Parashat Bereisheet - the difference between "same" and "equal"

Words of Torah
Parashat Bereisheet
Genesis 1:1-6:8

“It is not good for the man to be alone;
I will make him an ezer k'negdo.” 
~~ Genesis 2:18

There is much (possibly too much) vastly conflicting interpretations of the term "ezer k'negdo."  I am certainly not a linguist, nor a scholar of ancient languages.  I am not even enough of a biblical scholar to be able to pull out most references to the use of the root form of either "ezer" or "k'negdo" across the Torah.  However, what I can do is read a text and follow the three stage interpretation that was taught to me at the seminary during my graduate studies.

   Step 1: What does the text say?
   Step 2: What does the text mean?
   Step 3: What does the text mean to me?

Too often readers of the biblical text jump directly to step three, which not only clouds the text's original meaning, but is also usually taken completely out of context and in turn manipulated to try and support a vastly different position or idea than what the text is actually saying...but I leave this discussion for another time.

The most common and academically accepted interpretation of "ezer k'negdo" is some form of "opposite helper" or "helper-against him" or any other variation of this seemingly contradictory phrase. So using our three step process, this means that the above text when taken literally simply says something to the effect of, 

"It is not good for the man to be alone; 

I will make him a partner who will help him and challenge him."

The next step is to better understand what the sages and rabbinic scholars (not to mention today's marriage counselors, psychotherapists, and other social work professionals) say about this strangely worded phrase, which by most counts is interpreted to mean what we understand any healthy spousal relationship to be about...partnership.  Each spouse is expected to support and help the other, yet, at the same time not always be in agreement, but rather provide an alternative "opposite" perspective when needed so that the relationship can grow, and so that the end result is a deliberately processed and well-thought out co-decision.

Unfortunately, there have been individuals, including scholars and recognized community leaders, who interpreted the ezer k'negdo as a statement of power, control, and one-upmanship of men over women.  These individuals suggest that because the woman was created as the "help-mate" for the man, that in some way this should mean that the woman should be subservient to the man and in some way a second class citizen.  And this was certainly the case for many years, even in this great nation, as to why women's right to vote (as well as many other rights) was not established at the same time men's rights were given, but rather only centuries later following the women's suffrage.

However, what I find most curious of all, is this awkward stage in our history that we are living through today, where for some reason "equality" and "equal rights" has in some places taken to mean "sameness" and "monotony."  

I want to unequivocally state that women deserve to have equal rights, benefits, pay, and opportunity to every possible experience in today's world as do men.  But, that does not mean that I support women feeling that they need to be the "same" as men.  As ezer k'negdo so beautifully states it, men and women should "help" one another and "challenge" one another to be the best that we can be as individuals, as a community, and as a society.  Equality means that there is equal push and pull in both directions when this relationship is respected and encouraged.  But this is not "sameness."  If that were the case, it would be in exact contradiction to k'negdo, and in turn bring about a push-push or pull-pull relationship, which defeats the purpose and obvious textual intent.

My unprofessional sociological best guesstimate is that as we (read "men") continue to portray a perceived time in our history where we (read "men" again) believe there exists equal rights for women (unlike pre-sufferage where this could never have been claimed by the men in our society) is causing the women's rights movement to fight a fight that seems solved to those who don't understand it, appreciate it, or care about it.  Unfortunately, I believe that because of this unforgiving battle it has morphed in some places to a fight for "sameness," because that is a condition that we as a society could never claim to have conquered, but which is also unquestionably the wrong fight to fight.

I want equality, I believe most rationale, patient, and understanding men want this too, but I don't support sameness, which I also believe most women don't want as well.  Women and men have unique skills, qualities, and naturally ingrained characteristics that make their uniqueness a blessing.  This does not mean that women cannot pursue the same dreams as men, it simply means that the two genders are different. As ezer k'negdo so eloquently expresses it, we want a society where men and women can help one another by challenging one another.  Unfortunately, we still have a long way to go!

Parashat V'zot Habracha - Knowing someone face to face...

 

Words of Torah
Parashat V'zot Habracha
Deuteronomy 33:1-34:12

“And there was no other prophet who arose in Israel like Moses, 

whom Hashem knew face to face...”  ~~ Deuteronomy 34:10

As we once again bring another cycle of the Torah reading to a close, we are once again reminded of the stature of our greatest prophet, Moses.  No one had, or has had since, the opportunity to have as personal a relationship with Gd as Moses.  

Verse 34:10 above could have easily concluded with "...whom Hashem knew" and that would could have been enough.  But, by adding the "face to face" we are introduced to a very personal and unique relationship that no other biblical character (not even our patriarchs and matriarchs), nor anyone since, has ever experienced.

So, if Gd, who has a spiritual connection with every living being on earth only had one "face to face" relationship, it got me wondering just how many face to face relationships we humans actually have with one another?  

In order to answer this question I first had to ask another; what does having a "face to face" relationship even look like?

Rashi explained the uniqueness of the panim el panim ("face to face") expression to mean, "[Moses] was quite familiar with [Gd], speaking to [Gd] anytime he wished."

Yet, many would claim that they in fact do speak to Gd any time they want.  But, what is usually the case is that these conversations are one-way communications, where an individual feels comforted by sharing their thoughts, feelings, concerns, and/or wishes with Gd, but never expecting a spoken reply in return.  Moses, however, spoke to Gd; Moses was able to engage in a personal two-way dialogue with Gd "face to face."

Of course, there is a story of a man in recent years who was able to get a reply from Gd in one of his pleas to be heard.  We understand that his conversation went something like this:

     Man: "Gd, how long is a million years?" 
     Gd: "To me, it's about a minute." 
     Man: "Gd, how much is a million dollars?" 
     Gd: "To me, it's like a penny." 
     Man: "Gd, may I have a penny?" 
     Gd: "Sure, just wait a minute." 

Obviously, putting aside the tongue-in-cheek humor; with how many people do we really speak to "face to face?"  Who are the ones who when we speak they listen, and when they speak we listen equally focused?

When I realized the gravity of this question, I also realized that the number of people with whom I thought I had "face to face" dialogues dropped significantly.  How many times are we distracted by the multitude of other things going on in our lives, or how many acquaintances do we know to whom we politely listen but whom we never actually hear?  How many times a day are we saying things to others, but to whom we may be never actually speaking?

And when we take this incredible communication to another level, whom do we actually know well enough to speak to in this way?

It is said that when we look into the face of another we are not only able to see past their physical features, but that we are able to gaze into their soul and see their true self.  Given this level of personalized communication, probably like Moses and Gd had themselves, speaking to someone "face to face" is then not only about being heard at any time on any subject, rather, it is also about knowing the person to whom you're speaking in such an intimate and personal way that the words being spoken and respectively heard are in such sync and harmony that the experience becomes "face to face."

So, with how many people can you claim to have this kind of relationship?  

Gd only had one!