Daf Ditty Shabbes 141: Father Vs Mother in Parenting

Daf Ditty Shabbes 141: Father vs Mother in Parenting

Brené Brown1

1 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wholehearted-parenting-manifesto_b_1923011

Prov 6:20

Prov 6:12

MISHNA: A person may take his son in his hands on Shabbat, and even though there is a stone, which is a set-aside item, in the child’s hand, it is not prohibited to pick up the child. And it is permissible to take a basket with a stone inside it on Shabbat. And one may move ritually

2 impure teruma, which may not be eaten and is set-aside, with ritually pure teruma, as well as with non-sacred produce.

GEMARA: Rava said: If one carried out a living baby to the public domain on Shabbat, and the baby had a purse that was hanging around his neck, he is liable for carrying out the purse. However, one who carried out a dead baby, with a purse hanging around his neck, is exempt.

Rava said: If one carried out a living baby to the public domain on Shabbat, and a purse was hanging around the baby’s neck, he is liable for carrying out the purse. The Gemara asks: And let him be liable for carrying out the baby as well.

The Gemara responds: Rava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who said: A living being carries itself. Therefore, one who carries a living being from one domain to another is not liable.

And Rava said: One who carried out a dead baby with a purse hanging around the baby’s neck is exempt. The Gemara asks: And let him be liable for carrying out the baby. The Gemara answers: Rava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: With regard to any labor that is not needed for its own sake, one is exempt for performing it on Shabbat. One who carries out a corpse does not do so because he needs it; rather, he does so for the sake of the corpse, i.e., to bury it or to move it from a degrading place. Therefore, he has not performed a labor prohibited by Torah law. Similarly, he is also exempt for carrying out the purse because due to his distress and mourning he negates the purse, as it is insignificant relative to the baby.

We learned in the mishna: A person may take his son in his hands on Shabbat; and this is permitted even though there is a stone in the child’s hand. As it can be inferred from this mishna that the stone is negated relative to the child, why, then, is he liable in the case of a purse hanging around a live baby’s neck? Let the purse be negated relative to the baby. The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai say: You cannot infer from this mishna that the stone is negated and therefore it is permitted to move it. Rather, the mishna is referring to a baby who has longings for his father. It is permitted for the father to move the stone because if the father does not lift him, the baby might take ill.

RASHI

..for if he failed to carry him he will get sick…

RAMBAM Hil Shabbat 25:16

One may take up his son who is [yearning] for him but has a stone in his hand. But not a dinar— for if the dinar would fall, the father would take it up in his hand. It is permissible to move a basket that was perforated and he blocked its hole with the stone—as the stone was made into [being] like a wall [of the basket. In a case of] a basket full of fruits and the stone was among the fruits: If the fruits were moist—such as grapes and mulberries—he may take it up like it is. For if he

4 shook out the fruits, they would be soiled in the dirt—and [the Sages] did not make a decree in a situation of a loss.

Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 309

One may lift one’s child who is holding a stone and it is not as if the parent is handling the stone.

This is on condition that the child is yearning for his father, and if he does not pick him up he will become ill.

This was permitted only when the child is holding a stone, but if the child is holding a Dinar (a type of coin), even holding the child’s hand when the child is walking on his own is forbidden, lest the Dinar drops and the father picks it up.

Some say that Chazal only prohibited carrying a child holding the Dinar, but holding the child’s hand, even when the Dinar is in his hand is not an issue.

Our new Perek deals with carrying a child with something attached to his neck.

Rava ruled: If one carries a living child with a pouch around the child’s neck, he is liable for carrying the pouch. If the child is dead, he is exempt.

The rationale behind the first ruling is that he’s exempt for carrying the child because the child supports his own weight, but he is liable for the pouch because the pouch is not secondary to the child.

The rationale behind the second ruling is that carrying the dead child constitutes a melacha performed for something other than its defined purpose.

The Gemara questions Rava’s ruling from the Mishnah that indicates that one is not liable for moving muktza when carrying his son who is holding muktza.

R’ Yannai explains that the Mishnah refers to a case where the child may become ill and the restriction against moving muktza is suspended.

Our Daf deals with a topic that has already been introduced earlier in the tractate, the laws of set- aside [muktze] - items that are set aside and may not be handled on Shabbat - though from a fresh perspective.

Here, too, the discussion is not about different items that are set aside, but about particular categories of items that all agree may not be moved on Shabbat because they are not utensils and are not fit to be handled.

It was clear to the Sages that such items may not be handled directly; the discussion in this chapter primarily addresses the question of whether it is permitted to move these types of set-aside items, and set-aside items generally, through another object or for the sake of something else.

The first example offered in the Mishna on our daf teaches:

A person may take his son in his hands on Shabbat, and even though there is a stone, which is a set-aside item, in the child’s hand, it is not prohibited to pick up the child.

The Gemara discusses why the father may pick up his son even though the child is holding a stone, assuming at first that it is because the stone is considered to be batel – negated – in the context of the child. This position is rejected, however, and another possibility is suggested.

The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai say: You cannot infer from this Mishna that the stone is negated and therefore it is permitted to move it. Rather, the Mishna is referring to a baby who has longings for his father.

It is permitted for the father to move the stone because if the father does not lift him, the baby might take ill.

RASHBA

Rava himself is of the opinion that everyone agrees with Rabbi Natan that a living being carries itself. However, since this is not explicitly stated, the Gemara presents Rava’s opinion simply as being in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan (Rabbeinu Aharon HaLevi).

Alternatively, the Rabbis only concede to Rabbi Natan with regard to a baby able to walk. Here, the Gemara is also referring to an infant who cannot yet walk (Rashba).

6 Some commentaries explain that the baby longs for the stone and would cry if his father would take it from him. Therefore, the Sages permit the father to carry both of them (Tosefot Rid).2

The gemara says that you may be patur for carrying a live person or animal because "chai nose es atzmo" - the person/animal that you're carrying is really partially carrying himself. Tosafos is bothered by this concept:

2 Steinzaltz

Shabbes 94 תופסות ה"ד יחהש נ אשו תא ומצע תא אשו נ יחהש ה"ד תופסות המית 'רל ' י המל רוטפ המל י ' 'רל המית

Question (Ri): Why is he exempt? יאד םושמ יחהש לקימ ומצע לקימ יחהש םושמ יאד

Suggestion #1: It is because a living being makes himself lighter. אלהו וליפא אשמב לק י רתו יח בי חרוי קאמ ויאאה Rejection: One is liable even for a lighter load! יאו םושמ םינשד ואשעש ירוטפ ן רט אע יש ומ א

Suggestion: It is because two who did [one Melachah] are exempt.

אה וה י הז לוכי הזו וניא לוכי ןיאש אשינה לוכי אשיל ומצע אלב אשונה אשונהו שי וב חכ ואשונל וליפא היה היה וליפא ואשונל חכ וב שי אשונהו אשונה אלב ומצע אשיל לוכי אשינה ןיאש לוכי וניא הזו לוכי הז י וה אה תמ

Rejection: This one (who carried him) can [do the Melachah alone], and this one cannot, for one who was carried cannot carry himself, and the one who carried him has strength to carry him even if he were dead [and did not help]!

ו רמוא 'ר ' י ןכשממד ירמג נ ן אלש יה ו נ יאשו ן רבד יח םישחתהש םיליאהו יה ו םיכלוה םהילגרב זלחהו ו ן דימ יה ו הדמ לה םיגבםכו וי ייה םשתש חרד אונ וי ל ןנימ כמד ררו ןיעצופ ותוא םרט תומי המכד תיאד היב המשנ יפט אחינ היל יכ יכיה לילצילד היעביצ לילצילד יכיה יכ היל אחינ יפט המשנ היב תיאד המכד תומי םרט ותוא ןיעצופ

Answer (Ri): We learn from the Mishkan. They did not carry anything living. The Techashim and rams walked on their feet [when alive], and they bruised the Chilazon immediately [after trapping it], before it died, for it is better [to take its blood] while it is alive, in order that the dye [made from it] be clear.

This Tosafos asks the obvious question: So what? You're still carrying it! You're chayav for carrying a feather on Shabbos and this is certainly heavier than that.

Even if you say that the guy you're carrying is helping you but that's only mesayaya and we just said that you would still be chayav in that case so why should you be patur here?

Tosafos answers that the only time you're chayav is if it's similar to a melacha that they did in the mishkan and in the mishkan they never carried live people.

The Pnei Yehoshua points out that this is only true by hotzaa. We see later on the daf (94) that by other melachos even if they're only somewhat similar to what was done in the mishkan (braiding hair compared to building) that you are chayav. However, since by hotzaa it's a melacha gerua you are only chayav if it's exactly like what they did in the Mishkan.

How you could be patur according to R' Shimon and R' Yehuda for carrying with someone else because that's exactly what they did in the mishkan? They were carrying huge beams and keilim and one person couldn't have possibly carried it by themselves!

Tosafos answers this question on daf 3a (d"h Shneihem)

תופסות ה"ד םהינש ה"ד תופסות

יא נ ו יאק נתמא י ' ירהש אשיר נשד םהי ירוטפ ן ונייהד טשפ ינעה תא ודי םינפל יעבק ןמקל 'ד( .ד ) ד ד מל עקםנל ד ת יע ש ויה

Explanation: This must not be referring to the case at the end of the Mishnah, as the Gemara later (4a) asks about the case before the case where both are exempt, involving the poor person who stuck out his hand into the house (who is liable). (The Maharsha explains that the Gemara usually analyzes the first cases first. Since the Gemara later (4a) starts discussing the earlier cases of the Mishnah, it is an indicator that our Mishnah is not asking about a case in the second half of the Mishnah.)

א אל יאק יאמא רמאקד ירוטפ יתאד והב ידיל יח בו תאטח בישחק לבא תאטח תיל והב אלא נש ןהי ירוטפ ן נתקדכ י תד ןיופ ה שאא ה י אחלאבשקתט וי יי וב תד רט מק ימ יקא תמ נ י 'ינת

Explanation (cont.): Rather, this is referring to the Gemara's statement that the Mishnah is only discussing cases where one is exempt but they can lead to the obligation to bring a Chatas.

However, one does not bring a Chatas in these cases, and in fact both are exempt as stated in our Mishnah.

יאמאו אהו אדיבעתיא הכאלמ יבמ נ י והי אלו ךירפ יחתיש בי ןושארה יאד ן ארבס י"עד ינשה השעש החנה ו רמג רמג ו החנה השעש ינשה י"עד ארבס ן יאד ןושארה בי יחתיש ךירפ אלו והי י נ יבמ הכאלמ אדיבעתיא אהו יאמאו הכאלמה יחתי בי ושארה ן לא א ינשא אק ךירפ יחתיש בי יפל לעש ודי הרמגנ הכאלמה הרמגנ ודי לעש יפל בי יחתיש ךירפ אק ינשא א

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara asks, wasn't a Melachah done amongst the two of them? It does not ask that the first person should be liable, as it is illogical to say that due to the Hanachah and the finishing of the Melachah that was done through the second person the first one should be liable!

Rather, it is asking that the second person should be liable, since he caused the Melachah to be done.

Tosafos here claims that is exactly why they need a pasuk to teach you that you're patur. It's true that without an extra pasuk you would have thought you'd be chayav. Tosafos then asks about other aspects of hotzaa which might not have been done exactly that way in the Mishkan.

So you see again that hotzaa is very different from the other 38 melachos.

By the other melachos if it's similar to a melacha then it becomes a tolda and is still chayav on Shabbos but by hotzaa because it's a melacha gerua it has to be exactly like they did it in the mishkan.:

9 R. Chaim Brisker (Chiddushim al HaShas) asserts that there are actually two exemptions derived from the same source: Shnayim Sheasauhu, and a “partial melakhah”. Only the first requires that both be capable; the second does not, and “chai nosei et atzmo” comes from that category.3

R. Moshe Feinstein (Resp. Iggerot Moshe, Y.D. I, 2) explains the position of Tosafot as being that the mishkan only teaches us about a melakhah of hotza’ah in a specific format – where an object will be moved from one domain to the next, and it will be clear from looking at the object in its new location that it was moved by someone.

However, with a living being, as that being could have moved on its own power, it is not evident from seeing that being in a new location that someone else did the moving.

Using this logic, R. Moshe explains the distinction between an adult and a baby in this realm.

Back to our daf and the Mishnah, for an intriguing insight regarding gender polarity

? טוֹנ לֵ דָ א םָ תֶ א וֹנְ בּ הְ ו אָ בֶ ֶ ן יְ בּ ָ וֹד ְבּןֶב ָה נ ֶאם ָאל וֹ

A person may take his son in his arms even when the son has a stone in his hand.

Rav David Pardo in his commentary to the Mishnah (Shoshanim LeDavid) notes that in our Mishnah the subject is a father with his son in his arms.

This is in contradistinction to a previous Mishnah (above 128b), where the subject is a woman, as the Mishnah states there:

a woman may help her young son walk by supporting his arms from behind, while the child moves his feet and walks.

Why does the Mishnah change the subject from a woman to a father?4

The Gemara understands our Mishnah to be referring to a situation where the child is longing for .and therefore the father picks up the child and carries him תכ י נ קו שיש ול יעוגועיג ן לע יבא ו the

Such a situation, remarks Rav Pardo, is suggestive of the verse:

3 See also Resp. Rabeinu Meshulam Igra, O.C. 8 4 Daf Digest

10 Like as a father hath compassion upon his children, so hath the 13 גי םֵחַרְכּ בָא , לַﬠ - םיִנָבּ - .LORD compassion upon them that fear Him - םַחִר ,הָוהְי לַﬠ - .ויָאֵרְי

Ps. 103:13

Thus, in describing a situation where the child is hankering for the parent’s attention to be lifted up, the Mishnah selects the father as the subject in keeping with indication of the verse.

Interestingly, the Midrash distinguishes the mother’s love from the father’s.

.( להת י ם ק ג : י ג ) ' ]ג םחרכ בא לע נב םי םחר גו ]

Pesikta DeRav Kahana 19:3

11 (based upon the verse (Tehilim 103:13— םחר ) Pesikta identifies the father with the trait of mercy “as the father has mercy upon the children”, and the mother is identified with the trait of comfort as cited in Isa:5 As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort 13 גי ,שׁיִאְכּ רֶשֲׁא וֹמִּא וּנֶּמֲחַנְתּ -- ןֵכּ יִכֹנָא יִכֹנָא ןֵכּ .you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem ,םֶכְמֶחַנֲא םִַלָשׁוּריִבוּ נְתּ ֻ .וּמָח Isa 66:13

Rabeinu Bachya echoes a similar sentiment on the verse Gen 2:23:

may refer to Adam having the feeling that the bones םצע מצעמ י From a homiletical aspect the words of his wife were harder than his own i.e. “her bones are more bony than mine.”

The reason for this would be that they had been constructed out of bones whereas his own bones had been constructed out of the dust of the earth. This may also be the reason that the Torah wrote a potter,” someone“ , רצוי when describing the formation of Adam as the word is similar to , רצייו who uses soft clay as his raw material.

He built,” instead of“ , ןביו When the woman was formed however, the Torah used the expression ”.He shaped like a potter“ , רצייו

reminds us of a builder who builds a solid structure, something made of hard ןביו The term materials, not of clay. Perhaps this is the reason that the psalmist in Psalm 103,13 speaks of G-d ,sons” as a father is merciful, whereas when describing toughness“ , נב םי being merciful to His

The words of king Lemuel; the burden 1 א ,יֵרְבִדּ לֵאוּמְל ֶלֶמ -- ,אָשַּׂמ רֶשֲׁא - ְסִּי וּתַּר .וֹמִּא וּתַּר wherewith his mother corrected him. Prov 31:1

”.a rebuke administered by his mother“ , אשמ רשא י ס ר ת ו א מ ו speaks of

The mother, being made of sterner stuff, admonishes instead of displaying pity.

5 see Rav Chaim Chizkiah Medini in his encyclopedic work S’dai Chemed (K’lalim, Ma’areches Alef 144), and more extensively there in Pi’as HaSadeh 97.

12 This paragraph made it clear that Chavah was created within Gan Eden and that it was there that Adam’s side was taken from him. He himself had been created outside the garden and had been transplanted there by G-d.

Reciprocity in father-son relationship

The father relationship is used all through Torah and Chazal, I like the futuristic claim that God will redeem us like a father and son using the following Mashal device:

Num. Rabba 17:6, on the verse Num 15:2,

:Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them 2 ב רֵבַּדּ לֶא - יֵנְבּ ,לֵאָרְשִׂי ָתְּרַמָאְו :םֶהֵלֲא יִכּ יִכּ When ye are come into the land of your habitations, which ,וּאֹבָת לֶא - ץֶרֶא ,םֶכיֵתֹבְשׁוֹמ רֶשֲׁא ,יִנֲא ןֵתֹנ ןֵתֹנ ,יִנֲא רֶשֲׁא ,םֶכיֵתֹבְשׁוֹמ ץֶרֶא ,I give unto you .םֶכָל

"When you come to the land of your dwellings": What is the halacha of how many things a person is obligated to do for his son? Our rabbis taught: A person is obligated to do five things for his son. God can be compared to a father and the Jewish people to His son. Just like a father is obligated to circumcise his son, God did so for the Jews by circumcising them by the hand of Yehoshua as it says (Joshua 5:2) "Make for yourself stone knives." A father is obligated to redeem his son [if he is a firstborn] and God redeemed the Jews, as it says [II Samuel 7:23) "to redeem it as a nation…

However, the midrashic trigger is not the father’s responsibility to the son, rather the son’s reciprocal duty to provide gifts for the father:

And what must a son give to his father? A gift. Thus G-d said to the Jews, "When you come to the land...and bring an olah-offering to G-d."

Moshe Rabeinu as a father’s responsibilities:

The Ohr HaChayim delicately reads the verse: Num.11:12 when Moshe responds to the people’s complaint, dissecting the words to reflect different periods in a father’s life:

Have I conceived all this people? have I brought 12 בי יִכֹנָאֶה ,יִתיִרָה תֵא לָכּ - םָﬠָה הֶזַּה -- םִא - them forth, that Thou shouldest say unto me: Carry them ָא ,יִכֹנ :וּהיִתְּדִלְי יִכּ - ֹת רַמא לֵ א ַ י אָשׂ וּהֵ וּהֵ אָשׂ י ַ לֵ א רַמא ֹת in thy bosom, as a nursing-father carrieth the sucking ,ֶקיֵחְב רֶשֲׁאַכּ אָשִּׂי ןֵמֹאָה תֶא - יַּה ,קֵנֹ לַﬠ לַﬠ ,קֵנֹ יַּה child, unto the land which Thou didst swear unto their ,הָמָדֲאָה רֶשֲׁא ָתְּﬠַבְּשִׁנ .ויָתֹבֲאַל ָתְּﬠַבְּשִׁנ רֶשֲׁא ,הָמָדֲאָה fathers?

Moses may have alluded to two periods in the life of a son when the father is responsible for his deeds.

The first period is an obligation of a biblical nature such as before the son reaches the age of five or six when he commences to study Torah.

The second period is a rabbinic decree. According to the rabbis the father is responsible for misdemeanors committed by his son until the son reaches the age of 13 (compare Ketuvot 49 and 68 respectively).

Although at the time Moses asked this question the Talmud had not yet added the additional years that a father is responsible for his son, it is something most people will accept readily, especially Moses who was a prophet.

In view of the fact that Abraham is reputed to have observed all the rabbinic ordinances already in his time (Yuma 28) although they had not yet been instituted, Moses, with his prophetic insight certainly was aware of all these ordinances.

Concerning the period during which a father is responsible for the deeds of his son by biblical "?did I conceive them" , אה נ כ י רה י ת י injunction Moses asked

Concerning the period during which a father is responsible for the deeds of his son by rabbinic "?did I give birth to them" םא א נ כ י י תדל י ה ו ordinance he asked

The Seforno (op cit.) takes a bit darker seeing suspicion in the response:

true, a natural father knows how to guide his children even if they have differences , אה נ ו כ י רה י ת י ה יכונא of opinions among them. The reason such a father can be successful is that all his children know that he loves them all and has their best interests at heart.

But these people do not put their trust in me at all; they suspect me and constantly provoke me to see what I would do for them.

15 Successful parenting requires the prerequisite love relationship that is the fertile soil for trust. That trust allows for reliance upon his superior judgment and acquiescence to his instruction.

Mother/father roles in parenting, pregnancy/mother, nursing/father

RAMBAN (op cit.), sees in the mothering metaphors of pregnancy and weaning the unique style of leadership qualities, seeing Moshe’s response that uses both mother (pregnancy and birth) and the long suffering of this lifecycle change, then switching to the father for weaning purposes (since he is after all a man and can only participate in that process).

serves to subtend the dual ,יִכֹנָא וּהיִתְּדִלְי as well as יִכֹנָאֶה יִתיִרָה :The double expression in the verse function of mother/father sequentially.6

Have I conceived all this people? have I brought 12 בי ֶה יִכֹנָא יִתיִרָה , תֵא לָכּ - םָﬠָה הֶזַּה -- םִא - them forth, that Thou shouldest say unto me: Carry them ָא ,יִכֹנ וּהיִתְּדִלְי : יִכּ - ֹת רַמא לֵ א ַ י אָשׂ וּהֵ וּהֵ אָשׂ י ַ לֵ א רַמא ֹת in thy bosom, as a nursing-father carrieth the sucking ,ֶקיֵחְב רֶשֲׁאַכּ אָשִּׂי ןֵמֹאָה תֶא - יַּה ,קֵנֹ לַﬠ לַﬠ ,קֵנֹ יַּה child, unto the land which Thou didst swear unto their ,הָמָדֲאָה רֶשֲׁא ָתְּﬠַבְּשִׁנ .ויָתֹבֲאַל ָתְּﬠַבְּשִׁנ רֶשֲׁא ,הָמָדֲאָה fathers? Ramban thus interprets the two questions of the double expression as one masculine and one feminine both referring to the mother’s function. Moshe’s father metaphor was used because he is used therefore, in the masculine form as opposed to אָשִּׂי ןֵמֹאָה was after all, a man. The term . תנמוא

Commenting on the verse Lev 19:3, RASHI’s famous comment on the sequence difference between the two verses commanding the honoring of parents:

— EVERYBODY OF YOU SHALL FEAR HIS MOTHER AND HIS FATHER מא ו ו בא י ו ת י אר וא או ומ

Here Scripture mentions the mother before the father because it is manifest to Him that the child fears the father more than the mother and therefore by mentioning the mother first Scripture stresses the duty of fearing her.

In the case of honoring one's parents, however, Scripture mentions the father before the mother because it is manifest to Him that the child honors the mother more than the father because she endeavors to win him over by kindly words… Therefore, by mentioning the father first in the context of honor, the Torah emphasizes the duty of honoring him also.

sexual a uses which Targum the citing דשמש ל ת ו Sifsei Chachamim is very clear about the word metaphor.

6 Chavel Translation Numbers 99, Shilo 1975

Rashi is clearly referring to the Gemoro in Kiddushin 31b

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that a son honors his mother more than he honors his father, because he persuades him with many statements of encouragement and does not treat him harshly.

Therefore, in the mitzva of honoring parents…

Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may 11 אי דֵבַּכּ תֶא - ,יִבָא תֶאְו - ֶמִּא -- ,ןַﬠַמְל ןוּכִרֲאַי be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth ,יֶמָי לַﬠ ,הָמָדֲאָה רֶשֲׁא - הָוהְי יֶהֱא ןֵתֹנ ןֵתֹנ יֶהֱא הָוהְי .thee .ָל }ס{ Ex 20:11 the Holy One, Blessed be He, preceded the mention of the honor due one’s father before mentioning the honor due one’s mother.

The verse emphasizes the duty that does not come naturally. Similarly, it is revealed and known before the One Who spoke, and the world came into being that a son fears his father more than his mother, because his father teaches him Torah, and consequently he is strict with him.

Therefore, in the verse: “A man shall fear his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3), the Holy One, Blessed be He, preceded the mention of fear of the mother before the mention of fear of the father.

RASHI (op cit.) cites the targum directly.

18 Halachic precedence of the mother

Ketubot 102b

As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who died and left a minor son to the care of his mother, and the heirs of the father say: “The son should grow up with us, and his mother says: My son should grow up with me”, the halakha is that one leaves the child with his mother, and one does not leave the child with one who is fit to inherit from him, i.e., the father’s heirs. (An incident occurred, and the boy lived with his father’s heirs, and they slaughtered him on the eve of Passover…)

Tosefta Ketubot 11:6

A son whose father died and his mother says "Let him grow up with me", but [his father's] inheritors say "Let him grow up with us"—they do not leave him to grow up with those who are able to inherit from him [i.e. his brothers].

Ibn Ezra to Prov 1:8

For a woman is wise and able to provide the correct path to her child, like BatSheva..

Mother and father as Archetypes

Reb Mordechai Yosef of Izbica looks at the verse in Deut “Ki Tavo” 7 Deut 27:17

.Cursed be he that dishonoureth his father or his mother 16 זט ,רוּרָא הֶלְקַמ ויִבָא ;וֹמִּאְו רַמָאְו רַמָאְו .And all the people shall say: Amen לָכּ - ,םָﬠָה .ןֵמָא }ס{

Citing the Midrash Tanchuma Ki Tissa:

7 Mei HaShiloach, Publication of Sifrei Izhbitza Radzin, Bnei Brak 2005.

Then David cried out: But Thou, O Lord, as if to say, O You who art Master of the world, Your law agrees with them, for You said:

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's 10 י ,שׁיִאְו רֶשֲׁא ףַאְנִי תֶא - תֶשֵׁא תֶשֵׁא wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's ,שׁיִא רֶשֲׁא ,ףַאְנִי תֶא - תֶשֵׁא תֶשֵׁא wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put וּהֵﬠֵר -- תוֹמ - תַמוּי ַה אֹ נּ ,ףֵ ,ףֵ אֹ נּ ַה תַמוּי .to death .תֶפָאֹנַּהְו

The adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death (Lev. 20:10). But art a shield about me refers to the merit of my ancestors. My glory indicates that you have restored me to kingship; and Lifter up of my head implies that though I was guilty of murder, You permitted me to lift up the head; that is, to be forgiven through Nathan the prophet, for he said:

And David said unto Nathan: 'I have sinned 13 גי רֶמאֹיַּו דִוָדּ לֶא - ,ןָתָנ יִתאָטָח יִתאָטָח ,ןָתָנ against the LORD.' {S} And Nathan said unto ;הָוהיַל }ס{ רֶמאֹיַּו ןָתָנ לֶא - דִוָדּ , םַגּ - הָוהְי הָוהְי David: 'The LORD ריִבֱﬠֶה ְתאָטַּח -- אֹל .תוּמָת אֹל

The Lord also has put away thy sin; thou shalt not die (II Sam. 12:13).9 (A reference to David’s arranging the death of Uriah, the husband of Bath-sheba.)

,רוּרָא הֶלְקַמ ויִבָא וֹמִּאְו ויִבָא הֶלְקַמ ,רוּרָא

Refers to Judah, for father and mother refers to chochma and binah, and the tribe of Judah was not supervised (or under the archetypes) of chochma and binah. So when they are able to intuit the divine will, then (despite being free of the two archetypes) all is good.

This is what is meant by the verse (Psalm 27:10) For though my father and my mother have forsaken me, the 10 י יִכּ - יִבָא יִמִּאְו ;יִנוּבָזֲﬠ הָוהיַו הָוהיַו .LORD will take me up .יִנֵפְסַאַי

For even though chochma and binah had forsaken me, (no longer under their jurisdiction) as cited in the midrash tachumah,

But art a shield about me refers to the merit of my ancestors. My glory indicates that you have restored me to kingship; and Lifter up of my head implies that though I was guilty of murder, You permitted me to lift up the head; that is, to be forgiven through Nathan the prophet,

Because the portion (inheritance ) of the tribe of Judah was above all the (archetypes) principle rules of Torah, therefore he must be careful not to fall outside the intuitive understanding of the divine will, not to fall outside it, then all will be good.

The core of Mordecai Joseph’s doctrine is the idea of divine providence.

There is a divine plan for each person and it is the task of the person to seek and understand the will of God in each situation. Judah and Joseph were two biblical archetypes who represented two poles.

Judah looked to God to determine the divine will, while Joseph followed the literal understanding of the Torah, when confronted with a given situation.

Determining the divine will required several stages that included, study, introspection, and self- examination of one’s motives.

This was a process only for those who had attained a high spiritual level, since it could lead to antinomianism and other negative actions.

The most famous example of biblical antinomianism that he discusses is the story of Zimri, the chieftain of the tribe of Simeon (Num 25:1–16). According to Mordecai Joseph, Zimri was a very righteous person (tsaddiq) who carefully went through the process of clarifying the will of God, and determined that Cosbi, the Midianite woman, was his intended mate from the six days of creation, and therefore sleeping with her was in accord with the divine will. Moses and the elders saw this and appeared to do nothing, so Phinehas killed them in an act of zealotry.

According to Mordecai Joseph, Moses and the elders were trying to determine the divine will in this case before acting. Phinehas, being an impetuous youth, acted without proper reflection, but God rewarded him because his intentions were pure.

When one has attained the elevated state that all of one’s thoughts are in accord with the divine will, the rules and regulations of the Torah no longer apply, since everything is in accord with the divine will.

Mordecai Joseph protects against antinomianism by arguing that even someone who has attained this state must still act in accordance with the rules of the Torah so that others who are not on this level will not be misled and fall into antinomian behavior. 8

8 ■ Faierstein, M., All is in The Hands of Heaven: The Teachings of Rabbi Mordecai Joseph Leiner of Izbica (Piscataway, N.J. 2005 [Hoboken 11989]). ■ Faierstein, M., “The Friday Night Incident in Kotsk: History of a Legend” JJS 34 (1983) 179–89. ■ Faierstein, M., “Two Radical Teachings in the Mei Ha-Shiloach and Their Sources,” Kabbalah 21 (2010) 111–14. ■ Weiss, J., “A Late Jewish Utopia of Religious Freedom,” in id., Studies in Eastern European Mysticism (New York 1985) 209–48

The Parenting Gender Gap9

Hughes, Baylin and Siegel10 were a team including an attachment specialist and a clinical psychologist with neurobiology expertise who came together to explore the brain science behind parenting. attachment specialist Daniel A. Hughes and veteran clinical psychologist Jonathan Baylin guide readers through the intricate web of neuronal processes, hormones, and chemicals that drive―and sometimes thwart―our caregiving impulses, uncovering the mysteries of the parental brain.

The biggest challenge to parents, Hughes and Baylin explain, is learning how to regulate emotions that arise―feeling them deeply and honestly while staying grounded and aware enough to preserve the parent–child relationship. Stress, which can lead to “blocked” or dysfunctional care, can impede our brain’s inherent caregiving processes and negatively impact our ability to do this. While the parent–child relationship can generate deep empathy and the intense motivation to care for our children, it can also trigger self-defensive feelings rooted in our early attachment relationships, and give rise to “unparental” impulses.

Learning to be a “good parent” is contingent upon learning how to manage this stress, understand its brain-based cues, and respond in a way that will set the brain back on track.

9 Sharon Bush, Contributor, https://www.huffpost.com/author/sharon-bush

10 Brain-Based Parenting: The Neuroscience of Caregiving for Healthy Attachment (Norton Series on Interpersonal Neurobiology)

23 To this end, Hughes and Baylin define five major “systems” of caregiving as they’re linked to the brain, explaining how they operate when parenting is strong and what happens when good parenting is compromised or “blocked.”

With this awareness, we learn how to approach kids with renewed playfulness, acceptance, curiosity, and empathy, re-regulate our caregiving systems, foster deeper social engagement, and facilitate our children’s development.

24 Though gender roles aren't always set in stone, it is true that men and women often bring different strengths, weaknesses and styles to the table when it comes to many things, parenting chief among them. This is important to take note of within couples, because the dynamic is ultimately shaping an infant into a grown person. When we understand how men and women parent differently, we can better understand what the child best responds to and how.

This won't be the same with every partnership. But in general, it's good to have different forces and priorities at work--it rounds out the child and provides an example on caretaking values. It may also inform their separate relationships with mom and dad.

Author of Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters, Dr. Meg Meeker,11 "Dads approach parenting with different priorities than we mothers do. They tend to care less about dress, eating habits, and other details. Instead, dads tend to want to play with kids more and challenge them more, and this can help kids gain confidence."

This might not always be true, but it does speak to the stereotypical strengths of men and women both personally and professionally. Women are known to be strong, detail-oriented multi-taskers, where men tend to dominate leadership roles, build morale, and think about parenting from a big picture perspective.

This may be why moms focus on the everyday details, like scheduling and chores, while dads act as both buddies and authoritarians -- roles that build character and confidence.

Competition vs. Equity

Dads and moms play differently too, and the ways the play differs may have to do with the values men and women tend to cherish. One example, posed by Glen Stanton in his book Why Children Need a Male and Female Parent,12 is the dichotomy of lessons imparted by men and women through play.

Fathers emphasize competition, while mothers emphasize equity. Both are important, and one without the other, Stanton argues, could be unhealthy in the long run for a child. The competition and equity equation further sheds light on how experience shapes parenting. Men, who are taught to be competitive and take risks, teach their kids (both male and female) to take risks too.

Women are taught to protect themselves and treat others fairly, and pass this lesson on to children for safety reasons. With these two perspectives combined, kids can learn to be competitive but fair, and take risks while understanding consequences.

11 Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters Devotional: 52 Devotions Every Father Needs: Regnery Press 2016

12 https://www.wordfoundations.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/why-children-need-stanton.pdf

25 Nurture vs Discipline

Both mothers and fathers are capable of being strict disciplinarians, but it perhaps comes more naturally to the father, if only because mom is the chief nurturer. Cautious mothers prioritize comfort and security for their kids, and are sometimes viewed by dads as being "too soft" on children. In these cases it may fall upon the dad to enact law and order in the family.

This becomes more apparent as kids get older and into their teenage years. A mom may be more inclined to be the "peacemaker" when things go awry, while dads are more intent on teaching a lesson than making the conflict disappear.

The roles could easily be reversed, however, if dad was taking on mom's responsibilities as the main caretaker, which is increasingly common. Whatever the case, parents need to support one another and provide their children a balance between support and discipline.

Emotion vs Detachment

Ideally, mothers and fathers love their children equally. But generally speaking a woman's emotional attachment to her kids is stronger, or at least more apparent, than a father's may be. This has a lot to do with the high expectations moms are held to as opposed to dads, who are relegated to a supportive role.

As a result, moms that stay at home can feel emotional and overworked, while working moms feel guilty for not being home. Whatever the case, it's difficult for mom to detach, or separate work from home.

This dichotomy between emotion and detachment is also apparent in the ways men and women tend to communicate with their kids and each other.

Fathers are briefer and to the point, while moms tend to dig deeper. This doesn't mean that moms are over-involved and dads under-involved, just that a parent's experience and role in the family is likely to affect his or her ability to detach.

Ideally, fathers could take some of the emotional weight off of moms, and moms would encourage this when given a chance to step back.

When we disregard the gender distinctions of parental influence as unimportant or unnecessary, we seriously diminish the proper development of children. Kids need the active participation of a mother and a father, and both parents need to be true to their gender designs. Both bring different and equally important things to the parenting project.

We impoverish children and society when we deny our kids the influence of a mother and father, because we limit their development into full, healthy adults.

26 Barbara Dafoe Whitehead said13 “All this evidence gives rise to an obvious conclusion: growing up in an intact two-parent family is an important source of advantage for American children. Though far from perfect as a social institution, the intact family offers children greater security and better outcomes than its fastest growing alternatives: single-parent families and stepparent families.”

The neurobiology of parenting: A neural circuit perspective

Brain areas activated by parenting versus infanticide. Whole brain imaging of the immediate early gene c-fos after behavior reveals that while parental female mice have a high level of activation in the MPOA (top panel), infanticidal males show more neuronal activation in the posterior hypothalamus, as well as MeA and cortex.

13 “Dan Quayle Was Right,” Atlantic Monthly (April 1993), p. 19.

Kohl Autry and Dulac14 examined the ways in which recent advances in neuroscience have made it possible to address fundamental questions about behavioral control at the level of genetically defined neuronal circuits. Among various forms of social interactions, parenting, which includes the nurturing and protection of infants, presents a number of fascinating characteristics for mechanistic inquiries. First, while most social behaviors such as mating or aggression are displayed in short bouts, parental care generally implies a prolonged interaction between infants and parents that may last days, months, or years according to the species. Second, social interactions are often encounters between two individuals, for example during mating or fighting. In contrast, parenting involves one, two, or sometimes a multitude of cooperating adults, in addition to at least one infant. Third, parental care implies the non-reciprocal care of infants by adults. Finally, the circuits underlying parental care are thought to represent an initial neural template from which more widespread intraspecific bonds may have emerged15.

The development of such bonds between parents and infants might indeed facilitate the involvement and sacrifice of caregivers who do not otherwise receive any immediate benefit from their investment.

Several additional lines of evidence suggest that the regulatory mechanisms underlying the expression of parental behavior are different in males and females. In laboratory mice, virgin females are spontaneously maternal, while virgin males are infanticidal. However, surgical or genetic ablation of the vomeronasal organ in virgin males leads to suppression of infant-mediated aggression and to full display of parental behavior. This implies that parental circuits are normally repressed by pheromonal inputs in virgin male but not female mice.

14 Bioessays doi: 10.1002/bies.201600159. Epub 2016 Dec 6.

15 Numan M, Young LJ. Neural mechanisms of mother-infant bonding and pair bonding: Similarities, differences, and broader implications. Horm Behav. 2016;77:98–112

28 Implications for parenting in humans

Experiments in rodents have provided us with fundamental insights into the neural architecture of parental care. However, this behavior is considerably more complex in primates, particularly in humans. Human children have the longest period of postnatal development of any primate species, receiving parental care well into young adulthood.

This extended process is thought to be related to the prolonged cortical development seen in humans and is accompanied by considerable investments in educating the young. How relevant will a circuit-level understanding of parental behavior in rodents be for human parenting? Core components of the parental circuitry are likely to be conserved among mammals, and most periparturial hormonal changes are shared between rodents and humans:

But in contrast to rodents, alloparental experience seems to play a significant role in the display of parental behavior in non-human primates and humans. This important role for experience in primate parenting may account for the traditions of play parenting and encouragement of alloparenting in juveniles.

Recent studies of maternal mental illness have revealed both a timeframe of vulnerability to, and range of, psychiatric diseases in the perinatal period much larger than previously appreciated: as many as 20% of mothers are negatively affected within the first year of their child’s life, illustrated by a drastic increase in psychiatric hospitalizations:

Still, the prevalence of postpartum depression (PPD) has been underestimated until recently, and the fact that PPD affects 5–10% of fathers is largely unappreciated by the public. While hormonal changes presumably underlie these clinical manifestations, our knowledge is still very limited.

Parenting is a multicomponent social behavior that is essential for the survival of offspring in many species. Despite extensive characterization of individual brain areas involved in parental care, we do not fully understand how discrete aspects of this behavior are orchestrated at the neural circuit level.

Recent progress in identifying genetically specified neuronal populations critical for parenting, and the use of genetic and viral tools for circuit-cracking now allow us to deconstruct the underlying circuitry and, thus, to elucidate how different aspects of parental care are controlled.

The Sense of Failure in Parenting

As I look back upon my parenting years, I realize that only after it was all over did I wisen up. I wish at times to be able to go back and redo and not make the mistakes of my parenting years. I was driven by unconscious and unexamined views and biases mostly derived from my own childhood. As I watch proudly my children on our weekly zoom meetings, the wounds of childhood get expressed and are at times like daggers in my heart.

I hope and pray my children will not perpetuate the mistakes we made.

The Wholehearted Parenting Manifesto16

Above all else, I want you to know that you are loved and lovable. You will learn this from my words and actions--the lessons on love are in how I treat you and how I treat myself.

I want you to engage with the world from a place of worthiness. You will learn that you are worthy of love, belonging, and joy every time you see me practice self- compassion and embrace my own imperfections.

16 https://brenebrown.com/downloads/

31 We will practice courage in our family by showing up, letting ourselves be seen, and honoring vulnerability. We will share our stories of struggle and strength. There will always be room in our home for both.

We will teach you compassion by practicing compassion with ourselves first; then with each other. We will set and respect boundaries; we will honor hard work, hope, and perseverance. Rest and play will be family values, as well as family practices.

You will learn accountability and respect by watching me make mistakes and make amends, and by watching how I ask for what I need and talk about how I feel.

I want you to know joy, so together we will practice gratitude.

I want you to feel joy, so together we will learn how to be vulnerable.

When uncertainty and scarcity visit, you will be able to draw from the spirit that is a part of our everyday life.

Together we will cry and face fear and grief. I will want to take away your pain, but instead I will sit with you and teach you how to feel it.

We will laugh and sing and dance and create. We will always have permission to be ourselves with each other. No matter what, you will always belong here.

As you begin your Wholehearted journey, the greatest gift that I can give to you is to live and love with my whole heart and to dare greatly.

I will not teach or love or show you anything perfectly, but I will let you see me, and I will always hold sacred the gift of seeing you. Truly, deeply, seeing you.