Al Tarbe Sicha Im Haisha

oish! you should be gebentshed.

helpful: first of all check the halacha. 2nd of all talking to your wife such as asking as to how her day was or just stam shmuzing (as long as it’s not lashon hara) is integral too maintaining a healthy relationship. application of al tarbe sicha im haisha has changed today

i know this is irrelevant…but sorry oomis, SJSinNYC…cant respond to your posts in this one 😀

i know this is irrelevant…but sorry oomis, SJSinNYC…cant respond to your posts in this one 😀 “

I am moichel you!!!! 🙂

First of all, I do not believe that Pirkei Avos is halacha li’maseh, as it is not brought down limaseh by the rishonim/achronim. After all, we do not all get married by 18.

Second, there are many, many different of interpratations of what this phrase is refering to (as there often is in Pirkei Avos). For instance, I saw a pshat that this is a reminder that loshon hara is not permitted between spouses, something that is often neglected.

If you are looking to cause problems for couples in their marriage, please go ahead and start talking about issurim such as men not permitted to speak to their wives. There are so many Shalom Bayis symposiums, Rebbeim, therapists trying to help couples to get along and have happy and fulfilling marriages that prove that these type of discussion can be very harmful to the k’lal. Seriously, this is one of the reasons the other thread was started about chumras!

Isn’t the whole al tarbeh issue the opinion of a specific Tannah ?(maybe I am mistaken, but that’s what’s I have in my memory bank).

If I am not mistaken, however, and the phrase was uttered by one rov, it is not necessarily halacha, but rather, his personal hashkafa. If that is the case, we are not bound by someone else’s personal hashkafa regarding something being “better to do or not do.” We are bound by what Hashem tells us we have to do or not do.

Hello,

I almost never write posts, but I have followed some of the conversations here on YWN. I decided to write this post because I was a little surprised that the discussion of “al tarbe sicha im haisha” in this thread appears to have broken down into two camps working to get around the mishna. What I mean by this is that, unfortunately, many people seem uncomfortable with what the mishna says, so they either dismiss the mishna as good words but not binding, or state that it is binding, but modern women have somehow changed over the years so we now have a heter to talk to our wives more than we should.

It is my thinking that the answer may be not to work around the mishna’s seemingly explosive statement, but to examine the statement directly with the assumption that the Tanna had built a bayis ne’eman b’Yisroel with his wife, and had a good and healthy marriage relationship. Here’s a few statements and questions:

1.) The ikar of this mishna is that a man not talk “in excess” with a woman. The Tanna brings the statement that we are not to talk in excess with our own wife to demonstrate his argument with a kal v’chomer that we really should not do this with another’s wife. My question is: if we know not to talk “in excess” with our own wife, why the extra warning about another’s wife?

2.) This passage comes immediately after a statement that our homes should be open to guests.

3.) What is talking “in excess”, anyway?

Ultimately, I believe Hashem wants us to build a strong home and family, and this involves and has always involved constant and meaningful sharing and communication between husband and wife. Therefore, I think that talking “in excess” does not include this kind of home building communication. I think what the Tanna is getting at is that mindless chatter, small-talk, is the no-no. This type of talk does not bring people closer together in a real way, rather it can create a false sense of chemistry without the participants really getting to know each other. I think the reason our context is a situation inside a home with guests is that the potential for chatter is greater then. When guests are over, a man making a lot of small-talk with another man’s wife can CV”S cause severe shalom-bayis issues for both families. We don’t normally chatter nonsense with our wives if we have a good relationship, our talk goes much deeper than that. Why build a fake connection with our wives when we can build a real one with true sharing and communication? And we surely shouldn’t form any connection, real or fake, with another’s wife.

We all know that forming a real connection with another’s wife is a serious aveirah. I think the misha states “al tarbe sicha im haisha” because some people might mistakenly believe that small-talk doesn’t form any connection. Recently, I have heard about terrible online swindles in the news, where foreign crooks swindle lonely, vulnerable women into transferring large amounts of money to them. How do they do this? They form a false connection with the women through excessive small talk. They chatter for hours online, and the woman thinks she has developed a real, deep bond, when in reality, there is nothing there at all. The chatter obviously has a lot of power.

I think that the Tanna is telling us that we should have a real relationship with our wives, with meaningful communication. And a man who would threaten that real bond by making small-talk with another woman, truly causes evil to himself.

Please feel free to correct any errors I have made, I would be delighted to hear other thoughts.

All the best!

Wolf, in other instance people have cited S”A chapter and verse, you’ve retorted “no longer applicable in modern times.” So I don’t believe you have credibility to demand such claiming you’ll then mend your ways.

In other words, there is nowhere where a shiur is given. So it’s just a vague, amorphous “don’t talk too much.”

That’s not helpful at all. Perhaps I shouldn’t say anything to her at all out of doubt?

The Wolf

Oomis, I thought better of you than that. These are words of Torah and you turn it into personal glimpses! If you don’t like a Mishna, do research. If you don’t like what you find, swallow it and keep quiet or ask someone greater than you to explain it.

Where do you get the idea that in “those days” they didn’t have a relationship with their wives? This is American propaganda. The reason there were no woman’s rights movements is because no one took it away. You can see many very normal interactions in the Gemara.

I have a suggestion. Why doesn’t someone get a clear interpretation from a highly respected Rav, and post it here!

Oh, and Wolf, why don’t you ask your local Rav, as you generally suggest in other posts.

We all know that forming a real connection with another’s wife is a serious aveirah. I think the misha states “al tarbe sicha im haisha” because some people might mistakenly believe that small-talk doesn’t form any connection. Recently, I have heard about terrible online swindles in the news, where foreign crooks swindle lonely, vulnerable women into transferring large amounts of money to them. How do they do this? They form a false connection with the women through excessive small talk. They chatter for hours online, and the woman thinks she has developed a real, deep bond, when in reality, there is nothing there at all. The chatter obviously has a lot of power.

im sorry if this sounds offensive but that is why the gemara says nashim daatan kalos

Didn’t you guys ever have chosson classes? My mashgiach who was a talmid of R’ Shlomo Wolbe told us in the first chosson class that this mishna is not applicable to todays generation. Additionally, ‘Sicha’ depicts wasteful, ‘shooting the breeze’ conversation. When dealing with you’re wife, there is no such a thing as a waste of time; she needs the emotional connection to you, and if you think you or her are ‘bigger than that’ You should put some more time into your relationship, BECAUSE IN HOW MANY OF YOUR OTHER RELATIONSHIPS DO YOU COUNT YOUR WORDS!

mw13, thank you but it is NOT written in the TORAH, it is an interpretation as explained by Avram!

R’ Gershom had more than one wife at a time. It did not work out well. The Torah however, permits a man to have two wives simultaneously, with halachic guidelines to doing so. So Hashem apparently did not have a problem with this. I am not complaining, I would not want another woman in my household, either.

“im sorry if this sounds offensive but that is why the gemara says nashim daatan kalos “

Oh brother! Are you certain what “kalos daas” means?

Haleivi, I don’t turn anything into personal glimpses. My personal glimpses color my opinions of how different rabbonim do not seem to be able to reach a consensus at times, solely based on their PERSONAL opinions about an issue, and NOT at all based in the actual halacha.

Please explain. This, to me, sounds like, ‘don’t say that about me, but it’s true.’

oomis1105 – “I specified that R’ Gershom made a TAKANAH (takana=halacha and is not just an opinion), so I did not make light of it as you implied.”

I quote (emphasis mine): “many people issued their OPINIONS… the takanah of Rabbeinu Gershom re: marriage to no more than one wife at a time, comes to mind”

“Other Rabbanim state their personal, no-halachic opinions… and some of us seem to take those opinions as Torah m’Sinai, when it is not.”

First of all, Pirkei Avos is most definitely Torah m’Sinai, as HaLeiVi pointed out. No two ways about it.

Secondly, just because something is not a chiyuv does not mean it is not part of the Torah. There are two levels to Torah observance: the mandatory, and the optional. The optional parts of the Torah are there for the people who want to go the extra mile in fulfilling the ratzon Hashem, and want to be as close to Hashem as possible. These are the people who go lifnim min ha’shuras ha’din, follow Pirkei Avos, and are constantly working on themselves. These people are called chasidim, those who go above and beyond the letter of the law (not to be confused with the relatively modern chassidish movement, which borrowed the term).

Chumros, by the way, are also included in the “optional” part of the Torah. True chasidim never take a chance of not fulfilling a mitzva or of being oveir an aveira, so they make sure to do it according to all shitos.

Mod-80 – Very well said, couldn’t agree more.

“Oomis, did you ever read what the Meforshim say on why the Masechta starts with Moshe Kibel Torah? They say that it is pointing out that this Masechta is Torah, not personal opinions based on experience or what the nations did (the famous Mekor for everything Chazal say), or perhaps what they read on a Cheerios box. “

The Torah shebichsav and the Torah sheb’al Peh are both m’Sinai. One Rov disagreeing with another, seems to not be, though the inyan they are discussing is m’Sinai. When we say Eilu V’eilu divrei Elokim Chayim, it is their words. Hashem only gave ONE p’sak of what we need to do. Assur, Mutar. If two or 10 rabbanim cannot get a consensus of what the definite law is, then what they are arguing is their own personal (albeit, very learned and authoritative)INTERPRETATION of what Hashem’s Ratzon is. They cannot ALL be right at the same time, much as we give lip service to that idea.

Ultimately it has to come down to majority rule (remember the Bas Kol that said one specific rov was correct, but we follow the rule of all the others). So if all of those rabbonim were wrong and Hashem really wanted us to do what the other rov said, then this presents a dilemma in terms of what the Torah means to convey. Still, we follow the decision of the majority, because it is crucial to follow authority, and no one will successfully say nay on that.

As to chumros – my ONE AND ONLY concern is that people who are machmir look upon the rest of us no-goodniks who are merely following the Torah, as lesser Yidden. Do not bother to deny it. It is a singular gaiveh that I have seen over and over again, even here in the CR. The fact that someone cannot simply say, “You know what Oomis, or whoever – you are actually right (if and when I occasionally am), but I just feel more comfortable doing XYZ the chumrah, because it helps me to not be nichsal in ABC,” then I would not feel that way. As soon as you or anyone else here asserts that something like mixed seating or cholov stam, or allowing boys and girls to talk to each other, or that making shidduchim WITHOUT a shadchan are all shandas, and you are smug because you don’t do ANY of those things, you have regarded yourself with gaivah. And call me overly sensitive, but I am bothered.

I know what many of my own failings are, and I try to work on them, and have succeeded in some areas. But not one of those areas is in regard to mixed conversation or simcha seating, or having company on Shabbos. I try to be less judgmental (don’t always succeed, granted), try to not speak or listen to L”H (I REALLY need to work on that part of myself – that is an uphill battle), and I need to delete more of what I post here, I guess.

Oomis, it doesn’t pay to make up ideas when it comes to Emuna things. You must realize that what you are saying about Chazal is bordering on Kfira of Torah Shel Baal Peh. Please read up on the ideas and topics that you mentioned. There is no room for speculation when it comes to Ikray Haddos.

When we say Eilu V’Eilu we are acknowledging that Hashem gave the T”CH the authority to pasken as they see fit. And that is why we each find a rov and rely on his p’sak when we don’t know what we are supposed to do. But no one has the right to say it is kefira to question the idea that no two rabbonim pasken the same way. They cannot both be right at the bottom line. The halacha has to be a yes or no. There might be wiggle room and different ways of examining a halacha in many instances, but in much basic halacha there is only assur or muttar. Something is not a little bit kosher.

Nevertheless, as Hashem gave the authority to rabbonim, we still follow our rov, even if it were to turn out he is mistaken (the Bat Kol story). I cannot help but be bothered, though, by this, because I feel there should be a consensus across the board. If there were, then I believe there would be greater achdus in Klal Yisroel.

MW13, I do not chalilah look down upon anyone who is ultra frum, machmir or whatever you wish to call it. You call your chumros “not taking chances.” I follow many of those same chumros, but I see the kulos as following the Torah as Hashem instructed us to follow it. I believe that very often, kol hamosif goreya, and I am not the person who originated that expression. The very fact that you feel compelled to respond to what I write, shows how you feel. I am perfectly comfortable with you following whatever chumrah you desire – as long as you do not begin to think that your chumrah is the actual halacha, and I am just a poor sinner because I don’t follow it as you do. And if you doubt it, then just read any post here where people have written that they follow halacha, but are taking on a chumrah because they need to work on themselves.

I know many areas that I need to work on, but it is because I am clearly NOT following the halacha properly (like being nichshal in Loshon Hara), not because I am doing the right thing, but think I will be better if I work on myself and adopt stricter guidelines to follow. When we do that we are actually CHAS V’SHOLOM diminishing the Torah, by implying that it is not good enough as is. Maybe I am not expressing myself properly, and if so, for that I am sorry.

i’m really sorry but kulos are looking for every loophole in yiddishkeit to do what we want. I have unfortunately seen many people with certain attitudes towards yiddishkeit that kills me. Attitudes like “it can’t be that it’s assur, the Torah wouldn’t be so strict…” not that they say these exact words but the attitude. (i actually did hear someone say regarding a certain halacha that it’s ch”v cruel!!!) Yiddishkeit is not always ice cream and loli pops! There are parts that are hard and we have to do them just like anything else. This whole attitude is from America of “vechai bohem” it has to be enjoyable, and fun. Yiddishkeit is delicious but sometimes there are things taht are hard and we have to do them just like anything else.

OOmis, i’m very sorry but people who take upon themselves chumrus don’t always have a gayva about them and make you feel like modern or whatever, if you feel like that maybe it’s because your insecure. You can’t make a generalization like taht. Maybe someone you know has that attitude, or the few people you know have such attitudes but how can you make a klal?

???”? (????? ????? ????? ?:?):?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??, ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?????, ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ??????.

“Even to speak with her when she is behind a fence is not something we tell him to do. He should die rather than speak to her from behind a fence.”

This Rambam is talking about even an unmarried woman whom he lusts.

Playing with Fire; Tradition (Torah.org)

“Rabbi Akiva said, jesting and lightheadedness accustom a person to immorality. The oral transmission is a protective fence for the Torah. Tithes are a protective fence for wealth. Vows are a protective fence for abstinence. A protective fence for wisdom is silence.”

This mishna was authored by Rabbi Akiva, one of the greatest sages of the Mishna. The Talmud tells us that he was an unlearned shepherd until the age of forty, at which time — on the prompting of his wife — he went off to study Torah. He began his career studying the aleph-bet with the youngest schoolchildren. Twenty four years later he returned home, leader of the generation, followed by thousands of students. He attributed all his Torah study to his wife’s devotion (Talmud Kesuvos 62b). He met his death brutally at the hands of the Romans for teaching Torah publicly (Talmud Brachos 61b).

This mishna recommends a number of protective fences which safeguard or foster proper Torah observance. The first warns us to refrain from loose, unbridled behavior when in mixed company. The Talmud states — in the context of adultery but in reference to all sins — “A person does not sin unless a spirit of ‘madness’ enters him” (Sotah 3a). Anyone who thinks rationally — who considers long term consequences rather than immediate gratification — realizes that wickedness does not pay. One of the most basic tenets of Judaism is that we will be brought to task for all our actions (Fundamental 11 of Maimonides’ 13), if not in this world then in the next. And Divine retribution will most certainly be more severe than the few moments of pleasure evil has to offer. Only if we do not allow ourselves to think consequences — thanks to the “madness” of lightheadedness — will we allow ourselves to live in blissful (if temporary) ignorance of this truism.

If there is any one area in which Judaism goes to an absolute extreme, it is the separation of the sexes. Traditionally, boys and girls from very young ages were sent to separate schools. In the synagogue men and women would pray on separate sides of a partition (‘mechitza’). Mixed social gatherings and dating were almost non-existent. And, (as we know from “Fiddler on the Roof”), even marriages were prearranged by the parents, possibly through the meddling of a matchmaker. The prospective couple met briefly if at all before the “shidduch” was finalized. (Some of us might consider those the good old days. If it were only so easy — and inexpensive… 😉

Much of this practice has its basis in Jewish law. One illustrative example: A man and woman are forbidden to be alone together — in a private setting where others are unlikely to intrude. This is certainly not an unfounded concern. But it goes further. This law is extended by the Rabbis to the earliest age a girl might be considered at risk with the opposite sex — according to some opinions three years of age. Well now, there are certainly sick-o’s out there; there’s no doubt about that. But is it really necessary for the Rabbis to make such a blanket decree? Do the Rabbis really think that the average man cannot be trusted babysitting a three year old child?! Who do the Rabbis take us for?

Our Sages, however, as usual, understood human nature far better than we. This is one area in which Judaism tells us to run the other way as fast as we possibly can. Do not just trust yourself; you are playing with fire. There are no “safe” and “harmless” ways of engaging the opposite sex, just as there are no non-volatile ways of playing with dynamite. We cannot open Pandora’s Box, assuming we can contain it afterwards. Be careful what we expose our children (and ourselves) to. Don’t allow home entertainment to be a means of glorifying and inculcating us with sexual fantasies. And don’t place young men in an environment in which they will waste all their energy and effort trying to impress members of the opposite sex. At least let our synagogues be a place of uninterrupted focus on prayer. And neither should we make young ladies feel that they are objects, that they are less “important” if they are not as attractive to men. Let young men and women concentrate on developing the talents of youth. They can consider marriage when they are emotionally and psychologically ready — not when they are physically interested. The Torah says it straight. Its outlook has never been popular; there are many who would like to dismiss it as old-fashioned and anachronistic. But the Torah speaks truth, without shame or timidity — and with no regard for public opinion. It is we who are not always willing to hear.