דוד בן טובה גיטל אסתר מינדל בת גיטל מרים | לרפואת | |
| ברוך מרדכי בן תולצה הינדה משה בן מרים רות |
על כן יעזוב איש את אביו ואת ואמו ודבק באשתו והיו לבשר אחד
Therefore man should leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and they should be as one flesh. [Breishis 2/24]
Let us explore the DEPTHS of this famous pasuk and see NIFLAOS Mi-Toras Hashem.
How is a man "one flesh" with his wife??
Rashi explains that the child they create together makes them one flesh. The Ramban asks on Rashi, that animals ALSO have babies together and according to the pasuk "one flesh" is a specifically human phenomenon. So how can Rashi say that the pasuk refers to the child? Look in the Ramban who explains that the pasuk means that a wife becomes the relative of the husband and thus they become like one flesh unlike animals who just copulate to keep the species going with becoming relatives.
How can we defend Rashi?
The Mizrachi explains that Rashi is basing himself on the Gemara in Sanhedrin [58a] that expounds this pasuk to be forbidding relations with an animal with whom one cannot have children. Only with a human being relations will produce a child. So Rashi is just basing himself on the gemara and there is no difficulty.
However the Ramban [who knew the Gemara...] apparently was bothered by the fact that Rashi didn't explain the pasuk according to its simple meaning and referred to a drasha of the gemara when Rashi assures us that he only intends to explain the simple meaning of the pasuk [אני לא באתי אלא לפרש פשוטו של מקרא]. The SIMPLE meaning of the pasuk is that we are learning about the marriage of a man to a woman and NOT [as Rashi writes] to forbid a union with animals.
[Methodological note: WHENEVER Rashi explains with a drasha and not the simple meaning of the text one must understand what compelled him to do so. In order to have time for this one must not go on Facebook or be engaged in other time wasting projects and hobbies].
We can answer as follows: Later [pasuk כז] the pasuk says זאת הפעם עצם מעצמי ובשרי משרי - This time, bone from my bones, flesh from my flesh. Why the tautology ["double lashon"] of bones from my bones and flesh from my flesh [we explained this in a recent post - see there]?
The pasuk [18] says לא טוב היות האדם לבדו - it is not good for man to be alone. See the Ramban who asks why the pasuk had to explain the need for a wife because it is not good for man to be alone. It should have said that man can't be alone because you cannot have children alone just like animals can't be alone because they have a need for children?
Maybe that is EXACTLY what the pasuk is teaching us. Unlike animals who need a partner just to perpetuate the species. man needs a partner because it is not good for him to alone and he needs a helpmate. Therefore, Hashem took part of him and created for him a woman so that he would have a helpmate - עזר כנגדו. If it were just about babies, man wouldn't need someone created from his very self while a true helpmate must be PART OF ME.
A woman helps a man both in attaining his physical needs [see Yevamos 63a that a man brings home raw wheat and the woman makes bread out of it] and his spiritual needs [see Yevamos 62b that without a woman man lacks Torah and other spiritual gifts]. That is the meaning of the tautology: עצם מעצמי - a bone from my bones, refers to the spiritual build and structure of man. Bones give man a firm standing in this world [see bent over old people with brittle bones רח"ל]. They are his שיעור קומה - importance and value [PLEASE see the Shiurei Daas of Rav Bloch 1/94 for a deeper explanation of this concept]. The represent his עצמיות - essential personal being. The flesh - בשר - represent man's desires and feelings [we refer to desires as תאוות בשר. Also "ישבתם על סיר הבשר"]. A woman was given to man because alone he will not reach his spiritual potential and she is thus עצם מעצמי and also he will not have his physical needs and desires met בשר מבשרי.
Wow. Gotta love your wife.
That is what the pasuk means when it says על כן יעזוב איש את אביו ואמו - What is a man "leaving" when he gets married? The pasuk DOESN'T say בית אביו the fathers home [which isn't always true anyway] but אביו - the father. The answer is that until marriage one's שיעור קומה and spiritual form is developed by one's parent. After marriage it is the wife who aids the man in the continuation of the development of his spiritual form and structure. That is the עצם מעצמי - She is part of my BONES, my עצם, my essential self, and will thus help me in my pursuit of continuous growth and therefore one should leave his father and cling to her. The father cannot continue training the child forever. Now he is an adult and the reins must be passed on to the wife who will now help man grow further [in non-parental ways of course. A woman should NEVER parent her husband. Many do so anyway but that is a grave error... ואכמ"ל].
So the pasuk begins על כן יעזוב איש את אביו ואמו referring to עצם מעצמי. He should his parents because from now it is the woman who will help him achieve his spiritual quests. Now the pasuk must refer to the בשר מבשרי aspect. It is true that Chavah was created from man's flesh but how will a woman be part of man's flesh for all times [see the Sforno - זאת הפעם, only THIS time woman was taken from man's flesh]??
Now it gets yet deeper.... THAT is why Rashi was compelled to explain that והיו לבשר אחד is referring to their child. בשר אחד is explaining בשר מבשרי [just as על כן יעזוב etc. is explaining עצם מעצמי]. How is it possible for a man and woman to have the same בשר which denotes desires and feelings? They are SOOO different?! The answer is THE CHILD. What I want for myself, I want for my child. I feel that he is an extension of myself and his wants and desires are mine. What my wife wants for HERSELF, she ALSO wants for her child. It emerges then that the child represents an extension of a parent's desire for his or her own self. So the pasuk is defining בשר אחד as being "one desire". When do man and woman have "one desire"? With respect to the child. So when Rashi explained that בשר אחד was referring to the child that was created by the parents, he didn't mean the child per se but the notion that man and woman will have one desire, as embodied by the child.
That is why Rashi had to revert to the דרש on the pasuk. It was necessary in order to explain problems with simple meaning of the pasuk. What is עצם מעצמי and בשר מבשרי and how does it fit in with the pasuk על כן יעזוב איש את אביו ואמו ודבק באשתו והיו לבשר אחד? Now it all makes sense....
Is that SOMETHING!!!!!
[Based on די באר - פרשת בראשית by Ha-Gaon Hamuflah Vi-hamuflag Rav Dovid Yitzchak Mann ztz"l]
