Rabbi's Derasha

Decades ago, I started to speak on this Parasha about the subject of domestic abuse.  That began in response to a call for such Derashot in order to raise awareness about the issue in the Jewish community.  There was a widespread myth that Jews were immune to this type of behavior.  R’ Dr. Avraham Twersky, ztz’l, published a short but powerful book at the time on the subject.  He called it, The Shame Borne in Silence, because of the widespread silence on the issue in the Jewish community.  

The call for Derashot chose this Parasha because of the story of Dina and the abuse she suffers.  We have spoken about her treatment at the hands of Sh’chem from several angles, and we have expanded on it.  Specifically, we’ve spoken about the domestic abuse which is particular to the Jewish community: Gett abuse.  Manipulation of the Gett process is Jewish domestic abuse.  It is, unfortunately, used by both men and women.  Physical abuse is much more likely from men.  But Gett abuse can go either way, as either side can withhold cooperation.  It might not be 50-50 but I have arranged hundreds of Gitten, and I know that recalcitrance can come from both sides.  Neither should be tolerated.  When it comes from men, there are clear sanctions that can be used to exclude a person from the community and from privileges and honors extended by the community.  For women, the options are not as clear-cut but it’s important to maintain zero-tolerance for this kind of abuse.  

This year, however, I want to talk about a salient point that applies in all domestic abuse.  It comes up in a Gemora in Yoma on 77b.  On Yom Kippur, the fact that we don’t eat is not communicated in the Torah as “don’t eat.”  It is called instead “an affliction,” using the word “Inui.”  The Gemora seeks out how the deprivations of Yom Kippur relate to this word.  When it comes to the prohibition on marital relations, it cites the episode with Dina and Sh’chem.  The verse says, “He laid with her and he afflicted her.”  What did affliction mean here?  The Gemora says this is a scene of affliction through deprivation, that skipping relations is an Inui.   Rashi learns here in the Gemora differently than what he says in the Chumash.  He says that Sh’chem withheld from her.  That understanding comes from the context of the Gemora, where Yom Kippur is about separating married couples, not bringing them together.  

There are two things to take from this.  The first has to do with a rude question people often ask in situations of abuse.  They ask, “if it was so bad, why does the victim stay?”  It’s a question on many people’s minds.  R’ Twersky ticks off many answers to this question.  One reason can be added to his list: strong feelings.  In this situation, Dina has strong feelings.  Despite the discomfort this might cause us, the victim sometimes has feelings for Sh’chem.  They might be feelings of the most conventional kind or they might be feelings born of a version of Stockholm Syndrome, but the Gemora is definitely positing feelings.  

The bigger point, however, is something else.  If Sh’chem lusted after her, why would he withhold?  It’s because lust is not the only driving force in an abusive relationship of this kind.  The primary animating principle in all domestic abuse is the drive to control.  By depriving Dina of relations, Sh’chem is exercising control.  This is just one of the ways a spouse looks to control his or her partner.  This is also why one of the tell-tale signs of an abuser is the urge to control so many aspects of his or her spouse’s life -- financial, emotional, sometimes even whether the spouse can have friends outside of the home. That exercise of control is itself abuse, and can lead even to more acute forms of abuse. 

When we learned this Gemora, one of the students in the class was a psychiatrist.  As this point came out, he suggested that the deep dysfunction in an abuser is that he or she is afraid of losing love.  This stems from childhood trauma and it leads the person to try to control the love rather than earn it.  Someone afraid of losing love will not strive to build respect or other components of an ongoing healthy human attachment.  It is not really a relationship between people; it’s a person treating the other as an object.  Therefore, control becomes far more important than developing real human interaction.  

Whenever we speak about such negative subjects, it’s important to also derive the positive that comes out in the converse.  When relationships sour in this manner, we are reminded that good relations are built not on control but on a free flow of respect and love arising out of a deeper and deeper appreciation of each other.