Seforim in English?

Igros Moshe (YD IV #38.3) Question  Is it permitted translating Seforim such as the Bible and Mishna since Moshe translated the Torah in 70 languages? Answer It is not relevant to learn from Moshe since he didn’t write the translation but said it. 

Igros Moshe (YD IV #38.4) Question Translating the Hebrew Bible which is the Written Torah? Answer  We see in fact that the Bible has many translations such as Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonason.  Tosfos (Moed Koton 3b) also indicates that there is actually preference to Targum because of the principle that Written material is not to be said orally  Writing and printing is clearly permitted because of the needs of the time (ais l’asos).  

Igros Moshe (YD IV #38.5) Question Should the translation of Mishnayos and halachic rulings be avoided because of concerns for of the accuracy of the translation? Answer  There is no prohibition of translating mishnayos and halachic rulings. However the main concern is that the translator understands the importance of correctly translating. Even a small error in translating can lead to major consequences. Study the introduction to the translation from Arabic to Hebrew to the Rambam’s commentary to the Mishna. These concerns are even greater for an English translation  Therefore it is best to avoid translations. However if a person knows that he is capable of proper translation in English and he is regarded as such by others as well as being a talmid chachom who is very knowledgable in Mishna and he desires to ranslate it is not prohibited. In spite of all this, I would advise not to be involved with translations. It is always better to first learn Hebrew or Aramaic first and study ther original text.  None the less there is no prohibition in translating. 

Igros Moshe (YD IV #38.6) Question Publishing translation of halacha seforim with the reasoning behind the rulings or just the final conclusions? Answer  According to what I have written, works such as Rambam and Shulchan Aruch which are the final halacha – there is no problem to translate them. But it is important that all that they wrote should be fully translated without deviation from what they wrote. If the translator wishes to add an explanation, it should be added as a footnote to the main text and noted whether it is his explanation or that of someone else. 

Igros Moshe (YD IV #38.7) Question: Translating halachic rulings which everyone needs to know and it is impossible to ask a Rav when an actual question arises? Answer As regarding the translating of halachic rulings for those matters needed by everyone and a Rav can not be asked when the question arises such as the laws of shema and prayer, these should be translated so that those who don’t know Hebrew can learn them. However it is sufficient to write  withyout a full explanation of the reasoning and sources. Because the reasoning might interfere with the knowledge of the halacha and he might end up ignoring the halacha. This is true even for a very intelligent person who is very learned in secular ideas.  Eventually he will start learning in a yeshiva where his rabbi will decide what is appropriate for him to learn.  Concerning matters which seem strange to him, they should not be presented. Thus it is best that beginners should only be exposed to material that their rabbi think they can properly understand well. In these matters it is best to not produce books in English but rather he should receive a personal explanation from his Rabbi. However it could be that the benefits of such books is greater than their loss and therefore their publication should not be protested. It is best if the writersof such books should first consult with his rabbi or with a Gadol  before publishing them. 

Igros Moshe (YD IV #38.8) Question Is it permitted to produce an English sefer about kashrus for those just beginning religious observance without explaining the reasoning or books of ethical behavior and theology Answer Writing about topics such as the laws of washing hands (netilas yadayim), grace after meals. blessing of ahl hamichya, blessings on pleasure, salting meat and other laws of kashrus, such a book should be produced in English so that the basic laws of eating should be known.  This is important especially since the beginner is spending extra money to keep kosher. Howver only the summary of the halacha should be written and to first explain the seriousness of eating or drinking prohibited things. The reasoning behind the halacha should be left out. And it should simply stated that this is what is said in the Torah which was given through Moshe at Sinai. Writing such a sefer is definitely a good idea. Even in mentioning halacha, only the minimal amount that is needed by the beginners that they must observe now should be written, while the finer details can wait to be studied later. This applies also if the sefer is in Yiddish  There are other topics that need to be in English. That is because most women only know English and most did not acquire sufficient knowledge from their parent’s home for example the laws of Nidah and even prohibited food as well as muktzeh on Shabbos and Yom Tov or eating and drinking on Yom Kippur.  All these need to be printed in English to prevent errors. It is also appropriate to produce books of ethics and theology which are also Torah and thus are not prohibited. All things that can influence greater religious observance are obligatory even if it requires citing  verses and statements of Chazal. 

Psak bean counting vs holistic

I recently received the following question

 It's been a discussion and I'm hoping you can point me to sources as to how singles should understand the actual halacha about :singles having sex

Singles going to mikva

There's all types of people throwing around their opinions and thoughts and feelings but some folks want to live as close to God as possible given the circumstances. They don't want to be above and beyond at this point. 

I appreciate it. 

I replied

 It is not a simple question and depends whether halacha is decided by the bean counting approach or the holistic approach

The standard approach for many years is that of Rav |Moshe

Igros Moshe (EH IV #60) Question:Is dating for social not marriage permitted?Answer Concerning the issue of a young man who is not ready to get married and has no interest in getting married and he is interested in having social dates with young women who also are not ready to get married and have no interest in getting married. They say that since they are careful to avoid the prohibition of yichud (seclusion) there is no prohibition in dating. Even though they know that this is not nice, they say they are not interested in issues of piety and extra measures of modesty and they don’t want to listen to lectures of mussar and rebuke. However they say that they will stop if they hear from me that this is prohibited according to the halacha. Therefore I am forced to respond immediately because this applies to a current activity… There is also a severe prohibition from the Torah in close friendships between a young man and woman. That is even if they avoid hugging and kissing as well as touching and yichud. The problem is that he talks with her for extended times in expressing love and he gets pleasure from this and stares at her. Even according to the Ramban who disagrees with the Rambam and holds this is only a rabbinic prohibition nevertheless agrees that this is a severe prohibition since it has an asmachta from a verse and that it is punished with rabbinic flogging. It is clear that dating is done because of the love of women and not because of ordinary friendship since he clearly prefers being with a woman then with male friends. Why is he interested in this woman when it doesn’t give him greater respect or a good name? It is obviously because of love of a woman because she is a woman. In addition even though she is unmarried, she is a nidah which is prohibited with the punishment of kares…

However others say that this approach is just producing intermarriage in present times.

Rav \yakov exemplifies the holistic approach

Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky(Emes LeYaakov Parshas Yechi page 237): A practical example of zealousness which is not based on a correct reading of the halacha is found in the following question. A person has the choice of marrying a Jewish woman who doesn’t observe the laws of family purity or a non‑Jewish woman. Which is preferable? A student who has not properly served an apprenticeship with an experienced posek will say that it is obvious that the person should choose to marry the non‑Jewish woman. That is because sexual relations with a nidah is punished by kares while sexual relations with a non-Jew is only a violation of a negative commandment of the Torah which is not punished by kares. The truth is not this way. Rambam (Hilchos Issurei Bi’ah 12:7-8) states that even though sexual relations with a non-Jewish maidservant is only a rabbinic prohibition he rules that, "This sin [of sexual relations with a non‑Jew] even though beis din does not impose the death penalty should not be viewed as minor because there is a loss associated with it. Contrary to all other sexual transgressions in which the son of the relationship is still his son in every respect and has the status of a Jew – even if the child is a mamzer – but the child from a non‑Jewish mother is not his son as it says in Devarim (7:4): For they will turn away your son from following Me.” That means that the son has been removed from following after G‑d. This activity causes him to attach himself to non‑Jews which G‑d has separated us from them so that we would follow after Him and thus he is rejecting G‑d. “ It is clear from this that the person should choose the relationship with the Jewish woman even though she doesn’t observe the laws of family purity.

The issue is whether this is a monogamous relationship and whether she becomes a zona. There is also the issue of common law marriage which was a dispute between Rav Moshe and Rav Yakov. There is also the issue of pilegesh vs marriage

In sum everyone will say it is prohibited but there are a wide variety of reasons why while others will say it is not so bad especially if the issue is a goy or zera l'vatala. 

Non-Jewish prostitutes - how serious a sin?

shoshi asked:

Someone who spent more than 10 years learning in a kollel told me that "there is no issur mideoraita to have sexual intercourse with a non-jewish woman, as long as no one sees it"

He says that only Rambam says that there is an issur mideoraita, but if you do not accept rambam, you can go with non-jewish prostitutes as a religious jew and you do not infringe halacha, except perhaps miderabbanan.

Can you confirm this opinion?
If not: what are the sources?
================
This question can be understood in a number of different ways. 1) Is there an explicit Torah prohibition against relations with a non-Jewish prostitute. 2) Does G-d care if a Jew has sexual relations with a non-Jewish prostitute 3) Which is worse sexual relations with a unmarried Jewish woman who is a nidah or with a non-Jewish woman. 4) Since there is an explicit rabbinic prohibition about relations with a non-Jewish woman doesn't that imply that there is no Torah prohibition? 5)Is the severity of G-d's disapproval proportional to the punishment for a particular act? 6) If a person has an overwhelming sexual lust which is the way he can minimize the spiritual damage? 7) Is Judaism amenable to a bean counting approach or are there metarules that are more important? 8) Does someone have to be concerned with a prohibition which is only rabbinic i.e., man made or is enough to be meticulous in observing the word of G-d i.e., Torah. [TO BE CONTINUED]

Prostitutes & sin - Halacha is not bean counting

shoshi - comment to "Non-Jewish prostitutes - how serious a sin?":

The original question was:

"what is worse: a married jewish woman who does not always cover her head in public or a jewish man who has sexual relationship with a person to whom he is not married?"

And this ex-kolelnik's answer was:

A woman who does not cover her hair is worse, since she openly rejects part of the halacha, while the poor guy just is not able to restrain himself momentarily. So he would not trust the woman who does not cover her hair for kashrut (since all her standards are lower), but he would have no problem in trusting a man who occasionally uses the services of prostitutes as far as kashrut is concerned.

===============================
Soshi in response to my list of eight alternative understandings of her question wrote:

Well the questions that particularly intrigues me would come right before your question 3):

3.1. Is it worse to have sexual relationships with a jewish woman who is not married and not nida (she went to the mikve) or with a non-jewish woman?

3.2. In the above case, (if a jewish woman who is not married and not nida and a jewish man have intercourse) who does the worse aveira, the Man or the Woman?

3.3. So why should the woman be shunned if she gets pregnant?

And of course the subject that was raised in an answer earlier:

Is going to see a prostitute really less a sin than masturbating.

========================================
You are asking very solid and reality oriented questions. I will try to deal with them individually after a more general discussion of the significance of the questions.

These questions are reflections of either an academic or scholarly attitude or a minimalistic concern for yiddishkeit. Instead of focusing on what is the best way for self improvement and becoming closer to G-d - the questions reflect - "what is the most efficient way to sin so that I get maximum pleasure and minimum punishment." However questions which asks "which is better?" are different than questions of "is something permitted or forbidden.? Hierarchies depend upon context which are dependent on the goals the posek sees for the person as well as realistically what is in the questioner's best interest. Thus they would be answered differently for different people. It is not simply based upon which is the way to incur the smallest punishment. Sometimes greater punishments should be incurred to bring about a greater future good.

That is why I have put up a number of posts on related issues such as the nature of Chazal. Psak is not bean counting. Halacha is the path to serving G-d. That is why I posted the comment of Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky that a nidah is preferable to a non-Jewish woman - the psak being based on the non-halachic issue of Jewish identity.

To return to your original concern, I am in the middle of answering your original question as to the halachic status of non-Jewish prostitutes - is it true that there is no Torah prohibition and that it is at most a rabbinic prohibition. I will post soon on the Torah basis for prohibition of a non-Jewish prostitute as well as the nature of the rabbinic prohibition.

However, let me illustrate this non-halachic or agadic nature of psak with the following gemora
Sanhedrin (75a):

Rab Judah said in Rab's name: A man once conceived a passion for a certain woman,3 and his heart was consumed by his burning desire [his life being endangered thereby]. When the doctors were consulted, they said, ‘His only cure is that she shall submit.’ Thereupon the Sages said: ‘Let him die rather than that she should yield.’ Then [said the doctors]; ‘let her stand nude before him;’ [they answered] ‘sooner let him die’. ‘Then’, said the doctors, ‘let her converse with him from behind a fence’. ‘Let him die,’ the Sages replied ‘rather than she should converse with him from behind a fence.’ Now R. Jacob b. Idi and R. Samuel b. Nahmani dispute therein. One said that she was a married woman; the other that she was unmarried. Now, this is intelligible on the view, that she was a married woman, but on the latter, that she was unmarried, why such severity? — R. Papa said: Because of the disgrace to her family. R. Aha the son of R. Ika said: That the daughters of Israel may not be immorally dissolute. Then why not marry her? — Marriage would not assuage his passion, even as R. Isaac said: Since the destruction of the Temple, sexual pleasure has been taken [from those who practise it lawfully] and given to sinners, as it is written. Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.

Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky: Bean counting - Non-Jewish woman vs niddah?

 This was originally posted in September 22, 2008 see also halacha is not bean counting

Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky(Emes LeYaakov Parshas Yechi page 237): A practical example of zealousness which is not based on a correct reading of the halacha is found in the following question. A person has the choice of marrying a Jewish woman who doesn’t observe the laws of family purity or a non‑Jewish woman. Which is preferable? A student who has not properly served an apprenticeship with an experienced posek will say that it is obvious that the person should chose to marry the non‑Jewish woman. That is because sexual relations with a nidah is punished by kares while sexual relations with a non-Jew is only a violation of a negative commandment of the Torah which is not punished by kares. The truth is not this way. Rambam (Hilchos Issurei Bi’ah 12:7-8) states that even though sexual relations with a non-Jewish maidservant is only a rabbinic prohibition he rules that, "This sin [of sexual relations with a non‑Jew] even though beis din does not impose the death penalty should not be viewed as minor because there is a loss associated with it. Contrary to all other sexual transgressions in which the son of the relationship is still his son in every respect and has the status of a Jew – even if the child is a mamzer – but the child from a non‑Jewish mother is not his son as it says in Devarim (7:4): For they will turn away your son from following Me.” That means that the son has been removed from following after G‑d. This activity causes him to attach himself to non‑Jews which G‑d has separated us from them so that we would follow after Him and thus he is rejecting G‑d. “ It is clear from this that the person should choose the relationship with the Jewish woman even though she doesn’t observe the laws of family purity.

---

[1] רב יעקב קמנצסקי (אמת ליעקב פרשת ויחי ע' רל"ז): דוגמא מעשית לקנאות שלא לפי הדין ניתן להביא מהשאלה הבאה: אדם שיש לו ברירה בין לישא בת ישראל שלא תשמור על טהרת המשפחה ובין לישא גויה, מה עדיף? התלמיד שלא שימש כל צרכו בודאי יאמר: הלא איסורי נדה הם בכרת, ואילו בעילת עכו"ם אינו אלא לאו בעלמא שאינו ענוש כרת, בודאי אם כן עליו לבחור בגויה. האמת היא לא כן. הרמב"ם, אף שדעתו היא שביאת שפחה אינה אלא מדרבנן, פוסק [הלכות מאיסורי ביאה יב:ז-ח] בזה"ל: עון זה אע"פ שאין בו מיתת בית דין אל יהי קל בעיניך אלא יש בו הפסד שאין בכל העריות כמותו שהבן מן הערוה בנו הוא לכל דבר ובכלל ישראל יחשב ואע"פ שהוא ממזר והבן מן הגויה אינו בנו שנאמר כי יסיר את בנן מאחרי מסיר אותו מלהיות אחרי ה' ודבר זה גורם להדבק בגוים שהבדילנו הקב"ה מהם ולשוב מאחר ה' ולמעול בו עכ"ל. ברור לפ"ז שעליו לבחור בבת ישראל אע"פ שהיא אינה שומרת טהרת המשפחה.

US rabbis boycott court that allowed priest-convert nuptials

 https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/07/01/us-rabbis-boycott-court-that-allowed-priest-convert-nuptials/

Leading rabbis published a sharp letter in which they declared that from today until they respond to their demand to fully clarify the matter, "the Beth Din Beth HaVaad of Lakewood is not presumed to be a valid rabbinical court, and there is no obligation to respond to summons from the court, and any document testifying to a rabbinical court action that might have been performed by one of the aforementioned judges is not presumed to be a valid rabbinical court action."

The story began when the groom, known as a member of a priestly family, became engaged to a bride who had undergone Orthodox conversion about two years before the engagement. The bride's mother underwent Conservative conversion in 2003, and the daughter underwent an additional "stringent" conversion years later. Jewish law clearly states that a Cohen is forbidden to marry a convert, so initially it appeared the marriage would not be possible.

Trump Envisions Jailing Obama as Tulsi Gabbard Threatens Prosecutions

https://time.com/7303912/trump-obama-jail-tulsi-gabbard-russiagate-hoax-prosecutions-democrats-republicans/

 Donald Trump, who openly campaigned in 2016 against Hillary Clinton on chants of “lock her up” but was ultimately persuaded to not pursue her prosecution, now appears to be fantasizing about throwing his predecessor, former President Barack Obama, in jail. And his Administration is actively taking steps in that direction.

The current President shared on his Truth Social platform on Sunday a video from TikTok user @neo8171 that starts with a montage of Democratic politicians, including Obama, saying, “No one is above the law,” to the tune of Luciano Michelini’s “Frolic” (made famous as the theme song of sitcom Curb Your Enthusiasm). After about 40 seconds, the soundtrack changes to the Village People’s “Y.M.C.A.,” as apparently AI-generated video depicts Trump and Obama sitting in the Oval Office and FBI officers handcuffing Obama while Trump smiles and laughs. It ends with an AI-generated depiction of Obama pacing around a jail cell.

As MAGA world focuses on Epstein, Trump seeks focus on anything else

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/21/trump-epstein-distractions/

Over the past 48 hours, President Donald Trump has asked his Truth Social followers “How did [former USAID administrator] Samantha Power make all of that money?”

He said he might scuttle a stadium deal if the Washington Commanders football team doesn’t change its name back to the Washington Redskins.

He highlighted a memo from his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, that said Obama administration officials planned a “treasonous conspiracy in 2016” aimed at Trump. Emphasizing the point, he posted an AI-generated video of Barack Obama being arrested in the Oval Office.

During a fusillade of posts on the social network he owns, Trump even released a three-minute mash-up of clips that would seem more at place on-screen at a sports bar than in a president’s official feed: a woman snatching an approaching snake from the grass, a car sliding under a truck barreling along a highway, and no fewer than four people doing tricks on motorcycles and jet skis.

On Monday, Gabbard added another item to the list — announcing the release of hundreds of thousands of documents related to the 1968 assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Visiting the sick with a telephone call

Igros Moshe (YD I #223) Question Can the mitzva of visiting the sick be accomplished with a phone call? Answer While a phone call can accomplish the mitzva of visiting the sick, it is clearly not the best way of doing the mitzva fully.  Thus it should only be done if it is impossible to go in person. If he can go in person he is obligated to do so. So even though a major component of the mitzva is to pray for the sick and that can be done anywhere, the prayer is more likely to be better if he first sees the condition of the sick person. 

Mourner : Comforting over phone

Igros Moshe (OC Iv #40.11) Question: Can the mitzva of comforting a mourner be done with a telephone call? Answer The mitzva has two components. 1) Helping the living mourner who is deeply suffering by saying words that comfort him. In order to do that one is obligated to go to the house of the mourner where he is. 2) Helping the deceased as is decribed in Shabbos (152b).  Therefore the Rambam says that the mitzva of comforting mourners takes precedence over visiting the sick since it is providing kindness to  the living and the dead.  It seems to me that the first component can be accomplished with a telephone call while the second component can be done only by going to the house of mourning. Or the place of the deceased. However it is definitely better to comfort the mourner in person which gives honor to the mourner. In conclusion if it is possible he should go in person to the house of the mourner in oder to do the mitzva in the best manner. And not rely on a telephone call.  However if he can’t go for example if he is sick or involved in a different mitzva than he can at least utilize the phone. This is what I wrote concerning visiting the sick . It is permitted for the mourner to speak on the telephone for what he needs and thus there is no problem calling and speaking to him on the telephone. 

Honoring parents – commonsense vs mitzva

Netziv(Approbation to Ahavas Chesed): ….It says in Yevamos (79a): There are three inherent characteristics of the Jewish people – they are merciful, shy and they do acts of kindness to others. … Nevertheless there are explicit commands in the Torah to do acts of kindness such as Vayikra (25:35): You shall support your brother who has become poor, Shemos (22:24): Do not lend money with interest. The reason for this is to teach us that besides being obligated to do acts of kindness because we are human beings we have an addition obligation from the Torah – just as we have for all the mitzvos which we wouldn’t know from commonsense. The consequences of having both an inherent commonsense obligation as being part of mankind as well as an explicit command in the Torah is illustrated by the obligation to honor parents. The Torah command teaches that even though there is a command from commonsense that all of mankind is obligated to keep and receives reward for do it, nevertheless G‑d has in addition explicitly commanded us to do it as an aspect of the Torah (Shemos 20:11)… As a Torah mitzva honoring parents is a statute which must be done simply because it was commanded and not because it makes sense. For example if a non‑Jew fathers a child with a Jewish woman, than according to the Torah that child has a mother but no father. Therefore there is a greater obligation of honoring the mother than the father because the honor of the mother is dictated by not only commonsense but also from the Torah. …There are also consequences for lending money to a needy person. Even though it is clearly a commonsense obligation but it is also governed by Torah law. In this case the obligation from commonsense is inconsistent with the obligation of the Torah. The contradiction occurs in regard to charging interest. For example, in the case of a person whose life depends upon lending money with reasonable interest. From the commonsense point of view he still performs a great mitzva of lending money – even with interest – to sustain another person who desperately needs the loan. However the Torah specifically prohibits charging interest. Therefore according to the Torah a Jew would not be able to lend the money and thus he is prohibited from doing the kindness to the other person as well as sustaining himself. [This was explained in Harchev Davar - Bereishis 48:19 – concerning the Tabernacle at Shiloh…]

Ruach hakodesh is reason Biblical verses are omnisignificant - Netziv

Netziv(Kadmos HaEmek – She’iltos 2:2 -3): When there is some irregularity in the way a Torah verse was written, we find that our Sages often inferred information (derash) both for the subject of the verse and unrelated matters…. And surely this is true for Agada, mussar and ethical lessons – even when there is no obvious connection to the verses. Not only is this true for Torah but also for Biblical verses in Prophets and Writings which were put in writing through prophecy or ruach hakodesh. They are interpreted (drash) both according to the context and not according to the context. According to the context that means when the verse can be understood in a variety of ways. To say that all ways are true is an inherent property of something written with ruach hakodesh. An example of saying that interpretations which are not according to the context are also included in the verse is that of Rabbi Akiva who asks how do we know that a ship is spiritually pure? He answers from Mishlei(30:19),  “The manner of a ship in the midst of the ocean.” He says just as the sea is spiritually pure so is the ship. ...  And similarly we find with the words of Agada concerning the Shunamite woman and Elisha (Berachos 10b) that one who provides hospitality to a talmid chachom in his home is as if he brought a Tamid sacrifice. It  is clear that the Shunamite woman had no thoughts about a Tamid sacrifice when she provided hospitality to Elisha. What was asserted in the gemora is based on the idea that the words of a prophet can be broadly interpreted. This understanding of the Biblical verses is like a hammer striking a rock which sends out sparks both in its place and out of its place – to places where the one striking the rock never imagined they would fall. In a similar manner the verse alludes to many issued and principles even regarding matters which are not related to the verse at all. .

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

To get a greater context of omnisignificance see the following article [fixed link]

Dr. Elman - Rebirth of Omnisignificant Biblical Exegesis

Wife is subordinate to her husband to the degree he is subordinate to G-d - Netziv

Netziv (Bereishis 2:24): Therefore a man should leave… and cleave to his wife. From that time on there is no way to get a help mate as intended by creation and according to how a man feels when he doesn't have a help mate - except by leaving his father and his mother and cleaving to his wife. And then they will be one flesh as he loves her since they are now as one being. As is stated in Yevamos (62b). And if he loves his wife as himself…[he will have domestic tranquility]. But even so she is not totally subordinate as the first woman who was considered to be part of Adam and but rather they will be one flesh. Just as he is concerned with his own good and he wants her to totally fulfill what he wants so it is with her that she wants her own good and that he will totally fulfill what she wants. Nevertheless it has already been established with the first woman and it has become part of the female nature that women remain helpers even though it is not like the original circumstances but rather is is like what happened after eating from the Tree of Knowledge as we will explain in Bereishis (3:2) and it is included in the sixth day of Creation. But it is only someone who merits it will get the love of his wife with total subordination as it was with Eve before the Sin. Because of this there were two manners of the cleaving of Adam and Eve in order that there be in future generations two different ways that a woman would be supportive of her husband. Therefore on the sixth day of Creation there were two ways that Eve loved Adam in order that that there should be two ways that a woman loves a man and as we explained that there are two different manners of serving G-d. All of this was done on the first day that they were created as we explained on verse 4. This created the nature of love of a woman and her life with her husband. This is like what Ben Azai said at the end of Kiddushin [(82a)] , "I was created to serve my Master and they were created to serve me." And to the degree that he serves G-d, will his wife serve him. Or alternatively she will serve him according to his mazel - as all events in the life of man happens according to Divine Providence according to his deeds. And this with either a good mazel or bad. Because this is the say G-d established His Kingdom in the world.

Ezer kenegdo - Netziv

Netziv (Bereishis 02:18.1)Ezer Kenegdo – We discussed the plain meaning. There is a well known medrash that Rashi cites which interprets this phrase to mean if he is deserving she will help him but if not she will be opposed to him. However even according to this medrash the wife as not created  to distress him so how is it possible to understand this phrase as being either a helper or opponent? It means the she should provide helpful opposition. For example if a person is prone to show anger and upset. If his wife supports and encourages him in this, even though at the time of anger he enjoys her agreement and support but later when he calms down he will be upset that his wife added fire and wood to his anger and upset and thus she actually was detrimental(kenegdo). In contrast if she would have opposed him initially and attempted to calm and placate him, even though it appears at that moment as opposition but she is in fact providing him with true help. The same can be said with all his other traits.Thus the meaning of ezer kenegdo is she should provide him with helpful opposition