Part III – Home is Where the Heart(h) Is

As we recall the statement of Rabbi Chananya ben Akashya - that G-d wished to confer merit
upon the Jewish people and, accordingly, He loaded us up with all kinds of virtue-heavy
commandments and an inexhaustible program of Torah study and, as such, we are never lacking
for scoring opportunities – we may not help but notice that this system seems to bypass a
significant portion of the population (possibly the majority): those of the female persuasion.
Evidently, women have a very meager connection to the positive commandments. Indeed, there
are but three positive commandments that are designated specifically for women and two forms
of obligatory offerings (aside from personal sin offerings) and they are required to partake in
matzo and marror (bitter herbs) on Passover, kiddush on Friday nights, havdalah, Grace after
meals and mezuzah.1 They are also obligated in the Rabbinical commandments of megillah,
Chanuka lights, four cups of wine on Passover, and blessings of enjoyment. After these, the
pickings are slim.2 Clearly, Rabbi Chananya ben Akashya’s uplifting homily does not endow the
women with the full range of benefits. Could it be, as some feminists assert, that G-d is interested
in a discriminatory system of virtue in an effort to bar women from paradise?
I believe that most of us would consider such a notion patently ridiculous. Moreover, this
assertion can hold true only if one believes that men and women are two distinct competing
species of human-kind who manage to cohabitate when the conditions for such happen to be
favorable. Furthermore, such an opinion relies on the assumption that G-d ‘Himself’ can be
characterized as male in a biological sense.3 Ironically, these (mis)conceptions are propagated
mostly by those who consider themselves as liberal and egalitarian.4 The ‘chauvinistic’ chareidim
believe otherwise.
To review the question, we are asking that if the purpose of such an extensive list of
commandments is to give us maximal opportunity to merit virtue, why are women denied a large
share of this opportunity?5 (Note – we are not asking, as the Talmud in Berachot6 asks, how do
women merit paradise if they have so few obligations, but rather, why is it that they were not
given as much opportunity as were the men?)
Numerous rabbinical scholars explain that men were created to civilize this world by engaging in
industry, production, commerce, mastering the sciences, and, when necessary, warfare. To this
1
The issue of prayer is a bit complicated.
2
Women are exempt from all time oriented commandments besides matzo and marror and the Rabbinic ones I
mentioned. They are likewise totally exempt from the ever present obligation of Torah study, the essential obligation of
marriage and reproduction, and from the pilgrimage on the festivals except for the special Hakhel that follows the
sabbatical year. Though a woman may be a mohel and a shochet it is certainly not the norm. Virtually all the laws of
testimony and judicial proceedings, establishing the months, warfare, commerce, trade and agriculture, and the Temple
service are outside of their jurisdiction. The communal requirements of building the Temple and appointing a king are
undoubtedly carried out by the men. Of course, if they do engage in trade and commerce and agriculture, they are
obligated to all the tithes, charity, and apportioning, paying workers on time, sending away a mother bird, and they are
obligated in the levirate marriage. All of these, however, are actually negative commandments that are transformed to a
positive (lahv hanitak l’aseh).
3
No, I haven’t overlooked Rashi’s commentary on Numbers 20:1. Also of interest is Rashi’s commentary on Numbers
5:12 although Rashi himself negates the biological connotation in his commentary on Exodus 15:3.
4
This brings back fond memories of the bumper sticker slogan that was disseminated by the feminist movement at the
height of its renaissance three decades ago: “When god made man, she was only kidding.”
5
Indeed, the Talmud in tractate Kiddushin 34a excludes mezuzah from the commandments that do not pertain to
women using the argument, “This commandment is followed by the urging of the Torah ‘In order to increase your
days’ – i.e., extend your life. [Can we claim that only] men require life and women do not require life?”
6
Talmud Bavli Berachot 17a
end it was necessary to imbue man with fierce and passionate drives to motivate him to reach his
full potential. These drives generally fall into three categories of lust: lust for wealth (kihnah -
envy), lust for bodily pleasure (taavah - craving), and lust for glory and fame (kavod - honor).
Although these drives cause man to succeed, they are simultaneously tremendous obstacles for
self-discipline and for forging a path to G-d. To compensate for this shortcoming, G-d gave us
[men] a full spectrum of ‘channels’ to Him in the hope that every man will find at least one that
can suit him. Conversely, women were not meant to be the instigators of all the above
achievements and therefore there was no need to instill in women these lustful drives at the same
scale as men. As such, their conduit to G-d is not fraught with obstacles to the same degree;
hence, they have no need for such a full range of commandments.
While this explanation seems to adequately explain why it is not necessary that women should be
as burdened as the men, it still falls somewhat short of explaining why they are held back from
performing many of the commandments. Of course, based on the response of the Talmud in
Berachot that I (parenthetically) alluded to earlier - that women merit paradise by means of
supporting, encouraging and enabling their menfolk7 to study and perform commandments - it
follows that women are actually not excluded from any commandments, but rather, can be active
participants in a supporting role. Still this avenue entails being fully dependent on the
achievements of the men (who, to be fair, do not always get the job done); and so we ask, why is
it that women do not have independent access to these channels?
Perhaps, the rudiments of the Maharsha and the trend of our discussion can satisfy this question,
as well.
Many readers may be familiar with the following discourse as it is a very popular generic sermon
that is frequently presented at sheva berachot celebrations:
The Talmud in tractate Sota states8: Man (Ish) and Woman (Isha) - if they are worthy, G-d is
with them; if they are unworthy, a fire consumes them. Rashi explains that the Hebrew spelling
of the word ish (Man) is Aleph-Yud-Shin. The Hebrew spelling of the word isha (Woman) is
Aleph-Shin-Heh. They are essentially the same root, except that the man has a Yud and the
woman has a Heh. The Hebrew letters Yud and Heh comprise an abbreviated version of G-d’s
name. When Man and Woman are worthy, i.e., they conduct their relationship according to the
Will of G-d, they sustain G-d’s presence between them and the letters Yud and Heh of G-d’s
name that He contributes to their essence is preserved and, in turn, preserves them. If they are
unworthy, He withdraws His presence and thereby withdraws the Yud that is His contribution to
Man and the Heh that is His contribution to Woman. In both cases, the resulting essence are the
Hebrew letters Aleph and Shin which spell out the Hebrew word esh (fire) to indicate that their
relationship will transform into a fire of rage and consume them.
Typically, the homily ends here and the speaker goes on to hurriedly wrap up his speech and
convey his blessings to the newlywed couple before the non-dairy frozen dessert completely
melts into oblivion. But, for us chareidim, it may be a tad bit too soon to relax and enjoy the
dessert. The discourse continues.9
Why exactly is it that, of the two divine letters, the man is bequeathed the Yud and the woman is
bequeathed the Heh?

7
Even women who are not married can support their sons, parents, siblings, and/or the community in general. Nobody
needs to be left out.
8
Talmud Bavli Sota 17a
9
This portion is a continuation of the address that was delivered by Rabbi E. Svei as noted above (note Error:
Reference source not found). This also appears in Sefer Kehillat Yitzchok by Rabbi Isaac Neeman of Janowa (Vilna,
1900) attributed to Rabbi Elyakim Getzel of Zambrow.
For this we must study a passage in Talmud tractate Menachot10:
Rabbi Judah the Prince asked of Rabbi Ami: What is the meaning of the verse, Have trust in
G-d for all Eternity for with Ya-H (the abbreviated name of G-d that consists of a Yud and a
Heh) G-d has formed worlds11…? This concurs with the exegesis of Rabbi Yehuda bar Rav
Iloyi who expounded, “These are the two worlds that the Holy One created – olam hazeh (this
world) and olam haba (the afterlife or the World to Come) – one of which was created with the
letter Heh and the other was created with the letter Yud; but I still cannot determine if the World
to Come was created with a Yud and the present world was created with a Heh or vice-versa.
When we find the verse, These are the products of the heavens and the earth (i.e., this world)
in the course of their creation (b’hibaraam)12… and we expound ‘Do not read the word as
b’hibaraam (in the course of their creation), but rather b’Heh baraam (with the letter Heh they
were created)’13 I now understand that it is the present world that was created with the Heh and,
consequently, the World to Come is created with the Yud. And why was the present world
created with a Heh? Because this world resembles a three-sided structure (i.e., a structure with a
roof but with less than four walls that is not fully enclosed) that whoever wishes to exit may do
so…and why is the World to Come created with a Yud? To symbolize that the righteous who
inhabit it are few in number (as the letter Yud is the smallest of all Hebrew letters)…
Thus far, we understand that the letter Yud is symbolic of the World to Come and that the letter
Heh is symbolic of the present world. Now, let us note a passage in tractate Bava Metzia14:
And Rav said: All those who follow the counsel of their wives will eventually fall into
Gehinnom (Hell) as is written…Said Rav Pappa to Abaye: Is there not a popular adage, “If your
wife is petite, [it is advisable to] bend over to whisper to her [to seek her opinion]?” This is not
contradictory! This statement [of Rav] is regarding [outside] worldly matters, this statement [of
Rav Pappa] is regarding household matters. Another version: This statement [of Rav] is
regarding heavenly (spiritual or religious, i.e., other-worldly) matters, this statement [of Rav
Pappa] is regarding present-world matters.
If we consider the second version of the Talmud’s solution, we can perceive a deeper reason 15
why G-d created mankind in two genders, male and female. Man16 must simultaneously manage
his status in two worlds – olam hazeh and olam haba. His job in olam hazeh is to maintain and
enhance [quality of] life for himself and others. He does not need to actively acquire life or a life
sustaining world as they are both already present. His job is to preserve this world and the life it
supports. In short, his mission in regard to this world is a passive one of shemira (guarding or
preserving) as is signified by the white of the tzitzit. In this world, Lo Yihiyeh dominates – do not
do what is destructive to your existence.

10
Talmud Bavli Menachot 29b
11
Isaiah 26:4
12
Genesis 2:4
13
This is derived from noting the tradition that the letter Heh in this word is purposely inscribed a different size
(smaller) than the normal size of the letters being penned. This distinction signifies that we view the letter Heh as
separate from the rest of the word, as if it is a distinct word. Hence the word b’hibaraam is broken into two words –
b’Heh baraam.
14
Talmud Bavli Bava Metzia 59a
15
Obviously, I mean in addition to more superficial biological reasons. We may fool ourselves to think that the
biological phenomena are the main factor because we notice that all vertebrae and even many plants are male and
female and none of this ‘olam haba’ talk applies to them. With this discussion we may have to alter our thinking that it
is only once mankind had to be created male and female for spiritual reasons that G-d implemented this system
throughout the entire animal and plant kingdom for biological consistency (and to throw off the non-believers).
16
I italicized the term Man here to denote that the term in this context is gender neutral. I mean man and woman alike.
All the ensuing male pronouns (he, his, etc.) are similarly gender neutral.
Additionally, he has a second mission – to make use of this olam hazeh and his allotment of life
to create and build an afterlife, an olam haba. This World to Come must be created and life
therein must be earned. This is the zechira and assiya that is signified by the t’chelet in the tzitzit
that indicates that there is something active that must be done. This is dominated by Anochi – I
am G-d who extricated you from the Land of Egypt to be your G-d. Come close to Me and
prolong (immortalize) your existence.
The Talmud states that initially the first Man was a man and woman fused together.17 One reason
for this is that the Torah tells us that Man was created in G-d’s image. This can be understood in a
physical sense that just as G-d is One and is neither distinctly male nor female but a (The)
complete indivisible all-encompassing being, the original Man was also a single complete
physical being. However, Man cannot be G-d and Man cannot be One, Man is merely ‘one’. He
who is One (G-d) can think all thoughts, utter all words, hear all sounds, and be all places as One.
He who is “one” (Man) can think one thought, utter one word, hear one sound, and be in only one
place at any one time. Likewise, he can only focus his efforts on one goal at any given time. Yet,
he has two missions or, as is our trend, one complimentary two-fold mission.
This two-fold mission is a bit much for “one” Man to handle. G-d understands this and proclaims,
“It is not good for Man to be by himself, I shall make for him a compliment18 who will be
opposite him.” Evidently, a two-fused-into-one being can only exist in G-d’s realm where Anochi
and Lo Yihiyeh are One and Zachor and Shamor are One (and, I suppose, white and t’chelet are
One) but not in this world where everything is merely ‘one’. Consequently, as with everything
else we discussed, G-d has to break down the intact entity into two sub-units and so He does. He
makes “one” Man into two people: male and female – ish and isha.
Although they both have the same attributes of humans – intelligence, power of speech, free will,
emotions, and consciously guided activities – they are designated for two distinct, yet
complimentary, purposes. To the woman, the isha, He contributes the Heh, the LoYihiyeh. This is
to signify that her primary function is to manage the shamor, the preservation of the integrity of
this world. To the man, the ish, He contributes the Yud, the Anochi. This is to signify that his
primary purpose is to enact the zachor and assiya, to create and acquire a share of the Eternal
world. True, they are both cautioned to observe all the negative commandments. Nevertheless, his
job is to distance himself from material involvement as if every day is the Day of Atonement19
whereupon all the negative commandments are a ‘done deal’ and to focus on Torah study and the
active performance of positive commandments. The woman has no such stipulation to engulf
herself in ‘holiness’. She is entitled to and, as I am saying, expected to, spend the bulk of her time
facing the challenges of the material world. Indeed, just as the woman is distanced, i.e., ‘out of
proximity’, from the positive commandments, the man is meant to be distanced (out of proximity)
from the negative commandments.
Thus we note that the complimentary relationship between man and woman cannot be simply
stated that he is the scholar (and/or breadwinner) and that she is the homemaker (and/or
breadwinner), whereupon they combine their talents and mix and match their responsibilities to
form a viable team, but rather that they are, each one, specifically groomed to specialize in a
different phase of our two-phased objective. Hence, the Talmud states that if they are worthy they
17
Talmud Bavli Berachot 61a
18
This translation of the term ezer may be slightly more articulate than what we are used to (typically: helpmate)
though I maintain that it is no less accurate.
19
This means to conform with the ideal status prescribed by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai who spent 13 years in a cave
with no clothes, no gadgets, no women, and the barest minimum of food. In such a setting, negative commandments are
a moot point as there is barely any opportunity to sin. Most of us, must settle for the Rabbi Yishmael ideal and we must
work, cohabitate with others, etc. Still, even Rabbi Yishmael will agree that a man’s involvement with the material
world should be kept to the minimum that he requires.
will compliment each other (ezer); but if they are unworthy, they will instead become opponents.
Just as an army has ground forces and air forces and sea forces that do not oppose each other, but
rather, compliment each other,20 and that is what enables the army to succeed, so too, a
man/woman union has olam hazeh forces and olam haba forces that are meant to compliment
each other and not oppose each other. It is only in this way that they can succeed as an integrated
whole. It is obvious that the ground forces have no need for planes and the air forces have no
need for tanks. Woman, in her role as the compliment (ezer) of Man, has no need for tzitzit,
tefillin, quorums and public Torah reading, sukka and lulav, etc., as they in no way assist her to
accomplish her part of the joint mission. If a woman feels incomplete without assuming an active
role in these activities, it is most likely because she is not successfully involved in a
complimentary relationship21 with her male counterpart.22
In such a situation, where Man does not live up to the obligations that are signified by the Yud
and/or Woman does not preserve the integrity of the Heh, G-d withdraws His deposit, the Yud
and Heh, and goes Home. The couple has failed at their joint mission of creating and earning a
World to Come. The alternative world is a world of fire.

20
Rule of thumb: The more he compliments her, the more she compliments him.
21
See note 7 above.
22
I want to be very clear that I am by no means suggesting a greater degree of blameworthiness for either gender. I am
speaking bluntly where such is the case regardless of what are the circumstances that brought it about.