Tzav: Drasha for Sheva Brachos (#4) The Korban for Newlyweds.

This is Drush, and not intended for analysis with scalpels.

Rabbeinu Bachay in Parshas Tzav says (second column sixteen lines from the bottom) that newlyweds bring a Korban Todah.   He says that anyone that experiences a special joyous event should bring a Korban Todah, and in particular he says that a Chassan and Kallah should bring this korban.  Most importantly, Rabbeinu Bachaya is telling us that when the passuk in Yirmiahu (33:11-12) says that people will once again  bring the Korban Todah, it is referring to the beginning of the passuk that talks about the joy of the Chasan and Kallah, and the passuk means that Chassanim and Kallos used to- and someday soon will again bring- a Korban Todah.

כֹּה אָמַר ה, עוֹד יִשָּׁמַע בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם אֹמְרִים חָרֵב הוּא מֵאֵין אָדָם וּמֵאֵין בְּהֵמָה בְּעָרֵי יְהוּדָה  וּבְחֻצוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם, הַנְשַׁמּוֹת מֵאֵין אָדָם וּמֵאֵין יוֹשֵׁב, וּמֵאֵין בְּהֵמָה.   קוֹל שָׂשׂוֹן וְקוֹל שִׂמְחָה, קוֹל חָתָן וְקוֹל כַּלָּה, קוֹל אֹמְרִים הוֹדוּ אֶת ה' צְבָאוֹת כִּי טוֹב ה' כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ מְבִאִים תּוֹדָה בֵּית ה:, 

I understand that the exuberant Chasan and Kallah would sing  הוֹדוּ אֶת ה צְבָאוֹת כִּי טוֹב ה כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ.  But the idea that Chasan and Kallah bring a Korban Todah is interesting, because we usually associate the korban with having survived some mortal danger.  The Gemara (Brachos 54b,  and see Rambam 10 Brachos 8 and OC 219:1) specifies four people who are obligated to bring this korban, and all are people who were saved from danger.  In fact, this idea is reflected in our Tefilla.  One who was saved from this type of danger makes the Bracha Birkas Hagomel.  For general celebration, you can bring a shlamim or an olah, and the appropriate bracha is She'hechiyanu.  So it's interesting that Rabbeinu Bachay says that a Korban Todah is brought to celebrate a joyous occasion.  More importantly, why does Rabbeinu Bachay single out being newly married as the archetypal circumstance of bringing the Korban Todah?

The Gemara (Sota 2a) says אמר ר' יוחנן וקשין לזווגן כקריעת ים סוף שנאמר (תהילים סח) אלהים מושיב יחידים ביתה מוציא אסירים בכושרות, marrying people off is as "hard" as splitting the sea, as it says in Tehillim, G-d settles the solitary in a house; He frees those who are bound in "Kosharos," shackles.  (Rashi in Sotah, expanding on the interpretation of the verse as referring to the redemption from Mitzrayim, says that Kosharos means a season that is temperate, neither hot nor cold, because the geula from Mitzrayim was in the Springtime.)  The Gemara sees in this passuk a connection between marriage- "G-d settles the solitary in a house"- and the redemption from Egypt, "He frees those who are bound in shackles."  Thus, the Gemara equates a successful marriage and the splitting of the sea.

Rashi explains that the miracle of marriage is taking a boy, a yachid, and a girl, a yechida, and creating from these yechidim a completely new home, a new kingdom, and this is a miracle comparable to the splitting of the sea.  The ability of individuals to willingly and successfully cede their independence to a new mutual identity is only possible with divine assistance.

Although the Gemara focuses on the aspect of divine intervention- krias yam suf, one can see in the Gemara another thought.  The passuk is also telling us that that getting married is similar to being freed from a prison Motzi assirim.  In what sense is that true?  

Until someone is married, he is imprisoned by limited emotional horizons.  He suffers from the astigmatism of egotism; he has no idea what it means to care for someone else more than he cares for himself, he lacks the basic understanding of what it means to be a fully realized human being, he is in danger of being emotionally stunted, a Wagnerian Nibelung.  So, despite the Orwellian undertone, getting married really is like being liberated from prison.  

As the Netziv says, the Korban Todah is brought על שנחלץ מצרה; literally, the word צרה means travail, but it is related to the word צר which means tight and constrained.  So the best translation would be that the korban is brought on the occasion of "release from confinement."  That is certainly an apt description of marriage.    נחלץ מצרה means that he was granted expansion, an expansion that unbound him from his isolated strait.

That sentence deserves to be emphasized.   על שנחלץ מצרה means that he was unbound from his strait of isolation.  This is the foundation of the Korban Todah, and it is a perfect description of what marriage can give us.

GS point out that Rashi in Vayishlach, by Machalas bas Yishmael, brings the Yerushalmi that "Chasan mochlin lo."   If so, he says, the chasan certainly ought to bring a korban Todah.  So for one thing, he was spared the onshim of his aveiros.  Secondly, a spiritual hatzala is comparable to a physical hatzala.  (Similar to Megilla 14, where the Gemara says a kal vachomer, if from avdus to cheirus you say Shira, KV from death to life, so Chazal were kovei'a Megillas Esther as part of Kisvei HaKodesh.)

As I mentioned above, the classic use of the Korban Todah is for a person that has has one of the following four experiences:  These can be remembered with the mnemonic Chayim, חיים..  That is, Chavush/freed from prison; ; Yeshurim/recovered from illness; Yam/returned from an ocean voyage; and Midbar/returned from travel in the desert.  Homiletically, one might say that all the elements of obligation for the Korban Todah are present when one gets married.  He was a is a choleh, because if a person doesn’t get married, the Gemara says (Kiddushin 29b), he deteriorates physically (tipach.)  He is like a traveler in the desert, as Hashem said that He remembers the love of our first relationship, when we followed Him into the desert, zacharti lach...lechteich acharai bamidbar, the willingness to risk everything because you love and trust your spouse..  He is like a prisoner freed from jail, because he has freed himself from the emotional prison of yechidus.  And he is like one who has returned from a sea voyage, because after the long and lonely odyssey as he searched, he has finally come into his home port.

In our time, a person who survives a danger stands at the Bimah (or a woman does this at home with a minyan) and makes the Bracha Hagomel.  One could support the notion that a Chassan and Kallah should do the same.  Of course, there is no such minhag.  But certainly, when they say Modim in Shmoneh Esrei, they should express their gratitude to Hashem for bringing them together and helping to create a new household.  It doesn't hurt to also have your marriage in mind when you say "Sim Shalom."

Note:  Besides the Korban Todah, in the time of the Beis Hamikdash, a Chassan would come to the Beis Hamikdash especially on Shabbos, because on the east side of the structure there was a gate made of white glass through which only newlywed men would enter.  When people would see a man come in through that gate, they would all bless him, saying "He Who dwells in this house, may he bless you with sons and daughters!"  (From Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer 17.  Although there is no mention of this gate in the Mishna in the first perek of Middos, which enumerates and describes all the entrances to the Beis Hamikdash, it is mentioned in Maseches Sofrim 19:12.)  As it says in Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer, even though now we have no Beis Hamikdash, we should do the same when the Chassan comes to Shul on Shabbos.

הנכנס בשער חתנים היו יודעים בו שהוא חתן והיו אומרים לו השוכן בבית הזה יברכך בבנים ובבנות

~

Beshalach, Shemos 17:16. Amalek and Marriage

This is from the translation I did for Artscroll/Mesorah of Reb Moshe's journal, with some changes and an addition.

 וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי יָד עַל כֵּס קה מִלְחָמָה לַה' בַּעֲמָלֵק מִדֹּר דֹּר     

And He said, the hand is on G-d's throne: G-d will be at war with Amalek for all generations. 

The verse uses an abbreviated form of the Hebrew word for throne, כֵּס, and the two letter Name of Hashem, קה, rather than the full name.  Rashi explains that the abbreviated forms indicate that Hashems' Name and Throne are diminished so long as Amalek exists.  

ומהו כס, ולא נאמר כסא, ואף השם נחלק לחציו? נשבע הקב"ה שאין שמו שלם ואין כסאו שלם עד שימחה שמו של עמלק כולו, וכשימחה שמו יהיה השם שלם והכסא שלם

With this in mind, the Gemara in Sotah (17a) seems, at first, perplexing.  The Gemara says that Hashem placed the letter yud in the Hebrew word for "man" איש and the letter hei in the Hebrew word for 'woman' אשה so that the Name of Hashem (Yud and Hei) would be formed upon their union in marriage.  If Hashem desired that the union of husband and wife be graced with His Name, why would He choose the incomplete Two-Letter Name as the signature of His Presence?  

The answer is that while it is true that Hashem graces each Jewish couple with His Name, He provides only a foundation, upon which the couple must build a true Jewish home.  Hashem's contribution, while essential, is only a beginning.  It is only the good works of the couple that can complete the Name that is present in their home.  If they succeed in doing so, then true blessing will surely follow, as the passuk states in Shemos 20:21, בְּכָל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַזְכִּיר אֶת-שְׁמִי אָבוֹא אֵלֶיךָ וּבֵרַכְתִּיךָ.  wherever I mention My Name, I shall come to you and bless you.  (here ends the slightly modified translation of Reb Moshe's dvar torah.)

A friend pointed out that the Name of G-d that is formed by the union of husband and wife is not a product of the letters aleph and shin, which they have in common.  It is a product of the letters yud and hei, the letters which they do not have in common.  Hashra'as Hashechina, the presence of the Shechina in a Jewish home, stems from harmony- the dynamic harmonizing of their differing emotions and thought processes and perspectives.  As the Aruch Hashulchan says in his introduction to his sefer (found in the beginning of Choshen Mishpat, which was the first volume that he published of the set.)

תפארת השיר כשהקולות משונים זה מזה וזהו עיקר הנעימות

The splendor of music is when the voices are different from each other, and that is the essence of its beauty.

Now, let's think about this a little more. 

What's the point of Reb Moshe's vort?

Does it really say anything at all?  Let's see.  It says that a nice peaceful house is good, but it's only a beginning, that the people need to do more, that Avodas Hashem never ends, that you have to build on a good foundation.  Is there any insight here, anything here at all that we didn't know?  Is it, chas veshalom, a platitude?

No, Reb Moshe never said platitudes.  His mind constantly worked on many levels, and careful attention to what he wrote and said revealed some of that thought process.  Here, Reb Moshe chose to emphasize the positive aspect of his observation - that if a person builds on the gift Hashem granted, then bracha will surely come to the house.  But he is teaching another implicit lesson here, and it's not a comfortable one.   The lesson is that a person who fails to take advantage of an opportunity, a person who rests on his laurels, a person who has achieved but can achieve more and fails to do so because he is lazy, that man is the brother of Amalek.  Whether passively diminishing by failing to do Hashem's work, or actively diminishing by doing wicked things - the result is the same.  This person is guilty of the same diminution of the Name of G-d as Amalek.  And this concept is expressed in Mishlei 18:9:

גַּם מִתְרַפֶּה בִמְלַאכְתּוֹ אָח הוּא לְבַעַל מַשְׁחִית

He, too, who is slack (weak) in his work is brother to the destroyer.

 As the Ramchal says in the Mesillas Yesharim on this passuk,

כי הנה העצל, אף על פי שאינו עושה רע בקום עשה, הנה הוא מביא את הרעה עליו בשב ואל תעש שלו. ואמר (שם יח, ט): "גם מתרפה במלאכתו אח הוא לבעל משחית" כי אף על פי שאינו המשחית העושה את הרעה בידיו, לא תחשב שהוא רחוק ממנו, אלא אחיו הוא ובן גילו הוא.

The lazy man, though not actively evil, produces evil through his very inactivity. We read further (Proverbs 18:9), "Also he who slackens in his work is a brother to the Destroyer." Though he is not the Destroyer who commits the evil with his own hands, let him not think that he is far-removed from him - he is his blood-brother.  (R' Aryeh Kaplan's translation)

So Reb Moshe's vort, properly understood, has a plangent resonance: A couple might say, our home is so pleasant and holy, why look outwards?  Why get involved in things outside of the house?  A person might say, "Look what I've achieved!  I've accomplished enough, I can relax, let others do the work."  These people need to know who is really talking.  That is the Amalek in our subconscious mind talking.  When you start thinking that way, remember that the mitzva of Mechiyas Amalek, the mitzva of restoring the Name and the Throne of Hashem, doesn't always involve taking a weapon in hand against 'the other'.

What does נישואין (Nisu'in) mean?

COMMENTS HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE POST, AS NOTED BELOW.

I spoke at a Sheva Brachos yesterday, and one of the things I talked about is the word "Nisu'in."  נישואין means marriage; it is the second stage of the Eirusin and Nisu'in marriage process, and it finalizes the marriage.  I want to know the meaning of the word itself.

I mentioned this question at the table Friday night, and Someone answered that it means "to become burdened," from רחיים בצווארו, a millstone around the neck, an idiomatic expression used in the Gemara to refer to the responsibilities of marriage.  This Person meant that נישואין/marriage is like שאת וספחת  by Metzora, two types of skin growths that symptomize Leprosy.  I asked This Person which of the parties is thus burdened, and she answered "The one who was chased."  Very funny, but I don't think that's the only answer, at least I hope not, and it's certainly not something you want to hear from one of your parents.  (Full disclosure: see Yevamos 63b:  אשה רעה צרעת לבעלה מאי תקנתיה יגרשנה ויתרפא מצרעתו)

אירושין, which is spelled ארוסין in the literature, Eirusin, is easier.  It's pretty obvious that Eirusin comes from the same shoresh as ארשת  שפתיו, which means speech or words; so, eirusin means to give your word, to agree or to pledge to marry.  The agreement is made binding through the kinyan, and the woman becomes prohibited to all other men, but the essence is the promise.  The word is identical with the English 'Troth,' which means to promise or to pledge.  Eirusin=betrothal.  Simple.  But what does Nesuin mean?  If you'll look around on the web, you'll see hundreds of people that say it means 'elevation.'  If anything, that's a raya that it doesn't mean that.  One clown makes an assertion, puts it on a website, and every lazy ignoramus assumes it's correct.  For a drasha, it's ok-- כל אדם שאין לו אשה שרוי בלא שמחה בלא ברכה בלא טובה... במערבא אמרי בלא תורה"—“ (Yevamos 62b.)  Or maybe it means the elevation of simcha.  But for pshat, I highly doubt it.


In any case, the question is particularly timely, because in the three parshios, Ki Sisa, Vayakhel, and Pikudei, we find the word used remarkably often, and in many different ways--

כִּי תִשָּׂא אֶת רֹאשׁ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

כָּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר נָדְבָה רוּחוֹ אֹתוֹ, 

 וְאֶל כָּל אִישׁ חֲכַם לֵב אֲשֶׁר נָתַן ה'  חָכְמָה בְּלִבּוֹ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ לְקָרְבָה אֶל הַמְּלָאכָה לַעֲשֹׂת אֹתָהּ,
אשר נשא לבן אותנה בחכמה, 

 נֹשֵׂא עָו‍ֹן וָפֶשַׁע וְחַטָּאָה,

 אַהֲרֹן וְכָל הַנְּשִׂאִים בָּעֵדָה

and many, many, more.

Please note that in musaf of Yom Tov, we also says "והשיאנו ה' אלוקינו את ברכת מועדיך." And there's  
וַיִּשָּׂא מַשְׂאֹת מֵאֵת פָּנָיו אֲלֵהֶם וַתֵּרֶב מַשְׂאַת בִּנְיָמִן מִמַּשְׂאֹת כֻּלָּם where it means a gift,
and ישא מדברותיו,
and  הֲלוֹא אִם תֵּיטִיב שְׂאֵת
and שאת וספחת
and others.  So, please tell me what you think it means in the context of getting married.  And please, I already did the drushy thing (Marriage is a gift  (מַשְׂאַת) from the Chasan to the Kalah, and from the Kalah to the Chasan, and from Hashem to both of them; Marriage is an opportunity to elevate (כִּי תִשָּׂא) yourself by learning to love another person more than yourself; Marriage is when you take on responsibility for a family; Marriage is when you have to listen to your heart (נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ) as well as your mind;  חתן דומה למלך and the word נישואין comes from נְּשִׂאִים because the Chasan and Kallah become a king and a queen (נְּשִׂאִים), and so on).  I'm looking for something rational.

In a salute to ingenuity, and since it's still Adar, let me point out that Devora in the comments suggested that nisuin is related to  נסיון, nisayon, a test.  Every marriage is a test. Rabbi Dr. SMS suggested in a conversation that Eirusin is related to ארס, eres, poison.  Also, see great unknown's law- "The Conservation of  Golomus" based on the Gemara in Sanhedrin.  These are people who, when I ask why we learn the dinim of kidushin from the dinim of buying a plot of land for a grave, don't understand what the kashe is.

AFTER THE UPDATES, YOU WILL FIND AN CONCISE VERSION OF THE COMMENTS THAT CAME IN ON THIS TOPIC.  I ATTEMPTED TO EDIT THEM FOR LOGICAL FLOW.  THESE COMMENTS ARE HEREWITH MADE A PART OF THIS POST, AND WILL IMPROVE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE TWO UPDATES THAT PRECEDE THE EDITED COMMENTS.

UPDATE:
1.  Eli points out that the roots with the shin smalis and the shin yemanis have completely different meanings, so it's not likely that nisu'in would be pronounced with a smalis if it came from Nasha; it is more likely that the Midrash is homiletics, not etymology.

2.  More comments that came in on the topic (though I would prefer getting them in the comment section, I am happy to hear from you through any media):
a.  The Gemara in Sanhedrin 31b uses the root to mean "compel."

השיאוהו ויראה פנינו בטבריא. הכריחוהו והזקיקוהו לבוא כאן

b.  A connection to the expression "נושא בעול עם חבירו", which means to accept their burdens and duties as if they were your own.

UPDATE:
LKWD GUY sent me a little note, to look at Rashi Sotah top of 9b.  What do you know! Another Rashi I forgot!  (And thank you Eli, for twisting the knife by pointing out that Rashi says exactly the same thing on top of Shabbos 146a.  I wonder what life would be like if I had a good memory.)

נחש הקדמוני נתן עיניו בחוה ובא עליה. והיינו דכתיב (בראשית ג) הנחש השיאני- לשון תשמיש ונשואין הוא

Now that we decided that Nisuin means "taking on," here we have a Rashi that throws the entire discussion up in the air again.  I could, of course, argue that Rashi is not referring to the denotation of the word "nisu'in" but instead to its connotation, but I need a while to convince myself that this might be true.  (writing a year later, I've decided that Rashi is purely Drush, it's homiletic and not interpretive.  But it's interesting that Rashi relates the word Hishi'ani to Nisu'in, since Hishi'ani primarily means deluded me, and so I suppose Nisu'in means delusion.  But that's just drush, right?  We all go into marriage with an completely accurate knowledge of whom we're marrying, right?)

LATER UPDATE:
I learned of a Tiferes Yisrael in Yevamos 7th perek comment #7 who asks this question, and, in Drush mode, suggests many of the answers that appear here, including some that I made fun of, and additional explanations as well.  See there.

AND here are the edited comments.

Eli said...

First it should be noticed that נישואין is not symmetric (grammatically), it's the man who is נושא and the woman נשאת, so the answer to your query to That Person is self-evident.  נשא in Tanach can mean many things, but the four common meanings are (a) to carry (b) to take (or, better translated, get hold on something) and, (probably derived from (a) and (b)), (c) to suffer (d) to forgive. As much as (c) and (d) might seem relevant, I guess the meaning here is (b). Just recall that the alternative form in Tanach to לשאת אשה is לקחת אשה.

Barzilai said...

You know, Eli, I thought about nisuin as 'taking', but I thought it was odd that we distinguish between the two steps of marriage by calling one eirusin and the second nisuin, while in Chumash, ki yikach refers to eirusin. It's odd that likuchin and nisuin are different forms of the same word. Unless the "taking" of nisuin is more firm or permanent that the "taking" of likuchin. But then there's the shitta of Rabbeinu Nissim Gaon (brought in Tosfos Kiddushin 10 d'h Kol) that the word kicha (which we use for a gzeirah shavah to learn ha'ara'ah from arayos) refers to NISUIN, not EIRUSIN. That would make life easier. But, as Tosfos says there, Rabbeinu Nissim is very shver, because in all of Shas Kicha kicha from Sdei Efron means Kiddushin, not Nisuin. Still, I agree with you. It's like כאשר ישא האומן את היונק. You are taking someone to yourself, not just 'taking,' but committing yourself to follow through with full dedication. 

 

lesser unknown said...

i would argue/comment that eli left out the common meaning of the root of the word nissuin of "to elevate or to lift". and that to lift something includes the meanings of both to carry and to take. granted this is a bit of a semantical distinction, but i feel entitled considering the whole context here. In regard to the difference between kiddushin and nissuin, i was grappling with this a few months ago, as my yeshiva is currently learning kesuvos. Where I left off, is that kiddushin is not so much taking her to you as much as removing her from others, where nissuin is the actual taking of her to you as one entity/partnership.

 

Barzilai said...

I think Eli's (a), to carry, is close to your elevate. As for the difference between eirusin and nisu'in, I always explain that an arusa is an eishes ish for the whole world except for the chassan. This is like buying an option on a property; you don't own it yet, but nobody else can buy it. I will be happy to hear what you have in the Rambam.   (I like lesser unknown's approach of Likuchin being taking in the sense of taking away, and Nisu'in also being taking in the sense of taking for yourself.)

Chaim B. said...

On the Rambam's definition of nesu'in: http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2007/11/rambams-definition-of-marriage-yichud.html http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2007/11/rambams-definition-of-nesuin.html "an arusa is an eishes ish for the whole world except for the chassan" Achilas terumah? Get? But of course you will just tell me any halacha I conjure up stems from the idea of having an option, not from real ishus status.

Barzilai said...

Chaim, I like the posts from 2007, that even the Rambam will agree that chupa lipsulos shafs a greater degree of ishus than just eirusin, but it's not mattir bi'ah. I suppose that this can be true specifically according to the Rambam that even if she's meyuchedes to one man, like a pilegesh, it's still znus and an issur de'oraysa. So, having said that, you yourself are agreeing that ishus is incremental-- even ishus of nisuin. So what's wrong with saying that she's an eishes ish to the whole world but not to the husband? As far as hetter bi'ah, she's not muttar to her husband, but as far as ishus regarding other people, that degree of ishus is there. Of course it's not just an "option to buy." The kinyan of eirusin does create some madreiga of ishus. But as far as "eishes ish," she's not his eishes ish. For other people, she's an eishes ish and chayav missas beis din for znus. By the way, you know that the Rogotchover holds that every married woman is assur midin eishes ish even to her husband, except for the din hutrah for her husband. That's whats missing in an arusa- the hutra.

lesser unknown said...

First a correction from my earlier post. The Rambam, in 10:1, says that nisuin is "bringing her to your home, yichud, and yafreshena lo". I remember having trouble with what exactly those last two words meant. I was remembering incorrectly that they were a part of kiddushin, which is what I was referring to before, but clearly I was wrong. Which still leaves me with a question as to what he means by this... Now to comment on other points: I don't understand exactly what you mean by your option plan. Are you implying that there is no marital connection between them, even in regard to themselves? On a d'oraysa level they are allowed to have biah before nissuin. The Rambam (in the previously mentioned halacha) mentions that it is only an issur soferim with malkos mardus. In addition in yehuda, he couldn't claim ta'anus besulim since they regularly were misyachaid in her father's house and likely had biah already. Which is hard to hear if it was an issur d'oraysa, or even a lack of any ishus d'oraysa between them. And while I wouldn't ask from trumah or get like Chaim did, since an eved can also have trumah and needs a get, alternatively, after erusin she falls under the category of kinyan kaspo for trumah and a get is needed to matir her to others even if she isn't really an eishes ish for him. But the fact that he can be matir her n'darim or become tameh to her if he is a cohen might be better examples that show a real relationship. I don't remember seeing it, but if he is pasul as a witness after kiddushin, that would also show an intrinsic connection, more than just a bought future option... I didn't click the link that chaim posted, it is after midnight here, but from the end of 10:6 in the Rambam it seems clear he holds that chuppah with a niddah is better than nothing, and creates a level higher than erusin. I apologize if I'm just repeating what is already stated in the other link. Lastly, I would point out again that I do not think there is an intrinsic issur to be with ones erusa, but rather erusin would technically permit biah, but chazal imposed an external prohibition on them. I would appreciate (and not be surprised) if you can prove me wrong on this point.

lesser unknown said...

I forgot to mention in my last comment that the aruch ha'shulchan has a novel understanding of the Rambam, which removes the need to say that there are multiple degrees of nissuin. It is in even ha'ezer 61:4 (and also in sif 5 he further explains it)

Eli said...

Thank you, LU, elevate too. I also think my "suffer" should better be translated "burden" or something similar, as in ונשא עוונו. Yet, the relevant one for the present is "get". Re: RNG, it's actually the Tosfos that is shver. It's clear that in Tanach קיחה means the whole process of marriage, if not just Nissu'in: (a) we find Kicha before Matan-Torah, so it must be just מכניסה לביתו, the first instance I believe is ויקחו להם נשים מכל אשר בחרו, and many others follow. (b) The pasuk clearly says מי האיש אשר ארש אשה ולא לקחה. As for understanding Tosfos, I guess what he means is not that the word Kicha in Tanach cannot mean Nissuin, but just that the *גזרה שוה* of Kicha does not refer to Nissuin.

Barzilai said...

LU, let me apologize for a possible misconception. I edited the post to say that the line so often repeated on the net about nisuin meaning elevation, and characterizing it as something a clown would say before you brought it up. Of course, you also didn't mean to say that's pshat in nisuin. Chaim B. did discuss exactly what you said, that even according to the Rambam, chupas niddah creates more ishus than eirusin. When I used the 'option' comparison, it was not meant as a perfect model. It's more like an option with a letter of intent. In the context of marriage, this creates a relationship such that she is considered to be a member of his household, a wife-in-waiting. Eli, nice that you pointed out מי האיש אשר ארש אשה ולא לקחה. I'm convinced that you're right about nisuin being another form of likuchin, a stronger form, meaning more commitment. Forgive the mashal hedyot, but there's a famous line that speaks to the distinction: “The difference between involvement and commitment is like ham and eggs. The chicken is involved; the pig is committed.”

great unknown said...

עי' טעם המלך ס"ק י"ד משכ' על החופת חתנים פרק י' בשער המלך דחופה אין לה מקור מן התורה. וכמובן היו אלה שלא בדיוק הסכימו - וכלשון הברוך טעם" שקר ענה in any case the gemora sanhedrin 22b says that a woman is a golem until she gets married; the marriage corrects that. however, note that there is conservation of golemkeit. guess whom marriage converts into a golem.

Barzilai said...

That's strange. Bishlema you say that there are many alternative definitions of chupa, that's one thing. But this is something else entirely. Unless he means the canopy thingy. That I can hear. It would be nice to see someone that says that it's chukos ha'amim.

lesser unknown said...

gu: 1) I am assuming that you are kidding, but unfortunately since sarcasm/witty humor does not convey well through blog comments, in case you are being serious, I would argue that the gemara in sanhedrin you quoted is not at all referring to marriage itself, but rather the biah rishona, as evident by a) the pasuk the gemara brings down as a proof b) the maharsha on this gemara and c) the tosefos in kesuvos 4a that brings down this gemara as the reason that biah rishona is called bias mitzvah. 2) I thought it was before marriage, during courtship and engagement, that a man turns into a mindless fool. After marriage (or maybe at least after shana rishona) he begins to get some of his chochma back. although, maybe I am just in denial... The simplest translation is to take, as he is taking her to him as a wife. But at the same time, why is the root word of nasah being used instead of just the root of kicha? Because there is some form of elevation, at least potentially, going on here. Similar to a nasi, that doesn't become elevated by being a leader and doesn't elevate others by becoming a leader, there is intrinsic potential in this relationship for elevation. By fulfilling the role and responsibilities entailed the nasi becomes a better person that he could have been without the yolk of the masses upon him, etc... same as with marriage. there is great potential for growth because of the marriage that was not there when both are single. Especially considering that his Toarh isn't complete, his happiness isn't complete etc. as the gemara in yevamos (I think) says.

Barzilai said...

You know, I kind of agree that certain words become popular because of an inherent duality of meaning. It is possible that Nisuin was chosen because of its additional connotations, though I'm pretty convinced that its fundamental meaning is "taking," as Eli illustrated.

great unknown said...

the meaning of the word golem is basically unformed raw material. the wife is formed by the commitment of marriage (and hence is elevated into usefulness [i.e., kli status]), whereupon she immediately (if not sooner) proceeds to re-form the suddenly raw critter she just married. although as a great neo-platonic philosopher once said: the three most important words in a marriage are not, "I love you," but rather, "he'll never change." I think her name was broomhilda.

lesser unknown said...

GU: How would you fit that idea of her elevation due to her commitment to marriage into the pasuk the gemara quotes "ki BOALAYICH osayich"? And to the tosefos in kesuvos 4a which uses this gemara in sanhedrin to explain why biah rishona is called b'elas mitzvah and the maharsha on this gemara in sanhedrin which (if I remember correctly) clearly explains her golem/unfinished status referring to her inability to conceive while a besulah?

lesser unknown said...

I quickly scanned through both the Toras Moshe and the Chasam Sofer on Chumash in the beginning of Miketz and in Vayichi, and I cant find the point you are trying to make. Can you give me a hint?

LkwdGuy said...

See Sotah 9b first rashi.

Barzilai said...

lkwdguy, I see. This needs to be in the post gufa, and that's where I put it. See the end of the post. Yasher koach for your laconic comment.

Eli said...

My appreciation to LkwdGuy's impressive Bekiuss notwithstanding, it should be noted that הנחש השיאני is with right-Shin while נישואין is left-Shin (i.e. sin). While pronunciation of both might be similar, depending on your family tradition, they belong to completely separate roots. נשא with a right-Shin means to seduce/incite, as in זדון לבך השיאך or השא השאת לעם הזה etc. Obviously not all occurrences of this root can be related to נישואין. Thus, it seems the midrash brought in Rashi Sotah (and Shabbos 146a too, also first in Daf(!))is a midrash based on the similarity in written form of both words, but should not be taken as an interpretation of the word נישואין itself.

Barzilai said...

Metzudas Tzion on Yeshaiya 9:4 explains 'sa'on' to mean the same as 'sha'on,' and again in Yeshaiya 10:13 saying that 'shoshati' means the same as shosati'. Besides Rav Hirsch's use of this tool, I believe that many rishonim use it as well. Though it could be that davka Yeshaiya was a Litvak from Shevet Efraim.

Eli said...

actually Yeshaiya 10:13 *says* Shosati (with Sin), but 9:4 is a case in point. Yet, as we find across Tanach more than ten places where נשא with Shin means one thing, completely different than the many meanings of נשא with Sin, I think it's unlikely to merge them together.

Barzilai said...

There are times, though, when you have to be careful to use the right letter. I remember thinking about the pitfalls of being a Litvak one Rosh Hashanna. ותגער בשטן לבל ישטינני

Walking the Chasan and Kallah to the Chuppah

One of the issues that can arise during wedding planning is the question of the Unterfeuhrers, or the Shushvinim. That is, who should walk the chasan and kallah to the chupah-- fathers with the chassan and mothers with the kallah, or parents with each. As Reb Yakov Kaminetzky said, his minhag is to do whatever the mechutanim want. This was not because Reb Yakov was a foundling with no family traditions. He was certainly not. But his predominant family tradition was to have seichel and not make a fuss about trivial things.

That's fine for Reb Yakov. For most men, the minhag is to do what their wives tell them to do. This is a subset of Reb Yakov's minhag. But what about the rest of us, who live to argue about such things? What is the 'right' thing to do?

This question often evokes strong feelings. Speaking from experience, walking your child to the chuppah is one of the greatest moments of our time on Earth, on the order of sandeka'us for a grandchild, when you see, in your mind's eye, your father holding you, his father holding him, the unbroken chain of your ancestors all the way back to Avraham Avinu all doing the same for their children. So while it's easy to scoff at the fights that we often see, one must be cognizant of the strong emotions involved.

1. Brachos 61, Eiruvin 18b, Hashem was the Shushvin of Adam Harishon, which included walking him to the chuppah and to the yichud room afterwards (Hanesu'in Ke'hilchaso 12:14.)

2. Medrash Rabba Breishis 88, that Micha'el and Gavri'el escorted Adam to his chuppah. Doesn't address whether to go f/f (father/father) or f/m, because malachim have no gender as far as I know, but it's a makor for the idea of walking the chasan to the chupah.

3. Rama YD 391:3 (it's in Yoreh Dei'ah because he discusses whether an aveil can be a shushvin) says you go f/f with the Chassan, mother/mother with the Kallah, and that this is "our minhag," and this is quoted verbatim by the Aruch Hashulchan there.

4. Zohar Breishis 2:22 says father/mother for each, not like the Rama.

5. In Reb Moshe Feinstein's family, the minhag was f/m. The Satmerer is quoted as having said that if both sides have the f/f minhag, it is prohibited to change it to f/m. If, however, one side has the minhag of f/m, it is permissible. See also Mishneh Halachos 9 #287 and Da'as Sofer 2 #25.

5. Many don't walk a child to the chuppah if their original marriage ended, whether due to death or divorce (She'arim Metzuyanim Be'halacha147 note 12). This is because people are careful about simanim- omens and portents-  at a wedding. For example, many chasanim (See Sperber's Minhagei Yisrael vol. 8 page 71 note 11) don't knot the tie they wear under the chuppah because untying it later would be inauspicious. (However, it has become common for divorced parents to walk their child to the Chuppah. Usually, one or both parents will not be happy about it, but most often they can be convinced to deal with reality for the sixty seconds that it takes. The fact remains that they are both his parents, and their divorce does not change that fact; it also doesn't change the fact that the child in entitled to have both his parents walking with him.) My parents and Reb Chaim and Rebbitzen Freida Stein were in Samarkhand during the war, and after the war ended and people started to get married, my parents and the Steins agreed that whoever would get married first would bagleit the other couple to the chuppah, even though Reb Chaim's father in law, Uzder Rov, was still alive, because his first wife had died and he had remarried, and a remarried parent wasn't an unterfirer.

6. If the kallah's mother is visibly pregnant, She'arim Metzuyanim Be'halacha says she should not walk her daughter to the chuppah. (147 note 12, because of Ayin Hara, I suppose like a father and son getting consecutive aliyos)

7. Although the Rama is mattir, if the parents are r'l avelim, a rav must be consulted, because in our time music is played as they walk towards the chuppah, as the Aruch Hashulchan points out. Also, one should be aware that the Taz in 393 sk 4 is mattir even within shloshim for aveilim for relatives other than parents.

8. If you and the mechutanim cannot come to an agreement, because they want f/f and you want f/m, then add a pre-red-carpet walk; do father/mother as you walk from the prep room to the chuppah room, and when you are about to enter the chuppah hall, change partners and continue the walk re-organized. And if you can't come to a mature agreement about this, then brace yourself for knock down, drag out fights about naming babies, where the kids will be for yomtov, and where they're going to live.

Yasher Koach to Rabbi Henoch Plotnik of Chicago for many of the m'ms

Advice to People Making Brachos under the Chuppah

The Ritva in Kesuvos (7b d'h Venahagu) says that the brachos under the chuppa are like kiddush Friday night, and this is why they are made over a cup of wine. Thus, the idea of the wine is akin to giving a toast to fete an honoree or an occassion. That being the case, my habit is that when I get one of the last two brachos under the chuppah, I make sure that when I say the words Chassan and Kallah at the end of the brachos, I look at the Chassan and the Kallah, respectively, and raise the glass to them. Just make sure you don't mix up the ends of the last two brachos: Samei'ach ends with "Chassan ve'challah," while Asher Bara ends with "Chassan Im ha'Kallah. (It does make a difference. Rashi (Kesuvos 8a d'h Mesamei'ach) says that the sixth bracha is a blessing that the chassan and kallah should have lives of success and fulfillment, while the seventh and last bracha praises Hashem for granting mankind, and specifically this bride and groom, the wonderful opportunity to create a loving and joyous marital bond. It's very romantic.)

Now, in Shulchan Aruch OC 184:4 and OC 271, it says that when you make a bracha on wine after bentching, or when you make kiddush on wine, you should look at the cup of wine during the bracha. But this is where you made a borei pri hagafen, and so it is important that you not be distracted (meisi'ach da'as) from the words and purpose of the bracha. Here, on the other hand, certainly according to the Ritva, logic dictates that where the object of the bracha is the young couple, you should be looking at them, not the wine. But besides that, I find that, at least in the case of Chassanim whose rational faculties are functioning to some extent, they appreciate it, and it gives emotional import to what otherwise might be seen as a droning halachic formalism. Just don't make it into a circus by lifting the cup three tefachim or the kallah's veil so you can have more kavanah on the cheftzah shel mitzvah. We're fohrt not Irish. A glance and a little gesture are just as meaningful.

And since I'm giving advice to Rabbi and honorees, here are some halachos that are not as well known as they should be:

Until when can you say the Sheva Brachos?  Until seven days have passed.  Day one is the day of the Chuppah, even if the Chuppa is five minutes before Shkiah.

Furthermore, Sheva Brachos depends on when you're saying the Sheva Brachos.  If you bentch after the seventh day is over, you do not make the brachos.  It is possible that if the last day was Shabbos, extending the Shabbos also extends the simcha of the seven days of nisuin, but most people don't hold like that.  Still, if your wife is going to kill you for speaking too long and ruining the whole Sheva Brachos, you can rely on the meikilim.  (Pischei Teshuva EH 62, Shevet Halevi 1:39.)

Korach, Bamidbar 16:1. Vayikach Korach. What a Difference a Good Shidduch Makes

I
The Gemara talks about the word ‘vayikach’, and why the story of Korach begins with this word. There are several pshatim in the Medrash and the Gemara.

Harav Dr. Akiva Eisenberg of (Queens) Manchester, NH, once said that the term "vayikach" alludes to the story brought in the Gemara in Sanhedrin 109b-110a. The Gemara brings the passuk in Mishlei 14 “Chachmos nashim bansah beysah, ve'iveles be'yadah tehersenu;" "The wise among the women build their home, and the crooked destroys it with her own hands." The Gemara tells us that Ohn ben Peles’ wife saved him(you’re not going to be the leader anyway, why join the rebellion?), while Korach’s wife goaded her husband into the fight (Moshe did what to you? And you let him get away with it? Are you any kind of man at all?). This, Rabbi Eisenberg explained, is why the Parsha begins with vayikach. Chazal tell us that in the Torah, marriage is always referred to with the term ‘kichah,’ as we know from the limud of kiddushei kesef “kichah kichah”. The wife of Korach agitated and incited him, while the wife of Ohn convinced him to withdraw from the fight with Moshe. It was Korach's "vayikach" that destroyed him, and it was Ohn Ben Peles' "vayikach" that saved him.

Many people are aware of the Gemara in Sanhedrin. But this insight highlights the idea that the very first word of the Parsha of Korach, the introduction to the tragedy, is the "Vayikach".  Vayikach Korach ve'Ohn ben Peles-- it was their 'kichah's that sent one to his doom and saved the other from imminent death.

I noticed that the Gemara in Sotah 10b also brings a similar passuk about Avshalom; when he began his rebellion against his father, it says (Shmuel 2 18: ) “Ve’Avsholom lokach vayatzeiv lo matzeiva...”, and the Gemara asks, what did he take, and says various teirutzim, with the same nusach as the Gemarah in Sanhedrin. The same pshat can be applied there; in fact, there the passuk ends by saying that he set up ‘yad Avshalom’ because he didn’t have any children, and he wanted a zikoron for himself, that his wife influenced him to do what he did.

UPDATE 2019
At the Kiddush, I realized two fascinating things. First, that this applies equally well to people who are not married. Every person should have a friend that he respects and whose opinion matters to him -  and the friend should be a true friend, one that encourages when encouragement is needed, and criticizes when criticism is needed. Without that true friend, a person is apt to make mistakes, both of omission and commission, and both mistakes can ruin one's life. 
I then thought about the Mishna is Avos 1:6. 
יהושע בן פרחיה אומר, עשה לך רב, וקנה לך חבר
Do you notice that the expression קנה לך חבר is essentially identical with the concept of Kiddushin learned from the word כי יקח איש אשה? Kicha and Kinyan are synonymous. Chazal are telling us that the Kicha and the Kinyan both enable us to achieve Shleimus!


II
Who suffered the most from the rebellion of Korach? Who was punished most horribly as a result of this event? Was it Korach, who was swallowed up by the earth and buried alive? Was it the 250 supporters, who were burned? No. The most terrible fate was not the one suffered by those who were burned or those who were buried: it was the one suffered by the lone survivor, Ohn ben Peles.  Let me explain why.

Ohn Ben Peles' wife saw through Korach’s demagoguery about all men being equal, and she told Ohn, don’t be silly, don’t listen to that utopian nonsense about everyone being equal, he is going to make himself king, and you will be a follower once again. (Or, as Rabbi Dr. GS said, “you’re a loser no matter what.”) And Ohn says, but what can I do? I'm committed! So she says, leave it to me. She then proceeds to make him drunk, and scares away the Korach people that come to get him. You have to visualize what happened after that. The next day, Ohn is recovering from his bender, he probably still has a headache, and he and his wife are standing there, watching Korach and company confronting Moshe, and then they hear a rumble, a loud and sudden crack! and the earth opens, and Korach and his people fall into Gehinom. Ohn’s wife turns to him and says, “You see what happens???” If Ohn Ben Peles would ever dare to disagree with his wife, all she would have to do is say, “You are disagreeing with me?  You also have an opinion?” Or she would just give him a look.

Korach was not the only man to fall, alive, into a Gehinom that day.  (This sounds even better in Yiddish.)

That is, of course, an easy joke, like Mothers in Law jokes. It is more important to reflect on how vital a spouse’s advice on ruchniusdike matters can be. Although the Gemara says that concerning ‘milli d’shmaya’ a husband should make the decisions, if a man is zocheh to have an “isha chachama,” only if he is a fool would he ignore the words of the wise wife Hashem blessed him with. The best example is that of Reb Akiva's wife, Rachel. In the recently published collection of Reb Akiva Eiger's letters, I saw a letter he wrote to his brother in law telling him that he had spent many hours during the night discussing mussar and hashkafa with his wife-- not teaching, discussing. If one is, heaven forbid, cursed with an ‘eishes Korach,’ he needs to act accordingly. But if he is blessed with an “eishes Ohn ben Peles,” he’d better learn to appreciate what he has.

Vayakhel, Shemos 38:8. The Mar’os Hatzov’os and the Kiyor. Drasha for Sheva Brachos (#8)

Women came to Moshe Rabbeinu and offered to donate their mirrors for use in the building of the Mishkan.

Rashi says that Moshe Rabbeinu initially refused to take them, because he considered them inappropriate for the Mishkan. (Although he had already accepted other intimate jewelry, the Kumozos, those were merely a minor ingredient of the keilim in which they were used, whereas here the Mar’os Hatzov’os were to be the only source of the raw material used in fabricating the Kiyor {Ramban.})

But Hashem told Moshe that when the Jewish men in Egypt were demoralized and exhausted and bitter, they were for all practical purposes emasculated, and they had no physical relationship with their wives. But the women would take out their mirrors, and sit next to their husbands and look at their reflections in the mirrors, and they would say, “I’m so much prettier than you are!” and they would slowly re-awaken their husbands’ interest in marital relations. This ultimately generated the great number of Bnei Yisroel that experienced the Geulah. These mirrors, said Hashem, are more precious than any other nedavah, and Moshe certainly should accept them and use them.

Rabbeinu Bachaye and the Ramban here bring the Chazal quoted by Rashi. Then, they bring “Rebbi Avrohom,” the Ibn Ezra, who says (as is also clearly stated in Onkelos) that these women were ‘tzov’os pesach ohel mo’eid’, because all they did all day was stand near the Mishkan and daven, and they had completely abandoned all interest in cosmetics and foolishness, and this is why they donated their mirrors, because they had no use for or interest in them. The two explanations seems utterly contradictory. The first pshat indicates that these mirrors were holy because of their role in contributing to marital relationship. The second seems to say that they had been abandoned by their owners, who now spent all their time in purely spiritual activity, and they no longer had any connection to their original use.

But there really is no contradiction. Two women could use the mirrors in exactly the same way, to enhance their marital relationship with their husbands, and have completely different motivations. The one who sees her relationship with her husband as a spiritual bond, and who sees their marital relationship as a means of generating the spiritual elevation through their love, and to create a spirit of simcha and hope into him, is kodesh. If the relationship is an egoistic arrangement which serves the hedonistic impulse, it’s not kodesh at all. The way to tell the difference is to see how they act when they get older. When they come to a point where they are free of the duties of raising children and running a household, and when the natural physical drives drive diminish, what do they do with their time? Some will be at wit’s end, and not know what to do with themselves. These women will desperately take off on a grotesque and pathetic odyssey, trying to resuscitate the appearance and follies of youth. When this becomes too bizarre even for them, Mahjong and shopping and soap opera will fill the vacuum. But others will find the change liberates them to give expression to the holiness that always dwelled within them, and they will spend their time in saying tehillim and other pursuits that enable them to come to a state of dveikus with dvarim shebikdushoh. The Mar’os Hatzov’os of such women are holy.

R’ Hirsch says that it is particularly fitting that the kiyor was used to wash the hands and feet, because this symbolizes being m’kadeish one’s actions and behavior. A person can, through dedication to Hashem’s will, infuse with Kedusha and transform the most mundane or prosaic or even sensual activity. One’s work, or play, or eating, or marital relations, can and should be elements in avodas Hashem, and thereby changed in character from gashmi to ruchni.

Many people think of these parshios as repetitive, arcane, and so obscure as to be boring. In fact, however, these parshios teach us the most important lessons about the meaning and importance of true love. There is the lesson of the Mar'os Hatzov'os, as explained above. And remember, the Shechina spoke to Moshe from the space between the kruvim, which were the images of a young man and woman. What exists in the space between a husband and a wife as they look at each other? That space holds their love for each other, and that is where the Shechina appeared, because, as Chazal say, bizman shehashalom beineihem, Shechina beineihem. They become the Keruvim, and their home is filled with the spirit of holiness. But this is only true when the Keruvim stand atop the Aron Kodesh, which contains the Torah. The Kiyor and the Aron Hakodesh teach us that a loving relationship between husband and wife that is based on the Torah is the conduit of bringing Hashro’as Hashchina to Klal Yisroel.

Ki Seitzei, Devarim 24:1. The Law of Divorce.

The well known, and most misunderstood, Mishneh in Gittin 90a lists three opinions as to when one may divorce his wife.

Beis Shammai— ervas davar, evidence of lewdness or adultery.
Beis Hillel— hikdicho tavshilo, she ruins your food.
Reb Akiva— motzo acheres no’eh heimeno, you found someone else who is more beautiful than she.

Everyone knows this mishneh, and it is always a source of amusement or chagrin. We read the mishneh, and understand Beis Shammai, who defends the Institution of Marriage. Beis Shammai says that one may not end a marriage unless it is beyond hope, that the spouse is unfaithful to the vows and laws of marriage. Then comes Beis Hillel, and he says, even if she burned your food; and our eyebrows start to rise. Then comes Reb Akiva, who says that even if you find someone more beautiful, go ahead and divorce your wife, and we are completely astonished. Do Beis Hillel and Reb Akiva think so little of marriage that such trivial and selfish matters are good grounds for breaking up a marriage? And how does this conform with what we know about Reb Akiva’s great love and respect for his dear wife, his muse and inspiration, Rochel? This is the Reb Akiva of ‘rak, sachak, ubacha’?

But the truth is, this Mishnah is an example of ‘shicheis lo, lo bonov mumam’, that most people have no idea of how carefully one must read a mishnah, and they think it can be read superficially, and come out understanding it precisely backwards. Correctly understood, the mishneh becomes completely different.

The Gemora in Kiddushin says that "loving one’s neighbor as one’s self" is only possible after one is married. It is only through marriage that a person finds the necessary element for becoming a true tzelem Elokim, to attain the Godliness of pure empathy. To even begin to conceive of what "ve'ahavta le'rei'acha kamocah" means is only possible after experiencing the selfless ahava of kamocha that can develop in a marriage. What is this perfect marriage that the Torah envisions? What is this marriage that the Torah considers worthy of defending at all costs? Reb Akiva says that the Torah-marriage is one of perfect and selfless love and harmony. If not, it’s not what the Torah had in mind. If your relationship with your wife is so shallow that you find someone else more beautiful than she, if you think you can experience true love with someone else, go ahead and try. What you have in your marriage is not what the Torah wants anyway. Beis Shammai says, Relationships? What ‘relationships’? We have duties in life that demand our full energy and attention: get up, go to work, learn, come home, educate your children, who has time to waste on ‘Relationships’? As long as your wife is not a prutzah, that’s good enough. Beis Hillel holds that if your wife is indifferent to your well being, this dysfunctional family life will generate a tension that will distort and disturb your ability to grow spiritually or to achieve anything worthy.

Now, you see that it is not Reb Akiva that confounds and astonishes us, it is Beis Shammai's utilitarian view of marriage that is more depressing. Unfortunately, some people have come over to me after hearing this drosho and said they still find Reb Akiva surprising, because of course Beis Shammai is right.

(If you're the sort of person who talks about the din of Ben Sorer U'moreh at Bar Mitzvahs, and "yemei shenaseinu bahem shiv'im shana" at eightieth birthday celebrations, then I suppose you could use this at a Sheva Brachos.)

Chayei Sarah: The Purchase of the Machpeilah Cave. Sheva Brachos #4

On the purchase of the Me’oras Hamachpeiloh, the double cave Avraham purchased to bury Sarah.

One of the most famous exegeses in the Gemora states that the laws of effecting a state of marriage are similar to those of executing a land purchase contract. This "gzeira shava" is called “kicho kicho misdei Efron,” which connects and equates the two areas of law on the basis of a word match.

It has been pointed out that deriving the laws of marriage from the purchase of a burial plot is incongruous, ironic, and bizarre. (If you don't think so, I offer you my condolences.) However, upon reflection, several interesting observations may be extracted from this association. (Unfortunately, the morbid aspect makes these observations utterly useless for a Sheva Brochos, although I have heard worse things at Sheva Brochos parties. If you have any good stories of chasanim discussing pesach pasu'ach or mekach to'us or meis oviv shel chosson, send them in.)

A. Both sides of the deal won. Attributed by some to the Bobover Rebbe. A friend once told me that most business transactions have a winner and a loser. Each side thinks that they are getting more than they are giving. The winner is the one who sees the real value and the loser is the one who doesn’t see it. Sometimes the buyer is the visionary, who sees that the value is greater than the price he is paying, and sometimes the seller is the one with vision who knows that it’s worth less than the price he is being offered. But in the case of Sdei Efron, they both got more than they gave away and they were both winners. Efron got far more than market price. The Gemora in the end of Bechoros talks about how much he got for the land, that ‘over lasocher’ means that it was far more than face value. When Efron came home, he told everyone how delighted he was at the sale, that he had gotten far more than he had given away. For Avrohom, he got something that was priceless– the M’oras Hamachpeiloh, the burial place of Odom and Chavoh. This was insignificant to anyone but a person that is fit to be buried there or a person that can perceive its holiness. For Efron, the land was only a useless rocky headache. For Avrohom, every inch was a treasure. Both sides came away knowing that they had gotten the best deal they could have dreamed of. This is the feeling we hope people have when they make a shidduch. Each side should feel that they got more than they gave, that the other side is better than they are.
To describe how little value the land had to Efron, I was reminded of something General Norman Schwartzkopf said. He said that "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." For Efron, the land was as useful as an accordion on a deer hunt.

B. The price of love is grief. I think that a truer answer is along the lines of what Queen Elizabeth said at her daughter-in-law’s funeral, that the price of love is grief. The Torah is connecting the most joyous of events and the inevitable concomitant of loving dedication to another human being. You can live a life of indifference. But if you commit to another person, if you love another person, there is a cost. The idea is that the gzeira shoveh between love and bereavement is appropriate because the two events are part of the same idea, one doesn’t exist without the other, it’s two sides of the same coin. And even though loving someone means that you will mourn their departure, the benefit of love far outweighs the eventual cost. Like the epitaph someone wrote on a relative’s grave, “Here lie the bones of Amelia Jones, for her life held no terrors. Alone she lived, alone she died, no hits, no runs, no errors.” An unpleasant observation, but with some truth.
An anonymous reader, m, sent in a comment, that he heard the Stuchiner Rebbe say this thought on the passuk in Shir HaShirim 8:6,

שִׂימֵנִי כַחוֹתָם עַל לִבֶּךָ כַּחוֹתָם עַל זְרוֹעֶךָ כִּי עַזָּה כַמָּוֶת אַהֲבָה קָשָׁה כִשְׁאוֹל קִנְאָה רְשָׁפֶיהָ רִשְׁפֵּי אֵשׁ שַׁלְהֶבֶתְיָה.

On the words כי עזה כמות אהבה Rashi says

כִּי עַזָּה כַמָּוֶת אַהֲבָה. הָאַהֲבָה שֶׁאֲהַבְתִּיךָ עָלַי כְּנֶגֶד מִיתָתִי שֶׁאֲנִי נֶהֱרֶגֶת עָלֶיךָ:

Still, it is a strange way to describe love - that it is like death? Pshat is that the greater the love, the greater the suffering when it is taken away. The price of love is grief: great love ultimately causes terrible suffering. Of course, it is worth the price. How empty life would be without choosing to love.

C. Marriage is the creation of a perfect neshomoh. A friend showed me that in Ma’ayonei Hayeshu’ah or something, R’ Wolfson of Torah Vodaas says, in a much more Ari Zal style, that whenever a man is mekadeish a woman, he aspires to the state of perfection symbolized and realized by the residents of the M’oroh. It is there that the perfect neshomos, which were intertwined from the moment of their creation, and who, through marriage, formed a perfect whole, are buried.

D. Marriage is not just for a lifetime, it is for an eternity. Every person should realize that their marriage is not limited to their time on Earth. Their marriage transcends death, and they will be together in life, in death, and in life after death. So the idea of kiddushin being tied to the burial of Soroh takes on a positive light– that their marriage did not end with her death, and that Avrohom took steps to ensure that they would be together in death just as they were in life. Marriage is not just for a lifetime, it is for all eternity. “U’b’mosom lo nifrodu.”

E. Avrohom was negotiating for something he was fated to get anyway. Rabbi Yosef Osher Weiss, Rosh Yeshiva and Artscroll author and editor, said that Avrohom was negotiating for the land, and we have no proof that he even knew who was buried there. We don’t even know whether he knew how significant the land was and that he was fated to be buried there, along with Soroh and the others. So, he was negotiating for the land, while all along he was fated to be buried there. He was working and negotiating to get something that he was going to get one way or another anyway. It’s like he was negotiating to get the land, and the land was negotiating to get him. This is like the shidduch process– people go through a lot of effort to get what is bashert for them in the first place.