A rabbi once said, "There are two types of people. Some say, 'I am great and you are greater.' Others say, 'I am nothing and you are worse.'" If so, we can only appreciate others if we value ourselves. Therefore, if we do not recognize our value, we cannot truly admire others. This is such a challenge; whether we succeed spiritually depends on it. However, can we appreciate ourselves? There are so many obstacles. If our parents did not favor us with true love and encouragement, we grow up without self-esteem. If our teachers did not seem to notice us, how can we overcome our feelings of inferiority? If we failed in business or marriage, or in important areas of life, how can we feel good? What person merits parental support, the blessings of teachers, success in life, and a sunny disposition? The rest of us have to start while we are running backwards.

The Creation Story teaches us our significance. The Talmud teaches: "Why did G-d create the entire universe and then make one man? So that each person should say, 'For my sake the world was created.'" Can we accept G-d creating the universe for just one of us? What is so significant about one person? Only G-d knows. Our meaning is a mystery, hidden in the Will of G-d.

G-d did not create the world for humans collectively, as a race, less people think, as some philosophers maintain, that people are trivial but the human race is vital. If one person is inconsequential, can ten or a thousand trivialities be worthy? Can a million or billion nothings become something? Ultimately, we are either important because one human being is important, or the human race is unimportant. Our task is to accept the overwhelming idea that we are not only important, but the purpose of Creation, and then begin to know why. Our entire life, and even our After-life, will be about this question. It has no finite answer; heaven hides it.

When we try to appreciate ourselves, we must understand what a person is. Of course, there are various types of people. The world adores conquerors and adulates those who have power over others. Generals and slaughterers are historical icons, and decent, fine people are ignored. Judaism adores Moses for his modesty and adulates those who “are insulted and do not insult back.” The Talmud and Cabala works praise the woman above all people, as she is the abode of the Revealed Presence of the Schechinah. The West is influenced by Greek thought, and the Greeks rejoiced in might and despised any but the elite. Women, weaker than men, were utterly despised. In one of his dialogues, Plato has a philosopher define justice as “might.” Aristotle said that women could not think rationally. If we feel as the Greek-West does, we define ourselves in how much we conquer and break others to our will. If we are Jewish, however, we define ourselves in terms of how we serve others and seek piety and good character, especially humility. Western women, in a secular society that has no use for a family woman, define their value in terms of how male they have become, a hopeless frustration. A Jewish woman with a modest and appreciating husband is happy to be a woman, and appreciates herself and the honor showered upon her by her family. “Her sons rise up and honor her, her husband praises her,” the Woman of Valor of Solomon. Thus, Judaism constrains us to appreciate ourselves, both men and women, in terms of how much we give to others, to our families, to our spouses, to society and to spirituality. The reward of this self-abnegation is self-actualization. The more we ignore ourselves and think of others, the greater we become, and we appreciate ourselves in proportion to how much we appreciate others. We cannot only appreciate people as an idealism, but also as a reality of life, as we constantly give to others and sacrifice in order to do so. Thus we elevate others and in the process of negation are actualized. If we ourselves, we appreciate others. If we appreciate ourselves, we realize our role to help others, and as we help others, we elevate ourselves. Thus it all begins and ends with loving ourselves, and yet, we express this love by loving others, by raising ourselves to negation, to prioritizing others, and by so doing, we fulfill our own relevance, and become important and appreciated as people. We thus begin and end with self-appreciation and self-actualization, but this is performed by abnegation and benevolence. There is a deeper idea, as to how we actualize from helping others.

The Cabalists taught the Secret of the Scale, which featured two plates hanging from a stick. The stick is attached to the scale so it can bend in response to the changing weight in the plates. We put a weight into the left plate, and the right plate rises. We put a weight into the right plate and the left plate rises. In actual use, we place a known weight, such as a five-pound lead bar, into the left plate, and put merchandise into the right plate. If the right plate rises, it is not yet five pounds. We add, therefore, more merchandise, and the right place descends. Too much. We take off a bit, until the two plates are even. We then know the weight of the merchandise, five pounds.

The Secret of the Scales is the secret of individuals surrounded by those who are different. When we worry about number one, everyone else is competition. There are two people in the scale. One is on the left plate and the other is on the right plate. The scale cannot raise two people, and only one plate may rise. Furthermore, as one plate rises the other must descend. How do two people exist in the same scale? The Secret of the Scales is for the two people to “marry,” and become “one,” or rather, to consider themselves not as selfish individuals but as part of a marriage or society where the ideal is to give and help others, rather than to take. Let us assume that A and B are in the scale. A descends and B rises. This distresses A because he wants to rise and he wants others to be lower. A is frustrated and he complains and makes B descend so A can rise. Then B on the bottom complains, and he rises and A descends. The whole day is this one or that one complaining. What is the solution? The solution is for A and B to become one unit, of society, or, in marriage, two people think of the needs of the other.

A now descends and B rises. A is happy. He is happy because he values himself in terms of how much he helps another. This is one idea. There is, however, a deeper idea, the Secret of the Scales. A is B. A and B cannot compete because they are one. A descends and sees B rising and feels that he, A, is rising. This vicarious pleasure expands A to be one with B, so the pleasure of B is the pleasure of A as well. This is marriage.

The particular leaps across the abyss of selfish individuality and becomes the whole. The “marriage of particulars” unifies competing units. Now we have a new way to value ourselves. We redefine ourselves. We are no longer A helping B, but we think in terms of A-B, or marriage or society. At this point we expand our horizons to identify our self outwardly to others and society. We can eventually regard ourselves as the entire universe, singing in concert and doing the Will of G-d. This is the ideal.

Jewish dancing is usually done with everyone in a circle. Each individual expresses happiness as part of a group, rather than as an individual. The dancing circle in Hebrew is Mochole, related to the word MOCHALE, or forgiving. The Zohar says the way to true cleansing of sin is for us to emerge from our individualistic identity and to become part of others. When we negate our selfishness, justice seeks us in vain, because we no longer “exist” as individuals, but as part of the All, and the All cannot be punished. The highest level of this is marriage when the male and female merge into one unit. When the pious Rabbi Aryeh Levine took his wife to the doctor he said, “Doctor, my wife’s foot hurts us.”

Kindness: Does it Help or Hurt?

The “Scale” and “Circle” we just studied suggest a path to self-actualization. By negating ourselves, and doing kindness to others, we reveal ourselves in “kindness” and ultimately become one with those we help. Our expanded consciousness exalts our self-actualization, and we continue to give and grow. Kindness, actually, is a very delicate matter. When someone helps us, we feel helpless. Taking quenches an inner pride, perhaps never to be rekindled. The Talmud compares taking from others to one who is hurt by fire and water. Usually, fire and water stay separate. When we have to, we extinguish fire with water. However, when we take from others, a great pain strikes our inner soul, now mired in beggary. The flame of fire, which is our pride and self, blazes and torments us. We try to throw water on it, but alas, water is kindness, the very thing that pained us to begin with! Thus, we are “judged with two judgments, fire and water.”

The Talmud therefore instructs us to give charity only with an encouraging word. We address the hunger while we feed the pride, deeply wounded by the act of taking. Greater, says the Talmud, is the kind and encouraging word, than the actual money we give or the food. In Europe, a guest was made to feel so important that the hosts slept on the floor and the host slept in a bed. Everyone did it, and nobody felt insulted. A guest, instead of being a chore, a burden, felt such a lofty status!

A guest came to the aged saint of the generation, Rabbi Yisroel Kagan, and watched in wonderment as Rabbi Kagan made his bed. The guest demurred, and tried to make the bed himself. Rabbi Kagan said, “Do you, perhaps, want to wear my tephilin for me?” A Jew wears Tephilin each day, and a Jew must do kindness each day. Honoring a guest is the same as blowing the Shofar. This allows the guest to be not a burden but an opportunity. This is true kindness.

Secular kindness is for the helpless and infuriates those who take it. This is the problem created in America by Civil Rights and programs for minorities. Instead of encouraging people, it taught them to hate those who “caused” their problems. It taught them to be angry and get more benefits. “Help him together,” says the Torah. Help him help himself. “Greater is one who gives a loan to start a poor man in business than one who gives plain charity.” Help a person not to lose the spark of individualism and courage.

We therefore practice kindness not by telling short people they are tall, or telling blind people they can see, but by telling short people they can jump, and helping those who cannot see to find meaning in life with their strengths. If does not end with a disability, although those who suffer may feel that way. We must point out, reveal and encourage alternates to despair.

The poorest person, a Jewish saying goes, is a single person. A poor man may lack a dollar, a meal, a house, but marriage completes the person. One without a spouse is only half a person. This is a problem. This is true poverty.

Many people give up. They tried and found frustration. One person refused to try anymore. His cousins arranged a date for him, and he agreed it was something interesting, but could no longer expose himself to frustration. The time came, and he just sat in his house, refusing to go to the date. His cousins came in, lifted him up, and drove him to the date. It worked! He married. Alone, he would still be sitting in despair. He needed help, but not help to despair, rather help to succeed.

How people relate to others and even themselves depend on how others speak and insinuate. For this reason, the Torah considers common gossip where we discuss people usually in a negative sense to be a great sin. By creating a negative impression of a human being, we damage a person. “Evil talk,” says the Talmud, “damages three people: the victim of the gossip, the speaker and the listener.” Our tongue must be that of the Woman of Valor. Solomon described her, “The Torah of Kindness is her tongue.” What woman goes around speaking a Torah of Kindness? Torah means to enlighten. A Woman of Valor discusses people by pointing out their good points. Instead of gossip and cruelty, she teacher and enlightens others about the good points of other people. This is the Torah of Kindness.

When we speak kindly of others and refuse the opportunity to advance ourselves by having others laugh at our cruel remarks about somebody else, we enter the Dimension of Kindness. We are now a different person. The world, from our perspective, is a World of Kindness. Our mouth is a Tongue of Kindness. Love, happiness and positive thoughts accouter us. One who delights in speaking evil of others is also a different person after the talk. Now, the tongue has torn respect from a human being. The speaker has a tongue of cruelty, and a soul of negative judgment. His world is Cruel, not Kindness. Those winds and forces whipped up by the good laugh at someone else’s expense gather their forces as heavy and thick clouds upon the head of the speaker, and all who enjoyed his remarks.

If we think, speak and act with Kindness, we elevate ourselves to the Dimensions of Heavenly Love. Infinite song and divine lights shine our way. If, on the other hand, we think, speak and act with Cruelty, we debase ourselves to the Dimensions of Hate. The echo of our malice reverberates amid the canyons of the Deep, and drags us down to Sadness.

The human being is great and cannot know his greatness. He walks in finite steps and invokes infinite lights. When we are kind and awaken another’s happiness, we first begin to approximate what humanity is, and some of it enters our cognizance, just a drop, but a drop flaming with joy.

ADAM: Humans and Humanity

The first human being was ADAM. ADAM means “man” or “human,” or “male and female” in the Hebrew, and is so understood in the English vernacular, according to prominent author and scholar Jacques Barzun. Although we stress the individual, the word ADAM applies to the race of humans as well.

What is ADAM? What are the roots of the Hebrew ODOM, meaning Adam? The bible makes it clear that Adam comes from ADOMO, or “ground,” because G-d took Adam from the ground and molded him into a human form. G-d fashioned Adam out of earth, and breathed into the clay form an infinite soul. A person is thus a clay shell holding an infinite soul. Why is a human called ADAM for “earth” instead of "breath" for the soul? The creation was a move from the infinite supernal realms to the finite earth. G-d wanted to create a dimension bereft of His Presence, and allow people to inhabit it. He wanted people to live in darkness, to struggle and reveal an infinite light. People would thus do G-d's work, to reveal Light. G-d would then reward people in heaven, in the infinite dimension, for eternity. People cannot enjoy unearned gifts, so we must earn our reward. After a person struggles in this world, he merits the glory of Paradise without feeling shame or embarrassment. The Talmud says some pious come to heaven after they die and feel so proud of their achievements and struggles that they actually demand reward. This is "strength," the ability to sit in G-d's Presence and be self-actualized. Such an enviable situation comes only from our "earth" essence, the struggle to bring illumination to a dark world. Therefore, people are ADAM, or “earth,” rather than G-d’s "breath," and divine light. By great effort, people transform the clay dirt into divine lights, and themselves from conflicted mortals to souls sitting before G-d.

This idea allows us to be "earth" and live in darkness, and yet be very important. The darkness and "earth" is there only to allow us entrée to the inner sanctums of G-d. Therefore, ADAM has another connotation. ADAM is related to the word DOMEH, or "similar." We are "similar" to G-d, by His Will, in that we "create" worlds and lights just as He does. G-d does not interfere so much in our dimension. The collective deeds of people construe, for better or worse, the fate of the world. Therefore, we, not G-d, as if it could be, are in control of the world. The Cabalists tell us that each thought, word and deed that we perform in this world triggers great events in the infinite heavenly world. Our mortal deeds reveal and conceive dimensions and heavens. Our sins destroy transcendent dimensions of the holiest light.

ADAM is also related to the word DOME, or "silence." Although we live in a finite dimension, and the spoken word reveals limited facts, the basic human is mystery, rooted in a spiritual supernal source beyond words, the dimension of "silence." "Silence" is not negative, it implies more than the lack of sound. Silence is the song of mystery, the soul seeing and knowing the infinite, hidden from our eyes, but everywhere.

These subtle ideas build the edifice of human pride and appreciation of self. They prepare us to love and honor ourselves, and ultimately, to respect others. Society and marriage ultimately thrive or collapse from the acceptance or rejection of these ideas.

Why People Denigrate People

The world does not appreciate people in the sense we have described. Even those who accept some concepts from Sinai find these ideas a challenge. Why? There are two basic reasons. One, people sin and feel guilty and unworthy. Two, people are imperfect and weak in many ways, and do not feel that they are so important. How do we deal with these issues?

Simply put, we deal with these two issues by denying them. We refuse to accept that sin can abrogate G-d's love for us, as the prophet taught, "I am G-d who dwells among you in your impurity." The bible is filled with exhortations for sinners to return to G-d and His favor. "In the place of the penitent even the perfectly righteous cannot stand," the Talmud teaches.

The second problem is that people are imperfect and weak. However, when we realize that people have divine and infinite souls, we respect them. The clay shell of people is a challenge, not a limitation. We respect the human being who struggles in a clay husk to find G-d. A clay crust radiating holiness is a wonder.

It is not enough, however, to only state these ideas. We must live them so that we really do appreciate others and even ourselves. It takes many years of effort, and every tiny step is a struggle. Indeed, as of today, the vast majority of people in the world deny the Jewish elevation of the human being. Religions preach the opposite. Secularists, especially the reductionists, deny human transcendence. Major philosophies and religions denigrated not only people, but nature and life as well. We will study this in more detail, but for now, we will say that Judaism taught by G-d to Israel at Sinai elevates the human being. Other religions and philosophies denigrate the human being. Judaism elevated the female, as we will study, and other religions and philosophies disparage the female. The world likes powerful men, and lionizes those who conquer and destroy others. Judaism prizes Moses because he was the most modest of men. In no other culture would Moses have had a chance. Judaism prizes not physical force but spirituality, and accepts a certain spiritual superiority of women over men. Women are the repositories of the angelic level of Schechinah, as we will study. Judaism considers marriage the highest holiness: "The Schechinah comes when a man and woman are together." Other religions consider women unclean and forbid priests to marry. Christianity, in Mathew, teaches that the spiritual person does not marry. Only lower men lacking in true spirituality take a woman. A major early church figure castrated himself to prevent sliding into the evil of marriage. The churches of the Renaissance had choirs containing castrati, boy castrated so their voices would retain a high pitch. Such a hideous thing would be an abomination in the Jewish world.

The first teaching of the Yeshiva of Elijah the Prophet is: "The Way of Life precedes the Torah." Only a “person” can achieve Torah, says Rabbi Isaac Luria. One becomes a “person” with good qualities of Derech Erets, the Way of Life. Derech Erets, the Way of Life, includes marriage and social relationships. We find G-d through humanity, not by asceticism. Loneliness is the opposite of spirituality. In the process of purifying our base instincts, we may have to do some fasting or training in self-control. However, the wholesome person indulges in life with its varying glories without guilt.

Let us return to the beginning of the world and its first generations. Adam and Eve sinned and were expelled from the Garden of Eden. Their son Cain murdered Abel. Enosh, who began paganism, was the next, or third generation. Surely, this is an inauspicious beginning. Can we praise humans and admire them? Judaism maintains that we must struggle past these questions to appreciate people. It is a hard task, but G-d created us for it. Within the mystery of people is the mystery of heaven, so we must take heart and not give up.

After Cain killed Abel, Adam and Eve realized that the world needed someone else to continue humanity. Abel was dead and Cain was a murderer. (Genesis 4,25) "And Adam knew his wife again and she gave birth to a son. And she called his name Seth because, 'G-d gave me another seed instead of Abel because Cain murdered him.' And to Seth, also him, was born a son and he called his name Enosh. Then was ceased [the practice] to call in the Name of G-d."

The first passage is, "And Adam knew his wife again." The word again means that this was "again," not a new experience. Here begins the denigration of humans. The rabbis place great importance upon the attitude of the parents during their relations; it greatly influences their children. The story we are studying, about how people began paganism in the time of Enosh, begins with the intimacy of the grandparents; Adam and Eve copulated "again," rather than feeling a fresh and exciting spirit about having children. In truth, we can't blame them; they failed, their sons failed, and now they had to try again, albeit without enthusiasm.

Eve named the boy: "Because G-d gave me another seed instead of Abel because Cain murdered him." Again, we find disparagement. The child is "another seed instead of Abel." He is not worthy on his own; he is a replacement. His name means, "giving" because, "G-d gave me another seed in place of Abel." What is the significance of "giving"?

Eve named Cain that because "I have obtained a son from G-d." She obtained, gained and owned. These positive terms declare the glory of a woman in achieving a son. All of this turned to ashes when Cain became a murderer. Eve, a failure, says, "G-d gave me another seed." G-d gave me a child; I did not obtain it. She did not gain or “own” him as hers. She omits mention of herself, and no longer feels worthy to be a partner of G-d in creation. Seth, the son born in place of Cain, is thus the connotation of human failure and disfavor. His birth is attributed to G-d's "giving," not people obtaining him by their merits.

"And to Seth, also he, was born a son." Here we have the sadness flowing freely. "Also he," it says, not "he." He was "also," rather than the builder of a new world. His forefathers failed, and he came along “also,” not to rectify the world. “To Seth was born a son" is a passive phrase. It does not say Seth had a boy, or Seth's wife had a boy; it says only that the boy "was born." This passive phrase denigrates Seth and adds to the mood of gloom. Seth named the boy Enosh. Enosh is a word related to NOASH, or "despair."

"Then people ceased to call in the name of G-d." Why did people stop praying in the Name of G-d? We mentioned that they despaired of finding favor with G-d. The despondent people feared to deal directly with G-d and sought out intermediaries. Lower and lower they sank, until they worshipped idols, snakes and other mortals. It all began with despondency, indicated by the name of ENOSH, which means, "despair." However, why should people not despair? Wasn’t defying G-d in the Garden of Eden, Cain murdering Abel, and a general malaise leading to paganism enough? How can we judge them? How can we complain at their failure?

In life, we see unhappiness, often misery. How can we love G-d? The answer is to sense the transcendence lurking in the shadows. Although darkness and shadow pervade, inside is light. Even gloom and shadow have light. Indeed, darkness and shadow radiate the greatest light. “Light from darkness is greater than light from light.” How do we see the light? We attune ourselves beyond finite failure, and project ourselves into the infinite. We tune our souls to transcendence. We call in the Name of G-d, the Transcendent Name. Our only key to the Transcendent Name is our struggle with obscurity. We slip and fall until a light pierces the cloud. We are no longer afraid. No longer do we doubt. We call in the Name of G-d, and feel His Presence. We know the Presence is part of the darkness. We know the Presence is only revealed by groping and failing. We have faith to see the whole light. Indeed, our faith and patience will transform evil in the End of Days, when questions will become Answers. We must “call in the Ineffable Name” when we see nothing. From this, we merit a glimmer of light. It encourages us, and we continue.

In the time of Enosh people ceased "calling in the Name of G-d." Here, G-d is the Ineffable Name, meaning utter transcendence. Can utter transcendence have a Name? Yes, it does. Jews pray from prayerbooks where the Ineffable Name is written. They do not pronounce the Name, but they do read it, think it, and invoke it. In thought, even if not pronounced, the Ineffable Name unites the Jew with G-d directly and elevates the Jew to a heavenly sanctity. In the time of Enosh, this ceased. People no longer prayed in the Name of G-d, using the Ineffable Name. They used other names, such as the holy name ELOKIM, which means G-d as a revealed power. What they could see of G-d's handiwork they appreciated and accepted. What they could not see, the transcendence of the Ineffable Name, they refused to use for prayer. When people no longer struggled to reveal the Ineffable Name, they lost its encouraging glimmer. They fell away from G-d and had nothing to sustain them spiritually. Eventually, they denied G-d and became pagans.

Maimonides teaches that paganism came in stages. What were they? First, they refused to use the Ineffable Name in prayer, and rejected dealing with transcendence. They used the Name ELOKIM, which has a numerical value of the word “the nature.” They no longer felt worthy to deal with the supernatural. Now they no longer had courage from the Ineffable Name. No longer did they find light in the dusk.

Gradually, they ceased praying directly to G-d. They prayed instead to angels, then to stars, then to strong people, and finally to images.

The great Cabalist from Komarno said, "Being happy is not one of the commands of the Torah, and being sad is not one of the sins mentioned in the Torah. But happiness can bring a person to a spiritual level that no command can; and sadness can bring a person lower than any sin." Therefore, the Torah describes the decline of people not in terms of their sins, but in terms of their sadness.

The bible then continues in a new chapter (5,1): "This is the book of the Generations of Adam. On the day G-d created Adam, G-d made him in the form of ELOKIM (G-d)." This refutes and disputes the hopelessness of Enosh and his generation. Adam was created in the form of ELOKIM, G-d. Thus, there G-d and people are somewhat similar. This does not mean that people are divine; it means that they are not remote from G-d; indeed, they have similarities, and these similarities classify people as worthy of a direct relationship with G-d. We study the Torah that G-d studies. We pray to G-d and He listens. We perform kindness as G-d does. All of this encourages us to feel elevated and not to despair of G-d or ourselves.

The Ineffable Name

The last time you saw someone acting foolishly or cruelly, did you consider this person to be "in the image of G-d"? How can people who are so often foolish, wicked, and cruel be in the image of G-d? We cannot love others if we do not overcome our aversion of their misdeeds and shortcomings. How do we do this?

We mentioned the Talmudic phrase, "In the place where the penitent stands, the perfectly righteous cannot stand." In other words, people achieve a higher level after they fail than if they were perfect all along. "The righteous falls seven times and rises." He rises to a level that reveals the purpose of his falling. Falling and failing no way conflict with man "in the image of G-d." The Talmud says that the generation of Sinai and King David were pious. The Israelites who heard the Ten Commandments from G-d should not have worshipped the Golden Calf. The pious King David should not have taken another man's wife and murder him. However, G-d forced the power of sin upon these people in order to elevate eventually the power of penitence. Our falling and failing conceals the highest light. This encourages us when we fall; also, when we see others make mistakes, we still appreciate them.

Exile, or GALUT in Hebrew, is related to GAL, or revelation. Although Israel has suffered exile for thousands of years, our determination to follow our religion has not weakened. We saw, in the worst of times, what only GALUT or exile could reveal. All darkness is designed by G-d to reveal supernal lights.

Esau was the brother of Jacob. Often, the worst exile is in our own families. No quarrel is as terrible as with loved ones. The challenge to appreciate another is nowhere greater. The suffering if we do not is nowhere worse. The greatest darkness is that fierce anger that consumes a marriage, the love of one's youth, and the family. Within even such darkness is the greatest light, and perhaps, if we really try, we will find it and be guided out of the morass.

The bible, in the first chapter and three passages of the second chapter, begins with the Creation story. It recites the Creation narrative from day one to the Sabbath, the Seventh Day. Then the narrative repeats: "These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, on the day that the L-d G-d made the earth and the heaven." Until this passage, the Ineffable Name is not mentioned in the bible, only the name ELOKIM, Powerful One, which represents a “finite” revelation of G-d, G-d revealed by His Powers and Deeds. The Ineffable Name represents a transcendent G-d, infinite and beyond mortal comprehension, not revealed in the mortal mind, only in the soul. The Ineffable Name begins the Creation narrative about Adam and Eve and their sin. For the first time in the bible, the Ineffable Name is used. It is revealed only in human endeavors, the darkness of exile, and the challenges of life.

We find a similar theme in Exodus 6,3: G-d rebuked Moses for not appreciating the Jews in Egypt. True they were sinners. They worshipped idols and did not keep the Torah. On the other hand, suffering itself, the exile, created a light, a Torah of its own. Moses did not see this. G-d told Moses, "And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob, in the Name Almighty G-d, but I was not known by the Ineffable Name." Only the exile revealed the Ineffable Name. The Jews in Egypt lacked piety but their suffering, revealed "light in the darkness" and the Ineffable Name. Human struggle even as failure is a mighty force.

People despise losers. Everybody likes a winner. History is the story of those who destroyed others. The victims are the pitied refuse of human affairs. The Jewish way is to regard a person struggling as a repository of holy light. A rabbi in the Talmud died and his soul went to heaven. He was revived and his soul returned. (This may be the phenomenon much studied in modern times called "near death experience.") He told what he saw: "Those low in this world are high there, and those high here are low there." Struggle and falling has its own currency, only revealed in the infinite eternal dimension. We must appreciate ourselves when we fall and we must appreciate others who fail. To be human is high and holy. To be human is to fall and fail, as long as we do not use such as an excuse. On the other hand, this is easier said than done. Even Moses failed in this regard.

Moses Hits the Rock

In Egypt, G-d told Moses to tell the Jews of their impending redemption. Moses replied, "They will not believe me." G-d rebuked Moses, and said, "They will believe, but you, in the end, will not believe." How could Moses, the greatest of the prophets, “not believe”?

The Jews had no water in the Sinai Desert. G-d told Moses, "Take your staff and speak to the rock" to bring forth its waters. Moses hit the rock, and did not speak to it. For this, G-d punished Moses that he not enter the Promised Land. G-d considered this sin to be, “not believing,” but we don’t understand why. Why does hitting a rock become not believing? Also, we cannot fathom why G-d told Moses to “take your staff” if Moses was not to hit the rock. Obviously, taking a staff implies using the staff, perhaps to hit the rock.

The answer is that G-d told Moses that there are two possibilities. If the Jews are worthy, speaking to the rock is enough. If the Jews are not worthy, it will be necessary to hit the stone. (Bamidbar 20,7) "And G-d spoke to Moses saying: 'Take the staff and gather the congregation, you and Aaron your brother, and speak to the rock in their sight and it will give forth its waters. And you will bring forth for them water from the rock and water the congregation and their cattle.' And Moses took the staff from before G-d as He commanded him. And Moses and Aaron assembled the assemblage to the face of the rock, and he said to them, 'Hear now O rebels. Can we take forth for you water from this rock?' And Moses raised his hand and he hit the rock with his staff twice. And much water went forth and the congregation drank with their animals. And G-d said to Moses and to Aaron: 'Because you did not believe in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the Israelites, therefore you will not bring this assemblage to the land that I gave them.'"

A worthy people merits great miracles, and an unworthy people merits smaller miracles. Were the Jews worthy or not? This would depend on their level at the time of the approach to the rock. Moses had to be prepared for either eventuality. Perhaps the Jews would merit water by his speaking to the rock; perhaps the Jews would be on a lower level, and Moses would have to hit the rock.

G-d told Moses that the key was "assemble the community, you and Aaron your brother, and speak to the rock." The key is the phrase "Aaron your brother." Aaron was the brother of Moses, of course, so why did G-d mention it? The hint was that Moses and Aaron were “brothers.” In other words, Moses, to succeed, had to emulate Aaron. Aaron was the man of peace and love, and of appreciating others. Moses would succeed only by uniting the Jews in communal love and by loving them as well. Even if the Jews were not on a high level, the sight of Moses and Aaron as brothers would raise them to the proper level.

If the Jews were thus elevated, Moses could take water from the rock merely by speaking. If, however, Moses failed to inspire them to rise to the proper level, Israel would only merit water if Moses hit the rock.

When Moses came looking for the rock, the Jews complained. “Why look for a particulate rock?” they asked. “Any rock can bring forth water.” Moses was antagonized by this, and he berated the Jews, and called them “rebels.” He decided that they were not worthy. G-d told to Moses to “speak” to the rock, even though Moses held the staff as well. This meant G-d told Moses to raise the Jews higher than the “staff” level into the “speak” level. Moses “did not believe” properly in the level of the Jews. He refused to accept G-d’s hint to elevate them. G-d thus accused Moses of “not believing” in His words. Moses could therefore not enter the Promised Land.

This tragedy transpired because Moses did not manifest proper love and appreciation for Jews. Only that could have raised them to a high level. When a teacher believes in a student, the student responds and improves. When a teacher does not believe in a student, the student fails. Ultimately, the teacher is responsible. Indeed, the problem of appreciating others has never been solved. Even Moses failed in it. For us to appreciate our family members properly is also an incredible challenge. Human nature blinds us to the qualities of others, although we readily notice their faults. A rabbi used to pray, “May we merit to see the qualities of our fellow, and not their faults.”

Note that Moses and Aaron were both supposed to speak to the rock, but in the end, only Moses spoke. The fact that Aaron was missing indicated that the capacity of love and peace, the forte of Aaron, was missing. The level of love was missing, and this was disastrous.

"Moses and Aaron gathered the assemblage to the face of the rock." There is a difference between the "rock" and the "face of the rock." The rock is the inner rock; the face of the rock is its external façade. Moses could produce the level of “speaking” only by reaching out to the “inner rock.” By speaking only to its "face," the rock did not give forth its waters, until Moses had to hit it with his staff. When we see someone externally, we see the “face” of the person, but not the true person. The results are usually negative, as with Moses. We must “believe” in the goodness of others, especially when we don’t see goodness, only faults. G-d told Moses not to believe in Jews was the same as not believing in G-d. G-d made the world for Israel. If we despise them, we do not believe properly in G-d.

When we speak to a person, we can do one of two things, either engage the real person, or speak to his "face," or external façade. If we want to speak to someone and raise them with our love and appreciation, we must reach their inner essence, the "rock." Otherwise, we merely reach their "face," and not their heart. Moses did not achieve the level of love of the Jews necessary to reach into their hearts. As a result, he failed in his approach to the rock. If we loved others, the "rocks" would flow with sweet water, and we would not need to hit anything.

G-d told Moses, "gather the AIDO." That is, the community is called sometimes KEHILA, or gathering, and sometimes the higher term, AIDO, which is related to the word ADE, or testimony. When the Jewish people are on a very high level, they are suffused with the Shechina or Divine Presence, and offer testimony to G-d's Presence. They are thus AIDO, or testimony. Otherwise, they are simply an assembly of people, or KEHILA.

In G-d's instructions to Moses, He only used the term AIDO to refer to the Israelites. However, when Moses approached the Jews, it does not mention the term AIDO. Instead, it mentions the term KEHILA. After the water gushed forth, when Moses hit the rock, the Torah says that the AIDO was watered. Thus, G-d and the Torah consistently referred to the Jews as AIDO, the high level. However, Moses and Aaron did not see Israel’s high level. To Moses and Aaron, Israel was only a KEHILA or assembly. This was the sin. Because of it, Moses and Aaron could not enter Canaan.

Israel is like every other country, having land, hills, desert, rivers, valleys, and beaches. Not everyone sees in Israel the lofty holiness and special attributes that G-d placed there. Only one who can look deep into the "rock" and learn to love and appreciate it can lead the Jews to Israel.

When Jews first began arriving in Israel from Russia and Eastern Europe in Israel a few hundred years ago, they endured terrible experiences. They hungered, suffered from the inhabitants and government of the land, earthquakes, disease, etc. Rabbi Mendel of Vitebst wrote from Israel that the land hides her face and only reveals it to the worthy.

In those days, a rabbi left Israel to raise money. He came to a prominent Jewish community in the Diaspora, and told the local rabbi about the glories of the Holy Land. The local rabbi was so impressed and inspired that he resigned his position and went to Israel. Alas, he did not see the "treasures" he heard about, and saw only problems and challenges. He complained to the rabbi who told him of the wonders of Israel. "Where are they?" he asked. Eventually, the rabbi from the Diaspora went to the Israeli rabbi and said, "At last, I do see the treasures."

After Chaim visited Israel he asked his rebbe, Rebbe Shneur Zalman, "I don't understand. Where are the high souls in Israel you told us about? The people seemed quite ordinary to me."

The rebbe said nothing, but merely asked, "Let us see your gems." (The Chosid was a merchant of jewelry.) Proudly, the Chosid displayed his wares.

"I don't see anything special about these stones," said the rebbe.

Indignantly, the Chosid replied, "Rebbe, you have to be an expert to know stones."

"One must be an expert to know people," said the rebbe.

The Spurned Light becomes Evil

Often we convince ourselves that people are bad because they do bad things. People have energies and forces that can become very good or very bad. Rabbi Yosher Ber, the progenitor of the famous Soloveitchik family, said that the Jews are compared to the stars and to the dust. A very high force can be very high, or it can collapse, and become the opposite. Nuclear energy can be channeled properly, and if it is not, who knows what can happen, heaven forefend? Therefore, pure evil can be just a twist away from pure goodness. Once a person leaves the exact boundaries of goodness, he takes spiritual powers in the wrong direction, and they can flip quickly into mischief of the worst kind.

In short, the greatest evil is often the greatest good that is lost.

Such a person was Leibel. Leibel was a Yeshiva student in Russia whose heart was aflame with idealism. He saw the oppressed poor in Russia and moaned, even while his brilliant mind delved deep into the page of Talmud in front of him. Leibel was a natural leader. The head of the Yeshiva saw with consternation that Leibel influenced others to drink from wells not filled with kosher water. Those were pre-revolutionary days in Russia. Czar Nickolai sat upon a shaky throne; the ground trembled with agitation and even open battles. The head of the Yeshiva finally expelled Leibel. Leibel became Leon Trotsky, whose military genius turned Russia into a Communist state. The communists enslaved the majority, destroyed Yeshivas and religious life. Ultimately, Stalin murdered Trostsky. Stalin also plotted to slaughter the Jews, a project interrupted only by his death.

The Chofetz Chaim, the senior saint of the generation, refused to speak to the head of the Yeshiva who expelled Trotsky. Interestingly enough, there was another student, just like Leibel. Yosef was brilliant, powerful, personable, and he, too, wondered about Communism and socialism. All night the Chofetz Chaim spoke to him, and in the morning, the student resolved to remain in the Yeshiva, and become a rabbi. He became one of the greatest Yeshiva heads. His good deeds are the opposite of those of his fellow students who slipped into the maelstrom in those agitated times.

The highest spirituality, according to the Cabalists, is in the female. Thus, the greatest evil came from spurned women, Lilith and Timna, the mother of Amalek. Let us study them a bit. We will begin with Timna, because her story is easy to understand, if not tragic. Lilith is Cabalistic, and requires a special approach.

Timna

Timna (see Medrash Rabo Braishis 82) was the sister of a powerful ruler, Loton. She was consumed with the desire to marry into the spiritual family of Abraham, but alas, nobody wanted her. Despite her wonderful spirituality, her family was famous for incest and producing bastards. Finally, she settled upon becoming a concubine to Abraham's great-grandson, Elifaz. Elifaz was the son of Esau. Who was Elifaz? Of all of the seed of Esau, Elifaz was the most spiritual, and indeed, "grew up in the lap of Jacob," the brother of Esau. Esau told Elifaz to murder Jacob. Elifaz came to Jacob and told him his predicament. Jacob suggested, "Take my belongings, and the poor is considered as one dead." At any rate, Elifaz was the best of the seed of Esau, and Timna surely one of the most spiritual of her time, or any time. From them came Amalek. Amalek is the mortal enemy of Israel, whose progeny think only of destroying the Jews. Why and how did this happen? The rabbis explained that the Jews rejected Timna; this caused the good in her and Elifaz to emerge into utter evil and hate, Amalek.

When the Jews left Egypt in triumph, and miracles saved them from all evil, the nations trembled, except Amalek. Amalek fearlessly sallied forth to make war on the Jews, even as they sat comfortably and securely in the bosom of the Schechinah and the Holy Cloud in the desert. Joshua left the camp to battle Amalek, and killed many of them. However, Amalek made his point. Now people did not fear so much. It became easier to oppose both Jewry and its G-d.

G-d then declared, "My Name and Throne will not be complete until Amalek is destroyed." Such an evil, a spurned holy fire, can shake the Throne of G-d and damage, as if it could be, His Holy Name." Those who deal with divorces understand this.

Why did the family of Abraham reject Timna? Was she not utterly sincere and spiritual? There is, however, an ugly side to Timna, albeit not of her doing. The Medrash Tanchuma (Vayashev 1) tells that Elifaz, once the disciple of Jacob, became evil when he grew older, and slept with the wife of Sayir, the former king of the land where Esau lived. From this illicit union came a daughter to Elifaz, a bastard, Timna. He sinned again by marrying his bastard daughter, and from them came Amalek. Thus, although Timna was very righteous, desired greatly to marry into the seed of Abraham, and admired their holiness and spirituality, her parentage left much to be desired. The House of Abraham, rooted in family decency and sanctity, refused to accept her.

The Yalkut Shimoni (Genesis 30,129) says that Timna was from a noble family and could have married very high. She begged to marry Jacob, but he refused her. She offered to be his concubine, but he refused. She then said, "I will marry Elifaz, the reject of the holy family of Abraham, and not become a princess and queen in the royal families of others." For rejecting her, the Jews were punished. Amalek emerged from Timna’s union with Elifaz.

Not all was lost from the issue of Timna. True, from her came Haman, the Persian Prime Minister who plotted to utterly erase Jews from the earth. And yet, "From Haman issued a teacher of Torah to Jewish children in Bnei Braq." From great light came great darkness. However, that darkness ultimately revealed great light. From Timna’s spoiled spirituality, Amalek, came the pure lights of children learning Torah. Light-from-darkness blazes in G-d's Name and Throne. G-d waits impatiently for the sparks of Timna’s goodness to return to the fold. From such returned light G-d builds His Name and Throne, and reveals Torah to the world. Until then, G-d’s Throne “is not complete.” Timna's anguished and searching sparks of holiness give no rest to the Divine Name or Throne, and somehow, her tears must turn to joy.

In practical terms, the Jewish people must inspire the nations of the world to love Israel. This builds G-d’s Throne and prepares for Redemption.

The Jews, even as they are ensconced in Torah holiness, must appreciate the spirituality of the nations. They surely must not reject it. Israel must not only respect the nations, but behave in such a manner as to merit love and respect from the nations. Without such respect, Messiah cannot come, says Rabbi Moshe of Cousy (the author of SEMAG, an acronym for the famous classic The Large Book of Commandments).

Whereas the main intercourse between Jew and gentile is in business, the important thing, the rabbis tell us, is to impress the gentiles with Jewish honesty. From this the gentiles respect the Torah. If Jews are dishonest, gentiles hate the Torah. The Torah in Deuteronomy teaches about honest weights and measures, and follows this with the story of Amalek. The juxtaposition of honesty and Amalek teaches that honesty defeats Amalek, and dishonesty empowers Amalek. Jewish honesty inspires the nations to love Israel and the Torah. Jewish dishonesty antagonizes the nations and emboldens Amalek.

The Medieval period in Germany, France and Europe was a time for Crusades. Zealot soldiers slaughtered and burned Jews. Frenzied mobs kidnapped children. Rabbi Moshe of Cousy, one of the greatest scholars of that time, traveled to the bereaved communities of Jews to comfort them. He urged them to put their hopes in the Messiah. Messiah cannot come, said the rabbi, until the gentiles accept that Israel is honest and worthy of redemption. Therefore, he commanded, Jews must deal with gentile money even more stringently than the Torah requires.

Lilith

(Our discussion of Lilith is subtle and even mystical. You may wish to skip to the next topic.)

We now turn to Lilith, the first wife of Adam. G-d presented her to Adam, but Adam could not appreciate her and G-d then fashioned Eve. Lilith then fled and became evil. We cannot completely understand the very deep ideas surrounding Lilith. However, we can accept Lilith as a high spiritual force transformed to great evil by being rejected and spurned.

Lilith was the first wife of Adam. However, the Zohar tells us that Lilith figured in the earlier days of Creation, long before people arrived. The earliest biblical discussion of male and female I have found began on the fourth day, with the male sun and the female moon. (We have much to discuss about that, but patience, patience.) Guess who else was there? Of course, Lilith. Thus, we have a male (the sun) and two females (the moon and Lilith). Although we have Medrashic stories of the sun and the moon, we have no idea why Lilith is there. We are not entirely disappointed. Lilith is the challenge of evil. She is spurned light. Her essence is deep in the Will of G-d to make a world of challenge. We are limited in our approach, therefore, to Lilith. Once we accept our limitations, we are able to see something, and learn what we can about Lilith, perhaps the primordial female essence.

As if being a silent player is not bad enough, Lilith began, in those far-flung supernal days, as evil! This is days before Adam and Eve sinned by eating from the forbidden fruit. So the mention of evil is amazing. The passage begins, (Genesis 1,14) "And G-d said, 'Let there be luminaries in the firmament of the heaven." The word luminaries is usually spelled with a VOV, but here the VOV is missing; thus, instead of "luminaries," we have "curses." This, says the Zohar (I,33:) indicates the creation of Lilith. Together with the sun and the moon G-d created "curse" or "death" as Lilith. What does this mean? One thing we can obtain is Lilith as the primal force for evil. Whereas all evil must return to goodness, and since primordial evil is simply G-d’s will, we must respect Lilith. She is the beginning of a world of free-choice. She is also the guarantee that all darkness will return to light.

This was the fourth day of Creation. On the fifth day, G-d created fish monsters. The Zohar says (I,34:), "These monsters were Leviathan and his mate, and Lilith." Why were there, again, a male and two females, one good, and one bad?

The female is the force of self-actualization. Once we actualize, we must deal with G-d. One way is to negate ourselves to Him. The other way is to sin and rebel against G-d. These are the two “females,” or rather, the two “selfs” and their disparate ways with G-d in a world of free-choice.

If you are still there, we offer another take on this subtle issue. The male represents mercy and the female represents justice. G-d wanted a world of justice, so people would come to Paradise completely cleansed of sin and merit perfect reward. He saw, however, that perfect justice would destroy the world, because people always sin. Therefore, G-d made the world with justice joined to mercy. However, the true will of G-d, one reserved for the truly pious, is pure justice without mercy.

Adam represents male mercy. Eve represents female justice tempered with mercy. Lilith represents pure justice. Most people cannot tolerate such a level. But it is the Will of G-d. Lilith, the ultimate challenge of pure justice is therefore a lost creature, just as is the Will of G-d. This is very deep stuff, and we stand apart from it to take only what we can digest, which is really not very much.

If the world as we know it is mercy-joined-to-justice, it is a compromise with G-d’s real Will. Of course, G-d does not have two Wills. Rather, there is a harder challenge for the greatly pious, and there is a lesser challenge for others. Lilith represents the ultimate challenge to create perfection in people. Unfortunately, people do not willingly accept such challenges. Therefore, the challenge of Lilith is manifested in mystical ways, in great difficulties and challenges, despite our effort to find only mercy and light justice. Ultimately, in ways only known to G-d, the Will for pure justice will be revealed. Only then will the force of Lilith be manifested properly. With mystical detours, the flaming justice of Lilith takes detours into evil until the end of days when it will power the greatest lights and the Redemption. Here again is a topic so fraught with confusion it has led many good people astray. We therefore mention is only in passing, not because we want to deal with such delicate material in detail.

On the sixth day, says the Zohar, G-d created Adam and Eve. Adam slept first with Lilith, but she was not a helper to Adam, and he could not live with her, so G-d gave Adam another wife, Eve. What happened to Lilith? It wasn't very pleasant. She was spurned. Although she was a very high energy, it now became evil. Lilith was created to marry, but because Adam rejected her, or because he could not tolerate her, she became the mother of demons (Zohar II,267). Instead of taking the lights of men in marriage, she took them with evil. Sexuality, the highest holiness, thus becomes something illicit, and is the source of great evil. This, however, is only the shell of the story. We are not finished with Lilith and the demons.

The Zohar says that Adam was formed of dirt or clay, and then received the breath of life. Then he rose and went about. Eve was attached to his side. A soul flitted between Adam and Eve, attached in the same body. G-d made Adam sleep and took Eve away from him, formed her into a woman, and Adam awoke and married her. When Lilith saw Adam and Eve united before G-d in the marriage ceremony, she fled. Before then, however, she had slept with Adam. It is very interesting that Lilith was the first wife of Adam. This indicates that she was somehow the ideal, and that Eve was only secondary. If so, how did Lilith become evil?

Even more interesting is the creation of the demons just before the Sabbath. G-d did not have time, as if it could be, to provide the demons with bodies, only souls, and then the Sabbath came, and no more creation could be done. The demons thus remained without bodies. Note this: A demon is one without a body, but has a soul. Can such a being be inferior to people, who have a body? A body drags the soul down; without a body, the soul is unhindered. If so, the demons should be higher than people.

To keep it as simple as possible, evil is actually a good and holy force that could not find a finite receptacle. What we see as evil is a divine energy that is so infinite that the finite perceives it as evil. In the exile, in falling and failing, people at last come to grips with these forces, and they turn into good. Within these evil forces are the greatest lights.

The world was designed for light and darkness. During the "light" phase man deals with his wife "Eve," that is, people have finite experiences. During the "night" phase, people deal with the higher lights concealed in darkness and even evil, and these surrender their sparks and are transformed into goodness. The process of the world is to ultimately transform all evil to good, to rescue all of the lost sparks, and to redeem the world from all evil and suffering. Thus, Lilith and Samoel, the two major forces of evil, have a numerical value of TORAH, because Torah is revealed in its true lights only with the hidden sparks trapped in darkness.

The demons created just before the Sabbath had no physical form; they were infinite beings. Because they had no finite forms, they became evil, relative to us, although the Zohar says that just as there are good and bad people, there are good and bad demons. Their evil was an energy concealing the highest light, one appropriate for the end of creation, just before the Sabbath. Recall, that the Creation went from lower to higher things: first inanimate objects, then trees, then fish, then animals, then people. With people, Adam came first and then Eve. She was thus higher than Adam. After them came the demons, who were even higher. Obviously, the final creation of demons had to contain a very high energy. It is revealed in exile, falling and failing, to tell us that life is about struggle. Within struggle are the secrets of the supernal sefiroth, or divine dimensions.

Lilith, as the first wife of Adam, was central to creation. Her lights are perhaps the highest ones, and she is probably higher than Eve. As we go through life, the challenge of evil raises us to the level where we find those lights seen as evil but containing the highest goodness.

The Zohar explains that Lilith did not provide help to Adam, and it didn't work out. A wife must be a helpmate, as the bible says, "It is not good for a man to be alone, I will make a helpmate opposite him." What does this mean?

A person comes into the world to accept challenge, and to change darkness to light. It is like baseball. The pitcher throws the ball, and you swing the bat. If you do it right, the ball is hit, and if you hit it wrong, you are out. Of course, if you or I would go out and deal with ninety-mile-an-hour pitches, especially those with the dips and the curves, we would strike out. G-d must match the pitch to the batter. However, within each person, there are levels of challenge, higher and lower.

The harder the challenge, the greater the effort and pain required to persevere. This is the allegory of man and two wives. Man comes into the world, a world of struggle, and he, being an ADAM, which means "earth," must fight his way through. He can't really be expected to persevere, however, unless he receives an angelic and spiritual force to aid him; it appears in the person of his wife. The female Eve is "life," as "she was the mother of all life." This life is not just biological life, but spiritual life. Here we meet a serious problem, one that revolves upon the purpose of creation.

A person came into the world to earn by struggle. "According to the pain is the reward." If so, why help him? The more he does things on his own, the more reward he receives. If his wife helps him, he has smaller reward. The wife is thus a contradiction to the very purpose of creation. Enter Lilith. Here you have it all. Adam has a wife, and she is hard as nails. She doesn't help a bit. Who knows, she may help him by adding challenge to challenge. If so, he will have even more reward. Isn't this the way things should be? G-d therefore created Adam and gave him Lilith. Adam couldn't take it. Why not? We will come to that, but for our purposes now, he couldn't take it, and G-d gave him Eve. Eve was kinder, and Adam accepted her. Was this not a level B marriage? Yes, but it is better than no marriage. It is not better than a working marriage with Lilith. Lilith, thus spurned, fled and became evil. When Adam and Eve broke up, for 130 years, Lilith would visit Adam and take his lights. She would have preferred to have them the proper way.

There is a lesson in this. Adam was created with Lilith, not Eve. Somehow, he must fulfill his function ideally, with Lilith. This happens in the exile. In falling and failing, people live a life of such challenge that they approximate the level of Adam and Lilith, rather than the lower challenge of Adam and Eve.

For 130 years Adam left Eve because of the sin of the Tree of Knowledge. During this period, Lilith took Adam’s lights at night while he slept. These are didactic and prophetic events. This is exactly what happens in the exile, when people are cut away from light, and live alone in darkness and failure. In a way, they give their seed to create demons, and they do. People in exile often do bad things, such as the Jews who embraced Communism and tortured religious people. Somehow, in a way known only to G-d, the demonic period has a purpose, has a path, and it leads to something better. In the Future World, and only then, we will understand.

LILITH in Hebrew means, "me, me." Ideally, a wife is "me, you," but Lilith was not kind. Kindness contradicts struggle, the purpose of the world. Lilith demanded perfection, which is too bad for the husband. What should Adam have done? To understand, we must repair to the text of the Creation story.

Adam and Eve in the Garden

(Genesis 2,25): "And the two were naked, Adam and his wife, and they were not ashamed." "And the two" is redundant. Why not just say, "And Adam and his wife were naked and not ashamed"? There are, however, two levels of nakedness. One, we have no clothes. We are embarrassed to be seen by others. Yet, “and the two were naked” and not ashamed of each other. “Adam and his wife” indicates cohabitation. Even this did not cause them any embarrassment. One reason is they had no evil inclination, and everything they did was on an angelic level. Thus, there was no shame. Secondly, only two people existed, so they had nobody to fear in their nakedness. Thus, “and the two” means only two of them existed, and they had no reason to be ashamed. However, the snake saw.

Rashi tells us that the snake sought to seduce Eve after he saw Adam and Eve cohabitating publicly. Rashi says that the snake saw this and "desired them." However, it seems that he desired Eve, not Adam, and spoke to her and eventually slept with her, not Adam. Why does it say, "and he desired them"? The idea of a snake, which is obviously a heavenly agent of testing, lusting for Eve, is very strange. What does it mean?

Most difficult to understand is what Adam and Eve were doing in the Garden. They had achieved the epitome of human experience, reaching the Garden of Eden. The holiness blazed from every nook and cranny. Why were they not praying, studying the secrets of the Torah, or doing something spiritual? Why were they sleeping together?

Although in other religions sex is a lowly thing, and priests are forbidden to marry, in Judaism the High Priest cannot function unless he has a wife. In the Talmud, a young genius was brought to a senior rabbi. The senior rabbi refused to look at the face of the young genius, because he did not wear the garb of a married man. Sexuality is the highest holiness, because “the Schechina rests upon the parents who are together." (Ramban, Letter of Holiness) Of course, if sex is secularized, and turned into the sad thing it is in the media and general culture, and a woman becomes, not a repository of the highest spirituality, but a geometric pleasure machine, sex is sick and not spiritual. In the Garden of Eden, rather than pray and study, Adam and Eve invoked sex to achieve union with holiness. Within the union, vulnerability and assertiveness of their marriage, they achieved the power of creating a human soul, and pulling its energies from the highest supernal spheres. The Satan saw this, and acted. Why? The rule is, that whenever people attempt to achieve spiritual things, the snake or Evil Inclination tests them. It is that simple. The snake "desired them." The snake, or Evil Inclination, is created to desire all holy sparks and forces, try to consume them, and wax strong by so doing. The snake saw these mighty forces released by marriage, and decided that they would do him just fine. He desired them, the pair's unity during marital process. He then plotted to test them and take the holy lights away for his own purposes.

This is what the Satan does. For this G-d created the Satan. Eventually, the Evil Force will retire, because testing will end, in the Future World. Then G-d will remove the letter MEM from the Evil Angel Samuel, and he will become the holy angel without that letter. (The letter MEM is the feminine or self-actualization force. In the future, we will no longer create ourselves, but be what we were in this world for infinity.) He is a faithful fellow, the Satan, and just does what he is supposed to do. Unfortunately, not all creatures are so loyal, and obedient.

However, we are sad that G-d created such a situation where the snake could do his thing. What could poor Eve really do, or what could Adam have done, to prevent the sin of eating of the Tree of Knowledge?

They key, as Rashi tells us, is the cohabitating in public. Had they done this privately, it seems the snake would have left them alone. He was aroused by their public display. What does this mean?

Let us return now to Lilith. The Zohar says she came to Adam and they had relations. Adam tried to make a go of the marriage, but she did not "help" him. She was "the harsh level of hard justice" and Adam could not take it. So, G-d made Eve, who is less justice and more kindness. Seeing the success of Adam and Eve, Lilith fled.

Let us go back to the first marriage, that of Adam and Lilith. Adam and Lilith have marital problems. What should Adam do? He can't live with her. She is just too harsh and hard. LILITH means, “for me, for me.” Who can take it?

One moment. Who made Lilith? Who gave her to Adam? Was it not G-d? Did He, heaven forefend, make a mistake? Did G-d not know that Lilith was harsh and hard?

Remember what we said previously, that man was created to struggle. The more help man gets, the less reward he receives in heaven. "According to the pain is the reward." If so, Lilith was the ideal wife. She was a perfect woman, the purest spirituality, the Life essence. She was the perfect trial, offering no help, only challenge. This is exactly what G-d wanted for Adam. Living with her, Adam would have to struggle, but his goal was perfection. Adam said, "I can't take it."

Adam made a mistake by not accepting the Will of G-d. Obviously, G-d knew exactly what He was doing. If He gave Adam Lilith, then Lilith is the right wife. Whether or not she helps is irrelevant. G-d made her, and that is that.

Sometimes we understand the way of G-d, and sometimes we do not. When we do not see, we take it on faith. G-d has credit. We will eventually understand. Adam refused faith. He wanted to see with eyes, and know with his mind. He would not take a woman without seeing that he could make a go of the marriage. He refused to enter the dimension of hard and harsh challenge, because he did not know how he could survive it. He should have had faith. If Adam had accepted Lilith on faith, his "eye" would not have been involved in his marriage. Only dark faith would be involved. On the other hand, the "eye" of the Satan would not operate, either. Once Adam decided to marry with his "eye," and not faith, he opened his marriage to the "eye" of the snake. Only faith could have protected Adam and Eve as they cohabitated in the Garden publicly. Only Adam and Lilith could have done such a thing, and not arouse the Satan.

The problem, however, was deeper. Adam’s rejecting faith and seeking to "see" and know with his mind created a momentum for destruction. The Satan came to Eve and suggested that she do what Adam did, reject faith and "see" with her "eye," and eat from the Tree of Knowledge. (Genesis 3,5) "[the snake speaks to Eve] 'Because G-d knows that on the day you eat from it [the Tree of Knowledge] and your eyes will be opened and you will be like G-d to know good and evil.' And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat and that it was a lust for the eyes, and that it was desirous to understand, and she took from its fruit and she ate, and she gave also to her husband with her and he ate." We have italicized the phrases that indicate our point. The sin of the Garden of Eden, of eating from the Tree of Knowledge, was Adam and Eve's plunging from faith to knowledge. This was rooted in Adam's rejection of Lilith, who could only be married to Adam with blind faith. The "eye" and the need to "know" could not produce a marriage with Lilith. Adam rejected Lilith, and thus forfeited the protection she would have given him in a marriage of blind faith. Lilith would have shielded their marriage and public intimacy from the Satan, who would have been unable to see them in an evil way, because they had "no eyes" and so the Satan would also not have power of "eyes." Instead, Adam chose Eve, "eyes" and "knowledge" over blind faith. This empowered the Satan over any public display of marriage. Marriage of "eye" and "knowledge" is the dimension of the Satan.

Trapped by his own error, Adam acquiesced to the desire of Eve, goaded by the snake. He ate from the Tree of Knowledge, to have a life of seeing with the eye, rather than “the righteous lives with his faith.” Had they opted for faith, the Satan would not see what they were doing, and they would be completely safe from all evil influences.

What does this mean to us?

When we marry, G-d gives us mates. We are also given family, communities and societies. Often, our "eyes" do not see what is so good about our spouses, family and associates. People are not perfect. We are attempted to break off our relationships. We cannot take it any more; it is too harsh, too hard. Wait. G-d gave you this spouse, this family, this associate, etc. Shut your eyes and pull some faith into your heart. When you do, look with a higher view at others, until you find good there. Keep trying, and you will find it.

Samson told his parents, "This woman is good in my eyes." For this, his eyes were gouged out, says the Talmud. A woman is not good "in my eyes," although, of course, in the practical world we have to begin that way. We must know that a mate is from G-d; marriage is a divine intervention. We do not marry because we "see" with our "eyes" alone. We rather accept G-d’s creation of our marriage. Yes, G-d can create a Lilith for Adam. He can create challenges for men and women of a similar or worse nature, heaven forefend. We try, when possible, to apply faith, and to find goodness in a person who seems bereft of it. Of course, if we try, go to counseling, get rabbinical advice, but can't make it work, there is always the option of divorce. If there are children, that may or may not be an option, depending on how bad things are. The point here is that there is something higher than the "eye." The marvels of the Creation, DNA, the solar system, physics and biology do not end at the marriage ceremony. They only begin there.

Holy rabbis confessed that they could not see the goodness and beauty of the land of Israel for a long time of testing. So, many of us cannot find the goodness and beauty of our spouses and family for lengthy periods. There are married people who struggle for years to find each other. Others give up. Moses was faulted for not seeing the goodness of the Israelites of his time. How natural, therefore, for us to be blind to the goodness of our sometimes angry, querulous and arguing spouses. However, let us try, and perhaps, we will enter the Promised Land.

Jacob, Leah and Rachel

As we note the failure of Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge, we are sad. When we read about the sin of the generation of Noah and the Flood, we are disappointed. We come to the story of the Tower of Babel, and shake our heads. Then we come to the Jewish Patriarchs and Matriarchs, and we start feeling good about the human race. Now, here is progress, until we get to the story of Joseph and his brothers. Now we are just too stunned to be sad, disappointed or to shake our head. What happened to the Jewish people when they sold Joseph their brother into slavery?

Can we imagine it? Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebecca, Jacob, Rachel and Leah, the most outstanding family that ever existed, produced a generation whereby the majority sold a brother! Indeed, the generation that sold Joseph was "the Twelve Tribes of Israel," the founders of the Jewish people! How did this come to be? More important, what can we learn to do to avoid such things?

Rabbi Yisroel Salanter once explained how a prominent rabbinical family produced an armed robber. "The grandfather," he explained, "was wont to 'borrow' interpretations said by other rabbis in his lectures. The father learned to 'borrow' the money of others through fraud in business, and the grandson learned to 'borrow' with a gun."

A child is extraordinarily sensitive, and picks up things that we think are concealed. The child then "builds" upon small failings to make them worse. As time goes on, the fruit falls far from the tree.

Abraham quarreled with Sarah about Hager's son, Ishmael. It was completely correct and G-d adjudicated their dispute. Such arguments happen in every family, although perhaps not with the intensity of a wife angry with another woman and her son. The issues were completely resolved. However, the argument had made its mark, as all arguments must.

The next generation saw a difference of opinion between Isaac and Rebecca over Esau, the first-born son. Isaac was partial to Esau and Rebecca was partial to Jacob. This was not based upon a judgment that one son or the other was better or worse. It was, says the Zohar, a personality issue. People have different temperaments. Isaac shared a temperament with Esau, and Rebecca was like Jacob. This is very common and completely innocent. In the end, Isaac and Rebecca both accepted that Jacob would lead the Jewish people and not Esau. However, the argument and the division of the family into Esau and Jacob made its mark. It had to, especially now that a pattern had been established of two sons splitting, one leaving the fold, and the other inheriting the Jewish mantle. What would happen next?

Jacob married two sisters. The eldest was Leah and the younger was Rachel. This was permitted before the giving of the Torah. After Sinai, Jews may not marry two sisters.

Leah and Rachel had children. This would have made a problem of its own. But there was a bigger problem. Jacob loved Rachel and not Leah. Indeed, he was bitter at Leah who tricked Jacob into marrying her. Jacob, a man of truth, could not tolerate such a thing. Leah, however, was right in wanting to be a mother to the Jewish people. Furthermore, she was a prophetess who had the majority of the sons of the Tribes of Israel, including the Levites and the Royal Tribe. Even Rachel helped Leah trick Jacob.

Leah's children felt that their mother was not loved. This was a ticking bomb in the Jewish home. Eventually, the children of Leah sold Joseph, the son of Rachel, into slavery.

What went wrong? We have traced the selling of Joseph back to the milder family problems in the Jewish family. On the other hand, we still don't understand. We may never. What can we learn from this mystery?

First of all, we learn that very spiritual people can fall apart in family matters. The same person who gives away his last penny cannot take pain from his spouse without reacting ferociously. The hardest challenge is family. Even the greatest of the great have family problems. Even the wisest of the wise cannot see the good in another person. This is one perspective that we gain from the biblical story of Joseph and his brothers. The Torah did not write the terrible narrative of Joseph's suffering because it was insensitive to the greatness of the founding generation of Israel. It warned us: we are never free of envy. We are never safe from family feuds. Nobody is safe.

Another lesson is that in a family everyone must be content. Any competition for favor is deleterious. Parents have their inclinations, like it or not. Not all children are equal in the heart of a parent. This is clear from the Torah. Isaac liked Esau and Rebecca liked Jacob. Sometimes, we are so obvious with our unbalanced affections that we cause great damage. The child we embrace becomes hated, a barb for the envy of the other siblings. We can destroy a child's happiness by embracing him. Sometimes, we must curb our emotions, and present a balanced smile.

Then there is the unintended impact of a parent on a child or even a spouse. Let us take Jack. He is full of cheer. He has dozens of friends. He comes into the house, smiles here and cracks a joke there, turning everyone on. Jack is destroying his son Harry. Harry has no role except to listen to Jack's performing. A loud parent challenges a quiet child, and competes with a loud child. Can you be yourself around your children? Actually, you can be yourself, but a child is not an audience. You are the audience.

When a parent is around children, the slightest look or lack of notice can make or break someone. The simplest word can do damage or develop confidence. A parent should exercise the same caution around children that he would in a minefield. One false step…

Someone asked Rabbi Yisroel Mayer Kagan, the saint of the generation, how to succeed in the rabbinate. He relied, "You have to work very hard." A parent must "work very hard." A spouse must "work very hard." There are always pressures bubbling up here and there. There are no solutions, just struggles.

Let us return to the House of Israel and its family problems. The most obvious one is that the first-born children were always failures. Abraham's first born was Ishmael, who turned into a wild man. "His hand will be against everyone, and the hand of everyone will be against him." Ishmael repented before he died, and did many good things, but his wildness and warring destroyed the world. The first born of the next generation, Isaac and Rebecca, was Esau. Esau, too, was "a man of the field." His style was that of the sword and shedding blood. Esau, too, as Rome, founded Western civilization. The problems for the Jews, however, from Rome, are known.

The younger sons of these two generations, Isaac and Jacob, emerged as spiritual giants. The first born of the third generation was Reuben, and he, too, failed, and lost his primogeniture. Although Reuben remained in the Jewish fold, his behavior relegated him so that he had no rank or importance.

This is the curse of the ideal. Just as the first women created by G-d, who was surely perfect in every way, became Lilith, so did the first born of the Jewish people become "wild men." There is a lesson here. The ideal cannot easily survive in real life. The Cabalists say that Esau had a soul a thousand times higher than that of Jacob, but such a lofty soul could not survive, and he became terribly evil. This is a new way of looking at evil. We noticed it with Lilith.

What this means in practical family terms is that gifted children need special care and concern. There are children who have "a thousand times" more potential than others, and they are busy with drugs. It is not easy to be "a thousand times" better than others intellectually or any other way. The sensitive, thinking children are in danger. How tragic it is that precisely the quiet, shy and sensitive child becomes the butt of jokes and derision. The pain builds until we have what we have—a high percentage of lost children. It doesn't matter if the parents are good people. It doesn't matter if they are successful. A therapist told me that he makes a living from successful families. Life is upside down. A great gift is sometimes a curse. A successful parent can destroy a child. The ideal is not. This is the fearsome forum of humanity. We must tremble. "Happy is he who lives with fear, and he who hardens his heart will fall in evil." Destruction awaits the arrogant, the fearless, and pride.

In the secular and materialistic fifties, when I wore a yarmulka head-covering, it was a scandal. I remember the reactions of two adults. One assailed me vehemently, barely able to contain his fury at the ways of a boy. Another person smiled and was polite, which in those days was an act of kindness. The first person came from a strong Jewish background, and when he saw a yarmulka, it bothered him. He felt guilty. He was angry at himself, and took it out on me. The second person was utterly disinterested in anything but making money and materialism. He had no problem with a religious boy. If I wanted to be a nut, so be it. Here we see that the act of evil is often rooted in good, and the good act is often rooted in something that is not good. Life is tricky. We must respect it, and then, we may succeed. We cannot understand people unless we understand this.

A spouse who is furious at us for something is not necessarily evil. The anger may be rooted in goodness and concern. A person who smiles at us may just not care what happens to us.

On the other hand, such idealism can be very destructive. The greatest destruction and evil comes from good intentions. A rabbi once heard of an unheard-of evil deed, and said, "Undoubtedly, the person did this for idealistic purposes." There are barriers to evil impregnable to all but good goals.

There are parents who have plans for their children. They want their child to succeed. These are sometimes the best parents, and sometimes the worse. There are children nurtured and encouraged who made it, and there are parents who pushed a child too far until… A teacher told me, "I have a parent who has nothing to do with his child, fortunately." It is often better to do nothing than to do something.

Having said these things, we must now bite the bullet, and find out exactly what caused the selling of Joseph. There is of course the idealism of Joseph. He accused his brothers before their father Jacob and claimed that they were wicked. This was the first barrage in the war that led to Joseph becoming an Egyptian slave. But it was not the beginning. Children often continue what their parents started. In the House of Jacob, the problem began with the marriage. Jacob loved Rachel and Leah was "disliked." This, more than anything else, was the key. To be fair to Jacob, we must explain the whole picture.

Jacob and Leah was a replay of the tragedy of Adam and Lilith. Just as Lilith was too much for Adam, so Leah was too much for Jacob. Thus, he did not like her. Only this time, the marriage managed to survive. When it came to the children, however, the problems surfaced and "what happened, happened."

Note that there is a pattern, going back to the first emergence of allegorical gender roles with the sun and the moon, of an additional, unattached female, known as Lilith. Lilith is a great challenge, perhaps overwhelming, and sometimes the husband cannot take it. However, this challenge must ultimately be resolved in the human experience. What began as Adam and Lilith, and utter failure, ended as Jacob and Leah, and great success. From the challenging woman came super-fruits. The great tribes of Israel are from Leah. Levi is the tribe of Moses and Aaron, and the priests and Levites. From Leah issued Shimon, the tribe of Torah teachers. From Leah issued Reuven, whose character was so pure he had was not jealous when his primogeniture was taken from him and given to Joseph. In fact, he, of all the brothers, wanted to save Joseph. Judah was the tribe of Monarch and Messiah. Leah’s had Issacher, the tribe of scholars who produced Deans of the Sanhedrin. This is the reward of a Lilith-wife. The husband suffers. However, ultimately, the fruition of such a wife brings the two together.

Leah achieved this greatness because she was the fruition of the failures of Lilith. Even while Jacob fought his tendencies against Leah, he was putting a knife into the heart of the Jewish people. Fortunately, for Jacob, he stayed with Leah, and Israel achieved what it did.

Here is the fast pitch, frightening in its intensity, which presents us our life, and the life of our children. Will we fail? Will we accept another person, a spouse, a family member, or reject him/her and our life, too? Will we summon our stubbornness and hang on, and swing for the bleachers? Patience and purity of intention can save us from our simple inclinations. When Jacob held on, he created the Jewish people. However, because Jacob’s attitude was not perfect, Joseph became a slave, and the fractured Jewish people never really recovered. Indeed, the Second Temple was destroyed because even though people were pious and studied Torah, they did not respect each other. Things haven't changed very much since then.

The sin of Jacob is the sin of our times, the eternal stain on the Creation, "vain hate," or SINATH CHINOM. Why is it "vain"? Because the person we reject could give us what we want. If only we were stubborn, we would find the light in the darkness. We hate someone else "for nothing." Our complaints are false, based on lack of understanding. Joseph misjudged his brothers and considered them wicked. This was “vain hatred.” The brothers adjudicated Joseph to be a wicked and dangerous person, deserving to be sold, but erred. Often the person we reject holds the key to our success, After we have plunged the shaft deep into the heart of our relationship, we will wander into a long exile looking for the lights that we extinguished. Of course, sometimes we must divorce, and sometimes we must cut. However, we don't mortgage our hopes to our egos, even the bruised kind.

It all began with Lilith, the "odd mate" of the sun, the male Leviathan, and Adam. She represents the treasure we despise. There is something we don't like in all of our relationships. If we persevere, we will find what we want. Life, however, is not a one-day affair. The life of the human race saw Lilith go from level to level, culminating in Leah, and success. Moses and David, the progeny of Leah, are the blazing lights that Jacob almost discarded, but did not.

The numerical value of LEAH/LILITH is 516 (In Hebrew, letters are numbers). SONG in Hebrew is numerically 515. The number 1 is ALEPH, the first letter of the Jewish alphabet. ALEPH is a silent letter. ALEPH represents transcendence. Silence is the opposite of song. However, if we add 1 to 515, if we add "silence" or "transcendence" to "song," we get 516, the same as LEAH/LILITH. How can we add silence to song? When the song sings of transcendence, that is LEAH/LILITH.

The revelation of Lilith by Leah is the song of secrets, the Song of Songs. "I am black, but I am beautiful. Do not look at me blackened, for the sun has darkened me." The fire of the sun turns white, the level of kindness and male, into justice, ferocity and the female force. This frightens people. Lilith repelled Adam. Leah deterred Jacob. The "black" darkness, however, contains the greatest lights. One who perseveres merits them. As the human race continues, little by little, the glory of Lilith settled down into a finite form. We find Lilith now silhouetted by the whiteness of kindness, amid the storm of ferocious strength.

G-d created the demons just before the Sabbath, and they had no bodies. They are lights so high that there is not for them a finite vessel. The Sabbath will reveal them, and so will the struggle in the dark, with faith and stubbornness.

Lilith was not the only super woman whose lights made people tremble and flee. There were actually four super women, and all of them ended up rejected, or rather, devoid of human relationships because they were too high and terrible for people. Within nature are much beauty and sweetness, and much pain and terror. The chirping of the bird is nice, but the hyena baby eating its sibling is not. Nature reveals G-d, and it hides Him. In those areas of "demons" exist a darkness that conceals transcendence. We can see it and deny G-d, as many do, or we can insist on hanging on, until Lilith becomes Leah, and we understand what we cannot.

Naama was one of these women. Her names means "pleasant beauty." Some angels sinned with her. Now, angels do not run after people who work in restaurants. Naama and Lilith were "darkness" that people could not tolerate, but the angels felt right at home.

Sometimes, we must become angels to deal with others, but what is wrong with that? There are people who began their marriages without peace, and persevered, to reap great pleasure from their relationships as well as a successful progeny. If we would see Naama we might not think she was lovely. We might not notice her "pleasant beauty." Perhaps she would appear to be hideous. G-d did not create hideous things, but He created us to think that some people are hideous. We must somehow turn our perceptions and relationships into "pleasant beauty."

People relate to others with cognitive intellectual insights. We look "with our eyes," and form opinions. Messiah will see by "scent," a prophetic intuition better than eyes and ears.

YAACOV/LEAH (Jacob/Leah) has a numerical value of "scent," the power of knowing beyond the intellectual range. Jacob and Leah cannot survive with the intellectual level alone; all Jacob sees is darkness. "The eyes of Leah were dim." This means that the level of the eye, the intellectual level, placed Leah as a nothing. Jacob had to rise to the semi-Messianic Level of "scent" to merit a good marriage with Leah. From their union came King David and the Messianic Level.

King David sang to G-d, "All breath will praise you." This is the level of "breath," of the intuitive powers of the soul to know transcendence, and to sing the song of mystery, the Song of Songs, as we described before. The acronym of "All breath will praise you" has a numerical value of "Messiah the son of David" plus 11. Eleven is the force of evil and darkness. In it, in challenges that we don't understand, are the great Messianic lights. Even without Messianic lights, all of us find deep things in our challenges, especially when dealing with marriage and people.

Because the greatest lights are found in the challenges of marriage and society, the Satan fights tooth and nail to make us dislike others, proffering idealism, usually. There is the husband who says, "I won't have a wife who is different than my mother, this is not how I was raised," and the wife sings out, "My children won't see a father who is lenient about such and such." Without idealistic excuses, how could people destroy their lives and children?

There is much to say about Leah and Rachel, the two wives of Jacob. They are the mainstays of the Cabala. For now, however, we want to return to Adam, Eve and Lilith.

Adam, Eve and Lilith

Most interesting is the process of Adam and Eve. First Eve was attached to Adam. He slept, and G-d cut Eve away and made her into a lovely bride. They were married, and Lilith, who was the first wife of Adam, fled. What does this mean?

The Cabalists tell us that there were two major stages of creation, before the "breaking" and afterwards. In other words, G-d fashioned a world, and its imperfection was that there was no "breaking." Then, came "breaking," and a new world, one that we understand, came into being. Who needs "breaking"?

Esoterically, we understand "breaking" as the negation of the "whole." The "whole" of reality overwhelms us. We must see a piece at a time. Thus, before the "breaking" there was invisible infinity, or "everything." "Breaking" produced visible "pieces," or the finite. Once the "whole" was broken, people could see and know it. Therefore, "breaking" produced "knowledge." Without "breaking" there could not be knowledge, only mystery and transcendence.

Adam and Lilith married without "breaking." Not only did the marriage not work out, but Lilith became enmeshed in evil. She hung around until she saw Eve in her radiant beauty at the Garden of Eden wedding ceremony, and fled. What made Lilith run away? What could she possibly gain from that? Obviously, the power of Eve frightened Lilith. What power did Eve have that frightened Lilith?

G-d created the world so that people would have reward by withstanding challenges. "According to the pain is the reward." Originally, there was no "breaking," and no vulnerability. Each essence in the universe was suffused with the "strength" of its own presence, and struggled against all else. This led to "breaking." When the world "broke," the pieces were suffused with vulnerability. Lacking completeness–each was only a part of the whole–they sought out completion by joining others, or "marriage."

Adam related to Lilith before his "breaking" or "surgery." Only after Adam slept and G-d removed Eve surgically did Adam marry Eve. Adam and Eve, pulled apart, were “broken.” Marriage solved their "breaking." When they married, they achieved a higher level than the pre-"breaking" world. When Lilith saw it, she fled. Lilith was from the pre-broken world, and could not compete with the marriage of "pieces."

The great difference between the world of wholeness and the world of breaking was vulnerability. Before breaking, each particle fought for its essence, and rejected others. After breaking, each particle sought union. By “marrying” other particles, each particle was resolved and revealed. This began with negation and breaking, and the realization how hopeless it was for each particle to war against all others. Now each particle realized that it must have a mate. When joined, the particle achieved a new level. Together with others, the particle achieved a level higher than the wholeness of the pre-breaking era.

The universe is a process of broken pieces mating. There are positive charges seeking negative ones. There are men seeking women. Just as the positive and negative electric charges cannot exist alone, so people cannot exist alone. Of course, someone in jail is alive, but he does not experience true humanity. Humanity, life and self-actualization come only from mating. When two opposites mate, they become "whole." Their wholeness does not preclude others. They have solved the problem of being whole and being an individual.

In the pre-breaking world, particles pulled away from harmony. This led to "breaking," as everything pulled the whole apart, going in different directions. In the "broken" world, the pieces felt vulnerability, and sought to join other particles. These particles in turn sought other unions, until the universe was a symphony of joining and mating.

Ideally, a person joins with others, one's family, marriage, community and society. We are always seeking to find ourselves by knowing others. The more we join with others, the more we are aware of them, and the higher we become. The more we turn inward, the less we regard others, and the smaller we are.

Adam was created with Eve on his side. He could not marry her. Their soul went back and forth between them, in the seminal act of marriage. However, their bodies were locked apart and they could not truly integrate. At this stage, Adam slept with Lilith, because she was from the unbroken world. However, that dimension is only about pulling for yourself. So, LILITH means "me, me." Such could not be a marriage, and when Lilith pulled, she destroyed the marriage. And yet, she did not leave until she saw Eve. G-d made Adam sleep and removed Eve, making her into a beautiful bride. The sight of Eve made Lilith flee. Eve was "a helpmate opposite" Adam. She helped, and yet opposed. Vulnerability and assertiveness is a cycle that powers marriage and all human interaction. Lilith, accustomed only to take, fled from the perfection of "a helpmate opposite."

Therefore, the Creation story is one whereby people were lost as long as they were locked in one body together, but aroused to high levels after G-d made Adam sleep and cut Eve from his side. This is the story of suffering and its impact. A world of darkness, pain and struggle produces a process of mating. "Sleep" and "cutting," freed Adam and Eve to find their true potential.

We thus see that there were two marital levels: Adam-Lilith failed, and Adam-Eve succeeded. Before we marry, we must "sleep" and fall from our ego-control. Within our personal exiles and wanderings, we become eligible for marriage. As long as people have not "slept", they are usually unprepared. The exile is "sleep," and so is the uncertainty and fears of the pre-marital years. We are molded by them, and hopefully, prepared by them for life.

Somebody once said that because the process of dating is very difficult, we appreciate marriage when it finally comes. If marriage is easy come it is easy go. Our hearts are pulled here and there, and we are frustrated when we repeatedly cannot get what we want. Once we do marry, we realize how precious it is, and we remember our previous travail and stay together.

There is another side to this. The Baal Shem Tov, the founder of Hassidic Jewry, said that people are like an acorn. Only when the shell cracks does a mighty tree emerge. The difficulties in pre-marital dating, the long dry spells, the rejections, all break our "shells." When we are good and broken, we begin to see goodness in what we once rejected.

A Hassidic rabbi introduced dozens of couples successfully. He said that everyone can get married except the "kleiber," the picky person, who is filled with demands. The plain, ordinary people can find quicker than the people with everything. The people with everything are waiting while the rest of the pack is busy with children. The acorn is not going to turn into a mighty tree that way.

Let us return to the idea of Adam and Eve, who are unable to marry until Adam "sleeps" and has "surgery." We said that the Jewish people in exile go through a similar experience. Also, people find in suffering what they would not otherwise.

Let us turn now to the story of Purim. Around 2,500 years ago, the Jewish people were exiled in Persia. A wicked Prime Minister, Haman, tried to destroy the Jews. The Queen was a kidnapped Jewish woman, Esther. She convinced the king, Achashverush, who did not love Jews, to counter the decree. Haman was hung and the Jews saved. We celebrate Purim each year, and read the Book of Esther.

The Book of Esther says that Mordechai, the uncle of Esther, sent her to King Achashverush to plead for the Jews. There is a question if Esther was married to Mordechai or merely his niece. If she was indeed married to Mordechai, says Ibn Ezra, and afterwards the king married her, could Mordechai continue dealing with Esther? The king would surely kill him. On the other hand, there is an opinion that they were married. Some hold that even while she was married to Achashverush, she remained married, secretly, to Mordechai.

Ibn Ezra tells us something that seems a compromise. The Book of Esther writes that Mordechai "took" Esther, which seems to say, as a wife. However, it says, he "took her as a daughter," and not as a wife. Ibn Ezra explains that because she was so beautiful, he wanted to marry her. Therefore, it hints in one way that they were married, although they were not, because of Mordechai's desire for her.

This is incredible. Esther was a niece of Mordechai, and she lived in his house for many years, even decades. He wanted to marry her, according to Ibn Ezra, and she was a great beauty. Yet he did not! Why not? If Mordechai and Esther lived in the same house for decades, and both of them wanted to marry each other, and yet, they did not, this is sinful. Only after Acheshverush took Esther do we find that Mordechai and Esther actually married. This makes no sense.

However, in keeping with our chapter, it makes plenty of sense. Mordechai and Esther were a replay of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were attached, and could not marry, until Adam "slept" and had Eve "cut" from him. Until Achashverush took Esther into exile, Mordechai could not marry her. In the exile, in the "sleeping" and suffering of losing Esther, the two could marry. Indeed, the rabbis tell us that the Book of Esther contains many very deep thoughts. Purim is a day of "until we don't know" or transcendence. The story of Purim, of Mordechai and Esther, contains many secrets and hints about deep matters. The marriage of Mordechai and Esther teaches us that we cannot marry our "bashert," or the one chosen for us by heaven, until we "sleep," and enter exile.

Of course, people don't have to be kidnapped in order to marry. Esther and Mordechai represented a very lofty union of mighty souls, and needed such suffering to consummate their relationship. Other people don't need such dramatic "sleep" and "breaking." But everyone goes through something.

The rabbis tell us of a period before Messiah comes of turmoil and terror. Before marriage there is also a period of difficulty. This is "light from darkness," greater than "light from light." Marriage is so great that it requires some darkness. Indeed, the rabbis taught, "There is no writing of the Kesubo (marriage ceremony) without a quarrel.” This quarreling, between two families joining in marriage, is part of the "sleep" and "breaking" that is necessary before we are married.

An elder member of our community told me the following. He was to be married and loved his in-laws so much he could not imagine them fighting. The Talmudic teaching that marriages are accompanied by fights bothered him. He therefore went to Rabbi Yaacov Kaminetski. Rabbi Kaminetski told him, “There will be a fight, even if you like each other.” However, the wedding day drew close, and there were no quarrels, none at all! Finally, the wedding itself began, and Rabbi Kaminetski began to officiate. Suddenly, someone called out: “One moment, please. This is not the way we do things in our family.” And so, there was a “fight,” as if it could be!

Perhaps, such “breaking” fights are good and ultimately bring peace!

Segment Two – Women

A Man is Blessed with Marriage (TUR Code of Laws)

By Rabbi David Eidensohn

©Copyright May 3, 2002 by author

Writing about Gender "Roles"

Eve was Adam’s wife. G-d created her to be “a helpmate opposite him.” A helpmate is not “opposite,” so what does this mean? One explanation, relative to our topic of gender roles, is polarity. We help someone not by showing him a replica of himself, but rather by allowing him to expand his horizons. Eve raised Adam to a new level as a “helpmate” by being “opposite him,” and offering him a polarity. Yes, men and women are “poles apart,” and thus are a perfect polarity. Polarity creates resolution, renewal and then fruition. Each particle and individual seeks “help opposite” to the original.

DNA powers life. DNA is a molecule in the shape of a chain. The links of the chain are genes. Genes determine the characteristics of a living thing. Genes contain four bases, called A, T, C, and G. (A actually stands for a long name we won’t use, and so do TCG.) The four bases pair up, and their pairing creates life. The ATCG bases only pair in certain ways. For instance, A and T mate, but A will not mate with C or G. Also, C and G mate, but C will not mate with A or T. Thus, at the primeval level of life, we have “gender roles,” or polarity, or unions of disparate elements powering life and the formation of cells, life and its characteristics. There are parts of the genome filled with AT combinations, and some with GT combinations. Both have unique characteristics.

Stars and planets, the sun and moon, dance together and react to each other's mass and forces. All of these diverse species somehow function without marriage counseling, something humans should emulate, but do not. Gender issues–so fundamental in nature–often dissemble with humans. Today, marriage and gender relations confuse many people, and things are getting worse all of the time.

I edit these words in June of 2003. The June 22, 2003 issue of Newsweek has an incredible article by Kathleen Deveny, entitled “We’re Not in the Mood.” You can just imagine what it is about. The article explained the epidemic of sexless marriage is because of both parents working and raising children. Also, women are angry with their husbands for not helping enough, etc. Well, they must be pretty angry. I don’t believe people can get that angry over the things the article discusses. Obviously, there is another factor, completely ignored in the article. Women are angry with men because the culture teaches them to be men, to compete with men, and that men oppress women. If I was married to someone who oppresses me, and if my standard of self-actualization was to free myself of the malevolent hegemony of such a person, how much would we love each other?

Men are fed up also, as the article points out. The article, however, does not go into the real issues.

The article puts a lot of the blame on children. Children destroy marriage by sleeping in their parents’ beds. Poor parents. Then the dog wants to come in also. At that point, you need to dab your eyes. When I read about children coming with their parents to restaurants, I want to scream! I have ten children, and one of them coming into my bed was an extremely rare situation. Only when a child is sick or frightened about something, such as a bad dream, would it even occur for a child to sleep in my bed. You know what else? I don’t have a dog. That’s right. I save my money and my energy for my family. They need it more than some furry friend.

At any rate, this article is quite important, simply by telling of the “sexless marriage” problem. It follows by about a year another crucial article published in Time, about aging successful women. The article there was about a book written by a woman who researched successful women. She was surprised to find out how miserable they were when aging ruined their change to have children, or even to marry. A fertility doctor told one lady millionaire “What are you doing here?” Nature does not favor forty-year-old mommies.

Marriage and family are clearly failing. The culture trains people to hate the opposite gender, and we wonder why families fail. That shows how clever our society is. Anyone who can write an article about failed marriages and not mention feminism may be politically correct. However, this is how society ruins women and family. If ladies want to be men, they are going to be lonely. If ladies are manly, men are not going to marry them.

Someone said to me, “You know, I appreciate religious women more than secular women. A secular woman is not a real woman.”

And yet, the very idea of discussing gender roles, as we will do, enrages millions of people who are sensitized by the bitter debates in the culture and the propaganda. How painful for a scholar to present a life's work of findings, and to see people snarl for reasons he wished he could not understand. If we say something nice about women, some men are upset, because we are denigrating men. If we say something nice about men, some women are upset. The smart ones write about transcendence, and leave out the gender roles. I take the risk, because I have seen many women and men who were relieved by the teachings here. They realize that Judaism does not denigrate women, and it does not provide for a superior gender, even though it is, in many ways, a Patriarchal religion.

Einstein tells us that everything in the universe sits upon a slightly curved invisible surface. Every object that exists sinks into this cosmic surface and bends it. The bend in the cosmic fabric is gravity. Gravity pulls other things in the universe to it. Thus, we relate to other things, our "gravity," simply by being, and allowing our essence to sink into the eternal cosmic fabric. The fabric, not us, bends, and attracts others.

We, as finite individuals, sit upon the fabric with finite force. It bends, and maybe it groans! (When I stand on my scale, I groan.) Our finite force attracts finite ideas and energies. The entire universe is particles and people pulling others by their very existence. Where are they pulling them? The universe, the cosmic-fabric, pulls everyone together, beyond the finite into mystery and transcendence. Marriage unites two individuals and raises them to new dimensions.

When two individuals relate with gender polarity, they achieve transcendence. Their happiness illuminates the cosmic fabric and it sings spiritual songs. All of us sit upon cosmic spiritual fabric. We sit on infinity, and we can make it notice us; more so, we can let infinity reveal itself to us, and then be molded by it.

There are loads of gold, spiritual wealth, infinity, all around us, but they are covered with peels and shells. Nothing is as good as human and gender love. In the interests of cosmic balance between good and bad, there must be "peels" and "shells" between gender love and us. We have to work very hard to penetrate the peel and shell to find the rich core. However, even if we find goodness in gender relations, the tides of challenge flow against us, and we must swim hard to stay happy.

To return to our analogy, as we sit in the cosmic fabric, our presence announces itself to the universe. Those closest to us notice us first, although we affect even those farther away. Judge Bernard Stanger, a beloved local Family Court Judge, once discussed gender relationships. The key, said he, is propinquity. Nearness to someone sends a message, and begins the biological and emotional processes that can lead to gender relations.

The female’s sensitive spiritual energy attracts flies along with good forces. The Jewish concept of modesty is necessary to avoid deleterious relationships that come from unwise revelation of the self in the cosmic or social fabric. A woman dancing free in public school and then college is so exposed that her femininity may be damaged. The Jewish home is just the opposite of the secular gender experience. Nobody goes near my daughters until I have thoroughly checked them out. When my daughters see a boy, it is for real. The idea of unleashing transcendence with a dozen people is simply unwise.

Yes, there are gender roles. Those who practice Jewish gender roles are saved from the hate that is manifested in secular society between men and women, and it is hate. Studies show that colleges are so full of feminism or hate for men that men are no longer treated properly on campus, and often refuse to attend college. Of course, they are refusing increasingly to marry. The only solution is to describe gender roles, and to promote modesty, rather than what goes on today, which leads only to anger.

The female essence is very delicate and subtle. The Zohar is designed to show heaven and esoteric forces revealed to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochoi. The Zohar begins by telling how in heaven permission was given to the heavenly hosts, angels, etc., to reveal themselves to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochoi and teach him the secret Names of G-d and all kinds of holy things. There is, however, an exception. The guides of Rabbi Shimon told him bluntly that he could not know of the secrets of the Female Dimension in heaven, the abodes of the Matriarchs and righteous women. He was not insulted, and we must know why. It has nothing to do with modesty because "there is no Evil Inclination in that world," as the Talmud says regarding Abraham's head in the lap of Sarah after death. Someone who entered the heavenly abode could see this, because in heaven there is no Evil Inclination. Why could a saint such as Rabbi Shimon not know what Names, forces and angels were active in the Female Abodes of heaven?

To understand this, we must invoke the teaching of Rabbi Isaac Luria, in his classic Eitz Chaim. He says that there are two dimensions, the linear and the circular. The Zohar, he says, does not reveal the circle dimension. The male is linear and the female circular. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon was limited in understanding the deeper aspects of the female circular dimension called Life.

The linear dimension is logic and words. The circle dimension is transcendence. Words cannot reveal the circular dimension other than on an external and superficial level. Still, we will discuss the female essence. We are not inhibited, because "it is Torah, and we must study." As we do, we keep in mind the dictum of Maimonides in learning mysticism: "If you understand one thing in a lifetime, rejoice." We reveal the external level of the gender roles and issues, and if they are meaningful to you, embrace them, and if not, reject them. Maybe I am wrong in how I express subtle ideas.

Rabbi Isaac Luria taught that we seek wisdom. "Wisdom" in Hebrew is CHOCHMO, a word whose numerical value (in Hebrew letters are numbers, so all words have numerical values) is the same as the word GOLEM, a lump of unformed clay. (We of heard the story of the GOLEM, a clay man brought to life by a Cabalist rabbi, but here GOLEM means just clay.) What shapes the clay? The “clay” has lights that flash and flicker in finite words, tempting us to find their souls and transcendence. We “reveal” the “clay” of “wisdom” with words. We reveal them with our hearts and hopes. Ultimately, all of our words and finite thoughts must merge and fuse into something beyond words, the Circle Dimension. The “clay” of wisdom is similar to this.

If the infinite morsel is stuffed into the finite mouth, there will be problems. You must take our words as unformed clay, and mold them with the deepest part of your heart. Please do not fashion the clay with culture clashes or gender politics.

We can now study about the Cabalistic female and male. If some idea rings a bell of appreciation, let it chime. Otherwise, let the words pass in silence. You can always re-read the topic after you have covered more ground. You will hopefully be ready then to find what you missed the first time.

Women: as Taught in the TUR Code of Laws

The Code of Laws known as TUR, written by Rabbi Yaacov about seven hundred years ago, is the foundation of Jewish Law. Although there are other codes, they build on the TUR. The TUR is divided into four sections, and one of them is called "The Rock of Salvation." This is a play on the biblical verse that Eve was a “helpmate opposite” Adam. The Jewish woman is a “Rock” of stability. Although historically men are not reliably religious, women are. Therefore, the Talmud says women are sure of Paradise but few men are. The section called Even HoEzer (The Rock of Salvation) is about marriage and family law.

The TUR family section begins: "Blessed be the Name of the Holy One Blessed be He who desires good for His creations, and He knew that 'it is not good for a man to be alone'. He therefore made a 'helpmate opposite him'. Also, the purpose of the man in Creation is to be fruitful and multiply and this is impossible without the 'helper.' Therefore, G-d commanded man to cleave to his 'helper' that He made for him."

What was the role or level of woman in Creation? On the one hand, Creation went from low to high creations, from grass to animals to people, and finally to Eve. Eve was the final creation. Eve is therefore the highest creation. This certainly coincides with the Cabalistic view that the woman is higher than the male. On the other hand, if G-d created Eve as the sinecure of creation, why does the bible call her “a helpmate opposite” Adam instead of the chief person and purpose relative to Adam?

Another problem: Historically, women are heroic in testing and men are weak. Beginning with the Golden Calf, when men worshipped it and women did not, Jewish women have been resolute, the true “Rock of Salvation” to the Jewish people. If so, why is the bible Patriarchal in the sense of rabbis being men?

Another problem: Why does a man needs a helper? How does Eve fulfill this role? Is she not a creation just like man? Also, the phrase, "crown of her husband" indicates that just as a crown is higher than the head, so the woman is higher than the man is. If so, why did Moses and not Miriam redeem the Jews from Egypt and receive the Torah? A senior rabbi of the past generation told me, that in Cabala, the female is higher spiritually than the man is. If so, why was society not designed to be led by women, and why does the Creation story consider Adam the main player and Eve a "helper"?

The Talmud tractate of Blessings teaches that women are assured of Paradise. The Talmud tractate of Menochose teaches that men are not assured of Paradise, and most have a hard time in that regard. Are women closer to heaven than men are? Why are the major prophets men?

The Medrash (Rabo Genesis, 17) teaches that women created from "bone" remain firm, whereas men created from dirt dissolve in a few drops of water. Historically, this is true throughout Jewish history. Men worshipped the Golden Calf but not women, and even today, in the past century, when most Jews became irreligious, the women retained some Jewish identification but the men were mostly lost. The men, even senior rabbis, collapsed in Egypt, during the bondage, and decided not to have more children. The women argued with them and insisted that G-d would redeem the Jews. We see, clearly, that women are spiritually superior to men. When then is he the main player and she a mere "helper"?

The Medrash (Rabo Genesis 18) states that women have a "bino yeseiro" or superior understanding. Men must develop understanding out in the marketplace. Women have it naturally. If women have more understanding, why are they not central to creation rather than men? We find also that the only Jewish leader who had a perfect record spiritually and in war was a woman, Deborah. So why are men rabbis and leaders rather than women?

Rabbi Yisroel Salanter, the saint of the nineteenth century, prayed for the spirituality of his grandmother. This noble goal was as futile as Rabbi Salanter’s other prayer, for the brilliance of Rabbi Elijah of Vilna. Rabbi Avrohom Yeshaye Karelitz warned teachers not to assume who will become a great scholar and who will not. "We never know," said he, "if the great rabbi will develop because of the prayers of his mother, or the tears of his grandmother."

We thus have a great conflict in sources. On the one hand, it is clear that a woman is spiritually and even in other areas superior to men, but Judaism is patriarchal in nature. Men are rabbis and rule the community.

The answer simply stated is that yes, women are more spiritual than men are. A woman is an angelic gift to struggling men. G-d created the world for struggle. He wanted Adam, which means "earth." Man is greater than angels are. Man struggles and angels do not. Angels are "light from light" whereas people are "light from darkness."

Man holds center stage but cannot thrive spiritually without an angelic and spiritual woman. In marriage, the two merge into "one body." All thoughts of superiority vanish. The man must be "kindness" and self-abnegation; the female is "the crown of her husband" in self-actualization. A crown is higher than a person is, but a crown without a person is not a crown. The female resolves the family. The angelic level is not really the main goal of this world of struggle. However, for the female to come to this world and resolve those struggling, spouse and family, she becomes elevated. Her crown is the glory of her family radiating her lights.

By participating in his struggles and helping Adam, she becomes a partner in struggle. She is assured of Paradise because she is remote from evil, unlike the man who is very close to it. We will develop these ideas, but let us turn now to the other teachings in the TUR Code of Laws:

"Whoever lives without a woman lives without goodness, without blessing, without a house, without Torah, without a wall, without peace, and Rabbi Eliezar says, 'Whoever lives without a woman is not a person.' One who marries finds his sins blocked, as it is said, 'He found a woman, he found good.'"

We see from the TUR Code of Law that the woman brings many benefits to the man; they are:

Goodness

Blessing

House

Torah

Wall

Peace

Becomes a person

Sins are blocked

What does this mean?

Goodness

"Goodness" is a form of holiness. It connects us to the source of good, G-d. Goodness transforms us to "good" and protects us from the opposite of good, evil. There is, however, a deeper idea.

G-d created light on the first day of Creation and "saw that it was good." (Genesis I, 4) Light comes after night. Goodness comes after evil. If there were no evil and darkness, there would not be true good and light. The purpose of light is not just to shine, but also to resolve darkness. The purpose of goodness is not just to maintain itself, but also to rectify evil. "Greater is light from darkness than light from light," says the Zohar. True light comes from darkness and resolves it.

"And it was evening and it was morning, one day." First came evening and night. There was darkness and no light. Then came morning and light. Light must not be satisfied only with itself. It must resolve the previous night. When light resolves darkness, the previous night or evening connects with the light and day. Then both night and day become "one day."

After the morning resolves the evening, all is one day, one triumph of goodness. Even the night becomes day; indeed, it is the greatest light, whatever that means. In this world, we know darkness, and struggle with it. These struggles are our only light in the Future World. Such light will they be!

Therefore, "morning" in Hebrew is SHACHAR, related to "black" for darkness. Morning has meaning only relative to darkness. It resolves darkness. Light must not just bring us better times. Light and better times must also answer our questions about the past. Light must resolve obscurity. A woman resolves the evil and darkness in a man. When Adam comes from the public "earth" dimension into the purity of the home, his “night” becomes “day” and goodness.

Eve is a) the force of resolution, as we will explain, and b) she is the revealed Schechina (Divine Presence). You cannot sense the Schechina in the male dimension of the "dirt" street. However, you can sense the Schechina in the home. Eve as the source of "goodness" rules there and reveals G-d. The Zohar says that a man may only enter his house with his wife's permission. The idea is that the Schechinah Presence requires the wife who welcomes the man into her dimension. By respecting her, the man maximizes the spirituality he obtains from her. This is known as the "secret of the UBER," the gestation of souls and spirituality, from mentor to disciple, and from wife to husband. When we respect someone superior to us in spirituality, we engage his or her level, and it "gestates" in us, improving our capacity to know G-d. The male is superior for his struggles. Eve receives the level of conquering darkness from Adam. Adam, in turn, receives Schechinah and resolution from Eve.

The woman is "a helpmate opposite" the man. She resolves him sometimes by helping ("helpmate") and sometimes by opposing ("opposite.") She blocks the unstable lights of the man and arranges them. Therefore, the above Medrash says that men are unstable sand, which dissolves in a few drops of water. The woman, however, is the sturdy bone. We are not talking about emotional stability, or intellectual stability. The man is at war. His "public" or "earth" dimension role forces him to struggle. A struggler cannot be very smooth and lucid. He needs the female to stabilize him.

The Creation was for the struggle of the "earth" essence in all of its frightening instability, because "according to the pain is the reward." The female, on the other hand, is the angelic, heavenly level, guiding, helping and resolving the struggler. The two are joined in marriage, so that she shares his struggles and he shares her holiness and goodness. Because women are stable and holy, they are "secure" in going to heaven, unlike the male, who has a hard time making it to heaven. With a wife, his chances are improved.

If, for reasons known to G-d, a male or female has no spouse, we accept this as a decree from heaven. One should never allow such a sad situation to lead to depression.

Blessing

The next item Adam receives from Eve is "blessing." The simple meaning of blessing is that good things come with the woman. Her spirituality and Schechinah domicile bring goodness and negate evil. There is, however, a deeper idea.

Blessing in Hebrew is BROCHO, related to the word BERECH, or "connection." A blessing is just that. A finite man in the material world receives "blessing" and unites with the infinite. This is the female level, “connecting” to heaven. What does "connecting to heaven," mean?

Rabbi Elijah of Vilna, in his commentary to Song of Songs, says although people want to rise to heaven, bringing G-d to earth is more important. This is the essence of BROCHO, or blessing. Blessing does not negate the finite vessel; it fills it with infinite light, as if that could be. The world is filled with blessing and goodness when the finite radiates the infinite. G-d’s Presence on earth is the ultimate female essence, or Schechinah. This is blessing.

House

A woman provides the husband with a "house." This does not refer to the physical abode. A man can have fancy brick house and live alone. Here "home" means a spiritual home. A Torah home is suffused with Schechinah, the Divine Presence. It is Derech Erets, the Way of the World. This Derech Erets “precedes the Torah.”

The first letter of the bible is BAIZ, which means, "house." This shows the primacy of the home in Judaism. Derech Erets, the "Way of the World," precedes the Torah. The house comes first. What a person learns in the house is more important in character formation and even religious values than what a person learns from books. The great rabbinical families usually had an absent father. He was deluged with the problems of the world; nonetheless, the mothers kept putting out the leaders of the generations.

One of the great Hassidic rabbinical families was that of Reb Elimelech of Lizensk. His famous brother, Reb Zusha, said, "I am the least of five rabbi brothers. We are the product of our mother, and she did not know how to read a prayer book." Such a mother provided a home, not a study hall. The home raised the greatest Torah lights.

Solomon taught, "The wisdom (CHOCHMO) of women builds their homes. The Zohar Chodosh in Genesis tells us that the first letter in the Torah is BEIZ, which means “house.” Inside of this “house” is a dot (known as "DOGESH”). This dot is similar in form to the letter YUD, the holiest letter. YUD is a tiny dot, representing the small understanding we have of “wisdom.” What we grasp of heaven is mostly from the home.

Torah

Does a person not have Torah without a wife? Do not Yeshiva students learn Torah years before they marry? Yes, they do. However, the married person has a different Torah than the unmarried person. The wife's spirituality opens new vistas. The Yeshiva of Elijah the Prophet teaches, "Derech Erets, (the Way of the World) precedes the Torah." We find in humanity more holiness than in book learning. Furthermore, one who achieves humanity and then studies Torah has a new level of Torah.

The Torah has letters and words attached to the higher heavens. When we study a word, it releases great spiritual energies. One who learns Torah therefore invokes holiness. A highly spiritual person can achieve even more holiness. Therefore, the married person achieves, through his wife's spirituality, a new level of Torah, a new connection to heaven.

There are two aspects of Torah. One is the Law as it applies to kosher food, keeping the Sabbath, and business ethics. The other aspect of Torah is the command to study Torah to achieve its lights and transcendence. The woman has the obligation to know the laws of the Torah, but she need not study Torah to achieve transcendence. She does not need it. The male, the "earth" dimension, is the struggler who needs a Torah. The female, ensconced in a heavenly spirituality, has no need of this. A married man who studies Torah achieves a higher Torah. The wife then shares her husband's "light from darkness."

Wall

A woman is a wall for her husband. We mentioned previously that the male is the "public" dimension of darkness, while the wife is the "private" dimension of goodness. The married male approaches the "public dimension" protected by a "wall." When the evil forces of the street tempt his "earth" tendencies, the power of marriage protects him with a "wall;" he is surrounded by spiritual strength.

A woman is the "private" dimension. Why does she not join her husband in the "public dimension"? ADAM means "earth." EVE means "life." The "earth" of Adam is not a stain. It is the challenge of evil that allows the man, with Torah, to achieve "light from darkness." Such light is higher than "light from light." The angelic woman is "life" and removed from the depredations of "earth." On the other hand, she, being angelic, must protect herself. The angelic level is too delicate to mix it up in the street. If an angel tarries in this world, said Rabbi Chaim Vital, dissolution awaits it. High spiritual lights when damaged become the worst darkness.

In Genesis, we find “the fallen ones” and the “evil angels.” Who were these angels? When G-d created man, these angels expressed contempt for people. G-d told them to respect people who struggle in this world. The angels felt the world was not such a great challenge, and therefore the Torah should be given to angels, not Israel. They came to this world and tarried, because they had not respect for the challenges of people. As a result, the “earth” dimension swallowed them and their spiritual energies became evil. This is a lesson for all fiery zealots who denigrate others. Their spirituality can become a curse and bring them to the lowest rungs of evil. Many such people made fights that ruined families and communities. Who knows what punishment awaits them in the Future World. Just as the angel must guard against falling into the void, so much all spiritual people protect themselves.

A female professor raised her daughter with the worst education. A writer noted that this was not immorality; it was dissolution. A woman can be a burning fire of holiness only as long as she remains secure in her "private" dimension. Once she enters the male world, the "public dimension," she may succeed, as many have done, but she may also fall apart. Once she slips, it is much harder for her to recover. A man can sin in the morning and repent in the afternoon. A woman, once thrown by the forces of the street, cannot recover so quickly. He is "earth" that is unstable but indestructible. She is a "bone" that can break. The female, although a higher spirituality, must be wary and careful when facing evil. She must stay away from it, as much as possible.

Therefore, the traditional roles of male and female are, respectively, the street and the home. If a man must stay at home and raise a family, he can try it, and may succeed, but it is hard. If a woman has to go into the street, she may succeed, but it is a dangerous challenge.

A woman is the level of “life.” She is also the level of "B'ER" or "well." Water bubbles up from the deep, and fills a well, or it flows and becomes a stream. Thus, the female “B’ER” connotes the life force powering up from the hidden depths. She is also the power of resolution, as the water rises from the hidden caverns beneath the earth and bubbles up into a well or pond. Here the water it “gathered,” whereas the underground force pushing up the water is “life.” Either a woman can refresh herself in the B'ER flowing water, or the still gathered waters of the MIKVEH. In “life” we spurt and we stop and gather ourselves. We leap to new dimensions and then we pause and gather our thoughts to resolve our new level.

If a Torah woman is a powerful spring or a lovely pool of water, the secular woman has problems. In pain, we mention them.

On April 16, 2,001, Pulitzer Prize winning writer Maureen Dowd, in her column in the New York Times, talked about the problems of successful women. She took off on an article in Time magazine, also in April, about the secret miseries of very successful women. Some lady millionaires cry copiously when they are told they are too old to have children. They begin to think about life and family in their late thirties and it is hard then even to find the right husband. There is a growing uproar about women and their roles in the public dimension. They "make it" financially and professionally, but are unfulfilled as women. The articles paint a frightening picture of "successful" women, so that we wonder how these very intelligent people ran en masse into destruction. The problem is not going to go away, so we must discuss it. Indeed, if women are the core of human spirituality, and they cannot be women, what is going to happen with the world? More directly important to a woman is what will happen to women. We cannot deny that the door of the home is not going to slam shut on women very soon. Instead, they will be out there in the marketplace, alongside of men in every professional area. Is there an alternative? How do Orthodox women survive or thrive in modern society? These issues are so emotion-laden that it is hard even to talk about them. Nonetheless, we must.

Once I lectured and somebody asked me, "Does your wife sit barefooted and pregnant in the kitchen?" People were shocked. Another time, a woman asked me, "Do you beat your wife?" Somebody burst out laughing and said, "Do you know his wife?" People who did not know me at all, surely not my wife, made these insults. They assumed an Orthodox woman must be downtrodden. The secular world uses these techniques to entice young women to ruin their lives. They threaten them with ignominy if they do not act like men. The result is that, as the article in Time mentioned, there are many women millionaires who cry at their failure as women, even as their power in the business world gives them everything a man could want. The Time article says that not only successful women suffer in the modern world, but men do also. The article quotes a man who got divorced because he had no time for his wife and children. It was wrong, he says, but, too bad. Now, in later life, facing old age in a nursing home alone, he rues his failure as a husband and father. Are his needs not worth discussing? Modern men and women live an unnatural lifestyle, pushed by the culture. Now we are learning the cost of that lifestyle in human terms: and how money and power are not as important as family.

America was and is a materialistic country. This was not necessarily an evil. While Europe gorged itself on religious wars and the chaos of idealism, America put religion and idealism where it could not interfere with normal life. It therefore evolved the brilliant idea of the public and private domain. The public domain would be business and improving life, and the religious and the secular debate would be private. Because the public dimension was about money, materialism succeeded in America.

When I grew up, boys in my neighborhood were always talking about whose father was the richest and who had the fanciest car. After that, they discussed what girl was physically desirable. Secular people grow into adulthood with these ideas. Then, almost fifty years ago, women were not so gross. Today, girls are raised and trained by the culture to be like boys or worse. Ladylike is out. A recent article showed that girls in one criminal situation were more vicious than boys were. In the Orthodox world ladylike is in. A woman is a woman, not a man. In the secular world, a woman must be a man. A woman is thus debased, because she is only valuable in proportion to her "manliness." The above articles in the New York Times and Time magazines paint women in a negative light. One of Maureen Dowd's columns ends with a wisecrack from a man. He explains that men are happy to settle, so they find a wife, but women "want it all," so they never get married. This makes women look like dodos. It seems that highly intelligent young women just leap into life forgetting the most important things, such as marriage and children. Much later, they find out what they are missing and will never have, and it hurts. In other words, women are stupid—that is the gist of these articles. I do not think that women are stupid. Women are rushing to be men and refusing to be women because society has utterly rejected women. There is not much choice in the matter.

How did a generation of the brightest women turn forty crying with no solace because they cannot have children, because they cannot find the right mate, or because they found somebody who found somebody younger? They were raised in a world that hissed, "If you are not a man, you are nothing."

The Orthodox world accepts that a woman is a woman, and has to be a woman. The secular world posits that a woman who is a woman is a loser. She must be a man.

In the past, the woman protected the man with her "wall," and feminine dimension. Today, a man must protect a woman, by showing her that he respects her as a woman, not as a man. A man must show appreciation for the home, and the wall, that nurtures a woman. Any breach in that wall is fatal. A woman, if she is wise, will think twice about following the herd over the cliff. Many secular women have chosen to be Orthodox, not necessarily because they are religious, but because they are women.

Peace

What is peace? Peace assumes the opposite, strife. We make peace when people fight. This is one idea, the most basic, of peace. However, the Hebrew word for peace SHALOM, is related to SHOLEM, "complete." Peace is related to completeness. How?

Every particle in the universe is not the "whole," but a "part." The part is missing the rest of the universe, and therefore, seeks "union" to achieve missing qualities. "Completeness" is when we find our missing parts and become whole. "Peace" is when particles no longer feel alienated and isolated. No longer do they contend, each pulling against the rest; now they work together because they are together.

Marriage is the search by each gender to fulfillment, completeness, by joining with the opposite. The male is incomplete without a female, and the female is incomplete without a male. Together they are "complete," and thus have "peace." No longer are the two particles struggling against the world; they have now made peace and the world is elevated by it. They are no longer searching, they have found.

Finding is an important ingredient in marriage. The Talmud says that when a person married in ancient Israel, people would remark, "He found" or "He finds." There are two contradictory passages about marriage. One, "He found a woman, he found good." This "finding" is good. However, another passage states, "I find the wife bitterer than death." This "finding" is bad.

There is a deep idea here. People find peace when they stop searching. Once a person marries, that's it. "I found a woman, I found good." Maybe it is not so good, but by concluding your searching, you will "find good." Things will work out.

The other fellow marries, but he compares his wife to others. His finding is present tense: "I find the woman" in re-evaluations every day. Such destroys the marriage because there is no end to searching, to comparing, to doubting, to complaining. You are not perfect, either, and if your wife compares and remembers, you will suffer.

At some stage in our lives, we must decide forever. That is very hard. In a world that prizes growth and despises the old, it is very hard to halt. The wise person, however, concludes and brakes. When we stop, we enter a new dimension, "peace." What do we find there?

"He found a wife, he found good." This person is not running and rushing. He is not "going on to new things." This person is locked into an eternal relationship, free from the ferocious forces of instability and change. When we do not anticipate negation and newness, we learn to appreciate what we have and what we are. Then we find peace.

In the new dimension, our eyes assume new properties. We see good that we never saw before. We make peace with our situation, and a strange new light and song appear, so lovely and subtle. We never saw or heard them before, with all of the crackling noises and rush to find. Now we notice that nothing is simple. Peace propels a person to "goodness." What is that?

"Good" turns "bad" to goodness, and resolves conflicts into peace. When we stop, when we accept, we turn our negations and bad feelings into good ones. Where once we powered our particularities against everything, we now merge and dance with the universe. "He found a wife, he found good." He found a resolution of conflict and lonely individuality. We find goodness in others by refusing the voracious demands of separate, contentious selfishness.

Peace brings the Divine Presence and goodness. Therefore, "male, female" in Hebrew ZOCHOR/NEKAIVO, have the numerical value of SCHECHINA, the Divine Presence. Peace pulls G-d to it, and there is goodness. My mentor, Rabbi Dr. Shmuel Toledano from Jerusalem, mentions this and adds: "The passage, 'This is the book of the generations of Adam, on the day that G-d created Adam, in the image of G-d He made him, male and female He created them, and He called their name ADAM,' has a numerical value of 5,710. This is the numerical value of ten times MAKOME SCHECHINAH or the place of the Schechinah." Ten is the full complement of the Divine Emanations, a completeness and "peace." This is the revelation of the Divine Presence through "male and female" united and complete. My mentor adds that in Hebrew "the name of ADAM" has a numerical value of the Hebrew for "male and female." The name of Adam is its completion, its perfection, and its revelation. The human completion, perfection and revelation is through "male and female" in marriage. This brings the Schechinah.

We mentioned before that "the name of ADAM" has a numerical value of "male and female." "Name" is an important idea. Part of the Judgment in the Future will be to say our names. We will possess names only in proportion to our completeness and goodness. Our essence as humans is determined by "male and female," the marital level.

The marital act is known as "peace," not only because it strengthens the marriage, but also because the union of love brings the Schechinah. In G-d's Presence, all conflict ceases.

Becomes a "person" (ADAM)

What is a person? Rabbi Chaim Vital says the Torah is given “to a person,” and not to someone who lacks humanity and character.

Sins are "Blocked"

"When a man marries a woman his sins are blocked, as it says, 'He found a woman, he found good, and he will stopper good will from G-d." We are told that the married man's sins are plugged in a bottle. The proof of this is a passage that when someone marries he "will stopper good will from G-d." The passage tells us about stopping up good will. How does that prove married men plug up sins by marrying? Also, why should we stopper G-d's good will?

PEKAK means to put a stopper in a bottle so that no liquid flows out. PEKAK is a positive thing; it seals good things in the bottle. If so, do we want to plug up our sins in a bottle? These questions lead us to a deep idea. It influences our very relationship with G-d. It helps us understand this world and the next.

G-d and goodness are everywhere, even in this world. We do not always see G-d or goodness. We lack the "vessels" or instruments to seize and store these lights and fine energies. They pass us by, and we cannot accumulate them for our use. Our task, therefore, is to find vessels that can store infinite lights.

Where do we get these vessels? We have vessels to store many things, but not to store infinite things. "He found a woman, he found good." What does this mean? Does it mean that a wife is good? No, this is not what it means. If Solomon wanted to say that a wife is good he would simply say, "A wife is good." He is saying something much deeper. Solomon says that if you find a woman, you now have the capacity of finding something else—"goodness." The woman is the high spirituality that relates to infinite lights and stores them in the home and marriage. A man finds and stores these lights through the level of his wife. She is the "vessel" for infinite lights. These lights pass him by because he cannot store them in a vessel. Therefore, "he who found a wife, he found good." He did not just find a wife; he found infinite energy now available through his wife. What happens then?

The passage continues, "He found a woman, he found good, and he plugs Will from G-d." G-d's Will, as opposed to His deeds, is the highest of the Divine Emanations. It is thus utterly removed from human understanding. We know what G-d does, at least to some degree, but we cannot know why He does anything. Divine Will is thus a transcendent "goodness," but the woman can reveal it and bring it to her dimension. The man who finds a woman can now, through her, "plug" the bottle and store the highest infinite lights, the "Will of G-d."

"His sins are plugged up (blocked)." How does this follow from the passage? The passage says nothing about sins. It says that the man achieves a finite understanding of infinite holiness. However, one who achieves the level to "bottle up" and contain infinite lights, the Will of G-d, is in a different dimension. In that dimension, there is no sin, or the sin is blocked. Sin cannot penetrate a dimension so high that it is the Will of G-d. When the person obtains lights of the Will of G-d in his finite dimension, sin and evil cannot come there. Furthermore, what sins he has done are "blocked" because they cannot enter his abode and environment.

This is similar to another subtle idea. Each individual escapes sins and Judgment by joining with others and negating selfish distinctiveness. One who marries "blocks" sins because sins are visited mainly upon selfish individuals. When people negate themselves to others, especially in marriage, the Judgment force cannot truly apply to them. The Zohar mentions this idea regarding the Prophet Elisha. He offered to bless the righteous woman of Shunam. She refused, saying, "I dwell among my people." The heavenly court carefully scrutinizes all individuals who stand alone on their own merit. When people merge with others, the heavenly court does not scrutinize their sins so carefully, because they have merged with the group. A self-actualized person suffers in Judgment. A self-abnegated person does not suffer so much.

The last Mishneh in the Talmud [1] teaches that G-d could not find a vessel to hold blessing other than peace. When there is peace, a vessel exists to hold G-d's blessings. The blessings are always there. However, we must find a vessel suitable for divine blessings. Because they are infinite not every vessel can hold them. Marriage is such a vessel. It "plugs" the bottle or vessel that holds infinite blessing and goodness, and creates an environment where sin and evil are blocked away.

"He Found a Woman, He Found Good"

Having concluded the TUR teachings about the benefits of marriage for the man, we return to the passage in Proverbs "he found a woman, he found good." We are mystified by the context of the passage. How does the passage relate to the surrounding passages? Indeed, all of the passages seem disparate ideas and unrelated to any central theme.

Proverbs 18,20: "From the mouth of a man his stomach will achieve satiety; he will be satisfied with the crop of his lips. Death and life are in the hand of the tongue, and those who love it, will eat its fruit. He who found a wife, found good, and he will take (bottle up) Will from G-d. The poor person supplicates, and the wealthy person answers with strength. A person with many friends will break, and there is one who loves who is closer than a brother." The juxtaposition of these disparate ideas seems a mystery.

"From the mouth of a man his stomach will achieve satiety." The mouth reaches only the stomach, and stills hunger. "He will be satisfied with the crop of his lips." This is a higher satisfaction. Not just the belly but also the entire person eats and is satisfied with the "crop of his lips." Note that the lips achieve more than the mouth. The mouth is a collective term, meaning the tongue, lips and mouth area. The large mouth can only satisfy the belly, not the entire person. Because the mouth is really a collective term, comprising tongue, lips and mouth area, it achieves limited success. It stills the pangs of hunger in the belly, no more.

However, the lips are smaller. more particular and thus more focused. We must find focus in life. We must learn to take a small bite out of the All, and enjoy it. The mouth is too big for us, and only helps our belly. The smaller lips are more exact and smaller and satisfy all of us.

"Death and life are in the hand of the tongue, and those who love it, will eat its fruit." The tongue is a smaller unit than either the mouth or lips. The mouth and lips are revealed. The tongue is concealed. This gives the tongue, because of its smaller or hidden capacity, strength that the revealed lips do not have: life and death are in the hand of the tongue. Solomon is showing us how reversed reality is to human conjecture. We assume that the larger and more revealed is more powerful. People, however, are wrong. The large and revealed mouth can only satisfy our belly, whereas the smaller lips satisfy the entire person. The hidden tongue has the ultimate power of life and death.

People assume that being a male is better than being female. A male is bigger, even his brain is bigger. He is more aggressive, and therefore, people often denigrate women. In China today, and throughout history, people were saddened by the birth of a girl, and would often kill it. Solomon points out the fallacy of this. The world is suffused with spirituality. The power of life is not physical, but subtle and spiritual. The female is therefore the source of the highest benefits, despite the nations of the world who prize the male for his physical and intellectual abilities.

Let us continue with this series of passages in Proverbs. "Death and life are in the hand of the tongue." Note that Solomon writes "death" before "life." Speech is powerful, but silence is better. When we begin speaking, we are closer to "death" and negative achievement than "life." The Talmud says, "If a word is worth a dollar, silence is worth two." Silence speaks of transcendence, and words can only approximate the finite. Thus, words are always closer to the finite and removed from the “life” female force. Our task, of course, is to raise our speech to the source of the finite, the spiritual.

"Those who love it (the tongue) will eat its fruit." Who loves a tongue? We mentioned that Solomon is showing that lips are better than the mouth, and the tongue is better than the lips. Something smaller and hidden is better than something large and revealed is. The spiritual world is the inverse of the physical. When we "love it," meaning the superiority of the small and the spiritual over the large and the physical, we will "eat its fruit." We must not think that spiritual rewards are found only in the caves. A surrounding and suffusing spirituality supports nature. When we invoke it, it pours its blessings upon us.

"He who found a wife, found good, and he will take (bottle up) Will from G-d." The tongue can bring life or death, but the wife can take or bottle the infinite lights of heaven, the Will of G-d. The world denigrates the female and prizes the loud mouth. The truth is that the highest level is the female.

"The poor person supplicates, and the wealthy person answers with strength."

The female is naturally spiritual, and the male struggles to find transcendence. The “poor person” is the male in the “earth dimension.” The female is “the wealthy person answers with strength.” Solomon expressed a similar thought at the end of Proverbs, “and she laughs at the End Day.” A man would never laugh at that, of course. Only a female is secure in her eternal reward. The female is "strength" and "justice," sure and even a bit ferocious. She is strong because she has spiritual strength.

"A person with many friends will break, and there is one who loves who is closer than a brother." There is a taker and a giver. There is self-abnegation and self-actualization. Some people want to build up their influence. They seek out friends and create a social power base. Solomon says that the burden of multiple friendships will not bring a person satisfaction. In fact, it will break him. When we relate to others by taking from them, and not giving, we will take, and take, until we crack. Our selfish vessels are too small to include others. When they come into our lives, our selfishness cannot tolerate it, and our vessel "breaks." On the other hand, one who "loves" others, not for selfish reasons but for true love and kindness, can take all of the love in the world and it will not break his "vessel." His vessel is not programmed to "take" but to "give." This spirituality extends the vessel into infinity, and it can take and take.

One reason for this is that love is infinite. The other reason is that when we love someone, we become one with them. We are "closer than brothers," and become as one. In marriage, the male and female become "one body." Our needs and the needs of those we love do not conflict. When in our lives we accept others that we love, they fit right in, because we are all one.

The Creation of Eve

Genesis 2,15: "And the L-d G-d took the Adam, and He placed him in the Garden of Eden, to work it and to guard it." G-d created Adam “to work and to guard.” Obviously, there were forces even inside the Garden that were bad, and Adam had to guard against them. Did Adam plant or reap? Perhaps the guarding was not for weeds, marauders and animal pests; it was work and guarding of a spiritual nature. A mortal tends a farm with work and guarding; he tends a heavenly farm with spiritual work and guarding. Good deeds and sins are not mere ethical and moral issues. They are not abstract and invisible wisps of imagination defined by convention and social standard. Good deeds and sins are real forces. A good deed releases good forces and makes lovely plants in one's spiritual gardens, gardens that are real if not visible. Sins are real forces that release poisons to destroy and invade the good gardens. We are constantly "working and guarding" when we live properly, and when we err, we destroy real spiritual energies. All of this will be visible in the higher world, the world of souls. As a person walks down the street, thousands of invisible spiritual forces surround him. Every thought, word and deed a person does on earth creates an angel, a spiritual force, for good or bad. In this world, the world of choice, we are not allowed to see them. If we did, we would have little free choice. Who would sin and create such a monster? Who would refrain from doing a good deed when it creates such a lovely angel? However, it is all there. The Future World is not in the Future; it is now. We will see, it, however, only in the Future.

While it is true that Adam toiled in the Garden of Eden doing spiritual farming, it is also true that he did some material farming and worked the land. This is the level of DERECH ERETS, the "way of the world," wherein lie the lights of the "circle dimension" as we explain elsewhere. Thus, a person can find spirituality in the spiritual realm, but it exists also in the mundane. There is no mundane; all is the Will of G-d.

The idea that mortals work and guard G-d's Garden impresses upon people how important they are. Indeed, the Cabalists say that sin empowers evil forces. Not only does sin empower evil forces, it forces G-d, who produces those evil forces, to support evil, because G-d turned over the function of this world to people. When we are bad, we take G-d's energy and turn it over to the evildoers. When we do good things, we place G-d's energy in the service of good people. A person lives down here in the physical world, but is intimately connected to the higher world. The greater a person is, the higher their soul reaches, and the more damage they do by sinning. A lower person cannot do so much damage, because their soul does not reach so far. Thus, the higher a person rises, the more potential exists to do both good and bad. Higher souls tap into greater energies, so if such a person sins in the ethereal supernal worlds, hideous damage is done.

A person is tested, and the higher and lower worlds await the results of that test.

II:16 "And the L-d God commanded upon the Adam saying, 'From all trees of the garden you shall surely eat.'" The Hebrew connotation is not just "you may surely eat," but you "should" surely eat. The repetition of the verb "eat" tells us that there is urgency in the eating. The Torah does not inform us why.

One idea is that G-d prepared a table before us, His guests. We are thus to enjoy our meals. If we would be in the Garden of Eden, we would really feel like G-d's guests. We would savor every morsel, and it would fulfill us physically and spiritually.

Another idea is that even outside of the Garden of Eden, G-d prepares the world for us. Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch, the genius of German Jewry in the nineteenth century, busied himself with his community and world leadership. He never went far, surely not to enjoy himself. In his old age, he decided to visit the Alps. People were amazed. In old age, people do not visit the mountains. They do this when they are young. Rabbi Hirsh explained: "I am old. Soon I will come before G-d in Heaven. He will ask me, "Samson! I prepared such beautiful mountains for you. Why did you not visit the Alps and enjoy them?"

The great saints and Cabalists were busy with "eating." There are "sparks" of holiness within food. Eating properly raises them and releases them. Whether or not we perceive what eating achieves in the higher worlds, we are told that G-d is concerned about people's eating. N only do we affect the heavens with our spiritual deeds, even our mundane activities trigger great forces. "The way of the world precedes the Torah." Our eating releases great energies, even if we are not performing a Torah or spiritual task. A material and mundane deed is also intimately connected to the higher spiritual realms.

II:17 "And from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad you shall not eat from it. Because on the day you eat from it you will surely die."

This is one of the major mysteries of the Creation story. What is wrong with knowledge? One approach is that there are two trees, of Life and of Knowledge. They correspond to two knowledge systems, the intellectual and the intuitive. The intuitive means that our soul achieves knowledge from living, and not from words. Knowledge means that we form ideas from words. Knowledge is thus finite, and living is infinite.

These two levels are the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge. They are also "male" and "female." "Male" is the "line" and the Torah learning that leads, as on a line, one word to the next, to the next, ad infinitum. The female level of Life, on the other hand, is not processed through finite words. One lives and knows; one lives and is. Life is knowing by being. For this reason, Rabbi Yochanan rose before an elderly pagan. The pagan's intellectual process was poor, but his years afforded him intuitive life and thus wisdom.

The wisdom of life is imparted by living. However, we must be sensitive to life to learn from it. We must be "people" to "live" and learn. The boor does not learn from life. It is as coarse a thing as he is. Only a good person learns from life, regardless of intellectual failings.

G-d said to Adam and Eve, “Do not eat from the Tree of Knowledge.” If you do, you have committed a sin, and the sin will damage the world. It will destroy the lovely plants of the spiritual worlds, and it will hurt you in the physical world. It will cut into your soul, and the soul will wither. In the Garden of Eden, a sin also introduced physical death. Without sin, there would be no death.

II:18 "And the L-d G-d said, 'It is not good for the Adam to be alone, I will make for him a helpmate opposite him."

G-d does not need Eve until Adam is given an opportunity to sin. Immediately after G-d told Adam not to sin, He created Eve. This strengthens the theme we have discussed that man needs a woman to be saved from evil and to thrive spiritually.

On the one hand, Eve is a powerful spiritual force. She suffuses the home with holiness that raises Adam in his struggles. On the other hand, Adam does not have an easy time getting into the house in the first place. The greatest of human struggles is getting into the house. Getting along with our families is the hardest of all tasks. This is especially true when the blazing Messianic Lights begin to shine before the Arrival of the Messiah. This is a period known as "footsteps of the Messiah." Then, "one's enemies are his family members."

Getting along with others is the great spiritual challenge. Even good people have miserable marriages and fail in human relationships. Even trying hard does not always work. Thus getting along with a spouse is almost a miracle. Peace in the home with children is a daily challenge. The bible tells us how these two, marriage and relationships with children, collapse in the finest families. When Jacob's sons sold Joseph into slavery, the family of Israel trembled and buckled. It did not, however, because eventually everyone reconciled. The folly of youth was replaced with the experience of life, and the Jews settled down to survive the Egyptian exile. They learned their lesson, and it lasted a long time. If the Jews survived in Egypt, for hundreds of years, it is only because of the family and especially wives, as the rabbis teach.

II, 19: "And the L-d G-d formed from the ground all of the wild beasts of the field, and all fowl of the heaven, and He brought to the Adam to see what he would call it. And all that the Adam called it of the living spirit is its name."

G-d created “wild beasts of the field.” It does not mention domesticated animals. G-d created “fowl of the heaven.” It does not just say “fowl.” Why?

The answer is that G-d created wild beasts unfit for people. He created fowl of the heaven, far from people. Adam, by naming wild beasts and heavenly fowl redeemed them for humans. Now beasts could domesticate near man, and the fowl could come to man rather than being remote from man in the sky.

Why does the bible tell us that G-d formed wildlife from the ground? However, G-d formed Adam from the ground, and He formed wild beasts and fowl from the ground. There are thus similarities between wildlife and people. Indeed, every human being is part soul and part animal. We are all from the same source, but animals return to the ground, as they have no souls, and people rise, as souls, to heaven.

This passage teaches Adam what he is. He is a soul in an animal. If his soul exists in such a body, Adam must struggle to serve his soul and not become an animal. The body is filled with every bad vice. People have advanced minds and high souls. Therefore, the body’s evil inclinations tap into these higher essences and become more wicked than the animals. Animals never had a Paris Commune, and they never tore babies away from mothers and fathers because the Jewish parents worshipped G-d.

"And He brought to the Adam to see what he would call it." "And He brought to the Adam" does not say what He brought. G-d did not fashion the animals just for themselves, although the world needed them. G-d fashioned the animals and fowl in the context of Eve's creation. The creation of the animals prepared Adam for Eve. Adam first had to know who he was; only then could he name animals and fowl. Adam learned that he was an animal and his soul must struggle with it. Adam learned that he could be worse than an animal if the base instincts co-opted his higher intelligence and soul for evil purposes.

The animals and fowl were plural, yet it says, "to see what he would call it." "It" is singular; it means something Adam learned from the animals, a trait or idea. Adam must take each trait he sees, identify it clearly, and apply it to himself. Thus, "it" is singular.

"To see what he would call it." G-d waits to "see" what Adam will call it. “The heavens are the heavens of G-d, and the earth He gave to mankind.” Adam is the king of this world. This is our great responsibility, and we must never forget it.

"…And all that the Adam called it of the living spirit is its name." What Adam sees in others is what the other is relative to Adam. If an animal has traits Adam missed or if people have capacities that Adam does not notice, relative to Adam these traits and capacities do not exist. Therefore, the true name, which Adam uses for each animal, is only what Adam knows. Adam thus learns that his world, and indeed the world of each person, is defined by what we notice in others. If we ignore a good trait in a person, it does not exist for us, because that person relative to us is only what we know.

This is frightening. People often fool us inadvertently so that we do not know them. Much misunderstanding exists because people think of others with limited observation and cognizance. If we would only spend more time to really understand another, we might like them. Rabbi Moshe Kurdovero, in his Cabalistic classic Tomer Devora, emphasizes the need for us to keep trying to find something good about another person, even one who did bad things to us. If nothing else works, Rabbi Kurdovero suggests, we must enter the dimension of good feeling by accepting that this person was good when he was just born! The ability to find something good in a person, anything, allows us to think without anger, and once we do, we can usually find that our poor opinion about the person is not the complete truth. We must struggle very hard to see somebody without our anger. When we find goodness in another, even when he was a baby, we can turn off the guilt in ourselves that colors our perspectives so harshly.

In a previous passage, G-d decides to make a wife for Adam. He interrupts with this passage. G-d stops working on the Eve project, and instead forms wild beasts and fowl. He extends the interruption and brings the beasts and birds to Adam to name them. Why did G-d do this before creating Eve? Obviously, there is a connection between forming animals and Eve. What is it?

Before a man marries, he must mature. Adam could not have a wife without a worldview. He had to relate to the outer world before he could enter the inner world of the home. Maimonides tells us that one must first build a physical home, earn a living and then marry. Only a mature and functioning male, one who has a home and a job, can marry. Not only is earning and owning a home important for the wife, it is important for the husband. He must first be a mentsh, a "person." Only then can he be a man, a husband. Adam had to know the world, the beasts and the fowl, and name them to focus his worldview. Only then could he approach marriage.

There is, however, a deeper idea in the maturity of Adam and the calling of names to the beasts and fowl. We must be sensitive to Creation before we begin to create ourselves in children. We must relate to the Creation as a human partner with G-d before we become partners with G-d in having children. The Creation, or our concept of our relation to it, comes with us to build a home. For this one family G-d created the universe. This is how we must feel.

There are those who say that we are what we eat. Others disagree. We will leave the more material aspects of this question to the biologists and physicists, such as what happens to food when it enters the alimentary canal, turns into its elements, and interacts with human hormones and enzymes. What we can say in our more esoteric discussion is that we are what we see. We are what we know. This does not mean that if we know an elephant we are one. It means that we define ourselves by how we define everything else. It also means that as we expand our horizons to think of more and more things, we expand not only intellectually, but also spiritually. What we know forms us intellectually and spiritually. We are, in a great sense, what we relate to, what we think about, and what we are concerned about. What we create with our lives and family reveals our other attitudes.

Adam, to marry Eve, had to define his essence. He did this by having a world, and having a view of it. He "names" the wild beasts and fowl. By so doing, he related to them. This relationship was the first step to marriage. In marriage, a man comes to a woman and seeks to know her, to define her, to realize what she is. However, it is not so simple.

The preparation for marriage was not only Adam meeting wild beasts and fowl. G-d created them as part of this preparation. Not only did Adam have to know the outer world before he could marry, but the outer world had to be created before Adam could marry. Why?

A person before marrying is into his self. He has little interest in others. The process of marriage must be preceded by maturity, by an awareness of others, by a Weltanschauung. So great is the gap between the mature person thinking of a wife and the single person thinking of himself that it is as if a whole world was created that never before existed. As a person comes into the dimension of marriage, the world suddenly becomes different. There are new things, new "creatures," and he must deal with them. What are their names? What are they? How does he define them? How does he adjust to all of these newly created or newly found things out there? Prior to marriage, one’s mature curiosity opens new vistas.

Marriage is "and Adam knew his wife, Eve." The process before marriage is to relate to others. Adam is curious and desires to explore for new things. Adam notices new creations, new realities, and he "names" them. The process of "knowing" one's wife and "knowing" nature are one. A person thinks of others, defines them, and grows. He is the sum of his knowledge. He cannot go near a woman until he matures to realize that his actualization will never come from inside, but only from outside. He is not going to build himself; others will build him. He must learn, not assertiveness, but vulnerability. He will be strong and manly, but these forces will come from external beings, from nature and mostly from marriage. What begins with number one turns in and does not prosper.

II, 20: "And the Adam called names to all of the animals and to the fowl of the heaven and to all of the wild beasts of the field, and as regards Adam, he did not find a helpmate standing opposite him."

Adam took "wild beasts" and "fowl of the heaven" and turned them into beings that relate to people. The wild beasts became domesticated, or they stayed away from people in the forests. The fowl served people as well. What does that have to do with marriage?

“Wild beasts” represent our inner evil inclinations. People have anger and envy and can become “wild beasts.” “Fowl of the heaven” symbolize angels and spirituality. Man must deal with these two opposite aspects of his essence, soul and body. By naming animals and controlling them and his animal instincts, Adam tamed his evil inclination, and prepared for marriage as a “person.” Adam recognized his soul champing at the bit to rise too far for the body. He made boundaries for both body and soul.

Adam now was ready for marriage. Marriage engages the “wild beasts” and powerful energies of the body. It also invokes the highest spiritual lights. We can go too far to the animal side, and neglect the soul. We can also go too far spiritually, and not take proper care of our body until we get sick. Therefore, the mature Adam had to name and resolve the conflict between “wild beast” and “fowl of the heaven,” the corporeal and the transcendent.

"And regarding the Adam, he did not find a helpmate opposite him." Of course, he did not, because G-d had not created it. The point is not that Eve did not yet exist, but that Adam desired her. G-d did not create a woman until Adam realized how much he needed her. A major teaching of the rabbis is that when a person enters a new phase of life, as a husband, a leader, or a High Priest, he must be coached and encouraged. How frightened we are of new things. Therefore, Adam had to be prepared for marriage. He had to want it. Adam saw the beasts and fowl related in pairs and he wanted a mate as well.

Some people marry without anticipating the radical changes in their lives. Therefore, G-d did several things before he married Adam to Eve. First, he created new realities, and they were couples, mated animals, to show Adam that marriage was natural and proper. He also encouraged Adam to want a mate.

Even after people marry, they are sensitive to what others think. A good word about a spouse is so important. A bad word can hurt the relationship.

II, 21 "And the L-d G-d caused a deep sleep to fall upon the Adam and he slept. And He took one of his sides and closed up the flesh underneath it."

After a person is intellectually ready for marriage, comes a stage of "sleep." We get married without really understanding its perfection, probably because it is not perfect. We know we need to marry, that was decided previously. However, the trip will be one of faith, and this is "sleep."

The sleep is a "deep sleep," as we enter a relationship where we are often helpless to make it work. Of course, if we do everything right, we improve our chances. However, our relationships are so sensitive and delicate that even a stranger with a look or a word can make problems. Financial difficulties and health infirmities can destroy a marriage. Love is a delicate flower and the world is not a tender place.

After the decision to proceed with faith indicated by "deep sleep," comes surgery. "And He took one of his ribs." A person is ripped by marriage. He has to give up his privacy, his freedom. Many people never recover from the tearing. If we struggle to recover and make the marriage work, we may merit that G-d, "closed up the flesh underneath it." Nobody sees the tear and wound. However, we may always be cognizant of it. At times, we become frustrated because marriage is blocking off our former way of life.

Those involved with marrying off children and people in general know the rule: The smarter and more mature the person is, the harder it is for them to marry. As people grow older and wiser, they question every spouse, and some end up alone. Lacking worldly wisdom, young people, are much quicker to tie the knot. They grow easily together with their spouse. Young people are plastic enough not to harbor such pain from their "tear" and their "deep sleep."

The biggest problem, however, is for the "kleiber," (choosy). A prominent matchmaker said, "Everyone can find, except the super people who are so particular." The beautiful, rich, brilliant singles do not settle easily. Older singles can probably benefit from specialists in therapy and counseling. Some are afraid of the "tear" they will experience, or they may have other issues. One Brooklyn therapist claims to have helped many along-in-years singles to marry.

G-d took from the man "one of his tsaloos." The major commentators, Rashi and Ibn Ezra, interpret TSELA as "side."

We have discussed Adam and Eve attached and separate. As long as they are attached, they cannot marry. Only the sleeping and surgery prepare them to marry.

The marriage of Adam and Eve has two essences, one, their original joining, and two, the higher level of separation. However, the original joining prepared them for marriage. When Adam and Eve join on their own volition, they recreate the original physical joining. G-d separates only so that man and woman can rejoin themselves, on their own power, as free and independent people. Then, and only then, do their individualities produce a proper union. Marriage is thus a cycle of union, separation and union. We believe marriages are made in heaven. Thus, the souls were united, and knowing this strengthens us when we need encouragement in marriage.

II, 22 "And the L-d G-d built the side that He took from the man to be a woman, and He brought her to the Adam."

What is the meaning of Eve being a "side" of Adam? Why did it have to be "built"?

G-d created the world for struggle. G-d rewards us according to our pain and efforts. A man struggles much more than a woman, because a man is "earth" and a woman is "life." She is the angelic level. She is a helpmate to the man in his struggles. He must struggle, moreover, to merit a good relationship with her. This is partially because he is "earth" and she is "life." It is also because he is "kindness" and she is a more demanding "justice."

Was Eve a functioning human being attached to Adam? Were they Siamese twins? Before she was "built," what was she? The Zohar indicates that the two shared a soul that bounced back and forth. This is the ultimate “union,” and the true goal of marriage. At least in spirit, Adam and Eve should return to their primal state of being one body and one soul.

Eve was TSELA, the side of Adam. What does this mean?

TSELA is two Hebrew words: TSALE for “shadow” and the letter AYIN that means “eye.” "Shadow" plus "eye" equals "side."

The "eye" or being noticed and actualized originates in the "shadow." People are created in order to enter heaven with their own struggles and deeds, and to be "noticed" there amid the mighty spiritual forces before G-d in heaven. How are people noticed? Why are they so special that G-d and the heavenly forces become aware of them? They become special and actualized when G-d hides His Presence. Thus, the crucial element in forming people is G-d hiding His light. This is "shadow." When we struggle in G-d's Hidden Presence, "shadow," we merit "eye," that we are noticed in heaven, and are actualized.

The force of actualization is female. The male is "self-abnegation," or "kindness," and the female is "self-actualization," or "justice." Thus, the female was the "side" or TSELA of Adam, that part of the human equation that is "seen" or "actualized" through emerging from the shadow of G-d's hiding and shadow.

Eve was “nothing” as long as she was attached to Adam. Eve comes into her own after "separation" from Adam. She is able to be his wife only after G-d tears her from him. A person can only relate to G-d after G-d "tears" the person from G-d's revealed light and puts him into a dimension of testing and challenge. In the "shadow”, a person emerges with "self-actualization." This is the "eye," the capacity to be noticed and actualized, which exists only in darkness when the soul is "torn" from G-d and heaven.

We find the same root TSALE, or "shadow," in another Creation word, "TSELEM," or "image." Adam was created in the TSELEM or "image" of G-d. If we add the letter MEM to "shadow" or TSALE, we get TSELEM "image." MEM is the female essence, the "self." The “female” Oral Law begins with MEM and ends with MEM. Free choice and the ability to sin are also MEM. MEM is the central letter of the alphabet, and the middle of the word EMESS, or "Truth." The central theme of Creation and Truth is the self. Self is a female force, as is the Oral Law relative to the male Written Law. The Oral Law is rabbinics, the human interpretation of the Torah. The Torah Written Law has no human input, as G-d dictated it.

Therefore, TSELA and TSELEM, "side" and "image" are both the story of humankind emerging from the darkness of the Hidden Presence to be self-actualized. The perfection of this process was Eve, as she is the female essence. Eve is therefore TSELA or "side."

Eve, as a "side" of Adam, was produced by G-d, not her own deeds. As such, she was without personal worth and actualization. Only when G-d tore Eve from Adam and allowed the two of them to realize challenge, did she begin to emerge into her own. Tearing and separating of Adam from Eve allowed the two to join on their own volition. Their successful unit captured G-d's infinite lights. People who reach beyond themselves to join another negate finite separation, which is the barrier to heaven. When the barrier breaks, they are united with each other and with G-d. This is the level of TSELA, the "side" and the "eye" being nothing and then actualizing.

We now understand the female force in "eye" and revelation, and the idea of female "beauty." Spirituality is the infinite shining in the finite. Beauty is not just what you behold; it is what you sense beyond what you behold. When you see something that is a key and connection to transcendence, you behold beauty.

"And the L-d G-d built the side." "Built" is another important idea. Building means that you take a foundation and build a structure upon it. You take pieces and form a whole. Maimonides in the first words of his Code of Laws writes of "the foundation of foundations and the pillar of the sciences." Note, there is a foundation and there is a pillar. The foundation is below the structure and invisible. The pillar is above the ground and visible. Building is a process of putting a visible building upon a hidden structure. The key is for the building to find support from the invisible structure. The building cannot survive if the connection between building and structure is flimsy.

A female, as we explained, is the angelic spirituality that is a bit of a stranger to this world. She is closer to transcendence than the street. G-d "built" the woman as a structure of finite essence upon the foundations of transcendence and spirituality. The first passage in Psalms tells of the pious who is "like a tree planted upon pools of water." A person is like a tree, as the bible says, "Because a person is a tree." A tree has hidden roots, and they support the standing tree. Nobody sees the roots, and nobody watches the roots drink from the pools of water. However, the tall tree is only as strong as its roots.

The rabbis note that "built" (BINYAN in Hebrew) is similar to "BINA" or "understanding." They therefore interpret this to mean that a woman has superior understanding relative to a man. What does this mean? The Talmud suggests, for instance, that women can figure people out faster than men can. One idea that we mention briefly here is that the female "circle dimension" sees a suffusion of spirituality in the mundane and understands it intuitively. The spiritual foundation of the material world is her essence. She is the "circle" and "the way of the world that precedes the Torah." The male has to study Torah and concoct logical edifices to know this spirituality. In a sense, his struggle is "light from darkness" and therefore greater, because "according to the pain is the reward." However, this does not detract from the natural spirituality of the female, which allows her to intuitively "understand" the mundane radiating its supernal roots.

Women, say the rabbis, have superior “BINO” or “understanding.” "Understanding" is to "infer something from something else." Women have the ability to do one thing that accomplishes two things. She thus functions on duel levels. Some things are manifested in more than one way, and she understands both manifestations. Thus, she sees something and sees two things. Because a woman is spirituality in a finite world, she is a dual essence. Even her finite perception is dual-capacity. In physics, the ability to describe a hidden system based upon a known system is called “symmetry.” A woman has the ability to discern A from B. She has “understanding” and applies symmetry to see deep into something and to relate one thing to another as a man does not.

We mentioned previously that the female was "TSELA" or "side." TSELA was two words: TSEL "shadow" and AYIN "eye." "Shadow" meant that G-d hid His Presence and a world of challenge emerged. Humans then came into their own. They were now "seen" or the level of "eye." Shadow and eye are thus opposites: shadow means not seen and eye means seen.

The woman knows the root and the branch, the hidden and the revealed, the material and the spiritual, without having to change herself in any way. She knows the material and the spiritual, and they are, to her, one thing, one unity, because ultimately, all is G-d's Will. Her spirituality and "building" allow her this "understanding." To her, the hidden and revealed are one essence. However, the man must proceed logically from step to step. Spirituality for him is a separate world. A woman thus has superior "understanding" of "one thing from another." They are not two things to her, but one. The male, on the other hand, divides facts into logical sections. He does not automatically relate intuitively to these disparate dimensions. He thus has less "understanding of one thing to another" because he has a longer gap between a thing and its roots, or two disparate things. He does not sense intuitively the connections between finite disparities.

"And He brought her to the man." The Jewish way of marriage is that everything is done through a third party. My children usually get married with the involvement of several people, rabbis, friends, relatives and advisors. The notion that people just say hello at a restaurant and live happily ever after is disproved by the fifty percent divorce rate that such unions help generate, although other problems contribute. A person should not have to go through this alone. "And He brought her to the man" teaches us that a third party should be involved. A couple needs someone to encourage the relationship, someone who can defuse the silliness that blocks a life of happiness so often, someone who can advise on how to see past stubbornness.

The confident smile you see is a sham. People are afraid. They should be. They need courage and confidence, kindness and consolation. Sometimes people have to be consoled because the right person for them is not what they dreamed about. They always wanted this or that but the proper person for them does not have this. This is the tough part, the key part of matchmaking, cutting out the foolishness and the frills.

The New York Times ran an article several years ago about an apartment building in Manhattan, populated by the comers and the beautiful people. It seems that there was a divorce, and the person who remained in the building began to talk to her friends, pointing out the bad things about their marriages. Soon, another person divorced, and another. A panic set into the building, and the divorcees were quarantined. Right after I read that article I got a call from someone who told me, "My wife doesn't respect me." I was shocked. They had been married happily for so many years. I inquired what was happening, and why all of a sudden he came to this bitter conclusion. The angry husband had a guest who had just divorced. The divorced man pointed out the faults of the marriage. I told the caller, "Get that guest out of your house." There were no more complaints.

Not only do we need someone to bring us together, we need someone to keep us together. How sensitive we are to every word. The worst thing is when a person's parents or relatives criticize a spouse. A relative once told a wife, "He could have done better than you."

I once participated in a religious divorce ceremony. The wife was crying bitterly, and the husband seemed a good match. So, what were they doing here? Just then, the wife's mother, a real powerful woman, came into the room. She looked triumphantly at the husband, and I understood. Child sacrifice has never gone out of style. It just takes on different forms.

"This time" – Focusing on the Relationship

(Genesis II, 23) "And the man said, 'This occurrence is bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh. To this will be called woman because this was taken from a man.'"

"This time" (ZOSE HAPAAM) is literally "this occurrence." The simple interpretation, or working translation, is "this time." This indicates that there was a previous occurrence of marriage. (The rabbis explain that Adam had a previous wife, Lilith, but she was too harsh and G-d made another wife. We will not delve into these deep ideas here; we hope to do so elsewhere.)

The Hebrew word for "time" or "occurrence" is PAAM. PAAM has a numerical value of 190, the same as "KETZ" or "end." "End" is an important word, especially as it applies to the End of Days and the Redemption. On the other hand, life is filled with "ends," when we go from here to there. Marriage begins only when we are at the "end" of being single. Those who marry and still like being single have a problem. To them, the spouse is a superior form of enjoying the old life, whereas a spouse deserves more. A spouse needs the realization that the old way is dead.

A religious person may marry because of family and sexual pressures. Another person may marry because of loneliness, or the need to have a family. Regardless, "ending" is important for the success of the marriage. All must accept marriage as the end of a previous life. The male enters marriage "clinging" to his wife, not in the sense of seeking a mother, but in resolving his issues and revealing his essence in the energy of his wife. No longer is he sitting alone in the spotlight, revealing and defining his self. Now, by "kindness" and vulnerability, by negating himself, he actualizes. This is a new concept, and without it, marriage struggles. In other words, the marital person and the premarital person are inverse creatures. Where once people were "they" and you were "it," things turn around with marriage. Now others are "it" and you are best ignored. From this vulnerability comes an utterly new level of self-actualization. We find it only by letting go of the child in us.

The marriage ceremony, especially in Jewish custom, is rich in ritual and rejoicing. The greatest rabbis and saints were famous for the extreme efforts they made to gladden the hearts of the newlyweds. The elderly and weak dancers who kept going have an important share in Jewish survival. One famous rabbi in Jerusalem went so overboard that he perspired heavily in one wedding hall, went out in the cold to another wedding, and became gravely sick. The spectacle of aged and infirm rabbis trying to dance at a wedding far beyond their comfort zone turns the younger dancers into frenzy. If the aged and honorable are dancing with all of their limited strength, young people say, why not us?

Why do we dance so much?

When someone marries, he doesn't realize what he is doing. He doesn't realize the greatness of the step, the elevation it brings him. Only after seven days of watching people honor him or her does the newlywed being to fathom what is happening. This realization conveys that there is an "end" and a "time" of beginning. Life is now entering a totally new dimension, and the husband and wife must let go of the old silliness and ego, and embark on a new life.

The pressures on an Orthodox family are enormous. There are hopefully many children. A large family has many bills including private parochial schooling and support for a few years after the children's weddings. Many children mean constant demands on husband and wife. They are people and need rest and restoration like everyone else. If the baby cries at night and the child comes home from school in a bad mood, when are parents to rest? Once a couple has a few children, any hope of vacationing is almost a fantasy. One couple vacationed by sending away all of the children, locking the door and pulling down the window shades for a few days. How do we survive?

When worn and ragged people come to a family wedding, and participate in the many joyous family rituals associated with children, new energy and joy enters their tired bones. The family is a chore and burden. However, like the Holy Ark, it "carries itself." Sometimes it does not, and then, extended family, neighbors and community step up. In extreme cases, children must go elsewhere, such as when there is a death or serious illness. A community devoted to the frenzy of the wedding dances never stops. We don't have the energy to dance but we do. We do not have the vigor to raise children but we do. While we do, we hear, faintly but not far away, the throbbing of the drums, the sobbing of the clarinet, the shriek of the flute, and the singing. We dance, and dance, and dance.

"This time" indicates, as we said, that Adam had a previous wife. His first wife was Lilith. For our lesson here, we derive from this that we accept our mates "this time" and not always the first time. We tried other things, and they did not work out. Perhaps those other things were superior in some respects. They were more interesting and inviting. But for us to marry we came back to reality and choose "this time." One who marries only because the mate is perfect is doomed. Marriage succeeds when we marry "this time" and accept what we have without illusions. We know what happened the "first time" with the first proposal. Also, "this time" indicates not a previous relationship, but a previous standard. "This time" I am going to settle. When you settle and ignore your unreasonable or unattainable standards, you are ready for the big time.

The way I marry off my children differs from the way most people get married. Most people get married in their twenties or thirties, even forties or later. They have plenty of time. This allows them to take their leisure, experiment, get to see the world, and finally decide. My children have no such luxury. They are chomping at the bit and when the starter-gun fires, they are off, or rather, I am off, and they are off awaiting some results from me. Nobody knows the pain of a father who gets a look from an impatient daughter.

On the other hand, such pressure immediately dispels fantasy. When you are anxious to settle, you don't waste time. "This time" is immediate. By cutting to the quick, we save a lot of energy. Focusing allows us to eschew experimenting and dreaming. We have an advantage of knowing exactly what we want. We want such and such a family, and such and such an attitude, and such and such a philosophy, and such and such a personality, etc. Once we narrow it down, we know what we want, but only G-d knows what we will find. The spouses we found for our children are often so utterly remote from our original plans that sometimes we just sit and laugh. I always tell my wife, "You have to have sympathy for the angels in heaven who work to make marriages. They have to work so hard."

Marrying is a science, and when it is not, it is a tragedy. The very last thing we want to do is to find a mate at the restaurant. We do not want to be impressed by someone's smile rather than their attitudes and philosophies. Those who go from restaurant to restaurant have an ordeal of fire. Every person they ever meet has a sexual potential, and this discolors all human relationships. Since chemistry is often stronger than it should be, people who bounce in and out of relations get hurt. Spending ten or twenty years going with this one and that one is exhausting and debilitating. We like to come into our relationships fresh and strong, and make them last. Every time we have a relationship, it sticks, and when it ends, it peels something off our soul, never to return. The next relationship starts with a heart that is scarred, and eventually, the heart is one big scar. Sometimes, we have such pain that we lose certain emotional functions, or live with fears and inhibitions. We are afraid and anxious about our ability to find love. That is why parents have to do the work. When parents check someone out and it is “no,” nobody gets hurt. When we meet the parents who rejected our children or us we will smile and greet them. Those are the rules. Our soul is still in one piece. Our children don't know what happened. If they do know—perhaps they overheard a telephone call—it is not personal, it is not sexual, and it is not intimate emotion. It comes and it goes, and the child grows, without scars.

"Bone" and "flesh"

The passage mentions "bone" and "flesh." Bone is the hidden inner core of the human being. Flesh is the outer revealed level. "Bone" is hard and "flesh" is soft. Every person is a duality, inner and outer, hard and soft. In marriage, we cannot accept only the external. We must match our mate internally as well. In marriage, we accept our spouse’s internal and external, hard and soft. These forces often are opposites and confusing. Our spouse is several people: internal one-way, external another way, at times soft and at times hard. Can we keep track of all of this? Can we accept it? There is one condition: Do we feel the person is for us? Does the spouse match or mesh with our own opposite forces, our internal and external, hardness and softness? "Bone from my bone flesh from my flesh." That is the key.

A person is "bone" and "flesh." A person is a variegated jumble of conflicting and seemingly unrelated and incompatible forces. We relate to people showing one emotion while we really feel another emotion. We have a brain sector that zeros in on details, facts and the trees in the forest. We have a graphics brain that ignores the details and sees the graphic and spatial, ignoring the trees and focusing upon the forest. We have a rational brain and its nemesis the amygdale. The amygdala rummages constantly through our memory to find emotional responses that overpower our logic. We are spiritual and yet desire things that are material and even gross. In any given moment, we are running in different directions. Marriage can do one of two things. It can resolve these conflicts and focus us, or it can exacerbate our confusion.

If we come into marriage knowing what we want and what we are, things can work out. If we are confused and seek a spouse to solve our problems, we may make things worse. Adam said, "This time bone from my bone and flesh from my flesh." Adam is confident of himself. He relates to Eve as he knows himself, and glories in her compatibility with what he is and what he wants. A person who is unsure of himself or confused cannot tell a spouse what he is and what he wants. When we marry, we must know who we are and what we want. Negotiations are fine, but when a person flickers and changes, when the personality is unstable, the marriage trembles. A person cannot live with another as a nebulous mixture and mirage.

We touch now upon a separate topic, the anxieties that infest our system. Our life experiences are engraved in the emotional memory of the amygdala. This super-fast and super-powerful part of the brain may be our strongest limb. It overpowers our logic and all else. There is a professor of psychiatry who has a phobia. He teaches doctors how to treat phobia, but he has no hope. His amygdala does not want to listen to logic. It wants to present fear.

When we say that a person is a welter of confusion, we must emphasize that the biggest problem is that much of us is utterly irrational and not interested in logic. Our sexual preferences and behaviors are rooted to a large degree in our irrational rather than rational side. There are deeply religious people who have homosexual urges that baffle them. They would do anything to be free of self-sex attractions.

A woman once said at her divorce, "I love my husband. But I cannot live with him." The logic cannot reach the "inner self." The "inner self" cannot make peace with the logic. We are not only our logic, but also our deeper and irrational personalities. This is frightening, but it is the reality.

We are our father's frown that molded us into a sex fiend. The anxiety flowing from that frown sixty years later has no relief other than pleasures that are utterly irrational and often even evil. Grandparents molest children and very idealistic people are pedophiles because of the pain of the pedophile's childhood. We spend our lives overeating and indulging in the opiates of life, nice nor not, to assuage the pain of years and events long gone. They are not gone. They are us.

Adam said of Eve that she was "this occurrence," meaning, I am focused now to accept her. A man is the moment. You are defined by the particular swirl of events, logic and irrationalities, emotions and experiences, at a given time. Yesterday I was a different person, and tomorrow I may change again. If so, how can I marry?

"Bone of my bones." The "bone" is the internal, the powerful irrational forces that are the foundation of the person. When the "bones" click, we can marry. "Bone" is also the transcendent spirituality inherent in the soul. When we marry, a mighty miracle occurs. Two humans swishing with striving streams and senses smile and enjoy each other and are one. "This occurrence" empowers the present against the ravages of the past and the fantasies of the future. Next comes "bone of my bones" as we relate on the powerful internal frequency. It is a bone of "my bones." The relationship must work inside the mystical internal person. This stage must be utterly and ruthlessly selfish. You cannot fake it, and if you do, you will cut someone's heart out. The heart you cut out may be your own.

Only when we are a focused "this occurrence" and relate on the deeper emotional levels "bone of my bones," do we come to "flesh of my flesh." "Flesh" is the external covering of the bones, or "self." Here, too, a person must be compatible. There are different ways to be logical, and as strange as this may seem, two people see logic differently.

G-d encouraged marital resolution by "building" Eve and "bringing her to Adam." People don't see good things in other people so easily. They need someone to point out the obvious. Smart parents know what to say and what not to say around their children's spouses. Others speak from the heart and do incalculable damage. Marriage is not a rational regimentation. It is a tender blossom needing care and sensitivity. Every word is a threat. G-d "built" Eve before bringing her to Adam. There is a great difference between seeing a woman wearing junk clothes and seeing her in bridal attire. There is a great difference in how we are presented. We all benefit from a third party "building" us and "presenting" us, opening the heart of another to our good points. However, note that G-d did not say a word. Only Adam declared this or that. A parent does not declare. A parent is smart and "builds" so that the young people are moved to declare on their own.

II, 24: "Therefore a man will leave his father and his mother, and cling to his wife, and they will be one flesh." A man leaves his father and mother, thinking that he is now mature and ready for life. The smart father and mother did the "building" for this to happen, and the child takes the credit for becoming mature. This is exactly what the parents want. We raise our children to leave us. What tragedies happen when parents hang on.

A child is given to us not to possess and manipulate, but to serve. We do G-d's will by raising the child, and we fulfill our obligations when the child leaves us. Our lives are therefore devoted to "a man will leave his father and his mother." If the child when ripe does not leave, the whole family can rot. When my children were still little, I teased them about "leaving." Did they enjoy it! A child has an anxiety about the future. How scary to leave home and get married. When the child knows that the parent is determined and will help, the child relaxes.

The more a child relies on a parent to “leave,” the less fear there is. The more a child senses a parent’s reluctance for the child to leave, the more the child fears the parent and rebels. This begins a war. The child to survive pulls away from the parent, and the parent, using guilt, or whatever power is available, tries to break the child’s independence. Ultimately, the family is broken, and the child may be part of the bargain, never to recover.

The more a parent pushes a child to leave and independence, the less a child fears the parent, and appreciates the home. After the child marries, he wants to return repeatedly, because the home is not a threat to independence and maturity. On the other hand, the parent who holds on threatens the child, and when the child finally breaks away, fears the parents and may be reluctant to come and visit or to maintain a good relationship.

A parent may feel that they are owed something for all of their efforts. This is counter-productive. The more a parent projects upon the child debt and obligation, the more the child resents and resists. The wise parent moves to the side to allow a child to grow. When the child comes of age, especially when the child has children, the debts will be paid.

Once a parent decides to pressure a child, things can get nasty. There are parents who hang onto children and control them with guilt. Rightly seeing the strength of the child as a threat to their designs, the parent unleashes a campaign to destroy the child's potency and ability to resist. What selfish parents do to children no fiend could achieve.

"And he will cling to his wife." It does not say, "his wife will cling to him," but "he will cling to his wife." Marriage is "and Adam knew his wife." It does not say and "his wife knew Adam." We mentioned that the female is the circle and the "wall" and the man enters there, surrounded and engulfed by her. She is the "home" and he lives within it. He "clings" to her and is inside of her dimension, resolved and revealed there.

A woman once interrupted my class to blurt out: "I can't take it. I read that men have much bigger brains than women." Men have bigger biceps and bigger brains, and this bothers secular women. Religious women have no need of big biceps and big brains, because they are not defined by these things, although men are. As long as women insist on judging themselves by the standards of men, they will be frustrated. As one feminist acknowledged, the only solution is to redesign women genetically. Women who don't want to be turned into men can either rage and be frustrated or accept the Jewish way of looking at women not as inferior men but as women. A man may be the "public dimension" but that is inferior to the "private dimension" where the woman reigns. "A man may not enter the home without his wife's permission." (Zohar) "And he will cling to his wife" and be resolved and revealed there, ensconced in her circle and "wall." How wrong it is for some secular women to consider themselves mere handicapped men!

"And they will be one flesh." It does not say that they will be one "bone." That is impossible. The internal emotional memories and even spiritual forces that determine a personality cannot be merged into one. However, when the male "clings" and negates his "kindness" essence to the female "circle," they are truly one, and can become "one" in matters of the external and logical "flesh." The relationship does not alter their individuality, but as long as the male "clings" to the female and respects her, the two can function, communicate and prosper. Surely, the inner forces will out here and there, but the "flesh" external level will deal with it.

We explained before that the man says that Eve is "bone of my bone." Yes, Adam and Eve have compatible "bones" or inner essences, but the inner essences do not necessarily become "one bone." It is possible to be companionable with an essence that will never merge into your essence or truly mesh with it. It is only possible to merge and mesh with our spouse's logic and external thoughts, as they are malleable and tend to respond to the input and example of others.

Segment Three - Sexuality and the Bible

By Rabbi David Eidensohn

Copyright © April 28, 2002 by Rabbi David Eidensohn All Rights Reserved

Jewish and Western Sexuality

What is the Jewish-Torah attitude towards sexuality? Sexuality is natural; it is procreation and part of the Creation. The mundane and the material are part of life, even Life. "The Way of the World precedes the Torah." Our task is to find G-d, not in the cave, but in the bedroom and dining room, in the business and the market. In Life, we sense Transcendency. The Schechinah, the Divine Presence, is suffused in our daily lives, and certainly in intimacy.

In Segment II, we learned that women are the pinnacle of spirituality. We found that intimacy elevates a couple to infinity. Procreation is the highest level of humanity; people transcend their pettiness and achieve creation. The High Priest in the Temple could only function if married. One who has no wife has "no Torah, no blessing, and no life."

At one time public lectures were given on sexuality in the synagogue, as taught in the holy classic, "Two Tablets of the Covenant," or "SHELO." Sexuality came from marriage, which in Hebrew is KIDDUSHIN, or "holiness." Holiness was not just the marital bond, but the marital function, the Life actualized in intimacy. The Talmud is quite open about sexuality, in a way that would shock a modern Western. Why is this?

What is the Western attitude towards sexuality? The New Testament, in Mathew, demands that the truly spiritual refrain from marriage completely. The third century Church theologian Tertullian commanded women to dress in mourning and accept that evil is because of them. A major early church figure, Origen, castrated himself to avoid the temptation to go near a woman. He promoted the Greek idea that matter and the material world are implicitly evil. The Greeks, who utterly despised women, influenced the early Church. Athens rejected women and reveled in homosexuality. Therefore, the Jewish and Western ideas of sexuality are far apart. To the Western moralist, sexuality is evil. To the Torah, sexuality is holiness.

Because Judaism treats marriage and sexuality with such reverence, and because Judaism acknowledges the superior spirituality of the female, Jews respect sexuality and bawdiness never became part of Jewish culture. Western religions despised women and sexuality so that biological relief created remorse. A person satisfied his natural needs with guilt. He felt removed from spirituality. Once fallen, he was ruined and eventually ended dissolute. Thus, in every Western society where religion debased women and created unnatural restrictions on sexuality, the culture sustained incredible insults to decency. In Catholic countries such as France where divorce was prohibited, marriage was almost meaningless. The Catholic Church taught for thousands of years that going near a woman defiled a man spiritually. Today the church is awash in priest pedophiles. One extreme leads to another. Any culture that does not allow one’s biological needs expression will create the lowest forms of dissolution.

Sex as secular entertainment and enjoyment is quite different from Jewish modesty and sanctity. Modern secular ideas about sexuality promote what biblical people consider perversity. It would seem that the anti-biblical sexuality of the secular culture and academic community would have nothing to do with the Church view on sexuality. This, however, is a mistake. Once society accepts from the Church that women are things, and that sex is naughty, and that marriage is only for lower people and removed from true spirituality, or is only for procreation and kingdom building, it is but a small step to fulfill one's biological needs by creating a Hollywood woman who is a physical toy. In addition, by pouring guilt on the sexual drive, one is unable to deal with his natural passions without feeling evil. Once evil is served, the helpless person is on a slippery slope. Historically, a society that refuses divorce was one that made marriage into a joke. A Pope once told a woman, who needed an heir in order to provide the Pope with what he wanted politically, "A smart woman knows how to become pregnant." Throughout the history of the church, fornication and homosexuality were common at the Vatican and surely elsewhere. Some popes had children. In monarchical France, marriages were made only for financial reasons, with no expectation of fidelity. There is thus a linkage between one's attitude towards women and sex and the two faces of the Church and secular sex. The impossible demands of the Church, denigrating sexuality, prohibiting divorce, forced many people to accept that what they had to do was evil, and they then went to adultery and heinous sins as if on a trajectory.

The Western man needs four women, at least. He needs a wife for procreation, financial arrangements and respectability. He needs the mistress, who is what a wife should be for emotional and continued sexual support. He needs a concubine for regular sex, and a prostitute for experimental sex. Of course, there is always the affair with someone else’s wife, for instance. Despite all of these women, he never “cleaves to his wife,” and never finds relief emotionally or sexually. A Jewish man who accepts a mate as G-d’s gift creates an environment where family is this world and the next, ideally.

Newsweek of June 22, 2003 featured an article “We are not in the Mood,” about modern married people who just don’t have sex. They sit all day in offices with people just looking for affairs, watch television and movies to arouse the worst instincts, and come home and night and cannot make it into bed. That is secular society. Talk all day about sex and don’t have it. Nature does not tolerate a sick sexuality.

We cannot discuss secular sexuality without mentioning Sigmund Freud and the secular study of sexology. Although we will not go into Freud in depth in this segment, we mention here one important idea: The sexual habits of people in modern Austria, in the most fashionable salons where Freud's patients lived, were unsatisfactory. Even today, things are not good, as we just mentioned.

According to Freud, frequent masturbation and coitus interruptus caused melancholy, anxiety and hysteria. People don't have a proper avenue for their sexual needs. Unmarried people can contract disease from prostitutes, married people have problems with maintaining their ardor—at one time, they had problems with unwanted pregnancies. Freud worried that condoms interfered with the proper release of libido energies and caused mental illness. The sexual forces in people must have a proper release, Freud felt, and he was right. He also said, rightfully, that people have problems with these releases. These problems have led people, as we will mention, to reject either heterosexuality or even any partner sexuality, and to find release anyway they can, even through auto-excitement. This is the present state of sexology, seeking to find a path to sexual fulfillment, even as we slide down the slope culturally and socially away from it. What is sad is that a century after Freud began his study of sexuality, the basic issues he raised have not been properly resolved. Indeed, they are part of larger issues that are the challenge of the future, such as the study of consciousness, the connection between the mental and chemical, ideas and hormones, as well as the neurological process of sexuality. The farther science retreats into reductionism and the smaller things, the more it wants to break away and find the total picture, which is quite a trick. We hope to discuss the Jewish counterparts of some of Freud's phrases, but not in this segment, because it deserves a focus of its own.

When we eat and enjoy, we feel less spiritual than when we pray or study. Indulgence fills our primitive appetites, not our souls. This led the Church to teach that the material world was so remote from G-d that He had to create an intermediary deity to deal with it. The devil controlled the material world, and demanded from the Creator a payment of the death of an intermediary deity. Judaism feels that G-d created the material world as an adjunct of His Holiness, which suffuses nature and matter. We have no need of an intermediary to deal with the material world, and indeed, every pebble radiates with mystery and transcendence. To the church, sexuality was the ultimate denigration of the soul; the rabbis taught the opposite. Sexuality was the pinnacle of spirituality, an act of creation, and a partnership directly with G-d. G-d is not removed from materialism, and He is not separate from sexuality. He is revealed in it. The Cabalists teach that the unity of male and female unite the supernal letters of the Divine Name in Heaven.

In 270, inspired by a Church teaching to renounce one's possessions, Anthony retreated to a tomb where he claimed that demons assailed him, even striking him, to draw him back to the sensuous world. Thus began Christianity's idea that matter, sensual pleasures, and this world are the domain of the devil. The monastic priests of the Church spread this doctrine, that earnings and sexuality are lowly things. Judaism insists that people have earnings and support their families. The Cabalists say that the highest lights reverberate in the acts of buying and selling, if done honestly.

The rabbis taught that Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden cohabitated unclothed. After the sin, they were ashamed of public nakedness. Whereas some religions taught that the expulsion from the Garden of Eden denigrated people in G-d's eyes, Judaism denies that sin can do this. No sin can destroy G-d's love for us, nor can any sin deny us the opportunity to return to G-d who awaits us. Even sexuality after the sin is beloved, and matter and nature are still suffused with transcendence, albeit privately and quietly. We see the great difference in the attitudes of the West and Judaism regarding humankind, sin, and sexuality.

Is Sex Shameful?

Even though G-d made us that way, we are ashamed of nakedness. So shamed are we of our nakedness that we clothe ourselves. Sexuality is the deepest nakedness and we embarrassed by it. It can only be consummated in utter privacy. Sex may be natural and procreation, but something about it seems incompatible with the nobility of rational and regal man. Sexuality is surrender to something irrational, and base pleasure demeans us, somehow.

The biblical story of Adam and Eve says that they were naked before they sinned. After they sinned by eating from the Tree of Knowledge, they were ashamed of their nakedness and needed clothes. This is such a strange story. Why, when they were holy and exalted, nakedness was no shame, but when they sinned they were ashamed of nakedness? How did eating from the Tree of Knowledge produce shame?

However, there is Life and there is Knowledge. Life reveals G-d by living. Originally, before the sin, mundane activities revealed G-d, such as eating and copulating. After Adam and Eve sinned, their bodies declined and were no longer sacred vessels. Now, their minds had to find light amid the darkness. Eating and copulation now had a new aspect, not of holiness, but of corporeal sensuality that could supplant spirituality, such as in Western “sex.” Now nakedness was a shame. Eating and sexuality were still capable of bringing a person to creation of others and “the way of the world that precedes the Torah.” However, this requires effort and struggle. We cannot go about naked. We cannot spend the day eating and invoking sensuality. Only at certain times may we eat and copulate, and then privately. This teaches us that the world is polluted and we must hide from it to find spirituality in corporeal activities. However, within marriage and the confines of privacy, sexuality and eating are human processes that lead to the highest levels. The great Hassidic rabbis spend the holiest hours of the Sabbath eating while their followers sit in awed respect and watched.

A Greek philosopher regaled his disciples with the importance of rationality, and complained how sexuality without higher logic was objectionable. As far as anyone could tell, the professor was as good as his word. He had nothing to do with women, but was engrossed constantly in study and deep thought.

Finally, the professor's barbs about sexuality reached new heights. The students decided to see just how pure their professor was. They sent him a prostitute to him. Bursting into his room at the appropriate or rather inappropriate time, the students confronted their master. "Now," said he, "I am not your master."

There is in this story, true or not, two ideas, and they are both true. One is that sexuality is emotional and not commensurate with hard rational thinking. Two, even people who prize rationality are human. Anyone who does not realize the power of sexuality may easily be burnt by it. We therefore seek to deal with this mighty force by feeding our needs, not by denying them. The incredible pedophilia and homosexuality scandals engulfing the Catholic Church today show what happens when one denies marriage.

I was once a partner with a Catholic Priest in a certain project, which received the blessings of senior rabbis. We decided to honor a senior Bishop. The Bishop spoke at the dinner, and began his remarks by saying that he decided to become a priest before he was ready for celibacy. I discovered later that this Bishop did have sexual problems, went to school and got a high degree in counseling, and is now busy with other priests. There are calls for change, but the Church was founded with the attitudes enumerated above, and to alter them will rock the foundations not only of the priesthood, but also of the theology. ABCNEWS, on April 26, '02, showed a picture of top Vatican prelate Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger slapping the hand of an ABC correspondent. The correspondent asked Ratzinger about Father Marcial Maciel. Eight Catholic men in their sixties have come forth to charge Maciel, the head of a legion to make priests out of children, with molesting them in his secretive domain near the Vatican. Despite the furor, the Pope continued to praise Maciel. Today, the world realizes that the Jewish way given at Sinai is the correct one. As I write these words in May 2,002, sixteen priests accused of pedophilia have committed suicide, and an archbishop has resigned. Two senior American Cardinals, Law of Boston and Egan of New York, are being deposed or working with the DA's office, and are under heavy pressure for covering up priestly pedophilia. Law, perhaps the senior Cardinal in America, resigned under fire.

Even outside of the Church, the idea that sex is wrong, or that it must be confined to procreation, makes problems. The guilt associated with sex has turned it into an anti-social thing like gambling and drugs. Instead of people getting it properly, they deny it, until something bursts and becomes adultery, the ruining of a woman, or people simply run across town.

It is easy to understand the error of the Greeks and the West. When you have sex, you lose yourself, you decline, and you are degraded. Sexuality is a lust that does not reflect the higher powers of man. Sex thus became naughty, and women, "things." All of this is utterly contrary to Judaism.

The problem is that if rationality and logic are the highest aspects of man, how can we reconcile sexuality to them? Sexuality is done with other parts of the mind, the emotional or primitive faculties. What pride does Judaism sees in this act? If sexuality overwhelms the logic and rationality of man, this is because one enters the infinite realm, not because he becomes an animal. Sexuality is one of the many times that a person in this world tastes of the higher one. We say this not because of the physical pleasures involved, but because of the actual spiritual energy that is sexuality.

What is the Sexual Force?

In its failed form, sexuality is fantasy, disintegration of the ego, and sad surrender. Proper sexuality is not degenerate; rather it is transcendence. One surrenders to emerge as something higher. Separate men and women become “one flesh." There cannot be a fully fulfilled man without a woman, and a fully fulfilled woman without a man. Nature does not tolerate a positive charge without a negative one, an electron without a proton, so it is with people. Only in marriage do we find out what we really are.

A person has a body and a soul. The universe has material and spiritual forces. Just as a rock is real, so is the soul, and so is spirituality. There are orbs of fire and rock racing through space, and there are lines of light that lead to and from G-d. The key is that the material and spiritual merge, fuse, and reciprocate each other's essence. Material life is suffused with spirituality; spirituality inspires us to better the material state of the world. Marriage, the highest material reality, leads to and reveals transcendence.

According to my friend, internationally renowned sexologist Edward Eichal, the concept of sex being a physical energy was entertained by Freud and now is being studied by modern physicists. However, the idea of sexuality being a physical force has nothing to do, per se, with spirituality. It means that the psychosexual process invokes waves of energy and forces that are similar to light and sound, or that it is somehow rooted in physiological processes, or that it is hormonal. We can accept that sexuality is both physical and spiritual. The new science may indeed find a way to measure the waves of energy in sexuality in purely physical terms, and yet accept the transcendence of sexuality as spirituality beyond physical measurement.

One may consider sexuality as physical energy, or even a transcendental force. David Bohm, a major scientist and philosopher, proposes that there is what we see and detect with scientific instruments. This he calls the explicate. An example would be words written on a page. We know the words; we can study them. There is, however, an environment. We write words on a page. The environment of the page has the ability to reveal letters that form words. The environment of the letters he calls the implicate; the letters are the explicate. There is, in addition, says Bohm, a super-implicate. This environment is above time, and percolates down into the temporal world as a creator. A thing in the lower world connects to the super-implicate and achieves new and creative properties. All life and particles grow and develop by sending the force of the super-implicate.

The idea in secular terms is very rough and scientifically controversial. One objection is that if there is such a thing as the super-implicate, everything should develop perfectly and not fail. Indeed, since all things in the universe are connected to the creative guidance of the super-implicate, how can clashes and wars exist? Obviously, the idea is wrong on the physical level. It further violates a law of physics called entropy. Entropy says that all order becomes disorder; all organization becomes disorganization.

Nonetheless, we congratulate Bohm's effort to connect science to transcendence. That is the way things are moving. Judaism has always united science and spirituality. Judaism believes “there is no blade of grass that does not connect to an angelic force that causes it to grow." Because the super-implicate defies physics and entropy, as we explained, Bohm's idea of all particles connecting to a super-implicate is correct only if we admit the existence of spirituality. All particles in the universe live in a pot of destruction, entropy. Entropy pressures us to fall, fail, and disintegrate. We must reach past the physical forces that bind and lower us, and find eternity, the "angelic forces" and G-d. We then can rise above our finite shackles and realize our true potential.

We can thus define human spirituality as the effort to evade the destructive pressures of the finite by finding the source of life in transcendence. In marriage, we have daily problems and pressures. They are relieved, and the marriage sustained, through sexuality and its invocation of higher energies. Love, revealed during sexuality and maximized by it, is infinite.

Early scientism barred spirituality because the Church and Greeks taught that matter is unholy, even evil. Today, we seek to unite matter to spirituality, which is a Jewish idea.

Sexuality allows us, when properly done, to connect to the true spiritual "super-implicate." Whenever we perform sex, we put the key into the motor and it connects to the supernal sources of light and spiritual energies. If we love and are loved, the process is perfect, and we emerge whole and renewed. If we "take" and not "give"; if we are actualized and not vulnerable; if we demean and do not respect; mighty powers of transcendence and spirituality flow down, but they are corrupted and become evil and meanness. Sexuality is a primal force, a blastema; it raises one to the heavens or plunges him to the abyss. Sexuality can love, resolving, spiritual, transcendent and happy. It can also be compulsive, addictive, perverse, and menacing.

Spirituality, according to Judaism is a reality. This is enforced scientifically by the studies of many who died and came back, called "near death experiences." People brain dead without heartbeat were revived. They then told what doctors and emergency personnel said and did while they were dead. This proves that there is a soul. Dead brains do not remember anything. Scientifically, therefore, we accept a soul, and thus spirituality. In sexuality, we see either its purest form, or the opposite.

"Spirituality is Autoeroticism"?

A senior secular sexologist said, "Spirituality is autoeroticism." This is a terrible mistake. While it is true that one can attain a primitive pleasure by fantasizing and masturbating, the masturbatory orgasm is surely not spirituality. In secular distorted sexuality, a higher human becomes a capricious fantasy. When there is no woman to resolve a person’s ego, it disintegrates, and his self vaporizes. He seeks drugs and any pleasure to relieve his incessant anxieties from unresolved issues. Purely physiological sexual pleasure is not spirituality; it is unfulfilled or even toxic sexuality.

"Auto" means one alone. "Autoeroticism is spirituality" implies the lone self. Nothing is said about a partner, male or female. However, he did not say this because he was strange or evil. In the secular world, heterosexuality and surely homosexuality is so riven with problems that people endure it rather than enjoy it. Spirituality, to this professor, sincerely stated, is autoeroticism. He massages certain erogenous zones, stimulates the blood to flow over nerve endings, and claims to be "spiritual." Lest we laugh, we must realize that in the secular world, sex is a challenge rather than a pleasure. People are always trying this or that because they are frustrated with the old ways. Eventually, just masturbating in the privacy of one's home brings relief without the mess. We can understand that, even as we disagree with it. However, is this spirituality?

In the sixties, secular people began to search for spirituality in drugs. Professor Timothy Leary of Harvard influenced many young people to take dangerous mind-altering drugs such as LSD. People claimed that the twisting of the mind with chemistry was "spirituality." Will wonders never cease?

Sexuality as "autoeroticism" or even as erogenous arousal is shallow, and manifests only the processes of the nerve-endings and biological responses. Jewish spirituality is communication, "and Adam knew his wife." He did not fantasize; he knew something. He understood Eve on a deeper level. Adam saw Eve and a higher transcendence than he had ever known. This revelation and knowledge, not the fantasy, afforded him a communication that recreated his own soul.

We thus sum up our comparison of Jewish and secular/Western sex. Judaism considers sexuality a spiritual energy and insight, a knowledge, that unites two disparate elements, man and woman, and propels them to deeper dimensions, deep insights, lights of infinite power and immeasurable pleasures. These pleasures are not merely spiritual or chemical. They are the hope of the lone individual to escape the prison of his own limitations, and to find freedom, strength and a spiritual renewal through intimacy. Pleasure is usually related to something important. We must procreate, or the species disappears. We must eat, or we die. Therefore, both of these are pleasurable. The need for a person to connect to challenge, renewal, expansion, freedom, strength and intimacy with others is an infinite need, and its pleasure is infinite.

When the greatest sage in the world in Babylonia, Rav (250 CE) was old, he heard some people discussing Solomon's teachings on sexuality. He groaned. Those who heard the groan said, "Obviously, Rav no longer is sexually virile and potent." The Talmud records this. What is there to record? That an old man groaned?

Rav was a saint who founded the rabbinical schools that completed the final and authoritative Talmud. That such a man, in his aged state, should be pained by his lack of virility shows that sexuality is a very high knowledge and spirituality.

Rav's opposite number, in Israel, Rabbi Yochanan, was the founder of the Jerusalemic Talmud School. He once remarked, "Such and such a potent restored me to my youth." Maimonides made medications for virility. Sexuality to a Jew was not the consuming vice of the Arab. It was the consummate spirituality.

Modern sex fails almost eighty percent of the time. The emphasis upon the physiological and the denigration of the act make it almost impossible to succeed. One can only succeed with sex when he realizes that it will elevate him, make him more rational and heighten his spirituality. He enters the room as if he was in the holy of holies. There are those who recite special prayers before going to bed. G-d is together with the parents in the selection of the soul. The parents tremble that their love not be marred, something that will blemish the soul of the child. Even if no child is born, souls are created by procreation, and the parents are reborn.

Secular person begins sex without the moorings of the rational and regal self, and without the excitement at the spiritual dimension of the act. What is he looking for? The woman senses his powering on as an insult and threat, and hardens in fear. The rest is disaster. This happens in the majority of the time with secular sex.

The Jewish marital act takes place, when people are young, after a menstrual period. The husband suffers, for a week or two. The woman watches her husband climb the walls. She is counting the days; he is dying; so be it. Finally, she goes to the Mikvah, a ritualarium filled with well or rainwater. He is home, excited as if he was just married. She goes into a building swarming with ladies and helpers. She showers and chats with her friends. There is enormous tension in the night, but it often evaporates in the quiet talking. Ladies on the staff of the Mikveh help her get ready, and call her to come to an available pool. She goes down the few stairs into the water, and immerses totally. She feels something spiritual and new. She is not the old person. The old weaknesses are going to have a hard time in this body. She rises from the pool, and goes home. What is important for us to note in her attitude is this: SEX IS SACRED!

Note that the most pious ladies are escorting the woman. Some women will wait in their private rooms until a senior lady is available. They want someone very special to lead them to the water. They want to invoke the senior lady’s presence. They want to hear from this saintly woman some blessing, one that will bring more meaning to the Mikveh, and blessing to the marriage and children. A Mikveh is at least as holy as the synagogue on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement.

The lady comes home. Her husband knows the rules. HE MUST BEHAVE. He wants to rush, but he better not. If he does, the wife might tell the rabbi. Secular woman is not going to call the police, but you had better believe that religious lady would call the rabbi. And if she does…

The woman is intensely excited, as is the man. Now is the time to relax and chat, and enjoy something to eat. When the woman is ready, not before, there will be action. She is not nervous. She is in control. The Talmud tells of the senior rabbi who taught his daughter about sex. "Don't let him grab anything," he told her. First this, and then, that, and then… Secular woman just hopes for the best. But when she leave it to biology, she feels like the grizzly bear females who flee at top speed when they notice a male in heat. A man in heat is a grizzly bear. It takes a lot of training to make him into a human. A rabbi told me of the forensic report he had read, of a man who killed his wife during intercourse, not from cruelty, but from the violence of his movements. He simply tore her apart. Many women are not torn apart physically, but what they go through emotionally is almost as bad. Sexuality is a great challenge. Either do things right, and achieve wonderful things, or do things wrong, and suffer.

Those secular people, men and women, who have had enough, retreat to their dens and announce, "Spirituality is autoeroticism." Pity them. Pity such a world.

Sexuality, Spirituality and the Angels

We find in the Creation story that Adam and Eve copulated publicly, naked, yet without shame. Only when they sinned did they become embarrassed without clothes. Thus, sexuality itself is spiritual. However, sexuality by people with sin and stained souls is shameful. We therefore accept that there are two levels of sexuality, one glorious and one embarrassing. In our world, sex must be very private. We shut our eyes when praying out of respect for the Schechinah Presence that stands before us. We seek darkness and privacy in sexuality for the same reason. Only in the Garden of Eden, when people openly consorted with the Schechinah, could sexuality be public.

Outside of the Garden, sexuality continued to be a spiritual force. Indeed, the first teaching of the Yeshiva of Elijah the Prophet is that after the Expulsion, we relate directly to G-d through Derech Erets, the "Way of the World." This "comes before the Torah." Whatever relationship we had with G-d in the Garden of Eden is now hidden and quiet. In the privacy of our homes, even in our mundane functions, we find true spirituality.

Because sexuality is so linked to heavenly forces and spirituality, when we violate the ethics of sexuality, when we defile and profane women, we turn the heavens upside down. This happened, literally, in the generation of Noah, when men began to "take women," and do as they pleased. The bible tells us of the Fallen Ones, who were angels, hurled to earth by the sexual sins of men. Men violated women, thus uprooted the foundation of spirituality and toppled angels to earth. In the twisted turmoil of the times, these angels were pulled to earth by the beauty of women, a spirituality ruined and made suddenly toxic by the acts of men.

The sins of men thus caused two things to happen in the time of Noah and the Flood. They toppled angels and corrupted spiritual forces. Sins corrupted the animals, which now mated with other species and engaged in homosexuality.

Genesis 6,4: "The fallen ones were in the land in those days (just before the Flood of Noah.) And also afterwards, when the Sons of Holiness came to the daughters of man, and bore for them. They are the mighty ones who were the famous people from days of yore." Some say the "mighty ones" were called "fallen" because all who saw them trembled and fell down. Others, however, object to translating "fallen ones" as causing others to fall. "Fallen ones" mean that they, not others, fell. Yet, if they fell, how could they be the progenitors of "mighty ones"? The answer is that angels fell from heaven, married women, and produced giants. (See Baal HaTurim 6,4) Rashi says the same thing on a previous passage, "And the Sons of G-dliness saw the daughters of man that they were good, and they took them for wives, from all that they chose." This means that angels took women.

The bible tells us that sex can topple angels. The "fallen ones" of early Genesis were angels who were carried away by desires for lovely women. What did angels see in females? We mentioned one solution previously; angels were toppled in the turmoil of human sin. By violating women, the sacrosanct font of spirituality, the spiritual forces of the very heavens were toppled, and some angels fell down to earth. These angels, again, from the toxic spirituality, were attracted to women. On second thought, angels attracted to women may not be so strange, after all.

Angels have no bodies, so their interest was not as we would assume. We mentioned the spirituality of the female, and perhaps the angels liked that. If so, why did they decline and fall from their relationship with women?

Sexuality and the female can raise a man to heaven, or fling the angels into the abyss. It depends on our attitude and respect for the female. The angels "took" from "all that they wanted." Women meant nothing to them, only as a toy. Such resulted in tragedy and falling. Men who approach a woman with respect, however, invoke the spirituality she possesses and rise to the heavens.

Some say that the angels fell from heaven to marry a woman, Naama. What did the angels see in Naama? Naama means "lovely." NOAM is comfort and pleasantness. We are happy. We have no problems. Naama also has a connotation of aesthetic loveliness. When we gaze upon a lovely thing, its loveliness energizes us. There is a fragrance-like power in beauty. Beauty is related to transcendence and mystery, and even the angels were impressed with it. Surely, people can be inspired by beauty. What is beauty? What is loveliness?

The angels, swayed by the charm of Naama, were not necessarily impressed with her lipstick. Her name "lovely" indicated a higher dimension where even angels had to look. This "loveliness" of the spirit is often replicated by physical loveliness. This is the principle in physics of symmetry, whereby variegated dimensions produce similar phenomena. The spirit produces beauty and the manifestation of that loveliness can often be reflected in other dimensions, such as the finite and the physical. A lovely woman is often a lovely soul, a lovely spirituality. The angels did fall for Naama, but not just for her physical form.

A human being has many levels of consciousness and knowing, from the soul and deepest emotions to the coldest calculating and logic. We have the energies we require to escape from our finite confines and to know better things. We seek a higher spirituality to find freedom. Others, failing, utilize a drug, a drink, any force that can save them from the doldrums and limitations. We are finite, and it bothers us. We are trapped within our bodies and restrictions, the crush of entropy and decline, and we want to fly free. Perhaps, in our fantasies, we take wing and float in the warm air over an island in the ocean, in a paradise of birds and breezes, and we gently rock on the clouds, free of fear and pressure. Alas, it is all fantasy. For biofeedback, this is great, but we know it is only an exercise to relieve tension.

Along comes a lovely thing. Suddenly, we are happy, we find something new; we are floating on a cloud. Where did that cloud come from? This is surely better than biofeedback. It is real. Why? One idea is as we explained, that physical beauty radiates with higher beauty and true spirituality. It can be corrupted, but nonetheless, the force is there. It can raise us to the heavens or fling us to the abyss. There are beautiful women who are righteous such as Sarah who founded the Jewish people, and there are beautiful women like Vashti who hated Jews and made Jewish girls work on the Sabbath. From one comes life and from the other comes evil and destruction. High forces are very delicate and can easily be corrupted. However, the Talmud records famous prostitutes who became righteous, such as Rahab, the wife of Joshua, and another in the generation of Rabbi Mayer. One idea is that these lovely ladies were immoral and repented. This is acceptable. "Nothing bars the path to penitence." However, there is another idea, in keeping with our discussion. The beauty of a woman resonates on spiritual and material levels. The higher beauty is easily corrupted; sexuality with its spiritual content easily slips down into "sex" and evil. These women, such as Rahab, the wife of Joshua, were lovely, and this indicated that their souls were very high, but captured by the evil force. In the merit of righteous people, these spiritual lovely forces broke free until even the physical woman returned to goodness.

Within this idea is another, deeper concept, taught by Rabbi Yisroel Salanter, the saint and scholar of nineteenth century Vilna. Rabbi Salanter taught that in nature there is always balance. Thus, something very good attracts great evil, and something very evil attracts goodness. Practically speaking, this means that a good person has a good exterior, but a poor interior system. There must be balance, because "G-d made this opposite that." The world is one of testing. There must always be balance in the challenge to choose good over evil. There must be evil to test us. What happens when a person becomes pious? Do the evil force and inclination leave? Rabbi Salanter taught that the evil force in a good person re-entrenches and makes the good person filled with evil inclinations. Alternatively, a bad person has a bad external system, but internally, the good forces pour in and concentrate. The inner force waits for something to pierce the shield separating it from the external. Once that barrier is broken, the inner force explodes its pent-up energies, and the person is flooded with an opposite force.

Obviously, this deserves more attention, but for our purposes, we will return to the prostitutes who became pious. When did they taste the light of goodness? While mired in utter evil, the power of balance asserted itself. Here, in the muck, was an imbalance, and something had to be done. Good forces poured into the evil prostitute, and hid behind the barrier. When something happened, in the case of Rahab, the conquest of Canaan and the revelation of G-d's might, the good poured through a breach in the barrier, and she converted to Judaism and became pious. A similar story is told of the wife of a Roman emperor, a renowned beauty, who married Rabbi Akiva in his old age.

People who live in the dregs of life, running to and fro with prostitutions, fornication, and who knows what else, simply increase within their hearts, deep down but somehow sensed, forces of good that can balance the force of evil. The pain felt by those with compulsive and addictive behaviors reflects in part the good forces that cry out with each step into the quagmire. Of course, this outcry simply reinforces the anxieties that drive the person to seek relief with the evil behavior. As tragic as this is, there is a good force building with each failure; ultimately, all of that good can come out and prevail.

Psychosexual and Spiritual

In his classic work, The Two Tablets of the Covenant, Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz writes, (Volume III, page 149b) in the name of Rabbi Isaac Luria, that food and material things contain spiritual elements. A person who eats feeds his body and his soul. The material in the food feeds the physical body, and the sparks of spirituality sustain the soul. He writes, "There is nothing in the lower world that does not have a spiritual influence from above that brings it to actuality and says to it, 'grow!'"

The last phrase is a quote from the Talmud, "no blade of grass exists without a heavenly angel that deals with it and tells is to grow."

Every aspect of the material world is intimately involved with spiritual energies and is guided by heaven. Corporeality is spirituality, despite its seemingly mundane trapping and the challenge of its negative capacities.

In terms of sexuality, we also have two domains, the physical and the spiritual. Because sexuality may invoke the entire repertoire of human emotion and thought, the physical is variegated. The spiritual is also multi-dimensional, even more than the finite.

The spiritual world itself has many forces, and the material life we lead, especially in marriage, invokes a wide range of spiritual forces, depending on our spiritual level. Our emotions, when good and pure, invoke high spiritual forces. When we are angry, when we are selfish, when we feel small, we invoke the other, lower kind of supernatural forces, evil.

Many things go on during human interactions, especially in intimacy. The male needs the female resolution, and the female needs the male penetration, his entering into her "home" and "circle essence" to be resolved and revealed. Sexuality tugs at the deepest personal level, defining and creating, resolving and revealing. Sexuality invokes G-d, so that "three partners, the father, the mother and G-d" create the soul of the child. G-d is not removed and abstract, but a veritable partner summoned by the spirituality of sexuality. There are various levels of procreation. The Talmud teaches that the level of the child's soul is determined by the love of the parents for each other during intercourse. Obviously, intimacy is exalted. Having said this, we must keep in mind that the mighty engine of sexuality is fashioned not in heaven but in our relationships with our parents. Our childhood forms our psychosexual attitudes and forces, although there are genetic, social, inter-uterine and hormonal influences as well.

The psychosexual drive is rooted in our relationships to our parents and others. The capacity to relate to others is part of our mind or essence. The relation force within us has many levels. There is the casual relationship and there are deeper relationships. The highest level of relationship requires the deepest emotions. When we want to join physically with a person, it is partially because of the mental and spiritual need to relate with another. We also relate to others in order to expand our horizons and to inform ourselves. We have sex in order to grow and to be actualized. The sexual relationship however is quantitatively and qualitatively different, much more intimate, and sometimes searing than other relationships. In order for one to have a sexual relationship and invoke these deeper emotions, one must call upon previously prepared parts of the person. If these parts, designed for deeper relationships, are scarred, the sexual experience may be damaged, even sick.

This can lead to negative sexuality. Instead of involving the soul and the deepest healthy emotional responses, one has sex without the help of these essential emotional and psychological tools. Still worse are impaired emotional and psychological tools twisting the power of sex into perversion. There are people who have sex that is tender and vulnerable. There are people who have sadism and masochism. Sex can send a confident person to the stars; it can fling a broken person to the depths.

Sex is not only an emergent from our emotional essence. Sex re-creates our emotional essence. Sex not only utilizes the soul or denies it; sex creates the soul or destroys it. In every area, emotional, psychological, biological, spiritual and medical, sex can improve or damage. We are not the same person after sex than we were earlier. Sex is atomic energy. We do not know all that much about it, but it is very powerful. The angels came to Naama the lovely one and became evil. Others had sex and became angels.

We said before that a human being has many levels of consciousness and knowing, from the soul and deepest emotions to the coldest calculating and logic. These are piled together in one person and yet they are different, separate and conflict. The flow of signals and demands coming into the human consciousness leaves no rest. Where is the focus?

Enter beauty. Let us talk about a painting. It has a blue sky and a brown dog. The artist is not telling us about a sky or an animal. The artist is painting a picture. The artist is suggesting a system. In the system the dog and the sky are partners and do not conflict. This is beauty. The painting has many hues. All of these are one picture, and one beauty. The unity of disparate things captivates us. This is splendor. In Cabala (and cubism), "splendor" is capturing opposite forces and letting their "push-pull" synergy create beauty and Truth.

If the dog and the sky are not the picture, what is? Beauty is a force that connects the finite to the infinite. We feel mystery and transcendence silhouetted just beyond our cognizance and limitations. It beckons us to sense that within the dog and the sky, inside of our finite fingers and limited mind, are lodes of transcendence, sparks of infinity. Beauty is this peek into the beyond. It raises our parts and us. It unifies them in hope and healing.

Modern art and culture are busy, for the past centuries, not in old-fashioned beautiful art, but in abolition, surrealism, and dada, which means ridiculous poems without meaning. For this, Jacques Barzun considers our age one of decadence. There is much to discuss about this, but for now, in the confines of our topic, we note that beauty is not available to everyone. The modern painter must find beauty by painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa, and by destroying, by revolting, by anti-synergy and anti-art. It is no accident that this age is also a time of the breakdown of sexuality in marriage. Up to eighty percent of women cannot enjoy intimacy. This again is a challenging topic and it is not for us here to digress upon it. We note however a connection. An age where beauty is dead is an age where sex is dead. An age where music is talking, shrieking, playing notes that jar the senses, is an age where people suffer during intimacy.

Naama, "lovely," is the epitome of beauty. Only one organized to know beauty could see Naama's beauty. The person whose inner system is chaotic, who has not surety of human and natural unity, cannot know beauty.

Sexuality is about "and they will be one flesh." It ends that way only if it begins that way. A person whose quiddity is clear and wholesome will see beauty. A person who seeks the elements of the whole with anger cannot see the forest; even the tree is ugly. Lovely means a forest where the trees and the birds are all part of a body. Ugliness is reducing the forest to trees atomized and without meaning or light. An age where reductionism reduces the whole to invisible and strange parts is an age that reduces the whole of the person to flickering shadows of doubt and fear.

The eyes of a person who is confident in his totality and inherent cohesiveness see the positive in the other. The eyes of a person who is confident that truth is reduction must reduce the obvious until it disappears; there cannot be beauty in the reduction.

Someone can see a lovely woman and reduce her to various organs. Another can see a woman silhouetted against the infinite mysteries of Pure Unity. To the first fellow the female is a thing; the second person accepts that he does not know what the female truly is because of her transcendence and loveliness. This is a physical beauty radiating with something else. True loveliness is more than what we behold. Reductionism is the search to negate what we behold, to make it smaller and ultimately disappear and reappear as something even smaller and less significant.

Let us talk about NAAMA in a deeper vein. If it is too subtle for your tastes, just skip down the page. In Hebrew, letters are also numbers. The Hebrew spelling of the name NAAMA, the "lovely" woman, is numerically the same value as for the Hebrew words for "shadow" and "man." The word "TSEL" or "shadow" figures prominently in the Creation narrative. We develop this elsewhere. Regarding NAAMA, we find the numerical value is "shadow-man." What does "lovely" have to do with "shadow-man"?

A simple idea to explain the connection between "shadow-man" and a lovely woman is that female beauty is buttressed by modesty. The Medieval commentator Meiri writes that a woman is loved when she maintains her dignity and modesty. An English poet made a similar point that the longer a woman's dress the greater ardor in the heart of her man. Naama means "lovely" and its numerical value is that of "shadow-man." Beauty is revealed by "shadow," when we conceal it. When "man" trumpets himself, he is deformed and despised. A "man" or woman of grace, dignity and modesty reveals "loveliness" from "shadow" We may never know who we are, who our mates are, or what anything is. We can, however, invoke the "shadow" and the concealed light, and adjust to it. We grow in sensitivity through life until we feel the pulsating infinite suffused in human relationships, especially marriage. Thus, the "shadow" of modesty reveals and elevates the "man" to transcendence.

In the good old days, a woman was paid for sex. Today it is free, and with the pill, means nothing to the man. A woman is a free toy.

A young woman attracted a very virile and dashing man. She moved in with him and they lived the life of those in their biological prime. One day, she saw some Orthodox Jews on a date. She compared them with her life. She decided to leave her partner. He told her, "If you leave, I will kill you." She knew that he meant it, but she was not going to live like that anymore. She fled from him and became Orthodox. Thousands of secular women are flocking to Orthodoxy not because they want G-d necessarily, but because they want to be women. Perhaps you need G-d to find a sexual attitude that is respectful. If life is evolution and survival of the fittest, a woman is in big trouble.

A shadow is the negation of something, darkness rather than revelation. A shadow adumbrates a reality but does not reveal it clearly. Why does "shadow" then represent Naama as beauty and loveliness? We have explained that beauty is revealed through modesty. Now we will go deeper.

NAAMA is both a finite and infinite force. Through her, a man resolves his finite forces and connects to the infinite. She is thus the "shadow" of "man," in that man must seek, from the finite light, the mystery of darkness, beyond ken. This unseen infinity is "shadow." Beauty and loveliness are transcendent energies that connect a man trapped in entropy to the renewal of infinite mystery. NAAMA, or loveliness, is thus the connecting force. When we gaze upon beauty we sense this higher energy, and it frees us and encourages us.

Albert Einstein said, "The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the power of all true art and science... To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness…" This is a very tricky statement. It says that we "experience" the "mystical." It claims that something "impenetrable" "really exists." It describes this impenetrable mystery as "the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty." It avers, "Our dull faculties can comprehend [this wisdom and beauty] only in their most primitive forms."

Einstein was talking about our "beauty" as "shadow." Beauty must unite with transcendence. When we see wisdom and beauty something clicks within us and struggles to see further. This struggle is the true wisdom and beauty of life. Wisdom and loveliness invoke a veil and halo of transparency. Our mind must summon our soul. The soul, however, cannot be seen clearly. Therefore, wisdom and beauty draw us to their hidden source, or "shadow."

NAAMA, or "loveliness," is the numerical value of two words, "shadow" and "man." Man is a term that includes male and female ("male and female He created them and called their name Adam"). When male and female reach their zenith of actualization, they have achieved "wisdom and beauty." They must next find the hidden spiritual and supernal source of their relationship. Each step in marriage and intimacy reveals another depth to the "shadow" of the soul. The soul touches and teaches wisdom and beauty. It informs the mundane facts of humanity.

We have perhaps entered an arcane area, but we must go further. Our topic is crucial for not only understanding wisdom, beauty and humanity, but also to comprehend our present era and the sexual problems it spawns. Sexuality is the expression of the person, and the person is the sum of his beliefs. The problems of modern sexuality and gender are rooted in our world outlook, our Weltanschauung. For us to have a full sexual experience, we must fulfill our humanity and our view of life. What does Judaism say about this? What is the failure of the West in this regard?

There is a great difference between Judaism and other idealisms and religions. Judaism does not allow a mortal to declare religion. "No prophet may innovate." A prophet can adjure and encourage, but not declare law. A prophet certainly may not declare basic principles about the deity. Judaism therefore is free of the mortal battles defining the deity that divided the West. Many if not all nations of the world rejected Sinai as G-d's charge to Israel. Once bereft of G-d's revealed Law, the nations of the world had to invent not only a Law but also a deity to go along with it, because they had no tradition. This led to the mighty wars that consumed the West. What wars they were! There was the Hundred Years War and the Thirty Years War. At the end of the Thirty Years War, according to historian Jacques Barzun, the exhausted religious camps in the West introduced secularism and constrained religion. From that time to the present, the West has survived, or at least attempted to, by imposing a secular boundary between religious camps. In other words, in the West, religion is dangerous, and secularism is a savior. In time, secularism became idealism similar to religion, and began lopping off heads for secular purposes. The past centuries saw the French Revolution, Communist slaughters, and the Nazi regime.

The West failed in its effort to curb religion and idealism. Furthermore, religion and idealism represent terror. This led in the West to a fear of the positive, of Truth, of searching, because it always ended up with mass murder. America was built with the ideal of making money and putting idealism and religion safely aside. The fear of religion and idealism produced a negative attitude. This explains the decline of nineteenth century art into abolitionism, surrealism and dada, all aimed at uprooting Structure. Structure means Truth, and Truth is dangerous. We therefore escape the danger by living in an anti-truth. We paint mustaches on the Mona Lisa and write nonsensical poems, prized for their nonsense. Sense is scary, so nonsense is in. What does this have to do with sexuality?

Sexuality is "and Adam knew his wife." Sexuality is Truth; it is the clearest knowledge. It reveals you and the supernal source of mystery. Sexuality cannot function in a world of dada. Sexuality must liberate the inner spirit and find a finite home for infinite energies. Sexuality cannot survive nonsense, negativity and fear of Truth.

The modern age knows that religion and idealism are fearsome, and that Truth is dangerous. Western man fears Truth and does not dare know himself. He functions, he gets along, he makes rules for the betterment of human mechanical function, but the mystery and the soul are not there. When it comes to sexuality, the negatives obfuscate and deny fulfillment. The modern age painted mustaches on the Mona Lisa and drew clouds upon contentment. It confused people, and denied them the Truth of Intimacy. Up to eighty percent of women in some studies told of their anguish at sex with men. The man does not have his essence together, and therefore cannot be "kindness." The female does not have her essence together, and therefore cannot be "strength" and "justice." Each confused person seeks something from the other, and from intimacy. They do not realize that intimacy is not a therapy for confused people. Sexuality multiplies their original confusion. Modern sexology therefore pursues other areas. A major professor said, "Spirituality is autoeroticism." Let us repeat that. "Spirituality is auto-eroticism." Spirituality is being alone, masturbating, and finding… How sad. How inevitable.

Naama or "loveliness" is the human knowing Truth. Truth begets Truth. We meet another person who has Truth, who knows what Life is, who has no fear of religion and idealism, and is confident in their worldview. Two such people find themselves focused in intimacy, and sexuality ratchets up the Truths originally known. This is "loveliness." Those without religion and focused idealism come to intimacy searching and fumbling; sex has no worldview to explain it. Therefore, people utilize the entertainment culture with its grotesque caricature of sexuality as "sex." Without transcendence, where do people go in their unions? They go their separate ways. They go away, far away, farther than they ever imagined.

Sex, Evil and the Flood

There is an evil potential to sexuality, and nobody is safe from it. Some say that Cain murdered Abel because they fought over a woman. That nice sweet man over there may be a child molester. Beware of sexual enticement. That is what the bible, especially in Proverbs, teaches.

The story of the Flood of Noah is about a world of immoral sex. Even the animals, sensing the evil vapors from human conduct, became ruined. The Flood was the response to this. How did this happen? The Flood story in the bible is in Genesis chapter six. Chapter V begins with some hints about the decline of the human race that led eventually to the Flood.

(Genesis 5,1) "This is the book of the generations of Adam. On the day that G-d created Adam, He made him in the likeness of G-d."

The bible begins about "the generations of Adam." It immediately interrupts, "G-d created Adam." We know already that G-d created Adam. Why did the bible repeat this fact? Why did it interject this in the story of Adam and Eve and their posterity?

The key to procreation is intimacy, and the key to intimacy is to know what a person is. From this, we can be "male and female." Without knowing what a human is, without a direct connection to the supernal sources of the spirit, we cannot be human. We become dada and abolitionists. We rebel and take drugs. There is no positive way for us.

Therefore, when describing the progeny of Adam and Eve, the first step is to elevate Adam. The bible therefore says that Adam was created in the likeness of G-d. G-d has no physical form; however, emulating G-d elevates a human being. As the Talmud says, "Just as G-d is kind, so must you be kind." We create light from darkness, just as G-d did. We fight evil and promote benevolence because G-d wants this and has assigned such a task to us. We are therefore in "the likeness of G-d." When we procreate, we do so, not mired in dada or "sex" in the secular sense, heaven forefend, but "in the likeness of G-d."

The next passage says, "Male and female He created them, and He blessed them and He called their name Adam, on the day they were created." Adam could not deal with Eve until he realized that he was "in the likeness of G-d." The two of them became one, "Adam," and shared the Truth and self-confidence of G-d's grace and "likeness." Only then, could Adam and Eve begin procreation, and hope to preserve in their progeny the optimism of "Adam."

For ten generations things held, until powerful men stole women and began sexual improprieties. G-d then brought the flood. What happened?

(Genesis 6,1) "And it was when the man began to multiply upon the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them."

Decline began when "man began to multiply upon the face of the earth." What does multiplying have to do with decline? Why mention man was "upon the face of the earth"? Did he perhaps multiply upon the face of the moon or sun? This is of course redundant, and redundant passages contain deep ideas.

There were two major failings of the human race after the Expulsion from the Garden. One, three generations after Creation, the generation of Enosh despaired of a close relationship with G-d, and turned to intermediaries and paganism. This was an intellectual failing, but people still maintained themselves as human beings. There was then no biblical discussion of floods or destruction. (The rabbis, however, mention a small flood.) Now, in the tenth generation after Creation, the passage tells of something else, not a mere intellectual deterioration, but a sexual one. Once people become involved with sexual sins and the world was mired in it, G-d made the Flood. Rabbi Isaac Luria says that paganism, even as it denies G-d, does not corrupt the inner essence of the person. It is an intellectual sin, and the intellect is only on the surface. Sexual dissolution, on the other hand, is utterly ruinous to the human being.

How did the sexual decline set in?

First, men began to multiply upon the face of the earth. Originally, there were only a few people. People felt important because they all knew each other. People who feel worthy marry properly and exalt in the proper procedures of procreation. They have no need for illicit sex. As people multiply, there is a decline in their self-confidence.

Not only are there many people, but also they "multiply upon the face of the ADOMO (ground)." Note that the word ADOMO is used for "world." ADOMO means "earth" or "soil." Earth and soil have no specific form or shape. Here the individual is negated. Also, people multiplied “upon the face of the ground.” ADOMO or ground itself has a deeper connotation as the life force. “Truth grows from the earth.” However, the “face” of the ground indicates superficiality, an external and not innate level. People no longer felt significant.

People lacked self-confidence. Male "kindness" requires the self-assurance of one ready to "give." A broken man cannot give; he can only take. As people multiplied and became less important, as they gravitated downward from the "likeness of G-d" to "the face of the ground," couples were unable to have proper intimacy. Men now became "takers" and did not "give" to women but "took" them. A person who feels inferior to others finds strength by conquering others.

"And daughters were born to them." Note the passive tense. Daughters "were born" to them. It does not say, "They gave birth to daughters." Daughters "were born" without the parents feeling important before or afterwards. Parents who had no pride in themselves had no pride in a child. A daughter became a thing, similar to the secular woman who is taken and spit out.

Now began the desperate need to feel strong. People were locked into a life of "ground" and lowliness. They wanted to find power and freedom. They wanted to soar and not crawl. They did not feel in the "likeness of G-d," so instead, they became rapists. They did not come to "know" women; they came to ruin them. The secularists, when talking of intimacy, use words that indicate that the act is an obscenity. This is not cuteness or secular cleverness. This is an accurate description of what secular man thinks of secular woman. She is a thing, and sex is the realization of lowliness, the opposite of the biblical procreation in "the image of G-d."

After the Second World War, a Japanese soldier explained how he felt when he first murdered an innocent civilian. He said that he felt a surge of strength. Those who feel innately weak must make themselves strong by conquering others. The strongest and more vicious the conquest, the stronger the murderer feels.

"And the sons of the powerful ones saw the daughters of the Adam that they were good, and they took for themselves women from all that they chose."

What was so good about women? It does not say that they were lovely or delightful, only "good." Good for what? This is one problem. The biggest problem, however, is to translate the phrase that we render "the sons of the powerful ones." In the Hebrew, the word for powerful (ELOKIM) can be holy or secular. It can refer to G-d, naming Him as Powerful, or it can refer to a judge or any powerful person. Targum Unkelus and Rashi render it in the secular so we translate it "sons of the powerful ones." The Ibn Ezra, however, translates it in the Holy sense, referring to holiness. The "sons of G-dliness" were pious and devoted to holiness. They were able to discern with their wisdom who was the proper mate, and because of this, they produced great offspring. Ibn Ezra adds that they probably took these women by force. This is incredible. He says that they were pious people, and then he says that they took the women by force.

The pious people who are "sons of G-dliness" were able to discern with their wisdom or heavenly calculations what woman was appropriate for them. They knew what women was the highest spiritually, what woman had the highest soul and who the most appropriate match was. They saw the "goodness" in women. The only problem was that they did not court the woman and convince her to marry. They took her by force. They took her because they wanted her good and spiritual powers, and they were not particular if she consented. This violation of a women and their spirituality caused G-d to bring the Flood.

The violation of women thus takes place regardless of our respect for them. The same people whose wisdom allowed them to appreciate women nonetheless did not respect women. Lack of respect led ultimately to utter denigration. We find what this means when we study Greek society. In his work, "The Greek Achievement," historian Charles Freeman writes (page 87): "Wives were never able to dine with their husbands in Greek society; the women portrayed at banquets were always hetairai, courtesans." Not only did the Greeks not dine with their wives, they were not ashamed to be pictured with hetairai. A wife was worse. Family was lower than the drinking halls. On page 286, Freeman quotes the scholar Charles Segal summing up the Greek attitude towards women: "She has her place within the sheltered domain of the house, but also has affinities with the wild savage world of beasts outside of the limits of the city wall." The Greek woman marries and (page 288- Sophocles) "When we reach puberty…we are thrust out and sold away…from our parents. Some to go to strange men's homes, others to foreigners, some to joyless houses, some to hostile. And all this once the first night has hooked us to our husband we are forced to praise and say all is well." Freeman quotes Euripides' play, "Of all things that are living and can form a judgment we women are the most unfortunate creatures." And, "I would much rather stand three times in the front of battle than bear one child." (Emphasis added)

When we realize that Greek ideas influenced Western thought, we realize something of the challenge of being a Western woman. Of course, elsewhere it is even worse. The Chinese regularly drown a baby if it is a girl, even today. The Moslems just stoned a woman because her relative raped her. Judaism is different than the world in many respects, but the attitude towards women is surely one of the great singularities.

"From all that they chose." It means in the first instance the forced marriage of single women, and it leads to "all they chose," the rape and theft of married women. At this point, the sanctity of society and the holiness of the home collapsed.

Male and Female

"And the sons of ELOKIM (G-d) saw the daughters of the Adam." They were the sons of ELOKIM, the holy Female force of spirituality. They thus violated their male kindness essence. Instead of marrying with the Ineffable Name and transcendence, they wanted to look over their bride in a finite manner. They wanted to judge her in purely physical and finite terms. They did not thus manifest or invoke their male potential to unite, through marriage, the Ineffable Name and the Name Elokim, the marriage of Names that sustains the world. Instead, they wrought destruction by bringing together two female forces, which cannot survive. They "saw" the woman, the first step, as we explained, towards their decline. Next, they failed further by relating to women as if they were the "sons of G-dliness" and she was merely the "daughter of man." In reality, it was the reverse. She, not he, was the repository of the Schechinah, or Divine Presence. They, however, took for themselves the spirituality role and denigrated women.

A man who is "kind" sees goodness in others. A man who is "female" "takes" and wants the glory for himself. He must always be superior to others. A man who sees a woman as a servant or something to improve his life takes her and does not give. This is the opposite of Torah marriage.

Samson said of a woman that she was "proper in my eyes." This was a sin, because we do not "see" a woman with our eyes. Eventually, the Philistines gouged out the eyes of Samson. We must relate to a woman as soul to soul, although of course we want to satisfy ourselves in other ways. What goes into your eye is not the whole woman. If that is all she is, you have not a woman, but a thing.

I have married off five daughters. The parents of bride and groom do all of the work. When our exhaustive efforts talking to many people about the boy are finally rewarded, and we are onto something, we then ask for a photograph, and so does the other side. If all is well, a meeting is arranged. I meet the boy and others can listen (in the next room) if they want. If all is well, the boy and girl meet. When the girl first meets the boy, she is sure that there is nothing wrong with him, and that he is compatible in every area. She knows that the parents have worked very hard to check things out. She knows that the parents want this boy for her. The only problem is the chemistry. That sometimes takes a few meetings.

It does not begin with the makeup. Those attracted by makeup first float in and out of pseudo-marriages and relationships, until their eyes are blurred and their hearts are awash in tears. We do not "see" a mate with physical eyes alone, although that is surely crucial. There are, however, other important things, and all must click together.

"That they were good." The sons of Elokim saw that the women were good. That is, they judged them; they visited upon women the exacting of the female force. They looked them over and judged them, and there was no kindness, no vulnerability, and no appreciation of the woman. Yes, she was good; but she was a good thing. Perhaps she was even good spiritually, but she was judged and not offered the higher kindness that she required to thrive.

"And they took for themselves women." "Taking" is feminine. Now the men became "women." They took "for themselves," not for her. The male must be "kindness" and "self-abnegation." The female "takes" these lights, actualizes them "for herself", and actualizes both of them. However, now the evil men of the generation of Noah "took" women "for themselves," the opposite of kindness. Without kindness, the world could not exist. Just as later Sodom was destroyed because it eschewed kindness, so now the Flood would consume the world because of this rejection of benevolence and the enthroning of the "taking" traits in men.

There are two traits indicated in the destruction of the world with the Flood and Sodom. One is lack of kindness. Sodom hated hospitality. The other is homosexuality, as we find in the bible the male populace wanted to rape the guests of Lot. In the Flood, we find the same things. People not only were not kind, they tormented others by stealing from them. They were also homosexuals. Is there a connection between lack of kindness and homosexuality?

Male to female must be kindness to taking. A male who has no kindness cannot “sweeten” the woman’s ferocious justice capacity. He is “female” and thus seeks out a “male,” as in homosexuality.

Marriage is not a picnic, although some people achieve bliss. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Aurebach of Jerusalem, the leading authority of the generation, came to his elderly wife's funeral, and refused to ask her forgiveness, as is customary. People were shocked. Could the rabbi not beg forgiveness from his wife of perhaps sixty years? He explained: "I will not ask forgiveness. I never did anything to displease her." When told this story, a younger saint, Rabbi Aaron Stern of Kaminets Yeshiva responded. "Of course such is possible. If you live properly, this should be the norm." Everyone understood that in his marriage, too, there was never a bad moment!

I just came from comforting a bereaved family. An elderly father and grandfather passed away. He left an exceptional brood of children. I asked the children how the father succeeded so well in raising children. They explained that the father never allowed in the family any gossip or negative talk about another person, for any reason. Here is kindness even to people who are not around you, people who do not even know if you are talking about them. One who has true kindness respects others and humanity, and never speaks “evil tongue” talk. Thus, loshon hora, evil tongue talk, is a major sin.

The above rabbis who had perfect marriages are the exceptions. Marriage, even for saints, is sometimes awful. A rabbi once came to his father, a renowned seer, and asked who was a good wife. Who was the woman of whom it is said, "He who found a wife, finds good"? The seer replied, "Your mother." The son then asked, "And who is meant by the passage, 'I find the wife worse than death'?" The seer replied, "Your mother." The Talmud quotes this conversation to show that marriages are not perfect. People have their moods. Sometimes there is bliss, and sometimes the opposite. We come to marriage with the idea that our lives cannot be without it. Only in rare circumstances are there problems that require divorce. Some rabbis are of the opinion that almost any marriage with a good sexual rapport will survive. A senior rabbi in Israel was noted for not divorcing people who came to him for a divorce. He would take the husband for a walk, and there was no more talk of divorce.

"From all that they chose." Once men lost kindness and began "taking," it was a small step to take by force. Without kindness, and with total selfishness, no barrier existed to force and rapine.

"And G-d (the Ineffable Name) said, 'My Spirit will not judge inside Adam forever, in as much as he is flesh." The Ineffable Name is not pronounced. It represents Hidden Transcendence. The only way to deal with it is through self-abnegation. One who is abnegated is not bound by finite boundaries. He can approach the Hidden Transcendence. For this reason, Moses reached his level with “modesty,” or self-abnegation. When one practices kindness and negates himself, he approaches the Hidden Transcendence.

Men had now rejected kindness. Instead, they “took,” a level only possible in the female purity of Schechinah and the Revealed Transcendence. Taking is female and justice, the opposite of kindness, and can only be done successfully in the home.

Men had rejected kindness and the Hidden Transcendence. Therefore, G-d responded to this rejection and said, "My spirit will not 'judge' inside Adam forever." Since they do not want "male" forces, and have rejected the Ineffable Name, the divine spirit cannot remain in a world without kindness. G-d said, "My Spirit will not judge…" It will not become a female force of justice. It will remain kindness. It will therefore not stay forever inside of man, who rejects kindness.

"Inasmuch as he is flesh." How can the Divine Ineffable Name and Spirit remain inside of a mortal of flesh? This can only be when the mortal practices kindness. If we practice kindness, G-d practices kindness and remains with us. Otherwise, He leaves. When G-d's Name for Kindness leaves, what remains is the Name of ELOKIM, or "justice." This leads to punishment. There are 120 combinations of the five letters of the divine Name ELOKIM, and they represent the consummation of "justice." Punishment would thus come in 120 years. From this Divine Utterance, 120 years passed before the Flood came and destroyed the world.

6,4: "The fallen ones were in the land in those days and also afterwards when the sons of ELOKIM (G-dliness or powerful people) came to the daughters of the Adam and they gave birth for them. They are the strong ones who from antiquity are men of renown."

There are two people and two times: The fallen ones earlier and the sons of G-dliness later. "Fallen ones," without women, preceded the "sons of G-dliness" who came to women and had children. However, the “fallen ones” were earlier than the “sons of Elokim” were but also appeared after them, perhaps because of them. If so, there were two manifestations of the “fallen ones,” one before and one after the sons of ELOKIM. Perhaps the latter phase tells of the fallen ones who resulted from the deeds of the sons of ELOKIM.

"The fallen ones were in the land in those days." Rashi explains, "In the days of Enosh." Enosh was the third generation; he followed Adam and Seth. Maimonides says Enosh and his generation despaired of G-d's favor and invented intermediaries. They "fell" from the lofty position of praying directly to G-d, and turned instead to angels. They "fell" further and felt that they could not even deal with angels, so they worshipped the stars as intermediaries. They "fell" further and felt that even this was too high, and they kept falling until they baked images in the oven and worshipped them. However, these sins were intellectual failings. At this point, there was no problem with women. Only later, around the time of Noah, did men "take" women and destroy the world.

"The fallen ones" who lost their self-confidence "were in the land." "Land" is a key word. "Land" is a "high" word for earth. The fallen ones of the earlier era of Enosh were "in the land" or a higher world. Later on, as people multiplied and became unimportant in their own eyes, it says, (6,1) it says, "and it was when the Adam began to multiply upon the face of the ground." It does not say "land," it says "ground." We mentioned that "ground" indicated that people were low. They "multiplied" so that a person felt lost in the crowd. Self-confidence disappeared. "Falling" replaced it, and invoked the need to conquer others to feel good.

Sexual sins did not begin in the time of Enosh. However, the "falling" of people began then. It was just a question of time before people would sin sexually and even become violent with women. This happened in the time of Noah. However, the story of Noah is really the story of Enosh. Therefore, Enosh and Noah's generation, a span of seven generations, was really one story. When people think lowly of themselves, it is just a question of time before they turn on others, especially women.

If, indeed, the key to the story of the Flood was the story of Enosh, what could Enosh do? How could he realize, together with his generation, that people are not "fallen"? Remember that the passage about the "fallen ones" says that they were in the "land," a high term for the world. It took many generations for people to decline until they were people of the "ground," rather than "land."

The "land" called out to the generation of Enosh. People err and feel inferior and lowly, so they think they are in the "ground." However, they are not. Even as people fall, they are in the "land," and the "land" calls to them to rise back to their earlier state. It is unnatural to be "fallen," and it is natural to feel the power of spirituality emanating from "the land." Thus, people in those days intellectually despaired of being close to G-d, but the land and nature called out to them to realize their importance.

The bible tells us that this voice from heaven, this call to return to G-d's favor and direct praying to Him, does not cease speaking to people. The "land" called out to people when they first fell intellectually, when they were still pure physically, as they had not raped anyone. It called out to them even afterwards, when they had corrupted their human essence by rapine: "And also afterwards when the sons of the powerful came to the daughters of the Adam and they gave birth for them." Never does this voice go silent. It cries out, "You are worthy of being close to G-d. You must not fall, you must rise."

However, what did people do with this tendency encouraged by the inner voice? "They are the powerful ones who were from antiquity the men of renown." They quieted this voice by becoming conquerors, by more rapine and savagery.

A great rabbi, Reb Shneur Zalman of Liadi, once was riding in a wagon. He suddenly called to the driver, "Beryl, do you need a vodka?" Beryl replied, "Rabbi, how did you know that I was just consumed with a thirst?" The rabbi replied, "Every day a heavenly voice goes forth and arouses people, and I just heard the voice. I was inspired to love G-d, and I knew that you would want a vodka."

The voice of "the land" calls out to us. Nature will not tolerate a fallen person. We have, however, the free choice to respond to the call of "the land" by achieving power over others, and becoming important by drinking, taking drugs and "wiping out the competition" in business. The "powerful" people are slaughterers and murderers whose names are familiar to everyone. Do we know the saints of the past or the generals? How many people did Napoleon and Alexander kill? They are the heroes of history.

(6,5) "And G-d saw that the evil of the man was great upon the land, and that all structure of thoughts of his heart was only evil all of the day."

The evil was great "upon the land." Of course, it was upon the land. This is superfluous. However, in the context of our previous discussion, we understand perfectly. As long as man had nothing to remind him of goodness, he was not so wicked and culpable. Only when the "land" cried out to man that he was high and spiritual, worthy of G-d and surely worthy of not being raped, did people hear and become intentional sinners—they thus forfeited their right to mercy.

Life is filled with "land" reminders, impulses within our soul and nature that remind us to love others and ourselves. When we ignore these eternal voices, we are wicked. Our wickedness is "great" because we defy our spiritual nature.

G-d waited to see the result of the battle between the "land" reminders of goodness and the despair of people. Perhaps they would wrestle with their conflicting forces. Perhaps they would spend a few hours a day thinking of rapine and a few hours a day thinking about decency. G-s rejected people who lived without good thoughts but devoted themselves evil.

This is a very important principle in life and especially in marriage. We must not be black and white. We must accept that there are gradations. Even when we decide that somebody must be bad, even when our fury with our spouse or fellow is grounded in solid evidence, we must try to pause and think a good thought. Can we squeeze one in?

There was the rabbi who heard a Jew, in a bad mood, blaspheme. The rabbi said, "You see, when he is in a bad mood he blames it on G-d, and he is angry at G-d. This shows that he really believes in G-d." Another person would say, "Look at that heinous sinner, the blasphemer."

Within our failings are often rays of light. Why do people get angry? They are on occasion upset about something for good reasons. Their response is wrong, but their provocation may have been right. Sometimes we are angry, period, and need to let it out on somebody. We pick our spouse because we trust them not to abuse us in our moment of need, and to accept our anger for our benefit. If the spouse looks at it that way, fine, but if not, there are fights. Ultimately, however, the anger and the abuse were rooted, not in denigration of the other, but in trust. We must separate the two, the anger and its cause, and not throw out the baby with the bath water.

G-d waited to see if at least something good was left. If there was, it could develop. "Even if one of a thousand says something good," we have hope. If not, there is despair.

At one convention for the honor of the Torah, the hall lights were turned out, and one match was lit. Everyone noticed it. "That is what one person against the world can do," said the speaker. “One small deed can shine in a dark world and bring hope."

"And all YETSER thoughts of his heart were only evil all day." What does YETSER mean? Our working translation was "structure." There is, however, another idea in the literal translation.

The word YETSER is related to the word YETSIRO or "formation." We take a clay clump and work it. We "form" it into anything we want. This is "formation." It is taking something and making it into something else. Our lives are processes of "formation." We take one thing or many things together and make a cake from them, a marriage, or whatever. The human being lives to "form." He makes his life out of disparate entities, and forms and unites them to serve his inner directives. We hope that even a wicked person, in between evil acts, thinks about decency. Is there a drop of regret or penitence in the heart? The bible blames the people of the time of Noah not just for evil deeds, and not only for their evil thoughts. The entire slant of their lives was towards evil. The formative process was directed to bad things. The YETSER, the formative force, was evil. For this came the Flood.

The formative force was programmed for evil "all day." Our day has many moods and cycles. Some divide the day into one hour of this kind of mental process, and the following half hour of another. We study math during one section of that time and we think creatively during the other section. Within the range of our "day", we can go from one extreme to the other. Morally, people also have moods. We hope for an evil person to have part of his day devoted to good thoughts. Not so the people at the time of Noah. They were evil "all day." Evil consumed them.

Sexual sins powered this deep decline. Sexual sins have the power to disconnect our soul and plug it into the sewer. There is sometimes nothing left but pedophilia and drugs. Sexuality is perhaps the greatest energy-source. It can raise us to heaven or it can plunge us in the opposite direction. Everything depends on our self-essence, self-esteem and self-acceptance. When we connect with heaven, our intimacy is heavenly. When we fall in our own estimation, we fall away from G-d, and our lives and sexuality turn negative and destructive.

Polarity

Here we discuss the "male" and "female" polarity of sexuality. The challenge of sexuality, according to Mr. Edward Eichal, a noted sexologist, is that people are not comfortable with polarity. A man is a man and a woman is a woman. When the male comes to the female, she is not easily accommodated. Studies show just how high the rates of dissatisfaction with sexuality are, some as high as eighty percent. Therefore, some sexologists despair and tell us to ignore heterosexuality, because opposite genders are incompatible. Homosexuality, on the other hand, produces a culture of unfaithfulness, which is shattering to the faithful. Some therefore refuse sexuality with others, and relieve themselves with "auto-processes."

The issue, however, is not polarity. Opposite genders are compatible, and always have been. The modern secular world refuses the male and female the opportunity to be truly male or female. Especially the female is confused about her role. What is a woman? She has to work, she has to go into the male world, and yet, she is supposed to be a wife and mother. Who is she? Can she be a wife if she is not respected? Can she be a mother when she has no power to control her children? A nurse once told me, with obvious pain, that her marriage would be without children, because today, who knows what they will become, and you cannot control them. Can such a woman be happy with life? Often, people reveal their frustrations during sexuality, because there the inner truths will out, and the fake smile for the office and street will not do.

The solution is to realize the intense damage done when we confuse our gender roles. A man must be a man and a woman a woman, just as they are in Orthodox Judaism. In every community where men and women are confused about their gender role, we have serious problems in marriage, family and sexuality. Those who despair and declare that homosexuality is the answer should remember the sad example of Gloria Steinhem. She, a beauty who lived as a prostitute, finally tired of her shame, and called to women to reject men and to become lesbians. Two generations of secular women heeded her cry, and gave up men. Now, at the age of 67, she has married, and her followers are devastated. We can go here and there, or even take drugs, but until a man is a man, and a woman is a woman and they mate, people are not going to find what they need.

The Flood came about because people violated women and eventually lost interest in them. They turned to homosexuality. The frustration of a failed relationship with women does that, as it did for a long time to Gloria Steinhem. Although by nature a natural man wants a natural woman, this is only when a man feels good and is prepared to honor and respect a woman. A man who feels like "taking" cannot find in a woman what he wants, one, because she is not a woman when he "takes" her, and secondly, because without a man to arouse her, the woman is not going to perform properly. Eventually, frustration and recriminations lead to coldness and failure in sex, and the relationship, indeed, the core of the two individuals, is corrupted and gone.

Homosexuality is such a situation. It is the corruption of proper sexuality, and the confusion of gender ideals. Homosexuality is also a violation of the previously discussed Names of G-d system, whereby proper male and female sexuality unleashes great heavenly Male and Female forces. Therefore, the rabbis taught, in the Talmud and Cabala, that homosexuality is not only a sin; it is a loss of direction, a morass, so that "you are lost in it." The word TOEVO means "abomination." However, there is also an Aggadic "play" on the word, turning it for arcane discussion into two words, "you are lost in it." This means that there are intellectual or even sexual sins whereby we remain within the same framework despite our sin. When we sin, however, with homosexuality, we confuse our entire essence, and in this world and the higher dimensions, the male and female polarity system disintegrates. Dissolution of gender roles produces spiritual dissolution, until we are without a map or compass, floating in the jetsam of a shattered system of supernal lights and humanity.

We now come in the bible to the generation of Noah, the decline of heterosexual sex, rapine, and ultimately, homosexuality and bestiality. There is a great difference between heterosexual and homosexual sex. Heterosexual sex is enjoyed once, twice, five times a week, with a partner or with several partners, but it is rarely "stuffed" as is homosexual sex. A homosexual may have anal intercourse with fifteen people in one night; he often does not know any of them. Whatever a homosexual finds in sex, it has nothing to do with sex. When a person has sex without love, without knowing or caring who the partner is, sexuality becomes a mere chemical reflex, like a bath or massage. People are unimportant. The homosexual drive is often a compulsion similar to drugs, having nothing to do with personalities, only strange processes that bring some pleasure and relief to anxiety.

When a person has heterosexual sex with a loving and permanent partner, a wife, the act satisfies and fulfills. It releases all of the energies and emotional toxins it was supposed to release. If, however, the act makes the person feel lowly, if the act encourages and maximizes negative thoughts and impulses, the sexuality creates more toxins. Just as the alcoholic must drink, but afterwards rues it, so those with compulsive addictions, especially in sex, finish their day raging with loneliness and self-debasement. Each attempt to satisfy simply digs the pit deeper, and it never is filled up.

One who has sex to still anxiety is desperate for something he cannot find. He must sooth his pain with the opiates of sex, drugs or eating. He has sex with a partner and does not end the anxiety, and soothes it only temporarily. In a few minutes he is off and running to find someone else. Fifteen in a night is common. There are bathhouses where people come and have homosexual intercourse with dozens of total strangers. The anxieties that produce such drives are toxic and they maximize venomous forces; they take a fallen soul and push it lower into the gutter. Artificial highs often lead to lows worse than the original anxiety. Perverse sexuality to relieve anxiety produces even worse anxiety, until the person is running around the block, finding everybody in sight, spraying into his infected anus cans and cans of lubricant, but he has none for his heart and soul. Every failure at relief simply fuels the fire of anxiety higher, and drives the person to still lower and lower perversities and denigration, which produces more anxiety, which produces sexuality that is more perverse, etc., in an endless cycle.

Can a human being sleep with a beast? Can a human being stop feeling human? Of course. What can be done about it is another subject and does not belong here. It invokes religion, psychology and biology. We don't say, however, that a human being that becomes fallen is not worthy of redemption, or that we can wag a finger. As one lesbian said, "I hope my children don't become gay." Being gay is a painful life. Those who have it may come out of the closet and demand respect, but they are not filled with joy at being gay. What they do and what we do to help them find a life is another topic. It is too important to be squeezed between two passages of our exegesis and gender discussion. "There will still be a set time for this to be seen."

Let us continue the story of Noah and the Flood. We now come to a twist on the subject of polarity.

Polarity of Good and Evil Forces

The polarity of male and female is simply part of the universal polarity such as positive and negative electrical charges, and quarks and electrons in the atom. We will now study the polarity of good and evil, as it applies to the human mind and spirituality.

(6,6) "And G-d regretted that He made the Adam [humankind] in the land, and He was saddened to His heart." Of course, G-d is not mortal and does not regret what He did. How then can the passage say, "G-d regretted that He made the Adam in the land"? There is much "spilled ink" over this question. Our discussion, however, has already discovered the pattern that will answer this question. How can G-d regret what He made? Note, it does not say that G-d regretted making Adam. It says, "And G-d regretted that He made the Adam [humankind] in the land." Why does it say, "in the land"? Of course, Adam was in the land. Was he in the sky?

We mentioned before that Adam is sometimes described as being "upon the ground," and sometimes as being "in the land." We said that "ground" is a low level, whereas "land" is a high level. We also said that "land" is the spiritual energies in nature; they pulsate and suffuse one's environment so when man falls, something tugs him back up. G-d did not regret making Adam. He regretted making Adam "in the land." His regret was that the land was calling to Adam and arousing him to return from his falling and failing. When Adam refused this call, he became obstinate and increasingly wicked. The "land" placed by G-d as a spiritual help to Adam now turned against Adam and made him evil. G-d regretted allowing the higher forces and energies of "land" to be corrupted and feed the evil force. G-d therefore stopped the vicious decline with the Flood. It is one thing to be evil and use evil forces. Still worse, is to be evil and use good forces. Evil, to triumph, must co-opt good forces. The worst slaughters are for religious and idealistic reasons.

In marriage, this is an important idea. Often, the good force, our idealism, is a threat, not help. There are women who love their husbands so much that they push them to try impossible ambitions, and the husbands fail and are broken. There are husbands who love their children so much that they torture them to improve them. The pain we bring to our spouses and children is far worse than the pain we bring to our worse enemies.

Rabbi Yisroel Salanter, the nineteenth century saint and scholar taught that there are in each of us good and evil forces, and that they are always in balance. There is, says Rabbi Salanter, an internal and external dimension in each of us. One is good and one is bad, but never are both either good or bad. If the internal is good, the external is evil. If the internal is evil, the external is good.

Thus, righteous people, whose external is pure good, have a pure evil internal. When they open the door slightly to evil and thus release the internal, the repressed pure evil rushes out and does incredible wickedness. On the other hand, the wicked have evil externals but good internals. When the evil person opens the door slightly to goodness, and thus releases the internal, the repressed pure good rushes out and does incredible good. There is always a balance. One or the other of the internal and external in us is good, and the other evil.

During the Second World War, rabbis struggling to save people from Hitler often found salvation among the worst people, even while "good" people refused to help. A ferocious Communist, bent on tormenting rabbis, relented and saved them. A gangster with blood on his hands saved a group of Jews and refused payment.

When people lose control and obey their compulsions, they violate their freedom and self-respect, a great evil. This takes place in the external, where the deeds are done. Inside, however, in the internal, there is good. The good balances, in its potential and actual tension, the evil. With each new depraved act, the internal goodness strengthens. This is one of the reasons that the compulsive-addicted person has such a hideous cycle of pain, relief and worse pain. Once he relieves himself with one act of evil, good forces flow into the internal and challenge him to do good. However, the external, where deeds are, is evil. The evil external senses this challenge from the good internal, and a great tension is set up. This produces anxiety, and the person solves it either by seeking solutions to satisfy his good part, or by plunging further into the opiates of pleasure seeking for temporary relief. If he commits evil, good energy flows into his internal, challenges the external, and makes him anxious. He then takes more opiates of pleasure etc., and so goes the cycle. If only the person can somehow attach himself to the steadily increasing good energies in his internal, he may save himself. It is no easy task, and the secular wisdom is that only a powerful spiritual experience can raise the person to utilize it. Spirituality is central to the process of the Twelve Steps program for addictions.

Once the person invokes his spirituality, however, he has a mighty army of internalized goodness awaiting marching orders. He has to break the barrier and let that good force flow in. Many people, alcoholics, homosexuals, drug addicts, etc., have succeeded in changing.

Keep in mind that we are never far from our opposite essence, for good or evil. This makes us cautious, and it gives us hope.

Let us digress a bit to study one aspect of the terror of idealism in the service of evil. Jewish persecution by the nations is mentioned in the bible. It began with Isaac, strengthened with Jacob, and the next generation, Joseph, saw the entire Jewish nation in Egypt. The Egyptians honored the arriving Israelites. However, slowly, the grip of exile tightened, until the Jews were slaves, even thrown into the river to die.

The Jews left Egypt and entered Canaan, and had various wars with surrounding nations. During the entire biblical period, we find only nationalistic wars. We never find that a gentile nation came to convert the Jews, to deny them freedom of religion, or to blaspheme G-d. Only Goliath blasphemed, and he did so only out of military challenge, to provoke some Jew to fight him. The Philistines fought with the Jews and were cruel at times, but they never interfered with Judaism and never forced anyone to convert to their religion. Thus, true anti-Semitism does not exist in the entire biblical period. The bible ends with Babylonia and Persia, two mighty empires who had religions but did not force the Jews to accept them. Babylonia raised up the Jewish rabbis to the highest positions, as did Persia. Persia even paid for part of the rebuilding of the Temple, and the Persian king honored the Jews and their temple. Only occasionally do we find that some king who was good to Jews in general made a nationalistic fervor out of religion, and the Jews suffered. This, however, was only indirectly aimed at Jews, and had nothing to do with anti-Semitism, at least from the king's part, even if jealous or hating courtiers manipulated the king. Even this latter kind of persecution is found only in the very end of the Biblical period, with Babylonia and Persia.

The post-biblical period began with the Greeks. The Greeks were "higher" people than the Babylonians and Persians. The Greeks were aflame with the science of Aristotle and the philosophy of Plato. They began to force Jews away from their religion. Thus, anti-Judaism arrived with the Greeks, not before. We see that the higher nation makes more trouble for the Jews than the primitive un-idealistic ones.

After the Greeks came pagan Romans. Rome was influenced by Greece but not so philosophical and "high." The Romans made trouble for the Jews, but it was mostly about empire, not about religion. Until the time of Constantine and his embrace of Christianity, the Jews had excellent relations with many Roman emperors, and leading rabbis were senior courtiers, close friends of the royal family. The mother of the emperor would personally greet one of the rabbis when he came to Rome, calling to him with the most effusive praise. (The Talmud makes it clear that the Roman destruction of the Temple was not aimed at Judaism, but was a nationalistic and empire problem.)

All of this changed with Roman Christianity. Christianity made it clear from the beginning that it would tolerate no other religion but itself. This was why Rome first persecuted Christians. When Constantine converted, one of the first happenings was an attack on a Roman synagogue. The emperor was upset, but a Bishop told him that it was his Christian duty to persecute the Jews. The Church kidnapped Jewish children, burnt Jews at the stake, forced entire communities to convert, and put Jews into the synagogue and burnt them alive. The church invented calumny upon calumny about Jews, that they drank Christian blood, that they had horns, and since the church had a monopoly on religion and learning, people believed it. The life of a Jew was misery. This was the work of the Church.

We see a pattern. The primitive pagan does not hate Jews per se and does not offend their religion. The Greek despises Judaism and the Christian hates Jews and fights Judaism. The higher person falls lower. The idealist is the worst offender. When the Communists took over Russia, they "purified the revolution" by simply slaughtering many of those who made the revolution in the first place. Need we say that they slaughtered everyone else as well? Stalin starved to death tens of millions of peasants.

When Stalin did this, the intellectuals of the West were silent, or supportive. Some of them were busy stealing atomic secrets for Stalin from America. They hated America and wanted Soviet Russia to control the world. Thus did idealists show their values. The religious people and the idealists make Jews and others suffer more than do pagans and primitive people. The higher they are, the lower they fall.

Thus, G-d regretted making man "in the land." The "land" indicates a higher person. This higher person, the philosophers and spiritual people, those who sought a deity and religion, became the lowest scum, far lower than the gross pagan did. The "land" causes this; therefore, G-d regretted making man "in the land," rather than in a simple and primitive setting. The "land" called out to man, and man responded with utter depravity. Without the call of the "land," man would have been content with minor sin. The "land" caused the true fall.

"And He was saddened to His heart." Does G-d have a heart? G-d has no form. Therefore, Maimonides says that all biblical anthropomorphisms are allegorical. What is the allegory of the heart?

There is a teaching that G-d said, "I did not reveal the Redemption time from My heart to My mouth." The "heart" of G-d is His inner thoughts. The "mouth" is the revealed thoughts. Sometimes, we think one thing to ourselves, and don't want to tell it to others, because it is too private. G-d's heart is the inner will of G-d, one that is so close to His Truth that He does not reveal it to others. What is the idea in our context, that G-d was sad to His heart?

Note it says, "and He was saddened to His heart." It does not say, "He was sad in His heart." "To his heart" means that the pain reached only "to his heart" but not inside of it. It appeared, as far as people are concerned, that G-d regretted, but of course, G-d's Essence does not truly regret. Thus, the regret did not reach "into" the heart, only "to" it, or approaching it.

The idea is we cannot know G-d’s heart, those thoughts relative to G-d and not for our purpose. G-d wants us to know, however, how much pain He has from human sin and destruction. The sadness reaches “to his heart.” It comes to a level approximating the inner Will of G-d people cannot know. However, in the true inner Will are answers to all questions people have, such as, Why did G-d fail with people when they sin? This is something we cannot understand in a world of testing and darkness.

(6,7) "And G-d said, 'I will erase the Adam that I created from the face of the earth [ground], from man to animal unto creeping things and including the fowl of the heaven, because I regret that I made them."

From the face of the "ground" is not the face of the "land." G-d created man from the "face of the ground," without the "land" inspiration as mentioned earlier. That came later as Adam improved when G-d blew a soul into Adam. In this "ground" level, man's body was similar to the beasts and fowl. Once man ignores the soul, man is like an animal and the world has no meaning. Man will plunge to the depths, as he did, and infect the very animals and fowl. Even they, say the rabbis, sinned by mating with other species. Man polluted the world utterly. It had to be destroyed.

The problem with this passage is that it is not true. G-d did not erase man. Noah and his family remained. G-d is saying, in response to the "land" thought we discussed in the previous passage, that He would erase the "ground" people who are like animals, and ignore their soul. He will not erase Noah who is a "land" and inspired spiritual person.

Therefore, the next passage is "And Noah found favor in the eyes of G-d."

Sexual Sins and Robbery

We will skip a few passages in the beginning of the story of Noah, and start at passage 6,11: "And the land became dissolute before G-d, and the land was filled with robbery." Rashi in his commentary tell us that "dissolute" refers to sexual sins. "Robbery" means that.

Why does it say that the land became dissolute "before G-d"? Just say that the land became dissolute. Was the dissolution "before G-d"? It was sexual sins done privately or even publicly but not "before G-d," as if it could be.

Sexual sins don't necessarily affect other people, only one's spirituality and relationship to G-d. Therefore, when talking of sexual sins, it says, "before G-d." Robbery, on the other hand, affects people. One does not rob in public because people will be outraged. In the time of Noah, however, robbery was commonplace, so nobody was embarrassed to steal. "And the land was filled with robbery." It does not mention G-d regarding robbery, because it wants to show that people had no fear of G-d when they sinned sexually, and had no fear of people when they sinned with stealing.

The Medrash says that people robbed in those days with trickery, not knives. For instance, a person would put out a pot of beans to sell. Each person would steal one bean, until the pot was empty. The owner of the pot could not get the courts to arrest a person for stealing one bean, and so, the civic code itself contributed to thievery, even though the individual thief stole only a small amount.

The cunning in usurping the law is a mighty sin of its own. The Medrash says that G-d saw this cleverness and said, "You want to be shrewd and twist the Law. I will twist nature and bring the Flood."

Rabbi Yehuda the Pious, a major medieval authority, says that in family and marriage, there are opportunities to "twist the law," and to hurt someone. There is for this twisting an account in heaven. One man refused to marry off his relative, because he wanted her money. He became sick, and before he died, confessed his sin, and said that he was dying because he let his relative suffer so that he could inherit her money. There are people who technically have grounds to break a marriage and let the spouse and children suffer. For such legal excuses one should tremble.

A businessman who was a scholar manipulated his business so that he could win a court case against his partner. The rabbi admonished him. "You have used the Torah to steal, and the Torah does not like it." The man immediately confessed.

In both phrases, "the land became dissolute before G-d," and "the land was filled with robbery" the Torah mentions "land." Remember that "land" is the higher level of earth. This indicates that from within nature a heavenly voice calls people to self-respect and decency. Now the "land" was corrupt and evil forces captured good energies.

The two phrases differ. Regarding sexual dissolution it says, "the land became dissolute." Regarding stealing it says, "and the land was filled with robbery." There is a difference. Land “becoming dissolute” means the fiber of the land was corrupted. Land “filled with robbery” means that the land itself was not corrupted but was filled with robbery. The land was like a sack that holds things [robbery] inside of it. Inside was robbery but the sack itself was not robbery. What does this mean?

It seems to mean that sexual crimes were far worse than robbery. Sexual crimes ruined the "sack" but robbery did not. Robbery only went "into the sack" without ruining the sack. This, however, is wrong.

In passage 13, Rashi tells us, "The decree against them was only sealed because of robbery." If so, robbery was worse than sexual sins. Indeed, there are those who argue that homosexuality is a biblical "abomination," so we should hate homosexuals. They don't know that the bible considers white-collar crime, violation of trust, not only an abomination, but also many terms of extreme censure [disgusting, pervert, cut off, wicked]. In addition, the homosexual has terrible compulsions from the deepest part of his nature to sin. The thief could work honestly, but deliberately sins. This is far worse.

The land, the goodness in nature, was created to reveal goodness. It was a sack filled with love and happiness, obeying G-d and decency. Now that "the land" was corrupted, it became a sack filled with robbery. When G-d saw what the sack was producing, He realized that the land was utterly ruined. Its ruination was at first apparent only by the rot of the sack. Later, things got worse and its ruining was seen by the contents of the sack. When the sack held robbery, and robbery that filled the world, it showed that goodness had been co-opted by evil, and the "land" now served the vilest of all sins, stealing. The rabbis teach, "If there is a box filled with sins, what pops out first to complain and prosecute? Stealing does." Sexual sins produced a rotten sack, but the true evil of the sack was when it filled itself with further sin, and robbery.

Rabbi Abraham Danzig, a senior disciple of Rabbi Elijah of Vilna, was one of the great scholars of the eighteenth century; he produced many classic books. Rabbi Danzig refused any rabbinical position and supported himself in business. He asked that on his tombstone only one thing should be said about him, that he, to the best of his knowledge, was honest in monetary dealings. The holy works say that the success of a family depends a lot on the honesty of the money in it.

Is there a connection between sexual sins and robbery? The Talmud teaches that there is a concept of "boundaries of the world." Just as we don't go into our neighbor's field or house, we don't violate the boundaries of nature. Sexual sins violate the boundaries of nature. From there, one violates the conventional boundaries of property. Ultimately, a sexual sinner can lose all boundaries. Thus, homosexuality is considered "he is lost there," as the boundaries have disappeared.

There are those who feel that a society can do just fine with people sinning sexually. This, however, is not true. When one sins sexually, their being in the Image of G-d is corrupted and their good lights become dissolute. They then turn from their private affairs to rob and damage society. First, a person begins with pornography, and then comes what comes, and often, it ends in pedophilia. A few years ago, a terrible child-murderer was executed. Before he died, he spoke to a minister. He said that he was a child of a deeply religious family. He found some magazines with pornography and enjoyed them. One thing led to another, until he murdered many children hideously. As his time to die came, a crowd gathered outside the prison, cheering his death. It began as sexual sins and ended in rapine and murder.

There are people who would never take a penny belonging to another. However, they think nothing of "robbing" their family, of not performing their duties as husband or wife. Just as in real robbery, people rationalize that they are not stealing, so in marital stealing people have all types of excuses. "This is not really stealing," and "the other one owes me," or “he/she is bad so why should I be good." The Talmud says that there are understood obligations in marriage. Robbery means more than pulling money from someone else's safe. It means that in marriage and life, there are obligations. If you do not fulfill them, you are a thief.

Another connection between sexuality and honesty is that sexuality can build or destroy us. A positive sexuality makes us into decent people, and then we are honest. A negative sexuality makes us dissolute, and we are inhuman. The world is filled with people who have every type of sexually transmitted disease, including HIV, and they just keep on infecting people. A woman just filed charges against her husband for infecting her with AIDS. He knew he was sick, but married her anyway. His punishment? Five years probation. In America, sexual crimes are not important, nor are women.

6,12) "And G-d saw the land and behold it was dissolute, because all flesh corrupted its way upon the land." Rashi explains, "Even domesticated animals, wild beasts, and fowl mated with foreign species."

It would seem that there were three levels. One, people sinned with illicit sex. This led to a breakdown of the "land" or higher elements of life, and people robbed. "The land was filled with robbery." Once robbery entered the picture, even the animals became corrupt sexually. What is the connection between illicit sex, robbery and animal corruption?

Illicit sex crosses cardinal boundaries of adultery, disease, and perversity. From there, it is a small step to robbery, which violates the delineation of ownership. Life is about boundaries. When sex breaks it down, we cannot understand the sin of stealing. Thus, sexual sin becomes the "sack" for robbery. Illicit sex says that the world exists only for one’s pleasures. If so, rob.

Evil acts corrupt the energies of nature and affect even animals. A California study showed that homosexuality in gulls, a species of birds, increased. This happened as few years ago when human homosexuality increased in California.

(6,13) "And G-d said to Noah, 'The end of all flesh has come before Me, because the land is filled with robbery because of them, and I am going to destroy them with the land.'"

"The end of all flesh" means the extreme of evil that cannot be allowed to continue. It "has come before Me." The deeds of people reach into the heavens. Good deeds delight the heavens, and sins pain the heavens.

"Because the land is filled with robbery." Rashi says that the Flood decree was sealed because of robbery. What is meant by "the land is filled with robbery because of them"? Unkelus renders this, "because of them doing evil." We could add another idea in connection with our discussion. “Because of them” means the sexual sins. "The land is filled with robbery because of them" implies that the sexual sins destroyed the fabric of boundaries in life, and from this came robbery. Thus, the robbery is invoked not only by a desire for someone's money, but by a breakdown in the structure of standards in society. Unkelus translates “because of them doing evil,” which we can explain is an evil that destroys boundaries and creates chaos and robbery.

When the world dissipates into chaos, the individuals who began this process feel free to indulge. G-d says, "the land is filled with robbery because of them." Each person is connected directly to the chaos by the sins they did. Chaos seems overwhelming, and we can't imagine any individual as the perpetrator of such worldwide catastrophe. However, in heaven, the accountings are exact. Everyone has his hand in the chaos, and everyone will have to account for each deed.

Accountability is crucial for individuals and society. Great and elderly rabbis were seen going about in the street in the very early morning fixing things so people would not fall and hurt themselves, or shoveling snow so that people could walk easily. They did these deeds at a time when nobody would see them, but eventually, the truth was known. This is accountability. If everyone says, "for me the world was created," they pull and push as hard as they can to promote a better world. This is certainly true of family. If we feel accountable for the family, we will put our shoulder to the wheel. Sometimes, there is a strong person who works, and another who does not. Recriminations eventually result. Everyone must do their share.

Another explanation for "the land is filled with robbery because of them," is that every deed carries with it the signature and picture of the sinner. This means that a sin is connected to the sinner. Our energies for good or evil rise to heaven and permeate the world. When they do, they represent us, and we are there for better or worse. G-d said, "The deeds are damaging heaven and earth, and the people who perpetrate these deeds are connected to them and are present in the damage."

The idea that people are connected to their sins is an interesting one. Firstly, it means that people are responsible for their deeds. Secondly, it means that a person is responsible for the deeds and the fallout of the deed. For instance, someone steals a loaf of bread from a desperately poor person who has nothing else to eat. The thief only stole a loaf of bread worth a dollar, but his sin is murder, because the person starves to death. Thus, our minor deeds can become major ones. Similarly, when we give a starving person a loaf of bread, we have only donated a dollar, but we have saved a life. Our deeds connect us to their aftermaths.

Another idea is that people are connected with their deeds. For instance, if a person lights a fire in someone's house, and the house burns down, the lighter of the fire is responsible. He cannot say, "I only lit a small spark." He burned down the house, because the fire he lit has the power to consume much more.

The same is true with people who do things and release energies. The energies are connected to the one who lit them. Furthermore, the energies, as they expand, as they grow, as with fire, consume, destroy, and transfer the new energies of consuming and destroying back to the original perpetrator. Every smoking ember in the house he destroyed molds the perpetrator. Each spark of evil returns to its originator and becomes part of his essence. The doer is thus a product of his deeds, and reflects their energy exactly. We are the product of our children, and we are the product of our deeds. They mold us, even as we molded them.

Therefore, the rabbis say, "Do not consider that you build your children. Your children build you."

In marriage, family and human relationships, we release energies and deeds that strongly affect the lives of others, for good and bad. What we do comes back to us, informs, molds, and creates us. The cycle of giving to others and then becoming the product and emergent of that giving is the cycle of life.

"And I will destroy them with the land." The land, recall, means the higher energies of nature. When it becomes corrupted, it becomes a violent evil and must be destroyed. People corrupted the good energies of nature and turned it to evil, and so it, along with the people who destroyed it, must be destroyed.

We have one thing left to discuss in this passage, the "end of all flesh." It is too juicy a phrase to be ignored, and the Cabala deals with it extensively. For our purposes, we will only say that there are good processes and evil ones. A good force grows, sustains and creates life, higher and higher. Evil shrinks our perspectives into selfishness. It seeks to conquer and destroy others so that we control and make others smaller. Thus, ideally, people must grow and become larger and infinite. Infinity has no "end." When people go in the other direction, they become smaller and smaller, until they reach the "end." This negation of the infinite and open-ended process of life means death and destruction. The world that becomes an end must end. Evil thus provides for its end.

The rabbis say there is an evil force so powerful we have no way of opposing it. Such a force was Soviet Communism. In its time, it had almost no opposition among the secular intellectuals, and threatened the globe. The great Rabbi Yisroel Meyer Kagan said that such a force could not be battled to a halt, although he wished that something could be done. However, he said, it will last seventy years and die of its own volition. And so it was. The holy man's prophecy was fulfilled. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the leading expert on the Soviet Union, George Kennan said, "It is a miracle." It is "the end" of an evil force; all evil forces must end. The student of history will note that the end of Hitler was hastened by his own great military mistakes. A person who began with success after success suddenly began making blunder after blunder, such as pouring troops into North Africa in time to be captured and Pauling's surrender in Russia after Hitler refused to allow him to retreat. This is "the end," as the evil force expends its energies and withers. May it wither speedily and in our day!

As we approach the End of Days, the great idealisms that plagued the world will be revealed as evil, and slowly choke. Yet, the End of Days will see a ferocious effort of Evil to remain alive. The candle, before it is extinguished, crackles and makes loud noises. So will evil forces, before they are extinguished, crackle and make great noises, but that is their death process. This is the teaching of Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman, the disciple of Rabbi Yisroel Mayer Kagan.

Noah was a righteous man. G-d saved him in the Ark together with his family, animals, fowl and plants. Noah emerged from the Ark and rebuilt the world. However, there was a sad incident, as told in the bible.

(Genesis 9,20) "And Noah, the man of the earth (ground), began, and he planted a vineyard."

When we study the bible, we see that "man was born to toil," and some translate, "born to sin." Sin is so close to us. If we sin, it is not so earth shattering. If, however, a Patriarch and senior prophet of the bible fail, it hurts much more. Noah is one of the great biblical heroes. He stood against the entire world. He built an ark over a period of decades, warning people of their doom, and they didn't appreciate hearing this. Noah was fearless and righteous. The bible even says, "Noah was a righteous man, blemish less was he in his generation. Noah walked with G-d." Noah built the Ark, lived in it during the flood, and suffered. Finally, he emerged to a new world. The old world was gone. "Noah began and he planted a vineyard." Sadly, Noah failed and became drunk.

All of us have, from our parents, teachers and experiences, various ideals and concepts. When we marry, have families and human relationships, we often find that others do not share our visions and goals. Those of us who have visions and goals engraved in marble in our hearts cannot easily let go. We must struggle to find kindness and malleability in order to survive among others. If we invoke "strength" and "taking", we will not be able to sustain relationships.

The rabbis say, "G-d wanted to make a world of rigid justice. He saw that it could not survive, so He joined mercy to justice." G-d, by so doing, showed us how to bend our strong convictions for the sake of peace and family. We must always combine mercy with our strong convictions. Of course, there are times when we cannot cross the line. We must ask advice from holy and wise people when to end a relationship or when to bend in our deepest convictions.

The "female force" of strength and rigid justice is important; without it, we would have no standards. On the other hand, standards can destroy families. Can we bend them? Can we destroy our families? These questions deserve more than a snap decision. We must consult the wise and those who are not personally involved to assist us in making a decision.

A woman once told me that she had it with her husband, because he does such and such. I told her that doing such and such is really a minor sin, if it is one. However, to break up a family with children is surely a terrible sin.

(9,21) "And he (Noah) drank from the wine and he became intoxicated. And he was revealed in the midst of her (literal translation – working translation "his") tent." Noah seems overwhelmed by pain and the destruction of his world. He drinks wine to mellow his travail in the ark. He finds solace in drink and loses his sense of propriety; he goes unclothed in his tent.

"Her tent" was the tent of Noah's wife. She entered the ark and exited with Noah, as is stated in passage 8,16. We mentioned elsewhere that the home is the female dimension, and the Schechina rests in the merit of the woman. A man who comes into this holy abode and becomes drunk and naked profanes the sanctity of the place and brings great evil upon himself.

Sipurno comments that Noah began by planting grapes for wine, which is not admirable, but is also not so terrible. He got drunk and acted foolishly, and ultimately came to great evil. We thus see that a small thing can bring to a major problem. This is important in practical life. People do not start out being adulterers or fornicators. However, if they are exposed to certain environments, they may fail and sin. We hope not just to be in the frying pan and escape, but also never to enter the frying pan. Jewish law makes it clear that we are to be very careful about getting into the frying pan. We stay out. We are not allowed to be alone with women who are not our wives or very close relatives, such as mother or daughter. We are not allowed to read books that arouse us to lust, nor may we watch television and movies that teach us concupiscence. We don't send our children to schools of mixed boys and girls, and we don't allow our children to dance with the other gender. Those who do allow these things are asking of their children to enter the frying pan and emerge unscathed.

Let us discuss "nakedness" in the context of raising children and keeping ourselves from harm. The passage tells us that Noah became "revealed" in his tent. Obviously, later something worse than nakedness happened, but this was the beginning of the destruction. "Nakedness" is something utterly rejected by Judaism. "Nobody is more objectionable than a nudist." In the Garden of Eden, people were unclothed, and they cohabited openly. Outside the Garden, sex and nakedness became private. The spiritual energies of sexuality and nakedness could be fully revealed in the Garden of Eden without damage. However, when outside of the Garden these energies are revealed publicly, they attract evil forces and create evil. Recall that the snake saw Adam and Eve cohabiting publicly and was aroused to entice Eve and destroy the human race. The evil force is fully active, certainly outside of the Garden. We therefore do not tempt it by public sex and nudity.

The snake or Evil Force is an angel of G-d who just does his job, to test people so that they can have reward. The happiest person in town when you defy the evil inclination is the Satan. The angriest one when you listen to him is the Satan. He wants to be rebuffed to please G-d, not to be accepted to anger G-d. However, the parameters of his job are that when sexual energies are revealed he goes into action, and there is trouble.

Whenever you find mixing of the sexes, you find destruction. In the latest Federal Education Bill, there is a grant for single-sex schools. Can boys and girls in their biological prime sit together in class for hours and not be distracted? College students are terribly vulnerable; they no longer have the security of childhood and home, and they have yet to find their place as adults. Can they be tossed into the pressure of sex on a campus? College students have one of the highest rates of suicide.

When the New York City police department first integrated women into patrols, almost every man who had a woman partner divorced his wife and left his children. It was not really his fault, although we can think what we want. You cannot sit with some young lovely for several hours a day, go home to your wife and feel the same.

Modesty in Hebrew is TSENEEYUSE. It means to hide something, to conceal. It means to maintain a low profile. Just as there is a command for one to be modest in the street, so there is a sin to be too modest in the home. One who demands too much modesty in the bedroom has violated a cardinal term of marriage; this is grounds for rabbinical divorce. Modesty does not mean that a woman does not have sex. It does not mean that she does not fulfill herself. It means that she does not do so publicly. What is right for the home is not right for the street.

Today there is no modesty in the street, and there is no successful intimacy in the home. A woman who gives away too much is despised, and doesn't she know it! Her anger surfaces in the bedroom, but she gains nothing but frustration.

Modesty is very nice for a girl like my daughters who leave the driving to me. They know, first, that a boy they want appreciates a modest girl. Therefore, they will try to impress others with their modesty. Secondly, they have no fear that they have to catch the fly on the run. They are not running. They are growing up like a normal adolescent and know that daddy and mommy are tearing their hair out and pumping the phone to get more and more information on this or that boy. Therefore, she has no need to create a high profile.

Secular girl, on the other hand, is in a fast food market. A boy will or will not notice her in a flash of a second. She must be naked enough to be noticed. If she is lucky, if you call it that, the boy will notice. One thing he notices is that she is desperate enough to dress in such a way, so she must be easy picking. She is. He despises her, she despises herself, and they make it and break it. Even if the girl does whatever the boy wants, in the fast food market, he will eventually notice someone else. He will eventually tire of this one. Secular girl is best designed for a one-night stand, for relief, not for long-range relationships. Secular girl, deep down, beneath her nakedness, is a woman. She needs one-night stands like she needs spiders and worms on her table. The frustration mounts. Her biological and social needs require her to consent, but her soul rebels. Ultimately, she either sluts herself completely to avoid the frustration and contention between two opposite forces, or she maintains the tension until it eats away at her heart. Otherwise, she may, as many have tried, eschew men completely, and perhaps become a lesbian.

The Medieval rabbinic authority Meiri says, "A woman is loved in proportion to her dignity." A man respects a woman who respects herself. He will take another women, spit her out, and relieve himself, but she is only a toilet. She knows it. He knows it. She knows that he knows it. He does not care that she knows that he knows it.

(9,21) "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and he told it to the two brothers outside." Why mention that Ham was the father of Canaan? Ham was the father of four sons, (passage 10,6) Kush, Egypt, Put and Canaan, so why mention only one of them? Why, indeed, mention any son? Obviously, Canaan was involved somehow in the story. Sipurno explains that Canaan castrated Noah to prevent him from having more children. The more children, the smaller share each one had of the world. Every new child would take a share in the new world, and Canaan did not want this. Ham, it seems, either encouraged his son to do this, or saw him do it and did not protest.

We will not go deeper into the story about Noah and his family problems. However, we want to study the castration’s motive, to decrease people. Today, when the world population is six billion people and rapidly increasing, many people want to slow down the growth, and feel that there are too many people. The Talmud says that G-d has a container for souls, and that the world must accommodate all of them. When the container finally empties, Messiah and Redemption will come. Thus, those who deprive the world of souls make things worse.

Segment 4 – The Psychology of Sexuality and Dreams

© Copyright May, 2002, June 19, 2002 by the author

The Psychology of Sexuality and Dreams

By Rabbi David Eidensohn

Introduction

This chapter provides insights somehow similar to secular psychoanalysis. They are based upon the Talmud and Judaic sources. So new is the approach that one should preferably read the material completely before any exegesis and serious assessment begins. The goal of the material is to provide insights into the human mind, emotions and spirituality. With these concepts, we can probe our perceptive process. What happens to our thoughts when we take the great leap into human relationships and even intimacy? The mind at this time is in another world, and calls upon all of its reserves to deal with new situations. A damaged mind cannot deal with the psychical tension properly. For such a person sexuality is either a failure or worse.

Trauma in the Child

In his book Psychoanalysis: The First Ten Years, Walter A Stewart, M.D., tells of Freud's pioneering work in psychology, especially his ideas about sexuality. On page 5, he tells us that Freud decided early on that mental problems came from being seduced as a child. When Freud's sister displayed a psychoneurosis, Freud decided that his father had seduced his sister! What do we say about the Seduction Theory? What do we say about Freud? We could snicker and say that Freud was daft. We could say this because logically, any mental stress, the trauma of parents fighting, a frightening or disgusting experience, could make us mentally ill. Why did Freud blame everything on childhood sex? Why, indeed, was he so extreme in his fundamentalist approach to science?

There is a method to the madness. Yes, it sounds like madness, and it is, but we see a genius at work and we must respect the process. He is hunting. Freud made many mistakes, but as Stewart points out, his style led to enormous mistakes and to enormous success. Let us then ignore the theory per se and study what might have motivated the idea, and see if we can gain from so doing.

Freud felt that neurosis was rooted in childhood experiences. We can understand his reasoning. The mother of Rabbi Joshua, the wisest sage of his time and an adviser to the Roman emperor, came to the study hall when she was pregnant. She wanted her embryo to hear the words of Torah study. The tiny, unborn Joshua did hear these words, and they made him advanced in learning when he was born. A professor of Greek read Greek poems to his embryonic son. The boy picked up these studies much faster than other ones. Thus, we can agree with Freud's idea that childhood experiences are formative; the younger the child the stronger and more lasting are the impressions. There is a story in this vein about Freud, who, asked by a mother when to start teaching her five year old, replied, "You have already wasted five years."

This is astonishing, actually. How can an embryo, even a baby, pick up anything from verbal experiences? A baby does not know the language, and the embryo has no experience with the non-uterine environment. One explanation is the mystery of language formation. Language is unique, as MIT researcher Noam Chomsky discovered; it develops from an innate power of the human being that transcends cognitive thought. Thus, an older person, the greatest genius and scholar, cannot pick up languages as quickly as a child can. Even Henry Kissinger, after years of Harvard and Washington, D.C., cannot speak good English. Any child can learn it better than he can. A human has a window of opportunity to learn languages, and it quickly shuts. A very young child picks up things that an adult cannot. The child, according to recent studies, can pick up the grammatical structure of languages he does not understand. The child’s innate power to learn languages instructs him on the parts and structure of a sentence common in human speech. An adult, and perhaps even a computer, could not do this. A child is able to discern what an adult cannot, although his logic and experience is poorly developed or not developed at all.

We see from this that what we think is knowledge is only part of knowledge. People have emotions and spiritual experiences. Humans can pick up verbal ideas without knowing languages, and even without a developed mind.

Science has proven (in a Netherlands study among others) that people whose brain and heart are dead can still listen and remember what people are saying. We realize that a person's ability to know is enormous; it is beyond the mind, which when dead cannot function. Many people who died for long minutes in accidents or on the operating table were revived and told doctors and emergency personnel what they said while the patient was dead. Who or what was listening? Obviously, there is more to a person than the gray matter. Whatever we are, and however we learn, it begins at the beginning, the very beginning, of our lives. Obviously, there is more to us than the neurons in the mind. Even when the neurons are dead, we are alive. We live forever, as the soul.

Those who deny the soul go further and deny the mind. There is no mind, says one prominent scientist. There are only chemical reactions taking place in the brain. The collective millions and billions of reactions and activities inform us of many things, but there is no physical or actual "mind." Others suggest that there is no such thing as a person. If a person were reduced to the elements of the person, a person is only an organization of functioning cells and electrical circuits. A person therefore, like the mind, does not exist in biological or physical terms. What then, is a person? Either you are a soul, as proven by the above experiments, or you are millions of things that mean nothing. We thus define ourselves in spiritual terms, or we risk being undefined.

Yes, we define ourselves in spiritual terms. We refer to the mind and ourselves meaning the spirit of our mind and selves. Physical struggles, humanity, emotional maturing, and our finite structure reveal spirituality. Indeed, they are the highest spirituality, because they are "light from darkness," higher than "light from light." We live to reveal transcendence on the dinner table.

Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Civilization is the process of reducing the infinite to the finite." Reducing is a bad word. It suggests that people take from the infinite what they need to make them feel good, and ignore the source. We would rather say, "Civilization is the process of revealing the infinite in the finite."

The Talmud advises us to study young, because when we get older we have trouble remembering. "One who learns as a child is as one who writes upon unused paper. One who learns as an adult is as one who writes upon erased paper." The power of the experience in the child burns its message and impact into the soft undeveloped mental and emotional "tissue." The same experience in an adult enters upon "erased paper," and cannot be so clear and permanent. The adult, developed, is not prepared to allow anything to make major changes in his personality and development. Thus, traumas in a child are devastating. An adult may not be so affected.

The undeveloped mind of the child is certainly more susceptible to the primal process of psychoneuroses than the mind of the adult. Therefore, we can understand Freud's inclination to seek the root of neurosis in childhood experiences. When we see someone's mind controlled by an irrational and deleterious force, we can look to an early trauma. We see here another principal. We have to respect nature. We cannot make an old person young. Your mind changes with age, and we lose opportunities we once had. Life is a mixed bag. When we are young we can remember things better, but we cannot reason so well. When we are older we can reason better, but we cannot remember so well. Ideally, we raise our children from the earliest age to study according to their abilities, and as the child grows older, we keep feeding in more and more of the appropriate material. The Talmud says of a child: "Stuff him [intellectually] like an ox [with facts and basic logic, not deep thought]." The ox works with great strength, but must be harnessed and guided. A child without a yoke is a great waste.

Secular children are raised to learn their “rights.” By the time they finish absorbing their rights, it will be too late to experience the critical lessons of childhood. The child will mature, and forever seek the missing components of his personality. This is because he did not get the guidance in childhood to mold his character. What public schools teach children is designed to destroy them. This is behind the crisis in education, the calamity of young people, and the problems facing our country.

A study released in early July 2002 showed that the median age of marriage for men is highest than it has ever been, age 27. Men are refusing to marry, and a woman has to marry before 35, because then begins the decline of female fertility. America is filled with corporate powerhouse women sitting and sobbing in a fertility clinic because they married too late. Children who are raised to question everything natural cannot marry. A child hammered at the earliest age about homosexuality, about "Heather has Two Mommies," and is taught "fisting" and gory homosexual perversities a few years later, has a damaged emotional system already in place, even before they go to college and really get worked over by the radicals.

An older person has a developed mind. A child has an undeveloped mind. This means that an adult takes every experience, even a traumatic one, and files it away in the many cubicles of his mind. Events come to an adult with a rush, but the mind is prepared to reduce them and arrange them so that they do not overwhelm the system. A child has no arranged mind, only basic plasma ready to be molded. An event, and certainly a traumatic one, does not enter the child's mind as something to be stored away for future use, but rather as an explosion that has no place to rest. Such a force overwhelms an immature person. An overwhelming psychic trauma can twist the mind and lead to neuroses and even perversion. A traumatic sexual experience in a child can tear the developing sexual force. It can damage or destroy it. Even the developing sexual force twists and turns in the storm of trauma.

Rabbi Eliezar the Great cautioned, "Remove your child from deep thought." A child cannot deal with deep thought, because he has no tools for it. An adult has a lifetime of experience and an organized mind. Thus equipped, the adult can think broadly and profoundly. In deep thought, we draw upon many facts. We expand their deeper connotations into new dimensions. Deep thought fashions the emotional and cognitive plasma of a child like a flooding river run amok. Wherever a gulley exists, the river runs there. Questions and unknown dimensions form the child’s thinking process. Adults develop individual ideas using a mature mental structure. The deep thought in a child melts the mind and does not properly develop it.

Of course, a truly deep thought can alter the mental structure or impact heavily upon it even with adults. Nonetheless, the process is much more marked in children. To expand upon this idea, let us return to language. You hear a word, and your mature mind can take in certain things. A child takes in much more. It is the same word, but the child has an innate capacity to match words into templates not available to the adult. The child has a window of opportunity where the mind is super-sensitive and can create structures and systems out of drips and drabs of sounds, words and events. We can compare this to someone speaking. We like to hear the person speak in a moderate volume. If our ear is very sensitive, we want the person to speak lower. If we have difficulty hearing, we want the person to talk louder. If a person speaks loudly to please a person hard of hearing, the same sound can hurt someone who has an acute hearing ability. An adult can take a discussion of homosexuality in stride. However, but to a child, learning about life, family and emotions with an innate sensitivity, such verbal expression are thunderclaps. They can penetrate the emotional structure and overwhelm it.

Another reason we do not want children learning deep ideas is that deep thought is often about indescribable things. What does "value", "love", or "mystery" mean? We define these words not in finite but in infinite ways.

A child is in the process of creating finite tools to know life. Intuitive dimensions may be deleterious for a child. They enter the plastic mind of the child and twist it into mystery. The child must then deal with life with a mind that confuses fact and fancy.

These ideas are crucial when we see the catastrophe of public schools in America, swarming with armed police to prevent children from slaughtering each other. We are the only country in the world where children go around mass-murdering fellow pupils. We are also the only country in the world that subjects children to things they cannot handle on a regular basis. We teach homosexuality to tiny children, so they appreciate “diversity” before their “prejudices” harden. Can a five-year-old child assimilate the diversity of fundamental family structures? A child’s major psychological support is a mother and father. Can we teach a tyke that two fathers and two mothers are equally valid? We toy with nature and we produce child-murderers. Just today, June 18, '02, the news was about parents protesting a sex questionnaire for ten year olds. Our secular school system damages a child's mind. The child murders other children, and the educators talk about gun control.

Invariably, children school slaughterers are from fine upper-class homes. Such homes are suffused with modern secular ideas that are unnatural. There is no male and there is no female. There is just blah. These children have been battered with what children cannot absorb, until they burst. I just read an important article from columnist Don Feder that Father's Day is meaningless in America, and he quotes the horrendous statistics. He mentions that television shows depict fathers in the worst light. Our culture takes good and declares it bad. It takes bad and declares it good. And we wonder where our families and children are going.

Sexual Trauma

Freud felt that the only kind of trauma that could so utterly uproot the splendid organization of the mind was a childhood sexual trauma.

Let us ask the obvious question: Why only childhood sex? Are we not comprised of other emotions and forces? What about ego? Rabbis list the ego and the erogenous separately. The ego is "gaavuni" and the erogenous is "tiavuni." The question is, How separate? The lungs are separate from the brain, but are both one process? This was Freud's quest. Should he take all parts of the emotions as separate entities or should he accept one fundamental force as the aggregation and foundation of all other? As a doctor, Freud had to find a cure with one medicine, not many. Complexity ruins the diagnosis. If one takes two medicines, we never know what medicine made the cure. We must, therefore, in medicine, and in science, declare a single cause. We must reduce the number of possibilities. This medical convention was a factor in Freud blaming neuroses on childhood sexual trauma.

There may be more to it than that. True, there are both ego and pleasure-seeking proponents in humans. And yes, they are separate. However, we can imagine a system whereby the two, ego and pleasure, are one. We can say that the ego is only a covering and enhancement, a conduit, into the deeper person, the realm of sex. According to this view, the human being may have many layers of emotion, and they need not be defined. What we want is the bottom line. Where do the forces end up? The answer must be the force deepest in our essence, the bottom. Sexuality fits this bill. If this was Freud's reasoning, we can append to this thought a teaching of Lurian Cabala. Paganism is a sin, but it is only intellectual, and can be easily rectified. Sexual sins, however, penetrate to our primal processes, and are much harder to rectify.

We can even say that sexuality is the emergent of the emotional processes and energies in the human being. Sexuality is manifested by actions related to another person. However, these activities merely reflect extremely deep emotional needs. They are so fundamental that they cannot rise to the conscious mind and reveal themselves.

Lurian Cabala teaches that there is Torah, intellectual learning, and the "person." The person must precede Torah, and is separate. In a similar vein, the first teaching of the Yeshiva of Elijah the Prophet is, "The Way of Life precedes the Torah." The Way of Life is what we are before we open a book. It is also what we are when we close the book. The ideal is that the Way of Life goes into the book and comes out of it revealed in the mind.

The "person" as separate from intellectual realizations is important in sexuality. Sexuality, as the true knowledge of self and The Way of the World, is higher than the intellectual process. Knowing another person is much more than knowing a theorem of arithmetic. Knowing another person, relating to another, is the positive and negative forces of the subatomic world, or electricity, mating and disappearing from that lower level of reality into something higher. The innate self is revealed in love of another. Human knowledge of people especially in marital settings is transcendence. Sexuality is thus a very great and complex force. It is a somatic and innate physical essence so fundamental that is eludes the intellectual process. Sexuality is a transcendent spirituality of love. It may, indeed, embrace the extremes of one’s reality and resolve them. The finite is a violation of spirituality, the natural state of G-d's Creation. Love elevates the trembling and pained finite force to its Source. Love and sexuality are thus the return of the tormented person from the limits of the finite to the wellsprings of light and Life. The light at the end of the tunnel is the same as its dark inverse. The fundamental invisible somatic cement on the basement floor of human being radiates with infinity, far away but the cause of its existence. This floor retains the flavor of the innate and purifies it from the encroachment of the outer and finite world. It also supports the higher stories in the structure of human habitation. Sexuality resolves the variegated human structure including the mind, the emotions, and self-awareness.

As with all high spiritual forces, sexuality is very delicate and endangered. A child and even an adult must be careful with this powerful force, lest it becomes perverse. The worst perverts are often the highest souls, whose sensitivity and pain burst their barriers.

Freud taught that there are first of all pleasures and intuitive forces within us. Secondly, our mind comes to deal with these pleasure-demands or intuitive urges. We may decide that our present mental structure would like to wear green shoes and a yellow tie. Then come the demands of society, the structure of religion or culture we accept, and we find out that we must wear yellow shoes and a green tie, and accept it.

In Judaism, we want to initiate simultaneously the three, intuitive, intellectual and social forces. A child absorbs cultural and religious values even without verbal skills. However, the child, to achieve this, must grow up in a home where the religious and culture declare a clear message on how one is to behave. This relieves the child from the enormous energy expenditures of deciding between conflicting values. A child is not designed to choose. A child is designed to absorb. A child is a sponge, not a sifter. The sponge of the child can pick things up that adults must work very hard to describe verbally.

In a good religious family, the child learns values and desires, morality, family matters and human relationships. Quickly, the child puts these away into a framework for life. The structure is now ready for the second level, cognizance. It is prepared to declare rational values and desires. The child has an easy time with the intellectual phase of values and desires, because they are firmly stored in his inner essence already. The child's template easily absorbs all of life, because there is a clearly defined set of rules, values and desires.

Any trauma the child experiences will ruin this process. Watching parents fight, a divorce, child molestation or even knowing too much about sex can damage a child. Now there is a conflict between the innate and the value systems. Indeed, the entire process of establishing a value system and declaring desires suffers because the environment is one of pain and conflict. How can the product of a divorce learn about love? Years later, the child of divorce will approach marriage, and intimacy, with damaged structural systems. Only with great effort can one, as an adult, repair these problems. However, it can be done. One can become functional in every way.

A person has various levels and layers of emotional energies. Inside us are various systems and processes. All of this has a core. The core is perhaps removed from cognitive thought. Why? Is it too somatic and basic for the intellectual mind, or is it too high for our limited cognitive thoughts? Is it both basic and high? Yes, perhaps it is both basic and high. We have a somatic consciousness, too fundamental for the mind, and we have a spiritual soul, too high for the mind. Both of these impact upon the mind, and certainly play a part in sexuality. The fundamental Way of the Earth and the spirituality of Eternity and Mystery sandwich the psyche. The psyche must, in order to declare values and desires, connect the three forces, the Way of the Earth, spirituality and the mundane in the mind.

We must go deeper. What is sexuality? Is it the natural emergent of the person? Just as the belly wants food, the total person wants sexual relations, gender relations, friends, marriage, etc. The basic entity that we deal with in gender and sexual relations is a person. A person is the consciousness and more, the unconscious. They reach a point of identity, and the identity wants relations. We define ourselves relative to others. We are therefore only as we deal with others. Sexuality can therefore be defined as the natural emergent of the total person. It is the seeking of the individual to expand and to "fill his belly" not with food, but with relationships. This creates the persona.

When our body wants to eat, we get hungry. If are not fed, we do not function on empty very well. The body reminds us to eat and eventually shouts for food. Hunger is an emergent of biological and emotional needs. Without food, the rest of us cannot function very well. We can say that hunger is the expression of bodily energies, some biological and some emotional. We can say that these energies are real, and when they are satisfied, they help us. When they are not satisfied, they pain us, banging away until they are satisfied.

Sexual energies are very powerful. However, what are they? Are they the emergent forces of the total person, as we discussed earlier? Are they merely the biological and emotional energies of the sexual act? Probably, there are two levels of sexual energies. One is the totality of the person who seeks enhancement. Secondly, there is sexual energy for the physical act. These two are separate, but impact upon each other. When the total person cannot connect properly with the sexual-act energies, perversities and mental illness could result.

The mind has various strata. There is the mighty amygdaloid nucleur, or amygdala, the seat of emotion. Here sit all of our memories and they monitor our daily experiences. Sometimes, a memory will leap out and seize our mind, against our cognizant will, such as in phobias. There is a professor of psychiatry who has a phobia. He knows it is ridiculous. However, it is not ridiculous to his amygdala. Therefore, the professor cringes in terror when faced with his particular problem. A phobia is a perversion of the knowledge process. We think we know that the particular object, a snake for instance, is harmful. Did a snake ever bite the professor? He only saw them on television. Yet, the amygdala connected certain traumas or ideas to a snake. Now, when the professor sees a snake, the amygdala sounds the alarm of terror. Nothing can be done. We thus tremble from knowledge and our memory. We hope and pray that our life experiences will not pervert our mind and emotions. Sometimes, however, they do. Millions of Americans suffer from anxiety.

On page 114 of his book, Dr. Stewart quotes Freud as warning against interpreting delusions as pure fantasy. Freud suggested that the therapist seek the "kernel of truth" upon which they are based. Sometimes we know things the wrong way. Inside of these terrible traumatic thoughts are truths. If we can find them, we may be able to deal with them. We can find why they snatched our lives into fear and delusions.

We cannot stop hail from falling from the sky. We cannot stop the sun when it turns up the temperature. However, these are external things. Inside our brain, we are secure. If the hail comes, it will go. Good-by to all of that. What if the hail frightened or damaged us? Possibly, the hail made us anxious, and the rays of the sun pained us. If so, even after the hail and sun depart, and the weather returns pleasant and comfortable, the hail and sun remain with us, forever. They are engraved in our memory.

As our mind forms, it takes in the hails and heat of our life. It files them away. Sometimes, they enter the mind on their own. They do their thing, making problems. We have a mind that struggles with our problems. Now the mind must struggle with the two problems of hail and the memory of the hail. The mind deals with the hail by suggesting ways to escape it, by going indoors, or by covering our heads with something. When the hail ends, the mind relaxes. It is finished with the hail. Then the mind must deal with the memory of the hail. What happens to the memory of the hail?

What was the hail in the first place? Was it simply a curiosity of falling ice? If that is all that it was, the mind files away "falling ice" next to "ice cream" and "baseball." No problems there. If, however, the hail, the falling ice, threatened a person with injury, the hail is not just falling ice. The hail is now perceived as a menace, as a force to break the head, the smash the glasses, the squash the hat, to make the street slippery so one can slip. What happened if we were anxious to get somewhere? Perhaps we wanted to make a big deal, to get a new job, to save our present job, or to meet someone important such as a family member. The hail now takes on a new connotation as a threat to our basic interests. If we are ever in a situation whereby we want to make a big deal and feel an impediment, if we ever attack a new challenge, struggle with an old one, or have some familial obligation we are anxious to discharge, the perception of these can connect in the brain to the hail. Both represent these things. In healthy people, the memory of the hail does not confuse us. However, in ill people the memory of the hail imposes itself upon us when we think about anything that the hail once represented. The fear and anxiety we experienced when the hail exploded from the sky then enters our emotional tract and powers up our response to our challenge, not as one of calm let's do it, but of fright and anxiety. Those fears and anxieties we felt when the hail fell now emerge whenever we have a problem.

There are events that enter the memory and call for action, or frighten us. We cannot exist if we have to respond and act upon these constantly, so we must suppress them, and yet, they are there, and want to talk. We can defang these memories and shift them into another gear. We dissipate the pain in these memories by allowing them to assume symbolic forms. The fearful memory thus enters our consciousness without frightening us. These memories speak without engaging us intellectually. We proceed without knowing what these memories are saying. However, in our dreams and in other ways, we see and hear what the memories want to say to us.

The Talmud has a section dealing with dreams. It does not develop the ideas very fully. Therefore, we do not understand them too well. We do know, however, that dreams are important, and may mean things far removed from the symbol. Thus, one rabbi tells us to ignore dreams. Surely, it is saying something to us; it is speaking a language specifically designed for us not to understand it. If we understood it, we would be overwhelmed by its constant need for action or its painful message. Perhaps the message is one that would frustrate us, because we cannot do anything about it. Therefore, it assumes a symbolic mask and speaks to us without us being turned on and frustrated. However, if we really wanted to, and developed the science of dreams, we would know what these dreams are saying.

Dreams even tell us what we are saying to ourselves about ourselves. For instance, the Talmud says that a heavy pumpkin seen in a dream is a sign that the dreamer was modest. Why? What is the connection between a pumpkin and modesty? One commentator explains that a truly great person, such as Moses, reaches a level of knowing G-d whereby Moses feels insignificant. Thus, being in the Presence negates a person’s foolish ego. Moses, close to G-d, thus was the most humble of men. One who is not in the Presence revels in “me.” He wants to sale to the heights and be the highest thing around.

Thus, in a dream, when a person talks to himself, the haughty person dreams of something flying high. The great and modest person dreams of a heavy pumpkin. The heavy pumpkin does not fly and rise.

On another level, there are two types of people. One has achieved and he is satisfied with his efforts. Of course, every day brings new challenges. Also, we never achieve perfection as humans. Nonetheless, a person who is satisfied with his hard work does not fantasy about leaving his essence and becoming something else. He stays with himself and accepts himself. On the other hand, a person who feels his lack of achievement, or one who knows he could do better but does not, fantasizes upon greatness. He dreams of “flying high” to escape his low self-esteem. He dreams of soaring on the clouds, or the symbol of greatness such as a tall tree. These symbols compensate for his pain at failure and being little. One suffused with struggle who accepts himself has no such dreams. He views himself as a large, heavy pumpkin sitting contentedly on the ground.

Sometimes a dream wants to say something that could pain us or cause us to take a deleterious action. Our defense mechanism blocks the dream’s ability to cause us pain or to trigger the negative action. However, the defense mechanism sublimates the message with symbols that seem silly or of no consequence. We do not realize that our nothing dream conceals great fears and portents. The wise can read into mundane words many realities that escape most people. A person can say something that has no meaning, unless someone who listens realize what they probably signify.

Those who wish to confront internal truths must translate and transform ordinary words and pictures in dreams to find out what they are hiding, or what they portend. Some hide frustration, or wishes, or hopes, or fears. Defense mechanisms can sweeten our sour fears and turn them into dreams that do not hurt us. We block off the painful part. We release what must be said so we do not understand it. Perhaps, this, too, at some level, is a release. Perhaps, in a way we don’t cognitively appreciate, the dream speaks to our inner essence of its fears and hopes. The inner essence lies quietly until some way is found to resolve these fears or hopes. Only then does the blocking mechanism allow the true message of the dream to erupt into the conscious and trigger memories and actions.

We can thus explore the relationship between what we see in a dream and its symbolic and verbal value. Delusions can be part of this process. Freud said that we should consult in delusions the kernel of truth. The kernel of truth, however, is not always what we think. The kernel of truth could be a symbolic or figurative synonym to something else. The delusion itself, however, in the non-symbolic sense, has no kernel of "truth." Perhaps a sea would represent what we see, because the two words sound alike. Anything can link in a dream.

A microbiologist once said that he spends his life looking at the tiniest organs, and they are always "talking to each other." We are always talking to ourselves. We are always saying something. Our mind and its various components are always talking. If we knew what all of our memories were saying all of the time, if we had to listen to ourselves constantly, we would collapse. Therefore, we are mercifully unaware of the messages of life that go on around us. Sometimes, we the process of dealing with repressed or repackaged ideas injures us, and we need therapy.

In truth, not only are our mind and all of our memories talking all of the time, but the many layers of our mind and of our soul are also talking all of the time. It can be confusing, but somehow, in love and sexuality, there are focuses and resolutions. Without such, the talking of conflicting forces creates toxic confusion and unresolved ideas.

Dreams

We must decide, with our mind, what to do. In order to decide, the mind must assimilate facts. However, there are too many facts for our mind to deal with. Therefore, the mind must decide what facts to know in order to decide what to do. We have to make a decision: chocolate or vanilla ice cream. Meanwhile, the body is swarming with speaking parts, a cacophony of dimensions, debate, conflict, somatic and transcendence.

When we sleep, and when we enter certain semi-sleep states, our mind can speak of those things not related to immediate action. It tells us in dreams, in symbols, of our deeper and higher aspirations and fears. Sometimes, we wake and remember, and if we had the time and skill, we would get an earful. The Talmud devotes some pages to this subject, and at one time interpreting dreams was an art. Today, therapists have taken up the task, from Freud on. Freud once dreamed of being over-affectionate to his daughter Matilda. He awoke and realized that his dream was connected with his work on tying mental illness to parental relationships.

We are going to study the Talmud’s discussion of dreams. It tells us about our mental process. We glean from it ideas relevant to our discussions. However, we cannot claim to understand something that may be a lost art. We cannot claim with any precision to know what the teachings really are. We must interpret the Talmud’s words with our limited level of understanding of these matters.

The discussion in the Talmud begins in the tractate Brochos (Blessings) folio 55a, with the teaching of Rav Yehuda: "Three things need mercy: A good king, a good year, and a good dream…as is it said, ‘Make me dream, and bring me to life.'" Rashi explains that these things come straight from G-d, and we must merit special merit to have them. We see from this that a good dream makes a person come alive. A bad dream can have the opposite effect. Only when the body speaks to us in a good dream do we resolve the constant talking, debates, conflicts, searching, entropy and dynamic expansion that perplex us constantly.

Note the connection of a good king, a good year, and a good dream. A king rules over a people, and they pull him in different directions. Only a miracle can achieve a "good king" who gives everyone what they need. A “good king” is thus the resolution of conflicting parts. The same is true of a "good year." It has different and conflicting parts. Sometimes it rains properly and sometimes it is cold. In some years, the rains flood and the sun bakes. In a good year, the rain prepares the ground for the pleasant sunlight that will produce a bountiful crop. A good dream is a conglomeration of many opposing things. Only a miracle can bring a dream that resolves all of them. Therefore, mercy is needed to resolve government, weather and happenings of the year, and dreams.

Thus, a dream, mentioned along kings and years, is no trivial thing. Resolving our inner conflicts is as important to us as a king is to a country and a year’s weather is to crops.

Dreams also have metaphysical and mystical aspects. What we see is not just what pops out from our somatic and mental processes. What we see can be a message from G-d and transcendence. This is an important area, so we must develop it.

There is a gradation from the base corporeality at the bottom of the spiritual ladder to the Highest Heavens. There are angels, energies of transcendence, and lights dancing in G-d’s revealed spiritual dimension. The higher we go up the latter, the greater are the revelations of spiritual powers. Only as we pass into the world of death do we see these things properly. “No living man can see Me.” However, even as we live bounded by corporeality and blind to all of this spiritual reality, it affects us. Lights hover outside of our intellectual cognizance and “rub” against it, penetrating our finite forms with osmosis. We feel spiritual. We pray to G-d even though we do not see Him.

Each person travels the letter every day, even every moment. As we improve spiritually, we are sensitive to more ethereal lights and forces. They are always talking to us, but it takes a long time for us to understand what they are saying. Every day we come closer and closer, and understand more and more. Even though as long as we live in a finite body we are extremely limited on the cognitive level, we can still communicate or understand the spiritual forces through invisible mediums such as dreams and intuitive feelings. Thus, dreams can be a direct communication from higher forces and G-d. Of course, there are also dreams that mean nothing. We therefore must take one dream at a time, and understand its meaning if we so choose to pursue it.

The Talmud then discusses a bad dream. "All dreams, but not one that makes me fast." One who dreams and is frightened and cannot shake the fear and bad feeling, fasts, and then feels comfortable that he has mitigated the dream. Today, we rarely fast for a dream, but in earlier times, people were terrified of a bad dream and claimed that it portended disasters. They fasted, even on the Sabbath and holidays, and found relief. We see again that a dream may be significant. Sometimes the message is a pleasant one and sometimes not.

"Rav Chisdo taught, 'A dream that is not interpreted is like a letter not read.'" Who sent us this letter? G-d sent it, perhaps, or maybe we are talking to ourselves, and the letter or the dream tells us about our inner fears or ambitions. We see ourselves in a dream more clearly than any mirror, if only we know how to look.

"Said Rav Chisdo, 'A good dream or bad dream is not fulfilled completely.'" Furthermore, "A bad dream is cured by one's sadness, and a good dream is ruined by one's happiness." A bad dream portends evil. Once one realizes that, he suffers. Therefore, the pain he should have suffered from the evil does not happen, because the pain of dreaming takes its place. This is surely true if the dream was a message from G-d, warning of punishment for a sin. The dream is the punishment. If we take it seriously, and repent, it can cleanse us of our sin and save us from divine punishment.

A good dream resolves and settles us, and brings us relief and joy. If such a dream is a promise from G-d of something special, the joy in the dream could use up our merit to achieve what we dreamed. If the dream is our realization that we are doing great things, the joy of dreaming can ruin our level of struggle and make us complacent and disinterested in climbing. Thus, a good dream can be bad. A bad dream can be good. Dreams are in no way conclusive. They have to be "interpreted" and accepted. We must cure and contain them. Only then do they serve us well.

Freud and Breuer, the co-founders of psychoanalysis, were busy with the concept of mental processes as energies. Breuer's crude guesses are, according to Stewart, rewarded a hundred years later by modern research. One of the ideas of mental illness is that certain toxic forces or energies must be discharged for the health of the body. Those remaining lie in the body, rot, and ruin it. A bad dream can be the confluence of many anxieties. When we waken and accept the pain of the fright and anxieties, we release them. Thus, "a bad dream is cured by its sadness." A good dream, on the other hand, does not release and discharge forces, but tells us that things are well and contained. Energies build up in the system because of the good dream. This can lead to excitations and psychical processes that are deleterious. Thus, "a good dream is ruined by its happiness." Human beings are “born to struggle." Sometimes, a good dream that quiets one’s challenge apparatus and turns off our process of struggle may damage us.

When a person has everything, and does not think of improvement, he is ready for the end. We are creatures of motion, dynamic destroyers of evil and pain. Without struggle and challenge, we have little to "eat" in our emotional diet. We thus dream good and bad things. If handled properly, we can cure our evil dreams, accept our good dreams with some trepidation, and allow the good forces to unfold gradually.

"Rav Chisdo said, "A bad dream is better than a good dream." On a simple level, a bad dream is the punishment we would have gotten in real life, but now abates in the dream. Our vicarious pain in the symbolic world is, in a dream, reality. We have thus received our punishment, but it never actually happened.

On a deeper level, a bad dream makes us face up to fears, anxieties and evil portents lurking in our psyche. We are strong enough to confront them. When we do, we destroy them. A good dream, on the other hand, is the opposite process. A good dream is the virtual reward that would preferably be realized in the real world. A good dream is the process of pleasure released to sublimate challenge. It helps us escape the evil and fear we must confront.

The Talmud warns, "Just as there cannot be wheat kernels without pieces of straw, so there cannot be a dream without wrong things." The kernel of wheat grows on a stalk. When the kernel is harvested, some of the stalk sticks to the kernel and is harvested as straw. Straw is thus the former supporter and creator of the kernel. There is always some straw mixed into the kernels of grain, to remind the kernel of its roots and source. A dream is a harvest of "wheat kernels." However, the structure, or straw of the wheat kernel, does not disappear in the harvest. It remains as straw. When we harvest and want only wheat, straw is a waste product. However, growth produces waste in a good sense. The eggshell cracks and we discard it when the chick is born. However, without the eggshell, the chick could not come to life. In a dream, there are many possibilities of interpretation. Perhaps we, in a dream, have kernel and straw. They may represent growth. Perhaps we have come to a point in our life when we must discard the values and achievements of the past to come to a higher level. What was good yesterday, the eggshell or straw, must now go.

There are “straw” and refuse in our lives that no longer serve us as they once did. However, we retain their memory, because the processes they represent may repeat themselves.

Let us return to the gemora. It brings an example of "straw" in the "kernels of grain." Joseph dreamt that the sun, moon and stars bowed to him. The sun represented Jacob, his father. The moon represented Rachel, his mother. The stars represented Jacob's sons, the brothers of Joseph. The sun and the stars were the "grain" of the dream. Jacob eventually bowed to Joseph in Egypt, as did the brothers of Joseph. In the dream, they are the sun and the stars. The moon was the “straw” of the dream. The moon was the mother of Joseph, who died long before Joseph became a ruler in Egypt. The mother bowing therefore was the "straw" of the dream. Therefore, the dream of Joseph contained a lie. The moon, symbolizing the mother of Joseph, never bowed to him. The Talmud says that just as the dream of Joseph contained untruths or "straw," so do all dreams.

According to this, Joseph dreamed a powerful and prophetic dream, but part of it was "straw" and not true. Thus, all dreams, as powerful and deep as they may be, contain something false: that is the plain meaning of the Talmud. This, however, is a great mistake. Did Joseph have a prophetic dream with a lie in it?

Indeed, when we examine the dream, we realize that the most important part of the dream was the "straw," or the "moon." Who was the moon? If Jacob, the father of Joseph, was the sun, and the brothers were the "stars," then the "moon" had to be Jacob's wife. Jacob had two wives. One was Leah and the other Rachel. Rachel was the mother of Joseph.

Leah, the wife of Jacob, did not die on the road to Israel as Rachel did. Therefore, Leah was probably alive at the time of the dreaming. Yet, Jacob told Joseph that his dream was impossible because, "Shall I and your mother and brothers bow down to you to the ground?" Jacob assumed that the moon in the dream of Joseph was Joseph's mother and Jacob's wife, Rachel. Surely, Joseph would not accept as the "moon" anyone but his own mother, not his aunt, Leah. Therefore, the dream contained "straw." Rachel was dead by the time the Jews went to Egypt.

However, this point about the "straw," revolves around the “moon.” Who was the moon? If the moon was Rachel, the moon was “straw” and the dream, in part, lied. If the moon was Leah, the dream did not lie. Leah, at the time of the dream, was probably not dead. At least, the Talmud could not claim Leah was dead without proving it. Furthermore, the claim of “straw” is only because we assume the moon to be Rachel, not Leah. But why could the moon not be Leah? By so doing, we remove the “straw” from the dream.

This issue, who was the moon, is critical. The battle between Joseph and his brothers was rooted in the struggle of the two wives of Jacob, Rachel and Leah. Leah had the major share of the leaders of the Sons of Jacob. Rachel had only two sons, Joseph and Benjamin. By dreaming of Leah, Joseph hit the nail on the head. His dream was that the struggle between his mother and Leah would end with the capitulation of Leah, as she and the entire family would bow to Joseph and accept his leadership. This, of course, is what happened in Egypt, when Joseph became the Viceroy. Therefore, the moon was not straw. It was the very essence of the prophecy. Why does the gemora say that the moon was straw? In reality, there was no moon, because Rachel was dead. However, the moon, as Leah, revealed the entire problem that led to Joseph going to Egypt.

Thus, when we have a dream, often the “straw” is the most critical aspect of it. And yet, it has no practical application. However, as a symbol, as a virtual player, the “straw” may be fundamental.

Whenever we study the passages of the bible or Talmud, the "straw" or seemingly unimportant details often reveal the questions that lead to solutions.

In family situations, the minor problems are often worse than the major problems, as we find with the concubine of Givah. One opinion is that she did something terrible to her husband that enraged him, and one opinion is that she did almost nothing to him, except that a fly flew in his soup. From this grievous or silly deed, a man became enraged at his wife, she fled the house, and eventually he followed her to her mother's house, appeased her, and brought her home. On the way back, the two were attacked. The woman, a great beauty, was murdered. From this episode came terrible wars in ancient Israel. Why would a normal man fly into a rage about a fly in his soup? The answer, the gemora explains, is that the woman had really done two things. First, she caused him very great suffering with one mistake, but he held on for dear life to save the marriage. When he saw the fly in the soup, he exploded, not just over the fly, but because her negligence had previously caused him such terrible suffering. Thus, a person can control himself over a major problem, but then a small thing comes along and blows him away. If that small thing is associated with the big thing, the small thing is big.

One must dream, says the Talmud. A person bereft of dreams is in an evil state. However, we do not always remember our dreams. The dreams that make us full of joy and sure of success can sometimes ruin us. Therefore, in good people, these kinds of dreams are dreamt while sleeping, but forgotten before arising. What good comes from such dreams? If we do not remember something when we wake, this is not important. The body, the mental structure, and the spiritual system are enriched by a good dream, even though our minds are not able to remember it. The body is always talking to itself, dreaming, thinking, and communicating. There are good thoughts that build us, and bad thoughts that destroy us. We are oblivious to much of this, mercifully, but we still sense it, because our system knows it.

We see that dreams resolve us. Without dreams, we do not resolve our systems, and it is awash in toxins. Resolution, for Freud, was critical for mental health. One who practiced coitus interruptus, for instance, or one who masturbated, had not resolved his sexual needs properly, and retained poisons that damaged his mental health. Our mechanisms are delicate and require natural and wholesome function. If we dream, and if we maintain a wholesome sexual regimen, we can find resolution and fine mental process, otherwise, not.

The early therapists believed that the emotions dealt with psychical ideas and memories in a manner similar to electrical forces in physics. Just as a current and force must maintain a proper ration of input to output, and just as the electrical circuit must be balanced and not overwhelmed, so people's minds had excitations and tensions that must follow the proper quantity and pathways to provide proper mental function.

We do not have to believe in such physical analogies to understand the thinking process. We could rather say that a person lives in an environment and relates to others in a constant dynamic process. One's emotional needs are firstly reactions to others and the environment. They deal with what people are faced with during the day and their lives. This is the mundane level of knowing and mental process. There are also internal and external forces that pull upon us and need to be answered. Our mind is delicate and has such enormous input going at it. It strives to handle the flow. Sometimes a person is faced, especially in childhood, with some input that has no safe disposal and discharge. Such facts must be labeled and stored in the emotional memory. Furthermore, the mind must associate a behavior with the memory. When we recall such and such, do we smile, or do we scream? Sometimes we have no rational path and reaction to something. We can then repress it, disguise it, or change our thinking patterns and ourselves to deal with it.

Years ago, PLO terrorists hijacked a plane in Stockholm, and the passengers suffered for a long time. When they were released, some passengers expressed solidarity with the hijackers, something they did not feel before the hijacking. This is known as the Stockholm Syndrome. What happened? The mind cannot tolerate frustration. A person in the plane sees the hijackers, and the mind wants to overwhelm them, to escape from them, but cannot do anything. The constant frustration is unbearable. Therefore, the mind seeks any avenue to relieve the stress and anxiety. The stress and anxiety is a product of conflict with one’s captors, or the hijackers. The mind resolves this frustration and relieves the stress by negating the conflict. You are now one with the hijackers and no longer feel the clash that produces the stress and anxiety. We see that a person can be overwhelmed and react to it by identifying with the very evil that overwhelmed him.

Studies show that molested children grow up with many evil traits, and often become sexual perverts. The child hated the molestation. It pained him greatly. Why then does he grow up a pervert and do things that are hateful to a child? The answer could be that the child could only survive emotionally by negating the conflict he had with the molestation. The child grows to maturity minimizing his suffering by identifying, Stockholm Syndrome like, with the molester and his ways.

We therefore, when we come of maturity, should examine all of the traits we would like to change. Why are we hurting ourselves? Why are we failing? Have we come to identify ourselves with a parent who put us down and caused us such pain that our ego no longer rebelled? Did we learn to identify with those who call us worthless and failures? The solution is to recognize where we went wrong, and why. Once we know the force the twisted our life, we can untwist it by rejecting our associations and surrenders to evil, and find the courage to fight back. We can then find a new lifestyle, a positive one without the self-inflicting pain.

This is especially true in marriage. Marriage evokes emotions not utilized in normal mundane life. Even someone who can manage to succeed in business can sometimes falter when the Big Time comes in love and sexuality. We cannot bluff our inner self. Either we feel good, or we do not. If we do not, we will fail as spouses, parents are other intimate relations. Surely, sexuality is going to suffer. What do we do if our inner system is frightened, frustrated and confused? We may not be able, on our own, to rise above ourselves, but others can help us.

Dealing with a Bad Dream

The Talmud says, "Rabbi Yochanan said, 'One who dreams a bad dream and he feels depressed, let him go and interpret it before three people.'" The gemora asks, "Does Rav Chisdo not say that a dream not interpreted is like a letter not read?" The gemora then concludes, that Rabbi Yochanan meant, "Let him make it a good dream in front of three people. He should bring together three people and say to them, 'I saw a good dream,' and they reply, 'It is good and it will be good.'" The gemora has a longer text for the three to say in their blessings and invocations. Let us, however, return to the statement of Rabbi Yochanan.

A person dreams a bad dream. He awakes and feels that something terrible will happen because of the dream. Perhaps it is a prophetic dream, or perhaps it is a result of his sensed need to suffer, his guilt, or the toxic forces floating around and slamming his system. Perhaps it is merely a jumble associated in his mind with pain, failure, and future problems. What can be done? Shall the person walk around with this premonition? Shall the person not deal with the inner thoughts and issues that prompted this sense of foreboding? Step one is, as the Talmud says, for the person to take the initiative. He must realize that he, on his own, with his mouth and will, can change bad to good.

However, he must not do this isolated and alone. He is too weak to combat the inner forces inscribed by childhood or powerful emotions. He must first realize that he cannot do it himself. The successful Twelve-Step procedure for those with addictive conditions such as alcoholism teaches that the first step to regain control is to know that alone you cannot succeed. You must invoke others, especially G-d. Once you know that, you can rise eventually above your condition. Why is this?

There is a great problem in reparative therapy for people with bad behavior traits. Let us assume that Jack wants to stop overeating. In order to power up his resolve, Jack demonizes eating. He realizes that every extra pounds of food is detrimental to his health. He repeats to himself how his appearance cannot tolerate more food. Eating too much is bad. But Jack does overeat. Therefore, the more he pounds away at overeating, he is pounding away at himself. He is demonizing a trait that is an essential part of his being. Eating, for people who are into it, is partially them. That may be why they eat in the first place, as some theorize.

Thus, therapy for compulsions requires accepting that what you do is bad. If you continue doing it, you are evil. If, however, you are bad, where do you get the strength to be strong and fight compulsions? Thus, a vicious cycle is set up. The more you moan about the eating or drinking, the more you realize that it is bad. If you increase your awareness of the evil of what you do, you increase the anger at yourself. You thus are fighting yourself. The first step, therefore, is to get out of the ring. You are not going to win this one alone. When you know this, you immediately remove from yourself the guilt engendered by failing to change. Now, when you drink, you are not failing, you are not evil, you are helpless. You are a rock thrown by forces beyond your control. You do not want to be thrown, but if you are sailing through the air, you are not punching yourself for this. You accept that you have a disease, or a problem. Now you can safely open yourself to the suggestions of others, pray and get better.

The body reveals a problem with a frightening dream. Jack awakes and his internal morass paralyzes him. He must first assemble three people. Thus, he says to himself, "I cannot do this alone." Next, he says, "I saw a good dream." This is a lie, but the lie has a truth in it. We have the power to change evil to good. We start with the dream. We will change it. It will bring us happiness, not sadness.

We have done all we can. Now the three people pronounce for us their support; it has the power to change our lives. "You saw a good dream," they say. They repeat this phrase, along with others of encouragement and prayer. When it is over, the dreamer is no longer frightened and alone. He no longer seethes with the forces that produced the bad dream in the first place. Of course, some of it and even most of it may still be there. However, there is now a positive force floating inside the mind along with the toxins. This powerful force warns the toxins, "There are people out there who want you stopped, and you are going to lose control." If the dream is prophetic, a message from heaven, the power of blessings and happiness will change it, as well. The person senses this, thinks this, and eventually, can find his way out of sadness.

Let us return to the Talmud, the text of the statement of Rabbi Yochanan and the gemora's exegesis of his comment. Rabbi Yochanan said, "Let him go and interpret the dream before three people." A person who has a bad dream should go to others who will tell him his dream is good. The gemora then asks a very strange thing. "Is it not true that a dream that is not interpreted is like an unread letter?" What does this have to do with it? Of course, a dream has an interpretation, a message, from heaven or from the depths of our being. But does this in any way challenge the teaching of Rabbi Yochanan? Yes, there is a message in the dream. However, Rabbi Yochonon tells us make it a “good” message by going to others. They encourage us in their interpretation of the dream.

The Talmud realizes that a dream does not lie. Of course, it can confuse, but it does not lie. If a dream makes a person frightened and anxious, he is not wrong to assume it is a bad dream. Either it comes from his inner guilt, or from transcendence, but it is bad. If such a dream should be interpreted honestly, the person might be quite frightened. The Talmud therefore challenges Rabbi Yochanan's teaching that we interpret a bad dream in a good way. This would make things worse. The dream is bad. It reflects bad inner thoughts, prophetic predictions or intuitive warnings of doom. Why make things worse by interpreting it in a false manner?

The Talmud says that the solution to this problem is not to interpret it accurately, but to make it good artificially. The dreamer and the three people lie and say it was good and will be good. Does the Talmud suggest lies? However, the forces within us have something to say. They want a response. They are often rough and scary, but when we deal with them properly, when we release them and embrace our obligations to ourselves, we can turn them from bad to good. The same person who is used to being the failure his father ignored can suddenly find himself, and the self-scorn he lived with can change to hope. Nothing within us is so powerful to change that. We are in charge, if we seek help. That is the teaching of Rabbi Yochanan.

What do the three people say to encourage the dreamer? There are three statements. "It is good, it will be good, G-d will make it good." A person who is fearful and guilty must know that he can rectify his fears. "It is good." Even if there are parts of the dream that are not good, and even if the person cannot feel positive at this point, "It will be good." Have hope; have faith. People tell him this, with authority. Three people are like a tribunal. They tell him, they "adjudicate" that his life will be good and at least improve. However, there are things that are just not able to improve unless a miracle happens. "G-d will make it good," they say. Your job is to know that it is good, it will be good, and G-d will make it good. At least, you are not responsible for your pain and failures. You must try, realize your limitations, and throw your trust on people's promises and G-d.

Next, there is a recitation of various passage; they are of three kinds. One stresses "turning over" or upheavals, sudden changes. The second kind stresses "three redemptions." 88This means that something is bad and we can't remove it without paying some price, much as one ransoms a prisoner from captivity. The third kind is about "peace."

First is "turning over" or "upheaval." A person who is mired in an emotional structure of hopelessness, frustration, anxiety and fear cannot easily change. We therefore tell him to run away from his pain. This is "upheaval." No longer are you in the Stockholm Syndrome mode of serving the forces that destroy you. You are no longer your enemy. You transform yourself. You will make "upheavals," and we will encourage and help you.

However, there are certain problems we cannot declare away. They sit on us and do not budge. We then invoke "three redemptions." We may have to pay a price to proceed. We may have to accept that pain is the price. Perhaps a relationship is the price. Maybe the perverse “pleasure” of suffering in the familiar way is the price, and we pay it.

Finally, we invoke "peace." We cannot live a life of paying the price, of suffering. We must have hope that one day we will find peace; we will manage to live without the worry of our inner enemy.

The Talmud then deals with "one who dreams, and does not know what he dreamed." He awakes, and it bothers him. The dream is important; it said something. He does not know what it said. In a way, this is worse than the person who dreamt a bad dream. One who dreams a bad dream knows what he dreamt; he knows his problem. He can then decide to struggle with it and get help. One who dreams without knowing what he dreamt has an unresolved need to know what the dream is. He is confused, even if he is not in pain. The confusion is unresolved. He is disturbed by his inability to deal with the message from somewhere in his dream. He must have peace.

In such a situation, the person does not assemble three people and declare that his dream is good. There are no three types of passages, upheaval, redemption and peace. Only when we have the evil clearly in front of us can we confront it with upheavals, redemptions and find peace. A confused person cannot do these things. Here, the person is completely helpless. He therefore goes to the synagogue when the cohanim, or priests, recite the priestly blessing. The one who dreamed prays that his dream be resolved for good while the priests bless the congregation. The dreamer concludes his prayers together with the priestly blessings. Thus, there is a climax, or finality, to the process. The blessings end. His prayers end. And his doubts end.

The Talmud mentions that Samuel the Talmudist had a unique approach to dreams. If they were bad dreams, he would scoff at them. He would quote a passage indicating that dreams are not true. If he had a good dream, he would accept it. He would quote a passage to show that dreams are important. There are different dreams, but the important thing is how you accept them. If you accept the bad without scoffing, you are injuring yourself. If you scoff at a bad dream, you are protecting yourself.

We do not want to injure ourselves, even if a dream punches us smack in the solar plexus. Rabbi Mayer Simcha was the Chief Rabbi of Dwinsk, Lithuania. He did not feel well, and so consulted a doctor. The doctor announced, "Your condition, rabbi, is hopeless, and you will die." The rabbi was shocked. He remonstrated with the doctor, "Is this the way to talk?" The doctor replied, "This is how I do things, rabbi. I tell the exact truth of the medical prognosis."

Rabbi Simcha declared, "Woe to me, I have sinned! I failed to check out the doctor. Now I have allowed the doctor to damage me with the painful way he told me of my condition. To allow oneself to be pained is a sin. I therefore accept before G-d the punishment he will give me to purify myself of the sin of hurting myself."

Rabbi Simcha's condition worsened. The community leaders, his family and friends gathered in his final moments. His mind was on and off, and his suffering intense. Suddenly, he emerged from a spell, and noticed a wealthy man standing next to his bed. He summoned his energy and appealed to the man to support an orphan who needed money to marry. The man agreed. At peace, Rabbi Simcha passed into a Higher World.

"To allow oneself to be pained is a sin." If possible, we must remove ourselves from pain, from upsetting relations, and from stressful situations. Sometimes we have to avoid hurting ourselves by remembering the coldness of our parents, or the brutality of a teacher. Siblings and friends insult us, and the shame sometimes never goes away. We live our lives associating our present and future with the pain of the past. We thus injure ourselves, and do not find the strength and freedom to grow and develop into what we could become. If we see a bad dream, if we have a painful experience with parents, we must rise in the morning and say, "The dream is nothing. I am important." Sadly, we define our value by what others say and do. When they put us down, we accept it. We must arouse ourselves to fight bitterly against any assault on our pride. We must bellow to our inner emotions: "It is a lie!"

Is a bad dream good? Is it a lie? The Talmud says it all depends how we interpret it. We have lost the ancient art of interpreting dreams, made famous in the bible by Joseph and Daniel. We will borrow, however, from the bible and Talmud to "interpret" our dreams and the events that seize us in their grip. Let us interpret the worst dream in a positive way, even if it is ridiculous. If you believe it, it is not ridiculous.

It has been, thank heavens, some years since my children came home with warts. As every parent knows, warts are extremely catchy. One child in a class can just touch another child, or rub his infected hand on his own cheek, and the warts grow and increase. Getting rid of them is a terrible problem. The only effective way is to burn them off, and children do not like that. When the warts get on the face, especially around the eyes, or if they spread too much to burn, what can the doctor do?

I remember the time I took my little daughter to a prominent specialist, a real whiz. We had confidence in him because of his reputation, and because he once diagnosed a newborn grandchild far differently than other doctors, and he saved the child. (The child had contracted some terrible infection in the hospital days after birth.) Now I awaited some medical magic wand to cure the warts. The doctor turned to me and said, "There is no cure for warts. It is a virus and does not respond to antibiotics. The only hope is to convince the body that it is sick, and that it must fight and destroy the warts." I was stunned. What had science come to? This was ludicrous. However, the doctor was not finished. "Anything will work," he said. "When you say prayers over a candle, take the melting wax and tell the child that this will make the warts go away."

I do not remember if the warts realized that they were in trouble. I do remember, however, that someone sent us soap from Israel, from Dead Sea minerals. It worked. However, the doctor's remark is so important. If you think something, you can even reach your warts. Yes, even tiny viruses will bow to your beliefs. Will you bow to your beliefs? If you believe, you can succeed.

We note in the Talmud that when Samuel dreamt a bad dream, he first scoffed and then invoked a passage to support his rejection of the dream. We cannot just get up and defy our dreams and fears. We must evoke an authority. We must obtain the prayer of the priests. We must invoke a biblical passage. The biblical passage does not have to agree with what we want. There are Talmudic contradictions and arguments if dreams are important. Of course, some dreams are important and some not, and perhaps everyone would accept that. The issue is, however, if we assume that our dream is for real, or if we assume it is not. If, however, we want to stop a bad dream frightening and pulling us down, we can invoke something that has no rational basis, just to seize upon a straw to strike at fear. It works.

Rovo says our dream interpretation must connect to the actual dream. When a car skids on the ice, you do not fight it. You ride with the direction of the skid and try gradually to gain control. If you fight, you will skid and completely lose control. This means that you must interpret the dream somehow related to the symbols and actions in the dream Even if the dream is completely evil, and portends doom, you can take the symbols, if you are clever, and rearrange them.

Abaya dreamed a passage in the biblical curses: "Your ox will be slaughtered in front of you and you won't eat from it." Obviously, this is a horrid dream, straight from the curses. He went to a dream interpreter, offered a few coins, and the interpretation was, "You are going to make so much money that you won't be able to eat because of your excitement and joy." A dream is comprised of images, ideas, sensations, emotions and symbols. They seem to be good or bad, but they can be "interpreted." The smart person knows how to do this.

In life, with our children and our own affairs, we are faced with disasters, with failures. The wise person or parent knows how to "interpret" things. A rabbi once had a student who had a defect. The student could not talk well. The time came for the student to marry, and the rabbi wanted somebody special. But would somebody special, looking for someone else special, take a boy who could not talk properly? The rabbi called up the girls' father, a senior rabbi in his own right, and said, "Rabbi _____, I have a boy so brilliant that he can't talk straight." The match went through, and everyone is happy. It all depends how you present it.

Usually we marry our children, in the Orthodox community, to people recommended by a third party. We cannot overestimate the influence of that third person. People can be influenced. The better the presentation, the more likely something will happen. Many matches seem ridiculous, but they resulted in wonderful marriages. Someone knew that this would work. Sometimes, an inspired person breaks down barriers.

A mother once demanded a large dowry for her highly eligible son. A matchmaker, undaunted, presented a poor girl. The mother refused. The brother of the girl came to the boy and asked him what was happening. The boy replied that he wants to go forward but his mother refuses. Her son deserves a dowry. The brother asked, "Do you have the money for a dowry?" The boy replied, "Of course, much more than that." So, the match was arranged, and at the celebration of the nuptials, the brother brandished the dowry, for everyone to see, so Mommy would be happy. Happily, the groom took his own money, and his bride. From them came a very distinguished Torah line.

One Torah great used to console boys who had trouble marrying. He told the following story. He was presented to his future wife, who refused him, because he was too short. Someone told him to put grass in his shoes, and she accepted him. If people try, "no" often becomes "yes."

Rabbi Yisroel Mayer Kagan, the saint of the pre-Holocaust generation, once told a boy of a match. The boy was shocked to hear that the girl had no parents, and that the father died after a long and debilitating illness, leaving the children penniless. Rabbi Kagan was undaunted. "Think," he said, "of the enormous merit of this poor girl. Her father died after a long illness. The father suffered long and accepted G-d's decree. The home is purified with the poverty and pain of a hard life. What merit this girl has before G-d!" The boy accepted the match.

Nowhere is it more important to "interpret" than in marriage. Everything is changed with perception, and perception is changed by a word, a remark, or a look. Those who work in matchmaking for their children or others (and there is no more worthy deed) know that a match is a log, ready to be lit. The log awaits someone to say the right things. We constantly need the support of others in our marriages. Two people alone are so handicapped. If, however, others mix in with criticisms, the couple is better off alone. Well-meaning relatives, even parents, ruin so many marriages. There is a Jewish saying, "A grandparent must have an open hand and a shut mouth." This means that a grandparent is tempted to play parent with their married children, and take over things or comment on this or that. Such can destroy the marriage of the children. Indeed, parents destroy many marriages. A grandparent must therefore maintain a relationship of giving and not commenting or controlling. It sounds harsh, but it is the only way. A married child is afraid of a parent. But once a parent signals that the child has nothing to fear, the child will give the parents more pleasure than the parent could have by forcing the issue. There are parents who fight tooth and nail for control of their children, pouring guilt and hate into the mix. Such a parent should be booted out of the family, because the new marriage comes first. Children are not toys for parents to destroy. None of this denies the child's Ten Commandments obligations to parents. That Command, however, does not allow parents to destroy marriages.

Until now, we have discussed dreams. There are dreams that come from within us, and dreams that come from other systems, beyond us. The Talmud now goes further, not only to discuss dreams, but inspirations. "Rabbi Yochanan taught, 'He who awakes and a passage falls in his mouth, this is a minor prophecy.'" A person wakes up, and passes from the state of sleeping into the waking state. The interim level is "waking," when we are in between sleep and wakefulness. Sleep is a time when our dreams speak to us in remote ways, as symbols, perhaps. When we are awake, we think clearly. Awaking is in between. Here, we are in a state whereby "prophecy," or "minor prophecy" can befall us. Transcendence does not easily compete with the breakfast table and business forum. Sleep is a time of truth when we cannot drive away the hard facts of life by being busy. When we first awake, we are still close enough to the sleep level of truth not to be able to obfuscate the truth. If we suddenly think about a passage, if it "falls into our mouths," this is a "minor prophecy." It means that our inner system, or perhaps heaven, presents us a truth that we usually conceal by being busy during the day.

The saints of Israel would find time during the day to be alone, and to remove themselves from the being busy that conceals truth. People running and doing cannot think deeply. We do not have to run to a cave; indeed, we do not find truth in caves, only bats. We find truth living in a home. However, we must allow the truths of the home to enter our systems by shutting off the noises that conceal truth.

Powerful Dreams

The Talmud then discusses those powerful dreams that are fulfilled. Rabbi Yochanan suggests, "A dream dreamt in the morning will be fulfilled."

When we sleep, our body sinks deep into the slumber state, and the mind rambles here and there. We may not understand such dreams, and they may not be fulfilled. On the other hand, when we dream in the morning, at a time when the mind is used to thinking daily thoughts and not nightly ones, the dream is an interloper, and is powerful. Such a dream will be fulfilled.

Note the power of the connecting period, when night gives way to day, or when sleep gives way to waking. The saintly Rabbi Horowitz author of Two Tablets of the Covenant, a major classic, says that we must join day and night with something holy, prayer or Torah study. The day is day and the night is night. The union, however, of day and night releases their joined forces and interim energies. Such is a potent moment.

There are periods in our life when we pass from one level to another. These are delicate and dangerous times, but suffused with potential. A couple marrying fasts before the wedding. People bring the names of sick people to pray for them. There are two reasons for this relative to our discussion. First, people leaving one level and going to another level are in between two worlds. They are in danger. They are, on the one hand, losing their old moorings, and on the other hand, entering a new system. The interim level is unstable but fraught with potential. This is a time of prayer. Great holiness descends to watch the two people leave their lives as singles and marry. Groom and bride greet the holy moment with prayers. Such a marriage has a stronger potential than a secular marriage where the bride and groom have other things to do on the wedding day.

There are children and adults who do well for a while and then fall by the wayside. Often, new challenges were not met properly, and changes were deleterious. When our child enters a new mode of life, a new school, a new grade, we must tremble. There is great light, and great darkness as well. It is a time of prayer and work.

Another powerful dream, says Rabbi Yochanan, is a "dream dreamt by another person about you." We cannot be sure that what we dream is objective; our many thoughts confuse us. When somebody else thinks about us, this is authoritative. Furthermore, since people usually think relative to themselves and about themselves, when they dream about another person there may be significance to this.

One of the great paradoxes of life is that we cannot see ourselves as others can. A poet asked, "to see myself as others see me." People are so full of potential; we often wonder why they despair. Some people delude themselves and are too confident. They need the advice of others to brake their unrealistic ambitions. If only such people could think of themselves as others do.

Sometimes we cannot dream, we are too weak. A dream of another person is all we have. Sometimes, you have to dream for your friend.

Another powerful dream is "a dream interpreted within a dream." This means a dream interprets another dream or itself. Interpretations of dreams are much harder to obtain than a dream. We always dream, or, we should always dream. Interpretation, however, is remote from what we dream. When the dream comes with the interpretation, this is remarkable.

Life is filled with dreams but few interpretations. We do not know how to fulfill our dreams. While we sleep, energies and ideas float in and out of our mind. Our mind is like a camera that clicks here and there surrounded by infinite scenes. The pictures are few and the scenes are many; most are not photographed. Sometimes, therefore, a dream has to tell us many things, and we cannot figure out what all of it means. Only a very special dream comes packaged with the interpretation. It is a focused dream. It is a complete dream, not one that tickles here and touches there. When we have a dream with its interpretation, we can unite all of our energies to succeed.

This idea is important in sexuality. Intimacy is affected by and comprised of variegated systems. Our rational faculty seeks someone we think is good. We think biologically about what arouses us in another. We think psychologically with what the person says to us in terms of perceptions, ideas and memories. Our emotions, drawing on the amygdala with its huge store of emotional experiences, symbols and fears, react to the person. We think with our ego level. Does the person raise or lower our ego?

Does this person help us to find success or frustration? We see the person through a road map in our mind. Are we there? All of these thoughts swirl when we deal with another, and they pale behind mystery and transcendence released in sexuality. Sexuality begins with all of the above forces, but this is only the beginning. What happens afterwards is predicated upon the solid foundation of a person knowing himself and being satisfied. Any rift in one's mental system or ego invites rupture from the enormous forces released during love and sexuality. Just as with dreams, we need “interpretations” of our myriad mental manifestations in intimacy. We need focus and resolution. We have to know where we are going and where we are. Even if perhaps we cannot put all of this into words in our finite mental expressions, we hope that somehow a resolution and direction is acquired in our relationships. We feel directed even if we do not know exactly where we are going. This is an “interpretation” not of words, but of song and beauty.

Another "super dream" mentioned in the Talmud is a "dream repeated." Dreams are energies floating in and out of our lives. If we take them and repeat them, they can become real. If we let them flash and disappear, we lose their potential. The great pre-Holocaust saints would spend hours repeating a few words. They wanted these words to penetrate, to dig deeper and deeper into their systems. Repeating does that. A repeat is not superfluous. A repetition is a new insight and can even be a new dimension.

A saint of the pre-Holocaust Yeshiva system once spent seven hours studying and repeating the passage, "Open for me the gates of righteousness." Suddenly, he leaped up as if bitten by a snake and said, "What is the problem? The gate is open. Let us go in."

In heaven, the Talmud says, there are two scholars. One is known as a servant of G-d, and one is not. Why? One learned something a hundred times, and stopped. The other kept on going. If we stop reviewing, we destroy our potential. This extreme idea seems to be a Talmudic hyperbole, stressing an important message. Review and repeat, because there is no comparison between someone who reviews and one who does not. However, there is an important idea that is no exaggeration in this teaching.

There was, in the past generation, a mighty mathematical genius, Paul Erdos, whose fame was such that Einstein asked him to explain the Theory of Numbers. What was his uniqueness? There were many superior intellects in this field. Erdos, however, began every morning from where he left off the previous night. He did not learn and drop it; he learned and developed it. One who does this repeats, reviews and expands until the simple idea becomes profound, and the work of genius soars beyond the horizon. Erdos was thus able to find incredible thoughts, nuggets hidden in the previous days' work that emerged from constant review and development of the old, rather than racing off to some exciting new area.

If this is true in mathematics, a most finite science, it is surely true in Torah and transcendence. The scholar who studied a Torah teaching one hundred times has penetrated to a fantastic level in this teaching. He is not reviewing merely so as not to forget the words. As Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzato taught, he blows upon each word as if it was a coal. With each breath, the flame grows greater and greater. A hundred reviews of the material produces such a light that one sees with it very far. What must he do? Shall he destroy the process by turning back, or does he allow the burgeoning light to flicker into greater and greater flames, and find new dimensions?

A rabbi of the past generation told me the following: Two students studied every night together. After a while, one student became a noted scholar, but the other student did not. What was the secret? What difference was there between the two students? When one student left, the other remained behind and reviewed the lesson.

Why don't we review? Why don't we think deeper into a good idea? We are in a rush. We have to go here, there and everywhere. The need to turn the page destroys the lesson, says the Talmud. Success is with review and repeating.

A prominent Lithuanian rabbi once left his home to study with a saint for many months. He returned and people asked, "What did you gain?" He relied, "I know there is a G-d." Someone called in the maid, an ignorant working lady, and asked, "Is there a G-d?" She replied, "Yes." The rabbi, thus challenged, replied, "She says there is a G-d, but I know there is one." It is along journey from saying to knowing. If we only say and do not really know, what are we saying?

One of the great differences between men and women is in this very area. Men do not like to review. They like to travel, to move, and not to cover the same ground twice. Women can discuss things that are not new. This is one of the frustrations of marriage, when the man gets nothing new out of talking to his wife, and the wife has an emotional need to review. The man who does not review is saying but not living. The wife, who is female and the Life essence, gets nothing from traveling. She is the circle, and she is, without running somewhere else. In every word and thought, there is a circle, something deeper. This is why the woman is known as NEKAIVO, which is rooted in the word "hole." A hole is emptiness. That is, it seems empty. Is the world empty? There is a linear world that sees nothing in emptiness, but the Life force knows that nothing is empty. It is not necessary to find something new to fill the hole. It is already filled, with Life. The man, with his intellectual searching, comes to this "hole" and cannot describe it. He must have “life” from his wife to know it. There is a Life dimension where nothing is emptiness. Indeed, perhaps the highest lights are in the “empty” vessels, which are really transcendent.

Male in Hebrew is ZOCHOR, a word related to ZAYCHER, or remembrance. This means that men, racing down the road from here to there, live from memories. They shoot along the road looking for new things. Phenomena are reduced to memories; the moving man misses life, unless he marries and finds resolution with the female.

Sexuality is female, and must be through repetitive words, not new words. Sexuality must be the flourishing of dreams repeated, not flows of innovation. There are people who follow their biological impulses all over the world, and even after decades, they never taste the repetitive life essence. The crisis of modern sexuality, the failure of married sex, and the frustration in any other kind, is entirely understandable in a fast moving world. You cannot rush into sexuality. If you are racing, you are not getting very far. In a world that prizes young people are prized and people fifty fear losing their jobs, any experience rooted in repetition rather than innovation is suspect. Sexuality thus does not work in the modern world.

88Life is not for new things, as Solomon taught, "There is nothing new under the sun." Of course, you can find a new kind of candy, a new kind of camera, and surely, the first camera was new. Solomon, however, does not want us to think of these things as new. They are valued as they relate to old needs, to remember things through pictures, for instance. We must not seek new things. We must develop the old things. Scientific advances are usually built upon earlier discoveries. Even Freud's ideas are rooted elsewhere, in Breuer and Charcot. In life, we seek to find the new in the old, not to escape the old. The more we escape the old, the more we seek frustration. This is because if life is finding something new, and whatever we do is only transitory, life is a cycle of failure. Do something, prize it for a while, dump it, and look for something else, until we tire of that. This is an infinite process of failing.

This does not mean that if someone comes up with a new insight we do not praise it. Of course, new insights are the treasures of the Talmudic scholar and everyone else who learns. However, we are wary of new insights that rebel against the old systems, for the sake of destroying. Repeating proves that the old is positive. Creating without foundation supplants the old with instability.

This is a basic conflict between Judaism and secular society. Judaism looks back, and when it achieves a new level always compares it with the ancient values. The secular world looks forward, and sees the present as a poor excuse for truth, which must be revealed by the future. How can one expect to remain married if we always seek a new interest?

Evolution says that biology is never finished. A species must always change, rise and improve. This means that life as we see it is unfinished. We cannot be satisfied. We cannot be complete. We are never finished. Life is one frustration. Our greatest efforts are only waves rising up in the endless ocean and falling prey to the next and better wave. People who believe this think of themselves as unfinished. People like that cannot have commitments, because all of life is transitory.

Creation means that a species need not change and improve. Life as we see it is finished. We can be satisfied. We can be complete. We are finished with our divinely designed evolution. Now we can resolve our struggles with human conclusions that are of the highest value. The waves of life rise and fall. Each rise and each fall is itself a completion, an entire and perfect event, created by G-d and blessed by our struggles and faith. People are, with their warts, in a sense, perfect; even the imperfections were put there by Perfection.

Two people in a secular marriage are two imperfections trying to conquer life, and ultimately each other. The only way an insignificant nothing in evolutionary process becomes important is by destroying things inferior. Our self-esteem is relative to how many weaker things we wipe out. Is there any surprise that secular marriage does not work out? Is there any wonder that married secular couples refuse to have children, or have only small families? If each generation must improve on the earlier one, a parent is inferior to a child. The secular culture wants something new, and despises the authority and teachings of elders. Old is bad and new is good. In the religious world, a young person is seen and not heard. "All of my life I grew up among the wise and learned that nothing is as good for the person as silence." Can you imagine teaching that in a public school? Secular society is busy empowering children against their parents. Secular life is about power; the more power children have against their teachers and parents, the more ruined they become in human terms. Such people, trained to do as children what children cannot do, never were children, and they thus can never be adults. An adult must be a child first, submit to adult authority, and appreciate the old. Only then can the child value himself, knowing that he rises in life to the treasured status of elder. A secular person sees the clock turning him into something negative. Age is a threat, and old age is a terror. Marriage is often a catastrophe that molds the children. An older secular person will die in a nursing home, alone, with the human wrecks of secular culture, growing old and senile, slowly going back into the earliest human stages of infantile behavior and thought patterns. Finally, before they die, they learn to be true children. The religious elder goes through the same patterns of thought reduction, honored by a large progeny, and at peace with the perfection of human decline, and the finality of emergence into a higher world.

The gemora then discusses the connection between dreams and our daily thoughts. "A person dreams what he thinks." Rovo proves this. "Know," he says, "a person does not dream about a golden date tree or an elephant going into the eye of a pin." Thus, dreams are related to our thoughts. The literal translation of the gemora is, "They do not show a person other than the thoughts of his heart." Dreams can be minor prophecies rooted in transcendence, or they can be mental processes displayed in symbols and perceptions. Perhaps our collective somatic essence has something to declare, and does this in a picture, memory or association.

Freud felt that internal bodily (endogenous somatic) forces linked to mental processes, but that the two were separate [2]. Unconscious bodily forces, known as tension or emotional energy, are unknown by us, but very real. Perhaps the greatest emotional and personal energies are things the body tells us that we cannot understand. We know these energies only when the body speaks to our mind. The unknown forces rise in tension until they link with ideas floating around in our mind. The linkage then allows the mental structure to deal with the psychical excitation and energies, through discharge, repression, defense mechanisms or whatever. The mind hears the voices of the deeper, invisible forces when they become perceptions, ideas, symbols and hopes. Dreams are the linkage of our common thoughts with hidden horizons in our system. Indeed, there are forces within and without us that we cannot hear or see. Dreams allow us to relate to these forces, to hear them and see them symbolically. If we can decipher these symbols, we can understand the messages.

Our daily thoughts are thus true as they relate to daily and mundane matters. They are also valuable as tools to understand the forces within and without us. We therefore do not denigrate the simple things we see in dreams. They are not simple.

We discussed previously about the value of repeating. Now we learn the appreciation of the mundane. Every morsel that we eat, every business deal that we do, has a mundane aspect. There are, however, deeper aspects, because people are connected to inner forces and external ones. The classic "Two Tables of the Covenant" states that in business, we buy and sell. Buying and selling are linked to the two Cabalistic forces that drive all of the celestial and worldly systems, male and female, giving and taking. Our mind at some level knows this linkage. Higher lights suffuse the mind even in its apparently mundane states. We must become sensitive to transcendence. We must appreciate the linkage of our mundane thoughts and deeds with higher and delicate external and even internal somatic forces.

The Talmud has just stated that we dream about what we think. Does this mean that we only dream what we experience? No, it means we dream what we think about, even if it is a most exotic thought utterly removed from our experiences. "The Roman Emperor said to Rabbi Joshua, 'It is said that you are very wise. Tell me what I will dream tonight.' Rabbi Joshua replied, 'You will dream that the Persians will take you to work for the king, and make a captive of you. They will make you tend the swine while you hold a golden wand.' The king thought about this all day and dreamt it at night."

Here we have a new concept of dreams as reviewing our thoughts even though they have nothing to do with our experiences. On the other hand, Rabbi Joshua told the Roman Emperor something that was on his mind. The story of Rabbi Joshua took place around the year 150, when Persia was still a mighty empire that was dueling with Rome. This would go on for centuries. Rabbi Joshua thus touched the Roman Emperor in his fears, in his daily thoughts about the struggle with Persia. Probably, the Persians were the uppermost thing in the mind of the Roman Emperor.

Let us look at bit more into the story. Rabbi Joshua did not get to the point right away, of the king being a swineherd. First, he told the king that the Persians would merely demand service from him. The style in ancient times was for the king to demand people's time and even animals for specific tasks. The king would seize a donkey for a day and return it. The owner could be drafted to drive the donkey.[3] Thus, the first idea was that the Persians would merely ask of the Roman Emperor that he perform a task for the king. This, for a Roman Emperor, was a disaster. However, it was not the worst insult. Next, Rabbi Joshua planted a further idea. The Persians would turn the king into a helpless captive, not a working person who merely gives a few hours or days to the king. Next, the king would fall still lower. He would be a swineherd. On the other hand, this is not the bottom. A person who was once a king can possibly get used to being a swineherd. At first, he remembers his glory and cries over his fall. Eventually, however, the pigs become part of his day, and part of his life, and he forgets, gradually, the good times, and accepts his new role somehow. Rabbi Joshua did not want this. He needed the king to link to deep fears and anxiety about the Persians. The swineherd would perform his lowly and despised task while holding a golden baton, the symbol of monarchy. Thus, the pain would be intense and never allow the fallen king to adjust.

By gradually going from the acceptable to the not acceptable, Rabbi Joshua pushed his perceptions deeper and deeper into the Roman Emperor's head until he dreamed exactly what Rabbi Joshua said.

The Jewish TSEDUKI

The Talmud 56B tells of a Jewish Tseduki. The Tsedukim were a sect of Jews that denied the Oral and Rabbinical Law and accepted only the Written Law. The Tseduki came to Rabbi Yishmael to interpret his dreams. He said, "I dreamt that I poured oil for the olive trees." Rabbi Yishmael explained, "You slept with your mother." From the rest of the dreams and stories we see that this was an egregious sinner especially in sexual matters. Rabbi Yishmael assumed that the dream dealt with his major interest, sinful sex, and interpreted the pouring of oil for olive trees as a return to the source. How does a man whose passion is illicit sex dream about returning to his source? He sleeps with mother, and dreams about it in this form. Why did the Tseduki not just dream of sleeping with his mother? Why did he have to dream in a round about way? There are two explanations: One, he was a Jewish Tseduki, and his sect prohibited sexual crimes. He, however, was overwhelmed with his passions and sinned. Therefore, his mental structure was designed to promote decency, and knew that sleeping with his mother was a heinous act. Therefore, the mind repressed the actual sin, and dreamt of it in a painless way. Had the Tseduki dreamt of sleeping with his mother, the mind would have aroused unpleasure, or pain, and made a ruckus. By dreaming symbols, the conflict and tension was hidden and thus resolved.

Another idea is that the Tseduki dreamt, not of what he did, but why he did it. Such a loose Tseduki who had so many women, married and otherwise, did not have to satisfy himself with his mother, who was surely much older than he was. Why did he do it? Here, the dream showed why he did it. He had a pleasure and resolution from sleeping with his mother that he did not have from other women. He found in his mother a return to his creation. Perhaps his entire rush to sleep with so many women reflected a need for a deeper relationship with his mother. After playing with so many false "mommies," the Tseduki finally regressed to the point of needing the real thing, sexually, as this is the greatest connection to the primal mother source.

Next, the Tseduki told of a dream, "my eyes touched each other." That is, his left eye moved right, his right eye moved left and they joined. Rabbi Yishmael told him, "You slept with your sister." A right eye never touches the left eye, and yet, they are extremely close. A brother is extremely close to a sister, but they never touch. The Tseduki, by violating the basic laws of incest, not only sinned but also did something so unnatural that his mental system considered the eyes had touched.

The eye is a great and powerful organ of the body. There are two eyes. Each has similar attributes and abilities. Yet, this eye is on the right side of the head and this eye is on the left side of the head. The head thus functions with two separate and un-touching powerful units. If a person's face revealed two eyes touching, the person would be hideous. The eyes touching violate the beauty that only eyes can present, and the entire face is marred. A family is a beautiful thing, with parents and siblings. When the brother and sister are apart, there is a beauty in this, for it is appropriate. When the brother and sister join, the family is badly damaged.

The eye represents the searching and the going of the person. A life is an eye, in that a brother and sister are both searching and going. As they go about life, the family supports the boy and girl to go their new and separate ways. This is natural and appropriate. The eye tells us where to go, and how to grow. The eye functions only when it looks out and away. When it looks sideways, it is not an eye. A brother and sister who join instead of supporting each other's march to a new family are going sideways instead of out.

The Tseduki had many women. Why did he need his sister? Again, we see that he did not want to leave the house. He came to his mother, and now, he came to his sister. Perhaps he feared to go out, and took courage from those he knew loved him.

The Tseduki was a Jew, but his sexual problems ruined him. Eventually, he became very bad and even robbed graves. Unfortunately, people who do not get enough love and courage from childhood want to stay home. They seek solace in the family, even though it is only designed to prepare us to leave. "Therefore, a man will leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife and they will be one flesh." In the home, one is not "one flesh," and thus is separate, learning to live and take step after step until the union of marriage.

Sometimes, the childhood frustrations and perhaps cold parents accumulate in the mind as tension that becomes anxiety. The anxiety turns to pain, and frustration has no release. At this point, the body desperately seeks relief. This is found by pleasure seeking. Anxiety batters the brain with anxiety, chemically by flows of powerful cortisone, and by the neuronal, hormonal and biological processes. Relief is found in the experience of pleasure, through drink, drugs and sex. A study released on January 26, '02, by Reuters-London shows that semen has hormones that relax a woman so that women who had sex without condoms had less depression than those who used condoms. The highest level of depression was from those who had no sex. The Tseduki who slept with his mother and sister also had a lifestyle of fornication and decadence. Those whose emotional structure is impaired often become perverse. Anxiety is linked to perversity, such as homosexuality. Proper sexuality brings a person peace. Perverse sexuality drives the person to compulsions without end. In drugs, the more one takes it, the higher a dosage is required to achieve the same high. In fornication, perversity requires higher or rather more evil perversities to achieve satiety. Eventually, one tries sexuality that defines him as evil. Just as in art there are movements of anti-art, such as painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa, so in sexuality there are drives that are anti-drives. One seeks sexual relief with anti-human behavior including sadism and masochism. The pleasure normal people have in pleasure is experienced in some perverse people when they have pain. Crossing thresholds of structure gives relief, until we cross the threshold of giving pleasure and not pain. In such a world, breaking the taboos and barriers, such as in incest, bring relief. It is simply a form of masochism, as it destroys one’s self-respect and causes great anguish.

In even religious homes, we find that a cold father and husband can create unusual and even perverted sexual activities in family members. There is a method to the madness. A child or wife is dominated by a powerful father/husband, and cannot escape or defend against the power of the cruel and cold male, who is not only stronger physically and perhaps emotionally, but also supports the family and controls it. This control is projected into the very innards of the psychical structure and is there met with fierce but failing resistance. What happens then?

One is that the pained person relieves suffering by seeking the pleasures of life, such as a craving for attention, eating, drink, drugs, or sex. Sex, however, has a power, even more than the other pleasures mentioned (although they share in this to some degree) to propel the suffering person away, far away from the dimension of demise and denigration. Sex, and to a degree other pleasures, transport us far away, transform us into other people, so that we are no longer the nice child sitting in front of the father getting put into place. We are no longer the faithful and adoring wife who is put down and criticized by a brute. The greatest relief from our pain is to relieve ourselves of our old identity and become a new person. Sex allows us a new identity whereby we no longer answer to the standards that cause us pain. The problem, of course, is that the transporting of the identity, the transposing of the self, is imperfect, and the core consciousness never forgets that all of this is fake. Nevertheless, the sexual perversion scores and strikes deeper and deeper into the core consciousness, whittling it down, until the sexual perversity becomes associated with the core personality increasingly. At this point, a terrible conflict rages within the person, and the pain is so intense that he invokes sexual pleasure constantly to escape it. These are the people who, as in homosexuality, couple with a dozen men in one night, or who are addicted to pornography, etc.

The idea of sexuality as a transformer of personal identity conforms to the Lurian teaching that sex is a much stronger force than other sins. Sex reaches into the very essence of the person. Indeed, sexuality is about the very core of the person, reaching out to expand, when done with proper intimacy. When used as a relief for anxiety, and in negative ways, sex reaches into the core of the person and flips it into its inverse. Therefore, sometimes the most seriously sick sex fiends are the most sensitive people with the highest aspirations. Not long ago the Dean of Harvard's Divinity School had to resign because of what he downloaded into his computer in his office, and watched during working hours. A lifetime of working with troubled people has shown me that delicate and high souls are the first to go. They need special attention to develop properly. The Communists, many of them simply murderers, were often highly intelligent idealists. Sickness and evil strike the worst poisons into the most intelligent and sensitive people.

Another idea, or theory, of this matter, is that the father projects hate, and the child or mother needs love. The father hates against his nature, which is to love his wife and child. Why does the father hate? The father hates himself, and yet, he is a father. How can he, a person supervised by an inner voice that squashes his pride into the worst mud, be a father and husband? How dare he consider himself an authority? One who is lowly and broken must raise himself and cannot, unless he squashes others. By invoking the opposite of his good nature, and inflicting pain, a person attains his own identity and pride. Therefore, one learns to become somebody by escaping from the essences of goodness taught by society and family, and transposing and transforming into the opposite of goodness. Hope is therefore only in the antithesis of goodness.

This pattern, of a good person dealing with an overpowering rejection of his self, by becoming the opposite of his inner goodness, is relayed to the mother and son, and they, too, adapt this pattern, and become sexually active as perverts.

The key to break this cycle is to confront the structure of the transposition and to reverse the cycle of the father breaking the wife/child. The best therapy in this regard is for the suffering child or wife to directly confront the sick father, in an appropriate and wise way, and get him to cooperate in everyone getting therapy and improvement. The first step is merely to establish a loving relationship. Just say hello. Be smiley and warm to the broken father, until the time comes to talk a bit more, ignoring the barbs and the bitter evil. Slowly, the monkey climbs down the tree, into the therapist's net. At least, that is the goal. If the monkey slips coming down it cripples itself and the people who let it down. Therefore, much thought, effort and prayer must go into such a procedure. If it works, it is almost a miracle. However, this is the ideal, and sometimes, a father must be left in the tree.

If so, talk to the father; keep up the relationship, even while he is in the tree. This time, however, let the barbs fly and label them, "Poor Daddy." Let the barbs fly at you and laugh at them. You are getting help, and he is not. You will need good therapy to laugh at these barbs. But once you learn how to do it, and accept your father as his problem, not yours, you are well on your way to recovery. It may be a long trip, but as long as you are going up and not down, you feel proud and not hopeless. If so, you already won something.

We know of the Stockholm Syndrome, whereby people torture others and the victims begin to treat the aggressors as good people. Obviously, a kidnapper or terrorist is bad and threatening to the hostages. Why then do the hostages sometimes, over a long period, identify with the aims of the evil kidnappers and terrorists? The process of owning yourself is not so simple. A force can come that can own you and deprive you of yourself. Originally, we may strive to defend ourselves, and our control of ourselves. However, to do so forces a confrontation. Stress and tension erupt between the person who controls us and our ability to control ourselves. Thus, our control of ourselves leads to irresolvable stress, and calls for activity that cannot be consummated. We cannot defend ourselves, and eventually, in order to relieve the stress and anxiety of the conflict between our control and the control of another, we drop our control and allow the other to control us. We identify with their will, as our own will only produces helpless and hopeless frustration.

When we surrender control in the Stockholm Syndrome, what do we do? There are two phases: One, we negate ourselves, and two, we adopt the control of the other. What then happens to our negated self? It is up for grabs. It is up for transposing and transformation. It may seek to flee as far as it can from the original person, because the original person is incompatible with the situation at hand.

Let us return now to the Stockholm Syndrome in the family. A wife or child faces a powerful all controlling father. The father exudes disdain for the dignity of the wife or child. The wife and child try to fight back, and attempt to salvage their dignity. However, to do so creates an endless frustration with someone stronger than they are and one who is in control of the finances and the emotions of the house. The result can be only one thing, surrender to this force. Negation to this force leads then to the next stage of the Stockholm Syndrome, which is adapting the evil force as the controlling personality of the person.

Little by little the real person fades from control, and then, from consciousness, and finally, from the subconscious. Possibly, the person adapts to this by transposing himself in various ways, usually deleterious and evil ones.

The father as controller and brute is Evil. The wife and child, in their surrender to him, in the Stockholm manner, thus embrace Evil. They cannot become evil by shooting people or torturing people, because this is not their style. We will imagine a wife and son who are not so fallen as to become Evil exactly as the father is. Yet, the conflict is such that Goodness must go, and Evil embraced. Here, the victims may escape their own identity by seeking Evil, but may seek another form of Evil. They may seek sex, and become addicted to pornography or to lewdness. They are Evil, and thus doing the will of the evil father. Yet, part of them survived. This part suffers from the Evil deeds. Therapy attempts to rescue this part and strengthen it to overpower the Evil that confronts it. By tearing away the power of the evil person who projects evil, we reveal the true good person who is no longer controlled.

A therapy for this is to find what is left of the original person, and encourage it, strengthen it, and weaken the hold of the father. Destroy the guilt by imposing an authoritative injunction on respecting Evil, including a father who brings you to be Evil. Dig away, bit by bit, at the piles of rocks and rubbish that clutter, crush and cover the good soul in the person, and eventually free it to control the self. Every session, every day of homework the sick person does, brings the soul up, up, closer to the light, away from the influence of other's controlling them. The suffering wife/child finds power, and keeps it. It may be necessary in such situations to remove the father, that is, to disrupt completely the relationship, for the health of the child.

This reveals another aspect of Stockholm. When the self surrenders, it does not go in one fast swoop. The process is gradual; each day something surrenders, but something is still left wanting so much to survive. Finally, a compromise is reached. Be Evil, but not exactly like the Father. Be sweet and kind, the opposite of the father, but embrace the force of the father, refuse to fight it, by becoming Evil another way, sexually.

When we decide to do this, we are helped by the extreme power of the father. The father has communicated to the wife and son that he despises them or hates them. If so, they accept that they are unworthy of love, and must be Evil. Perhaps the father feels that they are Evil. He must control them, he must fight them, and he must break them, because they are Evil. By becoming sexually flagrant, they are thus fulfilling the father's Idea.

In therapy, by showing the father to be sick, we reveal the child and wife to be well, and we reverse the relationship of a dominant father and a subordinate child and wife. For the mental health of the suffering family, the father must be removed from authority. Little by little, the scared and scarred souls of the child and wife are matured and brought to accept responsibility for their lives. They learn to live without dominant daddy, a most frightening idea, but one they must accept.

We now discuss another idea. It can be related and rooted in the above, but is best studied as a separate concept. One who is a prude or pious and falls into base sexuality has gone into a new dimension. The values are changed. The person is changed. Part of the structure, however, remains. However, it is transposed. The pious and prude person related to pride and goodness in terms of decency and natural sex. The fallen prude and pietist becomes inverse his previous state. This flip accomplished the important psychical mission of relieving one of the pressures on the prude, as he no longer exists. It also satisfied the call of Evil to change from being a prude or pietist, or to negate the self, as in death. Now, the person embraces Evil just as he once embraced goodness, although at any stage of this transposition some embers of the old self may still be there, watching through a peephole.

I once visited a college campus. This was in the seventies, in the beginning of the complete disappearance on the campus of what in my time was morality. I came as a visiting chaplain, and only with great ingenuity figured out why people locked the doors in the middle of the day and turned on the music full blast. However, the lovely flowers they cultivated did not signal their secrets, but a kind soul had pity on me and identified them as marijuana. A boy once told me, "Rabbi, if you were here, you would be worse than us." He is right for a variety of reasons that all come to one root. A rabbi works very hard to make a moral structure, harder than most people do. Therefore, when the rabbi flips, he flips the structure to evil, and works harder at it than most people. That is, unless the person peering through the internal peek hole is still alive and has some influence to restrain somewhat the process of dissolution.

Rabbi Yisroel Salanter taught that the righteous and the wicked have external and internal forces, and they are inversely related. One who has good outsides has bad insides, and one who had bad outsides, has good insides. A righteous person who has good insides has bad insides, and when they are released, they explode.

The Talmud tells of a Jew who became a pagan, and visited a site that was known for disgusting ritual. The ritual the Jew performed astonished all of the pagans. Never had they seen such a level of depravity. Jews who convert to other religions are often more zealous for the faith than the original religionists. The inside explodes, and the inside, repressed for many years, outdoes the outside. The outside functions quietly, disposing of its energies day by day.

The inside is more powerful than the outside. Yet, the outside forms the inside. There are two parts to the inside, or internal. One is the inverse of the external, the reaction to it in reverse. This we cannot control. It just happens, as part of the human system. However, there is an external to the internal, a coating of goodness can be placed right into the Internal as a coating, as an external to the internal. Repetition and resolution of goodness penetrate eventually inside of us, and coat the internal Evil. Evil will nonetheless lurk in our systems. Whether our internal or external system is good, the other system will be bad. There will always be some balance, some tension, and struggle. Although we know this, we can block the evil in our internal system. We can pump, pump, pump goodness deep into our hearts. Then it flows into the internal area, confronts the huge evil force coiled to spring, and bathes it with layer upon layer of goodness. This goodness ties the evil force within us, and protects us.

Segment Five - Homosexuality and Sexual Perversion

© copyright August 27, 2002 by author Rabbi David Eidensohn

Biblical Passages

Note to the reader: We begin Segment Five with biblical exegesis. Go slowly, and you will get the rich flavor of serious bible study.

Leviticus 18:22, the Sin of Homosexuality

The Torah (Five Books of Moses) in Leviticus 18:22 writes, "And you, a male, do not sleep with a male as one sleeps with a woman. It is an abomination." The literal translation is, "And the male: Do not sleep the sleepings of a woman, it is an abomination." What is the plural "sleepings"? The bible has two translations and two systems. One, is "the Torah speaks the language of people," that is, the Torah is written for people as they understand it, and as they apply the words. There is also a literal translation, utilized in codifying the Law and in Cabala. Each law, as "spoken to people," has only one basic idea, or perhaps a bit more. However, within the passage, in its literal exegesis, and in its wording and even the numerical value of the letters, we can deduce many thoughts. However, these cannot overrule the thrust of the "speaking to people," and the rabbinical logic applied to the simple words. (One who has studied some rabbinics may recall that there are four dimensions to bible study: the basic translation, "hints," "deduced meaning," and "secrets of the Torah." These are in Hebrew peshat, remez, derush and sode. Our exegesis is not limited to any one of these four, but may enter into any of them.)

Let us return now to the literal translation of the passage, to find thoughts not revealed in the simple saying of the law. First "And the male." The Torah says to a man, "You are a male." If you are a male, you cannot achieve your polarity with a male, but only with a female. If you sleep with a man, you not only sin, but also you lose your masculine essence, in some esoteric sense. Again, if a man sleeps with a man, he becomes a "woman." (A sensitive sense for subtle thought is helpful here.) If a man sleeps with a woman, he becomes a man. Sexuality achieves the dormant polarity of the other. If one sleeps with his own, he produces the polarity by himself becoming a "female." Let us continue with the literal translation, while holding on to this thought.

"Do not sleep the sleepings of a woman." What is the plural "sleepings"? It should say the singular, the "sleeping of a woman." The idea, however, is that when a male sleeps with a female, he becomes a male. Why does a man become a “man” by sleeping with a woman? First, in a biological sense, by behaving like a natural man, he is biologically “male.” Secondly, he achieves “manliness” by polarity. Since he slept with a woman, he must become the opposite, or “male.”

In homosexuality, a male sleeps with a male. One is the “male” in the act, and the other is the “female.” The “male” of the act is biologically “male.” However, polarity declares him “female.” Polarity, we explained, means that one is the opposite of the partner. If the partner is female, he is male. If the partner is male, he is female.

The homosexual act is physically two males. Biologically speaking however, there is only one male. That male, the “male” of the homosexual act, becomes “female” by polarity. When he sleeps with a male, he becomes a "female." Thus, the male who receives his sleeping as a woman is a "woman." The male who perpetrated this, the "male" of the homosexual act, also becomes a "woman." We thus have "sleepings [plural] of a woman." Both males, the "male" male and the "female" male, become "female."

"It is an abomination." In the Hebrew, the word "It" is written in both the female and the male mode; the letters spell "male" and the vowels spell "female." That is, "it" is pronounced as HEE, which in Hebrew is the female for "it." "It" is written as HOO, the male "it." The mixture of male and female, in this case, is an abomination. Although in general we want a mixture of male and female, we don't want it this way. The Torah wants a male/male and a female/female to mate. When they do, the male becomes a male and the female becomes a female. In homosexuality, everything runs backwards. The males become females. The male and female essences blur and are confused, and this is an "abomination."

In Cabala when the male mates the female, the two forces unite, and produce "truth." Male is not truth, nor is female. Together, they "know" each other, and find "truth." Sex is ideally a transcendent experience of purest spirituality, as the rabbis taught, "there are three in the bed, the man, the female, and the Holy Presence." This reveals "truth." In homosexuality, the process is reversed, and truth is erased. Thus, the acronym of this passage has the numerical value of "erase the Truth," in Hebrew, TIMCHEH EMESS. (In Hebrew, the letters are also numbers.) The homosexual experience does not reveal G-d. It does not reveal the participants. In fact, it erases holiness that existed before the experience. It erases the deeper "knowledge" of the participants, until they do not know themselves as they once did. Now they are farther from G-d than they once were.

This frightening situation poses a question, What can the homosexual do after the sin? How can he find the power to repent, to return to G-d, and to find anew his manliness? To find out, we seek the last letter of each word in the passage. They give us the numerical value of two words, "Torah, love." The Zohar says that one who does terrible sins can return to G-d with true penitence out of love of G-d. The rabbis tell us to achieve this by studying Torah. The homosexual atones for his sin by ceasing to sin and studying Torah. When he achieves love of G-d he finds purity. Love of G-d and Torah restore the supernal systems disrupted by homosexuality. There is, however, another idea about these two words, "love" and "Torah."

Why does one become homosexual? Therapists say that a major reason is a lack of love. A cold father, cold relationships with other men, or the inability to relate to a male nurturer, mentor or comrade disrupt one’s natural processes. However, even one who has a cold father can find some happiness. Through Torah study, one achieves a warm love for G-d. "Love" of G-d leads to contentment and "love of the person himself." Masculinity blossoms in such a person. When we love G-d, we love ourselves, and come alive. Masculinity flowers within us.

What happens when the homosexual repents, and finds love of G-d through Torah? The rabbis tell us that when one repents out of love of G-d, the evil force becomes good energies. This potent level raises the penitent higher than the perfectly righteous, as the rabbis taught, "In the place where the penitent stands, the perfectly righteous cannot stand." Note the word "stands." "Standing" is a sign of pride. I stand tall because I believe in myself; I am proud of what I am. The penitent, having achieved this pride, has gone through much more than the perfectly righteous, who achieve "standing" without difficulty. The great challenge of the penitent is to achieve "standing" and pride. When the penitent realizes the mighty triumph of his return to holiness, he stands tall. He has transformed an "abomination" into holiness and achieved pride and honor.

The first and last letters of each word in the above passage have a value of 1,513. We can express 1`,513 has two numbers, 1500 and 13. 13 is the Hebrew word AHAVO or "love." 1500 is the unity of the "male" and "female" letters of the Divine Name. These two are united in "love" that has a numerical value of 13. G-d is higher than polarity and is not "male" or "female." However, the polarity process in nature and mating reveals transcendence, which is higher than polarity. Polarity, through love, reveals a higher level, a unity beyond polarity. Our knowledge of G-d, relating to finite facts and letters in the Torah, allow us to achieve transcendence. We thus rise above polarity through love and polarity. The separate selves of human beings are remote from G-d. We rise to heaven when the male and female negate the separate self out of love to another. This unity of polarity negates the divisiveness of humankind. It raises it above polarity to G-d Who is above polarity.

The process to reach G-d involves people, words, polarity, letters, Names of G-d, and thoughts proper for finite people. This, however, is only the beginning. It must lead to a true love and transcendence higher than polarity. Thus rising is a process of a vanishing polarity. At first, it vanishes. Then, it is revealed in transcendence. We rise to heaven and then bring the heavens to us. Rabbi Elijah of Vilna teaches that going to heaven is only the beginning. Jacob’s Ladder in the bible had angels “rising and descending.” We rise, but only to descend. The true desideratum is to rise to heaven and then descend into the finite revealing infinity.

Finite letters and words lead us higher and higher into supernatant letters and words, and from there to supernal sources for letters and words, higher and higher to transcendence. This process to find G-d, beyond all finite polarity, knowledge, etc., is the process of life itself, and never ends, because G-d has no limit. Even in the Future World, souls without mortal bodies see G-d, and race closer and closer to Him. Never, however, will any soul or angel know G-d, as only G-d can do this. We will never come to an ultimate Height, Depth or End, as G-d has no Limits. The pleasures of the Future World, unlike the pleasures of this world, are not limited by the weakness of a body, and are not finite, but infinite. Just imagine the pleasure of eating your favorite ice cream, not a spoon at a time, but a ton at a time, and never growing fat. Imagine your taste buds with a magnified capacity. Where the pleasure in eating ice cream in this world is ten on the scale, in that world it is a trillion. Imagine that the more you eat, the more you can eat, and instead of getting satisfied, you get more and more capacity to eat. This is a small idea of the pleasures of the Future World. And yet, we never reach the end, which is G-d. When we approach transcendence, in this world, we never find it. We find, rather, a process of transcendence that informs us. We invoke it in our daily lives, and sense it, each according to their soul’s level. Love and kindness lead us on, higher and higher, to reveal infinite lights lower and lower.

In polarization, “male” and “female” shine with supernal lights. "Male" and "female" also activate the supernal sources of polarity. G-d, Himself, however, is above all polarities. We refer to Him using anthropomorphism to allow people to understand, but G-d has no physical form and no finite boundaries or limits.

Unmated polarities are lower forces that impede spirituality. When they mate, they "flip" the finite into the infinite, much as darkness reveals day. Thus, "day" or SHACHRIS is from the word SHOCHOR, or black. The blackness of night reveals day. Male or female alone is negative. But when "flipped" by mating, they achieve transcendence.

Let us return to the first and last letters of the passage about homosexuality, which add up to 1513. 1000 is hidden transcendence, and 500 is revealed holiness. These two are male and female and unite in "love," the number 13 in 1513. Briefly stated, 1513 is:

· 1000 or transcendence

· 500 or revelation

· 13 in Hebrew is AHAVA love and ECHOD “one”

Thus, 13 “love” or “one” resolves the clash between transcendence and revelation. These two, transcendence and revelation are also poles in the cosmic polarity. The are “male” and “female” in their own right!

Thus, the penitence and return of the homosexual restores the basic male and female system to its original level. Indeed, the penitence raises one to transcendence with the strength of penitence.

"The Sleepings of a Woman"

We have discussed previously subtle concepts about the phrase “sleepings of a woman” regarding homosexuality. Now we will discuss “sleepings of a woman” in a simpler vein. The phrase in the literal translation, "the sleepings of a woman" suggest that there are two ways to commit homosexual sex. A woman has two portals, the vagina and the anus. Each is considered a receptacle for sex. That is, biblical sexual sins are consummated not by foreplay, but by the male copulatory organ penetrating the orifices of the female. The two sexual cavities that consummate sexual sins are the anus and the vagina. In homosexuality, the male receptor does not have a vagina. However, surgically, it is possible to cut a hole in the male similar to the vagina. This is done in modern times with men transsexuals who are biologically male and emotionally female. When these transvestites undergo surgery, there is an orifice similar to a vagina allowing penetration for homosexual sex. The biblical phrase, "the sleepings of a woman" indicate that a homosexual male in the female role may consummate the sin of homosexuality by allowing penetration either of his anus or his artificially carved orifice. This, however, is not a definite view, as the orifice is not a real vagina. Nonetheless, it is a possible explanation for the term "sleepings" and it certainly a grave error to consummate such sexuality. (See Ibn Ezra Leviticus 18:22 in the name of Rabbi Chananel.)

Biblical proscriptions on sexual relations whether in incest, adultery or homosexuality have various levels of severity. The worst two levels are penetration by the male copulatory organ of the genital orifices, the anus or vagina. Penetration is itself of two levels, the first a mere touching of the male organ to the clitoris, and more severe, the penetration of the bulbous glans penis into the vulva and vaginal vestibule. This second phase is consummation. Penetration is the sin even without emission of seed.

Foreplay leading to a sexual sin is a sin. Even foreplay that does not lead to a sin is a sin. One who is aroused by another during mundane activities such as talking or looking may also be a sinner, unless such talking or looking has nothing to do with sex. Thus, physical contact between a healthcare provider and a patient is permitted, because we assume that the professionalism of the person does not allow for arousal. Sexually arousing physical contact between two people without a professional distraction is forbidden.

Orthodoxy teaches us to fear sexual sin, because it is perhaps the strongest emotional force. Once we are smitten, to escape is a great challenge. The chances of escaping are less than an obese person has to stop eating, or a drug addict has to stop taking drugs. The greatest families and personages learned this the hard way. For this reason the Talmud warns in the strongest terms that even relatives are prone to disaster. The problems of newlyweds moving in with their parents presented sexual problems between the two generations.

There are two levels of sin besides the actual consummation of sexual activity. One, we described, is foreplay. Another similar category has a term, "abizrayho," meaning, something that brings to or is associated somehow with the sin. For instance, we may not touch women except our wives, mothers, daughters, and granddaughters, but we may talk to them. If the talking is a prerequisite for sin, it may be "abizrayhu" and forbidden. The Talmud has a case where a man became sick because of his desire for a woman. The doctors said that he could ease his illness if he had some sexual pleasure from her, even talking to her separated by a wall. The rabbis said that such an act was "abizrayhu," and considered a cardinal sin of its own. The man must die and not speak with her, unless the woman decides to marry him.

We see the extreme seriousness of sexual sins. Sexuality is the foundation of the family and society. It is the essence of holiness. Any breach in it destroys Judaism. Thus, there are many capital sins associated with sex, such as incest, homosexuality and adultery. There is another passage about homosexuality in the Torah, Leviticus 20:13. Let us study this passage with the same process we used on the earlier passage above.

Leviticus 20:13

"And a man who lies with a male the sleepings of a woman, they have performed an abomination, both of them. They must die. Their blood is upon them."

We are firstly impressed that the bible should repeat a law twice. We know already from an earlier passage, in Leviticus 18:22, that homosexuality is evil. Why does the Torah repeat this? We could say that the style of the Torah is to present a sin and then to present the punishment of the sin. If so, passage 18 is the sin, and passage 20, describing capital punishment, is the punishment. However, the bible could present a repetition for punishment briefly. Here we have an entire passage, with many words. We must study them. We want also to see if this passage differs in any way from the previous one.

Let us translate the two passages, and compare them.

Chapter 18

"And the male [Hebrew for male is ZOCHOR]: Do not sleep the sleepings of a woman, it is an abomination."

Chapter 20

"And a man [Hebrew for man is ISH] who lies with a male the sleepings of a woman, they have performed an abomination, both of them. They must die. Their blood is upon them."

If you like biblical exegesis, you will find many differences between the two passages. However, they do not make easy reading, and are perhaps too scholarly for a work of this type. We therefore list italicized many differences for you to study and comment upon. But if you wish, skip the hard part and continue on after the italics. After you know our points, it will be much easier to do a more full exegesis.

Chapter 18 refers to the man homosexual as "ZOCHOR," which means "male." Chapter 20 refers to the man homosexual as "ISH," meaning, "man." In Chapter 18 it addresses the "male," and warns against "the sleepings of a woman." The word "man" does not appear. Chapter 20 addresses a "man," not a "male." Also, Chapter 20 warns a man not to sleep with a "male," not a "man." Chapter 18 does not mention the “female” homosexual partner explicitly, whereas Chapter 20 does. In fact, Chapter 20 says “they have performed an abomination, both of them.” Thus, Chapter 20 actually repeats “they” and “both of them” to include both partners in the homosexual act, whereas Chapter 18 has no explicit mention of the second or “female” partner.

Another difference in the two passages is that Chapter 18 says, "it is an abomination," and passage 20 says, "they performed an abomination." These are two perspectives. "It is an abomination" objectively describes the deed. "They performed an abomination" mentions "they" as the perpetrators. It does not merely emphasize the act itself as in Chapter 18.

Another difference is that Chapter 18 is in the second person. "Do not sleep" is directed to the person. Chapter 20 is third person, "they have performed, etc."

Here are the passages and an exegesis to explain the differences between Chapter 18 and Chapter 20.

Chapter 18

"And the male: Do not sleep the sleepings of a woman, it is an abomination."

Chapter 20

"And a man who lies with a male the sleepings of a woman, they have performed an abomination, both of them. They must die. Their blood is upon them."

The key to the differences in the passages is in Chapter 20, when it says, “they have performed an abomination, both of them.” The repetition “both of them” indicates to us an understanding of the passage. In sexuality, there is the individual who does a deed. For instance, someone sleeps with an animal. The person has sinned individually. The animal is not part of the sin or part of the equation. On the other hand, if a person sleeps with a close relative and commits incest, or if one commits adultery, the sin is on not just an individual, but on the pair who mated. Put another way, a married person sleeps with the spouse. There are two ways of looking at the sexual act. One, what each individual did. The individual is surely something of value in our discussion of sexuality. On the other hand, the individual wants to reach higher with polarity and mating. Thus, we deal with a person in sexuality as an individual, and also as a partner in mating. The mating transcends the individual and is higher.

In all sexuality, we have polarity, two poles, and two people. Each person in sex acts and relates to himself or herself, and then, the two mate and enter a unity where the individual roles are blurred. The two phases of sex, the individual and the mating pair, apply to both good and evil sex. Just as in good sex, such as in marriage, we have individual sex and mating as a pair, which is higher, so in evil sex, we judge the individual and the mating pair. They are two separate levels.

This is the theme of the two passages. The first passage deals with the perpetrator relative to himself. It directly accosts him, "[You, O'] male, do not sleep the sleepings of the female." In this sense, we talk only to the male homosexual about his own essence. We are not now concerned with the higher level of sexual unity that produces a mating and merger of the two people. The next passage in chapter 20 is the higher phase of sex, the unity between the partners that transforms each of them and transcends their individuality. Here the two together are judged as a pair.

Chapter 18 tells of the individual "male," not the higher "man" produced by mating. The lower “male” violates gender sexuality, and sleeps with another male. Because in this passage we concern ourselves only with the individual sinner, we do not mention the second partner. Also, we refer to the sinner only as “male,” a lower appellation, and not as “man,” something achieved by mating with another. In Chapter 20, when we deal with mating, the partner is mentioned and the perpetrator is called “man,” rather than “male,” because he is now judged as part of a mating pair and not just himself.

Chapter 18 talks to an individual in the second person, as he is the object of the passage, rather than the act of mating. Chapter 20 talks about mating that leads to transcendence. The act, not the person, is the issue. Therefore, the passage is in the third person plural, not speaking directly to one person.

Chapter 18

"And the male: Do not sleep the sleepings of a woman, it is an abomination." As before, this passage is not about the higher mating, but speaks to the individual before mating. There is thus no mention of a partner. In Chapter 20 the partner is mentioned, because it deals with mating.

Chapter 18 says, "It is an abomination," and Chapter 20, dealing with mating says, “they did an abomination.” Chapter 18 deals with the individual’s sin; “it is an abomination.” Chapter 20 deals with mating, “they did an abomination.”

Chapter 20

"And a man who lies with a male the sleepings of a woman, they have performed an abomination, both of them. They must die. Their blood is upon them."

Here the Torah mentions both partners, because this is about mating.

"They must die. Their blood is upon them," is a frightening phrase. Does this mean that we slaughter homosexuals? The bible is filled with capital crimes. However, the rabbis, with the authority given by them at Sinai, interpret the capital crimes to utterly minimize the actual practice.

First of all, one can only be so punished if the sinner did what he did with clear intent. The way to determine this is for two witnesses to warn the person, before he commits the sin, that such a sin is punishable by death. Obviously, once this happens, very few if any people would sin. Furthermore, if the person does this because he is insane, this is also a lack of intent, and perhaps a fundamental lack of culpability.

If the person committed the sin despite the warning, and is mentally stable, the rabbis had other reasons to defer the actual punishment. Therefore, “a Sanhedrin that killed once in seventy years was a bloody one.” When the Sanhedrin saw that it could not evade capital punishments, it closed down, as happened towards the end of the Second Temple period.

There are many obstacles along the way to the gallows. The idea is not to kill people, but to let them know that the sin is hideous. Homosexuality is a heinous sin, along with other heinous sins in the Torah. A homosexual is to realize how much pain G-d has from such deeds, and repent.

Homosexuality and Sexuality

The Torah, known by others as the bible, proscribes homosexuality. We have discussed in detail the passages. Here we want to understand why the Torah opposes homosexuality. By so doing, we exercise our option, indeed, our obligation, to accept the gift of Torah from G-d and to study it to the best of our ability. “We will do and we will listen” cried Israel at Sinai when they received the Torah from G-d. “We will listen” means we will understand.” In the passage “Hear O Israel, the L-d our G-d, the L-d is One,” “hearing” means “understanding [4].” First we obey “We will do.” Only then, do we seek deeper ideas “We will hear.”

The Jewish people have a luxury in their religion that it came to them directly from Sinai and remained exactly that. Other religions rejected Sinaitic Judaism. They therefore must invent the mind of G-d and create morality. Obviously, one person’s morality is another person’s immorality. This is why the major world religions battle and bloody the world. American Christians, for instance, invoke the passages in Leviticus to oppose homosexuality. The homosexuals then ask them, “Why do you accept these laws and reject the biblical laws about eating non-kosher animals and seafood?” Obviously, since Christians do not accept the Torah, the bible is not the reason. They only accept from the Torah certain laws and reject most of the others. Therefore, one who is not Jewish and invokes the bible to proscribe homosexuality does so not because of the bible alone, but rather because of non-biblical reasons. Such a person may feel that homosexuality is perverse, and then, utilize the bible to buttress such an opinion. A Jew, on the other hand, can accept that homosexuality is wrong, but not consider it wrong because it is perverse. G-d proscribed it.

However, the appellation “abomination” the Torah ascribes to homosexuality indicates it is more than simply another law in the Torah. Homosexuality is a serious violation of biblical norms. We can then explain this because homosexuality is a violation of nature and the essential role of sexuality in life. We can say homosexuality is perverse. This, however, is after we accept the law because G-d gave it at Sinai, and not because we would necessarily consider homosexuality evil on our own. Having said this, we can now explore some ideas about homosexuality. None of them are important in deciding whether to be homosexual. G-d forbids homosexuality. They are important for us to fulfill our biblical obligation to “obey and to listen” or “obey and understand.”

Why is Homosexuality Wrong?

There are various categories of sins. The first sin is not obeying a positive command. We are told to do something. If we don't do it, we have sinned. More stringent is a law telling us not to do something. If we transgress and do it, this is more serious. There are then various worse levels of transgressions, with "abomination" being among the most severe. The worst sin is violation of monetary trust, which is "abomination," "twisted," "disgusting," "condemned," and "wickedness." Such a sin takes place when a judge violates trust put in him, or a storekeeper violates the trust of his customers, or someone uses false weights and measures. Even if homosexuality is not in this category, it is still wickedness and a capital crime. What is the concept that we glean from the prohibition of homosexuality?

One approach is as follows: Our universe is a polarity. We relate to outside things, and without them, we are crippled or meaningless. What is a human being without anyone else? Our adventures in spirituality are only with a partner. The rest is a sideshow. Marriage is the highest level of spirituality. Conversely, the refusal to look forward, away from our own gender, violates the cosmic constant of polarity, and is thus evil. Is this an appropriate explanation for forbidding homosexuality?

It is not, really. Let us take a homosexual. He is one of about two percent of people in the world who are unable to relate to the other gender properly. Does he want to be a homosexual? Probably not. Can he stop being a homosexual? He would answer, "Probably not." Whether or not this is true or not is not the point. The homosexual sees no way out of his condition. Shall we tell me to go for therapy? Shall we tell him he is an abomination? Shall we tell him, amid his throes of an agony we cannot fathom, something about polarity? What we have just said is extremely important for not only the discussion of homosexuality, but for the battle between religion and secularism in other areas as well.

If you ask me, an Orthodox Jew, what is wrong with homosexuality, I will answer, "I don't care." You may be stunned. Is this an intelligent answer? Is this a sensitive answer? Why don't I care?

I don't care because it is none of my business. G-d created the world and gave a Law. He knows why homosexuality is an abomination, and He didn't tell me, so it is none of my business. Of course, as a scholar, I want to understand the Torah as best I can. I will study this law and draw what I can from it. However, this has nothing to do with the Great Debate on homosexuality. Why is homosexuality wrong? I believe it is wrong only because G-d said it was wrong. If G-d did not forbid it, and so many people enjoy it, who am I to tell them not to enjoy it?

Once the Torah has spoken, or rather, once G-d has spoken, people study the Torah to understand the principles enunciated in it. Our scholarly interest has nothing to do with the Great Debate about gay marriages, but in a way, it has everything to do with it. The reason that it has everything to do with it is not a Jewish reason, and indeed, violates Judaism's basic premises. Let me explain.

Judaism has little use for prophets, except for their exhortations and warnings. "No prophet can invent Law." Other religions allow mortals, not only to invent Law, but also to declare the basic features of the deity. This is the basic difference between Judaism and other religions. There was only one Revelation at Mount Sinai, when G-d gave the Ten Commandments to Israel, publicly, and before an entire nation. Other religions, even if we respect the moral impressions they make upon society, are mortal ideas, spread usually by the sword and dedicated missionaries. Usually that sword is turned upon their own kind. Christianity, for instance, has shed rivers and oceans of the blood of other Christians. Perhaps Christians killed more Christians than they did Moslems and Jews, and of course, they killed plenty of Moslems and Jews. Such a religion, dealing with homosexuality, may mention the Old Testament, as they call it. But since they reject the Old Testament, they must find other reasons to proscribe homosexuality. For such people, homosexuals are abominations for reasons other than G-d's decree.

This is where we get into nasty problems of prejudice. The Church cannot proscribe homosexuality without demonizing it. Since demonizing homosexuality is a cultural issue, ultimately the culture will determine what is to be proscribed, not the bible.

Christians, Moslems and Orthodox Jews may find common cause in the Great War against the Gay Lobby and radical secularists. The reasons for their opposition to homosexuality, however, are not the same. An Orthodox Jew accepts the Bible because it is a divine teaching. The Christian and the Moslem do not follow the bible, and therefore, must invent new reasons when they proscribe homosexuality. The homosexual asks the church, "Why do you invoke the bible when it proscribes homosexuality, but you reject the bible when it talks about the sin of cooking milk with meat?" There is no answer to this. The answer, if one is given, is that the Church, in its evolving of a religion, promotes those things it feels are good and proscribes those things it thinks are bad. In order to proscribe homosexuality, the Church must find something inherently evil in it. The passage in the bible is not enough for a Christian, who has rejected the Five Books of Moses.

The Church is also hard put to rely upon the teachings of its own early saints, because so many of their teachings have been rejected. Therefore, ultimately, the Church must proscribe homosexuality for modern reasons. This raises the specter of the Church proscribing homosexuality, not for biblical reasons, but because it finds in homosexuality some secular or intrinsic evil. This is a very delicate thing to do. If the Church must paint homosexuality in contemporary terms of rejection, it runs into an obstacle. People are born that way, and how can we reject them?

Ultimately, therefore, the issue of social acceptance of homosexuality will come down to two camps: 1) the Orthodox and accepters of Sinai, and 2) those who struggle to proscribe homosexuality in secular terms that are increasingly deemed irrelevant.

We welcome the support, in our battles against the Gay Lobby, of people who are not religious, per se, but who nonetheless feel that homosexuality is perverse and unnatural. This is a rational reason to reject homosexuality. Indeed, the very anti-religious Freudian therapy community always considered homosexuality a disease and a perversion, for scientific reasons. Only with the rise of the Gay Lobby did this change, not for scientific reasons, but for political reasons.

Indeed, the argument against homosexuality that it is unnatural has a biblical base. G-d created nature, and those sexual acts considered "unnatural" are violations of G-d's Nature. If we define what G-d's Nature is, we can then proscribe homosexuality as violating the polarity of physics and biology, as well as the majority of human marriages and mating and even animal mating.

A Wedding of the Talmud

The Talmud (Nedorim 51A) tells of Bar Kaporo's interpretation of TOEIVO, or "abomination." Bar Kaporo attended a wedding, and gladdened the spirits of the participants with an interesting and unusual insight into the word TOEIVO, or "abomination." The word TOEIVO is an acrostic for TOEH AT BO, meaning, "You are lost in it." The commentators explain that one who leaves his wife for a man is "lost" and astray.

The story is difficult to understand. Rabbi Judah the Prince, the leader of the Jews, makes a wedding. Bar Kaporo comes and, of all things, talks about homosexual "abomination."

Bar Kaporo came to the wedding of the children of Rabbi Judah the Prince, and challenged Rabbi Judah to explain three terms of shame: TOEYVO regarding homosexuality, TEVEL used regarding a woman sleeping with an animal, and ZIMO, used regarding profligacy. Do we talk about these topics at a wedding?

The Talmud says that Bar Kaporo came to the wedding, although the family was not terribly enthused. He came, challenged Rabbi Judah the Prince to explain the various terms, and rejected all of Rabbi Judah's interpretations. Finally, Bar Kaporo said his own interpretation. Bar Kaporo, it seems, told the daughter of Rabbi Judah that when he came to the wedding, he would make the father, Rabbi Judah, dance for him, and the mother, the wife of Rabbi Judah, pour wine for him. Finally, after three sessions of challenging Rabbi Judah, defeating him, demanding wine and dancing from the parents, and then revealing the answer, Bar Kaporo was triumphant. Rabbi Judah's son-in-law and wife left the wedding because they could not take this anymore. The one who left had been instrumental in overcoming the family's resistance to Bar Kaporo.

The Talmud says something else there, seemingly unrelated. Why was Bar Kaporo not welcome at the wedding of the children of Rabbi Judah the Prince? "Whenever Rabbi Judah laughed, punishment came into the world." What does this mean?

Rabbi Judah the Prince was enormously wealthy, but ascetic. When he died, he raised his ten fingers to heaven and said, "I never enjoyed my wealth." His life was only for others. Rabbi Judah accepted upon himself the suffering of the Jews, so that he suffered, and they did not. For many years, he had terrible pains in his mouth, and during that period, no women in labor died, which, for ancient times, was a miracle.

Bar Kaporo, the colleague of Rabbi Judah, insisted that the bride and groom deserved a joyous wedding. The fear that if Rabbi Judah laughed that people would suffer did not matter to him. There was nothing as important as a wedding, and a wedding could not exist without laughter. If Rabbi Judah laughed, and there was suffering, too bad.

The three terrible phrases of shame, TOEIVO, TEVEL, ZIMO, for homosexuality, bestiality and profligacy, were raised by Bar Kaporo at the wedding, to show Rabbi Judah and the assembled sages that if we do not properly entertain the bride and groom, if we do not raise marriage above all else, the worse dissolution can occur, namely, homosexuality, bestiality, and profligacy. Yes, even the children of Rabbi Judah must be pampered with joy, despite their wealth. This is because the wedding ceremony with its joy and jokes is the cornerstone of holiness.

There is, however, a deeper idea. The suffering of a righteous person, such as Rabbi Judah the Prince, can alleviate the suffering of others. However, the joy of a wedding can also alleviate the suffering of others. There is nothing holier than a wedding. There is no power to destroy evil and suffering like the joy of happy people at a wedding.

Bar Kaporo made war on the family decision to minimize jokes at the wedding. He got Rabbi Judah to dance before Bar Kaporo, and Rabbi Judah's wife to pour wine for Bar Kaporo, and this made people wild with rejoicing. Nothing so funny had ever been seen.

Bar Kaporo wanted people to know that marriage survives only with happiness. If people are depressed, they turn to homosexuality, bestiality and profligacy.

First Bar Kaporo challenged Rabbi Judah to explain three biblical terms for sexual sins. When Rabbi Judah could not explain them, Bar Kaporo offered to explain. However, Bar Kaporo demanded as payment for his interpretation that Rabbi Judah dance for him, and Rabbi Judah's wife poor wine for him. Thus, the dancing and the pouring of wine by the parents of the married couple were not only for the rejoicing of the marriage, but also to obtain a teaching from Bar Kaporo. Of course, Bar Kaporo intended to bring laughter to the entire assemblage with this, and to make the company rejoice. What else did he want?

At a wedding, we do two things. One, we dance, and two, we eat and drink. A wedding is known as "MISHTEH" or place to drink. Orthodox Jews are not drunkards; they do, however, imbibe a bit to relax for a wedding, where we must all be happy. The Talmud asks, "How do we dance before the Bride?" Thus, dancing is to please the bride. Of course, we want to please both groom and bride. To do that, we dance and drink. This leads us, especially in the wild affairs known as Orthodox weddings, to a great excitement. It is as if the entire community is physically pushing the envelope to get this new couple in orbit. Whatever happens in life, the dancing and drinking, the joy and excitement will stand the couple in good stead.

Bar Kaporo rebuked Rabbi Judah for not inviting him. He showed Rabbi Judah, first off, that he had sinned, and that the wellsprings of knowledge had been taken from him. Rabbi Judah the Prince, the senior sage of the generation who daily withstood the challenges of the greatest scholars, was publicly humiliated because he could not explain three words in the bible. In order to restore the situation, Bar Kaporo insisted that Rabbi Judah dance, and that his wife pour wine. The dancing and the drinking would restore the proper atmosphere to a wedding that had been sullied by other considerations. A marriage once bereft of the customary laughing and badchon, or jester, was now restored to its proper mood.

Dancing around and around in a circles at a wedding is not a trip to nowhere. Those steps take us to the farthest regions. They carry the entire company, and the bride and groom, to an orbit of life.

Sexuality is a challenge. Many people are not satisfied with marriage. The dancing, drinking and the holy joy of the wedding lift a couple high enough to accept the challenges of marriage and succeed. Without this wild joy, who knows how sexuality will turn out? Those biblical people who sin with homosexuality, bestiality and profligacy may have been fine and good people. Perhaps, at their wedding, there was not enough wine or dancing.

Bar Kaporo invoked the dancing of the father and the libations of the mother in an esoteric sense. The male represents the force of kindness. A father in Hebrew is AV, from the root AVA, or "desire" or "love." (AHAVA is love.) He raises his children out of such a love that he negates himself. This negation is "going" or leaving himself. Figuratively speaking, he goes to a situation that betters the children. The good and successful father fulfills the biblical passage, "Educate the youth according to his way," meaning, the child's way and not the way of the father. Therefore, the father must "go" and find what the child needs, instead of forcing the child into the father's mode. The father does this by forging a strong link with the child, the link of "the mercy of the father upon the children," perhaps the greatest level of mercy. The father feels, as the Talmud teaches, that a child is not a "child" but a "builder" of the father. To reach this level, the father must "go" away from his selfishness and self-actualization, and allow love of his family to overpower his ego and self-interest. A father/husband finds his true self-interest proportionately to his love of family.

This is "dancing." We go away from where we stand. We "move," but a dance is not a walk or a run to a really different place. A dance has us "running in place." We go somewhere by leaving our "self," but we are not going elsewhere. Only, the "self" is now the "family." The Prince of the rabbis, Rabbi Judah, danced at the command of Bar Kaporo, and thus showed that a father gives all for his children. Understanding the message, a son-in-law of Rabbi Judah left the wedding, to show his respect. That is, the father may modestly extend himself, but the children show their appreciation by not accepting more than is appropriate, or by indicating limits to the father's public ignominy. The father, however, is not debased. How can one give to his family at a child's wedding and accrue anything but honor?

Now we turn to the mother’s libation. The wife of Rabbi Judah the Prince poured wine into the cup of Bar Kaporo. This surely is unusual and provoked much attention and joy from the assemblage. What is the deeper idea of Bar Kaporo? A mother is AME in Hebrew. AME means "the main one." AME HADERECH means "on the main part of the road." A biblical city is described as a"city and AME in Israel," terms of high importance. In Cabala, the "mother" stands above the other emanations, gives birth to them and then resolves them. This level is known as "wine." The wine we drink from a bottle modifies the mental processes and makes things fuzzy. The level of “mother” is transcendence, and is thus related to wine. Here we have linkage between finite and infinite. Nothing is more crucial.

Wine is used in holiday ritual at the dinner table, to sanctify the meal. Wine is red, usually, the color of "justice," the opposite of the male "kindness." "Wine" of "justice" is an intoxicating beverage. It is a symbol of higher mystery. It represents the subtle intuitive levels of the spirit. The wine or mother comprises a higher world. They brings its forces into the family and community. Wine blurs the mind. Its infinite essence is too much for the small vessels of finite knowledge. They try to comprehend, but become confused. And yet, wine or mother is the source of finite knowledge.

Therefore, the mother of the married couple poured wine into a cup. A cup is a vessel, and represents the finite. The mother must take mystery and explain it. She shows by what she is how to live in a finite world and yet be attached to the infinite. This is the level of Schechina, a revelation of the infinite in the finite. Wine in Hebrew is YAYIN, which has a numerical of 70. Seventy is also the numeric value of the Hebrew letter AYIN, which means, "eye." "Eye" means seeing the infinite divine light in a cognitive, finite way, A mother reveals such light into her family. This is the meaning of Rabbi Judah the Prince's wife pouring wine into the cup of Bar Kaporo at the wedding of her child.

Even in fine families homosexuality and other sexual perversions occur. Often, there is a problem with parents. Usually, in male homosexuals, a cold father is implicated. The dancing of the father Rabbi Judah at his child’s wedding was the opposite of this, as was the libations of the mother. They showed that only the children are important, as they displayed love and warmth beyond their dignity.

“Beyond their dignity” is of the essence. Every parent loves a child. Every parent feels an obligation to raise children and help them. Every parent feels the problems of a child like a knife in their heart and soul. However, few parents go “beyond their dignity.” “I have my life to live” means, “I won’t cross that line” of decorum for my children. A parent must dance. A parent must pour wine. There is no room for pride in a family.

Once a parent decides that children are only number two, he establishes a conflict with his children. He has needs and the child has needs. As the needs conflict the parent and child struggle. The child senses this, and anger at the parent grows. The father is hurt by the child’s attitude, and may turn off, or refuse to continue a close relationship on the child’s terms, according to the child’s demands. The child is desperate for love. The child needs a father. The child has no father. He fears that his father rejects him because he is no good. As the child matures, his biological processes create pleasures that often lead to guilt. Sexuality simply reinforces his self-image, created by the coldness of the father, of guilt and failure.

However, sexuality and its pleasure are able to release chemicals that go to the brain and calm the incessant anxiety of a child without a father. Sexuality, of guilt and remorse, becomes the “father.” It alone stills the pain of the anxiety produced by no father. Eventually, when the stirrings and pangs of parental neglect strike the brain, they are automatically relieved by sexual perverse pleasures, perhaps masturbation or pornography. The child may seek fornication for its chemical pleasures. From this, it is a small step in some people to perversities. The grown child may transpose the sexual pleasures that cure the “father” pain, into a real man, as homosexuality. He may follow the sensed dictates of a cold and selfish father into guilt. The guilt may lead him to expiate his father’s censure by self-flagellation. He may practice sexual masochism. He may seek failure in life. He may emulate his father by hurting others and sadism. He may associate his sexuality with his father problems, and become sexually homosexual, sadistic or masochistic.

A parent has a choice. Either completely surrender to the children, or else. Once you dive in and surrender, the water is so warm. It can lift you and float you like the clouds, even amid the smelly diapers, the wailing tykes, and the moody teens. The deeper you fall, the easier it gets. If you just sample the water, it will always be too cold to swim.

Bar Kaporo interprets "TOEIVO" or Abomination

Bar Kaporo suggested that TOEIVO (abomination) is an acrostic for three words: TOEH ATO BO, or "you are lost in it." How is homosexuality an abomination of "you are lost in it"? When someone has an addiction or a perversion, to food, drugs or perverse sex, he is looking for something. A homosexual is searching for a man he never had as a father. He is searching for love he missed, and he wants the man he should be but is not. When the searching homosexual finds manliness in another man, he is "lost in it." He is astray and off course. He will not find his father, or love, or himself, in unnatural and perverse relationships. Because he will not, many homosexuals keep looking, but never find. This leads to addictive behavior and compulsions. A homosexual can sleep with a dozen strangers in one night. He roams the streets, accepts the pain of the penetration, arises, and seeks someone else. There are men's rooms with holes in the wall and semen all over the floor. The poor fellow probes in pain and finds frustration. He seeks somewhere, everywhere to find what he cannot obtain. He is "lost in it."

Bar Kaporo made three words out of TOEIVO, although TOEIVO in Hebrew has only enough letters for two words. Bar Kaporo made three words from TOEYVO: TOEH ATO BO. But there is no letter in TOEIVO for ATO, or "you." There are only enough letters for TOEH BO, "lost in it." This omission is important. Meet a lost homosexual back from a night on the town. His lubrication didn't last past the third encounter. He aches. His soul screams. He feels like a machine programmed to destroy itself. We say to him, "You." “You” are “lost in it.” A real person is lost, not a machine. Machines are not “abomination.” A high human, and only a high human, can become an abomination. The perversity of a human “lost in it” cries out, “You!” Thus, Bar Kaporo added “You” to “You are lost in it.” Only a “you” can be a TOEIVO.

Come back, we say. The first step is "you." Know that you are a person, not a lost thing tossed in the tempest. You are traveling to find what you must have. You will not find it in perversion. This way is not "you."

Yet, there is no letter for "you" in the word "TOEIVO." This is important. Of course, the first step is "you," to make a person feel human. However, the "you" is missing because at this stage, alone, the "you" will not escape. Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., in his work on homosexuality, tells us that those, such as homosexuals, who have addictions and compulsions, must first accept that they are helpless. They, alone, will not change themselves. They must have help from G-d. This is the beginning of the Twelve Steps used successfully to help alcoholism, as well as other addictive and compulsive behaviors. "You" cannot do it alone. "You" are helpless, if you go alone. Therefore, there is no letter in TOEIVO for "you." However, the "you" is implied. "You" must accept that you can change, if only G-d will help you. Then you are on the road to recovery. It may be a long and rocky road, with possibly some awful detours. But you will win. You will be free of your compulsive and addictive behavior. Therefore, "you" is missing, and yet, it is implied. First, you exist, and secondly, you may be helpless alone. If you seek G-d and counseling, you may extricate yourself from homosexuality.

The rabbis tell of a doctor who had two patients. One he sent home to eat whatever he felt like eating. The doctor demanded a strict diet for the other patient. The first patient was hopeless, so dieting was of no avail. Let him go home and enjoy his remaining days. The other patient could live, by dieting.

When the bible cries at someone, "abomination," it is the doctor's "diet." It is a cure, not a curse. "You are lost in it" tells us to stop being lost. TOEV ATO BO or "you are lost in it" forms an acrostic of three letters, TOF ALEPH and VAIZE. These three letters spell TOEV, which means, "greatly desires" or "loves." There are three levels. One is TOEV, to "love" something in a healthy way, or to want a good thing very much. TOEV is a good appetite, although it can lead to compulsion. For instance, if we did not have TOEV we would not eat and would starve. If, however, we enjoy food too much, we become overweight and risk our health. If we go further and use eating as an excuse to work off our anger and feelings of inadequacy, we may become obese. There is a fourth level: when the desire becomes an uncontrollable, even perverse lust. Then the good TOEV, or love, becomes the bad TOEV, or abomination.

In the Hebrew spelling, the good TOEV, or love is spelled with a high letter, the ALEPH. The bad TOEV, the abominable compulsive lust, is spelled with an AYIN. ALEPH has no sound and represents transcendence. AYIN is a lower level, and has a guttural sound, although today most people cannot pronounce it.

AYIN is similar to ALEPH, but has a slight guttural quality. It represents the finite revelation of the infinite. It also represents a spirituality trapped in the bounds of this world. Therefore, AYIN can also mean evil.

AYIN, even when it means evil, has a redemptive character about it. AYIN of evil and ALEPH of goodness are similar in sound and even form. Therefore, the failure of AYIN is not far from the redemption of ALEPH. AYIN, indeed, is a state of dissatisfaction. In many people, the pain of AYIN compels them to seek ALEPH. Sometimes, they succeed in finding it. No longer are they “lost in it.”

The mighty need of love inspires us to search for another. If we merit, we marry and achieve the good TOEV with an ALEPH. If we do not merit, he fail and find the bad TOEV with the AYIN. This can transform proper and natural forces into a lost journey and perversion. ALEPH of LOVE becomes AYIN of TOAIVO, of "abomination." One running in the night to the tenth partner he has never seen before is merely engaged in the flip side of true and natural love. He is playing with heavenly fire, but destroying it and himself. The word "TOEIVO" calls out to him to flip the AYIN to the ALEPH. They are related, and so close.

We will invoke Amos 6:8 to prove that “abomination” is closely related to the word "love." There G-d swears that the Holy Temple in Jerusalem will be destroyed because it has become TOEV, or an abomination. Here, the word abomination is spelled with an ALEPH. This shows that G-d can never truly despise the Temple, nor can He really despise the Jewish people, as much as they sin. When G-d threatens, swears, curses and even punishes, He never forgets the love of the Temple and the Jewish people. Therefore, even calling the Temple an "abomination" is done with an ALEPH. Essentially, all of G-d's deeds must be with an ALEPH. Once we realize that, we understand how close we are to penitence.

People who are in love can, in one second, become the most frightful enemies, and in the next, the closest lovie dovies. The perfect hate and the perfect love are part of one energy. With an ALEPH it is "love" and with an AYIN it is "abomination." However, regarding the essential love force, even when it is perverted and turned to curse, it is ALEPH. We must keep that in mind. When G-d calls us abominations, we are ALEPH. That will never change. However, we can change. We can change our innate ALEPH into an evil AYIN. Our sexual energy can drag us into negative nocturnal paths. We, the ALEPH, forget ourselves as we prowl the streets, searching for a stranger. We seek amid despair. We know we will never find our ALEPH this way.

There is another, surprising, reason why the passage in Amos declares TOEV with an ALEPH, when it actually means evil. In Cabala, the more delicate and high a soul is, the harder it is to protect, and the easier it is to stumble. Hard use doesn't ruin a pair of dungarees quickly, but one small stain destroys a perfectly white wedding gown. Similarly, a simple soul can sustain what a sensitive soul cannot. One of the miracles in the Temple was that on the holiest day of the year, Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, the High Priest did not defile himself and become unclean. What is the miracle? The miracle is that when the holiest Jew, the High Priest, in the holiest place, the Temple, on the holiest day of the year, Yom Kippur, achieves a sensitive soul, the powers of impurity can easily dominate him, and only a miracle sustains him.

Our times are filled with perversity because we are in a very holy period, the Eve of Messiah. Souls coming into the world at this time are often very lofty, and have great potential. "This opposite that G-d made," meaning there is always balance. When a high soul comes into the world, a powerful force of evil must match it. Therefore, the souls of our times, especially the bright and sensitive people, are prone to homosexuality and every perversity, indeed, every destructive notion. The brightest and the best abetted the hideous slaughters of Communism. The gay lobby is also filled with high and sensitive souls.

When the Sagatchover Rebbe, who was also a renowned Talmudic genius, was young, a prominent rabbi wanted him for his daughter. The rabbi repaired to the great rabbi of Kutsk to ask his advice. "It is a responsibility to take such a soul into your home," replied the rabbi of Kutsk. Therefore, that rabbi did not take the Sagatchover into his home. Instead, the rabbi of Kutsk took him for his daughter. Soon, the family realized that the Sagatchover had TB, and could not marry. "This is no problem," said the rabbi of Kutsk. The couple married, had children, and it was said that the groom had "lungs from Kutsk." He lived many years to an old age and had a distinguished family. A lofty soul comes into the world with problems, and needs help.

When you see a person utterly messed up, it is probable that this person has a sensitive soul. Such people are closer to destruction than others. Homosexuals are a bright and sensitive breed. They have high earnings and creative abilities. Their high souls are breached, and they plunge into perversion. How close are they to finding themselves, in their ALEPH. "YOU," represented in the acrostic of Bar Kaporo by an imaginary ALEPH, reveals the ALEPH. ALEPH is real, but not written. Some forces cannot be revealed; they are the highest Truths. The Aleph is higher than the deepest despair.

The Lurian Interpretation of Bar Kaporo's "Abomination"

In Lurian Cabala, we have light and darkness, good and evil. In interpreting the sin of homosexuality, considered by the Torah to be an "abomination," we would assume the worst. We would anticipate a lecture of how the homosexual has opened the vents of hell and released the fumes of purgatory. This is not the case. Not only is this not the approach of Lurian Cabala to homosexuality, Rabbi Luria says something quite challenging and the opposite.

Homosexuality, in Lurian Cabala, is a release of too-high lights that create chaos and destroy the lower worlds because their lights are infinite and vessels cannot tolerate them. There is no "female" resolution of the infinite. It comes flying down in full flame and consumes the boundaries of the lower supernal dimensions, destroying them. We deal here not with the usual Cabalistic idea of the Evil Force seizing holy lights. There is no mention of that. Homosexuality is a destruction, but not from the lower forces of evil. The higher forces of infinity and transcendence descend to where they do not belong. This, however, is worse than the damage wrought by Evil Forces. Evil Forces can seize holy lights and become powerful and overcome goodness. Evil Forces, however, cannot simply make a system of holy supernal processes disappear in chaos. This is done by homosexuality. The force that does this is the descent of very high infinite lights into a lower infinity, where the purer lights simply vaporize the lower worlds.

The genius of the Female Force, or Mother, in Cabala, is her ability to function in a dual capacity. She relates to "Father" as "wife" and takes his very high lights that cannot fit into a lower vessel. She then turns away from Father and pours the lights, without his participation, as "mother," into the lower worlds, the "son" and "daughter." In order for the lower worlds to tolerate the lights given by "Mother," she must be disengaged from "Father" when she "nurses" or feeds her children. This means that human beings live in a finite world that has a soul of infinite light. Infinite and finite are not compatible. Therefore, the genius of Mother must resolve this conflict. She does this by switching back and forth between being a "wife" of "father" and taking into herself infinite lights, and processing these infinite energies into lower infinities to be spiritual energy and a tolerable transcendence for lower worlds. If Father's lights go straight down without Mother's resolution, they destroy.

A male who sleeps with a female invokes the higher lights, as they are properly resolved. This is "blood that becomes milk," meaning the female takes her food, which is deadly to the baby, and turns it into nourishing milk, which is perfect for the baby. "Blood," or death, becomes life. Red and severe justice becomes white milk and kindness.

Only a female force can do this. Only Mother can do this. Furthermore, she can only do this when she disengages from Father. The power of resolution, or bridging the finite and the infinite, cannot be done with lights of Father pouring and flowing. First Father must be stopped up. Then Mother turns from Father and faces Son and Daughter. She suffuses them with infinite lights ready for their weaker vessels. These Mother lights, taken from Father and resolved, enter Son and Daughter, strengthen and develop them.

A man who sleeps with a woman has a male and female force. Female kindness is the resolution of the infinite and too-powerful male kindness, which cannot enter this world without destroying it. "It is not good for a man to be alone." Alone, the male force will destroy the lower worlds. The female takes the male force, resolves it, and then feeds it to the children.

Homosexuality is two males. There is no female. There is no resolution. The two make love, and thus invoke the highest lights, the union of Father and Mother. Alas, the force of Father has no Mother to receive his lights. Rather, the lights cascade into Son and Daughter and destroy.

TOEIVO, says Rabbi Luria, means, "you are lost in it." Why are you lost? You are lost because the structure vanishes. The lights have consumed and ruined the ability to take heavenly lights into a finite world.

What happens then?

Such a person is starving for the higher lights, because the soul must have them. There is, however, no way to get these higher lights into a system of chaos that was obliterated. The soul therefore cannot breath, as there is no breath, no air, no light, no sustenance, as nothing can be assimilated. Desperate for sustenance, the person's soul seeks love and intimacy, transcendence and the processes of infinity, but cannot find them. He seeks, but the more he does, and the more he pours down the higher lights into a world that is ruined, he flays about and fails to find peace. This leads to terrible spiritual pain. People in pain solve their problems with increasingly erratic compulsive behavior. Love becomes running into gay bathrooms, and leaving the floor even dirtier than it was before.

We mentioned before that the homosexual is an "abomination" spelled with an implied ALEPH. Although "abomination" is severe opprobrium, it contains with it an "ALEPH," and the hint of its flipside, the "you" and "love" that can restore things, as we explained. Lurian Cabala has higher and lower worlds, light and darkness. However, the lowest world is not removed from G-d. In fact, all Evil Forces can only function with G-d's kindness, or "sparks." People "feed" these Evil Forces by sinning, and weaken the Evil Forces by doing good deeds. However, the Evil Force is simply an energy created by G-d to test people so that they will merit Paradise and Eternal Bliss. Thus, Evil is essentially the highest good. We only have to flip it. The homosexual may be the worst spiritual destruction, but never is he removed from the Source of Goodness and Love.

Cabalistic Insights into Sexuality

Maimonides lists 37 forbidden sexual sins in the Torah. One may not marry or have sexual relations with a mother, sister, father's wife, daughter of the father's wife, daughter of a son, daughter, and the daughter of a daughter. One may not marry a woman and her daughter, a woman and the daughter of her son, a woman and the daughter of her daughter. One may not have sexual relations with the sister of the father, the sister of the mother, the wife of the father's brother, the wife of the son, the wife of the brother, and the sister of his wife. Some women, such as the sister of the wife, can be married when the wife dies. Others, such as the father's wife or the son's wife are forbidden even after the father or son die. These, and many others, comprise the forbidden sexual relations in the Torah. The rabbis forbade some other relationships.

Let us return to the number 37, the thirty-seven sexual laws in the Torah as listed by Maimonides. Thirty-seven is an important number. At the age of 37, Isaac became an offering to G-d. G-d accepted Isaac's intent, but refused his death. The test of Abraham, to slaughter his only son, elevated Isaac to the level of a holy person. On the altar, he saw the heavens, and for the rest of his life was considered holy. Therefore, he, alone of the Patriarchs, never left the land of Israel. 37 therefore has a connotation of a severe test, and the triumph of winning it. It also indicates the transformation of the tested person to holiness. The greatest trial a person has is with sexuality. Most people are not so tested. One, however, who does fall into a sexual temptation suffers terribly. Therefore, 37 represents the "binding on the Altar," or the supreme suffering for our faith.

Thirty-seven is also the numerical value of the word HEVEL, breath or air or "nothing." The rabbis said that the HEVEL of young students was holier than the lectures of the greatest rabbis, because children are pure. Therefore, HEVEL is something innate, from the inner recesses of the person, as with breath. Air heated by the inner body is HEVEL, as it escapes in exhaling. This HEVEL is symbolically the essence of the inner person. The inner person is revealed in his sexual behavior. This means that although a person can pretend to be someone different most of the time, sexuality brings out his true essence, his innate and inner being. Another idea is that sexuality, more than anything else, reaches down into our inner soul and molds it, for good or bad.

One is stamped by his sexuality. People who are completely alike intellectually and in temperament are far apart of they are different in sexual habit. Rabbi Isaac Luria says that more than other things, for better or worse, sexuality molds a person. The sexual sins, all 37 passages regarding them, are HEVEL. They reveal one's true essence. Just as breath emerges from one's insides, so sexuality reveals what the person really is. In sexuality are the true parameters of being human. When we obey the limitations of sexuality, and embrace that permitted with joy and responsibility, we are on the highest level of humanity. However, when we violate the laws of sexuality, we plunge our visage and ourselves into clouded and even cruel aspirations.

Sexuality is simply an act. One can mistakenly feel that doing this or that is no big difference. What can a few minutes do? What can even a few hours do? We are still the same. This is true, but it is not. Sexuality invokes very much of our universe and ourselves. We cannot say it is nothing. HEVEL is a word used by Solomon to describe the world. HEVEL of HEVEL said Solomon. All is HEVEL, meaning, that everything is nothing, like invisible air that we breathe. Solomon was right. Everything is HEVEL, unless we understand the system and innate properties of what we do. When we think deeply into what sexuality means, we see that the external façade of a simple act is not the true impact. A person who commits adultery, or who has forbidden sex, is not at all the same person. HEVEL cannot be "nothing," because it is "breath" and "breath" is the essence of life. As the Zohar says, "One who breathes does so from the inner self." The invisible forces are the most powerful. The wind impacts upon "mountains and boulders." When we deal with sexuality and intimacy, we are stirring a mighty storm, a tornado, and it will twist and turn until we are the revelation of that sexuality and intimacy.

The 37 laws of sexuality have a positive side. When we struggle with our inner forces to keep proper sexuality, not an easy task by any means, we reveal the highest lights. What are they? They are the lights of the Sabbath, and the Lights of Transcendence. Transcendence is "male" in that it is invisible. Sabbath is "female" in that it is infinity resolved and revealed in vessels. Transcendence, what we cannot know, but that which must be brought down to us by the Female Sabbath, is called ALEPH. ALEPH has a numerical value of 1. Sabbath or SHABBOS has a numerical value of 702. Together, 1 plus 702 are 703.

Take the number 37 and write down 1,2,3,4,...37, all 37 integers. Add up all of the 37 numbers, and their sum will be 703. By keeping the Laws of Sexuality, we have turned our lives into abodes for the Schechina, the Divine Presence. This is the level of Shabbos, or the Sabbath. The Sabbath, or Shechina, then reveals the ALEPH, or 1, transcendence.

When we avoid forbidden sexuality, the effort brings us great reward, the shine of the Schechinah and the subtle lights of mystery. In the future world, there are CHUPOS, or "marital ceremonies," for the soul of the departed. Although our bodies in that world are not mortal and material, the experiences of pleasure and love are far greater, even infinite. Therefore, one who refrains from forbidden sexuality in this world merits CHUPO and marriage to forces whose pleasure are far greater than mortal sex could ever be. The desire for physical beauty is given by G-d to the reptiles, but the CHUPO or "wedding canopy" of the soul, tested in this world, achieves pleasures far greater. In that world, every bit of refraining from un-holiness will be paid in full.

Growing Up and Away

A boy goes from being a fertilized egg to becoming an embryo then a baby then a toddler then a child then an adolescent and finally, an adult. At his birth, his parents raise him. There is, in this, a mighty problem. The child is a person growing to escape the parents. "Therefore a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they will be one flesh." Leaving the parents is a violation of the entire being and raising of the child, who lives only because of the parents. There is thus, innate in parenthood, a time bomb. The parents know it; the child senses it. The parents may refuse to recognize it. They may block the thought from their active cognizance, but somehow, they realize that whatever they do, the child is programmed to leave them. How do the parents react? How does the child react?

Both child and parent fear the leaving of the house. The parents fear it because they have invested their love and life into someone who will just pick up and love others. The child fears it because he will lose his support system. What happens now?

When my children grew up, I realized that in their hearts, they feared that I would not agree with their plans, that I would be selfish. It is natural in every family for this fear to surface. I therefore, when my daughters entered puberty, and thoughts and worries about the future and marriage began to assemble, began a tactic. At the Sabbath table, when the whole family sat together and we were in fine fettle from the good food and singing, I asked my daughters, "When are you leaving?" They were thrilled.

And so it went through the next years. As the pressures and anxieties built, the children heard, "I will get rid of you." When the child hit the age of dating to marry, I went into action. I made phone calls like a fool. People thought I was crazy. One person said, "Is your daughter deformed?" I replied, "It is better you think I am crazy when she is seventeen and not when she is ten years older." I don't know what people thought of me, but I do know what my daughter thought of me. She said to herself, "I don't have to worry. Daddy is trying real hard." She didn't have to worry. She married a young man we are all proud of. People began to realize that being a public idiot has its benefits.

I know people who played it cool. When their daughters got older and older, they just bent their head and accepted their fate. A father who loves his daughter can't just let her float. A daughter knows this. A daughter sees that her father doesn't care and thinks, "Will a husband love me any better?" She fears to marry a man. That is why men who don’t fight to marry their daughters are often stuck with them. On the other hand, the daughters of a "crazy" father who is out there looking for the best for his daughter can't wait to leave. If a father loves them, they are confident in their father's judgment to help them select a husband, and secondly, they infer from a father what a husband is. After all, a husband is only an extended parent. Although such a statement is not exactly true, it is an important statement for our purposes. The daughter accepts men if she accepts her father, and vice versa.

The fearful parent doesn't want to let go. The loving parent cuts everything off and gives. The fearful parent now provokes the daughter. He/she doesn't want to let her go. He/she has great power over her. She is a good daughter, and feels love and obligation to the parent. After all, for twenty years everything she has is from parents. Her self-esteem is predicated upon the approval of her parents. For her to break free, she must utterly redesign her system of self-esteem. Not everyone can do it. If her biological and emotional needs, or social pressures, force her to fight her parents, quite possibly she will feel guilty and lose self-esteem. She will hate herself. She will look at a partner as an extended parent, who will remind her of her guilt and failing.

The great goal of a parent is to get out of the way. This shows respect for the child. The child realizes that a parent and growing independent are not mutually exclusive. The child feels a great relief. He doesn't want to grow up alone. He is afraid. On the other hand, he doesn't want parents hanging on to him when he tries to fly away. When the parents make the first move, and respect the child, the child is relieved. The child loves the parent for this sacrifice and grows attached to the parent. Now the parent represents, not a threat to growing up, but help towards it.

My brother is a rabbinical scholar, but has a doctorate in psychology and practices. He told me once that I was a dangerous father. Anyone loud does not allow children to develop properly. Another therapist told me he makes his living from the successful fathers. I therefore became loud by being a dog. Not long ago, my daughter tried to put the tykes to be but she smelled trouble. She could have argued with them, threatened them, screamed, raged and who know what else. However, children have more energies than mommies, so my daughter remembered what she learned in my house. She declared that she wanted to play doggie and horsie. The children all became excited and happy, and in a bit of time, they were all popped off to bed.

My children are now grown with large families of their own, may they increase, but they remember all of the silly goo-goo. They know exactly what ridiculous name or expression I used when they were little. Those names were not baby talk. Those names said, "You will be an adult, and I won't hold you back."

Let us now go a bit further, and enter the world of problems.

Problems

In this section, we enter into some aspects of problems that lead to homosexuality and other sexual perversions. Our purpose is to give an idea of the complexity of human gender nurturing, and how easy it is to damage it. Obviously, in our limited setting, we cannot prepare a proper review of the incredibly complex emotional and psychological interactions between parents and children that produce healthy or unhealthy adults. However, we can learn enough to be sensitive and not make problems.

Problems

Joe’s parents won't let go. Let's talk about his parents, one at a time. Joe’s father is concerned for his son. He loves his son. He wants him to succeed. The father, however, does not have confidence in the boy. The father helps, and the more he does, the more he shows the boy that he is a failure. He is only good with his father.

Joe does succeed, and he does so with his father's help. Part of Joe is happy at winning, at making good grades, and building things. Part of Joe is fearful, because he knows that his growing process is going wrong. Growing means doing yourself, and Joe is not doing himself. His father is doing Joe’s growing. Here we have a situation where Joe likes the love and achievement from his father, but he fears it. It insults and degrades him. This seems incongruous. How can success and pride be insult and degrading? This is the secret of family and people. Opposing things go on all of the time. Unless we resolve the conflicts in the system, we produce stress and anxiety, without a clear direction.

As a person grows, he needs one thing, the resolution and revelation of himself. A man needs to know that he is himself, a man, independent, strong, seeking freedom and success. This is ideal. However, as we grow up, we are crushed by our support system. Our parents help us and hurt us. Our friends encourage us and belittle us. Life is quite a struggle. A man needs to know that he is himself. Self-cognizance is a mystery and a miracle on its deeper levels. For our purposes, however, we are talking simple things. A man cannot exist in a parent's shadow, but must emerge from it. What internal essence wants to "be" and become "himself"? This is also a mystery and miracle. At any rate, for simplicity sake, a person is programmed to grow, and find himself. Parents are part of the process, but it is not that simple, because they promote the process and can also stunt it.

Are parenting and children an adversary sport? In a marriage, two people know that they are supposed to live forever together, and benefit by sacrificing for the sake of the home. Parents and children are the opposite. The parent, by helping the child grow, loses the child. Therefore, a parent may try to hold on. This can destroy or damage the child. Thus, the parental process is a paradox. The parent helps a child to leave the parent. The more the child becomes independent the less power the parent has over the child. Ultimately, the child will leave the parent, even defy and hurt the parent, precisely because of the parental success in raising the child to be strong, independent and actualized.

If, on the other hand, the parent may becomes defensive and oppose the child's emancipation. If so, the child will have to fight the parent. This results either in a broken child or a broken relationship with the parent.

Let us take Joe and his mother. Joe’s mother loves her son, and smothers him with love. She participates in his life, and feels close and friendly with him. When he succeeds, she beams. She is so proud. Is this a mother or a wife? What essentially is the difference, other than sexual activity? We have a male and female with a close and loving relationship. Is this similar to or different from a marriage?

We come now to the crucial issue of personal love and sexual arousal. Why does a boy in puberty not love his mother as any other woman? Why does she not love him as any other man? In our society, it is quite rare or impossible to hear of a son and mother mating. Freud and his disciples and followers are very busy with the sexual attitudes of children and parents.

What are you? You are you, a person. What is a person? Is it a body? Is it a soul? Is it a mind? Is it a gender? A person is a body with a soul. It is a mind and a gender. However, all of these four, the body, soul, mind and gender are different systems. We thus have four systems in each person. These four systems interact with another person. We now have four systems reacting with four systems. This is quite confusing. For now, let us talk about Joe and his mother. He has four components and so does she. What does he see in her? He sees a body, a soul, a mind and a gender. When Joe sees Cynthia, he also sees all four things. Does he see both people the same way? If he did, his mother would arouse him the way Cynthia does. Obviously, a parent does not affect a child as a stranger. What happens?

The unique role of the parent is that it is not a real person, but a seminal person. The parent is only there to feed the child, to promote it, until the child leaves. The parent will not participate in the fullness of the child's growth directly, only indirectly. "Therefore, a man will leave his father and mother, and cling to his wife, and they will be one flesh." The child and his parents are two "fleshes." The child and his wife are "one flesh." Furthermore, it says, "and he will cling to his wife." He does not "cling" to his parents. Parents are seminal sources for a person, and therefore, the relationship is limited. In perverts, or pedophilia, the parent refuses to remain outside of the general human pattern as a parent, but wants to be a "husband" or "wife" to the child and "cling" to it. This parental "clinging" is pedophilia if performed sexually. If performed emotionally, it cripples the child, and hurts its ability to eventually find a true husband or wife. Marriage requires "leaving" the parents, not mating with them emotionally and certainly physically.

The extraordinary "Ten Commandments" respect for a parent allows the parent to eschew the natural arousal another person would promote and treat a child properly. In a society where parents are not so honored, the parent has no armor against the problems that arise from arousals. The more a parent is lowered and the child is raised, the greater is the sexual stress between them. Furthermore, when the parent is no longer ensconced in a halo of holy parenthood, parent and child are more like peers. The entire concept of raising a child to leave surrenders to the natural anticipation of a peer to benefit from investing time and energy in another. The lowered parent cannot relate to a child as a parent, and does not let go. Furthermore, all of the problems of peers enter the family, and can destroy it. Parentage is a rarified dimension. If violated, the people become peers, and the emotional health of the family, certainly the child, is at risk.

Just as a child must eat proper protein, vitamins, minerals, etc., to be physically strong, so a child must feed from parental "leaving" to be an adult and to "cling" to a spouse. When a parent disrupts the preparation for leaving, the physical adult has a damaged human mechanism. Sometimes, the physical adult has warped sexual needs, related to the failure of parenting.

A boy child grows to manhood powered by his parents. They give him love, encouragement, acceptance, courage and abilities. Just as a seed planted among plant nutrients blossoms, so such a child grows to adulthood, his inner core of body, soul, mind and gender fully developed, and ready to function. He "leaves' his parents and, fully developed, finds fulfillment "clinging" to his wife, who will now receive and resolve his growing issues.

A child who grows to manhood without love, encouragement, acceptance, courage and abilities is an emotional cripple. Imagine a child who grows to adulthood without learning how to eat. The body growls its displeasure. The stomach demands food. The child does not know how to eat, because his eating practices are flawed. He will reach adulthood and possibly eat perversely. The more the child eats perversely, the more the body screams its displeasure, and the child must go back to the table. However, every visit to the table simply makes things worse. The child will find his destruction at that table, if he does not find a way to escape from perversion.

So many of us are obese. We eat the wrong foods. The body complains. We eat some more. The body becomes furious. We eat some more. If we do not learn to eat right, the body will keep pushing us into perversity.

Out body is not different from the other human components. We must feed our bodies properly. We must also feed our souls, our emotions, our minds and our gender requirements. Each of these has a set of nutrients and forbidden food. If we refuse to feed our components properly, we have hunger pain. If we feed it the wrong way, we may set up a cycle where the more we "eat" the more we "hunger." We may become perverse.

Psychologists since Freud, over a hundred years ago, realized that homosexuality is a perversion of the proper human emotional growth cycle. Relationships with parents are blamed. As we indicated, there are so many powerful forces going on in the emotions, that any disruption could produce perversion. Just as a motor with various wires can explode when any wire is damaged, so a person with many components can burst when parents do not properly feed any of his parts.

In therapy, the homosexual talks about his childhood. The therapist finds out what wires were damaged and tries to replace them. It takes a while, sometimes years, but many homosexuals have taken conversion therapy and married heterosexually. Columbia professor Dr. Joseph Spitzer M.D performed a recent study about this and confirmed the viability of conversion therapy.

Gender Confusion

A child learns the gender and personal lessons of life from parents and society. The child absorbs, almost as if by osmosis, the ability to function emotionally and biologically in intimate settings. Gender is crucial to proper sexual development. Today, the emphasis on society is to confuse gender roles, to forbid a man to be a man, and to forbid a woman to be a woman. Children are raised to be politically correct in public schools and college. They watch media that oppose normal gender development. This may be the greatest obstacle to proper sexual development in history. One expert wrote a book showing how educators try to force boys to be feminine, discouraging physical sports and even closing playgrounds. If we have public school systems where students regularly come to school with guns and murder people, and if we don't have this as often as we once did only because schools are thronged with armed police, it is perhaps because boys are being stunted and frustrated in their natural masculine growth.

Parents who take and don't give can upset the delicate sexual system. There is a fine line between being a person and being a parent. A parent must negate their personal desires to parenting. If a father has a lovely daughter, he may desire her as a person, but as a father, he doesn't desire her. He desires her to marry someone else. A biblical father can do this easier than someone who is born to believe in selfishness. If a daughter is only there for me, why not take her? Of course, there are laws and conventions. However, if the parent, even in thought, relates to a child as if he/she was a regular person, without the power of parentage dominating, this creates a relationship with the child that is highly dangerous for emotional development.

Biblical parents and biblical people rise to a point where true polarity can proceed. Others, who begin and stay with "me" may find homosexuality faster and surer than the intricacies of heterosexuality. Children raised in "me" families often lack the "giving" that unlocks the door to natural life. "Taking" blocks the door to human relationships. Therefore, heterosexuality has come under assault. Up to eighty percent of couples indicate difficulty in their sexual relationships. As society continues it plunge away from natural gender roles, these difficulties increase. A woman who is taught to be a man, and a man who is taught to be a woman, come to bed, and what happens? Does the man become pregnant? Anyone who allows a child to go to public school or watch television or movies is tampering with the child's natural sexual growth.

A therapist told me that a boy becomes a man by emulating a father or significant men and in having healthy relationships with male peers. Also, it is important that his mother represent the men in their lives as positive images. We see from this that if a boy has a good relationship with his father, and integrates socially with boys, he still needs his mother to treat men positively. In a world of feminism and hate of men, this is often lacking. Furthermore, in a world of feminism, a man must not be a true man with his wife, and this harms the child in his development. We can thus anticipate large crops of homosexuals and broken children from the families of secular and modern people.

This therapist told me that with girls it is different. She does not develop as boys do by emulating males and integrating with peers. Her sense of worth is determined by her relationship with her father and mother. If she likes them and they like her, and there is a complementary relationship, the girl develops positively into a woman. If the girl feels that her parents don't relate properly to her or her to themselves, she lacks self-esteem and does not grow up properly.

The therapist told me that positive growth and development factors for boys and girls are found in homes with a strong "spiritual" base. The focus of society in its secular state, however, is more interested in dysfunctional and "alternative" families than the healthy variety. (As New York Times Pulitzer Prize winner columnist Maureen Dowd noted, ABC television this year (2002)has many programs about gays and unusual families, but none about normal family.)

Boys are homosexuals, said the therapist, because of temperament in combination with environmental/familial factors such as sexual abuse/peer abuse. Homosexuality in boys has biological, psychological and social derivatives. An abused child disconnects with certain factors that are important for health sexual growth. A boy must connect with men. He must emulate and interact with them to achieve proper masculine growth. If a man abuses a boy, the boy may disconnect from the previous healthy connection to men. He may perceive men in disconnection. Now the boy's need for men is not satisfied and has nowhere to go because of the abuse and disconnecting from the previous healthy male relationships. Therefore, the boy creates fantasies of exotic men. Eventually, his sexual needs interact with his emotional needs for men and become erotica and homosexuality.

See what abuse can do. A person has a need. The need is violated. The need does not go away. Yet, the need cannot go where it was violated. Therefore, the person invents new paths, ones that were not violated, and yet, are perhaps related to the violation. A boy who was molested may himself become a child molester. We learned about this when we studied the Stockholm Syndrome, whereby people who are damaged by others identify with their attackers, rather than fight them. When the mind or emotions are overwhelmed, and we cannot fight our abusers, we don't stop living. We go on living, but we must avoid the frustration of fighting with our attackers when we cannot fight them. Therefore, we identify with them. Thus, the way to escape the impossible frustration of warring with our abusers is to ourselves become their admirers and for us to emulate them. This may be the ultimate tragedy of evil, when it flips the victim into evil.

Pedophilia is and always has been rampant. Although children are molested in every neighborhood and in every society, pedophilia is much worse where children go and do what they want. Children allowed to go freely on the Internet find pedophilia. Those children who are counseled or who are strong enough because of their family relationships to rise above the abuse may go on to develop properly. If, however, the family does not notice the pain of the child or does not supply proper warmth and support, the abused child may become perverse in sexuality.

What kind of abuse can cause a boy to disconnect and to seek exotic and erotic escapes in perverse manners? One is sexual abuse, or pedophilia. In addition, if a father abuses a child with coldness, anger or criticism, the boy may disconnect. If a man becomes a hateful thing, why should a boy want to be a man? One theory is that homosexuality comes when a child feels sorry for himself. Yet, his innate need to be male is not destroyed by abuse, it simply has nowhere to go, and must find perverse avenues. Some therapists say that when a man loves a man, he often seeks the man he never had as a father.

Another level of homosexuality has nothing to do with abuse, but merely with disdain for women. Historically, such as in ancient Athens, men despised women so much that they only kept them as baby machines, and would not consider truly loving one except by accident. Socrates and Plato were homosexuals, probably lovers. This is no shock, because Athens was like that. Islam needed women because it wanted babies to dominate the world, and the Church had a similar program, but this is not true appreciation. Judaism raised the woman to "the crown of her husband," as the crown is over the head. The Talmud acknowledges that women are physically weaker than men. However, it says, "If your wife is shorter than you, bend down and listen to her." We have developed this in another segment in detail. However, people who are not raised to appreciate and love women may decide to be manly in the Germanic homosexual sense, as depicted in my colleague Scott Lively's book, The Pink Swastika. A recent book showed that Hitler was homosexual, as was the Nazi movement. “Leather” or manly homosexuality has no respect for women, in the model of Athens. If a raccoon could produce human children, the “leather” Nazi homosexual and his Greek counterpart might choose raccoons as much as women to have children. Intimacy with such an inferior as a woman is ridiculous to the “leather” Butch homosexual. The ancient Greeks shared with the twentieth century scientist a belief in social Darwinism. Eugenics prospers in a world where physical strength is valued and weakness is despised. All of the values of the woman so prized in Judaism are denigrated by the Germans and the ancient Greeks. Homosexuality is thus, like eugenics, an intellectual perversion. Thus, negative attitudes about women can help make a man into a homosexual.

People are very sensitive about what others think, especially in marriage and mating. Negative comments ruined many happy marriages. Marriage must have external support. People thrive in marriage when there are support groups, and when society supports the institution of marriage, and frowns upon divorce. People put up with a lot in a marriage with the support of family and community, peers and friends. On the other hand, when society does not support marriage, when people have no support for the vicissitudes of married life, marriage cannot last. Our society has withering comments upon marriage. The very statistics of marriage frighten people. Half of new marriages end in divorce. The terror of divorce court, fighting for years over custody, and the pain of living alone with offspring turns people against marrying. People seek to relieve their sexual pressures without it. In such an atmosphere, the indefatigable promoters of homosexual lifestyles make hay. There are cases of people who were married for many years and had children, and one fine day, they left and became homosexuals. Possibly, the enormous hatred for the opposite gender during a bad marriage can propel one to homosexuality.

A therapist said that girls become homosexual out of hatred for men, who abuse them. "Most lesbians report heterosexual abuse in their histories." Of course, there are all types of abuse. Today, August 23, 2002, the New York Times ran a column about a law in Florida. A woman who has a baby out of wedlock must publish in the newspaper the name of all of the men she slept with, and of course, her own name, when she offers the baby for adoption. If she was raped, the law still applies in most of Florida. The article, Shaming Young Mothers by Nicholas D. Kristof, describes the Florida law that a woman offering a baby for adoption must publish in the newspapers the name of the biological father and his address, or else publish the names of all of the people she had sex with during the time she conceived. Teenage girls must publish the names of the teenage boys they slept with. For our purposes, this is an indication of why women can be angry in America. We have shown at length, on our websites gendercentral.com and kedusho.com, how women suffer in America. This, however, is an extreme example. Why does Florida torture unfortunate women?

Mr. Kristoff explains why the law was made: "The new Florida law was meant to reduce the risk of a father's emerging years after an adoption and seeking custody." What he neglected to mention in his criticism of the law, is that it makes no sense. Let us say that a woman is pregnant and offers her baby for adoption. She claims that X is the father, but the real father is Y. For whatever reason, she doesn't mention Y, and publishes in the paper the name of X. Is the law going to remove the rights of the real father, who can prove his paternity with DNA testing? Why should we believe this woman anyway? Does she have the right to impugn someone’s name without his day in court? Whatever happened to the right of privacy, so sacred elsewhere? In a day and age when we can determine paternity with scientific methods, do we have to drag a woman into the mud? This is the atmosphere of the country, calling out for women's rights, and yet shaming them.

If paternity is a problem, let the state, quietly, get the name of the biological father from the mother, do a DNA test, and settle the matter. Why make a huge uproar, ruin people’s names and shame them, when the purpose of the law, to determine the father, can never confound a DNA test?

The problem with abuse to women mentioned by the therapist we quote is intense. Indeed, the Federal Government is now suing Harvard over discrimination against women! Colleges are saturated with sexual abuse claims. Boys are constantly doing things to girls, and the girls want protection. (In a recent case in Brandeis University, a boy raped a girlfriend while she slept. This was called "unwanted sex." The boy was banished for four months and given no jail time or fine. The boy sued, and the case is going through the courts. Nobody suggests that he is a rapist or a criminal.) So, what does Harvard do about it? Harvard investigates sexual abuse. However, Harvard will not investigate a claim without some degree of substantiation. The girls complain that there is not often substantiation, because the abuse happens privately. Harvard refused the girls and the government is suing Harvard! This gives an idea of the problems of women. Protection from rape can only be achieved in today’s society by violating the most fundamental right of boys not to be accused without proof.

To return to the words of our previously quoted therapist, there is a basic difference between lesbianism and male homosexuality. Lesbians can have excellent relations with women, whereas male homosexuals have poor relations with men. Lesbians are less sexualized than male homosexuals. (Another study showed that lesbian partners have infrequent and not deep sex, mostly "cuddling.") In other words, a lesbian is a woman, but she cannot make it with men, so she embraces a woman. A male homosexual, on the other hand, is not a fully developed man; he often lacks the ability to relate well to men.

Female lesbianism satisfies not sexual biology but rather emotional needs for love. Thus, “cuddling” may satisfy lesbians, even though they lack active sex. Homosexuality among men, on the other hand, is often, perhaps mostly, biologically-driven sex, utterly unrelated to human friendship. Of course, there are homosexual partners who may stay together and achieve both sexual and emotional attachment. However, this is surely not the norm.

Interestingly enough, according to the above analysis, both male and female homosexuals have one basic problem, their distance from or hate of men. The difference is that the male homosexual disconnects with men as a child and needs much work to be able to relate properly with man as a man. Lesbians, on the other hand, are fully developed women, who fail with men because of anger or abuse. Theoretically, if the lesbian found the right man, or realized that not all men are abusers, she could easily become heterosexual. A homosexual, on the other hand, has a much deeper problem with finding love with a woman, because his entire gender process is disrupted.

The problem of the male homosexual is a personal and individual one. He did not find a male to emulate and he did not properly become a peer of other boys, but the world is not against him. If he does find men or the ability to go among men, he may succeed. Not so the lesbian. She lives in a world where the gender struggles are intense. The secular man knows what he wants from a woman, and she knows it, too. Therefore, the drumbeat of anger in the feminist camp may disrupt the development of heterosexuality even by a lesbian determined to change.

The above quoted therapist said that studies show more homosexual men than homosexual women, about 6 to 1. One reason is that lesbians cannot have sex, whereas homosexuals can, even though it is quite painful.

It might be interesting to pursue the therapist’s insights with a question. What does the “cuddling” of lesbianism represent? Is it, as we indicated, the developed woman’s response to hate of men, and thus, the fully mature love of a true woman, albeit perverse? Or, does the “cuddling” of the lesbian indicate a retrogression from the mature woman? Perhaps a true woman does not “cuddle” with women. Perhaps a true woman is only happy with a man. Dangling above our discussion is another question: When a man or female find their heterosexual urges blocked by emotional hate, what happens to those urges? Does the lesbian’s female lover become a “man”? Does the homosexual’s lover become a “woman”? Or does the blocked natural urge of heterosexuality morph into homosexuality so it is utterly unrelated, perhaps the inverse, of the original natural urges? Possibly, words do not exist to truly express these problems, but they are the heart of the issues.

The therapist concludes in his very brief remarks, "Homosexual attractions represent distorted attempts to meet legitimate needs, needs that emerged from unsatisfactory early relationships experienced by biologically vulnerable children."

We see how extraordinarily delicate life is, especially with family. You can damage or even destroy your son by taking or giving. A father who gives too much help to a child represses the child’s need for independence. The father jails the child in immaturity, and damages the child emotionally. If the father, on the other hand, takes too much from the child, demanding too much independence, the child can wither. If only all parents lived in fear! If only people had time, in our hectic schedules, to even think about how we affect our children. The famous article in Newsweek, June 2003, about “We are Not in the Mood,” tells of a woman who refuses to have sex with her husband because it would mean taking a shower afterwards. She has no time or energy for that. What kind of life do people have? What kind of children can they produce?

In a relationship between two people, there are two people. With children, there are three people, possibly more. In the case where two parents have a son, the son must relate to the father and the mother, and he must relate to both. A triangle exists. Ideally, all participants benefit. The parents love each other, and they love the child. The child, the apple of the eye of the parents, flourishes. However, if two people don't get along, the third person must deal with a dysfunctional polarity. Can he relate lovingly to two people who are angry at each other?

If two people in a three-person family do not get along, and the third person takes sides, what do we have? We can combine three letters ABC into various combinations: AB, CA, and CB. Furthermore, these relationships can change, or have various degrees of intensity. Sometimes, the love flips to hate, and it can flip back. Therefore, a family can be a merry place.

We have father-mother, son-father, and son-mother. We can have situations where each one is alone without connecting to another. Many combinations exist. Each of them produces reactions. Love and reaction is external and internal, so it gets quite complex. A person can love outwardly and hate inwardly, or even love partially and hate partially, or even be confused.

Bill has a father and mother. The father and mother do not get along. Bill likes his father and not his mother. Therefore, his mother may not like Bill. Bill likes his father and his father likes Bill. The more Mother hurts father, the more Bill bolsters father. The more Bill bolsters father, the more mother dislikes Bill. Her failing to break the Father frustrates and infuriates her. It increases the severity of her actions. Ultimately, the mother, who under normal circumstances could have molded the Father to a tolerable level of conformity, now has no power over him. She cannot deal with her son, because father will back him up. She is outnumbered and lost. What does she do? She can make both of them feel guilty, or miserable, but she cannot beat and break them. Ultimately, she will have to negate her pride or leave the family. If she is isolated, even if she stays in the family, a great guilt hangs over the father and Bill. The father feels that he is right, so the guilt is not terrible. Bill, however, loves his father, but he also has some instinctive if not intellectual love for his mother. He thus feels terrible that he is driving her away from her family. He does not want to lose his mother, and he does not want to hurt his father by driving away his wife. In addition, he does not want to hurt his mother so terribly. If mother leaves, Bill may not be able to remain with father, because it reminds him of his dastardly deed.

This is an example of how complex family life can be. Biblical people feel an obligation to marry and have a family, and to give and not take. Secular people have no time for these things, nor are they disposed to self-sacrifice. A spouse and a child are for them a threat. This is why many children from secular homes seek drugs and perverse behaviors. They seek what they never got from their parents, who are likely divorced or almost there. Studies show that many people no longer even bother getting a divorce. They just leave and have no intention of remarrying.

I have a question. If homosexuality in men is associated with poor relationships with males, such as fathers and male peers, we see that in male homosexuality the homosexual embraces the very gender he has problems with. On the other hand, we have a therapist tell us that female homosexuality comes from hurt at the hands of men. In other words, men seek the gender that hurts them. Women seek the opposite of the gender that hurts them.

It seems that men do not reject women and become homosexuals because women hurt them, and women do not become lesbians because women hurt them. Men become what they fail to achieve, and women become what they don't fail to achieve. Put differently, we can say that male homosexuality is sexual in nature, and not emotional, at least in the majority of cases. This means that the male, missing the love of a father or for whatever reason, has the avenue of love blocked. However, the blockage is only on the emotional, not sexual, level. He therefore seeks in men sexually what he cannot emotionally. Therefore, in the majority of cases, male homosexuality is purely a biological affair. Some cases, however, involve true love as well. In these cases, the ability to love a man is not blocked, but the ability to love a woman may be blocked.

Males are seekers, and thus look beyond themselves. Females are found people who want to resolve others. The man who fails with men cannot stop, because he is a seeker. If he fails with his father and his peers, he must keep looking, because his seeking is innate. If all is blocked, and the only way he can search and find masculinity is through perversion, he will become sexually bound to men. Thus, male homosexuality is often completely related to sex, as people have dozens of experiences with utter strangers in short periods of time. The pain of the homosexual in dealing with men cannot be erased, and yet, he must seek "maleness." The solution is to find maleness through sexuality, and to merge with a male and find maleness that way, while eschewing all of the burnt out connections of normal male intercourse socially and family-wise.

The female, on the other hand, is "found." She has no need to find and search. She needs to pour her spiritual energies into a home, and reveal and resolve a male and family. When a male hurts her, and she cannot have a male or accept a male relationship, her needs for polar revelation and resolution are unfulfilled, but she seeks another person of her own sex to love, and thus somehow reveal and resolve a female. In other words, a male is never a male until he finds another male. He must therefore find a male, preferably with proper emotional and social attachments, but if these avenues are destroyed, such as one who had a poor relation with his father and peers, the male must find maleness, and does so with homosexual sex. The female, on the other hand, is "found," and is always a woman, with or without a man. If she cannot have a man, she retires to her own kind, and nurses her pain with a woman. Nonetheless, the female is never satisfied with lesbianism–Gloria Steinhem finally married at the age of 67– because the basic female unit is not disrupted and cannot find peace without polarity. The male, however, enters a stage of sexuality with other men that release great hormones and forces to calm his pain and bring him pleasure. This leads to addictive and compulsive behavior, and although part of the homosexual man may never be satisfied, the flow and swish of the hormones driven by sexuality are too compelling for him to switch, without intensive therapy, or a cessation of those tensions that homosexual sex relaxes.

We conclude with another point. Can gender hate be initiated in later life, or only in childhood? Can lesbianism be produced in a married woman with children who suffers a bad marriage and hates her husband? Can a man suddenly, after years of heterosexual marriage and family, hate women due to a bad marriage and seek men? All of this is interesting discussion of ideas that need to be studied by experts in the field. We mention them, not as therapy, but as ideas as we grapple with the mystery of nature gone awry. Perhaps someone who knows the issues from actual therapy in the field will find these ideas useful.

The Orthodox Homosexual

There are people in all religious communities who are homosexuals. If the religious community eschews homosexuality, the religious follower suffers. This challenges all religions that proscribe homosexuality. What is the religious homosexual to do?

A movement, powered by a gay movie producer and led by an ordained gay Orthodox rabbi who bends Orthodox to homosexuality, has focused this issue in the Orthodox community. The claim of the Orthodox rabbi is:

1) He may not marry a woman because this is unfair to her, even dishonest

2) Since he cannot marry and cannot procreate, there is no sin for him to destroy his seed in masturbation

3) The duress of the situation allows him to achieve love and pleasure with a man, as long as no anal intercourse takes place.

4) Even if there may be rabbinical or non-cardinal sins involved with this, the alternative may be what many Orthodox homosexuals end up doing, leaving the fold completely. Surely, it is better to do a few sins under great duress than to discard the Torah completely and be lost to the Jewish people.

5) Attempts at conversion therapy having failed, and even perhaps having deleterious results, one may consider himself helpless, and the above is the best Torah approach for an otherwise impossible situation.

When first appraised of this movement, I spoke to the founder, and then wrote this article for my website www.kedusho.com in response.

Anyone who reads this article without groaning at the suffering of the Orthodox homosexual has no heart and no soul. We acknowledge that anyone who has the courage to try to resolve the problems of the Orthodox homosexual deserves much praise. On the other hand, we feel that not only is it intellectually wrong to allow homosexual activities at any level for Orthodox homosexuals, but all energies put into this direction detract from the main show, therapy.

And those who cannot change, let them do what they do without committing additional sins such as throwing out dirabonins completely as if they were expendable, and accepting other kuluse that have no intellectual foundation. If you have to be homosexual, so be it. But don't "solve" your problems by profaning the sanctity of the Written and Oral Law, the Shulchan Aruch and the Poskim.

The Aguno issue could have been solved if the activists wanted to work with and not against the rabbis. Agunah activists made a lot of noise and hate, but what have they accomplished when they turn married women "free" without a proper GET? They have produced mamzerim. Let us not make the same mistake with homosexuals. We must work together, the rabbis and the homosexuals, to provide chizuk and to find therapeutic solutions, and if that isn't feasible, to let HaShem reveal to us what we can do under the authority of the Torah, as Torah Jews, and not as radicals and rabble-rousers.

May HaShem have pity on those searching Jews who have yet to find the answers. A Jew never says there is no hope.

The Tragedy of the Orthodox Homosexual

A person who is religious and yet homosexual has an enormous problem. To become gay and violate the biblical injunction against homosexuality is unacceptable, and to refrain from sex is incredibly hard. Therefore, some Orthodox religious homosexuals choose to give up their religion, and become gay. Others seek therapy, which works for some people. Some will do nothing but suffer. A new movement, however, wants Orthodox homosexuals to do everything with a homosexual partner except anal intercourse. This is shocking, and we disagree with this, for reasons written here. But we must admit that this is actually a very brave and hard decision. Such a person, living with another homosexual, is in no-man's land. He is cut off from the mores of the Orthodox community, and the gays are angry with him for not going all the way. The gays, by the way, want nothing to do with people who believe in Leviticus 18:22, that anal intercourse is an abomination. Furthermore, as two Orthodox gays do things immoral by Torah standards, the guilt cannot be washed away. They cannot be truly happy. The legal fiction they invent cannot really penetrate their hearts. There is thus no good solution for such a person. The only hope is that we invest great energies and mesiras nefesh in improving therapy to the point where it works for everyone. Indeed, the more time we waste looking for false solutions, we loose precious time and energies that could help us find a good solution.

There is an organization in America, Jonah, serving homosexual and lesbian Jews worldwide. Its website is www.jonahweb.org. You may contact them and ask to speak to someone by phone, or in person. There is also, in Israel, an organization whose website is www.atzat-nefesh.org. Both of these organizations have websites, therapists and people to talk to. There is a growing movement among many religions to help homosexuals change. Professor Joseph Spitzer, M.D., of Columbia did a scientific test to prove the efficacy of conversion therapy. Many people have changed. Therefore, the concept of encouraging every Orthodox Jewish homosexual to remain homosexual is surely wrong. The first step is to contact Jonah, or to find a therapist who is highly experienced and successful with conversion therapy. Information on this can be found at NARTH, a secular organization of therapists. Its website is www. Narth.com.

The homosexual rabbi claims to be ONESS: ONESS means that one cannot help himself. One who profanes the Sabbath because of a medical emergency is ONESS; he did not willingly sin, but was forced to do so. Does ONESS apply to the Orthodox homosexual? Does a person who cannot help himself have the status of ONESS, and if so, what is permitted to such a person? Does the Torah forgive its laws about sexuality, its demands that sex be limited to married people, because of someone who needs forbidden sex?

The gemora in Sanhedrin 75a discusses the case of a man who fell madly in love with a woman. Doctors say that he will die if he does not have her. The woman is willing to give him whatever sexual pleasures the rabbis advise is appropriate to save a life. The Torah, of course, assigns primary importance to the saving of a life. "One who saves a life is as if he saved the entire world," and "saving a life precedes the Sabbath." On the other hand, cardinal sins, such as murder, paganism and adultery/incest, are never permitted, even to save a life. The Talmud concludes that such a woman, even if she is unmarried, may not even talk to the man behind a wall to save his life, and he will die.

The gemora rules that we may not break down social sexual standards even to save a life.

This is exactly what the homosexual rabbi is doing. He will "die" if he can't have his sexual needs. He comes to the rabbis and asks that they permit him to have a male partner, and together, they will hug, kiss, masturbate, have oral sex, and do everything except anal sex. May the rabbis permit such a thing? They may not. This is clearly the situation of the gemora. The rabbis do not tell someone to do something if by so doing they open the door to forbidden sexual practices and lower the social standards regarding holiness. Such a ruling, from a rabbi, based on the Torah, would invite people to destroy the Torah and its standards.

(However, someone could disagree, and say that the gemora is not appropriate in this case. The gemora talks about a woman who is not sick. She is not required to save another person. If however the woman herself needed the man, and the man needed the woman, what would the rabbis do? What they let both parties die? Or would they refuse to permit "funny" sexual deeds because to do so would destroy the sexual standards of the community? We see clearly from the gemora that community standards are very important. If the man himself wants just to talk to the lady with a fence between them, Rambam says we tell him to die and not speak to her, even if she is unmarried and willing to talk to him. We see clearly that human life does not override the proper social sexual standards of Israel.)

Let us transpose the homosexuals into heterosexuals, and let us phrase it this way: A man and woman want each other, but they are forbidden, because she is married. They become sick and realize that if they don't sin they will die. What should they do? First, let us see what they want to do. Do they want to live, as the homosexual rabbi suggests, doing everything, oral sex, kissing, etc. and refraining from intercourse? Can we permit that? We cannot, for two reasons. One, if two people madly in love with each other do everything to arouse their passions, surely they will eventually have intercourse. People are not angels, and they cannot always restrain their passions. Secondly, we cannot permit them to be together and do whatever they want because the Torah community simply cannot permit a man to spend the night with a married woman even when they do nothing wrong, and surely when they do everything wrong except one thing. A community where this went on could not have kedusho (sanctity).

Therefore, the program of a rabbi teaching homosexuals to sleep together and masturbate, have oral sex and kiss and who knows what else, as long as they have no anal intercourse, is not correct. Even if people die, one may not proclaim such a program. Such a program shatters the walls of kedusho.

In general, when dealing with cardinal sins such as homosexuality, the basic act of intercourse is surely forbidden, but the authorities rishonim argue if the kissing and hugging out of lust is a Torah sin or a rabbinical sin. The Shach, who is the main authority, rules according the opinion that foreplay is forbidden by the Torah. The Ramo says that a cardinal sin is not just the basic sin, such as intercourse, but those things forbidden by the Torah, such as a LAV, a negative sin. If so, we would probably conclude that one must die rather than kiss in a homosexual embrace.

Even if one disagreed with this, and would say that kissing and hugging are not per se lavin, Torah prohibitions, they are nonetheless things that "bring to sin" (abizrayhu) and are forbidden because of that. Even if one disagreed with that, they would be forbidden because they destroy the standards of holiness for the community.

For instance, if someone is told to kiss a lady in the middle of Fifth Avenue or be killed, and afterwards they will be separated and never see each other, this is a cardinal sin, despite the fact that they will never come to sin with intercourse. An act that is not a sin at all on its own, but can bring people to the sin, is abizrayhu, an accoutrement, a connection to that cardinal sin. Something that leads to sin, abizrayhu, even if it is utterly removed from sexuality, but will possibly cause sexuality, is a cardinal sin. Even the above talking separated by a wall is forbidden, and one must die rather than do it.

This paper begins to clarify these laws. We cannot easily talk about life and death matters. We only want to make it very clear that the efforts to help the Orthodox homosexual must be in improved therapy, because in halacha, in Jewish law, there is no hope. If cries about suicide open all of the doors, we must refrain from crying about suicide. A society where all of the doors are open is a destroyed society. Nothing said here is to tell anyone an actual ruling whether to live or die: such things are beyond the scope of a website, obviously. We only wish to dampen the enthusiasm of those who propose halacha solutions whereby homosexuals can be active homosexuals and Torah Jews. On the other hand, we congratulate the courageous people who struggle between two worlds, the gays and the Torah Jews, and suffer for their spiritual and physical surival. May HaShem help them to have happy lives.

Nothing here should in any way imply that struggling Torah Jews, regardless of their problems, are not beloved in the eyes of HaShem. There is no holier thing than a broken heart. They did not seek this problem. HaShem gave them a terrible test, and nobody really knows how to solve it. May HaShem enlighten us to know how to deal with it.

Thus concludes the web article, and we will take it further here.

Any young man, or even an older man, who is homosexual, and cannot marry, is driven to homosexual behavior by his problem, and must deal with it. There are several steps. One, the immediate problem is not to engage in homosexual sex. Will power may not be enough. If so, there is an emergency medical solution, taking anti-androgen pills, which inhibit the ability to engage in sex. A person ready to sin sexually, be it adultery, homosexuality, or any such cardinal sin, must save his soul by taking medications, under the supervision of a doctor, which disable his ability or desire to have sex. This is a very important step. A person who slips and sin sexually may spend the rest of a life dealing with it. Better to take some pills, as doctors assured me are available, to postpone the moment of temptation until one is ready.

Once the person has taken this step, and cannot engage in homosexual behavior, he must seek therapy. Conversion therapy has changed hundreds and hundreds of people from homosexuals to heterosexuals. Dr. Joseph Spitzer, a Columbia professor of psychiatry, not long ago proved that homosexuals could become heterosexual, although he had doubted this for some time.

While the homosexual engages in conversion therapy, he should engage the services of someone just to encourage him. Conversion therapy emphasizes the need to eschew a certain behavior; therefore, a person who does engage in that behavior may feel small and even evil. Therefore, while attending conversion therapy, under the guidance of a therapist, it is also important to include, as part of the therapy or through someone else, a program just about feeling good, about accepting oneself as we are made by G-d. If, as is often the case when dealing with compulsive and addictive behaviors, the homosexual fails and falls back to his old associations and habits, encouragement is even more important.

The homosexual is best served by joining a group of fighters or strugglers, those who are finding their way to heterosexuality. A group called Jonah exists to help Jews, and it gets calls from all over the world. One looking for a therapy can contact Jonah, or NARTH, an international group of qualified therapists, psychologist and psychiatrists, who specialize in helping homosexuals become heterosexual.

If, however, nothing works, and the homosexual urges are there and not treated, we cannot condone an Orthodox rabbi or even a gentile living with a man as his wife. Even if they do not commit anal sex, it is wrong. Of course, it is highly unlikely that they will last long without doing so. Surely, any Jew, not just an Orthodox rabbi, cannot compel the Torah to bend because of desires, as strong as they are. The homosexual rabbi is not the first Orthodox person in the world to have passions that are forbidden, and he will not be the last. We cannot bend the Torah to satisfy his urges. We cannot bend the Torah rulings, and we cannot bend the rabbinical rulings. We cannot even bend the basic social standards of holiness that are our standards in family decency. To do so is to create another kind of Conservative or Reform Judaism. People have passions other than homosexuality for adultery, even incest. We cannot allow passion to pervert the Torah and social standards.

A person who is deeply religious and homosexual has an enormous problem. To become gay and violate the biblical injunction against homosexuality is unacceptable, and to refrain from sex is incredibly hard. Therefore, some Orthodox religious homosexuals become gay and leave Judaism or Orthodoxy. Others seek therapy, which works for some people. Some will do nothing but suffer. A new movement, however, wants Orthodox homosexuals to do everything with a homosexual partner except anal intercourse. This is shocking, and we disagree with this, for reasons written here. Nevertheless, we must admit that this is actually a very brave and hard decision. Such a person, living with another homosexual, is in no-man's land. He is cut off from the mores of the Orthodox community, and the gays are angry with him for not going all the way. The gays, by the way, want nothing to do with people who believe in Leviticus 18:22, that anal intercourse is an abomination. Furthermore, as two Orthodox gays do things immoral by Torah standards, the guilt cannot be washed away. They cannot be truly happy. The legal fiction they invent cannot really penetrate their hearts. There is thus no good solution for such a person. The only hope is that we invest great energies and mesiras nefesh in improving therapy to the point where it works for everyone. Indeed, the more time we waste looking for false “remedies,” we lose precious time and energies that could help us find a good solution.

When millions of Orthodox Jews came to America in the beginning of the twentieth century, they either worked on Shabbos or could not feed their families. To accommodate the realities, Conservative Judaism was founded. The leaders of Conservative Judaism were Orthodox scholars who studied in Europe in the heyday of Torah there. They differed with their rabbinic peers in that they could not turn their back on millions of Jews who simply could not be Orthodox. The Orthodox rabbis said that the Torah cannot change, and we cannot bend it because of a historical situation that makes being religious difficult. At the time, many people thought that Conservative Judaism would save Jewry, and that Orthodoxy was doomed. Today, we know that Conservative Judaism is utterly removed from Torah. Conservative Judaism today, in the summer of 2003, is debating whether to reject the biblical proscription of homosexuality. Those who first led Conservative Judaism would never have believed this. However, once you start down the slippery slope, you never know where it will end. On the other hand, the Orthodox rabbis who were stubborn found disciples and communities even in the barren and materialistic soil of the New World, and Orthodox flourishes today. We cannot bend the Torah, even if it seems that we must. We will lose everything and create monstrosities if we defy the Torah. Reform Jewry at one time was also peopled with learned rabbis who felt that the Law had to be bent for the sake of millions of Jews. Now, Reform and Conservative have no natural base, and fill their temples with non-Jews. Intermarriage and disinterest in Judaism is devastating both movements.

The homosexual rabbi claims to be ONESS. ONESS means that one cannot help himself. One who profanes the Sabbath because of a medical emergency is ONESS. He did not willingly sin, but was forced to do so. Does ONESS apply to the Orthodox homosexual? Does a homosexual have the status of ONESS, and if so, what is permitted to such a person? Does the Torah forgive its laws about sexuality, its demands that sex be limited to married people, because of someone who needs forbidden sex?

The Torah forbids a king from excessively multiplying wealth, horses or wives, lest they turn his heart away from G-d. Solomon declared, that due to his divine gift of great wisdom, these laws did not pertain to him. He multiplied his wealth, horses and wives, and eventually the Torah criticizes him for coming to great sin. His wives spread paganism among Jews. Nobody, not even the wisest person, can disobey the Torah, even when the Torah tells us the reason for the Law. Certainly, with sexual sins, such as homosexuality, nobody can say, "I am different." Everyone must obey the Torah.

The Talmud in Yevomose tells of a man who slept with his wife under a tree, rather than privately in a home. He was taken to court and severely punished, not because he committed a sin, he had, after all, slept with his own wife, but because he had degraded the standards of the community. What kind of world would it be if people slept with each other under trees? What kind of world would it be if men coupled homosexually, especially as their sex is a Torah sin? What kind of synagogues would we have where homosexuals participate as homosexuals, honoring their male partners, and showing the youth and everyone else that homosexuality is accepted by Orthodoxy? This is what the homosexual "rabbi" wants, and he must not achieve his goals.

For over a century therapists have shown and known that homosexuality has roots in one's childhood and family structure. Just because the Gay Lobby has decided this is wrong does not mean it is wrong. It is right, and we must utilize pure science and conversion therapy to deal with the Orthodox homosexual. Our sympathies and energies for those trapped in this terrible dilemma must be channeled into sponsoring research to improve the already growing science of conversion therapy.

Segment 6 – Sexuality and Intimacy

By Rabbi David Eidensohn
(c) copyright September 11, 2002 by author

Challenges to Marriage

America fails with marriage. Most Americans are not married; only 49% are. Half of first American marriages end in divorce. One of the major problems in marriage is intimacy. Studies, taken over the past century, show that up to eighty percent of partners are not satisfied with coition. Newsweek on June 22, 2003 published, “We are Not in the Mood,” about the failure of sex. People simply are negative about intimacy. They say, “I am too tired.” However, the article says that nobody is too tired for sex.

In the sixties, the fifties’ rigid and materialistic conformism gave way to radicalism. One pole of the radicalism was the college campus and the sexual revolution. The other pole was people like me, utterly despised by society for being very religious. Eventually, our religious institutions were being filled with dropouts from the college campus. They had enough. One young man said, “When I study Talmud, it is the greatest pleasure. Once I smoked dope next to a girl, and I thought that was pleasure. Well, I was wrong.” I don’t know how many Talmudists understand this. Surely, an intellectual argument is not the same as taking drugs or youthful biology. What this young man expressed, and what propelled him and thousands like him into my community, was the pain and frustration he found in bottomless depravity.

Food is fun, only when taken in limits. If you have to eat eighteen pints of ice cream in one sitting, you will probably never eat ice cream again. The greatest revulsion can come from the greatest compulsion. A therapy for pedophiles tells us a lot about the problems of modern sex. Pedophilia is one of the most frightening illnesses. It afflicts even fine and decent people. Finally, a lady psychiatrist from New Jersey created a therapy for pedophilia. It works, very roughly speaking, on the “eighteen pints of ice cream” method. Ultimately, it allows a sick person to refrain from acting on his impulses, although he can continue sexually in other areas. Again, when we overdo a natural pleasure, it becomes painful. The limitless abandon of modern sex is its own greatest enemy. A person from my community cannot understand what is going on in the world of “We are Not in the Mood.” But those out there, drenched and drowning in sex for all of their biologically relevant years, have come to such frustration and pain from sex that they no longer enjoy it. There is the lady who, every night, brushes her teeth again and again until she is sure her husband is asleep. Probably, if I could tell this story in the local synagogue, people would refuse to believe it. Only people who eat eighteen pints of ice cream from earliest adolescence can understand it.

In the sixties, a young man became religious, and entered the Israeli Yeshiva of Rabbi Elya Lopian, a major rabbinical figure of the past generation. Rabbi Lopian was then an old man, but he had a vigor and energy that inspired all who saw him. The young man asked Rabbi Lopian for permission to attend a family wedding. The young man added that although the family was not religious and women did not dress in Orthodox fashion, this didn’t bother him. This moved Rabbi Lopian very much. He asked the boy for his name and the name of his mother, obviously, in order to pray for him. The boy protested, “Rabbi, I feel fine. You don’t have to pray for me.” Nonetheless, Rabbi Lopian insisted and did pray for the boy. He explained, “I am an old man, in my eighties, and I have only one good eye. Yet, I am quite provoked at immodesty. If this young man, with two good eyes, is not impressed by immodesty, he must be sick!”

Maybe not sick, but the boy, from a secular world, had so much ice cream that he could do without it. One way to destroy an emotion is through frustration. If we know that a great pleasure awaits us when we drink wine, and drink it, the drinking and pleasure it presents strengthens our desire for good wine. If, on the other hand, we come to drink wine and are frustrated, the frustration spoils our pleasure and inhibits our initial interest in it. Like Pavlov’s dogs, people respond to stimuli, one way or the other. If a stimulus is associated with pleasure, we are aroused to pursue it. If a stimulus is associated with frustration and pain, we refuse it. In the modern world, sexual stimuli are of necessity accoutered with frustration, as we will explain.

In the religious world, if we see a lovely woman, we know she is not ours, and therefore, have no aroused desire for her other than perhaps a fast look or thought. Of course, the purists would prefer not to have even a fast look, but most people do look and probably think about what they saw. Nonetheless, there is little damage in this to the emotions, because the arousal did not produce frustration and was brief. In the secular world, the sight of someone from the other gender arouses a storm. Both people know the rules: do what you can, anytime, anywhere. Thus, any meeting or sighting of the other sex arouses desire. Since people meet many people of the other sex daily, and even in the same office are inundated with meetings and sightings, eventually, the arousal groans and gives up. A young man who goes to college and is battered with sexual frustration daily can come to a point where an immodestly clad woman means little to him. Why should he be aroused when he physically cannot keep up with his arousals? The arousals thus become a threat to his pleasures, even his health. Arousal thus becomes the enemy. Of course, the arousal is still there, unless severe pain has destroyed it, which is unlikely. Nonetheless, it is sick. When such a person marries, he takes a sick and oversexed arousal mechanism into the marriage, as does his wife. Probably, women are even more pained and frustrated than men on this point. They also have the pain of being a toy for men from early age. Thus, married men and women come to intimacy with such ruined emotions that “We are Not in the Mood.”

Frustration is not just from constant sightings and meetings. A person picks up a magazine. Of course, there is an ad, because commercials support the media. Ads attract the reader with lovely women, dressed properly or not. This lovely woman beckoning to the reader is damaging his ability to have sex. If this is what sex is, if such a gorgeous female is out there, what does he have? The more pleasure he gets from gazing at super models, the less pleasure he gets from his spouse. Thus, pleasure makes pain.

Years ago, a man with a large brood of children came to the rabbi and demanded a divorce from his wife of many years. The rabbi was shocked. What happened all of a sudden. “Rabbi,” said the man, “I just got a television. Those women make my wife look like a monkey. I can’t stand her any more.”

It would be nice if we could just scream at such a person, or spank him into a proper attitude. We are talking, however, about sexual desire, which does not respond to exhortations. Sexual emotions are incredibly powerful and yet quite sensitive. Either we obey the rules, and destroy our televisions, or else.

Another pain and frustration in marriage is from the constant fear of affairs. In a secular world, if your spouse can have a good time with another person, why not? You do it, the other one does it, and such is the style. If so, one has no confidence in marriage, only constant and nagging fear. Did your spouse talk too long to that person at the party? Did he/she come home too late? Why are they not so interested today?

Ultimately, the woman knows her looks will go, but the male appetite will not. This makes her helpless. She is angry, and a lot it does for her. Eighty percent of women in some studies indicate pain at having sex even with their husbands. A woman in the secular world, and even in the religious world, lives in fear and frustration. Unless someone really turns back the clock, such as in my community, those fears are there. Even in my community, the only intelligent people are those who live in fear. The others take a chance in life.

A young man, very handsome and fine, came to a store one day and tried to purchase something for a child. He didn’t know what he was doing, and when he left, somebody commented, “Why didn’t his wife come?” His wife, from a fine family, ran away with an older man, a grandfather. The wife, the grandfather and the young man are all from fine religious families. The reason this tragedy happened is because people were sure that the religious young wife would never fall for a religious grandfather, and the religious grandfather would never fall for a religious young girl. Wrong. Very wrong. Our local Family Court Judge, Bernard Stanger, used to say, “Propinquity decides.” In other words, the people you see will arouse you. This leads to problems. People who see each other daily, in an office, are in real danger. A study of New York City police when the force first accepted women showed that in almost every case where a male and female were paired in a patrol car the marriage was damaged. What else do we expect?

Women are the great losers. First, women, in order to support the family with the new levels of consumption, left the house and went to work. Next, they needed rules to let them work like men. Once they are among men, their marriages are in big trouble. Now, exhausted from a job and household chores, a woman who must be a man outside the home comes home and must be a woman. Obviously, it isn’t working. Here are several articles on these issues from my website www.gendercentral.com.

Women in the Bible, the Burqa and Battle

By Rabbi David Eidensohn

In January-February Orthodox Jewish synagogues read the biblical story of the Bondage and Exodus. Israel was enslaved in Egypt for hundreds of years and left miraculously 3354 years ago. The Egyptians tried to break the spirit of the Jews, but failed. The Talmud attributes this to the women. The Egyptians broke the men, even the rabbis, who decided to stop having children. What is the use, they asked, of having children who are slaves? The women had faith in G-d, and insisted that the Jewish people continue. When the Jews left Egypt, the women attained the great spiritual heights at Sinai. The men, on the other hand, held on only so long, and worshipped the Golden Calf when Moses tarried in heaven. The forty years in the Sinai desert was one when men sinned repeatedly, but not the women. Rabbi Yisroel Salanter, the saint of his stellar nineteenth century generation, prayed for the spirituality of his grandmother.

It is just as well that women are superior spiritually, because they raise and nurture children. If we have a hope in life, it is our mothers. The Jewish people is almost four thousand years old, and it has a steady tradition, rooted in the wisdom and strength of its women. Jewish woman are not necessarily unique. When Alexis Tocqueville came from France to study America in 1831-32, he wrote the classic "Democracy in America." Tocqueville wrote favorably of the budding giant, and he attributed its strength to "the superiority of their women." Suffrage did not exist in those days, but women in the home were the mainstay of life.

In the eighties, non-Orthodox Jews were embroiled in the issue of women rabbis. Although my ultra-Orthodox home is far from such matters, I was involved personally with a group of Conservative rabbis who fought for the traditional approach, and I carried the battle into the Sabbath table. I looked around the table and stopped cold. My wife and daughters did not want to hear about women who want to be rabbis. Why?

A man wants to be a man. A boy wants to be a boy. A woman and girl have their rights, too. Talking to a natural woman about entering a male domain is insulting. Why, then, is America set on turning its women into men? Why do 46% of Americans support drafting women? (Gallup Poll, December 2,001) Why do 52% favor allowing women into frontline combat roles, and 63% favor allowing women into Special Forces? What is wrong with such roles? They are the roles of killers, to put it bluntly. A woman who goes to war must be a killer, which comes naturally to men, but not to women. A woman who has polluted her soul with indifference to death cannot return home and nurture life, at least, not as well as a natural woman. Why does the public want women to become killers? It has nothing to do with ideology, although that is also a factor. It has to do with economics.

In the past decades real wages have not risen very much, on the other hand, consumption has vastly increased, often doubling. An economist asked how such a thing could be possible. The answer is, today two people earn the wages of one. Yes, consumption has doubled, because instead of the husband supporting the family, the husband and wife support it. Thus, there is money for a double consumption. Even if a husband does support the family, he must take extra jobs, and thus cannot help his wife in her crucial family responsibility.

A woman, in order to survive, must enter the male world, and she must twist her nature to be a man. She must talk like a man, she must curse like a man, she must be vicious like a man, and she must have a driving instinct to succeed like a man. Such a thing, a former woman, comes home to the children, and we have the results: Children mass-murdering their fellow students in public school. We have a generation of children raised on television, who relish and demand the most hideous videos, beyond pornography into sicky sickness.

There is more to it than that. From the inception of the secular age, which coincided with the rise of psychoanalysis and secular mental therapy, studies showed that women suffer during sex. Even today, or perhaps, especially today, the numbers are horrendous, some showing eighty percent of women who just cannot enjoy what men do. The reason, a top sexual therapist told me, is because men come on strong, and women are frightened, and fight back. The result is disaster. A major reason for the drive to promote homosexuality is the despair that men and women can enjoy sex together. This is the driving force of the modern science of sexology, which is not science, but an effort to change nature, because secular people, and not just them, but those living in our secular age, commonly experience serious gender problems. The secular age forces a woman to be unnatural, and she takes this fear into the bedroom. For this reason, some women, like Gloria Steinem, promoted Lesbianism, but eventually, at the age of 67, she married a man. So there is a growing movement of women throughout the world to enter deeply religious sects, where they can, behind the long dresses, be secure in natural femininity. Our ultra-Orthodox community is inundated with young women who have been everywhere, seen everything, and want a different lifestyle. One of them came to Rabbinical Court wearing such an outfit that I thought she was making a movie about Medieval nuns.

Insecure women jeopardize the entire family, of course, because a man without a woman is not going to be happy or natural. Children will be miserable, obviously, and therefore throughout the world men, women and even children flee the Disney world of America to Fundamentalism. The deepest need of a human being is to be natural. Western society denies to a woman the right to be natural, and demands that she be a man. Western civilization points a finger at a man who feels manly, and even denies a boy the right to be a natural boy. A girl, in Western society, is a toy for a frustrated boy, and a woman is a toy for a frustrated man. Everyone is frustrated, and those who haven't fled to the safety of some cave, or somewhere like my community, are going to have an interesting life.

A Moslem woman explained that wearing a burqa "inside she is free." In a world where men are predators, a woman cannot tolerate the constant sexual demands of male eyes and worse. Every young woman lives in fear. The secular young woman accepts a life where she is free to show everything and be nothing. She is a commodity similar to a video. A man will take her body, heart and soul and spit it out. She will give him every pleasure and he will flush her afterwards with all the respect given to a commode. A woman must have freedom from men. She must be free to appear only at her only volition. She must have a home and family to honor her dignity. Only then is she free to be a woman.

We are raising women to deny natural femininity and forcing them to be men. Logically, a male-female should be in the army. Why, however, should she be a male-female when she is not?

# # #

Here is a balancing perspective about the tragedy of fatherhood written for The Fatherhood Commission of Maine.

Fatherhood: For the Maine Fatherhood Commission

By Rabbi David Eidensohn

I congratulate the State of Maine for its Fatherhood Commission. Although the Federal Government recognized the crisis in Fatherhood years ago, the states are the appropriate governments to deal it. They will pay for the failure of Fatherhood fiscally and in quality of life. Commissioner Mike Heath asked for my input. I am happy to oblige.

The Federal government's The Meaning of Fatherhood for Men, presented in early 1997, reported (appendix C), "It is evident that women, and disproportionately men, are increasingly rejecting the conventional roles and obligations of a traditional family. Low levels of financial and social support provided by absent fathers to children have paralleled the rise in divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing. Research has also shown that children are increasingly seen as interfering with the spousal relationship. The rising cost of child rearing appears to be in conflict with an increasing materialism and increasing aspirations for expensive consumer goods. Importantly, adolescent males are significantly more likely than females to value such goods and rate owning such goods as very important, suggesting a higher priority of spending for themselves rather than providing for the expenses of a family."

It is now several years since the publication of this paper in 1997; what are the trends today?

Between 1970 and 2000, "the median age at first marriage for women increased by 4.3 years to 25.1 years; for men, the increase was 3.6 years to 26.8 years (U.S. Census Bureau)." As people refuse to marry, or hold off on marrying, the biological powers of procreation do not rest. The above (June 29, 2001) survey from the Census Bureau states that from 1970-2000, single mothers increased from 3-10 million, and the number of single fathers went from 393,000 to 2 million. The Federal Center of Disease Control concludes that one of the factors in this is "the steep increases in the number of unmarried women." The study notes that even as unmarried mothers are having more babies, married mothers are having fewer babies.

From 1970 to 1999, "nonmarital births" went from 200,000 in 1970 to 1.3 million in 1999 (CDC National Vital Statistics Reports Oct 18, 2000 Vol 48, Number 16). This is a six-fold increase in less than 30 years. Can we imagine 1.3 million children born out of wedlock, most of them flung upon the resources of states coping with serious financial problems?

As marriage declines, the biological issues do not. In fact, stress and anxiety are stilled by consummated sex, and it often becomes a compulsory behavior for people to relieve tension. Thus, the CDC reports "the rate of childbearing for unmarried white women more than doubled from 1980 to 1994."

What is causing this disaster?

I remember two visits to the doctor. One, a nurse chatted with me before a procedure, and asked about my family. She then said, with great pain, "I will have no children. I am afraid what kind of uncontrollable monsters they could be." Another time, those of us sitting in the waiting room listened to a receptionist talk to her daughter on the phone. I surmised that her daughter was the "uncontrollable monster" the nurse feared to mother. Modern marriage, children, fatherhood and motherhood are failing. Children once afforded the greatest pleasure; now they threaten.

Time Magazine's 2002 April cover story was about successful women who fail at having children, and then of course there are those who fail at getting married. For these ladies, being a bank director is not enough. They race a biological clock and must marry before their supply of motherhood dissipates or is compromised by time. The aging starts at age 27, and by the middle thirties the process is advanced. Yet, this is the time when the woman must power her way into the highest business position or advance to tenure. She has no time for babies. She waits, and one day, finds out she missed the boat. The Time story, based upon a book by a woman who surveyed successful women, quotes fertility doctors saying, "We keep a large supply of tissues for when they break down and cry."

This sets up a terrible cycle, the final one in the destruction of American family life. The woman knows she must marry quickly to have children, and flings herself upon men, giving and getting nothing. He is "commitment-phobic" and she is scared about her future. The more she gives and gets nothing, the angrier she is. Feminism first tried lesbianism, but when Gloria Steinhem went from "women need men like a squirrel needs a bicycle" to marrying at the age of 67, women realized that they lost. There is no alternative for women without a man, but they want him on their terms, something men have no interest in granting. Defensive men, afraid of angry women getting divorces, child custody and the house, dig in resolutely, refuse marriage, take women and spit them out, and ignore the moral implications.

Fatherhood is not an endangered species, but there is fatherhood that produces a single-parent home, and a fatherhood that produces a two-parent home. There is fatherhood of parents respecting each other, and teaching the child the glory of married life, and there is fatherhood of parents at war and a child growing up listening to both sides of the story: is the father a brute, or is it the mother's fault? Of course, there is also the fatherhood where the child runs around looking for the biological parent. Will, as trends predict, this become the norm?

Fatherhood is a problem, and so is grandfather hood. In a way, grandfather hood is a bigger problem. The census bureau reports (August 26, 2002) that:

Ø 5.8 million grandparents lived with their grandchildren under 18 in 2000. I am a grandparent, and I would not like to live with my grandchildren. I haven't the energy.

Ø 42% of the above grandparents supported their grandchildren. The elderly thus consume the reserves they need for their old age, and health costs are spiraling.

Ø 5.4 million children lived with grandparents. It is not fair for children to have to live with grandparents, because children are boisterous and need young parents.

Ø 21 percent of preschoolers in 1997 were cared for by grandparents while their mother was employed or in school. I bet that mother felt great burdening her parents, children, and self.

The government is in no position to help out, because it is a basket case financially.

According to the White House (Office of Management and Budget), we pay $360 billion dollars a year just on interest on the present 6 trillion dollar national debt! We owe an additional 6 trillion for imminent social security payments. Federal earning are only 2 trillion annually.

One in seven people in America work for local and state government, which local and state government cannot sustain without Federal Intervention, and the Feds are scrambling to borrow whatever they can and constantly raise the Federal debt limit.

The bottom line is that there will always be fatherhood, but we don't know what kind. Will father be the individual who fathered twelve children from twelve unmarried women and refuses to pay support, or will we have fatherhood in family? The trend is not favorable. Every social and cultural kick at men brings women closer to despair of family, even marriage. Men are reluctant to marry because society is blaming them instead of encouraging them. Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, a single woman, complained that ABC has not one family show that she can relate to; ABC programs only radical and dysfunctional family shows. Nobody needs fatherhood more than women. They are the ones who will suffer from insults to manhood. They are the ones who will either live alone, or raise a child without help. A woman may have a husband who fathers her children, honors and protects her, or she may have to suffice with sex and nonmarital children. If the latter is what she gets, the state will have to pay for it. However, no state can afford to be fathers.

What can the state do to prevent the decline of family, promote the return of responsible fatherhood, and inculcate respect for women?

The state, in its educational institutions, and in its media programs, must bridge the chasm between the genders, and teach people not to pull apart, but to push together. The state must point out the futility of adversary struggles in a polar marital structure. Some consider our culture now "at war" against traditional masculinity and femininity. Women are measured in some environments by how manly they act, by the masculine roles they fill. Men, on the other hand, must not be men. Some schools even close playgrounds so that boys will not be boys. There is a raging against "phallic influence" from prominent lobbies. However, men will not play the unnatural role society is inventing for them. Men will refuse marriage and family. They will use women as sex toys and babies will be unwanted refuse. America will soon be divided into two camps: a traditional minority of functional families, and a vast majority where men are predators upon desperate women who have millions of nonmarital children. To marginalize men is to ruin family and society.

The state must recognize that its survival requires a natural, proud and dignified father. The idea that women are enhanced and improved when men are dishonored is wrong. Women are destroyed when manhood is desecrated. We cannot promote the rights of women and children by ignoring the rights of men.

We must reverse the boy's education that consuming is everything. We must teach that giving is everything. A boy grows into a "beneficial provider" and a loving husband and father by being appreciated as a man. Paradoxically, one proud and secure gives, whereas one insecure only takes. Ideally, a boy grows with self-esteem that blossoms into love and family. A boy angry and frustrated because society frowns and complains does other things.

Marriage means you love someone and something and are prepared to live for it, not take what you can. Take what you can, and live alone. All of us are "married" to society and each other, and we must learn to give and not take. When we give out of love, we get back what no taking could ever achieve. It is deleterious to teach children about consumption and demanding instead of their right to learn and grow.

Let us recognize the transcendence in intimacy, and not make it into a dirty drug. A woman who creates life is holy. A woman valued only for her geometric form is a thing. Why can't a father be a father? Why can't a father be respected for his role to provide and protect? Why do we force mothers to work until they are exhausted? Why do we have a ten-year-old girl dead because she played football with boys? Why do we have a female navy seaman thrown out of a Manhattan hotel room and killed because she thought she could have a fistfight with a man? Why do we have women crying in the fertility clinics? Why do we have women rejoicing at the divorce she just got, not realizing what that means?

I am a father, and I am a grandfather. Even as I grow old, my children and grandchildren grow molded by what they see in me. When I die, I will live in them. I am my father, who is dead, and his father, as well, because I have a model, and try to fit into it. If I respect my wife and children, I learned this from my father. Samuel Eidensohn was a brilliant scientist who doubled the capacity of America's submarine batteries, and he married and stayed home at night. No night school, no more degrees, no stocks, no theater, just family. His children are scholars with degrees and publications. Our most important study was how to be a parent. My mother, may she be well, never valued anything as much as her family. My parents had a perfect marriage, until my father died. I never had to study or research how to be a father. It never occurred to me not to be like my parents, even as I fail to reach their levels.

What do others see? The father who never married? The father in divorce court? The father at the therapist who says it like it is? The dysfunctional father on ABC television?

The Federal The Meaning of Fatherhood for Men, Appendix C, page 7, tells us the Theoretical Approaches on fatherhood but admits to failure to answer why family concepts do not work. We will provide the answers. One approach is called, "Structural Functionalism" and it offers a nuclear family in which the father provides financial support and the wife provides socialization and emotional stability of the children. The study asks why men refuse to become family fathers and good providers.

One reason is that since the fifties consumption has doubled but wages grow very slowly. Doubled consumption requires both spouses to work, forcing the wife to be a "good-provider." This has destroyed the Structural Functionalism of the genders. Marriage is a polarity, and polarity does not tolerate the wrong similarities. Perhaps if more than 14% of American women stayed home to raise the children full time, more fathers and mothers would emerge from our declining civilization. We can pressure women to work and pressure men not to work, but we cannot be viable unless we stop the pressure to be unnatural and instead praise traditional gender roles.

The federal study next presents Conflict Theory, claiming that marriage is a struggle for power, with men winning by social and economic mastery, while the powerless woman tends the baby. Tell a man this and he won't marry. A father must be encouraged, not insulted. Marriage is a frightening decision, and people harbor doubts. Only when the community is there with warm thoughts and words can people make it. Warning him not to be a man and not to seek power is not going to encourage a man to marry.

The Federal study then presents Gender Display and Hegemonic Masculinity, a theoretical gender construct that emphasizes the roles and deeds that define masculinity and femininity. A man who helps with children has violated his gender role, and a woman who works has violated her gender role. However, the more powerful and privileged man is sanctioned socially more severely if he raises children. Hegemonic Masculinity means that men dominate and therefore, when they display a feminine gender trait, it invites negative social judgments. However, if the weaker female violates her role and works, she is not judged so harshly.

I feel this is a sad thing, if it is true. Does society really disapprove of a man helping his wife with children? Is a man limited to activities outside of the home? Is a father a financier or a father? Ideas such as this stifle the natural love of a father for his children. It is another nail in the coffin of marriage.

Fatherhood is a pole in the polarity of marriage. Polarity in physics is the attraction between two opposites, electrons and protons, which join and assume a true marriage without individual "taking." Two poles can pull apart or push together. The best way to make it work is to disappear in love and self-abnegation, and be awarded the pleasant surprise of reciprocity. This happens, however, only when the pole arrives at the wedding canopy on a cloud of glory. In a society where a man is a king, he can play this game. Modern society doesn't give fathers a chance. It wants the groom to appear not in a cloud of glory, but a fog of fear. The woman has fears as well, as she knows that fifty percent of first marriages end in divorce. She knows that she will lose more than the husband if that happens. The marriage of two frightened people is a disaster.

The Federal Study revealed a modern man obsessed with consuming and afraid of giving to family. An insecure person takes. Only a happy and self-actualized person gives. Society must decide if it wants fatherhood on nature's terms, or family and state bankruptcy.

Here is another article from www.gendercentral.com entitled

Woe to Women and Ruined Men

By Rabbi David Eidensohn

This may not be news to you, if you are a woman, but according to the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, young American men are "commitment phobic" when it comes to getting married. Cheryl Wetzstein, in the Washington Times, June 26, 2002, quotes one of the researchers of the project, David Popenoe, "The median age of first marriage for men has reached 27, the oldest age in our nation's history." This is worrisome to "the many young women who hope to marry and bear children before they begin to face problems associated with declining fertility."

The sexual revolution, according to the article, has allowed men to have all the sex they want, without the commitment of marriage. Women are anxious to marry, so they offer themselves, and the men take the sample but don't pay. We thus see that men have it all. They have no worries about fertility, because they can have children for decades after the woman is already infertile, a process that sets in strongly around age 35. In a culture where women work in professions and begin to think seriously about marriage only in their late twenties, their window of biological opportunity is very short, less than ten years. In these eight or so years, a woman who meets a man is not on a level playing field. She is desperate, and he is content. The more she gives, the more he takes, and the less she gets. She then begins to feel anxious, unable to achieve what she wants, and she suffers from stress and frustration. She gave all to a career, and because of it has many years on her resume; now she sees her career as a conflict with her basic biological and emotional needs, and does not know what to do.

Modern society thus tortures women in their most sensitive years with a gauntlet whereby her desperation is obvious, her options limited, and her hopes decline. A man just sits and sneers and she just comes back for more. What else can she do? The past generation knew about men sneering and tried being lesbians, but that didn't work too well, so now the women are almost ruined, and nobody really seems to care. As the article said, the government has all types of studies about everything, except marriage.

Of course, we might read this article, run outside to find a man, and then stick out our tongue. But is he at fault? Why should he want to marry? American society works day and night to ruin men. As Don Feder pointed out in his Father's Day article, all of the television shows about fathers portray him in a negative light. Men and boys are not allowed to be masculine, because the society frowns upon it. In order to empower women, the thought goes, we must weaken men. In fact, many young men are ruined. A recent study showed that in colleges throughout the country, women are doing much better than men. Studies are commissioned to find out how to encourage men to participate in college with more commitment instead of hanging out and going to work. If men have suddenly turned off, they are simply reading the signs from the culture that they may not be men. If they are aggressive, manly, charging forward in life, they are falling into a gender role "trap" that threatens the atheistic anti-family agenda. Since the atheist anti-family agenda controls the media, colleges and entertainment culture, people get the message. Men: Don't do what comes natural. Another message from the secularists: If you act like a man, you threaten diversity.

The boys who enter public schools and gun down their colleagues are usually from fine and successful families. People are shocked when it happens. They should not be. Playing with a boy's masculine identity produces great anger, and the natural male aggressiveness will come out another way, perhaps by mass murder, perhaps by torturing his wife and children, perhaps by letting his girl friend hang in desperation while he refuses to commit himself.

The blocked male aggressiveness can even turn against himself, so we should not be amazed that throughout the country males are failing in colleges. One cannot tamper with nature, and yet, our society is unnatural to men and to women. Our society is racing to make the unnatural natural, and the natural unnatural. Natural men are lampooned, and homosexuals are portrayed in a favorable light. The government spends fortunes for gay organizations to teach people the glories of homosexuality, and nothing on encouraging men to be natural men. In fact, the government is doing what it can to weaken the natural masculine instinct at various levels, such as the military.

What is happening with women these days? The Gallup Poll of July 2 tells us. "Only 12% of women aged 18 and older identified their current situation as 'homemaker.' About half, 47% were employed full time. One percent of men were homemakers." (June 3-9 Gallup Quick Quiz) The obvious question is: Who is taking care of the children? If only 12% of women are "homemakers" and only one percent of men are, how are children managing? Nor is this only a problem for children. A man works hard all day and comes home. His wife has been working hard day and she comes home. Okay, what happens now? Both come into a home without a homemaker. What kind of home is that? Does the husband seize a broom and start baking? Does the wife offer her husband some warm words? What do you think? When a spouse works hard all day they come home to rest, to repair from the stresses of the day. These are terrible stresses. One never knows what slip will cause much mischief. One never knows whether a competing person in the office is getting more points with the bosses. One is not sure that the whole company will not simply close down for some reason or another. People need to come from work to a "home," not an abode, not to a hotel, and not to a place that has no homemaker. A female homemaker tells her husband that he is ready to repair himself. A wife who comes home to a house needing a house maker is hit with a guilt trip, and the husband, even if he is understanding, doesn't like what he is missing.

Such a country as ours, lacking homemakers, is the only country in the world to produce children who regularly mass murder their schoolmates. Why do we publish articles in our newspapers about poor, suffering women because nobody wants to marry them, when we know that these same women compete with men in being men? What is the difference between a wife and a husband, between a man and a woman? Both work. Both must be aggressive. Both must not be homemakers. So, what is the difference? Why marry? Sex is free, and children are a pain without a homemaker, so why build a home?

On Monday, July 1, the Washington Post ran a column with Cynthia Gourney answering questions about women's sexual problems. Will there be a female Viagra? One questioner wanted to know if the birth control pill, which alters hormonal activity, could cause women's sexual problems. If you turn a woman's ovaries off, do you turn her off as well? Mr. Gourney said that despite the fact that millions of American women take birth control pills, nobody has cared enough to find out if by so doing they inhibit their sexuality. Others ask whether women become depressed by taking the pill. Society offers no conclusive answer. It doesn't care. Therefore, women can just keep chasing men, take the pill, and hope.

What kind of country will this be with men avoiding marriage and women teetering on infertility or single lives? Will the children be there to suffer?

A country that is too busy to have babies, too involved with career to marry, has no future. A nation cannot survive without strong families, and America does not have strong families. There is a vicious cycle building, threatening our country like the worst dirty bomb. Women need money, because they want to be able to live when they get divorced, something quite frequent in society. Even in the Bible Belt, it is about fifty percent. Women therefore become professionals and build careers, and must wait to marry until they are dangerously close to the infertility cliff. The closer they get to the cliff, the more desperate and anxious they become. The more desperate the women are, the more they offer themselves to men. The men have all the sex they want, and know, too, that if they marry, there is a good chance that a divorce will come and blow everything away. A feminist judge or one sympathetic to the children will jail a father if he does not pay monies that the father may not have. Judges are "helping" women by going after men with savagery. Women who deny the father visitation rights are to be found all over the country, but they don't get jailed. Men have their revenge by watching women age. Our country gets lovelier every day.

If women are too desperate for money to stay home and watch the kids, just wait a few more years. We have, in several earlier articles, presented the disaster of Social Security. When my generation kicks in, our kiddies won't pay for our share, because my generation was too busy for such things. In 2017, Social Security will pay out more than it takes in. There is no money in the government to pay the 10 trillion dollar debt for Social Security, according to Alan Greenspan, and we already owe over 6 trillion dollars.

The latest census bureau statistics show that 15,000,000 Americans work for state and local government. Since the census bureau claims 281 million Americans, this means that almost six percent of America works for the taxpayer, and must be paid by the taxpayer. Government statistics claim 98 million taxpayers. If 15 million people work for state and local government, and there are only 98 million taxpayers, this means 98 people support 15 people. Six people support one person. and his or her office, telephone, expenses, and of course, building where he or she works, its construction and maintenance. If we add Federal workers, the cost of prisons, schools, highways, military etc., we have broken the back of six taxpayers a dozen times. The average income in 2,001, by government stats, is 25,944, or about 26 thousand dollars. How much can such a person afford? Surely not our government.

Put another way, the Federal government alone spends 2 trillion dollars a year, and its entire income is only 1.2 trillion. Its interest payments are about .4 trillion dollars, leaving it only .8 trillion to pay for expenditures far over a trillion dollars. This is only the Federal government. When we see the distress of the states, so desperate they are preparing to raise steep taxes, we see an America where we spend far more than we can afford.

Why don't we learn that enough is enough? Let's cut down government not because we don't need it, that is a political question, but because we have no money for it. Let's cut down expenses in the home, so that women can afford to be wives and mothers, and men can have a wife and mother in his home, instead of a competitor.

This July 4, let us hear it for family and marriage. The only way that is going to work is if we do something about the budget, live within our means, and don't fantasize about the future until it is too late. One day all of us could wake up to realize that we did not produce a next generation of America, because it ran out of young people and money and no foreigners wanted to keep propping up the mess with risky loans.

Misconceptions about Sexuality

We have studied the failure of modern sexuality in the context of the present age. Now we go further, examining the issues plaguing good relationships even in the best of times. We show how mistaken notions about spirituality and religion can ruin a marriage.

There are several specific sources of these errors. One, is the Greek and early Church idea that women are evil, sex is lowly and that people in general are so bad that they need some super redemption, as they are unable to achieve it alone. Western civilization is rooted in the Athenian culture and the Platonic Church. These despise "mankind" and consider them to be in a funk and cave. Only a super person can save them. If the "masses" are lowly and almost animal-like, women are even worse. The ancient Athenians preferred homosexual relationships because they wanted nothing to do with lowly women. Women were baby machines and servants.

The early Church produced Mathew and its fulmination against marriage and living with a woman. The Protestant Reformation rejected the idea that people deserve heaven because of struggles and merit. It taught that people achieve paradise only by a capricious grace unrelated to human piety. Evolution went further. It proclaimed people to be mere transitory biological things. Secular science then denied purpose and transcendence. In such a world, the individual is a nothing and cannot find grace for itself. True love for another is remote. Indeed, the rabbis teach that we love others only after we love ourselves. In a world that teaches us to be nothing, and to conquer the other nothing and be something (survival of the fittest), how can marriage survive?

Another source of the decline of marriage has to do with erroneous spiritual concepts about pleasure and materialism. If people are to struggle with their Evil Inclination, how can they enjoy life, and how do they tolerate the intense joys of sexuality? This problem exists in all religious communities, and is complicated by teachings extolling asceticism.

A third problem, which we have discussed at length elsewhere, is the confusion about gender in the modern world. In recent times, the feminist call for women to be men is under attack, but the monkey doesn't know how to get down from the tree.
A fourth problem is that we come to intimacy in one of two ways. Ideally, intimacy sprouts in a loving and caring relationship. Sharing thoughts in pleasant conversation flourishes into a carnal conclusion. Other people, unsure of themselves and surely confused about their relationships, come together without the combustible materials that lead to better things. They therefore function with fantasies or with biological and emotional solutions that have nothing to do with tenderness and loving. So painful is this approach that some sexologists consider modern heterosexuality a lost cause. Some people therefore seek relief with vibrators (for women) pornography, and homosexuality. One major sexologist has said, "autoeroticism is spirituality." Those who seek relief with pornography and homosexuality, etc., soon realize they have entered a bottomless pit. Their frantic efforts at unnatural relief lead to compulsive and addictive behaviors. Some spend their lives seeking love by punching the tar baby.

Here we seek the ideas and even the social and economic environment where one can find the simple and straight in marriage. Ultimately, we may be able to see that our destruction is in our idealisms, our false ideas about spirituality, and misplaced guilt. We reveal social and economic conditions that destroy family and society.

All of us know how to eat and drink. Other pleasures of life, such as making money and seeking success, come naturally. From our earliest years, the eating mechanism, the enjoyment of owning things, and getting attention are part of us. Marital intimacy, on the other hand, is something that takes place in later years. We are not necessarily prepared for it. Some may feel that biology can solve all, but it can't. What are the solutions?
We want, in this section, to achieve several things. One, we want to present Reb Yaacov Kaminetksi's teachings about marriage. Two, we want to understand Reb Yaacov's critique of our current economic structure and how it destroys family. Three, we want to understand Reb Yaacov's call for Derech Erets [the Way of the World], as opposed to idealism and spirituality without or even opposed to Derech Erets. (We will explain what Derech Erets is. Translated, it means, "The Way of the World.) Four, we want to understand Reb Yaacov's call for "natural" life and gender roles. While doing these four things, we will bring in various related topics, the teachings of Rabbi Yehuda the Pious and other classic works. First, who was Reb Yaacov Kaminetski?

Rabbi Yaacov Kaminetski of blessed memory, the Dean of American Rosh Yeshivas (Yeshiva Deans) was a senior Lithuanian sage of the post-Holocaust generation. Lithuania was the center of the Talmudic world, and it featured a scholar who was heavily involved in piety. Reb Yaacov attended Yeshiva where Talmud and piety were taught as co-dependent subjects. Anyone who came near Reb Yaacov sensed his warmth and concern. This allowed him to achieve unique success in marriage counseling.
Rav Neuschloss, the famed rabbinical expert of the past generation, said in his eulogy for Reb Yaacov, "Reb Yaacov performed five thousand marriage ceremonies. None of these, in Reb Yaacov's lifetime, divorced." His counsel and blessings pulled everyone through. (After Reb Yaacov died, I participated in a divorce of someone he married, but the divorce was due to medical and not marriage issues.

Reb Yaacov, surely the outstanding counselor in marital affairs in the Jewish world, bemoaned mistaken concepts and their deleterious impact upon Torah family life. Our task here is to show the Talmudic concepts of marital law, as clarified by the great rabbis of all generations, in the revealed and hidden law, with a special emphasis on certain teachings from Reb Yaacov.
A prominent divorce rabbi who knew Reb Yaacov for many years and asked him serious questions said that it sometimes took a long time to understand why Reb Yaacov was right, but he always was.
Reb Yaacov told me that he wanted a book in English about marital intimacy with specifics. I was shocked. After years of working with problem marriages and sick people, I realized why. On the other hand, it seemed a radical thing. To even talk about such a thing in private is hard, and how do we write about it in a book? I was therefore most gratified when with HaShem's help I found this concept in the Holy Shelo, the mighty classic on piety and Cabala written by Reb Yeshayeh Horowitz in the seventeenth century. Few rabbis in all of the generations merited the appellation "holy." One of this select group was the SHELO HAKODOSHE, the "holy Shelo." The book SHELO is an acronym of Shnei Luchose HaBris, or "The Two Tablets of the Covenant." It contains much material in the form of wills that great rabbis in the Horowitz family left for their children. This archetypal volume served the pious of the generations between the revelation of Lurian Cabala in the sixteenth century and the founding of Yeshivas and the spread of Hassidism in the nineteenth century. The famous Hassidic Rebbe Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Lithuania studied SHELO in his youth, before he became a Hasid.

Several generations of the Horowitz family contribute to SHELO. One of the most famous parts of Shelo, devoted to Torah, is called "The Tractate of Shavuose." In this section, from the core of SHELO written by Reb Yeshayeh ben Reb Avrohom, the author instructs rabbis how to lecture to the community from the pulpit. He says, "A lecturer must divide his remarks into three parts." One, he most quote the best interpretations from the authorities about the weekly Torah reading. Two, he must teach the common people laws that they do not know too well. Three, he must quote from the classics of MUSAR to provide spiritual uplifting. What laws must the rabbi emphasize for the community when he speaks? The Holy Shelo says, "He must teach the public, especially those who are not so learned, the laws that are necessary, such as the prayers of each day, the laws of Tsitsis, Tephilin, Mezuzo, the Laws of Shabbos and the way to behave in the home with marital laws and the laws of intercourse." We saw that in earlier generations, the holiest rabbis and the most pious congregations studied the Laws of Tephilin and the Laws of intimacy. Indeed, family laws are certain important. They cause and create the souls that comprise the Jewish people.

It is important to know these laws. When we discuss them publicly, we take them out of the realm of mystery and confusion. A person who knows that the Torah says such and such is freed of the guilt and worry that causes so much mischief. A senior rabbi told me in the name of Reb Yaacov that most marital problems in the Torah community come from mistaken frumkeit, or over-zealous piety. One who denies his wife or himself can do a sin and much more. How many homes have been destroyed; how many people have become ill because of ignorance of these laws!
          In Israel recently a rabbi wrote a book on these laws. Its purpose was to teach a Yeshiva student who is far removed from sexuality that intimacy is a fine and holy thing. The work is graced with the very enthusiastic approbations from almost all of the great rabbis in Israel, the senior rabbis of the revealed and hidden Torah.
          What is the target audience for our book? Here we take a different approach. We are not of the opinion that the problem is that someone is removed from intimacy and must be introduced to it in the mildest manner. Of course, some people must be taught that marriage is a worthy spiritual endeavor. The above book is written for them. Here, however, we write for everyone. All of us, says Rabbi Yehuda the Pious, are in danger from the Evil Inclination, especially the pious. "The one who is greater than his fellow has a greater Evil Inclination." We also are of the opinion, after years of working with troubled people, that those nobody suspect of problems have serious problems. We want to teach the naïve in the community so their children are not fodder for pedophiles. We want to inform those building a family to understand how to structure their lives to produce happy children, and what not to do. We are also interested in this section in combating the opinions of those who claim that people are angels, and too spiritual for fulfillment in marital intimacy.
          Reb Yaacov was of the opinion that certain ideas even in the name of the Torah will destroy family. Everyone agrees that the Torah community has serious problems with marriage and children. However, there are those who blame it on external things, and there are those, like Reb Yaacov, who blamed it upon the internal things. The roar of broken marriages, men and women who never marry, children from Yeshiva who turn to drugs, and a general lack of direction make us realize that it is time to call a spade a spade. Reb Yaacov spoke years ago, far before the problems were actualized and even discussed regularly in the secular newspapers. However, now that we know that he was right, it is time to give a hearing to his thoughts, and those of the great scholars and saints of the generations.
          Several years ago, I attended a meeting of some senior rabbis who talked about community problems. One of them bemoaned the fact that the very worst things can be had on a telephone. A friend of mine lent his credit card to someone, and to his shock, found that it had been used for debased purposes. Our community is not removed from the problems of life. The first and foremost defense is a good marriage. A good marriage depends on Derech Erets and intimacy.
          I once came to the Gaon Reb Yosef Shalom Elyashev shlit"o, today's posek hador, the leading halacha authority of the generation. In the Shulchan Aruch (Code of Laws) it says that we must buy for our wives homes and clothing in accord with the standards of the community and our families. I proposed that this applied to intimacy as well. In a world such as we have in America, with its rugged materialism and worse, a person must practice intimacy according to the needs of the atmosphere and environment.
          The Rov (rabbi) replied, "According to you, Rabbi Eliezar the Great did not fulfill his obligations." The Rov meant that Rabbi Eliezar the Great slept with his wife "as one who is forced by a demon" due to his holiness and spirituality. I replied that Rashi interprets "as one who is forced by a demon" to mean that he did this with unusual strength, meaning that his wife enjoyed it more than other women. This is the reason her children came out so beautiful and special, because according to the Talmud, the happiness of the woman during intimacy determines the level of the beauty of the children spiritually and perhaps physically.
          The Rov smiled, sat back and allowed me to continue.
          As I write these words, I have had a busy day. There is a child molester on the loose in Monsey; he is one of our own. A policeman came to my house last night, and a detective came this morning. A mother said to me, "There is a lion loose in our community. What can be done?" I am now a grandfather of sixty, and have spent much time with very sick people, including dangerous people who frightened the therapists. One therapist told me, "Rabbi, he is all yours." In my youth, I solved Monsey's worse Agunah cases, and both sides remained, to this day, my friends, and are not enemies. Whatever I did, I walked with Reb Yaacov's training always at my side. For years, I called Reb Yaacov regularly, about various issues. I merited also to study marital and divorce laws under senior rabbis of the past and present generation.
           Yet, I deferred writing this book. I knew that it might be controversial, and perhaps I would err. One reason that I write this book is because at my age, I must think of the Future World. I will, hopefully, see Reb Yaacov there. As the shadows begin to gather, I can no longer delay. No matter what people may protest, nothing would be worse than coming to the Other World and disappointing Reb Yaacov. Alas, he would not be the only one disappointed. Those active in these areas know how important such a book is. In my Hebrew language halacha books, I devoted some space to problems of pedophilia and sexuality, and these invariably drew strong praise from rabbis and laity. Someone read my book and told his rabbi, "If I had read this, my child would not have been molested."
The great problem when we talk about marriage, sexuality and intimacy, is that we forget that we are talking, not just about musar (piety) not just about menshlichkeit (being humane), but about halacha limaaseh (legal jurisprudence). Translated, this means that the Talmud and Code of Laws teach about intimacy. These pillars produce the discussion of the Torah attitude towards marriage.
          Two Jews became religious and married. The woman was used to intimacy that seemed to clash with the Shulchan Aruch. I asked a senior Hassidic posek in Israel about this and he said that for such people the laws of sanctity in the Shulchan Aruch do not apply. (We will explain this later.) Let them do what they want, as long as there is not zera livatolo, vain emission of seed. I do not mention these cases to teach Jewish law; obviously, such cases can only decided by knowing all of the facts and having a prominent rabbi decide them. However, we do gain from these stories an insight that as we reach up the line of rabbinical greatness, there is improved understanding and effort to save marriages in line with the proper understanding of subtle family law.
Sometimes deeply religious people have the worst problems because of erroneous notions about Torah and intimacy. Eventually, their natures pull them over the line that they erected in the sand; they are then consumed with guilt, and may become perversely ill.
          Various people have various tolerances. According to Reb Yehuda HaChosid, the mighty Cabalist and Talmudist who lived around the time of the Rambam, all of us must fear the great pull of our sexual inclinations, and we must do what we can in intimacy to satisfy our Evil Inclinations, lest we be pulled into terrible sin. We will get into this in more detail.)

If so, this book is for everyone. The Torah both Written and Oral is quite clear on the subject. The most pious person may do the most heinous sin. Intimacy is important because of what it is, but also because it protects against an omnipresent challenge to sin. The Talmud in Trachtate Shabbos says that Jacob cursed Reuven for sinning with Bilha, the wife of Yaacov. Some say he slept with her, and some say he almost slept with her, but surely, it was a sin.
          Shechem raped Dinah, the daughter of Yaacov. He "raped her and afflicted her." The rape was one evil, and the other evil was that he "afflicted" her. What affliction did he do? It already says that he raped her. One answer is that he raped her, and then ignored her. For a woman who has tasted of intimacy, being ignored is "affliction." This is true even if someone has a terrible problem like Dinah. Why do the rabbis find these incredible thoughts in the Torah? The lesson of the Torah is that a married man must be very careful to provide his wife with her needs, lest he "afflict" her, and violate his obligations in the Torah to fulfill his wife with intimacy.
          We know the story of Joseph and the wife of Potifar. The Zohar says that eventually Joseph could not surmount the constant temptation and seed rushed out of him. From the ten drops of seed, says the Zohar, the Ten Martyrs died and atoned for Joseph's sin. Joseph is known as Joseph the Tsadik (righteous), and yet, he seems to be the opposite. We see that everything is relative. Joseph, for years an Egyptian slave tempted daily for a long period, is a tsadik even if he has vain emission of seed, because he "ran outside" and did not sin. Of course, Rashi tells us that his father and some say his father and mother appeared to him just as he was about to sin. Still, he did his best, and is TSADIK. We learn from this just how terrible the Evil Inclination is, and that is affects EVERYONE.
          One who knows this may be safe, but one who imagines that he is safe, is not. The famous classic LEVUSH means "clothing." The rabbi was one of the great sages around the time of the Shulchan Aruch, or slightly afterwards, some four hundred years ago. He was handsomely attired, and a woman came to the door and tempted him. He wanted her very much, and did not know how to control himself. He flung himself into an outhouse. In those days, there were no toilets. The rabbi, smeared with smelly filth, gained control of himself as the Evil Inclination left him. He wrote ten classic books, all of them named in part "clothes" to remind people how powerful the Evil Inclination is, and that anyone can fail, anyone.
          We all know about King David and Bas Sheva. Sometimes, we think we are more pious than he was, but we are surely not. Anyone can sin. It only requires the right or rather the wrong set of circumstances. The only way to save ourselves, says Rabbi Yehuda the Pious, is to make sure we are satisfied with our spouse and do not feel the urge to go elsewhere.

A very senior Rov of a prominent community in the past generation told me the following story. A woman cleaned her car for Pesach, and found a device. She took it to the Rov, and he realized, as she did, that the husband was sinning with other women. The first thing the Rov asked the woman was, "How does he behave with you?" She replied, "He told me that he does not need such things." The Rov told me that such people must be taught to enjoy their own families, lest they go elsewhere.

One famous rabbi of the past generation was in charge of giving divorces in Jerusalem. However, he made very few if any divorces, because whenever a couple came to him, he took the husband for a walk, and the couple stayed together. So much depends on proper intimacy, and the Evil Inclination tells us to ignore it. The Satan rejoices every time a husband says, "I don't need such things." Of course, in earlier generations, and perhaps even today, there are truly pious people who are so spiritual that they are remote from the levels of others. Let us not forget, however, the gemora in Kiddushin about Reb Yosef the Pious.

One rabbi was known as Rabbi Joseph the Pious, because of his extreme spirituality. A lovely young woman was redeemed from pirates, and placed in the rabbi's house for safekeeping. However, the community did not trust even him. They placed her in an attic. The only way to get to the attic was with an iron ladder that took ten men to move. One day, Rabbi Joseph was studying Torah and thinking exalted thoughts, and inadvertently, his glance fell upon the woman. Seized with an uncontrollable urge, he single-handedly lifted the ladder and noticed, as if in a terrifying dream, himself rushing up it to the attic. Unable to stop, Rabbi Joseph the Pious screamed at the top of his lungs, "Fire, fire." Everyone came running, and he did not go into the attic.

People were amazed that a rabbi could lift such a ladder. They theorized that rabbis had more lust than other people. The rabbis of the community came to Rabbi Joseph the Pious and complained about this. He said to them, that he had to cry “Fire” because he could not control himself any other way.

Indeed, the Talmud says specifically that pious people do have greater lusts than others. "Whoever is greater, has a greater Evil Inclination." Reb Yisroel Salanter explains that when a person conquers his Evil Inclination, it leaves his external mind and goes into his internal emotions, lying in wait, ready to spring. An iron gate locks the Evil Inclination in its cage, inside of the emotions, unable to influence the pious person. However, if the iron gate has a tiny crack, if the righteous person allows the Evil Inclination any opening, the enormous internal force springs out and consumes the pious person, as happened with Rabbi Joseph the Pious. Therefore, even pious people must be careful to satisfy themselves in marriage so that the Evil Inclination does not tell them that the grass is greener elsewhere.

The gemora there tells another story. Abaye, one of the great Talmudists, noticed that a man and women met and walked into the woods. He was sure they would sin. How could a man and woman just walk along like that? He followed them, to prevent them if they sinned, but they walked and walked, and finally went in different directions. They said to each other, "It was such a pleasant walk, thank you for your company," and left. Abaye was crushed. He came into the Yeshiva and cried, "Woe to me. If I was that man, I would have sinned." The rabbis consoled him and said, "Whoever is greater, has a greater Evil Inclination."

Abayeh took this very seriously. An extremely beautiful woman had a husband who died, and another husband who died. After that, most people feared to marry her, but Abaye married her. Why did he marry her? Knowing his great problem, Abayeh determined to marry only a very lovely woman so that he would not be tempted to look elsewhere.

Beauty, of course, is in the "eyes of the beholder." Most men surely do not marry very beautiful women, as they are scarce and may not be the right mate for most people. However, a man must marry a woman who is beautiful to him, and who can satisfy his spiritual and material needs. Intimacy flourishes not because of some geometric physical shape, but because the couple are good to each other, sensitive and caring. Then, a true love develops that solves all of the problems.

The first Jews were Abraham and Sarah. For a long time they lived a highly exalted and spiritual life. Abraham's love for Sarah was not influenced by her extreme beauty. G-d then decreed that Abraham and Sarah should go to Egypt. Egypt was a physical exile, but it lowered the spiritual standards as well. Abraham turned to Sarah and told her that he now sensed her physical beauty more than before. We see that even exalted people are influenced by exile, by circumstances, as with Abraham and Sarah, Joseph, Rabbi Joseph and Abayeh. Where we go in life, we must be sensitive to the vicissitudes of our emotional drives. We must always be plugged in to our spiritual and emotional source, a successful marriage.

Intimacy at the Time of the Period

We mentioned earlier the teaching of Rabbi Yehuda the Pious in The Book of Hassidim paragraph 380, that one "may do what he wants with his wife lest he desire another woman." Other teachings in that paragraph are: 1) A husband should sleep with his wife even when she cannot have children, such as when she is pregnant, lest he lust for another woman. 2) Although it is meritorious for one to sleep with his wife, we don't make a cult of sensuality. We encourage a person to be involved in other things, such as the study of the Torah, which directs a person's thoughts to holiness. We see from this that a person should establish times for intimacy, satisfy himself and herself, and otherwise should be busy with learning Torah. Reb Moshe Feinstein adds that one who is busy with working does not fall into the clutches of sin. A senior rabbi of the past generation insisted that a couple set aside certain days during the week for intimacy. Of course, this minimizes pressures between the couple and allows them to pursue their lives in peace the rest of the time. The family should be occupied without sexual distractions. Sexuality has its place, but afterwards it goes offstage to allow life to continue. Although sexuality is the foundation of the home, it has it quiet and private place, its allotted time, and then is silent and in the background. Those, such as the secularists, who live for stimulation, do not have the biological energy even to properly sustain their sexual lives. Studies have shown that even children’s learning suffers from sitting in the room with the opposite gender. Sexuality demands a full commitment, but so does life. There is no alternative but to allot times for both, and not to make competition and contention between them. There is, however, another value in abstinence.

Therapists stress that family desire is predicated upon an enforced abstinence. People who have it always have nothing. The Talmud agrees and says that the NIDA laws, forbidding sexuality during the menstrual period, are important to sustain sexual desire. Generally speaking, NIDA laws say that a woman who has her period may not have sex with her husband, including foreplay, for about a week after the end of the discharge.

NIDA Laws

For those who come late to Torah Judaism, NIDA laws are the hardest to keep. Those who are accustomed to complete freedom cannot easily close the store for the many days each month of NIDA proscription. This leads to great problems. Sometimes people just give up entirely, and sometimes they fail and feel very guilty. Rabbi Feinstein zt”l says that we must teach people to refrain from one sin even if they will do another. Perfect is not the goal. Do what is possible, which is feasible, and don’t despair and throw the baby out with the bath water. In the interest of a gradual and successful practice of NIDA laws, I will explain a measured approach, assuming that going cold Turkey may not be possible for certain people. Some, of course, can fulfill the entire laws right away. Perhaps most people can.

First, the day of the discharge is surely one where the woman is not feeling up to relations. We find in the Torah that even pagans in biblical times refused to go near a woman during her period. The pagan, however, may resume relations after the flow has ceased. This level is surely possible and most civilized people recognize it out of respect for the woman. There are many physical conditions oppressing a woman at this time, and she is in no mood for her husband.

The next stage would be to fulfill the very basic NIDA law of seven days including the beginning of the flow. That is, if the woman begins her flow on Sunday, then Sunday is the first of seven days, which are the absolute minimum to fulfill Nida laws. The woman counts the seven days, whether or not she bleeds then, and is forbidden the entire time.

There was a time, in ancient Israel, when women would go to the MIVKAH, and immerse in a special pool of “gathered water” or “spring water,” after the seventh day, even though she was not finished with NIDA laws. This was the first stage, and the strictest stage. Thus, one who cannot begin with longer periods as is proper and binding, for whatever reason, should observe at least our first two steps, or should begin with step one, the discharge days, and then as soon as possible observe the week of the discharge, even if the bleeding stops.

The next level, one utterly binding for religious people, but only a third stage for people who cannot follow all of the laws right away when they become religious, is to determine the day when the flow ceases. Toward evening, before sunset, on the day when the flow ceases, the woman checks herself with a clean cloth. If the cloth is clean she begins, at night, to count seven clean days, and goes to the MIVKAH on the eighth day.

For instance, in our above example, the flow began on Sunday. The entire week, until Saturday night, which is Sunday in Jewish law, the woman is a NIDA by Torah law. However, the flow stopped in the middle of the week, on Tuesday, for instance. Before nightfall on Tuesday, the woman checks herself with a clean cloth. If the cloth is clean, she begins to count seven days, the seven “clean days.” Thus, Wednesday is the first of the seven clean days. If all seven days after Tuesday beginning on Wednesday are clean, the woman may immerse in the MIKVAH the following or eighth day. In this case, she begins counting seven days on Wednesday, and ends with the seventh day on Tuesday. Wednesday she goes to the MIKVAH and may have relations. This, however, is still not the complete keeping of NIDAH laws. The custom is to wait five days from the first discharge to begin counting the seven clean days.

A friend of mine told me when he first became religious the rabbi told him to wait five days in the discharge period, and then to count seven clean days, but he could not wait. The rabbi said wait and he said no. Finally, the rabbi had the good sense not to fight about it. He might win the battle and lose the war. In an emergency such as this, when we have no alternative, there are reasons why the rabbi can tell the couple to begin counting immediately upon the cessation of the period and the finding of a clean cloth, but only in the circumstances we describe here. The stringent rules of NIDA are the cornerstone of the purity of Israel, and we don’t look to be lenient, although, if there is an emergency, we have to struggle. We mention all of this not to tell a person how to behave, which is surely the local rabbi’s responsibility, but to give a flavor of the NIDA laws, so important for creating high souls for children and for maintaining the proper equilibrium in the home. We now come to another part of NIDA laws, which are relative to our discussion because they emphasize just how important sexual activity is.

Sexual Activity around the time of Discharge

In the Code of Laws (Shulchan Aruch Yore Dayo 184,2) it says that a woman who has a fixed day or period each month for her menstruant period may not sleep with her husband at that time, lest she have a discharge during their intimacy. However, says the Shulchan Aruch, "only from actual sleeping together, but not from other familiarities." The Shach explains, "This means that hugging and kissing is permitted, as the Bais Yosef rules from the words of the rabbinical authorities." The Shach concludes that the Bach also agrees to this, that kissing and hugging is permitted even on the day she anticipates her period, but "one who is stringent in this matter will find blessing." In other words, the Shulchan Aruch, Rabbi Joseph Caro and the Ram"o, Rabbi Moshe Isserles, rule that one may hug and kiss his wife on the day she anticipates her period. This is the law. However, one who is stringent will receive blessing, according to one opinion, that of the Bach. The others do not say anything about being stringent, but permit it entirely.
We have, thus, the opinion of the Bach, that not to hug and kiss on the day she anticipates her period is meritorious. However, the Pischei Teshuva (paragraph 5) quotes the Radvaz, in the name of Rabbi Yehuda the Pious, that it is forbidden to be stringent. He concludes, "It is forbidden to make up new stringencies upon Jews. We hope they will keep what they must." Therefore, everyone agrees that we may hug and kiss on the day she anticipates her period. The Bach praises one who does not hug and kiss on that day, and the Pischei Teshuva in the name of Radvaz forbids being stringent. Radvaz invokes Rabbi Yehuda the Pious that if we don't do what we may we will fall into sin. Rabbi Yehuda says in the above quoted passage, "More than this, my son, beware." In other words, it is forbidden to be ascetic with one's wife. This is not only true in general, but even on a day that she anticipates her period, according to Radvaz.

Thus, hugging and kissing on the day a woman anticipates her flow is permitted. Coitus is proscribed for a woman in that period, but her husband may hug and kiss her. Yet, this is amazing. How can young people, in the biological heat of life, engage in hugging and kissing, and why are we not afraid that the man will have a vain emission of seed or that the two will come to do worse things? We see how extreme the matter is. The Torah tries not to forbid hugging and kissing, even on such a day. Surely, on other days, it is meritorious to hug and kiss one's wife. Doing things that are permitted save us from doing things that are forbidden.
A similar discussion is found in the Code of law Yoreh Dayo 184 paragraph 10: "One who is prepared to go on a journey must sleep with his wife first, even if it is the day she anticipates her period. Even intercourse is permitted, but one who is stringent only to speak loving words to her will achieve blessing. However, we have clarified before, that any kind of intimacy and love is permitted except coitus." Here again, we have a woman who anticipates her period, and therefore, she must be on guard lest she have relations and discharge, causing her and her husband sin. Nonetheless, if the husband goes on a trip, they may first hug, kiss and engage in all kinds of intimacy and foreplay but not coitus.
In this situation, however, we see that the Code of Laws mentions one opinion that it is preferable to attain blessing by not hugging and kissing, but merely speaking loving words to her. This opinion was not quoted in the Code of Laws previously, regarding a woman who has an anticipated period, when the Code of Laws permits hugging and kissing. This seems to be a contradiction. The answer is, that the two paragraphs, 2 ands 10, talk about two different circumstances. Both deal with a woman who always has a period on the third of the month, and now is the third of the month. She has not seen a discharge, but she anticipates it. If the woman will soon have her period, and finish with it and have her husband in about two weeks, nobody in the Code of Laws itself says that it is meritorious to abstain (only the Bach, who is not a direct commentator on the Code of Laws, but comments on the Tur). If the woman knows that soon she will have her husband, and the husband knows it as well, they are unlikely to sin. They will just wait. Now they will have hugging and kissing, and later they will have coitus, after the woman had her period, passes the clean period and immerses in the Mikvah.

Paragraph 10 is talking about a man who is going on a journey. The couple will not see each other for a long time. (In those days, it could be months, even years.) We fear that the husband and wife will be overcome if they begin intimacy, and one opinion suggests that although they may, legally, engage in hugging and kissing, they attain blessing for not doing it. This is only in the case where we fear that the two will be overcome by the delay of the husband’s long journey, but not in a case where the couple will merely wait awhile until the period passes. This is the opinion of the Code of Laws.

However, the commentator on the Code of Laws, the Shach, says that in the case where the husband goes on a journey even the Bach holds that they should engage in hugging and kissing, because of the strong feelings of the wife to her husband when he leaves her for an extended period. This is precisely the opposite of the Ramo who says that we are afraid when the husband goes on a journey that the two may be overwhelmed and therefore it is meritorious not to hug and kiss. If the separation is a short time, only then may they may hug and kiss.

What we gain from this is the great debate about foreplay on days when the woman usually gets her period. This emphasizes the great importance of intimacy, in the most dangerous times. However, surely on days when the woman is not anticipating her period, we encourage hugging, kissing and all kinds of intimacy. Coitus is encouraged several times a week, although some in the Talmud had intercourse every day. It depends on the person's needs and abilities. On days when the woman anticipates her period, she may engage in hugging and kissing, but there is an argument if the pious does the right thing to refrain from this or not. We learn from this that: on days when the woman does not anticipate her period, everyone permits familiarity, as there is no problem if things reach the state of coitus, which is then meritorious. On days she anticipates her period, coitus is forbidden but familiarity is permitted. It is better not to be stringent, as major authorities forbid being stringent.

Regarding the obligation of coitus, it depends upon the strength and ability of the couple. In Talmudic times, Torah scholars learned so much that most of them were sick physically, and therefore, could only be with their wives once a week. Others who had strength but whose jobs interfered with their family life, such as donkey drivers who were away for a long time, had obligations reflected in their schedule. However, a healthy Torah scholar can surely be with his wife more than once a week, and if he is physically able to do this and his wife desires it, he must be with her more than once a week. The Talmud tells how a great Talmudist, Shmuel bar Shilas, kept his marital obligations daily. Others, whose financial and physical situation allowed them to do this, were obligated as well to visit their wives every day, if she wished this. The time one must devote to his wife is called ONAH, and to neglect it is a Torah sin. Of course, there are times when a husband must go on a trip or doesn't feel well, but if all is in order, he must perform his duties.

On the two or three days a week people establish for ONAH, there are all types of excuses for being busy, tired, nervous and multiple other reasons to ruin the night; of course, there is always a telephone call. Just as a Jew must prepare for several days to make the Sabbath, so a Jew must prepare for ONAH. Sometimes it is very hard to keep from being exhausted, especially during busy seasons such as the holidays, but this is the Law. We try the best we can. "One who comes to purify himself is helped by heaven." When we want to do a mitzvah, we find ways to do it.

The night of ONAH begins during the day preceding it. Amid crying children, urgent financial matters, shopping, this and that, there must be a path to peace. People should get a good night's sleep the day before. The day before ONAH and specifically the night of ONAH is not a time to talk about contentious things. We don't let life fly; we organize it. If we do, we are rewarded. Chaos is its own reward.

Get your spouse in a good mood, even if you are in a bad mood. Smile, and the world smiles with you. Frown, and the world frowns with you. ONAH night is high on the stress list. People are nervous and easily lose themselves. Ideally, both come to ONAH in a happy frame of mind; pleasant talk and happy feelings lead naturally to success. On the other hand, as the souls of the two participants enter deeper areas, as the external layers of the emotions are peeled away, much doubt, fear and anger surface. Many women find themselves suddenly furious and the husband has no idea why. Sometimes the man loses his mood, and the wife doesn't follow his abrupt change of attitude. Some say prayers on ONAH, because to achieve it properly one must have heavenly assistance.
One who has problems with ONAH feels guilty and even handicapped, and this makes things worse. Therefore, if one cannot perform ONAH happily, they should go to an expert who can help them. There are people like this in every community, but not everyone who claims to be an expert is one. Sometimes, we find out these things by trial and error, but we must keep trying. "The bashful will not learn."

Don't come to ONAH with the idea that they you are owed. Modesty and appreciation fuel the spigots of marital culmination, as well as all relationships. We must develop this idea a bit. One of the great classics in Jewish literature is TOMER DEVORA (Deborah's Date Tree) by the master sixteenth century Cabalist Reb Moshe Kordevero of Tsefas, Israel. (Lived in the Jewish years 5,682-5,740.) His work begins by saying that all holy traits flow from modesty, and that the highest of all Cabalistic emanations is self-abnegation. A conceited person who has all of the holy traits pollutes everything.

In marriage, especially in intimacy, we reach for the highest supernal levels. The unity of the Holy Name is revealed by marriage. There cannot be any arrogance or conceit in such a sublime experience. We are not perfect, and one of our problems is lack of humility. People who have feelings of inferiority may be more arrogant and demanding than others. On the other hand, we should try. We should remember that perhaps the other one owes us, but we owe G-d, and we owe others. When we forgive, G-d forgives us.

Since each spouse has a list of evil deeds committed by the other, the only solution is to be modest and express remorse. Forgiving is not falsehood. Love when we are indignant is not wasted. If we only knew how much misery we cause our spouses and children, not to mention our poor parents, we would be devastated. We are, however, rarely distraught, unless the spouse angers us. ONAH is a time when we appreciate our spouse, and manifest the forgiveness that both partners surely need. The worst thing in a marriage, says the Talmud, is arrogance, especially on the part of the husband. Nobody can stand him.

There are husband who do very bad things, and yet their wives love them. There are good and upright husbands whose wives hate them. A little modesty goes a long way, accompanied by true remorse and honest confession. A little arrogance goes a long way, and there is no cure for it in a marriage. The key, said a senior rabbi of the past generation, is for the spouses to be comfortable with each other. Giving, trying, loving, forgiving and appreciation, rather than taking and anger, achieve this.

There are set days for ONAH, say two or three times a week, or once a week, or even more. However, anytime a couple feel the need for intimacy, it is appropriate. A husband who sees his wife yearning for some warmth has an obligation of ONAH. The ONAH obligation applies not only to coitus, but whenever a spouse needs intimacy. One who does not have a son and daughter is obligated to be with his wife each time of his ONAH, or day of obligation. This obligation, as we mentioned, depends upon the physical strength and schedule of the husband. On the day that the husband has ONAH, he must visit his wife in order that they have a child. Once they have a son and daughter, if they prefer not to have relations on an ONAH day, they may not have to do it, depending on their reason for deferring it. We cannot go into all of the halachic particulars here for those who have fulfilled the command, "Be fruitful and multiply." (See Igres Moshe, Even Hoezer, Vol I, 102.)
Reb Moshe Feinstein, the leading halacha authority of the past generation, writes in Igres Moshe E"H 4:66: "It may seem proper to refuse to write about the laws of relationships. However, since some people err on the part of lenience or stringency and this causes damage to the peace of the home which is so important, I decided that it is Torah and I must write about it." Rabbi Feinstein says, "Hugging and kissing are included in the obligation to please one's wife with coitus, and to make his wife happy." If the person knows that such will bring about an emission of semen, he should refrain, that is, first do coitus and then hug and kiss. Eventually, he will be able to hug and kiss without an emission of semen. Most people, even those erected, will not have an emission of semen from amorous caressing.

Rabbi Feinstein (Igres:E"H3:28) says that the Torah commands a husband to be with his wife whenever he notices that she needs it. However, since women may be bashful or too modest to openly express themselves, there are times when the rabbis assumed the woman would desire relations, and they commanded the man to visit his wife then. Practically, a man must be with his wife at least twice a week, on the night she returns from the MIKVEH, when he leaves town, and any other time he sees her need.

Intimacy is a Torah Obligation

The Talmud talks of intimacy in a frank manner. Rav, "spoke, joked and did what he had to do." Rav's enthusiasm scandalized Rav Cahana. "You appear, sir," he told Rav, "as one who is starving." We assume that the law is like Rav, the mentor, rather than the student Rav Cahana. In all cases in the Talmud where someone followed someone else to see the laws in action, the student followed the mentor. If so, the law is as the mentor, Rav, against Rav Cahana, and one should do with his wife "as if he was starving." This is especially true if the relationship is somewhat amiss, due to anger, etc.

Why should the senior rabbi of the generation act as if he was starving? One reason, as we mentioned earlier, is that the more pious a person is, the greater is his Evil Inclination. Rav greatly feared his Evil Inclination, as a pious person must, and as is indicated in other gemoras. He therefore did with his wife what his Evil Inclination wanted him to do in sin. This is one reason.
There is, however, another gemora (Shabbos 152), that when Rav was old, he groaned because he could no longer have intimacy as he did when he was young. Why did he groan? Surely, a pious person should be happy that he no longer had such an Evil Inclination. We see from this that intimacy is not only a physical obligation to our spouses; it is a great power of spirituality. Indeed, Shelo teaches that in eating there is physical food for the body and spiritual food for the soul. When we perform a mitzvah such as intimacy, the holy works tell us that we unite the Heavenly Name and release great and holy lights. Rav was saddened when he could no longer perform intimacy.
Let us study the gemora and the story of Rav groaning. Interestingly enough, the two rabbis in our discussion, Rav and Rav Cahana, are also in the story of Rav groaning. Rav Cahana was reading for Rav a passage of Solomon talking about the impact of old age, and one of the problems of the elderly is that they no longer can have sex. Rav groaned, and Rav Cahana said, "Rav is no longer potent." What is the context of this teaching, and what is its purpose?
The gemora there discusses the statement of the friend of King David, Barzilei of Gilad, that in his old age he had no pleasure from food because it all tasted the same. The Talmud objects that in the house of Rabbi Judah the Prince, a 92-year-old woman was the official taster. The gemora answers that Barzilei was a sensualist who pursued sexual pleasures. For this he aged quickly and lost the power of taste. His sensualist lifestyle ruined his senses in his old age. However, a person who lives with moderation can enjoy life in old age. Then the gemora adds that the Torah scholar increases wisdom with old age, but the ignorant person grows more foolish. How can a person whose mind is weakening become wiser? One who studies Torah and is spiritual finds in old age a renewed source of spirituality and wisdom. He enters higher levels unavailable to the youth entrapped in the body and its pleasures. This leaves the impression that intimacy is somehow a barrier to wisdom and spirituality. Therefore, the gemora carefully notes that Rav, in this context, groaned because he was impotent. Intimacy, unlike other of the physical abilities of youth, is not an obstacle to heaven. Old age, in this sense, is an impediment in that it does not allow intimacy as in youth. This, however, can leave an impression that all of us must lust for women. The Talmud therefore presents two teachings. One is about the greatness of women who build the home and children, and it then returns to the teaching about Barzilei of Gilad and his sensualist ruin. Barzilei lived as a lady's man, and for him a woman was not a family or a font of spirituality, she was rather a physical form no different than a drink or drugs. The gemora says to the sensualist, If you only look at a woman's physical body, note, "She is a vessel filled with excrement, her mouth is filled with blood, and all run after her."

The final phrase, "and all run after her" is a further insult to the sensualist. The physical prostitute is not a private person, but "all run after her." The sensualist gets in line and gives his youth and strength, eventually aging without strength, wisdom or even pleasure. All of that went to the physical woman.

“There are three partners in the child, the father, mother and G-d." (Talmud Kiddushin 30). The act of intimacy invokes the Schechinah, and brings down proper souls into the world. Even when people do not become pregnant, as when the wife is older, procreation produces high souls that can go into bodies, such as the souls of the converts. Indeed, the Zohar says that in heaven there is procreation, or intimacy, that produces, among the pious of the Future World, holy souls that go into converts (Zohar Shelach).
In the classic Gate of Holiness about intimacy, the Rav"d tells us when there are ONA obligations:

1) When he has to have children 2) When the woman is pregnant and the coitus is helpful for the baby (perhaps hormonal activity is beneficial to the embryo) 3) When the husband sees that the wife tries to attract his attention and interest him 4) When the husband leaves town he must first take leave of his wife with ONA. We assume that the wife anticipates intimacy before he leaves.
If a man is seized with desire, he surely can be with his wife, and it is good for him to be with her to save himself from sin. However, would it not be better for the man not to be seized with such desires? Here we cannot praise the person for coming to this situation, as we do in the four earlier categories. If, however, the person does have the problem, and cannot dismiss his thoughts, he should be with his wife.

The wife does not have the command to have children, as does the husband, although she must not neglect it. She, too, must respect the times when her husband is aroused, and respond. In all of this, there are questions what happens if this one or that one isn't interested. We cannot adjudicate any lawsuits here, but we do present the proper format. A spouse must be sensitive to the sexual needs of the other, because it is the proper thing, and because the alternative is not attractive.

Although intimacy is treasured as a protection against sin and it invokes great spiritual forces, the Torah Jew marries also because he must; the Torah commands it. He must make his wife happy; this is an obligation to the wife. He must bring a child into the world; this is his mitzvah. Esoterically, he creates souls and powerful forces with his deed, for good or bad. He also protects himself and his wife from sin by fulfilling their happiness with sanctity and marital intimacy. These are obligations, not just nice things.
The gemora says in the end of Tractate Gittin that a man wanted to make sure that his wife did not commit adultery. There are two ways. One, he is good to her, and she is faithful. The other way is to lock her in the house. The Talmud says that if he locks her up, he can be sure she will be unfaithful. In other words, sin is just outside in the street, or even inside of the home, at times. If we live in peace and harmony with our spouses, we are protected from sin. If we are not happily married, somehow, sin will present itself, and without a good alternative, may prevail, heaven forefend. Of course, this rule applies to children as well. We can be loving and kind, and assure their proper behavior, or we can be tough and reap the whirlwind, heaven forefend.

Rav did not act as if he was starving because, heaven forefend, he was a materialist. The fires of marriage serve Holiness. One who is cold in intimacy has not behaved properly. On the other hand, we certainly do not make a culture out of what Maimonides calls "the Arabic tendency to lust for certain physical shapes," or what Americans would call "sex." Marital intimacy is a very private thing, and modesty pervades the Jewish home. One senior rabbi told me, "Pleasure is increased with modesty, and declines without it."

Halacha is Jewish law. There are halachic reasons to engage in intimacy as Rav did. One is the obligation a husband has to his wife, and a wife to a husband. Marriage requires mutual support, and intimacy is a major marital process required by Jewish law. One who does not please the spouse sexually, even out of a wish to escape materialism, is simply a sinner.

A marital obligation is the same as a monetary obligation. If you don't pay your debts, if you don't perform your obligations, you are a thief. The Talmud in tractate Shabbos says that a partner in a marriage who does not work according to their responsibilities is a thief. Making a spouse happy is a monetary obligation, just as if one has bought something and not paid for it, or borrowed money and not returned it. The Talmud also says one who denies intimacy to a spouse is a grievous sinner; there is awful pain for someone denied proper intimacy. To cause such pain is evil.

The Talmud also mentions that how we engage in intimacy affects the embryo and the child. "Make your wife happy doing a mitzvah," meaning intimacy, will produce a good child. Intimacy with coldness or revulsion may produce a damaged soul for the child.
The Talmud tells of the rabbi who was so engrossed in learning that he forgot to go home to his wife. She was agonized by his not coming, and the rabbi was punished with death. "Beware of mistreating your wife," says the Talmud, because where tears flow, punishment follows. Rabbi Yehuda the Pious tells us (169), "One who enslaves others or makes people afraid of him is treated in the Future World like an animal. This applies also to one who torments his animal."

A marriage is an ideal place for a tough and cruel person to "enslave" and "torment" another. Nobody knows what cruelty one spouse does to the other. The pain a spouse can inflict is much worse than the pain that another can afflict.

The section in the book quoted above from Rabbi Yehuda the Pious is a long one. It begins with the punishment in the Future World for men who sin with women. They are forced to draw wagons until they become exhausted, and are treated like animals. One who engages in sexual sins forgets that he is human, and when he becomes an animal with sin, he is so treated. In the same thought, Rabbi Yehuda the Pious includes those who act like animals by forcing other people to work for them, or who torment other people. We are humans only by guarding ourselves sexually, and by not hurting others. If we want to act like animals, heaven punishes us as if we were animals.

One who drags a wagon serves others. An animal serves people by dragging their wagons. When we serve our sexual drives without sanctity and marriage, and when we engage in cruelty to people or even to animals, we must "pull the cart" as an animal. We must give our strength until we drop exhausted, until we lose our strength, because we once abused our strength with sexual sins and by tormenting and working others, even animals.
In a marriage are many opportunities to hound and hurt others. Are we people or are we animals? Marriage is an environment that reveals the best and worst in us. We are not going to escape heavenly scrutiny for our deeds, not even those done in privacy and intimacy. We are not mere sinners when we torment others. We have lost our human demeanor. A human being is in "the image of G-d." One who is free with his sexual experiences and one who torments others are not worthy of being "human."
Rabbi Yehuda the Pious amplifies this thought in paragraph 44. He writes that G-d punishes anyone who causes not only physical pain, but also emotional pain to another. If we spit on the ground and distress someone by the sight of it, G-d punishes us. If we whip a horse in a cruel manner, G-d will punish us. What punishment is there for someone who causes marital pain, the greatest suffering?

In paragraph 666, Rabbi Yehuda the Pious tells us, "Any deed that results in pain for another, or even needless pain to an animal, such as loading it too heavily, and he hits it and it can't go, will be judged, because the pain of living things is forbidden by the Torah." If the Torah forbids us from physically paining an animal wantonly, surely we may not carelessly harm our spouses emotionally. Proper intimacy is a good deed, and improper intimacy is painful, perhaps the worst emotional suffering one person can do to another. What punishment is there for it! Intimacy is an area where we can savage and ruin another person's life by doing, literally, nothing. If we ignore our spouse, we have plunged a knife into their heart.

In paragraph 667, Rabbi Yehuda the Pious adjures us from overworking a pregnant animal, and surely a human servant. Today, when many women work, they come home worn out, and have to make Shabbos or Yom Tov. Do we care about them properly? Do we overwork our spouses? Today people are running ragged. How easy it is to push our family too much. These are grave matters, but in the rush of life, we seek help from our closest relatives, not realizing that we are pushing too hard. We may not overwork a pregnant animal, and surely not a pregnant servant. May we overwork a pregnant wife?

In paragraph 668, Rabbi Yehuda the Pious again exhorts us to appreciate what an animal does for us, and not to push it too hard. Surely, we must not beat it when it hasn't the strength. Surely, he adds, we may not mistreat our wives; we must appreciate and honor them. One who does not treat the other spouse with proper intimacy causes great pain.

Think, says Rabbi Yehuda the Pious, how you would like to be treated if someone owned you. That is how you should treat your animals, and surely your family. "Love your fellow as yourself." Behave towards others as you want to be treated. If we maintain such an attitude, and create a loving atmosphere in the home, intimacy will come by itself. If, however, we hurt our spouse, we reap punishment.

There is, however, a problem with intimacy. It seems so far from spirituality. We appreciate praying, Torah study and piety. Can the same person who prayers, studies Torah and engages in piety practice intimacy properly? Rabbi Yehuda the Pious (paragraph 362) says that during intimacy if the man thinks about Torah he does not have a proper desire, because Torah lowers the sexual drive. The soul of the children who come from intimacy is related to the amount of desire of the parents during intimacy. Desire is spirituality and brings a better soul to the child. In order to have pious children, we must increase our desire by not thinking in Torah but in matters that increase intimacy. (See Chido in his commentary there.) (This is related to the gemora that in order to have a desired child, "Make your wife happy during intimacy.)

A rabbi once called me about a young woman who did not want intimacy. When she married, an older woman spoke to her, and told her about the "Jewish" way of marriage. "When your husband is young and blemished," said the older woman, "he will desire intimacy. However, in a few years, he will become a mentsh, a person, and will no longer want it, except to procreate." A few years after the marriage, the husband was still interested in his wife, and was not yet a "mentsh," so the wife demanded a GET, a divorce. I explained to the wife that the older woman was wrong. Afterwards, I published a lengthy response about this in my work Teshuvos Bayis Ne'Emon: Ribbis. A rabbinic judge read my book and said, "The best part of it was that response."

Reb Yaacov said that the major problem in Torah marriages is precisely this misunderstanding; people think that desiring intimacy is shameful. Those who feel this way embark on a dangerous path, one forbidden by the great rabbis, including Rabbi Yehuda the Pious, the greatest of the saints.

In paragraph 380 of Sefer Chassidim, Rabbi Yehuda the Pious tells us that sometimes we are legally in our rights to divorce someone, or to cause them pain. In the Future World, our "legal" act will bring upon us divine punishment. Rabbi Yehuda the Pious adds another idea: Not only it intimacy important, but the Torah permits us to fully engage ourselves in exotic intimacy lest we come to great sin.

A man wanted his wife to dress a certain way. She refused, and the community backed her, as they had very high standards of modesty. The man then committed a hideous sexual sin, and the community relented. It surely wasn't all that simple, however, the dressing was relevant to his needs.

Speaking of sinning, there are people who cannot really control themselves. Our biological mechanism demands sexual gratification from puberty and surely, when we are deep into our teens. People in their twenties and surely the thirties have to have relief. However, without marriage or sin, where can they get it? Officially, of course, we demand abstinence and purity. Nonetheless, practically, we know what is going to happen. People are human. The emphasis in all of this has to be to get people married, and when they are, to make sure they are happy and fulfilled with intimacy. Those unmarried have a terrible problem. If they are religious and feel it wrong to engage in pre-marital sex, but cannot really hold themselves back, how do we deal with this?
We can't always win, but when we fail, let us do it in style. Let us fall and get up. Let us fall with the smallest amount of sin. The Talmud says, "Even when we sin, we serve G-d as we can." We sin, but as we do, we try to show our fear of G-d by minimizing our failing and falling. Reb Aharon Kotler said, "If you sin, repent immediately. If you don't, the sin becomes very strong, even overpowering. But if you repent, the next time the sin begins all over as a small, weak sin, not a rugged one connected to and nourished by a series of evil deeds.”

The sexual sins are many. Although technically there are gradations, for practical purposes, we cannot easily determine when to sort and arrange the sins and then act upon these constructions. Masturbation is a sin, because the seed is for procreation. On the other hand, if someone cannot stop himself from sleeping with a forbidden woman, he must masturbate if that relieves him. The worst masturbation is that done during marital relations to destroy the seed and not to procreate. On the other hand, if this is done for medical reasons, or because the people suffer from the child, we cannot throw at these troubled people ink printed on words to intensify their anxiety and problems. These are quite complex laws, and are decided only by senior rabbis in individual cases.

To indicate the dangers of categories of these matters, a young man was overwhelmed by desire, and decided that the least category of sin was pedophilia! He simply had never heard of such a sin, and thought it was just a minor thing. People don't know what is important and what is not. What sin it is to ruin a child. Can there be a greater sin? Furthermore, since molested children tend to molest others, the "small sin" of the ignorant becomes a pyramid of pain, pedophilia and perversion.

One may not sleep with any woman outside of matrimony. One may not marry certain women. In Jewish law, a Jew may only marry a Jew or someone converted to Judaism.

Many people are willing to accept abstinence in terms of coitus, but relieve themselves with masturbation, pornography, or even intimacy that stops before coitus. We cannot praise or condemn because how can we praise something that is forbidden and that can lead to sin and perversion? However, how do we solve the problems relieved by these actions? To do so produces more guilt that intensifies the very pressures that produced the sins. The more guilt, the more sin.

We come now to the next teaching of Rabbi Yehuda the Pious, in the above paragraph 380: "The Torah permits a wife for the husband; any time he wants, he may enjoy pleasure from her, lest he look at another woman." This lesson is a double teaching. On the one hand, a man may enjoy his wife and not feel guilty. On the other hand, we are not a culture of pleasure-seekers. We do this, not to achieve materialistic ardor, but because we are afraid of the power of our Evil Inclination. Why we frequently engage in marital intimacy may not seem important; after all, we may do it. The attitude, however, makes a difference in us. It makes a difference in our marriage and spirituality. There are those who begin marriage with the freedom to express themselves in intimacy without guilt, and go on to true fulfillment without problems. Others begin marriage with a load of guilt, and eventually, the repressed needs and wants may explode, and find perverse paths. Many people began life eschewing fulfillment in marriage and ended in the sewer. I have dealt with them, and so have the police. Not everyone who seeks asceticism will do these terrible things, of course; many may succeed. In addition, not everyone who enters marriage smiling and free to engage their instincts is free from problems. However, it helps to be free from guilt. It helps to know that Rabbi Yehuda the Pious advises us to seek in intimacy a barrier to perversion and sin, because the perversion and sin is not that far away.
However, once we open the spigot, when do we shut it? Do we simply devote our lives in the house to the pursuit of pleasure? Rabbi Yehuda the Pious continues by telling us that one who is wise and studies Torah can busy himself with the study of Torah. To some degree, this will push away the Evil Inclination. Such a person is not suffused with carnal desire, although he does invoke it in a timely manner. Thus, the Torah person should, according to a senior rabbi of the past generation, devote several nights a week, two or three, or even more if necessary, and placate his Evil Inclination completely, even while he conquers it at other times by devoting himself to Torah. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein adds that one who is busy working, even if he is not learning, or one who is busy learning, can often escape the trap of the Evil Inclination. On the other hand, we cannot rely on this. We must decide how much we will set aside for intimacy, and devote the rest of our time to work and learning. When we are busy and thriving in life, our erotic feelings are healthy. When we are pressured, our erotic feelings do double duty, and pull us away from happiness into perversion. Our erogenous zones are passports to heaven or the other place, and a lot depends on how busy and fulfilled we are when we get there. When intimacy becomes a substitute for a job, for relief from debt, or when it becomes a relaxant for the constant anxieties of life, poisonous things develop. We must be a man and a woman to engage in intimacy. Woe to us when our worth and esteem derive only from intimacy. Such intimacy increases our sense of frustration and failure, and enhances the negative.

I have spoken to sick people, perverts, pedophiles, adulterers, etc. They are just like me. The only thing is that they didn't find what they needed, and biological and emotional drives are not easily denied. I once spoke to the son of the Brisker Rov, Reb Refoel zt"l, who was the leading "askon" (community worker) in Jerusalem. (I wish to add that although Reb Refoel was known for his community work, this was in the tradition of the great Jerusalem scholars who interrupted their serious Torah study to help the community. The Torah genius I imbibed from Reb Refoel impressed me as much as the practical wisdom I heard from him. In every single instance of my asking him a question about perverse and atypical behavior, he always pointed to a text in a book or quoted an established custom, which is amazing.) When I suggested that perhaps the large number of pedophiles I had discovered was something new from America, he laughed, and showed me an ancient text to back up his derision. Perversion is and always has been right around the next bend.

Someone told me that he was stunned when a married woman, a friend of the family, called him to come to her house. "Quick!' she said, "My husband is away." There was a time when I didn't believe these stories. That was a long time ago. Our community, and every community, has thriving adultery, homosexuality, pedophilia, pornography, and I hope not things that I never heard of. The Rambam says it at the end of the Laws of Yom Tov. On Yom Tov, guards must be posted to keep people from sinning. On Yom Tov! What about the rest of the year? The Talmud says that people sin on Yom Kippur! None of these are bad people, and are as pious as I am, but they had problems and were weak. May HaShem help them.
We now come to an important point in our discussion, "Ezra's Enactment."

TAKONAS EZRA (Ezra's Enactment)

Ezra the Scribe was one of the very greatest Jewish leaders and rabbis. A prophet and High Priest, he led the Jews back to Israel roughly 2,500 years ago and founded the Second Temple Era. His story is part of the bible, the Book of Ezra. The Talmud says in tractate Brochose 3a that G-d wanted the Era of Ezra to manifest mighty miracles, such as were seen in the generation of Moshe (Moses). However, people sinned and were not worthy of such open miracles. Therefore, the Temple was built and the Jews gathered to Israel, but only with the permission of the Persian government, and much difficulty. Furthermore, the Second Temple was a shadow of the First Temple, and prophecy ceased, as well as the biblical era.
What sin did people do to lose the opportunity offered them by Ezra? The Talmud does not bother to mention it, but the Book of Ezra tells us, as does the Zohar. The Jews who returned to Israel with Ezra married foreign or gentile wives. This is shocking when we contemplate for a moment the historical situation of Ezra's generation. The Jews left Israel when the Babylonians destroyed the First Temple around 586 BCE. The prophets told the Jews that the Exile would be only seventy years, although how this was to be calculated was a bit obscure. During the Seventy Years Exile, mighty miracles bolstered the faith of the Jews. These were: Daniel in the lion's den, Daniel revealing the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar, the heavenly hand writing on the wall during Belshatsar's feast, Daniel interpreting the writing as the prophecy of the fall of Babylon, which took place right afterwards, and perhaps most important, the miracle of Esther who saved the Jews from Haman, the wicked Persian Prime Minister. Threatened with slaughter, the Persian Jews repented and achieved a high spiritual level. The story of Esther took place right before Ezra's coming to Israel. The Jews therefore should have been remote from sin. Why did they marry foreign wives? If they were sinners, why did they not commit other sins?

The answer is that the Jews were not prepared to sin; indeed, they were pious people. Esther had seen to that. Furthermore, the Talmud teaches that the time of Ezra was to be one of mighty miracles, similar to the Exodus from Egypt. The Jews were probably on a very high level, and this could have been a problem. Spirituality does not always bring people to appreciate the need for marital intimacy. At any rate, we see that the men who returned to Israel were not satisfied with Jewish women. Ezra saw the problem, and enacted laws to make Jewish women attractive to their husband. However, he did not want to create an atmosphere removed from spirituality, so he moved in two seemingly opposite directions. On the one hand, he made a law that peddlers must travel around to Jewish homes selling perfume to Jewish women, to make them attractive to their husbands. He thus initiated a great interest in intimacy, something that could lead the Jews away from spirituality. Therefore, Ezra, to combat this, made what is known as TAKONAS EZRA, the Law of Ezra. A man can be with his wife as much as he wishes, but when he is with her, he must go to the MIKVEH, a ritualarium, or at least wash in a body of water, such as a large bathtub.

There is another reason why the Jewish men despised Jewish women and chose gentile ladies in the time of Ezra. The Persians ruled the Jews who returned from exile. The Talmud says that the Persians were fastidious people, and were careful to eat, drink and relate to their wives on a high level. They did not sink down to the level of other nations who ate and drank like gluttons. We know that Alexander the Great died while eating and drinking, and that Romans ate, vomited, and then ate some more. The Persians were not this way.

This affected the Jews living under the Persians. Indeed, Rabbi Yehuda the Pious tells us that the surrounding gentiles influence the Jews. If so, the Persian habits about marriage infected the Jewish people. One of the ideas of the Persians was that one does not sleep with his wife without clothes. The Talmud fought this, saying, "If a spouse says, 'Let us wear clothes,' this is cause for divorce, and is a custom of the Persians." Thus, the Jewish women, influenced by Persian ideas, did not interest their husbands as much as the pagan ladies in Israel, who had no Persian traditions. The Jewish men then rejected their wives and took strange women. As mentioned before, Ezra fought this by decreeing that women wear perfume and make themselves more attractive to their husbands. Ezra feared, however, that Jews might go in the opposite direction, in the way of the Greeks and Romans, and become voluptuaries. He therefore established the law of the MIKVEH or immersing after relations.

TAKONAS EZRA did not say that a man could only be with his wife once or twice or three times a week. A man can be with wife without limit, but each time, he must wash himself. This informs the Jewish attitude towards intimacy. It is the greatest pleasure, and can bring a person into what in the gentile world is a culture of "sex," heaven forefend. On the other hand, one who tastes of this pleasure must not stay there, but rise back to spirituality by washing or bathing in a mikveh or large body of water.
Ezra's law was so that "rabbinical scholars would not be near their wives like chickens." Why then did Ezra not limit intimacy? Ezra was not opposed to intimacy, nor did he limit it. He only did not want "rabbinical scholars to be near their wives as chickens," which is how some cultures behave. Intimacy is done, but a person must then return to spirituality. Do as much as you like, whenever you like, but "not like a chicken." One who realizes the intent of Ezra limits himself in time and energy to what he needs to refrain from sin and what his wife and he need. He does not make a cult of it.
As time went on, people could not put up with the problems of finding a body of water, and the rabbis finally declared that the "Law of Ezra" was not binding, although many pious people practice it. Indeed, the original intent of the law was to provide a Torah scholar with an escape from the pull of sensualism. Thus, eventually, the pious practiced Ezra's Law but not the masses of Jews.

The idea of the "Law of Ezra" is our guide, even without bathing, to what intimacy is to the Jew. We do not behave as "chickens." We accept that intimacy is a spiritual thing. When done in a limited matter, according to the people's legitimate needs, it is spiritual. When done as "chickens" it turns people into animals.
Note that Ezra's law was aimed at Torah scholars. He did not want "Torah scholars to be with their wives as chickens." Different people have different standards. Torah scholars have one standard, whereas other people have other standards. Ultimately, the effort of Ezra to require immersion after intimacy failed, and today most authorities do not require it. Even Torah scholars could not take its burden, and therefore the rabbis negated the obligation for everyone. However, its edifying power remained for those who could and would practice it. The idea has remained. Ezra has taught us not to be "chickens." He has also indicated that there are different levels of people, and they have different standards. Torah scholars have a higher standard than others do.

We must understand this. It is crucial for an appreciation of the process of halacha, or Jewish law, and certainly as it applies to marriage. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav, the Code of Laws of the Rabbi, is one of the great classics in halacha, Jewish Law. The "Rabbi" in this case was the rabbi of the new Chassidic movement, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Lithuania. Known by his peers in the Chassidic school of the Preacher from Mezeretz as the "rabbi" for his keen perception of the revealed Law, Reb Shneur Zalman wrote a Code of Laws that has been accepted as a major classic by all Jews. The great halacha classic of modern times, Mishneh Beruro, written by Rabbi Yisroel Mayer Kagan of Radin, Poland, relies heavily upon this work. Rabbi Kagan confers a rare title, "Gaon" (senior eminence) upon Reb Shneur Zalman when he quotes him.
A major goal of the Code of Reb Shneur Zalman was to reconcile the Revealed and Hidden Law as they pertain to halacha, or Jewish law. Unfortunately, he only began this task. His enormous success as a rebbe and Jewish leader encroached upon his time for writing. He had to surrender to realities and limit his scope after the beginning of the Code. However, in the beginning of the Code, we find him reconciling the Revealed and Hidden Law, and the principles stated there are guides for us in other areas, as well.
The Law in question is about rising in the morning and washing the hands, a procedure known as NEGEL VASSER, or "water for the knuckles" in its literal translation. The water is supposed to cover the knuckles, at least. Here is a great problem. The Talmud lists the order of blessings a person makes upon rising. The person does many things, sits up, walks, dresses, etc., and finally washes the hands and makes a blessing. The Zohar, on the other hand, requires us to wash immediately upon rising. It severely proscribes walking four cubits without washing. The Talmud clearly permits this. What do we do about this obvious contradiction?

In chapter one, paragraph 7 of his Code, Reb Schneur Zalman explains that there are different levels of halacha for different people. Washing one's hands is a sign of cleanliness and holiness. To walk without washing, for a Torah scholar, for a person involved in holiness, is a serious sin. For plain people, it is nothing. Therefore, says Reb Shneur Zalman, the Talmud permits us to walk without washing, and we get dressed and do other things without washing. On the other hand, the Zohar, written for the exceedingly pious and holy people, condemns the person who walks four cubits with dirty hands, as this is a violation of true holiness. Reb Schneur Zalman then writes that anyone who has no water and wakes in the middle of the night must learn Torah because this is the opinion of the Talmud and the Codifiers, even though the Zohar considers him impure and unable to study Torah.

We see two things, both of them central to our understanding of halacha. One, the Zohar was written for elevated people, and such people have a higher standard than others. Two, even higher people who generally follow the stringencies of the Zohar may not violate a clear law in the Talmud. The Zohar says not to learn but one must learn. The same is true about intimacy. One may be stringent and follow various higher practices only if by so doing he does not violate a law of the Revealed Law and Talmud.
There may be many books written for truly elevated people, the saints and the scholars of early generations, about the extreme modesty appropriate for intimacy. These apply to those worthy of this standard, but not for others. Furthermore, even elevated people may not eschew obligations placed upon them by the Talmud and the Codifiers because they saw something in a book for supremely spiritual people.

A young man once came to a senior rabbi of the past generation. He wanted to learn about the laws and customs of getting married. He asked the senior rabbi, a scion of a great Hassidic rabbinic dynasty, about some holy books he had read, telling people to engage in ascetic practices during intimacy. The rabbi replied, "I don't read those books." Whether the rabbi did or not, he did not want everyone to engage in those practices. Each person must know how appropriate any level of asceticism is. Never, however, may one cross the line and do something forbidden by the Talmud and Codifiers, even if he finds it in some book for the supremely pious. Those supremely pious people knew how to satisfy their wives despite their asceticism, but not everyone can. Those supremely pious people had wives who wanted ascetic people, but not every wife wants this. Today, those who attempt asceticism cause grief of the worst suffering and perversion. The worst child molester in the history of America's Jewish community was someone who practiced asceticism. He was not the only problem from that element.

Years ago, I worked in the city, and had to leave New York late, sometimes eight or nine o'clock. I noticed swarms of people going to the movies in Time's Square, and could not help noticing the dress of some of them, who could be my neighbors. A young man who fell between the cracks told me that he was once in that area looking for sin and he found there one of his Yeshiva teachers, who seemed quite experienced at this type of thing. I don't believe it, but I surely don't deny it. Anyone who thinks that praying, learning and wearing certain clothes drives away the Evil Inclination is badly mistaken.

The Code of Laws - Two Views

If we look into the Code of Laws, Shulchan Aruch, we see a contradiction in the laws of intimacy. However, the problem is not the doing of the author of the Code of Laws, Rabbi Joseph Caro. The contrariety is found in the teaching of Rambam, Maimonides and even in the Talmud. One place says that we emphasize spirituality in intimacy, and the other says we may do what we please. Until we resolve this, we cannot proceed in understanding the Laws of sexuality and intimacy.

One place says, "Whatever you want to do with your wife you may do. Kiss her everywhere." Another place prohibits kissing the vaginal area. A solution is taught in Semak, a work of the medieval scholar Reb Yitschok of Kurbil. In paragraph 285, he says that one has an obligation to gladden his wife's heart, and may not refuse her conjugal needs. He then concludes that one who looks at or kisses the vaginal area and who has anal coitus has not sinned, but may damage the level of the child. The question is: Why should the child be damaged if it is permitted? Here we have a principal, that some people have a true need to do these things, and if they don't, they will not satisfy their inclinations, and may come to terrible sin. Such people have no problem doing these things, and their children will be fine. However, people may damage their offspring if they don't have a genuine need for these familiarities, but do them for the perverse pleasures they provide.

These questions come up with people who lived as hippies and now are religious, or they come up with people with strong passions, or people who genuinely feel the need to do these things. Even so, if we permit these things, we advise the person to minimize them if possible. Yes, we are concerned about the soul of the child. However, we are even more concerned about cardinal sin.

Our study of the Law of Ezra prepares us for the inconsistency. A person who marries must fulfill the verse, "And he shall make glad the wife that he took." We want happiness and fulfillment in marriage, and a healthy and appropriate intimacy. On the other hand, we don't want the cult of sensuality, so prevalent in the world. Why don't we want the cult of sensuality? Is pleasure evil?

The spiritual pleasures of life are limitless, but the materialistic pleasures of life can only be enjoyed in proper measures. Alexander the Great conquered the world from Greece to India; he led his troops into battles but somehow escaped death. However, he died young from excessive eating and drinking. The Romans used to eat and drink to excess. When the stomach could hold no more, they went to a vomitorium, regurgitated their food, and with a now empty belly, gorged some more. Jews have no "pleasures" such as these.

One who drinks too much damages the liver and much else. One who eats too much damages the heart and other parts of the body. One who overindulges in any pleasure damages the body. This is true in overdoing sexuality. Those who pursue pleasures of this nature are prone to many terrible diseases. Furthermore, the pleasures, when they become compulsive, destroy one's life. The Dean of the Harvard Divinity School recently resigned because of what was on his computer. Many decent people became menaces to children, even murderers, from reading magazines. There is an entire scientific literature on the illnesses associated with porn, that is, the visual pleasure of sexuality. Those who are addicted to it are slaves to degeneracy, and their misery cannot be assuaged by any pleasure.

There is a very practical reason that we must not become sensualists and voluptuaries regarding marital matters. We all get older. The older we get, the less attractive we are. In the secular culture, a woman in her forties knows that she is in big trouble. Her husband is constantly stimulated by television, movies and who knows what else, and he compares this to that, and finally, despises his wife. Someone who was a devoted and loving husband once came to a rabbi and asked to divorce his wife. The rabbi was shocked, and the man explained: "Rabbi, I just bought a television. My wife compared to those women is a monkey." Of course, the wife, too, when exposed to great physical beauty in men, especially younger ones, can lose her desire for her older husband. To prevent this, we eschew the culture of hedonism. We know that sensualism leads to hedonism and eventually to degeneracy. Let us study this last statement.
All physical pleasures must be regulated and limited. If not, the body turns to these pleasures on a regular basis, and the person becomes compulsive and addicted. A person is filled with anxieties of all types; pain and threats are part of life. When one is used to taking material pleasures in excess, the body builds up a reliance on these pleasures to sooth anxieties and stress. In some people, drinking becomes compulsive and addictive. In others, eating drives them to obesity with its accoutrement of health problems. Sexuality is an enormous pleasure, and if not regulated, becomes a power of its own, dominating the person to relieve his anxieties and stresses with constant sexual experiences.

In these three examples, drinking, eating and sex, and of course, in drugs, the body loses its sensitivity slowly but surely and requires more and more doses of the stimulant to find relief. In intimacy, this brings a person crashing down into the gutters of degeneracy. Therefore, the Torah commands us to eat, drink, and be happy in our family life, but everything must be done in proper proportion. We control our eating; the eating does not control us; at least, we hope it doesn't.

There are two types of eating. One eater stuffs his food. He eats quickly, gorging and stuffing. Another person eats slowly, savoring each morsel. Who enjoys the experience more? Natural eating is done slowly, and the taste buds eagerly embrace each bite. Compulsive eating is done quickly, and the taste buds are so battered with sugar and other powerful stimulants that they barely taste what they are eating. The natural eater finishes and is fully satisfied. He has no need or interest to eat more, even if you show him the most delicious desert. The compulsive eater is never finished eating. His stomach is on the ropes, but he is back at the plate.
Several decades ago, a study in Scientific American showed that there were no Orthodox Jewish alcoholics. Today, this is no longer true, but there was a time when Orthodox Jews knew how to live. The article said that Orthodox Jews drank wine and whiskey at joyous occasions and holidays, but never became addicted to it. When we eat properly, we don't miss eating more. When we drink properly, we don't need to become drunkards. When we live in family with a proper perspective, keeping things within bounds and not falling into the endless pit, we can have true pleasure, happiness that is not available to the degenerate whose weakened body can barely survive its compulsions.

We now come to the contradiction in the Code of Laws we mentioned earlier. In once section, we are told, "A man may do anything he wants with his wife." In another section, we are told, "Don't do this, and don't do that." We are, at this point, interested in the general thrust of the opposing viewpoints, rather than the particulars. The answer is, as you may have guessed, that legally, a man may do what he wants with his wife. We tell him this, as Rabbi Yehuda the Pious explains, because otherwise, the man will seek to do forbidden things with other women. We cannot ignore the power of our sexual instincts. We must have a healthy respect for them and give them their due.

On the other hand, once we have allowed the man to do what he wants to do, we say to him, "Do you want to be, heaven forefend, a sensualist?" Let us try to prepare the table in a civilized way. If people can satisfy themselves in a more dignified matter, fine. If they can't, they must "do whatever they want to do." If not, they will do sinful things.

If you are used to eating the wrong foods, and come into a health food store, you may be disappointed. You have no idea what the joy of eating soybeans and brown health bread is. Your tongue wants only sodas laced with colas that are derivatives of drug plants. Your palate demands sugar, something that wrecks the natural cycle of the body. If you look in the mirror and see yourself, you may make a face, the same face you made when you saw Mr. Healthy eating his small portion of health food. Mr. Healthy, however, full of vigor, is not envious at all of your chocolate cakes, sodas and candies. "Phooey," he would say. He looks at his plate and smiles, and he looks in the mirror and smiles.
The same is true of marriage and intimacy. People who achieve a proper human relationship are eating health food. They don't need sugar and colas made from codeine plants. Someone who has no idea of the pleasure of natural love can doubt the way of the natural family. However, the natural family has no need of the shock treatments utilized by those whose mechanism is sick and injured by unhealthy habits. Therefore, we must be the natural family. We must ignore the contrarious sugarcoating and the inimical transitory processes. Our energy rises when we eat sugar but then it collapses.

The secular world is sick and needs sexual stimuli. That is why the majority of available Americans do not marry at all. Half of first marriages end in divorce. Up to eighty percent of sexual partners claim that things don't go well. If people eat normally, nature pays them handsomely. If people eat abnormally, nature rebels. We must, of course, expand upon the theme of "natural family." For now, however, we must continue with our trajectory, of studying the successful natural level of intimacy as it is supported by abstinence. We now present the concept of MIKVAH and the menstrual cycle, and how separation keeps a marriage alive.

The Laws of MIKVA

According to Jewish law, a woman is forbidden to her husband during her menstrual cycle. This forced abstinence is crucial in the life of the marriage, and its success. Familiarity breeds contempt. A husband who lacks his needs for a period becomes much more focused and civil. Just as the Zohar says, "From the darkness we recognize light," so we only appreciate our spouses when we are forced into abstinence, at least for a time.
The Laws of Nida, or Menstruation, have various levels. There is first the Torah level. A woman who has a vaginal discharge of blood is a Nida. For a week, she may not be with her husband. Even if she bleeds the whole week, afterwards she goes to the MIKVAH, immerses herself and is pure. We have discussed these laws earlier, but here we will add some new details.

Most women have regular cycles, that is, regular to some degree. At some time during the month, she will discharge. For example, a woman may see her period the first week of each month. Let us say that she bled the first day of the month. For seven days, she is forbidden. However, even if she bled all seven days, afterwards, she immerses herself and is clean.
If, however, the woman saw blood, not in the part of the month she is used to seeing discharges, but after that week, she is now in a stricter category called ZOVO. If she sees several times in the ZOVO period, she becomes a ZOVO. Now, she must wait until she ceases the discharge and counts seven clean days. Then she immerses in the MIKVEH and is clean.

These are Torah rulings. As is known, the rabbis made "fences" and protective rulings that are more stringent than the Torah. The interesting thing about the laws of NIDA and ZOVO is that the women themselves made the stringency. They decided that even seeing a drop of blood anytime made someone a ZOVO. The rabbis accepted this.

The women seemed to have realized how important for their happiness abstinence is. They realized how precious their purity was, and wanted no confusion about it. Throughout the generations, women have gone through great sacrifice to keep these laws, as they regulate the holiness of the souls of the children of Israel. During Communism, some women walked through terrifying forests to find a pool to dip in, and came back home to the sounds of bears, wolves and wild boars. Some people have terrible problems with keeping the Laws of Nida and Zovo; they are not the first, and will not be the last. However, those who keep the laws find a renewed vigor in their relationship.

The woman's return from the MIKVA or ritualarium is a renewal, and is like a new marriage. The moon starts as a tiny sliver on the New Moon. It gradually waxes into the Full Moon, in the middle of the month, and then declines. When the moon disappears, we wait for a tiny sliver that announces the next New Moon. A woman is like the moon, as they both harbor the Shechinah, or Divine Presence. There are times when the woman is prepared to produce life, and times when she is not. There are times when intimacy produces the Union of the Holy Letters of the Divine Name, and there are times when intimacy produces the fumes of Evil.
          The Laws of Mikva introduce us to the dichotomous process of marriage. On the one hand, marriage is union, but this union is sustained by separation. The Torah has the proper process. A secular therapist once told an Orthodox couple: "You keep your separation periods." Secular therapists try to invent one for everyone, but it cannot work without the religious angle.
          A woman returns from the MIKVA utterly spiritual, and yet ready for sensuality. This, too, is a dichotomous matter, and shows how the Torah unites disparate things to make a whole world. MIKVA shows us that marriage is a hallowed thing.
          Rabbi Yehuda the Pious tells us of Rabbi Eliezar the Great, who merited beautiful children. The rabbis asked his wife how this came about. She replied that he only slept with her in the middle of the night, when the two of them could not hear the voices of other people. They were concerned that if he would hear a woman he might think about her during coitus, and if she would hear a man she might think of him, and the result would be to ruin their children. On the level of the great saints of Israel, for a spouse to desire someone else during intercourse produced a child of such a low nature almost to be a bastard. "And your desire shall be to your husband," the bible says. "This means not to desire another man," says Rabbi Yehuda the Pious. (Sefer Chassidim 1115)
A man who mixes easily with women, and a woman who mixes easily with men can find it difficult to have desire only to their spouse. America is falling apart because there are no barriers between men and women. Sexual attraction cannot be denied, and the scars of deep feelings may never go away. Puberty is a time when boys and girls begin to relate in ways they cannot control. High school and certainly colleges completely tear down the barriers between men and women, so that by the time marriage comes around, the man and woman are thoroughly experienced and not all of the experiences are helpful for marriage. The scars are not helpful, and the good times simply make for comparisons that very few people can withstand, especially as time blurs the realities and fantasy enters.
          Marriage is a very delicate and tender thing. It cannot be buffeted by jealousy and comparison. There cannot even be the opportunity to be unfaithful. Opportunity beckons until something happens. The mere threat of the opportunity stresses the relationship.
          The Laws of Mikvah apply even to unmarried women. That is, one who sins with an unmarried woman does a greater sin if she has not gone to the Mikveh. I mention this firstly because it is important, but also for another, more practical reason. Today, we have many young people who are not married, who are busy with college and careers. Many do not marry until the thirties. It is very hard to control yourself in the years of biological fullness without marriage. On the other hand, the laws of MIKVAH are very important, and even people who don't mind unmarried relations don't want to do it as NIDOS, or menstruating women.      Therefore, an evil custom has come about in some quarters, whereby older men and women who are too busy to marry, or who did not find the right mate, make a heinous arrangement. The woman goes to MIKVAH, and the male sleeps with her, without marriage. Rabbis in New York City, where these things take place, have warned these women that they risk being considered "married" if they live with another man, although not every rabbi would consider this kind of free prostitution marriage. Thus, from the evil of pre-marital sex, comes the problem of adultery and ultimately mamzerut, bastardy, heaven forefend.

Rather than complain about the people who do this, we must complain about a system whereby people live as religious people without marriage so late in life. This is a very painful topic, and as a father who married seven children, I wish to express myself in strong terms, even though I am speaking to people whose pain is greater than I can understand. Our population of unmarried people is a disaster. There is something fundamentally wrong if we can come to such a situation.

The first culprits are the parents. Why did the parent allow the child to miss the boat? Did the parent really work hard to find a mate? Fortunately, I married my children, albeit with much distress and difficulty. People laughed at me when they saw the extent that I embarrassed myself to find a mate for my children. They didn't laugh, however, when they came to the wedding. The "cool" parents aren't cool when the children age in the house, and don't leave. Parents! You must run scared when your child comes of age. Get to work. Don't be ashamed. There are worse problems.
I began talking about marriage with my children years before they were marriageable. I wanted them to listen when they cared for what I had to say, and not afterwards. They were programmed to leave, and were they happy. There are parents who are so disinterested or so inactive in these areas, that they get a phone call and the child says, "Dad, I'm engaged," and the parents don't know what hit them. The first thought is, "You couldn't talk to me first?" Why? Did the father ever show that he cared?
If only we had Torah and natural family life, we would spare our children so many problems. We now turn to the natural Torah family.

The Natural Torah Family

Ideally, the public person and the intimate person are the same. Intimacy, in the proper setting, merely reveals and crowns the small talk, the meals, the planning, the problems dealt with, by the couple. Our brain stores carefully every word, gesture, and nuance of our lives. Words, gestures and nuances between spouses are clearly and powerfully impressed in their amygdala. These etched words, gestures, and nuances accompany the couple into private domains. Our hope is that every step, or, almost every step taken outside of the inner sanctum of the home, prepares the couple for the inner sanctum. The inner sanctum can be quite a scary place.
In the inner sanctum, there are no distractions. We are dealing with the other, whether we are prepared or not. There are no tricks to obfuscate the embarrassment, emptiness and the paucity of our relationship. Indeed, the entire idea of giving ourselves over to another is quite a chore. If we are used to it in the mundane things in the home, it follows naturally that we give of ourselves, and readily accept the other spouse's giving, in the bedroom. If, however, we do not give before private times, we cannot start then under the duress of deep emotions. For this reason, intimacy is an endangered species in the world today, and has been for the past century.

One option is to mate with fantasies; thus, two people come together by pretending. Without fantasies, we are stuck with realities. Can we tolerate them? Are they facts and fundamentals appropriate for what we are doing, or are they diametrically opposed? If we live by giving, we can come to privacy and give, and when we give properly, we take more than we can imagine. If we live by taking, there is nothing to take in intimacy except brutality. We can give that and we will take it.

The fifty percent divorce rate, the majority of Americans who refuse to marry, the reluctance of young men for "commitment," not to mention the problems of children raised in our modern environment, call out to us: There is something wrong. What is it? Or rather, what are the problems? It is unlikely that just one thing can destroy the pillar of society.

Interestingly, we live in a time of increased obesity. Years ago, obesity was linked to heart disease, and diets appeared everywhere. After a decade of this, people are fatter than ever. The same is true of marriage. The decline of marriage is not new; people have studied its dreaded statistics for many years, but after all that, things are worse than ever. Even in the Bible belt, divorce is about fifty percent. There is just something terribly wrong, and nobody has found out what it is, or is keeping it secret. Is that possible?
"G-d created man upright, and they pursued many calculations." There is such a thing as "natural man" and "natural woman" and "natural family." However, "and they pursued many calculations." The modern world has toyed with nature and torn the fabric of natural man, woman and children. Family cannot function with torn pieces. How do we correct this? First, we must know the problem. Just how has society ruined men, women and children, and of course, family?

A biblical family has a man earning, a woman raising the children, and children loved and nurtured. We begin with a "man earning." There is possibly no more important function for the man than earning. The Talmud says, "Greater is one who earns from the toil of his hands than the G-d fearing." This says a lot. What can be greater than fear of G-d? The Talmud says clearly that the world was created for the G-d fearing, and that it is the main ingredient in piety. Can the laborer be superior to the truly pious?
Obviously, we deal here with the level of Derech Erets, or "Way of the World." The first teaching of Elijah the Prophet's Yeshiva is, "Derech Erets (The Way of the World) precedes the Torah." What does this mean? It means that our humane potential is revealed when we study Torah or pray. However, the toil of our hands, and the way we act in mundane doings is Derech Erets, which molds and reveals us in a way that Torah does not. Why is this?
Torah enlightens our soul, but our soul wants more. It wants our deepest essence, our true self. We can lack the humane essence even as we study Torah and pray. Only in Derech Erets do we reach a point where we cannot function without this perfection. When we practice Derech Erets properly, our being is perfectly meshed with its purpose. By digging a ditch, cleaning clothes, and shoeing a horse, our toil and humane function achieve a revelation that, if done with the proper attitude, reveal G-d in a way that Torah cannot. This idea is close to the teachings of Hassiduse. This is one idea, but there is another, taught by Lurian Cabala.

Lurian Cabala teaches that we cannot approach Torah unless we become "people." We become "people" through other means. What are they? We become "people" by mundane pursuits, honesty and decency, and only then, with the power of Derech Erets, do we approach Torah. Therefore, "Derech Erets comes before Torah." Without Derech Erets, we cannot be human, and thus cannot have Torah.
For us to have Torah, or marriage, we must be "people," and we must have Derech Erets. In modern times, the rushing river of life washes us downstream before we can become people. Why is this?
The biblical bliss is someone toiling under his vineyard. He owns the land, he works with his hands, and he earns enough to meet his needs. A child can learn something by helping out on the farm, and the child knows that by so doing he prepares for maturity when he will have a farm, perhaps this very one. Thus, a man has a farm, his children help him, and he feeds everyone. The wife helps also, but she is free from the main responsibility to support the home. She is therefore able to devote her energies to the children. The children grow up secure with a mother available constantly to provide for their welfare. Everyone has a role, and everyone feels fulfilled. Now, let us look at a modern family.
The father, a competent computer programmer, has just been laid off his job of twenty years, because a global company bought his company and downsized. The father knows that in five years, he will be fifty, and then, no company will want him. There is a mortgage to pay on the house, the car is not paid for, and health insurance went out with the job. The father runs around here and there, and is considering taking up selling insurance. He does not know if he has the energy to start a new career, especially in sales. He was never so great dealing with people, anyway.

The mother is worried about the money, and so she works, even though she has difficulty working and raising children. The children go to school and come home to two worried and exhausted parents. The parents have so many problems that the children try their best to take care of themselves.

Let's take the father and mother into intimacy. What can happen? Is there a man there, or a broken something? Is there a woman, or a worried something? Is anyone thinking about bringing more children into the world, into such a world? The children can sense what is happening, even if nobody tells them.

Women work today because over the past decades real wages have only crept up whereas consumption has doubled. For people with small families, consumption is another car, a trailer, a fancy stereo system, a swimming pool, a vacation, or living good at restaurants and buying good clothes. For Orthodox Jews with large family, consumption means feeding the children, sending them to parochial schools, and supporting them in the early stages of their marriage. The financial situation has destroyed the natural family. Is there a solution?

If the problem is financial, the solution must be financial. What does this mean in practical terms?

One thing it means is that we must address the problem of earning as the Talmud did. The Talmud required children to study every day for long hours. On the other hand, the Talmud made special enactments for minors to engage in business. Legally, a minor cannot make a transaction. If so, a child cannot do business. The rabbis, however, wanted children to start doing business. Just as a child must be raised from earliest years to study the Law and pray, so a child must be raised from earliest years to earn. Of course, a child spends very little time in business, because he is in school. However, that little bit of time, doing a deal, buying, bartering, borrowing, lending, allows a child to learn about the world and business.

When my son was little, he sold a bike, worth about ten dollars, to someone for five dollars. He realized that he was gypped and was sad, but I rejoiced. "Better for you to learn about cheating when you are little," I said, "than when you are older." I know people who started in business after they had a few children. They borrow five thousand dollars from their father, ten thousand dollars from their father-in-law, and lose their shirt. For the rest of their lives, they will be lucky to pay back what they borrowed, and very lucky if they ever make it in business.

Business is very complex, and there are many aspects to it. We have to learn that people are liars, or naïve, or mistaken, and many other things. If we start very young, in a few years, we get the hang of it. By the time we are married, we have a few dollars to sit on. We "build a house and then marry," rather than "marry and then try to build a house with no money." Rambam tells us the difference between these two is the difference between blessing and curse.
The style today is to study, study, study without any training or business experience, marry and then to flop around here and there. Working for someone else is a form of slavery. In today's market, the global companies will just suck the juice of each person and dump him or her. Whenever you work for somebody, they are going to try to use you out. You will resent it, and this may lead to you losing your job. Only a slave can work for somebody else, or somebody who doesn't mind ulcers. We must begin business careers very early, and preferably, the father should have a business that he teaches to his son.

The previous notions that a good education will get you somewhere in life is only partially true. Doctors are constantly being squeezed with huge insurance payments and pressures from HMOs. A plumber can make more than a doctor with fewer expenses. However, we are proud. We prefer the title rather than the money and the peace of mind. A good plumber, who learns the trade young, can go from house plumbing to construction plumbing to industrial plumbing to hiring others. It takes years to gain the experience and licensing, but if you start young, you have a chance. The problems are when we raise a child to be a generalist, which means to be a nothing.

Even a person who really wants to be a doctor, lawyer, teacher or something that means working for others should have a part-time business. You never know.

Let us trace two people, one who did as Maimonides suggests, and another who does as people do today. We will call them "old" and "new." Old goes to school, but as a child, perhaps six or seven, he begins to buy and sell small things, perhaps flowers to sell to people for Shabbos, or candies for holidays. In the time that other children, such as in our culture, devote to movies, he becomes adept as buying and selling. Old is not the best student, and he's not the brightest, just average. Therefore, school can be intimidating. However, Old knows that he has money and abilities in business. Even when he falls behind the bright fellows in school, Old is still smiling. Life goes on. He knows that he can make it, bright or not.
          New, on the other hand, goes to a modern school, where he is taught in a competitive environment, and New is not so capable. He tries, but the other fellows get it faster than he does. Slowly, New loses confidence. He begins to despair of studying. He still goes through the motions, and manages somehow to avoid failing, but his heart is heavy. He wonders how he will get through life if he is not as smart as some of the other kids. He is terrified of leaving home, because he has no confidence in himself. Why should he? He can't earn, he can't really learn. He is, in his eyes, worthless.
          As Old and New get older, they realize that it is getting time to leave home. Old is not afraid. He started selling at the age of six, and by the age of nine has regular customers. The peak seasons were good, but as time went on, he found what to sell and how to sell during the whole year. For years, he made small money. However, as he got older, he found some very cheap merchandise for sale. Somebody wanted to dump exactly what he wanted to sell, but the seller needed a lot of cash, quickly. Old went to a wealthy customer and explained the situation. The customer offered Old a deal. He would advance the money and Old would sell. They would split the profits. Old, barely in his teens, now had a backer and a partner. Old continued his studies, but here and there, he bought and sold, and he could get financing. Sometimes people lent him money, because they trusted him, and sometimes they insisted on being partners. Old found out about partners the hard way, but he was young, and his losses were golden experiences.
          New approached his teen years with trepidation. Study, study, study, and for what? He had no idea where he was going, and how he could leave his parents. The anxieties increased, and New began to eat sweets to assuage his emotional pains. He didn't look very nice, and this made him feel even worse. New began to fear that life held little for him. He was without a trade, no prospects, and physically unattractive. As the years went by, his stress and pain increased.

Old was a young man, and from far and near people chased him with matches. His business thrived, and he bought a beautiful home. Not far away, Old had a business. He had many employees, and a capable manager. Old was able to devote much of his time to planning larger projects, to travel and to do what he wanted with his life. He found a wonderful wife, and with confidence and assurance, Old began his family.

New came of age, with nothing but some average studies. He tried to find a mate, but his record and resources did not recommend him. Eventually, New found a girl who would marry him. He had no money, so he married poor, and struggled with various jobs to support his growing family. If he had stress earlier in life, it was nothing to what he had now. His wife couldn't take the strain, and she argued with him. He was helpless, and was furious at the pain she caused him. Therefore, we cannot say that they lived happily ever after. We can say, however, that New finally realized that his children would not be raised as he was. He insisted that his children learn about business from their earliest years, as specified in the Talmud.

The Book of Proverbs is the quintessential Torah work on rebuke and spirituality. It concludes with the famous ode to the Woman of Valor. Who is she? Does she fast all week? Does she go around raising charity for the poor? Does she raise her children properly? Is she a good wife? Solomon tells us about her businesses. She takes wool and linen and fashions various garments. She is involved in import and export. She buys a field and plants it. She manufactures sheets, cloaks and various clothing. Who is this wondrous creature, and how does she manage? One thing we can readily accept: she does not work for another person. Only a person on their own time can have so many businesses.
She begins small, by hand-making woolen and linen garments. She does such a good job, that people want to buy her goods, but how much can she hand-produce? Therefore, she begins to purchase from elsewhere, and from this, she eventually learns import and export. At this point, she is not limited to clothing, but she finds goods that people need, and goods that people will buy, and deals with the ships that sale the seas. She is not, however, enamored of relying on such far-flung income, so she buys a field near her home and plants it. The field produces grapes and she has another business. Of course, she may appoint a manager to do the work of the field, and she may have people working for her in other areas. However, one who has a business has freedom to go here and there. Money can do wonderful things.

The ode concludes with the family praising the wife and mother who built a home from businesses, a home without worry and stress, a home that produced wholesome children who did not live with parental anxiety robbing them of their childhood.
Reb Yaacov Kaminetsky was upset with our society in that it trained a person to study and not to earn, and when we marry and need money, we go to Social Services and get this program or that program. This, said Reb Yaacov, robs a man of self-respect. It is deleterious to marriage.

Reb Yaacov said working does something for a person. It molds him and makes him proud of himself. "Greater is he who earns by the toil of his hands than the G-d fearing." Working naturally develops a person's manliness, and makes him humane and kind. One who does not work, and does not feel the natural strength flowing from a proper job, does not feel humane and kind. He becomes a grabber, taking what he can, wherever he can get it.
Reb Yaacov once said that being a stockbroker is like a gambler. The Talmud says that people who earned their living by gambling are unfit to testify in court. Of course, Reb Yaacov didn't mean that a stockbroker is a regular gambler. He wished, however, to express his displeasure that we have to work at jobs of chance, rather than a job that produces income as we work, such as plumbing or business. We must teach our children enough about business to enable them to build a house and then to marry, and to prosper, rather than live a life of doubt and anxiety.

The Good and Bad Wife

The Talmud mentions that the son of Rav Yehuda asked his father to explain the passage, "He found a woman, he found good." Rav Yehuda said, "This is your mother." The son asked, "And what does the passage mean when it says, 'An evil woman is worse than death?'" Rav Yehuda replied, "Your mother." How can this be? The Talmud explains that she had moods. When she was in a bad mood, she would tear her husband apart. When she was in a good mood, she was a perfect wife. We see from this that a person is really two people. We have moods; we have our times. Recently, a prominent marital expert said that husbands regularly "go into a cave," and the wife better not follow him. We have moods. How can two people live together if they take turns going into caves or turning mean? This is a great challenge to marriage.
We mentioned that the woman is like the moon, and the moon has cycles. At times, the moon disappears. Then it appears, only a sliver. It builds up each night until mid-month when we have a Full Moon. It is the same moon, but we see it in different states every night. The same is true of a woman, and even a man has his moods. He is in and out of the cave. He is also affected by the pleasures and pain of the business world and his social life. There are a lot of rockets flying and ricocheting around the house. How can marriage survive?

Marriage has two phases. One, when the wife is at Full Moon and the man is far away from his cave. The other phase is when the wife is barely visible and the man is hiding. Just as there is a marriage and a polar process for two happy people, two people who want to see and talk to each other, so there is a polar process for two people racing from each other. The relationship is hidden, but it is still there. Inside of the cave, the husband is still married. Hidden by the darkness of her mood, the wife is still married. This is the Exile level of marriage.

Just as the Jewish people have a relationship with the Divine Presence in both Revealed and Hidden dimensions, in Israel and in exile, so do married couples have a relationship in their revealed and hidden modes. And just as the Exile dimension reveals the dormant and secret parts of our soul, so in marriage when we have problems we rise to deeper and transcendent levels in our relationship.

Marriage takes two separate people and merges them. The man and wife morph into the Talmudic "one body" and become a new essence. Even on days when the husband is in the cave and the wife is in a mood, it is one unit. Furthermore, the central unit of the marriage that transcends the individual husband and wife processes these dark times. As long as people think in terms of being one, stress and strife can build and not destroy. If, however, the couples begin to think as individuals, and lose the feel of being "one body," even the good days are not true marriage, and the cave and the bad mood can destroy and not build.

The true human marriage is not just two people. Two people are two processes whose supernal sources are higher than the heavens, in the Unity of the Holy Name, and even beyond. We cannot really know what marriage is, but we can do the practical things the rabbis have taught us. Step by step, we become aware of new dimensions. They surprise and reveal us.

[1] A Mishneh is a teaching organized by Rabbi Judah the Prince around 200 CE. The Talmud is comprised of MISHNEH and the latter commentary on it called GEMORA.

[2] Psychoanalysis: the First Ten Years: Stewart page 45.

[3] The Talmud discusses this in Bovo Metsiah, regarding one who rented a donkey and the king took it for a while.

[4] Deut. 6:4 Commentary Sipurno of Rabbi Ovadiyo Zifroni of Italy circa 1550