Eilu v' Eilu: No disputes in the Talmud, Agada or Kabbala - Rav Dessler

One of the important issues when having a discussion is understanding the dynamics of what is going on. A particularly critical issue is understanding what it means when two different views are expressed concerning a particular issue. In other words what is a disagreement? Does it mean that only one side can be true and perhaps both are mistaken? Or is it merely a question of perspective or the parameters that are being disputed but that they are in essential agreement? Especially amongst kabbalists and those influenced by kabbala - the operating assumption is that there are no mutually exclusive views expressed in Aggada, kabbala or even gemora - as Rav Dessler expresses below and elsewhere. 

However I once had an extended discussion with with Rav Yaakov Weinberg - Rosh Yeshiva of  Ner Yisroel concerning this issue. I mentioned another statement by Rav Dessler who said that the disagreements are simply the result of perspective. Just as a piece of paper if viewed from the edge - is very thin while if viewed face on it is very expansive - so it is with apparent disagreements because we accept the concept of eilu v'eilu. Rav Weinberg - who was a talmid of Rav Hutner - looked at me in astonishment. "You can't tell me that an intelligent person would say such a thing". When I noted that most people that  I know accept this as true he responded, "Then words have no meaning!" It was clear he did not accept such a view.

Shomer Emunim HaKadmon(Second Introduction First Principle):… Included in our faith (emuna) is to believe in all the words of the Talmudic Sages – even if some of their words appear unlikely and against the laws of nature. We are to ascribe the problem to our understanding and not them. That is because all their words were said with ruach hakodesh that was within them. Therefore all those who ridicule any aspect of their words is severely punished as we see in Eiruvin (21b), Gittin (57a), “All those who ridicule the words of the Sages are punished in Hell in boiling excrement.” Bava Basra (75a) relates that a certain student ridiculed words of the Sages [and was turned into a heap of bones]. And this prohibition also applies in the case of midrashim where there is a dispute between the Sages. That is because there is nothing in the words of the Sages that is insignificant or meaningless. All that they say is true (eilu v’eilu) and therefore both sides are saying something of value… For example Rav and Shmuel have a dispute in Berachos (61a). One says that Eve was attached to Adam (like Siamese twins) while the other said she was simply an insignificant appendage like a tail. In fact both views are true from different perspectives as we know from the teachings of the Arizal. This is the way it is for all other matters which two Sages disagree – both sides are true and correct depending on the place and time or world and perspective. You should know that even those matters mentioned in the Talmud which appear to be unnecessary or imprecise – that is simply not true. In fact these matters have esoteric meaning or important allusions…  

Michtav M’Eliyahu (3:353): Concerning the dispute in Berachos (34b) whether a tzadik is greater than a baal teshuva… In truth, disputes are not relevant except concerning the practical Halacha. Concerning Torah matters such as theoretical Halacha there is in fact no dispute. Our sages describe this as eilu v’eilu—both positions are G‑d’s words. In other words, both positions are expressions of truth and are both true…. Concerning the dispute between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel—in the future the practical Halacha will be in accord with Beis Shamai even though it is now in accord with Beis Hillel. Their dispute involved which perspective to view the situation. They did not disagree as to the consequences of each perspective but simply which perspective was best for serving G‑d. It is stated openly in the Tikunei Zohar that there is no dispute concerning Agada and Kabbala. A similar statement was made by the Gra (Even Shleima) concerning Moshiach. There are two aspects of Moshiach. One is an extremely public manifestation of spirituality—Moshiach ben Dovid. The second is merely the freedom from being oppressed by the nations—Moshiach ben Yosef. Therefore, the apparent contradictory statements of our sages concerning Moshiach are the result of talking about the dual nature of Moshiach. At first glance, this explanation seems astounding and inconsistent with the language used in the Talmud. … “And this disagrees with Shmuel”… Therefore, we are forced to admit our explanation that in fact there are two distinct aspects of the redemption… Therefore, the language of “disagree” simply means separate and distinct from each other.

Tzitz Eliezar: Sex change by surgery - halachically valid

The following was written in the context of the significance of organ transplants for altering a person's identity and spritual/psychological nature. It is important to note this teshuva doesn't address the question whether sex change operations are permitted or whether they are viewed as prohibited because of castration or sterilization or other considerations. In addition there are strong objection from other poskim whether sex change operations are valid. (Rav Moshe Feinstein held that no change in sexual identity results from surgery.)

Tzitz Eliezar(10:25.26):  It is necessary to seriously examine the question of identity in a case where a major organic change has been made in the body itself – for example a change from being a male to being a female or the reverse. According to what I have heard - and this has also been publicized by various newspaper columnists - these types of operations are offered today in special rare circumstances. In these cases in which the body is drastically changed, surgery truly creates many halachic questions regarding the establishment of identity and true status. Let me mention here what I saw in Zichron Bris  L’Rishonim (simon 5) written by Rav Yaakov Hagozer.... In the course of a long discussion discussing tumtum, androgynous and other major physical changes in the body- he quotes from Yad Ne’man (Y.D. 64b) [published 1804] regarding a respected talmid chachom from Jerusalem who wrote about a number of  cases where a woman became a man. He also explained that there is really no great difference between male and female genitals except that one is external and the other is internal (meaning that a woman has internally a foreskin and testes even though they are not like the testes of a man)... Given that reality, the author discussed his uncertainty whether the woman who has changed into a man is obligated in mila or whether she is exempt. He concludes that she is exempt since the verse for the mitzva of mila says to circumcise the “male foreskin”. This implies that circumcision is only required if a person is born a male but not someone who was born a female and became a male.... Similarly I saw in the sefer Yosef es Achiv (3:5) by Rabbi Yosef Pilaggi that he asks, “Whether a woman who led a normal married life for a number of years and then became a man - requires a divorce because she was his wife? Or perhaps no Get is required because she is no longer a woman but a man? He answers that it seems that she doesn’t need a Get because she is no longer a woman and the Get states that the husband is giving the Get to a woman who is his wife. The Get also states that it allows her to marry another man... and it obviously is not allowed for a man to marry another man... It would seem in my humble opinion that there is no need for a Get if his wife has fully become a man...It would also seem that in a case of a man who was originally a woman that he should not say the beracha ‘who has not made me a woman’ because he was in fact born a woman...instead he should say ‘who has changed me into a man.’...” ... In addition to the question whether the wife who has become a man needs a divorce from her husband, there is the question of when the husband becomes a woman whether the wife needs a divorce? (There was a famous case like this a number of years ago in one of the large European countries). In addition Rav Abulafia has raised questions regarding the status if the sex change is reversed and he becomes a man again? While thinking about this it occurred to me to relate this question to the Terumas HaDeshen (pesakim #102) concerning the wife of Eliyahu or the wife of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi – whether they could marry another man. He noted that the significance of the question concerns other cases in the future. The Terumas HaDeshen answers that only the wife of another man is prohibited to marry without a Get and not the wife of an angel who is a completely spiritual being without a physical body. See also Mahari Assad (E.H. 4) who explains the Terumas HaDeshen... that even though there was a valid marriage Eliyahu’s wife could remarry without a divorce... Then also in our case we can say that only the wife of a man is prohibited to others and not the wife of a woman. So even though there was a valid marriage, nevertheless the marriage dissolves by itself when it becomes a case of being the wife of a woman....So perhaps we can say that since marriage to an angel is invalid, therefore when Eliyahu became an angel the marriage dissolved by itself - so since marriage to another woman is invalid when her husband becomes a woman the marriage dissolves by itself. Furthermore concerning the issue raised by Rabbi Abulafia where the change reverses itself, we find a comparable analysis in the Birchei Yosef (E.H 17) where a man who died became alive again by a miracles - such as happened to the wife of Rav Zeira. Do we say that when he regained life, it was a new life or perhaps it simply revealed that his death was not really death? He wanted to answer based on a Yerushalmi ... however this is not a clear proof and this is thoroughly discussed in the Otzer HaPoskim - including the distinction as to whether the man was buried or not. However, everyone agrees that these serious questions raised by sex change are only for after the change and are not retroactive..

Unity of G-d vs belief in His physicality - Rav Tzadok

This is a very fascinating essay dealing with understanding the mitzva of yichud Hashem and the difference between a philosophical understanding and the kabbalistic one. He then relates this difference to differing concepts of Divine Providence (hashgocha protis). This leads into a discussion of teaching kabbala and why it was permitted to publish the Zohar and other kabbalistic works.

Rav Tzadok (Sefer Zichronos - Mitzva of Yichud HaShem): There is a positive commandment concerning the unity of G-d. This is learned from the verse (Devarim 6): Hear O Israel the L-rd our G-d the L-rd is One. The explanation of this “hearing” is understanding. This idea is explained in Chovas Halevavos (Shaar HaYichud) that one does not fulfill his religious obligation by merely reciting with his mouth that G-d is unitary while in his heart he doesn’t truly view G-d as truly one. The Rambam includes in this mitzva of unity the obligation to accept that G-d has no body or physicality and that He has no material aspects.  Similarly we find that the Chovas Halevavos explains that the faith in G-d’s unity means that a person knows how to distinguish between true unity and a transient one. The Rambam(Hilchos Teshuva 3:7) writes: Five are classified as heretics, Those who say the world is without a ruler, or that there are two or that there is a single deity but that that He has a body and physical form or that He is not alone in being the first and creator of everything else. [The Raavad understands this to mean a belief in pre-existing matter] or one who treats stars or other entities as intermediaries to G-d.

However in my opinion – concerning the avoidance of ascribing physicality to G-d – there is a different specific prohibition and it should be counted as a separate negative commandment. The prohibition against physicality is found in Devarim (4:15): One should be exceedingly careful in realizing that G-d has no form… It is  well known (Eiruvin 96) that the language of “taking care” means an actual Torah prohibition…. This particular verse is not a prohibition against making images but rather a prohibition concerning thinking or believing that G-d has some type of physical form….

This issue of avoiding attributing physicality to G-d is discussed in great deal by the sages of earlier generations in their writings. In fact one of the prime reason that the Rambam wrote the Moreh Nevuchim was because of this issue. The reason this is such a concern is that the literal understanding of many verses and discussions found in Agada seems to indicate that G-d does have some physical characteristics. It is especially needed in the middle ages because many observant Jews believed that G-d was actually physical. Others, while rejecting the idea of a fully physical G-d, nevertheless, viewed that He was made of light or wind or other lesser physical material – which still violates the prohibition of physicality. This is discussed in detail by the Rambam’s son – Avraham – in his letter defending his father’s Moreh Nevuchim. There he says that whoever believes even this lesser type of phsyciality is a heretic and has no portion in the World to Come. In this he is simply expressing the views of his father – the Rambam. … In contrast, while the Ramban and Raavad agree that it is a sin to believe that G-d has any physicality – but since it is easy to err in this matter because of the language of the Bible and Agada – such believers are not considered heretics. They disagree with the Sefer Ikkarim (1:2) who asserts that an honest mistake in this matter is not considered a sin at all.

On the other hand, the Tashbatz(Ohev Mishpat 9) asserts that one who naively believes in G-d’s physicality – is nevertheless considered an idol worshipper albeit in purity. Recanti (Parshas Yisro) also asserts that who ever invalidates one of the attributes of G-d even in thought is included in the category of idol worshippers. In other words, Recanti asserts that who ever separates the aspects of G-d and treats them as distinct entities is violating the prohibition against physicality and also the requirement to believe in G-d’s unity. This is discussed in detail in the Rambam (Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 2:10) and also Moreh Nevuchim. One is not even to imagine some image of G-d…<

In sum, all this concern to avoid ascribing physicality to G-d is specifically connected to the prohibition (Devarim 4:15). It includes not only ascribing any physicality but also to separate His attributes, believe in secondary manifestations, or even that the world is eternal or that matter is eternal. Belief in secondary manifestations of G-d is incompatible with monotheism. Similarly belief in eternal matter is belief in a power other than G-d since it has existed as long as G-d and must of necessity be distinct from G-d.

In contrast to these authorities, I believe that Chazal had a different understanding of the mitzva of Yichud. Even the Rambam (Sefer Mitzvos Positive Command #2) describes Yichud as the acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven (in contrast to what he said before). We also see this different understanding in Berachos(13b): “Once a person has accepted G-d’s dominion above and below and in the four directions of the compass – nothing else is required.” We see clearly from these sources that Yichud is not meditation about the nature of G-d Himself. In other words it is not concerned with whether a person believes that G-d has subdivisions or changes – which was the understanding of the mitzva of Yichud expressed by the Chovas HaLevavos, Rambam and the others previously cited. These matters which they describe as the mitzva of Yichud really are already covered by the commandment found in Devarim (4:15). Their understanding of Yichud is not related to G-d’s dominion over the world which is part of the alternative concept of Yichud.

In truth those who have a philosophical concept of Yichud - focused on divorcing G-d of all physicality - run into another problem. They end up denying Divine Providence, the concept of reward & punishment, the ability to influence G-d by prayer and good deeds. In other words they end up with a heretical position. And even some of the most pious of the earlier eras as well as their gedolim were attracted to philosophical analysis of these issues. Consequently some of them came to reject that Providence applies all creation and they insisted that it only applied to man. Such an understanding of Providence is against Chazal as found in Yerushalmi (Shevi’is 9:1) and Bereishis Rabbah(79:6) which state that, “Even a bird will not be caught unless it is decreed in Heaven.” Ironically these great men - who thought that through their analysis would come to the true understanding of Yichud – in fact came to the opposite. That is because it is the opposite of Yichud to think that some aspect of creation can be separate from G-d and can exist without His constant Providence. Therefore even though they acknowledged that G-d created everything and that His Providence applies to things in general, nevertheless this is not genuine Yichud. That is because they believed that after creation something which interferes with the Yichud of creation with G-d. [to be continued]

Zohar was not originally in the form we have today

 This is an attempt to properly manage the outpouring of major hashkofa questions that have appeared in the comments section of the post regarding the Arizal and the Gra. I am taking one of the questions there with my response.
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2013/01/part-i-gra-arizal-disagreed-r-michael.html

===================

EmesLeYaacovJanuary 10, 2013 3:26 PM

Chevra,

I don't think anyone is denying that there existed in ancient times some type of "Kabbalistic" Torah (Chagiga 11b).

But the real issue is - we are being told by R. Tzadok and other Kabbalah supporters that the sefer Zohar has a "mesora".

CAN ANY ZOHAR SUPPORTERS PLEASE ADDRESS THIS QUESTION?

In which authentic seforim or documents did ANY of the major Rishonim such as Rambam, Rashi, Rosh, Ramban, Rif etc. ever write that:

1) A Kabbalistic sefer known as the Zohar existed at the time of the Rishonim, or else had existed in ancient times
2) The sefer Zohar was authored by R. Shimon Bar Yochai or other ancient rabbinic authorities
3) The sefer Zohar was accurately and completely transmitted from the ancient rabbis to the time of the Rishonim

Please cite the exact sources where Rishonim mentioned Nos. 1, 2, or 3 above. Simply claiming that a Rishon recognized some type of "Kabbalah" is not an intellectually honest answer to my question.

If the Zohar supporters cannot provide valid answers to questions 1-3 above, how can they possibly argue that the Zohar represents "mesora"?

================================

I responded with the following:

@emes l'yaakov you are simply repeated a rather tired argument. It might enlighten you to read Prof Moshe Idel's Introduction to Kabbalah: New Perspectives (Yale UP 1988). There he contrasts Gershon Sholem's obsession with texts as the necessary basis for the study of kabbala while Idel argues that Kabbala is not primarily text based but Oral. Oral transmission is the foundation of the Oral Torah - which includes obviously kabbala. 

Even though there are prohibition of writing the Oral Torah - this was bypassed out of necessity. We are the people of the book - a Muslim designation - not by nature. The switch between an Oral transmission to a written one - especially with advances in technology such as the printing press or computers with databases - has created major difficulties. The accelerated growth of material which needs to be known is primarily a result of this written culture. With an Oral Transmission there are refinements, evolution and forgotting - just as there is with the human mind.

An example of what I am saying was stated by Rav Moshe Chagiz - one of the major zealot's and opponent of the Ramchal.   Mishnas Chachomim 232-234

Rav Moshe Chagiz (Mishnas Chochomim #332): Included in the proper requirements for love of one’s companions is to accept the truth from anyone who says it. The truth is clear that the editor and arranger of the holy Zohar was definitely a great man. He obtained material in written form. He then merited from Heaven to redact and publish it’s  exalted and sublime wisdom according to the order of the Torah. However this redaction and publication of the book which we have today, that is called the Zohar, was not  Heaven forfend  organized  by Rav Shimon bar Yochai or Rabbi Abba. It is a serious mistake to belive such a thing which blatently foolish. A similar mistaken belief is the belief that the Talmud that we have today is exactly that which Avraham had. This mistaken belief is something which should not even occur to G-d’s people who are Avraham’s direct descendants. We – thank G‑d - know how the Oral Torah developed  and how it was transmitted to us by oral transmission from Moshe who received it from G‑d. Mishnas Chochomim #333): And this that our Sages say that Avraham fulfilled the entire Torah even eiruv tavshilin  - it is not to be taken literally but only in the manner that I wrote in my first introduction to Eilu haMizvos. While it is true that everything was revealed to Avraham as our Sages learned from Bereishis (18:17), And G‑d said, How can I conceal from Avraham what I am about to do?... but we need to shut the mouths of critics who think we are fools and idiots who believe everything. Similarly, G‑d forfend that this wise and understanding people should understand literally the statement of our Sages (Berachos 5a), The verse “And I will give you the Tablets” refers to the Ten Commandments while “Torah” is refering to the Five Books of Moses, “And mitzvos” is referring to the Mishna, “which I have written” is referring to the Prophets and Writings , “to teach them” is referring to the Talmud – that this teaches us that all of this was given to Moshe on Mt. Sinai. It is clearly false to say that our Sages meant to tell us that Moshe received all of this the way we have it written down today.That is because prior to Rabbi Yehuda haNassi the entire Oral Torah was prohibited to put in written form. Consequently it is obvious that G‑d transmitted the Oral Torah (Mishna and Gemora) to Moshe not in written form. Rather it was only orally that G‑d revealed to him every generation and its authorities as well as all that which the diligent student would ask in the future. The majority of that transmission is that we remains and exists amongst us that has been validated,  certified and established so that there is no basis for us to question it. All of this I have already written in the Introduction I mentioned before. Mishnas Chochomim #334): And so it is with this awesome composition – the Zohar. There is no basis to question that the essence of the words as they are – came from the mouth of the Rashbi and his colleagues. Therefore whoever raises doubts about it is no different than one who raises doubts about G‑d. Nonetheless the one who redacted it made the connections  and continuity as he saw fit as is clear from the selection of the Zohar that I presented before in section 329.  
Mishnas Chochomim #329):Zohar (2:190b):’ “When they came into his presence R. Simeon at once saw from their faces that something was troubling them. He said to them: ‘Enter, my holy children! Come, O ye beloved sons of the King! Come, my cherished and dearly loved ones, ye who love one another!’-for R. Abba once said that Companions who love not one another pass away from the world before their time. All the Companions in the time of R. Simeon loved one another with heart and soul, and therefore in his generation the secrets were revealed; for he was wont to say that students of the Holy Torah who do not love one another cause a departure from the right path, and what is even more serious, cause a blemish in the very Torah itself, for the Torah is the essence of love, brotherhood, and truth. Abraham loved Isaac, and Isaac loved Abraham. They embraced one another; and Jacob was held by both in love and fellowship, intermingling their spirits each with each. Therefore members of the fellowship follow that example in order not to cause any blemish in the Torah.  As we have said, R. Simeon, having observed a certain sign in the faces of the newcomers, welcomed them with words of love; and they answered him saying, ‘Of a truth the spirit of prophecy rests upon the Holy Lamp, and so we should have known”.’... we see from this that even though all the words of this selection are true, it clearly indicates that the Zohar we have was only composed some time after the lifetime of Rav Shimon Bar Yochai by means of someone else who used his own mind to determine its form.

Rav Sternbuch:Taking care of senile ex- wife?

Teshuvos v'Hanhagos (5:316): A woman who has Alzheimer's  and her husband wants to divorce her.

Question: Regarding a woman who has Alzheimer's and the husband wants a normal married life and even though they have children - he is not able to live without a healthy wife. Therefore he was given permission to marry a second wife after he deposited a get and kesuba with beis din and guaranteed support for his first wife. However he feels pity for his first wife and wants with the agreement of his second wife to take care of his first wife when she needs it and to deal with her medical issues. Thus the question is since he has married a second wife and thus the first wife is prohibited to him - is it prohibited for him to have yichud and physical contact with her? Answer: It would seem that since it is prohibited for him to have two wife and therefore sexual relations with the first wife is prohibited it should also be prohibited for him to touch her as is explained in Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 615), It is prohibited on Yom Kippur to have sexual relations and therefore it is prohibited to touch one's wife as if she were Niddah. However a distinction can clearly be made since on Yom Kippur there is concern that he will have desire for his wife and therefore if he touches her then he might transgress and have sexual relations. However in the present case one can argue that because of his wife's condition she is not capable of sexual relations and in addition he has a healthy wife that he will be thinking about. Therefore perhaps there is no basis to be concerned about sexual relations?

 We see that Rabbi Akiva Eiger (#44) cites the Tzemach Tzedek [hakadmon #67] that it is obvious that if the first wife is cured that beis din will force him to divorce her in order that he should not have two wives. Rabbi Akiva Eiger finds this conclusion questionable and asks what is the justification for this psak since the first wife was his original wife and he married the second women with rabbinic permission. According to his words that in a case where the wife becomes senile and he then marries a second wife legally then he should be able to keep both wives. That is because Rabbeinu Gershom did not prohibit such a situation and therfore he would be permitted to have two wives.

However Otzer HaPoskim (vol 1 page 18) brings the words of the great poskim that disagree with Rabbi Akiva Eiger and insist that the husband can not have two wives and therefore he must divorce the first wife as soon as she recovers. It seems that the reason for this is that Rabbeinu Gershom made his prohibition against having two wives to avoid conflict and arguments. Thus the problem is that the second wife is likely to claim that the husband is interested only in the first wife and not her. Therefore the decree of Rabbeinu Gershom is still applicable that it is prohibited to have two wives. Consequently it seems that the cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom prohibits sexual relations  with the sick first wife but would not prohibit yichud. Concerning hugging and kissing my opinion is that it should be prohibited - not because the decree of Rabbeinu Gershom but because it is likely to cause lust. And thought about sin is worse than the sin. Therefore the husband should make an agreement with the second wife and receive her permission to visit his first wife and to deal with her needs and medical treatment when needed. However if the first wife is a Niddah it is not permitted except if there is no one else and it is not done in an affectionate manner.

However it is necesssary to clarfiy what is the basis for abrogating the cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom when his wife is sick with Alzheimer's.  Because even according to those authorities who allow what is prohibited by Rabbeinu Gershom when the wife is insane even when the husband has fulfilled the mitzvoa of having children - is because they are concerned with his sexual thoughts. That doesn't apply so much in the present case. The husband is already in his sixties and she is living quietly with him in their home. But she is senile and doesn't know what is going on. Therefore he wants to divorce her and marry another woman so that he have a healthy wife who can take care of him and he can fulfil the mitzva of sexual relations.

However I am concerned about the issue of chilul HaShem that people will say that his first wife was with him all this time and took care of him and now when she is old and sick and can not do anything for him he is throwing her  out and taking another wife.  I am also concerned that if he is permitted to take a second wife - even in these unique circumstances - it will cause a breakdown of the observance of the prohibition of Rabbeinu Gershom. Therefore the matter needs to be considered carefully by great poskim. I personally would not agree to allow him to remarry. However this needs to be throughly thought through and perhaps if he is permitted to take care of her and he does so then there wouldn't be a chilul haShem. This require further careful thought..

Maharal - pilpul without understanding text - stupifies

Maharal( Nesivos HaTorah #5): [from my sefer Daas Torah] Woe to the embarrassment and degradation that we have changed our way of learning Torah from previous generations. This change is entirely because people say they need to sharpen themselves with subtle textual analyses (pilpul). Even if there was such a need, our Sages (Berachos 63b) have said: You should first learn the text and thoroughly familiarize yourself with it before deep analysis is done…. Therefore, if analysis is to be done on the text - it is still a precondition that the text be learned. The analysis that is done today purely for sharpness - without mastering the text - in fact stupefies with utter nonsense. We see what this “sharpness” is and what it is producing. Typically, one would expect young students to be learning and mastering many tractates before marriage. However now when a student marries he has mastered nothing. This is because they are learning Tosfos - which was meant as a supplement to the gemora. They should in fact be acquiring the gemora itself first. The reason for the focus on Tosfos is simply because it was printed on the page of the gemora. If the Rosh or other halachic commentaries had been printed there instead, they would be learning Halacha instead… What is the need for the young student to be involved in subtle textual analysis in the same way as the mature student? The consequence of this misplaced focus is that the students do not achieve mastery of Halacha. If you try explaining to the students’ fathers that they should be learning Halacha and not Tosfos, they react as if you were trying to convince them that their children should stop learning Torah! This is because all the father is concerned about is that his child has a reputation as a sharp mind - rather than that he learns Torah properly…

Maharal - BM (84a): discussing marital relations

Maharal (Be’er HaGolah 5:4): Opponents of the Talmud claim that there are issues in the Talmud – that even though they describe real matters – nevertheless are improper for people to speak about them and surely to write about them – because they are disgusting. For example Bava Metzia (84a) describes a Roman noblewoman who told Rav Eliezer Ben Rav Shimon and Rabbi Yosse that they could not have fathered their children because they were so fat that it would have been impossible for them to have had sexual relations with their wives. They replied that, Each man according to his strength (Shoftim 8:21) or others say that they replied that “love compresses the flesh.” The gemora ends this discussion with a description of the large size of their genitals – either 3 or 5 kabbim or as big as wicker workbaskets. Obviously it seems bizarre to write these matters in the Talmud. Even though Tosfos offers an explanation for this gemora [that it was needed to silence rumors that their children were mamzerim], however that explanation was only for the masses who don’t understand deep ideas. However in truth these matters are profound esoteric matters… You should realize that these matters were said to honor G‑d and to glorify Him. Unfortunately there are many scholars [e.g., Rambam More Nevuchim 3:49] - i.e., those who investigate the world with the power of their intellect – who claim that sexual relations are inherently disgraceful, shameful and an embarrassment to man. In fact these scholars unequivocally believe that the sense of touch is inherently shameful to us. The purpose of this gemora is to reject their claim. In fact it is totally incomprehensible that the foundation of all, the basis for sustaining the world i.e., propagating mankind – is built on something which is inherently disgusting and shameful. Even more problematic is that it is not respectful for G‑d that the foundation of the world is a shameful and degrading matter. As is well known if the foundation is rotten then the structure built on it will collapse. Therefore it is important to reject this view because there is nothing in the sexual relations of a man with his wife that is the slightest degrading. This positive view of sexuality is in fact Daas Torah – the view of the Torah. Bereishis (2; 25) says, And both were naked… and but they weren’t ashamed. Thus we see that there is nothing degrading about this at all because if it were degrading why shouldn’t they be ashamed? If you want to answer that they weren’t intelligent at that time –such an assertion is simply incomprehensible. We know that Adam was incredibly intelligent because he was able to profoundly understand the nature of each creature and give each creature its correct name (Bereishis 2:20) – so how can it be claimed that he was lacking in intelligence? This assertion about Adam was refuted by the Rambam (Moreh Nevuchimn 1:2)… One cannot say that before Adam sinned he lacked intelligence and after he sinned he acquired intelligence and wisdom! So obviously the matters is as we have said – there is inherently absolutely no degradation is this matter at all. Whatever is degrading is the result of man focusing on his lusts and animals desires – from that aspect it is shameful. Therefore before the sin of Adam, man merely had some inclination toward lust and desire - and there was no absolutely nothing shameful. It was only shameful when desire was no longer external but fully entered him and lust became part of his physical nature. But even then it was only shameful because of the aspect of his lust.

How Rav Aharon picked his son-in-law Rav Dov

The Yated reported

"Throughout the olam hayeshivos of the late 1940s and early 1950s, Rav Dov Schwartzman was spoken about with awe. There are numerous stories and legends of his greatness and of how Rav Aharon Kotler sought out a bochur who was a true gadol baTorah as a son-in-law. What is clear is that when Rav Aharon traveled to Eretz Yisroel and delivered shiurim there, Rav Dov’s incisive questions and insights, and the fiery Torah debates between them, made such a profound impression on Rav Aharon and convinced him that here was the gaon and ilui whom he was seeking."

I heard the following from Rabbi Rakefet regarding Rav Aharon's decision to have Rav Dov as his son-in-law.

Rav Aharon gave a shiur at Chevron Yeshiva. All were very attentive to his brilliant Torah analysis - except for one. There was a bachor sitting in the back who seemed bored and inattentive - sitting with his feet propped up. Rav Aharon angrily walked to the back of the room to confront this arrogant young man. [Rav Aharon had a deep impatience with anyone who was not interested in Torah - especially to his own insights which he had worked for hours to understand properly. My brother who learned in Lakewood under Rav Aharon told me that he had a special briefcase to carry his chidusshim. When he was finally given permission to leave communist Russia with minimum belongs - he personally carried that briefcase. At the border he was stopped and the official perused the papers and asked him whether they were state secrets. When Rav Ahron told him it was Torah chiddushim - the guard laughed and told him he could keep the "nonsense" and cross the border to freedom. Rav Ahron was furious and started yelling at the official for his chutzpah and contempt for Torah. Fortunately there were others who quickly got him past the check point - or he problably would have been sent to jail or worse.] Rav Aharon stood over the bachor and demanded to hear what he thought of the shiur. Rav Dov nonchalantly replied, "The Kletzer is a great Torah genius - but his shiur is based on an error. He forgot an explicit mishna." Rav Aharon fainted from the shock and when he recovered said -"that is the one I want as my son-in-law."

Abarbanel:Understanding Marriage through Divorce

Abarbanel (Devarim 21, 24):  [see post of Chinuch]  The 12^th question is how is it possible that G‑d’s Torah agrees that marriage can be dissolved by divorce. It would seem to be wrong that a man and woman who were  united before G‑d should be able to separate from each other  and that the woman be allowed to have sexual relations with another man and that the man should marry a different woman. It would seem that those things which are done as mitzvos should not be subject to regret and reversal. And surely this would apply to divorce which can be done without significant justification. The Torah simply says, “If she does not find favor in his eyes because he found in her something unseemly (ervas davar) then he should write a document of divorce and give it to her and send her away.” This is especially problematic according to the view  that divorce can result even if he doesn’t like the way she makes his meals. Concerning marriage the Torah says (Bereishis 2:24), Therefore a man should leave his parents and cleave to his wife and they should be one flesh.” This is a general lesson concerning the nature of man and how human relations change. So how is it possible that this natural process be reversed?
 
Answer: There is no question that the actions of man in this world are in order to achieve one of five goals. 1) Acquiring wealth, 2) love of honor  3) physical pleasures 4) spiritual perfection or 5) welfare of one’s children. The joining together of a man and his wife in marriage can bring about all 5 of these goals. Marriage can provide good financial benefits because man is not like other creatures who obtain their clothing through nature as well as their food. In contrast man must acquire clothing and food through work which requires much preparations in order to obtain these things. A wife can be very helpful in acquiring material objects as well as food and clothing. Marriage is also inherently helpful in obtaining honor and respect since a single man finds it difficult to obtain honor because true glory goes to one who has a household. Marriage also provides physical pleasures especially since she obviates the need for prostitutes. There are also additional physical benefits in that she can help him with his tasks and work as well as taking care of his bodily needs and pleasures. Marriage also is helpful in spiritual perfection  - not only by keeping him from sin and pursing his lusts - also in the fulfilling of the mitzva of having children aside from the mitzvos that are available to him as married man. In fact marriage is also beneficial for the woman in that she has children. She is the cause of their existence and she raises and educates them as our Sages said in Yevamos (63), It is sufficient for a wife if she simply raises the children and saves her husband from sin. That is why G‑d’s Torah commands us concerning marriage because G‑d saw that it was not good for man to be alone. He also commanded the woman  not to commit adultery and that the man was obligated in providing her food, clothing and conjugal duties.

However all these benefits of marriage do not automatically exist and come about simply by getting married. Rather these benefits are conditional on there being a compatibility between the couple regarding their natures and personality to the maximum degree possible. This compatibility also causes love and tranquility between them as it says that G‑d made her an ezer kenego. In other words an ezer kenegdo means that she is an ezer (help) if she is like him (kenegdo) and agrees with him in all matters.

The importance of this compatibility can be seen from the fact that G‑d brought all the animals and birds to Adam in order to that he determine the name of each creature. In other words he was to observe each creature to see whether there was one which had the appropriate temperament and was compatible with his personality and his nature. That is why the Torah notes that after examining every creature Adam had not found his ezer kenedgo (his compatible mate). In other words even though he found those creatures which would be ezer (be of help) to him but none which were kenegdo (compatible and complementary to his nature). Because compatibility can not be based solely on the fact that a creature is female. Therefore it was necessary to do something different in order to create the proper compatibility and love. G‑d took one of Adam’s ribs and cloned a woman from it and then brought her to Adam - in order that she have his personality and nature. All of this was done to ensure the proper match and complementarity of the personality and attributes between a man and his wife and that it was inherent from her creation. That is because if it were the opposite then there would be no actual compatibility and thus there would be no basis for a successful household and not one of the five goals we mentioned would be accomplished. If there was no compatibility with the woman then it would be better for the man to remain alone and not join with that vile serpent – the bad wife. This is stated by Shlomo (Koheles 7), I find the woman more bitter than death...Similarly in Mishlei (25), It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a roomy house. Another source is Yevamos (63a), If he merits she is a helper (ezer) and if not she is his opponent (kenegdo). What this gemora is saying is that there is no middle neutral position regarding a man and woman. In fact the wife is either a help or an opponent since it is totally dependent upon the compatibility or incompatibility of their natures. How can there be a middle position in being compatible or incompatible? Consequently G‑d has commanded that when a man finds that his nature and personality are not compatible with that of his wife as expressed by the verse, “And if she doesn’t find favor in his eyes because he found in her ervas davar (an unseemly thing) - that their incompatible natures are the reason that he should divorce her. That is because it is better that they get divorced than have increasing hatred,  fights and bickering between them. 


The philosopher (Aristotle) has already mentioned this idea in relationship to the conduct of society. He has noted that because of this question of compatibility, men have agreed that there should be a period of engagement (eirusin) prior to marriage in order that they have a trial period to see how compatible they are. Only if they experience the love and tranquility that are the indicators of compatibility will they get married. That is because it is better to divorce her while she is still a virgin then a married non-virgin. This is a very solid reason for divorce besides the reason given by the Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 3:49). However if they did get married and do not experience the indicators of compatibility in any way, the Torah says that they should get divorced which is the lesser of evils. Because perhaps he will marry a different woman who is compatible to his nature and personality and she will marry someone who is like her. This is preferable to them living their lives in suffering and torment and even worse perhaps killing or adultery and other serious evils. Therefore the Torah said, When a man takes a woman for a wife and has sexual intercourse with her. This means that even though she had intercourse with him which you might think make it wrong to get divorced since he has tormented her – nevertheless if she doesn’t find favor in his eyes or he hates her ... then he has the choice of divorcing her. Nevertheless the Torah doesn’t want her divorced by simply telling her that she is divorced or by giving her money or by sending her from his house. That is to ensure that divorce is not easy to do which would result in a woman being divorced multiple times from her husband – because he was in a bad mood. Another negative consequence of easy divorce would be that she could go and falsely tell people that she was divorced in order to commit adultery with another man. Therefore in order to remove all these pitfalls from divorce, G‑d commanded that a man can only divorce his wife with a written document which requires many conditions to be valid as well as witnesses. All of these serve the purpose of making it not so easy for the husband to get divorced. Consequently if the husband wants to divorce his wife when he is in a state of anger and outrage, this will form a difficult barrier to overcome and he will calm down. This complicated procedure also serves to prevent her from falsely declaring that she is divorced – as the Rambam says in Moreh Nevuchim....