- This topic has 31 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 5 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
It seems that a husband is obligated to make his wife happy. Meaning without him she wouldn’t be happy. Contemporary psychology tells you that your happiness should not be contingent on any person but rather should come from within. Is teh Torah telling us that a woman’s happiness comes from her husband and she really can’t be happy without a (good) husband?
Thoughts?
It seems that a husband is obligated to make his wife happy. Meaning without him she wouldn’t be happy.
Is that it or is it that she was happy before, but now he needs to make her more happy.
The gemara in kiddushin tells us that a wife needs her husband to be happy. But don’t forget the gemara is talking about a time that a woman was completelt dependent on a man for her sustenace.
That said, I think the passuk means a husband must go out of his way to make his wife happy. Regardless of what makes her happy. He must do everything in his power to give her that feelinng of security.
Contemporary psychology is wrong on both counts. Half a person is half a person, and thus cannot be as happy as a whole person would be. Women want to be married and a man who is B’li Ishah is B’li Simcha.
“ViEl Isheich Tishukaseich”, is what Hashem spoke to Chava.
That doesn’t mean she can’t be happy otherwise, but this is her nature.
A man is not complete until he gets married.
Then – he’s finished…
WIY – your original premise: “It seems that a husband is obligated to make his wife happy. Meaning without him she wouldn’t be happy.”
It seems that the truth of the premise would depend on how one defines happiness and/or the word “vesimach”.
Is happiness finite?
Could vesimach mean to make happier?
If say happiness came from feeling fulfilled, wouldn’t there be an objective and subjective measure of it, much like life itself?
If my last hypothesis is correct, a way of fitting psychology into the truth that is the torah would be as follows:
Subjectively, any person can find their mission and accomplish whatever they can. Feeling fulfilled is a result of actually doing whatever you were able to do, wherever and whoever you are.
However, if a person is blessed enough to be in a situation where their mission is truly objectively big (say a person is moshiach), the happiness of feeling fulfilled after such a huge accomplishment would be far greater.
A woman who is married (to a deserving man), says the torah, is in a position to objectively accomplish more, and therefore objectively feel a more intense fulfillment.
This was completely speculative and perhaps gibberish.
If you’re in a relationship, at least to a certain extent, you are dependent on the other person for your happiness.
WIY,
The Torah is telling us that it’s a man’s job to make his wife happy. Whether the wife can be happy without him is irrelevant. If you are trying to align the 613 mitzvos with modern psychology you will end up confused. Im Hashem Hu Ha’Elokim Lechu Acharav V’im Ha’bal L’chu Acharav.
blast this feminist dribble. if the torah says to make her happy, that clearly means there is some level of happiness she cannot attain without him.
That’s right. Feminist drivel.
Presumably, we see from here that men would be happier if they would leave and go to war right after getting married, but the poor women need husbands to make them happy.
A friend of mine used to use the appellation “got up from shana rishona”.
pba- right, right my bad. totally smashed right now.
I am happy…it’s an inner peace of mind. Can a kind and caring husband enhance that? Yes. A happy person can be made happier. But a totally happy woman can also be DESTROYED by a cruel or chronically ungrateful spouse. Men who make jokes about “freedom” and “being finished” take ALL that a good woman does for them for granted.
The best husband in the world can’t make a depressed soul happy. There’s got to be something to work with, and that goes both ways.
WIY – I was happy when I got married. I was even more happy when I had my children. I was even HAPPIER when I married off a couple of my children (still 3 to go), and happier STILL when they gave me aineklach. The happiest moment in my life thus far, was when my aineklach, each in turn, called me “Bubby,” and held their arms out to me to hold them. Ain’t nothing like that feeling in the world (without including the obvious goes without saying idea that Hashem and Torah make us most joyful). So my husband is responsible in a very material way for all that happiness.
huh. For once, I agree with frumnotyeshivish.
From my husband:
The principle of “tav l’meitav” was never intended to be a universal statement advocating the choice of an undesirable husband over spinsterhood. Instead, it is applied to prove (Yevamos 118b, et. al.) that even though a particular type of husband is undesirable (e.g. he has boils all over his body), that type of husband is not
- so
undesirable that we can assume that no reasonable woman would prefer this husband to spinsterhood.
In other words, the gemara is asking “how bad does a husband have to be for a woman to prefer being single?” Also, the question isn’t asked about a woman choosing a particular bad husband – it is about a husband that the woman otherwise already has (a yavam). The gemara answers that boils over his body isn’t enough to nullify a marriage ab initio.
If one is to be offended by the principle of “tav l’meitav,” it should not be for its mere existence, but for where Chazal drew the line. All women (and men, for that matter) are willing to overlook significant physical flaws or negative character traits because they love the particular spouse that they chose (you can ask both me and my wife). According to Rav J. David Bleich, the theo-political controversies over “tav l’meitav” are caused only when people interpret a halachic test as a metaphysical principle: “nonsense is nonsense; theological analysis of nonsense can only create an aura of cogency where none exists.” (Orthodox Forum Series on Lomdus).
Women would prefer to be married to anyone at all than to be single.
This can’t be true.
Member
Oomis
You make it sound like all a husband is good for is to be the other party in bringing you children and einiklech. So basically if science found a way to work around that then you wouldn’t need a husband. Fantastic. Besides not everyone has children right away so until that happens the husband can’t make his wife happy? “
Hmm.. I don’t THINK I was implying that… but the question was about a husband making his wife happy, and these are the things that have made me happy in life, as a direct result of being married to my wonderful husband. The FIRST thing that made me happy was MARRYING him. The rest followed in sequence, and enhanced the happiness he already was giving me from the first day we met. And the happiness I feel would not be complete without him by my side.
You are right, not everyone has children right away, and the husbands can nonetheless make their wives feel happiness. I was describing MYSELF!!!!!!!!!! AND I was describing the INCREASED happiness I felt with each new stage of life.
oomis: you have a very lucky husband! You seem to be a very happy and positive person, a rare commodity in todays day and age! May you 2 always be this happy together and continue to have nachas from your children and grandchildren!
nonsense is nonsense; theological analysis of nonsense can only create an aura of cogency where none exists
Way to put a spin on Saul Lieberman’s line-
“Nonsense is nonsense, but the history of nonsense is scholarship…”
Why can’t it just be a counter to the same thing that girls learn all the time in high school and sem, all about how we need to always support our husbands and make them happy? Can’t it just be that both sides of the partnership should try to make each other happy and be good to each other?
Just in an ordinary, day-to-day sort of manner, even- like, compliment your wife on the soup even though it needed more salt (are you listening, WIY?) or try to be available for your husband when he needs you.
No need for fancy metaphysical concepts- just try to be nice.
I suggest all above take a look at what the Baal HaTurim says on this Possuk.
“Women would prefer to be married to anyone at all than to be single.”
This is an ignorant comment would a woman rather be married to someone abusive than be single or divorced i think not!
If I may add a new pshat you guys made me think more on the drush side: the pasuk reads “vsimach es ishto” and continues “Asher lakach” which simply means and he should make happy the wife that he took.
Or you may say Asher lakach refers to the fact that he took her, so he shall make her happy with the fact that he’s the one who married her, by being a good husband she will be happy that he married her.
It seems that a husband is obligated to make his wife happy. Meaning without him she wouldn’t be happy.
I don’t understand how your conclusion here follows from your premise.
I have a mitzvah to give tzedaka and feed the poor. But that doesn’t mean that if I don’t do it, the poor will go hungry. Yes, they might, but it’s certainly not a foregone conclusion.
I have an obligation to make my wife happy, but that doesn’t mean that it’s impossible that she might find happiness without me.
The Wolf
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.