וְאָמַר אֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָ אֶל הַזְּקֵנִים אֶת בִּתִּי נָתַתִּי לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה לְאִשָּׁה וַיִּשְׂנָאֶהָ: (כב, טז)
The father of the girl should say to the elders, “I gave my daughter to this man as a wife, and he hated her. )22:16(
Rashi explains: The father of the girl should say – this teaches that the woman has no permission to speak in the presence of the man (her husband).
In order to grasp the opinion and intention of Rashi, let us first explain his words. Behold, the Torah spoke here of one who slandered his wife immediately after their marriage and thereby caused great pain both to his wife and to her parents. The Torah commanded (posuk 15) that both of her parents are to demand justice for the insult of their daughter. And the two of them must bring her case before the elders. However, once the two of them appear before the elders, the Torah does not give the right of speech to both of them. Rather, the words of the claim must be spoken before the elders specifically by “the father of the young woman,” as is the language of the verse: “And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders.” Even though the mother of the young woman also serves as a claimant, nevertheless, after the words of her husband, when it is necessary to complete the claim and prove that her husband’s words are true, she too is obligated to take part in the matter, as it says (posuk 17): ‘ השמלה לפנישוופר זקני העיר’ - “And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.”
And this is what was difficult for Rashi: why not also give her the right to voice her complaint, as is the law of every claimant? From this Rashi concluded that the reason is that a woman does not have permission to speak before the man.
However, one can still raise an objection to his words. From where did he know that this verse comes to teach us something of modesty? For there is room to say that this is a “gezeras Hakasuv,” [decree of the Torah] that the Torah decreed that in such a case it will be the father of the young woman who shall speak. For if you do not say so, what answer would you have to the section of the “wayward and rebellious son” [ben doreir umoreih] (above 21:20–21)? There too the Torah commanded that both the father and the mother should appear before the elders of the city in order to speak of the disgrace of their son, and there the duty of speech falls also upon the mother, as it says (21:20): זהנו’ואמרו אל זקני עירו בני זולל וסובא‘נוסורר ומורה איננו שומע בקול - “And they shall say to the elders of his city: This our son is wayward and rebellious, he does not hearken to our voice, he is a glutton and a drunkard.” And if you say that the “silence of the mother” in the section of “slanderer” is for a reason that is understandable to us, you must also say so regarding the “speech of the mother” in the section of the “wayward and rebellious son.” And since you do not know the reason for the speech, who told you that you do know the reason for the silence?
But in truth this is not a refutation. It is true that we do not know the reason of every mitzvah. Nevertheless, when we see in one mitzvah a particular detail that can be connected in its reason to another mitzvah, it is proper to connect them, especially when this will cause contentment to our Creator. And behold, further on in our portion (23:15) the Torah commanded us concerning the obligation of modesty, saying: ’ולא יראה בך ערות דבר‘ - “And there shall not be seen in you a shameful thing.” In its simple sense the reference is only to things dependent on sight. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the will of our Creator is that we be scrupulous in every matter related to modesty. Therefore, when we are able to find support in the Torah also for other details of modesty, and thereby add safeguards of holiness, it is proper that we do so. Since this is so, it is well understood Rashi’s intention in saying that the Torah’s emphasis here, that the father of the young woman is the one who shall speak before the elders, is for the reason of modesty. In this way we have another safeguard and boundary in holiness. For the very fact that a woman equates herself with a man and equates her rights with his, diminishes thereby the quality of modesty. For according to the ways of modesty, a woman is obligated to nullify her opinion before her husband and to give him the right of speech.
And come and see the words of the Rambam (Ishus, chapter 15, halacha 20), who speaks of this obligation. Here is his language: “Chazal commanded concerning the woman that she should honor her husband exceedingly, and that there should be awe of him upon her, and that she should do all her deeds according to his word, and that he should be in her eyes as a prince or a king, that she walk according to his desires and distance herself from all that he hates. And this is the way of the daughters of Israel and of the holy and pure sons of Israel in their marriages. And in these ways their dwelling will be pleasant and praiseworthy.” End of quote. Thus, you have from his words that among the ways of modesty is that the woman be nullified before her husband.
And now that you have come to this, we can say that for this very reason the Torah placed the duty of speech upon the mother of the wayward and rebellious son. Behold, the Rambam mentioned above, who spoke of the ways of modesty, concluded and said: “And in these ways their dwelling will be pleasant and praiseworthy.” From his words we may learn that if the woman conducts herself with modesty and with those manners that he enumerated, the parents will merit that their children and descendants will grow up in the upright and desirable path. For only when the children grow up in splendor can it be said that “their dwelling is pleasant and praiseworthy.”
According to this we may say that when parents come before the court with their wayward son, this fact proves that the mother did not conduct herself according to the ways of modesty mentioned, and to some degree equated her right with that of her husband and demanded that her husband honor her opinions and desires. By doing so she served as an example to her son, that he too demands to be considered “a person in every respect,” and that he too demand that his wishes be honored. In this way she caused that this son became a “wayward and rebellious son,” Rachmana litzlan. Therefore, the Torah desired that when she comes before the court she also say what her husband says, in order to show that to the extent that women equate their rights with those of their husbands, and also speak before their husbands, they thereby cause their sons to go astray, Rachmana litzlan.
But the situation is different in our case. In truth it concerns a proper daughter of Israel, who chalilah did not sin, and it was only false accusations. Since she was proper, surely her mother was careful in the rules of modesty, and she too was an example to her daughter to be careful in matters of modesty. Therefore, also when they came before the court, it was fitting that she conduct herself in that proper measure and not speak before her husband. Thus, we may indeed learn from here that this is the way of a modest woman.
And thus, you find yourself saying that from these two sections the Torah revealed to us that the principal education [chinuch] of the children depends on the conduct of the parents. Therefore, the deeds of the wayward and rebellious son are to be attributed to his sinful parents, and the deeds of the modest young woman to her parents who also conducted themselves with modesty. And indeed, common sense testifies that this is the way: children follow after the deeds of their parents, and these become their inheritance.
This is what Maran the Chazon Ish zy”a spoke when he was once asked: From when is the father obligated to educate his children? He answered with wit: From the time that the father reaches the years of youth! And when the listeners wondered, since then he has as yet no children to educate, he replied: If the father accustoms himself, while still young, to Torah, to mitzvos, and to good traits, [Torah, mitzvos and midos tovos] he will merit that even when he grows and becomes a man after his marriage, his good habits will not depart from him. Then he will be able to serve as a positive example to his sons and descendants, and he will surely succeed in their chinuch [education].
