Wanting Shalom Bayis Vs. Needing Shalom Bayis?

I recently overheard a shiur given by Rabbi Zacharia Wallerstein on this past week's parsha. I say overheard, because ASoG was listening to it across the table from me as I was coincidentally reading this post by Rabbi Harry Maryles over on Emes Ve-Emunah which comments on that very shiur. He decries Rabbi Wallerstein's anti-internet plea stemming from a rather crazy internet-email/chat story which sounded as though it occurred in the mid/late 1990's (which I also heard and found a little strange). For more info about that, see Rabbi Maryles' post.

The point I strongly object to was related to Shalom Bayis (somewhere after the 20 minute mark).

Rabbi Wallerstein went through the concept of "wants" versus "needs." One pair, which I thought was appropriate, was "wanting" versus "needing" to be closer to HaShem. Too many people say that they "really, really want" to have a closer relationship with HaShem, but few people say that they "need" a closer connection to HaShem. Instead of "We want Moshiach now," it should be "We need Moshaich now." Point taken - I like the message.

But, Rabbi Wallerstein then said there is a difference between "wanting" Shalom Bayis and "needing" Shalom Bayis. He remarked that if you "want" Shalom Bayis, then you go to a therapist to tell you what to do, to tell you how to make your spouse happy. But if you say that you "need" Shalom Bayis, then you won't go to a therapist, because you will truly know what makes him/her happy and do that.

With all due respect, that's rubbish. Not only is it incorrect, it could be immensely harmful.

No one really knows what they're doing when they married. This is why pre-marital counseling is important, and groups like Shalom Task Force thankfully exist. Everyone needs to prepare in the best way that they can, with whatever time and resources that they can devote or access, to get ready for marriage before the big transition comes under the chuppah.

Having said that, even with reading every book out there, talking to every Rebbi, teacher, counselor, psychologist, married friend you know, and listening to every shiur you can attend or download, does not make you 100% fool-proof in your approach to marriage. Every individual situation is different, and no matter how well you think you know your fiance/e, there will be plenty of things he/she never told you or did in your presence before that will throw you for a loop. It's not inherently bad, and in many cases the conflict can be harmless or easily resolved, but it's all part of the process of coming together as husband and wife.

However, there are sometimes issues that can come up - whether there were something that was withheld from a spouse prior to the wedding, or some condition/situation/difficulty that arose anew while in the freshly married state - a young couple may not have the tools, knowledge, or experience to handle the problem. If this problem is causing unhappiness, and as a good spouse, you want to make sure your husband/wife is happy in life, then you will do everything you can to resolve the conflict.

But that does not mean that if you realize that peacefully working through the issue is a "need" that you won't need a therapist's help to do so.

One of my rabbeim is very, very encouraging, and appropriately so, when it comes to matters of this nature that the couple should see a professional counselor. He will even suggest that seeing a psychologist, who is clinically trained for his/her work, is better than seeing a Rabbi who is not. The professional has been given an education specifically to work with issues that can arise between couples, whereas a Rabbi may have personal experience and experience as a spiritual advisor, but lacks the breadth and depth that a PHD in psychology or master's in counseling provides.

Every couple must develop the a key to success in marriage: good communication. Without being able to talk openly, respectfully, sensitively, and sincerely with one another, you'll never be able to even broach difficult topics and satisfactorily reach a resolution through discussion. Sometimes this can be hard to do, and if you find yourselves talking in circles, above each other's heads, or past one another - then it is time to seek proper guidance.

All married couples need Shalom Bayis. On that point, Rabbi Wallerstein is correct. But to resolutely proclaim that someone who knows they "need" Shalom Bayis instead of "want" Shalom Bayis will have some greater understanding to successfully keep their spouse happy is utterly wrong.

If, as one should, firmly believe that Shalom Bayis is a true necessity, then he or she will have the courage to openly communicate with their spouse, and seek out professional help as needed to assist them in solving their ongoing difficulty. There is nothing embarrassing or shameful about utilizing the resources that are available, and there are plenty of observant, Jewish couples' counselors/psychologists in our world who are more than happy to offer their guidance and perspective.

There are too many young people out there today who have been damaged or otherwise uneducated by their personal experience, seeing what their parents did, or hearing mistaken notions from educators and rabbeim. When these role models let us down, whether intentionally or for lack of ability (and after all, no one is perfect) it's only proper to look for help in the right places.

May we all know, deep inside, that Shalom Bayis is an absolute necessity in married life, whether married or hopefully soon-to-be married, and may we all have the intestinal fortitude to take the right steps to achieve and maintain healthy Shalom Bayis in our relationships and homes.

Sarah, You've Got Some 'Splainin' To Do!

The episode of Sarah's laughter at overhearing the prophecy that she and Avraham will have a child in one year's time has always been perplexing. I'm sure many of the readers have heard numerous shiurim or read divrei Torah on the incident. While reviewing the second aliyah of this week's parsha Vayera for Shnaim Mikra v'Echad Targum, I noticed a few more wrinkles that doen't make sense to me.

Here's the scene. HaShem is visiting Avraham, who is recovering from his recent circumcision. Avraham looks up, sees three men, leaves HaShem to go greet them and arrange for food to be prepared for his unexpected guests. They ask him where Sarah his wife is (I guess he told them her name already, or they knew beforehand because Avraham and Sarah were famous), and Avraham replies, "Behold! In the tent!"

The man talking to Avraham informs him that he's going to return again in a year and Sarah will have given birth to a son. The next posuk tells us that Sarah is eavesdropping in on the conversation at the entrance of the tent, which is located behind "him," which I guess means Avraham, who had been going in and out to bring the dishes of food. In a narrative verse, the Torah tells us that Avraham and Sarah were old, Sarah had entered menopause.

Sarah apparently thinks this well-wisher and his blessing are funny, and laughs at herself/within herself/at her insides (depending on the translation) and wonders aloud if it's possible that though she has withered, she'll once again have "smooth skin," or resume menstruating (both per Rashi) and thus be able to conceive and bear a son. She also mentions her husband/lord is old.

Out of nowhere, HaShem, Who had seemingly been "absent" from the ongoing discussion (is G-d ever not there?) joins the conversation and asks Avraham why Sarah laughed, and famously alters what she actually said, omitting her seemingly slightly offensive remark about her husband to "Is it even true that I shall give birth, though I have aged?" HaShem proclaims that nothing is beyond His abilities, and says now that He will return in a year and Sarah will have a son.

Parenthetically, did you notice the sudden change from what the visitor said to HaShem saying the same thing? I think it's at this point that we can infer that the men who happened to stop by are implied to be angels. Though some commentators claim they were normal men - and according to Rashi, perhaps Avraham still thought so too - by combining this interjection by HaShem, along with their foreboding gaze toward Sodom (18:16) and departure for Sodom (18:22) following HaShem's revelation of His plan to Avraham, it seems to be somewhat overtly indicated that they are more than what they appear to be.

Anyway, after HaShem tells Avraham of Sarah's laughter and alters her words for the sake of Shalom Bayis (as Rashi says in 18:13), Sarah appears in the main tent, no longer hiding and denies laughing, which the narrative posuk tells us was because she was afraid.

Finally, the Torah writes, "וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא, כִּי צָחָקְתְּ" - "and he said, 'No, but you laughed'" (18:15).

WHO said that? According to the Artscroll translation, the pronoun "he" from "and he said" is lowercase, implying Avraham (which makes more sense than the speaking male visitor).

Is it just me, or does this whole scene sound like an episode of, l'havdil, "I Love Lucy?" Sarah/Lucy gets caught red handed, so-to-speak as HaShem / l'havdil Fred tells Avraham/Ricky. Avraham/Ricky turns to his wife as she vehemently denies it, knowing that she really did it, despite her denial and affirms that she did, indeed laugh.

Cue the audience laugh-track.

Did Avraham hear Sarah laugh because her laughter was quite loud and unique? Or is he saying that, "Well, if G-d says you laughed, sweetheart, and you deny it, I'm going with G-d on this one"?

It all seems strange to read the flow of the conversation that way,.

The JPS translation has the English version of the posuk written with a capital "He," meaning HaShem addresses Sarah and replies that she did, in fact, laugh. This makes a little more sense to me, since HaShem certainly did "hear" her laugh (how could He not, being G-d and everything?) and had just informed Avraham of that occurrence.

Now back in our crazy sitcom version, HaShem / l'havdil Fred turns to the embarrassed Sarah/Lucy and wags a finger at her saying, "Oh, yes you did!" Again, cue the laugh-track as Sarah/Lucy makes that famous grimace we all know and love.

It all seems a little strange. Even without the Nick-at-Nite references, HaShem "appears" out of nowhere, Sarah gets admonished, and we cut back to Avraham with his guests. Did Sarah just slink away, happy that she will have a baby but a bit embarrassed at the scene that just transpired?

Another thought, somewhat related thought.

At the end of last week's parsha of Lech Lecha, when HaShem first tells Avraham that he will have a child with Sarah, Avraham himself falls on his face laughing. He says "Will a hundred year old have a child? And Sarah, who is ninety, give birth?"

Avraham's response seems very similar to Sarah's. Each wonders with incredulity that he/she could possibly sire/give birth to a child because of their advanced age, and then remarks that his/her wife/husband is elderly. Granted, the terminology is not exactly the same. Avraham just uses their ages, while Sarah mentions her menopausal state and that Avraham is old. But is that really so much more offensive? Especially given HaShem's critique of Sarah, when He proclaims that nothing is beyond His abilities.

The Artscroll Stone Chumash quotes the Kotzker Rebbe who says that though Sarah truly believed her laughter was in good spirit, there was some real subconscious doubt deep within her mind. There's also the vort I heard Rav Goldvicht quote from the a Sefas Emes that viewed Sarah's denial in a better light. However, I can't recall anyone ever saying that Avraham's response was negative in any way.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to besmirch the reputation of our holy forefather, I just don't quite understand the inherent difference regarding the level of laughing disbelief expressed by Avraham and Sarah.

Any thoughts, comments, or suggestions on these parsha musings?

P.S. As many readers know, I am quite fond of Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks and his writings. His "Covenant and Conversation" from last week on Lech Lecha is simply fantastic. His essay the week before that on Noach also discussed a fascinating interpretation of the Tower of Bavel and the languages getting mixed up that I had never heard before.

To Bring Or Not To Bring

ASoG and I were arguing about, or should I say, passionately discussing, a particular issue recently. I want to see what the readers think – not for the purpose of proving who’s right or wrong, but just because I am very interested in seeing what other people do in this situation.

Here’s the scenario: You invite guests over for a Shabbos meal. They graciously accept your invitation, and in turn offer to bring something, such as a kugel, salad or dessert. Do you accept their offer or not?

What I said: The soon-to-be guests are trying to be courteous. They are sincere in their intention, and are not just offering as a platitude (of course this would be different where it’s obvious they don’t really care and are just mouthing off to appear sincere). They are grateful for your invitation, particularly since this means less effort to prepare a meal for Shabbos, and as such they want to contribute one little something to help with all the work and money you are expending and spending.

As such, I felt that it’s perfectly fine to accept their offer. Receiving their gift is part of a mutual, reciprocal relationship of being nice, expressing chesed, and people grow from acts of giving, even somewhat minor ones such as this.

I contended that we shouldn’t don’t turn away and refuse their chesed because it does good for them to give. They want to give, so let them be fulfilled through helping. There is the additional benefit that they are indeed making the host’s work easier by not having to make one more dish, even if it’s just as minor as a salad. Even easier is buying and bringing wine or challah (or dessert), which is a bit less involved, but still saves from the often expensive venture of hosting a large amount of guests.

ASoG said: We should not accept the offer. First, perhaps they feel compelled to offer. Second, even if they are genuine, it’s a tircha for them to make and bring anything, since they were expecting a care-free preparation-less Shabbos meal, and now you’re forcing them to spend time making stuff. Thus, it is Better to exert more of your own energy, even if it might be an inconvenience, than to force them to contribute when they probably are too busy and aren’t able to.

The basis of our discussion seems to have stemmed from our personal experiences growing up and more recently. In the city where ASoG is from, no one ever offers or brings anything when they go to someone else for a Shabbos meal (even though I’ve seen her mother do differently, just for the record). Where I’m from, having guests bring food they’ve prepared can be tricky sometimes because not everyone is so knowledgeable about kashrus, but people do have a common practice of bringing a bottle of wine.

In the several years I’ve lived in the Washington Heights-YU-Mt. Sinai Jewish community (I can’t really comment on Breur’s), I’ve seen that the general practice is for people to offer to bring something to their hosts, for the hosts to accept, and the guests actually prepare and bring the food item. I’ve seen people bring wine (I’ve done that) or store-bought dessert such as a melt-a-way (I’ve done this too), and I’ve seen women and married couples bring salads and kugels. It would then seem to me that this is the minhag hamakom so-to-speak.

ASoG hasn’t really lived in the Heights like I have, so she has no continuous exposure to this practice, hence I can’t fault her for relying on her personal experience and how she was raised. This is all part and parcel of how having an argument in marriage works, as I’ve heard from Rabbi Maybruch, that perspectives in these sorts of discussions are often colored by personal experience. Rabbi Maybruch suggested that I should be considerate of the fact that it could also be part of ASoG’s perspective that she saw experientially that the hostess was the one who took care of everything as part of her role of hosting guests.

What do you guys think? What has been your experience? Is it based on local custom? Is there a standard? I really want to hear other perspectives, so PLEASE comment away!

PS - In the end, things sort of resolved themselves when both guests refused to take 'no' for an answer and politely, but firmly gave us a selection of what each could bring. ASoG and I also decided jointly that in the future, we will hopefully always welcome guests' offers with open minds and a lot of appreciation.

A Winner In The Toilet Paper Hanging Debate?!

After discussing in a recent post how some folks have issues with pet peeves as minor as how a roll of toilet paper is hung, a friend pointed out the rather extensive Wikipedia entry on the subject.

Aside from the copious history of the debate (which makes this worth a read in and of itself), the entry cites two different published studies that make the claim that "Toilet paper orientation is often mentioned as a hurdle for married couples."

Interestingly enough, however, almost all of the surveys conducted on public preference for toilet paper orientation favors the over-hand method that I personally support. The debate has never been totally settled, despite the fairly conclusive data this presents.

At any rate, another rather fascinating concept presented is the fact that there are products out there called Tilt-a-Roll that actually features the ability to simply change the orientation of the roll quickly and easily.

Though the design is copyrighted, perhaps the inventors of Kosher Lamp, etc could come up with a way to market a Jewish Shalom Bayis-themed packaging.

After all, Tilt-a-Roll's company motto happens to be: "Let Tilt-A-Roll save your marriage!"