Pesach: Power Corrupts

Tucked away in maggid in the middle of the Mitzrayim narrative is the “Arami Oved Avi” passage, a seeming non sequitur that turns into an immediate prequel: what drove Yaakov’s family into Egypt in the first place was his treatment at the hands of Lavan.   Still, why would a passage most famously associated with the mitzvah of bikkurim make its way into the Pesach narrative?

While the timeline doesn’t necessarily add up that way—the midrash about Yosef having to go to Egypt in chains so Yaakov could go to down there in a dignified manner comes to mind—one can see historical parallels between the houses of Pharaoh and Lavan and their patterns of oppression and the nature of the power dynamics that existed.

What might follow are lessons not only about the redeemed [“us”] but whom we were redeemed from [“them”].  In other words: these paradigmatic eliminationist anti-Semites had something to gain from their attitudes and policies; they weren’t necessarily “sonei yisrael” 100% “lishmah” [not that it made them any less nefarious].

“Arami oved avi” in a way hints that the story of yetzias mitzraim actually begins with that passage, which would behoove us to examine Lavan first.  As I’ve noted elsewhere, the combination of Lavan’s sordid family history in addition to his propensity to attach a price tag to everything drove how he related even to his own flesh and blood, so it would make sense that when his power dynamic was threatened and he lost his family, he would at least have an eliminationist impulse cross his mind [as evidenced by the discussions about “machshavah k’maaseh”].

Bear in mind it takes Yaakov at least 14 years to DO anything [his breeding strategy with the sheep], and the full 20 years to SAY anything [after Lavan chases him down].  As we’ll see this is important when you consider the truth-to-power dynamics inherent in his relationship with Lavan, and Moshe’s relationship with Pharaoh.

Like Yaakov [although not quite in the same manner], Moshe is an honored member of the very household responsible for engineering the eliminationist oppression.  In a manner different from Yaakov, it didn’t take all that long for him to actually speak up effectively [as per the medrash that he asked for the enslaved Hebrews to get Shabbos off].

Furthermore, we see both antagonists pursue their aims differently in reaction to Divine messages: Lavan, as it were, backs off; Pharaoh doubles down repeatedly until he essentially destroys his own nation. 

What motivates the different responses?

Both Lavan and Pharaoh are driven by a combination of material and “spiritual” concerns.  Lavan—as indicated by Bereishis 31:2 as a starting point—finally realizes in a way that the con game he’s run is up, and his son’s reaction in the previous possuk indicates that he was beginning to feel his loss of influence and power over the other part of his own family, which would have inevitably had a further negative impact on his reputation in the neighborhood.  And finally, when he catches up with Yaakov and essentially realizes his power over them is at an end, he plaintively asks where his “gods” are.  The irony here is that Lavan still wants to hold on to the “trafim” even after G-d Himself has stopped him with a divine vision, now as if they are all he has left.

Pharaoh has similar concerns, if not in the same order.  As with most despots, his main concern is maintaining his iron grip on power and his nation's viability, as indicated a] in Shemos 1:10 where he first uses the “fifth column” threat [“hava nischakma lo”] as an excuse to subjugate the Hebrews, and b] his repeated trips to the riverbank in the morning to hide from his populace that he is, actually, less than divine.

A curious effect thus occurs:  at the same time that his feared loss of power and influence comes to pass with each plague and the concomitant devastation to Egypt, Pharaoh—who at first doesn’t completely buy into his own deification, a necessary concession to then maintenance of power—begins to actually buy into his own divinity in a way he previously hadn’t, thinking he actually can fight G-d.  Ironically—it might be all he thinks he has left.

In this way, we have an additional Pesach theme: not only to speak truth to power in the name of freedom, but to realize that since the political is almost always personal, there is always an element of the elevation of self to levels that lead to similar levels of near absolute corruption.

Vayikra: Anti-Marketing

As has been seen in these pages, one possible reason that Parshas Vayikra is the first one taught to schoolchildren might have to do with the explanation regarding “adam ki yakriv mikem”—that just as everything in the world belonged to Adam haRishon because there was no one else around at the time, one should [or, more accurately, may] bring a korban that has absolutely no taint of misappropriation—hence, the ultimate educational message being imparted to said schoolchildren: no benefitting from what isn’t yours. 

[Especially not spiritually.]

One might—in however strained/”shver” a manner—apply this to the current “shidduch system”, or more specifically, how some men act entitled within said system while having their dubious tendencies enabled by the very matchmakers who should be using the system to rein them in.

More specifically: how older guys who set rather self-serving age limits for potential matches are catered to by the system, which is in direct contradistinction to the message that one should not further spiritual ends [making matches] through dubious means [feeding a sense of entitlement].

I described this tendency in some detail in my Beshalach piece, so I don’t need to really hash out further how objectionable one should find those tendencies. 

This time, my targets are shadchanim and singles coordinators.

Let’s make this simple:

If you’re gonna run a tachlis singles event—EVEN OUT THE AGES.

Period.

As a counterbalance to the Talmudic dictum that “more than the man want to get married, the woman wants to get married”, we have the story on Kesuvos 82b about women not marrying almost at all when they found the terms of the kesuva to be unfavorable.

Are the GUYS gonna stop if the market doesn’t cater to them?  In theory, it’s been proferred that if guys can’t “get” the kind of frum woman they like, they’ll “date out”…or go as far as marrying out.  But if that were so, should shadchanim who are operating under a tachlis principle as a driving force put these men in circulation in the first place?   Since when was “It’s A Man’s Man’s Man’s World” “da’as Torah”?

Some market forces should admittedly apply.  I mean, there really is no good reason to never take ANY attraction factors into account, as one Rav once exhorted his troops [and my contracomment got me kicked off the frum facebook group where the article was posted approvingly.  This can be taken too far].

But if shadchanim are worried that guys wont show up if they don’t stagger the ages…hello?  Are you trying just to marry off guys, or everyone?  Last I checked the shidduch system hadn’t yet bough into Obergfell v Hodges.  Plus, if your goal really is tachlis, while you can’t toally ignore market forces, you shouldn’t operate as if they were the ikkar.  Otherwise…just let everybody go and date independently and get married when and how they want, like I wrote in 2008.

In fact, shadchanim SHOULD try their hand at anti-marketing: instead of letting a couple of older guys to slip in who didn’t quite come under the age limit in order to even out the numbers—why don’t they actually make restrictive age groups and keep to that limit?  If people want to network and set their friends up later, great.  At least there are other factors at play there and everyone really consents to the process.   There’s enough pressure in the system as it is.

Beshalach: Mira-calculus

"Matchmaking is difficult like splitting the Red Sea" [Sotah 2a]

"One should not rely on miracles" [Kiddushin 39b, Pesachim 64a]

I'm far from the only one who thinks that the "shidduch crisis" has little to do with actual shidduchim.

As I've noted elsewhere, if the endgame of shidduchim was simply to empty all the neshamos from Guf and bring the geulah faster, we would still practice polygamy, and divorce-after-ten-years-of-childlessness would still be mandatory.

Obviously communal support of marriage imperatives should go beyond the pru u'rvu mandate.  Which is precisely why there is one element that crisismongers and crisis-skeptics like me should be in full agreement on.  And they can point fingers at guys.

Specifically, older guys.

More specifically, older guys who use a cutoff age significantly below theirs as a dealbreaking criterion, sometimes citing fertility issues as a justification.

There was time when fecundity may have been paramount.

There was a time when there were no correctives or options other than the usual [or fervent prayer.  I mean, we could mention that 3 of the 4 foremothers had serious fertility issues.  Two of them were way under 40.]

These are not those times.

Any guy past the age of 40 [especially if he's not a Kohen] who plays the fertility card in turning down a woman--especially one reasonably close to his age, plus OR minus--might have a hava amina that he's both entitled and obligated to have a large family at the same time, and ergo, it's a "mitzvah" for him to set a much lower age cutoff.  What's sometimes even more shocking is that some communal singles orgs seem to go along with this when the top cutoff for female attendants at their events is lower than the one for males.

The only thing that is being promulgated above has nothing to do with mitzvos or hashkafos.  It's male privilege with a religious veneer, which makes it infinitely more reprehensible.

I can already hear some naysayers, even based on the quotes at the top of this piece: "A shidduch is ALREADY a miracle.  You want me to have to rely on another one if I marry an 'older' woman?  Ain somchin al hanes!!!"

Hello.

What makes a guy think he has anything to do with the miracle of childbirth beyond his initial contribution, if that, especially with options provided by reproductive technology and adoption?  And that's even assuming that a woman over 40 will have "trouble", which is not even close to being always the case.  Certainly using 35 as a cutoff borders on inexcusable.

In fact--in line with what I wrote about prenups last year--one of the most romantic things a guy over 40 can do for a woman close to his age is be willing to support her through her possible reproductive struggles and be ready for that possibility.   

There was a time when [Sanhedrin 104a, re Eichah 1:1 ["rabasi 'am"]], as a matter of communal "policy", to "produce more children [they would] marry young women to older men....and vice-versa."  

A time when they did both.

There's something rather bizarre in thinking that one has earned the right to an intergenerational match by virtue of having lasted single for so long.  It also introduces some sort of imbalance into the process if that becomes one of the first things a guy looks for.

A time when they did both.

Only then would it have nothing to do with privilege and the evolutionary impulse to pass on one's genes.  Otherwise that's all it is, and it really doesn't deserve a religious imprimatur.  

Adderabba.

A time when they did both.

Vayeishev--Graceful Exits

In this weeks' parsha, Yosef actually deliberately leaves evidence behind that actually can be [and is] used to frame him because a forceful removal of his top garment from the clutches of Potiphar's wife wouldn't have been "derecheretzdik".  Or, as Ramban notes, "proper respect" as the wife of his master "dictated this course of action".

Is that level of derech eretz actually yehareg veal ya'avor [he could have easily been executed]?  Aside from the fact that Potiphar's wife wasn't really acting commensurate with her station?

There are a few lessons to be learned here about graceful exits, particularly when one looks at some of the details leading up to the fateful encounter.

Rashi on 39:6 notes that Yosef started to twirl his hair "because he saw himself ruling", and G-d was moved to "incite the bear against [him]".  So aside from Mrs. Potiphar's conflicting inclinations [Egyptian immorality on one hand, her fuzzy prophecy about her descendants on the other] acting as a catalyst, Yosef had already begun to dig his own hole and deal with his own conflict: on one hand, having to remind himself that eshes ish was zayin mitzvos, swearing not to do it on top of that, and then finally actually being prepared to succumb--Yosef was conflicted enough once he summoned up the strength to make the less than graceful exit that he might have felt that he wasn't really in a position to violate the accepted cultural norms.  After all, but for the grace of G-d [and "demus dikyono shel aviv"], he might have misbehaved the way she was about to.   So he had to cut his losses.

Furthermore, just because SHE sullied her station, it would not have necessarily given him the right to aid and abet in said sullying, even if he had resisted the temptation [and we see that he might have come close to succumbing].  So at that point, Yosef's only salient exit strategy involved him making a statement about his OWN escape from the clutches of immorality, without necessarily making a parallel statement about his counterpart's behavior.  He had to give himself mussar without giving her mussar...hence his leaving his garment.

In theory, this would indicate that while one must sometimes clearly articulate when morality is being blatantly violated, one should avoid being ostensibly offensive about it.

Yet, to paraphrase my mara d'asra Rabbi Allen Schwartz, sometime the exit has to be emphatic.

When does one need to balance the forcefulness of the exit, and when must one lean towards the fully emphatic?

A personal story might be somewhat instructive.

In Jan. 2010 I and a friend who is considerably more doctrinally socially and politically conservative than I am went on a road trip to Indianapolis to see the AFC Championship game [Colts 30, Jets 17.  Too much Peyton].  After the game--the 3PM game--we left the stadium and searched for a bar to watch the 6:30 game.  We finally found what looked like a nondescript establishment with nothing on the facade but we could see several widescreen TV's showing the NFC contest, so we went in.

After about 90 seconds when several gentlemen in Colts jerseys one after the other kept asking me where I was staying for the night--and one made a rather graphic proposition--I figured out what kind of establishment I had walked into.

My traveling companion did not figure it out that fast.

Now, in theory, this was likely going to be one of those cases where I would have just made a rather quietly graceful exit without anyone noticing, had I been alone.  After all I had certainly entered the premises under somewhat false pretenses.  I would not have felt compelled to yell "Leviticus 18:20!!!" on my way out.  I actually might mot be too far off if I opine that such behavior would have  been contra to...well, derech eretz.

However, now I had a dilemma.  Time was going by and my counterpart was still not figuring out where he was--and I was operating under the assumption for some reason that if I did clue him in on it, whatever exit I had would be less than...graceful.

After about 20 minutes, when a female patron sitting at a table clued him in [she figured that he might want to know that, unlike him, the majority of the patrons in the bar were NOT acolytes of Sarah Palin], he reacted about the way I'd expected.  Thankfully the woman was nice enough to provide the graceful exit I was looking for: she told us where we could find the SPORTS bar we had been looking  for in the first place but hadn't been able to find.

[Thankfully, religion actually didn't visibly play into it.  We were both wearing Jets caps.  Maybe it just reflected somehow on Jets fans.  Chilul ha-Jets?]

Now, if I'd known exactly what kind of establishment it was, I would not have walked in [kal vachomer considering my counterpart].  I still ask myself if the way I handled it under the circumstances was both the most moral and least offensive.

Yosef, at the risk of his life and ultimately immeasurable cost to his freedom, did both because the circumstances leading up to that moment called for it.

Hopefully one can recognize which response are called for in which circumstance.

Bereishis: Spiritual Competition

The fratricidal episode between Kayin and Hevel in this weeks parsha is of necessity one of the most enigmatic in the Torah.

Why would G-d so blatantly as it were “play favorites” in reverse when Kayin was ostensibly the first one to invent the notion of sacrificing to G-d, and then seemingly not only not get credit for the effort, but rather chastised for his failure?

My mara a’asra Rabbi Allen Schwartz recently said that the root of Kayin’s avera was that he engaged in competition rather than cooperation.  He might have had the original idea to serve G-d through sacrifice, but what kept him from sharing this idea with his brother?  Maybe he thought that G-d would grant him some sort of agricultural advantage; give him another sister/wife; give him something that his brother wouldn’t get because G-d would "like him better" if he sacrificed and his brother didn’t.

My take is that Kayin "originated" another idea: trying to use spirituality to one up an ostensible competitor, and that was why G-d not only "gave him mussar" but also in mida-k’neged-mida mode favored Kayin’s competitor to his face.   Kayin may never have even expected any response; in fact, one can imagine Kayin actually initially congratulating himself on just having the original idea and even chuckling to himself when his brother starts collecting sheep, thinking that not only is his idea better simply by virtue of its originality, but that his brother is wasting effort trying to outdo him….until the Fire comes down.  It may have been G-d’s way of delineating between “mitoch shelo lishmah bah lishmah” and  “hamasmilim bah sama demosa”: indicating where a spiritual competition might cease to be spiritual.  

[There might be several degrees between, say, Kayin’s spiritual one-upmanship even just in contemplation and the notion that “hatzo'ek al chavero hu ne’enash techila”.   But one can see how one might lead to the other.]

However, once he realized his efforts were not only rejected but that the rejection was compounded AND his “competitor” got all the credit while he was forced to watch, he became enraged. 

[Whether or not Hevel also copied the competition idea is unclear; the posuk does say “And Hevel brought also”, so he may have engaged in competition; however, he also might have been spurred by watching his brother’s effort without actually thinking along the lines that Kayin did, having no reason to assume that G-d would favor him and not Kayin’s offering.]

So why would the Torah open with such an enigmatic lesson that ostensibly goes so far as from what it initially appears to be saying?

The easy answers are a] that the Torah does this all the time and b] it does this precisely because it wants its learners to delve beyond the surface so that it almost tricks and/or forces its adherents to be “[me]haf[e]ch bah, [me]haf[e]ch bah” to get to the ultimate point, because if one stops too far short, the lesson drawn may be incomplete at best, and at times possibly incorrect [maybe even repeating Kayin's mistake, in a way].

Beyond all that, the Torah’s other lesson here to both Kayin and us might be that spiritual progression and striving isn’t linear, and also at times doesn’t have a guarantee of there not being a loss involved in the effort even if there is no palpable gain [G-d’s reference to a “pesach chatas”, again, implying that Kayin may have actually committed a sin with his sacrificial effort].   The CEO’s and financial captains who helped sink the economy in 2008 and walked away with golden parachutes might have learned a thing or two from Kayin, but it certainly wasn’t a spiritual lesson.

Counterintuitively, however, it also belies the notion that "Biblical morality" as practiced by certain other faith strains that use Biblical texts as foundations are actually necessarily salient just because they call it that.  We have something they don’t [“im yomru lecha yesh Torah bagoyim al ta’amin”] and often we fall into the trap of thinking that we need to make alliances out of the necessity to maintain “Biblical morality” [especially in the US] because the alternative has to be worse.  I’ve written elsewhere that this is mistaken thinking, and I would go further here: this is one area where “spiritual competition” may actually be warranted.  We certainly didn’t start it [viz. the midrashim about G-d "shopping" the Torah to everyone else and coming to us last, as well as most of the history of early Christianity], and the fact that G-d “turned to Hevel’s offering” indicates that sometimes one side actually does get the advantage granted.   It’s no longer as if we have ideas we aren’t sharing [which in the information age is well-nigh impossible].   Ain chadash; all the ideas are out there.  We can and we should be specific about what’s ours and not conflate them with what might no longer be."

A Shiur on the Agunah Inyan--and Its Almost Immediate Impact

In the current halachic battles surrounding the struggles of women to obtain Gittin from recalcitrant husbands, one never knows what might actually facilitate the resolution of a previously difficult predicament.  In the following story a well-timed shiur on the very topic actually leads to a breakthrough in what had been previously intractable proceedings.

Part I—The Shiur

Dayan HaRav Moshe Gutnick, in the New York area celebrating the recent birth of a grandchild, addressed an audience of nearly 90 participants on April 28 at the United Lubavitcher Yeshiva in Crown Heights, with a short lecture about Gittin and the halachic processes involved, which was then followed by a rather lively question-and-answer session that lasted for nearly two hours.

Dayan HaRav Gutnick began his lecture noting that the seeds for this shiur were essentially planted by one of his niece’s facebook groups where questions about Gittin arose, and it became apparent that people didn’t understand the the halachic process or Gett process; the misunderstandings had a tendency to lead to unrealistic expectations, or lack of awareness of available options.   “Knowledge of the halachic process is supposed to be empowering.  The Church l’havdil burned books to maintain power and keep the masses ignorant.  In our context  for Torah to have its proper place we have to know it, and understanding the process empowers us." 

Dayan Harav Gutnick illustrated the process by retelling the Talmudic story of the Oven of Akhnai in Baba Metzia and how the debate ended with the proclamation of “Lo bashamayim hi!" [“It is not in heaven!”], to underscore how “Torah is partnership:  Hashem gave the Torah to us; it’s our responsibility to find the halacha;  and that’s why Chazal and gedolim have grappled to always find solutions to help people.”  He explained this by saying that, while certain halachic issues could be called “neutral” in that they “don’t relate to people in terms of personal pain or the circumstances in which  they find themselves”, in other cases “crises developed with people having real difficulties and solutions where possible had to be found to help those people.”

He then addressed the core of the shiur: the issues surrounding the withholding of Gittin, the salience of a halachic prenup as a possible remedy, and possible communal responses to recalcitrant husbands which he considered to be the most effective tool outside of Israel.  Dayan HaRav Gutnick was unequivocal about the immutability of hilchos Gittin and kiddushin—specifically that the man always has to be the one to give both the kiddushin and the Gett, and the Gett has to always be given beratzon with drastic halachic consequences ensuing from a forced Gett (“This requirement that the man must give the Gett willingly creates all sorts of difficulties and we don’t know why Hashem created those difficulties but we must uncompromisingly adhere to His will.”)  He then elaborated on the halachic concepts of kofin and ma’us alai, their history and timeline, and the circumstances where they might apply, and the "difficulty of knowing those circumstances.   In the old days, If Halocho required a man to give a Gett, under the auspices of a Beth Din you would beat him until a Gett was given. Nowadays, allowing a husband to abuse his wife by not giving her a Gett when required to do so is apparently deemed by our secular society to be more civilized than allowing corporal punishment to force him into submission. We therefore need to find different solutions." 

As the evening progressed and the Dayan received questions, it became further apparent what he hoped would result—especially outside Israel:  “the only thing that works is that [a] community gets behind it and won’t tolerate it…[w]hen a woman doesn’t want to stay married I call that woman an aguna.  There are technical terminologies [], but the community has to view a woman who wants a Gett and doesn't get one immediately as an aguna.  Now of course there is a difference between a week and 6 months…everything is relative to particular circumstances.  However...a woman who wants a Gett is entitled to get one.  In an ideal world, the Gett is the last thing to be finalized between the parties, [but] using the Gett as tool is not acceptable; if a man uses any sort of settlement between the parties as a reason to unreasonably delay a get or uses it as a bargaining chip this should be totally unacceptable. Rav Moshe Feinstein said if there’s any delay, then it DOESN’T go last.”  Addressing the issue of prenups, the Dayan said “we need to work towards” a time where no chuppah is done without one provided the pre-nup is 100% halachically acceptable. 

Finally—in a way summing up the entire evening—a challenge was issued from the male side of the mechitza: “If you want to make the marriage work it will.” 

The Dayan replied: absolutely not. 

“How do you know?”  

“Because the Torah said so.  You hope every marriage will work.  But the get is there for a reason.  You can’t force two people to stay together against their will…Ain neshosenu shevuyos charev [“our women are not prisoners of war”].

Part II—Tali Roytman’s Story

Tali Roytman—a Crown Heights resident undergoing a divorce battle at the time of the lecture—described how Dayan HaRav Moshe Gutnick’s shiur opened up the possibility of exercising a previously untried halachic option in her own divorce battle.

“I've been waiting for my get over 4 years. We were involved with Rabbi Weismann at Beis Din Of America. In a weird twist it was my husband who 'invited' me there. I replied I would go but that I want a hearing. Rabbi Weismann called him to come in and sign arbitration - a normal process. But he didn't want to. Rabbi Weissmann actually called me very surprised. Usually the person who initiates the process doesn't have an issue with arbitration. So the BDOA was put on hold, making the process even longer.

“I knew in my mind I wouldn't be able to get him to an actual Beis Din in America. He is an avoider. He had signed and notarized agreements which he discarded. We had appointments for the get which he didn't show up for. Honestly no one really knows why he even went to BDOA or why he thought he would have it better there.

"There is an option of getting a Beit Din to issue an injunction to detain my husband for withholding the get in Israel - the Tzav Ikuv Yetsiya-a restraining order to leave the country. Some people mentioned that option to me in passing but I never gave it a second thought. I just didn't have enough knowledge or strength.

“My husband and I are both Israeli citizens and we married in Israel. We moved to NY soon after we got married. He went back for a family simcha, so he sent me a note with the children. The note said he would be away for 2 weeks. Within those 2 weeks - min hashamayim - Rabbi Gutnick spoke.

“A light bulb went on in my head when I heard Rabbi Gutnick's thoughts on this option. Then another friend told me: ‘If he is in Israel, why don't you look into this option?', which pushed me even further.

“I had some local connection contact Yad La-isha for me. We made it clear that it's time sensitive because he may or may not be in Israel for another week. Possibly, this connection who has some association with the government caused it to go quicker. I can't say for certain. But I believe within 3 days he was served.

“He wanted to leave Israel right away but clearly just wanted this over with…since we are both currently living in America with kids and any other issue must be taken care of in the US.

“I was then called to come to Israel right away.

“It was almost Shabbos so I checked flight possibilities. I confirmed with the Yad La-isha lawyer. She let the Rabanut know. They were ok with the court date which was on my birthday.

“I always feared that he would possibly change his mind, even this time. In the back of my mind, I was thinking that because he has his family in Israel he may just say 'forget leaving the country. I'm ok to stay here in Israel' and then I didn't know what the next step would be. But once he let the Rabbanut know he was coming to the Diyun, he would probably at least show up.

“Rav Shlomo Shtasman, Av Bes Din Rabbani Azuri Tel Aviv-Yaffo spoke to him privately and then to me privately. Within 2 hours it was done and I was a free woman. On my birthday. In Eretz Yisroel."