GEN322 A husband should overlook his wife’s deficiencies in order to prevent disputes.  Adam’s state of unconsciousness at the time of the creation of Chava (Eve) illustrates how a husband should relate to his wife. At times a husband should act in his home as if he were asleep and unaware of his wife’s shortcomings.  Even if a wife forgets or disregards her husband’s wishes, the husband should not grow angry and shout.  He should overlook minor faults in order to avoid domestic quarrels.  (Toldos Yitzchok cited in Maim Loaiz on this verse).  PLYN 24-25

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN323 Does a divorce sever all links between the couple? Legally yes, morally no. Rabbi Jose the Galilean (2nd cent.) was informed that his former wife was resorting to begging for subsistence. Having previously paid her, at the time of the divorce, the amount required by law, he had no further legal obligations for her support. Nevertheless, he felt morally bound to provide for her further needs Jerusalem Talmud, Ketubot 11. Rabbi Jose based his novel moral doctrine on a verse in Isaiah 58:7: “Thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh” The term “flesh” is a biblical synonym for “wife” [this verse]. Isaiah bracketed the moral duty of feeding the poor and clothing the naked with a similar obligation to be mindful of the needs of one’s “flesh.” Surely he was not referring to a wife to whom one is married and to whose care one is legally committed Exodus 21:10. Rabbi Jose apparently concluded that Isaiah had in mind a former wife who is still referred to as his “flesh.” The union of two people in marriage is legally different from the association of two individuals in a partnership. When a partnership is dissolved, the relationship between the partners comes to a complete end. On the other hand, a divorced mate is like a limb severed from a body. The limb remains forever part of the body and must be treated with respect.  Rabbi Jose’s perception has practical implications and gives a new dimension to the moral links which survive a divorce. This is particularly significant when the divorced couple have children who form a permanent bond between their parents. Due to the lingering moral relationship, a divorce must not be permitted to generate a state of festering animosity. The divorced partners must still treat each other with respect. A divorced parent who has custody of the couple’s children must not prejudice their minds against the other parent. Grown-up children occasionally reject a parent for whatever they consider justifiable grounds. That decision must be their own and not the result of prejudicial influences to which they were subjected in their childhood.  Divorced parents have an inherent right to participate in their children’s celebrations of important events. It is in this area where breaches of the surviving moral relationships between divorced people are most common. A parent who pays for a daughter’s wedding affair may, in a spirit of vindictiveness, bar the former spouse from attending the wedding. Such conduct is cruel and unethical. The part assigned to parents in a wedding ceremony is another area of potential conflict. Divorced parents have a moral right to escort their child and march together down the aisle. Such an arrangement is warranted by the surviving moral relationship between the parents which dictates consideration for one another’s feelings.  The propriety of having divorced parents join together in escorting their child is not affected by the remarriage of one or both of the parents. A remarried parent may bring his or her second spouse to the wedding affair of a child. The second wife or husband is entitled to an invitation as a matter of right. They are well advised, however, to try to be as unobtrusive as possible to spare the feelings of the part of the family which views their presence with distaste. Needless to say, under no circumstances should a second spouse take the place of a living parent in the wedding procession.  Judaic tradition does not attach any stigma to the status of a divorcee. However, the rabbis advised against marrying a divorcee in the lifetime of her previous husband. Their objection was based on social rather than moral grounds. They felt that a divorcee might still retain some affection for her previous husband and as a result be unable to develop a true physical and emotional intimacy with her second husband Pesachim 112a. The rabbis implied a similar objection to the marriage of a divorced man in the lifetime of his former wife. The rabbinic reservation about the wisdom of marrying a divorced person would seem to have little validity in the event where a divorce ended a marriage in an explosion of hostility. A number of medieval rabbis also opposed marrying a twice-divorced woman because her fitness for matrimony has been put in question Even HaEzer 9:1 BLOCH 229-31

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN324 Keep thy tongue from evil and thy lips from speaking guile. Psalm 34:14. The gift of speech, which distinguishes man from all other living creatures, is the most vital instrument in the evolutionary process of civilization.  At the same time, it is also a most formidable weapon for the destruction of society. In the words of Proverbs: “Death and life are in the power of the tongue.” Proverbs 18:21.  The positive and negative potentials of speech are reflected in the opening chapters of Genesis.  Two quotations of the statements of each of the principal actors in the drama of the Garden of Eden, Adam, Eve, and the serpent, are recorded in the Bible. Adam’s first spoken words proclaimed the establishment of the family unit as the basis of civilized society [this and subsequent verse].  On the other hand, in his second statement, Adam disclaimed responsibility for his own wrongdoing by placing the blame on Eve Genesis 3:12.  The first recorded words of Eve conveyed a sense of pious submission to the will of God, who had forbidden the “Fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden” Genesis 3:2-3 In her second statement, Eve, like Adam, sought to escape punishment, blaming the serpent for her transgression Genesis 3:13.  The serpent, portrayed as the incarnation of evil, used from the very beginning its power of speech to express blasphemous innuendoes and to question the motive of God’s prohibition of the fruit Genesis 3:1.  In its second statement, the serpent openly accused God of harboring sentiments of jealousy Genesis 3:5. The rabbis regarded this verse as history’s first slanderous expression and used it as an illustration of the frightful consequences of slander. Adam and Eve were deprived of their immortality. The serpent was condemned to become an object of man’s deep loathing Tanchuma, Bereshit 8. The frequency with which the Bible denounces gossip and slander attests to the persistence of this habit in society. Gossip is motivated by malice, arrogance, love or mischief, idle garrulity, and boredom. People who would normally shrink from inflicting physical injury on anyone else many have no scruples about slinging poisonous verbal arrows at their fellowmen. BLOCH 148-9

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN325 Men and women confront each other in sameness and difference. Each is an image of the other, yet each is separate and distinct.  The only relationship able to bind them together without the use of force is marriage as covenant—a bond of mutual loyalty and love in which each makes a pledge to the other to serve one another. Not only is this a radical way of reconceptualizing the relationship between man and woman. It is also, implies Hosea 2:16-22, the way we should think of the relationship between human beings and God. God reaches out to humanity not as power -- the storm, the thunder, the rain -- but as love, and not an abstract, philosophical love, but a deep and abiding passion that survives all the disappointments and betrayals.  Israel may not always behave lovingly towards God, says Hosea, but God loves Israel and will never cease to do so. How we relate to God affects how we relate to other people. That is Hosea’s message-and vice versa: how we relate to other people affects the way we think of God.  SACKS 174

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN326 [This verse] – not with a male; “to his wife” – not his neighbor’s. Sanhedrin 58a TEMIMAH-GEN 20

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN327 [This verse] Rava said: “A Noachite who has pederastic [“unnatural/atypical”] intercourse with his neighbor’s wife is not liable, for it is written: ‘And he shall cleave to his wife’ – ‘his wife,’ not his neighbor’s wife; ‘and he shall cleave’ – not [i.e., excluding] pederastically” Sanhedrin 58b [See also, SONCINO CLASSICS Sanhedrin 58b] TEMIMAH-GEN 20

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN328 It was taught: “A Noachite who performs even the surface stage [hearah] of a forbidden sexual act is liable, as it is written [this verse] – and not to his neighbor’s wife; ‘and he shall cleave’ – even peripheral cleaving.  And the same [“even peripheral cleaving”] holds true for sexual relationships with other males or with animals. Yerushalmi, Kiddushin 1:1 TEMIMAH-GEN 20

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN329 [This verse] Procreation is essential to the continuity of life.  In the animal world the perpetuation of the species is generally achieved without the benefit of a familial relationship resembling matrimony. The character and behavior of animal herds are mostly predetermined by fixed laws of nature, with the role of parents limited to the physical preservation of their offspring. A young animal does not need a “home" in the moral sense which this term has assumed in human society. BLOCH 213

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN330 R. Akiva said: “His father” – this intimates the prohibition of sexual relationships with his father’s wife; “his mother” – this intimates the prohibition of sexual relationships with his mother. Sanhedrin 58a  TEMIMAH-GEN 20

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN334 The parent’s obligation to circumcise a son, to redeem him, and to teach him Torah, relates to the parent’s duty to ensure the perpetuation of tradition and to have the child initiated into the Jewish community.  In so doing, the child’s history mates with his destiny.  Teaching the child Torah aims not only at helping to ensure the continuation of tradition, but it attempts to assure an intellectually, morally, and spiritually developed person.  The parent’s obligation to have the child wed, to teach him a craft, and to teach him practical citizenship, relates to the parent’s duty to permit the child to become an independent citizen of society.  A crucial step toward the child’s independence is his or her becoming independent from the parent.  Marriage is considered a critical step in a person’s independence from his or her parent.  With marriage, the child’s primary relationship and source of identify is as a spouse rather than as a child. [Nahmanides on this verse]. HTBAJ 180

SHOW FULL EXCERPT