Convicted fraudster who had sentence commuted by Trump is now facing new charges

 https://apnews.com/article/eliyahu-weinstein-investor-fraud-commuted-sentence-trump-8a6141aca1b6e145b73fb73187006187

A New Jersey man who was twice convicted of defrauding investors out of $230 million and whose lengthy prison sentence was commuted by President Donald Trump is once again facing fraud charges, federal prosecutors in New Jersey announced Wednesday.

Eliyahu “Eli” Weinstein, 48, of Lakewood, who is also known as Mike Konig, is among five men accused of defrauding dozens of investors out of $35 million, according to an arrest complaint unsealed in federal court in Trenton. The five are charged with wire fraud conspiracy and conspiracy to obstruct justice, and each could face up to 25 years in prison.

Some Thoughts on Hasidim

 https://traditiononline.org/some-thoughts-on-hasidim/

It is a sobering thought, especially for one turned thirty, that we are already post-counterculture. This juncture provides an opportunity, though, to gain a new perspective on a facet of that period, still very much with us. Both the counterculture and its parallel in the social sciences, the Human Potential Movement, shared a common ethos of personal and communal liberation. Often, this found expression in a mistrust, if not outright disdain, for the rational intellect. Reacting to the reductionist, dehumanizing tendencies of the culture created by science and technology, they sought rediscovery of the self through varieties of political, social, psychedelic, and religious experience. Out of this came what one publication parodied as a Whole Soul Catalog of methods for stimulating spiritual, psychological, and somatic sensitivities. One major phenomenon of this era. 

Forced to sin?

 Avoda Zara (04b) R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: David was not the kind of man to do that act,[concerning Batsheva] nor was Israel the kind of people to do that act.[of the Golden Calf] for it is said, O that they had such a heart as this alway etc. Why, then, did they act thus? God predestined it so in order to teach thee that if an individual hath sinned and hesitates about the effect of repentance he could be referred to David, and if a community commit a sin they should be told: Go to the community.

Avoda Zara (53b) But inasmuch as the Israelites worshipped the Golden Calf, they revealed their proneness for idolatry, so when the idolaters came and worshipped Asherim they acted according to the Israelites’ bidding….But perhaps the proneness was only for the Golden Calf and for nothing else! — No; Scripture states, These be thy gods, O Israel, which proves that they lusted for many gods.

Donald Trump loses bid for new trial in E. Jean Carroll abuse case

 https://www.reuters.com/world/us/donald-trump-loses-bid-new-trial-e-jean-carroll-case-2023-07-19/

"Mr. Trump's argument therefore ignores the bulk of the evidence at trial, misinterprets the jury's verdict, and (ignored) evidence of what actually occurred between Ms. Carroll and Mr. Trump," he added.

The judge also said the evidence justified awarding Carroll $3 million for defamation, rejecting Trump's claim that the award was based on "pure speculation" about how Carroll's reputation was harmed.

U.S. Christian Group Condemns Tucker Carlson's Ukraine Church Comments

 https://www.newsweek.com/us-christian-group-condemns-tucker-carlson-ukraine-church-comments-russia-1813617

OPAC accused Carlson of distorting a religious dispute that has unfolded in Ukraine parallel to the war started by Russia.

"Carlson, who has little or no understanding of the complexities of the religious reality of Ukraine, only foments more division with his nonsensical statements," said the OPAC statement.

Biden shares video of Marjorie Taylor Greene speech to promote his agenda

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4104701-biden-shares-video-of-marjorie-taylor-greene-speech-to-promote-his-agenda/ 

Biden’s policy positions have been largely popular throughout the country, but he has struggled to communicate his agenda and legislative achievements to voters, who often say Biden has not accomplished much. His overall approval rating also has not reflected the approval that many of his policies receive.

Treasures lent by Israel for White House event ‘stranded at Mar-a-Lago’

 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/18/treasures-lent-by-israel-for-white-house-event-stranded-at-mar-a-lago-donald-trump

The Israeli daily Haaretz reported on Tuesday that antiquities including ancient ceramic oil lamps, part of Israel’s national treasures collection, were shipped to Washington DC with the approval of the then director of the Israel Antiquities Authority, Israel Hasson, for use in a Hanukah candle-lighting event at the White House. The event took place in December 2019, when Trump was in office.

Walking behind a woman - prohibited today?

Tzitz Eliezer (9:50): Question: What is the nature of the prohibition of walking behind a woman in contemporary times – Letter sent to Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. In one of our meetings a while ago, you asked me the precise nature of the prohibition of walking behind a woman. In particular whether it applies to getting on a bus. There are times when the wife of a major talmid chachom is also waiting to get on the bus – should one refrain from honoring her by letting her get on the bus first because of this prohibition? We spoke about the Ritva (end of Kiddushin) also mention in Pischei Teshuva (E.H. 31:3) and we didn’t come to a clear conclusion. Answer: 1): I just found an amazing comment on this issue in the Leket Yosher (Y.D. 376) that I was reading regarding another matter. He writes in the name of his rebbe the Terumas HaDeshen, “He said it is permitted to walk behind the wife of a talmid chachom (chaver) or behind one’s mother because today we are not so careful not to walk behind a woman.” These are astounding words and they don’t seem to make sense. Why should it make a difference whether walking behind the wife of a talmid chachom or an ordinary woman? Isn’t there there the same concern in both cases for hirhur (sexual thoughts)? I thought to explain the Terumas HaDeshen in the way yous asked your question. Perhaps because letting the wife of a talmid chachom go first is honoring the talmid chachom and that the Termuas HaShen permitted it because he held that honoring Torah took precedence. This reasoning might explain why he also permitted walking behind one’s mother and not the talmid chachom’s mother since it involves honoring one’s mother. We see that honor is given only to the wife of a talmid chachom and not his mother or perhaps the allowance to walk behind one’s mother is because there isn’t so much a problem of sexual fanstasy. 2) However this still leaves unanswered the end of the Leket Yosher where he gives the reason that it is permitted because today we are not so careful not to walk behind a woman.< What has happened that the halacha would change – are the generations improving? Perhaps he is referring to the idea expressed in the Radvaz (2:770) which is mentioned in abbreviated form in Be’er Heitiv (E.H. 21:2) and Piskei Teshuva (21:1). The questioner suggested to the Radvaz that a distinction be made in this halacha between those countries where woman typically are covered from head to toe and nothing is uncovered that a man could stare at. The Radvaz rejected this by noting that the decree did not make distinction and that furthermore the sexual thoughts are not just because of seeing part of the woman but primarily by observing her walking and movement. However perhaps the Terumas HaDeshen thought that it might justify being lenient regarding the wife of a talmid chachom (who obviously is totally covered) because there is the additional factor of honoring Torah and also regarding the case involving honoring one’s mother since there is not such concern for sexual fantasy. Incidentally the words of the Radvaz are astounding to me because he says the reason for the prohibition as stated in Berachos (61) applies even to one’s wife because of sexual fantasy. This is incredible assertion to say that walking behind one’s wife is prohibited because of sexual fanstasy. Rashi says that the reason is only because it is a degrading thing to walk behind one’s wife. The Rambam and Shulchan Aruch don’t mention this halacha at all. It is discussed in detail in Otzer HaPoskim (23:8.4). 3) Perhaps one can say that this reasoning is the basis of the Terumas HaDeshen. In other words there has been a decrease in sexual fantasy from earlier times when women did not normally walk around the streets but rather stayed in the house as the Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 13:11) that a woman should best stay in the house and that it was degrading for her to go out. Rambam and Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 73.1) rule that a woman should not typically go out alot because it isn’t nice for her but rather she should stay in the house. Consequently if a man should meet her and walk behind her in the street it would cause him to have sexual fantasy. In contrast in modern times the reality is different and women do not stay in the house as in previous eras. Thus men are accustomed to see women in the street. Thus their degradation is actually to their benefit since there isn’t such a problem of sexual fanstasy in walking behind a woman. That would explain why the Terumas HaDeshen was lenient – at least concerning the wife of a talmid chachom and a person’s mother. This is similar to what the Levush (O.C. 30 Minhagim) writes concerning why we don’t avoid saying the beracha shehasimcha bemono in a place where men and women see each other. He explains that is possibly because in modern times typically women are found amongst men and therefore there is not so much sexual fantasy since they are viewed just as white geese because of habituation and since the halacha is ignored it is not relevant. Response of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. I received your letter and what you found in the Leket Yosher gave me much pleasure. I greatly appreciate you notifying me about it because it provides something to rely on in emergency situations While the intent of what he is saying seems very astounding but my view is similar to what you write concerning the end of his statement – but I have a slightly different understanding. Because from the aspect of logic it would seem in my view that the language of the Shulchan Aruch “that he encounters (pega) a woman in the street” implies that it was not normal for women to be on the streets except on rare occasions and he happened to encounter her by chance. It is well known that in previous times the normal existence of modest women was to remain in the house as it says, “the glory of the princess is inside.” (It is well known the Chasam Sofer which says that the reason that women don’t like Chanuka lights themselves is so they don’t have to stand at the doorway of the house next to the street.). Therefore when a man is walking next to a woman there is no great concern because he is embarrassed to stare at her because she would be aware what he is doing. In contrast if he is walking behind her – he sees her but she doesn’t see him – then there is much greater concern. In addition to this it would also seem that in those days it was possible to be careful not to walk behind a woman. In contrast in our days, even if he runs to avoid being behind a woman he will immediately find himself behind another woman. In fact it seems to me that there are more women on the street then men. Furthermore in our days, immodest dress and behavior is considerably more common and to our dismay it is more common than modest dress and behavior. And men are not embarrased to stare at women – even to her face. Therefore in my humble opinion in a situation of mitzva or because of accepted rules of etiquette – there is no reason to be strict in our days. Therefore my heart rejoices from this Leket Yosher that you found. And even in the time of the Terumas haDeshen when the conditions were much better than in modern times – nevertheless it seems correct to say that even then women were commonly found in the streets and markets. Therefore no matter where a person went he would always find himself behind a woman. That is why he is lenient in my humble opinion. And since even without this reason they were considerably habituated, it is reasonable to be lenient in cases of mitzva.

Rav Shlomo Wolbe: Importance of sexual satisfaction - and not just focusing on doing a mitzva

update: added the Steipler Whatever is done has to be with mutual consent - Nedarim 20b, Shulchan Aruch 240:3, 

Rambam(Hilchos De'os 5:4): ...Neither of them should be drunk or uninterested or depressed nor should either of them be sleeping. The man should not force the woman against her wishes but whatever is done should be with mutual desire and with joy. ...

Steipler (Igros Kodesh #2):  [...]  The details of sexual intercourse of the mitzva of conjugal obligations are explained in the Siddur of Rav Yaakov Emden in the section of the laws of Shabbos night. It should be studied carefully because these are actual halachic obligations. Because according to the Torah it is prohibited to have intercourse in circumstances where the woman is not interested and therefore it is necessary to get her interested with intimate activities such as hugging and kissing until she is sexually aroused and desires intercourse. Because if this is not done first – it is like placing her before a lion who mauls and eats as is explained in Pesachim (49). [It is a terrible sin to deprive her of her sexual rights even if he is doing it for the sake of piety and asceticism. Taking what belongs to his wife can not be the basis of piety by theft and treating her as a slave]. Furthermore to have sexual intercourse against her will results in having children who are sinners and rejecters of Torah – they are call bnei anusa (children of rape).

A husband who grabs and has intercourse immediately without preliminary intimacy and then separates immediate after ejaculation and leaves her, might think that he is acting like a highly spiritual angel. But in actual truth he has not lowered his lust at all even though he definitely has placated his desires for the time being since he has in fact obtained full pleasure from this intercourse. In contrast his wife felt no pleasures at all from this abrupt sexual act. In fact she has been hurt and shamed and the tears she sheds in private will not go unanswered. That is because our Sages(Bava Metzia)  tell us that the Gate of Tears has not been closed. They say that a man should be very careful with his wife's honor because she readily cries. There is no question that such a brutal act arouses Divine judgment against him.


Furthermore he does not merit to have Divine help either in spiritual or material issues. And this that he mistakenly thinks he becomes a highly spiritual person by trying to be insensitive to his wife in sexual matters – this is a worthless fantasy and a lie. That is because from sins and transgression one becomes blemished and spiritually impure – not elevated.

[...]

Igros Kodesh (#4):  Question: How to avoid emission of sperm while asleep at night when his wife is a nida and also during the time when she is permitted to him? Answer: I am forced to answer even though it is very difficult to clarify the matter in a written reply. From his letter I got the impression that he needs guidance in the broader topic of what is the nature of married life. Marital relations need to be such that he is sexually satisfied even during the time when he needs to separate from his wife because of nida. Thus we are not talking about the number of times of intercourse but rather the quality of the sexual relationship.

Young men, especially those who are serious about spiritual development, think that sanctifying oneself during sexual intercourse can only mean that one needs to minimize lust and sexual feelings as much as possible. But this is a complete mistake as can be seen from the enlightening comments of Rashi (Nida 17a). Also please look at the Rokeach (Jerusalem edition page 27a) who cites Nedarim (20b) that everything that a man wants to do with his wife he can do in order that he won’t have any interest in other women. 

We see clearly that sexual relations need to be so satisfying until all other women are in his eyes as hens and he absolutely no desire to even look at them. This is also implied by the statement of Chazal concerning the reward for those husband who prolong physical contact with their wives after intercourse is finished. Thus we see the need for intercourse to be intense and satisfying – and not done merely to fulfill one's obligation and similar extrinsic matters. And therefore if a person is concerned for the quality of intercourse itself, I am sure that he will be so satiated and satisfied that lust will not be a problem even during the period of nida. 

Aside from this, he needs to strengthen his Torah study. That means not merely study with a book but to train his thoughts to be involved with thoughts of Torah study. For example before he leaves his house or yeshiva to organize Torah issues to think about until he reaches his destination and that he shouldn’t be empty of Torah even when he is walking in the street. 

And regarding not looking at women – there is the advice of the Gra that one should pray before leaving to go into the street – that G-d should guard him from all aspects of sin including sinful thoughts until he reaches his destination (See Orchos Chaim #135 at the end of the Gra’s Siddur). 

Furthermore he should learn with joy and not worry or fear at all. That is because worry and fear just arouse the mind and nocturnal emssions –G-d forbid. And with G-d’s help if he conducts himself as I have described, he will see success.

Rav Moshe Feinstein: Issues that people have a lust for leniences such as birth control are not to be presented to the masses

The issue is whether people will incorrectly think that there are leniencies because they are not paying proper attention to the matter or whether it means that since the average person has an inherently lust that blinds them to a proper understanding of the material - they should just be told what to do concerning these matters without explanation or texts. The former view seems to be that of Chazal and the Rishonim while the latter is the understanding of Rav Moshe Feinstein. 

An alternative explanation is that everyone else is discussing a normal yeshiva student who is assumed to have the proper attitude to halacha but might be distracted in a group . In contrast Rav Moshe is referring to giving information to those who don't have proper attitudes and therefore even if they paid full attention to the material they would distort its conclusions. The Maharsha views that the prohibition only applies to esoteric matters

Chagiga (11b): Mishna: Forbidden sexual relations should not be taught in the presence of three people…Gemora:…Therefore R’ Ashi said that the prohibition of teaching forbidden sexual relations must mean that the secrets of forbidden sexual relations must not be taught to three. What is the reason for this prohibition? It is a commonsense that when two students sit before their teacher, one student discusses the subject matter with the teacher while the other student listens to them. However when there are three students, one engages the teacher in discussion while the other two discuss it the matter between themselves and consequently what their teacher is saying. This lack of attention of the two students might lead to errors in permitting that which is prohibited in the matter of prohibited sexual relations. But if this is the concern, than why should this restriction of only teaching two students at a time apply to the rest of the Torah – why is it only concerning sexual relations? The fact is that prohibited sexual relations are different, as the master said: Robbery and prohibited sexual relations are both things that man’s soul covets and lusts for them. Then logically this rule of two students should also apply when teaching about robbery also? The answer is that concerning prohibited sexual relations – whether the opportunity is before him or not his desire from them is very strong. In contrast concerning robbery – if the opportunity is before him his desire is very strong while if it not before him he doesn’t have a strong lust for it.

Raviya (Chagiga 3:805): One should not teach about prohibited sexual relations before three students – Rav Ashi says that is referring to the secrets of prohibited sexual relations such as the daughter of the women he raped and other prohibited relations which are not explicit in the Torah but are learned from derashos. Since two of the students are involved in a side discussion and are not listening to their teacher they make mistakes and permit those prohibited relations because of their sexual lust. But this was true only in the period of the Amoraim who learned orally. In contrast we learn from texts and therefore there is no basis for this concern.

Rambam (Hilchos Issurei Bi’ah 22:17): The secrets of sexual relations are not to be taught before 3 or more people. That is because one student will be involved in discussion with the teacher while the two others will be talking to each other and will not be paying attention to the teacher. Since a person has an inherent lust to be engaged in sexual activities, if he has any doubts regard the permissibility of a particular relationship based on what he has been taught – he will rationalize that it is permitted. Therefore these issues should not be taught in this manner but rather only to at most 2 students at a time - so that they will both concentrate on the words of the and understand them clearly.

Tosfos haRid (Chagiga 11b): Do not teach secrets of prohibited sexual relations to three students - Rashi explains that this means teaching those prohibited relations which are not stated explicitly in the Torah such as the daughter of the women he raped or the mother of his mother-in-law which are learned in Sanhedrin (75a) from derashos. However this explanation does not seem correct to me. That is because the majority of Torah laws is learned from derashos and therefore it is a positive thing to teach these matters in public. Rather it would seem to me that the term “secrets of prohibited sexual relations” is referring to halachic leniencies which would lead to incorrect generalizations by the ignorant and therefore should not be revealed to them. Furthermore even to one’s own student they should not be taught to three students at a time because they might not all be paying attention and will not have correct understanding of the matter and will end up making mistakes as to the law and permit that which is not truly permitted by their teacher. This concern also applies to secrets of the Torah in general. The teacher will present leniencies which are not appropriate to be revealed to the ignorant – but are reserved for the talmid chachom.

Maharsha (Chagiga 11b): Sexual prohibitions should not be taught to three students…and this is referring to the secrets of sexual prohibitions. Rashi explains, “that the secrets are those prohibited relationships which are not explicitly stated such as his daughter from someone he raped or the mother of his mother-in-law. “ However the term “secrets” is not consistent with this explanation. I learned from an ancient book that the term “secrets” is to be taken literally. It is referring to the esoteric secret of marrying one’s sister and Satan has claims against Jews concerning this prohibition. Because we see that at the beginning of the world, Caine and Abel in fact did marry their sisters and it was not viewed by Adam as prohibited. Similarly it is not commonsense that the sister of one’s wife should be prohibited as we that Yaakov was viewed as having a perfect family and yet he married his wife’s sister. Furthermore those two out of three students who are busy discussing the issues and are not listening to the reasons provided by their teacher will come and permit that which prohibited in sexual relations – such as these secrets which are not obvious from commonsense. With this understanding, the questions are resolved because secrets of prohibited sexual relations are actually similar to “Secrets of Creation” and to “Secrets of the Chariot” – which are clearly secrets and definitely hidden matters.

Igros Moshe (E.H. 1:64): It is not my normal practise to look into rabbinic journals. That is because it should only be that I should have enough time to learn Torah and to examine the words of the Rishonim and Achronim from whom we live. Therefore I wasn't aware of this serious matter and particularly in this country - that concerning many it is possible to say that they are overwhelmed with lust and desire to be lenient. Public discussions of birth control is considered as sexuality (arayos) in which Chagiga (11a) says that it is not to be discussed with three people. In fact a subject which is discussed in a rabbinic journal is equivalent to teaching it to 1000's of people. Furthermore the readership includes those that lack sophistication and are far from being G-d fearing and fearers of sin. They read these articles to find leniences to fool themselves. It is not comparable to the discussion of Achronim in seforim. That is because only talmidei chachomim who want to know the true halacha - study books of responsa. These rabbis only write what appears to them to be true according to their understanding – which is the obligation to teach and pasken. When this is done for the sake of heaven our Sages describe this as Eilu v'Eilu (these and those are the words of the living G d). However to analyze these topics in a rabbinic journal which is accessible to the masses – this far from being considered for the sake of Heaven.

This that you heard from one rav that in Lithuania they permitted all women to use birth control for two years after giving birth – that is false. Because I know many rabbis who are extremely strict about this and I have never heard that there are rabbis who automatically permit birth control to the average woman. That is because the basis of the heter of birth control is only for danger. Therefore it is not relevant to state that such things as birth control are governed by the customs of the locale and city. Rather every rav who is great in Torah and thoroughly familiar with the Talmud and the words of the great rabbis – has full rights to judge according to his understanding in every question that comes before him – based on the facts of that particular case. Consequently it is absolutely not relevant to say that there was a general psak in Lithuania for this matter – and therefore your source testified falsely either on purpose or by mistake.

Igros Moshe (Even HaEzer 3:14):… As to the final halacha – it is clear as I have written in my sefer. All the essays that were written in rabbinic journals are things made up from their authors own reasoning and they are against the words of our sages - both the rishonim and the achronim and even the sources that they themselves have cited. I have already clarified the issues that they have written about but I don’t want to publicize these matters since they are not to be written in journals which are given to every man and woman. That is because these matters are not to be taught to three students as we find concerning the teaching of prohibited sexual relations (Chagiga 11a) and surely they are not to be to be published in journals which are sent to thousands and also to unsophisticated people and those who are far from fear of sin and are always looking for some justification for leniencies in order to fool themselves…

US House’s top progressive walks back claim Israel is a ‘racist state’ amid uproar

 https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-houses-top-progressive-walks-back-claim-israel-is-a-racist-state-amid-uproar/

Soon, Jayapal issued a four-paragraph clarification on Twitter, also saying that she meant to criticize Israel’s current government, which includes far-right parties, and not its existence as a state.

Rav Moshe Feinstein : A man is more of a slave to his wife than she to him

I noticed this comment of Rav Moshe Feinstein this morning while I was looking through the 9th volume of the Igros Moshe. I found them puzzling since he is commenting on the gemora which itself says that a wife is similar to a slave. [Eliyahu G wrote: these exact words have already been written by R. Moshe in Dibros Moshe Gitin page 511]  Text available on Hebrew Books here

Menachos (43b) It was taught: R. Judah used to say, A man is bound to say the following three blessings daily: ‘[Blessed art thou . . .] who hast not made me a heathen’, ‘. . . . who hast not made me a woman’; and ‘ . . . who hast not made me a brutish man’. R. Aha b. Jacob once overhead his son saying ‘[Blessed art thou . . .] who hast not made me a brutish man’, whereupon he said to him, ‘And this too!’ Said the other, ‘Then what blessing should I say instead?’ [He replied,] . . . who hast not made me a slave’. And is not that the same as a woman? — A slave is more contemptible.1 [Rashi- nevetheless a slave is on a lower level than a woman Or alternatively, ‘nevertheless go on (including the blessing concerning the slave)’, so as to make up the three blessings.]

אגרות משה (אורח חיים ו:ב.ה): מעיר על מה שפירש רש"י שאשה שפחה לבעלה כעבד

 ]ועיין ברש"י [מנחות מג:] שפירש בפירוש ראשון על הקושיא היינו אשה, דאשה נמי שפחה לבעלה כעבד לרבו. ולולא דמסתפינא הייתי אומר שצריך למחקו דח"ו לרש"י לומר דברי הבל כזה, דמן התורה הא ליכא שום שעבוד על האשה לבעלה חוץ מתשמיש, ולענין תשמיש הוא משועבד לה יותר דהא עליו איכא גם איסור לאו, ורבנן שתיקנו שמעשה ידיה לבעלה הא  כנגד זה חייב במזונות ואינה מחוייבת לעשות רק עניני הבית ולא עבודת שדה ומעט עשיה בצמר שהיא מלאכה קלה ממלאכות שדרכן של בנות העיר בזה, עיין בש"ע אהע"ז ריש סיי פ,' והמזונות מחוייב שלא לגרוע מכפי דרך משפחתה ודרך משפחתו ובכל אופן  לא פחות מכפי שהוא אוכל, וכן שמחוייב בכסות לפי  מנהג בנות העיר ולפי דרך המשפחות שלו ושלה  דעולה עמו ואינה יורדת עמו ומחוייב לכבדה ואינו  יכול לילך מביתו בלא רשותה רק למלאכתו הידוע לה,  והבעל אדרבה מחוייב לעשות כל המלאכות שצריך האדם לפרנסה כלשון שתיקנו לכתוב בכתובה, ואף להשכיר עצמו סברי התוסי בשם רי אליהו בכתובות  דף ס"ג ד"ה באומר שהוא מחוייב, ונמצא שאדרבה  הוא יותר עבד לה מכפי שהיא שפחתו וצע"ג[.    

Igros Moshe: The statement found in Rashi (Menachos 43b) that a wife is a slave to her husband is nonsense

Igros Moshe[1](O.C. 6 5.2): [Menachos 43b  It was taught: R. Judah used to say, A man is bound to say the following three blessings daily: who has made me a Jew’, ‘. . . . who has not made me a woman’; and ‘ . . . who has not made me a brutish man’. R. Acha b. Yacov once overhead his son saying the blessing … who hast not made me a brutish man’, whereupon he said to him, ‘And this too!’ Said the other, ‘Then what blessing should I say instead?’ [He replied,] . . . who hast not made me a slave’. And is not that the same as a woman?[Rashi explains because in terms of the obligation of doing mitzvos – a woman and a slave are equal]— A slave is more degraded.]  Look at Rashi (Menachos 43b) who explains in his first explanation to the question of saying a beracha “who has not made me a slave” is the same saying “who has not made me a woman", that “the wife is also a slave to her husband as a slave is to his master.” If I weren't afraid I would say that it is necessary to erase the first explanation of Rashi. Because G-d forbid for Rashi to say this ridiculous statement. That is because according to the Torah there is no obligation for the wife to do anything for the husband except for having normal marital relations. And even in regard to intercourse, he is in fact more obligated to her because he also has a negative Torah commandment not to deprive her of sexual satisfaction. In fact it is only a decree of the Sages that requires that her work belongs to her husband. Corresponding to this requirement to work for him, he is required to feed her. But the only work she is obligated to do is house work and not to work in the field. She also has some obligation regarding wool - which is an easy job that women typically do. See Shulchan Aruch EH simon 80. Her meals are his obligation since she should not have it any worse than her family and his family and certainly not less than what she typically eats.   Similarly he is obligated to provide her clothing according to what the women of that city typically get as well as according to the standard of his and her family. That is because she is to go up in her standard of living with him and not go down. In addition he is obligated to honor her and he cannot leave the house without her permission except to go to his job that is known to her. In fact we see from all this the opposite of her being his slave. He is obligated to do all the work to earn a living as is stated in the Kesubah. Even if it means hiring himself out according to Tosfos (Kesubos 63). Thus we see that the husband is more of a slave to her then she is to him. This Rashi requires further study (tzorech iyun gadol).

---

[1] אגרות משה (אורח חיים ו:ב.ה):  מעיר על מה שפירש רש"י שאשה שפחה לבעלה כעבד

[ועיין ברש"י [מנחות מג:] שפירש בפירוש ראשון על הקושיא היינו אשה, דאשה נמי שפחה לבעלה כעבד לרבו. ולולא דמסתפינא הייתי אומר שצריך למחקו דח"ו לרש"י לומר דברי הבל כזה, דמן התורה הא ליכא שום שעבוד על האשה לבעלה חוץ מתשמיש, ולענין תשמיש הוא משועבד לה יותר דהא עליו איכא גם איסור לאו, ורבנן שתיקנו שמעשה ידיה לבעלה הא כנגד זה חייב במזונות ואינה מחוייבת לעשות רק עניני הבית ולא עבודת שדה ומעט עשיה בצמר שהיא מלאכה קלה ממלאכות שדרכן של בנות העיר בזה, עיין בש"ע אהע"ז ריש סי' פ', והמזונות מחוייב שלא לגרוע מכפי דרך משפחתה ודרך משפחתו ובכל אופן לא פחות מכפי שהוא אוכל, וכן שמחוייב בכסות לפי מנהג בנות העיר ולפי דרך המשפחות שלו ושלה דעולה עמו ואינה יורדת עמו ומחוייב לכבדה ואינו יכול לילך מביתו בלא רשותה רק למלאכתו הידוע לה, והבעל אדרבה מחוייב לעשות כל המלאכות שצריך האדם לפרנסה כלשון שתיקנו לכתוב בכתובה, ואף להשכיר עצמו סברי התוס' בשם ר' אליהו בכתובות דף ס"ג ד"ה באומר שהוא מחוייב, ונמצא שאדרבה הוא יותר עבד לה מכפי שהיא שפחתו וצע"ג].

Introduction to new book on the Jewish understanding of marriage and gender issues

When I started this work I thought it would be relatively easy. After all Jews are known for good and stable marriages. However it soon became apparent that there is a significant gap between common understanding and traditional sources. In addition there have been changes. Not only in the general society but also within our community and in halacha. A further problem is that as Rav Lichtenstein has pointed out, there is not simply one unique Torah or Jewish model of marriage. In addition the various models have evolved through the ages. Consequently I have focused on showing the essential building blocks, the components, that are highly regarded by Judaism – rather than a final finished model of marriage. In this regard it is important to know that my Rosh haYeshiva – Rabbi Friefeld told me not to read anything about marriage before I got married, but rather rely on him to inform me what I needed to know prior to the wedding. His actual advise was “Don’t do anything that is disgusting” There are multiple models of marriage to be found. Rabbi Akiva an ignorant shepherd who became one of the leading Sages as the result of falling in love. But he spent his much of his married life separate from his wife in the study hall. Yakov also fell in love with Rachel but she betrayed him to prevent her sister from being shamed. Yitzchok had an arranged marriage. According to the Netziv his wife viewed him with such awe that they could not have a normal conversation. Rava had a horrible marriage and didn’t want to get divorced because of financial reasons. Abraham and Sarah seemed to have a good marriage and remained affectionate even after death according to the gemora. However it seems that G-d was so concerned for their domestic tranquility, that He misled Avraham about what Sarah said about him. Rav Meir apparently brought about his wife’s suicide. At the other extreme Ben Azzai never married and there is the familiar story of Rav Aryeh Levine who tells his wife’s doctor “her foot is hurting us”. In addition both the  Rambam’s son and the Chasam Sofer’s son indicate that marriage is inherently incompatible with spiritual greatness or being a successful leader.  Aside from not physically or verbally abusing one’s wife there doesn’t seem to be clear advice given. Lying is not only permitted but seems recommended to maintain peace. Additionally, there are clearly negative statements regarding women in general as well as a number of positive ones. None of this fits in smoothly with the modern concepts of women or marriage. Halacha clearly is oriented to the male. Thus the male marries the woman and only he has the right to divorce. I present the sources as is with no attempts at apologetics or political correctness. The assumption is that Torah is from G-d and it doesn’t change because of the latest intellectual or social fad. I do present Rav Moshe’s tshuva about the feminist movement. In an enlightening secular book “All or nothing Marriage” the changing nature of marriage is described. Initially marriage was primarily a pragmatic institution both for the man and woman and their children and the welfare of society. Apparently as the result of the industrial Revolution and the improvement of society there was a gradual change in the 1800’s to Romantic love as the basis for marriage. This  standard has been changed in recent years to self-fulfillment. Thus marriage and divorce happen now not because of love but rather whether there are feelings of having a fulfilling relationship. “I can do better with a different spouse that helps me bring out my best”  All three models are supported by traditional sources. In addition the validity of the concept of having a predestined spouse (bashert) is also discussed as are the issues of adultery, pleasure and gender and other related topics. I cite traditional sources and generally ignore academic or non-Jewish sources. While some will voice disappointment at the lack of clear guidelines, the reality is that each marriage is unique and most be tailored to fit that couple. Some will prefer a marriage of the husband as king and master while others prefer a more equal relationship. The Pele Yoetz even seems to recommend having a bad marriage as an opportunity for spiritual and personal growth.  What is clear is that there is no assumption that you will marry based primarily on falling madly in love with some one predestined and that this leads to years of bliss and tranquility and good with the love undiminished. People change over time and the spouse you marry will transform many times during the marriage as will you. It is best according to Rav Wolbe to focus on commitment to the other as well as sensitivity to each other’s needs, to have basic principles and to receive advice and guidance from others. As a great tzadik once told me, “my wife is a saintly woman but sometimes she gets on my nerves.” Disagreements are an inherent part of any relationship and should not be viewed as proof of failure. It is more important to disagree in a sensitive way than to pretend everything is perfect. Similarly while disagreements should be expected, physical and verbal abuse is not acceptable. It is also important to realize that not every rabbi or therapist will be helpful and in some cases will make things worse. This is also true for advice from family and friends. As noted below Rav Yakov Kaminetsky claimed ignorance of dealing with marriage problems. Rav Moshe Feinstein had the practice of going to his apartment for lunch every day, where is wife prepared the single hot meal he got during the day. Once while he was eating lunch, he got an urgent phone call from a couple who were having a major fight. He stopped eating to try and resolve the problem. All the time he was on the phone, his wife was urging him to hang up and eat his meal. Finally at the end he resolved the issue and hung up the phone but there was no time to finish his meal before returning to the yeshiva. The young men who accompanied him as him asked. “Why was the domestic tranquility of the couple on the phone more important than his own? He answered that on the phone two people were fighting but in regarding his wife it was only one person.”  There was a certain rosh yeshiva who had a very bad marriage and went to Rav Moshe for advice. Rav Moshe told him not to get divorced. This continued for five years and it got so bad he ended divorcing her. He told friends that he had lost 5 years because he listened to Rav Moshe.