Sotah and Terumah

 

וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהוָֹ֖ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר:

דַּבֵּר֙ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְאָֽמַרְתָּ֖ אֲלֵהֶ֑ם אִ֥ישׁ אִישׁ֙ כִּֽי־תִשְׂטֶ֣ה אִשְׁתּ֔וֹ וּמָֽעֲלָ֥ה ב֖וֹ מָֽעַל:

איש איש כי תשטה אשתו: מה כתיב למעלה מן הענין ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו, אם אתה מעכב מתנות הכהן, חייך שתצטרך לבא אצלו להביא לו את הסוטה

This Rash"i begs the question; What does the Aveira of not giving the Kohen his Matanos have to do with a person's wife becoming a Sotah? 

Upon a little contemplation, I realized that there is direct causation here. 

In general, there is an interesting dynamic in a traditional relationship between a man and wife. The man, generally speaking, is more giving and offers  his house, car etc. to others more freely than his wife. Chaza'l in Bava Metziah 87A say:

כתיב (בראשית יח, ו) קמח וכתיב סלת א"ר יצחק מכאן שהאשה צרה עיניה באורחים יותר מן האיש

This, I don't believe, is necessarily a negative trait. There is a ying/yang where men don't always measure the ramifications of offering their house to 12 guest for four weeks while the woman, being more realistic (sometimes) sees it as the impossibility that it is being that all the kids will be home or such. A man might pledge a large sum of money to charity and his wife will remind him that they need that money to fix a leak. In the Sefiros, the right side which starts with Chesed (giving) is known as the male dominated side. The left side which starts with Gevurah (withholding) is known as the side of Nukva-Female. At the end of the day there needs to be a healthy balance between the two.  However, there are many situations where the ying/yang is out of balance. Many times a woman will not want here husband to give anything away to charity and would want to keep it all for herself and her family. Those situations a husband needs to assert himself and allow his wife to understand that "NO" I am the man of the house, I earned this money and I will do with it what I see fit. When the husband doesn't assert himself, he might think that he is doing his wife or himself a favor by listening to his wife. He might think that he is doing what is best for Shalom Bayis. However, he is not! By allowing his wife to control his giving, he is allowing the balance to be destroyed. The wife, whether consciously or subconsciously, wants the man to ultimately make the final decision albeit with her input. If he follows his wife blindly he loses her respect. She won't respect him as a man anymore. 

When it comes to giving the Cohen/Levi Terumah, Maaser, Matnos Kehuna, the same can be said. In a normal relationship the wife might tell her husband to withhold somewhat.  The man's job is to do what he has to do and say no. The husband will not be helping his Shalom Bayis by giving in to his wife. If he does give in to his wife and listen to her and not give the Matnos Kehuna that he is obligated to give his wife will lose her respect for him. The Torah teaches us that the next logical step is that the wife will feel unfulfilled in the marriage and look elsewhere for fulfillment. That is what the Pasuk teaches us   

אם אתה מעכב מתנות הכהן, חייך שתצטרך לבא אצלו להביא לו את הסוטה  

Another potential explanation:

There is an interesting aspect to Matnos Kehuna and that is that although it is considered charity there is also an element of Kedusha to this charity. Not only is it considered giving charity to the Kohen but the Matana becomes Kodesh. The giver is actually being Makdish the Matanah. There is an element of Hakdasha which means that the giver is also giving to God. It is like a hybrid Mitzvah of Bein Adam Lachaveiro and Bein Adam Lamakom. He is Makdish it to God by giving it to the Kohen. One who denies the Kohen his Matnos Kehuna is essentially sinning against the Kohen and against God. 

The only other Aveira that can be considered a sin that is both Bein Adam Lachavero and Bein Adam Lamakom is the Issur of Eishes Ish. When a man gets married he is "Mekadesh" his wife. He creates an exclusive bond. That bond has an element of "Kinyan" which is like any other Kinyan. Now the item is his and anybody that steals, or uses it without his consent would be considered a "Ganav". However in this case of marriage the owner has no right to even consent to allow her to be used by another. The reason is that the woman is "Mekudash". She is his exclusively through a Godly covenant. One who steals her is both sinning against the owner/husband but is also violating an issur Erva which is a sin against God.

This explains why one who doesn't share his Matnos Kehuna with the rightful owner, the Kohen gets punished in this manner. His wife becomes a Sotah. The Sotah represents the same kind of violation that he has transgressed. This is the ultimate Mida Kineged Mida. He violated an Issur Hekdesh by stealing somebody else's item that was hekdesh so his item that is hekdesh too gets violated. 

ירושלים נקרא ציון

We find in over 150 places in Tanach that ירושלים is called ציון. How did this name come about and why is it in fact called ציון?

There are a lot of explanations given especially in Kabbalah as to how and why this would be. However I haven't seen a satisfactory answer as to how this name came about.

I would like to suggest a hypothesis.

 ירושלים is a central theme in Judiasim. It is the eternal capital of Eretz Yisrael which is a central theme in Judiasim. Yet, ירושלים is not mentioned in the Torah. 

The reasons for ירושלים not being mentioned in the Torah but rather as המקום אשר יבחר ה'  are discussed in the Rishonim. Rabbi Yehuda Halevi in the Kuzari states ירושלים לא תיבנה כי אם כשיתאוו אליה בתכלית הכוסף  Jerusalem will not be built up until Israel shows God that they really desire it with all their heart. This is based on a Sifri that says as follows:

כי אם אל המקום אשר יבחר ה' א‑להיכם מכל שבטיכם' – דרוש על פי נביא... יכול תמתין עד שיאמר לך נביא? תלמוד לומר 'לשכנו תדרשו ובאת שמה

דרוש ומצוא ואחר כך יאמר לך נביא. וכן אתה מוצא בדוד, שנאמר 'זכור ה' לדוד את כל עֻנותו אשר נשבע לה' נדר לאביר יעקב אם אבא באהל ביתי אם אתן שנת לעיני... עד אמצא מקום לה' משכנות לאביר יעקב' (תהילים קל"ב, א-ה)"         (ספרי דברים פסקה סב

God wanted us to show him that we really desired it before he gave it to us. The reason for the above is beyond the scope of this discussion. 

The other reasons given are by Maimonides in Moreh Nevuchim who says as follows:

ואשר לא התבאר בתורה ולא נזכר בפרט, אבל רמז אליו ואמר 'אשר יבחר ה', יש בו אצלי שלש חכמות. האחת מהן - שלא יחזיקו בו האומות וילחמו עליו מלחמה חזקה, כשידעו שזה המקום מן הארץ הוא תכלית התורה; והשנית - שלא יפסידוהו מי שהוא בידם עתה וישחיתוהו בכל יכלתם; והשלישית, והיא החזקה שבהם, שלא יבקש כל שבט בהיותו בנחלתו ולמשל בו, והיה נופל עליו מן המחלוקת והקטטה, כמו שנפל בבקשת הכהונה, ולזה באה המצוה שלא יבנה בית הבחירה אלא אחר הקמת מלך, עד שתהיה המצוה לאחד, ותסתלק המחלוקת..."      (מורה הנבוכים ח"ג פרק מה)

1. So that the nations of the world will not try to possess it first, fortify it and fight a war to retain it knowing that it is our desired capital (As the Arabs are doing today with East Jerusalem).

2. So that the nation that possessed it before us wouldn't destroy it to the best of their ability so that when we do take over we will be left with "Scorched Earth" (as the Jordanians did from 1948 to 1967)

3. So that the Jews themselves wouldn't fight over it and try to control it when Eretz Yisrael was divided amongst the 12 tribes. 

ירושלים was always known throughout the Torah as the undisclosed future Capital of Eretz Yisrael. Eventually King David discovered it by way of Nevuah from גד הנביא.

At that point it became know to all that the "undisclosed location" that had always been talked about and mentioned many times in the Torah was in fact the city of Jerusalem.

However, it must have been referred to, up to that point with some name. Maybe it was referred to as "ציון" "The Assigned Place". ציון was the original name of the undisclosed location that had always been discussed as the future Capital. How else would have it been mentioned when it came up in discussion? That name stuck. The generic name ציון was its name for hundreds of years. Now finally King David uncovered the place which the whole of Israel aspired to for so long and was referred to as ציון.  ציון is really a term for an assigned place and was the placeholder name for ירושלים until  ירושלים's discovery. However, still now, the nom de guerre ציון remained the fondly remembered title used for the Israelite capital. 

').

 

.

ישובו של עולם

 In the Talmud we find two main ways of being עוסק בישובו של עולם loosely translated as living a productive lifestyle. One way of being עוסק בישובו של עולם is the obvious one which is actually having a job which delivers goods and/or goods and services to mankind. Or starting a business that accomplishes the same. The other one is having children. The Talmud in a number of places quotes the Pasuk in Isaiah 45:18 לֹא תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ The world was created to be inhabited and explains that Pasuk to mean that "The world was created for procreation"

Generally healthy people have an instinctive desire to live productive lifestyles. The concept of being עוסק בישובו של עולם has been firmly planted in humankind's natural organic psyche. The more a person is עוסק בישובו של עולם the more he feels fulfilled. 

This might explain an interesting phenomenon. We find that people in underdeveloped societies or people in developed societies but themselves less developed generally speaking have much higher birth rates than people that are more advanced or successful. There is almost a direct inverse correlation (barring external factors) between the wealth of a society and the birth rate. This inverse relationship exists when measuring comparing continent to continent, country to country, city to city, or neighborhood to neighborhood. 

The explanation is simply that the innate drive to be עוסק בישובו של עולם is satisfied by a person if he feels accomplished in his daily life. To the extent that he doesn't feel as accomplished in his delivering goods and services to society he has to fill that void somehow. That void is filled by procreating which is another way of being עוסק בישובו של עולם (maybe because those offspring will produce for others what he didn't). 

Pain and Pleasure- כבוד ובזיון

There is an interesting relationship between pain and pleasure. Many philosophers have discussed the relationship and have argued the nature of the exact relationship. Are they opposites? Do they exist on a continuum? For example; You can ask "Where do you feel the pain" but you can't really ask "Where do you feel the pleasure. However one thing is pretty clear: Severe pain in general is more intense than severe pleasure. Any specific pain can be much more bad than almost any specific pleasure. On an absolute basis people will forego almost any pleasure not to endure severe pain in almost any sphere. That is to say that  pleasure, however great, cannot measure up to pain on a scale and a person will forego any pleasure not to experience pain even on the same scale even if it could be rated directly. No amount of pleasure can be experienced to even out any kind of severe pain. 

There is one exception to this rule. That is the pleasure of כבוד honor/respect vs בזיון dishonor/shame/disgrace. It seems empirically that people will be willing to suffer much בזיון for a much lesser amount of כבוד. The pleasure inherent in כבוד seems, in people's psyche, to immensely outweigh the pain (in the same dose) of בזיון. We see many examples of this in our everyday life. People will put themselves through horrible בזיון to attain, at the end, seemingly small amounts of perceived כבוד 

This write-up is not meant to explain the difference between the pleasure/pain of כבוד ובזיון vs the pleasure/pain of other types of pleasures and pains. This is just meant to point out the difference. Maybe it has to do with the fact that כבוד is, to some extent a more spiritual pleasure. Just food for thought.