Mrs. On ben Peles | Imamother

b.chadash

Sat, Jun 12 2021, 11:57 pm

I have long been intrigued by her.

The passuk in Mishlei says that a wise woman builds her home and a foolish woman destroys hers. I have always imagined that the wise woman is the one who knows how to keep quiet and show her husband respect. One who knows how to build his self esteem and make him feel in charge and appreciated. A surrendered wife, if you will.

The gemara says that the wise woman is the wife of On ben Peles and the foolish woman is the wife of Korach.

So based on the story, I struggle to find a meaningful differenc between the way each of them spoke to their husband.

Korach's wife said, "Moshe made you look foolish by shaving you" She made him feel bad about himself and mocked how ridiculous he looked. She encouraged his rebellion and ultimately caused his downfall.

On's wife said, "What do you have to gain? You're loser under Moshe and you'll be a loser under Korach. What's the difference to you who leads.? You're a loser either way. "

Obviously I'm putting my spin on it. But I don't see really what she said that was substantially different than what Korach's wife said. They both sound like they were talking down to their husband.

Yet, Mrs. On ben Peles also took action, and maybe that was the difference. She didn't rely on her husband. She didnt just trust him to make the right decision. Not in the least.

She basically knocked him out and took matters into her own hands. She and her daughter uncovered their hair in front of their tents (what a scandal!) and thereby saved his life.

When the earth opened up, the bed that On was lying on started slipping out of the tent,. His wife held fast onto the bed while praying and asking Hashem to save her husband.

When it was all over, she told her husband to go apologize to Moshe. He didnt want to go. He was too embarrassed. She went to Moshe herself, fell at his feet, and told him that her husband feels mortified. So Moshe went to On himself so that On could apologize.

This woman doesn't sound like a surrendered wife at all! This is the "wise woman who builds her home".

b.chadash

Sun, Jun 13 2021, 8:06 am

There was another thought I had about her argument to her husband. While reading about it on Shabbos, I was bothered by her argument, which I felt was quite insulting to her husband.

Her husband joins Korach's rebellion, ostensibly because he believed in the cause.

His wife says, "What's in it for you? If Moshe is the leader, you will just be a follower. If Korach is the leader, you will also just be a follower. So you have nothing to gain by being involved in this machlokes. "

This argument is interesting because she is basically telling On, the only reason you would involve yourself is if there is something in it for you.

I would think that if On was really convinced about Korach's position, this argument would have been very damaging. He would have taken umbrage and told his wife, "this isn't about me! This is about Klal Yisroel! I'm standing up for Hashem's honor. It is the PRINCIPLE of the matter !"

Most people who get involved in a revolution are convinced that they are in it for the good of the people, l'sheim shomayin, if you will. They would be very upset to be accused of having ulterior motives.

On's wife basically cut to the chase and said, "I dont believe you mean it l'sheim shamayim. You think you will gain something from this, but you won't. You're never going to be at the top."

Thoughts, anyone??

cbsp

Sun, Jun 13 2021, 9:41 am

From this week's Tidbits (Parshas Korach 5781)

“Vayikach Korach ben Yitzhar...V’On
ben Peles b’nei Reuven” (Bamidbar 17:1)
The Gemara in Sanhedrin says that
it can be said about the wife of On ben
Peles “Chachmas Nashim Bansa Beisa”,
“the wisdom of the woman builds the
home” (Mishlei 14).

On ben Peles was
initially involved in Korach’s dispute with
Moshe, however his wife convinced him
to distance himself, as she pointed out
to him that either Moshe Rabbeinu or
Korach would lead the nation; in any case
it would not be On ben Peles. On’s wife
thus convinced On from being involved
in a disagreement from which he had
nothing to gain.

While this argument is certainly true, it
seems so simple and so obvious. If so,
how do we see the great wisdom of this
woman?

Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz ztz”l explains that
when embroiled in a Machlokes sanity
and equilibrium are lost easily. Although
her point may seem obvious to us, to one
engulfed in the flames of a Machlokes it is
difficult to see even the most reasonable
things. Her “Chachmas Nashim” was
not her rational reasoning, but rather
her ability to convince her husband to
disengage from the Machlokes. The great
wisdom lies not in her ability to reason,
but to find reason with an unreasonable
person in difficult circumstances.

b.chadash

Sun, Jun 13 2021, 9:56 am

cbsp wrote:

Thank you for this.
So her logical reasoning was not about the logic but that she somehow got him to just disengage. But we don't know how she did it. So how is that instructive?

I feel like she didn't actually convince him of anything. Otherwise she wouldn't have to resort to drugging him up. He may have felt she has a point but was not strong enough to follow through.

imasinger

Sun, Jun 13 2021, 10:12 am

NotInNJMommy wrote:

I cringe at these commentaries because I see them used as tools to make women ultimately responsible for everything in their marriages even to an unhealthy extent and just make divorcees feel even worse than they already feel. I see these commentaries and the discussion thereof to be more harmful than helpful.

I disagree.

I see this commentary as empowering -- women are sometimes able to use their people skills to find solutions to move a DH forward. It doesn't mean that always happens, and it doesn't mean the wife is at fault when it doesn't.

We each bear responsibility for ourselves.

Nobody's saying, "it's all Korach's wife's fault."

b.chadash

Sun, Jun 13 2021, 1:12 pm

I agree with both NotinNJmommy, as well as Imasinger.

As a Bais Yaakov graduate, I do remember getting this message, that the husband's ruchnius is in the wife's hands. I think this is a wrong and dangerous message.

Each person has bechira. The woman cannot own the husband's choices. It's not fair to either the husband or the wife when you say it's solely up to the woman. Whenver I wasn't able to "influence" my husband, I used to wonder where my "binah yeseira" was that every woman was supposed to have.

The wrong message is also dangerous because it can encourage women to try to subtly manipulate their husbands.

However, it is also true that a woman can have a big influence on her husband. Stories such as these can empower a woman and help her do what's right for the family even if her husband is making terrible decisions.

We get so many conflicting messages. On the one hand- respect your husband, don't belittle him, trust his judgement, he is supposed to make the spiritual decisions in the home, etc.

On the other, look at the wife of On ben Peles who went behind her husband's back to literally save him from his own folly. He was lucky he married such a strong woman.

Somehow the women were not able to stop their husbands from being culpable in the sin of the meraglim. All the men died, though the women did not cry, so they survived to enter the land. Clearly the women did not share in their husbands' panic.

Also, the women resisted in giving their jewelry for the eigel hazahav. Somehow they were able to stand up to their husbands, so much that the husbands literally ripped the jewelry off their wives.

Throughout the Torah, again and again, we see women standing up to their husbands. I'm not sure when the whole narrative changed, that women are supposed to be surrendered to their husband's will.

sweet3

Sun, Jun 13 2021, 2:44 pm

So I looked up the source. It doesn’t say that she went behind his back.
The midrash says Mrs Peles convinced him that he shouldn’t join, and he responded: “but I already swore allegiance to Korach.” So she came up with that idea of uncovering her hair and that’s what she did (Probably with his support, or at least it doesn’t say otherwise).
Seems more like a power couple who respect each other and arrive at smart conclusions as a team.
Here’s the text translated to English (Gemara Sanhedrin 109b):
Rav says: On, son of Peleth, did not repent on his own; rather, his wife saved him. She said to him: What is the difference to you? If this Master, Moses, is the great one, you are the student. And if this Master, Korah, is the great one, you are the student. Why are you involving yourself in this matter? On said to her: What shall I do? I was one of those who took counsel and I took an oath with them that I would be with them. She said to him: I know that the entire assembly is holy, as it is written: “For all the assembly is holy” (Numbers 16:3), and they observe the restrictions of modesty. She said to him: Sit, for I will save you. She gave him wine to drink and caused him to become drunk and laid him on a bed inside their tent. She sat at the entrance of the tent...

b.chadash

Sun, Jun 13 2021, 4:15 pm

sweet3 wrote:

Granted we don't know if she went behind his back or if she did it with his agreement.

It is clear that the ideas were hers. She was the one who questioned the wisdom in On joining Korach and she was the one who came up with the plan to keep him out of the way.

Now, this is just my thinking, but if he was truly convinced, why would she have to get him drunk? He could have just stayed sober and stayed in the tent while she did her thing outside the tent?

I would think that it was necessary to get him drunk because he was not strong enough (or convinced enough) by her words to be trusted not to join the men. She needed to do both- get him good and drunk, and also, uncover her hair so as to ward off any people coming in to get her husband.

That is why I think it was done somewhat behind his back. Like she said, "Leave it to me, I'll take care of this, I need you out of the way. Go take a drink..."

If they were a power couple who arrived at smart solutions together, there would be no need to get him drunk. Furthermore, the gemara wouldn't be giving her all the credit if they were a team together. I think it's more likely that he was in the grips of foolishness, too far gone to think for himself, and she took over the reigns and made decisions for both of them.

We see from the end of the story, when she asked him to go and apologize to Moshe that he still was not ready to do the right thing. She had to take matters into her hands there as well. Doesn't sound like a power couple to me.

leah233

Sun, Jun 13 2021, 5:45 pm

First a general point almost off topic. It's one thing to be pushed around by someone who knows what what she is talking about and has your best interest at heart . It's quite another to be pushed around by someone who doesn't.

If you are like Devorah Haneviah (who is called Aishes Lapidus because of the advice she gave her unlearned husband) or Rochel the wife of Rav Akiva it's wonderful that you have such a wonderful affect on your husband.

Doyle is addressing people who aren't really looking out for their husbands best interest and or may not know what they are talking about.

Last edited by leah233 on Sun, Jun 13 2021, 5:56 pm; edited 2 times in total

sweet3

Sun, Jun 13 2021, 5:54 pm

b.chadash wrote:

The problem with getting shalom bayis lessons from a midrash is that you can spin it whichever way you want. That’s why I hate it when speakers prove their points using a maamar chazal or midrash.
You seem to have a strong opinion on the matter, but don’t use the midrash to prove your point because you can easily use it to disprove it.
(For example: if she wanted to go behind his back, she’d just find an excuse to get him drunk and avoid the whole conversation).
Either way, I like your observations and if it works for you, so be it Smile

jkl

Sun, Jun 13 2021, 5:57 pm

leah233 wrote:

First a general point almost off topic. It's one thing to be pushed around by someone who knows what what she is talkin about and has your best interest at heart . It's quite another to be pushed around by someone who doesn't.

If you are like Devorah Haneviah (who is called Aishes Lapidus because of the advice she gave her unlearned husband) or Rochel the wife of Rav Akiva it's wonderful that you have such a wonderful affect on your husband.

Doyle is addressing people who aren't really looking out for their husbands best interest and or may not know what they are talking about.

So in other words, Doyle is addressing selfish and/or stupid people?