ללא מחבר No Author
Against the Chassidic Perversion of Kedushas Habris (Ugh, My Own Filter Will Block Me From the Site for a Day!)
Rav Shlomo Wolbe: Importance of sexual satisfaction – and not just focusing on doing a mitzva
Tuesday, July 18, 2023
update: added the Steipler
Whatever is done has to be with mutual consent – Nedarim 20b, Shulchan Aruch 240:3,
Rambam (Hilchos De’os 5:4): …Neither of them should be drunk or uninterested or depressed nor should either of them be sleeping. The man should not force the woman against her wishes but whatever is done should be with mutual desire and with joy. …
Steipler (Igros Kodesh #2): […] The details of sexual intercourse of the mitzva of conjugal obligations are explained in the Siddur of Rav Yaakov Emden in the section of the laws of Shabbos night. It should be studied carefully because these are actual halachic obligations. Because according to the Torah it is prohibited to have intercourse in circumstances where the woman is not interested and therefore it is necessary to get her interested with intimate activities such as hugging and kissing until she is sexually aroused and desires intercourse. Because if this is not done first – it is like placing her before a lion who mauls and eats as is explained in Pesachim (49). [It is a terrible sin to deprive her of her sexual rights even if he is doing it for the sake of piety and asceticism. Taking what belongs to his wife can not be the basis of piety by theft and treating her as a slave]. Furthermore to have sexual intercourse against her will results in having children who are sinners and rejecters of Torah – they are call bnei anusa (children of rape).
A husband who grabs and has intercourse immediately without preliminary intimacy and then separates immediate after ejaculation and leaves her, might think that he is acting like a highly spiritual angel. But in actual truth he has not lowered his lust at all even though he definitely has placated his desires for the time being since he has in fact obtained full pleasure from this intercourse. In contrast his wife felt no pleasures at all from this abrupt sexual act.
In fact she has been hurt and shamed and the tears she sheds in private will not go unanswered. That is because our Sages (Bava Metzia) tell us that the Gate of Tears has not been closed. They say that a man should be very careful with his wife’s honor because she readily cries. There is no question that such a brutal act arouses Divine judgment against him.
Furthermore he does not merit to have Divine help either in spiritual or material issues. And this that he mistakenly thinks he becomes a highly spiritual person by trying to be insensitive to his wife in sexual matters – this is a worthless fantasy and a lie. That is because from sins and transgression one becomes blemished and spiritually impure – not elevated.
[…]
Igros Kodesh (#4): Question: How to avoid emission of sperm while asleep at night when his wife is a nida and also during the time when she is permitted to him? Answer: I am forced to answer even though it is very difficult to clarify the matter in a written reply. From his letter I got the impression that he needs guidance in the broader topic of what is the nature of married life. Marital relations need to be such that he is sexually satisfied even during the time when he needs to separate from his wife because of nida. Thus we are not talking about the number of times of intercourse but rather the quality of the sexual relationship.
Young men, especially those who are serious about spiritual development, think that sanctifying oneself during sexual intercourse can only mean that one needs to minimize lust and sexual feelings as much as possible. But this is a complete mistake as can be seen from the enlightening comments of Rashi (Nida 17a). Also please look at the Rokeach (Jerusalem edition page 27a) who cites Nedarim (20b) that everything that a man wants to do with his wife he can do in order that he won’t have any interest in other women.
We see clearly that sexual relations need to be so satisfying until all other women are in his eyes as hens and he has absolutely no desire to even look at them. This is also implied by the statement of Chazal concerning the reward for those husbands who prolong physical contact with their wives after intercourse is finished. Thus we see the need for intercourse to be intense and satisfying – and not done merely to fulfill one’s obligation and similar extrinsic matters. And therefore if a person is concerned for the quality of intercourse itself, I am sure that he will be so satiated and satisfied that lust will not be a problem even during the period of nida.
Aside from this, he needs to strengthen his Torah study. That means not merely study with a book but to train his thoughts to be involved with thoughts of Torah study. For example before he leaves his house or yeshiva to organize Torah issues to think about until he reaches his destination and that he shouldn’t be empty of Torah even when he is walking in the street.
And regarding not looking at women – there is the advice of the Gra that one should pray before leaving to go into the street – that G-d should guard him from all aspects of sin including sinful thoughts until he reaches his destination (See Orchos Chaim #135 at the end of the Gra’s Siddur).
Furthermore he should learn with joy and not worry or fear at all. That is because worry and fear just arouse the mind and nocturnal emissions –G-d forbid. And with G-d’s help if he conducts himself as I have described, he will see success.
From Daas Torah, here.
‘Zion’ Or ‘Jerusalem’?
Twin Cities of Zion
Perhaps many of us have never stopped to think about the names Zion and Jerusalem. We may have always assumed that the two terms are synonymous, and even interchangeable. However, if one closely examines the Scriptures and other traditional works, one will realize that Zion and Jerusalem do not necessarily refer to the exact same place. In fact, the customary formula recited in consoling mourners already implies such: “May the Omnipresent console you amongst the other mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.” Zion and Jerusalem — two different places.
When inaugurating the newly-built Holy Temple, the Bible states, “King Solomon gathered the Elders of the Jewish People and leaders of the tribes in Jerusalem in order to bring up the Ark from the City of David — which is Zion” (I Kings 8:1, II Chron. 5:2). The wording of this passage clearly demonstrates that Jerusalem and Zion are indeed two different places. This proof-text is adduced by Rabbi Ashtori HaParchi (1280-1366), Rabbi David Ibn Zimra (1479-1589), and Rabbi Elazar Azkiri (1533-1600). Indeed, Rashi (to Sotah 5a and Yoma 77b) writes quite emphatically that Zion is outside of Jerusalem.
Zion is sometimes known in the Bible as the “City of David” (Ir David) or “Fortress of David” (Metzudat David). That city had its own wall (see Rashi to II Sam. 8:7). However, later on, the outer walls of Jerusalem were expanded to include Zion as well. This may have happened in the late First Temple period, or in the beginning of the Second Temple period. Because Zion was added to the Holy City only later, it may not have had the same halachic status as the rest of Jerusalem regarding permission to eat certain sacrifices and tithes. For this reason, the inner walls known as chomat beit pagi separated Jerusalem proper from Zion, even in the late Second Temple period by which time the two cities had already merged. That wall served to demarcate the area inside greater Jerusalem within which one may or may not eat from the ritual sacrifices.
Rabbi Eliyahu Kramer of Vilna (1720-1797), also known as the Vilna Gaon, writes (in his commentary to Isa. 1:9) that the population demographics of Zion differed from that of Jerusalem: the noblemen lived in Zion, while ordinary people lived in Jerusalem.
We all know where Jerusalem is on a map, but where is Zion?
Psalms 48 speaks about the City of Our G-d in the most superlative terms. In that context, the Psalmist mentions that Mount Zion is the most beautiful of all places, is the happiest place on Earth, and is tucked away in the north (Ps. 48:3). Ibn Ezra and Radak explain that this means that Mount Zion is in the northern part of Jerusalem. Rashi, on the other hand, cites Dunash ibn Labrat (925-990) as explaining that Mount Zion is another name for Mount of Olives (Har HaZeitim).
However, none of these sources are in consonance with the location of what we call nowadays “Mount Zion”, which is southwest of the Old City. This point is actually made by the Sages, as Midrash Socher Tov asks: “Is Mount Zion really in the north of Jerusalem? Is it not actually in the south of Jerusalem?” Rather, explains the Midrash, “north” in this context does not refer to the physical direction were Mount Zion stood vis-à-vis Jerusalem. Rather, it refers to the intense elation one can experience at Zion/Jerusalem when one slaughters a sin-offering north of the altar (as required by Lev. 1:11). For this reason, Mount Zion is described as being in the north.
The thirteenth century exegete Rabbi Yosef Tuv-Elem (Bonfils), in his super-commentary Tzafnat Paneach (to Lev. 1:11), also discusses this. He cites Ibn Ezra’s assertion concerning the location of Mount Zion and disagrees with it. Instead, he asserts that Mount Zion is not north of Jerusalem, but south of Jerusalem. To this effect he cites the abovementioned Midrash Socher Tov, which clearly positions Mount Zion to be to the south of Jerusalem. Rabbi Tuv-Elem writes that this Midrashic source is more believable than Ibn Ezra’s assertion because its author, Rabbi Yochanan, actually lived in the Holy Land. Although he admits that Ibn Ezra also visited Jerusalem, he assumes that Ibn Ezra did so only after he already mistakenly wrote that Mount Zion is north of Jerusalem. Rabbi Tuv-Elem further notes that he personally lived in Jerusalem, and saw that Mount Zion is south of Old Jerusalem.
Some sources suggest that Tziyon is sometimes used as a synonym for Jerusalem (see Jer. 31:5 and Ps. 132:14). Actually, a more accurate term might be synecdoche — which is when a literary device, whereby a term that really refers to part of something, is used to refer to the entire thing. Indeed, in our daily prayers we beseech G-d that He restore the Holy Temple by saying, “May our eyes see Your return to Zion with mercy”. In this case we refer to the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem by mentioning Zion instead of Jerusalem. Similarly, in the Mussaf prayer on Rosh Chodesh we request of G-d: “You shall prepare a new altar in Zion”, again referring to the site of the Temple as Zion, instead of Jerusalem.
Nonetheless, the Zohar (Idra Zuta, 296b) states that Zion and Jerusalem are two spiritual levels, as one refers to the aspect of mercy and the other to the aspect of justice. This suggests that both terms refer to the same physical location.
Rabbi Yechiel Michel Tukachinsky (1871-1955) too disagrees with some of what we have written. He understands that Zion in the Bible does not always refer to a separate city adjoining Jerusalem, but rather refers to a neighborhood within Jerusalem itself.
Rabbi Tukachinsky further notes that sometimes the word tziyon appears in the Bible as a synonym for the Holy Temple (e.g., Joel 4:18 and Ps. 2:6) or, as a general term for the Jewish People (such as Isa. 51:3). In those cases, the word tzion is not a proper name for a Jerusalemite neighborhood, but is a common noun which means “outstanding” (derived from the word tziyun). In this vein, Rabbi Tukachinsky explains that sometimes Mount Zion actually refers to Mount Moriah, where the Temple stood.
Rabbi Ashtori HaParchi — a prominent rabbinic topographer — actually concedes this point by admitting that sometimes the phrase “mountains of Zion” or “mountain of Zion” does not refer to Mount Zion, per se, but to the mountains in that general vicinity, which includes Mount Zion, Mount Moriah and the Mount of Olives. Accordingly, Rabbi HaParchi maintains that when Zion appears in conjunction with the Temple, it refers to the general area of Mount Zion, which can also include the Temple Mount.
Somebody once asked the anti-Zionist rabbinic figure, Rabbi Yosef Rozin (1858-1936), better known as the Rogatchover Gaon, for his opinion about Zionism. Instead of directly answering the question, Rabbi Rozin playfully replied by explaining that Zion is an area outside of Jerusalem proper where gentile heretics historically gathered. The Mishnah (Shekalim 8:1) rules that spittle found in the Upper Marketplace of Jerusalem should be assumed to originate from a non-Jew, and the Rogatchover Gaon explains that this refers to the area known as Zion. By highlighting the historical fact that Zion in Mishnaic times was essentially a slum, the Rogatchover Gaon registered his disapproval with secular Zionists, whom he deemed akin to said historical heretics.
“A Song of Ascent for David: How good and how pleasant it is, the dwelling of brothers together” (Ps. 133:1). The Targum explains that this refers specifically to the unity between the twin cities of Zion and Jerusalem. In fact, the spelling of Jerusalem in the Bible, and the Aramaic name of the Holy City, Yerushalem/Yerushaleim are written in the singular form, as though the city is made up of one singular component (the English name Jerusalem is derived from this form of the name). However, the way we traditionally pronounce the city’s name in Hebrew — Yerushalayim — is in the double form, as if to allude to the fact that Jerusalem is actually made up of two cities joined together. Just as the Hungarian cities Buda and Pest united to become one city — Budapest — so do Zion and Jerusalem unite to become one Unified Jerusalem.
Much of the information for this article was culled from Har HaKodesh by the late Rabbi Moshe Nachum Shapiro, and Ir HaKodesh VeHaMikdash by Rabbi Yechiel Michel Tukachinsky.
From What’s in a Word, here.
More Evidence (if Such Was Needed) the USA Is Doomed in Every Which Way…
Tyler Cowen on The Complacent Class
May 8, 2017
Author and economist Tyler Cowen of George Mason University talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about his book, The Complacent Class. Cowen argues that the United States has become complacent and the result is a loss of dynamism in the economy and in American life, generally. Cowen provides a rich mix of data, speculation, and creativity in support of his claims.
Hey American Jew: You Know War With Russia Is Coming. But Did You Know Your Children Might be Drafted?
Biden is Calling Up Military Reserves…Are Your Kids Next?
As a rule, US war reporting since Vietnam has been mostly mainstream media cheerleading the mission rather than digging beyond government war propaganda. After all, it was images of American boys coming home in body bags shown on the six o’clock news across America that finally galvanized mainstream opposition to that war.
The Pentagon learned its lesson by the first Gulf War, and it severely restricted up-close media coverage. Only “trusted” journalists were able to report from the front lines. Most of the press corps wrote up stories based on US military press releases from luxury hotels in Baghdad.
By the time of Gulf War II the Pentagon came up with the concept of “embedding” select journalists with the troops. This allowed the story to be framed by the Pentagon with the false impression that actual journalism was taking place. It felt authentic, because the journalist was with the troops and close to the action, but the story presented what the Pentagon wanted to be presented.
This is perhaps a long way of pointing out that US mainstream media coverage of the war in Ukraine leaves a lot to be desired. Yes, sometimes the truth does slip out in publications like the New York Times, which reported last week that in just the first weeks of Ukraine’s “counter-offensive” at least 20 percent of the weaponry and equipment donated by the US and NATO has been destroyed.
However, usually what the mainstream media serves up are Pentagon and neocon talking points. Russia is losing, they report. Russia has already lost, as Biden said recently. Most Americans don’t go out of their way to listen to actual experts like Col. Doug Macgregor, who from the beginning has been telling a very different story. Thus Americans continue to be fed propaganda.
There is a funny thing about propaganda, though. Sometimes it comes face-to-face with contradictory reality and is shown to be nothing but a pack of lies.
Take for example last week’s shocking report that President Biden has signed an order to mobilize 3,000 US military reservists for deployment to Europe in support of the 2014 “Operation Atlantic Resolve.” What is Atlantic Resolve? It was launched in the aftermath of the US-backed coup in Ukraine and the ensuing unrest under the US-installed puppet government.
So, if Russia is losing – or has already lost, as Biden said last week – why has it suddenly become necessary to call up US reserve forces? Well, in the midst of one of the most serious US military recruiting crises ever, it seems Washington does not have sufficient troops for its anti-Russia mission in Ukraine. So what is the mission and why does it seem to be creeping toward sending more Americans close to the battle zone? No one in the Administration seems interested in explaining it and no one in the US media or Congress seems interested in asking.
We are on a very slippery slope, with Biden’s neocons continuing to escalate in the face of massive Ukrainian losses and an apparent shortage of US troops. Make no mistake, if the US/NATO proxy war with Russia is not halted the next step will be to look at the US Selective Service. That means they are coming for your kids. How long before America wakes up and says “NO”?