What is happening in the above picture?
Where is it taking place?
Where is it taking place?
יוֹסֵי בֶן יוֹחָנָן אִישׁ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם אוֹמֵר, יְהִי בֵיתְךָ פָתוּחַ לִרְוָחָה, וְיִהְיוּ עֲנִיִּים בְּנֵי בֵיתֶךָ
Yose ben Yochanan (a man) of Jerusalem used to say: Let thy house be wide open, and let the poor be members of thy household.
(כ) וְגֵ֥ר לֹא־תוֹנֶ֖ה וְלֹ֣א תִלְחָצֶ֑נּוּ כִּֽי־גֵרִ֥ים הֱיִיתֶ֖ם בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃ (כא) כׇּל־אַלְמָנָ֥ה וְיָת֖וֹם לֹ֥א תְעַנּֽוּן׃ (כב) אִם־עַנֵּ֥ה תְעַנֶּ֖ה אֹת֑וֹ כִּ֣י אִם־צָעֹ֤ק יִצְעַק֙ אֵלַ֔י שָׁמֹ֥עַ אֶשְׁמַ֖ע צַעֲקָתֽוֹ׃ (כג) וְחָרָ֣ה אַפִּ֔י וְהָרַגְתִּ֥י אֶתְכֶ֖ם בֶּחָ֑רֶב וְהָי֤וּ נְשֵׁיכֶם֙ אַלְמָנ֔וֹת וּבְנֵיכֶ֖ם יְתֹמִֽים׃ {פ}
(20) You shall not wrong or oppress a stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. (21) You [communal leaders] shall not ill-treat any widow or orphan. (22) If you do mistreat them, I will heed their outcry as soon as they cry out to Me, (23) and My anger shall blaze forth and I will put you to the sword, and your own wives shall become widows and your children orphans.
A concordance is a book that has every single word that appears in Tanach and tells you how many times it appears, what forms it takes, and where you can find it.
This helps us analyse Tanach in a new way, by looking at intertextual connections and seeing a word's prevalence within certain texts and contexts.
I searched for the word יתום, orphan, to see how it appeared in the Torah. This is the graph below:
This helps us analyse Tanach in a new way, by looking at intertextual connections and seeing a word's prevalence within certain texts and contexts.
I searched for the word יתום, orphan, to see how it appeared in the Torah. This is the graph below:
We learn:
- It is always mentioned in conjunction with the widow and the convert.
- It is mentioned within other laws.
- It is always mentioned in relation to being close to HaShem.
- It is always mentioned in conjunction with the widow and the convert.
- It is mentioned within other laws.
- It is always mentioned in relation to being close to HaShem.
Why are the widow, orphan and convert so special to and close with HaShem?
(א) כל אלמנה ויתום לא תענון. הוּא הַדִּין לְכָל אָדָם, אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב בַּהוֹוֶה, לְפִי שֶׁהֵם תְּשׁוּשֵׁי כֹחַ וְדָבָר מָצוּי לְעַנּוֹתָם (מכילתא):
(1) כל אלמנה ויתום לא תענון YOU SHALL NOT AFFLICT ANY WIDOW, OR FATHERLESS CHILD — That is also the law regarding any person, but Scripture is speaking of what usually happens and therefore mentions these in particular, for they are feeble in defensive power (i. e. they have no one to protect them) and it is a frequent occurrence for people to afflict them (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 22:21).
(יז) לֹ֣א תַטֶּ֔ה מִשְׁפַּ֖ט גֵּ֣ר יָת֑וֹם וְלֹ֣א תַחֲבֹ֔ל בֶּ֖גֶד אַלְמָנָֽה׃
(17) You shall not subvert the rights of the stranger or the fatherless; you shall not take a widow’s garment in pawn.
לא תטה משפט גר יתום. וְעַל הֶעָשִׁיר כְּבָר הֻזְהַר (דברים ט"ז) "לֹא תַטֶּה מִשְׁפָּט", וְשָׁנָה בֶעָנִי לַעֲבֹר עָלָיו בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוין, לְפִי שֶׁנָּקֵל לְהַטּוֹת מִשְׁפַּט עָנִי יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁל עָשִׁיר, לְכָךְ הִזְהִיר וְשָׁנָה עָלָיו (ספרי):
לא תטה משפט גר יתום THOU SHALT NOT PERVERT THE JUDGMENT OF THE STRANGER, OR OF THE FATHERLESS — and with regard to the well-to-do one has already been forbidden to do so (Deuteronomy 16:19): “Thou shalt not pervert judgment”, (which is a general prohibition including both poor and rich), but it (Scripture) repeats it regarding the poor in order to make one who perverts the judgment of the poor transgress two negative commands. Because it is easier to pervert the judgment of the defenseless poor than that of the rich, therefore Scripture lays down a prohibition regarding him a second time (Sifrei Devarim 281:1).
Meyer Zukeravitz, Poland 1893:
"Not yet despairing of God’s salvation, the people tried a third method – the wedding of an orphan bride. There was a crippled virgin in town named Hanna Yente, who was also an orphan, and a stammering beggar who was still single and slept at night on a hard bench in the hostel. The town’s burghers (wealthy people) made a match between the two, and the couple agreed.
It was decided that the wedding would be held in public at the community’s expense, in the graveyard. […] The couple was led to the wedding canopy with drums and dancing, and everyone in town – Christians included – came out to rejoice with the bride and groom.The merit of rejoicing in a good deed stood us in good stead. God saw our affliction and regretted the evil He’d brought on His people, and the plague came to an end.
(Shmuel Glick, Light Shone upon Them: Connections between Wedding and Mourning Customs in Jewish Tradition [Efrat: Keren Ori, 1997] p. 175 [Hebrew])
Shmuel Yosef Finn, of Lithuania:
The dread disease [cholera] was first seen in our town a few weeks ago and has claimed many victims […]. One day a group of people decided to stop the plague and end the sickness, so they took a young man and woman from among the poorest and most despised classes and led them with drums and dances to the House of the Living [a euphemism for a cemetery], where they married them off, eating and drinking until they were utterly drunk and claiming this was a surefire cure for cholera.
My heart sank at the sight, and shame enveloped me. I’d never imagined that in this day and age, our Jewish brethren still believed in such bizarre things. When I asked what was going on, what their strange behavior meant, and how they’d come to such an ignorant custom, they laughed heartily and shook their heads at me, saying it was a tradition from their fathers, who must have known what they were doing. It never occurred to these people that not every time-honored tradition is a good one and that some customs are just folly and superstition. (Ha-Carmel, 3 Elul, 1866)
The dread disease [cholera] was first seen in our town a few weeks ago and has claimed many victims […]. One day a group of people decided to stop the plague and end the sickness, so they took a young man and woman from among the poorest and most despised classes and led them with drums and dances to the House of the Living [a euphemism for a cemetery], where they married them off, eating and drinking until they were utterly drunk and claiming this was a surefire cure for cholera.
My heart sank at the sight, and shame enveloped me. I’d never imagined that in this day and age, our Jewish brethren still believed in such bizarre things. When I asked what was going on, what their strange behavior meant, and how they’d come to such an ignorant custom, they laughed heartily and shook their heads at me, saying it was a tradition from their fathers, who must have known what they were doing. It never occurred to these people that not every time-honored tradition is a good one and that some customs are just folly and superstition. (Ha-Carmel, 3 Elul, 1866)
Nathan Meir:
In the early 20th century, a new category of marginal persons appeared: those who carried the physical and mental scars of World War and pogroms. Two of the last recorded cholera weddings happened in Odessa in 1922 and involved people who carried the wounds of those events: a woman with an eye gouged out by pogromists, a war veteran who had been wounded and lost the ability to speak. (https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/plague-weddings)
In the early 20th century, a new category of marginal persons appeared: those who carried the physical and mental scars of World War and pogroms. Two of the last recorded cholera weddings happened in Odessa in 1922 and involved people who carried the wounds of those events: a woman with an eye gouged out by pogromists, a war veteran who had been wounded and lost the ability to speak. (https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/plague-weddings)
A Black Wedding in Jerusalem in 1909, on Har HaZeitim, the Mount of Olives. It is thought to be the last one performed in Israel until 2020. (https://segulamag.com/en/articles/black-canopy/)
"The cholera wedding didn’t have one single interpretation. For example, some rabbis felt it was efficacious because helping to marry off a needy bride was a great mitsve that would please God, all the more so for the marginal of the community who were unlikely to marry in any case. However, what comes across in many of the appalling descriptions of the forcibly married, and their reactions to each other, is that the act was far more callous than charitable. But it was enabled by traditional attitudes around communal charity. Those who had relied on it were seen as being, quite literally, property of the townspeople and thus had no say when their (previously reviled) bodies were needed to protect the town" - Rokhl Kaffrisen
Think...
- Why a wedding?
- Why between orphans?
- Is it morally okay to force two people into marriage if 1) it will help the town, and 2) they wouldn't be able to afford it otherwise?
- Historically, how did the definition of 'Orphan' change when it came to Black Weddings?
- Why a wedding?
- Why between orphans?
- Is it morally okay to force two people into marriage if 1) it will help the town, and 2) they wouldn't be able to afford it otherwise?
- Historically, how did the definition of 'Orphan' change when it came to Black Weddings?