The Talmud has just started the second chapter of Eruvin, which describes the “diomed” the double pillar used to enclose a water source for Sabbath use. Dio means two, and many English words use this prefix, including duality. The Gemara brings an ancient argument about how mankind was created. There is one opinion that Adam and Eve were created as one being, with a woman’s body attached to the back of the man. Later, God separated the female half from the male and made them into distinct bodies. An arguing take on Genesis is that Adam was created with an extra appendage like a tail, which was removed and shaped into Eve. (The Gemara here does not mention a rib, but there are other places in our tradition that bring that interpretation).

There is an incredible wisdom here. According to this opinion, humanity was created with equal parts masculinity and femininity. They complement and complete one another and both are needed to sustain human life. If men are lacking in masculinity (or it is repressed and ridiculed by society) then women become more masculine and less feminine to fill that gap. Then the men become more feminized to restore balance. And everyone suffers, since men are not doing what they are created for – being masculine, and the women are not fulfilling their purpose of being feminine.

The Gemara notes that in the dual being, the man walked first, and notes that it is improper for a man to walk behind a woman, since this causes lust. The Gemara notes even walking behind your wife is a problem, calling it shameful. A husband is allowed to lust for his wife, the problem here is abdicating leadership of the family to her. Again, when the man is not masculine then she steps into that role, causing chaos as no one is performing the roles they were meant for.  If both front and back try to walk forward, the partnership goes nowhere.

Our sages note that after Adam was punished by God, he repented, fasted and abstained from his wife for 130 years. The Gemara brings a tradition that during those 130 years Adam gave birth to dark spirits, demons, and Lilin (aka Lilith). How could that be if he was not with his wife? Our sages state that his accidental nocturnal emissions gave rise to these spirits (there is an apocryphal story that Adam was seduced by a Lilith, this is not a contradiction as Lilith is said to work through dreams). We have a whole discussion about Lilith and why this evil demon was adopted as a symbol by modern feminists.

There is a lot to unpack regarding Adam’s 130 years of celibacy. For now let us say that a man’s reproductive energy is meant to be harnessed for creative purposes, and when it is not it creates destructive fallout. A modern man should be aware that he has tremendous power to create and destroy with his sexuality. It is up to you to decide just how to make the best use of it, but if you do not control that decision, other people will try to.

Today the Talmud explains that some normal requirements of Jewish law, including certain Eruvin, are not required in the military camp.  In a time of war or emergency, we focus on the goal and do not require anything extraneous of the soldiers.

This is an idea that modern men can harness.  Create a specific goal or cause, maybe something like losing 20 pounds of fat or learning the basics of a language.  Set aside time to do this, and don’t indulge in your regular comforts and distractions.  You have a mission to do, soldier.

There is a danger that a man can fall into a state where he always feels pressed and strained.  You may have too many commitments that are pulling you.  It isn’t normal to always be in a state of emergency.  Take a break and reassess what is important to you (not to someone else) and what you can let go or delegate.  We use the army camp mindset as a temporary boost to accomplish a specific goal, not as a regular way of life.

The Talmud explores a leniency to allow travelling caravans to set up temporary walls during their travels, to allow the people to carry inside those boundaries on the Sabbath (some explain this leniency applies to anyone, but was typically used by travelers).  The enclosed area could be any size, but they may not enclose an area that is two beit se’ah larger than the space that they require.  If they had many personal effects, luggage, and animals, they would be allowed to enclose a larger space.

The lesson for modern men is the more “baggage” you have, the more space this takes up – in your mind.  Modern life is so complex and busy that we need to take the time to step back and simplify, reducing actual clutter and relationships that cause emotional clutter.

Today the Talmud brings a Mishnah One may construct side posts from anything, even a living creature, provided that it was properly attached to the entrance of the alleyway, and similarly we may write women’s bills of divorce on anything, even a living creature; But Rabbi Yosi HaGelili invalidates a bill of divorce written on a living creature.

The Gemara explains his opinion:
“When a man takes a wife, and marries her, then it comes to pass if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly thing in her; that he write her a scroll of severance and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house” (Deuteronomy 24:1): From the word scroll, I have derived that only a scroll is valid. From where is it derived to include all objects as valid materials upon which a bill of divorce may be written? The Torah states: “That he write her,” in any case, i.e., any surface upon which the formula can be written. If so, why does the verse state “scroll”? To tell you that a bill of divorce must be written on a surface like a scroll: Just as a scroll is neither alive nor food, so too, a bill of divorce may be written on any object that is neither alive nor food. That is why Rabbi Yosei HaGelili invalidates a bill of divorce written on a living being.

The other Rabbis use the word “scroll” to mean that the bill of divorce must tell the essentials of the act, not that it limits surfaces.  The Gemara continues:

And what do the Rabbis derive from the phrase “that he write her”? The Gemara answers: That phrase is required to teach the principle that a woman is divorced only by means of writing, i.e., a bill of divorce, and she is not divorced by means of money. It might have entered your mind to say: Since in the verse, leaving marriage, i.e., divorce, is juxtaposed to becoming married, i.e., betrothal, then, just as becoming married is effected with money, so too, leaving marriage may be effected with money. Therefore, the Torah teaches us: “That he write for her”; divorce can be effected only with a written bill of divorce.

So even in ancient then there was an unfounded idea that a man could simply buy her off and split.  We see this does not work, these needs to be a clean break.  Ironically, the modern legal system keeps ex spouses bound together financially for years.  In the ancient system women were typically given one year of support up front and men kept the children.

The lesson is don’t expect to pay your way out of your personal problems. 

 

Today the Talmud brings a famous mathematical concept: the relationship between diameter and circumference.  We know this to be an irrational number “Pi”.  Our sages allow approximating this number to 3 to make calculations easier.  This is based on King Solomon’s huge basin: “And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other:  It was round all about, and its height was five cubits; and a line of thirty cubits did circle it round about” (I Kings 7:23).

The Tosafot haRosh, Rambam, and others explain that our ancient sages definitely knew that the relationship between diameter and circumference is not exactly 3, but is measurably more.  There are also many instances in the Talmud showing that the ancient Rabbis were aware of Greek wisdom, so we cannot say they were unaware of Pi.

It appears that the Gemara brings the verse about Solomon’s basin as an leniency to prove we can get away with dividing by 3, for instance to establish that a pole with a circumference of 3 cubits is legally considered as being 1 cubit across, even though we know that it is really slightly less.  This allows us to approximate for purposes of Jewish law, such as the poles needed to divide a space from the street to allow carrying on the Sabbath.

In modern life we often have to rely on approximations and models, especially for human behavior.  There is a famous dueling acronym: NAWALT versus AWALT, meaning Not all women are like that and All women are like that.  You can imagine the implications.  Since we allow relying on approximations, we can give a practical example.  A woman with tattoos is, in general, more likely to have used illegal drugs and had more sexual partners than a woman without any tattoos.

Of course, this is merely an approximation and “NAWALT”.  However, you can save a lot of time and effort in your life using some reasonable approximations to weed out people you do not want to associate with.  Remember, the exceptions, when small, tend to prove the rule in general.

Today the Talmud discusses the career of Rabbi Meir, one of the major players in ancient times. Rabbi Meir initially came to study before Rabbi Akiva, and since he was unable to comprehend the teachings in accordance with his opinion, he came before Rabbi Yishmael and studied the tradition, and again came before Rabbi Akiva and studied logical analysis
Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that in the generation of Rabbi Meir there was no one of the Sages who is his equal. Why then didn’t the Sages establish the halakha in accordance with his opinion? It is because his colleagues were unable to ascertain the profundity of his opinion. He was so brilliant that he could present a cogent argument for any position, even if it was not consistent with the prevalent halakha. As he would state with regard to a ritually impure item that it is pure, and display justification for that ruling, and likewise he would state with regard to a ritually pure item that it is impure, and display justification for that ruling. The Sages were unable to distinguish between the statements that were halakha and those that were not.
We see from here that Rabbi Meir did not give up when he did not understand Rabbi Akiva. Instead he went back to the basics with Rabbi Yishmael and mastered Jewish tradition, so he could go deeper into the reasons behind the laws with Rabbi Akiva. Often we need more than one teacher or source to master an area of our lives. Be ready to look for other points of view and expositions of the topic you want to study.

This week in the Torah we read Deuteronomy 16:18–21:9, “Shoftim” meaning judges. 

This section includes the famous line “Justice, Justice shall you pursue, that you may live and possess the land the Lord, your God, is giving you” 16:20.  We discuss not only judges and the judicial process, but also prophets, priests, and appointing kings.  The first king, Saul, was actually elected.  Shoftim also covers rules for waging war, the definitions of murder and manslaughter, and a special ritual conducted for an unsolved murder, God forbid.

Agency

“If there will be found among you, within one of your cities which the Lord, your God is giving you, a man or woman who does evil in the eyes of the Lord, your God, to transgress His covenant,” (17:2)

We have discussed that the Bible makes crystal clear that men and women have equal agency.  Both men and women have the capacity to make rational and meaningful decisions in their life, and to enjoy the benefits and suffer the consequences of their choices. 

Many men in modern mainstream culture are suffering the consequences of someone else’s poor decisions.  They may be paying off the debts a spouse accrued pursuing a degree that does not pay for itself, or raising the children of another man who wouldn’t stay around.

Society will tell you that “man up” involves taking responsibility for other people’s life decisions.  That is a manipulation designed to saddle you as a plow horse.  Be cognizant of the messages you are being sent that are based on the error that women have less agency and responsibility and therefore men should step up and bail them out.  That idea is against the Bible.

My body, my choice

One of the key features of modern secular society is the concept that your physical body is entirely your own and you can exercise free choice regarding it.  The practical effect of this doctrine is to try to absolve women of any feelings of guilt or shame when they abort a pregnancy.  The same basic idea justifies tattoos, piercings, implants, as well as self destructive habits like smoking and excessive drinking.

Naturally, we don’t realize that most human beings, for most of human history, have had their bodies subject to others in stratified feudal or similar societies.  Regular men and women lived at the whim of lords or knights, the lords served the nobility, all served the king. Anyone could be pressed into royal or state service or sent to prison or sentenced to death for any or no reason. 

We still this a form of this reality in communist societies. We even have a faint echo of the concept in America where men (but not women) are subject to serious consequences for not registering for the draft. 

The state can still, if the politicians feel it necessary or profitable, control a man’s body and obligated him to give up his life. A man who refuses can lose his freedom and reputation instead.

However, the power of the kings, nobles, and the state to make decisions about your physical body has definitely decreased over the past 300 years.  In medieval times, there was no real concept that your body was your own property, as we understand this idea today.

Some of the first political reforms made were to reduce the power of the central authority over your body (see Magna Carta and habeas corpus).  Historically, in practically every ancient society, a woman was viewed as the property of her father and then her husband.  Not only were there no “strong independent women”, there were no independent women at all.

Nowadays, the mainstream expectation is that women are not only independent, but can terminate a pregnancy for any or no reason.  In addition, modern medical technology enables abortion to be easy and safe. 

They did have abortions in ancient times, but they were rare, unsafe, and usually illegal.  We take for granted the idea of “my body my choice”.  Today we don’t appreciate how different your personal authority is compared to what it would have been 200 years ago in most of the world. 

The Bible doesn’t support this concept.  Jews are commanded to eat certain foods, avoid cutting and ripping our out hair in grief, tattoos are forbidden.  Abortion is not banned, but limited to very specific circumstances.  You can understand these commands as demonstrating that God gave you your body and expects you to take care of it.  Even that your body is not truly your own, but is a loan from God that you need to return in good condition.  It sounds very anti-modern.

This week there is another implied prohibition on what you can do with your own body.  Deuteronomy 17:6 says that a man or woman is punished because of the eyewitness testimony.  Biblical law does not allow hearsay.  A man or woman cannot be punished if they walk into court and confess the crime. 

In modern secular courts one of the biggest ways to convict people is to get them to confess some of the crimes they are accused of.  This is why prosecutors add in numerous grave charges then offer a plea bargain: plead guilty to a lesser offense instead of going to trial for all the charges and risking more punishment.  

In recent decades there has been justified criticism of plea bargaining as conducted in the modern legal system.  I’ll stick to the Biblical view: the Bible does not allow plea bargaining.  Indeed, if the criminal confesses he is not punished by the court.  Our great legal sage Rambam (Maimonides) in Mishneh Torah, Laws of the Sanhedrin, 18:6 codified this law for criminal cases.  He also suggests that the person might be using a devious method to commit suicide or get lashes to satisfy a sadomasochistic bend.

We see this in modern men.  Many men live in very frustrating conditions.  Yes, their bodies are technically free but in their minds they are bound to their jobs, spouses, houses, children just as much as peasants in the middle ages were bound to their lord’s land and service.  They are the faithful plow horse for their woman, their employer, their society. 

Even when a man is aware of the frustration and pain he goes through for others, there is often some sadomasochistic satisfaction in being the martyr, the rock, the oak.  It can take a great emotional shock for a man to realize he can begin to make choices for himself rather than to put his wife, child, job, boss, coworker first. Sometimes choosing to help yourself enables you to better help others.

Understand that real power is not controlling others, but your ability to control yourself and freely make decisions for your personal benefit.  A man should be attuned to the messages modern society pushes on men, encouraging men to  sacrifice for others and become willing servants for women.

Unlike criminal law, in Jewish monetary (civil) laws, an admission is considered fact.  If two men argue about the amount owed on a loan, the admission of either party is binding “like 100 witnesses” (Talmud Gittin 40b).  Your money is considered yours, but your body is not. 

To a certain extent, whatever you earned and gathered in this life is the result of your own work and initiative.  If you put your time and energy into your fortune, you can admit that you owe some of it to another man.  The court will accept that even if it is not factually true.  Your possessions are under your jurisdiction. 

By comparison, your body is not fully yours.  It is a gift or a loan from God and your parents.  In conventional Judaism we teach that every person is created by a partnership between Father, Mother, and God (Talmud Kiddushin 31).  This is to teach us that we should honor our parents who gave us life (Leviticus 19:3).

Part of the underlying cause of the problems we have in modern secular society stem from a lack of appreciation for the value of human life.  Children are not taught to respect parents, that isn’t cool.  People outside of minority religious subcultures are totally unfamiliar with the idea of respecting God who gives us life.  If we don’t even appreciate the gift of our own lives, how do we even begin to respect other human beings?

It’s good to be the king

You shall set a king over you, one whom the Lord, your God, chooses; from among your brothers, you shall set a king over yourself; you shall not appoint a foreigner over yourself, one who is not your brother.

Only, he may not acquire many horses for himself, so that he will not bring the people back to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, for the Lord said to you, “You shall not return that way any more.” And he shall not take many wives for himself, and his heart must not turn away, and he shall not acquire much silver and gold for himself.  (17:15-17)

A historical note, Egypt was known as a source of fine horses, and apparently ancient kings would sell their people as slaves to Egypt in return for these horses.  But too many horses (also representing military power), too much wealth, and too many wives can corrupt even the most righteous king. 

Rashi, a prominent commentator on the Bible 1000 years ago, drawing from more ancient sources in the Talmud, explains what the Bible actually means by many wives.  ולא ירבה לו נשים “Nor shall he multiply for himself wives”: only eighteen, for we find that David had six wives, and then it was announced to him (by Nathan the prophet): “Thus saith the Lord … I gave thy master’s wives into thy bosom… and if they are too little, add unto thee such as these and such as these i.e. thrice as many as before” (2 Samuel 12:8, Talmud Sanhedrin 21a).

The limit of 18 wives (there is discussion in the Talmud if this total includes concubines or just full wives) was based on the fact that King David had six wives already when he became king over all of Israel.  II Sam. 3:2–5 records his six wives when in Hebron as: Ahinoam of Jezreel, Avigail wife of Naval the Carmelite, Maacah daughter of Talmai, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah.  Eglah refers to Michal the daughter of King Saul. 

Later in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 12) Nathan told him, based on prophecy, that he should add on “like these and like these” meaning six more and six more, for a total of 18. 

While King Solomon amassed many more than 18, most of these were political marriages designed to cement alliances between Israel and other kingdoms.  We can assume the “700 wives who were princesses” were foreign princesses, some of the 300 concubines may have been from less important kingdoms as well (1 Kings 11:3). 

Those foreign wives who were married for political ends became a source of problems when they brought idolatry to Israel.  Of course, Solomon had converted these foreign women to Judaism, but he did not ensure they were totally weaned from idolatry. 

We understand instinctively that there is a vast difference between a woman converting out of love and devotion for a man rather than due to political expediency.  In fact, a woman willing to change her religion for a man is a tremendous sign of her genuine desire for him.  Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, thought that since these marriages were for politics and not love, the extra wives would not corrupt him.  Perhaps with so many women he thought it was impossible.  No one can outsmart the Bible.

David’s wives

By contrast, King David did not marry for politics, but had personal romantic pursuits with specific women throughout his career, even before he became a king.  It does appear that his first wife, Michal the daughter of King Saul, was given as a prize by Saul.  1 Samuel 18:27: “David took his men and went out and killed two hundred Philistines and brought back their foreskins.  They counted out the full number to the king so that David might become the king’s son-in-law.  Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage.” 

After David became popular as a military leader, Saul was concerned he was becoming a rival for the throne and began to plot against him.  When David fled, before he claimed Michal as his bride, Saul gave Michal to Palti ben Layish to punish David.  Palti to his credit never consummated the sham marriage with Michal, because he knew David had already betrothed her with the foreskins (Sanhedrin 19).  Saul relied on a minority opinion that this engagement was not valid per the Law. 

During this period when David was out of Jerusalem, he indeed became a rival power to King Saul, building up prestige and an independent military force.  During this time he met and married a number of other women, including Avigail, who stopped David from executing her first husband Naval (I Samuel 25).  Naval later died and Avigail married David. That episode we will explore another time, God willing.

By the time he moved to Jerusalem David had six wives.  This was not unusual in ancient times, as we explained regarding polygyny.  King David is an example that when it comes to women, nothing succeeds like success.  In other words, women want a man that other women want.  This known as “preselection“.  Since women have selected a man as a good mate, other women become interested as well.  Even before he was king, women were interested in David because women were interested in David.

This concept can be applied in a variety of circumstances.  If you are perceived as comfortable around women around you, other women will assume they approve of you.  Even if you are not going out to meet people, but you are dating in order to get married and start a family, women can tell if you are at ease around them.  If you are calm and speak naturally around a woman you just met, this shows you already have had positive conversations with women.  This is an element of preselection and puts her at ease as well.

Another kingly asset of David was the mindset of abundance, allowing him to be honest with his wives.  As a man who was successful with women, and had multiple wives, he could afford to risk offending one wife.  A man who lacks a feeling of abundance may refrain from speaking openly with his woman for fear of losing her affection.  We see David’s approach in the famous incident of bringing the Holy Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:16-23): 

“As the Ark of the LORD entered the City of David, Michal daughter of Saul looked out of the window and saw King David leaping and whirling before the LORD; and she despised him for it”…”David went home to greet his household.

And Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet David and said, “Didn’t the king of Israel do himself honor today—exposing himself today in the sight of the servant girls of his subjects, as one of the riffraff might expose himself!”

David answered Michal, “It was before the LORD who chose me instead of your father and all his family and appointed me ruler over the LORD’s people Israel!  I will dance before the LORD and dishonor myself even more, and be low in my own esteem; but among the servant girls that you speak of I will be honored.”

Our sages elaborate that David, compared to Saul, did not care as much about public opinion.  He was willing to risk looking like a commoner to glorify God.  Saul by contrast refrained from completing the Divine command to wipe out Amalek because the men with him urged him to spare the best animals (1 Samuel 15).  Saul’s openness to being influenced by public opinion cost him the monarchy. 

David by contrast is not influenced by his wife’s criticism, or popular opinion.  Since he knows he was doing God’s will and doesn’t care what her or the people think about it.  David can afford to be honest with Michal and reject her criticism even though it was offensive to bring up her father’s failure.  He has the mindset of abundance. 

If one wife criticized him, David would not feel hurt or be tempted to change his appropriate behavior to appease her.  He could be objective about her criticism and calmly evaluate if it was true. He had 17 other wives to take care of his physical and emotional needs.  When a man is independent of the need to get approval from a woman, he can do what is right by him and God, and doesn’t need to worry about doing right by her.  

David shows us that having abundance leads to confidence in dealing with women. Confidence is derived from options.

You don’t need an actual harem, having the experience to know that you could attract a new woman if you want gives you the mindset.  You can deal with the women you have in your life with more poise and self assurance.  You don’t have to accept bad behavior as part of the deal because you can find a different deal that doesn’t involve bad behavior. 

It may sound rude or shocking to advise a man to keep in mind that he can replace his woman.  However, you should know that many women think precisely this way.  A 2014 study of women in relationships reported that about half, including married women, admitted to having a backup man to turn to if her relationship does not go how she wants.

Some admitted wanting to go over to the backup guy when she could, and that he had confessed love for her.  That is not merely creating a mentality of abundance, but acting to allow to change to new partner whenever she wants.  You shouldn’t feel strange for doing what many women already do.

This study was for society at large, conventional Judaism retains some buffers that make it more impractical for a woman to have male friends.  For example, men and women never alone together when it could lead to sin, and this prohibition is extra stringent for married women.  In more traditional circles, while of course men and women talk politely, it is considered odd for a man and woman to have more than a casual exchange of greetings unless they are family or dating.

War Ecology

When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit.  Do not cut them down. Are the trees people, that you should besiege them? 
However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls.  Deuteronomy 20:19–20.

In modern culture, Judaism gets associated with environmentalism.  This is partly due to more secular strains of Judaism embracing environmentalist agendas.  When people have abandoned ancient Jewish concepts, they need something to do in place of actual Jewish practice.  People without strong faith will buy into something, anything to feel important and useful.  However, the Bible does inform mankind to preserve the environment when possible, even during a war, when trees were needed to build fortifications.

There is a Biblical commandment not to waste fruit trees, which our sages extend to wasting food in general: “Not only does this apply to trees, but also whoever breaks vessels or tears garments, destroys a building, blocks a wellspring of water, or destructively wastes food, transgresses the command of bal tashchit (do not waste)” Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 6:10.

However, it is clear that regular trees should be cut down to make the siege engines to allow men to attack walled cities.  The environment is valuable but ultimately is given by God for the service of men: “Fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” (Gen 1:28). 

This allowance comes with a responsibility to act as a responsible caretaker over the earth and safeguard it for the next generation (Gen 2:15).  The Bible views man as the pinnacle of creation, when men are acting appropriately all of the prior creations are for our careful use.  This concept helps men to understand our importance in the vast universe.  Sure, you are a tiny and temporary speck.  But you are a speck of Divine power and can accomplish great things.

This piece of the Bible is also instructive regarding war.  War is inevitable, and inherently destructive. However, even the soldiers engaged in the siege need to keep in mind their duty to minimize the damage to the land by preserving the fruit trees.  After the war the land will need to be rebuilt, as King Solomon stated: “a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace”  Ecclesiastes 3:8.  Taking the long view helps you get through whatever life battle you are in.  Now is the time to struggle, but there will come a time to rebuild.

War and one-itis

The Bible informs us that there are exemptions from serving in combat.  One of these carries serious implications for modern men:

And what man is there who has betrothed a woman and has not yet taken her? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the war, and another man take her. (20:7)

A man on the battlefield who has betrothed (engaged) his future wife will be distracted by thoughts of her, and the very real fear of never coming home to build a life with her.  The young soldier will be thinking about the tragic possibility that he will perish and never marry this girl.  If he goes MIA or is captured, she will be trapped as an agunah, forbidden to marry since she was betrothed to him. 

Even the bravest soldier may, subconsciously, shirk from his duties in war and avoid danger due to these intensely emotional issues.  The other men might also feel that it would be tragic for this future groom to die and take unnecessary risks to protect him in battle.  The groom to be may abandon his comrades during a fateful attack, pulled by his feelings for his fiancé and the urge to avoid having her wed another.

This soldier seems to have a condition known as “one-itis”, meaning a man’s fixation on a certain specific woman as his soul mate.  His feelings for this girl can degrade his effectiveness in war, and the tragic scenario can put other soldier at risk.  The Bible allows this soldier to return home instead of endangering his unit.  The Bible recognizes the depth of a man’s emotions and the practical effects they can have.

Our sages explain that this exemption also applies in the first year of marriage, a man is supposed to stay home and “gladden the heart of his new wife”.  This verse appears in next week’s reading: “When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out in the army, nor shall he be subjected to anything associated with it. He shall remain free for his home for one year and delight his wife, whom he has taken.” 24:5.

The Bible teaches that the first year of marriage is the ideal time for a man and woman to grow together as couple, and that the man has an obligation to make his wife happy.  Modern society has a bizarre slogan “happy wife, happy life” which is usually invoked by a man to explain why he cannot do what he wants to do, since he has to be careful not to offend his woman. 

The conventional Jewish approach is nothing like this.  A Jewish man has to learn what drives his woman’s emotional states and make use of her emotions to strengthen their marriage.  Men and women are different.  Women are more emotional and sensitive, a man needs to be aware his wife is not a man, she does not respond the same way to logic and reason.  He has to appeal to her heart, not her mind.  The first year of marriage is his prime time to learn these concepts and to deal with her nature in a mature and productive manner.

Part of appealing to women is actually not always giving in to make her happy.  This will sound counter intuitive, but women prefer a man who can say no when appropriate over a man who always says yes to her.  Of course, a man has to say yes when it is warranted.

A man with a mission who can say no to her whims to further his mission is more attractive and actually makes her happy.  This is how the Bible intends men to gladden their wives.

 

The Talmud debates how to fix a courtyard with one open wall in order to make an Eruv allowing carrying within the courtyard on Shabbat.  The sages bring a statement of Shmuel that adding just one board to the open end would fix the courtyard, and compare this to other opinions requiring boards on both side of the opening.  The Gemara concludes that if a large board (4 hands breadths wide) is used, then it is enough to fix one side with the large board.  If we add to both sides, then even a tiny board will work to allow an Eruv

Today the Talmud discusses an alleyway with a large opening, too large to make an Eruv there, and how to fix that opening.  Various methods are suggested, the overall factor is if the walled space if larger than the open then it is considered closed.  You could put up even small boards with gaps between them to begin to wall off the opening and reduce it to the proper size for an Eruv.

This hints to us that we may feel overwhelmed by what we need to accomplish – it appears too open, too much space to fill in.  If we start to “close off” by getting small things done, we can succeed by shifting our perspective.  When your life appears chaotic and unfinished, focus on getting one area under control and walled off, and gradually realize you are on the path to greatness.

The Talmud discusses if a side post at the entrance to an alley which is only visible from the outside of the alley (the main street) serves to allow joining the alley in an Eruv.  The Gemara brings a law, and Rav Yosef comments that he never heard this statement.  His student Abaye replied that Rav Yosef is the one who taught him the same statement, and explains the context where he taught it.  Rav Yosef had taken ill and the illness caused him to forget much of his learning (detailed in Nedarim 41).  However, he returned to the study hall and continued, even though he had to be reminded of many concepts by his students.

This is the mark of a truly humble man: he is able to learn from those he once taught. Rav Yosef could have stayed silent and his students would have assumed that he knew the law since he had once taught it.  Instead he risks embarrassing himself to fully understand what he once knew and taught.

Our sages (in Ethics of the Fathers 5:7), compare a wise man with a Golem (not meaning a literal Golem but a man who is empty, zombie like or robotic in life).  One of the comparisons is “concerning something which he has not heard, he says: I have not heard; And he acknowledges the truth.  The reverse of these are characteristic of a Golem.”  This means that the Golem, when hearing something he already knows, says I heard that already.  What is wrong with that?  The Golem thinks he knows the whole story and tunes out.  He misses any novel interpretation the speaker is giving, since the Golem thinks he knows it all.  The wise man admits he didn’t hear what he didn’t hear, how is that deep wisdom?  Even if he already knew 99% of the subject he says he never knew the 1% and appreciates expanding his horizons.

When you hear something important, even if you are the one who taught it, from someone else, then that person gives his own nuance into it.  Rav Yosef relearned his own teaching from his students, but this was not a chore since his students gave back more than they received.  You man need to hear the same concept repeated from different sources before you truly understand and apply it.