Is love an obligation: Rambam vs Yevamos (62b)

updated 11/11/12 In the discussion about the nature of marriage - the prime question is the role or necessity for love between husband and wife. It is important to note there is an apparent contradiction between the language of the Talmud and the language of the Rambam and subsequent authorities. The Rambam clearly states that the obligation to love  one's wife as oneself is rabbinic. However if he is basing himself on Yevamos (62b) - which the commentaries state is his source - there is no assertion of a rabbinic obligation. It simply says that if one does love one's wife as oneself and a bunch of other things  - there will be peace in his tent. At most it is a wise suggestion. An additional problem is that the Rambam in his commentary to the Mishna (Kiddushin 2:1) clearly states that the obligation is from the Torah command to love your fellow as yourself. That is the language of the gemora Kiddushin 41a. So is the Rambam basing his  obligation of love on a Torah command or rabbinic? Is he basing himself on Yevamos 62b or Kiddushin 41a? Are there two obligations of love as Rav Zilberberg suggests below? Finally it seems from the following sources that love is refering to caring or not hating or not doing negative things to another person . It is not referring to the emotion that we call love.

Yevamos (62b): Our  Rabbis taught: If a man loves his wife as himself and honors her more than himself and guides his sons and daughters on the straight path and has them married close to the age of puberty - the verse (Job 5:24) is applied to him, And you shall know that your tent is in peace.

Rambam(Hilchos Ishus 3:19): Similarly a man should not marry of a child nor should he marry a woman until he has seen her and she is acceptable in his eyes. That is because if he doesn’t see her first it might turn out that she doesn’t find favor in his eyes when he does see her.

 Kiddushin (41a): Rav said that it is prohibited for a man to marry a woman until he has seen her because when he does see her he might notice something which disgusts him and the Torah (Vayikra 19:18) has commanded, “You shall love your fellow as yourself.”

Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 15:19): Our Sages have commanded that a man should honor his wife more then himself and love her as himself.

Rambam(Commentary Kiddushin 2:1): It is correct that each man marry directly rather than through an agent, since we have a general rule that a man should not marry a woman until he has seen her. That is because we are concerned that she won’t find favor in his eyes and yet he will remain married to her in spite of not loving her. Such a thing is prohibited since there is a rule, “You should love your fellow as yourself.” Therefore it is important that the man marries directly rather than through an agent.

Aruch L'Ner(Kerisus 28a): This that the Beis Shmuel says that a man should honor his wife – we do not find that this means an obligation. In fact in Yevamos (62a) and in Sanhedrin (76b) it says that if a man honors his wife more than himself... the verse You shall know that there is peace in your tent is applied. This language implies that it is only a act of piety (midos chasidus) to not be insistent on one’s honor against her. Nevertheless according to the straight law she in fact is obligated to honor him more than he honors her

Eliyahu Rabbah (#16): One who fulfills the wishes of his wife and directs his children properly and marries his son before puberty before he comes to sin – about him it says “you shall know that there is peace in your tent (Job 5:24).

Pele Yoetz (Love between husband and wife): The love between a husband and wife must be a passionate one. We will begin with the love of the husband to his wife for the declaration of our Sages (Yevamot 62b) is known, "That the husband is obligated to love his wife as himself and to honor her more than himself."

Pele Yoetz (Love between husband and wife): The primary love is the love of the soul. It is incumbent upon the husband to admonish his wife with pleasant words, to guide her in the ways of modesty, to distance her from slander, anger, cursing, the mention of G-d's name in vain, and similar things in the Orders of Nashim and Nezikin. He should caution her in regard to the details of mitzvot – especially in the areas of prayer, blessings of benefit from this world, the observance of Shabbat, etc. How good and how pleasant it would be for him to teach her ideas of ethical improvement and to share with her words of the Sages in all matters that are relevant to her and their severity.

Yad Rama (Sanhedrin 76b): The braissa says that if a man loves his wife as himself – that means that he should have mercy on her as he is merciful to himself but more than himself is not relevant. That is because love is something which is in the heart and a person is not able to love another more than he loves himself. However regarding honor that is something for which it is possible that he can honor her more than himself with clothing which is nicer than what he gets for himself.

Kiddushas Levi (Bereishis 224:67): And Yitzchok brought her into his mother’s tent and she became his wife and he loved her. What was the reason that the Torah tells us that Yitzchok loved Rivkah? A possible answer is based on the fact that there are two types of love a man has for a woman. The first type is the physical lust that a man has for a woman because he wants to satisfy his desires. Because this type of love is solely concerned with what he wants,  it is actually not love for the woman at all but entirely love of himself. The second type is the love which is not concerned with satisfying his physical lusts but rather is because she is an instrument that enables him to fulfill the commands of his Creator – thus he loves her just as he loves the other mitzvos. This is called love of his wife. That is the meaning of “And Yitzchok loved her.” He had no thoughts regarding physical lust but only loved her because she enabled him to fulfill the mitzvos of G‑d.

Ramban(Bereishis 24:67): What was the reason that the Torah mentions that Yitzchok loved Rivkah and was comforted? This alludes to the fact that he was very distraught at the loss of his mother and could not be comforted until he was comforted by the love he had for her. Because otherwise what could possibly be the reason it would mention that a man loved his wife?

Rav Chaim Paltiel (Bereishis 24:67): And Yitzchok loved her This statement of the Torah is surprising – does that mean that originally he hated her? A possible answer is when he had the first sexual intercourse with her - he did not find signs of virginity. That was becasue she had fallen off the camel when she first saw him and this caused her to lose the signs of virginity and therefore she had the halachic status of one was lost the signs because of a physical blow (muchas eitz) – not because of intercourse. As a result of not finding the signs of virginity he hated her because he suspected that she had had relations with other men. She protested that she had done nothing wrong with any man. Eliezar also defended her innocence of wrong doing. She explained that when she fell of the camel, the force had caused her to lose the signs of virginity. She added, “Perhaps G-d will do a miracle and I will find the signs of virginity.” They went to the field where she had fallen and they found the signs of virginity on a stone and a dove was sitting on them in order to preserve them from the sun.

Rabbeinu Bachye (Kad HaKemach – Ahava): ... The attribute of love is great but the attribute of desire (cheshek) is even great than love. That is because love means loving the person in all his actions whether they are open or secret. However there are times when the love disappears and he forgets about her – such as when he is eating or drinking or sleeping. In contrast desire (cheshek) is when the person’s thoughts are constatnly attached in great and powerful love and there is no interruption at all in his desire. An example is Bereishis (34:3) where it says that Shechem soul clung to Dinah and Bereishis (34:3), Chamor said that his son Shechem’s soul desired (cheshek) Yaakov’s daughter. When someone has desire then he thinks of nothing else. Even when eating or drinking he doesn’t stop thinking about her. In fact sometimes he will lose his appetite and not eat at all. Even while sleeping that which he desires will appear to him dreams and will speak to him... Shir HaShirim is based on this attribute of desire (cheshek) which begins with (Shir HaShirim 1:2), Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth....

Rav S. R. Hirsch (Bereishis 24:67):... A man’s love for his wife grows with time. An example is the marriage of the son of the first Jew. This is the way it is with the majority of Jewish marriages. They are not built on the basis of lust (cheshek) but rather on careful deliberations. The parents and relatives make the decision as to whether these young people are compatible with each other. As a consequence of this objective compatibility, love grows with the marriage as the couple spends more time together. In contrast the majority of non-Jewish marriages in the world are based on what they call “love”. One has only to look around to have clear proof that there is a great chasm between the “love” prior to marriage and that which exists after the marriage. One sees how quickly things change after marriage and are so different than what people imagined they would be. This “love” is blind and false. In contrast the Jewish marriages are described by this verse, “And he took Rivkah and he married her and he came to love her.” The Jewish wedding is not the result of the flowering of love but is the cause of it.

Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein (Chashukei Chemed - Yoma 2a):  Question: It says in Yevamos 62b) that one who loves his lives as himself and honors her more than himself....will have peace in his tent. The Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 15:19) writes that the Sages commanded that a man should honor his wife more than himself and love her as much as himself. But this requires an explanation as to why they gave such a command since we already are commanded to love our fellow man and a person's wife is obviously included in this Torah command? Answer: I asked this question to my brother -in-law Rav Chaim Konievsky and he replied that it was because there are times when a person is not obligated to show love from the Torah command of "love your fellow as yourself." For example it says in Nida (16b), Rav Shimon bar Yochai said there are 4 things that Gd hates and I don't like. 1) A person who suddenly enters into his house and surely into the house of another person [because person they are involved in intimate matters - Rashi]. The Maharasha writes, "G-d hates them because these are matters of pritzus (immorality) but regarding himself Rav Shimon just says I don't love them. That is because it is possible that these things are not pritzus that would justify violating the prohibition of hating another." Consequently in such a case if the wife suddenly enters into the house then at that moment there is no obligation to love his wife from the aspect of the Torah law of "love your fellow as yourself." However in regard to the command that is derived from "you will have peace in  your tent"- there is still an obligation to love her. Furthermore there is a question regarding what the halachais when a wife sins. There is no longer an obligation to love her from "love your fellow" - in fact the opposite is true and there is an obligation to hate her. Is this rabbinic command "of peace in your tent" still applicable? It would seem that even  if there is  no mitzva to love her there is still a mitzva to honor her. That is because the obligation to honor her is because of gratitude because she raises the children and saves him from sin. This gratitude is still obligatory even if she sins. Therefore it is correct to honor her and to buy her appropriate clothing - even though she sins. Rav Shmuel Arvah gives an additional answer why there is a special verse to love his wife. It is based on the Maharsha (Shabbos 31a) which explains the answer of Hillel to the goy who wanted to learn the entire Torah while standing on one foot and  Hillel replied that what is hateful to you do do to your fellow. The question is why he worded in a negative way that he should be good to his fellow as he is to himself? He answers that the Maharsha says that the verse of "loving your fellow as yourself"  only applies to negative commands such as not taking revenge. However not to the positive commands of the Torah to do good to others.  That is because your life always comes first. Consequently we can say from the obligation of loving your fellow as yourself - there is no obligation to be good to your wife as to yourself. However from the obligation to honor your wife - there is an obligation to honor [sic] her as yourself.

Hurricane Sandy Reveals a Life Unplugged

NYTimes   BLANK screens. Cellphones on the fritz. Wii games sitting dormant in darkened rec rooms. For a swath of teenagers and preteens on the East Coast, the power failures that followed Hurricane Sandy last month represented the first time in their young lives that they were totally off the grid, without the ability to text, play Minecraft, video-chat, check Facebook, or send updates to Twitter. 

If they wanted to talk to a friend, they had to do it in person. If their first post-storm instincts were to check a weather app, they resigned themselves to battery-run radios.

As the full scope of the storm’s damage became obvious, it was clear these inconveniences were hardly grave. And because most children, and adults, eventually found some kind of connection via an unaffected neighbor (or Starbucks), the withdrawal was often more of a tech diet than a total fast. 

But the storm provided a rare glimpse of a life lived offline. It drove some children crazy, while others managed to embrace the experience of a digital slowdown. It also produced some unexpected ammunition for parents already eager to curb the digital obsessions of their children.

Rav Wolbe: Psychiatry and Religion

Hebrew Books בשבילי הרפואה  #5 page 59-90 5742  

Living with convicted sex offenders in your community

Haaaretz   In 2006 the Knesset passed the Public Protection from Sex Offenders Law, the first of its kind in the country. Its main provisions were to mandate an assessment, prior to parole, of the threat posed to the community by each convicted sex offender, and to establish a monitoring unit. This year an amendment providing for treatment and rehabilitation of sex offenders was passed. 

Plant's whereabouts became public knowledge when his wife registered their children for school. Last Friday morning dozens of neighbors gathered outside their building and prevented the family from going into their apartment. Plant charged at the group and made it very clear that he had no intention of backing down. Police officers who were dispatched to the scene explained to the residents that they could not prevent Plant and his family from living in the building, but in the end the Plants moved once again. 

Plant, 49, has served six separate prison terms for the same number of convictions for sexual offenses against minors. In the most recent, in 2006, he was sentenced by the Rehovot Magistrate's Court to seven years for performing indecent acts on nine underage girls while pretending to be an instructor of Capoeira, a Brazilian martial art that combines dance and music. 

The sex-offender monitoring agency established under the 2006 law and known as the Tzur unit, has broad powers that can include surveillance operations, surprise visits, frequent phone calls and visits with parole officers, as well as almost around-the-clock supervision and approval prior to an offender's hiring at a new place of work. 

Israel maintains a registry of convicted sex offenders, to which all of them must report their home address prior to their release from prison. But in contrast to many countries, most notably the United States, Israel's registry is classified. The authorities oppose moves to make the records public, in part out of fear of widespread violence against offenders living in the general community.

תשובת רביד נגר לאישה שנפגעה מהתעללות חוללה סערה

kikarhashabat        הרב רביד נגר, מחזיר בתשובה מוכר, מחולל סערה כשהוא מתבטא בצורה שנויה במחלוקת

בתשובה לאישה שסיפרה בפורום אינטרנטי על אירוע בו התוקפה בנערותה על ידי גבר זר, ענה הרב כי מדובר בעניין של תיקון "העולם הזה הוא עולם של תיקון" אמר הרב

.

"אני לא מבינה איך ה' יכול היה לעשות לי כזה דבר. כששאלתי רב באמת גדול ע"כ הוא אמר שזה התיקון שלי. אני כועסת על ה'. איך אפשר להגיד שזה התיקון שלי" שאלה האישה

.

הרב נגר, בתשובה ארוכה מאוד, הגיב לשאלתה של האישה, אולם חלקים מתוכה הצליחו לגרום לסערה בכלי התקשורת.

הרב רביד נגר שפתח ב'אני ממש מצטער בשבילך', כתב לאישה: "למה ילד צריך להיוולד עם מום? למה יש תינוקות שנולדים מוגבלים? עיוורים? חרשים? למה? מה ה' אוהב להתעלל בילדים? אני בטוח שלא ! התשובה פשוטה ! העולם הזה הוא עולם התיקון ! עולם שבו אנחנו מתקנים את חטאי העבר , את החטאים שלנו בגלגולים קודמים , מי יודע מה את היית בגלגול הקודם? אולי היינו אלימים? אולי פגענו באנשים אחרים? כל זמן שאין לנו מושג מה היינו בגלגול הקודם , אין לנו שום זכות לשפוט את בורא עולם ! ה' רוצה שנתקן כדי שנזכה לגן עדן לנצח ! במקום שנסבול שנים של צער , ה' נותן לנו זכות לסבול כאן בעולם הזה כמה שנים בודדות וע"י כך הוא מציל אותנו ממאות שנות סבל בעליונים".

Obama’s Campaign Diminished the Presidency

Time  by Karen Hughes former counselor to President George W. Bush

Like many Republicans across the country, I woke up this morning deeply depressed, my mood soon matched by the falling stock market. I’m distressed not only by the outcome of the presidential election, but also because of the way it was won.

In stark contrast to the hope and optimism he stirred in 2008, this time, President Obama won ugly. During his first election, although I didn’t agree with his proposals or philosophy, I was among those who found myself inspired by the president’s call for our politics to be higher and better. Unfortunately, the way he has governed and the way he conducted this campaign undermined that central and hopeful promise.

I felt that I was watching a shrinking presidency as the campaign unfolded, with President Obama getting smaller each day. He often came across as peeved, petty and not presidential. On stage during the first debate he looked as if he wanted to be anywhere else, and his comments about his opponent were cutting and deeply personal. The final blow came with his comments in the final days to his supporters that “voting is the best revenge.” The mindset that comment reveals is deeply disturbing:  an election as a weapon to be wielded against our fellow Americans.

At its core, the central message I took away from the President’s re-election campaign was: Stick with me, we are inching forward and things could be a lot worse. Not exactly a hopeful agenda on which to build.

Nachalot abuse - case of hysteria & moral panic?

Times of Israel  This post is a response to “Nachlaot, where pedophiles roam free,” by Elana Kutscher. In it, I examine the main points made by Elana and analyze their validity.

Elana claims that there are pedophiles in Jerusalem’s Nachlaot neighborhood and that this was reported to the police over a year ago, but that the pedophiles are still there. The implication is that the police did not really do enough about the problem.

On the contrary, the police took immediate action as soon as they were notified about the initial suspected pedophile in November 2010. Afterwards, when neighborhood residents reported more suspects in the summer of 2011, the police again took action and arrested a group of suspects. If anything, the police were overzealous in their pursuit of potential suspects. They arrested several more individuals in January, 2012, simply because of public pressure, even though there was no substantive evidence.

She states that the police say this is the largest pedophile ring in the history of Israel, and that over 100 children have been abused.

In fact, the position of the police is that there is NOT a pedophile ring in Nachlaot at all – and there is not a ringleader. The police DO believe that there were pedophiles molesting children in Nachlaot, but that each one acted on an individual basis, and not as part of an organized group. The concept of a pedophile ring was the figment of the over-active imaginations of worried parents. They also claimed that this imaginary pedophile ring was producing movies of pedophilia for financial profit. No such movies were ever found. No forensic evidence of any sexual molestation was ever found either, even for those suspects who were indicted. The indictments were based entirely on the testimony of the children.

Not all the children who gave testimony were actually abused. Though more than 100 children testified that they were abused, much of that testimony was corrupted by the improper methods the parents used to obtain it. Some mothers went door to door, trying to convince as many parents as possible that their children were molested. The children were also shown pictures of the suspected pedophiles. [...]

Principal convicted of violating mandated reporting law

San Jose Mercury News   In a verdict hailed by child-abuse experts, a jury Monday found a principal guilty of the extremely rare charge of failing to report suspected sexual abuse to authorities, despite being told by an 8-year-old girl in vivid and explicit detail about a possible sexual act a teacher performed on her.

The conviction of former O.B. Whaley Elementary School principal Lyn Vijayendran was only the second time in two decades that Santa Clara County prosecutors had brought such a misdemeanor charge -- and the first time they'd won.

Vijayendran, 36, dabbed at her eyes with a tissue while the clerk read the guilty verdict.

She later wept when Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Deborah Ryan took the unusual step of immediately sentencing her.  [...]

In the end, the strongest evidence against the principal were her own notes from interviewing the child. The girl told the principal that Chandler blindfolded her in a room with no one else there, made her lie down on the classroom floor, told her to open her legs, touched her feet with something that felt like a tongue, inserted something gooey in her mouth and then wiggled her head around until she tasted a salty liquid. Chandler told Vijayendran that he called the girl into the classroom to prepare a lesson on Helen Keller, which he had been using for years.

Vigilantes protect Egyptian woman against abuse

NYTimes   The young activists lingered on the streets around Tahrir Square, scrutinizing the crowds of holiday revelers. Suddenly, they charged, pushing people aside and chasing down a young man. As the captive thrashed to get away, the activists pounded his shoulders, flipped him around and spray-painted a message on his back: “I’m a harasser.” 

 Egypt’s streets have long been a perilous place for women, who are frequently heckled, grabbed, threatened and violated while the police look the other way. Now, during the country’s tumultuous transition from authoritarian rule, more and more groups are emerging to make protecting women — and shaming the do-nothing police — a cause. 

The attacks on women did not subside after the uprising. If anything, they became more visible as even the military was implicated in the assaults, stripping female protesters, threatening others with violence and subjecting activists to so-called virginity tests. During holidays, when Cairenes take to the streets to stroll and socialize, the attacks multiply.

But during the recent Id al-Adha holiday, some of the men were surprised to find they could no longer harass with impunity, a change brought about not just out of concern for women’s rights, but out of a frustration that the post-revolutionary government still, like the one before, was doing too little to protect its citizens.

Divorce is no longer fashionable?

NYTimes   That a woman who has been divorced should feel such awkwardness and isolation seems more part of a Todd Haynes set piece than a scene from “families come in all shapes and sizes” New York, circa 2011. But divorce statistics, which have followed a steady downward slope since their 1980 peak, reveal another interesting trend: According to a 2010 study by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, only 11 percent of college-educated Americans divorce within the first 10 years today, compared with almost 37 percent for the rest of the population. 

For this cross section of American families — in the suburban playgrounds of Seattle, the breastfeeding-friendly coffee shops of Berkeley, Calif., and the stroller-trodden streets of the Upper West Side — divorce, especially for mothers with young children underfoot, has become relatively scarce since its “Ice Storm” heyday. 

For every cohort since 1980, a greater proportion are reaching their 10th and 15th anniversaries, said Stephanie Coontz, author of “Marriage, a History.”[...]

The experience of being a divorced woman has changed, along with the statistics. “The No. 1 reaction I get from people when I tell them I’m getting divorced is, ‘You’re so brave,’ ” said Stephanie Dolgoff, a 44-year-old mother of two elementary-school daughters who was separated last year. “In the 1970s, when a woman got divorced, she was seen as taking back her life in that Me Decade way. Nowadays, it’s not seen as liberating to divorce. It’s scary.”  [...]

“What happened?” asks the writer Claire Dederer in her memoir, “Poser,” which examines life as a new mother in Seattle. In the 1970s, “the feminists, the hippies, the protesters, the cultural elite all said, It’s O.K. to drop out.” In contrast, “We made up our minds, my brother and I and so many of the grown children of the runaway moms, that we would put our families first and ourselves second. We would be good, all the time. We would stay married, no matter what, and drink organic milk.”

Changes in marriage:Tragedy of Seridei Aish

I met Rav Nosson Kaminetsky tonight at a chasuna and asked him for some leads regarding changes in the nature of marriage. He reminded me of the following quote regarding the tragic experiences of the Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg that he had written about.

Making of a Gadol by Rav Nosson Kaminetsky page 819:

page 816 - When describing the disaster he entered into, he wrote, "This shiddukh was forced upon me by the Alter of Slabodka and the heads and members of Yeshivath Kneseth Yisrael (emphasis added)./'' An article in ... reveals the background of the misatch between the Chekhanovtzer 'Iluy, R' Weinberg, and the simple, orphaned daughter of the Rav of the small Lithuanian town of Pilvishok. R' Weinberg had been "dabbling with the idea of leaving the yeshiva world for the world of the Haskalah. (R' Finkel) sensed that (R' Weinberg) was at a crossroads and aranged the shiddukh which would bring him the dowry of that town's rabbinic post" and thereby bind him to the Torah world. Weinberg Obituary cites the following from R' Weinberg's letter: "Being young, I submitted to [their guidance], and by that, I ruined the course of my life [...]. During my tenure as the Rav of Pilvishok, the Alter of Slabodka established in Pilvishok a kibbutz of select bahurim in order to enable me forget my pain and my travails through the toil of delivering shai'urim." R' Weinberg's reference to having "ruined... (his) life" goes beyond his personal happiness because, with his talents, he could have developed into the greatest Torah leader of his generation, as discussed in the fourth paragraph of the following excursus.

page 819 - It is possible, too, that the Alter, though expert in understanding what made people, especially the young, tick - in my father's opinion, he understood people better than Freud  - was out of step with the change in the relationship between mates which modem trends had wrought in Jewish society as a whole, even the Torah world, by the time R' Weinberg married. We may speculate that the Alter's own domestic arrangement, which my father from his latter-day perspective described as "terrifying '', could not have endured even among bnei Torah 40 years later. Shades of the generational dichotomy in outlooks on this matter may be found in a report of an exchange between the Alter and R' Weinberg which was reported by R' Shmuel-Hayyim Domb in the name of R' Yehiel-Yankev's talmid R' Pinhas Biberfeld: When the Alter tried to convince R' Weinberg not to separate from his wife, he responded, "Where is the drugstore which sells a potion for love?" It may be assumed that R' Weinberg's purpose in repeating this conversation to his talmid was to convey this very idea - that by making the attempt to get him to stay with his wife, the Alter had demonstrated that he did not grasp what degree of compatibility was expected between couples in the new times. Even the extreme forbearance that the Alter knew R' Weinberg was possessed of could not hold a relatively modem marriage together.

page 826 - Based on what R' Hayyim Sarna heard from his father, the Alter held that R' Weinberg would become the gedol hador (greatest[Torah leader] of [his] generation); "And he would have become that, but for his unfortunate marriage, ,'' R' Sarna said °. He explained: "In Lithuania only teamsters (...) got divorced any person of standing would, as my mother would say, 'eat nails (... [suffer])' and stick it out." [Rachel Sarna used another idiom, viz., "any person of standing would 'bite into the quilt [...,,, (probably meaning, clench one's teeth under the covers, in privacy)]'". The interviewee said further that R'Weinberg "had to leave Lithuania because of the divorce"...

Ex Penn State president charged in abuse coverup

NYTimes

 Former Penn State President Graham B. Spanier was charged Thursday with hushing up child molestation allegations against Jerry Sandusky, making him the third school official to be accused of crimes in the alleged cover-up. [...]

Spanier has said he had no memory of email traffic concerning the 1998 complaint — by a woman that Sandusky had showered with her son — and only slight recollections about the 2001 complaint — by a team assistant who said he stumbled onto Sandusky sexually abusing a boy inside a campus shower.

Ex-gays protest view that therapy doesn't work

NY Times   Mr. Smith is one of thousands of men across the country, often known as “ex-gay,” who believe they have changed their most basic sexual desires through some combination of therapy and prayer — something most scientists say has never been proved possible and is likely an illusion. 

 Ex-gay men are often closeted, fearing ridicule from gay advocates who accuse them of self-deception and, at the same time, fearing rejection by their church communities as tainted oddities. Here in California, their sense of siege grew more intense in September when Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law banning use of widely discredited sexual “conversion therapies” for minors — an assault on their own validity, some ex-gay men feel.

Signing the measure, Governor Brown repeated the view of the psychiatric establishment and medical groups, saying, “This bill bans nonscientific ‘therapies’ that have driven young people to depression and suicide,” adding that the practices “will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery.” 

 But many ex-gays have continued to seek help from such therapists and men’s retreats, saying their own experience is proof enough that the treatment can work. 

College rape cases - unique difficulties

Time   The recent media swarm around an anguished report of rape at Amherst College, in Massachusetts, is understandable, especially when every day seems to bring another grotesque proclamation from a political figure appearing to minimize, or even justify, rape. But the gravity of sexual assault shouldn’t be an excuse to draw black-and-white conclusions about the problem of rape on college campuses.

Most rapes are hard to prosecute, in part because they rarely have witnesses, but college rapes on college campuses are an even bigger challenge because at least 90% of alleged rapes are between people who know each other (often boyfriends, ex-boyfriends, or current friends and acquaintances). College rapes also typically involve less physical evidence (like signs of physical struggle), and one or both parties are more likely to be intoxicated by alcohol, often making it hard for the alleged victim and assailant to recall or report a clear story. College-rape survivors sometimes delay reporting rape, as the Amherst survivor did, until they have concluded that they were in fact raped — an ambiguity that is much less common in the general population. [...]

Moreover, college students are adults with their own legal and moral agency; college officials are not compelled by law to report assaults to the police, as school administrators are for suspected cases of sexual abuse with minors. Campus sexual assaults are thus adjudicated in an often deeply unsatisfying he-said-she-said administrative process that can’t always establish truth, much less actual justice. As former Harvard College dean Harry Lewis noted in Excellence Without a Soul: How a Great University Forgot Education, “In rape cases there is often no middle ground … When one student is accused of raping another, the college cannot make everyone happy.”

Who is spending the night with your daughter?

In the posting about David Kaye the issue has been raised as to why he should be viewed as dangerous (i.e. rodef) when he has not done anything wrong halachically? He is obviously disgusting and not welcome - but should he also be considered dangerous  since he never did anything to harm another person and he has a life time of helping others. His major downfall was a sting operation by a TV. station involving what he thought was a 13 year old boy. The whole crime for which he was sent to prison is simply a mental fantasy - and some claim that only according to secular law is it wrong. In order to understand this better let me present the follow case.

You and your wife are leaving in an hour to celebrate your parent's golden anniversary in Florida - so you will be gone for one night.Your younger kids have been distributed to neighbors. However your 13 year old daughter says she is old enough to stay home for one night and says one of her friends is coming over to keep her company.

You do a last minute check on Google maps for traffic conditions and then a quick glance at email to see if there are any important last minute messages. With great irritation you notice that the email is still logged in to your daughter's account - but you also notice an email with a very inappropriate subject line. Pushing aside the concerns for Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom of reading other's mails - you start reading the letter.

Shock and revulsion hit you as you realize that it is a letter from a 35 year old male who claims to be a rabbi. He has been having an exchange of very explicit sexual communications with your daughter. You notice the exchange has been very intensive and some of the emails have attached nude photographs of him and others which have pictures of her. The last email says he is coming over to spend the night with your daughter.

With your head spinning you think of what you should do in the 30 minutes before you have to leave.

 1) Call the rabbi of the shul where you go for daf yomi and who is a world-wide expert on kashrus. 2) confront your daughter and force her to come with you. 3) contact your next door neighbor who has mafia connections who will make sure the guy receives the proper message in a forceful unambiguous manner4) Do nothing since after all your daughter is halachically an adult and it is a consensual relationship. You give yourself a mental note to have a talk with your daughter - when you get back - about how inappropriate it is and that she is only a child and not old enough for these types of relationships. 5) Call the police

More single mothers are having children

Times of Israel   With studies showing American Jewish women marrying at older ages than ever, more and more Jewish women are confronting the choice of whether to become single moms while it’s still biologically possible, or to continue to gamble with those chances and wait for Mr. Right.

Many mothers say the decision is the hardest part. Can they raise a kid on their own? Will conservative-minded family or friends ostracize them? Later in life, will their child resent them for it?

Then there’s the cost. Aside from mothers shouldering the burden of being the sole provider, fertility treatments can cost anywhere from $10,000 to $50,000. In Israel, treatments are free for women to have two children.

Tehilla Blumenthal, an Israeli psychologist who wrote her doctoral dissertation on single Jewish mothers, says medical technology that has made it easier for older women to become pregnant has prompted a growing number of Jewish women to try single motherhood.

One 41-year-old Orthodox Jewish doctor in the New York area who recently gave birth to a set of twins through IVF said she was pleasantly surprised by how accepting her community has been.

Wife does intimate tasks for husband for endearment

A wife is obligated to do certain tasks for her husband for the sake of endearment. These tasks include pouring his cup, washing his face, hands and feet, making his bed, standing before him to attend to his wishes such as getting a drink and anoint him with oil.  There is a dispute as to whether these tasks are obligatory or optional. The Yerushalmi Kesubos (5:6) clearly holds they are obligatory for the wife to do them. Rashi (Kesubos 61a) and others hold that they are optional - simply advice that our Sages gave to increase the husbands liking of his wife. Simple question is what happened to these tasks. I have never seen a wife do these tasks for her husband. Even according to Rashi who says they are optional - but they are recommended in order to endear the wife to the husband. Furthermore if we say that according to the Rambam that when our Sages recommended something it becomes a command - then how can there be a dispute here whether these recommended tasks are obligatory?

Of greater importance why are these halachos not relevant. If this is a rabbinic decree as the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch seem to imply - then even if the reason for the decree are not relevant anymore - but the takanos are still active. In short you can't throw out halacha that way or ignore it. "kashrus is because of sanitation so it is not relevant" "Two day of Yom Tov because we didn't have accurate knowledge so it is not relevant today." "Divorce depending solely on husband's wishes is irrelevant to today" "Extra marital sex & incest is only for fear of having a baby whose father's identity is unknown or is a mamzer - not relvant today with birth control" "Mamzer is unfair and therefore not applicable today"  

There is really three issues here. 1) how could these obligations simply disappear? 2) They are reflective of and determine the nature of the relationship. If the values they reflect are Torah values then if we don't establish these values in the way described in Shulchan Aruch then how are they established? 3) If they are no longer considered Jewish values - what are the values in marriage and family relations?
======================================

Kesubos (61a): If she has four slaves - she may lounge in an easy chair. Rav Huna said that even though they said she can lounge in an easy chair but she fills his cup and makes his bed and washes his hands and feet. Furthermore Rav Huna said that all the work that a wife does for her husband she also does it when she is a niddah – except for filling his cup, making his bed and washing his hands and his feet and making his bed. Rava said this restriction for a wife who is a nida is only if she does the work in his presence but he is not there then there is no problem.

Rashi (Kesubos 61a): But she fills his cup and makes his bed – to spread the sheet something which is not strenuous – since it an act of endearment in order that she be more beloved to him. Therefore it is not comparable to the making of the bed mentioned in the Mishna which involves considerable physical effort and she can be forced to do it. She is not forced to do these works of endearment but the Sages merely suggested them as good advice as to how Jewish wives should behave. Except for pouring his cup -  when she is a Nida then all activities which draw them closer and increase endearment are to be avoided because they can lead to prohibited sexual activity.

Yerushalmi Kesubos (5:6): Rav Huna said that even if he had 100 maidservants to do the housework, his wife would still be forced to do the intimate tasks for him. What are these intimate tasks that she must do? It is to anoint his body with oil, wash his feet, and pour his cup. Why should she be obligated to do these when they have so many servants? Is it because it is inappropriate for a maidservant to do these tasks for him or because she has to do them? The difference between these two views is if he has male slaves rather than maid servants then it would remove the concern that maid servants should do these tasks for him and if she still had to do them that would show that the reason is because it is a wife’s obligation to do these tasks...It seems more likely that in fact she must do them solely because it is her obligation to her husband. 

Rambam(Hilchos Ishus 21:3-4): 3) A husband who takes an oath to prohibit his wife not to do any work at all – is required to divorce her and give her the kesuba. That is because idleness causes immorality. Similarly every wife needs to wash her husbands face, hands, and feet as well as pour his cup and make his bed and to stand before him to serve him. Examples of her service are to give him water or a utensil or take things from him etc.,  However she does not stand and serve his father or his son. 4) These tasks need to be done by the wife herself – even if she has many servants – she alone is required to do them.
  

Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 80:4-5): 4) And similarly every woman is to wash her husband’s face, hands and feet and pour his cup and to make his bed. (Some say that she is obligated to make all the beds in the house). And she is to stand before him and serve him doing tasks such as giving him water or a utensil or taking things from him etc. However she does not stand and serve his his father or son (However some say that is only when she is not dependent for support from her husband). 5) These works need to be done by the wife herself – even if she has many servants – she alone is required to do them. (There is a dispute regarding making beds see E.H. 80:8).

Court: Phone harassment akin to indecent act

YNet   The Central District Court rendered an unprecedented ruling this week, declaring that a conviction over an indecent act is possible even if the perpetrator did not physically touch, or even see, the victim.

According to a Tuesday report in Yedioth Ahronoth, the ruling was made following an appeal filed by a man who was convicted of an indecent act against two minors, which was perpetrated over the phone.[...]

"The fact that there was no actual physical contact makes no difference, since verbal violence is just as traumatic as physical violence," the court ruled.

Rapist has visitation rights with child he fathered?

Fox News  The case of a Massachusetts man seeking visitation rights to the child he fathered after raping a 14-year-old girl has landed in front of the state’s highest court, MyFoxBoston.com reports.

The girl was 14 when she was impregnated by then-20-year-old Jamie Melendez, who pleaded guilty last year to four counts of statutory rape of a child.

The teen victim is arguing that she should not have to face potentially years of family court battles with the man who violated her, according to My Fox Boston.

According to the site, the youth's attorney, Wendy Murphy, argued before Supreme Judicial Court Justice Margot Botsford that the lower court judge, Superior Court Judge Thomas McGuire, essentially forced her client into a relationship with her rapist by sentencing Melendez into Probate and Family Court.

Melendez has asked a family court judge for visitation rights.

Boston News, Weather, Sports | FOX 25 | MyFoxBoston

Hirsch: Loving another - only means their welfare

Rav S.R. Hirsch(Vayikra 19:18): You shall love your fellow as yourself – This rule applies to all our social activities in knowledge, speech, and deeds. Ahava (love) is the most elevated of our emotions in relationship to G‑d and man. The word “ahava” is basically the word hav (give) with the addition of the letter aleph which attaches it to a particular. Thus the meaning of the word ahava (love) is to devote oneself to another and to bring the other to oneself (See also the comments to Bereishis 37:4). Two individuals who function as one is ahava (love) as opposed to hatred (See Vayikra 37:17). Note that the Torah doesn’t say “Love your fellow” which is the normal way of the verse. If it had said that then it would mean loving the other person and that would mean that we would be obligated to equate the love of the other with the love of ourselves. Such a task is simply impossible to accomplish. Rather the love expressed here is an obligation in relations to all other people. In contrast the love which is directed to the person of the other requires fulfillment of certain conditions which happens only extremely rarely. It requires a high degree of compatibility and closeness between the souls which is found only between a few people for example Dovid and Yonason. Concerning their love it says, “The soul of Yonason was bound with the soul of Dovid and he loved Dovid as his own soul. (Shmuel I 18:1). In contrast it says here, “And you shall love your fellow as yourself.” The term “your fellow” does not mean the unique person of the other but merely the fact that he is human. Therefore you should do what you can regarding the conditions of his life that they be good or improved and that is what our love is directed at. In sum the verse is commanding us to be concerned about his welfare and what is good for him in the same way we are concerned that we obtain good things in our lives [but does not require that we love him personally]. We should be happy with his wealth and said with his suffering – as if these had happened to us. With generosity we should contribute to his well-being as if it was our own well-being and we should protect him from suffering as if the harm was a threat to us. This requirement can be done in regards to all men – even if you don’t feel any personal closeness to them. That is because this mitzva is totally detached from any personal feelings to the other person and is not based on any personality characteristics he possesses. The whole basis for being concerned about others is because of the phrase “I am G‑d” that ends this verse. G‑d has obligated us to relate in a positive fashion to all men because He has established that we all are “comrades” with each other. Comradeship increases his welfare and with the welfare of your fellow brings genuine peace. Such an attitude prevents us from being bothered by the success of others and the success of one does not come at the destruction of another. A person doesn’t rejoice in his own success as long as he is aware that his fellow is suffering.

Accepting a pedophile rabbi as a congregant?

washington post                  [see previous post video]

 [...] in February, David Kaye, a longtime Montgomery County rabbi and registered sex offender, started attending Saturday services.

Adat Shalom’s three clergy had quickly agreed to a request from Kaye to pray at the synagogue, believing his presence to be in keeping with Adat Shalom’s identity as an open, diverse spiritual community where all are welcome.

Through the spring and early summer, Kaye was a part of the congregation. He came for Sabbath and oneg, the post-service lunch. He stood with other mourners to say the communal prayer for the dead, for his parents. He went to the silent retreat.

But over the months, discomfort with Kaye’s presence in some quarters of the 500-family congregation grew. Finally, he was asked to leave.

The matter came to a head last month in the days before Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, the holiest days of the Jewish calendar, a time when Jews pray desperately for forgiveness, for themselves and others.[....]

Divorcing a wife of 30 years if she won't keep Shabbos?

I received the following letters from Michael regarding a very sensitive  personal issue i.e., whether to divorce his wife because her refusal to observe Shabbos is preventing him from proper fulfilment and progress in Yiddishkeit. I replied that this is a question for one's rav - not some anonymous collection  of people who don't know who he is or his relationship to his wife. Nevertheless he persisted. 

After some thought I decided that it might be helpful to discuss what the pros and con's of divorcing and possible advice as to nudging her in the direction of Shabbos observance. It might also help clarify what exactly is the place of marriage in the context of developing shleimus in Avodas HaShem. This is a genuine halachic dilemma and I appreciate his decision to submit  this problem to a public forum.  I will delete all comments which I think are counterproductive. I will also remove this post if Michael decides it isn't helpful. 

Michael I think it would be helpful if you tell us a little more about yourself. Where do you live? Are you a Chasid, Sefardic or Ashkenaz Jew? Do you belong to a community? What objections does your wife have to keeping Shabbos? Please don't reveal information that would reveal your actual identity.

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

Shalom Kevod Harav,
For more than 30 years, I have been married to a Jewish woman who is saintly in all matters except she does not keep Shabbos. For the first 10 years of our marriage, I was not a Shabbos observer but became observant even as she stubbornly refused to do so. As we grow older, I feel increasingly isolated although she is perfectly content to continue as is. I have great compassion for her since she is a fine human being. Still, I feel that I could probably make more progress in my life if she were not my wife.
Should we divorce or continue together?
Behokara ubevrachot,
Michael

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

Daas TorahOctober 28, 2012 2:36 PM

Michael this is a very serious question. do you have a rav that you ask questions? If so what did he tell you.

If you want to explain in a guest post why she doesn't want to be observant and why you think that it is keeping you from making progess - it should be helpful to others since the issue is an important problem in the modern world.

However for you to get a meaningful answer for yourself you really need to speak to a rav who knows you well and your wife well or can get to know your better. Blog comments are not the best place to get a personal answer.

 ============================

Shalom Kvod Harav,
There is no rav who knows me, no rav who has ever cared to know me, but that's ok. As soon as they get a whiff of my dilemma, they keep their distance. Here's the rub: I do not know a single person whose midot are on the level of my wife's. I am acquainted with many shomer shabbos women who cannot approach my wife in the areas of tznius, optimism, and generosity, both materially and spiritually. When I first started to be shomer shabbos, we had loud arguments. In fact, we probably argued for about 10 years. Finally, we just stopped and silently agreed to disagree. My three children are now in their 20's. All have respect for yiddishkeit. Two do not keep shabbos while the third is a very strict shabbos observer and learns in a yeshiva. All three have outstanding midot. Getting a personal answer in this forum is not vital but I still wanted to share my experience. This is really a great test from Hashem. He wants to see how badly I want to keep Shabbos. Also, there is always the possibility, however remote, that my wife could become shomer Shabbos. And, in the end, if one Jew does not keep Shabbos, it is every other Jew's responsibility to change that behavior and, if we truly want Moshiach, we know his arrival depends on each Jew keeping Shabbos. I should mention that my wife regularly buys chalot on erev Shabbos and, upon prompting, lights Shabbat candles. She also does netilas yadayim. Also, my wife welcomes my saying kiddush for her and participates in havdalah.

Shooting Hoops on Shabbos?

Five Towns Jewish Times    by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

They can be found in virtually every neighborhood in the Five Towns and Far Rockaway.  Walk from Lawrence to Woodmere and you will find many dozens of them.  And, even on Shabbos, they are being utilized. They are portable, movable, basketball hoops.

The question is - what is the Halachic status of this pastime - when done on Shabbos? Should parents discourage their children from playing ball on Shabbos?  Is there a difference between very young children, children who have reached the age of Chinuch, and children above the age of Bar Mitzvah?

Certainly, we can all understand the sentiment that children need to be given some space and time to let off  steam or energy.  Every child is different and "chanoch lanoaral pi darcho."  If the underlying aspects of this activity are not forbidden, should wereally be making an issue out of it?

The Talmud Yerushalmi (Taanis 4:5) tells us of a great city named Tur Shimon with its very own Tomchei Shabbos that delivered 300 barrels of material to the poor each Friday. The Talmud, however, goes on to explain that this city was ultimately destroyed. Why was it destroyed?  One opinion says that it was because of untoward activity. Another opinion says that it was on account of, yes, ball playing.  Gulp.

Ostensibly, it was ball playing on Shabbos as most of the commentators explain. Indeed, Rav Huna in Midrash Aicha Rabasi explicitly states that the ball playing was on Shabbos.  This Yerushalmi is cited by the Bais Yoseph (OC 308).  Finally, there is a third opinion (See Rokeach Hilchos Shabbos 55) that they played ball on Shabbos and did not learn Torah.

NUMEROUS POSSIBILITIES

What is remarkable is that nowhere in these sources (other than in the words of the Rokeach) is the exact problem with ball-playing on Shabbos fully or even partially explained.  What was the exact violation?  There is, of course, an entire litany of halachic possibilities as to the exact nature of the problem (which, as the reader may have surmised, will be explored), but perhaps the very silence of the sources is instructive in and of itself.

LOST OPPORTUNITY

Perhaps, the reason Tur Shimon was destroyed was that this remarkable town - with such remarkable chessed going on in its midst should have utilized the Shabbos as a means to further their Dveikus Bashem - their cleaving to Hashem.  Excessive ball- playing, or any other mundane activity can sometimes be indicative of a lack of such a relationship with Hashem - and that lost opportunity may very well have been the  reason for Hashem not having saved this town from destruction. [For rest of article click Five Towns Jewish Times]