Berakhot 042

In chapter 2 mishna 5 the commentators give an additional reason why a bridegroom is free from reciting the Shema. They mention that he may be afraid to become Kerut Shofkhah. As far as I know Kerut Shofkhah is someone who had a vasectomy or a castration. I don't understand this reasoning and you ignored this completely. Can you tell us something about it?

I respond:

Kerut Shofkhah certainly does not indicate castration; unfortunately, I do not have the expertise to know whether a vasectomy could be included in its definition, which I shall bring later on in this post; I rather guess not. However, Cantor Israel Man's question is too intriguing – and too learned – to pass up on!

It is noteworthy that all the classic halakhic codes give only one explanation for the bridegroom's being excused from reciting the Shema from the marriage on Wednesday until after the marriage has been consummated or until Saturday Night, whichever occurs first. The reason is that he is "occupied with the performance of a mitzvah" – and anyone who is so occupied with one mitzvah is excused from another. The mitzvah that occupies him is, of course, the consummation of his marriage. However, the term that the mishnah uses to describe the mental state of the bridegroom is tarud, which could be translated as "concerned", "preoccupied", "disturbed", "anxious" and so forth. Therefore it is not surprising that in the codes attempts are made to further ascertain what it is that is "occupying" the man's thoughts. Rambam [Keriat Shema 4:1] assumes that he is "anxious" whether he will find his bride's hymen intact or not; Yosef Karo [Bet Yosef, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 38:7, 70:3] hints that he may be anxious about the act itself.

(By the way, I notice that Karo specifically points out that the only reason for the groom's being excused is because of the mitzvah he is engaged in; he adds that for purely monetary or mundane considerations one is not excused. Please add this to my response to Ron Kaminsky's query.)

The only classical source that is known to me that mentions the groom's fear of emasculation as the reason for his being "anxious" is the commentary that Rabbenu Yonah of Gerona wrote on the code of Rabbi Yitzĥak Alfasi ['Rif'] on Tractate Berakhot. Rabbenu Yonah lived in Western Europe in 13th century CE. However, his commentary creates a great difficulty for us. It is the Torah that first mentions Kerut Shofkhah [Deuteronomy 23:2], and Rashi there quotes the Talmudic definition of this plight: a man who is Kerut Shofkhah is one whose penis has been punctured or amputated to such an extent that he can no longer ejaculate [Gemara Yevamot 70a]. While I would never claim to be an expert in these matters, as others undoubtedly are, I cannot think of anything that our bridegroom's virginal bride could reasonably be expected do to him that would give him cause to be anxious lest he become emasculated by her in such a way! Therefore, my heart suggests to me that Rabbenu Yonah here is using the term Kerut Shofkhah as a euphemism: what our blushing bridegroom is anxious about is his potential impotence. (I have no proof whatsoever for my assumption, but I think that this is also the implied understanding of the Bet Yosef.)

Another topic that just won't go away is the character of the Artscroll products. The comments of Reuven Boxman that I posted yesterday have produced some support for his view.

David Bockman writes:

I think a comment about the siddurim along these lines would be appropriate. One of the hallmarks of today's Orthodox Judaism is its utter lack of disregard for the distinction between midrash and fact. It really messes with your mind and I believe it can be harmful to Judaism. So does my Orthodox rabbinical colleague here in New Orleans. So please let us not simply recommend Artscroll (the worst) or its ilk without caveat.

Sherry Fyman writes:

Reuven Boxman is not alone in being disturbed at Artscroll's translations and rather resentful of their use of translation to advance their political agenda. I have heard this criticism also from Orthodox rabbis. I guess I don't really get it, though. Don't they say that as a general rule, they follow Rashi in their translations? What am I missing? Doesn't Rashi, in Shir Ha-Shirim in fact, translate the text in what is considered a more peshat way? I thought the erotic imagery is more derash.

I respond (specifically about Shir Ha-Shirim [The Song of Solomon]):

When the sages in Yavneh [end of 1st century CE] discussed which books deserved to be considered Holy Writ, Shir Ha-Shirim was one of the most doubtful candidates. It was only by a kind of "Filibuster" that Rabbi Akiva that won the day and this magnificent poem was not lost to us [Tractate Yadayim 3:5]. However, he insisted that the text was not a secular love- or marriage-song, but a celebration of the union of God and Israel. It seems that it is in this light that the Artscroll "translation" was executed.