Rav Schachter joining with Rav Kaminetsky in disregarding the Baltimore Beis din and saying that Aharon should be forced to give a Get

update: added a link to the audo recording

This letter is being reposted because Rav Schacter published it as a response to the  Baltimore Beis Din's 2010 public declaration of Aharon's innocence.  The Baltimore Beis Din's declaration was a response to public attacks and demonstrations against Aharon, his family, (and the Washington Beis Din, which at the time refused to condemn Aharon), by Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky and Rabbi Schachter. Aside from the horrifying implication that Aharon Friedman could be beaten by any vigilante lynch mob - it clearly indicates Rav Schachter's contempt for the views of the Baltimore Beis Din and his automatic agreement with whatever Rabbi Kaminetsky did and said. Which we have clearly established has no basis in halacha.

From April 6, 2012  and January 23, 2014

Reposted because of the current interest in evidence that Rav Schachter called for or alluded to the appropriateness of violence against Ahron Friedman. Please click the link for an explicit discussion of the question based on Rav Schachter's recorded comments. Please keep in mind that there is no beis din that has heard both sides and issued a psak. In particular they both signed an agreement to follow the Baltimore Beis Din which has not issued any statement demanding that Ahron Freidman give Tamar a Get.

 

 Click here for context 

 

 

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

The audio of Rav Schachter mentioned below where he says that it is permissible to beat someone with a baseball bat into giving a Get has been removed from the YU site.

click to hear recording

In the letter, Rabbi Schachter says that Friedman's situation is the same as "a slave whose master provides for him a Canaanite maidservant, that until now it is has been permissible, and now it is forbidden." In the audio, he explains that in such a situation the slave, or Friedman, as he writes in the letter, should be beaten, and that any person can take the law into his own hands to deliver the beating.

It is also very telling that at 42:45, Schachter says that in the case of someone desiring a get, it is wrong to pressure the other spouse without the orders of a beis din - when Schachter wrote the December 2010 letter, there was no beis din that had stated Friedman had done anything wrong or that a get should be given.

http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/739308/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/Options_for_Helping_Agunot#

see in particular:

4:00 - beat someone over a get (citing Rabbi Akiva Eiger)
4:30 - beat a slave for wrongfully remaining married to maidservant, analogizing this case to the get case, and that anyone can take upon himself to take the law into their own hands to beat the person
9:10 - beat someone up over a get
10:20 - bludgeon someone to death over a get
13:33 - have right to beat someone over a get (citing Rabbi Akiva Eiger)
26:50 - beating for a get with a baseball bat

Midos are the most important factor in choosing a wife?

I was listening to a shiur about dating and marriage and the following claim was made

Avraham  insisted that Yitzchok marry someone from his family - even though they were idol worshipers - because midos can be passed down in the family even though faith can not

thus all the baalei tshuva believed properly but they lacked the midos inherent in his family

it is an interesting point - but I can not find any of the commentaries that make this claim

בראשית פרק כד פסוק ג
וְאַשְׁבִּ֣יעֲךָ֔ בַּֽיקֹוָק֙ אֱלֹהֵ֣י הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וֵֽאלֹהֵ֖י הָאָ֑רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֨ר לֹֽא־תִקַּ֤ח אִשָּׁה֙ לִבְנִ֔י מִבְּנוֹת֙ הַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֔י אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָנֹכִ֖י יוֹשֵׁ֥ב בְּקִרְבּֽוֹ: 

אברבנאל בראשית פרק כד
השאלה הג' מה ראה אברהם שלא צוה את יצחק בנו לא תקח אשה מבנות כנען כמו שצוה יצחק ליעקב וצוה אותו לאליעזר עבדו שהשביעו לא תקח אשה לבני מבנות הכנעני האם היה יצחק קטן בשנים או חסר דעת והרי בן מ' שנה היה חכם וירא שמים היה ולמה הזהיר לעבד השמר לך פן תשיב את בני שמה רק את בני לא תשב שמה ולא הזהיר על זה ליצחק עצמו כ"ש שאף שירצה העבד להשיב את יצחק שמה לא יאבה ולא ישמע אליו אברהם וימחה בזה כי הוא היה עקר הבית לא אליעזר ואיך תלה הדבר כלו בו ולא בעצמו ולא בבנו:

אברבנאל בראשית פרק כד
השאלה הה' למה צוה אברהם שלא יקח אשה מבנות הכנעני האם מפני שהיו עובדי עבודת כוכבים גם בעבר הנהר היו כן ומה הועיל בתקנתו והנה אם יצחק צוה ליעקב כן היה מפני הנסיון שראה שהיו מורת רוח לו ולרבקה ולא נסה בזה אברהם ומדוע הרחיקם ולא הרחיק את בנות בתואל ונחור שהיו רעים וחטאים מצד אמונותיהם כאנשי כנען וכ"ש שאמר אשר אנכי יושב בקרבו ובב"ר (שם) דרשוהו על ענר אשכול וממרא והם היו אנשים טובים ובעלי בריתו ולמה אסרם:

please enlighten me- what is the source for this claim?

 אברבנאל בראשית פרק כד
יושב בקרבו רומז לענר אשכול וממרא כמ"ש חז"ל כלומר אף על פי שאנכי יושב בקרבו והוא גדול ממני בעשר וכבוד איני רוצה בכבודו ומתנתו ויותר אחפוץ שתלך אל ארצי ואל מולדתי ששם משפחתי ולקחת אשה לבני ליצחק ר"ל אשה מבלי נכסים ומבלי שיתנו לה דבר כי הנה אף על פי שלא יתנו לה כלל ותהיה נכריה מארץ אחרת היא האשה אשר הוכיח ה' לבני להיותה מבני שם ומשפחתי או לפחות מארצי שבעבור זה תדמה בטבעה ותכונתה לטבע בני ולתכונתו וזו היא הצלחת הזווג ר"ל הסכמת האיש ואשתו בטבעיהם והותרה בזה השאלה הה'.

Abarbanel(Devarim 21, 24): 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 (Devarim 24) : 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 - but also in fulfiling       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 providing her with 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 compatiblity between the couple regarding their natures and personality to maximum degree possible. This compatiblity 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 compatiblity can be seen from the fact that G‑d brought all the animals and birds to Adam in order 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....

Rav Yaakov Kaminetsy's haskoma to R Travis's marriage manual

It is well known and fully publicized that it is important to have a peaceful marriage as the Torah says that G-ds name should be erased in the Sotah procedure in order to bring peace between a husband and his wife. There have been many books written by non Jews on this topic but the majority are not acceptable for use by religious Jews because their values and approaches differ from ours. Therefore my friend the great and intelligent Rabbi Travis decided to write a book on this topic for our religiously observant Jewish brethren

And even though I don’t have any knowledge in this topic but I know that the great rabbi Travis has been greatly involved in these matters for many years and I know and am familiar with him that he is purely motivated for the sake of Heaven . Therefore I am confident in him, that with the help of G-d this book will be very helpful in bringing peace into Jewish homes and be successful in bringing about the desires of G-d

Rav Moshe Shapiro’s approach to kiruv and the month of Shevat by Rav Chaim Malinowitz

The following is my summary of what Rav Chaim Malinowitz said Shabbos morning Rosh Chodesh Shevat. It has not been seen or approved by Rav Malinowitz and I take full responsibility for any errors in understanding or reporting what was said.

Today is Rosh Chodesh Shevat. The mazel of this month is known in English as Aquarius. In the secular world the Age of Aquarius is supposed be a Utopian time of love and peace – but that is a significant misunderstanding of the mazel. In Hebrew the astrological sign is referred to as the water bucket דלי. Torah is compared to water and thus it indicates the distribution of Torah. But the month has a number of other distinctions. It is also represented by Asher who was blessed by olive oil – both in Yaakov’s and Moshe’s beracha. Oil is representative of wisdom. It is important to note that oil and water don’t mix. So what does it mean to have a month which has  two components which are mutually exclusive and don’t mix?

The key to understanding this is a third factor of this month. Shevat is connected with the Giving of the Torah. We are told that Moshe started teaching Devarim or Mishneh Torah in Shevat. Devarim is different than the rest of the Torah in that it was initially said by Moshe from his own wisdom and then G-d incorporated it in the Torah [See Ohr HaChaim[1] Devarim 1:1].

In order to understand the meaning of these three factors and how they actual constitute an integrated entity, I would like to talk about Rav Moshe Shapiro who was recently niftar. There were thousands and thousands of people who had a personal kesher with him. My personal kesher with him was because of  his shiurim on seder Taharos b’eeyun which I attended. I have done a lot of reading about him and a large number of his shiurim are available on Kol HaLashon. It is well known that he was a great talmid chachom. It is also known that he was a very deep thinker who presented views that expressed kabbalistic ideas in plain language. He gave many shiurim all over Israel including a very popular Thursday night shiur at Ohr Someach.

What is less known is that he was an important Torah leader and authority for Ohr Someach and the world of kiruv. Aside from his teaching at Ohr Someach, he was involved in guiding a number of other institutions for baalei teshuva. He also was the guiding force behind the program Nefesh Yehudi that arranges Torah learning with college students. He was involved with kiruv around the world including Moscow and Paris.

However what is even less known is his understanding of kiruv. He personally did not like the term kiruv. He viewed what he was doing was simply fulfilling the mitzva of talmud Torah (Torah study). If you look at the Rambam’s description of Torah study[2] he notes that not only is it an obligation to learn – but also to teach Torah. Learning and teaching Torah are both aspects of the same mitzva. Thus Rav Shapiro’s view was that what is called kiruv is simply teaching Torah.

There are significant differences between the conventional understanding of kiruv as attracting people to be observant and Rav Shapiro's understanding of teaching Torah. But this is not the time to go into that.

It is obvious that if a Torah scholar teaches others, there are times that he needs to learn Torah himself. Often the activity of teaching and learning Torah are mutually exclusive. In fact it is like water and oil. Water – as represented by the water bucket of the mazel דלי is to distribute something to others i.e., teaching. On the other hand, learning for oneself is building up one’s own wisdom – which is represented by oil. The balance between teaching and learning is something that is unique for each individual and it is important the he/she find the correct balance in order to be successful. A teacher can not ignore learning nor can a scholar ignore teaching. This explains the significance of the mazel of Shevat (water) and the association of Shevat with Asher (oil) and how they relate to each other.

But what does the fact that Moshe Rabbeinu starting teaching Devarim in Shevat – have to do with water and oil? In addition what significance does water and oil have to do with the fact that Moshe Rabbeinu initiated what was said in Devarim and that it later became included in Torah?

We can explain how all these things are related by noting that Devarim was based on Moshe Rabeinu’s own chochma (oil). In addition the teaching of that chochma was in fact what is symbolized by water. Finally that G-d acknowledged that Moshe correctly understood the chochma of Torah and accurately conveyed it to the Jewish people by incorporating Devarim into the Torah. Thus Moshe’s chochma and teaching - and his correct balance of the two - became an aspect of the Giving of the Torah. This was Rav Moshe Shapiro’s paradigm for kiruv and is the essence of this month of Shevat.

---

[1] Ohr HaChaim(Devarim 1:1) These are the words, etc. The words אלה  is restrictive, especially in regard to what has been written previously. Seeing Moshe recorded in this Book only words which he had spoken on his own initiative, the Torah wishes to emphasize that only the  words of admonition recorded in the Book were spoken by Moshe on his own initiative. We are told in the gemora (Megila 31b) that Moshe personally composed the curses recorded in the Book and that even legislation which Moshe repeated in this Book he had not been commanded to repeat but did so of his own volition. The Torah was concerned that we might conclude that just as Moshe had felt free to say things of this own volition in this Book, he might have done so in the previous four books. That is why this Book commences with the words אלה הדברים  only these words Moshe spoke of his own volition, none other".

[2] רמב"ם (הלכות תלמוד תורה פרק א:א-ד):

הלכה א

נשים ועבדים וקטנים פטורים מתלמוד תורה, אבל קטן אביו חייב ללמדו תורה שנאמר ולמדתם אותם את בניכם לדבר בם, ואין האשה חייבת ללמד את בנה שכל החייב ללמוד חייב ללמד.

הלכה ב

כשם שחייב אדם ללמד את בנו כך הוא חייב ללמד את בן בנו שנאמר והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך, ולא בנו ובן בנו בלבד אלא מצוה על כל חכם וחכם מישראל ללמד את כל התלמידים אף על פי שאינן בניו, שנאמר ושננתם לבניך מפי השמועה למדו בניך אלו תלמידיך שהתלמידים קרויין בנים שנאמר ויצאו בני הנביאים, אם כן למה נצטוה על בנו ועל בן בנו, להקדים בנו לבן בנו ובן בנו לבן חבירו.

הלכה ג

וחייב לשכור מלמד לבנו ללמדו, ואינו חייב ללמד בן חבירו אלא בחנם, מי שלא למדו אביו חייב ללמד את עצמו כשיכיר שנאמר ולמדתם אותם ושמרתם לעשותם, וכן אתה מוצא בכל מקום שהתלמוד קודם למעשה מפני שהתלמוד מביא לידי מעשה ואין המעשה מביא לידי תלמוד.

הלכה ד

היה הוא רוצה ללמוד תורה ויש לו בן ללמוד תורה הוא קודם לבנו, ואם היה בנו נבון ומשכיל להבין מה שילמוד יותר ממנו בנו קודם, ואף על פי שבנו קודם לא יבטל הוא, שכשם שמצוה עליו ללמד את בנו כך הוא מצווה ללמד עצמו.

Rav Chaim Malinowitz: Understanding suffering and revenge

The following are my recollections of Rav Chaim Malinowitz's words said Shabbos morning in his shul in Beit Shemesh - Shabbos Parshas Matos - July 19th, 2014. He did not review this and any errors are soley mine. I felt that during these difficult days - they are relevant to all of us.

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

He noted that it had been a difficult two weeks, he just finished Shiva for his brother - Rav Zalman Malinowitz z"l - on Sunday and there was the ground invasion of Gaza.

In this week's parsha (Bamidbar 31:1): G-d commands Moshe to avenge the Jews by attacking Midian because they had risen against the Jewish people. Then in (Bamidbar 31:3) Moshe commands them to attack Midian to avenge G-d. Rashi says, "That when Midian rose against the Jews it was as if they had attacked G-d. Therefore we see that an attack on the Jewish people is to be viewed as an attack against G-d. A person who is attacked because he is a Jew needs to be avenged because we are G-d's people.

While the Jews were clearly commanded to take revenge against Midian [and not Moav see Rashi], there is a problem in understanding the nature of revenge. We know that psychologically revenge is extremely sweet. Yet we know that the Torah prohibits taking revenge [Vayikra 19:18/however see Yoma 23a – difference between Torah Scholar and money] On the other hand we have the gemora that indicates it is a great thing.

Berachos (33a) R. Ammi said: Great is knowledge, since it was placed at the beginning of the weekday blessings. R. Ammi also said: Great is knowledge since it was placed between two names, as it says, For a God of knowledge is the Lord. And if one has not knowledge, it is forbidden to have mercy on him, as it says, For it is a people of no understanding, therefore He that made them will have no compassion upon them. R. Eleazar said: Great is the Sanctuary, since it has been placed between two names, as it says, Thou hast made, O Lord, the sanctuary, O Lord. R. Eleazar also said: Whenever there is in a man knowledge, it is as if the Sanctuary had been built in his days; for knowledge is set between two names, and the Sanctuary is set between two names. R. Aha Karhina'ah demurred to this. According to this, he said, great is vengeance since it has been set between two names, as it says, God of vengeance, O Lord; He replied: That is so; that is to say, it is great in its proper sphere; and this accords with what ‘Ulla said: Why two vengeances here? One for good and one for ill. For good, as it is written, He shined forth from Mount Paran; for ill, as it is written, God of vengeance, O Lord, God of vengeance, shine forth. [Rashi - when revenge is needed it is a great thing]

We see from this gemora that revenge is comparable in greatness to knowledge and the Beis Hamikdosh- but only when it is for the proper reason – otherwise it is bad.

In essence we have two types of revenge. That which is because of personal hurt or embarrassment – which is prohibited and that which is concerning G-d or justice. He noted that Rav S. R. Hirsch says that the root of the word for revenge is קם to stand or raise up. Rav Hirsch says that revenge taken in order to correct an obvious injustice is in fact desirable but one which is done to feel good against someone who has hurt us is wrong. 

He gave other examples. Midian was also attacked as revenge because of selling Yosef – even though it had been done many years before. We also find that the last thing that Dovid did was to instruct Shlomo to take revenge against someone who had commited the capital crime of rebelling against him - but that he had promised not to personally  harm. Both of these cases were not personal revenge for personal satisfaction but rather done entirely to correct an injustice which had been done in the world - that was needed for the greater good.

The other issue he talked about was connected to the recent petirah of his brother. Since it was Shabbos he said he was not going to give a hesped or say words that caused pain. Rather he was going to talk about some lessons which he felt applied to all of us that needed to be inculcated in ourselves and our children.

He noted that many people came during the Shiva. He said the high point of the shiva was the visit of Rav Don Segal. When he came, the non-family members were asked to leave so he could have a private meeting with the family. He noted that Rav Segal said many things and he was asked many questions and they felt a deep comfort and understanding from his words. In the course of half an hour, 3 basics points were expressed that he felt were critical to emphasize that everyone needs to inculcate them in themselves and their children. While they might seem obvious – it is necessary to work on understanding them and see and know them in reality and not just have them as religious beliefs. In fact he asked Rav Segal whether a person should pray that he know them to be true and not just believe them to be true – and Rav Segal said yes.

1) Everything that happens is caused by G-d. 2) G-d has a plan for what happens 3) What happens is good. 

He noted as an illustration of this, that when the great mechanech - Rav Yaakov Bender his brother's employer – had come he told his brother's son who is 15 the following. "My father also died why I was 15 and it was very painful. However over the years I have come to the realization that all that I have accomplished in chinuch and other areas is only because of the sensitivity I acquired from the loss of my father."

We need to actively look and try to understand what G-d's plan is for us and to know it is good.

Rambam a talmid chachom should be a nice person

hilchos  de'os 5:7 from Sefaria

תַּלְמִיד חָכָם לֹא יְהֵא צוֹעֵק וְצוֹוֵחַ בִּשְׁעַת דִּבּוּרוֹ כִּבְהֵמוֹת וְחַיּוֹת. וְלֹא יַגְבִּיהַּ קוֹלוֹ בְּיוֹתֵר אֶלָּא בְּנַחַת lעִם כָּל הַבְּרִיּוֹת. וּכְשֶׁיְּדַבֵּר בְּנַחַת יִזָּהֵר שֶׁלֹּא יִתְרַחֵק עַד שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה כְּדִבְרֵי גַּסֵּי הָרוּחַ. וּמַקְדִּים שָׁלוֹם לְכָל הָאָדָם כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא רוּחָן נוֹחָה הֵימֶנּוּ. וְדָן אֶת כָּל הָאָדָם לְכַף זְכוּת. מְסַפֵּר בְּשֶׁבַח חֲבֵרוֹ וְלֹא בִּגְנוּתוֹ כְּלָל. אוֹהֵב שָׁלוֹם וְרוֹדֵף שָׁלוֹם. אִם רוֹאֶה שֶׁדְּבָרָיו מוֹעִילִים וְנִשְׁמָעִים אוֹמֵר וְאִם לָאו שׁוֹתֵק. כֵּיצַד. לֹא יְרַצֶּה חֲבֵרוֹ בִּשְׁעַת כַּעֲסוֹ. וְלֹא יִשְׁאַל לוֹ עַל נִדְרוֹ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנָּדַר עַד שֶׁתִּתְקָרֵר דַּעְתּוֹ וְיָנוּחַ. וְלֹא יְנַחֲמֶנּוּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמֵּתוֹ מֻטָּל לְפָנָיו מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בָּהוּל עַד שֶׁיִּקְבְּרֵהוּ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בְּאֵלּוּ. וְלֹא יִרְאֶה לַחֲבֵרוֹ בִּשְׁעַת קַלְקָלָתוֹ אֶלָּא יַעֲלִים עֵינָיו מִמֶּנּוּ. וְלֹא יְשַׁנֶּה בְּדִבּוּרוֹ. וְלֹא יוֹסִיף וְלֹא יִגְרַע אֶלָּא בְּדִבְרֵי שָׁלוֹםוְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּדִבְרֵי חָכְמָה אוֹ בִּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. וְלֹא יְסַפֵּר עִם אִשָּׁה בַּשּׁוּק וַאֲפִלּוּ הִיא אִשְׁתּוֹ אוֹ אֲחוֹתוֹ אוֹ בִּתּוֹ: 

A disciple of the wise should not be noisy and loud like cattle and animals when talking, nor even raise his voice overmuch, but converse calmly with all people; nevertheless, in speaking calmly he should not overdo it lest he resemble the overpoliteness of the arrogant. He should be first to greet every person, so that their spirit be pleased with him He should judge every person favorably, telling the praiseworthy things about his friend and not at all about the blameworthy things; love peace and pursue it. If he can see his words acceptable he may speak, if not he should be silent. For instance? He should not appease his friend when the latter is moody; nor question him concerning his vow at the time the vow was made, but wait until his friend's mind will be composed and collected; he should not offer condolence while the remains of the deceased are in the presence of his friend, because he is upset until after the remains are buried, and so in other matters of a like delicate nature. He should not call upon his friend while the latter is down through a failing, but keep his eye off of him. He should not change his word, nor add to or diminish from it, unless it be for the sake of peace and similar worthy objects. As a general rule, he should not speak much else save words of wisdom, or charity and the like. He should not carry on a conversation with a woman on the street, even though she be his wife, or his sister, or his daughter.

WHAT DO WOMEN WANT sexually? sources in Torah literature

I asserted in a previous post that the widely believed statement that women have different sexual needs and desires than men in particular that while for men sex is a physical issue for women it is primarily emotional - has no basis in fact or the Torah literature, that this statement comes from secular and christian marriage manuals and psychology texts. There is no empiric evidence for it. and the research indicates that both men and women view it primarily as a physical issues and that women have more lust than me. I reviewed RAMBAM IGROS KOSH - ascibed to Rambam as well as the letters of CHAZON ISH STEIPLER and RAV WOLBE, RAV YAAKOV EMDEN'S SIDDUR AND  this idea is not mentioned see the Shulchan   Aruch below - no mention. INFACT THE ONLY DIRECT MENTION OF WOMENS FEELINGS I HAVE FOUND IS THE FOLLOWING

Maharal[1](Bava Metzia 59a): Rav said that a person should always be carefully not to oppress his wife because since she is sensitive and readily cries it is easy to make her feel oppressed. Thus we see that it is only his wife that he needs to be exceedingly careful not to hurt her feelings since she is ruled by him and therefore is much more likely to cry than other people who are not so easily oppressed. In other words because his wife is under his control she is more likely to be hurt by his words and cry when he wrongs her. In contrast a non‑Jewish slave is by nature not so affected by oppression and even a female Jewish slave does not readily cry because she has accepted the servitude to her master. Furthermore a female slave was not created for the purpose of being under his domain. It is only the wife who was created to be under the rule of her husband and as it says (Bereishis 3:16), And he shall rule over you. Therefore when she is oppressed it has a very strong impact on her. Furthermore in truth a wife does not accept being ruled by her husband because she views herself as his equal. In contrast a slave fully accepts that his master rules over him and therefore is not impacted as much as a wife who views herself as important and therefore is devastated when she is not treated with care.

---

[1]  מהר"ל (בבא מציעא נט.): אמר רב לעולם יהא אדם זהיר באונאת אשתו שמתוך שדמעתה מצויה אונאתה קרובה: לעולם יהא אדם זהיר באונאת אשתו כו' פירש שיהיה נזהר באשתו דווקא כי אשתו מפני שהבעל מושל עליה דמעתה מצויה ביותר, כי אונאת אדם אחר אינו מקבל כל כך התפעלות אבל אשה בעבור שהיא תחת ממשלת האדם ואם עושה לה אונאת דברים דמעתה מצויה, אבל עבד עברי אינו מקבל התפעלות בטבע ואפילו היא אמה עבריה אין דמעתה מצויה מחמת כי היא מקבלת עליה שעבוד אדון שלה, וגם בעצם הבריאה לא נבראת שתהיה תחת ממשלתו, רק האשה נבראת שהיא תחת ממשלת בעלה כדכתיב בקרא (בראשית ג:טז) והוא ימשל בך, ואם יש לה אונאה היא מתפעלת ביותר לכך דמעתה מצויה. וגם אין האשה מקבלת עליה ממשלת בעלה, מפני שהיא זוגתו, כמו שמקבל עליו העבד אדנות האדון ואינו מתפעל כ"כ כמו האשה שרואה עצמה חשובה ומתפעלת מן אונאת בעלה:

SO EITHER our rabbis didn't know this idea,neglected to mention it or that secular knowledge is superior in these issues - or THAT IT IS NOT PART OF THE JEWISH VIEW OF SEXUALITY

שולחן ערוך אבן העזר הלכות אישות סימן כה סעיף א
ראוי לאדם להרגיל עצמו א] בקדושה יתירה ב] ובמחשבה טהורה ג] ובדעת נכונה, כדי להנצל מלהכשל בדבר ערוה. ד] ויזהר מהייחוד שהוא הגורם הגדול. וכן ינהוג להתרחק ה] מהשחוק ומהשכרות (א) ו] ומדברי עגבים (פירוש דברי שחוק וחשק). ולא ישב בלא אשה, ז] שמנהג זה גורם לטהרה גדולה. ח] יתירה מכל זאת אמרו: יפנה עצמו ומחשבתו לד"ת וירחיב דעתו בחכמה, שאין מחשבת עריות מתגברת אלא בלב פנוי מהחכמה.


שולחן ערוך אבן העזר הלכות אישות סימן כה סעיף ב
ולא יקל ראשו עם אשתו ולא ינבל פיו בדברי הבאי, אפילו בינו לבינה. הרי הכתוב אומר: מגיד לאדם מה שחו (עמוס ד, יג) אמרו חכמים ז"ל: אפילו שיחה קלה שבין אדם לאשתו עתיד ליתן עליה את הדין. ואל יספר עמה ט] בשעת תשמיש י] ולא קודם לכן, כדי שלא יתן דעתו באשה אחרת, ואם ספר עמה ושמש מיד, עליו נאמר: מגיד לאדם מה שחו (עמוס ד, יג) יא] אבל בענייני תשמיש יכול לספר עמה, כדי להרבות תאותו, יב] או אם היה לו כעס עמה וצריך לרצותה שתתפייס, יכול לספר עמה כדי לרצותה. הגה: יג] ויכול לעשות עם אשתו מה שירצה, יד] בועל בכל עת שירצה א טו] ומנשק בכל אבר א'} שירצה, טז] ובא עליה בין כדרכה {א} בין שלא כדרכה, או דרך אברים יז] ובלבד שלא יוציא זרע לבטלה (טור). ויש מקילין ואומרים שמותר שלא כדרכה ב (ב) אפילו אם הוציא זרע, אם עושה ב'} באקראי ג ואינו רגיל בכך (גם זה טור בשם ר"י). ואף על פי שמותר בכל אלה, יח] כל המקדש עצמו במותר לו קדוש יאמרו לו (דברי הרב). ולא ירבה בתשמיש להיות מצוי אצלה תמיד, שדבר זה פגום הוא מאד ומעשה בורות הוא, אלא כל הממעט בתשמיש ה"ז משובח, יט] ובלבד שלא יבטל עונה כ] אלא מדעת אשתו. כא] ואף כשישמש בשעת העונה לא יכוין להנאתו, כב] אלא כאדם הפורע חובו שהוא חייב ג'} בעונתה, ולקיים מצות בוראו בפריה ורביה, כג] ושיהיו לו בנים עוסקים בתורה ומקיימי מצות בישראל. ולא יבעול אלא מרצונה, ואם אינה מרוצה יפייסנה עד שתתרצה. כד] ויהיה צנוע מאד בשעת תשמיש. ד ולא ישמש (ג) <א> בפני שום מין ד'} אדם, כה] אפילו קטן, כו] אא"כ הוא תינוק שאינו יודע לדבר.


In fact the only requirement is that the wife be a willing participant and the gemora says the husband can lie to his wife and promise her gifts that he does not intend giving her to get her acceptance

Talmud - Mas. Eiruvin 100b

Rami b. Hama citing R. Assi further ruled: A man is forbidden to compel his wife to the [marital] obligation, since it is said in Scripture: And he that hasteth with his feet24 sinneth.25

    R. Joshua b. Levi similarly stated: Whosoever compels his wife to the [marital] obligation will have unworthy children. Said R. Ika b. Hinena: What is the Scriptural proof? ‘Also without consent26 the soul27 is hot good.’25 So it was also taught: Also without consent26 the soul is not good,25 refers to a man who compels his wife to the [marital] obligation: And he that hasteth with his feet sinneth,25 refers to the man who has intercourse twice in succession. But, surely, this cannot be right! For did not Raba state, ‘He who desires all his children to be males should cohabit twice in succession’? — This is no difficulty, since the latter deals with the woman's] consent; whereas the former, without her consent.

    R. Samuel b. Nahmani citing R. Johanan28 stated: A woman who solicits her husband to the [marital] obligation will have children the like of whom did not exist even in the generation of Moses. For of the generation of Moses it is written: Get you from each one of your tribes, wise men and understanding, and full of knowledge,29 and then it follows: So I took the heads of your tribes, wise men and full of knowledge.30 while men of ‘understanding’ he could not find, whereas in the case of Leah it is written in Scripture, ‘And Leah went out to meet him, and said: Thou must come unto me, for I have surely hired thee,’31 and subsequently it is written, ‘And of the children of Issachar,32 men that had understanding33 of the times, to know what Israel ought to do, the heads of them were two hundred, and all their brethren were at their commandment.’34

    But can that be right?35 seeing that R. Isaac b. Abdimi stated: Eve was cursed with ten curses, since it is written: Unto the woman He said, and I will greatly multiply,36 which refers to the two drops of blood, one being that of menstruation and the other that of virginity, ‘thy pain’36 refers to the pain of bringing up children, ‘and thy travail’36 refers to the pain of conceptions ‘in pain thou shalt bring forth children’36 is to be understood in its literal meaning, ‘and thy desire shall be to thy husband’36 teaches that a woman yearns for her husband when he is about to set out on a journey, ‘and he shall rule over thee’36 teaches that while the wife solicits with her heart the husband does so with his mouth, this being a fine trait of character among women?37 — What was meant is38 that she ingratiates herself with him.39 But are not these40 only seven? When R. Dimi came41 he explained: She is wrapped up like a mourner,42 banished from the company of all men43 and confined within a prison.44 What is meant by ‘banished from the company of all men’? If it be suggested: That she is forbidden to meet a man in privacy, is not the man also but could be retorted.] forbidden to meet a woman in privacy? — The meaning rather is that she is forbidden to marry two men. In a Baraitha it was taught: She grows long hair like Lilith,45 sits when making water like a beast, and serves as a bolster for her husband. And the other?46 — These, he holds, are rather complimentary to her, R. Hiyya having made the following statement: What is meant by the Scriptural text: Who teacheth us by47 the beasts of the earth and maketh us wise by48 the fowls of the heaven?49 ‘Who teacheth us by the beasts’ refers to the mule which kneels when it makes water, ‘and maketh us wise by the fowls of the heaven’ refers to the cock which first coaxes and then mates.

Netziv^[1](Eiruvin 100b): Etiquette can be learned from a rooster – We learn the normal psychology that coaxing women is only with clothing as is stated in Pesachim (109a): “How are the women of Babylonia made happy? With colored clothing.” We also learn that it is permitted to deceive her and to promise orally but in his heart he knows he will not keep it. Similar to this is the words of our Sages that it is permitted to be falsely flatter ones wife.

---

[1]  נצי"ב (מרומי שדה - עירובין ק:): דרך ארץ מן תרנגול – הנה מלמדנו דרך ארץ דפיוס נשים אינה אלא בבגדים וכדאי' בפסחים (קט.) נשים במה משמחן בבבל – בבגדי צבעונין. ועוד מלמדין שמותר לשנות לה ולהבטיח בפיו ולבו בל עמו. מעין זה אמרי חז"ל דמותר לחניף לאשתו. (עי' ספר ארחות צדיקים.)

   

R. Johanan observed: If the Torah had not been given we could have learnt modesty from the cat, honesty50 from the ant, chastity51 from the dove, and good manners from the cock who first coaxes and then mates. And how52 does he coax his mate? — Rab Judah citing Rab replied. He tells her this: ‘I will buy you a cloak that win reach to your feet’.53 After the event he tells her,54 ‘May the cat55 tear off my56 crest if I have57 any money and do not buy you one’.

WHAT DO THEY WANT?

A number of years ago while working on my DAAS TORAH  sefer

I had a long talk with Rav Noach Weinberg who told me the need of that generation was a good education in Jewish theology

More recently I spoke with someone who had discussed the issue with Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky who said that people needed Judaism to be fun

now I am hearing that we have entered a new era of only positive feelings - no failure or disappointment is allowed.

reminded me of a conversation I had with a chabad shliach in Florida about 40 years ago who told me he had trouble talking to the local population because they weren't concerned with truth but whether something made them feel good i.e happy


ר' חזקיה ר' כהן בשם רב עתיד אדם ליתן דין וחשבון על כל שראת עינו ולא אכל. (קידושין מח ב)

בשעת פטירתו של רבי זקף עשר אצבעותיו כלפי מעלה, אמר, רבונו של עולם גלוי וידוע לפניך שיגעתי בעשר אצבעותי בתורה ולא נהניתי אפילו באצבע קטנה... (כתובות קד א)

...משרבו בעלי הנאה נתעותו הדינין ונתקלקלו המעשים ואין נוח בעולם... (סוטה מז ב)

מהר"ל:

משרבו בעלי הנאה נתעוותו הדינין, פירוש הנאת הגוף ותאוה חמרית, נתקלקל הדינים, כי הדין הוא אלקי, כדכתיב (דברים א') "כי המשפט לאלקים הוא", וכן נתקלקלו המעשים האלקיים כאשר האדם רודף אחר התאוות החמריות הגופניות, ואין נוח בעולם כאשר האדם נעשה חמרי, כי אין הנחה ושלימות בדבר זה. (חידושי אגדות סוטה מז ב)

רמח"ל:

...זהו ענין הפרישות, הטוב שלא יקח האדם מן העולם בשום שימוש אלא מה שהוא מוכרח בו מפני הצורך בטבעו... שיש לו לאדם לפרוש מכל מה שהוא תענוג עולמי, למען לא יפול בסכנתו. ואם תשאל, אם כן למה לא גזרו עליו חכמים? התשובה מבוארת, כי לא גזרו אלא אם כן רוב הצבור יכולים לעמוד בה, ואין רוב הצבור יכולים להיות חסידים, אך השרידים החפצים לזכות קרבתו יתברך, ולזכות בזכותם ההמון הנתלה בם, להם מגיע לקיים משנת חסידים... (שם)

Shalom bayis - wife's first obligation is respect of her husband - not her parents or children

because Pesach is a high strain times on family

I was just asked who takes precedence a wife's parents or husband?

I hope this clear statement of Rav Moshe will promote shalom bayis and simcas hahag

Igros Moshe (O.C. 1:158): A woman after she is married is generally considered as one who has entered the domain of her husband. That is because her place is to be with her husband according to the Torah. In fact the essence of marriage is that she is given to her husband to be in his house as is stated in Kesubos (48). It is because the law of marriage is that she is to be in the house of her husband – and this is the Torah law. We see the consequence of this in Kiddushin (30b) where it says that a woman does not have the means of filling the mitzva of honoring her father and her mother because she is in the domain of others. This seems to rather astounding because the obligation of the woman to do work for her husband is only a rabbinic decree. So how can this inability to honor her parents resulting from a rabbinic decree to work for him - be ascertained from the fact that a Torah verse emphasizes that a man has the obligation to fear his parents? ... Therefore it is necessary to say that since that even though according to the Torah there is no subservience for work on the woman nevertheless there is the law that it is encumbent on the woman to be with her husband because this is the essence of marriage. Consequently she does not have the option to go to be with her father to feed him, to give him drink and to do all the activities related to honoring him. And this that Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 240:17) writes that a woman doesn’t have the means to honor parents because she is subservient to her husband – it needs to be understood that it is not describing subservience for work. That is because on the Torah level she is exempt. Rather it means that she is subservient to her husband in that she is required to be in his house. And that is how it is expresssed in the Torah. For example, Bamidbar (30:11),“If she makes an oath in her husband’s house” or concerning divorce, Devarim(24:1), “And she is sent from his house” and concerning bikkurim Gittin (47b) learns that the husband brings the bikkurim of his wife since Devarim (26:11) says, “and your house” which includes your wife. All of this shows that the wife must be in the husband’s house.

Kiddushin(30b) BUT ALL OBLIGATIONS OF THE FATHER UPON THE SON etc., What is meant by ‘ALL OBLIGATIONS OF THE FATHER UPON THE SON? Shall we say, all precepts which the father is bound to perform for his son — are then women bound thereby? But it was taught: ‘The father is obliged in respect of his son, to circumcise and redeem him’: only the father, but not the mother? — Said Rab Judah, This is its meaning: All precepts concerning a father, which are incumbent upon a son to perform for his father, both men and women are bound thereby. We have [thus] learnt here what our Rabbis taught: [Ye shall fear every man his father, and his mother]:32 ‘man,’I know it only of man; how do I know it of woman?33 When it is said: ‘Ye shall fear,’ two are mentioned. If so, why state man? A man possesses the means to fulfil this, but a woman has no means of fulfilling this, because she is under the authority of others.[(34) Viz., her husband, who may render it impossible for her to shew due reverence to her parents.]34 R. Idi b. Abin said in Rab's name: If she is divorced, both are equal.35 Our Rabbis taught: It is said: Honour thy father and thy mother;36 and it is also said: Honour the Lord with thy substance:37 thus the Writ assimilates the honour due to parents to that of the Omnipresent. It is said: ‘Ye shall fear every man his father, and his mother’; and it is also said: The Lord thy God thou shalt fear, and him thou shalt serve;38 thus the Writ assimilates the fear of parents to the fear of God. It is said: And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death;39 and it is also said: Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin:40 thus the Writ assimilates the blessing41 of parents to that of the Omnipresent. But in respect of striking, it is certainly impossible.42 And that is but logical,43 since the three 44 are partners in him [the son].

Ramban doctors are only a minhag

Ibn Ezra[(Shemos 23:25): … a person who observes the Torah has no need for a doctor other than G‑d…

Avnei Nezer[C.M. 193): [Written by the father of the Avnei Nezer] … According to the Ramban who says that the ideal is not to use doctors at all... he would also permit the sick person to refuse treatment.... However according to the Bach it would be prohibited for a person to refuse medical treatment. Nevertheless it would appear if the sick person is really a tzadik then he can rely on the Ibn Ezra and the Ramban since relative to them the Bach is the minority opinion.... Furthermore it would appear to me that in this matter everyone would be considered a tzadik since he wants to be strict with himself with prohibited food and he has trust in G‑d even in the face of death. Therefore even a person who is not considered a tzadik would be permitted to refuse the doctors’ orders to be cured by eating unkosher food. .....

Derashos HaRan#6): I have absolutely no doubt that spiritual sickness is the cause for physical sickness. In fact there is no cure of the body without cure of the soul. … spiritual illness is the cause of physical illness and that a totally healthy soul can ward off all deadly influences…... 

Chazon IshLetters 1:136): While it is true that there is a path in serving G‑d which totally transcends nature and the need for great effort to obtain something, nevertheless [for most people] there is a need for each person to evaluate very carefully the relationship of effort and bitachon for himself. Deviating in either direction from the precise true path is not correct i.e.,. to act in accord with greater bitachon than the level the person has reached or to rely too much on his own efforts [rather than having bitachon].

Beis HaLevi(Bereishis 41:1): …The fundamental principle is that one should not worry but should have complete trust in G‑d. However the permission to exert oneself to achieve a particular goal is because not everyone is able to reach the level of total trust in G‑d. Therefore it is permitted to exert effort so as to be able to achieve the proper level of trust. Every person needs to obtain work and activity so that it will be easy for him to have trust in G‑d. It is not unusual that the Torah will permit something in order to make it easier to achieve the desired higher level. For example One should always be involved in Torah and Mitzvos even for ulterior motives because eventually one’s motives will be pure. Thus the development of pure motivation can proceed initially through ulterior motivation. Based on this understanding the degree of desirable effort is not equal for everyone but rather depends on the nature of the individual. One who can achieve total trust with little effort is considered to be sinning if he exerts more effort. Thus there is an inverse relationship between actual level of trust and the amount of personal effort which is permitted. The main point is to achieve trust and tranquility by relying entirely on what G‑d provides. One who exerts himself more than he needs to achieve that state is punished from Heaven and is required to exert himself more. In fact he will not attain what he needs except from personal effort - which is what he has chosen for himself…

Shemos (15:26): If you will strongly obey G d and do you do that which is upright in His eyes and pay attention to His commandments and keep His statutes - I will not put any of the diseases on you that I put on the Egyptians. That is because I am G d who heals you.

Shir HaShirim Rabbah (6:17): The door that is not open for mitzvos will be open for the doctor.

 Rabbeinu Bachyei(Shemos 23:25):… There are certain internal sicknesses that occur because of certain food and drink and there are sicknesses which are external that result of such things as change in climate and alterations of the stars. Therefore this verse promises that when Jews serve G‑d, He will bless man’s food and water so they will have the strength to not to become ill. Therefore the righteous who fulfill the Torah will have no need for a doctor...

Chazon Ish(Emuna and Bitachon 5:5): Pesachim (56a) states that Chezkiyahu concealed the Book of Cures. Rashi explains that it was concealed because people were not being humbled by their illness because they were being cured immediately - therefore they derived no spiritual benefit from their illness. The Rambam in his commentary to this mishna cites and interpretation that Shlomo had composed the Book of Cures to cure any sickness and that when Chezkiyahu saw that people were no longer relying on G‑d he concealed it. The Rambam rejects this interpretation saying that it makes no sense for a person to be denied a cure just as it is wrong to deny a hunger person of food…. However the Rambam’s explanation that medicinal cure is just as natural as eating - is problematic. First of all Bava Kama (85a) says that the Torah had to give permission to cure illness [apparently otherwise it would be forbidden]. Secondly we see stated in Berachos (60a) that according to R’ Eliezar that it is not natural for a person to be cured through medicine. Rashi explains R’ Eliezar to mean that a person should ideally not use medicine but should pray instead. Abaye disagrees with R’ Eliezar and says that a person should not prohibit the use of medicine since the Torah has already given permission to utilize medicines. From these sources it is quite clear that medicine does not have the status of food because there is no need to utilize a Torah verse to permit one to eat. In fact hunger is not viewed as punishment and eating is considered a way of serving G‑d - the table of a tzadik is considered as a holy altar (Avos 3:3). Sickness - contrary to the Rambam - is a punishment and should motivate a person to repent and to pray. Nevertheless a doctor has permission to cure because there are very few genuinely spiritual people who can follow this approach. The generation of Chezkiyahu was unique. Sanhedrin 94b) states that they searched the entire land of Israel and could not find an ignorant person… Such spiritual giants needed to rely entirely on their faith and trust in G‑d and not utilize medicine. The Ramban (Vayikra 26:11): writes the minority who are totally sanctified to serving G‑d do not in fact utilize medicine. However this approach is reserved only from people on the level of the R’ Shimon bar Yochai.

MaharaNetzach Yisroel): Even though the Sages said (Bava Kama 85a) that doctors are permitted to cure illness, nevertheless the main thing is to have trust in G‑d and want that He be his doctor in nature. However in the time of Chezkiyahu they only wanted a cure from nature and they paid no attention at all to the cure that comes from G‑d in a manner which transcends nature. Therefore he concealed the Book of Cures which is itself totally in nature and it was good that he removed this exclusive focus on the material aspects of cure.

Rambam(Commentary to Pesachim 4:10): Chezkiah hid the Book of Cures The only reason I have gone into detail in this matter is because there are those who mistakenly claim that Shlomo composed the Book of Cures [Ramban Introduction to Torah Commentary] so that if someone was sick he could readily find the treatment and be cured. The further claim that because Chezkiah saw that people were not relying on G‑d to be cured he concealed the book. Besides being utterly nonsensical, it ascribes to Chezkiyahu and his peers who agreed with him such tremendous stupidity that is only found amongst the lowest of the masses. According to their mistaken idiotic fantasy if a person is hungry and he takes food to eat to be obviously cured from the tremendous pains of hunger - would we say that such a person is lacking in bitachon? Woe are the fools!. Just as I thank G‑d when I eat that He provided me with something to remove my hunger and to rejuvenate and sustain me, I similarly thank Him that He produced medicines that cure my illnesses when I use them. There was no need to refute such this disgusting explanation except for the fact that it is so widespread

---

[

רמב"ן על ויקרא פרק כו פסוק יא 

 אבל הדורש השם בנביא לא ידרוש ברופאים - ומה חלק לרופאים בבית עושי רצון השם, אחר שהבטיח וברך את לחמך ואת מימיך והסירותי מחלה מקרבך, והרופאים אין מעשיהם רק על המאכל והמשקה להזהיר ממנו ולצוות עליו:

 וכך אמרו (ברכות סד -) כל עשרין ותרתין שנין דמלך רבה רב יוסף אפילו אומנא לביתיה לא קרא, והמשל להם (במדב"ר ט ג) תרעא דלא פתיח למצותא פתיח לאסיא והוא מאמרם (ברכות ס) שאין דרכם של בני אדם ברפואות אלא שנהגו, אילו לא היה דרכם ברפואות יחלה האדם כפי אשר יהיה עליו עונש חטאו ויתרפא ברצון ה', אבל הם נהגו ברפואות והשם הניחם למקרי הטבעים:

 וזו היא כונתם באמרם (שם) ורפא ירפא מכאן שנתנה רשות לרופא לרפאות, לא אמרו שנתנה רשות לחולה להתרפאות, אלא כיון שחלה החולה ובא להתרפאות כי נהג ברפואות והוא לא היה מעדת השם שחלקם בחיים, אין לרופא לאסור עצמו מרפואתו, לא מפני חשש שמא ימות בידו, אחרי שהוא בקי במלאכה ההיא, ולא בעבור שיאמר כי השם לבדו הוא רופא כל בשר, שכבר נהגו ועל כן האנשים הנצים שהכו זה את זה באבן או באגרוף (שמות כא יח) יש על המכה תשלומי הרפואה, כי התורה לא תסמוך דיניה על הנסים, כאשר אמרה (דברים טו יא) כי לא יחדל אביון מקרב הארץ, מדעתו שכן יהיה אבל ברצות השם דרכי איש אין לו עסק ברופאים:

(49) רמב"ן על ויקרא פרק כו פסוק יא

 אין מעשיהם רק על המאכל והמשקה להזהיר ממנו ולצוות עליו:

 וכך אמרו (ברכות סד -) כל עשרין ותרתין שנין דמלך רבה רב יוסף אפילו אומנא לביתיה לא קרא, והמשל להם (במדב"ר ט ג) תרעא דלא פתיח למצותא פתיח לאסיא והוא מאמרם (ברכות ס) שאין דרכם של בני אדם ברפואות אלא שנהגו, אילו לא היה דרכם ברפואות יחלה האדם כפי אשר יהיה עליו עונש חטאו ויתרפא ברצון ה', אבל הם נהגו ברפואות והשם הניחם למקרי הטבעים:

 וזו היא כונתם באמרם (שם) ורפא ירפא מכאן שנתנה רשות לרופא לרפאות, לא אמרו שנתנה רשות לחולה להתרפאות, אלא כיון שחלה החולה ובא להתרפאות כי נהג ברפואות והוא לא היה מעדת השם שחלקם בחיים, אין לרופא לאסור עצמו מרפואתו, לא מפני חשש שמא ימות בידו, אחרי שהוא בקי במלאכה ההיא, ולא בעבור שיאמר כי השם לבדו הוא רופא כל בשר, שכבר נהגו ועל כן האנשים הנצים שהכו זה את זה באבן או באגרוף (שמות כא יח) יש על המכה תשלומי הרפואה, כי התורה לא תסמוך דיניה על הנסים, כאשר אמרה (דברים טו יא) כי לא יחדל אביון מקרב הארץ, מדעתו שכן יהיה אבל ברצות השם דרכי איש אין לו עסק ברופאים