Raish Lakish's principle - Tav L'meitav - and my problems with it

Our Gemara’s original question on the Mishnah was: why is it necessary to say you can do kiddushin thru yourself (Bo) if it already says you can do it thru a messenger (shlucho). Rav Yehuda Amar Rav offers an opinion that the Mishnah must say Bo and Bshlucho because it is an Isur for a man to marry a woman without seeing her first. Rav Yehuda’s opinion only applies to men (the Reisha of the Mishnah). Then, Raish Lakish adds that the reason why there is only an isur on men to not marry without seeing a woman first is because it is better for a woman to go thru a grief-filled marriage rather than be single (Tav L’meitav Tan Do Melimeitav Armalo).

I do not like the opinion given by Raish Lakish. I believe that at the time Raish Lakish gave his opinion, it was true that women were much more dependent on men in their lives, and therefore it was not not unfair of him to say that it is better for them to be in grief filled marriage rather than be single. At the time when Reish Lakish gave his opinion, women did not go to school, they did not have as many rights as men, and of course they did not have jobs and could not support themselves. However, I believe Raish Lakish should not have said what he said because he should have known that times would change down the line. Today, women have the same rights as men, there are more women than men in college, and many women have jobs (and those that do not have jobs could get jobs if they wanted to). Therefore, I believe Raish Lakish should not have said that woman should go into a grief filled marriage rather than be single because he should have suspected that down the line, people would realize that women are humans just like men and that they deserve the same rights as men (which has happened), and now Raish Lakish’s opinion is totally outdated and no longer correct.

Vehavta Lereacha Camocha: Rambam vs. Ramban

Two of the greatest commentaries to ever live, the Rambam and the Ramban, argue on a specific point that we delved into in class, and really wanted to figure out, Vehavta Leracha Camocha.

This principle is something very hard to grasp. What does it mean? What do I have to do? Am I punished if I do not do it? And for very haughty people how is it possible to even care for someone else besides myself let alone care for them AS MUCH as I care for myself?

The Rambam holds that in order to fulfill this principle you have to love your fellow as much as you love yourself. What does this mean? He says that the 2 specific areas where Vehavta Leracha Camocha is most prevalent is in body and money. We went over an example in class, which was if I really, really, really want to be a famous musician one day, but my friend wants to become a doctor am I supposed to convince my friend to become a musician. After all, you are supposed to want for your friend what you want for yourself. The answer the Rambam gives is a flat out no. He expounds on his answer by saying that you aren’t necessarily supposed to want for your friend what you want for yourself rather you should want what is best for him.

The Ramban has two main issues with the Rambam’s interpretation of this universal principle:

1) How is it humanly possible for someone to care for his friend as much as he cares for himself.

Interestingly, this problem is very true nowadays with the society that we live and haughtiness is somewhat of a regular thing for a person.

2) Rabbi Akiva tells of a story where you and your friend are stuck on a beach and you have a bottle of water, but the only way someone will survive is if they drink the entire thing. Do you (a) drink the whole thing and you live and your friend dies, (b) split it half and half and after a matter of time you both die, or (c) give the whole thing to him and he lives on and you die. From the interpretation of the Rambam, the two most likely answers would be either b or c, yet Rabbi Akiva says you drink the whole thing because of Chayecha Kodmin .This seems to imply that you come first and you and your friend aren’t on an equal status of your care.

Overall, I believe that the Ramban’s approach is more realistic especially nowadays, but I think that Rambam’s approach also has validity especially because of the person who wrote it.