- This topic has 57 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Being that a thread was hijacked by this topic, as a public service I am posting here so all the lamdim of the CR can discuss if there is a chiyuv to love your wife
Where is the chiyuv mentioned?
> if there is a chiyuv to love your wife
I am not sure. I’ll have to ask a shailah (youall happy?)
And I’ll do whatever my wife answers.
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..
While not indicative of a chiyuv.
One of my rebbeim pointed out as a mashal of the love we have for Hashem (which is certainly a chiyuv) shir hashirim uses the relationship between man and wife .
It is a reciprocal relationshps as I mentioned the Targum Yonasan in Breishis (25,67) says that Yitzchqk Avinu married Rivkah and got to love her because of her outstanding and beatiful deeds. Kepanim el panim, feeling his love, she gets to love him. Love is a feeling, so we can’t have e mitzva. You cannot force something that comes from the heart. We muet do this that cause it and contribute to it.
I can’t imagine it is a Chiyuv.
Did you think the Amora who said his wife is a fulfillment of the Posuk of “motzey ani mar M’Moves es haisha…” and all the other Tannaim and Amoraim who are mentioned in the Gemora as being married to very difficult (and probably emotionally unstable) women loved them?
As the saying goes “If you want to be loved you have to be lovable”
Why is it any different than ואהבת לרעך כמוך and even more that אשתו כגופו!
No time to look up details now, but the Rambam Paskens that it is a Chiyuv. And the Gemara at the beginning of the second Perek of Kidushin applies the aforementioned Pasuk of ve’Ahavta l’Re’acha Kamocha to one’s wife, and there is an argument to be made that it is the Ikar Kiyum of the Pasuk.
coffee addict, the Ramban explains that you cannot love your friend like yourself so it says lereacha but not reacha so the meaning is whatever you want your friend (lereacha) to do you, do to them but a wife אשתו כגופו and אדם קרוב אצל עצמו a wife is like himself and one loves himself best.
The Baal Hatanya says kamacha, your friend also has a chelek elokai mimaal and is just like you.
Thank you for this thread. I’ll put in my 2 cents for what it’s worth.
The only mitzvos in the Torah we have regarding love, is three: to Hashem, other Jews, and to the Ger.
However I believe in the Shtar tanoi’im or in the kesuva, there is a line to ‘live together with love as is the norm of society (וידורו ביניהם באהבה וחיבה כאורח כל ארעא.)
In a kesuba there are moral obligations like providing honor, food & clothing, that is written, understandably so. However there are things in the marriage contract that aren’t there and that is because it is so absolutely obvious. Nowhere in the contract does it say, the wife and husband should sleep in the same bedroom, eat together on shabbos, or sit in the sukkah together. That’s redundant, because that is what a marriage is all about. So I think that love is something that is so basic, so obvious, and so necessary to have in order for a proper marriage to simply function, it is therefore unnecessary to include this in the contract.
As far a chiyuv, I wouldn’t believe one’s wife is any less included in V’Ohavta L’rayacha Komocha.Love is not automatic. There is a cause for love. By recognizing His greatness and benevolance leads to love Hashem. Loving our friend is because of our connection to each other as we are all children of Hashem, avechad lekuloni, we all have one Father. Loving a ger is because of our suffering in Mitzraim as a ger thereby recognizing his suffering. Loving a wife is because of her behavior and deeds. If it is just physical, it is temporary and will not last.
“And the Gemara at the beginning of the second Perek of Kidushin applies the aforementioned Pasuk of ve’Ahavta l’Re’acha Kamocha to one’s wife, and there is an argument to be made that it is the Ikar Kiyum of the Pasuk.”
I nearly fell over in my chair reading this. The sefer hachinuch in mitzvah 243 does not even quote veahavta in regards to one’s spouse at all. He goes through all the maamarei chazal and how the mitzvah applies. He even refers to it in the header as “the mitzvah of loving yisroel”. I think a much clearer pshat is that the gemara used reicha as an asmachta, since raus is connected to marriage in tanach “rayasi, yonasi”, etc, and of course you are no less obligated in veahavta with your wife. The rishonim and achronim who discuss veahavta barely mention it in regards to one’s wife in particular. It’s klal gadol batorah, the guiding principle of all interpersonal relationships and skills. It is not just about sholom bayis. Please learn the basic sources before coming up with wild and anti-halachik conclusions.
“No time to look up details now, but the Rambam Paskens that it is a Chiyuv”
Please see my above diatribe where I explain the rambam very clearly.
Commonsaychel – you’re speaking to my point. It shouldn’t be an issue because if you’re having a torahdig marriage, there will be love. I felt however, that it’s important to dispell the “there HAS to be” misunderstandings that are common in such discussions.
Assuming it is a chiyuv, then gadolei yisroel should repeal Cherem D’Rabbeinu Gershom, and all the ehrliche CR posters could be marbim b’mitzvah.
This is in response to Avram’s pshat on the other “hikacked” thread.
Avram; I hear that you can read the rambam that way; mah depasach bei – he starts off with kovod and the first perush is spending, the 2nd statement is ahavah and then the 2nd perush is lo yatil aleha aimah yeserah etc
According to that we still have the problem of why the rambam omits ahavah by a woman. She definitely is capable of not treating her husband lovingly, keaynaynu haro’os.
It could be that the seder is laav davka. Since we see from kibud av veaim that kovod does not mean giving of your own money, and from the rambam minei ubei we see that the wife’s kovod to her husband does not involve expenditures, ot could be that the rambam is mefaresh mah desayam bei, that which he ended off with , that ahavah is explained first.
But there’s a problem with my pshat too. How would it fit with “yoser megufo”? If kovod refers to monetary expenditures, then it’s very good…if middos, it’s not geshmak. Not impossible, but very not geshmak.
Do you have any other terutz as to why the rambam would omit ahavah by the wife?
Avira, you misunderstood me. Obviously this Mitzvah applies to all Yidden. But husband and wife are, in essence, “Re’im ha’Ahuvim”. V’Hameivin Yavin.
And the Gemara in Kidushin is not an Asmachta – that doesn’t fit into the Gemara in any way.
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.
Rabbi Hiyya says (Yevamot 63a-b) that one should even thank a problematic wife for saving him from sin. Hakarat tov is a fundamental good midda. Even dogs are grateful.
RE,
Who says that the reason for loving a ger is because we were gerim in Egypt? That is only a reason to make us sensitive to how they feel (I would extend this to making deprecating comments about other ethnic and religious groups). Rav Kook says that we should love all of Creation as an extension of loving HaShem.
One must, though, define the meaning of ahava. There is a famous Mussar saying that asks why a person says that he loves fish. If he loves fish why does he kill them? He actually loves his tastebuds and stomach. The Hebrew word “ahava” is related to the Aramaic word “hav” (give). One is certainly required to give to one’s wife. One signed on it before the chuppa. This also explains how one can, as Rav Kook says, love resha’im while hating their sins. One gives to them by bringing them to do teshuva (see Berachot 10a). In a way, even capital punishment is a form of love as it enables atonement.AviraDeArah,
“According to that we still have the problem of why the rambam omits ahavah by a woman.”
Why is that a problem? We’re talking about a man’s emotional and behavioral obligations to his wife; what difference does the wife’s obligations to her husband make?
It’s too bad that commonsaychel took it upon himself to pull this into a new thread, because we lost the give and take that brought us here in the other thread, and the OP abandoned the thread anyway.
A quick and flippant recap:
1. huju claimed that the frum lifestyle was financially unsustainable so we’d have to give some of it up.
2. Shimon Nodel tangented off of that to claim that people who are bored with learning shouldn’t learn full time.
3. I asked him rhetorically what a man should do if he’s bored with his marriage.
4. Shimon Nodel surprised me by responding that a man who cannot love his wife should chuck her and get a new one.
5. You said in response that a man should stay with her even if the marriage is loveless, because where in the Torah does it say we must have a loving marriage? That’s Western values.
6. Shimon Nodel went off on you about how it’s a mitzvah to love your wife. You asked for a source, he provided a Rambam.
7. You kvetched out how the Rambam probably really didn’t mean love in the way we think of love and that he actually meant buying her stuff.
8. Commonsaychel redirected us here.So on one side Shimon Nodel holds that love is halachically essential for marriage, and seems to also hold that love is not something we can actively inculcate within ourselves, so that one should leave a loveless marriage. You seem to hold that, despite Shimon’s Rambam, loving his wife is not something the Torah demands of a man, and thus one should not leave a loveless marriage.
I think both approaches are wrong. I think the husband is indeed obligated to love his wife, and that he is fully capable of developing those feelings via the behavior the Rambam lays out. You wrote earlier in this thread that the Torah tends to not regulate our feelings because they are sometimes not in our control. But that is also a Western sentiment and the same point Shimon Nodel is making. The Torah tells us how we must feel all the time! We say it twice a day, veahavta es Hashem Elokecha. Even in that same Rambam where he tells the husband he must love his wife, he also tells the husband to not become angry or sad. That’s hard to do! But it is important for a good marriage. As for why he did not explicitly say love by a woman’s obligations? I think because it is possible to love without respecting, and that is detrimental to a wife’s relationship with her husband.
It says veyehav Yitzchak es Eisov ki tzayid befiv. like loving a pece of stake that you don’t protect because you really love yourself, Verivka oheves es Yaahov, true love, not dependent on anything, because of his behavior and deeds.
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.
Who says that the reason for loving a ger is because we were gerim in Egypt? That is only a reason to make us sensitive to how they feel (I would extend this to making deprecating comments about other ethnic and religious groups).
Who says? Hashem says so himself in two pesukim. One is vayikra 19:34, where the pasuk says “you shall love him as yourself, for you were gerim in the land of mitzrayim”. The other pasuk is devorim 10:19, “and you shall love the ger, for you were gerim in the land of mitzrayim”
We don’t need rabbi kook’s “ahavas chinam” philosophy to explain simple Hebrew translation of pesukim. I’m not even going to touch your conclusions about how we should not disparage false ideologies. Sheker sonayso ve’esahayva, ki torascha ahavti (tehilim 119, 163) falsehood i despise and am disgusted by it, because i love your Torah”. I’ll go with tehilim over a diyuk in a controversial rabbi.
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.
It hearkens back to a type of apikorsus that I discussed elsewhere; to blame our suffering on “hatred” “racism” and “bigotry”. Those things didn’t cause the holocaust. Hashem did. Why he did? Different discussion. But to attribute Jewish suffering to anything other than divine decree is denial of the 13 principles of faith that Hashem runs the world. It makes one lose their status as a Jew and their olam haba – people talk this way and it’s very frightening. “Stamping out” racism won’t save a single jewish life.
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.
Here is the thread with the beginning of this discussion (in case any future readers care to read it):
I mentioned the Targum Yonasan by Yitzchak who says that love starts from the man, maybe, as the woman is passive being mushpa and not mashpia. We speak about Hashem in masculine being the mashpia.
Also, Avi – there are different kinds of reshoim. Hating them in general is NOT sinas chinam, as it is not baseless; that’s chazal and rishonim across the board. We don’t daven for them to die, as bruriah convinced rebbe meir that yitamu chataim means that the sin should perish, and not the sinner. We daven that a regular sinner does teshuva. That doesn’t mean we love him or do chessed for him. If someone is not oseh maysah amcha, he loses all privileges of a jew, but he’s still someone we hope comes back.
The kind of reshoim that rabbi kook is advocating for….are far worse. We daven three times a day for apikorsim to die. Yes, die. Be destroyed forever. That’s the bracha of leminim ulmalshinim. If someone refuses to say that bracha, we remove him from the amud and don’t let him daven, because we understand from his actions that he is an apikores or that he sympathizes with them.
Did rabbi kook say that bracha? I hope so. For his sake.
Avira,
Did you read what I wrote about ahava? As for Rav Kook, he explained that the people to whom you are referring were did not have a complete knowledge of Torah and could not be put in this category. The Chazon Ish also says this. Even if they were, we would pray for them to do teshuva. This is far preferable and would be a great kiddush Hashem. The Mahaarl also interprets the beracha you mentioned in this manner. Why do you think that it wasShmuel haKatan who composed it?
Avira > daven three times a day for apikorsim to die.
you are messing up my davening! I was looking and looking for apikorsim in Amidah. Something is wrong with mine or with yours… The brocha seems to be concerned with people who seek to harm us – minim (not in my version), malshinim, zeidim … you might have a real old siddur if it says “notzrim”, but who has apikorsim in this brocha?
Rav Yaakov Emden, in his siddur, says that the intention is for the yetzer hara of a”z to be defeated.
Avi K, didn’t they eliminate the yetzer hara of a’z?
RE, apparently only for Jews (Yoma 69b). Among other nations, it exists right up to our time (e.g. Hinduism).
Getting back to the O.P.’s question. The Tosefta (Sotah 5:11) says
שנתקדשה לו מפני שהיא בושה מאביו מאחיו ומקרוביו לסוף שקוברה היה ר’ מאיר אומ’ הנושא אשה שאינה הוגנת לו עובר משם חמשה לאוין משם בל תקום ומשם בל תטור בל תשנא את אחיך בלבביך ואהבת לרעך כמוך וחי אחיך עמך ולא עוד אלא שמבטל פריה ורביה מן העולם
The text is very clear, despite differences in nusach. Vechol hakinim(heretics) cerega yovaydu, means they will be destroyed. Al tehi sikva, they should have no hope – no hope for anything. They have forfeited all of their connection to klal yisroel by their egregious sin of heresy.
If they do teshuva, fine, but we daven for their immediate (kerega) destruction. Tell me, would you daven for a kapo to do teshuva? What about a nazi who happened to be Jewish? Davening for teshuva has its limits, and chazal place those limits squarely on apikorsim. Reshoim who are full to busting in sins, we daven for. Heretics we don’t. I’ll look up your quotes from rav yaakov emden and such, but the text is rochel bitcha hakatana clear.
AviraDeArah,
“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 don’t think it was an admission – that’s how Judaism works in many cases. We can build and/or maintain our inner reality through our actions and behaviors.
“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.”
So what would you say to a husband who is just not “feeling it”? That he’s ok to just continue doing what he’s doing, or is it a deficiency that he should address?
Avira, I presume you meant “minim”, these are people who attack us with religious differences – Tzdikim, Notzrim, Reformim …. Are you applying this term to Israelis playing soccer on Shabbat? Confused.
AAQ, who says minim must mean only those who try to undermine us? Also, the term zeidim means wanton sinners….”oivecha”, your enemies, includes people who are enemies of Hashem, whether or not they are political enemies of klal yisroel. Someone who is proud of their sinfulness is an enemy of Hashem, even if he’s fine with others’ keeping Torah.
Happens to be that the zionists DID try to undermine us, and to a much larger extent anf scope than the tzedukim and reform ever did. They literally redefined the word Jew. They tried to strip us of our entire religion; the reform were not as militant, nor did they claim that they represent all of jewry. Neither did the tzedukim.
When the zionists nearly succeeded in uprooting the jewish
family with gius bonos, when they kidnapped religious children, when they sold us out to nazis and kept communities in Hungary in the dark while they saved their own skins, when they made the world think that Israel equals Jew and that we are a nation because of a land and a made up language… that dwarfs all the sabotage of the tzedukim by a wide margin.That being said, I’m speaking mainly of rabbi kooks approval of their leadership – people who the chazon ish and everyone else would agree know better and are full fledged heretics. Even those who were raised to hate religion… that’s a machlokes. Avi is correct that the chazon ish considered them innocent tinokos shenishbu, but many others did not. Rav chaim brisker famously quipped “a nenach an apokores is oich an apikores”.
I do not have chilonim in mind when I say that bracha. I do, however, have in mind zionist leaders and other anti religious people who live in Israel, who seek to spread heresy and undermine Torah, whether or not they put fabric on their head.
Avram,
Thanks for eloquently summarizing the shakla vetarya.
However, I did not say that love is inherent and cannot created. Look back to my original response to you. I explicitly said he should learn to love her or else leave her (for her sake) because staying would only bring her misery.
I also said in a later reply in that thread that love can be generated through effort and familiarity.We actually both agree 100% so I’m not sure why you were initially surprised.
Avira, I hope that you find a good therapist. Being expelled by the Land did a real number on you. It turned you into a spy. As for Rav Chaim Brisker, he did not say that the person is liable just that that is what he is. Similarly, someone who desecrates Shabbat because he does not know what it is is a Shabbat desecrator but he is not considered to be at fault. BTW, the Chabad rabbi of Budapest did accept Csanad Szegedi. He gave him a new mission to fight anti-Semitism. As I previously posted, executing a Nazi or kapo can also be a form of ahava as it enables atonement, or at least stops him from adding to his sins.
Shimon Nodel, actually, leaving a spouse in order to stop making him or her miserable is a form of ahava, which is not necessarily the same as the English word “love”, as I previously posted.
Avira,
Ki gerim heyisem is similar to ki bichipazon yatzasa
They are taamei hamitzvos. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are the actual reasons. We don’t really eat matza just because we left in a hurry. That’s what we tell a 5 year old, but there is a whole lot more.
But let me know if you do eat matza only for this reason or if you do love gerim only because you too were a ger in mitzrayim.Shimon Nodel,
“I explicitly said he should learn to love her or else leave her (for her sake) because staying would only bring her misery”
Your actual words were “or else consider finding a different wife he can love”, which is a different statement entirely. If a man cannot fulfill his obligations to his wife due to a personal deficiency, he must work on that deficiency. Simply ditching one woman for another will fix nothing. He’ll just carry the same flaws into the new marriage.
This was my point in asking the original question: I think we all agree that marriage is holy, and everything should be done to protect, uphold, and strengthen it, and it should not be just cast away. Same with learning Torah. If learning is boring or challenging, move mountains to make it better, don’t just ditch it. The yetzer hara goes after our most holy endeavors – it makes us focus on ourselves rather than our spouses in our marriages, and brings boredom, distraction, and frustration to our learning. Where the yetzer hara fights us hardest is where we have the best opportunity to do something meaningful, and that is where we have to stand our ground.
I’m not a Talmid Chacham, but every book on Shalom Bayis I’ve seen has numerous quotes from Chazal about how it’s a chiyuv.
Shimon, ki bechipazon isn’t the only reason given in the pesukim – and of course the Torah’s stated reasons for mitzvos aren’t the only reason for them. Those reasons, though, are real and essential to those mitzvos. If someone eats in a sukkah and does not have in mind lemaan yeydu dorosaychem, many hold that he is not yotzei even if you hold mitzvos ainan tzrichos kavanah, since the Torah explicitly said a kavanah to have.
It was asked where it says that we should love gerim because we were gerim, and…it says so twice, so obviously that’s a big deal. Are there other reasons? Sure, but we don’t ignore pashut pshat in pesukim.
Avi – here we go again. Criticizing the evil doing enemies of Hashem who live in Israel and elsewhere has nothing to with being from meraglim or slandering “the land”. I never said the fruits are not tasty, the air is too humid, the weather is too hot, or other land-specific issues. Actually, how many israel-loving zionists routinely complain about such things? That’s actually dibas haaretz and would put them in the category of meraglim, so to speak.
I cannot speak for every rabbi everywhere, but I believe if someone were to ask holocaust survivors if they have love for nazis or kapos….well, 40 years ago when they were strong enough, I think they’d make an impression on such a person’s nose that he wouldn’t soon forget. And I couldn’t blame them.
We don’t know clearly who’s at fault, but with the availability of Torah and the exposure that many have…. it’s questionable if the chazon ish would still hold that way today. What’s also clear is that anti religious people are our enemies and seek to undermine us. Chazal wouldn’t have been kovaya a bracha ledoros if there wouldn’t be such people in every generation.
Erbius – I’d like to know what those quotes are. Maybe there’s more to this than the gemara and rambam we’ve been discussing, but i doubt it. No one’s saying… again, that it’s not important and crucial to a marriage. So is trust. That’s not a halachik discussion though.
Yseribus: Every book you’ve seen says you’re obligated to love your neighbor, too. Vi shteit Al Pi Din that you need to love your wife more than your friends?
No one holds you aren’t yotzei sukah if you don’t have in mind lemaan yedu. It’s that he didn’t fulfill the mitzva kara’uy. But no one holds he wasn’t yotzeh.
My point was that we don’t love gerim because we too were gerim. That would be kind of childish. The Torah is reminding us that we should know better than to give a hard time to gerim because we too experienced the same thing. That’s hardly the main focus of why it’s important to love gerim. I think anyone with common sense can figure out why Hashem wants us to love gerim without having to say we were gerim too. It’s the same as our obligation to not be harsh to a yasom and almanah. Loving a ger needs a bigger reminder because people tend to exclude those who are mufka.
Shimon, it seems that you believe that pashut pshat in mitzvos are childish, and that drush and remez are “mature”, for the big boys….i don’t often say this, but that is a bizayon hatorah. Just because children learn something doesn’t mean it’s childish.
As for being yotzei yeshivas sukkah…this is a pri megadim explaining a bach, quoted in mishnah berurah; he says that when the Torah specifically gives a reason, kavanah is me’akev. That’s by tefilin (lemaan tehiyeh), tzitzis (lemaan tizkor) and by sukkah (lemaan yaydu). Some hold that the bach was saying like you, but the pri megadim holds it’s le’ikuva
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.