AviraDeArah

Avram – we’re not so far apart in our understanding of the rambam, since you admit that he comes to love through the actions delineated in that halacha and that the goal is to have a loving marriage; i agreed with that idea, that you come to love through giving – we only differ on my stance that I don’t think there is an actual obligation to feel that ahavah, and you think that there is.

Also, Avi, we are told not to have mercy on idol worshippers even if they appear downtrodden or oppressed; mercy has its limits and while we were the victims of genocide, that does not stop the Torah from demanding that we wipe out amalek, 7 umos canaan etc..

The idea of feeling the suffering of the oppressed and remembering our own suffering is limited. I don’t like it when people equate the suffering of reshoim with, say, the holocaust or other calamities. We are not them. The erech of our lives is not the same, or even in the same universe, as others.

Avram – just to clarify (i know i write long posts…i never was good at being mekatzer), i never said that love isn’t important or that one should remain miserable in a loveless marriage. I said that it’s not a mitzvah and that rather it is the result of fulfilling the Torah’s plan for marriage. A person can make himself love his wife by giving; I was clear (but loquacious) about that.

Re, regulating emotions – look at the seforno on lo sachmod. Other rishonim discuss this point too, but it’s fleshed out in musssr seforim; if memory serves, rav dessler discusses it in michtav me’eliyahu. It’s not that emotions are not regulated at all, it’s that spontaneous feelings are not prohibited by halacha and neither are constant positive feelings obligatory. When discussion ahavas hashem, the rambam and others say how to bring one’s self to ahavas Hashem; learning about the bri’ah, learning Torah, and contemplating all the good Hashem does for him. The sefer hachinuch, brought in mishnah berurah, says that if one is loveah machshavto, dedicates his focus on enjoyments of olam hazeh without any intention of serving Hashem, he has violated the mitzvah of veahavta es Hashem elokecha.

What comes out is that you don’t violate ahavas Hashem if you’re not thinking loving thoughts all the time. You violate it if you intentionally veer off the path that brings to loving Him.

The aforementioned seforno says that the Torah cannoy obligate us to not feel desire for someone else’s property…rather if you change your paradigm, and understand a Torah concept that everything we have comes only from Hashem, and that we cannot of our own decision earn more lr get someone else’s thing save for the hand of Hashem giving it to us, we will automatically feel no jealousy, since you only desire things that you can realistically have. He says it’s like desiring to marry a princess; you don’t, because you know there’s no chance of it happening.

Re, rambam and women’s obligations. Why by a man would there be a mitzvah of ahavah and kovod, and by a woman there should only be kovod? Wouldn’t it be a two way street? We’re not talking about masculine responsibilities; there’s nothing male or female about loving one’s spouse. According to my pshat it makes a lot, and I mean a lot, of sense.

An asmachta is used by chazal to attribute to a pasuk something that is not in the pshat or deoraysoh-level drash. It means that the Torah is hinting out to something beyond what it is directly talking about. Here, the rishonim who discuss the mitzvah of veahavta and its laws do not mention the gemara in kidushin lf asur lekadesh… ad sheyirena.

Chazal are talking about a halacha that seems to be mederabonon in nature(i will imyh look that up because I’m not sure of it at this time), but even if one is violating veahavta medoraysoh by disliking another jew, there’s no reason to think that it is specifically talking about one’s wife more than any other jew, so applying veahavta is not pshat or drash – it’s a very clear example of asmachta, since like you and I quoted, the word reah/reus is used in regards to marriage.

Avram; I’ll respond to you in the main thread that was started – i do hear where you’re coming from, but i disagree, as i will explain there

My view is: the Torah is not there to  confirm everything we think is right and wrong. It’s not there to simply tell us what is a sin and what is an obligation. It’s Hashem’s infinite wisdom brought to a level that we mortal beings can appreciate. The Torah’s mitzvos are a derech hachaim, they enrich our lives and guide us, but there is much, much more. Torah elevates us by virtue of us internalizing Hashem’s word. The fact that Hashem’s chochma was gozer that something be assur or muttar, itself is of immeasurable value, as is the dveikus bashem that one achieves by knowing that halacha.

There are many halachos that don’t fit into a given ethical paradigm, be it current day, medieval or ancient. There are likewise many things that while wrong or discouraged, or even unthinkable, are not specifically a mitzvah or an averah. Cannibalism is only assur because a dead body is assur behanaah, but not intrinsically. There is also no mitzvah to love one’s parents any more than any other Jew.

For many things, we say that the Torah was given to bnei odom. That’s the meaning of derech eretz kadma latorah; it is a prerequisite; the Torah will not tell you mitzvos that you are expected as a ben odom not to do. That’s why there is no mitzvah specifically to not be angry or have other bad middos (there are other reasons for this too, that the Torah does not demand emotion since we’re not always in control of our feelings).

Whenever we find ourselves thinking “this HAS to be assur”, think again. Many bad things are not specifically forbidden.

Ad kan hahakdama.

We find the word love and honor used by chazal and rambam to describe the proper relationship with one’s wife. Chazal say it not in the halachikally impersonation sense, but rather “one who loves his wife as himself and honors her more than himself, on him the pasuk says etc”.

That sounds like a mussar vort. Akin to shom’im cherpasam ve’ainam meshivin, which is a middas chasidus and not a halacha.

Then we have the rambam. He says “tzivu chachamim”, so we are to understand that there is a halachik discussion taking place here. What is that halacha? The rambam in the same halacha qualifies his stance; he says he spends money on her. This implies that the term “oheva kegufo”, he loves her as himself, refers to actions – not emotions. And specifically actions of giving, not things like compliments and writing poems (both are very, very good ideas however). This fits in beautifully with the understanding of ahavah given in the seforim, that it comes from the word “hav”, “to give”. The more you give, the more you love. The rambam can easily be speaking of giving extra to your wife, more than feeding and clothing her.

The next halacha in the rambam discusses a woman’s obligations to her husband. There he does not mention a word about love, only what she must do and how she must perceive her husband. In light of the above, the omission is clear; the wife does not provide anything of her own possession to her husband, so she is not so obligated.

Another poster decided that the above pshat was not true, because he came in to the discussion assuming “there HAS TO be a mitzvah” since it’s an important matter. I agree it’s important. Actually, having a loving relationship is so important, that it’s one of the highest priorities in a man’s life. But it’s a result of following the derech hatorah in marriage, not an imperative of itself. The same way there’s no mitzvah to trust your wife, yet trust is just as key to a marriage, if not more so, than love.

So instead, he decided that a woman naturally loves her husband. I guess that’s because women are into love since the time they’re little, often dressing up as kallos, and in general being more inti romance and such. Non jewish women revel in romantic comedies, etc..

That proclivity towards the superficiality of “love” does not mean that they feel actual ahavah more than men. I think the opposite is true; women are happy when men dote on them and “chase” them – chazal say that one who loses an item chases after it, and that’s a mashal for men and women, chava being taken from adam, etc..

Shimon, it wasn’t a hagaah, it was the fact that the rambam in the next few words says what oheva kegufo means by example of how he uses his money. He qualifies his statement by example; if he had just said oheva by itself, or given the example of other chavivus, compliments, etc…then you’d be right.

As to a woman naturally loving her husband more… I’d say that’s a much bigger hanacha and a much bigger chidush; where did you get that from? We know elsewhere that love means giving; that’s not my chidush, it’s all over seforim…ahava comes from “hav”. My only chidush is that that’s the rambam’s kavanah. Your pshat on the other hand, ignores the rambam’s qualification and invents an entirely new idea that women love their husbands more…

I’d say if anything that in my experience that it’s the opposite; men have to win over women more.

Rational; there are a lot of things that make Judaism look unpalatable for western audiences. We’re not reform, who change the Torah to make it go down easier for the consumer, chas veshalom. If they are true, they are not “unthinkable”; the Torah was given to bnei adam, “mentchen”, and not animals. The Torah is also above our understanding, and is a chochma ila’ah, an elevated wisdom emanating from Hashem, who is “les machshava tefisa bay”, no thoughts can reach him. Pointing out how this is true through demonstration that there is no mitzvah to love your parents, children, etc, is important – we should not lower the Torah to an earthly document of laws akin to hamurabbi chas veshalom. I doubt a newcomer to Judaism will be discouraged ny reading a coffee room thread.

Re, the rambam in hilchos ishus – if I haven’t made it clear by now in my posts, I’ll say it outright; im not “omed al diburo”, and I’ll admit that i don’t know everything; i can admit that I was not aware of the word “love” in rambam nor in the gemara he’s based on (see magid mishnah there). That being said, the rambam follows this statement of oheva kegufo etc with discussion of how to spend his money. The ahavah he refers to seems to mean giving her things and making her feel loved. He is not referring to an obligation as to how he feels about her. Let’s say he’s never worked at marriage before; he started out with gaga feelings and infatuation. Then one day, it hits him that he’s not feeling love very much anymore. He starts feeling resentment; maybe regret. The answer here is to give! Give of time, money and resources and he will build ahavah. The gemara that the rambam is based on says “one who loves his wife like his body, and honors her more so, on him the pasuk says “and you will know that your tent is peaceful etc..”.

I still think it’s referring to behavior, not to an obligation to feel a certain way. Could be that I’m wrong; I’m not “married” to my position

Shimon, I believe you have the idea of love inverted. You say that if one does not love his wife, he should get divorced and find someone he loves, or force himself to love her. It seems as though you’re saying that love comes first, and is then evidenced by wanting to care for and give to one’s wife. That is, pardon my bluntness, very goyish. Goyim believe that love is natural and comes by itself for some inexplicable reason.

The Torah is saying the opposite. By placing financial and emotional responsibilities on the husband, the Torah is creating a recipe for love that will promote sholom bayis. Responsibility and unconditional commitment are the keys that unlock a loving marriage. They are not results, they are causes.

Kovod, she’ar kesus ve’onah, vesimach ea ishto….those are mitzvos. If you find something”megunah” and have a distaste for her, the gemara says that’s a violation of ve’ahavta lereacha kamocha, but where does it say it’s a mitzvah to love your wife? People are likewise “astounded” to learn that there’s no mitzvah to love one’s parents….a loveless marriage isn’t fun. It isn’t healthy, but where does it say it’s an aveirah?

In mishnas rav aharon, rav aharon kotler has a shmuez where he says that in essence, modern orthodoxy is akin to reform, as they blth originally began as attempting to “save” yiddishkeit by making sacrifices and changes.

Modern orthodox has a higher drop out rate – double, actually – than the yeshiva world. When people see that you’re willing to forego Hashem’s will for the sake of whatever thing it may be, the door is open, the pischa shel gehinnom is underneath it, and it takes a miracle and zchus avos not to end up there

Huju, you’re deflecting the discussion which you started that had to do with inherently spiritual things, i.e. bais yaakov, yeshiva, kolel, etc, and are now pretending that your gripe is with how much it costs to buy a black hat. Modern orthodox jews have their fair share of exorbitant costs; college tuition, fancy technology, etc…buying an iphone 12 is a LOT more than a borsalino, and way more than a kosher phone. Happens to be that my hats were never more than 150, even for my wedding. Many yeshiva guys buy cheaper hats. My suits are also 75-120, except for my wedding suit. I’m very frugal, and so are most of my yeshivishe learning-man friends. Also, FYI, tan suits are just as expensive as black.

To pretend that the divide between MO and the yeshiva world can be reduced to exteriors is disingenuous. If MO wore colored shirts and light suits but kept the laws of tznius, covering hair, separation of genders, had filters on their internet and kept halacha normally, it wouldn’t bother me at all of they dressed lighter. Chofetz chaim boys dress that way, and they have a robust Torah chinuch, with nothing in common with an average student in a MO school. A chofetz chaim boy in high school can discuss reb shimon and reb chaim with a yerushalmi boy with little issue aside from a language barrier. Yeshiva styles change and don’t matter much; to think that the hat and jacket make the ben torah is very, very superficial.

Huju…so, perhaps you want the Torah community to be more like yourself?

Reb Eliezer, I really like that vort, very meduyak

Myocarditis, inflammation of the heart, was first recognized as a possible side effect in Israel among men under the age of 30. There were no disproportionate amounts of other populations contracting that condition, neither in Israel or in the US, where the FDA concluded that there is a rare chance of – again – men under 30 developing myocarditis. It also is extremely treatable with medication and hardly ever results in death. The signs are also very noticeable; elevated heart rate, chest pain, etc….

Did your friend have any other issues? Originally the FDA was reluctant to classify myocarditis as a side effect because the condition happens to people at a certain rate in general. We’re talking about millions of people, a percentage of which will unfortunately contract certain conditions over the course of a few weeks or months. Only if there is an elevated instance of the condition developing should there be an indication of causality, bot mere correlation. That’s a distinction that people don’t seem yo understand in the anti vaxx movement. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all, especially when dealing with millions of people.

Because if Avram understood the incontrovertible logic of huju, he would unequivocally agree. Therefore, it is per force that he simply didn’t understand it.

Huju doesn’t like people who learn more or keep mitzvos better than he does. With a paltry education, how exact can one be in shmiras shabbos before putting up one’s hands in frustration at the son/daughter who comes home from Israel with a black hat/acceptable tznius clothing, pointing out error upon error, questioning their ability to eat in their parents’ home?

It would seem that huju lives in either a very modern homogeneous community, with his knowledge of the frum world gleaned from the internet and Netflix, as Avram pointed out….or this is just trolling.

The situation you described is inaccurate and mixing together the “chumros” of the Litvish and Chassidish world. Litvish stay in kolel more, but the women by and large all get degrees and bring in salaries of 60k+ once they get off the ground. Chassidim do not go to school(the majority, both men and women) but the men go into business and do quite well most of the time.

Also, as someone who has been in the yeshiva world (not the coffee room) for the past 15 years….a very large number of men are going to school. I’d say most at this point, outside of Lakewood, have gone or will go to college at some point. In Lakewood too, things aren’t as clear cut as they were 10 years ago, but the average yungerman in kolel will go to work in some capacity within 10 years of marriage.

Also, I’ll have to take issue with tha assertion that gedolei yisroel did not have their wives work outside the home. Rebbetzim kanievsky worked as a bookkeeper for many years. Many rebbetzins had jobs.

Also, ujm…while there is no Din that a woman must help her family have a parnosa, there is likewise no Din that a man must support his children once they are of age to beg and/or work.

I think it’s extremely selfish, and perhaps a violation lf lo saamod al dam reicha if a woman’s family is starving, the husband is unable to work, and she “unilaterally” decides to sit by and do nothing. While perhaps a beis din cannot force her, it is the normal, natural thing to do when one’s family needs her to help.

The Torah wasn’t given to vildeh chayos and pereh odom’s

Does anyone else realize what happens when you translate “pursuing a livelihood” into lashon hakodesh? “Redifah achar hamamon”…kinda makes you think of it differently…should we really be using such language when referring to the mitzvah of earning a livelihood? Do we likewise say that one is “pursuing” tzedaka or the mitzvah of tefilin?

Acharei mitzvosecha tirdof nafshi…. our souls should chase and pursue mitzvos…. just a thought

Israel is home to fewer Jews than America.

More Jews are killed in Israel due to terrorism r”l than in the rest of the world put together, multiplied by 10.

I should have clarified that there are definitely circumstances where working is a good idea, if a woman has extra time and isn’t ready to do things like volunteer for chessed, etc, then the alternative of wasting time and sitting idly is much worse than sacrificing the idealism of kol kevudah bas melech penimoh. Chazal say that batalah leads to licentiousness and madness.

Avi, do you think that there was this massive movement after the shulchan aruch, that literally everyone stopped sharing ideas with philosophers and only the maskilim kept the “mesorah”? Rav Hirsch opposed learning any philosophy at all, though he clearly advocated learning science, language, history and other studies. I know of no accepted acharon; be it from Litvish, Hungarian, Sefardi, Chasidish, or otherwise, who felt that hashkofa was a free for all where we should mix in with goyim.

The chossid yaavetz writes that during the inquisition, the only jews who stayed behind and became marranos (hardly heros… They broke halacha openly) were those who were involved in philosophy.

Rabbeinu yonah’s regret over his machlokes with the rambam wasn’t in his opposition to the shita itself, but rather in that he did not, in his understanding, give proper kovod to the rambam. Nowehere in shaarei teshuva does he advocate philosophy. The amount of other rishonim who argued with the rambam were copious…see the hakdama lf yam shel shlomo for some very, very strong words from the maharshal, who was an early acharon. To see a wide array of sources regarding the mesorah’s opposition to philosophy and “rationalism”, see the lev tov’s introduction to chovos halevavos.

Ever since hisgalos hakabalah, the tone of the vast majority of baalei machshava; the maharal, ramchal, gaon, chasidim, chid”a, and tons others has been a rejection of the philosophical approach to emunah of the rambam and instead the kabalistic approach of other rishonim including the ramban. At the same time, you have ancillary rabbis who were influenced by European enlightenment who all of the sudden found a leg to stand on with the rambam,. while lacking his allegiance to chazal and mesorah.

As stated above, the rambam was not anti-kabalah, he was simply not exposed to it; when he was, he expressed regret that he had not had it sooner – that’s a fact recorded by the abarbanel in the end of pirkei avos, perek 3. There is a famous testimony of the Migdal Oz as well, in which he found a letter of the rambam saying that he discovered kabalah and that he wishes to be more involved in it, and that the chachmei hakabalah are emes.

The rambam does not quote Aristotle for his shvil hazahav opinion, nor in any other context besides science and logic. He says clearly (deos, 1, 3-4) that “tzivu chachamim”, the chachamim commanded us to follow this path. Secular scholars on the rambam say that he got his middos teachings from Aristotle. The fiercest critics of the rambam, even the raavad on the mishnah torah, do not make this accusation. The Gaon, when arguing with the rambam’s denial of magic etc, says that here the rambam was drawn after philosophy. If his ethical approach was so greatly impacted and inspired by Aristotle (of which the Gaon knew a lot) he would have accused him of such. The rambam was not averse to quoting Aristotle when he sourced him, so why would he never – not once – quote him in an ethical or moral context?

As to chazal and their acceptance of three trials, see “torah chazal and science”, by rabbi moshe meiselman; he deals with that topic at length.

Well… If someone advocates rishus, evil, or apikorsus, are we to treat such statements as if they were offering a different pshat in a tosfos?