed all the seed royal.
ב  וַתִּקַּח יְהוֹשֶׁבַע בַּת-הַמֶּלֶךְ-יוֹרָם אֲחוֹת אֲחַזְיָהוּ אֶת-יוֹאָשׁ בֶּן-אֲחַזְיָה, וַתִּגְנֹב אֹתוֹ מִתּוֹךְ בְּנֵי-הַמֶּלֶךְ הממותתים (הַמּוּמָתִים)--אֹתוֹ וְאֶת-מֵינִקְתּוֹ, בַּחֲדַר הַמִּטּוֹת; וַיַּסְתִּרוּ אֹתוֹ מִפְּנֵי עֲתַלְיָהוּ, וְלֹא הוּמָת.	2 But Jehosheba, the daughter of king Joram, sister of Ahaziah, took Joash the son of Ahaziah, and stole him away from among the king's sons that were slain, even him and his nurse, and put them in the bed-chamber; and they hid him from Athaliah, so that he was not slain.
ג  וַיְהִי אִתָּהּ בֵּית יְהוָה, מִתְחַבֵּא שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים; וַעֲתַלְיָה, מֹלֶכֶת עַל-הָאָרֶץ.  {פ}	3 And he was with her hid in the house of the LORD six years; and Athaliah reigned over the land. {P}

I find it very interesting that there is always the lone survivor. Yotam, Evyatar and Yoash are all lone survivors. Yotam and Yoash are hidden while Evyatar actively escapes.

I'm not sure what the deeper message is here (or if there is one), but I do find the consistency interesting.

Getting Closer: A Review

Disclaimer: I received a review copy of Getting Closer by Rabbi Daniel Schonbuch; thus, I did not pay for it.

Rabbi Daniel Schonbuch has done something revolutionary in his book Getting Closer: Understanding and Treating Issues in Marital Intimacy: A Guide for Orthodox Couples. Despite the plethora of colons in that lengthy title, the book itself does a very good job of serving as a primer for newlyweds and newly-confused couples navigating the complex territory of an unforeseen circumstance that could destabilize a marriage. This circumstance would occur within the realm of sexual dysfunction, and could be either physical, emotional or psychological in nature. 

Getting Closer includes in its table of contents intimacy through the lens of adult attachment styles, different forms of therapy, desire disorders, intimacy after pregnancy, postpartum depression, infertility, childhood sexual abuse, internet addiction and cyber affairs and then physical sexual dysfunction and male sexual disorders. The book does a great job of introducing the reader to many types of intimacy-based issues, although it is clear that further research and reading would be warranted. 

In his introduction, the author explains that he has seen many couples, and oftentimes, while couples feel comfortable talking about emotional difficulties, they do not report that they are having a sexual problem. It is easy to understand why couples hesitate to share this information with a therapist, but this can lead to their suffering in silence while feeling isolated from one another (Schonbuch 2). The author's intent is to create a sensitive, Torah-based book for Orthodox couples to "help them to decipher and resolve the painful role sexual dysfunction may be playing in their relationship" (2).

Schonbuch does a great job of outlying basic medical information about sexual dysfunction and its types. However, I take issue with some of his methods. His first method is to focus on EFT (Emotionally Focused Therapy) throughout the whole book. Though he does sometimes mention other types of therapies, they receive short shrift. I think it would be helpful for him to make sure all of the different psychological approaches couples could use to resolve their difficulties rather than honing in on only one. I am sure there are some couples who would benefit more from CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy) for instance, rather than EFT.

I am perplexed by Schonbuch's decision to first list all of the emotional or psychological intimacy disorders rather than the physiological ones. If you were to have an ear-ache or a tooth-ache, first you would see the doctor or the dentist to check whether anything was physically wrong. Only if they were unable to find anything would you then proceed to wonder whether you might be having these symptoms due to neurological or psychological issues; perhaps you are a hypochondriac. Similarly, it is odd to me that Schonbuch decided to hone in on Desire Disorders before introducing us to his Guide to Physical Sexual Dysfunction. I think it would have made more sense to reverse the order. A woman with vaginismus may well think she has SAD (Sexual Aversion Disorder) when she reads the symptoms listed under Desire Disorders, and may stop reading the book before discovering that she is actually grappling with a physiological issue.

I also find it odd that when Rabbi Schonbuch was interviewed, he said "It’s not easy for them [people dealing with sexual dysfunction] to talk about, which is why I wrote the book. Instead of bringing up these painful topics, they’d be able to read about it. Because honestly, sometimes, no matter how good the therapist is, some people can’t be relaxed enough to talk about it. Here, they can read it on their own and decide how to address their problems from there," yet at the same time, he does not provide a resource list within the book itself. At the back of the book, he writes:

Finally, there are a number of key resources for Orthodox couples seeking marital therapy for emotional and sexual dysfunction. For an updated list of therapists and resources, visit www.JewishMarriageSupport.com.

I am not impressed by the choice to make the list of resources available online-only. What if this book were to find its way into the hands of a yeshivish or Chassidish couple who do not have access to the Internet? Why is there no listing of clinics, specialists and therapists (including contact information) in the back of the book? These specialists are not only missing from the resource list; they are missing from the book itself. Heather Appelbaum, an associate professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine at Hofstra NorthShore LIJ University School of Medicine, writes the preface. But other doctors do not seem to have been consulted in this work. Rabbi Schonbruch makes assertions about the nature of physical and psychological forms of sexual dysfunction without quoting or seemingly consulting the experts in the field. Why are there no quotes from Dr. Andrew Goldstein or Dr. Lara Burrows of the Center for VulvoVaginal Disorders in Washington, DC? Why has Dr. Susan Kellogg of the Pelvic and Sexual Health Institute in Philadelphia not been consulted? What about Bat Sheva Marcus of the Medical Center for Female Sexuality? Where are the studies and findings of the International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health? 

I admire Rabbi Schonbuch's initiative. He saw a need for a book detailing the issues that Orthodox Jewish couples face in their intimate lives, and he wrote it. However, the book he wrote should not have been published in its current form. It is a fledgling, waiting to be more seriously researched and bulked up. Doctors who specialize in these areas of sexual dysfunction should have been consulted and quoted, their works and contact information listed and cited in the back of the book. A resource list should have been included. The possible forms of therapy should have been outlined and listed without such a deep focus on EFT. Rabbi Schonbuch has written a book that details his own experiences treating and dealing with these couples, but his experiences are not exhaustive or summative. A better, more developed version of this book would reflect that reality and provide sufferers with more options, techniques, therapies and better ways to seek help.

Weapons in Samuel

The relationship between Saul, Jonathan and David is very complex. It occurred to me that it is played out via their weapons of choice.

Saul's weapon is the Spear.
Jonathan's weapon is the Bow and Arrow.
David's weapon is the Slingshot and Stone.

All three of these weapons are the same in that all of them take flight in order to be effective. They are not like a sword, where one simply thrusts the sword through a person, or hacks them with it.

But Jonathan's weapon is most similar to David's weapon because both of their weapons require something else to launch it. Jonathan's bow launches his arrow and David's slingshot launches his stone, but Saul's hand is what throws the spear. Thus, Saul is different from the two of them. In the end, Jonathan and David are most similar to one another.

~

My student expanded upon this idea. He said that he thought that the Bow and Arrow and the Spear are similar, because an Arrow is like a Spear, just smaller. 

I ran with his idea to create this:

Jonathan's weapon shows the tension and inner struggle of his character. On the one hand, the bow and arrow is similar to Saul (the arrow has the same pointy tip as the spear). On the other hand, the bow and arrow is an implement being launched by another implement, similar to David. Jonathan is similar to both and has loyalties to both- hence his inner struggle, conflict and tension. 

Aquatic Perfection: The Mitzvah of Mikvah, and The Wild World of Water

Tonight I had the pleasure of hearing Rabbi Eytan Feiner of The White Shul in Far Rockaway give a speech on "Aquatic Perfection: The Mitzvah of Mikvah, and The Wild World of Water."

I enjoyed hearing Rabbi Feiner speak. He included many references and gematriot in his speech which I did not catch/ write down, so what I'm going to reproduce below are some of the major themes and ideas that I found interesting. This should in no way be seen as reflecting his entire speech, or even all of his ideas. Some I'm deliberately skipping, and some I did not catch.

Rabbi Feiner began his speech with an interesting anecdote. He suggested that the Israelis and Palestinians decided that instead of fighting each other, they were going to create a war between dogs. Each of them had five years to breed the dog they wanted to put into the arena. And so the Palestinians made sure to get rottweilers, pitbulls and wolves and mate them together in order to create a really ferocious dog. The Israelis simply brought out an odd, very long daschund. When it came time to fight, the daschund swallowed the ferocious dog. When asked how they accomplished this, the Israelis said, "You spent five years trying to breed the most ferocious dog. We spent five years trying to get a plastic surgeon to get a crocodile to resemble a daschund."

In the time of Pharaoh, the Egyptians worshipped the Nile. In fact, Princess Bitya (or possibly her father) was named after the crocodile god, according to some sources. The reason that Pharoah would go down to the Nile River in the morning, per some other sources, was because he wished to worship the sun (Ra) and the Nile at the same time, so he made sure to be there at the sunrise. So we know that water was very powerful in ancient traditions and ancient religions.

The question is: Why do we as Jews see the water as powerful? Why is it that when we go to the mikvah, we dip in water rather than cream cheese or butter?

The answer to this is rather lengthy, and it begins all the way back in the time of Adam.

Adam is considered the Master Namer, the Namer of all Creatures. Adam names all the creatures, but he does not name the fish. There is no named fish mentioned in the Tanakh itself (the Leviathan appears elsewhere). (I was confused by this part. As far as I am aware, and I could be wrong, no animals are named in the Tanakh, either. I always thought the naming simply meant naming the animals as a species. I'll have to email the rabbi and see). Several sources explain that God literally brought the animals (the ones that were not domesticated) to Adam in order for him to name them, and thus it would have been impossible for God to bring the fish to him. After all, if you take a fish out of water, it will die. But this is not sufficient for some others, who question it and say, God is God. He can perform miracles. Why then doesn't he miraculously allow the fish to live and bring it to Adam? There must be a deeper reason.

A name is how we highlight the core essence of anyone. The word sham means 'there.' The word shem means 'name.' A shem gives someone a sham, a place to be, to exist. The word neshama, which means soul, has the word shem as its inner letters.

The Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Yisroel said that there is no name given to the fish by Adam because we do not have any communication with them. They do not live with us on dry land; they live in the water. Think about it. If you have a pet dog or cat, you probably communicate with them and play with them. But rarely if ever does one communicate with one's goldfish. A name is given when you want to form a relationship with something.  This to the point that in fact, if you name a cow, thus causing you to have a relationship with her, she will produce 250 liters more milk per day than a regular cow.

The mitzvah of Tashlich is meant to be performed by water where there are fish. The reason for this is because there is an idea that none of the fish's foibles creep past the water. There is an idea that no ayin hara (evil eye) can penetrate past the surface of the water. Kishuf (evil magic) also cannot penetrate water.

When God destroyed the world in the Mabul during the generation of Noach, the reason he did that, per R' Tzadok, is because that mabul served as a Mikvah. Everything that had contact with that purifying Mikvah died, with the exception of the people and animals on the ark, and the fish.

So clearly there is something in the world of water that is significant. There is an idea that we can trace the sophistication and civilization of the world by looking at beverages. The world began with water. Then we had beer, then spirits, then coffee, then tea, then coke, and now we are back to water again. There are over 800 brands of bottled water available.

In the Creation story, there are three disparate words that are used- Asa, Bara and Yatzar. The question is: What is the difference between these three words?

Briah refers to creation ex nihilo, something from nothing.
Yetzirah refers to giving something a tzayar, adding features and dimensions to it.
Asiyah refers to completing something- it's the idea of makeh b'patish, taking the final step to complete something and make it usable.

God deliberately left the world uncompleted. We as humans help to complete the world and help it to achieve perfection.

But the waters of the world belong to God. He completed them; there is nothing active to build or to create in the water. Hence there is an idea of the concept of asiyah referring to the waters. God finished the waters; humans cannot add more to them. This is part of the meaning behind the word Mayim being a palindrome- backwards and forwards it is the same. It needs no extra steps or completion.

But the earth is not done or ready- the world has features but we need to take it further. For instance, one of the commands we are given is to settle the world. One of the opinions is that when it came to the Dor HaFlaga, the Generation of the Dispersion, part of their sin was that they did not want to settle the world. They preferred to stay in one place and build rather than spread out.

If you look at the creation narrative, you will see the name Elokim used for God over and over. Elokim and HaTeva both have a numerical value via gematriyah equal to 86. Elokim can also be read as meaning Kel HaYam, God of the Seas. This is why God usually manifests via water. When we cried out Zeh Keli, This is my God, we did that by the splitting of the Sea of Reeds.

Fish do not need shechita, ritual slaughtering, beause we do not need to perfect them further. They live in God's element, the water, and thus they do not need us to help make them more godly. This is also the reason fish do not need to be brought as korbanot. The element of water is not our element- it is not our world. We cannot live there; if we would try to live underwater, we would die. There is an idea that Satan and Shedim live near the water because they do not live in our world. We live on the Yabasha, the place where God dried up the waters, but in the very beginning water covered the entire earth- God was everywhere.

There is an idea in Perek Shira that when the fish sing, what happens is that the Kol Hashem is heard constantly over the water. The Shem Mishmuel says that water of the world is a different dimension than the rest of the world. Thus, mikvah is when you want to remove the person of old and want to emerge a new person. Therefore, you leave behind your world and you go into God's world, the world of water. You need to be fully submerged within it, and when you leave, you emerge a briah chadasha, a new creation. It is almost like a form of symbolic suicide. It's like going back into the womb, surrounded by amniotic fluid, and then you come out and you are a new person.

When a woman comes out of the mikvah, she comes out fresh and tahor, ready to renew her marriage. But the Rav on Parshat Korach in Shiurei HaRav says that a person who wants to convert does both milah and tevilah. Why milah? In order to brand yourself with a mark that shows you are an eved Hashem, in the same way that knights have coats of arms that identify them. Going into the mikvah shows that the person now wants to connect with God. The person is leaving dry land and going into the water in order to connect to God. They are leaving the world of safety and security, of materialism, and connecting with God in his world.

The very nature of fish, that live in water, in God's element, is to be called Dag. Dag is comprised of two letters- daled and gimmel. Daled equates to 4 and gimmel to 3. Daled plus Gimmel gives you 7, the number of completion or satiety. (Rabbi Feiner wrote a 37-page-paper on the number seven; email him if you want to read it). Since a Dag is already at completion, there is no need to do anything more to it, such as shechita or korbanot, in order to make it better.

Then you have Gad. Gad was the seventh son born to Yaakov. Others point out he was born at seven months. And still others say that he was born circumcised- also, completed. There was no need to do anything more to him.

The Arizal writes that when a tzadik, a righteous person, has to be megalgel (return to the world again in order to fix a minor error), he reincarnates as a fish. It makes sense if you consider the fish to be the perfect creature that lives within God's element.

The largest creatures in the world live in the water (blue whale). The tallest mountain, from base to tip, is found in Hawaii and is found in the water. The Yam Suf and the Mabul are examples that show that when God wants to punish, He uses water. Ten minutes of one hurricane has more power than nuclear weapons. Most miracles involve water (Moshe by water, Yehoshua by water, Eliyahu and Elisha by water). The world melech equates to the gematriya of water, because God uses water to show His power over the world.

Even today, when we have so many amazing technological innovations, we cannot control the weather. We can be in charge of everything in the world, but not the weather. God's gevurah is highlighted via water. The very words gashmiut and matar show that everything material in the world comes from the rain (geshem) and that matter comes from dew (matar).

If seven is the number of satiety, completion and Teva, then 8 is the number that is l'maaleh min haTeva- one step further. This is why Shemini Atzeret is l'maaleh min haTeva. Obesity is called shamen- more than satiated. Neshama and shemoneh are the same letters. A horizontal 8 represents infinity. Chanukah is 8 days and the Chashmonaim are 8 times Shemoneh. Parshat Shemini includes the stories of Nadav and Avihu, where they went beyond what they were supposed to do.

When it comes to the holiday of Sukkot, for 7 days we are judged on water, and we use and wave plants that grow near the water. Only on the 8th day can we then approach and recite a Tefilat Geshem. There is an idea that Moshe corresponds to Shemini Atzeret; he was saved in the water and was able to control the water (Yam Suf) and sinned with water.

The main takeaway is that water is God's element, that the creatures that live within the water do not need to be perfected by  human means, and that thus, by immersing ourselves in water, we are showing our desire to reconnect with God in His element.

Imagined Conversation Between Tamerlan and Dzokhar

I still don't understand how this went down.

Tamerlan: I follow radical Islam and think that we need to teach the USA a lesson.
Dzokhar: Whatever, dude, I'm watching Game of Thrones right now.
Tamerlan: How about we buy some pressure cookers and turn them into bombs?
Dzokhar: Cool! We'll be like that guy on "Breaking Bad," running a meth lab out of his house.
Tamerlan: And then we can blow up half the world at the Boston Marathon.
Dzokhar: Totally, dude. I'm right there with ya. Just let me finish eating this Nutella sandwich.

I mean, where's the part where Dzokhar says "Bro, I hate to break it to ya, but that's kind of a crazy idea, and NO, I won't help you blow up half the world?"

I'll Fix Your Damage And You'll Love Me- Right?

April is Sexual Assault Awareness month.

Due to this, Jenny Payne has written an article in The Columbia Spectator called 'Time To Talk.' In her article, she details the emotional coercion and abuse that she suffered at the hands of her depressed, obsessive and threatening boyfriend.

Her boyfriend would hold a knife up to his face and threaten to kill himself if she did not do certain things in order to 'save' him.

Or in her words:

I didn't know how to respond when he said he would kill himself if I didn't do what he wanted, when I would Skype with him and he would hold a knife to his throat. 

 On Halloween night of my senior year of high school, he told me about his plan to run away from home. He wouldn't listen to me when I asked him not to, and I became scared when I read his increasingly violent texts.

 He only stopped his threats when I agreed to have sex with him. I didn't have any other choice unless I wanted to feel responsible for both his escape and planned suicide. 

 That was the first time I had sex.

The question that I think we need to ask ourselves upon reading this article is: what made this possible?

And I think the answer is that the media, pop culture, fairy tales and books that we raise our children on all give over this message. It comes in two forms. The first message, for girls, is the famous 'Beauty and the Beast' story. Only 'Beauty' can take an angry Beast who cannot control his temper, tame him, nurture him, heal him, fix his damage, and save him from himself. He is transformed through her. This is also the plot of every single Harlequin or Regency romance. It is also, more disturbingly, the plot of most contemporary teen fiction.

For men, the message appears in the 'Damsel in Distress' form. Men are consistently taught that they exist to rescue the 'Damsel in Distress,' whether it's the fact that they need to wake Sleeping Beauty, kiss Snow White awake or protect a girl who otherwise makes poor decisions. Contemporary books change the formula so that the boy is a rock who protects the girl from her otherwise maladaptive choices and/or her suicidal self.

The problem with these messages is that they resonate around the following scenario:

1. I fix your damage, in a completely selfless way that allows you to threaten me, yell at me, deride me, push me away, because I know that deep down you're just scared and you don't really mean it.

2. I officially expect nothing in return, but deep down I want you to be grateful to me for fixing your damage, and due to your gratitude to love me.

3. Usually, the reason I need you to love me out of gratitude is because I feel insecure/ not confident about myself, and don't think that you could or would love me for myself. You can only love me for what I do for you (mentally/ emotionally/ physically).

Thus, impressionable children and teens develop the notion that love exists when someone is 'saved' or 'rescued' by someone who comes along and selflessly 'fixes their damage,' asking nothing in return. Not only is this the model of love that the majority of our children see, but it is in fact the love, the great, the stormy, the deepest and most passionate love.

And while sometimes, in its most extreme form (like when it takes the form of domestic violence), we as a society discuss why this is problematic, much more often we not only respect this love but allow it to be the dominant love seen in our culture. It's this love that is portrayed in so many films, especially teen-focused films. It's this love that we uphold all the time. It's this love that wins the Oscar in Silver Linings Playbook, is the core idea of The Mortal Instruments, this love that's a drug described in the horrifically abusive relationship idolized by so many girls that manifests as the Edward Cullen-Bella Swann relationship. It's also this love that appears in the incredibly successful 50 Shades of Grey.

What all this means is that if you ask your average teen what the word 'love' means, they not only have no idea, but they usually have an unhealthy idea. Many believe love is something you fall into, it is completely uncontrolled (you cannot choose who you love, or how strongly you feel about that person), that it involves saving the other person, and it involves disturbing amounts of selflessness/ self-sacrifice. Alternatively, love is not distinguishable from lust, and is mainly a status issue (whose girlfriend/ boyfriend is hotter/ more attractive). The whole idea of love as two people walking together, growing together, trying to help each other to develop socially, mentally, emotionally and otherwise is not present. The whole idea of a loving relationship as not involving extremes, but rather involving measured thoughts, discussions, debates and even disagreement doesn't exist. Loving, as teens see it, is an all-or-nothing enterprise. And the idea of a relationship where one chooses to stay with one's partner, not because of an uncontrollable pull towards them, but because one respects their values, beliefs and character traits, is totally out of the question. That is seen as 'not romantic.' Because our idea of romantic has become skewed. We do not see passion unless a feeling is uncontrolled, we do not see love unless it is all-or-nothing love, and we do not like the characters in the loving relationships unless they are willing to sacrifice anything for the one they love, asking nothing or little in return.

What this means, in short, is that we need to teach the concept of love, and also of healthy relationships, because our society does not.

Although I do not know Jenny, I know myself. And thus I think it is likely that Jenny had a deep, intense, terrifying but at times possibly exhilarating relationship with her boyfriend. She felt needed by him. She knew that nobody else could help him except her, which made her feel special. At the same time, she was worried that she was not enough or could not do enough for him. And since her whole self-esteem and value had been reduced to: Can I or can I not fulfill my mission, can I or can I not save him- failure was not an option. She had to save him, to do whatever it took, in order to prove that she was that magical, important person that she secretly wanted to be but worried she wasn't.

In this article, Jenny has not yet addressed why this happened to her. She apportioned blame to the boyfriend- and rightly so. But she calls what happened to her rape, when in fact, at the time, it was consensual. It is almost as though she does not want to see her part in this at all, possibly because of the deep shame she feels in being complicit. She sees herself as the victim of intimate partner violence- when she was both a victim and simultaneously complicit in it- at the time. She talks about how she landed herself in the psych ward by "trying too hard to save another's life." She says that "nobody ever asks to be the victim of sexual violence." And all of this is true. But it's simultaneously not completely true. Because Jenny stayed in that relationship when other women would have left. And the question that I would argue she needs to explore is why. 

Not because I'm trying to say Jenny should be blamed. She should not be blamed. Nor should battered women who stay in abusive relationships be blamed. There are many factors for why a battered woman, or a partner in an emotionally or physically abusive relationship, stay in the relationship. But it's too easy to put it all on the partner and make him into a monster. The partner was manipulative, coercive, and obviously sick. But what was it in Jenny that made her stay? What needs did she have that were being met, in some twisted form, by this relationship? And once she identifies those, how can they be met in a healthy way?

Our society does not yet have the compassion to see that it should not be viewed as shameful when people are party to their own abuse. Our society likes a lily-white heroine, a story where Jenny was a sweet girl who  was a victim and her boyfriend was sick and manipulative. But what if that's not the true story? What if Jenny, too, had something in her that made her stay, whether that was low self-esteem or other insecurities that could only be assuaged if someone made her the center of his life, even in a negative way? Can it not be that she too has what to work on?

I've written before about the fact that I am not naturally attracted to men who are good for me. I had to work long and hard on understanding healthy relationships and unhealthy relationships, figure out what needs my unhealthy relationships were meeting, and how to refocus these needs or reframe them towards the goal of being a partner in a healthy relationship. But one of the first things I had to do- and obviously I am not Jenny- is admit, despite shame, that I had been a party to certain hurtful things that had been done to me. Which is not to say that I am deserving of blame. But it does say that the story is not so simple- that one person is the monster and the other is the angel. Usually, there's something there for both people to work on.

Sugihara: How The Mir Yeshiva Was Saved

Today is Yom HaShoa, and therefore an appropriate day to post an excerpt from Rabbi Dr. Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff's fantastic book, From Washington Ave to Washington St, that tells the story of how the Mir Yeshiva was saved, and especially of the life-saving work of Sempo Sugihara. The excerpt below is taken from pages 24-29.

~~~

Mir was part of Poland when the German forces crossed the frontier on September 1, 1939. The Soviet armies attacked Poland’s eastern border on September 17. Within a few weeks the German and Russian forces met and their mutual partition of Poland became a reality. Almost all the major Polish yeshivot were located in eastern Poland, which was now occupied by the Soviets. Atheism and enmity toward religion were basic to the Marxist and Communist doctrines. Numerous roshei yeshiva and yeshiva students had personally experienced this harsh reality under the Communists during the post-World War I period. Many had chosen to flee to independent Poland to avoid Soviet persecution. These yeshivot were now once again under Soviet control. As detrimental as this new reality was, the situation in the German-occupied zone was infinitely worse. There the yeshivot were under Nazi dominion. The immediate reaction to these events was that the yeshivot must flee and relocate in more secure locations. Nevertheless, there was no area available that was not under Communist or Nazi domination. On October 10, 1939 the Soviets reached an agreement with the neutral Republic of Lithuania to transfer to it control over the city of Vilna. This focal center for Jewish life and its environs now passed from Polish to Lithuanian sovereignty.

These tidings precipitated excitement and anticipation among the roshei yeshiva and their students. Hurried decisions were made to depart for Vilna. Among the first to leave were the students of the Kletsk Yeshiva headed by Rabbi Aaron Kotler (October 14) and the Mir Yeshiva led by Rabbi Eliezer Yehudah Finkel (October 15). Soon hundreds more joined the mass exodus to Vilna. By the time the new border between Lithuania and Soviet-occupied Poland was formally established, there were some fifteen thousand Polish refugees, including approximately twenty-four hundred yeshiva people in the greater Vilna area. The primary responsibility for maintaining and guiding the yeshivot fell upon Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzenski. A member of the Vilna ecclesiastical court (beit din), Rabbi Grodzenski was widely considered the leading scholar-respondent-statesman of the Lithuanian Torah world. He divided the various yeshivot among the Vilna synagogues and insisted that each school retain its unique atmosphere and method of study. Despite constantly ebbing strength, the Vilna rabbi appealed to his devotees throughout the Jewish world for material sustenance for the refugees. Rabbi Grodzenski was to pass away on August 9, 1940.

While the yeshivot and the refugees were attempting to adjust to the new reality, the situation abruptly changed once again. On June 15, 1940, Russian troops entered Lithuania, and in Soviet terminology its “liberation” began. On August 3, 1940, Lithuania was officially annexed by the Soviet Union as a constitutent Soviet republic. The refugee yeshiva people once again faced the dilemma of how to leave Lithuania and escape from Communist control. The point at issue was now where to move. The gateways to the Land of Israel and the American continent were closed to the would-be escapees. Nathan Gutwirth and Leo Sternheim, two Dutch yeshiva students, applied to Jan Zwartendijk, the honorary Dutch consul in Kovno, for permission to enter one of the Dutch overseas colonies. They could not return to their homes in Holland, since it was conquered by the Germans in May 1940. Zwartendjik was anxious to help and proposed they go to Curacao, an island in the Caribbean off the coast of Venezuela. Since he was only an honorary consul, Zwartendijk turned to L.P. Decker, the Dutch ambassador to the three Baltic States, who resided in Riga (Latvia). The ambassador informed the honorary consul that Gutwirth and Sternheim did not require a visa to enter Curacao, but rather the approval of the island’s governor. Fully aware of the life-saving implications, Decker authorized Zwartendijk to write in the passports that no visa to Curacao was necessary. The actual text read: “The Dutch consulate hereby certifies that no visa is necessary for the entry of foreigners to Surinam, Curacao, and other Dutch possessions in America.”

Soon many refugees turned to the consul for a similar stamp in their passports. It was a race against the clock since the new Soviet authorities ordered the consulate to cease operations by the end of August 1940. During the almost six weeks in which Zwartendijk was able to function (July 23 to August 31), he issued around thirteen hundred such Curacao visas.

It was now necessary to select an exit route and attain the appropriate transit visas. The only possible means of reaching Curacao in the summer of 1940 had to be via the Far East since nearly all of Western Europe was occupied by the Nazis. The path of escape would be to travel across the Soviet Union and through Japan. Japanese transit visas would now have to be acquired on the basis of the Curacao destination. To obtain these Japanese visas, they approached Sempo Sugihara, the Japanese consul in Kovno. This unique humanitarian was intensely agonized by the plight of the Jewish refugees. He began issuing Japanese transport visas to all who requested them, whether or not they possessed the Curacao visas. Even after receiving an urgent cable from the Japanese Foreign Ministry to discontinue granting these visas, Sugihara continued to distribute them. He charged each applicant only two litas (approximately 33 cents) per visa. Sugihara continued issuing transit visas even from the railway car in which he departed from Lithuania on August 31, 1940.

Once the Dutch passport addendums and the Japanese transport visas were obtained, the major remaining impediment was securing Soviet exit permits. This now became a perplexing quandary for the refugees. Any attempt to leave the Soviet Union could be interpreted by the authorities as a treacherous act. The special Soviet immigration offices were opened in the facitlies of the NKVD. Some decided to continue the process and succeeded in attaining the Soviet exit permits. Among the latter was practically the entire student body of the Mir Yeshiva. The next hurdle now became securing the necessary funds for this route of escape. The tickets had to be paid for in dollars at the considerably inflated tourist rate of 170 dollars per person. Penniless refugees were now required to put together these dollars despite the fact that it was illegal to possess foreign currency in the Soviet Union. With the support of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Commitee, the Vaad Hatzalah (Emergency Committee for War-Torn Yeshivot), and relatives in the United States, the money was raised and tickets were purchased.

The initial group of refugees who succeeded in acquiring all the necessary documents left Lithuania in September 1940. They traveled by train from Minsk to Moscow. From Moscow they journeyed on the Trans-Siberian railroad to the Soviet Pacific port of Vladivostok. From there they sailed to the Japanese port of Tsuruga. Most of the Polish refugees departed from Lithuania during the months of January and February 1941.

Once in Japan, the refugees were aided by representatives of the local Jewish communities. The evacuees were settled in Kobe, Japan’s second largest port. The local Kobe comunity included about fifty Jewish families, divided almost evenly between Sephardim and Russian Ashkenazim. The local Jewish community and even the Japanese people extended a warm welcome to the more than forty-six hundred refugees who now swelled the ranks of the heretofore small tranquil Jewish community. However, the new arrivals only possessed the Japanese transit visas, which were normally valid for just seven to fifteen days. Some were able to reach their final destination in the Western Hemisphere or Australia before the outbreak of the Pacific War. However, most of the Polish refugees had no visas to other countries. Their resettlement now became the prime dilemma for the greater Kobe Jewish community. While methods were devised to extend the visas, the Nazi pressure on their Japanese allies to spread the Nazi doctrines intensified. The refugees now lived with a constant fear of denial of their visa extension, which intensified their already existing sense of insecurity.

At a meeting of rescue activists in Kobe on February 19, 1941, the consensus was that the International Settlement of the nearby port of Shanghai should be utilized as the temporary transit station instead of Japan. Shanghai was not only geographically close, but it was also a location to which Jewish refugees could still gain entry. The International Settlement of the city was governed by a municipal council comprised of the delegates of the foreign powers that then possessed extraterritorial rights in Shanghai. Approximately eleven hundred Polish refugees were transferred to Shanghai in the fall of 1941 after their prolonged Japanese residence. Among the evacuees were more than four hundred rabbis, yeshiva students, and family members. Among these, the main component was the Mir Yeshiva, which soon found a home in the Beth Aharon Synagogue on Museum Road. This synagogue had been built in the 1920s as a second house of worship for the Sephardic community. It was not fully utilized until the moment that the Mir Yeshiva established its activities in Shanghai. for close to five years, this synagogues was to resound with the voice of Torah study. While the conflagrations of war and destruction raged throughout the world, the Mirrer students intensified their studies and spiritual advancement The tribulations of the outside were downplayed and the inside of the Shanghai synagogue was permeated with the spirit of Lithuanian Torah learning and piety.

David & Joseph

I noticed an interesting parallel between David & Joseph today.

In Genesis 37:14, Jacob commands his son Joseph:

יד  וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ, לֶךְ-נָא רְאֵה אֶת-שְׁלוֹם אַחֶיךָ וְאֶת-שְׁלוֹם הַצֹּאן, וַהֲשִׁבֵנִי, דָּבָר; וַיִּשְׁלָחֵהוּ מֵעֵמֶק חֶבְרוֹן, וַיָּבֹא שְׁכֶמָה.

14 And he said to him: 'Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren, and well with the flock; and bring me back word.' So he sent him out of the vale of Hebron, and he came to Shechem.

Joseph goes to seek out his brothers. He finds them, and they are upset when he approaches. They decide to conspire against him to kill him and call out "Behold, the dreamer is coming." Due to this episode, Joseph is eventually sold, after which he works for Potiphar, is thrown in jail, and finally interprets the Pharoah's dreams, which leads him to becoming extremely powerful.

Similarly, in I Samuel 17:17-18, Jesse commands his son David:

יז  וַיֹּאמֶר יִשַׁי לְדָוִד בְּנוֹ, קַח-נָא לְאַחֶיךָ אֵיפַת הַקָּלִיא הַזֶּה, וַעֲשָׂרָה לֶחֶם, הַזֶּה; וְהָרֵץ הַמַּחֲנֶה, לְאַחֶיךָ.	17 And Jesse said unto David his son: 'Take now for thy brethren an ephah of this parched corn, and these ten loaves, and carry them quickly to the camp to thy brethren.
יח  וְאֵת עֲשֶׂרֶת חֲרִצֵי הֶחָלָב, הָאֵלֶּה, תָּבִיא, לְשַׂר-הָאָלֶף; וְאֶת-אַחֶיךָ תִּפְקֹד לְשָׁלוֹם, וְאֶת-עֲרֻבָּתָם תִּקָּח.	18 And bring these ten cheeses unto the captain of their thousand, and to thy brethren shalt thou bring greetings, and take their pledge;

The JPS translation here does not give you the exact parallel, but this verse can be interpreted so that in fact Jesse was asking his son David to check on his brothers' welfare.

When David comes to the camp, his eldest brother upbraids him for his presumptuousness, telling him he is 'evil of heart' in verse 28. Due to this mission, David is in the right place at the right time when it comes to the fighting of Goliath, his fame spreads throughout the land, and eventually he becomes king.

In both cases, the youngest son (Benjamin was not yet born) goes out to seek his brothers' welfare at his father's behest. In both cases, there are brothers who do not respond positively. And in both cases, this is the beginning of the individual's ascent to power.

There are obviously more connections between David and Joseph. One of the most obvious is that each one is tempted by a beautiful woman; Joseph does not succumb but David does.

In addition, there is the traditional idea that there are two Messiahs. One is the Messiah son of Joseph, and the second is the Messiah son of David.

I have to explore the connections more to see if I can come to any conclusion as to why they are there. For now, I just want to note that they exist.

Passion

But it is like the primary colors in the paintings of children, splashed on the paper with abandon, occasionally not without charm, but generally demonstrating the sameness that characterizes the art of young children. In the muted, controlled hues of Rembrandt one can find the color, yet infinitely more richness, uniqueness and meaning. Passion is feeling of great depth. The fact that a feeling is uncontrolled is no indication whatsoever that it is any deeper than a feeling that is disciplined. To the contrary, psychiatrists know well the truth of the old proverbs "Shallow brooks are noisy" and "Still waters run deep." We must not assume that someone whose feelings are modulated and controlled is not a passionate person.  

-page 156 in The Road Less Traveled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth by M. Scott Peck, MD

This quote struck me because it is the antithesis of all major romantic figures in fantasy, young adult and sometimes even classical literature. There, the characters are always struggling with "uncontrolled feelings" and do all sorts of things in the name of these uncontrollable emotions that sweep over them.

It is rare for a romantic character to be passionate in a controlled way. The only character that I can think of who fits this model is Mr. Darcy, but even he says “In vain I have struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you.”

It would be nice for there to be a dashing, romantic character who chooses to love rather than being overcome by a feeling that he cannot repress. Until then, the idea that passion that is disciplined can be just as deep as passion that is uncontrolled will not hold up in popular culture.

The Tragedy of Biblical Woman

I was reading Family Redeemed over Yom Tov, and there were some pieces that really touched me. I'll reproduce them below.

~

The woman is a crisis personality. In normal times, when routine decisions are reached, the man makes up his mind and the Biblical woman follows him. However, in times of upheaval and transition, when the covenantal community finds itself at crossroads and the choice of alternative courses of action is about to be made, a choice that will shape destiny  it is then that the mother steps to the fore and takes command. The greatness of the man expresses itself in everyday action, when situations lend themselves to logical analysis and discursive thinking. The greatness of the woman manifests itself at the hour of crisis, when the situation does not lend itself to piecemeal understanding but requires instead instantaneous action that flows from the very depths of a sensitive personality. "God gave woman binah yeterah, an additional measure of understanding over men" (Niddah 45b).

[...]

Rebecca is responsible for the covenant being transmitted to Jacob instead of Esau (Gen. 27). Isaac had contemplated entrusting the spiritual heritage to his oldest son. At the hour of crisis Rebecca intervened and thereby determined the historical destiny of the covenantal community. She sent Jacob to Haran to marry her nieces. Miriam is responsible for the emergence of Moses as a leader and redeemer of his people. If not for her, he would have never been imbued with great passionate love for his brethren. She suggested to the princess that a Hebrew wet-nurse be employed for the infant, preventing Moses from disappearing in anonymity and ignorance. "And his sister stood afar off, to know what would be done to him...Then said the sister to Pharaoh's daughter, 'Shall I go and call for you a nurse of the Hebrew women...' and the maid went and called the child's mother" (Ex. 2:4, 7:8).

Similarly, Deborah saved the people from oppression and slavery when she organized the rebellion under the military command of Barak (Judges 4-5). And the Aggadah relates that the women refused to contribute to the Golden Calf (Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 45) while they gave generously to the Tabernacle (Ex. 35).

The woman is both a demonic and Divine crisis personality. Eve and Delilah represent the woman-demon; our matriarchs, the Divine individuality. The destiny of mankind and of the covenantal people was shaped by the woman.

The Book of Proverbs dedicated its last section (31:11-31) to the woman of valor in whom the heart of her husband trusts. Valor as a trait of the feminine personality was born in the covenantal community where motherhood, instead of being a factum, became a challenge and an ideal.

The Tragedy in Motherhood

And yet the story of the Biblical woman, the covenantal mother, ends with a tragic note. The very moment she brings her job to a close, the instant she completes her task, when the crisis is over, she returns quickly to her tent, draws down the curtain of anonymity and disappears. She is outside of the hustle and bustle of the male society. Abraham sits "in front of the tent" (Gen. 18:1). His name appears in the press and many know him; he is the leader, the father, the teacher, his lips drip honey; he enlightens the minds; he fascinates the passersby. Hardly anyone knows that there is a Sarah, humble, modest, publicly shy. Somewher ein the tent is the person who is perhaps responsible for all the accomplishments credited to Abraham, for all the glory that is bestowed upon Abraham, who is superior to him, who leads the leader and teaches the teacher and guides the master, who inspires the visionary and interprets his dreams.

Sarah, the Biblical woman, is modest, humble, self-effacing. She enters the stage when she is called upon, acts her part with love and devotion in a dim corner of the stage, and then leaves softly by a side door without applause and without the enthusiastic response of the audience which is hardly aware of her. She returns to her tent, to anonymity and retreat. Only sensitive people know the truth. Only three travelers inquired about her. These travelers were not ordinary people whose eyes see only the surface. They were the angels of God. Their glimpse penetrated and apprehended the image of the true leader, teacher, prophetess, to whom everything should be credited. Nonchalantly, they remarked, "Where is Sarah, your wife?" (Gen 18:9). In other words, we know that without her you could not play the part that God assigned to you. Where is she? Why do not people know the truth? Why has she been just trailing behind you? Why did she not march in front of you? After all, the covenant cannot and will not be realized without her. Abraham answered tersely, "She is in the tent" (Gen 18:9). Indeed she is enveloped in mystery.

It is quite interesting that although Abraham survived Sarah by thirty-eight years, his historical role came to an end with Sarah's passing. Isaac leaves the stage together with Rebecca. Jacob relinquishes his role to Joseph with the untimely death of Rachel. Without Sarah there would be no Abraham, no Isaac were it not for Rebecca; no Jacob without Rachel.

And yet, and here the tragedy manifests itself with all its impact, we say, "God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob," but not "God of Sarah, God of Rebecca, God of Rachel and Leah," even though they had an equal share in Borei Olam, the Creator of the World.

The Halakhah was cognizant of the greatness of the covenantal mother when it formulated the rule that Kedushat Yisrael, one's status as a Jew, can be transmitted only through the woman. The Halakhah was also conscious of the loneliness and the tragic note in the feminine commitment when it accepted a contradictory rule that the child takes his father's name and family status.

-Pages 116-120

(For more thoughts on the Rav's special view on the role of anonymity, click here.)

Between The Lines of the Bible: The Legacy of Fractured Brotherhood

Urim Publications was kind enough to send me a copy of Rabbi Yitzchak Etshalom's Between the Lines of the Bible: A Study from the New School of Orthodox Torah Commentary on the book of Shemot quite a while ago. It has taken me a while to read the book, but it was well worth the effort. It is uniquely fitting to read this book before Pesach, and in fact, I think many of you might enjoy reading it, so I recommend ordering it today- that way, you'll probably get it over Chol Hamoed and will have something interesting to read during the Second Days.

Between the Lines is a thoughtfully considered, well constructed, carefully written text. Etshalom has clearly put a great deal of thought into the issues he addresses, and focuses on overall themes in addition to specific literary techniques (including chiastic structure) in his analysis. His book is academic in nature, and for academic texts, is quite readable. However, I prefer narrative-style books, especially those that weave in the original Hebrew rather than making use of the English translation. They are easier to read, and thus accessible to a larger audience. Ideally, I would have liked this book to have been written more in the style of Rabbi Ari Kahn, who uses that method of writing. While this text does have the Hebrew quoted and highlighted at the beginning of each chapter, I found that flipping back and forth between Etshalom's analysis and that first page was somewhat of an annoyance.

Topics included in the book range from the binary structure of biblical narrative when it comes to the roots of our subjugation in Egypt, to the different derivations of Moshe's name, to literary patterns in the education of Pharaoh, studies of intertextuality, a comparison of major characters and a focus on sanctity in time. I am going to sum up one of the Divrei Torah that I found particularly beautiful below.

In Shemot 1:1-4 we read, "These are the names of the Israelites who came to Egypt with Jacob, each with his household: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, Issachar, Zebulon, and Benjamin, Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher.' Etshalom notes that:

If we compare this list to the nearly exhaustive list of the seventy members of Jacob's family who descended to Egypt in Genesis 46:10-17, we notice two glaring differences:  

(a) The Genesis list is complete, including grandsons, a granddaughter- and several family events (e.g., the death of Er and Onan, v.12). The second list, on the other hand, only lists the direct sons of Jacob. 

(b) This one is a bit more subtle. The order of the list in Genesis is the children of Leah, the children of Zilpah (Leah's handmaid), the children of Rachel and the children of Bilhah (Rachel's handmaid).  

In other words, the order is by mothers: The house of Leah and the house of Rachel. This is a reasonable order, given that Leah not only bore the most children but that her children were the oldest. In our verse, a slight change has taken place: The first two verses include the sons of Leah and the one son of Rachel (Joseph was already in Egypt). The last verse lists the four sons of the handmaids. What has changed here?  

If we look back at Genesis 37:2, we see that the children of the handmaids were set apart from the rest of the sons. (Cf. Between the Lines of the Bible, Vol 1, Ch 3). As we explained, this was because there was a clear-cut class distinction within the family: sons of the wives (Rachel and Leah) occupying a favored status as opposed to the sons of the handmaids. In times of trouble (the famine), this distinction was erased (indicated by the order of the listing in Genesis), but now that the family was firmly settled into life in Egypt, those old differences resurfaced. Setting the tone for our story, we are presented with families which do not see themselves as equals and are not united. 

-Pages 44-45

This is not the first time that we have noticed class-distinctions or forms of fractured brotherhood. In this situation, the sons of Rachel and Leah look down upon the sons of the maidservants. (Interestingly, one understanding of the Joseph story says that Joseph took the part of the sons of the maidservants, which is part of the reason that the sons of Leah turned against him and eventually sold him). We have seen fractured brotherhood before when it comes to Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and finally Joseph and his brothers. We end Genesis with the favoring of Ephraim over Menashe, although we are "given no information about either one's reaction to their grandfather's blessing. It seems that things are improving in this vein as time goes on (49)."

Here's the part where Etshalom offers a brilliant reading:

Now, at the beginning of the Exodus, we are introduced to Moses. He is clearly favored by his parents, as he is described as "good" at his birth. They make every effort to shield him, and then, relying on some form of divine intervention, they send him down the Nile. His older brother and sister have every reason to be jealous (following the Genesis model, and the present state of the inter-tribal relations), yet his sister (who is mentioned but not even named in the second chapter) looks after him and ensures his safety and continued relationship with family. When Moses is finally sent by God to Pharaoh, he refuses unless his older brother is included in the mission. God tells him that Aaron will rejoice upon seeing him (Exodus 4:14). We presume that he too would rejoice over Moses' selection as God's messenger and not harbor any jealousy. 

For his part, Moses includes both of his older siblings in the Exodus and leadership of the people. Aaron is one of his right-hand men (24:14), and Miriam leads the women (15:20). 

Moses, Aaron and Miriam have finally corrected the tragic and destructive history of sibling rivalry, which is what got us to Egypt in the first place (Joseph being sold by his brothers). 

This only serves to underscore the enormity of the tragedy when Moses' leadership begins to unravel (see Numbers 12). It only happens when Aaron and Miriam speak "against" Moses, exhibiting jealousy over his unique relationship with God. Even the family which led us from slavery to freedom and to an appreciation of our own great mission couldn't fully escape the legacy of Genesis.

-Page 50 

 I love this reading, because in one fell swoop it explains:

1. What got us to Egypt (the legacy of Genesis and inter-sibling rivalry and jealousy)
2. Why Bnei Yisrael specifically needed to be slaves vs. being subjugated in any other manner (because they had attacked and made fun of the children of the handmaidens, they needed the experience of being slaves, servants themselves, in order to learn compassion, as we see by the repeated pesukim that we must not mistreat the ger because we were gerim in Egypt)
3. Why Moshe was the one who could take us out (because Moshe was finally part of a family unit which loved one another and did not exhibit jealousy), and also, what we as a nation needed to be metaken in order to be taken out
4. Why Miriam's sin was so great when she spoke against him in Bamidbar (and as my husband pointed out, why what she did needs to be remembered in the Sheish Zechiros- because we must guard against this legacy of inter-sibling, inter-nation rivalry, as it has the ability to undo everything)

So to me, that's genius.

Read more of Etshalom's book for more wonderful Divrei Torah!

Shut Down The Bible Department?

Many friends of mine have shared the article "Shut Down the Bible Department" by Elliot Resnick across their Facebook feeds. I think the article raises a good point, though unfortunately it does so in a very black-and-white way.

The rule is that in order to graduate from Yeshiva College, it is mandatory that one take a certain number of Bible credits, including Intro to Bible. In contrast, Stern College has no such rule. Intro to Bible is not even offered at Stern College. Several years ago, I wrote an article lamenting this, and asked for it to be brought over to our campus. When I took Intro to Bible with Rabbi Shnayer Z. Leiman at Revel, it was one of the most illuminating and challenging courses that I was ever lucky enough to work through. My husband was also able to audit the class, and felt the same way about it.

However, it's not for everyone.

I don't say this lightly. I am someone who advocates for living an examined life, thinking about one's Judaism, one's connection to God and one's choices. However, I am also someone who was raised by people who modeled devotion to God in their everyday lives, were reverent, and never felt threatened by questions. Moreover, I am someone who is very curious, and who would certainly be encountering people during the course of my life who would ask me questions about how I made sense of being a believing Jew when biblical criticism raises questions about the texts. For all these reasons, I had the ability to encounter challenges without having them shatter my faith, and also the need to learn this information, both for myself and because I would need to provide answers to others.

At the same time, I have a sibling who is also a devoted Jew, a lover of God and humanity, who could not be more different from me in terms of connection to God. This sibling, raised by my same parents, connects to God on an emotional level. S/he does good works, is always happy to cheer up a sick person, provide hospitality, help a friend in need or inspire children, but would not have found Intro to Bible to be a meaningful course. In fact, this person would have encountered questions and challenges which would have troubled them without offering helpful resolution.

My husband's family in Boro Park also fit this model. They are comprised of kind, giving people, who take faith and tradition very seriously. They accept Torah because their parents accepted it, and hand it down as mesorah to their children. It is treated as something precious, and everything about this lifestyle is given the greatest honor. Many people in this community would not be strengthened in their faith, or brought closer to God, through learning Intro to Bible.

The difficulty here is that we experience a clash between Western society and its values and the sometimes compatible, sometimes opposing values in Judaism. Western society values examination, dissection, skepticism and even atheism. Breaking away from it all is a value. Throwing away what isn't true is a value. Daring to search out the truth, even if it scares you, is valued. You are considered weak otherwise. In The Matrix, if Neo had opted for the blue pill, we would have thought him a coward.

And what we have done is taken these values and imposed them onto Judaism. We have decided that in Judaism, too, we must give credence and think carefully about every aspect of our belief system and tradition, dissect it and discard those pieces that don't make sense to us. We must be rationalists. We must break away from anything that cannot be proven. And in doing this, we pat ourselves on the back, call ourselves brave, call ourselves truth-seekers.

We are also concerned by what others think of us. We don't want brilliant professors, renowned scholars or friends in school to think we are stupid, that we believe in an outdated, antiquated religion. We want to make sure that our attitude to our religion is the most cutting-edge, sophisticated attitude possible. That we have taken into account modern day values and sensibilities.

Here lies the problem. For some people, it is brave to explore their vistas to the very end. And for other people, it is brave to recognize their limits. To say, here is where I stop; I can go no further. Because some people have the ability and the tools to look into challenges and be strengthened by them, while others look into them and lose themselves.

There is a famous story in the Talmud that four men walk into the Pardes. Pardes is an acronym for Peshat, Remez, Derash, Sod. Three of the men are harmed by this encounter. Only one remains strong and is not altered by the encounter. One may ask: but why were the other three harmed? They walked into an orchard, a garden for the mind, filled with God's Torah! Yes, but they were not sufficiently prepared. This was not the right path for them, the right challenge to take. There were other paths for them to walk.

I think that Intro to Bible can be a very valuable course for some people. It was for me. It strengthened my faith to be taught by a man who was an illui in Torah and also in biblical scholarship and criticism. To see such a man take the questions and concerns that I had seriously, think about them, and present both answers and more questions was helpful to me; it also signaled to me that I need not fear the questions. But: not every person is themselves this kind of teacher, and not every person learns this way. There are some teachers who, knowingly or not, shatter the faith of others, and some students who need to walk a different path, perhaps a path that features more good works, more love, more humanity, and less rational dissection.

A major assumption that many people make is that one path is 'greater' and one is 'lesser.' We assume that Neo is a hero because he takes the red pill instead of the blue pill. I'm not so sure that's true. What if he knew the limitations of his mind and abilities? What if he realized being exposed to what lay beneath the veneer would make him go mad? Would it not be more heroic for him to protect himself than to walk a path just because another person thinks it is noble?

We also assume that people who do not examine their lives in the same way we do are cowards or are copping-out, but is that really true? They live lives solely by faith, lives that reflect emunah peshuta. If called upon by God, they are instantly ready to answer. They need no proof, no signs, no miracles, nor textual analyses. They have their tradition, and that is sufficient unto them. They have their lore, and that is all. In cultures other than our Western society, this would be greatly prized. I just finished reading a book about an unwanted child in China. She wrote about the respect that was given to older women and older figures, the grandmother-sage with her wisdom to impart. America is a youth-centered, youth-focused culture, but that is not the way our world used to be. There are many societies that have created beautiful things that rely on naught but tradition. Who is to say our way is better than theirs?

Moreover, is truth the ultimate goal in life? Perhaps we ought to consider what value there is in religion even if it were not true, in the sense that God never made it, and thus we need not keep it. Suppose that religious Jews are in fact living a lie. So they live their whole life, and their religious beliefs and religious ideas are all lies. And yet, even if that were to be so, they are, for the most part, beautiful. The traditions in Judaism, even if all proved false, would yet be beautiful. Traditions that bring families together, that unite us as a shared brotherhood, that tell us to extend our hand in charity to the stranger- even if all predicated upon a lie- are still beautiful. This is not to say there are no problematic aspects to practiced Judaism; of course there are. But most often, the good outweighs the bad.

Would it be so terrible for people to live unexamined lives if they were happy in those lives, and the tenets of their faith led them to do good things? I think not.

So I think we must consider: what is our motivation in saying everyone must examine their religion and religious beliefs? Is it because we believe it will strengthen everyone in their faith? Clearly, it will not. Is it because we are afraid of what others will think of us? Impression management is hardly a reason to impose this obligation upon others. Is it because of our Western values? Quite possibly yes, and is that sufficient reason? Perhaps not. There are alternate methods of acquiring wisdom, as we can see if we look at traditions in countries like China. Is it because it matters because it is true? Who is to say that truth is the only thing that matters? Perhaps happiness matters more. Perhaps love. Perhaps the practical outcome of people doing good acts, even if the beliefs underlying them were to be proved false.

I do not think Yeshiva College should shut down their Bible department. But I think that it is fair to contend that either Intro to Bible should not be mandatory, or different forms of Intro to Bible should be taught. Some of them can be very academic and focus on textual analysis. Others can be more midrashic and involve simply learning an overview of the text with commentaries. People can choose the one that they feel is most suitable for them; after all, we must raise each individual according to his way.