We are introduced to an important new Mishna. I learned about this Mishna over 23 years ago when I began to research how I might enter the world of greater Jewish observance. This Mishna teaches that in all mitzvot where a son is commanded regarding his father, men are obligated and women are not. All mitzvot about a father parenting his son, however, obligate both women and men. Similarly, positive, time-bound mitzvot must be observed by men but not by women. Positive mitzvot that are not time-bound are obligated by women and men. Finally, prohibitions apply to both men and women, whether or not they are time bound. There are only a few exceptions: the mitzvah to leave the corners of one's beard unshaven, and the mitzvah of a priest to have no contact with a dead body.
The Gemara touches only briefly on the first point of our Mishna: where a son is commanded regarding his father, only men are obligated to practice this mitzvah. The Gemara uses only one question to clarify this point: isn't a son supposed to fear both his mother and his father? The word for fear is said in the plural - wouldn't that obligate both a son and a daughter to fear their parents?
The Gemara looks to the next point in our Mishna, that of mitzvot about parenting. These apply only to men; women are exempt from their observance. First, the rabbis consider what it is that a father is supposed to do for his son. For example, he is t circumsize and redeem his son. He should teach his son Torah, find him a wife, and teach him a trade. Perhaps he should teach his son to swim. And Rabbi Yehuda says that a man who does not teach his son a trade teaches him banditry.
The Gemara then considers the first two obligations of fathers: circumcision and redemption. How do we know that a father is to circumcise his son? Abraham was commanded to do so. How do we know that women are not obliged to circumcise their sons? Because G-d commanded this of him, and not of her.* But how do we know that fathers are to circumcise their sons in perpetuity? The rabbis look to the word "commands", suggesting that this word signifies an mitzvah that is required in each generation.
And on redemption - the Gemara looks at the commandment, "you shall redeem", which could also mean "you shall be redeemed". Men can be redeemed and also can redeem themselves while women can only redeem others. Thus the mitzvah must not apply to women. Why are sons redeemed and not daughters? Because of our learning in Exodus, where sons and not daughters are redeemed. And what if a man has not yet been redeemed but he wishes to redeem his son? Is he permitted to redeem his son first, or must he redeem himself before carrying out the mitzvah of redeeming his son? Must he redeem just his first born son, or every one of his first sons born to different women?
One of the lines of arguments used by Rabbi Yehuda is that we should always complete our own mitzvah before completing a mitzvah for someone else. This idea, while seemingly 'selfish', has much to teach us today. If we are performing a mitzvah, we are not doing something purely selfish nor are we doing something purely altruistic. We are fulfilling one of our responsibilities. Whatever we think of those responsibilities, we are meeting the requirements set up for us. That is not selfishness, because we might not enjoy or want to do those mitzvot. However, it is also not the same thing as completing someone else's mitzvah. Such an act is selfless - but Judaism teaches that our giving natures should not supersede our personal responsibilities. How different from mainstream discussions of selfless service.
The rabbis move on to discuss the mitzvah to teach one's son Torah. Why only fathers? The word "you shall teach" is the same as "you shall study". The rabbis understand that these terms are interchangeable, and thus if one learns, one is obligated to teach. Women are not obligated to teach Torah, and thus they are not obligated to learn Torah. Why teaching only one's sons? Deuteronomy 11:19 specifies "and you shall teach them to your sons" and not your daughters. This is enough for the rabbis to justify half of the Jewish population's restriction from learning and teaching Torah.
Moving on to the question of who should be taught first, a father who wants to learn Torah or his son, the rabbis tell a story about Rav Acha Bar Ya'akov, who sent his son to learn with Abaye and was not allowed to return, for his father saw that his son would not benefit from the learning and because Rav Acha wanted to learn himself. A related story relates that Abaye used Rav Acha's goodness to defeat a seven-headed snake-like demon that would appear in the study hall at night. Rav Acha's goodness killed each of the serpent's seven heads as he bowed in prayer.
And by the way, say the rabbis, should a person marry first or study Torah first? The rabbis seem to agree that one should study Torah first to keep one's mind grounded and clear. However, if one is distracted so much by his sexual urges that he cannot study Torah, he should marry young. The rabbis end our daf by questioning whether or not a Torah student should be married by the age of 20.
*To me this seems to be an argument of convenience. In that particular narrative, Abraham was the "he" in question. To carry out that mitzvah as a gendered obligation in perpetuity seems to be a stretch. Of course Abraham was commanded as "him". He happened to be a man. We could as easily argue that Abraham's age when he was circumcised teaches us the proper age for circumcision, or that his circumcision, with a rock, is how all men should be circumcised. It is difficult to read these proof texts as definitive when they seem to be almost entirely subjective.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment