He with the Capital H
A jet black peyoh trapped between a pillow and a cheek, its lower twist and curl intact, a white wool night Kappel still firmly on its bearer’s head. The slumber was young and deep. Before Yoel had got to bed, he had spent some “alone time” with HIM, pensive, attempting to justify himself, reflecting upon that which was wrong, and how it would improve, although, HE was never happy, and Yoel never felt forgiven.
5.30 AM; the others were still fast asleep. In his sleep Yoel felt a rustle upon the duvet. A firm hand upon his tired face shook him awake, it was HIM. HE crept into Yoel’s bed. Yoel felt the cold air as his nightshirt was peeled away. He did not argue with HIM and succumbed. It was “special time”.
This was a daily routine; HE would come every day at the same time. As soon as HE was spent, HE would expect Yoel to get out of bed, get dressed go the mikvah, and they would meet in shul for some more “alone time”.
HE was a lot older than was Yoel. Everyone knew HIM, they all feared HIM.
It was ok when one was in control, when one could overcome temptation. But when one failed, HE could turn lethal. HE did not need love, but he did need to be the only one.
Yoel was not always in control. At times Yoel could not wait for HIM, and did it alone. Then HE would be brutal when they were together. HE would beat Yoel; he would cut Yoel until he bled. Yoel would cry out in pain, he would be left reeling. But Yoel knew that it was HIS right. All there was for Yoel to do was to utter deep regret.
There was a large crowd in shul at 5.30 AM. It was Thursday morning, Shovovim. All those that had done it alone, had gathered to talk to Him. To plea and to beg, that they be forgiven. He never once replied. He never smiled; they never knew if they were forgiven. If HE was very rough during the next special time together, they knew they were not forgiven.
Chaim was there. Chaim was Yoel’s study partner. It was Mishna Berurah , Shuir Aleph. Yoel and Chaim once spoke bad stuff, and then it happened, only once between them. But HE must have noticed, or perhaps a teacher had told HIM. Perhaps that person who told HIM received some reward, or perhaps not even.
It is one thing to do it alone, but with another? For that he killed parents. It was cause and effect. Chaim was now a Yossom, HE had killed Chaim’s mother.
Yoel knew how hard it was not to do it alone; in reality he understood why Chaim did it even after his mother was lost because of not doing it with HIM. But it was impossible not to sometimes.
There were some married men there too. Yoelish wondered what HE was like with the married ones. Did he allow them to do it with their wives, or did they have to think of HIM when they did? It must be that, or why else would Married men be in shul too on that morning talking to HIM? They probably did not think only of HIM when they were with their wives, Yoelish guessed.
But Yoel knew that for some reason HE did not care that much for the older guys, he let them marry, and then did not mind so much that the married guys cared a lot less about him.
HE only liked younger boys.
Printable Version
How do you know it is a “He”?
You say “Moydim anachnu loch” which is in loshen nekayve.
Like this comment?
0
If this wouldn’t come on the heals of “faking it” it would be a great post.
Like this comment?
0
It is in response to “faking it”. HE in her story, is too mellow, good and kind. The worst HE does is butt pinching.
Like this comment?
0
I would shoot the one who introduced you to Him, because he misled you. He isn’t like that, and He never told you He was. He never killed anyone because some kids were playing around. Those who told you those nasty stories about Him are the real cradle robbers.
As an adult it is time to see it like it is.
Like this comment?
3
Pray tell, who then is it that kills?
Like this comment?
0
Please learn to read before you ask an unnecessary question. I said He doesn’t kill *because* of what some kids are doing.
Like this comment?
0
Only a chasidishe yeshive boy will appreciate this piece. And in truth, it’s “lilis” the She that makes the predawn bedside visits.
Like this comment?
0
You think He cares about all those evil deeds they told you He kills for? If He did, you would have thought that He would have said so. Assuming you believe He said. The worst aveirah in in the book from which there is no teshuvah… only it isn’t written there. Tzippi’s right, it’s those bad people who made up stories in His name.
Like this comment?
0
Tzippi, why did he kill Chaim’s mother?
א”ר יוחנן, כל המוציא שכבת זרע לבטלה חייב מיתה
אסור להוציא שכבת זרע לבטלה ועון זה חמור מכל עבירות שבתורה
לפעמים בעונש זה חס ושלום בנים מתים כשהם קטנים, או שיהיו רשעים והוא בא לידי עניות.
There is more fear mongering in our texts on this, than there is for any other capital offence.
If HE sleeps with her, HE sleeps with this very young and impressionable boy too. But their relationship is very different from your snow globed version. HE treats others a lot rougher than he treats her.
Like this comment?
0
neo maskil
in biblical hebrew, lecha often changes to lach at the end of a phrase, it has nothing to do with gender, same idea as eretz and aretz, or gefen/gafen.
Like this comment?
0
Pen –
<<>>
You seem to have misinterpreted the allegory if you saw it as anything other than her relationship with God. It could just as well be man’s relationship with God. And not a sexual relationship at all.
It was her feelings towards Him, and struggling to understand why those sentiments aren’t as strong and meaningful when He’s doing everything right. And why it pleases Him that she says what she is supposed to (tefilla) even though she doesn’t always mean them. It was her attempting to understand pain in life, and recognize how outside influences are distorting and damaging their relationship.
It was about a longing to be closer to God. Not to complain about His incompetence but to express frustration at her own.
Like this comment?
1
–>Sara Maimon,
Firstly, the tefillah is not written in biblical hebrew. But, regardless “lach” is considered feminine in biblical Hebrew.
The term “Shchina” is also female.
Not to give to much credit to those who invented the davening. But, Midat HaRachamim is referred to in the feminine form and Medat HaDin is referred to in the masculine form.
Like this comment?
0
Sara, are you related to Shiri Maimon?
Like this comment?
0
Indeed Totally Content, judging by comments, it seems most readers didn’t understand your analogy. Question is if you understood it yourself, or you understand it differently based on whichever personality you assume at the moment.
Like this comment?
1
Venesser,
The beauty of good writer is everyone can interpret the meaning in their own way, even if the writer didn’t intend it to be so.
Like this comment?
0
Tzippi, in your allegory she seems to think that he is justified in his behaviour, as does Yoelish in mine. To her HE is a lover, a kind lover, one who she still wants in her life. Who has done little wrong even when HE has and with her. This she ought to see.
HE is vile. Even if with her, HE has only pinched here and there, she should know what else HE does to others, and so should everyone else.
She should focus on this, question HIM about this. Where are his answers? There are none, she should disown him.
HE should be outed, so that HE cannot do what HE does to the many Yoel’s, Chaims and all other animals on planet earth.
I got your allegory pitch perfect spot on. I think mine is a better one though, and so should you!
Like this comment?
0
Maybe i’m just a laymen when it comes to poetry; but i read this post to mean, a young boy being molested in yeshivah by the rosh yeshivah. i dont get some of the posts about god.
Like this comment?
0
maybe.
and what if?
Like this comment?
0
(how jewish was that question?!?!)
Like this comment?
0
grinning/groaning.
Like this comment?
0
In all Hebrew dialects known too us – except for Modern Hebrew – “lach” is clearly gender neutral.
Like this comment?
0
CC – Do you have any sources for that?
Anyway, I emailed a professor in Hebrew linguistics to check.
Besides, the term “shechina” is certainly feminine.
Like this comment?
0
Yes, there are Agadaic/Talmudic sources indicating a feminine facet of God, Shekhinah for one, which is elaborated in the Kabbalistic lit. as ‘patzuph nukbhah’.
As for sources on lakh/l’kho, don’t recall any grammarins disscussing this, however, ”modim anachnu lakh she’attah hu…” clearly masculine context.
From the corpus of Biblical/liturgic Hebrew it seems to be as Sara alluded to: when the word precedes the rough equivelent of a semicolon it becomes lakh even in masculine contexts.
Please do let us know the profs’ reply.
Like this comment?
0
I didn’t fully understand what his answer meant, but if you are an expert in Hebrew grammatic maybe you can make sence of it.
———
So, the difference between the masculine and feminine form is clearly whether the chaf possesses the shva-nach versus the kamatz. Obviously (as you know) the non-modern Hebrew did not write down the niqqudot, so based on ancient Hebrew manuscripts, there is no way to be absolutely certain that the distinction existed. There would be pretty good reason to think that the distinction did exist.
1 — because, in general Hebrew is a gender-specific language, so it would be pretty weird if it specified gender in the, say, third person (li lamed-yud versus lah lamed-hey), and not the second
2 — even though the spelling in letters of lecha and lach are the same, phonology is based on the actual oral form of the words, and there would be several weird grammatical issues if it were another way.
I think I know why you are having this dilemma. In Torah there seems to be occurrences where the meaning is “to you (masculine)” but the nikkud show it as lach instead of lecha. If you have noticed these occurences, they always seem to appear to be at the end of sentences. I think that maybe the later rabbis (the masoretes) who wrote in the niqqudot liked to have sentences end in closed sonds (rather than open consonants), for poetic reasons? Just an idea though, I have no way of knowing if its true.
Like this comment?
0
He seems to be saying that you are correct NM. That there “should” be this distinction between Lach and Lecha.
But the people who added nikkud, might have distorted this for poetic reasons.
Like this comment?
0
Mark: For the context for this essay, check the Wikipedia entry on Shovevim.
http://en.m.wikipedia.com/wiki?search=Shovevim
It took me a minute to get what was going on. Degrees of transgression (releasing seed in vain). .
- Negligence: Joel had impure thoughts, so God made it happen.
- Deliberate action: Joel alone
- Collusion: Joel and Haim
Is the line about God preferring younger guys your conceding that while grown-ups observe Shovevim, they make peace with their “failings” (or stop having erotic dreams).
Tzippi: If this is the actual lesson kids are taught, then it’s kind of late for you to say “it’s really not like this”.
Like this comment?
0
It is the predominantly unmarried Yeshiva boys who obsess. It is all less of an issue once one settles down. There is often less pent up frustration for a start and there is also the fact that peer pressure subsides.
Diligent soldiers often become quite dispassionate about the causes they fought for once they leave the army.
Like this comment?
0