GEN339 The rabbis focus on both the elementary fact of the shift in physical domicile that occurs with marriage, and the more meaningful psychological-experiential development.  The Aramaic translation of Onkelos (followed closely by Pseudo-Jonathan and Targum Jerusalem) renders [this verse] in the following, somewhat puzzling manner: “ … a man will leave the sleeping place of his father and mother and cleave to his wife ….” [But why the stress on the “sleeping-place” as the area to be left? Surely the son did not occupy the parental bedroom till his nuptials! There are, I believe, three alternative readings of Onkelos: (a) “sleeping-place” stresses the sexual nature of the new bond; (b) the phrase is meant literally, stressing that the son is expected to be available for filial service of his parents, though he is no longer in the same intimate physical nearness—perhaps he is to live in the parental house with his bride; (c) the phrase is meant literally and contains the halakhic derivation of the ban on incest. Onkelos would then be saying: “Do not to sleep [have sexual relations] with mother or father, but cleave to another for your wife.” (S. Wertheimer, Or ha-Targum, p. 9). Such an interpretation of the verse can be traced back at least as far as R. Akiba [Sanhedrin 58a] and is later cited by Rashi ad loc.] The simplest meaning of this translation is that with marriage the new husband leaves the house of his parents to establish his own home.  See R. David Kimhi (Radak), ad loc.: “The meaning of the verse is close to its rendering by Onkelos; it is not said that a man shall leave his father and mother for his wife, so that he does not serve them or honor them as he is able, but that it is right that a man leave his father and mother … and no longer live with them, but live … with his wife.” Radak reflects a reading of Onkelos from the perspective of Pirke de-R. Eliezer: cf. infra. Note also the transition from the relatively descriptive terms of the Torah (see Cassutto, Commentary on Genesis, 1, p. 137) for a more normative judgment of vocabulary. While Onkelos sees the verse in terms of the shift in physical domicile, the Midrash focuses on the emotional and psychic displacement:  a man ”leaves” much more than the physical environment of childhood when he marries. See Cassutto, op. cit. whose comments derive—even verbally—from the midrashic material to be cited.  The stimulus for the midrashic comment is the remarkable verse that concludes the story of Isaac’s marriage to Rebecca: The Midrash notes the personal, psychological suggestiveness of the episode and reflects, as well, upon its universal insight: R. Jose said: “Isaac mourned his mother Sarah three years. At the end of three years he married Rebecca and stopped morning his mother. Thus we see that until a man takes a wife, he directs his love toward his parents. Once he marries, he directs his love toward his wife, as we read, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave unto his wife, so that they become one flesh." Does a man leave his parents in the sense that he is free of the obligation to honor them? Rather, his soul’s love cleaves to his wife. …”  Pirke de-R. Eliezer, chapter 32.  Expounding the Isaac-Rebecca episode, the Midrash is explicit where the Bible only hints. Isaac found, in loving his wife, consolation for the love he could no longer bestow upon his mother. But the Midrash then generalizes from Isaac’s compensation for the love of his dead mother by the love of his wife, to the substitution of the love of one’s wife for the love of one’s living parents. In the process, the meaning of [this verse] is deepened. It is not only a physical displacement that is described but, more significantly, an emotional one. Filial love (though not filial respect!) Is supplemented by love of one’s mate.  Nahmanides read these verses from a similar perspective: … a man wants his wife to be with him always, as it was implanted in his nature for the males to cleave to their wives; they leave their fathers and mothers, see themselves one flesh with their wives. … Man … sees that his wife is closer to him than his parents … when Isaac saw Rebecca he brought her to that tent to honor her, and there he took her, and this is the meaning of “he loved her and found comfort,” which hints at his great, inconsolable sorrow over his mother until he was consoled in his wife, in his love for her, for otherwise, why would the Torah mention the love of man for his wife?  Both Midrash and Nahmanidies see in [this verse] a classic formulation of the new personal reality that is presented by marriage and the love it reflects. But this reality, while affecting filial love, need not affect filial responsibility of service and reverence. Indeed, the Midrash firmly rejects the notion that these responsibilities are terminated by marriage: “Does a man leave his parents in the sense that he is free of the obligation to honor them?” Yet, while the emotional development need not affect filial concern, and the Midrash insists it should not, the shifting physical arrangements and the new focus the responsibility cannot help but affect the dimensions of filial service and involvement.  BLIDSTEIN 95-98