Baal Shem Tov (Tzavas Ribash 123:2): A man should love his wife in the same manner that he loves his tefilin – that is solely because the tefilin are an instrument for fulfilling G-d's commandments. He should not think about her as a desirable physical being. This is explained by the following. A man who wants to travel to the market and he can only travel there by riding a horse - should his need for the horse cause him to love the horse? Is there any greater nonsense to think such a thought? Similarly in this world a man needs a wife in order to fulfill the service of G-d in order to be able to merit the future world. And if he neglects his service of G-d in order to think about her – is there any greater nonsense than that? Rather he should view her as physically repulsive. Therefore if he sees a beautiful woman he should realize that the white components of her body come from the father's semen while the red components are from the mother's blood which is repulsive and if he places such on food – the food would be disgusting. In fact he should realized that whatever beauty that her father contributed is in fact from the higher Father i.e., G d in the World of Love. And the beauty contributed by the mother is an extension of the supernal Mother in the World of Awe. These supernal aspects are his wife's true beauty. Therefore it is best to always be attached in love and fear to G d alone. And if he can bring himself to despise this sin he will be able to despise all sin. That is because from her was man created and a man has 365 component parts that correspond to 365 negative commandments and this nullifies all of them. Furthermore the Baal Shem Tov asked why does the desire for a woman arouse such strong lust? That is because woman is the source of man A man is born with inherent pleasure in eating and other physical things. And thus all pleasures are from the original drop – and therefore there is an inherent desire in man for physical pleasures and that which is mundane – it is much better to attach one self to G-d than to lowly physicality.
Love for wife is qualitatively no different than that of fellow man
Rav Yitzchok Silberstein (Chashukei Chemed Yoma 2a): Question: It says in Yevamos 62b) that one who loves his lives as himself and honors her more than himself....will have peace in his tent. The Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 15:19) writes that the Sages commanded that a man should honor his wife more than himself and love her as much as himself. But this requires an explanation as to why they gave such a command since we already are commanded to love our fellow man and a person's wife is obviously included in this Torah command? Answer: I asked this question to my brother -in-law Rav Chaim Konievsky and he replied that it was because there are times when a person is not obligated to show love from the Torah command of "love your fellow as yourself." For example it says in Nida (16b), Rav Shimon bar Yochai said there are 4 things that Gd hates and I don't like. 1) A person who suddenly enters into his house and surely into the house of another person [because person they are involved in intimate matters - Rashi]. The Maharasha writes, "G-d hates them because these are matters of pritzus (immorality) but regarding himself Rav Shimon just says I don't love them. That is because it is possible that these things are not pritzus that would justify violating the prohibition of hating another." Consequently in such a case if the wife suddenly enters into the house then at that moment there is no obligation to love his wife from the aspect of the Torah law of "love your fellow as yourself." However in regard to the command that is derived from "you will have peace in your tent"- there is still an obligation to love her. Furthermore there is a question regarding what the halachais when a wife sins. There is no longer an obligation to love her from "love your fellow" - in fact the opposite is true and there is an obligation to hate her. Is this rabbinic command "of peace in your tent" still applicable? It would seem that even if there is no mitzva to love her there is still a mitzva to honor her. That is because the obligation to honor her is because of gratitude because she raises the children and saves him from sin. This gratitude is still obligatory even if she sins. Therefore it is correct to honor her and to buy her appropriate clothing - even though she sins. Rav Shmuel Arvah gives an additional answer why there is a special verse to love his wife. It is based on the Maharsha (Shabbos 31a) which explains the answer of Hillel to the goy who wanted to learn the entire Torah while standing on one foot and Hillel replied that what is hateful to you do do to your fellow. The question is why he worded in a negative way that he should be good to his fellow as he is to himself? He answers that the Maharsha says that the verse of "loving your fellow as yourself" only applies to negative commands such as not taking revenge. However not to the positive commands of the Torah to do good to others. That is because your life always comes first. Consequently we can say from the obligation of loving your fellow as yourself - there is no obligation to be good to your wife as to yourself. However from the obligation to honor your wife - there is an obligation to honor [sic] her as yourself. ====================
Orchos Tzadikim (Shaar 5 – Love): The love of women should be in the following manner. He should think that she is saving him from sin, and keeping him distant from adultery and through her he is fulfilling the mitzva of having children, and she raises his children, and she works for him the entire day, and she prepares food and other needs of the household. Because of her activities he is free to learn Torah and to be involved in other mitzvos. She is helping him to serve G d.
Kedushas Levi (Bereishis 224:67): And Yitzchok brought her into his mother’s tent and she became his wife and he loved her. What was the reason that the Torah tells us that Yitzchok loved Rivkah? A possible answer is based on the fact that there are two types of love a man has for a woman. The first type is the physical lust that a man has for a woman because he wants to satisfy his desires. Because this type of love is solely concerned with what he wants, it is actually not love for the woman at all but entirely love of himself. The second type is the love which is not concerned with satisfying his physical lusts but rather is because she is an instrument that enables him to fulfill the commands of his Creator – thus he loves her just as he loves the other mitzvos. This is called love of his wife. That is the meaning of “And Yitzchok loved her.” He had no thoughts regarding physical lust but only loved her because she enabled him to fulfill the mitzvos of G d.
Pele Yoetz (Love between husband and wife) : It is obligatory that there be strong love between husband and wife. We will begin with the love of the man for his wife because there is an explicit gemora (62a), A man is obligated [sic] to love his wife as himself and to honor her more them himself. Nevertheless he is not permitted to allow this love to interfere with his love of G d. Avos (1:5) already warned, Do not speak too much unnecessary chatter with a woman. This mishna says the warning was directed to speaking with one’s wife because anyone who does so causes evil to himself and it diminishes his involvement in Torah and in the end will inherit Gehinom. Our Sages also said (Bava Metzia 59a), One who follows the advice of his wife falls into Gehinom. Because of these concerns every intelligent man was use commonsense in evaluating the proper approach. As it says (Sanhedrin 107b), The left hand pushes away and the right hand brings close. However the primary love is that concerning the soul. Therefore the husband has the obligation to chastise his wife with pleasant words and to guide her in the ways of modesty and to keep her from gossip, anger, cursing, mentioning G d’s name in vain and other halachos found in the Orders of Nashim and Nezikin. He should caution her regarding the details of mitzvos – in particular those concerning prayer, berachos for food and observing Shabbos, etc. How pleasant it is for him to teacher her ethical ideas and to tell her words of the Sages in all matters that are relevant to her and their seriousness. For then her heart will tremble and she will be even more careful of these things than a man.
Aruch L’Ner (Kerisus 28a): ...This that the Beis Shmuel says that a man should honor his wife – we do not find that this means an obligation. In fact in Yevamos (62a) and in Sanhedrin (76b) it says that if a man honors his wife more than himself... the verse You shall know that there is peace in your tent is applied. This language implies that it is only a act of piety (midos chasidus) to not be insistent on one’s honor against her. In fact according to the straight law she is obligated to honor him more than he honors her.
Yad Rama (Sanhedrin 76b): The braissa says that if a man loves his wife as himself – that means that he should have mercy on her as he is merciful to himself but more than himself is not relevant. That is because love is something which is in the heart and a person is not able to love another more than he loves himself. However regarding honor that is something for which it is possible that he can honor her more than himself with clothing which is nicer than what he gets for himself.
Ibn Ezra (Mishlei 5:19): Tishge – mistaken, If a person is constantly obsessed with love with wife and surely if it is a another woman (as they say in Avos (1:5), “With your wife they say and surely this prohibition applies to other men’s wives.”). That is because a person who is involved a lot with the love of his wife and he is constantly talking with her – more than is appropriate – he is mistaken. That is because love of a woman takes a man away from serving G d.
Orchos Tzadikim (Shaar 5 – Love): The love of women should be in the following manner. He should think that she is saving him from sin, and keeping him distant from adultery and through her he is fulfilling the mitzva of having children, and she raises his children, and she works for him the entire day, and she prepares food and other needs of the household. Because of her activities he is free to learn Torah and to be involved in other mitzvos. She is helping him to serve G d.
Be’er Mayim Chaim (Parshas Vayetzei 30:26): Give me my wives and my children for which I worked for you… It would seem that his work was done only for the women and not for the children. Therefore he should have said, “Give me the women for which I worked for you…”. In fact it is well known what our Sages (Bereishis Rabba 70:18) say regarding (Bereishis 29:21), “Give me my wife so I can have intercourse with her. But even the coarsest person doesn’t speak that way. But rather Yaakov was simply saying he wanted his wife in order to have children.” That is because Yaakov had total control over his bad impulses and he had no lust or desire other then to do things for the sake of G-d to fulfill the mitzva of having children. Therefore just as a man is not embarrassed to say to his friend to give him tefilin to put on – in the same way Yaakov was not embarrassed to say to give him his wife in order to fulfill through her the divine mitzva of procreation. That is why it says here that Lavan should give him his wives and his children for which he had worked – that is because all his work was only for the sake of the children which his wives had produced.
ספר אורח לחיים - פרשת אחרי
כמו המניח תפילין כוונת המעשה הנחה של תפילין הוא טפל לכוונת מצות תפילין לקשר עצמו במוחין עם השי"ת לקבל עליו עול מלכותו ומצותיו, כן הוא ממש בכוונת מצות פרו ורבו לקיים מצות בוראו בדחילו ורחימו הם י"ה, והתקשרות גופא בגופא, כמו כל הנבראים הם טפל לקיום המצות עשה של פרו ורבו:
שולחן ערוך (או"ח סימן רלא:א): אם אי אפשר לו ללמוד בלא שינת הצהרים, יישן. הגה: וכשניעור משנתו א"צ לברך אלהי נשמה (ב"י); וי"א שיקרא קודם שיישן: ויהי נועם (תהילים צ, יז) (כל בו); ובלבד שלא יאריך בה, שאסור לישן ביום יותר משינת הסוס שהוא שתין נשמי, ואף בזה המעט לא תהא כוונתו להנאת גופו, אלא להחזיק גופו לעבודת השי"ת; וכן בכל מה שיהנה בעולם הזה, לא יכוין להנאתו, אלא לעבודת הבורא יתברך, כדכתיב: בכל דרכיך דעהו (משלי ג, ו) ואמרו חכמים: כל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמים, שאפילו דברים של רשות, כגון האכילה והשתיה וההליכה והישיבה והקימה והתשמיש והשיחה וכל צרכי גופך, יהיו כולם לעבודת בוראך, או לדבר הגורם עבודתו, שאפילו היה צמא ורעב, אם אכל ושתה להנאתו אינו משובח, אלא יתכוין שיאכל וישתה כפי חיותו, לעבוד את בוראו; וכן אפילו לישב בסוד ישרים, ולעמוד במקום צדיקים, ולילך בעצת תמימים, אם עשה להנאת עצמו והשלים חפצו ותאותו, אינו משובח אלא א"כ עשה לשם שמים; וכן בשכיבה, א"צ לומר שבזמן שיכול לעסוק בתורה ובמצות לא יתגרה בשינה לענג עצמו, אלא אפילו בזמן שהוא יגע וצריך לישן כדי לנוח מיגיעתו, אם עשה להנאת גופו אינו משובח, אלא יתכוין לתת שינה לעיניו ולגופו מנוחה לצורך הבריאות שלא תטרף דעתו בתורה מחמת מניעת השינה; וכן בתשמיש האמורה בתורה, אם עשה להשלים תאותו או להנאת גופו ה"ז מגונה, ואפי' אם נתכוין כדי שיהיו לו בנים שישמשו אותו וימלאו מקומו אינו משובח, אלא יתכוין שיהיו לו בנים לעבודת בוראו או שיתכוין לקיים מצות עונה כאדם הפורע חובו; וכן בשיחה, אפי' לספר בדברי חכמה צריך שתהיה כונתו לעבודת הבורא או לדבר המביא לעבודתו. כללו של דבר, חייב אדם לשום עיניו ולבו על דרכיו ולשקול כל מעשיו במאזני שכלו, וכשרואה דבר שיביא לידי עבודת הבורא יתברך יעשהו, ואם לאו לא יעשהו; ומי שנוהג כן, עובד את בוראו תמיד.
It is on pages 68-69 #123.2 in the Kehot edition. This is a from the Menashe Freedman edition 1934 also found on Hebrew Books
This is the Chabad version
And the motive for posting this articles is....?
ReplyDeleteAs a regular-housewife-quiet-lady (far, far away from being a Torah scholar) ... well... if my husband got home telling me such things I would just pack my stuff and go back to mom's until he comes back to his senses.
ReplyDelete@Chaim - why should I need a motive for posting the views of the Baal Shem Tov - especially when I think they are clearly acceptable the Chassidim today as well as many of not most Litvaks.
ReplyDeleteOr are you trying to hint that you don't think this is politically correct.
In short - If it is a legitimate widely held Torah view than why should it not be presented?
@Esty - I would ask you to try and look at this carefully to try and understand the point that is being made. I understand that it does not fit well with the modern view that each man is the center of the universe. It is also obvious that not everybody can have such a marriage - and that attempting to live this way for most people would be a disaster and should firmly be prevented.
ReplyDeleteThe question though can you accept it as an ideal for people on very high spiritual levels? Can you accept that not everybody should have the same goals and values and that for some people - G-d is more important than human relationships?
An example is Moshe Rabbeinu - who when he separated from his wife or divorced her - his own sister and brother raised the question that you have raised. You will note that G-d disagreed with them and they were punished for not realizing that Moshe Rabbeinu was different and the role of his wife was taken over by the Shechinah.
The question is not if it should be presented. The question is context. If you posted an article about the Torah view of marriage, and this was one of the approaches presented, that would certainly not be objectionable. Posting it as a stand-alone opinion, under the heading "Da'as Torah," may lead people to think that this is "the" Torah view of marriage, not "a" Torah view of marriage. Think of your book: If you would have cherry-picked a few sources that were more "controversial" and printed them by themselves, you probably would have met with protest. As you included the full range of views, everything in context, nobody (I hope) could have a problem with it.
ReplyDeleteIf I understand Chaim's question correctly, or at least what came to my mind was that this is the 2nd or 3rd recent article which is discussing prishut. Since we are approaching Ellul/Yomim Noraim
ReplyDeletethan there is a motive for posting these articles currently.
This is not too far from the ideas in Rambam the philosopher's work - Moreh Nevuchim (which otherwise is as far from Chassidus as is possible).
ReplyDeleteOn this, and most other matters, I follow the teachings of R' Yaakov Emden.
A fair point because these kinds of ideals are beyond our generation. For us, it would be crazy to behave this way.
ReplyDeleteIt's worthy material but should be noted that it is beyond our generation.
ReplyDeleteYes, I accept that if a couple is really in very high spiritual levels, sharing these spiritual goals together, they'll both understand this view and live happy lives (although I'm very far from this level now).
ReplyDeleteYep... G'd is really more important than human relationships... but it's a difficult learning for simple people like me... but we're always evolving, right?
Thank you for taking your time to explain, R. Eidensonh.
"attempting to live this way for most people would be a disaster" - Rabbi Eidensohn, are you implying that certain Chassidic or Kabbalistic teachings (such as the Baal Shem Tov above) cannot be implemented as a lifestyle for most frum Jews today, even if those frum Jews reject many modern liberal ideas? Are you advocating a more rationalist approach to Judaism such as Chovos HaLevavos?
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that it is better to attach one's self to Hashem than to low physicality, the idea that love of a wife is no different than love of a horse is repugnant on its face and not consistent with "v'dovak b'ishto v'hayu l'basar echad." This is the kind of hashkafah that creates the burka women. This does not sound like the Torah of RMF, RYK, R. Shlomo Zalman, R Elyashiv or RCK or any other Litvishe rav that I know of.
ReplyDeleteIs one's wife worse than any other Jew who we are commanded vahavta loraeacha comochca (the Gemara states explicitly that vahavta loraeacha comochca applies to ones wife when discussing kiddushei katana by a father , that there must be consent by the girl) is every other jew "just a pair of tefilin" who is a cheftza shel mitzva like the proverbial Brisker ani (the true ani that a Brisker didn't want to tell anyone about to fullfill matanas laevyonim because he was saving him for next year). What happened to the the "rayim ahuvim" from the sheva brochos that was composed by Chazal b'ruach kodshom are cheftzei mitzvah called "rayim?"
ReplyDeleteDefinitely legitimate. However a danger of publicizing such ideas (I don't necessarily mean here, just in general to the 'hamon am') is that there are certain types of people that want to achieve high levels of spiritually, but internally haven't developed themselves enough. If they try to go in a path like this its very easy to lead to negative consequences. Just to tie it back in to the comparison - how many people even have the proper love and respect for their wifes that the Besht expects one the have for their tefillin? And kal v'chomer they probably don't have nearly enough love for the mitzva of tefillin itself!
ReplyDeleteSee my comment below - someone who would come home and tell this to his wife is demonstrating that he's actually not ready for this type of 'avoda' yet. Obviously it isn't meant to detract at all from a husband's responsibilities to his wife and how he's supposed to treat her
ReplyDeleteVery strange. And I suppose he should love his children only as vehicles to perform the mitzvah of pru u'rvu and chinuch. And love other people only as vehicles to perform mitzvos with them. And so on. But in fact, people possess souls, they are created b'tzelem Elokim, they were endowed by God with personalities, and with the ability and desire to connect with one another. A person is not a mere חפצא של מצוה, an object for another person's fulfillment. Sure, we must endeavor to focus our gaze on what is beneath the surface, but we are enjoined to love and appreciate the actual person, within the bounds of Torah law, for his or her self, and not merely as an object like a pair of tefillin.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that each man is at the center of the universe is not a modern one -- a person is obligated to say, בשבילי נברא העולם. Of course, it must be balanced by the recognition that יתוש קדמך, but the idea certainly is intended to be a component of our religious thinking.
ReplyDelete@Kishkeyum - I assume you are not aware of the Chofetz Chaim's words at his son's levaya
ReplyDeleteThe following Rambam seems to contradict this especially in the "love her as your love yourself" part
ReplyDeleteרמב"ם הלכות אישות פרק טו
הלכה יט
וכן צוו חכמים שיהיה אדם מכבד את אשתו יתר מגופו ואוהבה כגופו, ואם יש לו ממון מרבה בטובתה כפי הממון, ולא יטיל עליה אימה יתירה ויהיה דיבורו עמה בנחת ולא יהיה עצב ולא רוגז.
@Doowdim - I gather you haven't read many gedolim biographies
ReplyDelete@Facts of life - I don't see what your point is - especially if you see the gemoras that the Rambam is basing himself on. You are simply reading into his words what you want to believe instead of understanding what he is actually saying.
ReplyDeletePlease enlighten me. The poshut pshat in the Rambam is to love her and not despise her and is aimed at every level of the tzibur. For the highest level of Jews, it might mean spiritual love as for tfilin but for the average person love of oneself means straightforward simple love.
ReplyDelete@TruthseekerJew - you should read Dr. Benny Brown's article dealing with the kedusha and prishus advocated by Ger and others - and the disaster it has brought to marriage.
ReplyDeleteI assume that gedoim such as Rav Eliashiv RAv Wozner, Rav Scheinberg, Rav Moshe Shmuel Shapiro, Rav Wolbe and others who encouraged the publication of Mishkan Yisroel as an antidote to people trying to live according these ideals when they were not on a high enough level
Correct.
ReplyDelete@Factsoflife - I would suggest you read through Chazal's understanding of the word love - especially their understanding of loving your fellow as yourself.
ReplyDeletePlease give me a gemora as to what "straightforward simple love means"
What type of love did Avraham manifest when he was prepared to kill his son?
He's also demonstrating that he's not ready for a lesser type of avodah either -- namely, a normal relationship with his wife.
ReplyDelete@Kishkeyum
ReplyDeletehttps://books.google.com/books?id=al9nSurm7R0C&pg=PT11&lpg=PT11&dq=chofetz+chaim+son%27s+death+love+G-d+more&source=bl&ots=zdczSiB9ip&sig=ThIV_Ae_kiKtVWvUviNVpe_CAks&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAWoVChMI2-3FoN-PxwIVQbYUCh3lvgZR
Avraham expressed the love of Hashem above love of anything else in life including his son. Additionally, since he had full bitachon in Hashem, he believed he was doing the best thing possible for Yitzchok.
ReplyDeleteHere is what the Rambam says about love
רמב"ם הלכות תשובה פרק י
הלכה ג
וכיצד היא האהבה הראויה הוא שיאהב את ה' אהבה גדולה יתירה עזה מאוד עד שתהא נפשו קשורה באהבת ה' ונמצא שוגה בה תמיד כאלו חולה חולי האהבה שאין דעתו פנויה מאהבת אותה אשה והוא שוגה בה תמיד בין בשבתו בין בקומו בין בשעה שהוא אוכל ושותה, יתר מזה תהיה אהבת ה' בלב אוהביו שוגים בה תמיד כמו שצונו בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך, והוא ששלמה אמר דרך משל כי חולת אהבה אני, וכל שיר השירים משל הוא לענין זה.
@FactsofLife - you forgot to notice that the Rambam is describing love of G-d. He does not way that a man should love his wife the same way. As I said - the Torah says love your fellow man - no one understands it to mean it to describe love as in love of G-d.
ReplyDeleteAgain - show me examples of Chazal describing love of man, love of wife, love of children. It is not what we today call love.
Dr. Shlita, you mentioned the sefer Mishkan Yisroel, can you please tell us more about it and what its halachic guidelines and parameters are an how they differ from othr marriage geared seforim. thank you
ReplyDeleteHe is describing love of G-d in terms of love of a woman. Obviously, the love of a woman is to be understood in the standard sense both by his description and by using it as a standard that the average man could understand.
ReplyDeleteThe "Tzavoas HaRivash" isn't a tzavoah at all but a collection of statements by his Talmidim and that this part pertains solely to physical attraction and to mundane aspects solely at the time of procreation as opposed to valuing and cherishing her as a person. The above entry is untrue spin.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Chofetz Chaim's words, I deduce the opposite of what I presume you intend to show. Until the son's death, the Chofetz Chaim's love was divided. He could not give it all to God, b/c some was reserved for his son. Now that the son is dead, God becomes the sole focus of his love.
It is an astounding statement of faith and trust, but in no way does it demonstrate that a person should not love his children for their own sakes.
Rabbi E. posted specifically this teaching of the Baal Shem Tov in order to stir people up and get all of you worked up over it, and maybe even have a little less respect for the Baal Shem Tov and his Torah or any Godal. Has nobody realized that's his agenda. The more you say how much it doesn't make sense the bigger Nachas you are giving him. Chilul Hashem.
ReplyDelete@Kishkeyum - man has natural love for his children - The Chofetz Chaim acknowledges that gets in the way of loving G-d. A man might have also have love of his wife in the secular sense or he might have lust for her. The Baal Shem is referring to lust. He is saying that a man needs to minimize or eliminate that lust and focus on G-d. He offers a reframing of how to see his lust for his wife - similar to what Chazal say. Love of children is based on other factors and he is not advising that one stop loving children.
ReplyDeleteThough there is the gemora that if a person wants to be a genuine talmid chachim he must be as cruel as a raven to his family.
Eiruvin 22b Raba explained: With him who can bring himself to be cruel to his children and household like a raven,3 as was the case with4 R. Adda b. Mattenah. He was about to go away to a schoolhouse when his wife said to him, ‘What shall I do with your children?’ — ‘Are there’, he retorted: ‘no more5 herbs6 in the marsh?’
@Facts of life - you are avoiding answering my question. Please show me sources in Chazal that validate your interpretation.
ReplyDeleteThe Rambam is explaining how to come to love G-d by using an example of a woman - he is not saying that there is an obligation to love a woman in this sense. It is simply a mashal. Love of a woman is descriptive not prescriptive or obligatory. If you look at the use of the term of love by Chazal you will see that it does not mean what you claim it does.
@Kishkeyum - please provide me with a source in Chazal which claims what you are. I assume you are familari with the story of the Alter of Slabodka and Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky regarding this matter?
ReplyDeleteIt is also natural that a person should love his wife (and I'm not speaking now of lust) in a way he does not love his tefillin.
ReplyDeleteIt is not implicit in the Chofetz Chaim's statement that his love for his children was a bad thing b/c it got in the way of loving God to the fullest. He is simply being מצדיק את הדין in a phenomenal manner -- by stating that he recognizes an aspect of טוב that is hidden within the מוטב.
The Gemara of being cruel to family in order to learn is not relevant here. That Gemara does not address feelings of love -- it is focused entirely on the person's הנהגה. He might love his family intensely, wife and children alike, but he must act cruelly toward them if he wishes to succeed in Torah.
I'll have to see if I can come up with one. But by the same token, you have not provided a source in Chazal for your assertion. [I dealt with the "cruel as a raven" source below.] This is only a Besht, and not even him but his talmidim.
ReplyDelete@Yomin Posteinik - please provide the citation in Chazal about valuing and cherishing her as a person
ReplyDeleteand someone (I think rashi) explains he meant just like there are herbs in the marsh to feed the marsh creatures hashem will also provide for you)
ReplyDeleteSanhedrin Ayin Vov. But no need to go there, just read the Kesubah..... (lyokra...).
ReplyDeleteWhere are you getting this quote from anyway? Went through the Tzavoas HaRibash (Kehos) and it's not only not in 123 (there is no formal section 2) and the mafteach inyonim and all relevant parts and don't see it.
בשעת הזיווג צריך להיות אין. וזהו רבה מגרש זבובים שאפילו כזבוב לא החשיב אצ עצמו. ויאהוב את אשתו וכו'
ReplyDeleteI don't agree that it is not showing what normal love to a woman is.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, show me a place in Chazal that says otherwise.
Naturally, many readers will view this piece as very odd. It should be seen in context. Although I don't recall learning this piece in Tzavaas Harivash, I've learnt from that sefer many times, and most of it is clearly talking about very sublime spiritual levels that are not meant to be followed literally by anoshim k'erkeinu, but learned for inspiration on one's own level, just like stories of tzadikim doing extraordinary things patently not on our level.
ReplyDeleteI recall the Chatam Sofer saying that there are spiritual dangers for Baalei Teshuva, especially in taking on chumras. The same principle would apply to this kind of talk - one tries to regard his wife as just a piece of treif meat, in the Christian approach towards flesh/ original sin. It is no wonder why so many "frum" perverts end up raping children or even married women.
ReplyDeleteNo, I am trying to hint that YOU don't think it is politically correct, and that is the only reason why you are putting it on your blog! I am not judging you. And come on, you wanted to provoke a discussion about attitudes towards תשמיש המטה, so I will oblige you and start the ball rolling...
ReplyDeleteI don't know if "this is only a Besht" or not, but if something is "only a Gra" or "only a Besht", that's avery big "only".
ReplyDelete@Eddie It is no wonder why so many "frum" perverts end up raping children or even married women.
ReplyDeleteReally? You know of "many" frum people who raped married women? A ridiculous assertion. Show sources, dear Eddie, or we'll simply have to conclude that this is yet another example of your hatred for Torah Jews.
Separately, are you seriously arguing that rape occurs b/c the perpetrators are reaching for a spirituality that lies beyond them? A novel explanation for a very violent crime! You outdo yourself in foolishness.
But - Rambam makes almost an opposite argument in the Moreh - that a man should learn how to love G-d from the love he feels for his wife! This means he has to have a physical, real love for his wife, in order to know what it means to love Hashem. According to the Besht, there is no such love for a wife, and he suggests the opposite!
ReplyDeleteAnd what if you are a Chabad Chosid and you have 2 pairs of teffilin? Should the Herem of R'G mean you can only love one pair of teffilin?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?sits=1&req=3974&st=%u05D4%u05EA%u05E4%u05D9%u05DC%u05D9%u05DF
ReplyDeleteגשם חרב מ ״ מ דק״ק מ ע ו ר י ט # .
כשעת הזיווג צריך להיות אין. וזהו רבה גרש זבובים שאפילו
כזבוג לא החשיב איע ויאהוב אח אשתו כמו שאוהב את
התפילין בלבד רק שהם מצות ד׳ ולא יהרהר אחרי׳ כי הוא
רק כמשל אתר טסט ליום השוק ואיא ליסע רק מם הסוס וכי
בשביל זה יאהב אס הסוס יש שטות גדול מזה כך בעוהיו צריך
לאדם אשה בשביל עבודת הבורא לזכות לעוהיב ואס יניח טסקיו
ויהרהר אתרי' יש שטוס גדול מזה וימאס אותה. כי אס רואה אשה
נאה יתשוב הלא הלובן הוא מזרע האב והאודם הוא מזרע האם
דם עכור שהם סרותים ומאוסים ואם ינית׳ אצל המאכל ימאס
המאכל רק הנאות שזרמ האב ;משך מאבא מילאה עולם האהבה
וזרט האס נמשך מאימא מילאה מולם היראה וזה היופי שלה מוטב
לדבק באהבת ויראת הבורא ביה וכשנמאס בעיניו העבירה ההיא
נמאסים בעיניו כל העבירות כי מכחה טצר אדם והאדם יש בו
שס״ה גידים מרומזי׳ טל שס״ה מצות ל׳ת ינתבטלו כל השסיה ל״מ
וגם ריביש מיה אמר מפני מה יש למכירה הזו תאום גחלה
כי מכחה נולד אדם. והאדם יש לו תענוג מסתמא מאכילתו ושאר
דבריו. וכל התטנוגים הם מטיפה ההוא א״כ הוא דבוק הכל לקטנות
ומוטב שידבק א׳ע נהקנ״ה:
זהי׳
It is on page 20 in this edition available from Hebrew Books
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?sits=1&req=3974&st=%u05D4%u05EA%u05E4%u05D9%u05DC%u05D9%u05DF
גשם חרב מ ״ מ דק״ק מ ע ו ר י ט # .
כשעת הזיווג צריך להיות אין. וזהו רבה גרש זבובים שאפילו
כזבוג לא החשיב איע ויאהוב אח אשתו כמו שאוהב את
התפילין בלבד רק שהם מצות ד׳ ולא יהרהר אחרי׳ כי הוא
רק כמשל אתר טסט ליום השוק ואיא ליסע רק מם הסוס וכי
בשביל זה יאהב אס הסוס יש שטות גדול מזה כך בעוהיו צריך
לאדם אשה בשביל עבודת הבורא לזכות לעוהיב ואס יניח טסקיו
ויהרהר אתרי' יש שטוס גדול מזה וימאס אותה. כי אס רואה אשה
נאה יתשוב הלא הלובן הוא מזרע האב והאודם הוא מזרע האם
דם עכור שהם סרותים ומאוסים ואם ינית׳ אצל המאכל ימאס
המאכל רק הנאות שזרמ האב ;משך מאבא מילאה עולם האהבה
וזרט האס נמשך מאימא מילאה מולם היראה וזה היופי שלה מוטב
לדבק באהבת ויראת הבורא ביה וכשנמאס בעיניו העבירה ההיא
נמאסים בעיניו כל העבירות כי מכחה טצר אדם והאדם יש בו
שס״ה גידים מרומזי׳ טל שס״ה מצות ל׳ת ינתבטלו כל השסיה ל״מ
וגם ריביש מיה אמר מפני מה יש למכירה הזו תאום גחלה
כי מכחה נולד אדם. והאדם יש לו תענוג מסתמא מאכילתו ושאר
דבריו. וכל התטנוגים הם מטיפה ההוא א״כ הוא דבוק הכל לקטנות
ומוטב שידבק א׳ע נהקנ״ה:
זהי׳
YOU don't think it is politically correct, and that is the only reason why you are putting it on your blog
ReplyDeleteHuh? There are literally millions of ideas, words and practices that are not politically correct that Rabbi Eidensohn has not posted on his blog. You cannot possibly think that it was posted solely because it is politically incorrect, right?
Have no idea why you can't find it since you claim you went the Kehos edition and could not find it. Look on page 68069 it is a section labeled 123 subsection 2.
ReplyDeletePlease report back and verify that it is there.
Sanhedrin 76b - it doesn't say he has an obligation to be nice to her- nor does it say that he must value and cherish her as as a person. It says if he wants Shalom bayis he should be nice to her and buy her jewelry (Rashi).
ReplyDeleteSanhedrin (76b) An objection was raised: He who loves his wife as himself and honours her more than himself,5 and leads his children in the right path, and marries them just before they attain puberty — of him Scripture saith, And thou shalt know that thy tabernacle shall be in peace and thou shalt visit thy habitation, and shalt not sin.6 — If just before puberty, it is different.
Our Rabbis taught: He who loves his neighbour, displays friendly intimacy towards his relatives, and marries his sister's daughter and lends a sela’ to the poor man in time of his need — of him Scripture saith, Then shalt thou call, and the Lord shall answer.7
Even in Chovot , there is a chapter on prishut, which is saying the same thing essentially as the Besht.
ReplyDeletea) To you, but not necessarily to me. b) It's not Chazal, or anything close.
ReplyDelete"What type of love did Avraham manifest when he was prepared to kill his son?"
ReplyDeleteThis was a level of Nevuah, not of regular love. Nevuah is above and beyond what we know. You cannot use the singular example of Avraham - Akeidat Yitzhak, on how we should conduct our lives. He also - perhaps not knowing how- did this for the future of his offspring, Am Yisrael, since this nisayon will always be used by his offspring to remind Hashem to save us. In any case, Avraham was prepared to , but did not kill his son. This is not something that will ever be required again as a nisayon.
I agree that being PI is not sufficient criterion to make it onto the blog. But I do think that it is an essential one, at least in this case. It is a case of זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, if you get my drift. Anyway, why do we need to kler this שאלה when R' Eidensohn שליט"א can just tell us what he wants with this post? I'm all ears.
ReplyDeleteThat's the Eddie we know and love. Remember the Gra that in order to definitely be מקיים the Mitzva, you need 64 pairs? That's 128! :D
ReplyDeleteWhat are you on about? אוהבה כגופו, ומכבדה יותר מגופו
ReplyDeleteAre you "that" Dov?
ReplyDeleteI read Prof. Brown's article, and was struck by 2 things:
ReplyDelete(1) The fact that he is sure, without any evidence whatsoever, that the real reason for the introduction of the Gerrer תקנות was in order to promote the feeling of being in an elite club which would be more spiritual than other Jews. What rubbish, and how revealing in how an academic approaches understanding a Chassidishe Mehalach that he doesn't understand.
(2) The fact that some of the practices of other חסידות's that he calls תקנות, are actually explicit in the Torah and paskened in Shulchan Aruch, and makes me wonder what Brown's idea of לא תתורו is without any "frills".
Never mind "why should I need a motive" - what is your reason? Every intelligent action is done for a reason.
ReplyDelete@Chaim - I detect a note of hostility here.
ReplyDeleteDidn't you know?! That is why chasidim daven nusach sfard, so that they should not be subject to the Herem of R'G with respect to tefillin.
ReplyDeleteIt is reported that the Gra also said that if he had the power he would abolish Herem of R'G.
ReplyDeleteThat is very kind of you. My wife wouldn't pack her stuff and go back to her mom. She would pack my stuff (or more likely just throw it out the window) and send me back to my mom.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Eidensohn, have you ever read shir hashirim?
ReplyDeleteYosef - perhaps you would like to explain what that has to do with our discussion? Perhaps also you can give a cogent summary of what Shir HaShirim is about and how poskim use it as a model of marriage?
ReplyDeleteYour detection of negativity is a false positive. Is it too difficult for you to explain why you posted particularly this Besht, out of all the "literally millions of ideas, words and practices" that were available?
ReplyDelete@Chaim - I have explained why already if you have been reading the comments. Your pointed comments - despite your denial - indicates that you have an agenda.
ReplyDelete@Der Nayis - to complex to give a proper summary. It was positioned as corrective text for those who had lost sight of what normal is.
ReplyDeleteReb Yaakov was with the Alter putting on a new pair of tefilin. He was told that he should interrupt his session with Reb Yaakov because his son who he hadn't seen in a number of years had just arrived. He responded, but Reb Yaakov is also my son and did not interrupt to see his son.
ReplyDeleteAs I said before the term love as used by Chazal - does not mean what is being attributed to it
Very good story. However, it does not show that a person should not love his son for his own sake. The Alter was a) making a point of impressing upon his talmid that he loved him like a son, and b) showing that a rebbi is obligated to treat a talmid like a son, as per the various Chazals that compare talmidim to sons.
ReplyDeleteI'm not certain what you mean when you say that the term love as used by Chazal doesn't mean what is being attributed to it. I presume you mean that the term denotes specific obligations and not feelings. Let's accept that as a given, still, it does not constitute proof of the notion that a person should not love his wife any more than he loves his tefillin, which is what Besht is being quoted as saying.
Please show me another source in chazal that says other than what I have been saying.
ReplyDeleteIt is reported that the Gra also said that if he had the power he would abolish Herem of R'G.
ReplyDelete..which happens to be an unsubstantiated and highly suspect "report."
Re Sanhedrin - Rabbi Eidensohn has a point in that Rashi says tachshitim (I thought that that's why he asked for the quote from Chazal), but your understanding Chaim, is similar to mine. Namely, that Rashi just expresses a tangible way to fulfill this concept. Also, the Kesubah is much more clear as to the emotional obligations. It should be noted that the Rambam also seems to understand it this way, as one poster has pointed out below.
ReplyDeleteThank you R' Eidensohn for the page numbers. I did check section 123 and it wasn't there and didn't fit with the mafteiach inyonim, but I will check those specific pages (68-69). The talk in many surrounding sections is about high spiritual levels and the words themselves are clearly talking about overcoming the physical taavos (which would naturally cause a deeper appreciation of her among those few people who do this - so it would be a good thing for all and we can envy them).
I'm pretty sure we're talking about the same part that I saw. It only has Rabbah Megaresh (instead of Garesh) Zivuvim and not the rest in the Kehos edition. I'll double check and confirm this tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteIn the other edition it prefaces the section saying that these are the words of Rav Menachem Mendel miKehilas Kodesh Mezritch. This would probably be R' Menachem Mendel Horodoker (aka Rav Menachem Mendel Mi Vitebsk), who acted as basically the memalei mokom/successor of the Mezritcher Magid (the Baal Shem Tov's successor) until he went up to Israel on 5 Elul 5537 (only remember this b/c it's 200 years to the date of my birth date, so kind of hard to forget). He did in fact learn in Mezritch for an extended period of time.
The Kehos edition prefaces that Tzavoas HaRibash is a leket of sayings by the Baal Shem Tov and the Maggid. That may be why they took out the statement of the Horodoker.
Or it could be that there was a lack of trust as to the source. There are many stories of the Baal Shem Tov that were written by his opponents for the sole purpose of mocking the Besht and trying to weaken his influence. (This is also the reasoning behind the famous chassidic expression about believing all stories of the Baal Shem Tov - that not all of them are true but that he clearly could have effected each through his connection to Hashem.)
When the Baal HaTanya printed the Tanya he enacted a 5 year ban on other printers and his sons renewed it much later because many weird editions ("shoinos umshunois") were being printed with added forged sections, for the purpose of trying to destroy his work.
So maybe Kehos didn't trust the validity of this edition. Or they did but removed it because it's the words of the Horodoker (but not sure why they'd remove it then, as he's considered right up there with the Besht, the Maggid and the Baal HaTanya).
Either way, what he's saying isn't that out there. He's giving eitzos as to how to attain sublime spiritual levels (after making sure one knows and follows all of Shulchan Aruch, other eitzos of Chazal, etc.) and is talking only about the physical part (and overcoming that would lead to a more sublime relation). Chazal's eitza to taivos, that isha chavis molei,... is usually understood to refer to a strange woman, but may be about any such physical taiva, which wouldn't be a stira to spiritual love mentioned in the Kesuba (I disagree on the meaning behind Rashi in Sanhedrin but that's almost a separate point). The part about loven min haAv and oidem min haAim isn't just brought down in a more biological context in Niddah, but is also partly mentioned in Pirkei Avois to hate physical and love the spiritual (mei-ayin boso? mitipa serucha.. - mentioned in part to show the superiority of the spiritual over the physical).
@Facts of LIfe - the term love such as in love your fellow man, love the convert, etc means to be decent and not to do anything unpleasant. It does not mean to cherish as an individual
ReplyDeleteThe insistence on understanding the Rambam differently than the gemora and projecting modern concepts of love is what is causing you and other's difficulties and leads you to conclude that the Baal Shem Tov's view is out of line with Chazal.
Menoras HaMe’or (Way to have intercourse 5:1 #177): There is a fourth way which doesn’t involve mitzva like the other ways. After a person has been overcome by lust he satisfied his desires with his wife who is permitted to him. This is in order that he shouldn’t have lust for the forbidden. Since he has turned from the prohibited to the permitted he has done good. However there is an even better way and that is to reject his yetzer and to smash his lust without giving in to it. There are a number of sources which support the idea of smashing his lust – rather than giving in to it. 1) Our Sages (Avos 3:1): If one looks at three things…from where he comes – from a putrid drop. And where he is going – to a place of dirt and worms. And before Whom will he stand… “ If concerning the judgment of a human being who does not know hidden secrets but nevertheless the fear eliminates his lusts – so surely the idea of being judged by G d who knows all secrets will eliminate his lusts. 2) Even if he is not frightened our Sages said, “Don’t give your strength to women… (Mishlei 31:3). 3) If you think about the nature of women’s beauty. As it says in Shabbos (152a): A woman is like a pitcher full of filth and her mouth is full of blood and everyone runs after her. ...
Aruch L’Ner (Kerisus 28a): ...This that the Beis Shmuel says that a man should honor his wife – we do not find that this means an obligation. In fact in Yevamos (62a) and in Sanhedrin (76b) it says that if a man honors his wife more than himself... the verse You shall know that there is peace in your tent is applied. This language implies that it is only a act of piety (midos chasidus) to not be insistent on one’s honor against her. In fact according to the straight law she is obligated to honor him more than he honors her.
Yad Rama (Sanhedrin 76b): The braissa says that if a man loves his wife as himself – that means that he should have mercy on her as he is merciful to himself but more than himself is not relevant. That is because love is something which is in the heart and a person is not able to love another more than he loves himself. However regarding honor that is something for which it is possible that he can honor her more than himself with clothing which is nicer than what he gets for himself.
Kedushas Levi (Bereishis 224:67): And Yitzchok brought her into his mother’s tent and she became his wife and he loved her. What was the reason that the Torah tells us that Yitzchok loved Rivkah? A possible answer is based on the fact that there are two types of love a man has for a woman. The first type is the physical lust that a man has for a woman because he wants to satisfy his desires. Because this type of love is solely concerned with what he wants, it is actually not love for the woman at all but entirely love of himself. The second type is the love which is not concerned with satisfying his physical lusts but rather is because she is an instrument that enables him to fulfill the commands of his Creator – thus he loves her just as he loves the other mitzvos. This is called love of his wife. That is the meaning of “And Yitzchok loved her.” He had no thoughts regarding physical lust but only loved her because she enabled him to fulfill the mitzvos of G d.
What are you on about, Chaim? How does this contradict Rabbi Eidensohn?
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Kedushas Levi, I would suggest that there are more than 2 approaches to one's wife: lust or avodah, there's also enjoying a person's personality. I wouldn't call that lust and it's not necessarily avodah either.
ReplyDeletejust look at the back catalogue of reports on this blog!
ReplyDeleteI don't think Chaim is being hostile - he is just being interrogative - as I have learned from his hundreds of responses to my comments. At first they seem very abrupt, but then we see there is a method to his... questions.
ReplyDeletethis is the Chabad version
ReplyDeleteperhaps Shlomo HaMelech was more machmir than the Gra, hence he had more wives/tefillin?
ReplyDeleteThe question has been raised on whether there is a mitzvah for a man to love his wife. It seems to me that this is quite obvious, and doesn't even need a mitzva or halacha, just like we do not need one to breath or drink water. The Torah teaches us in Bereishit 2:
ReplyDeleteכד עַל-כֵּן, יַעֲזָב-אִישׁ, אֶת-אָבִיו, וְאֶת-אִמּוֹ; וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְהָיוּ לְבָשָׂר אֶחָד.
This seems to be prescriptive as well as descriptive. Remember, the pasuk about a man giving a Get is not "prescriptive" it is just matter of fact that when he divorces his wife he will write her a bill of divorce.
I think the pshat of a pasuk is very important. It is also interesting that sometimes the ultra-pashtanim - the Karaites, can get it so terribly wrong. They interpreted this verse (or Anan b David who was pre-Karaite) as a legal unity, which means that one's in laws then become like real siblings. This created havoc for the Karaite community, and probably destroyed them, since it prevented marriage with in laws, eg a brother marrying a sister of his brother's wife. Simple reading of the pasuk is quite rational and answers the question, but a convoluted interpretation can go totally haywire and distort its meaning.
According to reasoning above, one should marry anyone ( as long as she is not physically repulsive to him) without any attachment to her.
ReplyDeleteYaakov avinu loved rachel for herself, while he only took leah as a 'technical' matter (perhaps to have children so as to serve hashem, as per above.)
RDE: I am not sure what biographies you are referring to. More importantly, the Sforno at the beginning of Vayechi (48:7) suggests that Yaakov's love for Rachel was passionate. It does not sound like the Be'er Mayim Chayim at all.
ReplyDeleteספורנו בּראשׁית מח:ז "...וכּל כּך גברה עלי טרדתי ואבלותי שׁלא עצרתי כּח להוליכה לבּית קברות בּית לחם ואין ספק כּי מאז היה לבּי חלל בּקרבּי ולא שׁלט עוד בּי יצר הרע ונחלשׁה תאותי ולא נשׁאר לי כּח להוליד בּנים."
ReplyDeleteI'm the Dov who commented a little below
ReplyDeleteBack up the claim, if you can.
ReplyDeleteHere are the words of the Yad Rama you posted:
ReplyDeleteThat is because love is something which is in the heart and a person is not able to love another more than he loves himself.
"Love is in the heart." So love in the language of Torah and Chazal does mean what we commonly think it means. This has always been my sense of the matter. The Torah speaks of אהבה. It is the same אהבה we know and love. The Torah did not use the word to mean something else. It means what it always means. True, in the realm of tangible חיובים, feelings of the heart have no place. They cannot be measured, and therefore cannot be legislated. Therefore, the Gemara and poskim discuss behaviors not feelings. But the fundamental meaning of the word does not change. If we are enjoined to love other Jews, we must feel love for them in our hearts. Additionally, we must perform loving acts, which is the behavioral part of the commandment. This applies also to wives. They are not just a pair of tefillin.
@Kishkeyum - interesting diyuk from the words of a rishon - but you have not shown that in Chazal the word love means cherish as a unique being or others feelings. Go through a couple gemoras dealing with loving your fellow man, loving the ger, loving your wife - and tell me where Chazal have the same understanding as you.
ReplyDeleteThe term love used in Tenach does have a meaning that
ReplyDeletewe understand as being something more than love for the ger etc.
Not only is Shir haShirim a love story, but in the very sophisticated Koheleth we see in Ch. 9:
ט רְאֵה חַיִּים עִם-אִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר-אָהַבְתָּ, כָּל-יְמֵי חַיֵּי
הֶבְלֶךָ, אֲשֶׁר נָתַן-לְךָ תַּחַת הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, כֹּל יְמֵי הֶבְלֶךָ:
כִּי הוּא חֶלְקְךָ, בַּחַיִּים, וּבַעֲמָלְךָ, אֲשֶׁר-אַתָּה עָמֵל תַּחַת
הַשָּׁמֶשׁ.
The understanding of Shlomo - who was the Shofet of his Dor, is that ahava is specific and recommended feature of marriage.
True, not Chazal, but a Rishon, which is not exactly chopped liver. The problem with citing the Gemaras etc. is that they are discussing deeds, behavior, hanhagah. These derive from the obligation to love, but they are not love itself. For the obligation to love, I present the pasuk which commands it. The word ואהבת is not a mystery. Its meaning is known. It means to feel love for another person. The question is, what if any tangible deeds are required? This is where Chazal come in to tell us what actions are required by the obligation to love.
ReplyDeleteLet's look at the Ibn Ezra you cite:
ReplyDeleteThat is because a person who is involved a lot with the love of his wife
and he is constantly talking with her – more than is appropriate – he
is mistaken. That is because love of a woman takes a man away from
serving G d.
It sounds to me like he's describing the ordinary affection a man might have for the wife he loves. In other words, "love" as we use the term. His objection is not to the love itself, but only where it is too much, where he is overly involved in it, where it is more than is appropriate, where it takes him away from serving G-d. The implication is that otherwise, it is right and proper. If it weren't, he would say: "Treat your wife like a חפצא של מצוה, like a pair of tefillin. Dust her off now and then, but otherwise, keep your distance!" He doesn't say that. I think we can infer that he considers such affection to be correct.
@Kishkeyum - you are mixing two issues. Chazal when they use the term love - such as love your fellow - are describing being nice. There is a gemora that says if you love your wife as your self and honor her more - you will have shalom bayis. Meaning clearly that there is no mitzva to be nicer to her than you are to other people. But if you want shalom bayis it is a good idea to be nice to her. I have repeatedly asked you to supply a citation of chazal saying you need to do more than that - and you haven't. You have shown that rishonim are aware that many men often love their wives - in terms of being infatuated with them or cherishing them - but that is not an obligation of marriage. The Rambam takes the advice of chazal and turns it into an obligation - but he doesn't say that the term love means anything more than being nice.
ReplyDeleteIn sum - love is sometimes used to mean being nice or at least not being negative. It also is sometimes - clearly not the majority use to describe a passion or cherishing which occurs between man and his wife.
However there is no statement in Chazal that I have seen which contradicts the Baal Shem Tov's directive to ideally view a wife as an instrumental to a man's service of G-d.
Your problem is that you are insisting that love typiclaly means cherishing because it sometimes is used that way - but it is not obligatory in Chazal and not in Rishonim - not even the Rambam's transformation of advice to be nice into an obligation - does not require cherishing one's wife.
Instead of sources you are providing pilpul
@Kishkeyum - please read through the gemoras which talk about the mitzva of loving - Chazal clearly do not use the term the way you do.
ReplyDeleteVayikra (19:18): Do not take revenge or bear a grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your fellow as yourself – I am G d.
Ramban (Vayikra 19:18): Loving your fellow as yourself is hyperbole because a person is not capable of loving another as he loves himself. In addition R’ Akiva has already stated that your life always takes precedence over the life of your fellow (Bava Metzia 62a).
Rosh (Bava Metzia 5:6): Our Rabbis taught that if two people were traveling and one of them had a container of water. If they both drink from it they will both end of dying. If one of the drinks he will be able to survive. Ben Putrin said that it is best if both drink and both die and that they shouldn’t see the other one dying. When R’ Akiva came he taught “And your brother shall live with you” means that your life takes precedence over the life of your fellow. Even though this verse is understood by R’ Eliezer to mean that ribis paid can be recovered through the courts – But the halacha can be learned from the single word “with you” which means that the life of your brother is secondary to yours and therefore your life takes precedence.
Chinuch (#243): This is a mitzva to love every single Jew with a deep love. In other words he should have mercy on Jews and on their money as a person would have mercy on himself and his own money as it says in Vayikra (19:18): And you shall love your fellow as yourself.. …
Rambam (Hilchos De’os 6:3): It is a mitzva for everyone to love each and every Jew as his own self (k’gufo) as it says (Vayikra 19:18): You shall love your fellow as yourself. Therefore it is necessary to speak his praises and to be concerned about his money as he would be concerned about his own money and wants his own honor. In contrast a person who is honored by the degradation of another person – has no portion in the World to Come.
@Eddie I am getting hoarse repeating myself - show me were chazal say there is an obligation of a husband to love his wife in the sense you claim that is found in Tanach
ReplyDeleteNot my sparring partner on Seforim blog?
ReplyDeleteOf course I have an agenda - like everybody else. It's just not a negative one! In this case, my agenda was to satisfy my curiosity as to why you posted this Besht.
ReplyDeleteRare summer praise from Eddie!
ReplyDelete@Chaim I hope you now understand that this is not an isolated extreme view and therefore it needs to be dealt with and understood - that is why I posted it. I don't understand why you find that so puzzling
ReplyDeleteThere is a Mesora in Clal Yisrael that אהבה means "love". As we know what love is, we therefore know what אהבה is! Otherwise you can doubt anything - prove to me that כלב is a dog, יונה is a dove, חנית is a spear etc.
ReplyDelete"it doesn't say he has an obligation to be nice to her- nor does it say that he must value and cherish her as as a person."
ReplyDeleteIf you "honestly" think that אוהבה כגופו ומכבדה יותר מגופו does not obligate a man "to be nice to" his wife and to "value and cherish her as a person", then I'm at a loss as to how to enlighten you.
@chaim - you repeatedly ignore the basic fact that the gemora does not say that he has an obligation - it says if he does this he will have shalom bayis.
ReplyDeleteI am at a loss to understand why you are unable to read the gemora properly and I am at a loss how to enlighten you.
I have the same problem. This blog is a complete mishmash of postings about seemingly random topics such as euthanasia, child support, gittin, wife beating, OTD children, siruvin, Aish Hatorah, nasal balloon therapy and similar. Granted sex abuse and related issues seem to be a slight majority. It used to be a good blog but has now lost its way. I am about to give up on it.....
ReplyDelete@Chaim - what mesora are you referring to? As the citation of the Ramban and Rosh show - ahava regarding Chazal's understanding of the verse means to be nice. Halacha is based on this understand of Chazal - it is not based on your so-called mesora.
ReplyDeleteWe are not poskening from cherry picked verses in Nach nor from diyukim in rishonim. Halacha is based on Chazal. The gemora that says to love one's wife is clearly not an obligation but simply advice.
Paskening from understanding of Nach even when it clearly is not the understanding of Chazal - might be good for the Reform and Conservative movements but it isn't acceptable in Orthodox circles.
i told u, look through the back catalogue on here for some examples
ReplyDeleteI am sorry if your fingers got hoarse from typing.
ReplyDeleteI concur with you - Shlomo Hamelech is giving ADVICE, just as Chazal give advice, rather than oblige. it may not be possible in every case to love the wife, i do not know.
My point is that certain things are a given. It may not be halacha in the Shulchan Aruch or Gemara, but there are things we do which might also not be found there. I think that is what Chaim means by mesora, mesora of language, which is not quite oral law. And i think it is dangerous to mock, chas v'shalmo, the Nach which is Divrei Nevuah, or to relegate it to a pastime we have between Kriat HaTorah and Musaf. we make a brocho on Neviei HaEmet, hence to mock or relegate the Neviim is both apikorsus and brocha l'vatala (of course i am exagegrating the point here about chas' vshalom mocking Neviim).
Nowadays it is an extremist isolated view. See the post on this very blog of February 5 2012 and http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf
ReplyDeleteSo whatever any poskim said historically, the haskofo has changed. Anybody keeping the old haskofoh is adopting an extremist view which is today considered incorrect.
Aruch L’Ner (Kerisus 28a): ...This that the Beis Shmuel says that a man should honor his wife – we do not find that this means an obligation. In fact in Yevamos (62a) and in Sanhedrin (76b) it says that if a man honors his wife more than himself... the verse You shall know that there is peace in your tent is applied. This language implies that it is only a act of piety (midos chasidus) to not be insistent on one’s honor against her. In fact according to the straight law she is obligated to honor him more than he honors her.
ReplyDeleteOK, thank you!
ReplyDeleteI remember hearing R' Avigdor Miller זצ"ל making this point. He said that the fact that the Torah uses a Lashon of דביקות between man and wife, which is the same Lashon used to describe our ideal relationship with Hashem - ובו תדבק - is not insignificant.
ReplyDeleteSee also the Ramban (השגות על ספר המצות שורש ה), who writes about the parent-child relationship אתה מתחייב באהבתו, even though there is no source for this obligation, Presumably he held it was a simple סברא, and I agree with you that a similar thing can be said about a person's wife.
This is what you wrote originally:
ReplyDelete"Sanhedrin 76b - it doesn't say he has an obligation to be nice to her- nor does it say that he must value and cherish her as as a person. It says if he wants Shalom bayis he should be nice to her and buy her jewelry (Rashi)."
I understood that you were saying that the Gemara's idea of loving one's wife does not include valuing and cherishing her as a person. Now I realise that בחפזי I misunderstood your intention - you agree that these things are included in "love", and you were merely pointing out that there is no OBLIGATION to love one's wife - it is merely good advice.
But if I now understand you correctly, then I don't understand how your explanation defends (your understanding of) the Besht. You agree that the Gemara is giving good advice to love (read: value and cherish) one's wife, and yet the Besht seems to be dissuading people from doing this!
Now you are confusing me. Could you state clearly whether you think that valuing and cherishing one's wife is:
ReplyDelete(1) praised in the Gemara but is not obligatory;
(2) not mentioned in the Gemara at all.
We find plenty of times in Chazal the idea of כדי לחבבה על בעלה. What do you think this means?
ReplyDelete(For example, Nidda 31b: אמרה תורה תהא טמאה שבעה ימים כדי שתהא חביבה על בעלה כשעת כניסתה לחופה )
@Shimon - I don't agree that you can so casually discard hashkofa by claiming that it is an extremist isolated view. As the various sources that I have cited - it seems to be an ideal that is still relevant.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that most people are not on the proper level to follow it - doesn't mean that it has been displaced. It is highly unlikely that it represented the majority view or that of the masses - but it still represents an ideal to strive for.
In sum - your black and white description that you either follow it or reject it is simply wrong.
@Chaim - it doesn't say that it is an obligation. It also doesn't say that endearment means love in the modern sense. If a woman doesnt have a period - are you claiming she has a Torah obligation to stay away from her husband a number of days per month.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore the ease of divorce made it necessary to give advice to the women to reduce the likelihood that he would be irritated with her. That is not love that is bribing.
See Radak Malachi (2:14): כל שכן כשהיא אשת נעוריך שיש לך לאהוב אותה יותר! So the נביא is telling us in Hashem's name, that one is expected to love one's wife (at least his אשת נעורים). This probably comes as a big Chiddush to you!
ReplyDelete@Chaim - Sanhedrin 76 and Yevamos 62 describing love and honoring basically as being nice to her. It cdoesn't saying anything about cherishing or valuing
ReplyDeleteYou have been insisting that the words love and honor mean cherishing and valuing - there is no evidence from these gemoros or the Rambam's rewording that that is so.
You make wild claims about "many frum men raping married women," and when challenged, you are naturally unable to provide sources, so you tell me to find examples. Typical of your dishonest modus operandi. More of your baseless hatred.
ReplyDelete@ It is assumed that is true - but it is not saying he is obligated to make it so. Simple observation - it is more likely that a man will feel strongly about, cherish, value his first wife of his youth. It is not demanded that he do.
ReplyDelete@ Chaim - lets talk about displacement of bait and switching. A marriage is likely to survive and be pleasant to both sides if there is love. As a minimum being nice, giving - at least acting as if the spouse is important to you. Marriage typicallly has a emotional component based on sexual attraction and sexual relations.
ReplyDeleteThe point of the Besht and especially the Igros Kodesh is that one should use this natural or sexual attraction and pleasure that one has in marriage and start redirecting it towards G-d and keeping mitzvos. If one doesn't have a good relationship with one's wife - the Igros Kodesh indicates you are not going to have a good relationship with G-d. That is why the Rambam teaches the meaning of love of G-d in the experience of loving one's wife.
The point of the Besht is to get past that and eventually transfer it all to G-d.There are many sources describing this displacement.
Thus a good marriage relationship is just the beginning and eventually a person should use that experience of love and loving in his relationship with G-d.
The Gemara clearly shows how there is a Torah ideal that a woman be חביבה על בעלה. I'm not sure why you don't want to accept this. R' Meir is stating that the Halachos of Nidda are in order to safeguard this ideal. That doesn't mean we don't need to learn יו"ד ח"ב properly in order to know הלכות נדה, or to invent our own הרחקות when the Torah doesn't - but that is not germane. If you think that a woman being חביבה על בעלה - and we know what that means - is unimportant, then you are choosing to ignore R' Meir's words.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't know what love is, where do I start?
ReplyDeleteRav DT - let me ask another question, although Tenach doesn't seem to carry much weight with you these days: When it says that David loved Jonathan more than women, what does this say? That he was nicer to his friend Jonathan than to women? It seems the the presumed love for women was something very deep, although not necessarily the modern day version or even Shakespearian. For one reason or other, David was very deeply in "love" with Jonathan, again not romantic (chas v'shalom), but in every way that is proper. It does not seem to be talking about just being nice and lending sheep and horses to Jonathan.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.timesofisrael.com/safed-yeshiva-head-is-the-rabbi-nabbed-for-alleged-sex-crimes/
ReplyDeletep... off you moron
@Eddie - as I have mentioned a number of times term love means a variety of things. However in general it means being nice and that is the way Chazal understand it in relationship to the mitzva of loving your fellow, loving a ger, loving one's wife
ReplyDelete@Cjhaim - she can be chaviv - because she deals with her husband's sexual needs, because she is attractive, because she makes his breakfast, because she flatters his ego etc etc - none of these are your definition of love
ReplyDeleteThe words שיש לך ל... mean: "that you should..." Why are you trying to avoid the Pashtus?
ReplyDeleteOK then. So why do you seem intent on being דוחה any ראיה that there is an obligation to love one's wife in the common understanding of love. This would not be a contradiction to the Besht, who is talking about a later, higher דרגה!
ReplyDeleteWe find a similar thing in Tefilla. Many Sefarim stress the importance of Kavana in Peirush HaMillos, and R' Nachman of Breslov writes that one shouldn't ask from the Mekubalim who have different Kavanos, because their Kavanos include ours (whateve that means). So for the המון עם, one is obligated to be מכוין פירוש המלות, but someone who has reached a higher plane can discharge this obligation in a different way.
I am trying to understand how you displace this love/sexuality, when some of the sources on prishut tell you to consider the whole sex/love /intimacy with a woman as disgusting, and only a concession to one's yetzer hara. how then, can this illicit pleasure, be displaced towards Hashem? In addition to this, G0d Himself seems to say that "it was very good" ie man and woman. It is therefore clear that G0d is not a Catholic, since they 9and the Besht ) consider this to in fact be very bad!
ReplyDeleteThat's one so far unproven allegation, not "many" as you claimed and kishkeyum correctly disputed.
ReplyDeleteAnd even that one allegation wasn't forcible rape but rather voluntary on the part of the women.
I think that you are conflating my view of love with conjugal lust. That is not what I was referring to and was never my intent. What I was saying is that there is a value in an emotional attachment besides an intellectual and logical appreciation. One can love tefillin and mitzvos or lehavdil computers or good books with more than just an intellectual appreciation. This also applies to love for a woman and I believe that is the Rambam’s intent.
ReplyDeleteInitially, the physical factor plays a role in the attraction and can enhance the emotional connection
at a higher level. When one makes a bracha on a delicious fruit, the wonderful taste plays a role in creating the appreciation for the fruit.
Kedushas Levi (Bereishis 224:67): …. The second type is the love which is not concerned with satisfying his physical lusts but rather is because she is an instrument that enables him to fulfill the commands
of his Creator – thus he loves her just as he loves the other mitzvos. This is called love of his wife. That is the meaning of “And Yitzchok loved her.” He had no thoughts regarding physical lust but only loved her because she enabled him to fulfill the mitzvos of G d.
There is actual love beyond the simple intellectual
appreciation just as one can love a great tzaddik and feel a strong emotional connection to him.
Pele Yoetz (Love between husband and wife) : It is obligatory that there be strong love between husband and wife. …. However the primary love is that concerning the soul.
Yad Rama (Sanhedrin 76b): The braissa says that if a
man loves his wife as himself …That is because love is something which is in the heart and a person is not able to love another more than he loves himself.
Note he says the heart and not the head.
Orchos Tzadikim (Shaar 5 – Love): The love of women should be in the following manner. He should think that she is saving him from sin, and keeping
him distant from adultery and through her he is fulfilling the mitzva of having children, and she raises his children, and she works for him the entire day,
and she prepares food and other needs of the household. Because of her activities he is free to learn Torah and to be involved in other mitzvos. She
is helping him to serve G d.
He says love and not appreciation.
@Eddie read Igros Kodesh
ReplyDelete@Chaim - it is iimportant to understand what the gemora means. It is also important to understand what is needed for a relationship to work - Chazal are not providing a clear program for a working marriage.
ReplyDelete@Chaim - are you claiming there is an obligation or advice?
ReplyDeleteI am saying that the Radak is saying that there is an obligation.
ReplyDeleteTook the words out of my mouth. One case, he protests innocence, and it's not a rape accusation. And I'm the moron.
ReplyDeleteAnd where, Eddie, are the "examples" you claim can be found in the back catalogue here?
@RDE: You asked for proofs that halachic "love" requires one to have feelings of love for the other, to cherish and value them. I have several, from Chazal and Rishonim.
ReplyDeleteLet me first clarify what lies between us. In your view, there is no halachic obligation to feel love for a person. All that is required is for one to perform loving deeds, to be nice and not mean. In mine, the obligation to love includes its simple meaning: to feel love for the other in one's heart, to value the person etc.
My proofs:
a) Rambam rules that one who hates another person "in his heart" -- meaning, he harbors feelings of hatred, but takes no action -- violates the לאו of לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך and the עשה of ואהבת לרעך כמוך. This hatred is specifically only in the heart -- otherwise, there would be no לא תשנא -- but in deed, the person does nothing wrong. He is perfectly nice, and does all the loving acts he is required to do. Yet, he violates the commandment to love one's fellow. Clearly, there is an obligation to harbor feelings of love in one's heart for a fellow Jew. One's wife is included.
b) The Gemara (Niddah 17a) rules that a person may not be משמש מטתו ביום b/c he might see דבר מגונה and תתגנה אשתו עליו, and this violates the מצוות עשה of ואהבת לרעך כמוך. According to you, there is no obligation to have feelings of love. So long as he performs loving deeds and is nice, he fulfills the mitzvah of loving one's fellow. Yet, this Gemara says that b/c the husband feels disgust for his wife, he transgresses this commandment. Evidently, the mitzvah includes a requirement to feel love for one's fellow.
c) The Gemara (Kiddushin 41a) rules that one may not marry a woman without seeing her first b/c when he meets her, he might discover something that causes him to be disgusted with her, which would transgress the mitzvah of ואהבת לרעך כמוך. That is to say, even though he treats her properly, his feelings of disgust violate the commandment. Again, we see the commandment requires feelings of love, for a person to value and cherish his fellow, in this case his wife.
d) Another proof, similar to the previous two: Tosefta (Sotah 5:6) rules that a person who marries a woman who is אינה הוגנת לו violates several לאוין, one of which is ואהבת לרעך כמוך, presumably b/c her unworthiness causes him to dislikes her. Again, it's only a matter of how he feels about her, not how he treats her. Yet, he transgresses the commandment to love her.
In addition, there is the diyuk in Yad Ramah I cited earlier, and of course, the plain meaning of the pasuk, which is to feel love for one's fellow -- אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו.
[Let me add, none of this is a סתירה to the requirements cited in Rambam and others to perform loving deeds etc. There's no reason the obligation of love cannot include both an obligation to feel love for another and an obligation to treat him in a loving manner. In my view, that's precisely what going on.]
Where do your sources say it is still relevant in today's age? Bring me some proof from chazal of our day. On the contrary all the sources of today say the opposite. So it is perfectly acceptable to reject it. Its not halochoh its haskofoh and even it was halochoh it can still be rejected like different groups do with different bits of Shulchan Oruch.
ReplyDeleteIn addition all your sources say different things so its imprecise to lump them all and analyse them together.
As far as chazal and the torah are concerned, there is nothing wrong with a ten year old girl being married off by her father for a full sexual relationship. Is that still relevant today? And what about the Rambam's view that a wife should not go outdoors more than a view times a month?
married women...
ReplyDelete@Shimon your strident tone is inappropriate - pleas read Rav Lichenstein article again. His point that one needs to consult with community rabbonim as to what is appropriate.
ReplyDeleteIn addition - we generally don't describe views of chazal as being rejected. It could be that certain goals are values are not appropriate for a particular community at a particular time in history - but it doesn't mean the values are rejected. In addition - the views of Chazal establish goals or values. How they manifest themselves depends on the community. The idea of doing things leshem shamayim has not been rejected - but needs to be implemented in a way which is productive for that individual or community.
Bottom line - your understanding of Chazal is wrong and is not expressed with proper derech eretz. You seem to think that Judaism has progressed and that anything you don't like is simply primitive chas v'shalom.
@Kishkeyum - your proofs are not up to your normal standard of discourse. Your diyukim are not proofs nor are they true. Please bring actual proofs. Does anyone actually say what you are inferring?
ReplyDeleteDid I use the words rejected, progressive, primitive or wrong? The word I used was relevant.
ReplyDeleteOf course you should consult community rabbonim. And NO community rov today follows the approach promulgated in this post.
A hundred years ago it was considered wrong in many circles to give girls any sort of chinuch. Many ladies could not even read hebrew and were very ignorant (despite what revisionist charedi historians may tell you). And it is logical to assume that chazal of that time saw nothing wrong with it otherwise they would have changed it. But now since the Beis Yackov movement they do see something wrong with it and it has changed.
Anyway you didn't address any of my specific points.
A new type of דיחוי - "your proofa are not proofs".
ReplyDeleteWhat is my definition of love?
ReplyDeleteDid I use the words rejected, progressive, primitive or wrong? The word I used was relevant.
ReplyDelete@Chaim is not a new approach. It is simply pointing out that all his so called proofs are not proofs. He claimed that he had proof that love is required - and all one can learn from his sources is that one can not have hatred. But he did not show that love is required but merely that one can not have hatred. The opposite of hatred is not love.
ReplyDeleteIf he were correct than the source merely had to alter their form and say one should love - why is it in the negative form of do not hate? I wonder why my comment was too difficult for you to comprehend?
That sounds like a pop song!
ReplyDelete1 Samuel Chapter 18 שְׁמוּאֵל א
ReplyDeleteא וַיְהִי, כְּכַלֹּתוֹ לְדַבֵּר אֶל-שָׁאוּל, וְנֶפֶשׁ
יְהוֹנָתָן, נִקְשְׁרָה בְּנֶפֶשׁ דָּוִד; ויאהבו (וַיֶּאֱהָבֵהוּ)
יְהוֹנָתָן, כְּנַפְשׁוֹ.
1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto
Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and
Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
2 Shmuel: Ch1:
כו צַר-לִי עָלֶיךָ, אָחִי יְהוֹנָתָן--נָעַמְתָּ לִּי, מְאֹד; נִפְלְאַתָה אַהֲבָתְךָ לִי, מֵאַהֲבַת נָשִׁים.
26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant hast thou been unto me; wonderful was thy love to me, passing the love of women.
This cannot be speaking about just being nice. David is making a kal v'chomer here. It is an ironic statement, however, it speaks of a love which is a .נִפְלְאַ
This is not the same kind of love that you are talking about, it is not a clinical being nice, ie I am obliged to offer people who even insult me on here tea and cookies, because it is a mitzva to love my fellow Jew.
I think it is dangerous to discard the written Torah - it is sort of becoming an inverse Karaite, ie acpting the Oral Law but rejecting the Written. The neviim were Chazal - they were the Chachamim Kadmonim, and the Tannaim were the Chchamim of the 2nd Temple and after. David Hamelech - we are told - was head of the Sanhedrin, ie he was a Talmid Hacham, hence we can learn from his words , and do not need to reject them.
if it is not rape, why has he been arrested by the authorities? many secular Israelis engage in arayos, but they are not arrested, since it is not rape.
ReplyDeleteNope - I read it but don't really comment there
ReplyDeletePresumably, he was arrested b/c he abused his position as rabbi and counselor by seducing these women. That is not the same as forcible rape, but it is against the law, hence his arrest. But you knew that, right? These nonsensical comments are just to save face.
ReplyDeleteThe point is that he violates the עשה through feelings alone. Clearly, the עשה is not only about actions, but about feelings as well. You are arguing that the only feelings the עשה addresses are those of hatred, not of love. That makes no sense. This is an עשה to love, it is not an עשה not to hate. The reason it is transgressed through harboring feelings of hatred is that they are not feelings of love. As for your argument that if so, the source should have said the positive form -- that one should love -- that too is baseless, b/c (a) the positive requirement is stated explicitly in the verse, and (b) it is not the point in this mitzvah, which is the ל"ת of לא תשנא. The Rambam is in Sefer Hamitzvos on לא תשנא. In the course of explaining לא תשנא, he notes that one who feels hatred for another also violates ואהבת לרעך.
ReplyDeleteI think the proofs are strong. You've noted your objection to proof A below, and I've responded. What are your objections to B,C,D (all variations of the same proof)?
ReplyDelete@Eddie why do you think that every place the word love is mention it means the same thing?
ReplyDeletethus the meaning of "I love baseball" is the same as "Yonason loved Dovid" and is the same as "A man loves his wife" or "I love my country.". And therefore you are claiming that whatever characterizes one relationship must characterize the other?! Now I understand why you value Freud so much.
@Kishkeyum - you are making a lot of assumption and drawing conclusion - which apparently are not mentioned by anyone else - if you acutally have sources please cite them. I asked you to tell me how Chazal describe the mitzva of love - and so far you haven't - Why not?
ReplyDeleteThe issue of not hating - does not mean to love. One fulfils the condition by not hating. Please cigte any sources that claim that if you don't love you hate or if you don't hate you love?!
You cited the gemora which said that a man should not hate his wife during intercourse. Does that mean he must love her in your sense of cherish and value. The gemora states that one can lie to one's wife and promise her gifts that he has no intention of giving to placate her to have sex - is that an example of love as you understand it? He clearly is acting as if he values her - but there clearly is no such feeling in his heart. Ritzoi means that she is placated- it does not mean love as you are presenting it.
I don't really have time tp keep refuting your creative "proofs" - simply show me the Chazal or at least the rishonim and achronim who understand that there is a requirement of love in your sense rather than being nice . assertion as to what our Sages must have meant - need to be backed up by sources which clearly state that that is an acceptable understanding.
Not every truth should a husband be relating to his wife.
ReplyDeleteYou are ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that ואהבת לרעך כמוך is not only about what you do but also about what you feel. This is contrary to your assertion. You are saying a sevarah to differentiate between feelings of hate and those of love. You are welcome to your sevarah, but it is your own, and it does not address the basic fact, which is that the obligation of ואהבת is also about what you feel, as I have shown from Chazal and Rishonim.
ReplyDeleteactually we are not in disagreement - at least not from my end.
ReplyDeleteIf I understand your position it is that Love, ie the David loved Bathsheba category is not a halachic requirement, ie the Sages did not impose this on a man. And this is understandable, how can they impose something that is not always possible? But it is highly recommended, and is an ideal state for marriage to be in, as per the many sources in the Writings.
So I am not claiming it is halachically binding on a man to love his wife in that way, but it is certainly an ideal situation.
@Kishkeyum - I don't agree that you have proven or shown anything. You have raised questions and offered hypotheses - but youhave shown anybody actually understands the material the way you have interpreted it.
ReplyDeleteThe term love is understood in different ways. You can not claim that how it is used in one place proves how it is used in another - at best it is a possility. The relationship of man and G-d doesn't mean a similar relationship between man and woman or between Jews. If I love my Cheerios it is reasonable I mean something different that the former relationships.
There is one statement in chazal regaring man loving his wife -Yevamos 62 and Sanhedrin 76. It is advice not an obligation as clearly stated by the Aruch Lner.
You have not found any sources that prove that this gemora is referring to cherishing and valuing her as an individual.
Don't see any point of continuing to engage in a Senator Aiken style debate - where you make assertion based solely on your conjecture and then you announce that your point has been proved. It hasn't!
I have demonstrated that ואהבת לרעך כמוך is an obligation that demands not only action, but also feelings. This contradicts your assertion to the contrary. The fact that the term "love" means different things in different places is not relevant here, since I am addressing the meaning of the term in the case of ואהבת לרעך specifically. A wife is included in ואהבת לרעך, which means that the feelings required by that mitzvah apply to her as well. That is the gist of my proof. You are of course welcome to disengage, but frankly, I don't see where you have refuted my position.
ReplyDeleteבעל הטורים דברים פרשת ואתחנן פרק ה פסוק טז: בני מריבה שהם מתקוטטים ביחד בכל פעם, דהויא ביאה זו כמו זנות כיוןשאינה מתוך אהבה
ReplyDelete@Kishkeyum - sorry don't agree with you. Loving your fellow man does not inherently require that you feel - and you have not proven otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that a wife is included - means that the chidush is that she is a human being and a Jew and must be treated like all other human beings who are Jews. Not a very helpful prescription for marriage. Likewise she has an obligation to him since he is a human being and a Jew. Don't remember anywhere that says that a wife is obligated to love her husband.
Bottom line - you have not shown any support for an obligation to cherish and value one's spouse. The fact that it does happen doesn't prove that the Torah requires it.
מקום הניחו לך
ReplyDeleteThank you for explaining you objection. Just saying "your proof is no proof", without explanation, is a generic type of דיחוי which if valid could be used to destroy any argument!
ReplyDeleteWell, obviously I disagree, but there's nothing to be gained by repetition of what's already been said, so I'll leave it at that.
ReplyDeleteHello! I'm very excited sharing this amazing testimony about how i
ReplyDeletesave my marriage, My name is Lisa Buckley, I live in Dubai,UAE. my
husband and i got married for more than 11 years and have gotten two
kids. thing were going well with us and we are always happy. until one
day my husband started to behave in a way i could not understand, i was
very confused by the way he treat me and the kids. later that month he
did not come home again and he called me that he want a divorce, i asked
him what have i done wrong to deserve this from him, all he was saying
is that he want a divorce that he hate me and do not want to see me
again in his life, i was mad and also frustrated do not know what to
do,i was sick for more than 2 weeks because of the divorce. i love him
so much he was everything to me without him my life is incomplete. i
told my sister and she told me to contact a spell caster, i never
believe in all this spell casting of a thing. i just want to try if
something will come out of it. i contacted Dr Sam for the return of my
husband to me, they told me that my husband have been taken by another
woman, that she cast a spell on him that is why he hate me and also want
us to divorce. then they told me that they have to cast a spell on him
that will make him return to me and the kids, they casted the spell and
after 1 week my husband called me and he told me that i should forgive
him, he started to apologize on phone and said that he still live me
that he did not know what happen to him that he left me. it was the
spell that he Dr Sam coasted on him that make him come back to me
today,me and my family are now happy again today. thank you Dr Sam for
what you have done for me i would have been nothing today if not for
your great spell. i want you my friends who are passing through all this
kind of love problem of getting back their husband, wife , or ex
boyfriend and girlfriend to contact Dr Sam ,if you need his help you can
contact him through his private E-mail: salvationlovetemple@gmail.com
or you can contact him through his Web site
:http://lovespelltemple.weebly.com/. Thanks you Dr Sam, i Lisa will
always be testifying about your good work.
E-mail: salvationlovetemple@gmail.com .
Web site:http://lovespelltemple.weebly.com/,
With all due respect, Rabbi, is that a serious question? Shir Hashirim isn't a model for marriage. It's a model Israel's relationship with the RBS using the metaphor of an ideal marriage. Clearly, romantic love between husband and wife is the highest form of love and the Torah ideal. Else, why would Shlomo haMelech, the wisest of men, have used it as the metaphor? Shlomo was a pretty smart guy. He knew the difficulty in describing a close, intimate relationship with an incorporeal, omnipotent, eternal Being, so he used the metaphor of a close, intimate relationship that with which everyone is familiar. You know how you feel when your spouse is away, how empty and incomplete you feel? You know how loving you feel when your spouse returns and you can be together once more? You how miserable you feel when your spouse is angry at you and how relieved and happy you are when you're forgiven? THATS how you're supposed to feel about your relationship with the RBSO. That's deveikus and the model for deveikus ba'Shem is the deveikus between husband and wife which is the first reference to the concept in Torah.
ReplyDelete@Redleg - again I repeat the question. Please explain how Shir Shirim describes a marriage that is to be emulated. It is describing 2 lovers. Not aware that it says anywhere that there is a marriage. Thus is is descriptive of a passionate relationship. Thus it is descriptive - a metaphor for a passionate relationship with G-d. Just like the Rambam uses a man's passion for a woman to describe how he should love G-d - but he doesn't turn it around and say that that passion is prescriptive of a marriage.
ReplyDeletePlease explain how Shir HaShirim is prescriptive of a marriage. Every Chasan and Kallah reads it to get ready for marriage?! You might have also notice that there are no children in Shir HaShirim. It doesn't fit very well with the relative tranquil life a kollel avreich - and again how would you use Shir HaShirim in marriage counseling? You might want to read the Malbim's introduction and explanation of what it is all about.
In sum, you are assuming that it is prescriptive about the nature of marriage which I am asking for proof for proof. Citations from Shulchan Aruch or gedolim citing it a model for couples with Shalom Bayis problems or issues of intimacy when they have 5 young children who need their attention would be a good place to start.
Rabbi Eidensohn: " It is describing 2 lovers. Not aware that it says anywhere that there is a marriage."
ReplyDeleteRashi:
פרק א פסוק ב
ישקני מנשיקות פיהו. זה השיר
אומרת בפיה בגלותה ובאלמנותה מי יתן וישקני המלך שלמ' מנשיקות פיהו כמו מאז לפי
שיש מקומות שנושקין על גב היד ועל הכתף אך אני מתאוה ושוקקת להיותו נוהג עמי כמנהג
הראשון כחתן אל כלה פה אל פה
פרק ד פסוק א
שערך כעדר העזים. הקילוס הזה
דוגמת קילוס אשה הנאהבת לחתן
פרק ה פסוק ז
וכן כל הענין לשון אשת
נעורים המתאוננת על בעל נעוריה ומבקשתו
פרק ח פסוק ה
והוא לשון חבת אשת נעורים המעוררת
את דודה בלילות בתנומות עלי משכב מחבקתו ומנשקתו
@Chaim - thanks for the Rashi - However I was referring to Shir HaShirim itself. Does Shir HaShirim say that it is describing a married couple? It is describing feelings of passion between two people. Are there any sources that say it is more than a description of two people in love but that it is prescriptive that a husband and wife should relate this way? Does the Rambam? Does the Shulchan Aruch etc etc Rashi is clearly descriptive - not prescriptive
ReplyDeleteMy first reaction to your rambam quote reminded me of maslow's theory of hierarchies, then i ealized the rambam (aristotle) doesn't rank them the way maslow does. (Actually, the concept of 'daas torah' as advocated by charedim today negates any such ranking. They negate any such needs to whatever their daas torah demands of them. Provided the rav at least provides them with the first or two levels of security.)
ReplyDeleteIt is both a descriptive model of a perfect Love/Marriage - which is not possible to legislate, since not everyone is so lucky in life, and this serves as a moshul for our relationship with Hashem, which is halachically required. The problem is, what if someone does not experience the first, how can he emulate the second?
ReplyDeleteI think that I, as do many commentators on this blog, think that it is פשוט that if the Torah uses a passionate marriage (as Rashi tells us) as a Mashal for our relationship with הקב"ה, then it seems that this sort of marriage is endorsed and encouraged by the Torah. Obviously, you feel differently. But the absence of such encouragement in Rambam/Shulchan Aruch is not difficult, because we are not dealing with a technical חובת האברים but rather with a general positive attitude towards a passionate marriage, which tends towards the חובות הלבבות which are generally not dealt with as much by the Poskim. Also, not every laudable attitude is an obligation. ודו"ק.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting point.
ReplyDelete@Chaim - Shir HaShirim is not describing a viable marriage. It describes two people who are separated who long for each other. That is why it is a moshol for the Jews in exile. Don't understand why you think it is coming to describe an ideal marriage. There is definitely passion - but the passion is the result of separation. If you want to follow this through then taking it as a role model for marriage as you do - Shlomo HaMelech is saying to separate - live permanently in two different locations because the longing is the critical factor for a passionate loving relationship!
ReplyDeleteSo what is it - setting the ideal as a passionate marriage brought about be permanent separation of a parable for the relationship between G-d and Israel in Exile. You can't have it both ways.
If it's real, it needs a strong emotional component. Not just going through the motions.
ReplyDelete@Ram500 - the issue is what is the Jewish view of marriage. You are obviously entitled to you opinion - but that doesn't constitute proof of its validity
ReplyDeleteYour statement is very strange - do you think that the Nimshal of Shir HaShirim is (ח"ו) advice to stay away from Hashem in order to increase our longing for Him?
ReplyDelete@Chaim you are ignoring what I said. Shir HaShirim is not about a normal marriage. It is the longing expressed by two people who are separated from each other. If they weren't separated then the nature of their relationship would be different
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of Shir HaShirim is not to teach about marriage or love of men and women - but to express the longing for G-d because of Exile. Obviously if the Jews were not in Exile the strength of longing would not be so strong.
So while there are positive consequences of being in Exile - as well as suffering in general - not aware that anyone is suggesting that is the preferred state of existence.
How should a Jew want to relate to his/her spouse above and beyond the minimum halachic requirements?
ReplyDeleteThe Gemara says:
ReplyDeleteת''ר האוהב את אשתו כגופו והמכבדה יותר מגופו והמדריך בניו ובנותיו בדרך ישרה
והמשיאן סמוך לפירקן עליו הכתוב אומר וידעת כי שלום אהלך
You claim that this is not an obligation. But Tosafos (s.v. חייב) explicitly writes otherwise:
ומסתמא כיון שמתאוה לו יש לו לפוקדה דהמכבד אשתו עליו הכתוב אומר אז תקרא וגו'
It is obvious that Tosafos considers this to be an obligation because otherwise Tosafos's Pshat in the Gemara will not work, עיין שם. And obviouslt, once כיבוד is a Chiyuv, so must אהבה be a Chiyuv, because they are in the same list, in the same מאמר.
@Chaim don't agree with your reasoning. Furthermore the Aruch LeNer explicitly says otherwise.
ReplyDeleteYou are doing that דיחוי-without-explaining-yourself thing again. I have shown you an explicit Tosafos, which if you look up, will show you that they clearly learn that the Gemara means an obligation, and this is the entire basis for the Gemara's קושיא. Tell me how you can learn Tosafos differently!
ReplyDeleteThe ערוך לנר is not like Tosafos.
a very interesting halachic debate - please continue!
ReplyDelete@Chaim - sorry but I don't see that Tosfos is claiming it is a chiyuv to honor one's wife and that therefore he is also claiming that it is a chiyuv to love her. My translaton of Tosfos is "that it is reasonable that since she desires him - he is to pay attention to her because one who honors his wife is described in the verse..."
ReplyDeleteAgain I will repeat myself - if in fact you think you have a genuine diyuk - then please show me some standard commentary that agrees with you. Rav Soloveitchik had a general principle that an issue that has been ignored throughout history - is not to be viewed as something significant.
He once found a glaring contradiction between two fundamental texts - which nobody mentioned. 6 months later during summer recess he called the whole class back in session to announce that apparently the question was the result of an incorrect girsa.
But he emphasized that his main point and the reason he felt it necessary to interrupt the summer break - was not that he found an answer but that he had eliminated what appeared to be a major question that was ignored by the Mesora. the Mesora doesn't ignore major questions.
Aside from the Aruch LNer, Rav Zilberstein also clearly states that the basis of love of one's wife is from the same verse that one loves his fellow man. This is not the cherishing etc that you claim is meant by love. While neither of them is Tosfos - but they explicitly contradicted your thesis and you haven't cited anyone who explicitly agrees with you.
In conclusion, the burden of proving that there is an obligation to love one's wife - differently than one's neighbor - by cherishing her and feeling strong emotions about her is on you. Surely if such an assertion is true - in 2000 years of rabbinic literature it is reasonable to expect a general acknowledgment of this - BUT IT DOESN'T EXIST! The best you have done so far is to claim that a diyuk in Tosfos implies such a principle.
I am not impressed and I don't see spending more time on beating a dead horse or evaluating supposed inferences that nobody else has seen or utilized.
Rabbi E - I too am not interested in getting into a big discussion. We are not addressing the definition of אהבה, of which you clearly have a different understanding than do I. I am addressing only one point - whether the statement in Yevamos 62b that:
ReplyDeleteת''ר האוהב את אשתו כגופו והמכבדה יותר מגופו והמדריך בניו ובנותיו בדרך ישרה
והמשיאן סמוך לפירקן עליו הכתוב אומר וידעת כי שלום אהלך
is simply telling us that one who does these things will benefit as a result, or whether it actually implies that there is some level of obligation to do these things. You claim that the understanding has always been that there is no obligation. This is false. The Beis Yosef Even HaEzer (end of Siman 154) writes explicitly:
מצאתי בתשובת רבינו שמחה: המכה את אשתו מקובלני שיש יותר להחמיר מבמכה את חבירו, דבחבירו אינו חייב בכבודו, ואשתו חייב לכבדה יותר מגופו, והעושה כן יש להחרימו....
This is cited without any dissent, and is to be considered normative Halacha. The Be'er Hagola on the Rema there (Seif 3) writes the same thing in the name of תשובות מהרי"ו הישנים, and the Biur HaGra tells us to look in the באר הגולה, so we have, so far, three of the top Gedolei HaPoskim agreeing that there is an obligation to be מכבדה יותר מגופו, which is obviously how they learnt the Gemara - not like the ערול"נ in Krisus.
Now I did see that in שו"ת מעשה אברהם חושן משפט סימן כח he cites the Beis Yosef and Be'er HaGola and asks on them: how do they know that there is an obligation? He writes that he would have said that there is no obligation, ממש like the ערול"נ. He does not answer the question. Nevertheless, קושיות notwithstanding, the normative accepted opinion of the Gedolei HaPoskim is that there is an obligation.
(Furthermore, the מעשה אברהם cites an Iyun Ya'akov who writes that יש לכבדה יותר מגופו, the simple meaning of which is that there is some level of Mitzva/Chiyuv involved.)
The Rambam explicitly codifies this Gemara as an obligation (Hil. Ishus 15:19):
וְכֵן צִוּוּ חֲכָמִים
שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אָדָם מְכַבֵּד אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ יוֹתֵר מִגּוּפוֹ וְאוֹהֲבָהּ כְּגוּפוֹ.
The Aruch LaNer you cite is coming to argue with the Be'er Sheva, who assumed that it is an obligation.
So we now have Rabbeinu Simcha, Beis Yosef, Be'er HaGolah, מהרי"ו, Vilna Gaon, Rambam and Be'er Sheva all in agreement that it is an obligation. Yet you write that this is not the normative understanding, based on one comment of the Aruch LaNer!
In fact, in שו"ת אבני יעקב ח"א סי' קעה he asks that the Aruch LaNer is contradicted by the Rambam, and he leaves it צריך עיון.
Interestingly, you yourself cite R' Yitzchak Zilberstein שליט"א, who quotes the above Rambam, and also R' Chaim Kanievsky, that there is both an obligation to love and honour one's wife!
It is obvious, by the way, that this statement in the Gemara, which lumps כיבוד and אהבה together, is either a statement of obligation, or it isn't. If it isn't, then nobody can adduce support from it for anything in the list being an obligation. If it is, then obviously, everything in the list is on obligation. So any source that learns a חיוב כיבוד from this Gemara, must necessarily hold that there is a חיוב אהבה as well; and vice versa.
See also Rabbeinu Efraim על התורה on the Possuk "ואהבת לרעך כמוך", who writes: שצריך לאהוב אשתו כגופו.
Now if you are interested, I can explain how it can be shown that Tosafos must have also understood that this statement implies on obligation, as did the Rishonim and Acharonim throughout the generations, as we have shown. Are you?
@Chaim I am not interested in continuing this discussion because we clearly have different ways of understanding what halacha is and how to read the sources. It is clear that this issue of honoring and loving wives is not a halachic obligation but is mussar. It is something to be concerned about but it is not doreissa or derabbonon.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear from the major of soruces that the gemora is taken literally - as advice - not halacha. See list at end. It is also clear from sources such as BM 59a that say not to bother one's wife because of the consequence - not because it violates halacha.
R. Eleazar said:11 Since the destruction of the Temple, the gates of prayer are locked, for it is written, Also when I cry out, he shutteth out my prayer.12 Yet though the gates of prayer are locked, the gates of tears are not, for it is written, Hear my prayer, O Lord, and give ear unto my cry; hold not thy peace at my tears.13
רבינו יהונתן מלוניל על הרי"ף (סנהדרין (לפי דפי הרי"ף) גמרא דף יח עמוד ב): [סנהדרין עו /ב] האוהב את אשתו כגופו, כלומר שחמל עליה שלא תטרח יותר מדאי. והמכבדה בתכשיטין נאין.
הר"ן על הרי"ף (גיטין נא.): תנו רבנן האוהב את אשתו כגופו וכו'. בפרק הבא על יבמתו הוא (דף סב ב) עליו הכתוב אומר וידעת כי שלום אהלך ופקדת נוך ולא תחטא:
רא"ש (יבמות פרק ו): ת"ר האוהב את אשתו כגופו והמכבדה יותר מגופו והמדריך בניו ובנותיו בדרך ישרה והמשיאן סמוך לפרקן עליו הכתוב אומר וידעת כי שלום אהלך וגו'.
יד רמ"ה (סנהדרין עו:): תניא האוהב את אשתו כגופו כלומר שחס עליה כמו שהוא חס על גופו אבל יתר מגופו לא שייך למימר שהרי אהבה דבר המסור ללב היא ואין אדם יכול לאהב את אחר יתר מגופו אבל לענין כיבוד דבר שאיפשר הוא שהרי יכול לכבדה יתר מגופו במלבושים שנאים יותר משלו.
מאירי (יבמות סב:): האוהב את אשתו כגופו ומכבדה יותר מגופו והמדריך בניו ובנותיו בדרך ישרה ומשיאן סמוך לפרקן עליו הכתוב אומר וידעת כי שלום אהלך ופקדת נוך ולא תחטא
פסקי ריא"ז (יבמות פרק ו - הבא על יבמתו ): וכן האוהב את אשתו כגופו והמכבדה יותר מגופו והמדריך בניו ובנותיו בדרך ישרה, והמשיאן סמוך לפרקן, עליו הכתוב אומר וידעת כי שלום אהלך ופקדת נוך ולא תחטא.
פסקי רי"ד (יבמות סב:): ת"ר האוהב את אשתו כגופו והמכבד' יותר מגופו, והמדריך בניו ובנותיו בדרך ישרה והמשיאן סמוך לפירקן עליו הכת' [אומר] וידעת כי שלו' אהלך ופקדת נוך כול'.
ים של שלמה (יבמות פרק ו ): ת"ר (ס"ב ע"ב) האוהב את אשתו כגופו, והמכבדה יותר מגופו, והמדריך בניו ובנותיו בדרך ישרה, והמשיאן סמוך לפירקן, עליו הכתוב (איוב ה', כ"ד) אומר וידעת כי שלום אהלך וגו',
בכף החיים (סימן ב ס"ק כב) כתב: האר"י ז"ל לא היה חושש בעצמו להתכבד במלבושים נאים יותר מדאי, אבל במלבושי אשתו היה זהיר מאד לכבדה ולהלבישה.
חולין (דף פד ע"ב) לעולם יאכל אדם וישתה פחות ממה שיש לו, וילבש ויתכסה במה שיש לו, ויכבד אשתו ובניו יותר ממה שיש לו, שהן תלויין בו והוא תלוי במי שאמר והיה העולם,
Well, at least your last sentence is one that I can agree with.
ReplyDeleteTo anyone who is reading this - if you see the Tosafos I cited, it is clear that they assumed that the statement is just as Halachically binding as the Gemara's other statement (based on the same Possuk as this one):
ReplyDeleteואמר ריב''ל חייב אדם לפקוד את אשתו בשעה שהוא יוצא לדרך שנא' וידעת כי שלום אהלך
וגו'
This is definitely an actual Halacha - see Yore Deah Siman 184.
Otherwise, the Gemara's question "הא מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא" would not make sense, ודו"ק.
@DT the points you raise about Halacha are interesting - can we assume that all that concerns us about halacha is in the Shulchan aruch or commentaries on it?
ReplyDeleteR' Bleich once defended his position on a matter saying that not everything that is halacha is contained in these halachic works.
And that leads me to the comment of Rav Soloveitchik - and i preface my comments emphasizing that I am a
midget talking about giants.
If an issue has been ignored throughout the ages, or has not been discussed, that doesn't mean it will not one day become an issue. An obvious example is that of child abuse. But the Torah says "כִּי יִפָּלֵא מִמְּךָ דָבָר לַמִּשְׁפָּט"
in other words, something we cannot find sources on. Sometimes even Moshe did not find sources, and had to enquire of Hashem, as did the Kohen gadol.
@Eddie halacha is not a mechanical enterprise that can be determined by a computer. For example the Rambam states that there is no dispute concerning Halcha l'Moshe M'Sinai. There is no ambiguity that he says that and his position is also that of Tosfos and Tosfos Yom Tov - and yet the Chavis Yair (#192) clearly shows that there are in fact major disputes in the gemora concerning that which has been labeled halacha l'Moshe.
ReplyDeleteThere are halacha where are treated as doreissa - where the gemora presents Torah verses as the source of the halacha - but then the gemora states that the halacha is a takana. Thus we see that relying on the lanugage or form of Talmudic presentation to understand the nature of the halacha can be contradicted from other sources.
Also the conclusion of one gemora that something is the accepted halacha is contradicted elese where elsewhere in Shas a different conclusion is reached. Which one is truly the halacha?
The Chazon Ish said the Shulchan Aruch is a fallback position when a contemporary rav can't decide what the halacha is on his own.
As I have mentioned a number of times in the name of Rav Rottenberg, "People say that Rav Moshe poskened from the gemora. It isn't so - he poskened from Heaven."
Where is that citation from Rav Soleveitchik? I in fact have heard just the opposite stated in his name.
I also don't understand why your version is relevant to child abuse. Are you saying we can't deal with child abuse because we don't have a prophet to ask G-d what to do?!
I am in agreement with what you write above. Remember the Maharal's criticism of the S.A. also, ie the posek should still pasken from the Gemara.
ReplyDeleteYou ask for the source for R' Soloveitchik - i was simply quoting what you said earlier "Rav Soloveitchik had a general principle that an issue that has been
ignored throughout history - is not to be viewed as something
significant."
The citation from R' Bleich, if that is what you meant, I have to see if I can look it up, i read this a long time ago when he was discussing the Oslo and land for peace issues.
My point about child abuse was an example that seems to contradict the purported quote from R' Soloveichik, ie something ignored throughout history is not important now. My argument is that an issue may arise, even if it didnt before, so it does become significant.
Finally, it is important to have (as you have shown) a breadth and depth of knowledge of previous poskim who disagree on various issues, and fundamentals. This is to show there is no final "Daas Torah", but several valid traditions.
@Eddie - I don't see that child abuse is relevant. Rav Solveitchik was talking about the Torah literature - not about human psychology. it is also not clear that child abuse that we have today existed as pikuach nefesh in previous generations.
ReplyDelete