Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 103

Thu, 23 Jul 2015

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: David Riceman
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:36:55 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Fwd: Dr Shapiro's book


RET:

<<

A poor man can make believe he is blind or crippled in order to get more
charity.

>>

How does this fit with Peah 8:9?  Which book are we talking about?

David Riceman




Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Meir Shinnar
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 20:48:20 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ)


I think one has to be careful, as I find it difficult to reconcile
the position of the MN and that of the SP, and think they represent
two distinct aspects (?stages) in the rambam

Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions
I) in hazal -- that continued desire for some forbidden actions is
compatible with a high spiritual state -- issue is control of the desire
-- NOT its presence
II) Aristotelian ethics -- a high spiritual state does not desire
for forbidden -- the desire is a sign of a flaw. SP resolves by
differentiating between mefursamot -- whose desire is problematic and a
flaw -- and religious law -- where desire is not a flaw -- and applies
this specifically to arayot -- as examples in Talmud of Rabbanit with
desire are of arayot,

It is difficult for me to reconcile this position with the MN -- if our
proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is " to instil disgust"
-- how can desire still remaining not be a flaw????

In the MN, there is a conceptual framework to
distinguish homosexuality and bestiality from regular sexuality -- but
they are ALL viewed as things that should repulse us -- just some more
than others. It is by no means clear that this framework and distinction
can be read into the SP, and would think that One would need good evidence
.hat it does not include ALL arayot...

Meir Shinnar

> It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah  
> attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress  
> during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan  
> Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a  
> marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban.

> Zvi Lampel

> On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> So isn't that problematic?  The idea that sex is something dirty and  
>> should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of  
>> Christianity.  I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what  
>> possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude?

>> On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote:
>>> Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage:
>>>     MN 3:49



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: M Cohen
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:06:24 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav


There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after
chatzos on Tbav

Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc

Why ?

What changed in the afternoon? (especially since some pple fast both the 9th
and 10th(

Mordechai cohen

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150722/d258d12f/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:18:26 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ)


The Moreh Nevuchim was quoted:

> As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are
> directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling
> disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom.

R"n Lisa Liel wrote what I had wanted to write:

> So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty
> and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something
> out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law,
> but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude?

R' Zvi Lampel answered:

> It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah
> attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt
> duress during the marital process (you can find this in the
> Kitzur Shulchan Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the
> Rambam when it comes to a marital setting. I was taught we hold
> like the Ramban.

My guess is that you're referring to R' Eliezer from Nedarim 20b, referenced at the end of Kitzur 150:1.

But from what I have seen, not for nothing is it called "Kitzur Shulchan
Aruch", because this seems to be the attitude of all the standard poskim.
The Kitzur is not a standalone machmir here; from what I can tell, he's
merely quoting the Mechaber in Orach Chayim 240:8.

Mishneh Brurah 240:35 (who refers us to Magen Avraham 240:21), Aruch
Hashulchan 240:14, and Kaf Hachaim 240:59 all seem to advocate a strong
reluctance towards intercourse, which is not quite as extreme as the
Rambam's "disgust", but that might merely reflect their choice of words.

For purposes of Talmud Torah, where is this Ramban who "strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting"?

And for purposes of Halacha, which Acharonim hold like the Ramban, over the
Mechaber, KSA, MB, and KH? (I recall hearing that the Siddur HaYaavetz
might be the answer here, but there seem to be several different versions.
If anyone can post a link to a specific version on SeforimOnline or
HebrewBooks.org, and a page citation, I'd appreciate that very much.)

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Buffett?s Warning for YOU
4 in 5 Americans aren?t taking his shocking advice. Click here now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55af9846b9a261846362est02vuc



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Marty Bluke
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:13:17 +0300
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ)


R"n Lisa Liel asked:
"The idea that sex is something dirty and
should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out
of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what
possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude?"

See the Gemara in Nedarim (20a) about kafuhu shed. Also see RAL's
article OF MARRIAGE: RELATIONSHIP AND RELATIONS (
http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf ) where he
discusses this question and brings many of the sources.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150722/e87929c9/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:25:44 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ)


On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:54:49AM +0000, H Lampel via Avodah wrote:
: On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
:> So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and
:> should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of
:> Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what
:> possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude?

: It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah
: attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress
: during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan
: Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to
: a marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban.

But the most famous Ramban does speak of perushim tihyu and how perishus
is the key to holiness. (R' Shimon Shkop explains the Ramban as saying
it is a primary means to hoiness, because "qedoshim tihyu qi Qadosh
Ani" would be absurd if referring to Hashem practicing perishus. What
temptations would He need to avoid?) And his first example is yema'eit
bemishgal, like (Berakhos 22) "that TC not be found by their wives like
roosters" and that tashmish should be limited to "kefi hatzeikh beqiyum
hamitzvah mimenu".

I presume, in an unXian sense, the Rambam refers to onah, not "only"
piryah verivyah.

Perishus and neqi'us come up a lot in lower-case-m mussar literature, even
among anti-Maimonidians like Rabbeinu Yonah. To quote Mesilas Yesharim ch 13
(tr. from http://www.shechem.org/torah/mesyesh/13.htm I think it's the
old Feldheim ed, by R' Shraga Simmons):
    There is no question as to the permissibility of cohabitation with
    one's wife, but still, ablutions were instituted for those who had had
    seminal emissions, so that Scholars should not be steadily with their
    wives, like roosters. Even though the act itself is permissible it
    implants in a person a lust for it which might draw him on to what
    is forbidden; as our Sages of blessed memory have said (Sukkah 526),
    "There is a small organ in a man which, when it is satiated, hungers
    and which, when it is made to hunger, is sated." And they said about
    R. Eleazar (Nedarim 20b) that even in the proper hour and the correct
    time he would expose a handbreadth and conceal two hand-breadths and
    imagine that a demon was compelling him, in order to cancel out the
    feeling of pleasure.

And ch. 14:
    THERE ARE THREE principal divisions of Separation, involving
    pleasures, laws, and conduct respectively.

    Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke of in the
    previous chapter, consists in one's taking from the world only what
    is essential to him. This type of Separation encompasses anything
    which provides pleasure to any one of the senses, whether the
    pleasure be gained through food, cohabitation, clothing, strolls,
    conversation or similar means, exceptions obtaining only at such
    times when deriving pleasure through these means is a mitzvah.

    Separation in relation to laws ...

    Separation in relation to conduct ...

Which also limits marital intimacy to what is necessary to fulfill piryah
verivyah and onah.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: H Lampel
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:36:27 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ)


On 7/21/2015 8:48 PM, Meir Shinnar wrote:
> Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions
>    I) in hazal - that continued desire for some forbidden actions is 
> compatible with a high spiritual state - issue is control of the 
> desire - NOT its presence
>   I) Aristotelian ethics - a high spiritual state does not desire for 
> forbidden - the desire is a sign of a flaw.
> SP resolves by differentiating between mefursamot - whose desire is 
> problematic and a flaw - and religious law - where desire is not a 
> flaw - and applies this specifically to arayot - as examples in Talmud 
> of Rabbanit with desire are of arayot,

> It is difficult for me to reconcile this position with the MN - if our 
> proper relationship to even permitted sexuality  is " to instil 
> disgust" - how can desire still remaining not be a flaw????

> In the MN, there is a conceptual framework to distinguish 
> homosexuality and bestiality from regular sexuality - but they are ALL 
> viewed as things that should repulse us - just some more than others. 
>    It is by no means clear that this framework and distinction can be 
> read into the SP, and would think that One would need good evidence 
> that it does not include ALL arayot...

The Moreh Nevuchim III:35 explicitly states that his view about this
matter is the same as his view in Shemoneh Perakim:

The fourteenth class comprises the commandments concerned with the
prohibition of certain sexual unions. They are those that we have
enumerated in the Book of Women [/Sepher Nashim/] and in Laws concerning
Prohibited Sexual Relations [/Hilkhoth Issurei Bi'ah/. The interbreeding
of beasts belongs to this class. The purpose of this ... is to bring
about a decrease of sexual intercourse and to diminish the desire for
mating as far as possible, so that it should not be taken as an end,
as is done by the ignorant, *according to what we have explained in the
Commentary on the Tractate Aboth.* (All commentators agree this is a
reference to the introduction to the commentary, the Shemoneh Perakim,
just as the Moreh stated regarding the thirteenth class.)

Your kushya is good: if [as per MN] our proper relationship to even
permitted sexualityis "to instill disgust" - how can desire still
remaining not be a flaw [as per ShP]???? But I think the solution I
offered is reasonable. To wit:

What do you do with the elephant in the room I mentioned? The Torah
commands /t'shaktsu/ concerning the eating of non-kosher creatures
(which is certainly as much in the category of non-mefursomos as bassar 
b'chalav and arayos); yet Chazal (and naturally, then, Rambam) say that 
when it comes to basar b'chalav, etc., one should have the attitude of 
"I have the desire to do it, but Hashem prohibited me.''

I offered one answer to both questions: When Rambam says that Hashem 
wants to instill in us disgust for the act, and the Torah (as per 
Chazal) says "t'shakstu,'' they mean that despite the fact that we 
should not deny or seek to eradicate the physical inclination for such 
pleasures, we must maintain an aversion to succumbing to it except for 
limited situations. (And the purpose of that is to keep us from doing it 
in excess, which is the real flaw.)

*So although as per MN,] our proper relationship to even permitted 
sexuality is to instill a reluctance except for limited occasions (such 
as in a marriage setting), the desire still remaining is not a flaw [as 
per ShP] to be eradicated.*

"I have the desire to do it [even outside of marriage, and I will not 
eradicate the sexual desire from myself,] but [live with it and 
constrain it outside of marriage,] because Hashem commanded me so [and 
this will bring me to perfection].

So, a word about the Moreh's wording. Pines translates: "As for the 
prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making 
sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it 
should be sought only very seldom. ... the thing that is natural should 
be abhorred except for necessity."

Friedlander translates: " we ought to limit sexual intercourse 
altogether, hold it in *contempt,* and only desire it very rarely."

Ibn Tibbon translates "ha-arayos, ha-inyan b'kulam shahv l'ma-eit 
ha-mishgal *v'lim'os* bo, v'shello yirtseh mimennu ki im m'aht 
mi-za-ir...sheh-inyan ha-tiv'i *nim-ahs* l'hay-a-sos rak l'tsorech."

I suspect from the context (lim'os/disgust/contempt, *except for limited 
occasions*) that the Rambam's original Arabic, not to mention his 
intention, is closer on the scale to the idea of avoidance for the sake 
of gaining perfection, than to disgust and contempt.

Basically, it translates to what I believe is in fact our common 
attitude regarding these things.

To put things in perspective, note that immediately before this section, 
the Rambam, following the same attitude of engaging in unrestrained 
physical pleasures being an obstacle to personal perfection, writes 
similarly about the activity of eating, again equating what he writes in 
the Moreh to what he wrote in Shemoneh Perakim:

The thirteenth class comprises the commandments concerned with the 
prohibition of certain foods and what is connected therewith. These are 
the commandments that we have enumerated in the Laws concerning 
Forbidden Foods [/Hilkhoth Ma-akholoth Asuroth/]. The [commandments 
concerning] vows and the state of the Nazarites belong to this class. 
The purpose of all this is, *as we have explained in the Commentary on 
the Mishnah in the introduction to Aboth,* to put an end to the lusts 
and licentiousness manifested in seeking what is most pleasurable and to 
taking the desire for food and drink as an end.


[Email #2. -micha]

On 7/22/2015 1:25 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> But the most famous Ramban does speak of perushim tihyu and how perishus
> is the key to holiness. ...And his first example is yema'eit
> bemishgal...
> I presume, in an unXian sense, the Rambam refers to onah, not "only"
> piryah verivyah.

> Perishus and neqi'us come up a lot in lower-case-m mussar literature, even
> among anti-Maimonidians like Rabbeinu Yonah. To quote Mesilas Yesharim ch 13
> ..." And they said about
>      R. Eleazar (Nedarim 20b) that even in the proper hour and the correct
>      time he would expose a handbreadth and conceal two hand-breadths and
>      imagine that a demon was compelling him, in order to cancel out the
>      feeling of pleasure.

> And ch. 14:
...
>      Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke of in the
>      previous chapter, consists in one's taking from the world only what
>      is essential to him.

> Which also limits marital intimacy to what is necessary to fulfill piryah
> verivyah and onah.

Which, as I was contemplating to write, shows that the Ramban and Rambam
(and as you have pointed out, mainstream Jewish thought) all share the
same basic nuanced attitude--despite the Ramban's opposition to the
Rambam's presentation.

Thanks for the sources.

Zvi Lampel




Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Simon Montagu
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:00:43 -0700
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav


On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:06 AM, M Cohen via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

> There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after
> chatzos on Tbav
>
> Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc
>
> Why ?
>
> What changed in the afternoon? (especially since some pple fast both the 9
> th and 10th(
>

There are two answers in the Birkhei Yosef quoting Sefer Hakavvanot of R.
Haim Vital (OH 559 s"k 7) for why we say verses of consolation at minha,
both based on Midrash Eicha Rabba, and perhaps the reason is the same.
Firstly, that this was when the BHMK began to burn, and it was davka a time
of consolation because the people realized that HKBH was pouring his anger
on stone and wood, not on flesh and blood. Secondly, that this is the time
when the Messiah whose name is Menahem is born.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150722/b40695a3/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 9
From: H Lampel
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 01:23:53 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ)




On 7/22/2015 1:26 PM, H Lampel wrote:
> When Rambam says that Hashem wants to instill in us disgust for the 
> act, and the Torah (as per Chazal) says ''t'shakstu,'' they mean that 
> despite the fact that we should not deny or seek to eradicate the 
> physical inclination for such pleasures, we must maintain an aversion 
> to succumbing to it except for limited situations. (And the purpose of 
> that is to keep us from doing it in excess, which is the real flaw.) 
I should also note that the Rambam teaches that hand-in-hand with the 
flaw of excessive involvement in physical pleasures, and the ultimate 
problem with that, is the attitude behind it, of making physical 
pleasure an end in itself, rather than a side benefit of a means. The 
Rambam applies this objection to both sexual pleasure for its own sake 
and eating pleasure for its own sake:

    The prohibition of certain foods and what is connected therewith....
    The purpose of all this is, as we have explained in the Commentary
    on the Mishnah in the introduction to Aboth, to put an end to the
    lusts and licentiousness manifested in seeking what is most
    pleasurable and to taking the desire for food and drink /as an end/.

    ...The commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain sexual
    unions...  The purpose of this ... is to bring about a decrease of
    sexual intercourse and to diminish the desire for mating as far as
    possible, so that it should not be taken /as an end/, as is done by
    the ignorant, according to what we have explained in the Commentary
    on the Tractate Aboth.

Zvi Lampel
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150723/c37bb03f/attachment.htm>

------------------------------



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


------------------------------


***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)


< Previous Next >