YWN Coffee Room

YWN Coffee Room » Bais Medrash

1. uneeq
   Member

   I recently heard that there's a sefer that discusses whether women are also included in the issur of
   Lo Taturu...acharei eineichem-if they were to look at another improperly dressed woman.

   Personally I have no idea why it would be a hava amina, but I'm hoping someone here has some clue of what I'm talking about so I can see the source. I'm thinking that it might stem out from the issur of "women being together", which is assur for following in the ways of the mitzrim. But I can't understand why there would be an issur of hirhur or re'iyah if the woman is not an erva to her.

   Anybody have any ideas? Thanks

   Posted 3 months ago #

2. essy8
   Member

   i recently heard in a shiur that it applies even to women re: looking at pritzus. the speaker was not saying that this is to prevent attraction and "being together" but rather just not looking at prusty stuff. the example given was magazine covers in pharmacies and groceries.

   the speaker quoted someone (sorry dont remember) as saying that even a women who averts her eyes from pritzus creates a sha'as rachamim where she can say a tefillah right then.

   Posted 3 months ago #

3. coffee addict
   Once killed a Troll with his bare hands

   Maybe the reason is bc everything a person experiences has an effect so it might have a negative effect

   Posted 3 months ago #

4. mustangrider
   Member

   i actually remember learning that women are not allowed to look at pritzus becuase it has a negative affect on them, not because of the attraction.

   Posted 3 months ago #

5. longarekel
   Member

   acharei levavchem refers to apikorsus and this definitely applies to women. acharei eineichem refers to looking at anything that could lead to any form of 'prohibited relationships' and this definitely applies to women as well. The nature of what would cause a problem may be different for men and women, or it may not be. I will not elaborate. The general rule however is the same for both. See also sefer hachinuch on this mitzva for a very interesting explanation which would equally apply to both men and women.

   Posted 3 months ago #

6. sam4321
   Member

   There is a Tshuras Shai(concerning mechitzas), and Rav Vosner in his Shevet HaLevi brings proofs that lo sasuru does apply to women.

   Posted 3 months ago #

7. sam4321
   Member

   http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1485&st=&pgnum=61&hilite=

   Posted 3 months ago #

8. mdd
   Member

   "Lo sasuru" applies to women -- they are not allowed to imagine doing an aveira with a man,to whom that particular woman is an erva. Just looking at a picture of an immodestly-clad model is permissable for a woman.

   Posted 3 months ago #

9. uneeq
   Member

   Sam, MDD: Thanks for the responses. However, I am asking if Lo taturu would apply for women looking at women. Many people are bringing me source that it would apply for looking at men.

   Longarekel: I have to check it up. Thanks.

   Posted 3 months ago #

10. uneeq
    Member

    Longarekel:acharei eineichem refers to looking at anything that could lead to any form of 'prohibited relationships' and this definitely applies to women as well.

    What you refer to as "prohibited relationships" in my mind, is someone who has a relationship with an Erva. A woman with a woman is not an erva if I am not mistaken. If the whole issur of women being together is because we shouldn't act like the mitzrim, then the avierah isn't an erva issur, rather a "bechukosehem lo telechu" type of avierah.

    Therefore the hirhur or looking at of another woman should not be an issur in itself. Hirhur avierah is not an aveirah unless the torah points it out.

    Posted 3 months ago #

11. mdd
    Member

    Uneeq, min ha'stam, we are not concerned that a woman is going to have hirhurim about another woman, especially, just from looking at a picture with an untsniusdic model.

    Posted 3 months ago #

12. uneeq
    Member

    Mdd : And what if its not a picture but rather another woman undressed. would that be ok for a woman that has hirhurim for other women? Also i would like to see a source for all that you mention.

    Posted 3 months ago #

13. Sam2
    Member

    Uneeq: Hirhur is Assur no matter what. If it causes you Hirhur then avoid it. But we don't assume that another woman will cause Hirhur for a woman.

    Posted 3 months ago #

14. wanderingchana
    expat

    Those magazines at the checkout in chain grocery stores are horrible. Only out of absolute necessity will I take my kids to those stores and then I push them ahead of me at the checkout. I avert my eyes as much as possible but if something catches my eye I just cringe inside. It's just awful that secular society pushes those images and "stories".

    Posted 3 months ago #

15. mdd
    Member

    Uneeq, Gemora at the end of Kiddushin says that Yisroel(Yidden) lo nechshadu al ha'zohar ve'al ha'beheima. It is a kol she'ken that we do not suspect Bnos Yisroel of "ma'ase eretz Mitsraim". We do have female life-guards at pools amd mikve-ladies at mikvaos. If a specific woman knows that she has a problem with those type of hirhurim, I need to investigate more.

    Posted 3 months ago #

16. sam4321
    Member

    Rav Leff on his website was asked this question(similar) about how far is too far , http://www.rabbileff.net/shiurim/ask/index.htm (question #1859)

    Posted 3 months ago #

17. longarekel
    Member

    uneeq: You make a good point. However the Rambam brings the halacha of ma'asei eretz mitzrayim in hilchos issurei biah which indicates that it is in the category of 'znus' and included in acharei eineichem.(although there is no kares or misah like the others) Also looking at something that could lead to sin may be in the category of acharei eineichem even if it is not a znus issue. Only chazal used the common example. Once we're on the subject it is important to note that acharei eineichem applies to looking at something that could lead to an actual aveira. Actual aveira includes any action that is in the category of znus(or other aveira). Once again I will not elaborate v'hameivin yavin. Thoughts alone fall under a different issur namely v'nishmarta mikol davar ra and looking at something that would only lead to thoughts is an issur d'rabbanan as stated clearly in avoda zara 20. Of course the thoughts themselves are an issur d'oraisa. I know this may surprise some but it seems to be correct. See the sugya there. (Keep in mind of course that ha'over al divrei chachamim chayav misah).

    Posted 3 months ago #

18. uneeq
    Member

    longarekel: However the Rambam brings the halacha of ma'asei eretz mitzrayim in hilchos issurei biah which indicates that it is in the category of 'znus' and included in acharei eineichem.

    I have found the rambam you mention in issurei biah 21:8 and he states clearly:

    אע"פ שמעשה זה אסור אין מלקין עליו. שאין לו לאו מיוחד והרי אין שם ביאה כלל. לפיכך אין נאסרות לכהונה משום זנות ולא תיאסר אשה על בעלה בזה שאין כאן זנות

    The rambam clearly categorized this issur as NOT z'nus. Why is it in Hilchos issurei bi'ah? I would say, that although the transgressor isn't considered a zonah, as you can see in the Magid Mishna 21:8 that we don't pasken like rav huna that says she would be pasul for kehuna, it's still relevant as some might think that its considered bi'ah or that it can turn a woman in to a zonah. I understand that the issur here is of going in the ways of the goyim.

    I would like to see some of the sources that acharei eneichem applies to any aveiroh. I always thought that it only applied to z'nus aveiros.

    Posted 3 months ago #

19. we are NOT daas torah
    Member

    i am under the impression that in the Tznius book it brings down r shmuel wosner shlit'a who is mechaleik between women looking at other women and looking at pritzus, for example women in a ladies or dressing room is not a problem, but looking at women at a beach with men present or on magazine covers is a problem, as those women are showing and flaunting themselves off to men, thats pritzus and jewish ladies cant see that. i havent seen the book for a while tho so i cant reference it, sorry.

    Posted 3 months ago #

20. mdd
    Member

    Uneeq, "ma'ase eretz Mitsraim" is a z'nus-related issur. All the applications of it have to do with inter-gender relations.The posuk itself is mentioned in the parsha of arayos. It not the same as thinking of eating treif. I am not sure that it would fall under "lo sasuru...". For sure, it is not nice.

    Posted 3 months ago #

21. gavra_at_work
    Member

    in the Tznius book it brings down r shmuel wosner shlit'a

    Not an American Posek. Thanks for the info, but not applicable to the OP (unless the OP lives in Israel).

    Uneeq, "ma'ase eretz Mitsraim" is a z'nus-related issur. All the applications of it have to do with inter-gender relations.The posuk itself is mentioned in the parsha of arayos. It not the same as thinking of eating treif. I am not sure that it would fall under "lo sasuru...". For sure, it is not nice.

    Lo Sasuru is a much more general Issur, not to do things or think of things that are "Taa'vadik". You should see the Chinuch on this, its almost saying addiction to any Ta'anug is the Avairah!

    http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=37518&st=&pgnum=48

    Posted 3 months ago #

22. uneeq
    Member

    MDD: Uneeq, "ma'ase eretz Mitsraim" is a z'nus-related issur.

    Check my previous post, as the rambam I brought down clearly does not agree with you.

    GAW: Not an American Posek. Thanks for the info, but not applicable to the OP (unless the OP lives in Israel)

    I am neither a woman nor looking for a psak, so it's not a problem. I am looking for a svara, a reason why someone would say its assur from lo sasuru. However I've never heard of the tznuis book. Anybody have a quote from it?

    But thanks for bringing me the chinuch, as I never understood the issur of lo sasuru in that way. According to him, there is definitely an issur in our situation.

    Posted 3 months ago #

23. otr
    Member

    there are three mekoros I know for this topic:
    ילקוט שמעוני שמואל ק"ח - "כשם שאסור לאיש לזון עיניו מאשה שאינה ראויה לו כך אסור לאשה לזון את עיניה מאיש שאינו שלה"
    ספר החינוך מצוה קפ"ח "שגם להן אסור להרהר אחר גברים זולתי בבעליהן
    ספר חסידים תרי"ד "שמכל שהאיש מוזהר האשה מוזהרת"
    this all obviously is concerning sexual pleasure driven from the act, not curiosity or any other reason - which BTW is the same by men also, just that men are much easier to be provoked.

    Posted 3 months ago #

24. uneeq
    Member

    otr: All you say is correct, but you talking about hetero relations, and I am asking if there is an issur of lo sassuru when a woman looks or thinks about another woman for pleasure reasons.

    Posted 3 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.