- This topic has 38 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Rabbi Schneierson is incorrect, as even a cursory analysis of many statements throughout Tanach and Chazal prove.
[originally]
If we look through Chazal we find numerous statements which idealize the romantic connection between a man and a woman. In Niddah (31b) the Gemara famously ascribes the purpose of the seven day Biblical separation between a man and his wife each month to the idea that a little distance makes the heart grow fonder. Even Rabbi Schneierson acknowledges that we find such a concept, as he writes:
Why go so far as Shechem and Amnon? “Vaye-ehav Yaakov es Rachel.”
Real love develops with time after marriage, but for most of us the beginning of that emotion starts initially with some feeling of attraction that enables the couple to want to get to know each other better for purposes of getting married in the first place. Certainly Hashem built into the concept of continuation of all life human or not, some chemistry between the two individuals involved.
Absolutely. The atomic composition of all matter would be unfathomable without it.
Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies are in my opinion the most remarkable example of Hashem’s hand as demonstrated through biochemistry.
definitely
@yitayningwut Therefore are you saying that there is a possibility that someone can love another person before they know each other properly (FOR EXAMPLE yaackov and rochel), this would be contradicting the original view that a man can only love a women when he has given of himself to her?
OOM, and why prion disease?
You can go back earlier than Yaakov. In Chayei Sarah, Yitzchok saw Rivkah and it sais “he loved her.”
There are different types of love. Some are more like infatuation, a taking love which Amnon had; and some are more deep and long term and giving, like Yaacov and Rachel.
I think that the author of the OP-ED was talking about infatuation. We are striving for the deep and long term love (like Yaacov), not the flash of infatuation. I agree that the allure of infatuation can lead to a long term love; we see that even with Shechem; he still wanted her afterward. All too often it backfires, like with Amnon.
Heyyyy look who I got out of hibernation. ^_^
Because it’s clearly a defense implemented against cannibalism, and present in a number of species. Like, you might not get hit by a lightning bolt if you eat from McDonald’s, but your brain will turn into a sponge if eat another human being. Or cow, if you are a cow, etc.
🙂 classes are taking up a lot of my time
not WILL, only if infected. I guess what your saying is right. what fascinates me is the fact that prions are basically mutated proteins.
I like the example from ?? ????? ????? ??? ????.
You might have argued that the Torah is using the term ahava loosely, and is not referring to an intense emotion of ahava. But then it uses the previous ahava to show how strong his hatred was.
You can go back earlier than Yaakov. In Chayei Sarah, Yitzchok saw Rivkah and it sais “he loved her.”
True, but actually the Torah teaches us a very different and more important lesson about marriage from Yitzchak and Rivkah. The Torah states that he loved her, AFTER he had married her and brought her to his mother’s tent (Breishis Perek 24 Posuk 67). The specificity of his loving her AFTER it says he took her as his wife, which is the reverse order that most of us thing of in getting married (“first comes love, then comes marriage…”) has most meforshim stating that this is to show that the love is most important when it FOLLOWS the marriage and is developed and nurtured for a lifetime commitment.
OOM, I agree that prion diseases are a fascinating example of seeing halacha in the natural world.
yentingyenta: Lol, I posted that first comment approximately 30 seconds after my Biology had class ended. just couldn’t resist. and prions rock. ^_^
torah613: halacha?
We in the frum world have a tendency to conceptualize and abstract everything to the point where it can get divorced from reality. An article that seems to claim that liking ones partner before getting married (because that is, after all, what chemistry is) is not important tests the limits of reasonableness and is unlikely to result in anything good.
Anyone who does not LIKE his/her partner before they get married, is taking a REALLY big chance, IMO.
lol. but *I* remembered prions from 10th grade bio.
.
.
.
.
OK Fine, from microbiology for my RN degree 🙂
I remember prion diseases from when I was about eight and my family used to gang up on my hypochondriac brother and try to give him panic attacks.
ha ha I beat you ^_^
Also Rashi Kesuvos 7a D”H Reim Ha’ahuvim, I think.
I remember prions from the BSE outbreak here in England when I was about 7. Running around primary school saying “BSE stands for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy” was so much fun. And it didn’t make me look Iike a nerd at all.
Argh, you need to stop out-nerding me before I bring shame to my entire family… -_-
wowww ya this is getting ultra geeky!!
Nerdy, not geeky. For that you would have to check out the “Post to Post – NOT” thread. ^_^
LOL, I learned about it in college. I was aware of BSE before then but didn’t know the whole concept of prion diseases.
Back to the thread topic, I definitely believe that chemistry is somewhat important, of course it mostly develops later but you need to like the person somewhat! That’s why you can’t marry a girl off without at least letting her see the chasan.
and yes that comment was nerdy. 😀
I don’t feel like commenting on either discussion here but I would like to point out the meforshim say that although the initial kidnapping was obviously out of lust, Shechem actually did love Dinah for the “right reasons” at the end when they approached Yaakov (I can’t remember who says this but I definitely saw it a few weeks ago when it came up in the parsha)
I read the article, and I’m not sure the author is really saying what’s being ascribed to him. He is rejecting the notion that if there are no “fireworks” after three dates, the shidduch is doomed to failure. He is not rejecting the notion that there needs to be attraction, nor that there needs to be some degree of “ahavah”, although he is claiming that the ultimate ahavah can only be achieved after marriage.
He writes, “Rather those in Shidduchim should focus on getting to know the other person and his/her middos and try to give to the other person in a permissible way.”; obviously, he wants the ahavah to begin to develop even during the dating process.
<serious>
I read the article too, and I have no idea what the author was trying to say. This is what I got: First, he equates chemistry/romance (which are automatically linked?) with physical attraction, which isn’t important according to a bunch of sources, but still is important when we call it “attraction,” not “romance,” then ends off with some vague, unrelated platitudes about “ahava” (love? romance? CHAS V’SHALOM) being generated by giving. Because that is EMES [insert arbitrary ma’amarim about emes]. And romance = Hollywood because the word comes from the ROMANS.
To me this sounds like someone got so caught up in decrying a particular terminology that they ended up losing any point they were trying to make along the way. Something that it seems a lot of people have a problem with when the words “love” and “romance” are put on the table (http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/whats-the-torah-way-for-finding-a-spouse).
</serious>
OOM – In fairness to your nerdiness, I didn’t actually have a clue what it meant when I was 7, just what it stood for…
YW Moderator 42: Yes, that comes from the phrase “??? ???? ????”, the word ???? stands for ?? ????? ?? ?????? whose neshama came to the Jewish people because of what happened between Shechem and Dina. Basically the nitzotzos of kedusha, or whatever we call it, that were stimulated by that happening, brought out some kedusha in the world, and that’s why it had to happen. So that’s how we know that Shechem wasn’t entirely bad.
It’s a bit like Yaakov Avinu not marrying Timna, some say he should have and that would have prevented Amalek.
Excellent post, OneofMany.
There are different forms of chemistry. For example one can feel connected, even if just through recognition of commonality, without having feelings of infatuation.
Not feeling anything after extended dating, but still taking it further, is taking a huge risk.
OOM, I didn’t say it before, but I completely agree with you and that was a great post.
just my hapence: *phew* ^_^
yitay, Veltz, torah613: Thanks. ^_^
<more seriousness>
I think that the problem is that these confused people don’t have a very definite conception of what “love” is (for clarity’s sake, let this include any and all vague distinctions), yet also have this vague idea that whatever it is must only exist in the context of marriage. So they develop the belief that the developed and committed love based on lots of trust, respect, and yes, giving, etc. that exists in the context of marriage is the only form in which “real love” can exist.
My opinion on the matter: Love is just a raw emotion that can be channeled negatively in the form of superficial lust or emotionally unhealthy relationships, or positively in committed, healthy relationships (i.e. marriage), but generally begins in a more or less neutral capacity (which I would call chemistry, I guess). Also, marriage won’t magically make the “real love” (here I mean positive love) happen – it just sets up the framework in which it is most ideal for “real love” to develop. Likewise, chemistry before the marriage won’t necessarily make the “real love” automatically happen.
So really there isn’t any point in arguing either way, because it’s not like there is a magic formula that everyone must follow to make it work.
just my thoughts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.