markz wrote:


Nice vort.
Accordingly, es laasos's question is even stronger now.

cordnoy wrote:


At your convenience, can you please clarify.

cordnoy wrote:


I think you're referring to our previous discussion about this. To sum up, the similarity noted by the Kli Yakar is that both are Masbia. However, there is a difference because without food we would die, and without sex, we would not die.
I asked you then if perhaps the connection is that procreation is necessary for survival from a global and spiritual perspective, albeit not on the individual level.

If you meant something else, please share.

cordnoy wrote:


I think you're referring to our previous discussion about this. To sum up, the similarity noted by the Kli Yakar is that both are Masbia. However, there is a difference because without food we would die, and without sex, we would not die.
I asked you then if perhaps the connection is that procreation is necessary for survival from a global and spiritual perspective, albeit not on the individual level.

If you meant something else, please share.

eslaasos wrote:


I try to focus on one topic at a time.
The keli yakar does not address the similarity of the two words. If anything, he contrasts them, for he equates the word lechem to be referring to eating and cohabitation, but only when performed with one's wife. Accordingly, when one cohabits with a woman who is forbidden to him, she is not lechem, and that is why there is no "zan" (unless you say that they are opposites).

cordnoy wrote:


My understanding of the Kli Yakar is that he is indeed comparing the 2 terms in that tashmish in its proper form is masbia the eiver, the same way that lechem is masbia. However, if a person misuses tashmish and turns it into znus, then it is as you wrote and there is no satisfaction (it is not masbia) as he has corrupted the lechem.

I used to translate the word zan/mezonos as sustain/sustenance. According to this Kli Yakar, it appears satisfaction is more accurate.

Agav, I must thank Markz for this designated Torah of lust thread because otherwise you wouldn't philosophize with us.

Thanks Markz! Great Kli Yakar.

Not that he needs any haskama from modern science, but I indeed saw some physiological explenation of that same phenomenon. That the body actually reacts differently to intimacy with a wife vs masturbation. Hormones that are released or not released in each instance...

He might be comparing the term seviah, but not zan.

My philosophizing is due to my interest in word meanings.


see tosfos gitin 6b zvuv about mazon and znus, its mistama not coincidential

He might be comparing the term seviah, but not zan.

My philosophizing is due to my interest in word meanings.


see tosfos gitin 6b zvuv about mazon and znus, its mistama not coincidential

Briut wrote on 29 Jul 2010 14:49:


lo sassuru... asher atem zonim achareihem. The word "Zonim" comes from the word "zan" = "nourish"... Yes, the eye candy feels nourishing, but we are meant to one day 'lizon miziv hashchinah"... and eyes that were zan from lust won't be able to be zan from the ziv hashchinah, which is a much higher and sublime delight. So it's worth holding back!

In the beginning of Sefer Yehoshua, Rashi, The Radak, & The Metzudas, among others, state that Rachav HaZonah was not a prostitute, chas V'sholom. After all, she ended up marrying Yehoshua himself!!!

Rather they translate that she sold food. Mocheres minei mezonos is Rashi's words.

the.guard wrote:


Yosef Hatzadik wrote:

In בראשית לט:ו the Torah refers to אשת פוטיפר as לחם. Rashi says it is a לשון נקיה for wife.

The כלי יקר says something that I always had trouble with:
וקרא לאשתו בכינוי לחם, כי כמו שהלחם משביע לכל חי יותר מן כל דבר הזן, כך בעילות של היתר משביעים אותו אבר- לאפוקי בעילות של איסור אינן משביעים, כארז"ל אבר קטן משביעו רעב
Loosely translated: a wife is referred to through the euphemism of "bread", because just as bread satisfies more than any other food, so too, permitted intimacy (with one's wife) satisfies a person. In contrast, with prohibited forms of sexual relations, the rule is-as our sages say- the more you feed it the more it goes hungry.

I had major trouble with this כלי יקר on many fronts:
1) is bread really the most satisfying food? What percentage of the trillion dollar food industry is bread?
2) is sex with one's wife really more satisfying than with anyone else? What percentage of the trillion dollar sex industry is intimacy between a man and his own wife?

My bigger question is:
3) how can the כלי יקר say that the rule of our sages that "the more you feed it, the more you need it" only applies to prohibited relationships? One of the places that the gemara mentions this rule is with reference to דוד המלך, and it's clearly talking over there about intimacy with one wife! (I don't have a gemara in front of me, but I think it's Sanhedrin 107a- someone please correct me if I'm off)
The gemara there tells about how דוד knew that he was going to be tested in this area, so he slept with his wife in an attempt to minimize the נסיון. The gemara says that דוד forgot the rule that "the more you feed it, the more you need it", so he actually made it harder on himself. According to the kli yakar, it should have worked like "bread"- it was permitted intimacy!

I would really like to hear your thoughts on this. I have an idea based on what I've learned on this forum, but I haven't seen a מקור for it. Feel free to comment!

I'm assuming that many of you had a similar approach to my question. That is that of course bread (and real kosher intimacy with one's wife) is more satisfying. It doesn't provide the fake "sugar high" that a donut has. It doesn't have the glitz and glamour of "sweet porn" (as Dov would say it).

Anyone who is on this site knows all too well how unsatisfying the junk fast- food fantasy is, as sweet and alluring as it seems at the time. We are often left with that same sick, sick feeling as when we polished off a box of donuts.

Regarding דוד המלך, and I say this with trepidation because I haven't seen a מקור, but perhaps when the kli yakar says that permitted intimacy is satisfying, he doesn't mean all married sex. Maybe it's only if you're totally focused on giving to the other person, then it has that quality.

As pure as Dovid's motivations were, the gemara seems to say that he was trying to use this as a way of "filling himself" to try to minimize the impending nisayon. At Dovid's level, perhaps there was an element of taking rather than giving in intimacy, even though it was with his wife. Perhaps the כלי יקר would say -that's why it didn't work, and it fact it backfired.

Whether this is the accurate פשט or not, the lessons for me are profound. Many of us that are married are very much struggling with making sure not to lust -even after our own wives.

We read some of the bochurim writing about their having an expectation of having a "muttar outlet" once they get married. I'm not here to judge whether that's right or wrong. It just make me want to cry for all of the pain that that future couple might have to go through before he chaps what real intimacy is. It is only once I joined GYE that I began (still got long ways to go) to understand what it really means to be a giver in a relationship, which gave me a little taste of גן עדן

in my humble opinion i think that the kley yokor refers to non permitted relationship with your own wife, like when she is not o.k., or in forms how she does not appreciate it, these type of s*x does not satisfy your hunger it only makes it more hungry, in contrast to normal permitted relationship and in a way where she enjoys it, gives both sides great satisfaction
does that make any sense?

There is one more piece to this כלי יקר that is terrifying and unfortunately very relevant to some of us:

ולכך אמרו רז"ל כל הבא על אשה זונה לסוף מבקש ככר לחם ואינו מוצא שנאמר כי בעד אשה זונה עד ככר לחם. וענשו מדה כנגד מדה לפי שעזב את אשתו שנקראה לחם ודבק בזונה שאינה לחמו, על כן יחסר לחמו.

> I am not a נביא, and I do not appreciate when people think they know exactly why הקב"ה runs the world the way he does. However, it would behoove me to take lessons for myself in noticing patterns in my life. We know that one of the reasons why hashem does things מדה כנגד מדה is to aid us in recognizing those patterns and hopefully learning from it.

I know that some of us have struggled with "putting bread on the table". Although nothing is so simple, I hear from this kli yakar that part of my Hishtadlus in earning more "bread", is to view and treat my wife as the only and most satisfying thing for me.

The paradox is, that the only way I will ever be really satisfied, is by not focusing at all on my own satisfaction, rather being totally focused on giving to her. If my giving is conditional - expecting something in return, I will go hungry.

I also don't have the Gemarah in front of me, but my recollection is that, in the incident referred to, the Gemarah says that Dovid HaMelech had relations with one of his wives during the day. Maybe that was the Tzad issur she'bo (although, technically speaking, Dovid surely did no issur, considering that there are ways to have relations by day in a permissible manner).

I had prepared a long reply for this one but it got lost somehow (my fault always).

In my small view, what the Kli Yakar means by כך בעילות של היתר is real relationship and love, that husband and wife should have for each other that goes far beyond bodily connection, although it does have a physical touch, but the bonding reaches higher levels. (which some of us don't even know what it is at all).

To that some of us here can attest that: by giving in to our lust desires and fantasies elsewhere or even with our spouses if done in our selfish way just to fulfill our desires the way we viewed it in the dark world, "we will NEVER be satisfied enough".

I am sure there is a Mekor for this, although we don't need one (it's a fact) I will let the experts deal with that.

since the experts haven't responded [ they normally don't when called experts] i found a mekor that chasing after our desire will never satisfy us.

ספר מבחר הפנינים מד - שער הפרישות מעולם הזה

(כה) ואמר דמיתי האדם בבקשת העולם כצמא שהגיע אל מים מלוחים כל אשר שתה מהם הוסיף צמאו
From rabbi shlomo ben yehudah ibn gabirol circa 1020: [found on bar-ilan].

gibbor120 wrote:


Can you elaborate please, or provide a source?
I am not questioning; I am curious.
Is there a difference between intimacy with one's wife and cohabitation with a forbidden woman?