The Talmud discusses a situation when a larger courtyard has a smaller area in the back, a back lot.  From the point of view of the large area, there are walls on either side of the small back lot.  But from the smaller lot, you don’t see the walls.  This causes an issue with carrying in the smaller area, unless adjustments are made.

In an interesting twist, the Gemara explains that this large yard is 11 cubits wide while the small one is 10 cubits wide.  Just one cubit completely alters how a man standing in each yard views the other!

This hints to a psychological insight:  when you appear larger to others, they might not see your limitations.  When someone appears smaller or beneath you, you clearly see the walls that enclose and limit them.  This idea gives you some capabilities.  You can compare yourself to a successful man, and see what is holding you back compared to his situation.  Then you start breaking down those walls that restrict you.  Also, you can work on displaying confidence and charisma so you appear larger than life to others, and they don’t see your limitations.  They are (subconsciously) busy trying to figure out if they measure up to you instead.

The Talmud discusses if it would be possible to create an Eruv in an alley with unconventional walls: a large trash heap on one side, and a steep bank of the sea or river on the other.  Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not forbid it outright, since these features were currently valid walls, but he did not give permission to make an Eruv there, since the trash heap could be cleared out and the sea or river may bring sediment, eroding the bank.  That would reduce the steepness of the bank, making more of a beach, which is not considered a valid wall.

This hints to an important concept: you make boundaries, you set limits as to what behaviors you will tolerate from other people (and yourself).  If your boundaries are solid walls that are not in danger of changing, this provides a solid structure to your life.  Everyone knows where the walls are and they don’t move.  This is beneficial for everyone.  When you know the borders of your domain, you can invite people in without wrecking the place.

Our ancient Rabbis expose the danger of having weak boundaries.  Sure, they are legally considered walls right now… but that can change.  The pile of junk can get cleared off by other people, or they can pick through it and take things out.  This represents how you may modify your boundaries in response to the needs of others.  Someone can come into your system and change your border, your expectations, if you let them.  The waves and currents can erode the bank and eventually there is no sea wall, just a little beach leading right into the water.  This shows that over time, if not reinforced, your boundaries do erode.  Only actively shoring up your personal expectations can prevent this.

Today the Talmud explores a key concept of consistency.  The Gemara, continuing a topic from yesterday, notes that a U shaped alleyway in Nehardea was required to have separate fixes to become a valid Eruv, even though this meant following two stringencies proposed by two separate sages.  Today the Gemara notes:

one should not act either in accordance with the leniency of the one Master and in accordance with the leniency of the other Master, nor should one act in accordance with the stringency of the one Master and in accordance with the stringency of the other Master. Rather, one should act either in accordance with both the leniencies and the stringencies of the one Master, or in accordance with both the leniencies and the stringencies of the other Master.

The Gemara explains the alleyway in Nehardea by bringing an opinion that you can follow two stringencies when they do not conflict with each other.

Many times in conventional Judaism we follow, when possible, a stringency due to doubts in the law or to give respect to the great men who supported the strict opinion.  But this is only when the stringency does not contradict another valid opinion.  There are many heavy hitters in Jewish law, and some people look for leniencies from different sources.  It is especially praiseworthy when a man follows one reliable opinion no matter where that takes him.

 

A practical example would be lifting.  You must decide when to use a very heavy weight with very few reps, or many reps with a light weight.  You can’t do a lot of reps with your maximum load, and doing few reps with lighter weight accomplishes nothing.  As long as you are consistent you can decide which approach to use, and even apply different methods on different days.  In general, if you are too hard on yourself in certain areas you may be setting yourself up for failure, or you may become to lenient in other sectors of your life.

Today the Talmud discusses when it is possible to make an Eruv to allow Sabbath carrying on a main street.  Historically, the main street of a city ran straight from one end to the other.  In some cities this main thoroughfare was open on both ends, others had gates on one or both sides.

The Gemara explores if the gates need to be locked to allow making an Eruv there.  Our sages note that in the ancient city of Nehardea, in Babylonia, the gates were stuck due to the sand and dirt accumulations holding the doors in place.  The Gemara points out that when Rav Nachman came to Nehardea, he ordered the doors cleaned off so they could be closed.  This would seem to prove that the doors need to be closed, but the Gemara concludes that it only proves that the doors need to be able to be closed.  If it is possible to close the city gates, they serve the purpose of demarcating the Eruv even when open.

This highlights an important psychological concept.  If you are clearly capable of something, you often don’t need to show it in action.  The obvious example is a man who is muscular, confident and looks like he can win a fight.  He doesn’t typically get into fights, since most men will properly size him up and avoid conflict.  By contrast, a man who appears weak but is mouthing off is more likely to get into an actual fight.

The same applies in relationships.  When a man gives off the impression that he is ready to walk away from a partner if he is not treated well, then he gets treated well.  A man who thinks he has no options subconsciously signals to other people that they can walk all over him and he won’t protest.  This is mainly due to his own mindset that he does not have the option to get into a better relationship.

This week Jews around the world study Deuteronomy 11:26–16:17, “Re’eh”, meaning “See” from the opening verse: “See, I give you today a blessing and a curse”.  The grammatical form is the imperative, connoting “You need to see”.  The verb is also in the singular, implying that each man must open his own eyes and realize his situation: that he is responsible for his own personal choices.

In Re’eh, Moses continues his farewell address to the Jewish nation, emphasizing that each man has a choice to make between blessing and curse, life and death.  Moses commands that the Jews rid the Holy Land of idols, and reveals that in the future they will pick a place to build a Temple to God (12:5).  Jerusalem is never mentioned in the first five books of the Bible simply because it was not chosen as this place yet.  Moses teaches the laws of a false prophet (13:2), and when someone tempts others to idolatry (13:7).  There is also the famous case of a city that turns to idolatry and must be razed (13:13).

This section of the Bible also gives the signs of Kosher animals, fish, and birds (14:3), and the commandment to bring a tithe to the chosen place (14:22).  Moses explains the concept of releasing loans and slaves with the sabbatical year (15).  Finally this section describes how the Jews will make pilgrimages three times a year to the Temple (16).

Scorched Earth

“You shall utterly destroy from all the places where the nations, that you shall possess, worshiped their gods, upon the lofty mountains and upon the hills, and under every lush tree.  And you shall tear down their altars, smash their monuments, burn their asherim with fire, cut down the graven images of their gods, and destroy their name from that place.” (12:2-3)

The Holy Land is a special place.  It was not good enough for the Jews to go in and make their own temple to God.  That would make it just one among many holy places.  You can’t set up a Temple to the One God when down the street the pagans are performing child sacrifices and tending their grove of ashera.  God instructed us to uproot the idolatrous influences from Israel, even changing the names of places that had been associated with idols.

This commandment is given just after Moses instructs the Jews that each man needs to see the reality that he has a choice in life between blessings and curses.  The ancient Jews held a ceremony (described in Ki Tavo Deuteronomy 27:11-16) where half the people stood on Mount Grizim and half on Mount Eval, and recited the blessings and curses.  But what is the connection between your life choices and annihilating idols from the Holy Land?

Even though we have free will and make our own choices, we are in large part the product of our environment and culture.  When we see people regularly engaging in activities we are influenced by this and start to think those activities are normal and acceptable.  If the ancient Jews had seen idols and men engaged in idolatry, eventually they would have accepted this and been lured to follow.

Indeed, this tragedy eventually happened since our ancestors were not totally successful in eliminated idols from the promised land.  To the ancients, idolatry was not stupid and superstitious.  Today we don’t appreciate how easy it was in the past to get sucked into such a cult.  But back then they had entire cultures and belief structures built around idols and pagan rituals.  They even had access to supernatural powers to “prove” their cult was correct.  When everyone you knew believed in idols, it was easy to go along with it.

This fact clues us in that our choices are not entirely our own, but we make choices in the context of our environment.  One of my own rabbis told us that he was a very religious soul, and if he had been born in Haiti he would have become a fervent believer in the power of voodoo.  He told us this to remind us that our society of origin plays a huge role in how we view the world.

Remember, the Bible did not command the Jews to annihilate the idol worshipers, but to utterly destroy the idols themselves.   (The notable exceptions being Amalek and Midian, where the Jews were commanded to wipe out those nations to the last man for physically attacking us).  The inhabitants of the promised land who had engaged in idolatry were given a choice: abandon it and remain in Israel if they accept the Noahide laws, which includes a prohibition on idolatry.  Or leave the Holy Land and continue their idolatry somewhere else.

Moses teaches the Jews that the current inhabitants of Israel won’t be able to make a meaningful choice if their idols and altars still exist.  This is a deep psychological insight, and humans today are basically the same as we were 3600 years ago.  Many people still engage in the same sort of magical thinking that allowed idolatry to thrive.  Men cannot truly break free from their prior mistakes if they are still steeped in that framework.  Only be destroying the idols can the former idolaters be presented with a valid chance to choose between abandoning idolatry completely or leaving the holy land.

The command to eliminate anything to do with idols reminds us that when we need to do something special, we should focus completely on that.  This is especially true for spiritual pursuits, but also applies to our health, financial, and educational ventures.  This commandment reminds us that we are the product of our environment.  We are told by the Bible to choose blessing, good, and life.  Sounds great.

The problem is that in modern society, most men are given the definitions of these concepts them by outside narratives.  The media,  schools, politicians, public interest groups, and opinion makers have their own definitions of good and evil that may not be helpful or healthy for young men.  In modern public schools boys are taught to act like girls, and many medicated if they act like boys.  Men are told that to be a real man means putting a woman in charge of your life.

This narrative is so pervasive that it takes a real effort to realize it even exists…

The first step is to realize that your own free will is exercised in a context.  For most of us this context is modern secular society, which has it’s own agenda that conflicts with your personal best interest.  When you begin to realize that you are being fed definitions and shoved into a certain framework, you can think about how to make your own definitions and build your own framework for life.  Many men never open their eyes, and assume they are making free will decisions, when all of their decisions are based on someone else’s paradigm.

Brothers, wives, friends

If your brother, the son of your mother, tempts you in secret or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your embrace, or your friend, who is as your own soul saying, “Let us go and worship other gods, which neither you, nor your forefathers have known.” (13:7)

This is a famous “mesit“, or tempter.  In Jewish law, when a man is on trial, even for murder, the judges are commanded to look for exculpating evidence and argue for his innocence (Numbers 35:24–25).  This is the origin of the modern concept of innocent until proven guilty.  Only by the mesit does this  law change based on “You shall not desire him, and you shall not hearken to him; neither shall you pity him, have mercy upon him, nor shield him” (13:9).  Of course, the court still needs reliable eyewitness testimony, hearsay is not admissible in Jewish courts. 

Part of the reason behind this extremely harsh treatment of the tempter to idolatry is that idolatry undermines the foundations of Jewish society.  Entire Jewish cities could be wiped off the map if most of the inhabitants gave in to temptation (13:13-19).  This accentuates Moses’ earlier point that your free will decisions are made in context of your culture.  A culture that tolerates people who proselytize for idolatry will get more idolatry.  Each man makes his own choice in life, but when many other men are making a bad choice, that becomes more acceptable for him.

The verse 13:7 points out an interesting aspect of ancient culture.  A man’s brothers, children, wives, and close friends were considered equally influential on his choices.  The wife is third on the list, after brothers and children.  Part of this may be due to the historical reality that men were usually out of the house, in the fields and markets, which were primarily male spaces.

Children are also listed before the wife.  This is especially odd as in Jewish law a man and wife are considered one unit, one body for certain areas of law.  Jewish wisdom teaches that women have a profound effect on the spiritual achievements of men, and that their heavenly reward is even greater than that of the men, when they send their men out to learn and worship.  We see this amazing female power in the opposite direction as well, such as Jezebel, who influenced king Ahab to idolatry, and the foreign wives of King Solomon.

We can speculate that Moses is reminding the men that they should not allow their wives to be the sole source of their ideas about life.  A man needs to have brothers and close friends, a tribe, a “hevra” or “habura” in Hebrew.  A group of men who are his friends, his society.  They are outside source of inspiration and validation.  If a man relies only on his wife as the prism to view his life, he can get the wrong picture.  Women understand life differently than men do, that’s not am insult, that is simply how we are created.

Men are hierarchical, competitive, logical and direct.  Women are collaborative (at least they appear so externally) and have deeper emotional insight.  A man needs other men to help him judge his personal growth and spiritual achievements per masculine standards.  This is especially true in conventional Judaism, where much of our spiritual life is gendered.  Men learn Talmud (Gemara) and pray daily with the community.  Women are not required to do this and don’t engage in these activities*.  They can’t give men appropriate feedback on their efforts from a male perspective.
*Women are, ideally, expected to master the areas of Jewish Law that are practically relevant to them, which is an immense amount of nuanced material that many men have difficulty understanding.

In modern mainstream society “male spaces” are almost nonexistent, since women are expected to be welcomed and accommodated in every group.  Now there is a dearth of masculine spaces for men to get honest feedback on how to improve how they are performing as a man.  A modern man starts to rely on a female interpretation of his performance as a man, and this is a great danger for him.

Men get respect from other men for performance and competency, not just for showing up.  The respect earned from other men shapes how a young man sees himself, and gives him incentive to further self development.  A man should not want to “be a better man” for approval from a woman.  Being better as a man earns masculine merit.  A man should have brothers and friends that are so close to him that they could influence him towards idolatry – or to the opposite.

The highest charity

Charity is a Jewish innovation.  Before the Jews brought ethical monotheism to the world, poor people usually starved.  In a polytheistic world, why would the followers of Asherah help the servants of Baal?  If Baal wanted his people to live he would provide them food!  For the followers of Asherah, letting the Baalites starve would prove that Asherah was stronger than Baal, or demonstrate that the servants of Baal were being less pious and deserved their punishment.  Polytheism invites selfishness and destroys the human impulse to charity.  The Talmud (Bava Batra 10a) brings an illustrative exchange between our great sage Rabbi Akiva and a Roman politician:

Turnus Rufus asked Rabbi Akiva: “If your God loves the poor, why doesn’t He feed them?” Rabbi Akiva replied to him: “So that we should be saved from purgatory (in the merit of the charity we give).”

“On the contrary: for this you deserve to be punished. I’ll give you an analogy: This is analogous to a king who got angry at his slave and locked him away in a dungeon, and commanded that he not be given to eat or to drink; and a person came along and gave him to eat and to drink. When the king hears of this, is he not angry at that person?”

Said Rabbi Akiva to him: “I’ll give you an analogy: This is analogous to a king who got angry at his child and locked him away in a dungeon, and commanded that he not be given to eat or to drink; and a person came along and gave him to eat and to drink. When the king hears of this, does he not reward that person . . . ?”

This ancient conversation highlights the innovation of Jewish charity.  The ancient Romans viewed the poor as rebellious slaves who didn’t even deserve to live.  So the rich need not make an effort to feed the poor (famously the Romans kept the poor masses occupied with bread and games so they would not riot and overthrow the rich).  From the Roman’s analogy we understand that they viewed their deities as fickle and punitive.

However, the Jews see all of mankind as the children to God (14:1), as all men are created in the Divine image (Genesis 1:26).  We know God has no physical image, this is a spiritual concept only.  When a father must punish a child, the father is not being fickle, he is trying to educate and improve his son.  He doesn’t even want to hurt his son, but spare the rod…

We are commanded to be charitable because God wants His children to take care of one another.  As a father, one of the most distressing things is when your children scream and fight with each other.  The most pleasant time is when they get along and help one another.  God does not experience emotions like humans do, but the idea is the same.

When there will be among you a needy person, from one of your brothers in one of your cities, in your land the Lord, your God, is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, and you shall not close your hand from your needy brother.  Rather, you shall open your hand to him, and you shall lend him sufficient for his needs, which he is lacking. (15:7-8)

We are commanded to give charity but the word used means to lend money (ha’avet, see 15:6).  The Bible clearly states that making loans is charity.  How are loans the paradigm of charity?  The lender gets back what he gave!

Real charity is not a hand out, but a hand up.  You don’t lend a man $10k for cigarettes and liquor, but you could lend that for him to start a business or to invest for profit.  The borrower is going to use the money to make more money, allowing him to support himself and repay the lender.  Jewish law, including Maimonides, rules that giving to a man to get him independent and on his own two feet is the highest level of charity.

When you ‘lend’ money, you must keep in mind that you may not get it back.  Your loan may become pure charity.  Don’t “lend” money that you absolutely need to get back.  The Bible gives us the commandment to forgive loans every seven years in part to remind lenders of this fact of life (15:1).

For there will never cease to be needy within the land.  Therefore, I command you, saying, you shall surely open your hand to your brother, to your poor one, and to your needy one in your land (15:11).

Judaism does not idealize the human situation.  There will always be needy in the world.  Interestingly, the Bible uses a different word for truly destitute and starving (ani) and for relatively needy (evyon) as used here.  The Bible reminds us that some men will have more than others, and that this is the normal human situation, as we organize societies in hierarchical fashion.

However, if a society becomes wealthier, the rising tide lifts all ships.  A man can be fairly well off objectively, not starving and certainly not a pauper, but still be needy compared to other men in his own society.  A “poor” man in today’s America has vastly more wealth and access to abundance than a “rich” man did 100 years ago.  A “poor” man in America would be considered amazingly wealthy in some other places in the world.  Giving and lending to this man is still charity.

There are other religions and quasi religious political movements that preach that they will bring about perfect equality and an elimination of poverty.  This will happen soon they say, as soon as their chosen enemy is defeated.  The communists promised plenty for all as soon as the evil capitalists were destroyed, then they starved their political enemies by the millions.  Some extremists promise tranquility as soon as the infidels are wiped out, and they kill one another more than the infidel.  Environmentalists pledge perfect cleanliness when the extra people and polluting industries are removed, feminists promise perfect world harmony and happiness when the men are totally under their thumbs…

Beware of any movement promising such nonsense.  The Bible doesn’t engage in such fantasy and wishful thinking.  The Bible is totally realistic; part of being realistic is acknowledging that men have an important spiritual component.  The Bible is also realistic about how mankind functions in economic and social life.  Human beings are hierarchical, some men work harder, longer, or smarter than others.  The Bible states that this is an innate human reality.

Some take measured risks and gain windfalls.  Some lead and organize other men to build business and industry and accomplish more than one man could do alone.  If such activities are not rewarded with more material wealth, then that society disincentives work, risk, and leadership.  Sure, some men are born blessed, or lucky, or with silver spoon in hand.  Life isn’t fair, and the Bible says it never will be perfectly fair.  This gradient creates incentives for men to improve themselves and adapt to succeed in their situation.

Beware of religious and quasi-religious movements that promise an idealized future that they will create as soon as they get total power,  They are all liars.  They really want control at any cost, not harmony and equality.  And we know from our study of responsibility, people who cannot control themselves try to control others.

The Bible doesn’t want to control you, God wants you to take control of your own life and improve it. Choose life, and choose your life: make your choices with your best interests in mind.  Men can work on themselves and do better, and raise the levels and standards for their entire society.

Only when men can make real and meaningful choices about their lives is this possible.  You cannot do that in heaven or in a socialist or feminist dystopia.  Part of using your free will is realizing that in real life, some men will always have more and less than others, and doing what you can to help your brothers.  The Bible is a guide for this life, not a promise of a perfect utopia.

Today the Talmud touches on the opening between the public street and an alleyway, noting that if the beam on top of the entrance is too low, one could dig out the ground to get the minimum clearance under the beam.  Our sages disagree about how wide an area would need to be dug out, one requiring a significant section.  The interesting thing is that another solution would be to simply raise the beam to the minimum height without digging.

This reminds us that some people will try to lower others to make themselves feel better.  They dig into others, trying to lower them, so they can think they are relatively better.  We have all met people like this.  The solution for emotionally healthy people is instead to raise your own bar higher, to set your sights on personal growth.  You life isn’t an alley with a minimum and maximum legal clearance, you can go as high as you set your sights.

Today the Talmud discusses the size of the famous Biblical “cubit” and our sages riff on the verse Deuteronomy 8:8, explaining that each species mentioned hints to a legal measurement.  The Pomegranates for instance hints that a wooden container with a hole the size of a pomegranate is not longer legally a vessel (and now cannot become ritually contaminated).  If your wooden bowl you used for grapes gets a grape sized hole, you don’t trash it.  You keep it around and use it for figs.  If the hole gets bigger, you can use it for dates.  Until the hole expands, when you switch to apples.  Once the breach is the size a pomegranate however, a normal man doesn’t keep it around.  Therefore, the bowl is no longer a vessel and is impervious to contamination as it is trash.

This hints to a valuable life lesson.  Men tend to keep certain items, hobbies, and even relationships even when they are no longer as useful as they were.  When a man marries a 25 year old woman, he tends to idealize her and continues to see her as if she is 25.  Men are also quite sentimental, more than women in my experience.

The Talmud gives us some guidance here: when something is still useful you can keep it around and use it for another purpose.  But don’t think that bowl with an apple sized hole is going to hold your grapes.  When something in your life if not helping you to achieve your mission, you need to step back and honestly evaluate if it is worth keeping.

Welcome to the second day of the Talmud masechet Eruvin.  The Mishnah brought an argument between our ancient sages about the maximum height of the opening of an alley for the purpose of enclosing it in an Eruv.  The Gemara compares the Eruv height cut off to the laws of Sukkah (Succah).  When a Sukkah is too tall people do not see the top of it and it does not fulfill the purpose of the commandment (Leviticus 23:43).

One of the differences between the entrance to an alley and the Sukkah is that the alley serves all the residents, not just one man:

Rava from Parzakya said: In the case of a sukkah, which is erected for an individual, he puts responsibility upon himself and reminds himself to make certain that the roofing is fit.  In the case of an alleyway, which is used by many people, they will rely upon each other and are not reminded to check the height of the cross beam.  As people say:  A pot belonging to partners is neither hot nor cold.

This lukewarm pot is a famous statement of our sages “קִדְרָא דְבֵי שׁוּתָּפֵי, לָא חַמִּימָא וְלָא קָרִירָא.”  Since each man has a share in the stew, he will throw on a little wood.  If he sees the fire dying, he might bring a stick.  But no one man has sole responsibility, so no one will put in the lion’s share of the work to get the fire hot and the food cooked.

When you are personally responsible, you figure out what to do and get it done.  When a committee is responsible, many tasks get done…but halfway.  When you are working in a group be aware of this tendency and take leadership or assign responsibility.

Gentlemen, Mazal Tov on finishing the Talmud Shabbat. Today we begin learning a new section of ancient scripture: the Talmud, masechet Eruvin. “Eruv” means a mix.  In masechet Shabbat, we discussed that during the Sabbath the Bible forbids Jews from carrying items through the public thoroughfare or transferring things from a private domain to the public one. An “Eruv” is a tool for joining different domains into one larger unit, allowing carrying items between and through these areas on Shabbat.

 

Today’s learning begins to explore how large an opening can be between a semi-private road and the public thoroughfare and still be fixed with an Eruv.

 

This hints to the deeper psychological concept in Eruvin.  To make an Eruv requires the awareness of what is your personal area, what is the public domain, and what is an in between realm.  Clear boundaries.  We touched on how modern society blurs the lines between private and public responsibility:

Conventional Judaism provided clear distinction between personal and community obligations, and informs individuals how to take part in public needs.  Having clear expectations helps.  Even in modern Life you can develop your own boundaries, decide for yourself what you are willing to do for others and what you will not do… In an era of blurred boundaries you need to set and enforce your own clear boundaries, or you will forever be at the mercy of everyone’s unrealistic expectations and your society’s demands on you.

Realize that your life has separate areas and components, some men assume their life is blended together into one.  When you are aware of the distinct elements of your life, you are the one who decides when to merge disparate areas when you need to, on your own terms.

 

This is the last page of the Talmud on Shabbat.  Mazal tov!

The past five months have seen unprecedented social and medical disruptions in modern society.  And yet we continue learning, every day, without fail.  Torah does not shut down.  It was only through God’s infinite mercy that I was able to learn and teach during this time.

 

One of the topics discussed today is annulling vows on Shabbat.  The Gemara distinguishes between a wife’s vows, which can be annulled by her husband (when they have an impact on the family or relationship), and other vows that require a court or a at least an expert sage to undo.  Since vows are spoken and can be annulled by speaking, one should wonder what the problem would be to do this on the Sabbath.

 

Some of our early commentators explain that the concern is that bringing the vow to a court for an official annulment creates a danger they will write something down; matters in the court were typically recorded in writing.  Only when there is some need for the Sabbath itself would we allow a court to annul a vow on Shabbat.  By contrast, there is no danger of writing when the vow is annulled by the husband without court involvement.  That was a private matter for man and wife (and between father and daughter in her childhood).  A husband and father are considered spiritual guides for the family and responsible to set the tone for the household.

 

In ancient times – even quite recently – courts simply did not have jurisdiction on matters between a husband and wife (of father and child).  It has only been a few decades since courts and the state have imposed intrusive authority over marriage in the name of protecting women.  I need not elaborate; men have described to me situations where women used state involvement to steal from them or evict them from the house they pay for under false pretenses.  You can find all manner of horror stories on this theme.

This situation has existed for less than a century; if you pay attention to statistics you will see that the rates of marriage and divorce have drastically changed.  Correlation is not causation, but no reasonable person can deny that when the state takes sides in a relationship, state power does not save marriages or women, but becomes a legal club in the hands of an angry person.

 

It is appropriate that the end of the Gemara mentions the sanctity of the bond between husband and wife.  Like the Sabbath is a refuge in time for Jews, a strong, healthy marriage is an emotional refuge for the entire family.  Men need to be extra careful and studious in modern times to create such a refuge among the raging storm.

הדרן עלך מי שהחשיך וסליקא לה מסכת שבת