|
Rav
Chaim Lifshitz
Essays and Articles:
|
Translated by S. Nathan l'ilui nishmat Esther bat Mordechai According to the difference in principle that divides man from woman – explained in a previous context – we can more easily understand the Torah’s different treatment of men and women with regard to vows. If man and woman form a complete unit only through their union, then mutual dependency exists between them. Why then is the man’s freedom to take a vow not dependent upon the wife, whereas the wife’s vows are dependent upon her husband, who is authorized to annul her vows, though she is not authorized to annul his vows, including those vows that she might possibly suffer from as a result of her husband’s vowing. It would appear that the difference between the man and the woman in this context is that her impressionability is a weakness. It borders on kalut da’at, a “light-mindedness” to which women are prone, according to Chazal. It is for her own good that the Torah makes her will and her opinion dependent upon her man, because for the most part, a woman takes a vow under pressure, and soon after is restored to her usual balanced judgment, at which time she regrets her vow. Consider the labor and stress of childbirth, during which a woman vows that she will never again be intimate with her husband, and afterwards regrets this vow, and for this reason she must subsequently offer the yoledet’s sacrifice. It were best for her husband to be present at the time of the vow, so as to annul her vow immediately, so that the woman will not be a victim of her own emotional impressionability, which may overcome her during a moment of pressure or confusion. As opposed to the man, the woman is far more gifted with the wisdom of life. The man is stronger in the area of principle and theory. The woman herself possesses a much deeper and more tangible understanding of life’s essential substance. In contrast, the man only understands principles and theoretical values, but he is better at these, so in this case, let her make use of these. Let her be helped by his cool detachment to avoid causing herself harm in the long run. The Double Condition Stipulated for the Tribes of Gad and Reuven An excellent example of the Torah’s profound understanding of the harm caused by the process of separating theory and practice, which prevents values and principles from ever being actualized, is the seemingly inexplicable lengthiness with which the Torah describes Moshe Rabeinu’s displeasure with the tribes of Gad and Reuven, and the double condition he places upon them. A sacred principle: Settling the land. This settlement entails a war of conquest, which the tribes are obligated to wage as a pre-condition for receiving their part in the land. And here these tribes proclaim that they have no desire for their land heritage and in fact they prefer the fertile lands on the other side of the Jordan. Moshe responds with a wrath that borders on painful anxiety: “Your brothers will go to war and you will sit here?” Moshe remembers too well their forefathers’ weeping, for fear of conflict with the inhabitants of the land – and the punishment they received during the era of the spies. Moshe wonders uneasily if the forefathers’ fear has not crept into the descendants. Their request, their renouncing of the land, draws from this fear. Moshe validates his position on the basis of the mutual accountability that was instilled in their hearts as they stood on the banks of the Jordan on the verge of entering the Promised Land. Moshe saw hidden peril in the very fact of their request; he glimpsed a weakening of resolve that could easily spread like wildfire in a field of dry weeds to infect all the other tribes. The double condition is the means by which both parts are bound and obligated to one another – the theoretical and the practical. The double condition mingles both elements for the people creating them and taking part in them. This is how we may understand why their ambition to win the fat lands must be dependent upon and bound up with the responsibility – in principle – of taking part in the nation’s collective responsibility of conquest. This is how we may also understand the unity between man and woman, for they unite in raising their family, together taking part and mutually bearing the burden of life’s difficulties, while full unity binds them together.
|
|