Lovesickness
R. Yaakov Bieler
Shabbat Shevi’i Shel Pesach, 5765
By all accounts, understanding Shir HaShirim (The Song of Songs), the Biblical book that is read on the Shabbat that coincides with either “Cholo Shel Moed” or “Yom Tov” of Pesach, (1) is particularly difficult. Not only is the language poetical and therefore often oblique, but the book is also written in the form of a protracted analogy, whose hidden meanings are not readily apparent. If traditionally it is contended that there are “Shivim Panim LaTora” (seventy faces/perspectives that the terminology of the Tora could be understood to connote, i.e., the Tora contains multiple layers of meaning) (2) with regard to the prose portions of the Bible, it is all the more true for the overtly poetical sections, and Shir HaShirim is clearly one of these.
An interesting case in point in terms of Shir HaShirim is the claim on the part of the female lover in the book, that with regard to her beloved, (Shir HaShirim 2:5; 5:8) “Cholat Ahava Ani” (I am lovesick). (3) Once it is assumed that the contents of Shir HaShirim are to be viewed allegorically rather than literally, it is not surprising that sources and commentators from different periods of Jewish history offer a wide range of interpretations for what “lovesickness” might mean within the context of the Jewish people and its history:
a. Tractate Sofrim 16:4.
1) R. Yitzchak said: In the past, when a “Peruta” (an ancient Jewish coin of nominal value) was easy to obtain (i.e., economic conditions were relatively good), the soul of men desired to listen to words of Halacha and Aggada (in contrast to the legal portion of the Tora, the sections that deal with anecdotes, historical accounts, philosophical and theological principles, etc.)
2) (A similar statement in Shir HaShirim Rabba 2:5, in the name of R. Levi)
In the past, when a “Peruta” was easy to obtain, the soul of men desired to listen to words of Mishna, Halacha and Talmud.
But now, when a “Peruta” is not easy to obtain, and they (the people) are enervated by the servitude (subjugation to Roman persecution and rule), the only material that they wish to hear are words of blessing and comfort.
à the Jewish people are “sick” in terms of the harshness of their lives; yet they are still in love with God’s Word and desire to study, but far less rigorously thanbefore as a result of the harsh conditions under which they exist. Furthermore, they are attracted only to material that will provide emotional support during their times of struggle.
b. Shir HaShirim Rabba 2:5
3) The Jewish people said before HaShem: Master of the Universe! All of the “sicknesses” (= difficulties) that You Bring upon me, they are to make me that much more beloved in your eyes.
à the sicknesses/trials that the Jews are subjected to are understood by them to be “Yisurim Shel Ahava” (tests that inspire greater love), means by which they can draw ever closer to HaShem. When they continue to maintain their faith despite great difficulties, HaShem will Hold them in even greater esteem than before.
4) An alternate interpretation: The Jewish people said before HaShem: Master of the Universe! All of the “sicknesses” (= difficulties) that the nations of the world bring upon me, it is because I love You.
à Jews play the role of the “suffering servant” (see Yeshayahu 53) and their courageous and uncompromising love of God in the face of a hostility and danger earns them the wrath and persecution of other nations of the world.
5) An alternate interpretation: Even though I may be “sick” (Yafeh Kol on Midrash Rabba—not living up to my religious responsibilities), I am beloved by God.
à I may be lacking in spiritual perfection but am beloved by HaShem nevertheless. He must See my potential even if how I currently observe the Commandments of the Tora does not live up to His Ultimate Standards.
6) R. Yitzchak said: Originally when the Tora was simpler (Matnot Kehuna on Midrash Rabba—the hearts of the people were more open and flexible, which resulted in more Halachic agreements and less disputes), (4) they would seek to hear words of Mishna and Talmud (the Oral Tradition). Now that the Tora is no longer so simple, they desire to hear words of the Biblical Text and Aggada (the Written Tradition).
à While my ability for in-depth learning and understanding has become impaired, due to a diminution of proper character traits and an ever-increasing distance from the origins of Jewish tradition at Sinai—“Nitma’atu HaDorot” (an ongoing contraction of the spiritual and intellectual level of the Jewish people over time), I nevertheless continue to want to learn as a result of my love for HaShem.
c. Pesikta D’Rav Kahana 12:3
7) R. Levi said: This is comparable to a prince (4) who has recently recovered from an illness.
His tutor says to his father the king: Allow him to resume his lessons.
The king says: My son’s healthy coloring has not as yet returned, and he should resume his lessons? Rather allow my son to recuperate for two or three months with good food and drink, and then afterwards he can return to his studies.
So too with the Jewish people. When they left Egypt they should have immediately received the Tora. However there were among them those who were adversely affected by having had to make the mortar and bricks demanded of them by the Egyptians.
God Said: The healthy glow has as yet not returned to My Childrens’ faces as a result of the mortar and bricks, so how can they receive the Tora at this point? But rather let them enjoy themselves for two or three months with the well, the Manna and the partridges, (6) and afterwards they can receive My Tora. When does this finally occur? (Shemot 19:1) “In the third month…”
à The “sickness” is a reference to the aftereffects of the Egyptian servitude, which due to God’s Love for them, they were given time to recover from, (7) prior to the imposition upon them of a new set of obligations.
d. RaShI on Shir HaShirim 2:5.
8. I am sick/pining for His Love, I am thirsting for Him from here in my exile.
Due to a physical separation between the people and the Holy Land, leading to a sense of alienation and depression not only vis-à-vis their physical surroundings, but also in terms of their relationship with HaShem, Himself. (8)
e. Targum on Shir HaShirim 2:5.
9. At the moment that I heard His Voice in the desert from the midst of the flame of fire (a reference to the Revelation at Sinai), (9) I was traumatized and stumbled backwards in my terror, (10) and then I approached Moshe and Aharon and I told them: You go and receive the Voice of the Words of HaShem from the midst of the fire, (11) and bring me to the Beit Midrash (where I will be able to study the Words in a less frightening setting), and support me with the words of Tora, that through them the world was bathed in pleasant fragrance, (12) and place a scarf upon my neck (one who is not well needs to keep warm), explain the pleasant holy words that will be as pleasing to my palate as the apples of the Garden of Eden, (13) and I will engage in studying them. Perhaps I will be thereby healed through them, (14) because I AM LOVESICK.
à Tora study as a palliative for the trauma of the Revelation at Sinai. While God Giving the Tora directly to the Jewish people was a sign of His Love for them, the very experience was traumatizing, at least for some.
f. ArtScroll edition of Shir HaShirim, Commentary compiled by R. Meir Zlotowitz, p. 102.
10. R. Saadia Gaon
“For I am of WEAKENING love”. Just as a sick person, who feels his strength waning, asks for stimulants, so in this verse the Community of Israel—perceiving and recalling the intensity of its love for God, and afraid that now, in its period of Exile, her love is “Choleh”, sick, waning—asks for His Support and Strength to stimulate her love for Him once again to its former vitality.
à My love of God is “sick” and needs revitalization.
From these various approaches, one can see that were we to consider the “lovesickness” mentioned in Shir HaShirim as figurative, it could refer to the state of the Jewish people as the result of 1) persecution, 2) economic and other day-to-day difficulties, 3) personal religious shortcomings, 4) the increasing complexity of our primary texts of our tradition and the resulting difficulties of familiarizing oneself with them, 5) the intimidation entailed by having a living relationship with an all-powerful God, 6) ongoing exile from the Land of Israel and 7) a general feeling of lack of faith in the Divine. The common denominator that applies equally to all ten of the interpretations is that this state of “sickness” is undesirable, and that there is value in “healing” and removing the various types of irritants that are bringing about this unpleasant state of affairs. Wouldn’t the Jewish people be better off if they were able to live in peace, happiness, security, prosperity, heightened religious observance, universal Jewish literacy, feeling more at ease with Hashem, (15) and returning to our Holy Land? The implication that then arises from such approaches to the concept of “Cholat Ahava” is it would be wonderful if we could be cured of this affliction in one way or another.
RaMBaM, in Mishna Tora, Hilchot Teshuva, however, would appear to present an understanding to the state of “lovesickness” of Shir HaShirim, which, in contrast to the interpretations listed above, views such a condition as positive, an ideal, something to which the religious individual ought to aspire, rather than bemoan and seek to cure.
Hilchot Teshuva 10:5
And what is the appropriate type of love (by which one should strive to love God)? One should love HaShem with an extremely great, powerful, and excessive love to the point where one’s soul becomes attached to the love of God, resulting in his/her thinking about God constantly. It is like one who is profoundly infatuated to the point where his/her mind can focus on nothing other than the beloved, regardless if s/he is lying in bed or is up and around, while eating or drinking. Even more than this should the love of God be constantly in the hearts of those who love Him, and they should be thinking about Him unceasingly, as we are commanded, (Devarim 6:5) “…With all of your heart and with all of your soul.” This is precisely what Shlomo intended when he wrote, (Shir HaShirim 2:5; [5:8]) (16) “…Because I am lovesick…” AND ALL OF SHIR HASHIRIM IS A PARABLE CONCERNING THIS THEME.
To refer to the apparent “infatuation” with God called for by the commandment to love HaShem as “lovesickness”, as apparently RaMBaM thinks Shlomo HaMelech, the author of Shir HaShirim, does, is intriguing not only because it would appear that no other commentator takes such an approach, but also because of the intuitive difficulty that one ordinarily has in viewing any form of “sickness”, whatever the cause, in positive terms. Typically, calling something “a sickness” is understood to connote “the condition of being diseased; a malady; nausea”, (18) and therefore the term describes a state of affairs that is hardly desirable and profoundly abnormal. While RaMBaM’s apparent understanding of the state of mind being referred to in Shir HaShirim is an uninterrupted mental preoccupation with the Divine, which can be conceived of as a positive religious perspective, it has been noted in various texts that the “lovesickness” that the commentator presents as so ideal within a religious context, can have nefarious and even injurious consequences for those intensely suffering from it.
In the classical scholarly work “A Treatise on Lovesickness”, by the physician Jacques Ferrand, (19) the author discusses actual physical symptoms that can accompany what he considered to be a true human malady: pale and wan complexion, slow fever, palpitations of the heart, swelling of the face, diminished appetite, a sense of grief, sighing, causeless tears, etc. (20) And although according to a recent article in The Psychologist, the magazine of the British Psychological Society, the diagnosis of a “lovesickness” has not been generally taken seriously by medical practitioners since the 18th century, Dr. Frank Tallis is presently advocating that such a condition and its accompanying symptomology should be approached as a true sickness requiring treatment.
Passionate love is generally described as a state of intense longing for the beloved. When reciprocated, passionate love is associated with joy, euphoria and ecstasy; however these feelings are almost invariably shadowed by darker emotions such as anxiety, jealousy and sadness. Therefore it is difficult to experience passionate love in the absence of at least some psychological pain. When unrequited (or frustrated), passionate love will reliably engender a sense of emptiness—and even despair. (21)
Obviously, the love that one human being feels for a fellow human will per force be at least somewhat qualitatively different from the emotion that RaMBaM advocates that we are commanded to extend towards HaShem, even were we to call it by the same name, “love”, and by extension, in its most intensive and unceasing form, “lovesickness”. Farrand notes that according to the moral philosophers and Platonists, the external causes of love, poetically represented by classical poets as “the five arrows of Cupid”, are the five human senses, i.e., sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. (22) Surely, the Jewish insistence upon HaShem’s Incorporality (23) will make impossible our developing a love for HaShem via such means. Nevertheless, in Tehillim for example, we can recognize emotions that reflect an infatuation with the Divine, and a resultant extreme fear or even terror of implied rejection or abandonment:
Tehillim 108:4 “I will praise You among the peoples, O Lord, sing a hymn to You among the nations.”
Ibid., 117:1-2 “Praise the Lord, all you nations; extol Him, all you peoples.
For great is His Steadfast love toward us; the Faithfulness of the Lord endures forever, Halleluka.”
Ibid., 22:2-3 “My God, My God! Why have You Abandoned me…?
My God! I cry by day—You Answer not; by night, and have no respite.”
Ibid., 88:10, 15 “My eyes pine away from affliction; I call to You, O Lord, each day; I stretch out my hands to You.
Why, O Lord, do You Reject me, do You Hide Your Face from me?”
And whereas with regard to human love objects, there is at least the theoretical possibility of substituting one for another if regrettably a relationship fails to “work out”, this clearly is absolutely not an option when we consider the nature of our desired emotional relationship with HaShem. Furthermore, if we encounter a problem(s) with regard to our religiosity and the Object of our devotions, we are expected to attribute the cause of the difficulty to ourselves—we do not have enough faith, we have not devoted enough time and energy to making the relationship successful, we are not sufficiently seriously committed to the Significant Other, etc.—rather than finding fault, “KaVeYachol”, with the Divine and the manner in which He is Interacting with us.
In light of what appears to be RaMBaM’s absolutist approach to how one is supposed to fulfill the Commandment to love HaShem, it is interesting to take note of a passage in his philosophical treatise, The Guide for the Perplexed.
Part III, Chapter 51
I have shown you that the intellect which emanates from God unto us is the link that joins us to God. You have it in your power to strengthen that bond, if you choose to do so, or to weaken it gradually till it breaks, if you prefer this. It will only become strong when you employ it in the love of God, and seek that love; it will be weakened when you direct your thoughts to other things. You must know that even if you were the wisest man in respect to the true knowledge of God, you break the bond between you and God whenever you turn entirely your thoughts to the necessary food or any necessary business; you are then not with God and He is not with you; for that relation between you and Him is actually interrupted during those moments...
Think of worldly things when you eat, drink, bathe, talk with your spouse and young children, or when you converse with other people…But when you are engaged in the performance of religious duties, have your mind exclusively directed to what you are doing.
When you are alone by yourself, when you are awake on your couch, be careful to meditate in such precious moments on nothing but the intellectual worship of God, viz., to approach Him and to minister before Him in the true manner that I have described to you—not in hollow emotions. This is the highest perfection wise men can attain by the above training.
It would appear from The Guide that RaMBaM retreats significantly from the ideal that he enunciates in Mishna Tora regarding the love of God and our contemplation of Him. In the philosopher’s world of ideas, it may be desirable to constantly be thinking about and reaching out to HaShem, but this is hardly any ordinary human being’s realizable experience. There are so many responsibilities and distractions that comprise everyday life, that moments of contemplation end up being few and far between. Perhaps this is precisely the reason why RaMBaM overstates the ideal in Hilchot Teshuva, i.e., since he realizes that the average individual’s involvement with HaShem leaves quite a lot to be desired; the great medieval commentator therefore decides to set the standard as high as he possibly can in order to at least evoke great aspirations, even if the moments when they can be actualized are rare. Could it be that RaMBaM was not concerned about the adverse effects of lovesickness for the Divine because he did not expect people to ever literally achieve such a state of mind? What do you think?
Shabbat Shalom, Chag Sameach, and may our lives be caught up if not in a literal state of lovesickness for the Divine, then at least in serious and ongoing commitment to Tora and Mitzvot to the best of our respective abilities.
(1) For a discussion of the possible connections between Shir HaShirim and Shabbat Pesach, see http://www.kmsynagogue.org/Shir.html
(2) See for example BaMidbar Rabba 13:15.
(3) Shir HaShirim 2:5 Let me lean against the stout trunks; let me couch among the apple trees FOR I AM SICK WITH LOVE.
Ibid., 5:8 If you find my beloved, tell him THAT I AM SICK WITH LOVE.
(4) See Sanhedrin 88b re the comparison between the relationship between Hillel and Shamai themselves in contrast to the stances assumed by their respective students, as well as RaMBaM’s explication of this passage in his introduction to the Mishna.
(5) What could be better than explaining one parable with another?!
(6) This Midrash takes rather extreme liberty with the simple meaning of the Biblical texts in question. The demands on the part of the people for water (Shemot 15:24; 17:2-4), food (Ibid., 16:2-3) and partridges (Ibid., 16:8) respectively were considered sinful and punishments were meted out as a result (the attack of Amalek is understood to have been precipitated by the people’s comment in 17:7; God Rebukes Moshe and Aharon for the people’s obstinacy and refusal to follow orders regarding the Manna in 16:27-28; and although no specific punishment is mentioned in Shemot in terms of the partridges, when a similar demand is made in BaMidbar 11:4, verse 33 describes a rather lethal Divine Response). To portray their being helped to recuperate from the Egyptian exile by supplying them with luxuries and delicacies is quite a spin!
(7) In light of the sin of the Golden Calf and the events in BaMidbar leading up to the Divine Decree in BaMidbar 14:29 that virtually the entire generation that left Egypt would die in the desert and not enter Canaan, illustrates that three months of recuperation were hardly enough.
(8) See Ketubot 110b where David HaMelech’s words are interpreted to link together the ability to live in Israel and to properly believe in and worship HaShem.
(9) e.g., Shemot 19:18.
(10) Ibid., 20:15.
(11) Ibid., 16.
(12) See Shir HaShirim Rabba 5:13.
(13) Although there is a classical view that the prohibited fruit on the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Beraishit 3:6) was an apple, Beraishit Rabba 15:7 presents several hypotheses, naming specifically wheat, grapes and Etrogim as the possibilities.
(14) See Kiddushin 30b for another view whereby Tora serves as a cure for a malady.
(15) A case could be made that a state of perpetual “God Fearingness” is in fact the converse of “Lovesickness for God”, and that both are positive rather than negative states. See fn. 17 below. However, it is also reasonable to point out that when taken to an extreme, both of these perspectives could prove destructive and lead to religious obsessions and phobias. Would RaMBaM, who in Mishna Tora, Hilchot De’ot 1:1-7, advocates adopting a middle position in terms of various personality traits, entertain the possibility that some degree of moderation in certain cases and situations should apply to “God Fearingness” and “Lovesickness” as well? Could Kohelet 7:16 apply to these spiritual orientations in particular instances? Ostensibly, this does not appear to be the case in light of RaMBaM’s language in Mishna Tora.
(16) A careful reading of the Mishna Tora reveals that the specific form of the conjunction “because” cited by RaMBaM is “Ki” which appears only in 2:5, in contrast to the form used in 5:8, i.e., the contraction “She…”, short for “Asher”. While it could be contended as the result of close reading that RaMBaM deliberately chose 2:5 as opposed to 5:8 as reflected by the specific conjunction, an equal and perhaps better case could be made that since the essence of his citation is the image of a love-sick individual, the two verses are interchangeable for this purpose. According to the latter view, 2:5 may have been cited simply because it appears earlier in Shir HaShirim.
(17) If one is looking to put a positive spin on “lovesickness” as RaMBaM apparently wishes to, the Targum on Shir HaShirim (e. 9 above) could be viewed in a similar manner. Since being in a perpetual state of “Yirat HaShem” (Fear of God) is desirable religiously, the trauma resulting from the Revelation at Sinai is a good thing from a certain perspective. See Shemot 20:17; Shabbat 31a-b.
(18) “Sickness” in Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, The World Publishing Co., Cleveland, 1966, p. 1354.
(19) First published in 1623; translated and edited by D. Beecher and M. Ciavollela, Syracuse University Press, 1990; cited on the internet at http://www46.homepage.villanova.edu/wood.bouldin/FerrandLovesickness.htm
(20) Ibid., p. 3.
(21) Frank Tallis, “Crazy for You” in The Psychologist, 18:2, Feb. 2005, p. 72 http://www.spring.org.uk/crazy_for_you.pdf
(22) Farrand, p. 8.
(23) The third of the 13 principles of Jewish faith based upon the end of RaMBaM’s introduction to the last chapter of Tractate Sanhedrin, “Chelek” is a statement negating Divine Corporeality:
I believe with complete faith, that the Creator, Blessed be His Name, is devoid of a physical body, that the infirmities and weaknesses of the body do not effect Him, and there is no way in which to compare His Form.