For WOMEN: Beyond Mashpia/Mekabel PART 3

Welcome to part three of our series beyond Mishia and Mabell, a bride's study of the mimer, the wedding discourse delivered by the um I want to first before we get into the heart of the matter, I want to make sure you understand that when we say it's a part three, uh There's a lot of background in the first two parts that is important for understanding the present discussion. So if you haven't seen parts one and two, the links are below um whether you're watching on YouTube or you're watching on soulwords.org or which is my uh website where all of my content can be found in very uh organized fashion. Um or uh if you're listening on a podcast platform like Spotify or Google podcast, then I can't help you so much. You're going to have to use a little bit of searching skills. But I want to make sure that you know that this is a part three and a lot of what we're going to talk about tonight takes for granted that you have studied parts one and two where we present a lot of the lexicon and the vocabulary and the terminology that we're going to be using in tonight's uh discussion. Also, I want to mention because we have presented this as a women's guide and people asked what does it mean a bride? Does it mean that you just got married? And uh I don't think we're putting any statute of limitations. There's no expiration date. A bride is as long as you want to be a bride. Anyone who's How about this? Anyone who's still learning how to be a better wife is still a bride. That's my definition. Um, but because we framed this as something for women, I do want to make it known that there is a version of this for men and we will put that link below as well. Um, that was something that I um that I directed just to the men and oh boy did I let them have it. Women, please trust me when I say I was not gentle with the men. I'm not I'm I sound like I'm joking right now, but no, I really I was very blunt and straightforward with them about their duties. But here's the thing. It is so dangerous for one party to hear the messaging that the other party needs to hear. Because sometimes what happens is a wife hears the messaging that a husband needs in order for a husband to become a better husband. And the wife hears that well it's not her stuff for her to work on. It's his stuff for him to work on. And then she becomes resentful. She becomes disappointed. She becomes uh she she she becomes restless like come on hurry up already. Why aren't you doing this work? And uh even if she doesn't intentionally weaponize the information, just subconsciously knowing what he's supposed to be working on and what he's supposed to not be doing, what he is supposed to be doing, it's not healthy. And conversely, by the way, for the men who are watching this, I I just want you to understand that if a man is watching this and you're listening to things I'm telling women that they need to work on, um that's that's not necessarily so healthy for a man to hear those things because again, the same dynamic. It has a tendency to breed uh expectations. And you know what they say about expectations? Expectations are premeditated resentments. I like that. That's a free shias tip. That's that's for any relationship. Um, okay. So, those are all the standard disclaimers. Now, let's talk about beyond Mishbia and Macabell part three. We got a lot of feedback, a lot of questions, and that's how I want to format tonight. Um, some of the questions overlap with each other. Some of them, um, repeat the same themes. I'm just going to go through the questions that I got. And I also want to give an opportunity to anyone who's watching this live. I know that uh, not everyone is going to be watching this live. And if you're watching a recording, um, yeah, this is not going to help you. But if you're watching live right now, if you email rabbi rabbi soulwords.org, I will check my email as we go and attempt to respond to any emails that come in live. I also invite you to type in the YouTube chat, but I am aware that people don't necessarily always like to do that because then everyone sees your YouTube account and um it's not as private. But if you want to email me, rabbi soulwords.org uh I will check my email bleed throughout this program. Okay. So, I'm just going to go through these questions and again, if you haven't watched parts one and two, this may not make a lot of sense to you. So, I I really want to encourage you if you haven't watched parts one and two, please do so now. And that's what double speed was created for. All right. So, here's a question. In no particular order, I listened to your series on form mikvah.org. Oh, that's very good. We should we should mention that this program is a partnership with mikvah.org. I would never have done this if mikvah.org had not asked me to do this. I would have pushed it off forever. And uh but they gave me a a real date to do it. They the first episode was yudal kisv which is the anniversary of the rebbitson. So that was an auspicious time to do a class on uh on marriage. So that was part one and then part two was like a month after that and now it's a few months later and we're doing part three. Okay. So mikvah.org. Thank you. I listened to your series on mikvah.org. I thought it was excellent but could use more clarity on the topic of gender roles. In this day and age especially, I think it hurts shalom bias rather than helps when we have two rigid ideas of what a husband or wife should should in quotes be doing in a marriage. How it works in practice, who does what job, who brings in more money differs for each couple according to their circumstances, personalities, etc. So I would like more elaboration/clarification of how the Mashbia Makabo dynamic plays out. If there is a role reversal, i.e. woman earning money while her husband takes care of the house, perhaps it could be addressed in a follow-up talk. Okay. Um, and I'm going to read another question here which is a different person, but it's very similar. So I think I'm going to read it now. Someone writes also. Maybe this is what does it start with? Also maybe it is the same person. Could be. As far as Mashbia McCabell, my husband is a bit more of a passive type, not a go-getter, and I am more of a go-getter. Is it okay if I help him with his business or does that upset the mashia balance? Okay, great. So, let's let's talk about that. And again, I'm saying for the third time, if you haven't watched the first two episodes, a lot of this is just going to seem uh difficult to understand. It really requires context. The question is an excellent question and and I appreciate also the the comment about when gender roles are too rigid that that does not serve us well. And I agree and I think it's important to recognize that there is femininity and masculinity within every human being. I think it's important to recognize that those traits exist with on a spectrum. Um there are men who have more feminine traits than some women and there are some women who have more masculine traits than some men. In other words, if you take the outliers, the extremes of the spectrum, um you will find that some men behave in ways or not just behave, but they feel and think in ways that are typically associated more with the female paradigm and vice versa. Um and then even within those who fall within the let's say the average middle range they also have feminine and masculine a mixture of feminine and masculine qualities. Now, generally speaking, if one is making a shid, if we're playing shad, um although one wonders how much control we we have over these things, because at the end of the day, matches are made in heaven. But if we were trying to match up a husband and a wife, then one thing we would pay a lot of attention to is the masculine feminine um continuum and where each one falls on that spectrum. And we would try to find a man who is more masculine than the woman we're pairing him up with. In other words, there could be a man who's very feminine. Okay. So, we'll find a woman who's even more feminine, right? Ultra feminine. And vice versa, you know, a woman who's very masculine, we'll find a man who's even more masculine. Um, that's that's if we're planning it out. And not only when we're planning it out, but let's say it's in the middle of the dating process. Very very often when I speak to couples who are in the dating process, and typ typically it's not really speaking to the couples really, it's speaking to one or the other. and they talk with me about trying to figure out if they're interested in going further in the dating process with a particular prospect. One of the things I will ask a man is, does she make you feel like a mashpia? In other words, do you feel masculine in her presence? And I'll conversely ask a woman about a young man that she's dating. Does he make you feel like a macab? Does he make in in in his presence do you feel more feminine? Um and and again I'm not going to redefine masculine feminine mishia macab all of that is in the first two classes. So what I'm saying is that at the beginning when we're making a match in the middle of the process while we are evaluating the um the when when we're evaluating whether a match is a seems to be a good match meaning during the dating process we will check and make sure that there's the appropriate relative masculine feminine uh dynamic. Again, I stressed the word relative, meaning this man doesn't have to be more masculine than every woman in the world, just more masculine than the woman he's about to marry and vice versa. Uh but then you have it's already done. They're already married and the relationship is established and they are who they are and and and and most of this by the way is not learned. Most of it is not habits that can just be changed. Most of it really is deeply rooted. Um you know I'm not a mystic. It's not like I can see souls and I can tell you that this is something that I can I read people's energy and stuff like that. But to whatever extent that I I can attempt to describe my my way of picking up on these things what what whatever whatever it is. Um, one gets the sense that these are in yanim nafium. The the the masculinity and the femininity of a given human being is is something rooted in their in their soul. It's not so much uh nurture as it is nature. It's uh it's not something that they can change. So let's say you have a couple and it happens to be that in many ways the husband is more of the macabl and the wife is more of the mashia. So first of all let me say that married people have their own lives. Married people don't always spend every minute together. And although the marriage may be the most important relationship in one's life, it's not the only relationship. And therefore, it is important for men and women to know. Let me focus on women here because this is how we've built this class. If a woman finds that she has certain masculine traits, um, she should be given not only permission but encouragement to find appropriate channels for those masculine traits. And and what are masculine traits? Again, you have to watch the first two classes to really understand this, but um the the the masculine traits means where she is the initiator. She's the one who's coming up with the plan, the one who is the the visionary um who's enlisting others to follow her lead. That's what we classify as Mashpiaike traits as opposed to what? As opposed to the one one who's more of the developer who takes an idea that was already offered and tweaks it and fine-tunes it to make it more uh realistic and applicable. That's more of the macabbell role. Um so a woman who has more of these masculine tendencies should definitely find channels for those. Uh she should do this in her personal life, in her professional life, in her communal service. There's so many aspects of life where a person can find outlets for all aspects of their personality. And I would say just as a general statement that if you find that you have a character trait, whatever it might be, uh God gave you that character trait in order that you can and must use it to glorify him. So certainly nobody should stifle any tendencies that they have. Um and and when I say that, that's with the understanding that tendencies, actual raw tendencies are all neutral. Uh if you're saying a tendency is is negative, then you're not talking about a tendency anymore. An actual proclivity is is completely neutral and it's and it's being good or bad is totally determined by the way that it is channeled. So I just want to make sure that that word is understood. If you're talking about well what if it's a tendency that is inherently sinful well then you're talking about something else because actually that's the misappropriation of a tendency like uh the our sages say that somebody who has blood lust then he should become a ritual slaughterer or a or a moc instead of becoming a criminal. Right? So the tendency isn't that he's has the proclivity to murder. No, murder is the misappropriation or the mischaning of that tendency. Um, he could have channeled it in a in a completely holy way. So, just let that be understood. Um, that when we're talking about tendencies, we're talking about things that have the potential always have the potential to be used uh for holiness. So that's very important that a woman who has masculine tendencies and all women have some even even the most feminine women have some trace amount of masculinity. There's there's no one who's 100% completely one or the other. It just doesn't exist. Um but then then we get to the tricky part which is okay that's outside of my marital relationship. What about within my marital relationship? So the ideal, if such a thing exists, the ideal would be that a woman would be able to thoroughly exercise all of her masculine traits outside of her marriage so that in her marriage she could be exclusively feminine. That would be the ideal. But we know that that's not always the case. It's not always possible that a woman can get all of her masculinity uh used up in areas outside of marriage. It just may be that she has a lot of these talents and it may even be that a lot of these talents um are particularly useful in a household. And if her husband is not stepping up in that way. So there kind of feels like an urgency that should I say this sounds awfulish or they just say in a place where there is no man you be the man. Okay. So sometimes a woman feels like that. All right. Someone's got to be the man. All right. So, the easy thing would be for me, of course, to just overgeneralize and paint with a broad brush and say, "Well, don't do that." But I know that's not really realistic. So, what I what I would say is be conscious that you are treading into dangerous waters. And I'm not saying this to be ominous or foroding and I'm not trying to talk you out of it. I'm just letting you know that you have to be careful. I really I'm not I'm not being uh koi here. If I if I if I if I really believed that this were anathema and you had to run away from it at all costs, I would tell you bluntly, stay away. Don't even play around with it. It's not worth it. I I'm I'm I'm not I'm not trying to hint around here. I'm I'm I'm being honest. I'm being genuine here. It's okay to do it, but be careful when you do it because there may be an unintended price to pay and you have to make sure that you're comfortable with that price. Um and and this is not something that I can answer for you or anyone else can answer for you. Only you can answer this for yourself. And that is if you and again I'm speaking to the women because this course or this uh this uh series here is directed toward women. If you feel that by stepping up in these ways and being more of a mashia, not just outside of your marriage, but in your marriage relationship itself, if you feel that doing that causes you to lose your attraction for your husband, your respect for him, your feeling of emotional safety, um your feeling of being taken care of then it's probably not worth it. Now I understand there are some women women who will say uh yes that is the collateral damage but it's the price that I have to pay because if I don't do it the house will fall apart because he's really not capable of taking the lead and you know what there are cases like that and my perspective on such marriages today um I don't know if this is how I've always believed But I do believe that some people, some adults make a conscious choice and decision to make the best of barely functional situations. And I'm sure there are people watching right now who are making the best of a barely functional situation. And I just want you to know that if that's your choice, if that's your choice, if you're doing it out of fear because you think you have no options, you have no worth on your own, that your life will end if if if you're not in this marriage, that's a different discussion and maybe that's something we could explore in its own uh in at least maybe later tonight, if not in its own class entirely. But if you're making a decision that you are making the best of something that is barely functional or maybe even some ways is quite dysfunctional but you're trying to manage and that's the choice that you're making for today and I stress again for today then I guess I'm saying I'm comfortable with that as well. If you're saying it from a place of conscious decision-m, if a woman is saying, "Look, if I don't step up and be the man, then it's all going to fall apart." Meaning, the house is going to fall apart. Um, and yeah, by doing it, I do I do lose respect for him and it does damage our our intimate bond. I'm not going to disagree with you. I'm not going to tell you you're not allowed to make that decision. I just would like to I guess remind you that that's a decision that you're making. Um but that's an extreme case. I think in most cases it's not so extreme. And what is more likely is that it's not that a woman feels that she has to entirely be the man and even and and by doing so she's completely losing respect for her husband. Probably it's it's a lot more nuanced than that. It's like yeah when I have to step up and be the mashpia it does take a toll. It does diminish some of that mashpia macab dynamic that would normally make the relationship so much more smooth and natural and easy, but it's a trade-off that I'm willing to make. And and again, if if I said a couple of minutes ago that even in an extreme situation, it's okay as long as it's a deliberate choice, then obviously here, all the more so in a more moderate situation, I think it's okay if it's a deliberate choice. Just be careful. Just be careful. Just understand that there often is a price to pay and monitor and monitor. And if you see what what do I mean by monitor that if you see that it's taking a toll and the emotional uh repercussions are not worth the practical benefits. You hear what I'm saying? The emotional repercussions are not worth the practical benefits. In other words, yeah, there are practical benefits of stepping up and being the mashpia, especially if you're a woman who has talents in that area or and at the same time your husband doesn't have talents in that area, there are practical benefits, but there may be emotional repercussions. And if you see that it is you're coming to a point where you're paying a price that's too dear uh for it to be worth the what do you call ROI the return on investment then you might want to dial that back and it's not all or nothing. It's not like you have to completely drop it but again monitor and evaluate. And if you have to dial down some of your mashia characteristics in the marriage in order to get back some of the emotional bond uh and and and in so doing sacrifice some of the practical benefit that you had by stepping up and being the man, then that's a trade-off also uh that that you make. Uh we can't always have it both ways. I would love it if we could have both ways. When Msiah comes, we will have it both ways. and and Msiah is coming very soon. And I feel like in a lot of ways a lot of the dissatisfaction that people have with marriage today more than in previous generations uh may be because our standards are just that much higher. I think that intuitively we know Mashiach is coming and marriages of the gula are going to be perfect. They're going to work emotionally and practically and there's going to everything's just going to be perfectly balanced uh physically and and and intellectually and emotionally it's all going to be perfect but uh until Msiah comes there are certain tradeoffs. So just be aware be aware and uh this is a good time to mention a sale have a consultant, a mentor, a an objective third party, someone who you respect for their spiritual uh refinement and their clarity and compassion that you can check in with just to uh make sure that your your decisions make sense. Okay, let's uh let's go to another question. I really appreciated this. Thank you so much. When listening to this, I was thinking a lot about CSA. CSA is child sexual abuse. How it's literally opposite of the basic fundamentals of Mishbia and McCabell. Would discussing this concept in the future be an option? Sure, it is an option. We will and we will exercise that option. So, this is a a very important question. Um, I highly doubt the person is asking this question from an academic perspective. Uh, I highly doubt they they were just sitting around and coming up with interesting thoughts. I'm sure quite sure that this is somebody who's speaking from experience and uh although they don't say so explicitly. I mean the way the question is worded is more of like a hm I wonder if you could compare and contrast an abusive uh an inherently abusive sexual relationship with a healthy MBA relationship in a marriage. Uh that's how they word it. It sounds more like a, you know, just a philosophical question, but I'm I'm sure they're asking also, I'm just reading between the lines, reading the white on the page, um, that they're probably writing from experience and um, having such an experience in one's background, yes, obviously does color the way that one experiences intimacy. So let's talk about that. Um yeah the so CSA child uh childhood sexual abuse is an inherently abusive uh relationship but it's not the only type of sexually abusive relationship. because of the power discrepancy inherent in a in an adult and a child relationship. So it's inherently abusive. But what makes it inherently abusive again is is the power discrepancy. Um which is why for instance there are relationships when you have two adults which are inherently abusive. In other words, I don't need to know about what happened and who said what and who answered what and I don't need to know any more details other than the nature of the relationship of these two parties. And that's enough for me to know it was inherently abusive. So, so what what are examples of that? Uh a teacher student and I'm not talking about a child. I'm talking about you have like a a student in a university where the the students are are adults or even graduate students who are who are sometimes the the same age as the the teaching uh teachers assistants, right? Um but it's a power discrepancy or clergy and uh and congregant. That's an inherent power discrepancy and therefore an intimate relationship between those two parties is inherently abusive. So let's speak a little bit about relationships, intimate relationships which are inherently abusive because of the power discrepancy. And then let's use that understanding to then better appreciate what's so good and right and holy in a in a real mashia makabo relationship. If you can't say no, you can't say yes. I remember when I was a kid, probably too young to be reading such books, but I was reading games people play by Eric Burn. My father's a psychologist. And so when I was a kid, I would go to his library and grab books. So there was a book that uh I knew that he liked called Games People Play by Eric Burn about transactional analysis. And uh anyways, there was a line there I remember very very clearly. It says uh the hippie boy says to the hippie girl, "Do you love me?" You know, this is the 60s, hippies, free love. So the hippie boy says to the hippie girl, "Do you love me?" And she says, "I love everybody." So, and you and you you can question whether that constitutes any type of actual consent or not. The I'll let you discuss whether being uh socially brainwashed through a a a culture of uh lack of boundaries. if that is as egregious as an individual um pressuring you to have no boundaries. But at any rate, my point is that if you can't say no, you can't say yes. If there's no ability to reject, then the acceptance really has no meaning. A power discrepancy by definition means that I was not in a position to accept or reject. It was forced upon me. And and that's why um in Hebrew and in biblical and and rabbitic Hebrew, the the word for sexual assault um is actually quite accurate. the the it's the word is is to force to to compel um actually the English word is that we use has a entirely different meaning u which is not as accurate but the idea of to force or to compel um to to not allow somebody their their ability to have a decision that is that is what we describe as abusive. Now there are relationships where as I mentioned because there's a power discrepancy. So inherently from the get-go from the outset there's no possibility for consent like a child a child can't consent. Um but then there are relationships where it's not inherently a power discrepancy but one person disrespects the boundaries of another person and violates their their decision. So then that becomes abusive. It's not inherently abusive but because of the actions of of one person the person who's acting in a violating way. So then it becomes abusive. Um so let's let's understand then the opposite that in true intimacy in healthy intimacy which is a union of mashpia and macab that that consent is inherent in the relationship. It's not just a feature of the relationship. It's not just something that gives a hexure that gives permissibility to the relationship. It's inherent to the relationship. And without it, not only is it not um intimate, but it's automatically abusive. Okay? So, this needs to be better understood. When you have a classic Mashbia macab paradigm where one seems active and the other seems passive and I stress the words the word seems it it appears like um there is one who has agency and the other one sort of just goes along with what the initiator uh wants to do. So obviously that can't be true or that would be abusive. Um I'm treading into areas that I don't want to get into but I will carefully proceed. I uh I told you I gave a class to men and I just want to share with you and I and I really I I I I beg you not to weaponize any of this information. Okay. Um very few people are trying to ruin their marriages on purpose. Okay. Good people make mistakes. Good people were taught wrong things. So, I'm going to share with you um some information that's important for men to know. Um but please don't I wouldn't want this information to cause any um scholias problems. Um so, okay, let let's let's proceed here. There's a very interesting uh balaturator on the on a from devotim in parasan where it says the uh the ten commandments for the second time and it's actually on the fifth commandment honor your mother and father. So the balatururim is one of the classic commentaries on the he was a reish. So he mentions there that parents who are who do what they're supposed to do fulfill nine conditions in conception. I'm not going to go through the nine conditions but he says binarim they they are careful about the nine qualities negative qualities that are spoken of in inim there's a there's a gumor in in nidim daf base 20b that speaks about this at length um and One of the qualities there that the Balator mentions um is he he mentions a child who's born from spousal rape. Now, I'm using that term intentionally because I was told by more than one person there's no such thing in Torah as spousal rape. And that is patently untrue. That is patently untrue. I'm reading to you here from the balum who is quoting the and he mentions this idea of children who are born from spousal rape. It goes without saying that if he forces his wife and she gives birth to a son rather it goes without saying if he forces a woman isha meaning some woman but even if it's his own wife and he forces her to engage in relations. Uh and he also mentions We learned the same thing in the trackctate kala which means the bride and uh kalarabsi in the first uh chapter there the 11th um chapter the first uh chapter the 11th uh paragraph uh speaks about that in in in the trackctate of kala. So this is a very real thing. Uh and and and as as mentioned the Gumar Nidim um goes on to talk about other attributes. He actually he says um there's another there's another quality. Yeah. And here's from from the ran on Nidotum another reshine. So he refers to equality the gam refers to as ben amma children of fear the says uh ama means fear fear he he intimidates his wife to get her to uh concede to him not again not according to her will Yeah. Um and then the Ran also mentions, well, what's the difference between Ben Ama and Benusa? So he says that Benusa is even worse than Ben Ama. Um because there he doesn't force her mamish. Um this what he says. uh but rather he uh basically pressures her so and I should just for the sake of manusion for completion there's another source as well the edu base which speaks about this uh at length about somebody who forces his wife to perform intimate relations w without her consent. The the point is the point that I'm making is that we have Toyota is replete with sources that make it very clear that this is repulsive and let me be very careful here. Let me be very careful. The first thing, the most important thing obviously is personal safety. So, um I just want to stop for a second and say that if anything I'm saying right now is very intense for you, if this is I don't want to sound cliche, but if this is triggering for you, um it's okay. You could pause. you could step away from it and maybe talk to somebody who you trust and and come back to this, okay? Um because there are people who are going through hell and there are people who are going through really really serious situations. So I want to honor that. Um but stepping away from the very extreme cases. Um, let me just let's speak about more of the the mid-range and and and let me, you know, I'm just going to pause here for a second. My my father Zazunai, I mentioned he's a psychologist. So when I was a kid, he not a kid kid, but uh you know teenager, he told me a joke and uh he said, "You know the roar shock test, you know, the inklot test where uh there's just these smears of ink. They don't look like anything." And uh so they ask you, "What does this look like?" And doesn't look like anything. So whatever you say it is more of a reflection of your subconscious. So my father told me a joke about this this little kid in school who was very precocious and he was making inappropriate uh comments all the time about adult things. So they sent him to the school psychologist to see what's wrong with him and they gave him the roarshock test. I think it was more popular in the past but the so the the psychologist gave the kid the roarshock test. So he showed him the first inklot and he said to him, "You know, what do you see here?" So he said, "Oh, I see a man and a woman." And okay, he showed him the second inklot. So what do you see here? Oh, wow. This one even more explicit. He showed him a third one. Oh, this one is really, really uh risque. So the psychologist says to the boy, "Um, little boy, seems like you're very preoccupied with this subject." And the little boy says, "Me? You're the guy who brought in all the dirty pictures." So, um, I don't want to be accused of being the guy who brings in all the dirty pictures, but I will say this. I think it is incredibly common that even within normal marriages or maybe a better word would be to use the average marriage um in the majority of marriages that there is some level of not getting it 100% consistently right? Every time as far as consent and willingness, how about I say like this? Okay, obviously there are the extreme cases which I'm not going to address. It's it's not possible in my position to to address those extreme cases which obviously need to be dealt with and safety is is paramount. Um, but I'm speaking now to the more of the the mid-range and even in the average marriage, there are times where even mistakenly um a a man will not be 100% perfect in fulfilling these exhort portations of our sages which we just read from the Balaturim and the Gumarin and the Gumarin Adovven and then and then and in in in Kala. So uh here's here's what I want to I'm trying to be very careful. You see, I'm going uh extra carefully here. And also, it's very difficult because I'm speaking to a to a camera, so I can't see anyone's reaction. What makes healthy intimacy healthy and holy is the rotting of the mabo, not the rotten of the mashia. because sort of by definition if there is an act of intimacy there is the ruten of the mabo of of the of the mashia. Now that's a whole other discussion um that is worthy of being had at another time. Meaning is it possible for a man to be violated and taken advantage of? And the answer is yes. Yes. Um but it's different. It's different. And I'm not going to get into the way that it's different. And I'm not saying it's less egregious. Uh I'm not saying that it isn't traumatizing. Um, but it but it is inherently different because for reasons that I'm going to be um I'm going to heir on the side of of uh of politeness and just say for reasons that one should probably readily understand. And if one is mature enough to be listening to a class like this, one should also understand um almost by definition or by definition there's always the roten of the mashia. Rotten means the will, the desire. The mashia meaning the man obviously wants and if not then it's not happening. the the the big X factor, the unknown is does the woman want? Does she want? If she does, then you have the possibility, and I stress the word possibility because it's not automatic. It's only the possibility for healthy, holy intimacy. If she doesn't want then by definition it is I'm not the one who uses these words. The balatum uses these words. The gimm uses these words. It's it's she is being violated. This is these are the words of kazal. So in case anybody accuses me and says Shaes Taab is bringing in all types of new fangled modern enlightened uh liberal sensibilities. Uh this is this is Kazal. Okay. Um so let's retrace ourselves where we started. Somebody asked a question about someone being abused as a child and they said how it's I'm reading their question. It's literally the opposite of the basic fundamentals of Mashian McCabell. That is very aptly stated. Yes, correct. It is literally the opposite. And in understanding what makes it the opposite what and if you understand what makes sexual abuse the opposite of a real mashia makabo that actually will help you understand what is a real mashia makabo. You know there's yasov and yasila there's knowing what something is and knowing what it's not and both are helpful in understanding a subject more clearly. So what is healthy holy intimacy not? It is not a situation where the mccabble is not given a choice. And furthermore, let's state it in the positive. The macabell is given or is granted or or let's not say given, but the macabell's choice is honored. And that's not binary. That's not just uh yes or no, consent or not. That's on a spectrum. That's on a spectrum. So there's a degree to which the mabell is doing this birin with will and with desire. And therefore when I say there's a degree, the more willingness then the more intimacy. Now that's a very important idea. You know, good is good, but better is better. So intimacy isn't a binary thing that either it was intimate or it was uh abusive. There's a spectrum just like I was talking about before. There's a spectrum of abuse, right? There's the real egregious obvious violation and then there's stuff where maybe a husband wasn't 100% so careful to create the right mood and willingness. Right? So, it's on a spectrum, right? Abuse is on a spectrum. Well, holy and healthy intimacy is also on a spectrum. Meaning to say that even when you have it, you can have more of it. And how can you have more of it? by the greater desire and willingness of specifically the Macabo, not the Mashia's willingness, but the Mabo's willingness. And and and this brings us, I think, to another question that I received. Um, let me just make sure I check off the ones that I've covered. Um, I want to get back to this one, but let's let's look here. This is a this is a kind of a long question, but I want to read it all. Okay. I thought the idea of a woman's desire being a vital factor for an intimate experience to be elevated and holy, absolutely amazing. Okay, this is somebody commenting on one of the previous two classes, right? So, this is why I'm reading this question now because it's talking about a woman's desire. And yet, since I've listened, I've also concluded that a woman's desire is not a good entry point for intimacy. One, it doesn't work. At the end of the day, her desire may not cause him to initiate, and she's still at the mercy of his initiation. Two, the man's initiation and the more basic understanding of mashia is confirmed in science as well. Researchers has found that men have spontaneous desire and women have responsive desire. Her desire is aroused only after things get intimate when he initiates. All in all, desire may be important, but I would be hesitant to say that it should be the starting point of an intimate experience. Rather, she can allow herself to experience desire when the opportunity arises. In question form, this is a very thoughtful question. Okay. In question form, I'm still reading the same question. In question form, what role does her desire play? When does it become relevant practically? We're given mixed messages about a woman initiating or being seduct seductive with her husband. When in what way is okay or even holy? Is that the same as desire? Ah, maybe that's the mistake. Desire doesn't have to equal initiation. But that brings me to the next point. Not sure if this is a question or a complaint. At the end of the day, a woman is dependent on her husband's interest in physical intimacy. And in many marriages, initiation is dependent solely on his desire, not hers. Not sure my question, but I think it's understood that this can cause resentment. Thank you for addressing these important matters. Okay, great. Perfect. That was wonderful. So, let's talk about that. First of all, what you're describing, this difficult predicament that a woman is in is something that Toyota acknowledges explicitly early on in paras. Um it is part and parcel of the human condition since day one. Literally from the time of the integration of das from the eating of the tree of knowledge when we gained our own identity and primarily you know that when we gained an identity as human beings by eating from the tree of knowledge the first symptom of that identity that awareness of self was sexual shame which is why uh kava immediately sought to cover their nakedness which they were not ashamed of prior to that. So we see that identity and and sexual shame are intertwined. And perhaps we could speak a little bit more about that in a moment, but I was saying that only as a as as background to what I'm about to get to, which is that at that same time, God speaks to Kava to Eve and he tells her elo, he says to the woman, he says that you're going to have difficulty with pregnancy. And actually the difficulty with pregnancy some sages explain is directly connected to the next part of the verse. Uh and then he says your desire your yearning will be to your husband and he will rule over you. Okay. So what does that mean? The simple meaning is and when I say simple meaning, simple meaning is always rashi. What does Rashi say? Um so Rashi says Elish, your yearning will be for your husband. What? What yearning? Yearning that he should do the dishes. Yearning that he should mow the lawn. Karachius says latashmish for intimacy. It's describing a woman's desire for intimacy. Now, is it saying that a woman is the only one who desires intimacy? That a man doesn't desire intimacy? I mean, I can bring you a source from Tito to answer that question, or you could just use common sense. Do you think that means that men don't desire intimacy? I mean, in some ways, I think it's clear to us that men may have more desire. I say in some ways, um, in fact, I just wanted to bring this up. I'm I'm pausing in the middle of this rashi uh on Chuk, but I just wanted to pull this up. Uh, the gummorubus. Where is it? Where did I put it? Um, yeah, here it is. It's very interesting. Um, don't worry if you forget where I am, I'll remember. I can keep many browser tabs open in my brain and eventually I will come back to the main point. Um there's a kubis damaled omid base that's discussing the idea of a mid and a aismic terms for a spouse who withholds intimacy from the other spouse uh who refuses to be intimate and obviously marriage part of marriage is intimacy. So when one when one what when one withholds that aspect of marriage from one's partner that is a problem and the Talma discusses ways of dealing with that and without getting a whole into a whole discussion of that there's basically a a penalty for one who does that um I think it's important to say that a woman who finds it repulsive to be intimate with her husband. The rabbis force him to divorce her. Um, but without getting into that discussion, I just bring that up because I know it's the elephant in the room. Um, the discussion that is pertinent to the passage that I want to share with you is they're trying to determine or the Talmud is determining why the penalty for a woman who withholds intimacy from her husband is is more than the opposite. A husband who withholds from his wife. Um it's interesting also because he's the one who has the biblical commandment. We spoke about that in the previous classes that she sus that the uh the the mitzvah of is his biblical commandment. He actually has the prohibition not to withhold intimacy from her. She doesn't have a biblical commandment like that. um there's no counterpart for her. Um but interestingly his her penalty for withholding intimacy is greater the one the penalty rabbitic penalty levied by the rabbis. So the the gimmod is discussing this um and it says uh mated what's the difference between a mated that means a husband who withholds intimacy from his wife and a mirades a wife who withholds intimacy from her husband. So he said to him, this is a discussion between uh Rabi and and Schm the Amay. So says to him, right, you hear the question, why is it considered why is there a greater penalty for a woman withholding intimacy from her husband? In in other words, it seems to put more of a value uh on a man receiving intimacy from his wife than a woman receiving intimacy from her husband. It places value on both, but and both are grounds for divorce, but it seems to put more weight on when a man is deprived. So, um he says to him, Schmool says to Rabikf, Go out and learn. Go out and deduce Mishuk shall z from the market of harlots. Basically from go learn from prostitution. Me who's hiring whom? Now obviously there are exceptions. There are outliers and there is such a thing as the reverse. But generally speaking and the Talmud says it as a rhetorical question. Schmool the Amira who is a to put it very mildly a very holy holy holy rabbi. He says look it's a fact of life. We all know that it's men who are hiring women. So you see for yourself who puts more value on it. Okay. Um alternatively this one's manif manifests outwardly and this one uh is internal. Now obviously that's speaking uh anatomically and again I want to be refined and polite and if this requires further explanation you shouldn't be watching this class. Um I know you could find worse things on YouTube um than what I'm saying but um I'm not going to elaborate. I think everyone understands what that means on the most simple physiological level. Uh but it's also describing something emotional and perhaps even metaphysical when it says that his inclination is out is outward or extroverted literally turned outward and hers is mithnim is introverted. It's not just talking about mechanics and body parts. It's talking about the energy. He is seeking her out. He's going to her. Um this is what our sages tell us that it is the way of a man to seek out a woman. Um what he desires he goes to her for what she is desirous of. She receives. So he's going out of himself. His act as a mashpia is inherently extraversion. And I don't mean that in an exhibitionistic sense. God forbid because that's the opposite of intimacy. But I mean even in their private in the in the in the sacred privacy of their intimate relationship, his act is literally an act of extraversion of turning himself outward. And hers is introversion of being literally accountable of receiving of bringing something into her. And if there's desire, what is she desiring? She's desiring that something should come to her. He's desiring that he should get to something. She is the destination. So he's trying to get to the destination. She is the destination and she's waiting for him to arrive at the destination. So which one causes more frustration? This is the discussion in the morning. Which of those two causes? They both caused frustration. The lack thereof causes frustration. A a Mashpia who hasn't found a macab, a willing macab, although I repeat myself because as we established a macab by definition is a willing macab. A mashia who has not found a macab is frustrated and a macab who's waiting for a mashia is also frustrated. But which one is more frustrating? So the goduba says actually a frustrated mashpia experiences greater pain than a frustrated macab. He has something to give away and he can't find anywhere to give it. That's more painful than she would like to receive something. But if she doesn't get it, she doesn't get it. There's a lack. Okay. But the pain of lack is comparatively less than the pain of something being there that really is not meant for you. It's really meant to be able to give away. And when you can't give it away, it causes frustration. So let's go back to the PK in braces al let's go back there with the understanding that when when it says your desire your meaning the woman your desire shall be for your husband it doesn't mean that she's unilaterally the only one who desires intimacy to the contrary we see very clearly that he desires it too. And in some ways his desire is even greater than hers because we see that when his desire is frustrated and unfulfilled he experiences in some ways more pain than she does in the comparable situation. Okay. So then what does it mean? What does it mean? Let's let's start the rashi over again. You will desire your husband. Your desire will be to your husband latashish for intimacy. Okay, that's not exclusively we just established that's not exclusively female. The male also desires his wife for intimacy. So Rashi continues, this is not over yet or it wouldn't really explain this. Rasha continues. Here's where it explains it. And nevertheless, even though she desires it, she won't be brazen enough to demand it with her mouth. Meaning verbally to tell him, "Hey, this is what I want." Elohim, he will rule over her. What does it mean rule over her? He's a tyrant. It's saying every marriage here. I could definitely imagine a certain uh type of reading of this verse. They would read this as all marriage is inherently uh a violation. No. No. He will rule over her. Everything comes from him and not from you. In other words, he's the initiator. If he on the most literal physical level, if he wants, then and and and again, we established how how wrong this is. But if he wants, it could happen even if she doesn't want. God forbid. It's it's a terrible thing. We explained already how awful that is when he wants and she doesn't want and it happens anyway. But the point is, it could happen. But if she wants and he doesn't want, nothing's happening. And that's what it means. In other words, there is a case where she will want something and he will not be able to deliver and she won't even be able to express that that's what she wants. Now there's I have a suggestion. Maybe she could she could just learn some better communication. It says that she doesn't have the the brazeness to demand it. Maybe she should just learn to be more confident and articulate her needs. And I'm sure many marriage therapists today would tell her, you know, you should communicate more what you want in that area of marriage. Okay. But we should be very clear as that Ramban uh says Ramban came after Rashi and he often comments on Rashi. He says no no no the toy is not saying there's anything bad about that. It's actually good that that is a hallmark of a modest refined woman. It's actually good that she's not demanding it that she's not saying to him um what she wants. Okay. But it's so sad like why can't she just communicate what she wants? Um and I and I also I want to mention to you that yeah the is particularly interesting to me on this verse because I don't know if a lot of people realize this but the wrote his panish for his daughters. He had no sons. Theim had no sons. He only had daughters. And the pirish was actually the lessons the lessons that he taught his holy daughters and recorded for posterity. So anytime you read the onsh, you're really reading a father's lesson with his daughters, which to me is a beautiful thing. Um, so listen to how the as a loving father teaches this is right. Hashem said to the woman, make sure I have the right place. Yeah. Um, this is I mean it's amazing that a father explained this to his daughters. Um, I I'll just read the whole thing. God intended to make it clear to Eve. I'm just I'm just going to read the English for the sake of time. This is a very long section. I don't want to read and translate read and translate read and translate. God intended to make it clear to that that Eve that kava that Eve would suffer three curses as retribution for the three features of the tree of knowledge that she wanted to enjoy. She had seen that the tree a was good as food, b a temptation for the eyes, and c desirable to make one perceptive. So God decreed that instead of enjoying the fruit of the tree, she would suffer pains when producing her own fruit. In other words, her children regarding the temptation for her eyes that she wanted to enjoy. So God decreed that she would henceforth pine for her her husband as a passive partner. In other words, she would see something and not be able to fulfill it on her own. Her husband would decide if and when to fulfill her desire. And now listen what he says. Her husband would always derive satisfaction from intimacy, but there's no guarantee that she would that she would receive desire that her that her desire would be fulfilled or satisfied through the the the intimate union. So, father explaining this to to his daughters. what what what I don't know if when he taught them they were married yet or if they were were he was preparing them for marriage but it's a very interesting thing he told them finally instead of satisfying her desire to be godlike she would be dominated instead of being the one in control which means godlike she would be put into submission in this in this sense so What do we garner from all of this? Um, a number of things and and we haven't resolved all of it yet. First of all, that when she has a desire, she can't express it. Or she could, but she's not supposed to. And if Tito says you're not supposed to do something, it's not depriving you. It's telling you that even if you go and do it and it works, it didn't really work. Right? You go and work on Shabas, the money you make is not going to go to healthy things. When you do something that the creator says not to do and and and you you do it anyway, it's not that you get away with anything. You don't get away with anything because our creator is loving and when he tells us not to do something, it's for our own good. It's for our own protection. So yeah, seemingly she should learn communication skills and she should just be more open. She's just just tell him when she wants what she wants, how she wants. But that's not the solution. Okay. What is the solution? I don't know yet. Another aspect of this is that by nature, she is put into a submissive or passive role. And that's sort of unavoidable. That is a fact of biology. And again, I leave it to you to understand what that means. And furthermore, like the kadesh and he was kadesh. I should by the way I think it's okay for me to say this. Do you know why the kadesh is called kadesh? You know why he was so holy? Um because you know it says that an animal will not attack a human being if they see that salameim the image of God on that human being. Because animals were commanded by God to to fear human beings. Animals only attack human beings when the human being appears anim animalistic to them. So if a human being indulges animalistic desires so that the animal sees them as another animal. So there's a story. The kids version just says that the lion tried to attack and he saw his holy face and he ran away. But the actual story is that the showed the a lion was about to attack him and he showed him the uh briskish the place of the holy covenant on his body and the lion was petrified of the kadusha and ran away. So when we say that the kadesh was kadesh that's what we mean and I guess he was so kadesh he was so holy that he even discussed this with his daughters and he told them that the way Hashem set up nature is that by definition a man is pretty much guaranteed to be satisfied by intimacy and a woman is Not. So they're right there. That's unfair, right? That's not that's not equal footing. They're not they're not uh they're not giving given here equal opportunities. Okay. So that's the reality. Now let's try to unpack this further and understand what to do with this. And then remember I'm still trying to answer that very eloquent question, that long and eloquent question. Um, so this is all sort of process. I hope you're able to bear with me here. Um, you may remember from I think it was class two where I spoke about one of the clearest sources for the holiness of female desire that a woman's desire for intimacy with her husband is not only okay but it is uh it's ideal and the example that I brought which is a biblical example is the story of the mirrors the copper mirrors that were donated to the Mishkan. I spoke about this in a previous class but ve very briefly um the women in the wilderness were moved to donate copper mirrors that they had brought with them out of Egypt when they were in slavery in Egypt. They had these copper mirrors and they donated them to the building project when they were building the sanctuary. And these mirrors had an origin. Um, and because of their origin, Misha Rabeno, Moses did not want to accept, he was afraid to accept these mirrors. Um, I think it's worth reading the actual text. Sorry, I am over 40, almost 50. So, I have to do that thing where you take off the glasses and hold the paper up to your face. Okay, that's what I'm gonna have to do. Sorry. [Laughter] Um, yeah. So, this is Rashi and Lammed from Paris Velis the the mirrors. Yodisto, the Jewish girls, not just girls, daughters of Israel, meaning Jewish women and girls, they had um mirrors that they used when they would adorn themselves. And they did not withhold even those meaning they were very dear to them but they didn't withhold even those to donate to the Mishkan Mosa was disgusted by them. He was disgusted. Okay, that's that's more than just I'm not sure we should use this. He was like repulsed because these mirrors were used for the what does that even mean? We're going to find out the holy one said to take it receive it because those meaning the mirrors are more precious to me than everything. Remember, the whole nation donated all of their special skills and all of their resources and all of their wealth toward this building project. And of all of the donations, what did Hashem say is the most precious? These mirrors. This is the tool that the women used in order to propagate many offspring when they were in Egypt, which was obviously a brutal situation where um not only was there genocide, but there was a genocide by attrition that they would lose the desire to even attempt to have children. So, not only were their babies being thrown in the Nile and the children thrown into bricks, but they lost the desire to even have children. So, what did the women do by when their husbands would be exhausted with backbreaking labor? So they would come home from a day of slave labor and their wives would bring them food and drink. They would feed them and then they would whip out those mirrors. And each woman, she would look at her reflection with her husband's reflection in the mirror. In other words, she'd cidle up next to him. She would hold the mirror, you know, like taking a selfie today, right? And she would stand next to him and she would see the reflection of the two of them standing side by side, man and wife, and she would just sort of muse out loud. She would seduce him with words. She would come on to him with words. And this is what she would say. I am more prettier than you. I'm prettier than you. This would arouse their husbands and the women would then be desired for intimacy and they would fulfill that. Then they would become pregnant and they would give birth. So what do we see here? First of all, a biblical model for holy feminine desire for intimacy and that it was something that even the holiest manu had a hard time understanding. And therefore, men, if you're listening, you shouldn't be. But men, let's let's be honest. If Misha Rabeno, who was the holiest man, had a hard time with it until Hashem told him otherwise. Yeah, it is difficult for us to understand because female desire and male desire are very different. They're very different. I'm sorry to be sexist, but they are different. And male desire um is not always holy. And in fact, male desire in the absence of female desire can lead to profanity which we described earlier. The an interaction which is abusive and violating when there's male desire without female desire. And again, it's not black and white. It's not just like she desires or she doesn't desire. It's a spectrum. In other words, when he desires and her desire isn't caught up with his, so his desire out being, you know, his his desire surpassing her desire is is is problematic. But yet when you flip the paradigm, it's not only not problematic, but all of a sudden it becomes wonderful. She has desire, he has no desire. Okay, this is the situation that it's describing in mit. She has no she has desire, he has no desire. Okay, this is this is the paradigm. She wants, he doesn't want. It's the last thing on his mind. He's not interested. And by the way, this is maybe my kesh. So I want to be careful to tell you this, not because I think I'm smart and I want to take credit for but because I'm scared that I'm saying things that are wrong. So I want to alert you that I'm half making this up. But one of the things we're told about what is a ped because Rashi says when the women would uh seduce their husbands it's they were broken from the Avedik from the backbreaking labor. What is a perk? So according to one medish it means that they gave men women's work and women men's work there are many explanations but that's one explanation in other words perhaps perhaps I'm just thinking out loud this is similar to what we described earlier where a man was placed into a feminizing situation which would have made it difficult for his wife perhaps to have desire. So he's not feeling it as the mashia. But hold on a second. A mashia means the initiator. If he's not feeling it, he's not initiating. So then it's dead in the water. There's nothing doing. You can't get anywhere. And she's not allowed to to demand it, right? Because because Rashi tells us very clear. So Rashi says that that uh you're not gonna have the and you shouldn't have the to demand it verbally. It's going to be he's going to call the shots. It's all from him, not from you. Okay? And and and yet what do we find? It's not so simple. It's never so simple. Where there's a will, there's a way. Literally, where there's a will, there's a way. Where there's where there's desire, you'll figure it out. You're the macab. You're the the woman. You desire and he doesn't desire. So, you're not supposed to demand it and tell him, "Hey, buddy, this is what's got to happen. Not only you're not supposed to, but even if you go and you break the rules, it's not going to be good for you anyway. Like I said, when we violate Toyota's laws, we don't we don't gain anything. Toyota's laws protect us. So when Toyota says that a relationship is forbidden, that relationship's never going to be fulfilling. If Toto says that a certain manner of dealing with a relationship that is otherwise holy but a certain way of acting within that relationship is inappropriate, so then it's never going to be fulfilling. So it's not that she's losing out that she can't demand anything. It's that it wouldn't work anyway. You know why? Because by definition, if she demands it, if she says explicitly, here's what I want you to do, then she's acting as a Mashpia. And now the whole paradigm got reversed. And now it's not a unity of Mashia and Macabell. She has to use her unique qualities as a macab to get him to want to be a mashpia when he doesn't think he wants to be a mashia. So if she says explicitly if she gives orders then she's being the mashia. She's calling the shots and it's not mashia makabo. However, what is the the the long short way, so to speak, the way around it, the life hack that the wise women in Mitsayim knew, they made suggestions and they found cute ways to be suggestive. And in fact, I think the the the long question which I which I read which I'm responding to mentioned something about modern psychology and about male arousal and female arousal being different about spontaneous desire and reactive desire. I think there's also something that is um also substantiated by modern psychology and that is that men tend to be more triggered by visual arousal. So you see here in this biblical paradigm what did these women do? They created an image and it wasn't, God forbid, a a prost. It's a Jewish word, but uh it wasn't a lascivious nasty image. God forbid. It was a classy image. It was a refined image. She just stood next to him. She just stood next to him and she held up the mirror or the selfie camera, whatever, and she said, "Hey, take a look at that. I'm prettier than you. I'm prettier than you. Wink wink. She didn't have to say anything. She didn't have to go out of her macab qualities. She She had a light touch. She suggested. She hinted and it worked and it triggered his desire. and he stood up and he acted as a mashpia. So you see even though we define the Mashia as the initiator there's something that even comes before the initiator the macabell's willingness her subtle quiet classy dignified willingness not brazen not loud not bossy but her subtle classy suggestive willingness sends out a frequent that resonates with the Mashia and all of a sudden something flips a switch and he he initiates initiates but really he's he's responding but he's responding to calls that are so subtle and so uh under the radar so to speak that for all intents and purposes practically speaking we call him the initiator because Everything she was doing was just hints. But it's very interesting when TA says it won't work if she demands it and she'll always be frustrated because she can't demand it. What is TA saying? It's not saying, "Haha, you you woman, you desire it and if Tito would let you demand it, you'd be able to be satisfied." And God forbid. That's not what it's saying. Toyota is saying, "Woman, if you desire it and you demand it, then it's all over from from that point on anyways." Because once you demand it, then you're the initiator and you're not even going to be fulfilled because your desire like the Gwakuba says is not. Your desire is not extroverted, it's introverted. You don't want to be a man. You want him to come to you. You don't want to be the one who goes to the destination. You understand intuitively you are the destination. He should come to you. So if you demand it, then you're playing his role and then you're going to be frustrated anyway. And that's what it means that because you're able then trying to play even if it gets you what you think you want doesn't really get you what you want. You're going to still be frustrated. But if you can lean into your natural powers as a real macabble and you hint and you suggest and you play the very understated koi type of role, then he will step up. He'll initiate and then you'll be profoundly satisfied. I also think it's interesting in this paradigm that the way that the women suggested or hinted to get their husbands in the mood was not just through a visual stimulus which as I mentioned is is very interesting that psychological insight from that uh from that description but let's go more into detail in particular How did what was the image that they used? Like I said, it wasn't, God forbid, a a a crass image. It was actually a very pure, sweet image of a husband and wife standing next to each other. Okay. But what did she say to him? She said to him, and I I'll just read it, I'm more pretty than you. Why doesn't she just say I'm pretty? Or why doesn't she just say to him, "Don't you think I'm pretty? Does this dress make me look fat?" You know, it's just a joke. But why doesn't she just say, "Don't I look pretty?" Why does she say, "I'm prettier than you?" Why does she say I'm prettier than you? You get it? You got it. She's contextualizing him as a mashpia. She's defining him in relation to how she's defined herself. In other words, it's not important how pretty she is. What's important is she's prettier than him. And in her being pretty, in her being feminine, he feels like a man. So it's not about her being pretty. It's the juxosition and the contextualization whereby a Mashpia who wasn't feeling like a Mashia all of a sudden gets clarity light bulb that hold on a second. I am the Mashia. Look, there's two people standing here. She's the pretty one. I ain't the pretty one. She's the pretty one. At least prettier than me. And like I mentioned at the beginning, you know, some men are more feminine. Some women are more masculine. And that's fine. But at least in the context of intimacy, you want the woman to be a little bit more feminine than the man, and the man should be a little bit more masculine than the woman. So they just only have to be in relation to each other playing the the role. Okay? It doesn't mean that if you take them compared to the general population that they would, you know, where what what percentile of femininity or masculinity they would rank in. The point is in the context of this husband and wife. He's the Mashia. She's the Macabble. So she says, "Hey, take a look at that. I'm the pretty one. I'm the Macabble, at least more than you." And he's like, "You're right. And that's when he realizes and remembers who he is. And then what does he do? Automatically he desires. Because remember the desire of a man is more than the desire of a woman. Like the Kuba said, it's more painful for him to not be able to share what he has than it is for her to sit and languish. It's not nothing, but it's it's it's more painful for him to not be able to share what he has than for her to sit and languish and just not get anything. Um, so once he remembers that he's a Mashpia, then it's automatic that he wants to give to her. And then it's really Mashia Makab because he's giving to her. He's not taking intimacy from her. He's not coming in like a hungry beast devouring her. No, to the contrary, he's coming in like a man and fulfilling her hunger. He is responding to her desire. Okay, I hope that's helpful. There's more. There are more questions here, so I'm going to continue. I'm also going to check my email to see if anything came in while we were live. Uh, yeah, we did get a couple of things. So, we're gonna try to take a look at those. Um, yeah, we need a part three, please. All right. You spoke, we listen. This is part three. Is it okay for a woman to agree to interact in physical intimacy just to quote be there for her husband? End quote. like what men are what men are from Mars women are from Venus calls a quickie. Okay. Um is it okay? So, if you were here and I could ask you questions, this is a time as a teacher where I would ask you questions and I would say to you based on everything we've said so far, how would you answer that question? Now, there's no one here uh in this room to answer me. So, I will answer what I hope anybody who's been listening from the beginning and until now would answer. And that is I guess it entirely depends on my desire. My meaning the wife's desire. The wife is is asking this question. In other words, there are different types of desire. Uh calls it and sometimes there's something that you really want and sometimes there's something you don't really want. but it gets you closer to the thing that you want. Or sometimes it doesn't even get you closer to the thing you want, but it get gets you closer to something that gets you closer to something that you want. It can be many steps removed actually. So the answer is, is it okay? It's okay if you want it. If you don't want it, then it's highly problematic and you're actually not doing him a favor by allowing him to engage in an interaction which our sages describe in terribly scary terms. And by the way, I omitted a lot of those gimotas because I don't like fire and brimstone. So I didn't tell you the scary stuff that it says, but it ain't pretty. Um, so you're not doing him a favor by allowing him to do something which our sages say is spiritually unhealthy. The question is if you can find a desire and maybe it's not a direct desire for the act itself but maybe in the bigger picture in the grand scheme of things you can appreciate how it may have value um as far as establishing some type of uh feeling of understanding or of sympathy uh between each other. But but here's the thing, you know, it's it's valuable if it promotes a feeling of understanding and sympathy between partners. But if by doing it, you're going to end up feeling violated anyway, so then that's not going to promote feelings of understanding and sympathy. So what happens and this happens to husbands all the time. They win the battle but they lose the war. Like she gives into him when she didn't really want to and then it's not that she's punishing him by being cold and remote and distant. She's not choosing to feel that way. It's an automatic reaction that she feels unsafe. So she puts up walls and then he feels shut out. Well, if he would have realized and I don't want to get into the stuff that the husbands need to know. I need I need to be careful about this. But if the husband would have realized what the price to pay is, he would never have done this. In other words, he thought, "What's the big deal?" Okay, I'm in the mood. She's not in the mood. Big deal. All right, just get in the mood and and you know, do me a favor. But he doesn't realize, first of all, he's not acting as a mashpia. He's acting as a macab. He's trying to take intimacy from her rather than giving it. So, he's never going to be satisfied from that. Just like we described earlier, if she tries to give it rather than take it, she's not going to ever be satisfied from that. Okay. But secondly, she's resentful of it. So, it's on the spectrum of an unhealthy uh relationship or or interaction. So, it's not spiritually healthy for him. So, that's going to be nal. It's going to devolve on the emotional level as an emotional problem as well. And then he's going to see basically in order to protect herself and she doesn't even do this. It's trust me men. It's not men, you shouldn't be listening, but trust me men who aren't listening. She's not doing it tit for tat to take vengeance. It's not like she's trying to even the score. She's not even consciously doing it. When she feels unsafe, she puts up walls. That that's what people do. That's what any sane person with a survival mechanism does is they put up walls when they feel unsafe. So if if you the husband would have known the price to pay, the loss of intimacy, the loss of goodwill, the loss of understanding and and and and compassion, you know, you would you would have never done that. And I can assure you, now I'm speaking to the women, um men make foolish choices all the time which they would never have made if they understood what really was at stake. They didn't know what was at stake. They didn't understand. They didn't realize how much, not only if they didn't understand how much they were hurting you because they don't want to hurt you. They didn't understand how much they were hurting the marriage. And if they would have understood, they would have never done that. And that's why, yes, women, please rest assured when I speak to the men, I speak all about this at length. And I really don't hold back. I don't pull any punches with them. Okay. But now I'm speaking to the women. So yeah, what's the answer is if you can get yourself to want it even on a level of wanting to want or wanting to want to want and it's enough where you won't be resentful, then great. But if it's going to cause resentment, you're not doing yourself or him a favor by giving into it. And by the way, that you can communicate. When you desire and he doesn't desire, you're not supposed to communicate it explicitly because it's not going to get you anywhere. You're supposed to use hints. But when you don't desire and he does desire, that's the time to speak clearly. Don't use hints. Please don't use hints. Enough with that. I have a headache. That trope exists for a reason. And I think the reason it exists, the reason it's a cliche is because um how many men were so befuddled and confused trying to crack the code of what that hint meant until they finally figured it out. And when it when they finally did, then it hit them as this huge rejection. It's better to just be clear. Say what you mean, but don't say it meanly. Okay. Um, let's look at this. Just listen to part two of beyond mishb m. Thank you so much for this refreshing perspective. It was truly as the title suggests beyond beyond what's out there on the idea of mishb in my 10 plus years of borashm happy marriage. I have listened to many classes and workshops on the subject but never came away with as full of a picture of the role of the macabell in this area. Well, that is really touching that. Okay, thank you. Um, thank you. That means a lot to me. If you do go forward with a part three, perhaps you can address the wife that may not necessarily be suppressing her desire for the sake of spirituality. It just doesn't come readily. How can she work on being a better macab? Okay. So let me unpack that question. In the previous class I spoke about women who um they internalized messages which really are messages for men. Um the messages of don't be so lustful, don't be so desirous, control yourself, those are important messages for men. Um women hear that and think they're being holy and chasteed and pure by suppressing their desires for marital intimacy. Where the truth is just the opposite. For a man, for a mashpia to have desire when it's unwanted, that's problematic. But for a mabell to have desire, that's not problematic. To the contrary, it's her desire which creates the entire possibility for union. And like the paradigm of the women in Mitzim who seduced their husbands with that visual cue of the the mirrors, we see how noble it is and how classy it is, how dignified it is. Mishenu didn't understand it until Hashem explained it to him. Mishenu thought it was was lewd but Hashem explained to him no this is this is precious to me. Okay. So we have to understand that the rules for male uh kadusha for a man to be a mench are different than for a woman. For men there is such a thing as tone it down, you know, cool your jets. Um for a woman there's not and to the contrary that she should realize that her desire is the energy her desire for for intimacy with her husband is the energy that creates life in the home in the family and and really ultimately in in the world. So it's it's a beautiful thing and it's not something she should be afraid of. Um, so the question was saying, well, what if a woman is not feeling the desire? Not because she's suppressing it because she thinks it's a holy thing to suppress it, but she just doesn't have it. She's just not feeling it. She's not like purposely trying to curb her desires. Uh, she's not feeling the desires. But but from what she heard from my class, she's like, "Oh, but hold on. I realize that it's a good thing I should have desires. So, what should I do about that? So, it's a that's a really deep question. It's a really deep question. Probably the deepest question. [Music] What should a macab do in order to feel more desirous of receiving from her mashia? What should she do to have a stronger yearning for that hashbah? And you could answer this in a very coarse way and just look at it as a physical question. And and I think that would be like a pretty typical male response. Um, and I'm trying to tap into my feminine side here when I'm looking at this question. Yeah, you could look at this in a very reductionist way of, you know, physical mechanics. But that's that's that's treating the symptoms. It's not getting down to causes and conditions. That's you're dehydrated because you have a headache because you're dehydrated. So you take an aspirin to treat the headache. Yeah. But you're still dehydrated. So and and and by the way, that's what a lot of the secular approaches do. You know, they they focus on on on the mechanics on body parts as if we were machines. which we're not. We're we're we're we're souls inhabiting bodies. So, we have to look at this spiritually. Spiritually speaking, or at least emotionally speaking, because if we're not going to get quite as deep as spirituality, at least we can speak about the emotions, which relative to to physicality is is more abstract, ephemeral. um more more closer to spirituality. What can a macabell do to arouse her own emotional or spiritual receptive energies? So I think that the focus should be on understanding what it is that the Mashpia has that she needs. In other words, is it just arousal in a in a vacuum without context? In that case, it doesn't sound intimate at all. It doesn't sound like two people joining intimately at all. And in many cases, by the way, where let's say a woman doesn't have desire. So she'll take advice often from secular sources to try to make herself have desire. And in the end, it's not that she desires her husband. She just whatever you know how bodies work and if you know how to, you know, there's ways of triggering things and whatever. But that's really the same as her essentially just being by herself. I mean, he's there physically, but it's not really a bond. It doesn't bring them closer. That's that's the proof that it's not really a uh zun a unification of of because it doesn't bring them closer. They they they finish the physical act, but it doesn't bring them closer emotionally, spiritually. So, it's not just about her desiring. Desiring is a is a is a transitive verb. In other words, it has a direct object. She desires something. It's not just desire in a vacuum without context. It's desire for something or aluk. It doesn't just say that you will have cha or you will be or however you would conjugate that verb. your desire will be directed to your husband. So, she needs to try to tune in on what it is he has that she wants to receive from him. And this is where female arousal is very different like than than male. Like we said, for a man, a lot of it can be very visual. So, she looks in the mirror with her husband and says, "I'm prettier than you." like the women in Mitzim. Bingo. That's it. That triggered it. For her, it's not so much about visual. Visual means objects, things. For her, it's about ideas. It's more abstract. It's more refined. It's more spiritual. Which is why her desire is more spiritual. Yeah. And more automatically holy. So, it's not a thing. It's not an object. It's not something you can take a picture of and depict in a reductionist fashion. It's an idea and it's an idea of something that she needs him in order to have. So, she should try to think about what is it that he has that completes her. And I don't mean it completes her in a in a in a total sense of he has for her everything that she lacks. That's anyways impossible because no human being can complete any other human being. Only Hashem can complete any of us. But what does he have that is the missing piece for something, you know, the the the the missing puzzle piece that she's been walking around with her whole life. And it can be even something very minor. It can be something that he does for her, that he brings to her life that is even somewhat trivial. You know, arousal is a very funny thing, especially for for for women. It can be something as minor, and for men, this is absolutely confounding because they won't understand why this turned her on, but it could be something as minor as, "He sent me a coffee." Now, was she such a damsel in distress that before he sent her a coffee, she couldn't go out and buy one herself? No. But there's It's not about the coffee. Again, for her, the arousal is not about things and objects. It's about an idea. It's the idea that someone thought of me and sent me a coffee. Ah, that fulfills me. That that's something I'm receiving from him that I don't have on my own. Yeah, I'm I I can go out and buy a coffee, the woman says, but to have him think of me, to have another person who's not me think of me and send me the coffee, that hits the spot. And when she starts to tune in to those feelings that he has something to offer her, okay, that can build. You can build on that until she wants more from him and then she becomes desirous. So it's a basically it's a process of slowly building. In many cases, it is a crockpot, not a frying pan. It would be good for men to also understand that that um generally speaking, female desire is a crockpot and not a frying pan. Uh for men, it's often a microwave, but uh yeah, we'll save that for another time. Um, there are more questions, but I think it's been 2 hours and we should probably wrap up. I think, uh, that'll be a good idea. So, um, if you have questions, you know, there's no law against there being a, uh, a part four. Um, if you have questions, you can uh Oh, I didn't check the emails. Okay. Should I check the emails? Let me check the emails. All right. Hi. Thank you. So, we got a second wind. Okay. Hold on a second. Uh, hi. Thank you so much for your classes. My question is one. My question is one. And then I see there's one and there's two. So, that was very sneaky. Sure. My question is and then she writes one and then two. My question is one, what is the difference between needing and being needy? I'm assuming that if she's asking me that I used that term. I can't remember using that term. I must have used that. I must must have been one of those things that sounded eloquent at the time. I don't know, man. Sometimes it's stream of consciousness. It's poetry. You can't hold it against me. I think I Okay. being okay being need but needing and being needy. All right. So that's the first question. I think maybe what I spoke about was perhaps about men um that when a mashpia is needy that that's a turnoff because he's supposed to be the giver not the recipient. and that when he's taking that really completely uh perverts his entire role as a as a mashia. Is that possibly what the question is referring to? Um not sure, but I'll generalize the question as saying like this. Needing something is not a dirty word. There's nothing wrong with needing things. We all have needs. Being needy is where it becomes that there there becomes an identity that I am not okay without something that someone else has and that is not a formula for intimacy. Anytime you have one of two partners saying, "I'm not okay, but this relationship can fix me." Or sometimes it's reversed. You're not okay, but I think I can fix you. It's never going to end well. So that's what neediness is. And a relationship is never a fix for neediness. Neediness doesn't go away from a relationship. All right. Question two. Sometimes I feel like my husband rejects my want of him to give. Not necessarily in a physical intimacy intimacy sense, but everyday life. Does that mean I'm wanting wrong? Okay. So, you want him to give, I'm assuming. And you say not necessarily in a physical intimacy sense, but that means that as well. Um, somebody's texting in. I don't think you use the words needing and needy. Okay, thank you. So then I didn't even need to address that, did I? Maybe there was somebody else used that expression. Okay. Um, so does that mean I'm wanting wrong? No, it doesn't necessarily mean mean that you're wanting wrong because wrong is is an objective term. Let's just say that everybody is different and your husband may not read your desire. Let's go with the premise that I was saying earlier that when a mashia feels like a mashpia, he'll automatically search out his mabal to give to to to to fulfill what she desires. It's automatic. And in fact, not only is it automatic, the mashia will feel pain if he doesn't do it. It'll cause him dysfunction if he doesn't search her out to to to give to her. Um but that's provided that he feels like a mashpia. So you know the in the in the biblical paradigm that we were examining with the mirrors for whatever reason that worked that when a man saw himself standing next to his wife and she said look at me I'm prettier than you. He understood by by inference what his role was. He felt like he was in his role and then he acted according to his role and he delivered. But you have to figure out what the equivalent is for your husband. Um if he's not giving to you, it's not that he's withholding, it's that he doesn't feel like a giver. Do you catch the distinction? It's very important. He's not withholding from you. That's not what a mashpia does. Let me explain something to you. Somebody who prepared a speech is going to go give that speech. They're dying to give that speech. They're going to give that speech even if no one wants to hear that speech. Which is part of the problem of a mashpia is that sometimes if they're not careful and respectful, they end up giving a to unwilling mabim, which as we spoke about at the beginning of tonight's session is is a violation. It's not not okay. My point is when a mashia feels he has what to give, he's going to go search out a mabo to receive it. The problem is when the mashia doesn't feel like he has what to offer. Now, this is not a response to your question. This I but I want to use this as an example. Um in in in seriously dysfunctional situations where a man feels literally worthless, literally worthless. He feels he has nothing to offer his wife or or any woman. So basically he gives her nothing. Uh his only way of relating to her is to take from her. And in fact he may because taking is not satisfying for a mashpia. Inherently mashia is not satisfied through taking. He's only satisfied by giving. So then he may misunderstand his lack of satisfaction and go to outside channels outside of the marriage to take more and take more and take more to consume more and more and more of this um stimulation and it just keeps being unfulfilling because again a mashia will never be satisfied through taking. So that's in a super super dysfunctional uh situation where the mashpia feels he has no hashba to give. He's worthless. So he just becomes a taker. But then there are that's the exaggerated that's like the the extreme. But then there are more benign versions of that where in a particular setting or a particular time or particular uh circumstance the mashia is just not feeling like he has what to offer. So the right move on behalf of the mash of the makabal is to inform the m the mashpia that he does have what to give. In other words, you say sometimes you want and he doesn't step up and respond to your wanting. Trust me when I say if he felt like he had what you need, he would be magnetically pulled to give it to you. It's that he doesn't feel he has what you need. and therefore he he sits it out. So this is true with physical intimacy. It's true with spending time together, with talking. If a man feels here, women, I'm going to tell you a secret. Men, because their whole relationship with you is extroverted. Remember we said that his desire is to go out of himself. Your desire as a female is to receive him into you. So everything he does is basically a risk. It's him putting himself out there. He's putting his neck out. So if a man puts himself out there, I'm not talking about sociopaths who aren't hurt by rejection. Though that's a whole other discussion, people who have no shame and therefore they just play the numbers game and have they have no shame and they just keep putting themselves out there. I'm not talking about that. That's that's dysfunctional. I'm saying a regular man your husband husbands don't like failure because it's very shameful for us because I'm saying failure not in a general sense I'm saying in a very specific sense we don't like failing in marriage because by definition a male's role is extroverted he's putting himself out there he's extending himself which is vulnerable if he does it wrong he internalizes that very deeply and feels like a loser. And then even when you come to him the next day and tell him that you want something from him, he doesn't believe it cuz he knows he's a failure. He's not good at it. You say, "Let's take a walk." But he remembers the last time you took a walk, you weren't enjoying it. So he doesn't want to be a failure again. So you ask your question is, "Am I wanting wrong?" It's not that you're wanting wrong. It's that you just have to figure out the right way to send him the message that he has what you want, that he does have what you want. And when he feels that way, then I promise you as a mashpia, he will not even be able to help himself. He won't even be able to hold back from delivering it to you. Okay? Um, yeah. Let's let's wrap it up tonight. If we need to have a part four, I suppose we'll have a part four. Thank you everybody for joining us and I want to bless you all and I mean this from the bottom of my heart with all sincerity. I want to bless all of you with peace in your marriage. That your home should be a home where the dwells and um may everything that was spoken about tonight only add to that only only only add to peace in in marriages. Good night.