Tuesday, August 22, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[2] רמב"ם (הלכות תלמוד תורה פרק א:א-ד):
הלכה א
נשים ועבדים וקטנים פטורים מתלמוד תורה, אבל קטן אביו חייב ללמדו תורה שנאמר ולמדתם אותם את בניכם לדבר בם, ואין האשה חייבת ללמד את בנה שכל החייב ללמוד חייב ללמד.
הלכה ב
כשם שחייב אדם ללמד את בנו כך הוא חייב ללמד את בן בנו שנאמר והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך, ולא בנו ובן בנו בלבד אלא מצוה על כל חכם וחכם מישראל ללמד את כל התלמידים אף על פי שאינן בניו, שנאמר ושננתם לבניך מפי השמועה למדו בניך אלו תלמידיך שהתלמידים קרויין בנים שנאמר ויצאו בני הנביאים, אם כן למה נצטוה על בנו ועל בן בנו, להקדים בנו לבן בנו ובן בנו לבן חבירו.
הלכה ג
וחייב לשכור מלמד לבנו ללמדו, ואינו חייב ללמד בן חבירו אלא בחנם, מי שלא למדו אביו חייב ללמד את עצמו כשיכיר שנאמר ולמדתם אותם ושמרתם לעשותם, וכן אתה מוצא בכל מקום שהתלמוד קודם למעשה מפני שהתלמוד מביא לידי מעשה ואין המעשה מביא לידי תלמוד.
הלכה ד
היה הוא רוצה ללמוד תורה ויש לו בן ללמוד תורה הוא קודם לבנו, ואם היה בנו נבון ומשכיל להבין מה שילמוד יותר ממנו בנו קודם, ואף על פי שבנו קודם לא יבטל הוא, שכשם שמצוה עליו ללמד את בנו כך הוא מצווה ללמד עצמו.

Rav Chaim Malinowitz: Understanding suffering and revenge

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






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

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

While the Jews were clearly commanded to take revenge against Midian [and not Moav see Rashi], there is a problem in understanding the nature of revenge. We know that psychologically revenge is extremely sweet. Yet we know that the Torah prohibits taking revenge [Vayikra 19:18/however see Yoma 23a – difference between Torah Scholar and money] On the other hand we have the gemora that indicates it is a great thing.
Berachos (33a) R. Ammi said: Great is knowledge, since it was placed at the beginning of the weekday blessings. R. Ammi also said: Great is knowledge since it was placed between two names, as it says, For a God of knowledge is the Lord. And if one has not knowledge, it is forbidden to have mercy on him, as it says, For it is a people of no understanding, therefore He that made them will have no compassion upon them. R. Eleazar said: Great is the Sanctuary, since it has been placed between two names, as it says, Thou hast made, O Lord, the sanctuary, O Lord. R. Eleazar also said: Whenever there is in a man knowledge, it is as if the Sanctuary had been built in his days; for knowledge is set between two names, and the Sanctuary is set between two names. R. Aha Karhina'ah demurred to this. According to this, he said, great is vengeance since it has been set between two names, as it says, God of vengeance, O Lord; He replied: That is so; that is to say, it is great in its proper sphere; and this accords with what ‘Ulla said: Why two vengeances here? One for good and one for ill. For good, as it is written, He shined forth from Mount Paran; for ill, as it is written, God of vengeance, O Lord, God of vengeance, shine forth. [Rashi - when revenge is needed it is a great thing]
We see from this gemora that revenge is comparable in greatness to knowledge and the Beis Hamikdosh- but only when it is for the proper reason – otherwise it is bad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rambam a talmid chachom should be a nice person

hilchos  de'os 5:7 from Sefaria
תַּלְמִיד חָכָם לֹא יְהֵא צוֹעֵק וְצוֹוֵחַ בִּשְׁעַת דִּבּוּרוֹ כִּבְהֵמוֹת וְחַיּוֹת. וְלֹא יַגְבִּיהַּ קוֹלוֹ בְּיוֹתֵר אֶלָּא בְּנַחַת lעִם כָּל הַבְּרִיּוֹת. וּכְשֶׁיְּדַבֵּר בְּנַחַת יִזָּהֵר שֶׁלֹּא יִתְרַחֵק עַד שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה כְּדִבְרֵי גַּסֵּי הָרוּחַ. וּמַקְדִּים שָׁלוֹם לְכָל הָאָדָם כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא רוּחָן נוֹחָה הֵימֶנּוּ. וְדָן אֶת כָּל הָאָדָם לְכַף זְכוּת. מְסַפֵּר בְּשֶׁבַח חֲבֵרוֹ וְלֹא בִּגְנוּתוֹ כְּלָל. אוֹהֵב שָׁלוֹם וְרוֹדֵף שָׁלוֹם. אִם רוֹאֶה שֶׁדְּבָרָיו מוֹעִילִים וְנִשְׁמָעִים אוֹמֵר וְאִם לָאו שׁוֹתֵק. כֵּיצַד. לֹא יְרַצֶּה חֲבֵרוֹ בִּשְׁעַת כַּעֲסוֹ. וְלֹא יִשְׁאַל לוֹ עַל נִדְרוֹ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנָּדַר עַד שֶׁתִּתְקָרֵר דַּעְתּוֹ וְיָנוּחַ. וְלֹא יְנַחֲמֶנּוּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמֵּתוֹ מֻטָּל לְפָנָיו מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בָּהוּל עַד שֶׁיִּקְבְּרֵהוּ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בְּאֵלּוּ. וְלֹא יִרְאֶה לַחֲבֵרוֹ בִּשְׁעַת קַלְקָלָתוֹ אֶלָּא יַעֲלִים עֵינָיו מִמֶּנּוּ. וְלֹא יְשַׁנֶּה בְּדִבּוּרוֹ. וְלֹא יוֹסִיף וְלֹא יִגְרַע אֶלָּא בְּדִבְרֵי שָׁלוֹםוְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּדִבְרֵי חָכְמָה אוֹ בִּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. וְלֹא יְסַפֵּר עִם אִשָּׁה בַּשּׁוּק וַאֲפִלּוּ הִיא אִשְׁתּוֹ אוֹ אֲחוֹתוֹ אוֹ בִּתּוֹ: 
A disciple of the wise should not be noisy and loud like cattle and animals when talking, nor even raise his voice overmuch, but converse calmly with all people; nevertheless, in speaking calmly he should not overdo it lest he resemble the overpoliteness of the arrogant. He should be first to greet every person, so that their spirit be pleased with him He should judge every person favorably, telling the praiseworthy things about his friend and not at all about the blameworthy things; love peace and pursue it. If he can see his words acceptable he may speak, if not he should be silent. For instance? He should not appease his friend when the latter is moody; nor question him concerning his vow at the time the vow was made, but wait until his friend's mind will be composed and collected; he should not offer condolence while the remains of the deceased are in the presence of his friend, because he is upset until after the remains are buried, and so in other matters of a like delicate nature. He should not call upon his friend while the latter is down through a failing, but keep his eye off of him. He should not change his word, nor add to or diminish from it, unless it be for the sake of peace and similar worthy objects. As a general rule, he should not speak much else save words of wisdom, or charity and the like. He should not carry on a conversation with a woman on the street, even though she be his wife, or his sister, or his daughter.

WHAT DO WOMEN WANT sexually? sources in Torah literature

I asserted in a previous post that the widely believed statement that women have different sexual needs and desires than men in particular that while for men sex is a physical issue for women it is primarily emotional - has no basis in fact or the Torah literature, that this statement comes from secular and christian marriage manuals and psychology texts. There is no empiric evidence for it. and the research indicates that both men and women view it primarily as a physical issues and that women have more lust than me. I reviewed RAMBAM IGROS KOSH - ascibed to Rambam as well as the letters of CHAZON ISH STEIPLER and RAV WOLBE, RAV YAAKOV EMDEN'S SIDDUR AND  this idea is not mentioned see the Shulchan   Aruch below - no mention. INFACT THE ONLY DIRECT MENTION OF WOMENS FEELINGS I HAVE FOUND IS THE FOLLOWING
Maharal[1](Bava Metzia 59a): Rav said that a person should always be carefully not to oppress his wife because since she is sensitive and readily cries it is easy to make her feel oppressed. Thus we see that it is only his wife that he needs to be exceedingly careful not to hurt her feelings since she is ruled by him and therefore is much more likely to cry than other people who are not so easily oppressed. In other words because his wife is under his control she is more likely to be hurt by his words and cry when he wrongs her. In contrast a non‑Jewish slave is by nature not so affected by oppression and even a female Jewish slave does not readily cry because she has accepted the servitude to her master. Furthermore a female slave was not created for the purpose of being under his domain. It is only the wife who was created to be under the rule of her husband and as it says (Bereishis 3:16), And he shall rule over you. Therefore when she is oppressed it has a very strong impact on her. Furthermore in truth a wife does not accept being ruled by her husband because she views herself as his equal. In contrast a slave fully accepts that his master rules over him and therefore is not impacted as much as a wife who views herself as important and therefore is devastated when she is not treated with care.



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


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

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


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


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

Talmud - Mas. Eiruvin 100b

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

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

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

    But can that be right?35 seeing that R. Isaac b. Abdimi stated: Eve was cursed with ten curses, since it is written: Unto the woman He said, and I will greatly multiply,36 which refers to the two drops of blood, one being that of menstruation and the other that of virginity, ‘thy pain’36 refers to the pain of bringing up children, ‘and thy travail’36 refers to the pain of conceptions ‘in pain thou shalt bring forth children’36 is to be understood in its literal meaning, ‘and thy desire shall be to thy husband’36 teaches that a woman yearns for her husband when he is about to set out on a journey, ‘and he shall rule over thee’36 teaches that while the wife solicits with her heart the husband does so with his mouth, this being a fine trait of character among women?37 — What was meant is38 that she ingratiates herself with him.39 But are not these40 only seven? When R. Dimi came41 he explained: She is wrapped up like a mourner,42 banished from the company of all men43 and confined within a prison.44 What is meant by ‘banished from the company of all men’? If it be suggested: That she is forbidden to meet a man in privacy, is not the man also but could be retorted.] forbidden to meet a woman in privacy? — The meaning rather is that she is forbidden to marry two men. In a Baraitha it was taught: She grows long hair like Lilith,45 sits when making water like a beast, and serves as a bolster for her husband. And the other?46 — These, he holds, are rather complimentary to her, R. Hiyya having made the following statement: What is meant by the Scriptural text: Who teacheth us by47 the beasts of the earth and maketh us wise by48 the fowls of the heaven?49 ‘Who teacheth us by the beasts’ refers to the mule which kneels when it makes water, ‘and maketh us wise by the fowls of the heaven’ refers to the cock which first coaxes and then mates.
Netziv[1](Eiruvin 100b): Etiquette can be learned from a rooster – We learn the normal psychology that coaxing women is only with clothing as is stated in Pesachim (109a): “How are the women of Babylonia made happy? With colored clothing.” We also learn that it is permitted to deceive her and to promise orally but in his heart he knows he will not keep it. Similar to this is the words of our Sages that it is permitted to be falsely flatter ones wife.



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


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

WHAT DO THEY WANT?

A number of years ago while working on my DAAS TORAH  sefer
I had a long talk with Rav Noach Weinberg who told me the need of that generation was a good education in Jewish theology

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

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

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


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

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

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

מהר"ל:

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

רמח"ל:

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

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.