• Podcasts
  • Instagram
  • About
  • Sermons
  • Life Cycle
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • In The News
  • Academic Works

Rabbi Josh Franklin

Enliven the Jewish Experience

  • Podcasts
  • Instagram
  • About
  • Sermons
  • Life Cycle
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • In The News
  • Academic Works

The In-Laws

Why was the Garden of Eden called Paradise? Because neither Adam nor Eve had in-laws!

Growing up watching sitcoms, I observed that the biggest nemesis to a sitcom spouse is his or her mother in-law. These yentas  always find ways to crawl under the skin of their sons and daughters in-law, criticizing cooking, making off-color comments, and suggesting that they are not quite good enough to be in the family. The main take away from this culture: stay as far away as possible from your in-laws' house! The Talmud advises otherwise!

In chapter five of Masechet Ketubot, the topics focus on vows that a husband might make concerning his wife; in Ketubot 71b, the Mishnah describes the scenario of המדיר את אשתו שלא תלך לבית אביה...  A husband who vows that[he and] his wife will not go visit his in-laws

The Mishnah condemns any such statement, and encourages a husband to permit his wife to visit her parents at least once a month if they live in the same city. And if they reside in different cities, at least on one of the three annual festivals (Shavuot, Sukkot, and Passover). 

The legal discussion seems to be driven by the age-old aversion of husbands to see their in-laws. Despite a husband's protest, the Jewish tradition here emphasizes the importance of a wife being allowed to visit her parents on a regular basis. The rabbis viewed  prolonged deprivation of familial love as a cruel act that warrants divorce. 

The issue of parental visitation might not serve as grounds for divorce nowadays, but it surely matters in regard to healthy relationships. As a recently married couple, Stephanie and I have already worked out a system for splitting up the holidays. We visit her family for Thanksgiving and Hannukah (and whenever we happen to be in the Boston area), and my family for Passover, and for regular dinners (we live about 25 minutes away). Despite our seemingly workable system, visits to our respective in-laws can be emotionally taxing. 

Stephanie and I both enjoy our own respective family dynamics, but it's sometimes hard to fully appreciate each others. In my own life, my parents have proven that in-laws become an important part of their partners' lives. I watch as my mother treats my paternal grandfather Poppi with the same love and care that she treated her own father. This is the kind of ideal relationship to which I think the Mishnah is hinting!  

tags: Bridge, Everybody Loves Raymond, In-Laws, Jewish, Machutunim, Marriage Talmud, Vows, jewish wedding, marriage, mishnah, talmud
Thursday 11.15.12
Posted by Joshua Franklin
 

Intimacy versus Wealth



Amidst a discussion about the frequency in which a man must be intimate with his wife, the Gemara in Ketubot 62b introduces a scenario that seems relevant to modern marital issues. Recalling my previous post, the required amount in which a man is required to satisfy his wife depends on his occupation. A sailor, who leaves home on long voyages must be with his wife once every six months, as opposed to a common worker, who is prescribed a biweekly trip into the bedroom (once a week if he commutes to a different locale). Rabbah bar Rav Chanan poses the case of a donkey driver (חמר) (required to be intimate once a week) who wants to change his profession and become a camel driver (גמל) (required to be intimate with his wife only once a month). While a camel driver makes significantly more money than a donkey driver, the change in profession would cause the husband to be away from his wife for more extended periods of time. This situation would decrease the frequency of conjugal cohabitation that she is used to. So, asks Rabbah bar Rav Chanan, what should the husband do?
Chris Rock, one of my favorite comedians, actually answers this question in one of his standup routines. He generalizes in his typical vulgar yet comically astute way, that "men cannot go backwards sexually, while women cannot go backwards in lifestyle." In an illustration similar to an aggadic tale, Rock instructs his female audience to consider the following in their lives: "Remember the first time you dated a guy with a car? You were leaving the club, your girlfriends got on the bus . . . and you were like 'I'm getting in this warm-@&& car.'" From that moment on, Rock says, you will never date another guy unless he has a car (This is a much cleaned up account of the story he tells). Women, according to Rock, are reluctant, or flat out unable to, tone down their lifestyles once they have become accustomed to luxuries. It is men, he goes on to point out, that cannot go backwards in their habits of sexuality. 
Abaye (ca. 278 C.E. – 338 C.E.), a Babylonian sage, understands the desires of women differently than Rock. In Abaye's view, women value תִּיפְלוּת (tiflut)–– a word that Rashi describes as the act of a man being intimate with his wife––over material goods. He surmises that: 

רוצה אשה בקב ותיפלות מעשרה קבין ופרישות
A women would prefer one kav  (an implied measure of material wealth) and intimacy over ten kabin and being separated from their husbands. 

Accordingly, women can not go backwards intimately. A man should avoid changing his profession to one that will keep him away from his wife, even if he would make more money.  
So who's right, Chris Rock or Abayye? It seems to me that אלו ואלו דברי אמת, both words have truth to them. Whenever there are two things that appear to contradict each other, the Gemara make sure to explain how לא קשיא, there is no contradiction. Here too, it seems, לא קשיא, there is no contradiction. Chris Rock's comical observations possess truth, but lack depth.  In speaking to the יצר הרע, the evil inclinations within us, he makes us laugh. The יצר הרע for  women is the material world, whereas for  men it is sexuality. Rock's comedy speaks to our thoughts, but not the way we act, or at least not the way that we ought to act. 
Abaye, to the contrary, speaks words of wisdom. He directs his comment at our יצר טוב, our good inclinations. True and sustainable happiness in his view comes not with wealth, but with intimacy. A woman might be entertained by money, but she is only satisfied fully with the love and attention of her husband.
tags: Changing Jobs, Chris Rock, Intimacy, Jewish Love, Jewish wealth, Jewish, Love, Sexuality, Wealth, jewish wedding, marital responsibilities, talmud
Friday 08.17.12
Posted by Joshua Franklin
 

A Woman's Responsibilities in Marriage (Ketubot 59b-60a)

In less than four months, I will be a married man! The thought of this serious life change both excites me and scares me. In many ways, I think my relationship with my fiancée Stephanie will remain the same. After all, we already have lived together for about two years. Yet the spiritual bond that will link us as we "tie the knot" will transform both of us in ways that I can only imagine. Our marriage will bring not only a Facebook status change, but a spiritual, social, and legal changing of our identities. We will each have new responsibilities toward one another, and toward our family unit (which will hopefully grow).

Today I studied the rabbinic perception of a woman's responsibilities toward her husband. To put it mildly, times have changed, especially for progressive Jews like myself who view a woman's role in a marriage as more or less equal (but perhaps different) to that of her husband. Talmudic viewpoints (ranging in this discussion from about 100 CE to 500 CE) offer a more "traditional" model for the functions of a woman. I would deem the views of some of sages as chauvinistic to say the least. Rabbi Hiyya, for example, suggests that wives function merely as showpieces for their husbands. In disagreeing with the majority, he argues "אין אשה אלא ליופי, women are only for their beauty." To this end, the woman's role visa vis her husband is only to gladly recieve the jewlery that her husband adorns her with. Yet just as modern American Jews tend to frown on trophy wives, so too did the rabbinic sages reject Hiyya's relegation of woman as mere objects of beauty. The main part of the talmudic discussion focuses on the active role woman should play in a marriage.

The Suggya (passage) in Ketubot 59b opens with a discussion from the Mishnah (compiled in about 200 CE), an early Jewish legal compendium upon which later sages (200-500 CE) will comment. The Mishnah lists seven primary responsibilities a woman has toward her husband:



    • טוחנת- grinding (flour or corn)
    • אופה– baking bread
    • מכבסת– laundering the clothing
    • מבשלת– cooking
    • מניקה nursing the children
    • מצעת לו המטה – making the bed
    • עושה בצמר– working with wool


Clearly, I will not be expecting Stephanie to grind her own flour. Even the later rabbinic sages appear surprised to think that would be a realistic responsibility. They exclaim: "טוחנת סלקא דעתך, Can it even enter your mind that a wife actually grinds grain?" By the same token, we would likely not expect wives today to work with wool and make clothing for their grooms. The issue of nursing raises a rabbinic debate that resembles the recent shocking Time Magazine cover asking "Are You Mom Enough?," and explicitly showing a five year old child sucking from his mother's breast. Like the provocative article, the rabbis discuss the age at which it becomes inappropriate to continue nursing. Rabbi Eleazar suggests that "an infant can continue nursing until 24 months." Anything after that, he declares שקץ (sheketz), an abominable thing. Rabbi Yehoshua, by contrast, argues that a child can be nursed up to four or five years!  The debate about breastfeeding evokes a heated debate among the rabbis. They continue to quibble over the finer points of permisssability and social acceptability of all sorts of nursing issues. Reflecting on back on all the conversations that Stephanie and I have had together, I don't think we have ever once discussed whether she will breast feed our children, and the appropriate amount of time to do so (God willing we have a few). Is this a normal conversation for couples to have before they enter into a marriage? Will the topic spark as much debate within our household as it does in the Gemara? The Shulchan Aruch, the definitive code of Jewish law (written by Joseph Karo in the 16th Century), decrees that we should follow Eliezer's suggestion of two years, and continue up to four or five as Yehoshua rules, only if the child is sick (Yoreh Deah 81:7). This sounds like a rather reasonable proposition.


The one task on the list of rabbinicly perscribed wifely responsibilities that I will delegate exclusivly to Stephanie is the making of the bed. Since we first started dating, I have been keenly aware that Stephanie requires  perfectly made up sleeping quarters. Every morning she ornatly makes hosptial corners on the sheets, lines the blanket and comforter up perfectly, and stacks the pillows in a very specific arangement. Since we moved in together, I have attempted to make the bed several times only to find that she would remake it. My efforts to learn her bed-making routine have been to no avail. I have given up in this regard, and will leave her to this rabbinically mandated responsibility.

While only women posses the biological capability to nurse children, in todays time the remaining list of duties can be shared or delegated to a third party. We can and should reinterpret this list of responsibilities as contemporary discussion points for the roles and obligations we carry into our relationships. 









tags: breast feeding, bride, groom, hebrew union college, jewish marriage, jewish wedding, ketubot, marriage, mishnah, reform rabbi, responsibilities, talmud
Monday 05.28.12
Posted by Joshua Franklin