Man has Free Will- even against Providence

from my Daas Torah page 562   - they would reject Trump as being the result of the Divine Plan

Ramchal[i](Derech HaShem 2:8:1): … G‑d wants man to have free will in his actions and that his deeds be judged and rewarded fairly. Therefore—in a manner of speaking—G‑d has subjugated His providence to man’s deeds. Consequently man experiences good or bad only according to his deeds. In truth, however, G‑d is not actually subject to any rules and has no need for anything else and is not affected by anything. Therefore when He wants, He can act and direct things exactly as He wishes without being constrained or forced in any way. In general when He judges the world with strict justice—it is because He has accepted upon Himself to act that way. However when His wisdom dictates that it is best to override the strict letter of the law, He is able to exercise His authority and ignore transgressions and correct problems solely through His power.

Netziv[ii](Bereishis 37:13 Harchev Davar): Yaakov could have sent a servant to determine the welfare of his sons but he was worried that he would be endangering the life of the servant. In contrast, since he was sure that the righteousness of Yosef would protect him from harm. Similarly the Zohar says that Reuven had Yosef thrown into a pit full of snakes and scorpions because he was sure that his righteousness would protect him from harm. This that he was afraid that the brothers would harm Yosef is different since a person’s free will can overcome Providence. A clear proof to this is the fact Darius had no fear that Daniel would be harmed by the lions but was afraid that the noblemen would harm him. However, G‑d forbid to say that Heaven can not protect against the free will of man, but it does require a much greater level of personal merit. In other words he must be perfectly righteous (tzadik gamor) not only in relationship to G‑d but also with people…

Ohr HaChaim[iii](Bereishis 12:11): Avraham told his wife to say that she was his sister and not his wife. Sarah was upset that he had put her in danger. Now either she would be captured by the Egyptians after they killed Avraham or she would have to go voluntarily to avoid having him killed. Even though the righteous have bitachon in G‑d, nevertheless there is a major principle not to rely on miracles (Pesachim 64b). This is especially true when the danger comes from the free choice of other people to cause harm. This is clearly seen in the fear Shmuel had of being killed by Shaul (Shmuel 1 16:2)…

Ohr HaChaim[iv](Bereishis 37:21): He saved them from harm at their hands. Since man has free will and choice and he can kill someone even if they are not deserving of death—as opposed to animals that do not harm man unless he is deserving death—the verse is referring to salvation from the hand of man who has free will to kill.

Ramban[v](Bereishis 15:14): … Even though G‑d decreed that the Jews would be strangers in a land not their own and they would be enslaved and afflicted, He also said He would judge the nation that enslaved them because of what they did. In other words the tormentors would not be exempt from punishment because of the fact that they were fulfilling the Divine decree. The reason for this is… that the Egyptians were punished is that they did greater harm than was decreed—when they threw the children into the river, embittered the lives of the Jews and tried to obliterate their name. That is why G‑d said that He would judge them in order to determine whether they did exactly as He decreed or whether they went beyond it in doing harm to the Jews…. In contrast to this explanation, the Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 6:5) asserted that it had not been decreed that a particular person should afflict the Jews. Consequently all those who tormented the Jews in fact could have freely chosen not to be amongst the tormentors. Therefore those who did chose to be amongst the tormentors were judged because of their crimes. However the Rambam’s explanation does not seem correct. Even if G‑d decreed that a particular individual should harm the Jews in a particular manner and another person carried out the decree first—that second individual would have merited fulfilling a Divine decree. The Rambam’s explanation simply doesn’t make sense…

---

[i] רמח"ל (דרך ה'—ב:ח:א): ... והנה בהיות שרצה הקב"ה בבחירת האדם במעשיו, וביושר משפט הגמול לשלם לאיש כמעשהו, הנה כביכול משעבד הוא את הנהגתו למעשה האדם, שלא ייטיב לו ולא ירע לו אלא כפי מעשיו. אך באמת הנה האדון ב"ה אינו משועבד לשום חק ואינו צריך לזולתו ולא מתפעל משום דבר. ועל כן כשירצה להשתמש מרוממותו, הנה יפעל וינהג כפי רצונו בלי הכרח או עיכוב כלל. ואולם להנהגת המשפט ינהג כפי השעבוד שזכרנו, אך כשתגזור חכמתו היות נאות העברה על שורת הדין, הנה ישתמש מרוממותו ויחוד שליטתו, ויעבור על פשע ויתקן כל קלקול בעוצם כחו...

[ii] נצי"ב (בראשית לז:יג) ואמר לכה ואשלחך אליהם... דיעקב אבינו אם רצה לדעת שלום בניו וכי לא היה לו עבד לשלוח אלא ירא מפני הסכנה גם על העבד. אבל על יוסף היה בטוח על צדקתו שלא יפגע בו אדם רע (ולהסביר יותר יש להקדים הא דאיתא בזוהר הק' בפ' זו דראובן אמר להשליך את יוסף בבור מלא נחשים ועקרבים ולא ירא שיהרגוהו שהיה בטוח על זכותו. והא שהי' ירא מן האחים היינו משום דבחירה שבאדם הוא למעלה מהשגחה העליונה. ויש לי ראי' מפורשת לזה מדכתיב בדניאל ו' בשעה שהשליכו כורש בגוב אריות ותתמא מלכא בעזקתי' כדי דלא תשני צבו בדניאל פי' הי' בטוח שלא יגעו בו אריות שאינם בעלי בחירה. אבל ירא דלא תשני רצון בדניאל. ואמנם חלילה לומר שאין ביד ההשגחה העליונה לשמור גם מבחירת האדם. אלא כך יש לנו לומר דלזה בעינן זכות יותר. והיינו שיהא טוב גם בין אדם לחבירו ויהי' צדיק וטוב לו בשביל שהוא צדיק גמור ....

[iii] אור החיים (בראשית יב:יא) ויהי כאשר הקריב וגו' הנה נא ידעתי וגו' רבותינו ז"ל אמרו (תנחומא לך ה) להגיד צניעות שהיה ביניהם וצריך לדעת לאיזה ענין אמר לה כן אברהם:

 אכן להיות כי רצה לצוות עליה לומר אחי הוא, חש שתאמר שרה למה הכניסה בגדר סכנה שעל כל פנים היא מסתכנת, או תמסר בעל כרחה ביד הטמאים על ידי הריגת הבעל או ברצונה ולא היה לו להביאה למקום כזה, והגם שבטוחים הצדיקים בהקב"ה אע"פ כן כלל זה בידינו שאין סומכין על הנס (פסחים סד:) ומה גם לגבי בחירת האדם, וצא ולמד (פסחים ח:) משמואל שאמר ושמע שאול והרגני (שמואל א טז:ב)...

[iv] אור החיים (בראשית לז:כא) ויצילהו מידם פירוש לפי שהאדם בעל בחירה ורצון ויכול להרוג מי שלא נתחייב מיתה, מה שאין כן חיות רעות לא יפגעו באדם אם לא יתחייב מיתה לשמים, והוא אומרו ויצילהו מידם פירוש מיד הבחירי, ובזה סתר אומרו ונראה מה יהיו חלומותיו וגו', כי הבחירה תבטל הדבר, ואין ראיה אם יהרגוהו כי שקר דיבר:

[v] רמב"ן (בראשית טו:יד): והנכון בעיני, כי טעם וגם, אף על פי שאני גזרתי על זרעך להיות גרים בארץ לא להם ועבדום וענו אותם, אף על פי כן אשפוט את הגוי אשר יעבודו על אשר יעשו להם, ולא יפטרו בעבור שעשו גזרתי:

 והטעם ...היה במצרים שהוסיפו להרע כי השליכו בניהם ליאור, וימררו את חייהם וחשבו למחות את שמם, וזה טעם דן אנכי, שאביא אותם במשפט, אם עשו כנגזר עליהם או הוסיפו להרע להם ... והרב נתן טעם בספר המדע (הלכות תשובה ו:ה) לפי שלא גזר על איש ידוע, וכל אותם המריעים לישראל אלו לא רצה כל אחד מהם הרשות בידו, לפי שלא נגזר על איש ידוע. ולא נתכנו דבריו אצלי...

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].

Chofetz Chaim, Chazon Ish & Rav Kook

This account appeared in the Yated Ne'eman a number of years ago.

The Chofetz Chaim had a dream of making aliyah. He tried a number of times - but he wasn't successful. Toward the end of his life, there were again rumors that he was going to move to Israel. In fact someone came to the Chazon Ish and reported that he had inside information that the Chofetz Chaim would soon be landing in Yaffo. The Chazon Ish looked up from his gemora and said simply:

"It isn't true. The Chofetz Chaim will never come to Israel." He continued, "I don't say this because I am a navi with ruach hakodesh. It is simple logic. Everyone knows that there is a very close relationship between the Chofetz Chaim and Rav Kook. If the Chofetz Chaim came to Israel then they would visit each other. This would cause strong upset in certain circles. As a consequence of this backlash - the Mishna Berura would be abandoned and  thrown in the trash. It is clear that G-d does not want this happen to the Mishna Berura. Consequently it is impossible that the Chofetz Chaim will be coming to Israel."

 ====================
 Regarding the Chofetz Chaim's attitude to Rav Kook. The following letter was written 3 years after the dedication of Hebrew University by the Chofetz Chaim's son-in law. It has been alleged that the Chofetz Chaim expressed contempt for Rav Kook as the result of the dedication. It is clear from this letter that the Chofetz Chaim had a very high opinion of Rav Kook even after the incident.

 Rael Levinsohn suggested the following links to translations:

letter-from-the-son-in-law-of-the-Chofetz-Chaim-to-Rav-Kook-1928/

Rav-Kooks-relationship-with-giants-of-his-time/

the-view-of-the-Chazon-Ish-on-Rav-Kook-another-perspective/

The-relationship-between-Rav Kook-and-the-Chofetz-Chaim-part-2/

update-on-Rav Kook-letter/

history-of-the-Rav-Kook-Rav-Sonnenfeld-dispute-and-its-relevance-for-modern-times-part-1/

history-of-the-Rav-Kook-Rav-Sonnenfeld-dispute-and-its-relevance-for-modern-times-part-2/

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

women as Jews and why exempt from mitzva of Torah study Rav Feinstein

igros moshe oc 4 #49

שו"ת אגרות משה אורח חיים חלק ד סימן מט

איברא דאיכא רשות לכל אשה לקיים אף המצות שלא חייבתן תורה ויש להם מצוה ושכר על קיום מצות אלו וגם לשיטת התוס' רשאות גם לברך על המצות וכמנהגנו שמקיימות מצות שופר ולולב וגם מברכות שא"כ גם על ציצית שייך לאשה שתרצה ללבוש בגד שיהיה בצורה אחרת מבגדי אנשים אבל יהיה בד' כנפות ולהטיל בו ציצית ולקיים מצוה זו. ורק להניח תפילין כתבו התוס' עירובין דף צ"ו ע"א ד"ה מיכל דצריך למחות בידן משום דתפילין צריך זריזות מרובה בגוף נקי ובהיסח הדעת שמטעם זו אף אנשים שמחוייבין בתפילין נמנעין מלהניחם כל היום אלא רק זמן המועט דתפלה בשחרית, וכן איפסק ברמ"א או"ח סימן ל"ח סעי' ג', ובתרגום יונתן על קרא דלא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה איתא לא יהי גוליין דציצית ותפילין דהינון תיקוני גבר על איתא לא סבירא להו לתוס' זה, ופשוט שהתוס' סברי שאינו מתרגום יונתן. אבל פשוט שהוא רק בחשקה נפשה לקיים מצות אף כשלא נצטוותה, אבל מכיון שאינו לכוונה זו אלא מצד תורעמותה על השי"ת ועל תורתו אין זה מעשה מצוה כלל אלא אדרבה מעשה איסור שהאיסור דכפירה שחושבת דשייך שיהיה איזה חלוף בדיני התורה היא עושית גם במעשה שחמיר. 

ושנית צריך לדעת כי אין זה בשביל שנשים פחותות במדרגת הקדושה מאנשים דלענין הקדושה שוות לאנשים לענין שייכות החיוב במצות שרק מצד הקדושה דאיכא בישראל הוא ציוי המצות וגם לנשים נאמרו כל הקראי דקדושה בין תחלת תנאי קבלת התורה והייתם לי סגולה ואתם תהיו לי גוי קדוש שנאמר לבית יעקב אלו הנשים ותגיד לבני ישראל אלו האנשים, ובין ואנשי קדש תהיון לי שבמשפטים והייתם קדשים דשמיני וקדשים תהיו והייתם קדשים שבפ' קדשים וכי עם קדוש אתה לה' שבפ' ראה ובכל מקום שנמצא ענין קדושה דישראל נאמר גם לנשים, ולכן גם הנשים מברכות בלשון אשר קדשנו במצותיו כמו האנשים אף על המצות שלא חייבתן תורה, ורק שהוא קולא מאיזה טעמי השי"ת שרצה להקל לנשים כדלעיל ולא מצד גריעותא ח"ו, ובהחיובים בין איש לאשתו איתא חיוב הכבוד על האיש לאשתו ועל האשה לבעלה בלא שום חלוק, והרבה מהנשים שהיו נביאות ויש להן כל דיני נביא שבאנשים, ובהרבה דברים נשתבחו בין בקראי בין בדברי חז"ל עוד יותר מלאנשים, וליכא שום זלזול בכבודן ובכל דבר בזה שנפטרו מלמוד התורה וממצות שהזמ"ג וליכא כלל שום סבה להתרעם כלל, וזה יש לכתר"ה להסביר בכל פעם ופעם ולהיות תקיף וחזק בדעתו שהוא כדיני התורה למחות באלו הנשי שאחר כל זה יעמדו בדעתן האולת והעקושה שלא לשנות שום דבר ממנהגי ישראל הקדושים. 

Igros Moshe (O.C. 4:49): ...It is necessary to know that it is not because women are inferior in their level of kedusha (holiness) to men. Concerning kedusha, women are equal to men regarding the aspect that the obligation of mitzvos is only because of holiness.. Also we see that all the verses regarding kedusha apply equally to women. Whether it is in regard to the beginning of the receiving of Torah when the Torah says, And you will be to Me a treasure and you will be for me a holy people. Or when G‑d said to speak to Beis Yaakov – which means the women and tell Bnei Yisroel – which means the men. Or when the Torah says, You shall be holy men to Me – in Mishpatim. Or in Shemini, You shall be holy or in Kedoshim, And they will be holy. Or in Re’eh, Because you are a holy people to me. In all these verses where kedusha of the Jewish people is mentioned, it also applies to women. This equivalence of halachic kedusha is why women say the same beracha – “who has commanded us with His mitzvos” - when they do mitzvos as men say. This is true also even when they do mitzvos that the Torah doesn’t obligate because of various leniencies that G‑d has for women not having to do certain mitzvos. Their exemption from certain mitzvos is certainly not the result of being inferior, G-d forbid! And concerning the obligations between husband and wife, the husband is obligated to honor his wife and the wife is obligated to honor her husband – without any difference. Furthermore there were many women who were prophets and they had exactly the same laws of prophets as the men. In addition there are many things that women are praised more than men in Torah verses and the words of our Sages. There is absolutely no degradation of their honor or anything else by the fact that they are exempt from studying Torah and time bound positive commandments. Thus there is no reason to complain at all. Consequently it is necessary for you to explain this each and every time. It is necessary to be determined and strong in these views which are like the laws of the Torah and to protest against those women who stubbornly insist on clinging to their foolish and distorted [feminist ideology]- in order that no change should be made to any aspect of holy Jewish practice

Rav Yisroel Reisman's psak: It is redifus to publish information about this particular sex offender - he is not a danger to the community

Update: I just called up the person in Flatbush  whose name appears on the emails supporting the child molester that were sent to me. While he acknowledged they were friends when the molester lived in Flatbush - he denied writing emails to me on the subject. That also means that the email that informed  me that another individual had requested this person in Flatbush to email is also a phony. In short it is possible that the convicted pedophile has created a group of imaginary supporters in whose name he is sending information supporting himself and attacking those he finds disagreeable. Please read the first part of this post in the context of this information.

I received a letter from a supporter of the convicted sex offender which claimed among other things that everything this sex offender did was in consultation with Daas Torah. In particular that Rav Yisroel Reisman - a well known talmid chachom from Flatbush had approved filing a criminal complaint with the police again me for publishing information about him - after I had been appropriately warned.

I sent a letter to the sex offender and asked him if this were true. This is my letter and below is his reply.

Just got a letter from one of your friends with the following quote:

Instead of having you arrested immediately, Rabbi Reisman suggested you first be warned and told [...] to deal with the issue when he returns to Israel with his family next week (they're supposed to meet him in NY on Friday and stay until Monday night). [...] asks real Daas Torah before he does anything. There isn't a Rov around that would condone hurting little kids no matter who the father is, and they (on both sides of the Atlantic) have already given the green light to press criminal charges.

  Are you claiming that Rabbi Reisman gave you permission to call the police? If not Rabbi Reisman then which rabbis (on both sides of the Atlantic) have given you the green light to press criminal charges?

The convicted sexual offender replied

 Go to sleep Danny. It's late by you already and you need to wake up refreshed to serve Hashem.

 =============================================
This same supporter provided me with the phone number of Rabbi Reisman  and added the following comment in response to my explanation of my position.

Save your defense for the jury. 

What I meant to say was that if you and Horowitz are now working in tandem and he's blabbing like a Babushka it doesn't look like you really care about getting arrested or sued. I don't know about Israel, but if you want to get sucked into the morass of Civil and/or Criminal Litigation make sure your Rebbetzin packs you a sandwich because I'm sure it's quite the 'process' in a 2.5 world country. 

You probably aren't learning that much anyway to qualify as a Chareidi, what with your blogging, so you could maybe use a distraction instead of taking from tzedakah in Kollel and the State of Israel in whatever stipends you get. Have a nice life. If you're a good boy maybe I'll send you that 

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

I called up Rav Yisroel Reisman - a very busy man - but he was patient and respectful with me - someone he knew nothing about except that I was calling long distance from Jerusalem.

I mentioned that I was calling in regards to this particular convicted sex offender. That I wanted to know whether he had approved that he go to the police to file a criminal claim against me. He answered clearly and unambiguously that he had not given such permission and in fact he did not recall giving anyone permission to go file a complaint with the police. He did say that he had told him to try and clear his name - but had not mentioned the police as an option

Then it got interesting. He asked me why did the sex offender want to go to the police about me? I said that I had put information from newspapers and other sources on the Internet regarding him. He responded that he didn't understand why I wanted to be rodef this sexual offender. "He is not a danger to the community. He has never been rodef after people to abuse them. " He said there was no heter to publicize information about this offender on the Internet. I asked him what was the basis for his claim that the offender was not a danger. What was his qualifications to make such a judgment?

He responded that he had been a pioneer dealing with abuse and came out 25 years ago against child molesters. He said he knew this molester and that aside from the two boys that he molested while giving them bar mitzva lessons - he had not pursued others. That he would have no problem of him being in his Shul or being around children. While he would restrict him having a position of teacher - but otherwise said there is no reason to be rodef the molester. The discussion then got a bit heated - but remained respectful as I expressed astonishment at his position that he was qualified to determine the likelihood of this convicted molester hurting other children based entirely on his insistence that he had no knowledge of other victims and thus there could not be other victims and that there would be no more in the future. But to be fair I must say he could not understand mine either. Of importance here is that he clearly acknowledged the guilt of this particular convicted sexual abuser in molesting two of his students - something I have been told that he has denied in the past.

Finally I mentioned that I had spoken earlier that day to another prominent Brooklyn posek who is a close associate of his. I said that the other posek had emphatically told me that this molester is a dangerous person and that the information about him should be publicized.

Rabbi Reisman said, "That posek is a big person and you can be somech on him. You called me to ask me my view and I told you that I feel that one should not be rodef this person since he is not a danger to the community. You can rely on either view." I asked for confirmation again that he had not given the molester permission to go to the police about me and he repeated that he had not given permission. I thanked him for his time and we said goodbye.

Shmuel in his generation is like Yiftach in his generation

audio link


I am going to discuss who Yiftach was - as understood by Chazal  -and why this provides us with a lesson in how to properly understand rabbinic leadership through history. In particular I would like to discuss how this helps us to understand how it is possible that R Shmuel Kaminetsky - despite being a gadol - has made some very serious mistakes in seeking to obtain an improper heter for a married woman to remarry without a Get. This has resulted in a couple presently committing adultery - and he is making no effort to correct this or the injustice he committed against Aharon Friedman her first husband.

It is typically understood that the message of Yiftach b'doro k'Shmuel b'doro (Rosh Hashanna 25b) is that even though Yiftach was not as great as Shmuel he still was the leader of the generation, a great talmid chachom and tzadik and a member of the Sanhedrin. It is believed that the leaders of every generation have ruach hakodesh and their views are Daas Torah and needed to be followed (Divrei Chaim, Mishneh Halachos). In short, it is understood to mean that the gedolim in each generation are great men - even though they might not be as great as previous generations - but what they say and do reflects G-d's will and they are basically infallible. 

All of the above is founded on an mistaken understanding of who Yiftach was - and consequently the comparison to Shmuel is incorrect. He is presented in various seforim (Machzor Vitri) as a major talmid chachom, leader of the Sanhedrin, a tzadik and pious man. Unfortunately that view is contrary to the view of Chazal (Taanis 4a) and is found primarily in some of the Rishonim. In fact what  Chazal say the expression of Yiftach b'doro means is that one is to treat the major rabbinic figures with kavod (Rashi Devarim 19:17) - even they are not as great as previous generations - and even though they are not great scholars. 

As a starting point, I want to present an important statement by Rav Dessler which explains why there are disparities between the explicit statement of Chazal and explanations of the same issue by Rishonim.

Michtav M'Eliahyu (4:355). It is important however to distinguish between those explanations which are basically interpretations of the verses and those of Chazal which are the actual meaning of the verses. Given this clear distinction it is puzzling why many Rishonim strive to follow a different understanding than the true explanation given by our Sages? We find such tendencies in the commentary of the Rashbam, Ibn Ezra and other Rishonim. What is the purpose of offering explanations which differ from the definitive true ones? I think the answer is that they offer these alternative explanations for the sake of confused people (i.e., they are apologetics). In other words these Rishonim want to show that there are many different aspects even in the simple understanding of the verses and that it is permissible for a person to create new interpretations according to what makes sense to him. (Of course, any alternative explanations which contradict foundation principles of faith are prohibited)... Such an approach is similar to that of the Rambam who wrote so much for the confused. We see this from the fact that many difficulties that exist in what he wrote could have been explained in a much clearer fashion. However, since he was addressing confused people he provided alternative explanations which they could accept - as long as it didn't contradict the Halacha).

In sum, Chazal's statements are true. Contrary statements are not the full truth but are the best that some readers will be able to accept. The Rishonim felt it was better to give a partially true or relatively true statement that would be believed - than to make statements that would be rejected. A similar statement is found in the Rambam about saying less than the full truth in order to maximize the understanding of ignorant people.

Moreh Nevuchim (Introduction). The seventh reason why an author seems to contradict himself occurs when discussing very deep and profound issues. It is necessary to conceal some aspects of the information and to reveal some. In order to accomplish this concealment it might be necessary in one place to utilize one set of principles and in another context it might be necessary to utilize a different set of fundamental principles - though the principles contradict each other. Obviously, the author should write in such a way that the ignorant masses are totally unaware of the internal contradiction. . 

Our Sages are conveying an important message about our relationship with religious and community leaders in their discussions about the major events in the life of Yiftach - who is one of the Judges. Starting from the beginning, his mother was a prostitute. As a result he was unjustly driven away by his father's other sons to prevent him from having his rightful part of the inheritance from his father. He organized a gang of bums - which Chazal teach us mean that birds of a feather flock to together - and lived the life of one rejected by society. That continued until the Jewish nation was threatened by an outside enemy and it was realized that only the military prowess of the bum Yiftach would save them from being conquered. He was offered the position of leadership of the Nation as an enticement to defend the Nation and he was successful and ruled for 6 years. Amongst his other accomplishments he killed 42,000 of his fellow Jews and sacrificed his daughter as a korbon olah. It is the latter which is out concern.

Yiftach took an oath that if he was successful in battle he would offer as a sacrifice whatever came out first to greet him when he return home. His daughter was the first to greet him. It is absolutely clear with no dissent - that one can not offer a human being as a sacrifice and that his oath was totally worthless. There is a discussion in Bereishis Rabbah (60) as to whether he needed to give the monetary equivalent of the sacrifice. But no one holds that the oath obligated him or even gave him the right to kill his daughter.

So why did he do it? Our Sages say it was because he was ignorant (Medrash Tanchuma, Taanis 4a). In fact Rashi (Taanis 4a) mentions that he became dismembered and the parts buried in different cities -  as punishment for the horrific and ignorant thing that he did.

More important is the question why no one stopped him. Our Sages mentioned that Yiftach should have gone to Pinchus and be told that there was no basis for the oath. But he didn't go because after all he was the leader of the Jewish people. For this prideful act he was punished. (In fact Seder Olam brings that this horrible error required that R Chanina ben Tradyon be burnt to death as atonement). More relevant is the question of why Pinchus (the great man who was a zealot concerned with stopping wrong - even killing wrong doers even though he was endangering his life). Some say that Pinchus is Eliyahu - and he is the foundation of the Mesora since he lived for many years. Given the character of Pinchus - why didn't he stop Yiftach? Again it seems to have been a the result of misplaced pride. He was after all the greatest talmid chachom and the baal mesorah - and therefore Yiftach needed to come to him for guidance. Our Sages say that Pinchus was punished by losing the Divine Spirit. G-d was severely displeased with him.

Thus the meaning of Yiftach in his generation is like Shmuel in his generation is that the leader of our community is not necessarily a great man - nonetheless he is to be respected because of his office. But we also see that not only can inferior leaders such as Yiftach make great errors -but also great leaders such as Pinchas also can err - for such mundane reasons as pride in being a leader.

In summary, We learn from Yiftach and his comparison to Shmuel that while a person who has an exalted position must be respected for that position - he is not infallible and that he can make serious mistakes. A leader such as Yiftach needs to be criticized when he does some wrong - such as sacrificing his daughter in the name of piety. As Daas Sofrim notes, he was an ignoramous who became pious - and we know from Avos that an ignoramous can not be truly pious. But we also see from Tanach that Pinchus also made an incredible error due to his pride of being a great leader. Pinchus also needed to be criticized by those inferior to him. Because no one spoke up Yiftach's daughter suffered a horrible death. 

We as as members of the holy Jewish people have to always remember that all Jews are bound into a collective entity. All Jews are responsible for what all other Jews do. We can not use the excuse that the wrong doer is a great man - a gadol - and who are we to criticize him when he makes a serious mistake. If we don't speak up, we will all suffer - chas v'shalom - from the sins done by our leaders.

Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky is responsible for getting Rav Greenblatt to give Tamar Esptein a worthless heter to remarrry without a Get. Rav Kaminetsky refuses to accept responsibility for his actions and insists that it is entirely Rav Greenblatt's responsibility to undo this pervision of Torah and halacha. He refuses to tell the adulterous couple to separate. He refuses to apologize for insulting and shaming Aharon Friedman in his misguided efforts to help Tamar Epstein. 

Consequently it is our responsibility as members of the Jewish people to correct the damage. We can not use the excuse that this issue is only for gedolim. We can not use the inaction and silence of our leaders to allow injustice and corruption. We need to learn from what happened with Yiftach and Pinchus - that one who does not act to correct wrong - causes suffering to others and will he/she will suffer as punishment..

Rav Chaim Malinowitz: Rav Feldman is mistakenly transforming this outrage against the Torah into a mere dispute of poskim

Guest Post
first published two years ago

this is relevant to rav Shmuels claim that there is a machlokes haposkim if Tamar can remarry without a Get


  

The tragedy of Rav Feldman's letter , besides the emotional reference of some unspecified behavior by unspecified people being worse than being mattir an eishess ish to remarry without a Get (!) , is, in my opinion, the language in the letter relegating what has occurred to - "I respectfully disagree". The damage done by such a weak description is incalculable.

We now have a machlokess what berachah to make on rice cakes ; a machlokess about the shiur of a kezayis; and a machlokess about allowing an eishess ish to remarry without a Get based on a hired person (hired by one party) writing a report about another party's mental health without ever meeting that second party and then using that report to shop around till someone is found who will pasken that no one but no one would ever deign to live with such a person (despite the first party actually having done so for a significant period of time) and who will actually allow remarriage without a Get;  and this without a proper investigation that this "condition" actually existed at the time of the kiddushin!; and  all this without the presence or knowledge of the second party (who certainly needs to be heard from by  a Bais Din as to what he has to say to the claim of mekach to'us (may we assume that it is no worse than if I sold you a tape recorder and you claim mekach to'us?) ; and  with everyone subsequently denying that they were mattir (wasn't me, it was him; no, it wasn't me, it was him; no, no,  it wasn't me, it was him)

And this, I now read, is simply a disagreement between Poskim!

Talking about "worse"-- the cover-up is worse than the crime.

Rav Chaim Zev Malinowitz

Yeshiva University launches master’s program for Christian students

 https://www.timesofisrael.com/yeshiva-university-launches-masters-program-for-christian-students/

The new program is a joint initiative of YU and the Philos Project, an organization that says it “seeks to promote positive Christian engagement in the Near East.” Philos is a partner of Passages — a Birthright-style program that brings young Christians on group tours of Israel — and it also organizes Christians to demonstrate against antisemitism.

Chasam Sofer: Chiddushim used as a way to remember the gemora and not to understand it

Found an interesting comment of the Chasam Sofer (Shabbos 140b/Chullin 7a) regarding the use and abuse of chiddushim and sevaros.

חתם סופר (שבת קמ): ועל דרך הלצה, ע"פ מה שנראה לי שנולד לן זה מנהג לחדש חידושים יותר מדאי וכל אחד בונה במה לעצמו זה בכה וזה בכה, אפשר לחפש לן זכות שגזרו כן גאוני קדמונינו ז"ל שראו שכחה שגוברת בעו"ה בעולם וא"א לאוקמא גירסא אכן ע"י החידושים בכל דף ועמוד עי"ז זוכר הכל ומילתא דתמיה מידכר דכירא והנסיון מעיד לנו ע"ז ויודע אני בעצמי, וא"כ אף אם החידוש אינו נכון כל כך מ"מ מועיל לשכחה כנ"ל. ואפשר שזהו פי' הש"ס אנן כאצבע בבירא לשכחה, ומוסיף אידך ואנן כאצבע בקירא לסברא, שלכאורה אין זה מענין הראשון. אכן לפי הנ"ל א"ש שבתחלה היה כאצבע בבירא לשכחה מ"מ היה אפשר להועיל ע"י חידושים אבל עכשיו אנן כאצבע בקירא לסברא ג"כ ומה לעשות עוד. וידוע ששמן זית מחזיר תלמודו של עי"ן שנים כמבואר סוף הוריות, ע"ש, הא קאמר האי בר בי רב דלית ליה מישחא היינו זכרון הנקרא ע"ש שמן זית נימשי במים דחריצי בתורת החריצים הידועים בזה"ז חרוץ ושנון ודו"ק:

חתם סופר (חולין ז.): ופה מצאתי מקום להרחיב הדבור מה שאלצני הנה השל"ה וכל גדולי ישראל צווחי' כי כרוכי' על החילוקים הנוהגים בבעלי ישיבה ואומרים שהם מבלי עולם. והנה דבר זה נתפשט בתפוצות ישראל מאוד מאוד וכל רואיו ומביניו יכירו כי לכאורה שוא והבל הוא. וחלילה לנו לחשוב כן על צדיקים וטובים קדמונינו שהנחילו לנו ירחי שוא ומשאות מדיחים איך לא סקלום אנשי דורם אז כשהתחיל לקלקל. ואם תאמר הי' מה שהי'. אתה נותן מקום למינים לרדות דלמא גם תפילין וכיוצא בו התחיל בדור מן הדורות ולפנים לא הי'. חלילה לחשוב. אבל אומר אני החילוקים דרכם בקודש וממעיין הקודש יצאו אלא שנתקלקל באורך הזמן. וטרם כל נחקור על שם זה חילוק מה שמו מה תאמר אבל הוה יודע דעיקר שמוש התלמידים אצל רבם הוא לדמות מילתא למילתא. וז"ל הרא"ש הובא בב"י בבד"ה בי"ד סי' רמ"ב וי"ל דעכשיו נמי אין כל מעשה בא בגמ' אלא שמדמה מילתא למילתא ואיכא למיחש שמדמה מה דלא דמי עכ"ל שם. ועל זה נהגו כשאדם מחדש דבר אומרים בלשון אשכנז גלייך או אום גלייך פי' דומה או אינו דומה שהדמיון עולה יפה או אינו עולה יפה. והיות הסברות עמוקות ודקות בחוט השערה לחלק בין זה לזה ועי"ז יתרצו כמה קושי' שיודע לחלק ביניהם מה שהי' בעיני התלמידים דומין זה לזה יבוא רבו וחקרו שאין זה דומה ומורה להתלמידים הסדק שבין זה לזה וזה הוא חילוק שהי' רב מראה לתלמידים החילוק וההפרש בין הסברות שהי' נראה להם במושכל הראשון שהם דומים זה לזה ומזה ילמדו דרך האמת בהוראה. ואמנם בעו"ה נתקלקלו הדורות ואדרבא החליפו הנ"ל בפלפולים חריפים ומשוננים ואינם משגיחים אם דומה או לא רק שיהי' חריף וחדוד או לשיטתו אעפ"י שאם יעיין שפיר אין זה שיטתו שהחילוק רב ביניהם. עד שבעלי החריפים האלו הם המורים בחריפותם. והי לך לשון הריב"ש סי' רע"א אבל אין צריך לידע כל הוית התוספת וגליוניהם ולמירמי דוקלי ולזקוף להו. וכמה חכמים ראינו בעינינו מפולפלים וחריפים בהוית דמעיילי פילא בקופא דמחטא ועל כל קוץ וקוץ אומרים תילי תילים קושיות ותירוצים ולפום חורפא לא סלקא להו שמעתתא אליבא דהלכתא ואומרים על אסור מותר ועל מותר אסור עכ"ל הריב"ש שם:

והנה אחז"ל לעולם יעשה אדם עצמו כשור לעול וכחמור למשאוי בדברי תורה והענין כשור לרדיא המשדד עמקים וכרוב ותני ומעיין ודולה מים מבארות עמקים והוא החריפות. ואחר שברר שמועותיו וטחן וברר לסולת סולת נקי' יהי' כחמור למשא לישא אלומותיו כחמור נושא ספרים. ואם זה השור יחרוש וישדד במישור. אח"כ בעליו יבצור ויזמור. וישאהו על גביו כחמור. אך מאוד צריך להזהר שבין החרישה והאסיפה יברור ויזרה ברחת ומזרה אבל לא תחרוש בשור ובחמור יחדיו. ה' יודע כי כעין האמור למעלה הבנתי מקיצורי דברים ורמיזותן של רבותי הקדושים זצ"ל אלא הם שמו מחסום לפיהם ולא גילו אלא ברמז לצנועי תלמידהם. ואני עני וכואב מקום הניחו לי להתגדר בו וה' הטוב יכפר בעדי:

The relationship between G-d and the Jews is like a husband to his wife

Jews are like G-d's bride

Rashi (Bamidbar (7:1): It is written as kalla (bride). On the day that the Mishkan (Tabernacle) was erected the Jews were like a bride entering the chupah

Rashi (Devarim 33:2): G d went out from Sinai — G d went out to meet the Jews when they came to camp at Mt. Sinai — as a groom coming to meet his bride…

Taanis (4:8): On the day of his wedding and the day of the rejoicing of his heart (Shir HaShirim 3:11). “The day of his wedding” is referring to the giving of the Torah at Sinai.

Rashi (Shir HaShirim 3:11): On the day of his wedding – This is referring to the giving the Torah at Sinai when they crowned G d as their king and they accepted His authority.

Hoshea (2:20-22): 20. And in that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the birds of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground; and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them lie down safely. 21. And I will betroth you to me for ever; I will betroth you to me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in grace, and in mercies. 22. I will betroth you to me in faithfulness; and you shall know the Lord.

Ramban (Shemos 35:1): And Moshe assembled all the congregation of the children of Israel — G d had become reconciled with them and had given Moshe the Second Tablets and made a new covenant that He would go in their midst. Thus He returned to the previous relationship with them and to the love of their “wedding.” It was thus obvious that His Presence would be in their midst just as He had commanded him at first as He said (Shemos 25:8) , “Let them make Me a Tabernacle that I may dwell amongst them.” Therefore Moshe now commanded the people all that he had been commanded the first time.

Maharal (Vayikra 24:10): As long as the Jews were at Mt. Sinai, G d did not want Mekosheis to die because He did not want them to be involved in death. That is because the time that they remained at Sinai after they had received the Torah was a time of rejoicing (simcha). This is similar to a man who gets married. Devarim (24:5) says that a groom should rejoice with his bride for a period of a year. G d had taken the Jewish people to Himself at Sinai in a manner which was similar to a groom marrying a woman. The halacha is that a wedding takes precedence over a funeral. Therefore it is understandable why G d did not want them to be involved during this period with the execution of Mekosheis. Even though Mishlei 11:10) notes that the destruction of the wicked is a positive thing — nevertheless it is not joyful. Consequently during this period of a year, G d did not want to reduce the joy by having them involved in someone’s execution.

Holy of Holies in the Temple is called the Bedroom

Chomas Anon (Melachim II 11:20): The bedroom - In the Temple in the courtyard there was a place where the Cohanim and Leviim slept. But a more correct explanation is that it is referring to the Holy of Holies which was definitely protected and no one saw it.

Rashi (Melachim II 11:20): The bedroom – This is referring to the Holy of Holies… It is called the bedroom based on Shir HaShirim 1:13), My beloved is to me a bundle of myrrh, that lies between my breasts…

Rashi (Shir HaShirim 1:16):…The Mishkan (Tabernacle) is called bed as it says "Behold it is the bed of Shlomo (Shir HaShirm 3:7). Similarly the Temple is called bed as it says about Yoash (Divrei HaYamim 2:25), In the bedroom which was in the house of G-d because they were fruitful and muliplied the Jews

Shir HaShirim Rabbah (1:68): Also our couch is leafy - This is referring the Temple as it says, "With his nurse in the bedroom" (Melachim II 11:2). What is meant by the "bedroom"? R. Eleazar and R. Shmuel bar Nachman gave different explanations. R. Eleazar said it means in the side-chambers. R. Shmuel bar Nachman said it means the upper champers….Another explanation for Also our couch is leafy. R' Yehuda son of R. Shimon: It is like a king who went out in the desert and they brought him a short bed which he found to be uncomfortable and cramped for his limbs. When he got to the city they brought him a longer bed so he was able to stretch out and loosen his limbs. In such a manner until the Temple was built, the Shechina was confined between the two staves of the Ark. However when the Temple was built the staves were enlarged (Melachim I 8:2).

Prayer is like intercourse

Baal Shem Tov (Tzavaas Ribash #68): - Prayer is a form of intercourse with the Shekhinah and just as in the beginning of intercourse one moves one's body, so it is necessary to move one's body at first in prayer, but afterward one can stand still without any movement when one unites with the Shekhinah. The power of his movement causes a great arousal, for it cause him to think: "Why am I moving myself?" [And he answers himself:] "Because perhaps the Shekhinah is actually standing in front of me." And from this great power, he comes to a great passion."

Keser Shem Tov (page 4a #16): From the Besht: From my flesh I shall see God (Job 19:26).113 Just as you cannot sire [a child] in physical copulation unless your organ is "alive" and [you are filled with desire and joy, so it is with spiritual coupling, that is, with regard to the words of Torah and prayer: when it is done with a live organ, in joy and pleasure, then you can be fecund.

Rabbi Pinhas of Koretz(Likkutim Yekarim): Prayer is [an act of] coupling with the Shekhinah.!" and just as there is shaking at the beginning of copulation, so must you shake at the beginning of prayer. Afterwards you can continue standing without any motion, and remain attached to the Shekhinah in great devekut .

Idolatry is like adultery

Hosheah(2:3-9): 3. Say to your brothers, My people, (Ammi); and to your sisters, Pity, (Ruhama).4. Plead with your mother, plead; for she is not my wife, nor am I her husband; let her therefore put away her harlotry away from of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts;5. Lest I strip her naked, and set her as in the day that she was born, and make her as a wilderness, and set her like a dry land, and slay her with thirst.6. And I will not have mercy upon her children; for they are the children of harlotry.7. For their mother has played the harlot; she who conceived them has done shamefully; for she said, I will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink.8. Therefore, behold, I will hedge up your way with thorns, and make a wall against her, that she shall not find her paths.9. And she shall follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but she shall not find them; then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband; for then it was better for me than now.

Pesachim (87b): After two sons and one daughter were born to Hoshea, G d said to him, Didn’t you learn from your teacher Moshe? Because after I spoke with him – he separated from his wife – and you should have separated from your wife. Hoshea responded, Master of the Universe. I have children by her and I can neither expel her nor divorce her. G d to him, “If you, whose wife is a prostitute and your children are those of harlotry and therefore you don’t know whether they are yours or someone else and yet you feel this way – then Israel who are My children and the children of My tried ones, the children of Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov (one of 4 possessions that I have acquired in this world, Torah...Heaven and Earth, the Temple, and Israel) and yet you say that I should exchange them for a different people!...


Chastising and education

Hosheah(2:3-9): 3. Say to your brothers, My people, (Ammi); and to your sisters, Pity, (Ruhama).4. Plead with your mother, plead; for she is not my wife, nor am I her husband; let her therefore put away her harlotry away from of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts;5. Lest I strip her naked, and set her as in the day that she was born, and make her as a wilderness, and set her like a dry land, and slay her with thirst.6. And I will not have mercy upon her children; for they are the children of harlotry.7. For their mother has played the harlot; she who conceived them has done shamefully; for she said, I will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink.8. Therefore, behold, I will hedge up your way with thorns, and make a wall against her, that she shall not find her paths.9. And she shall follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but she shall not find them; then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband; for then it was better for me than now.

Rema (E.H. 154:3): And similarly a man who habitually angry and frequently sends his wife out of the house. In such a case he is forced to divorce her because since he sometimes doesn’t feed her and he does not fulfill his obligation to provide sexual relations – he is a rebel (mored) concerning both food and sex (Rashba 693). A man who hits his wife has committed a sin just as if he had hit any other Jew. If he habitually hits her, the court should punish him, ostracize him and to beat him with all types of force as well as to make him take an oath that he will not do it anymore. If he doesn’t obey the court – some say that he should be forced to divorce her. However this is only if he is first warned once or twice. That is because it is not normal for Jews to hit their wives – it is what the idolaters do. However this is only when he attacks her. However if she curses him without cause or ridicules his parents and he chastises her and she refuses to stop – some say that it is permitted to hit her while others says that even a bad wife can not be hit. The halacha is accord with the first opinion that she can be hit. If it is known who started the fight, the husband is not believed to say that she initiated. That is because all women are presumed to be righteous. Therefore observers need to be placed with them to see who is the cause of the problem. If she in fact cursed him without cause – she is to be divorced and not receive her kesuba. It seems to me that this is only if she habitually curses him without cause and only after she has been warned as we explained in 115. If she leaves his house and borrows money to eat – if she left because of constant beatings – he is obligated to pay for her expenses…

Bereishis Rabba (Buber Version 8:3): And G-d’s anger I will bear. This is comparable to a hero who is capable of immediately killing another man with a single blow. However when the hero enters into his own own home and hits his wife with a single blow – she withstands the blow. Her neighbors ask her about her great strength. “All the great athletes have died from a single blow – how many blows can you survive from him?” She replied, “My husband hits the others out of anger and therefore uses his full might. However for me he hits me according to my strength and therefore I can survive the blows.” Thus it is with G-d. He says that He doesn't hit the Jews the way He hits the generation of the Flood or the generation of the Dispersal or Sodom or the Egyptians or Sisro...But regarding the Jews who are the Children of Yaakov He will not destroy them....

Shemos Rabbah(31:10): Another explanation of IF THOU LEND MONEY TO ANY OF MY PEOPLE (XXII, 24). It is written, Refuse silver did men call them (Jer. VI, 30). When Israel were driven from Jerusalem, their enemies took them out in fetters, and the nations of the world remarked: ‘The Holy One, blessed be He, has no desire for this people, for it says, "Refuse silver did men call them."’3 Just as silver is first refined and then converted into a utensil, again refined and turned into a utensil, and so many times over,4 are destroyed, they are referred to as mashkonotheka (thy pledges). ‘It is not because,’ [says God], ‘I am in debt to the heathen nations that I have pledged My tabernacle to them, but it is your iniquities that have caused Me to hand over to them My sanctuary. Were this not the case, why was I then obliged to do this?1 Does it not say, Thus saith the Lord: Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, wherewith I have put her away? Or which of My creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities were ye sold, and for your transgressions was your mother put away  (Isa. L, 1).2 With Moses, too, did I make this condition concerning them; as it says, "If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor" (Ex. XXII, 24); but if you transgress these commands, I will hand over two pledges, as it says, If thou at all take thy neighbour's garment to pledge --habol tahbol "  (ib. 25).’3 Moses asked: ' Shall they remain in pledge for ever?’ God replied: ‘No, only Until the sun appears’ (ib.),4 that is, till the coming of the Messiah; for it says, But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings (Mal.III, 20).

Tanhuma( Parashat Mishpatim: 11): [My Jewish Learning] A parable to a king who beat his wife. Her guardian said to him: “If you want to divorce her, beat her until she dies. But if you plan to return to her, why are you so beating her so harshly?” He said to him: Even if my palace were to be destroyed, I would not divorce her Thus Jeremiah says: “If you want to divorce us, beat us until we die, unless you have utterly rejected us and are angry with us beyond measure" (Lamentations 5:22). "But if not, why have you struck us down so that there is no healing for us?" (Jeremiah 14:19). The Holy Blessed One responded to him: "Even if I destroy my world, I will not divorce Israel, as it says, “Thus says the Lord: If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth can be explored, then I will reject all the offspring of Israel because of all they have done, says the Lord”" (Jeremiah 31:36). "Rather, even so, I have set a condition with them, that if they sin, the Temple will provide surety for them, as it says, ‘I have placed my Tabernacle (mishkani) in their midst’" (Leviticus 26:11), [read this as] I have placed my surety (mashkoni).

Yam Shel Shlomo (Bava Kama 3:9): The braissa says that a slave whose term of servitude has ended because of Yovel and his master is urging him to leave but the former slave does not want to leave and the master hits him and makes bruises – the master is exempt from payment. The Mordechai (#35) as well as the Mahrich (Simon 3) say, ”This is relevant also to servants. And this is applicable if the servant is suspected of stealing and the employer wants him to leave before then end of the term of employment and surely it applies to anyone who has the reputation that he is a thief.” However it is not only in the case where the person is suspected of stealing which involves a financial loss. Even if there is no loss, it is permissible since a person can take judgment into his own hands (avid dina l’nafshei). The gemora which explains that the case is a servant who is a thief – that is only necessary according to R’ Yehuda. But according to R’ Nachman the braissa concerns a servant even if he is not causing a loss – the employer can force him to leave. It is just the typical case that a servant would not be forced to leave before the end of employment unless there was suspicion of stealing or other damage or loss. That is why the Mordechai says that the case involves suspicion of stealing…And even concerning any trespasser on his property - the trespasser can be forced to leave without requiring any other justification than he doesn’t want him there. If the trespasser refuses to leave until he is beaten – the owner is exempt from paying for damages. That is because a person is allowed to take justice into his own hands in order to save that which is his. Everyone is the sovereign of his own house and no one has the right to trespass against his will… From this gemora the Terumas HaDeshen (218) learns that it is permitted for a man to hit his wife when she curses her father and mother because she is violating religious norms and thus he is concerned with her spiritual well being. It is not necessary to bring her to beis din … It is not just in this case but whatever she does against religious norms he can hit her until her soul leaves. Even if she is just passively not doing a mitzva. Nevertheless one should not be quick to hit his wife but rather should try to correct her verbally. But if he sees she is not obeying than he can use physical force. It is not just in the case of a master and his slave or a husband and wife – the same principle applies to every Jew that he can you physical force against another Jew in order to prevent him from sinning. The Rosh (13) also says this is permitted. We see also in Erchin (16b) that it is permitted to hit another to chastise them. However this permission to hit another Jew for the sake of chastisement is not given to all Jews but only those who have a reputation for integrity that it is clear they are only doing it for the sake of Heaven. And he must also be a very distinguished person. But an ordinary person is not allowed because if so than there would be anarchy and society would be ruined. Every low life will go and hit his fellow and claim it is chastisement because in fact there is no perfect tzadik. In truth the Torah only gives permission for judges to hit other people or an important person whose words should be listen to – if he sees his fellow attempting to commit a sin he is permitted to stop him by hitting him. All depends on what the judges see fit to do. This that there is a restriction that only judges or very important people are allowed to hit others to stop them from sinning is in regards to mitzvos concerning man and G d. However concerning issues between men – for example if a person witnesses another person hitting someone – it is permitted for all men even the most simple – to save their fellow. To save a person from a beating it is permitted to beat the attacker in order to save the victim, as I will explain…