Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Of Grooms, Brides, Feet and Dominance

I’ve been asked to comment on a post over at DovBear, about a wedding custom of the groom placing his foot over the bride’s foot, to indicate dominance. (I should note that the custom is not about stepping on her foot, it’s a theatrical foot-over-foot intended to demonstrate male dominance.)

Frankly, though, I don’t know much about this odd custom. You might take a look at Mail-Jewish posts here and here to see a couple of other people who don’t know much about it, either. I don’t yet have Daniel Sperber’s 8th volume, to be able to check his references on it.

But let's look at the rationale itself: What’s the male dominance thing about?

It certainly doesn’t reflect the reality of relationships in Jewish history. Tanach does not have a tradition of male-dominated marriages. Whether Avraham being told to listen to Sarah, or Rivkah manipulating Yitzchak twice-over, or Yaakov asking permission from his wives before leaving Lavan’s house despite a direct Divine command to leave, we don’t have any image of male-dominated marriages among our greatest ancestors. Same among later greats - see Batsheva and Dovid as a prime example. The same follows through in the gemara; we don’t have records of male-dominated marriages there, either. (And no, Tzipporah, בעל doesn’t mean “master”; I trust you were joking with that comment.)

But: The custom does fit the biblical statement, "והוא ימשל בך - he will rule over you." Chavah is punished for having given the fruit to Adam, with some kind of corrective that will help future generations get past that sin. Quite consistent with this odd custom, I must acknowledge.

And yet, I do question this odd custom: Since when do we feel the need to help Gd fulfill a punishment?!

In other words:

Gd tells Adam that he is going to have to sweat to bring produce from the ground. Does that mean we would be obligated not to use labor-saving means (had this punishment not been short-circuited after the flood anyway)?

Gd tells Chavah that labor will be painful. So do we ban epidurals? (I’m sure there are non-Jewish groups that do this - but I’m talking about Torah and Judaism here.)

I think we can safely say that no, we don’t feel the need to help Gd carry out punishments. Avraham didn’t, either, and neither did Yitzchak and Yaakov. And if so - why should any husband feel duty-bound to establish a dominant role, in order to fulfill this prediction?

So no, I'm not about to recommend this practice. And further, if any husband is foolish enough to try to assert biblical dominance, let me give you a piece of advice: Ask your wife's permission first.

14 comments:

Halfnutcase said...

i know that even a coursory look at statistics concerning spousal abuse demonstrate just how vulnerable women are to their husbands ruling over them. Just a coursory look shows you how readily many sucumb under pressure, and any fool thinks that they need to make things worse, especialy when g-d said to avraham (maise avos siman l'bannim) "all that sara your wife shall say to you, thou shalt do!"

i agree with you, now lets just hope that renreb adds her two cents!

monica said...

hahahaahahahahahaha
should there be a Torah humour category in the JIB awards, you should nominate this one!

Shmendrik said...

Good svarah. I've used it when someone mentions the famous apocryphal story of a late Acharon (usually the Chasam Sofer, which is impossible) saying that Abraham Lincoln was assasinated as a punishment for violating the curse of Cham. Even if black slavery reflected some sort of biblical curse, there is no chiuv to uphold it, as shown by the childbirth example. Incidentally, you are correct; some Christian sects in the 19th century were against using painkillers during childbirth, for that very reason.

underthesuns said...

Let's cut to the chase; this seems to be about footsies.

As Goyim I'll assume there could be a technical violation involved. Traditionally; footsies are under a table which is respectfully covered with a long draping table cloth.

"(I should note that the custom is not about stepping on her foot, it’s a theatrical foot-over-foot intended to demonstrate male dominance.)"

Theatrical? Sure. Trying to water down exhibitionism now.

rabbi without a cause said...

Monica-
Thanks!

Shmendrik-
Yes, I was pretty sure I had heard of that. Odd, what they choose to keep from Tanach.

underthesuns-
Not clear at all what you're talking about, sorry.

Anonymous said...

I think the issue is less with whether or not this is actual halacha or minhag and more the idea that a Rabbi stood up in a shul and gave a speech where he told those in the congregation that this was the way a Torah based marriage should work. There are plenty of times that halacha comes dangerously close to being misogyonistic and we are reminded over and over again that we must take the system within the larger context, and that even the greatest scholars functioned within the context of their own societial framework. But the idea that in today's day and age, where spousal abuse within the frum community is for the most part understood to go on, for a Rabbi to indicate that any form of domination, let alone that which involves physical conduct, is disgusting.

Halacha is a beautiful system, if what is reported to have happened is really true, then I'm embarrased to be grouped together with the Rabbi who spoke and every man who heard the speech and didn't get up and leave.

Anonymous said...

you say that there is no need to help god out in implementing his curse- does this extend to the curse of bizaos apecha tochal lechem.
is it lichatchilah to work or now that god cursed us we have no choice and if we can get out of it and learn or be busy with gods work that is the really the best

Halfnutcase said...

anon, I think that of all of them, it should be obvious why that one alone would be aplicable to us to do, because the person who was cursed was cursed to do something, as distinct from all the others.

However, even if you do not posit that, it still is no different because one is forbiden to steal, and there are other sources for why one should work the whole week. Indeed, it says that "six days shall you work and the seventh shall you rest."

Now, even here we no longer have to sweat to eat bread, we can just buy it in the store, and factualy other expenses have eclipsed this basic need such that even the poor, at least in this county, do not want for bread or even butter.

but the matter of working the whole week is independant of sweating to eat bread, which you would appriciate how difficult it is to make bread from scratch if you had ever done so (from the ploughing and planting of your field)

rabbi without a cause said...

anonymous 6:20 pm-
It warms my heart to hear you say Halacha is a beautiful system; I wasn't sure you thought so.
And, I am completely in agreement with your post.

anonymous 9:20 pm, halfnutcase-
I see this punishment like all of the others.
The sole exception is where we are explicitly told to carry out the punishment, as in "Bavela yuv'u shama yihyu."

Tzipporah said...

Of course I was joking - "Ba'al" in context of marriage clearly refers to the false, lesser G-d worshipped by Canaanites, from which we learn that one should not think of one's husband as divine or able to issue legitimate commandments of any kind. :D

Anonymous said...

RWAC, do you honestly believe I think anything else, would I be 'here' if I didn't?

For me the most frustrating part of all incidents of idiot behavior, especially within the orthodox community is that it reflects badly not just on the person and the community but on halacha as well.

rabbi without a cause said...

tzipporah-
AMEN!

muse said...

Guess the man needs to use his foot, if he can't use his head.

Steg (dos iz nit der šteg) said...

very good point about the epidurals and modern labor-saving technology... i've been saying stuff like that too