Sixth Reading: Dilemmas and Conflicts
“Sarai said to Abram, ‘Look, God has kept me from having children. Come to my handmaid, perhaps through her I will be built up.’”
The word “perhaps” (יַלּאו) appears 17 times in the Pentateuch. Everything follows the inception, and the first instance is in the words, “perhaps through her I will be built up.” These words were said by Sarah to Abraham after sixteen years in the Holy Land. They had still not been blessed with children. She asked her husband to take her maidservant and "perhaps I will be built through her."
It is written afterward “And Abram heeded the voice of Sarai,” and Rashi says he heeded the voice of the Divine Spirit within her. Much later, when Sarah demands that Abraham, “Drive out this maidservant and her son,” God says to Abraham, “Whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her voice.” It is from that episode that we learn that Sarah was greater than Abraham in prophecy. The first time we learn that Abram heeded the voice of Sarai, the voice of the Divine Spirit within her, and therefore he relied on her power of decision.
SARAH OUR MATRIARCH: THE MOTHER OF DILEMMAS
We have recently talked about conflicts and we would like to add some about a related concept: a dilemma. Dilemma is the most important word today in Game Theory.
Sarah was in a dilemma. She was barren, had no child, and did not even have a womb. Ten years since they came to the land, they had no children. If she had asked Abraham what to do, this dilemma might have been too great for him. In fact, following the first “perhaps” (יַלּאו) in the Torah spoken by Sarah, there are six instances of “perhaps” said by Abraham in his argument with God about Sodom and Gomorrah.
But Sarah, with her use of the word “perhaps” also resolves the dilemma (unlike Abraham’s six “perhaps” which lead to no resolution). Sarah, with the extra understanding given to a woman over than a man, with the abundance of the Divine Spirit within her, decided what to do: give my maidservant to my husband. There are a few more times that women use this tactic in the Torah, but the precedent was set by Sarah. She has no precedent to learn from and her decision comes entirely from her Divine spirit.
“Perhaps” (יַלּאו) means, “maybe yes, maybe no.” There’s a real dilemma here, “perhaps through her I will be built up.” Even this “perhaps,” this possibility, is strong enough to decide to act in an exceptional way, one that is not standard, at least for us. For us who are reading this story, there is a is a wonderful novelty. The novelty of Sarah’s idea was so great that in needed to be written that “Abram heeded the voice of Sarai,” he heeded the Divine Spirit within her.
Now, what is the relationship between a conflict and a dilemma? Let us use a linguistic allusion. The Lubavitcher Rebbe’s first campaign was Tefillin. One of the allusions to tefillin in the context of a “campaign” is in the verse describing the tribe of Gad, “he will tear off the arm and the scalp.” This verse clearly alludes to tefillin which are put on the scalp and on the arm. Now the word for “scalp” (דֹקְדָק) is an acronym for “conflict-dilemma-conflict-dilemma” in Hebrew (הָמֵילִּט דְיקִלְפְנֹקו הָמֵילִּט דְיקִלְפְנֹקו).
Every pair of “conflict-dilemma” (הָמֵילִּט דְיקִלְפְנֹקו) has the same value as “knowledge” (תַעָּד). Since there are two pairs, they correspond with what is known as supernal and mundane knowledge (תַעַּד ןֹותְחַּת תַעַּן דֹיוְלֶע) in Chasidut.
What is needed to solve dilemmas? From the first dilemma, which was posed and solved by Sarah, we can surmise that one needs “the extra measure of understanding that was given to women over that which was given to men.” If women are good at solving dilemmas, then we can surmise that inner conflicts are more masculine in nature. Apparently, inner conflict is more closely associated with emotions while dilemmas are more intellectual in nature. I would have thought that the man is more intellectual, and therefore better at dilemmas, and the woman is more emotional, and therefore better at conflicts. But, surprisingly, the opposite is true.
THE TWO PAIRS OF CONFLICT AND DILEMMA AND THE FOUR WORLDS
The two pairs of conflict and dilemma that we just saw can be described and corresponded to the Four Worlds: Emanation, Creation, Formation, and Action.
The conflict in the world of Emanation is whether “to be or not to be,” specifically with God. This is an existential conflict. The conflict in Formation is between the good inclination and the evil inclination. The higher dilemma that corresponds to Creation is known in the Zohar as, “the mother is nested in the throne” meaning that these are intellectual or moral dilemmas. Finally, in the world of Action the dilemma is how to act with maximum efficiency. The world of Action is pragmatic world, but someone who is pragmatic all the time needs to solve problems related to how to act, since “action is the main principle.” Every such problem is a dilemma, not a conflict.
Again, the nature of dilemmas that correspond to the World of Creation is more abstract while those that correspond to the World of Action are more practical. Of course, Creation and Action are the more feminine Worlds, while Emanation and Formation are more masculine. The conflicts found in them are either existential or conflicts like wars.
A lot of knowledge is needed to understand why women are good at solving dilemmas and men are supposed to excel in dealing with conflicts. We might say that the sages point us in this difference between men and women regarding conflicts in their statement that, “it is a man’s nature to conquer, but it is not a woman’s nature to conquer.”
(Excerpted from a lecture given on 20 Shevat 5772)
