R' Miller on Avraham and Sarah

Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Tape 412, True Modesty, 1:10:25 

Question: We see in the case of Rabbi Akiva that a woman can affect the man. How is the reverse and to what extent?  

Is the question can a man affect a woman? Certainly. Certainly. What do you think made Sarah great? Here Sarah became a great naviah. כֹּל אֲשֶׁר תֹּאמַר אֵלֶיךָ שָׂרָה, שְׁמַע בְּקֹלָה Avraham was told listen to Sarah. And Avraham is called a tefel b'navuah to Sarah.  That doesn't mean Avraham was less. Avraham was a bigger navi. Only Avraham was always in the street arguing with people. And when you argue you get excited so the schinah is not always able to rest on you. Sarah was magayeres es hanashim in her own home . So Sarah lived a tranquil life and therefore the navuah could come upon her more frequently.  But Sarah was the result of Avraham's tutelage. Avraham was her rebbe, no question. 

Shelah on Avraham and Sarh

Found on DaatTorah.blogspot.com

Bereishis (21:11-12):
11. And the thing was very grievous in Abraham’s sight because of his son.
12. And God said to Abraham, Let it not be grievous in your sight because of the lad, and because of your slave; in all that Sarah has said to you, listen to her voice; for in Isaac shall your seed be called.

של"ה פרשת חיי שרה תורה אור

יד. ומכל מה שכתבנו יתבאר ענין קריאת שם 'חוה' על שם 'אם כל חי' (בראשית ג, כ). וקשה, היה יותר מן הראוי להיות נקרא אדם הראשון בשם 'אב', כי 'למשפחתם לבית אבתם' כתיב (במדבר א, ב). כבר כתבתי (לעיל אות ד - ה), כי שרה תיקון חוה, ושם 'אם כל חי', יצדק בשרה כאשר נבאר. ובזה יתורץ מה שאמרו רבותינו ז"ל (שמות רבה פ"א ס"א) בפסוק 'כל אשר תאמר אליך שרה שמע בקלה' (בראשית כא, יב), אברהם היה טפל לשרה בנביאות. ודבר רחוק הוא זה, אברהם שהוא סוד המרכבה יהיה טפל לשרה בנביאות. ומתחילה אקדים דברי רבותינו ז"ל (בבא - בתרא טז ב) בפסוק (בראשית כד, א) 'וה' ברך את אברהם בכל', רבי מאיר אומר שלא היתה לו בת, רבי יהודה אומר (בת) שהיתה לו בת, ואחרים אומרים, בת היתה לו [לאברהם] ו'בכל' שמה, עד כאן. המאמר הזה הוא תמוה מאוד, והרמב"ן הביאו בפרשה זו (כד, א), ורמז בזה המאמר כמה רמזים עיין שם. ואענה חלקי אף אני. ויתבאר על פי המדרש חזית (שיר השירים רבה פ"ג סי"א) שהביאו הרמב"ן גם כן ופירשו לפי דרכו, ואני אבארנו כיד ה' הטובה עלי לפי דרכי. וזה נוסחו: שאל רבי שמעון בן יוחאי את רבי אלעזר ברבי יוסי, אפשר ששמעת מאביך מהו 'בעטרה שעטרה לו אמו' (שיר השירים ג, יא), אמר לו, הן. אמר לו, היאך. אמר לו, משל למלך שהיתה לו בת יחידה והיה מחבבה יותר מדאי והיה קורא אותה בתי, ולא זז מחבבה עד שקרא אותה אחותי, ולא זז מחבבה עד שקרא אותה אמי. כך (מתחילה) [היה מ]חבב [יותר מדאי] הקדוש ברוך הוא (את) [ל]ישראל וקראן בתי, הדא הוא דכתיב (תהלים מה, יא) 'שמעי בת וראי', ולא זז מחבבן עד שקראן אחותי, שנאמר (שיר השירים ה, ב) 'פתחי לי אחתי רעיתי', ולא זז מחבבן עד שקראן אמי, שנאמר (ישעיה נא, ד) 'הקשיבו אלי עמי ולאומי [אלי האזינו'], 'ולאמי' כתיב. עמד רבי שמעון בן יוחאי ונשקו על ראשו, ואמר (לו), אילו לא באתי אלא לשמוע (דבר זה) [הטעם הזה] מפיך דיי, עכ"ל.
ענין זה המאמר מורה על השגת העלול בעילה, והולך ממדרגה למדרגה. הנה העלול הוא תחת העילה, ונקרא 'בת', וזהו ראשית ההשגה שמשיג שהוא עלול ושיש לו עילה. אחר כך עולה בהשגתו מעלה מעלה עד שמתדבק בהעילה, אז נקרא 'אחתי'. ולפעמים עולה העלול על העילה בסוד העבודה צורך גבוה, ומתעורר למעלה מעלה גבוה על גבוה, וגורם השפעה מרום המעלות להעילה של העלול הזה, כתינוק היונק משדי אם וגורם חלב לאם, וכענין מה שאמרו רבותינו ז"ל (מועד קטן טז ב) מי מושל בי, צדיק. וכענין בחינות אלו אמרו רבותינו ז"ל (תענית ז א) הרבה למדתי מרבותי, ומחבירי יותר מהם, ומתלמידי יותר מכלם. בבחינת 'בת' הוא תלמיד, ובבחינת 'אחות' הוא 'חבר', ובבחינת 'אם' הוא רב, ובכל מדרגה הוא מוסיף מעלה. ומה שכינו בלשון נקבה 'בת', 'אחות', 'אם', ולא בלשון זכר 'בן', 'אח', 'אב', משום שהעולם הזה הוא עולם נקבה בערך עולם הבא לעתיד, כמו שרמז הזהר (ח"א דף כ"ב ע"א) כל 'ויאמר אלהים' במעשה בראשית היא אמא עילאה מצד בינה, אשר משם נתפשטו שבעת ימי בראשית שהוא הבנין. ומאמר 'ויאמר אלהים יהי אור' (בראשית א, ג) ונגנז, וזהו סוד אור שבעת הימים בעלייתם ממקומם לבינה, ולעתיד יאיר זה האור של שבעת הימים הנעלם והנגנז, ואדרבה יתוסף ביותר אור מאור שבעת הימים, דהיינו עליית אור הגנוז הנזכר לעיל ויניקתו ודביקתו בחכמה הנקראת 'אב'. והענין, כי אף קודם שחטא אדם, אף שלא נתגלו הקליפות, מכל מקום היו מעורבים בכח, כענין השמרים המעורבים ביין בעודן בענבים, וכשחטא ונגנז האור, אז הוציא הקליפות מכח אל הפעולות ונתגלו. ולעתיד שיתבטלו נמצא לא יש שארית לקליפות גם בכח, כי כבר יצאו לפועל ונתבטלו. על כן אור הגנוז יתרבה במעליות עד אור החכמה הנקרא אבא, ואז יקרא שמו של העולם עולם הזכר. כמו שרמזו רבותינו ז"ל (מכילתא בשלח מסכתא דשירה א; תוס' פסחים קטז ב ד"ה ונאמר) בענין 'שירה חדשה' ולעתיד 'שיר חדש'. ומדרגות ההשגות עתה הוא לברר הפנים מן החיצונים, דהיינו לאכול התוך ולזרוק הקליפות, אבל לעתיד לילה כיום יאיר, כמו שהארכתי בדרוש הזה בהקדמת תולדות אדם (ח"א שם אות נה - שנה), ואז מדרגה זכר. וכן נשמת אדם הראשון מן ספירות החכמה הנקרא 'אב', ונשמת חוה מספירת בינה הנקראת 'אם' כמבואר בהזהר (זהר חדש רות דף ע"ח ע"ב) והארכתי במאוד בהקדמה הנזכר לעיל מזה הענין, וזיל קרי ביה.
ובענין בחינת עולם הנקבה דחיית הקליפות, היה אברהם טפל לשרה, אבל אברהם נקרא אב מצד נשמתו, והוא בעולם הזכר בסוד אור הגנוז המופלג, והוא יתן טהור מטמא, שבהתגלות אור הגנוז המופלג יטהרו הקליפות, וזהו סוד יציאת הקליפות מאברהם, כי ממנו יצאו ואליו ישובו. ואברהם הוא שמכניס הגרים, כי אף החיצונים יטהרו ויהיו פנימיים. ומעלת שרה דחיית הקליפות בעת שליטתם בעולם הנקבה, ובחרה בפנימיות. וכבר כתבתי (אות יג) ענין 'בכל', 'מכל', 'כל', כי מאברהם יצא פסולת ישמעאל ואחר כך עשו, ונתדבק עשו בישמעאל, כי לקח בת ישמעאל לאשה (בראשית כח, ט). ושרה אמרה (שם כא, י) 'גרש את האמה הזאת ואת בנה', ובזה היה אברהם טפל לה, אף שעשו יצא גם כן משרה כמו מאברהם, מכל מקום אחד אינו מן המנין, והתחזקו השנים בהתחברם, כי נתדבק עשו בישמעאל. ואף על פי שנתפרדו ומעולם אין שלום ביניהם, כדרך הקליפה, מכל מקום נתנו חיזוק זה לזה להיותם יונקים מלמעלה

Chasam Sofer on the First Chet

 

חתם סופר (תורת משה בראשית ג:יז): כי שמעת לקול אשתך ותאכל מן העץ. יל"ד הי' לו לכתוב בקיצור ותאכל מפרי העץ אשר צויתיך לבתלי אכול ממנו, ולמה מאריך בלשונו לאמור כי שמעת לקול אשתך ותאכל וגו'. אחז"ל שנענש על שהלך אחר עצת אשתו משמע שזה ענין בפני עצמו הוא. חדא שהלך אחר עצת אשתו, שנית כי אכל מעץ הדעת [עיין ברמב"ן], מפני שהיא היתה חשובה יותר ממנו. יען שהיא נבראת בג"ע עצמו, ועפרו של אדם נלקט מהעולם כולו כדאי' במדרש [בילקוט רמז י"ג שקבץ הקב"ה עפרו מד' פנות העולם, אדום שחור לבן ירקרק וכו' והובא ברש"י לעיל בפסוק וייצר וכו' את האדם עפר מן האדמה], ועל שאכל מפרי העץ יכול להשיב שראה שחוה אכלה ולא מתה, והי' לו מקום לטעות, אך ממ"נ חטא האדם, כי הי' לו לתלות באמת משו"ה לא מתה היא יעןשהיא חשובה ממנו שהיא נבראת בג"ע יותר בקדושה לכן מותרת לאכול ולא יזיקנה, אבל הוא שנתגשם גופו מלקיטת עפרו מכל העולם כולו לו יזיק אכילת עץ הדעת, וא"כ נענש אדם או על ששמע והלך אחר עצת אשתו או על שאכל מעץ הדעת

 

 

Very interesting. I would not use this as a basis to say that the male is created “spiritually inferior” in a general way as proposed by books such as Eye of the Needle. If he were, why shouldn’t he listen to his wife? The Gemara tells us that the man who goes about in the counsel of his wife goes to gehennom (BM 59a). This does not imply inferiority in the male.

I think it’s safer to say that because the female is superior in some respects, as represented by her creation from flesh rather than dust, it could be that she might safe to eat from the tree. I would theorize that since many of her advantages are physical (fertility being the biggest) that one might have concluded that she’d be safe to eat since that is a physical act. You wouldn’t say that women are superior since they are safe to watch men dance but men can’t watch women. Rather, in that one physical way they have an advantage.

Rav Hirsch also mentions the creation from flesh as a basis for the female’s greater refinement, earlier maturity, and moral propriety. (CW Vol. VIII, “The Jewish Woman.”) Yet, R’ Hirsch says numerous times that the male and female are spiritually equal.

“Right from the beginning God reached ‘mankind’ male and female, both equally godly, of equal worth, neither more in the likeness of God than the other, both given the same blessing by God, both together given the name ‘Adam’” (Commentary on Genesis 5:2)

The man has other strengths that equal the score. Rav Hirsch discusses these elsewhere.

We have from other commentators readings of the creation story that portray the male as being more chashuv. The Maharal says that Hashem spoke to Adam because Adam was closer to Him and on a higher plane (Tiferes Yisrael 28). The Maharal says that Adam was formed after Chava (created simultaneously but formed separately) for the same reason. (Gur Aryah, parshas Tazriah). Rav Tzadock says Adam was created from Hashem’s will alone but Chava from that of Hashem and Adam. Thus Adam is more spiritual. (Dover Tzedeck, p.119).

I don’t see all of these as being contradictory. I think we can see a way to summarize via the words of R’ Joseph Soloveitchik. He said that, “The Chumash in Bereishis says that when God created man בצלם אלקים ברא אתם . Man and woman were created in the Image of God. Equality was taken for granted. If two personae were created in the image of God, you cannot say one is superior to the other.” (The Rav Thinking Aloud on the Parsha, Sefer Bamidbar, pp. 142-3) . Yet, he says that, “Man and woman are different personae, endowed with singular qualities and assigned distinct missions in life …” (Family Redeemed, p. 72). This means that each will have positive attributes in which the other is not as strong. But in the end, they are equal. So we must be careful not to extrapolate from single statements. We have to see them all.

The desire to do kiruv temps us to jump to conclusions, but those conclusions undermine our efforts. It’s like a shrunken bed sheet where pulling on one side unattaches the sheet from the other.  One of the great challenges for BTs is accepting rabbinical authority. But if men are so low, why would anyone accept their authority? Similarly, how is the Torah uplifting and positive if the only purpose of mitzvos is to fix our flaws, like a 12 step program?

I believe we can say that in our day and age the best approach is to portray equality with differences in role. With all the shalom bayis problems, with all the shiduchim problems, we need people to get along and when one sees him or herself as being superior (or inferior), you get all kinds of problems. The approach of the leading figures of our era (R' Hirsch, R' Moshe Feinstein, Lubavitcher Rebbe, R’ Soloveitchik, R’ A. Miller) has been equality with differences in role.

Times have changed. Analysts say that next US President will likely be a woman. The head of the federal reserve bank is a woman. The US attorney general is a woman. We recently had a female speaker of the house and sec of state. Exaggerations to flatter women used to be taken with a grain of salt. When a man called his wife his better half, people didn't take it literally. He was being gracious. Today such a comment would be taken literally and the results are not good.

More on Equality: Rav Soloveitchik

“The Chumash in Bereishis says that when God created man בצלם אלקים ברא אתם . Man and woman were created in the Image of God. Equality was taken for granted. If two personae were created in the image of God, you cannot say one is superior to the other.” (The Rav Thinking Aloud on the Parsha, Sefer Bamidbar, pp. 142-3)

More on Equality

We can now understand the second half of G-d's declaration in chapter two: "e' eseh lo eizer kenegdo,"usually translated as "I will make him a help meet [=suitable] for him" or, midrashically, "opposed to him." The form keneged with a kaf is found nowhere else in Scripture, and we must therefore rely on Talmudic parallels. The simplest meaning is undoubtedly "equal to him," as in "talmud Torah keneged kulam," "the study of Torah is equal to them all, and many similar statements.

G-d created woman equal to man in order to assist him in fulfilling the commandment, and the reason is clear: to truly influence man for good or for ill, his helper had to rival him in intellect and comprehension. Thus, in chapter two, "G-d formed ... all the beasts of the field and all the birds of heaven and brought them to man ... and did not find him an eizer kenegdo," because man is not swayed by an inferior being. A horse or a dog can provide companionship, but cannot prevail upon man to observe G-d's Word. Only woman, woven from the same cloth as was man, "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh," was equal to him and equal to the task.

R' Yehuda Herzel Henkin. Equality Lost, p. 15

R' Henkin, a grandson of the Goan R' Eliyahu Henkin, is a Modern Orthodox posek in Israel

Condescension

As Rav Nachman Bullman once told me, the practice of telling women they are more spiritual than men is actually subtly condescending. I think the logic would go like this. Men run the religion. Obviously, you are not going to hand the religion to the less spiritual person, so one might take this as an insult to women. But then we explain, that women have their own arena, their own role which is equally important and shows their equal but different capabilities. That's believable and supportable by Torah sources. But to say that really the ones who don't run things are superior. You have to be pretty stupid to believe it and pretty condescending to expect that anyone will believe it.

It has been my experience that the men who are the most vociferous about putting forth apologetics are the most arrogant.

R' Leo Jung

Woman is freed from a number of positive commands the observance of which depends on a certain time of the day or season of the year. The Jewish man thanks the Lord for having a much greater platform of duties. But woman has an excellent argument. She is willing to recognize the larger quantity of her husband's obligations. Her major duties have to do with the spirit of the home and the education of the children which are decisive for the welfare of the family and the future of the nation. What she loses in quantity, she more than regains in quality. It is therefore that with a smile on her lips and deep satisfaction in her heart, she blesses the Lord, "Who has made me according His will."

R' Leo Jung , Between Man and Man p. 22

R’ Soloveitchik on Chukim, Women's mitzvos, and equality

In a conversation with students on parshas Chukas, R’ Soloveitchik cited the Rambam in warning against mockery of the chukim even as a person inquires legitimately into Torah laws. The Rambam said that such mockery of chukim is worse than misappropriation of sanctified objects as the latter were originally secular objects such as wood that were set aside for holy purposes but the former are holy from the outset as established by the Almighty. R’ Soloveitchik points out that the Rambam's intent was not to promote observance of the laws as people in his day were observant, but rather to warn against projection of secular ideas onto them. This constituted mockery of the chukim:

What is the Rambam interested in? In our psychological, axiological approach towards chukim. Against ascribing lesser significance to chukim, or secularizing them. In other words, one must not interpret chukim in practical terms, and inject contemporary meaning in them.

You'll ask me, what is the practical interpretation of chukim? If a rabbi tries to interpret ma'achalos assuros [forbidden food] in terms of hygiene and sanitation. Or taharas ha'mishpacha in terms of sexual psychology, as I once heard a rabbi say, that taharas ha'mishpacha contributes to family bliss, and actually taharas ha'mishpacha accomplishes the miracle that the whole married life is one long honeymoon. This is exactly what the Rambam meant should not be done. You don't accomplish anything by it. You don't achieve anything by it. Educated people, intelligent people, scientific minds, they cannot be so easily fooled. (The Rav Thinking Aloud on the Parsha, Sefer Bamidbar, pp. 155-6)

So while we may inquire as to reasons for chukim, we must proceed carefully and not fabricate reasons that actually lead to ridicule of them either by their very logic or by how far we push that logic.

R' Soloveitchik explained elsewhere that the halakha is driven by technical constructs something like that of sophisticated scientific thought. In a conversation with students on parshas Korach, he noted that Aristotle's simplistic approach to science was built strictly on observation. In Aristotle's view, gravitational pull was the result of the weight of objects as that is what appears to the eye. Modern science, starting with Galileo and continuing through Newton and unto today, concludes the opposite, that weight is the result of gravitational pull. The former view is empirical and commonsense, the latter conceptual. Says R' Soloveitchik, “Newton discarded commonsense and approached the matter from the viewpoint of the esoteric, abstract, creative, conceptualizing logos.” He continues:

This method of quantification was part of the greatest discovery in the annals of mankind. Of course, if we had been satisfied - not we, the seventeenth century - with Aristotlean physics, we couldn't climb now to the moon. Don't you think that halachah is also entitled to such a theoretical basis? We have, as I stated above, our unique logical and epidemiological approach to halachah. Torah sheh b' al peh is not just a compilation of laws. It's more than that. Mathematics is more than just a corpus of equations. Ask any mathematician who is intelligent, what is math? He wouldn't tell you a corpus of equations. No physicist who understands physics will tell you that physics is a collection of natural laws or equations. Basically, science is a method. Mathematics is a method. It's a method of thinking, a unique logos. So is the Torah sheh-b' al peh. The laws and statutes are of utmost significance. However, if you discard the view that Torah sheh-b' al peh is a system of thought structures and unique logical categories which are accessible to the human mind only if the latter is willing to subject itself to a rigid and tough training, then you open up the floodgates and any ignoramus may claim authority the way Korach did. (The Rav Thinking Aloud on the Parsha, Sefer Bamidbar, pp. 140-2)

According to R' Soloveitchik, this understanding of the Talmudic method helps us to understand the reason that women are disqualified from serving as witnesses. The disqualification is not a matter of lack of qualification in the axiological sense, ie. it says nothing about the value of women. It is the result of technical constructs. A melech or Jewish king is also disqualified from giving testimony. Says R' Soloveitchik:

If the melech ha'Moshiach were present at the wedding I also wouldn't invite him, because he is also disqualified to bear witness. Would we say all Jews are superior the the melech ha'Moshiach? A king is disqualified to bear witnesses mi'd'oraisa, like an isha. The king Messiah, or King David, or King Solomon, or Moshe Rabbeinu himself are disqualified to bear witness. And a wood-chopper, an ignorant person, a bor mi'd'oraisa is kashur l'eidus. (The Rav Thinking Aloud on the Parsha, Sefer Bamidbar, p. 141)

R' Soloveitchik asked if anyone would conclude that the Messiah is inferior by virtue of his disqualification. He said, “If you operate with commonsense categories - yes. Korach operated with commonsense categories, and he was right with his conclusion that if the whole robe is made of purple material it certainly should be exempt from tzitzis. But from the viewpoint of the exact, precise, unique halachic categories psul l'eidus is not indicative at all of the station of the woman in society, in the halachic community.” In other words, just as Aristotle was incorrect to use plain thinking to evaluate gravity, we would be incorrect to use such thinking to evaluate the disqualification of kings and women from giving testimony. It is not what it seems.

So what is the station of the woman? Like R’ Feinstein and the Lubavitcher Rebbe, R’ Soloveitchik stressed the differences in the roles for men and women and the general equality in their spiritual worthiness. Basing his comments on the creation of the first man and woman in God’s image, he says:

The foremost distinguishing characteristic bestowed upon man is his Divine image, his tzelem Elohim, which denotes particular qualitative endowments, such as a moral sense, free will, and intellect. Man partakes of these attributes within human limitations, while God's representation of these qualities is absolute. Maimonides embodied man's likeness to God primarily in terms of his intellect (Guide 1: 1). This Divine gift was given to both men and women. "And God created man with His image. In the image of God, He created him; male and female He created them" (Gen. 1:27). In their spiritual natures, they were equally worthy. (Man of Faith in the Modern World, p. 84).

He said in his discussion of women and testimony, “The Chumash in Bereishis says that when God created man בצלם אלקים ברא אתם . Man and woman were created in the Image of God. Equality was taken for granted. If two personae were created in the image of God, you cannot say one is superior to the other.” (The Rav Thinking Aloud on the Parsha, Sefer Bamidbar, pp. 142-3)

R’ Soloveitchik finds equality as well in the potential for either sex to achieve prophecy.

The mere fact that among our prophets we find women to whom God has addressed Himself is clear proof that we never differentiated between the sexes axiologically. (Family Redeemed, p. 72; Axiology = Philosophical theory of value)

Equality is the key word. I'll repeat his words, “you cannot say one is superior to the other.” This means that men are not better than women but it also means that women are not better than men. This is a direct contradiction of what many of his students teach. To use the exemption as an indication that women are superior is to make a mockery of it. It's just too simplistic and doesn't explain why the Kohen Gadol has the most mitzvos. Plus it makes mitzvos look one-dimensional, like steps in a program for alcoholics. I know one person who often gives the Gemara of bina yesayra as proof of the thesis that women are superior – an open Gemara he says. We will presume that the Rav also knew that Gemara, yet argues that men and women are equal. He argues from an open posuk. Perhaps equality is less exciting and crowd pleasing but it seems to me it will lead to much healthier relationship between husbands and wives. Women don't want to be superior anyway. They just want respect. Men have the desire to conquer and be superior. Telling women they are superior actually makes them uncomfortable. It's what men think women want to hear. It actually unnerves them because then who can they rely on?