GEN342 The issue of continued filial proximity to parents has been with us from [this verse] on: we have heard it, too, in many of the medieval writings. Actually, though, the rabbinic sources do not discuss the matter as an “issue” at all, leaving it –at the most – a corollary of other, more basic responsibilities and attitudes.  Filial proximity is viewed, on the hole, in functional rather than sentimental terms.  BLIDSTEIN 109

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN344 The richest midrashic reflection on the problem of filial proximity and service concerns God’s command to Abraham to leave his father’s house and go to the land that God would show him: “Now the Lord said to Abram: “Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto the land that I will show thee” [Genesis 12:1]. What was written in Scripture just prior to this? “And Terah died in Haran” [Genesis 11:32]. R. Isaac said, “Terah actually lived sixty-five years more after Abraham left! But firstly, we infer that the wicked are called dead even while they are alive; for Abraham was apprehensive, saying, “When I leave, men will profane the name of God because of me, as they will say, "He left his aged father and went off.” So God said to Abraham, “I release you from the obligation of honoring your father and your mother, but I will release no other from this obligation; furthermore, I will inscribe his death [in the Bible] before I inscribe your departure.’” Genesis Rabbah (II, p. 369).  BLIDSTEIN 110-1

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN343 The Rabbis believed that “no one is above temptation to sexual desire.” Ketubot 13b  They accordingly advised early marriage, emphasizing it by declaring it to be the first command of the Torah. [this verse] Marriage was essential to the holiness and happiness of the Jew. Woman was of purpose created from the body of man to impress upon him that she is his equal in dignity and is the main source of his earthly blessings. Both together have been made “partners in the work of creation” in order to preserve the human race. Many are the blessings promised to the virtuous couple. Proverbs 12:14; 18:22; 19:14, 31 passim.  To violate the marriage law is to merit punishment, Proverbs 2:16-19 besides nullifying that which heaven has decreed. Genesis Rabbah 68:4, which tells the story of the Roman lady who thought that she could also arrange marriages when the Rabbi told her that only God can make happy and successful unions, but who discovered that “marriages are made in heaven”.  Equally wrong is it to marry for lust or for money; he who does so, will have children who will bring shame upon his head. Kiddushin 70b  The Torah, as a warning, records the case of the rebellious son immediately after the laws to be obeyed when a heathen woman is taken captive after a victorious battle Deuteronomy 21:10-21 to show that the “fruits” of a lustful union taste bitter in the mouth. LEHRMAN 240-1

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN345 When to Honor Parents.  There are occasions when filial responsibility may temporarily be put aside in the name of a higher duty or for the purpose of fulfilling a more immediate obligation.  One such occasion is when filial duty conflicts with the responsibility one owes to one’s own wife and children.  In this regard, the Talmud quotes a popular contemporary proverb, “A parent’s love is for his child; his child’s love is for his own children” Sota, 49a. While marriage does not free an individual from filial duty, it does serve to supplant filial love with the love of a spouse.  In his commentary on [this verse], Nahmanides wrote, [Scripture] states that the female is the bone of the bone and the flesh of the flesh of the male … His desire is for her to be with him always, as it was implanted in human nature, beginning with Adam for all subsequent generations, for males to cleave to their wives, to leave their parents, and to see themselves as one flesh with their wives … Here [we see that] a man leaves the nearness of his parents and his relatives, and sees that his wife is closer to him than are they.  In certain cases not only could the love of parents be superseded by love for a spouse but the obligation of filial duty could be displaced as well.  For example, though men and women are equally obligated to honor their parents, the Talmud makes provision for an exception in instances in which filial duty causes tension in the marriage (Kiddushin 30b, Mishneh Torah-Hilkhot Teshuvah (Laws of Repentance), chap. 13, secs. 12-14.  … It is to be hoped that marriage can create a new family without causing tensions with one’s parents. However, if the formation of a new family does precipitate conflict, one may limit, but not deny, one’s filial responsibilities.  SHER20C

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN346 The release of the Jewish woman from the commandment of procreation has made possible the evolvement of a concept of woman as a personality and not as a child-bearing machine. Certainly woman is involved in the commandment to preserve the race, but it is her privilege to determine whether she becomes involved or not. The rabbinic opinion on this subject and its formulation in Jewish law may have been the first stage in the full emancipation of woman.  The freedom of woman from the obligation to propagate may be viewed also from another vantage–point. Woman has from time immemorial been regarded in all ancient religions as the fertility symbol par excellence. The orgiastic rites and the institution of sacred prostitution in the worship of the goddesses of fertility, whether Astarte, Aphrodite, or Venus, were accepted as an integral part of man’s religion. The liberation of woman from the obligation of procreation would tend to disassociate her from serving as a symbol of fertility. The props would thus be removed from under one of the oldest pagan rites known to man. That the exception of women from the commandment of procreation is not contrary to the literal meaning of the Biblical text is confirmed by [this verse]: “Therefore shall a man forsake his father and mother and cling to his wife.” It is a man who abandons his parents’ home to seek a wife and not vice versa. The comment of Philo on this passage is in harmony with our remarks above: “And most excellent and careful w it not to say that the woman should leve her parents and be joined to her husband – for the audacity of man is bolder than the nature of woman … but that for the sake of woman man is to do this. Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesin, Bk. 1. No 29 ROSNER 69-70

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN348 For the last millennium Ashkenazi Jews have seen monogamous marriage as the primary locus for sexual activity. While divorce has always existed within the Jewish community, it has been relatively infrequent.  However, in recent years changing financial and social circumstances have led to increased rates of divorce and remarriage – a shift from monogamy to serial monogamy.  Monogamous marriage has remained a dominant social form because at best it provides emotional intimacy, companionship, stability for raising children and a relatively efficient economic unit, while avoiding the complexity and jealousy that can plague other sexual arrangements.  Monogamy has long been the dominant social form in Christian societies, and Jews tend to confirm to such external structures when they are not in tension with Jewish values and practice.  The sanctity of monogamous marriage (kidushin) has long been appreciated in the Jewish community. … The idea of monogamy is expressed in [this verse].  … Monogamy – a committed, lifelong, binary relationship between adults – is a basic metaphor in Jewish life.  Mystically, the intimate joining of a loving couple expresses the covenant between G- d and Israel, the bond between the Creator and creation, and the possibility of moving beyond this world of separation to the world of unity.  Mythically, humanity was created as a couple, emerging at the same time and bound together as one flesh.  The intimate bond between a committed couple recreates this sense of primal unity and equality. AGTJL 217-8

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN347 At the beginning of time, God commanded the man to leave his parents and take a wife.  Thus, it is part of the nature of the human being to take a spouse of the opposite sex.  According to the Talmud Yevamot 62b a man without a wife is not complete, as he cannot experience true goodness and satisfaction.  The Midrash Genesis Rabbah 22:2 states that a man should not be without a wife, a woman should not be without a husband, and both together should not be without God.  AMEMEI 261

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN349 Polygamy, though not expressly forbidden in the Torah, is mentioned as the cause which turns the hearts of kings away from the true worship of God. It is to be eschewed as a potential danger to the peaceful married life. [this verse, where the words “and he shall cleave until his wife”, explicitly show that man is to possess only one wife at a time.]  Maimonides, in the special section dealing with forbidden sexual relationships, Mishneh Torah, Issure Biah 17:13, deduces from the command to the High Priest “And he shall take a wife in her virginity” Leviticus 21:13, that even he was allowed to marry only one wife at a time. … Nothing must be done to endanger the holy alliance (Kiddushin) of man and wife.  The Rabbis devote five tractates of the Talmud to this theme. Kiddushin and Ketubot deal mainly with marriage settlements; Yebamot [Yevamot] with Levirate and prohibited marriages; Sotah with the woman suspected of adultery and Gittin with divorce, not to mention the references to these themes scattered over the other tractates. The Rabbis found it necessary to deal with these themes exhaustively in view of the vagueness of the Biblical laws. These Talmudic views have been systemically collected in two works that are still the authoritative sources of every Rabbi. These are the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides and the Eben Ha’ezer of Joseph Karo [i.e. second section of his Shulchan Aruch - AJL]  [No fewer than one hundred and seventy-eight sections dealing with marriage and divorce appear in Karo’s work].  These authorities warn that intermarriage is likely to mar family purity and sow dissension and produce disreputable children. Deuteronomy 7:3-4; Ezra 9:1-2, 10:1-11; Nehemiah 10:31, 13:23-25; Avodah Zara 31b; Eben Ha’ezer 16:1; Maimonides Issure Biah 12:1.  Though one Rabbinic view states that “Gentiles in the Diaspora cannot really be termed idolaters”, yet marriage with them is disallowed. Chullin 13b.  Underlying all these restrictions is the ethical contention that just as virtue and righteousness flow from the worship of God, so do vice and oppression issue from the ungodly marriage, especially with daughters of the heathen. This will explain the seemingly harsh measures taken, especially by Ezra, against idolatry and immorality, both of which are to be eliminated. Exodus 20:3; Leviticus 19:4; Deuteronomy 4:15-25.  A “holy people” must remove all obstacles to the purity of family life and regard them as abominations. Deuteronomy 7:3 Marriage is something more than a civil contract; it is an institution based on morality and implying the most sacred duties. It was wrong for one to betroth a wife before he had seen her Kiddushin 41a or to marry a partner much younger or much older than himself. Yevamot 101b. In either case, the main object of marriage, procreation, would be jeopardized on account of age and impotency.  LEHRMAN 241-2

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN350 Not to a male and not to the wife of another man.  Sanhedrin 58a  SEFARIA.ORG

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN351 All societies need a shared a moral code. They all therefore need a process of socialization. But not all do this in the same way. The anthropologist Ruth Benedict made a fundamental distinction between shame cultures and guilt cultures.  In shame cultures the highest value is honour. In guilt cultures it is righteousness, “doing what is right because it is right.”  In shame cultures, morality functions through a sense of what others expect from you. Shame itself is the sense of the disgrace we would suffer if others found out what we have done. Guilt has nothing to do with opinions of others and everything to do with the voice of conscience. Shame cultures are other-directed. Guilt cultures are inner-directed. The Chrysanthemum and The Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1946).  This has significant consequences. One who is been shamed has been marked, tainted, stigmatized. The only way of escaping shame is to leave and live elsewhere, or, in extremis, to commit suicide. Guilt cultures are different because they draw a sharp distinction between the agent and the act, the center and the sin. The act maybe wrong, but the agent remains untainted, intact. As we say in our morning prayers, “The soul You gave me is pure,” even if I have done things that are impure. Thus, in guilt cultures, there is always the possibility of remorse, repentance, atonement, and forgiveness. We can mend broken relationships. We can atone for sins. We can apologize and be forgiven. What we did does not hold us eternally captive. What we do in the future can atone for all we did in the past. A guilt culture is a morality of freedom. A shame culture is the morality of conformity and social control. Much has been written about Genesis 2–3, the story of the first humans in the Garden of Eden and the first sin, eating from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Few, however, have understood that it is actually a story about the difference between guilt and shame. Bernard Williams, in Shame and Necessity, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993, points out that shame is essentially a visual phenomenon. When you feel shame, you are experiencing or imagining what it is like to be seen doing what you did by others. The first instinct on feeling shame is to wish to be invisible or elsewhere. Guilt, by contrast, is more a phenomenon of hearing than one of seeing. It represents the inner voice of conscience. Becoming invisible or transported to somewhere else may assuage should shame, but it has no effect on guilt. The voice goes with you, wherever you are. Read this story of Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit carefully and you will see that it is about visual phenomena and shame.  At first the couple were naked and “not ashamed” [This verse]. Eve then saw the fruit was “pleasing to the eyes” Genesis 3:6. The couple ate the fruit and “the eyes of both of them were opened” Genesis 3:7. They sought to cover their nakedness. For the first time they saw themselves as they might be seen by others and the experience shame. Then they heard “the voice of God” Genesis 3:8 and tried to hide. All of these are unmistakable signs of a shame culture. The story of Adam and Eve is not about Original Sin or about knowledge as such. It is about the danger of following the eyes rather than listening to the Word of God with the ears. The Hebrew verb shema, a key term of Jewish faith, means both to “listen” or “hear” and “to obey.” Judaism, is a morality of guilt, not shame.  SACKS xxv-vi

SHOW FULL EXCERPT