A Look at Love in Marriage and Beyond (Column 492)
With God’s help
Disclaimer: This post was translated from Hebrew using AI (ChatGPT 5 Thinking), so there may be inaccuracies or nuances lost. If something seems unclear, please refer to the Hebrew original or contact us for clarification.
I have spoken here more than once about love and emotions (see, for example, my article here, Columns 22 and 467, and the series of columns 311–315, among others). I won’t repeat myself here, since I assume most of you are familiar with my general view of the emotional realm. As a rule, I see no inherent value—positive or negative—in the mere existence of any emotion, nor in acting on any particular emotion. The fact is that different emotions are aroused in us in different situations and toward different things and people, but facts, on the axiological plane, are neutral. Specifically regarding emotion in marriage, I once mentioned a question a student asked me about whether, in choosing a spouse, one should follow the heart or the mind. I answered that in every matter—and certainly in this one—decisions should be made only by reason. However, in this context reason must take into account (though not exclusively) what the heart says, since the emotional bond between spouses is important for a successful marriage. In short: the existence of emotions is a fact (somewhat unfortunate), and indeed it is neither possible nor advisable to ignore it—but only as a datum, not as a decision-maker.
And then, about two months ago, I read an interesting column that addresses the role of love in marriage. At first glance its conclusion seemed to fit the picture I described here, but upon a second look I thought that not only the conclusion but the very argument warrants further scrutiny and discussion. I hope the author will forgive my nitpicking, even though this is an internet column. I very much enjoyed the column and the provocative phrasing of the idea. It seems to me there are some very important foundations in her words that are indeed worth exposing and conceptualizing.
The Basic Claim
This is a column by Chana Dayan, on the “Srugim” website, whose headline screams: “Wake up, love is ruining your married life.” I have already noted more than once that one should beware of headlines. They are usually the editors’ rather than the writer’s, and therefore do not always reflect the content of the article—sometimes due to the editors’ misunderstanding and sometimes out of a desire to attract attention (ratings).
It’s best to present the matter in her own words:
“I think that’s it, it’s simply over. At the beginning we loved each other so much, and as if on a clear day it all ended. We can’t manage to rekindle the love; everything is lost to us. I really feel we need to separate,” Naomi cried.
“Do you feel that you don’t love Yossi?” I asked.
“I feel that he doesn’t love me either,” she continued to cry.
“And that’s a problem?” My question stopped her and sent her into shock.
“What? What else do we have to do together without love? That’s why we got married,” Naomi said.
“Naomi, what ruins most marriages in the Western world is love.”
“What do you mean?” Naomi asked.
“Suppose Yossi were rich and you married him only because of his money—what do you think about that?” I asked her.
“Ugh, that’s disgusting. I’m repulsed by women who do that. How can you live with someone whom you marry only for money?” Naomi asked.
“By contrast, how did everyone react when you told them that you and Yossi love each other and that’s why you got married—that you essentially married Yossi because you found the love of your life?” I asked.
“Everyone melted and cried from excitement,” she answered.
“What’s the difference?” I asked her.
“Are you serious? I married him because I loved him for who he is,” she continued.
“If you had married Yossi for his money and his money ran out, you would presumably separate from him, right? Because only the money mattered to you, and then it becomes irrelevant.”
“Sad, but true. If that’s the only reason, you’re right,” she said.
“It’s the same with love—just replace money with love,” I answered her.
“How can you say it’s the same?” she asked.
“Because it’s basically as if you married the love and the pleasant feeling you get from Yossi. When people are in a relationship because of love, what can happen is that one side will no longer love the other, and then he won’t need the other anymore. Love is essentially an interest in disguise, identical to that monetary interest.”
On first reading, the matter provokes a chuckle. There’s a far-fetched comparison here between money and love, and even if formally it may be similar, essentially it seems completely different. One senses a kind of baseless logical game.
Initial Critique
The structure of her argument is as follows: If one marries for X, then at some point X may come to an end, and then there is no point in continuing the marriage. A marriage that may reach a point where there is no reason to continue it is not good. Conclusion: It is not good to marry for such an X, no matter what we substitute for X.
There are several ways to challenge this argument: some challenge its very formal structure, and others challenge the contents that can be placed in place of X. For example: why does she assume that a marriage that might end is necessarily bad? And even if it is, is it not worthwhile to marry and take the risk—perhaps it will endure? Is the problem with marrying for money really that the money may disappear and end the marriage? If the person invests well, then should one marry him for his wealth?
One cannot deny that people commonly feel that there is something problematic in marrying for money. But it seems she gives that feeling a very particular interpretation (because of the fear it may end), and then expands it to any interest. I think that interpretation is incorrect. As I understand it, people’s intuition that rejects marriage for money actually stems from the difference between money and love. Some will tell you that money is a material interest, whereas love is a spiritual interest. Therefore, marriage for love is appropriate, but marriage for money is not. According to this view, the couple-unit ought to be based on love—even if it too is seen as an interest—but not on a financial interest. On this view it is clear that one cannot compare love to money. In short, her argument contains several problematic assumptions. But even if it is entirely correct, it is not clear that any content can be substituted for X.
Two Types of Claims
I wish to distinguish between two different claims present in her words: (1) Marrying for love is as flawed as marrying for money. (2) Marriage without love is not necessarily problematic. These are two different claims, and it is worth examining each on its own.
The second claim is easier to accept. What is wrong with a marriage that is a cool transaction between the spouses?! They want to establish a shared home and are prepared to care for one another and bear and raise children, and they also wish to avoid the socially unpleasant feeling of being without a partner—and therefore they marry. Is there anything wrong with that? It seems entirely fine to me. And what of those who marry in order to fulfill the halakhic commandment of procreation (without love)? That is the same transaction, except that here the goal is halakhic rather than social-psychological. That too seems to me entirely legitimate. Some would say that these are more purely Platonic marriages than those built on love. True, no romances and serenades will be written about them, and their story will not be told by troubadours around the campfire—but that is a matter of literary and emotional taste. As for the essence, I see nothing wrong in such a transaction. One could perhaps say that such marriages will not succeed or that it is harder to maintain obligations without love. That claim can be debated, but it is certainly not essential. On the assumption that everything can be carried out properly, there seems to be nothing inherently wrong in such marriages. Incidentally, the same applies to marriage for money, so her conclusion may be right but the reasoning she offers for it is problematic.
The first claim seems more problematic, as I noted above. One might have hung this on the differences between marriage out of love and marriage for the sake of money. A first difference is that love is usually two-way, while money flows from one side to the other. But that doesn’t seem essential to me. Each party in a love-based marriage receives something, and therefore from his perspective it’s like receiving money. Why should it matter that in this case the other party also receives the same thing?! If there were a marriage that brings monetary value to both sides, would that solve the problem with marrying for money?! And if the other party receives something else that is not money, it is still a transaction in which each side gains something. There is nothing wrong with that.
The author assumes that marriage for money is marriage that is “conditional on a factor,” and therefore flawed. From this she argues that marriage for love is also marriage conditional on a factor, and therefore likewise flawed. But again I can ask: why is a marriage that is conditional on a factor—be it money or love—flawed? We are back to the second claim. A transaction between two parties is entirely legitimate.
It seems to me that the distinction I am making here brings to the surface a first important point: indeed there is nothing wrong with a mutual, consensual contract between two people—but on the other hand, there is no value in it either. If they want, they will sign; if they don’t, they won’t. If we are looking here for the value present in marriage, we must focus on something that goes beyond the contractual dimension they contain.
“See: Love”
Some will say that the value in marriage is the value of love itself. Marriage is the realization of that value. From this, of course, a difference follows between marriage for (or out of) love and marriage for money. But in light of what I wrote at the beginning, I see no value in love. Love is an emotion like any other, and emotional satisfaction is an interest or benefit—just like money. In this sense, the author is right in my opinion. She now also claims that the dependence of marriage on something can lead to its dissolution: “Any love that depends on something—when the thing ceases, the love ceases.” That too is apparently true. The question that arises here is whether the dependence of marriage on a factor is problematic in itself, or because of the concern that such dependence may lead to the dissolution of the marriage. The sense is that the very dependence of marriage on a factor is problematic, and the fact that this dependence can end and lead to dissolution is only an indication that the marriage is dependent on something. As we shall see below, that is also the author’s intention.
Surprisingly, the author applies this Talmudic rule—about love—to love itself. If marriage depends on love, when love ceases the marriage ceases. Some will say: so what? Indeed, such a marriage ought to be dissolved. She, by contrast, assumes that there is value in maintaining marriage without dependence on love, and therefore the risk of dissolution is a drawback. It is preferable not to build marriage on love so that we will not need to dissolve it.
The conclusion is that the value of marriage is also tied to its stability (again, something beyond a mere contract; in a contract, both parties can dissolve it by agreement and nothing happened). But perhaps stability is only an indication and not the essence itself. A marriage dependent on a factor may undermine stability—which means that something in this marriage is defective. It is not a marriage intended for endurance, because it depends on something. Put differently: such a marriage is not a value but a means to something else; and if we wish to see marriage as a value, it ought to be an end in itself, not a means to another end. As Leibowitz repeatedly wrote, a means is never a value. A value is an end, and the means are meant to achieve it. They have only instrumental value.
“They say there is love in the world… What is love?”
The author herself explains her words later in the column:
“Because of so many romantic films and books, love has become a kind of ‘hidden interest’ like any external factor. If you married Yossi because of love, you are essentially saying: ‘I don’t exactly want to live with you, but to live with the love you give me or that I give you.’”
“People who marry out of love do not create a healthy relationship,” I explained to her, and I saw how hard it was for her to digest this.
“Because the entire motive of the wedding must be the wedding itself. I get married because I want to get married. Marriage is a goal in its own right.”
She identifies love with emotion, and emotional benefit is like any other benefit. The alternative is marriage as a value in itself (and not a means to something else). If so, money and love are disqualified not because their disappearance would dissolve the marriage—that is only an indication of a flaw in such marriage. The flaw is that such marriage is not a value in itself but a means to something outside it. And, as noted, a means cannot be considered a value.
What Is Love?
In several previous columns I discussed the relation between love and lust (see Columns 22, 153, and 384). I cited Don Judah Abravanel and José Ortega y Gasset, who say that one who lusts after a woman places himself at the center and strives to obtain her—i.e., to take possession of her for himself. He pulls her toward himself; this is a centripetal process. By contrast, one who loves a woman places her at the center and pushes himself toward her (acts for her sake, not for his own). One could say this is a centrifugal process. I explained there that lust is driven by interest—a desire to obtain something, to satisfy some need—whereas love is an end in itself: I act for the sake of another.
In my book Man Is Like Grass I expanded on this and explained that there is something very unique about love. We sometimes say that I love in so-and-so the quality X or Y—but that is love dependent on something. When one loves a person, then even if that person’s qualities change drastically, it does not necessarily follow that one will cease to love him. If a spouse is stricken by illness or accident, love can continue between them. This means that love does not depend on any particular qualities of the beloved, even though it is apprehended through his qualities. That is how it begins. Let me clarify a bit more.
Almost all our statements about a given thing relate to its properties and attributes. We say that someone is kind-hearted, tall, original, creative, lives far away, has black hair, and so on. All these are statements about his qualities, not about him. In Aristotelian philosophy these are statements about the accidents of the thing, not about the thing itself (its essence). There are very few statements that relate to the thing as such. For example, the statement that it is one and not two is probably a statement about the thing itself. The statement that it exists is clearly a statement about the thing as such (this is the most fundamental refutation of the ontological proof). In light of what I described above, the statement “I love so-and-so,” at least in some cases, also relates to the person himself and not to his qualities. I may come to love him through his qualities, since my encounter with him always occurs through his qualities. But I use them as a medium through which I shift to relating to the bearer of the qualities—to the person himself. Once there, the love is no longer dependent on qualities, and even if they disappear for some reason, the love can remain.
Love as Construction: A Look at Marriage
A loving relationship gives rise to emotions and also to behaviors. The emotions are that flood a person feels when falling in love. But that, in many cases, fades with time—or at least weakens. The behaviors that characterize love are commitment, care, devotion, giving, soulful connection, shared tasks, and the like. In this sense, love is a kind of glue between people, and it creates a structure composed of both of them. It seems to me that the value in love is that very bond it creates. Therefore infatuation has no value at all, and serenades were sung to it in vain. The mental contract concluded between the spouses—which is not necessarily accompanied by the poets’ intense emotions. It is precisely the daily prose that deserves greater appreciation.
It is no wonder, then, that the stability of the couple-unit is indeed the measure of its value. If one builds marriage on some interest, that makes it valueless (though not flawed)—and not only because of the concern for the stability of the structure. The concern for stability is an indication (a sign, not a cause) of a defect in the structure. A partnership whose point is some interest—money or the feeling of love (the satisfaction of a personal need)—does not create a structure. There is no building here, only a utilitarian contract. When the structure exists, its two parts no longer think in terms of individuals seeking to derive benefit from one another, but in terms of the pair that has been formed from them: “and he shall cling to his wife and they shall become one flesh” (see Column 397 on the melakha of building). If the marriage is the structure, love is the mortar that bonds the stones.
The modern marriage crisis—the situation in which so many couples “split the package”—attests to a deep fracture in the couple-unit in general. The feeling of fracture is often explained by the spouses’ psychological distresses, quarrels, the children’s crises, the difficulty of holding and raising them without a partnership. But all these are external symptoms that point to an incorrect conception of the couple-unit and its meaning. It is an instrumental conception of it, without understanding that it is actually the goal and not a means. The problem with such dissolution is that it shows that people did not truly build something. They stayed together as long as it suited them and part when it suits them less. The shattering experienced by the children and by the spouses (which may reflect the marital break) is only an expression of the fact that nothing stable was built. They did not truly succeed in creating a durable structure. As noted above, the dissolution of the couple-unit (if it was built for some interest) is a sign, not a cause.
Between Love as a State and Love as a Feeling
The feeling usually called love is an expression of this metaphysical state. It is important to distinguish between infatuation—which in some cases is about satisfying my need or desire to obtain someone—and love in its deeper sense, the bond, in which the structure of the pair is the very body for which we have gathered. The value in love is not in the feeling (for, as noted, emotions have no value) but in the state that the feeling (sometimes) expresses. When the feeling itself becomes the interest for which one creates the marriage, then indeed we are talking about a marriage dependent on a factor, like marriage for money. Such a marriage is legitimate (there is nothing prohibited in it), but it is valueless.
This meaning of emotions appears in other contexts as well. For example, I have cited here several times (see Columns 107, 371, and 488) C. S. Lewis’s remarks at the beginning of his book The Abolition of Man, where he speaks about being moved by a landscape or a work of art. Seemingly, this is a subjective feeling; but if that were all, there would be no room to argue or persuade about the value of the work. Each according to the makeup of his soul, each according to his own inner stirrings.
Lewis explains there that the feeling aroused in me by a work of art expresses a relation to the work itself. When I claim that some work arouses in me a feeling of sublimity, I am not thereby saying only something about myself (about the feelings it arouses in me) but also something about the work itself. I intend to say that it ought to arouse in us such feelings because it is a significant work. Therefore, one who claims it is not sublime is, in my view, mistaken—and in any case, there is an argument between us. This is not merely a matter of subjective emotion. This means that although art activates our emotional dimension, the emotion is only an expression of something objective. If it is only about emotion, that is usually kitsch—that is, a work lacking artistic value that elicits subjective excitement. If the emotion expresses an encounter with the work’s own qualities, then there is artistic value. Thus, in the context of art as well, the value is not in the feeling but in the state it expresses.
Back to the Column
Returning to Chana Dayan’s column, at the end she writes:
“Believe it or not, Naomi, when it comes to marriage, the question of your mutual feelings is not that important.”
“How can that be?” Naomi refused to accept what I said.
“Let me tell you. I had an older couple in treatment. When I asked her whether she loves him—do you know what she answered?”
“What?” she asked, curious.
“Thirty years I have lived with him, suffered with him, rejoiced with him, and been moved with him. What does that mean?”
“And what does it indeed mean?” Naomi asked.
“She essentially gave him something far greater than love. Love is only included somewhere within what she gave him. She gave him her entire self. Her whole self—including, of course, love. She belonged to him. There is something more powerful and meaningful than love, and that is belonging.”
“You shouldn’t expect Yossi to love you, but to be yours. He may love you today and tomorrow awaken with a completely different feeling—but if he is yours and you are his, nothing can compete with that feeling.”
“In recent generations there has been a great deal of criticism of the elders of old—that they did not live in happy relationships. They did not love each other, but they wanted to belong to one another. That is a deep need of the soul. The Jewish secret to perfect marriage is sensing that belonging between the spouses—of a love not dependent on anything.”
If so, it seems she does not intend to deny the importance of love in marriage but to redefine it. When she speaks of love, she means the feeling that love arouses in the spouses. The expectation of this, and the dependence on it, may indeed ruin married life. But love is really not those feelings; rather, it is the state those feelings express. That is certainly the significant component of a marriage of value. The marriage is the structure created by love in this sense. This structure remains even when the feeling fades (this is the wording of the blessing: “and He established for him from her an everlasting edifice”), and therefore it does not depend on the feeling. At most, that feeling expresses it—and not always even that.
If I have understood her correctly, I think she is very right. It is neither right nor advisable to expect emotional flooding as the basis for marriage. That is an unrealistic and destructive expectation. But one should expect a sense of connection and a shared edifice. At times it is hard to put one’s finger on whether it is this or that—but “the heart knows its own bitterness.” I think this is a very important observation that touches on the roots of the institution of marriage and the roots of its destabilization in our day.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If the existence of emotions is an *unfortunate* fact, it looks like a loop without stopping conditions.
🙂
I'm not sure. It's not every emotion that's sad in itself, but the fact that emotions exist. If so, the loop stops after one step.
And even if it's a loop (because it's not the fact of their existence that's unfortunate but a concrete appearance) it can still be a converging column.
Convergence won't help here. Convergence can be useful in problems like Achilles and the Tortoise, when you sum up the steps and ask how long the accumulated path is. But when it comes to an infinite number of links in a chain like this, convergence is meaningless. The problem is not the total amount of sorrow, but that the process never ends. It is worth discussing whether this is problematic in itself, but I have answered enough of what is necessary.
In the S”d D’ Bab P”b
First of all, congratulations to Ramada”a who joined Chabad, and revels in the wisdom of a graduate of the ‘School of the Torah of the Soul’ from the school of Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg Shlit”a. I have already argued in the MCA about the parallel between the Hasidic demand and the ’eliminating’any personal appeal so that everything will be ‘for its own sake’ purely, according to Kant's concept.
However, I fear that solving problems in the married lives of ordinary people by trying to turn them into saints of the Supreme Being who have a void in their hearts’of any personal appeal – It is a bit problematic. The average person seeks to feel pleasure and satisfaction in his life. He would prefer to eat what he likes, learn and engage in what interests him, and find ‘rest’ from his family. We are humans, not angels.
Therefore, although it is appropriate to do good because it is good – a mixture of ‘a little for no reason’ strengthens and strengthens the motivation to do good and honest things. And so we try to make the food not only nutritious and healthy but also tasty, and we try to make learning interesting and attractive, and even in married life we try to strengthen and cultivate feelings of love so that the natural pleasant feeling that was at the beginning of married life does not fade.
Even in the love of God, there are ways to arouse and maintain. Maimonides speaks of contemplating the greatness of God Which leads to the strengthening of the feeling of love (what the author of the Tanya calls ‘love of life’). Others speak of the investment in studying Torah and observing the commandments as arousing and strengthening the feeling of love for God (this is what the author of the Tanya calls ‘love of great love’).
And so it is in married life. When the couple observes the virtues of their life partner, and fills themselves with gratitude for everything they have received from their spouse – then the positive feeling is dominant, and then even the criticism, which may be justified, about these or other weaknesses – is given proportion. Then, out of appreciation and affection, one can also gently and patiently ask for improvement and correction.
Even the mutual investment in giving and seeking to please the spouse – intensifies and strengthens the feeling of love that will not fade. Observing the virtues of one's partner and recognizing their constant kindnesses – are in the form of ‘eternal love’. Investing in giving to others – intensifies and strengthens love in the form of ‘great love’.
With best wishes, Shmariahu Oksitoczinsky S.T.
And from our mother, Leah, we learn: Love can also be acquired. Leah comes into the relationship with very difficult starting points. Jacob's love for Rachel is a given from the start, and for Leah, there is also the residue of having brought her there by deceit. And yet Leah does not despair. Every son born receives a name that expresses her thirst for Jacob's love. Reuben: "Because the Lord has seen my affliction"; Simeon: "Because the Lord has heard that I am hated"; Levi: "Now my soul will be mine."
It seems that her prayer was answered and she begins to occupy an important place in Jacob's heart, until Rachel becomes indignant: "You have taken my soul for a small thing." And yet Leah is not content with equal status to Rachel, but says upon the birth of Bezbulun: ‘Now Yazbel my own’, and as Rashi interprets: ‘He will establish his dwelling among my people’.
This means: Even when the ’opening data’ are difficult – there is room for investment and prayer for the strengthening of love!
With blessings, Yiftach Lahad Argamon-Bakshi
I'm sorry, but the one who said "You took my life for granted" was Leah to Rachel, and not the other way around. There is no evidence that Jacob ever loved Leah, but apparently Rabbi Michi doesn't think it's particularly tragic, because what is she complaining about? After all, Jacob continued to worry about her all his life as a result of the contract that was fraudulently concluded with him regarding her (and even, sadly, was buried next to her). Just a whiner.
In the book of the Bible, It is clear that he loved Leah, but he loved Rachel more than her, but according to this we must understand what is meant by ‘And the Lord saw that Leah was hated’? And perhaps the words are said according to Leah's feelings, and since Leah felt unloved and suffered greatly from this – the Lord took pity on her and opened her womb.
And as mentioned, Leah is not satisfied with sons. In the reasons for their names ‘The Lord saw my affliction’, the Lord heard that I was hated’ and in the third ‘Now will my soul be joined to me’ – she expresses her desire for a strong spiritual connection with Jacob. And I think her prayer was answered and indeed Jacob will be more with her, because therefore with her sixth son, she is already asking for more than that ‘Now he will be my personal garbage’, now he will dwell with me
What we should learn from this for married life is that it is not enough for the husband to love his wife in his heart – he must externalize and express his feelings and increase in expressions of love, otherwise she may feel unloved
With blessings, Ya'al
I'm sorry, but to open such a thin argument (which only concerns the question of whether love actually developed, and not the main point of the claim that she actually thought love could develop later) with the phrase "I'm sorry" with three periods is a bit ridiculous.
What does it matter what she thought? She probably also thought the world was flat. The tragic story is that no love developed despite all her good intentions, and perhaps a little less tragic - the world is not flat (maybe if they had known that they wouldn't have been afraid of falling off the edge of the plate and would have fled to America instead of Canaan, and there would have been less population explosion and maybe even affordable housing in the State of Israel in America).
And if that wasn't clear - my conclusion is that it's not worth trying to be like Leah, but to seek a loving relationship from the start (and not to settle for "someone who is willing to sign a marriage contract with me," because the value is all in the marriage itself. As I mentioned - I don't think she's just a whiner, which is probably what Rabbi Michi is supposed to be saying. Look at this, you can disagree with both Rabbi Michi and the talkbacker who disagrees with him!).
“The Jewish Secret to a Perfect Marriage,”
Well, well, when you get tired of one, add another to the covenant.
Find another one, the covenant is done, boil your stew, the covenant is done.
Where did I write about a secret here? And where is it mentioned here that he is Jewish?
You quoted above:
“In recent generations there has been a lot of criticism of the adults of the past, that they did not live in happy relationships. They did not love each other but they wanted to belong to each other. This is a deep spiritual need. The Jewish secret to a perfect marriage, which feels this belonging between the couple, of a love that does not depend on anything.”
And you don’t agree?
In the book of Proverbs 2:1-2
And as for what he said,
Indeed, the law does not hold marriage by force. A man who squints at other women or hates his wife because of a dish that did not work out – there is a situation where it is advisable for him to release his wife from his sin and allow her ‘Chapter 2’ with someone normal who will know how to appreciate ‘the woman you gave me’. All of this, of course, after he pays her appropriate ‘severance pay’, which is the ketubah that the sages fixed ‘so that it would not be easy for him to get her out’.
But the norm that the Torah aspires to is a man who ’loves his wife as his own body and honors her more than his own body’, who honors and respects his wife and knows how to appreciate her devotion to him and his children, as Rabbi Chiya said: ‘Dayan who saves us from sin and raises our sons to the Talmud of Torah’. And as the prophet Malachi's harsh rebuke to the exiles who abandoned their wives who ’had their faces blackened’ on the way to the land. The prophet scolds them: ‘Is she not your companion and the wife of your covenant, and you have betrayed her’.
The Gemara offers two explanations for the prophet's words ‘because he hated the one who sent’ And the second: If the husband hated his wife, he sent her away. And the same conclusion is that both explanations are correct. In the first pairing, God hates the one who sent her away, and it is not right for a man to leave the wife of his youth. But in the pairing that he hated, there is a situation of incompatibility in which there is no escape from separation.
And those seeking records have already said that our Rabbi Gershom “illuminated the exile” in his regulations, since the Knesset of Israel is guaranteed that the uncle, the Rabbi, will not forcefully send away his wife and will not replace her with another nation, as prescribed by the Law of God.
With blessings, Aisha
The degree to which a person is content with what he has To him, along with the respect of kings for one another, the seekers of records hinted in Asher's blessing. For himself, he would be content with simple food, bread dipped in oil, but to the guest, he would give the delicacies of a king. This is the secret of Jewish marriage, in which each spouse respects his partner more than his own body.
Paragraph 3, line 3
… But in the second pairing, there is a situation…
Nice things in your responses, R’ Aish. I will come to a small point. The verses in Malachi Shem are like some religious people who publicly promote the absolute Sabbath on Shabbat (unlike many other places in the world) for social reasons as if without regard to Halacha (to convince). When someone uses a particular argument to promote a position that they hold even without regard to the argument, then it is true that the argument should be examined as usual, but to conclude that someone strongly holds to a particular argument is not always correct.
There the prophet, as the commentators agreed, criticizes taking foreign wives in addition to or instead of the Israeli wife. And he criticizes this also on the grounds of making a personal covenant between the man and his wife that it is not right to betray her like that. But it is clear that the prophet also opposes a single man who marries a foreign woman first, and does not oppose a married man who marries an Israeli woman second. Although it is true that a midrashic interpretation must be said that the prophet's moral criticism is truly based on the covenant, according to what people in their time were accustomed to agreeing to, and therefore marrying an Israeli woman to an Israeli woman is not contrary to the covenant, and a foreign woman is (Ayish Radak). And in our day, marrying another woman is also contrary to the covenant.
In the Bible, the Bible says, "I will not afflict my daughters, and if you take wives for my daughters, there is no one with us." It seems that bearing a burden on a woman was considered an injury to the first wife. Of course, Laban should be criticized for the trick he played on Rachel by forcing Jacob to marry Leah as well, but I certainly understand Laban who wanted both of his daughters to have a husband like Jacob. In the Bible, I will write about this in the way that is necessary.
Even in the patriarchs, we see that from the very beginning, There was only one woman, only because of the barrenness of Sarah and Rachel, they themselves asked to ‘bring their troubles into their home so that they could be built from them. Rebecca was saved from this fate due to Isaac's prayer. Leah was given to Jacob due to Laban's deception, who was clear to him that Jacob would not agree to bring ‘trouble’ into Rachel for any amount of money.
Polygamy is common in Israel, especially among kings, for whom marriage was considered a way to create political connections, and perhaps the complications that Solomon experienced due to polygamy – brought him to the lesson ‘May your source be blessed and happy with the wife of our Lord, Eilat Ahabim and Yalet Chen Dadia Yaruch at all times in her love. Why would my son go astray…’ (Proverbs 5), and in the Song of Songs he says: ‘One is my wife, my dove, my tame’.
In short: the marriage of ‘Tzrah’ was not considered an ’ideal’. It was done as a compulsion and with the consent of the first wife. Our Sephardic brothers have the custom of the groom swearing a solemn oath not to marry another woman before her, while among the Ashkenazim the ‘Haram Derbenu Gershom’ has been passed, which prohibits bigamy even with consent.
With greetings, Aisha
Indeed, Jacob, a man of integrity, asked Laban: ‘What is this? Why have you deceived me?’. To this Laban replies: ‘With a strong hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt’ – If I had not given you Leah, where would Moses and Aaron have come from to redeem you from Egypt? 🙂
Verse 1
Indeed, Jacob, an innocent man, wondered at Laban: ‘What is this? Why have you deceived me’…
Speaking of the story about the elderly couple. This is probably plagiarized from Tobia the Milkman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_y9F5St4j0
(Thanks to Rivka)
By the way. Until the author comes to discuss the difference between money and love, we should separate and discuss the difference between money and beauty. Seeing money as a significant component of a relationship is considered derogatory today (goldilocks), while seeing beauty as a significant component of a relationship is considered completely acceptable (and there are groups for whom it seems to be quite on the table). Men and women do not hide their overt desire for a handsome man, even if they hide their desire for a rich man. And the secret of rich and model couples is that one comes with his money and the other with her beauty, and they will trade the land.
And the point is probably that the body is perceived as something that is related to the person himself and not an accessory property of his (like the explanation for the matter of damages that you gave elsewhere) and also that attraction is perceived as a flaw in the construction of a relationship and love (and not just a side condition. Because really, everyone, heterosexual and homosexual alike, only falls in love with objects of attraction, and so on). The first perception is puzzling and the second one needs to be compromised.
And furthermore, the one who externalizes financial success, such as driving an overly expensive car and wearing a watch worth tens of thousands, is a snobbery (regards to Yossi, whom I don't know but like because of his proverbs). But the one who strives to beautify his body as much as possible through training, clothes, and makeup is criticized much less. And one must examine the hidden matter that externalizing wisdom is sometimes considered to be a far-fetched arrogance, in contrast to externalizing beauty (which is extroverted and standing).
What proverb did you mean here? I don't know what this proverb is.
According to him, you recently brought up cataloging because of a bouncer and the like. Shofuni (showy in Arabic) evolved into a description of a showy appearance and became a concept and characterization.
🙂
‘Shofuni’ means ‘rauni’ in Arabic. This expression is used to express ostentatious, ostentatious behavior.
Best regards, Shams Razal Alpanjar-Najmawi
And perhaps because of their visibility from afar, high places were called "Shephai", such as "On the mountain of Neshapa, I will go to you", "And the wild animals stood on Shephai". Perhaps also "And Shephai went" as stated in Balaam is concerned: "He went up to a high mountain in order to see the people well".
With blessings, Sharafah
Nice, very reasonable.
[And in a necessary way, it should be said according to this, evening breath because the sense of sight is absent. And in the darkness, the feet stumble on the mountains of breath, and therefore the head of the tongue of the blow is called the tongue of the blow. Just as the cadres of darkness, and the cadre in the mountains, and the cadre in the kopitz in the scythe, are the tongue of cutting, that is, the blow. And also the tongue of the blow is the opposite of the bate, the tongue of the see. And so in the tongue of the gaam halum ra'it (see the translation of Onkelos, which seems to interpret the tongue of sight, and probably because the nearby place is visible to the eyes) and the tongue of the blows, the matter of the bate and the blow, which are the opposites, as above, because in the darkness one fails. And usually two opposites are closer to each other than just two words (Ran Ramban who insisted on interpreting “kindness is” in the Aramaic language, not a language of shame as it means, like “hissada” in Aramaic, and “for your kindness will hear,” because how can there be two opposites from end to end? And others in Spain interpreted that kindness and shame are one matter of departing from the line that equates good or evil. And it should also be said in the language of Kelas that it is condemnation and praise. And I thought perhaps kindness is a matter of shame in the simplest sense, because the one who needs the kindness of people is ashamed)]
And if that is the case, then it is also clear that seeing and hitting are both a matter of meeting one thing with another. Similarly, in Rashi, Genesis 1:1, the word "duputa" is translated as "beaten" in Hebrew, meaning "the door that always hits the door that hits it." And so, in the word "hashaqa" (view), the matter of seeing and the matter of hitting are connected (and perhaps this is where "all view is evil" comes from). And here, in the word "habeta" (viewing) is seen in the desert.
With apologies for sailing on the wings of imagination. If sight is close in minutes to the matter of connection (i.e. to strike, to blow and to look and to look as in the words "to strike and to look") and darkness is close in minutes to separation (therefore in the language of Chazal, to make a pot is interpreted as cutting and separating), then perhaps also to darken in the left side, i.e. to prevent close to the darkness in the right side. And perhaps also darkness, darkness and obscurity, a high and unattainable place.
In the 5th of Av, 2017
Lett. 3: Shalom Rav,
It seems that Rashi interpreted that the meaning of “meshkof” is “hitting”, both from “shkifan kidim” and because “chavura” was translated by Onkelos: “meshkof”.
However, there is room to say that the meaning of “meshkof” is “connection”, since in a “chavura” the blood connects and binds. Even the “meshkof” The name is given because it connects the two mezuzot.
And in another way, the name of the group is called “mishkopi” because the skin becomes transparent and the blood is visible through it. Perhaps according to this, the “shakpa” is looking through a separating screen, such as “And the Lord reflected, and the transparency from your holy dwelling place,” which, as it were, breaks through the screen behind which he hides and reveals his providence to the world.
Even in the “shakipen kidom” name, the name of the early wind that dries the chaff leads to a state in which the shell of the kernel becomes transparent due to its thinness.
‘Raya’ is close to ’Raiya’ that the shepherd sees his sheep. ‘Habeta’ is from the root ‘Nevat’, just as ’Hatzitz’ is related to ’Tsitz’. Perhaps because the sprout sprouts and is seen emerging from the ground, and the ’Tsitz’ peeks out.
Best regards, Bernard Shkopitzky
In another post, Ms. Hanna Dayan writes about the necessity of transparency between couples ‘so that they don't disappear from each other’. In other words: vitreousness is good for a relationship 🙂
I think the theoretical worlds you build are interesting and have internal logic.
But there are some very big failures when compared to what we already know from various scientific findings.
Even a person with Asperger's (and I know quite a few of them from academia) is on the continuum, but not at the zero point. In the absence of an emotional system, every person becomes a plant (see, for example, what happens in mouse experiments when the flow of dopamine is neutralized. They lie motionless until they die).
This concerns Leibowitz's psychophysical question, as I understand it, those who are still stuck in dualism fail to understand what humans are at the most basic level.
To be honest, I disagree. But why is this relevant to the discussion? The question I was addressing is whether there is room to see value in an emotional state or not. The question of whether the world is better without emotion is something that should be discussed separately (and it is quite difficult to discuss this in our situation when emotion is built into us).
What is the value in marriage? Is it an intrinsic value (and then it is inappropriate to ask about the source, Yeshayahu Leibowitz) or does it express another value?
I tried to explain in the column that the value is the connection created.
What you mean is that one should not ask about the basis (what it serves) and not about the source.
I don't understand, is the connection created a principle of value in itself?
Does the value you see in marriage exist precisely in marriage according to Halacha or not? Does this value exist in a couple living together without the commitment of marriage?
No. There is a connection between the sons of Noah (see Rambam at the beginning of the Laws of Marriage).
The connection is the value. That's what I wrote.
There is a casual discussion of exactly this in Avi Sagi's article on the general question of the definition of ritual.
He presents this as Kant's position versus Hegel's position and illustrates it from the story "The Kreutzer Sonnet" by Tolstoy:
"The old man's position is that marriage is an expression of the law, and only man has a system of law. In contrast, the lady's position is "that marriage without love is not marriage, that only love sanctifies the partnership and only those marriages that love sanctifies are true." Tolstoy thus contrasts Kant's position, represented by the old man, with Hegel's position, represented by the lady." (Ritual as Ceremony: Towards a Hermeneutic Theory of Ritual, 2021, p. 53).
And the Kreutzer Sonnet was published a few years before Tuvia the Milkman. ?
(His article in the book – Between Times: Ritual and Text in a Changing Society. The example is on p’ 53)
In the Book of the Sabbath, the people of the Great Knesset say: “Love for the world, you have loved the house of Israel, you have taught us Torah and commandments, laws and judgments, therefore we will speak in your laws every day and rejoice in the words of your Torah, for they are our life and the length of our days, and in them we walk day and night.” From love comes the law, and it preserves, strengthens, and strengthens the flame of love that will not be extinguished.
And in philosophical language: Love is the wave that excites life and brings it to strength. The law is the Kant, the boundary of the sector that keeps the strengths of emotion from fading and from being dispersed to places that are not worthy 🙂
With blessings, Shmariahu Oksitoczynski, S.
In this context, see also here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%93%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%95%D7%97%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%94-%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%97%D7%AA%D7%9F1
You and your judges will be just between a man and his brother.
Hannah Dayan follows Rabbi Dessler in identifying the root of the crises as everyone having high expectations to receive love and good feelings from married life. And the solution she offers is to undergo a complete shake-up, to believe that one's entire approach to marriage was fundamentally wrong and now one must develop a new approach, to be a 'giver' and not a 'receiver'.
To be fair, the Torah did not require that only Hasids and those with high morals live in a good relationship. The natural person strives to be both a giver and a receiver, and that is perfectly fine. One simply needs to find what makes each person feel good, and find a division of time and roles in which both will be as satisfied as possible. Set times when the couple is together and gives exclusive attention to each other, and set times when each person dedicates themselves to work, study, and social and community activities. And when you set boundaries for all types of activity, you achieve balance and harmony.
Best regards, Simcha Fishel Halevi Plankton
There is no need to ask what Tolstoy's own position is, of course.
Even what she defines as the purpose of marriage, and as something stable - belonging, is also an emotion. A sense of belonging exists only in our heads and can be strengthened or weakened. So that by fleeing from emotional needs we have not escaped…
That's your interpretation. To me, the feeling of stability is an expression of the state (the structure), and the state is the value. It's not about fulfilling an emotional need, since such a fulfillment cannot be a value.
In the Bible and in the Bible
Ramda –a – Shalom Rav,
You will not object to the statement that a person who provides for another's physical or emotional needs – is doing so in a moral way, desirable in the eyes of the good and benevolent Creator of the world.
If so, why is it that someone who does kindness to himself according to the will of his Creator is not considered to be doing a moral act? After all, he is fulfilling the will of his Creator in this, asking that his broken ones feel good!
With greetings, Hasdai Bezalel Duvdevani Kirshen-Kwas
Rabbi Michi,
In your opinion, is it possible to marry anyone, and only define that we are committed to each other?
My intention is to ask if love disappears later in life, then what is the thing that connects us? They always say that I love him as he is, regardless of his qualities, but if so, how is the partner different from all the billions of people?
It is not a question of definition but whether there is really a connection (a structure is created). Love does not disappear, but its emotional expressions weaken.
The lady quoted tried to explain something to that crying woman so that she would understand something about herself and her inner emotional world. And here in the forum, logical chatter is produced in the style of the ends of the breastplate. With your forgiveness, I am afraid that there is an emotional disability that is not simple. Like explaining colors to a blind person. Whoever does not immediately understand it through the world of emotions, peace be upon him, let him go to therapy and discover a world that ends in inner peace without the need for chatter, which is not always necessary.
I didn't fully understand how the magic works, that if a person is only exposed to the traits, they will love the bones even if the traits disappear or even change. Doesn't that sound strange to you?
Li’ – Shalom Rav,
Love can be preserved and strengthened. Even if a good quality has faded, there are still good things and gratitude for the past and present. And Rabbi Nachman has already taught us that focusing on a ’little good’ breathes life into it and leads to its expansion.
With blessings, A’ Zimra
And often, the good qualities are there, but they are not noticed because of anger over different behaviors. Often, mutual anger comes from not dividing areas in life correctly. When you determine a suitable time to be together and suitable times for work and entertainment, etc., you can achieve coordination of expectations.
Best regards, Simcha Fishel Halevi Plankton
Through the attributes we encounter the thing in itself, and once the connection is established it is no longer dependent on the attributes. I will talk a little about this in the next column (495).
But it's strange when the programs no longer exist like in your example.
That's reasonable for one feature that has been weakened but not for everything.
On laws as supporters of love, a nice article on Parashat Va'Tachnan, in Rabbi Yonatan Sachs' book “Ideas from Second Life: New Readings on this Week's Parashats”.
Have a good week.