I recently returned to the end of Ketuboth and was thinking about the movement or process of the gemarah. On daf 100b, after discussing the problematic case of a husband or wife who wants to make aliyah against the will of the other partner, the gemarah moves into discussion of Israel and how important it is. “One who lives outside of Israel is like one who has no God.” In some way this is an explanation as to why making aliyah is such a vital value that it is worth breaking up a marriage over, as if it were agreed upon from the start of the marriage.

As the gemarah is wont to do, one link leads to the next, and from the value of Israel we move to a story about Rabbi Zara, who wants to move to Israel, as he attempts to avoid bumping into his teacher Rabbi Yehuda, who believes such a move is forbidden. Their story is similar to the couple who are fighting over where to live; in the first, two spouses are trying to force their opinion on the other and in the latter a teach and student enter into a battle of wits to ascertain whether Rabbi Zeira is indeed allowed to leave his teacher and his yeshiva to go to Israel.

The discussion between the two Talmudic scholars brings us deep into yet a third related topic. The Rabbis duel over possible interpretations for a verse in Song of Songs “Oh maidens of Jerusalem, swear to me that you will not arouse love until it bursts (until it’s ready).” This mysterious verse is used by Rabbi Yehudah to prove that one is not allowed to move to Israel until God brings us back, until He sanctions the reunion- the end of the exile. Rebbi Zera believes an individual may make Aliyah, but the verse forbids the Jews as a Nation to end the exile by moving in mass to Israel.

Because the verse is repeated thee times and the poetic language speaks in double repetition there are in fact 6 swears that relate to the Jew’s suspended experience of exile according to Rabbi Zera. 1) The Jews sear not to recapture Israel, 2) they promise not to rebel against the non Jews in their exile 3) the non Jewish lords in exile swear not to oppress the Jews too much, 4)The Jews won’t reveal the end 5) they won’t push off the end, and 6) they won’t reveal the secret.

Some of these swears are as mysterious as it gets, but over all it shows a pull and tug between the Jews and God. It is no coincidence that Song of Songs is invoked here and though one might think we are far away from the original husband and wife in question we are in fact right where we began. Just as a wife may try to force her husband to make aliyah, the Jews want to make aliyah against God’s will. Even though it is clear to us in general and from these swears that God is in control, that the exile will not end until he says so- he cannot actually stop the Jews from going back to Israel. He has to rely on an oath and the hope that the Jews will keep their word. For all that God is in control of our destiny, the Jews keep pushing back, testing the limits always trying to reveal the end and bring it closer; moreover- according to these swears we have the power to delay the end as well.

If the process, the sugya brings itself to a new place and yet right back to where we started; it also brought me to a few other texts. One is a passage of Heschel in “Man is not Alone” where he says that our relationship with God is both “ultimate commitment” as well as “ultimate reciprocity.” In the context of this gemarah this means that we are committed to keeping our word and God is committed to protecting us in the exile, but just as he exercises a certain amount of power over the Jews, we reciprocally push back to have a say in our future. The warring couple as well have a relationship built on commitment, meaning if one half wants to move to Israel the other must follow; but also a relationship of reciprocity, whereas if the relationship cannot possibly stand the move then the other cannot be dragged- they must divorce if they’ve lost the element of reciprocity in the relationship.

I was also moved to think of this poem by Adrienne Rich. I would love to hear if any of you readers out there see the connections in this poem- or if I’m just on one of those frustrating Talmudic tangents.

“Trying to Talk with a Man”
by Adrienne Rich

Out in this desert we are testing bombs,

that’s why we came here.

Sometimes I feel an underground river
forcing its way between deformed cliffs
an acute angle of understanding
moving itself like a locus of the sun
into this condemned scenery.

What we’ve had to give up to get here –
whole LP collections, films we starred in
playing in the neighborhoods, bakery windows
full of dry chocolate0filled Jewish cookies,
the language of love-letters, of suicide notes,
afternoons on the riverbank
pretending to be children

Coming out to this desert
we meant to change the face of
driving among dull green succulents
walking at noon in this ghost town
Surrounded by a silence

that sounds like the silence of this place
except that it came with us
and is familiar
and everything we were saying until now
was an effort to blot it out –
coming out here we are up against it

Out here I feel more helpless
with you than without you
you mention the danger
and list the equipment
we talk of people caring for each other
in emergencies – laceration, thirst –
but you look at me like an emergency

Your dry heat feels like power
your eyes are stars of a different magnitude
they reflect lights that spell out: EXIT
when you get up and pace the floor

talking of the danger
as if it were not ourselves
as if we were testing anything else


Ben Pincus
8/27/2008 09:30:25 am

I think I understand your context as illustrated by these statements:
>"...Israel and how important it is."
>"why making aliyah is such a vital value that it is worth breaking up a marriage over..."
>"...they must divorce if they’ve lost the element of reciprocity in the relationship."
However, would it not be more fitting to say that the Gemara is not about Israel's importance per se but rather about the greater service to Hashem that can only be accomplished there? Someone who willfully turns away from Aliyah when it has a real possibility for success is thus turning away from the very core purpose of existence and so "like one who has no G-d." If the man wishes to make Aliyah to serve Hashem in those ways and his wife opposes or prevents that service then is she not truly abdicating her role as an ezer k'negdo? The get would simply be the husband's recognition of what has already ocurred: his wife left him. I don't believe the Gemara is commenting about 'reciprocity in marriage' at all, but rather on appropriate role differentiation. It may be interesting to ask further: why, if his wife opposes an Aliyah that the man wants to do in order to better serve Hashem, is he not REQUIRED to divorce her. Since that is clearly not the conclusion of the Gemara, can we assume that Aliyah, even if desired and possible, is also not required of a Jew at this time?

Just a few thoughts. I enjoy the blog. Rich has always been a favorite poet. She expresses her belief that the reciprocity that she desired simply does not exist, that she is helpless to create it. In the end she accepts the shared responsibility for that: "as if it were not ourselves, as if we were testing anything else." In the end she finds the male-female relationship wanting ('the danger'...'we are up against it'), and moves on.

Again, I see the sequence of your thought, and how the poem follows, but only if the context of the Gemara is reciprocity--which I do not see. If I am correct, then it would be a challenge to yourself to ask how it is that you see it that way. Which is the danger and difficulty women face in "Trying To Talk To A Man." So I think I see your point.

Ben Pincus
Jew.curmudgeon.poet

Reply



Leave a Reply.