Open Orthodoxy

Home Coffeeroom Decaffeinated Coffee Open Orthodoxy

Viewing 233 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
  • #618983

    lightbrite
    Participant

    Please explain open orthodoxy in layman’s terms.

    For the past year I’ve read all these posts here and on other sites that talk about it. Yay. Nay. It’s orthodox. It’s not orthodox. Many opinions. I’m still clueless here. What is it?

    1) Do people actually affiliate themselves with OO?

    2) Is it an obvious thing (like perhaps as someone would be able to tell who is Chassidish, Yeshivish, or MO based on appearance, shuls, or hashkafah)?

    3) What’s the difference between MO and OO?

    Thank you in advance

  • #1210294

    Avi K
    Participant

    There is an OO manifesto (“Open orthodoxy! A modern Orthodox rabbi’s creed”) which is on-line and by itself seems fine to me. However, Some OO “rabbis” have crossed the line perhaps due to the influence of other groups on YCT. This has led to a push-back by rabbis such as Avraham Gordimer.

    So far as I know from what I read on the Internet (I live in Israel) there is a difference in the shuls welcoming (apparently looking the other way) active (as opposed to celibate) gays and giving greater roles to women (e.g. aliyot, leading Kabbalat Shabbat). Hopefully they will take the criticism to heart and retreat a bit as did the Chassidim (according to the Tzemach Tzedek quoted in “Mekor Baruch” by Rabbi Baruch Epstein). According to Rav Kook this is the purpose of opposition to a new group.

    I think that MO is a bit more traditional in synagogue practice although now there is also Centrist Orthodoxy and Morethodoxy. Maybe the list of subgroups will become so cumbersome that people will return to tzaddikim/benoni’im/resh’im (also Rav Kook’s view).

  • #1210295

    DikDukDuck
    Participant

    Open “Orthodoxy” makes Modern Orthodox look like Chareidim.

  • #1210296

    iacisrmma
    Participant

    Open Orthodoxy is trying to push modern day societal norms and political correctness into an “Orthodox” environment even if it runs counter to halachah or accepted minhag.

    As an example, a recent ruling allows a woman to nurse a baby in shul while davening.

    1) Do people actually affiliate themselves with OO?

    Yes

    2) Is it an obvious thing (like perhaps as someone would be able to tell who is Chassidish, Yeshivish, or MO based on appearance, shuls, or hashkafah)?

    Yes and no. They are mainly affiliated with a Yeshiva and Shul in Riverdale (Bronx, NY)

    3) What’s the difference between MO and OO?

    Modern Orthodox is a term generally used for what was once called “middle of the road”. Frum but not yeshivish. What I would call those affiliated with the Young Israel movement or Yeshiva University. (I know this may not be a fair statement.)

  • #1210297

    iacisrmma
    Participant

    Just to add, myself and my wife both grew up in Young Israel shuls and many of our relatives still daven and our members of Young Israel shuls.

  • #1210298

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    Open Orthodoxy is basically taking up the space that used to be held by conservatve.

  • #1210299

    K-cup
    Participant

    Open Orthodox basically does not believe there is Torah Hashkafa. They openly say that we should find a way to make Torah reflect what we feel is right, and follow or own moral senses. Example, find a way to have women rabbis, activily support homosexual right to marriage, ECT…

    They openly say they do these things because they are the right thing to do, therefore do it. And just because the Torah seems to not support it, look harder and be more creative and you’ll find a support

  • #1210300

    lightbrite
    Participant

    Thank you for your explanations.

  • #1210301

    lightbrite
    Participant

    Is The Torah dot Com an Open Orthodox site?

  • #1210302

    As an example, a recent ruling allows a woman to nurse a baby in shul while davening.

    Excuse me for being ignorant, but why is this an issue?

  • #1210303

    lightbrite
    Participant

    Thanks Mods 🙂

    Request to delete the last question about the website please. Got the answer. Also just realized a poster referenced an affliate.

  • #1210304

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    “As an example, a recent ruling allows a woman to nurse a baby in shul while davening.

    Excuse me for being ignorant, but why is this an issue?”

    I was wondering the same thing (maybe I’m also ignorant).

    I think people might be making OO sound better than it is. I was under the impression that they do things that are much more problematic than some of the things listed sound to me. I thought they don’t say “shelo asani Isha”. (personally, if that is true, I find their refusal to say it offensive and demeaning, aside from the more obvious problems).

  • #1210305

    lightbrite
    Participant
  • #1210306

    iacisrmma
    Participant

    LU: Nursing in shul? If one is not supposed to make a Brocha in front of a woman whose hair is not covered what do you say about a woman exposing her upper body? It is definitely a Davar ervah!

  • #1210308

    mw13
    Participant

    OO has essentially the same outlook as Reform – they don’t really care what the Torah, Chazal and Halacha have to say; they just want to do espouse whatever views are currently “in”, particularly about hot-button issues like same-sex marriage, feminism, humanism, being “green”, and what have you. Now, they often attempt (with little success) to shoehorn these beliefs into words that a respected Rabbi, somewhere, has once said. But by and large, they do not care what the majority opinion of the Poskim and Rabbonim are, nor do they necessarily care what the true intention of the Torah or Chazal are.

    In short, regardless of what label one attaches to them, it seems to be pretty obvious that this movement has absolutely nothing to do with authentic Judaism.

  • #1210311

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    Iacisrmma- I was assuming she was in the women’s section. I was also assuming that she was doing so tzniusly.

    I agree that it doesn’t sound so appropriate, but I wasn’t aware that it something that is discussed in piskei halacha (either to permit or to forbid). (which doesn’t mean it’s not – I was just wondering if it is and what the issue is).

    Or are you talking about a situation in which both those conditions are not present?

  • #1210312

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    “What’s the difference between MO and OO?”

    The main difference is that OO has been declared off-the-map of Orthodoxy, and MO hasn’t. Nowadays, it takes a lot for the Rabbanim to declare something as being off-the-map (my own terminology). They may speak strongly against certain Orthodox institutions etc, but they won’t say that they aren’t Orthodox.

    I think the Rabbanim had a lot of issues with OO for a while, but they only declared that they can’t be considered Orthodox when they crossed a certain line.

    On the other hand, when it comes to MO, the Rabbanim have not declared that they are not Orthodox.

    MO is a very broad category and OO was the most left-wing of MO, but today it is not even considered MO since the Rabbanim have declared that they are not Orthodox.

    MO has many meanings and contains a very broad range. On the most right-wing side, there are people who are extremely Frum and have very Torahdik hashkafos, but do not want to call themselves Yeshivish for whatever reason.

    In some cases it is for sociological reasons (they didn’t grow up in the Yeshivish world so they are not comfortable with the Yeshivish community or the label), and in other cases, they may differ on certain hashkafic issues, and in still other cases, they just have to give themselves a label and since they are not Yeshivish, they have to call themselves MO.

    For other people, MO means that they keep some halachos but not others. Often, this would involve not keeping hilchos tznius. In many of these cases, they may not be aware that these things are halacha and may think they are chumras.

    And then there are left-wing MO people who have very liberal hashkafos that are problematic according to the Torah, but either they are not quite left-wing enough to be considered OO or they really are that left-wing but they are not calling themselves OO.

  • #1210313

    K-cup
    Participant

    I saw the letter from the moetzes hagedolah about OO, is that what you are referring to by stating “OO has been declared off-the-map of Orthodoxy” by rabbanim?

  • #1210314

    lesschumras
    Participant

    LU, who are the Rebbaim that you are referring to? You make it sound like they are apart from MO but have a role in deciding if MO is Orthodox.

  • #1210315

    lesschumras,etc.,

    Strawmen are awfully useful,maybe little more than a distraction

    The Cardinal Precepts and the the 3 Chamuros without apologetics

    Is what is demanded

    Authentic rightwing MO are in ,everyone else is up in the air

  • #1210316

    K-cup
    Participant

    Open Orthodox say they follow all “Cardinal Precepts” very carefully and even more than most. because they take more rishonim into account.

  • #1210317

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    Authentic rightwing MO are in ,everyone else is up in the air

    According to your litmus test, Where does Young Israel, The OU, The RCA and YU belong?

    Do you kick them out?

  • #1210318

    iacisrmma
    Participant

    LU: In a non-tznius manner

  • #1210321

    yytz
    Participant

    “1) Do people actually affiliate themselves with OO?”

    Yes, but the number of people is very low. If you look at the alumni page of YCT you’ll see they have placed people at a few shuls (usually small out of town shuls), though most of them end up with other jobs like at Hillels. Presumably at least some of the people at their shuls would consider themselves OO.

    “2) Is it an obvious thing (like perhaps as someone would be able to tell who is Chassidish, Yeshivish, or MO based on appearance, shuls, or hashkafah)?”

    Appearance: No. Shuls: only indication would be YCT rabbi (however, not all YCT rabbis are necessarily OO — see below). Hashkafa: see below.

    “3) What’s the difference between MO and OO?”

    MO means accepting traditional haskhafa and halacha 100% while being more open to university education, popular culture, involvement in modern society, perhaps even exploring the varying views in controversial areas such as Chazal and science, etc.

    OO means affiliating with an Orthodox shul, having a mechitza, identifying as Orthodox, and yet being more flexible about certain things (such as Biblical criticism, women’s participation in shul, attitude toward non-Orthodox, etc.) Some individual OO rabbis have advocated or done very Reform-ish things, like saying you don’t have to say shelo asani isha.

    Some OO are more or less the same as left-wing MO while some are like Conservative or Reform in their hashkafa (one, for example, claimed Moshiach will not necessarily be an actual person, chas v’shalom).

    I actually know one YCT-ordained rabbi who is hashkafically and halachically totally MO, not OO, and who is accepted as an Orthodox rabbi by all the other Orthodox rabbis in town. Even within YCT there is a lot of variety.

  • #1210322

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    lesschumras,

    LU, who are the Rebbaim that you are referring to?

    I was curious about that as well.

    I’m curious about your definition of MO ( failure to observe tznius).

    That’s not how lilmod ulelamaid defined MO. She wrote, “MO has many meanings and contains a very broad range..”

    There have been a number of arrests and convictions of right wing Jews in the NY area for all sorts of civil crimes ( Ponzi scbemes, fraud, bribery, slumlords etc ). Does failure to observe these kind of mitzvahs make them MO also?

    False equivalence. There is a difference between committing a sin and asserting that an act is not a sin.

  • #1210324

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    There are plenty of people who attend Young Israels who really arent that religious. They basically keep shabbos more or less and keep kosher more or less, but dont do much else.

    The women do not cover their hair outside of shul and wear pants and the men do not daven during the week. Pretty much everyone in shul knows these people.

    You can either tell them what they are doing wrong and risk they leave (and that does happen) or let them continue what they are doing as most do go to shul on shabbos on a regular basis and send their kids to day schools and live in a jewish area

  • #1210326

    LU: In a non-tznius manner

    1: Prove it.

    2: Prove that it is a problem as long as it is behind the Mechitza.

  • #1210327

    False equivalence. There is a difference between committing a sin and asserting that an act is not a sin.

    OK. Why must a woman keep what you call “Tznius” in an MO community where she dresses to the standards of her community? And what sort of “sin” is she committing?

  • #1210328

    yytz, gavra_at_work,

    Very shrewd to quibble about minutiae

    Rabbi Gordimer among others have written extensively on OO

  • #1210329

    huju
    Participant

    Re Avi K’s first post: You mention YCT, but there is no such thing as Yeshiva of Central Toledo.

  • #1210330

    Call them Reformodox .it is more appropo

    Many of OO are to the Left of some the Conservative movement.

    Nomenclature is of import

  • #1210331

    huju
    Participant

    “Open Orthodoxy” is what Moses said the first time he tried to open the Ark. He saw some pagans saying “open sesame” to clear the entrance of a blocked desert cave, and he thought something like it might work on the Ark. But no. You can look it up in Mishnah Mishugah.

  • #1210332

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    lesschumras: “LU, who are the Rebbaim that you are referring to? You make it sound like they are apart from MO but have a role in deciding if MO is Orthodox.”

    I probably should have qualified the statement by putting “my impression is” in front of it. I didn’t do so because I thought it was a given although I don’t have sources. To answer your question, I do not remember who the Rabbanim were, but I read that many Rabbanim declared them as being non-Orthodox. I thought that both MO Rabbanim and Chareidi Rabbanim considered them non-Orthodox, unlike all other streams of MO which (as far as I know) have not been declared as non-Orthodox. I think it may have been the RCA which declared them as non-Orthodox. There are probably others here who know more about it.

  • #1210333

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    gavra_at_work,

    OK. Why must a woman keep what you call “Tznius” in an MO community where she dresses to the standards of her community? And what sort of “sin” is she committing?

    When lilmod ulelamaid asserted that some “MO” women do not follow all of the halachos of tznius, lesschumras could have responded as you did, “how so?” But he instead essentially responded, “well some people in YOUR camp commit theft! How ’bout that??” That’s a false equivalence, because everybody agrees that a thief is doing the wrong thing (even the thief, because he hides his actions from public view), but the dress code is in debate, with some thinking it is wrong, and others not.

  • #1210334

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    “OK. Why must a woman keep what you call “Tznius” in an MO community where she dresses to the standards of her community? And what sort of “sin” is she committing?”

    If it’s against halacha, it doesn’t matter if it’s according to the standards of her community.

  • #1210335

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    Iacisrmma: “LU: In a non-tznius manner”

    GAW: “1: Prove it.

    2: Prove that it is a problem as long as it is behind the Mechitza.”

    Iacisrmma, thank you for clarifying.

    Is the issue that men might see her (either because they can see through or over the mechitza or from the hallway or if they happen to come in to the ladies section which does happen sometimes, since they are allowed to do so if they are not in the middle of davening), that it is halachically assur for women to daven in front of another lady who is not tznius, that it is not nice to the other women who might not want to daven in front of someone untznius, or that she shouldn’t be davening while nursing?

  • #1210336

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    “I’m curious about your definition of MO ( failure to observe tznius).”

    “That’s not how lilmod ulelamaid defined MO. She wrote, “MO has many meanings and contains a very broad range..”

    “There have been a number of arrests and convictions of right wing Jews in the NY area for all sorts of civil crimes ( Ponzi scbemes, fraud, bribery, slumlords etc ). Does failure to observe these kind of mitzvahs make them MO also?

    “False equivalence. There is a difference between committing a sin and asserting that an act is not a sin.”

    Avrum, shkoyach! Regarding the first point, it is possible that lesschumras was only referring to one of my definitions of MO. In any case, you answered the question for me.

  • #1210337

    This is OO/Conservative method:

    1) Decide what conclusion you want to arrive at. This will often be based on predicting what the Jewish ethical response must be in a world that has changed so significantly from the early legal texts of Judaism, that the modern author is given much leeway.

    4) Find a medrash as a springboard to show how quintessentially Jewish, how much in the spirit of Jewish law your own conclusion is.

    5) Accept your original argument.

  • #1210338

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    YCT = Yeshiva Chovevei Torah

  • #1210339

    If it’s against halacha, it doesn’t matter if it’s according to the standards of her community.

    If the Halachos don’t depend on the standards themselves.

    Avram in MD – Fair point.

    IITFT – I’m not disagreeing with the overall criticism of OO, which is much more insidious than what has been described until your last post. The big problem (as you point out) is that they know what they want the “Halacha” to be and then go about trying to justify it, vs. a truthful search of what the Halacha should be.

    In all fairness, we see the same on the right and the left, but in the case of the left/OO real halacha is broken, vs. in the case of the right some unneeded societal rules are justified in the name of Judaism. I’ve hear/seen the same when spouses fight and one brings in “Frumkeit” or “Modernness” to justify their side. It is not that they know the Halacha and sources, rather they want something and are trying to justify it using the Torah as a “Kardom Lachfor Bo”.

    The two examples (nursing and Tznius) brought earlier though are (I believe) incorrect from a Halachic standpoint.

  • #1210340

    Avi K
    Participant

    Lilmod, in fact, I know a Chareidi rav who tried to justify the fact that some “frum” guy helped people receive insurance payments even though they were not insured by saying that he did not personally profit but just wanted to do chesed (interestingly, the Torah says that marrying one’s sister is chesed). So far as I know, OO rabbis say that certain acts are sins but that the sinners should be mekareved by looking the other way.

    Time, your points are also true about people in other factions. There enough opinions for people to pick and choose. There is even an opinion that it is permitted to rob a goy (Baba Metzia 111b). Ok so it’s not the halacha but why can’t one rely it anyway? Not saying lashon hara about a fellow Jew? You call him a Jew? Not derided a talmid chacham? You call him a talmid chacham?

  • #1210341

    iacisrmma
    Participant

    gaw: I am not sure what you mean by “prove it”. If you are talking about allowing a woman to nurse a child in a non-tznius manner here is a quote from the “tshuvah” of Rabbi Katz of YCT:

    ??? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? .

    ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?????, ???? ???? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ????.

    So we see that he is is stating that a woman can have herself exposed for a number of minutes since to herself it is not an “ervah”.

    So yes, IMO that is the definition of “in a non-tznius manner”.

  • #1210342

    iacisrmma – That is the correct P’sak according the the Mishneh Brurah (75:8), who holds that a woman’s “ervah” is not applicable to another woman except for one spot (not her chest). Therefore it is not B’chlall “Ervas Davar” (as long as it is in the Ezras Nashim) which would be Assur.

    This is not “Open Orthodox”, this is quoting the P’sak of the Mishna Berurah.

    Now if you had said “in front of a man”, then we would have what to discuss.

  • #1210343

    iacisrmma
    Participant

    gaw: The Ezras Nashim is not part of the Beis Knesses?

  • #1210344

    There is a lot of information about Open Orthodoxy here: link removed

    Why Open Orthodox is Not Orthodox by David Rosenthal

  • #1210345

    iacisrmma – Shaychus? It isn’t an Ervah.

  • #1210346

    K-cup
    Participant

    David Rosenthal, check out topic Izhbitza chassidus and open Orthodox

  • #1210347

    benignuman
    Participant

    “If it’s against halacha, it doesn’t matter if it’s according to the standards of her community.”

    Much of the halachos of tznius are dependent on the standards of the community.

  • #1210348

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    Avi K: “Lilmod, in fact, I know a Chareidi rav who tried to justify the fact that some “frum” guy helped people receive insurance payments even though they were not insured by saying that he did not personally profit but just wanted to do chesed (interestingly, the Torah says that marrying one’s sister is chesed). So far as I know, OO rabbis say that certain acts are sins but that the sinners should be mekareved by looking the other way.”

    Avi, I’m not sure what comment of mine this was in response to? Please clarify. Thanks!

  • #1210349

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    Lul: “If it’s against halacha, it doesn’t matter if it’s according to the standards of her community.”

    GAW: “If the Halachos don’t depend on the standards themselves.”

    I was referring to halachos that are not dependent on standards.

    Lesschumras, GAW, and anyone else who seemed to be questioning my definitions of MO:

    I want to clarify that I was giving definitions of MO based on how I have heard the terms used by those who call themselves MO. I was not giving a personal opinion regarding how I think the term should be used. I also listed a wide range of usages.

    The part about tznius was not meant to apply to all of those who call themselves MO. I have a friend who considers herself MO who I consider to be one of the most tznius people I know (just for the record, GAW, she wears things that would not be considered acceptable in Yeshivish communities, but she dresses far more tzniusly than many Yeshivish people who would not wear those styles). I know many others like this as well.

    But, there are also MO people who use the term to refer to the fact that they keep some halachos and not others. For example, I once saw an advertisement looking for someone to work in a bungalow colony that was described as MO and in parentheses it said mixed swimming. They were calling themselves MO BECAUSE they had mixed swimming. That was their definition of MO. I have yet to see someone advertise that they are Yeshivish and write in parenthesis after the word Yeshivish that they engage in civil crimes and this is the definition of Yeshivish.

    Again, to be clear, this is one way that the term MO is used by people who refer to themselves as MO. There are many others. Many of the people and definitions even overlap with the definitions of Yeshivish or Chareidi (certainly my defintion of Chareidi :)). There are definitely many ehrlich people who are makpid on halacha who refer to themselves as MO. Some of them are probably here in the CR.

  • #1210350

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    Iacisrmma: “gaw: The Ezras Nashim is not part of the Beis Knesses?”

    This is a side point, but I actually always wondered if the Ezras Nashim has the exact same din as the Beis Knesses. I always wondered if there might be more leniencies regarding standing when the Aron Kodesh is open, or saying Tehillim during parts of davening when it might be a problem.

  • #1210351

    iacisrmma
    Participant

    gaw: it’s not an ervah, where? You think the M’B is referring to a shul? If yes, I think you should have a conversation with your rav. Unless his name is Avi Weiss or Yssochor Katz.

  • #1210353

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    Iacisrmma- are you saying that there is a halacha that it is assur for a woman’s elbows or knees to ever be revealed any time she is in shul even if there are no men present? Obviously, people should try to be tznius at all times, but I never heard of a specific halacha like that – which doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Does it? Where does it say that? And is that only during davening times?

    And if that is the case, why doesn’t every shul have a sign posted saying that it is assur to enter if your knees, elbows, collarbone, or hair are uncovered?

  • #1210354

    iacisrmma – As far as women are concerned, it is not Ervas Dovor. Period. Read the MB. I was just as surprised, and personally I agree that the Rosh is more Mistaver, but I (and you) can’t say that is an OO p’sak.

    LUL – Not at all. My argument was that many women whom you consider not following the Halachos of Tznius really are, whether MO or Chassidish.

    Personally, as I’ve said in the past, I would define MO as a Talmid or follower of a Talmid of Rav Yoshe Ber, whether it is Rabbi Twersky HYD, Rabbi Shechter, Rabbi Meiselman, or Rabbi Avi Weiss.

  • #1210355

    nishtdayngesheft
    Participant

    “I would define MO as a Talmid or follower of a Talmid of Rav Yoshe Ber, whether it is Rabbi Twersky HYD, Rabbi Shechter, Rabbi Meiselman, or Rabbi Avi Weiss.”

    This is a very unique definition. Not one that I have seen shared by anyone else. Certainly not the people who you are calling MO, except perhaps Rabbi Shachter.

  • #1210356

    Nisht – Yes. But it has the advantage of being very specific. If you hold Rav Yoshe Ber as the father of MO (which I believe most agree), then his talmidim who follow him are also MO.

  • #1210357

    gavra_at_work,

    Ludicrous

    So hashkapha counts for how much?

    How many notable Conservatives and Charedim ( according to your own chevra’s defintion would that include?Scores

    My grandfather studied in Yeshiva College in 1937-38 (he had enough with the antics going on and walked out together with a few friends and went over to chofetz chaim ]

    Would that make him and/or my family MO?

  • #1210358

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    GAW: “LUL – Not at all. My argument was that many women whom you consider not following the Halachos of Tznius really are, whether MO or Chassidish.”

    Not at all what? How do you know what I consider following the halachos of tznius? I didn’t specify any halachos in my original post. When I said halachos, I meant things that are halacha and not minhag hamakom, whatever those halachos may happen to be.

    If you want me to be more specific: hair that is not covered at all, knees, upper arm above the elbow, mixed swimming, shorts.

    On the other hand, I was not referring to not wearing socks which is minhag hamakom or to the elbows themselves which might not be assur halachically, or to nail polish of any color.

    Just curious- what did you think I was referring to? Wearing thick stockings? Wearing burkas?

  • #1210359

    Rav Yoshe Ber would have been first to stand up and proclaim

    that orthodoxy is foremost about Core Beliefs

    Would you studied from, means precisely how much?Zero

  • #1210360

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    “This is a very unique definition. Not one that I have seen shared by anyone else. Certainly not the people who you are calling MO, except perhaps Rabbi Shachter.”

    Maskim. I don’t really see how you can put Rav Twersky, HY”D in the same category as Avi Weiss unless the category is Jewish and you are including all Jews (which perhaps is what we should be doing anyhow, but that’s another story).

  • #1210361

    Avi K,etc.

    (presumably the Rabbi you are implying in Rabbi D C

    It’s the Modox crowd who often are inclined to rely on some of his maverick Heterim, ironically.)

    Once more, Very shrewd to quibble about minutiae

  • #1210362

    IITFT – In my personal definition, nothing. You are all more than welcome to have your own, but I personally believe that fits the term “MO” in the best fashion. Like LUL says, my definition is “unique”, and I don’t expect others to agree. And yes, your grandfather may be MO (per my definition) if he considered Rav Yoshe Ber his Rebbe. It seems you don’t believe that is the case.

    LUL – Regarding Tznius: Covering hair at least partially is a Limud from a Pasuk, but not a Lav or even a Bittul Asei. I’m not sure about mixed swimming (with a Burkini to avoid the other issues) being a real issue at all. Knees, upper arm and elbow according to many would only be required/enforceable if minhag hamakom (which is a totally different discussion!!). Shorts, if Derech Pritzus, would be a real problem, but you would have to show me that is a real issue in your community. B”H I don’t see them on religious women (even those who go to Young Israel, which may be your definition of MO) at all.

  • #1210363

    benignuman
    Participant

    “If you want me to be more specific: hair that is not covered at all, knees, upper arm above the elbow, mixed swimming, shorts.”

    The only one of these that I would say is for sure asur regardless of community, is “hair that is not covered at all.” Knees and above (i.e. shorts) according to the Mishna Berura is universal but the Shulchan Aruch doesn’t hold that way. Upper arm is b’pashtus dependent on the community. And mixed swimming, while an exceedingly bad idea, is not the subject of a particular Rabbinic prohibition as far as a I know.

  • #1210364

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    Knees and above are completely assur. That is from Chazal, and there is no disagreement on it. Upper arm above the elbow is also. It is also completely assur to not cover your hair at all. By mixed swimming, I meant while wearing a bathing suit. I’ve seen many Modern Orthodox women wear shorts and go mixed swimming wearing bathing suits.

  • #1210365

    Joseph
    Participant

    benig/gaw, am I reading you correctly in claiming that a woman going sleeveless in the public street is not necessarily assur/pritzus everywhere?! And pray tell where the S”A “doesn’t hold” that displaying the upper legs (i.e. shorts/miniskirt/swimwear) in the public street (or beach/mixed pool) is always assur/pritzus?

  • #1210366

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    One major differnce between the more Charedi communities and the more modern ones is how people look at other people

    If someone keeps 60-70% of Halacha. The Charedi communties will look at such a person as a sinner and might throw them out if they dont immediately agree to abide. The more modern communities will look at the 60-70% that they do keep

    So if a woman is seen outside the community having hair uncovered and wearing pants. But is known to keep kosher and shabbos. How do you react to such a person, Do you look at the part that they keep or the part they dont keep and what do you say to the person. Telling the tochcha many times will backfire.

  • #1210367

    K-cup
    Participant

    Lilmod ulamemaid, Previous posts address halacha of tznious, please provide sources for where chazal state above knees and above elbows is completely Assur.

  • #1210368

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    Knees and above (i.e. shorts) according to the Mishna Berura is universal but the Shulchan Aruch doesn’t hold that way

    You’re got it backwards, I believe. The M”B is meikil for under the knees, many Rishonim held even below the knees is ervah.

    K-cup: ??? ???? ???? is a phrase found in Chazal :????? ?”?.

    ???? is mentioned in :?????? ??.

  • #1210369

    K-cup
    Participant

    Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 75:1 talks about how tznious is dependent to your surroundings

    Rashi in Kesubos 72a includes calf as such a case, Kaf Hachayim 75:2 includes calf and arms, and I believe Rav Moshe also includes calf and arms as depending on your community but I need to double check. ( They all say body/low neckline is always ervah).

    Bottom line it is not completely clearly Assur by chazal, there are many more sources who hold arms and knees are not always ervah.

  • #1210370

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    As they are mentioned in Chazal, ??? and ???? are not subject to minhag. Tzemach Tzedek says regarding this that ???? and ???? are the same letters.

  • #1210371

    YW Moderator-29
    Moderator

    If the discussion is about calves, how does that allow knees?

  • #1210372

    K-cup
    Participant

    Clarification: upper arms and Above the calves

  • #1210373

    benig/gaw, am I reading you correctly in claiming that a woman going sleeveless in the public street is not necessarily assur/pritzus everywhere?! And pray tell where the S”A “doesn’t hold” that displaying the upper legs (i.e. shorts/miniskirt/swimwear) in the public street (or beach/mixed pool) is always assur/pritzus?

    Absolutely not. Dressing Derech Pritzus is Assur in all scenarios for both men and women (SA/Rema Yoreh Deah 178.1). The question is whether not covering the knee or elbow is Derech Pritzus. Seemingly shorts or the type would be. The SA where he discusses the issue of Issur for women (Even Haezer 21) only mentions hair.

    As they are mentioned in Chazal, ??? and ???? are not subject to minhag. Tzemach Tzedek says regarding this that ???? and ???? are the same letters.

    Machlokes Rishonim. The Sefer HaEshkol agrees with you (Pashtus), the Rosh (and perhaps the Rashba) does not. Besides, are you asking about Ervah for Kriyas Shema or a prohibition regarding walking down the street as such? They are not the same.

  • #1210374

    YW Moderator-29
    Moderator

    k cup – above the calves is like calling a face “above the neck”. The claves end at the knee, after that it is a thigh. Very different body part.

  • #1210375

    K-cup
    Participant

    Ym moderator 29, that is specifically not the context of the sources I gave. What you are saying is the Sevara to argue, (Wich is the psak we accept) and is based on the language and names of the parts of the body the gemarra uses. But other rishinim and achronim specifically do not distinguish above the calf, knee, above knee, ECT..

  • #1210376

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    Besides, are you asking about Ervah for Kriyas Shema or a prohibition regarding walking down the street as such? They are not the same.

    The poskim I’ve seen assume they’re the same parameters.

    Except for the Aruch Hashulchan, who is mechadeish that Krias Sh’mah can be considered more lenient b’sha’as had’chak.

  • #1210377

    Joseph
    Participant

    K-cup, are your arguing that in some places where the “minhag” is for women to go in the street with a tank top (that has a high neckline) and a miniskirt, that it might not be a halachic problem to do so?

  • #1210378

    nishtdayngesheft
    Participant

    “If someone keeps 60-70% of Halacha. The Charedi communties will look at such a person as a sinner and might throw them out if they dont immediately agree to abide. The more modern communities will look at the 60-70% that they do keep”

    This is a misunderstanding.

    Chareidim do not look to throw people out.

    Keeping half Shabbos is not keeping Shabbos at all.

    Your definition certainly does not apply to knowledgeable MO.

    Your difference would seem to be more related to those who have robust Jewish education or not.

    There are differences, but this is not it.

  • #1210379

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=32296&st=&pgnum=35&hilite=

    ???”? makes a distinction between ??? (always ????) and other areas (e.g. hands, face) which are ???? in ???? ?????.

  • #1210380

    K-cup
    Participant

    Joseph, no. I’m saying some rishinom don’t hold that there is a strict “halachic line” of calf, knee, above knee, ECT…, that hold its dependent up to a point, and when the gemmarah refers to calf it was not to give halacha definition. I know that is not the halcha. They all to my knowledge hold a tank top would not be allowed as well.

    The only difference is a borderline case, “at the knee” that when your sitting might be iffy. Some people have said that is clearly assur, I’m saying we pasken it’s assur.

  • #1210381

    The poskim I’ve seen assume they’re the same parameters.

    Which Shittos (by that I mean Rishonim or earlier Achronim, not modern day Rabbonim) have said that they are the same? Rav Moshe is very careful to say they are different, when he discusses the Aruch Hashulchan you mentioned.

    ???”? makes a distinction between ??? (always ????) and other areas (e.g. hands, face) which are ???? in ???? ?????.

    1: That discusses Kriyas Shema.

    2: That exact Rashba is used as a source for the Mattirm (for Kriyas Shema), as he brings in the concept of “Ragil Bahen” being Muttar. Therefore (the argument goes) anything that is Ragil does not create Hirhur, and hence Muttar to read Kriyas Shema before it (note the Rashba L’Shittaso against the Rosh l’gabei the din of an absolute Ervah except Oso makom).

  • #1210382

    Joseph
    Participant

    There are Sefardish seforim that pasken that married and unmarried women must wear a full head covering (that leaves only the face visible.)

  • #1210383

    According to some of the common definitions of MO presented here (gavra ,et al.):

    1)There is another whole recent thread “Is Hareidism a new movement” and attempting to posit MO by comparison as closer to Normative.Does that jive?

    2)Are,say,Skokie alumni out?(Better go inform Harry M ‘the Centrist’ )

    3)Should we show more empathy to all MO wannabees [on their numerous blogs]who sadly for them lacking the requisite credentials?

    4)What about females?

    Better start opening a host of Kiruv Centers?

    5)In which rubric would Louis Ginzberg or David Halivny Weiss fall?

    6)Is MO

    Cultural Club or Alumni Golf Association?

    6)On some blogs[e.g.Slifkin’s]

    several months ago they consorted to lambast, tar and feather Rabbi Gordimer (a “righteous in his generations”) as being fraudulent /false member of MO (“How dare He?!”),claiming his articles as too frum/yeshivish , irrespective of his MO credentials.

    ( They virtually wished to revoke his YU diploma,plus the fact that he was a Talmid.)

    How would that reconcile?

    The Game must go on….?

  • #1210384

    “If someone keeps 60-70% of Halacha. The Charedi communties will look at such a person as a sinner and might throw them out if they dont immediately agree to abide. The more modern communities will look at the 60-70% that they do keep”

    Au contrarie ,

    Many invariably look

    down on those who keep 100% as naive, gullible , BTish at the minimum

  • #1210385

    It is Time for Truth – My definition is extremely uncommon and has a following of one person that I’m aware of. 🙂

  • #1210386

    There are Sefardish seforim that pasken that married and unmarried women must wear a full head covering (that leaves only the face visible.)

    As I’ve pointed out to LUL elsewhere, Rav Vosner and some Achronim are Choshesh for the Magen Avraham and Rashi, and hold that a woman has to have her hair braided, whether there is a requirement of covering (i.e. under the covering) or not.

  • #1210388

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    2: That exact Rashba is used as a source for the Mattirm (for Kriyas Shema), as he brings in the concept of “Ragil Bahen” being Muttar. Therefore (the argument goes) anything that is Ragil does not create Hirhur, and hence Muttar to read Kriyas Shema before it (note the Rashba L’Shittaso against the Rosh l’gabei the din of an absolute Ervah except Oso makom).

    Used by whom?

    He is clearly distinguishing between hands, face, and feet, which would also be assur if not ???? ???, and ???.

    The ???? ??? also quotes a ???? who argues on that ??”?.

    See ????? ????? who disagrees with ???? ??????’s understanding of the ??”? and calls it a ???? ?? (he is obviously comparing ?”? to dressing. Rav Moshe, as I recall, specifically only said they’re different for ???).

    See also, for example, ???? ?????? in ??? ???? who equates ?”? with ???????. We know that ??????? ?????? ?????? is ???? ????? ????? ????, so it’s referring to incidental ???????, so there is a ???? for women to cover these areas to prevent incidental ???????.

  • #1210389

    “2: That exact Rashba is used as a source for the Mattirm (for Kriyas Shema), as he brings in the concept of “Ragil Bahen” being Muttar. Therefore (the argument goes) anything that is Ragil does not create Hirhur, and hence Muttar to read Kriyas Shema before it (note the Rashba L’Shittaso against the Rosh l’gabei the din of an absolute Ervah except Oso makom).

    Used by whom?”

    IIRC the language matches the Mordichai and Tosfos L’Gabei Kol Isha. I’d have to go back and check sources.

    “He is clearly distinguishing between hands, face, and feet, which would also be assur if not ???? ???, and ???.”

    He’s actually discussing Ishto, so it has nothing to do with Histaklus.

    “The ???? ??? also quotes a ???? who argues on that ??”?.”

    I’ve seen the ???? inside. He doesn’t say anything about why the Issur exists, and if it is only because at the time of the Gemorah it was a Makom Mechusah.

    “See ????? ????? who disagrees with ???? ??????’s understanding of the ??”? and calls it a ???? ?? (he is obviously comparing ?”? to dressing. Rav Moshe, as I recall, specifically only said they’re different for ???).”

    I’ll have to see it inside.

    “See also, for example, ???? ?????? in ??? ???? who equates ?”? with ???????. We know that ??????? ?????? ?????? is ???? ????? ????? ????, so it’s referring to incidental ???????, so there is a ???? for women to cover these areas to prevent incidental ???????.”

    I don’t see where you are talking about, unless you mean the part about Ishto (which has no Shaychus to our discussion). Had the ???? ?????? meant to create an Issur on the woman, he should have included it in Halacha Daled, or said so somewhere.

  • #1210390

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    He’s actually discussing Ishto, so it has nothing to do with Histaklus.

    As I demonstrated, they have mostly the same parameters.

    I’ve seen the ???? inside. He doesn’t say anything about why the Issur exists, and if it is only because at the time of the Gemorah it was a Makom Mechusah.

    I haven’t, but I’ll go with the ???? ???.

    I don’t see where you are talking about

    ?.

    http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14243&st=&pgnum=153&hilite=

    http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14243&st=&pgnum=154&hilite=

  • #1210391

    Avi K
    Participant

    Gavra, generally speaking in Litvish communities people are not choshesh.

  • #1210393

    As I demonstrated, they have mostly the same parameters.

    I haven’t seen you demonstrate anything.

    When I went into the Sugyah, I had fully expected to learn just like you, that if it is Assur for Kriyas Shema, than a woman has to cover it when she goes outside. I was unable to find anyone who said so. as I’m willing to follow based on the Halacha rather than my preconceived notion (unlike OO or extreme right groups), I had to admit that there is no tie-in, especially after Rav Moshe specifically says there is not one.

    Where does Halacha Gimmel say anything about what a woman is or is not allowed to do? It seems to be discussing what a Man may or may not do, even in a place where everyone would agree that she may be unclothed or sing as such (a swimming pool?). Or are you saying that Halacha Gimmel only applies in the Shuk? (I think not!!)

    If you can find me someone who ties the two together, I would be grateful.

  • #1210394

    benignuman
    Participant

    Daas Yochid,

    The Shulchan Aruch doesn’t mention shok b’isha erva, because, as the Bais Yosef explains (Orech Chaim 75), that is only an example of a makom mechusa that I might have thought was not considered a makom mechusa (the Bais Yosef cites the very Rashba you cited). The way the Bais Yosef read the Gemara in Brochos, there is one klal, makomos that are normally covered are erva when uncovered. But it depends on what is normally covered and that will change based on the tznius standards of the time and place. This all presumes that the issur for krias shema parallels an issur of incidental histaklus (which is against the pashtus of the Gemara and the Shulchan Aruch). As you wrote, intentional histaklus is assur for even parts that are normally uncovered.

    On the other hand, the Mishnah Berurah does understand the Gemara in Berachos to be delineating a base line of what must be covered, and that is why shok is singled out (albeit with a more meikel definition of shok). While the Mishnah Berurah’s position has become the presumption in the Yeshiva world, one can’t say that it is wrong to rely on the Shulchan Aruch.

    The Gemara in Kesubos is setting forth the minhag of tznius (aka Daas Yehudis) at the time, which included arms. To break Daas Yehudis is certainly assur, but as a minhag its parameters can change over time. Short sleeves were common even in Bais Yaakov’s in the 40s.

    My point is not that the MO communities that wear short sleeves and shorts are doing the best thing, but rather that they have solid halachic ground to rely upon.

  • #1210395

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    I haven’t seen you demonstrate anything.

    You can bring a horse to the water, but can’t make him drink.

  • #1210396

    benignuman
    Participant

    Daas Yochid,

    On the Aruch Hashulchan you cited, he does understand an issur in r’iyah but this is limited to makomos mechusim. So it would still depend on the norms in the time and place. Furthermore, I think that by r’iyah he does not mean incidental (he specifically says that there is makkos only when there is kavanah) but rather where there is intent for r’iyah but not for hanaah. In contrast, histaklus of mokomos megulim is only assur if there is intent lhonos.

  • #1210397

    Joseph
    Participant

    In the 40s America wearing shatnes was also common among the Orthodox population. Mixed dancing in Young Israel’s were still common for another few decades past that. Many halachas were still not kept fully during those decades.

  • #1210398

    On the other hand, the Mishnah Berurah does understand the Gemara in Berachos to be delineating a base line of what must be covered, and that is why shok is singled out (albeit with a more meikel definition of shok). While the Mishnah Berurah’s position has become the presumption in the Yeshiva world, one can’t say that it is wrong to rely on the Shulchan Aruch.

    Exactly. If you look in the Shaar HaTzion 75:5, it is Muchach that the MB Paskens that Da’as Yehudis does not change depending on the time and place, rather it goes after what Chazal said at the time of the Gemorah (similar to the Sefer HaEshkol). Just one point that it would then be Brachos/Kesubos, as Da’as Yehudis uncovered would be an Ervah for men due to hirhur, as per the MB 75:8.

  • #1210399

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    The Shulchan Aruch doesn’t mention shok b’isha erva, because, as the Bais Yosef explains (Orech Chaim 75), that is only an example of a makom mechusa that I might have thought was not considered a makom mechusa (the Bais Yosef cites the very Rashba you cited).

    There is no indication that ???? ?????? fluctuates according to the generation/locale. See ?????, for example, who gives the face and hands as the counter example, rather than saying that it excludes a time or place where it is normal for it to be exposed.

    Again, see ????? ????? and others who say such a thing is ???? ?? and has no affect on the halachah. This is not the Mishnah Berurah’s chiddush.

  • #1210400

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    Furthermore, I think that by r’iyah he does not mean incidental (he specifically says that there is makkos only when there is kavanah) but rather where there is intent for r’iyah but not for hanaah. In contrast, histaklus of mokomos megulim is only assur if there is intent lhonos.

    I’ll accept your phrasing, but the point I’m making is that it is obviously a chiyuv for a woman to cover that which is assur for a man to see (even without ????? ??????).

  • #1210401

    I’ll accept your phrasing, but the point I’m making is that it is obviously a chiyuv for a woman to cover that which is assur for a man to see (even without ????? ??????).

    Then what is the point of Halacha Daled? He only says “Assur” for the woman there, not in Halacha Gimmel.

    The issur in r’iyah is on the man, not on the woman.

  • #1210402

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    It’s also on the woman. Kal vachomer from daled.

    Also clear from ??????, because if a woman loses her ?????, she obviously did something wrong.

  • #1210403

    It’s also on the woman. Kal vachomer from daled.

    I don’t understand what you mean.

    Also clear from ??????, because if a woman loses her ?????, she obviously did something wrong.

    That presumes it is Da’as Yehudis, which gets us back to the same discussion as before.

    Finally, you are not answering why one is declared “Assur” while the other is not, and we only infer it from Hilchos Kesubah (and not Brachos). This is Rav Moshe’s point by hair as well.

  • #1210404

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    Also clear from ??????, because if a woman loses her ?????, she obviously did something wrong.

    Women from the Holocaust era lost the Ketuboth and there was a huge fire in haifa area in the last few months were Ketoboth were lost. I know people who lost everything (including Ketuboth) in house fires

  • #1210405

    Again, see ????? ????? and others who say such a thing is ???? ?? and has no affect on the halachah. This is not the Mishnah Berurah’s chiddush.

    And Rav Moshe in Even Haezer 1:69 (IIRC) says that it (Da’as Yehudis) does (the “Pritzus in Spring Valley” question, if I got the number wrong). So we have a Machlokes HaPoskim, and a Limmud Zechus.

  • #1210406

    DaasYochid
    Participant
  • #1210407

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    And Rav Moshe in Even Haezer 1:69 (IIRC) says that it (Da’as Yehudis) does (the “Pritzus in Spring Valley” question, if I got the number wrong).

    I don’t know what you’re referring to. As I said, hair is different. In 1:56, it’s clear that there’s a chiyuv on women to dress with tznius.

  • #1210408

    DY – The standard “You may never be not Tzanuah, because a man may see you, even in your own house”. Chazal say the exact opposite, ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? (Kesubos 72B).

    For Mussar it isn’t bad, but even the Mishna Berurah (i.e. the author) wouldn’t say all of this as Halacha. Even if he did for the Shuk (not at home), it would still be L’shitaso that this is all included as Da’as Yehudis.

  • #1210409

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    ZD, I didn’t mean losing the document, I meant losing the right to collect the money as stated in it.

  • #1210410

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    DY

    There was an article that a Rav declared that anyone who lost their Ketubah in the Haifa fire could not live with their spouse until another one was made. So it was a major issue

  • #1210411

    I don’t know what you’re referring to. As I said, hair is different. In 1:56, it’s clear that there’s a chiyuv on women to dress with tznius.

    To levelset, I don’t think anyone would say there is no such “chiyuv” to dress Tzanuah. As with all things, the question is how much, the geder and why.

    Rav Moshe says there (and I’ll try to look up if that is the correct spot) that as long as a woman dresses similar to other women in her area, even though it is not “Tzanuah” and she should do better, it is still not Overes Al Da’as Yehudis since she dresses similar to other women.

  • #1210412

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    ZD, okay, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.

    GAW, who says he’s talking about how she dresses? If anything, in the beginning of the teshuvah, he seems so distraught that some women weren’t covering their arms, that he doesn’t want to discuss it further.

  • #1210413

    lightbrite
    Participant

    Pretzel chicken

    zahavasdad: Wow sending brachot for renewal, parnassa, binah, and recovery to all who you know that lost articles and more in the Haifa fires.

  • #1210414

    DY – and at the end? End story, it may not be great (which I won’t argue), but there is no Chiyuv other than “Chassidus L’Tznius Yesierah”.

    It is quite obvious that Rav Moshe disagrees with the Mishna Berurah on this point.

  • #1210415

    Joseph
    Participant

    gaw, where is your cutoff? Sleeveless is halachicly assur? Short sleeves halfway between shoulder and elbow? Miniskirt assur? Why is halfway not always assur but sleeveless/miniskirt is?

  • #1210416

    Joe – Ask your LOR.

  • #1210417

    Joseph
    Participant

    gaw, the net result of taking your comments to its natural conclusion is that sleeveless and miniskirts aren’t necessarily assur in the street.

  • #1210418

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    “Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 75:1 talks about how tznious is dependent to your surroundings”

    “On the other hand, the Mishnah Berurah does understand the Gemara in Berachos to be delineating a base line of what must be covered, and that is why shok is singled out (albeit with a more meikel definition of shok). While the Mishnah Berurah’s position has become the presumption in the Yeshiva world, one can’t say that it is wrong to rely on the Shulchan Aruch.”

    The Shulchan Aruch says no such thing. He writes (75/1): “tefach meguleh b’isha b’makom shedarka l’chsoso, afilu hi ishto, assur l’kros krias shema k’negda”.

    “If a tefach is showing in a woman of the places that are supposed to be covered, a man is not allowed to say Krias Shema in front of her”

    The Mishna Berurah explains that the Shulchan Aruch is referring to:

    1. the upper legs and upper arms EVEN if the minhag hamakom is for them to be uncovered.

    2. The lower arms and legs if the minhag hamakom is for them to be covered.

  • #1210419

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    Sources from contemporary Poskim that minhag hamakom does not make a difference (in terms of “shok” and “z’roah” and hair with the exception of Krias Shema with hair):

    1. Yabia Omer 6, Orach Chaim Siman 14, letter 3: “Haholchos b’gilui zroos overes al hadin, v’af al pi sheze darchan k’sil lamo, pshita sheasur l’kros krias Shaema u’l’varech k’negdan… ain l’hakel bazeh klal. u’cvar casav haGaon m’Lubavitch: ha’im nomar sh’im yirtzu hanashim lnhog laleches bimos hakayitz b’shuk meguleh, sh’ail bazeh mishum shuk b’isha ervah, m’pna shenahagu cach? yishtaka hadavar v’lo yomar, vadai, kaivan shehu ervah, lo moil mihhag bazeh”

    “Those who walk around with revealed arms are transgressing the law, and even though this is their usual foolish way, it is obvious that it is forbidden to say krias shema and to make brachos in front of them.. and one is not allowed to be lenient in this matter. And the Lubavitcher Rebbe (The Tzemach Tzedek, grandson of the Tanya) already wrote: Would we say that if women want to walk around in the summer with uncovered “shok” (upper leg) that it is not included in “shok b’isha erva” since they are accustomed to do so? We can certainly not say such a thing. SINCE IT IS ERVAH, THE MINHAG (CUSTOM) DOES NOT HELP”.

    2. Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim 1, Simanim 42,43:

    “rak b’searos megulos, shenispartzu b’davar rov hanashim b’avonoseinu harabim, ain l’esor l’kros krias Shema k’negdan m’taam shecasav Aruch HaShulchan, shekaivan shenispartzu b’davar harbei nashim, af sheovros issur, ail din ervah lkrias Shema u’l’divrei Torah..aval im nireh bsaral b’makom shetzarich lihiyos mechuseh, af sheholchos megulos mitzad pritzus, yesh l’esor m’lkros Krias Shema v’amiras Davar Torah k’negdan.”

    “Only with uncovered hair, which has become widespread amongst most women due to our many sins, we can’t forbid the recitation of Krias Shema in front of them for the reason given by the Aruch HaShulchan, that since it has become common amongst many women, even though THEY ARE COMMITTING A SIN, it is not ervah regarding the recitation of Krias Shema and Divrei Torah… but if their skin shows in places that it is supposed to be covered, EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE NORM TO WALK AROUND THAT WAY BECAUSE OF PRITZUS, it is still forbidden to recite Krias Shema or to say Divrei Torah in front of them.”

    We see the following from these sources:

    1. In terms of hair, upper arms and upper legs, the “minhag hamakom” makes no difference in terms of its being forbidden to walk around that way.

    2. The only situation in which one of these things becomes more lenient due to minhag hamakom is for saying Krias Shema or Divrei Torah in front of a woman with uncovered hair. However, even in terms of uncovered hair, it is still forbidden to walk around that way.

    3. These halachos are not just about a man saying krias Shema in front of a woman. It is also forbidden for a woman to walk around with these areas uncovered even if no one is saying Krias Shema.

    4. The halachos of Krias Shema are actually more lenient (I think DY may have pointed this out earlier).

  • #1210420

    Joe – Ask your LOR if they are pritzus or Da’as Yehudis in your community. Those are the reasons why it may be Assur.

    LUL – I wouldn’t expect the Mishna Berurah to explain the SA any other way than his own shittah. Others disagree.

    Your first source holds like the Mishna Berurah. Nothing new there, others argue.

    Your second source specifically says “b’makom shetzarich lihiyos mechuseh”, i.e. Da’as Yehudis. I’ve already proved from the Teshuva in Even Haezer earlier that Rav Moshe holds Da’as Yehudis depends on the place.

    Also, as pointed out earlier, no one disagrees that hair needs to be covered in some fashion (Da’as Moshe), and not doing so is Mevatel the Drasha from the Torah (a “sin”, although not a Lav or a Bitul Aseh, l’cheorah).

    Nothing new there either.

    Finally, Rav Moshe (in that very teshuva!!) says that Ervah for Kriyas Shema has nothing to do whatsoever with what a woman may or may not walk on the street. If you read the teshuva inside (again?), you will see it.

  • #1210421

    lightbrite
    Participant

    LU: You said that it’s forbidden for women to walk around with exposed knees.

    Does that apply to sitting too? Does it say anything about having covered knees specifically while sitting?

    I know that there are signs, rules, and rabbonim that say that a skirt/dress must be x in/cm longer than one’s knees so that they don’t show when one is sitting.

    Wondering if that is explicitly stated here too

    Thanks

  • #1210422

    Joseph
    Participant

    “Ask your LOR if they are pritzus or Da’as Yehudis in your community. Those are the reasons why it may be Assur.”

    gaw, seriously? You’re uncertain whether sleeveless and/or a miniskirt is pritzus/assur for every Jewish woman everywhere?!

    LB: Sitting, walking, going up stairs or getting into a car is no different than standing. If it must be covered while standing, by definition, it must be covered while sitting or any other movement. The point is that it must *always* be covered in public or when in the presence of non-family men.

  • #1210423

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    A: GAW: “LUL – I wouldn’t expect the Mishna Berurah to explain the SA any other way than his own shittah. Others disagree.”

    1. That’s not true. Sometimes the Mishna Brurah disagrees with the Shulchan Aruch. In those cases, the Mishna Brurah is not explaining the SA according to his own shita.

    2. Benignuman seemed to think that the MB is disagreeing with the SA here. He is not – he is explaining what the SA is saying.

    3. Are you trying to say that you understand the SA better than the MB does???!!!!

    4. There is nothing whatsoever in the words of the SA that says that upper legs and upper legs go by minhag hamakom.

    B: GAW: “Your second source specifically says “b’makom shetzarich lihiyos mechuseh”, i.e. Da’as Yehudis. I’ve already proved from the Teshuva in Even Haezer earlier that Rav Moshe holds Da’as Yehudis depends on the place.”

    1. “b’makom shehetarich l’hiyos mechuseh” refers to those parts of the body that have to be covered.

    2. Rav Moshe clearly states in the above teshuva that these parts have to be covered regardless of the place.

    C: “Also, as pointed out earlier, no one disagrees that hair needs to be covered in some fashion (Da’as Moshe), and not doing so is Mevatel the Drasha from the Torah (a “sin”, although not a Lav or a Bitul Aseh, l’cheorah).”

    I thought you had said or implied that hair didn’t have to be covered. It is true that all you had said was that it’s not a lav or a bitul aseh, but that seemed to be response to my saying that it is assur for hair to be completely uncovered, thereby implying it is not assur.

    I do not know what category of issur it is and never claimed to know. I merely stated that it is assur.

    D: “Finally, Rav Moshe (in that very teshuva!!) says that Ervah for Kriyas Shema has nothing to do whatsoever with what a woman may or may not walk on the street. If you read the teshuva inside (again?), you will see it.”

    My points were:

    1. That we see that the places that have to be covered for K”S have to be covered in general. R’ Ovadiah, Zatsal, writes about z’roah and shok having to be covered in general, and R’ Moshe writes about hair having to be covered in general. It is not necessarily clear from these teshuvos that we learn it from K”S, but I never made that claim. I merely said that we see that these areas have to be covered in general.

    It is true that R’ Moshe doesn’t mention shok and z’roah here. Again, I never claimed that he did – R’ Ovadiah talks about shok and z’roah here and R’ Moshe talks about hair. I am also positive that R’ Moshe has a teshuva where writes that shok either refers to the leg from the knee up or to the entire leg. He might write that the bottom half of the leg depends on minhag hamakom. But he almost definitely writes that the leg from the knee up is completely assur according to everyone.

    I don’t have Igros Moshe at home, but I will try to find it over Shabbos, and post it M”S, bli neder.

    2. Rav Moshe in the above Teshuva is davka more lenient for Krias Shema. It seems that the halachos are more stringent when it’s not for Krias Shema.

    But I will try to read Rav Moshe’s Teshuvos over Shabbos inside.

    I also have several other sources regarding the fact that it is assur in general for a man to see these areas even when not saying Krias Shema and that it is assur for a woman to not cover these areas. But I am too tired to post them now, and I have to get ready for Shabbos, so it will probably wait till M”S or Sunday as well.

  • #1210424

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    LB: “Does that apply to sitting too? Does it say anything about having covered knees specifically while sitting?”

    Yes, that is the halacha. I am too tired and don’t have time to post those sources, so it will have to wait till M”S or Sunday as well (unless DY beats me to it).

    Have a great Shabbos!

  • #1210425

    gaw, seriously? You’re uncertain whether sleeveless and/or a miniskirt is pritzus/assur for every Jewish woman everywhere?!

    No, I’m avoiding the question on purpose, because the line does depend on the time and place.

    But if it makes you happy…..

    A Lexus is Pritzus and not Tznius. 🙂

  • #1210426

    LUL – I await you going through the Sugyah, not quoting others and writing their opinions. You may as well copy and paste FrumTeens.

    Would you please inform us who you are quoting?

    Have a great shabbos,

  • #1210427

    LUL – Also, if you ever go through Rishonim and Achronim on a Sugyah, it is normal that the Shittah brings others to support. Then, when looking at the source, it doesn’t support that Shittah, and others bring the source for the other shittah. That is why you always need to look at the source inside.

    Personally, I trust the Beis Yosef himself who quotes the Rosh and Rashba that I brought earlier over the MB “interpretation”.

    Finally, I did not see the MB bring any textual proof from the SA to his shittah, he rather brings the Rayah directly from the Gemorah (as pointed out earlier, similar to the Sefer HaEshkol).

  • #1210428

    Does that apply to sitting too? Does it say anything about having covered knees specifically while sitting?

    I know that there are signs, rules, and rabbonim that say that a skirt/dress must be x in/cm longer than one’s knees so that they don’t show when one is sitting.

    If you understand knees and elbows to be Da’as Yehudis (like the Mishna Berurah, or in a place where they are normally covered l’diverei HaKol), then they would need to be covered when in the Shuk at all times.

    I personally never got the signs, because what if someone sitting down has their knees showing even after the extra four inches? I’ve also seen 10 CM, and those are not the same as 4 inches, which shiur is it?

  • #1210430

    Joseph
    Participant

    benignuman, K-Cup: Please explain why it can never be the community “minhag”, and thus muttar, to wear sleeveless and/or miniskirts.

    And then explain how sleeveless and miniskirts are halachicly different than any garment that shows any skin above the elbow and/or above the knee.

  • #1210431

    Joe – Please explain how sleeveless and/or miniskirts are or are not “Pritzus”.

    There are two different Halachos. Da’as Yehudis and Pritzus. One can be over pritzus and not Da’as Yehudis (red is often brought as an example), or vice versa.

    One is Yorah Deyah (Chukas Hagoyim), the other is Even HaEzer.

  • #1210432

    Joseph
    Participant

    gaw, please explain how sleeveless and/or miniskirts are or are not of the same “pritzus” status as any other garment that fails to completely cover everything above the elbow and/or above the knee.

  • #1210433

    Joe – I did already, no need to say the same thing twice. They are two different Halachos.

    I’m waiting for you to explain why sleeveless and/or miniskirts are or are not pritzus.

  • #1210434

    Joseph
    Participant

    gaw, where have you explained the difference in pritzus status of a sleeveless shirt versus a short sleeve shirt or the difference in pritzus status of a miniskirt versus a skirt that stops an inch above the knee?

  • #1210435

    Joe – why do any of those have any pritzus status? I’ve asked you to explain it to me and you refuse. You must think that they are all NOT Pritzus.

  • #1210436

    FuturePOTUS
    Participant

    I’m in a Modern Orthodox (my definition here is that they self-identify as such) shul in the Boca Raton/Palm Beach area for Shabbos this week, and Avi Weiss is here for shabbos (note this is not his shul, I learn in a Yeshiva and would never go to such a place). We asked a shaila to the Yeshiva Mashgiach as to what to what to do here, and he said to treat him as the average person there treats him. We were told not to go out of our way to respect him, or (importantly) to disrespect him. He will most probably be giving a speech sometime over Shabbos. (For those of you who are wondering, he is at this shul because the person who pays for the full operation is a huge supporter of his, and money is the key to everything. It’s complicated.) I’ll update everyone as to what happens, or what he says after Shabbos. Have a Good Shabbos everyone!!

  • #1210437

    twisted
    Member

    GAW: re: “if she is benind the mechitza”

    Do you know there is a mehitza in the picture?

    Have you never heard of or r”l seen a ten tefach or lucite mechtza? Maybe she is the shliach tzibbur?

    Maybe she is the rabbi?

  • #1210438

    FuturePOTUS
    Participant

    Shavua Tov!!

    OK update: He was apparently only staying in the place where we were, although he will be at the shul I was at in two weeks or so. I did speak to him for five or ten minutes and I noticed as follows: He seems to be incredibly sincere about what he does, and really believes what he’s doing is correct. He is a very soft spoken individual, and he has a calming affect on people and really draws people in. He’s so soft spoken and easy going, it’s hard to have any strong emotions against him in person, which I have no doubt plays out to his advantage. We didn’t speak of anything to do with Open Orthodoxy or any hashkafa at all. It was kind of funny how after the conversation he used the elevator and had a non-Jew press the buttons.

  • #1210439

    lightbrite
    Participant

    B’Hatzlacha FuturePOTUS!!! 🙂

  • #1210440

    Do you know there is a mehitza in the picture?

    Have you never heard of or r”l seen a ten tefach or lucite mechtza? Maybe she is the shliach tzibbur?

    Maybe she is the rabbi?

    I know she is the Imam, so she can’t be the Rabbi 🙂

  • #1210441

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    GAW, I don’t have time and energy for this discussion tonight. I hope to respond tomorrow, but a few important points I do want to make now:

    GAW: “LUL – I await you going through the Sugyah, not quoting others and writing their opinions. You may as well copy and paste FrumTeens.

    Would you please inform us who you are quoting?”

    Excuse me! That is rather insulting! I am not in the habit of just quoting random people without looking things up myself. I know how to learn, thank you. And I certainly don’t copy and paste from Frumteens.

    My source for the Shulchan Arucha and Mishna Brura were the Shulchan Aruch and Mishna Brura.

    The Igros Moshe and R’ Ovadiah were from “Hatzneia Leches” by Rav Ellinson, which is one the only sefarim on hilchos tznius that actually brings sources, which is why it is the only seifer on hilchos tznius that I have any use for. (the translation was my own. So was the transliteration – typing in hebrew takes too long).

    I usually try to look things up inside, but since I don’t have an Igros Moshe at home, I was not able to do so Erev Shabbos. But since he brings the sources themselves, it is basically the same thing as looking it up myself.

    In any case, I did look up the Igros Moshe tonight inside the actual Sefer, and I did not notice anything different than what was brought in R’ Ellinson’s Sefer.

    “LUL – Also, if you ever go through Rishonim and Achronim on a Sugyah, it is normal that the Shittah brings others to support. Then, when looking at the source, it doesn’t support that Shittah, and others bring the source for the other shittah. That is why you always need to look at the source inside.”

    I’ve gone through Rishonim and Achronim on Sugyahs, but I didn’t quite understand this sentence. Maybe I’ll try reading it again when I’m more awake. In any case, I usually do look up sources when I can, but I didn’t have the necessary Sefarim. I will try to get ahold of them this week if I can.

    I have a lot more to say, but am too tired now, so it will have to wait.

  • #1210442

    lightbrite
    Participant

    FuturePOTUS: Shavua tov 🙂 …oops my previous post was sent before reading your last post.

    Please remove the rest of this question if it is lashon hara….

    About having a nonJew press the elevator buttons, was the nonJew someone who came along with him? Or did he just ask a random person who was in the vicinity to push the button for him?

    If you happened to be going up to the same exact floor at that time, hypothetically, would you have been halachically permitted to jump inside the elevator (if there was the time, and it wouldn’t mess with the doors closing) and get off at the same floor as him?

  • #1210443

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    GAW: “I personally never got the signs, because what if someone sitting down has their knees showing even after the extra four inches? I’ve also seen 10 CM, and those are not the same as 4 inches, which shiur is it?”

    My undertanding is that what the Rabbanim are saying is that 4 centimeters is the minimum that could possibly be okay for any skirt for any person. But it is not always enough, since some skirts/people may require more. Generally speaking, the straighter the skirt is, the more material it will need to ensure that knees are always covered.

    Additionally, if someone crosses their legs, they need much more material and people don’t always take that into account when shopping (or they kid themselves into thinking they will never cross their legs, and then they do).

    It always bothers me when people talk about the 4 inches as though the halacha is that your skirts have to be 4 inches below your knee. That is not the halacha! The halacha is that you knees must always be covered at all times, and that is impossible with a skirt that is less than 4 inches below your knee. (at least that is what I’ve been told. Personally, I have never measured a skirt). But it is assur to buy a skirt that is 4 or even 5 inches below your knees if your knees will end up showing.

    Personally, before I buy skirts, I take a chair and put it in front of the mirror and sit down and cross my legs and see if my knees show or not. I also try to look in the mirror to see how the skirt looks in both the front and back when walking or standing, because sometimes skirts are shorter in the back. Sometimes, I ask the saleslady if I can wear the skirt outside so I can see how it is getting into the car.

    I didn’t know that 10 centimeters was not the same as 4 inches. It probably started with 10 centimeters since they use centimeters in EY, and then they rounded it off for inches. Do you know how much 10 centimeters is? And are you sure 10 is what they say for centimeters? (as I said, I have never paid that much attention to these measurements).

  • #1210444

    lightbrite
    Participant

    LU: Seriously LOL!!!! 🙂

    Maybe you have one of those dear sweet faces that make it impossible not to trust you. Or you’re so frum about tznius that Hashem pacifies all oppositional forces so you can concentrate on getting your measurements right.

    Unless it’s her own boutique, I don’t even know if that’s legal. At least in the US, once one is out of the store, that’s fair ground for the police to tackle someone to the sidewalk. At least that’s what I learned from working retail.

    10 centimeters is 3.937 inches

  • #1210445

    lightbrite
    Participant

    I’m guessing rabbonim felt safe rounding up .073 inches for Americans since we’re already far from the holy land.

    We could use a little greater margin of error to play it safe.

    Also, more Americans in the US use machine dryers, which notoriously shrink clothing. Especially before polyester fabrics became so popular and readily available.

    Twas a strategic formulation.

  • #1210446

    benignuman
    Participant

    Lilmod,

    You wrote: “The Shulchan Aruch says no such thing. He writes (75/1): “tefach meguleh b’isha b’makom shedarka l’chsoso, afilu hi ishto, assur l’kros krias shema k’negda”. Which you translated as: If a tefach is showing in a woman of the places that are supposed to be covered, a man is not allowed to say Krias Shema in front of her. But that is not what the words actually mean. “Shedarka l’chsoso” doesn’t mean “supposed to be covered” it means “that is her way to cover it.”

    The Bais Yosef, in his sefer Bais Yosef explains his opinion and how he learns the Gemara. The Mishna Berurah’s mehalech in the Gemara does not fit the Bais Yosef. The Mishna Berurah is allowed to argue on the Bais Yosef, but he is certainly arguing.

    According to the Bais Yosef the Gemara’s statement of “shok b’isha erva” is an example of something you might have thought was not a makom mechusa, because it was typically uncovered by men, k’mashma lan it is a makom mechusa, because women usually keep it covered. The Bais Yosef is clear that there is no separate, special or new din from shok b’isha erva. And, according to the Bais Yosef’s way of learning the Gemara, shok must mean the lower half of the leg, which men did not always cover.

    On the other hand, the Mishna Berurah, l’shitoso, could learn that shok b’isha erva is referring to the top half of the leg, because it is stating a special din by shok that it always has the status of erva.

  • #1210447

    FuturePOTUS
    Participant

    Thank you, lightbrite! 🙂

    The non-Jew was the receptionist at the condominium complex we were staying at. I’m unaware how Avi Weiss asked him, or hinted to him to open it, so I can’t say. I simply turned around and saw him press the button for him. Regardless of pressing the buttons, there are two other major problems with going in the elevator: the first is that the extra weight in the elevator makes the machinery work harder, and the second is the automatic sensor on the elevator door. Besides that, there’s probably a problem of muktzah. I saw a noted sfardi posek (I don’t remember who, but he’s a household name) however, that said going on an escalator on shabbos is permitted.

  • #1210448

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    LB – I would only do it in a Frum store. To be perfectly honest, I think I only did it once (I don’t have a car, so it’s usually not possible), and that one time, not only was it a Frum store, but it was a Gemach store (everything costs around $3.00; some is new and some is hand-me-downs).

    In any case, Frum people usually trust Frum people, and even not-Frum Jews often trust Frum people. I remember being in a not-Frum sock store when I was in a high school, and when I got to the counter, I realized I needed to ask my mother (who was in the car) something before I paid, so I asked the guy if I could go out to the car. He let me take the socks with me, saying something like, “of course I would trust a nice Jewish girl.”

    And in Eretz Yisrael, it happened more than once that I didn’t have enough money, and the guy told me I could pay him back another time. Once, it was in Machane Yehuda! And another time in Angel’s.

    Jews tend to trust other Jews, Boruch Hashem!

  • #1210449

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    LB – yeah, that sounds close enough to me. It’s not like we are talking about a halachic measurement per se’. If that were the case, they would probably have to be more accurate. We are talking about a general measurement given as a guideline to help people make sure that their knees are covered (as I understand the issue).

    And I like your reasoning for rounding up.

  • #1210450

    benignuman
    Participant

    Joseph,

    As I think GAW was saying (I haven’t actually read every post), Daas Yehudis means dressing like a modest Jewish woman and not like the prutzim. Now, even today with the lower standards that exist in some communities, and even by the goyim, there is still a concept of dressing modestly. While what is considered modestly is less modest than in our communities, it is still adhering to the idea of Daas Yehudis.

    The question is how far you can go theoretically. I don’t know.

  • #1210451

    lilmod ulelamaid – Joe is known to cut and paste from Frumteens. That was not meant to be disrespectful to you, and I apologize if it was. L’maase, you were quoting someone quoting Rav Moshe, you did not (yet) look it up inside. It may be worth your while (as you seem to agree) to assume that the person (even if a Talmid Chacham) quoting does so selectively at best, or with and agenda. Look at the sources yourself and come to your own conclusion. Many Rishonim and Achronim quote others as support for their shittos, and when you look inside the actual source, they said no such thing.

    As far as the Iggros Moshe is concerned, when discussing hair, there is no question that some prohibition is involved. Read the one that I brought earlier in Even HaEzer 1:69 discussing Da’as Yehudis.

    I do not know Rav Ellinson (from whose sefer you quoted), but I will be Dan L’Kaf Zechus that he brings down both shittos. I will wait until you can do some more research.

    Finally, I’m glad that you agree that 4 inches is not Halacha. A certain “Rabbi” supposedly put out a letter that wearing a skirt that is less that 4 inches below the knee is just as Assur (“no less forbidden”) as eating Treif or going mixed swimming. Then again, in the same letter he also said that you must have 3 inches of “slack” at the widest point of a woman’s shirt. It is critical to know what is Halacha, Chumra and Geder.

    Being Dan L’Kaf Zechus, I assume the letter is a forgery, but some people really do think as such.

  • #1210452

    LUL – You do have the more difficult task. I agree that there are two different shittos, one saying Da’as Yehudis is at minimum what it was at the time of Chazal, the other holding it depends on the time and place. You are saying there is only one shittah.

    As long as there are valid shittos that say Da’as Yehudis depends on the time and place (for example, the Iggors Moshe in Even HaEzer, or the Diveri Chamudos semi-quoted earlier by DaasYochid), the room for leniency exists (whether I personally use it or not). That creates a Limmed Zechus on many Jews from both this generation and prior generations (which both of us should view as positive). Whether you or I would Pasken like that, and go out with elbows uncovered (or Ittisa), is irrelevant.

  • #1210453

    Joseph
    Participant

    benignuman:

    Can you explain your understanding of the differences in pritzus status or any daas yehudis differences or any other halachic status differences, if any, of a sleeveless shirt versus a short sleeve shirt or the difference in pritzus/daas yehudis/halachic status of a miniskirt versus a skirt that stops an inch above the knee?

  • #1210454

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    Benignuman – I will try to look at the Bais Yosef when I have a chance. Thanks.

  • #1210455

    Avi K
    Participant

    One can ask a non-Jew to do an issur d’rabbanan for the sake of a mitzva or great need (SA OC 307:5). According to most opinions using electricity (other than incandescent lights) is such a prohibition. Some claim that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach even said that really there is no prohibition but minhag Yisrael is to be machmir.

    So far as the extra weight question is concerned see “The Shabbat Elevator” by

    Rabbi Yisrael Rozen (on-line). As for the sensor, if the non-Jew enters with the Jew and is first I would imagine that the Jew did not do anything (and the non-Jew did it for himself). See also “When May I Ask a Gentile for Help on Shabbos? Part II” by Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff (also on-line).

  • #1210456

    lightbrite
    Participant

    LUU: Has the CR become your second FT job? Sending you brachot for good health, strength, sleep, parnassah and all. ?

  • #1210457

    Joseph
    Participant

    benignuman: “The question is how far you can go theoretically. I don’t know.”

    So as far as you know, anything leaving anything above the elbows/knees uncovered could be considered as going too far outside halacha.

    (Our last posts crossed.)

  • #1210458

    Avi K,

    Missed much of the proceeeding thread

    You usually could find,if you desire to, one abberrant shitah and trumpet it

    Presumably,you are aware of those who hold it is Boneh and other issurim

    Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s son R’Shmuel was asked how come he is so more right wing/stringent than his father was

    His response:We heard what our father said in the kitchen when the doors were closed

    ‘the extra weight question is concerned see “The Shabbat Elevator” by

    Rabbi Yisrael Rozen (on-line)’

    Rabbi Rozen is useful perhaps when Bsha’as had’chak, hardly normative

    He has been over the years has been sidelined by leading Poskim

  • #1210459

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    GAW: “L’maase, you were quoting someone quoting Rav Moshe, you did not (yet) look it up inside. It may be worth your while (as you seem to agree) to assume that the person (even if a Talmid Chacham) quoting does so selectively at best, or with and agenda. Look at the sources yourself and come to your own conclusion”

    I agree that it is always best to look things up inside. I do think though that there is a very big difference between someone “quoting” a source, and actually bringing the source. Rav Ellinson brings the actual sources. While it may be somewhat preferable to actually look up the sources myself, I don’t think it’s THAT different. It is like going to a shiur where they bring source sheets as opposed to actual Sefarim. It is certainly not in the same category as quoting someone who is simply quoting a source (or cutting and pasting from Frumteens, whatever that is).

    I also do tend to trust Rav Ellinson, because he is someone who brings sources and does bring a variety of opinions, and doesn’t simply say things like, “All the Gedolim say…” like some Sefarim do, without listing sources or even explaining who exactly “all the Gedolim” are.

    That being said, I do think it’s preferable to look things up myself if possible, but I have no problem trusting R’ Ellinson’s sources until such time as I am able to find the sources myself.

    GAW: “LUL – You do have the more difficult task.”

    Actually, the reason that I have the more difficult task is that it’s harder for me to get ahold of sefarim since I can’t just walk into a shul and use their Sefarim, my own Sefarim collection is limited, and half my Sefarim are in the US.

    “Many Rishonim and Achronim quote others as support for their shittos, and when you look inside the actual source, they said no such thing.”

    I have a problem with this statement. If you are talking about someone contemporary, I could understand it. But I have a hard time seeing how you can claim to understand a source better than a Rishon.

    “Finally, I’m glad that you agree that 4 inches is not Halacha. A certain “Rabbi” supposedly put out a letter that wearing a skirt that is less that 4 inches below the knee is just as Assur (“no less forbidden”) as eating Treif or going mixed swimming.”

    IF it IS true that it is impossible for a skirt to fully cover one’s knees in any position unless it is at least 4 inches below the knees, then that statement is correct. As I said, I have never measured a skirt and I have no idea how much 4 inches is. But it does make sense that it may be the case.

    I think most people don’t realize that if you want to make sure that your knees never show, then your skirts really do need to be way below your knees. The main thing that bothers me about those kinds of statements is that girls are misled into thinking that if their skirts are 4 inches, they are fine, and they may not be.

    I guess the reason people got into the 4 inches thing in the first place was because girls thought they were fine if their skirts covered their knees in the front while they are standing still. Many people nowadays are not sensitive enough to know how to figure out if something is tznius unless they are given a measurement that can be measured with a ruler instead of using their seichel.

    Personally, I have more of an issue with the idea that your skirts can’t be too long, and I plan to start a movement on behalf of long skirts. Halevei that everyone should wear long skirts, imho!

    “It is critical to know what is Halacha, Chumra and Geder.”

    Maskim 100%! I am a big believer in that.

    “Being Dan L’Kaf Zechus, I assume the letter is a forgery, but some people really do think as such.”

    I saw a letter on a busstop recently that someone had written to R’ Chaim about the fact that the high school his daughter wants to go to said they will only accept her if she starts wearing shorter skirts (I think that means not longer than mid-calf or something like that). R’ Chaim said that chalila she should wear shorter skirts even if she won’t get into high school.

    When I told a Rav I know about this, he laughed and said that these letters are usually forgeries (he agrees with the idea that long skirts are a problem).

    “I do not know Rav Ellinson (from whose sefer you quoted), but I will be Dan L’Kaf Zechus that he brings down both shittos.”

    He actually does, but he brings the other as a minority opinion, and my impression was that there are no contemporary Poskim who hold that way.

    That is the main issue I have with the sources you are quoting. While I am happy to do more research and look up these sources (as soon as I can get ahold of them), at the end of the day, if no contemporary Poskim hold that way, it is irrelevant what the Beis Yosef or other Rishonim say. There are many opinions in the Rishonim that we don’t go by, and the fact that someone can find a support in a Rishon for a certain action does not make it okay.

    In fact, I have been wondering if that is the issue with OO and Avi Weiss. I would imagine that Avi Weiss is not the type to do something out of nowhere without finding a source. I thought that the issue might be that one can’t just find their own sources and posken against all the contemporary Gedolim. That is why Daas Torah is such a critical component of Torah Hashkafa. The entire halacha system is based on it.

  • #1210460

    benignuman
    Participant

    Joseph,

    We have a Gemara/Mishna that says covering arms is Daas Yehudis (i.e. minhag of tznius) and if a woman frequently violates this Daas Yehudis she can lose her Kesuba (according to some because this gives the man a right to be choshesh for znus). Now in our modern day American secular culture people can do what ever they want, but there are still judgments made and manners of clothing that are considered modest or immodest. Just dressing immodestly is not considered to be bad thing unless it is in an inappropriate place like the office or a funeral. Boruch Hashem, the standards of modesty in the Modern Orthodox world are higher than the secular American world.

    The key for Daas Yehudis is that the mode of dress cannot be viewed within the community as immodest. When a woman wears clothing that within the community is viewed as immodest she violates Daas Yehudis and her husband has a right to divorce without a kesuba.

    So long as there is a difference between modest dress and immodest dress, those who dress modestly will be within the bounds of Halacha (presuming of course not like the Mishna Berurah and those that hold that Daas Yehudis can’t change l’kula from the Gemara). The problem is if a society ever reached a point where there was no difference between modest and immodest. I don’t know what the halacha would be in such a circumstance. Fortunately, that is not the situation in any frum Jewish community.

  • #1210461

    Avi K
    Participant

    Benignuman, Rav Moshe says (IM EH 1:114, 4:32) that that does not apply in a community where women disregard the requirement. According to “Nefesh HaRav” Rav Soloveichik held the same view.

  • #1210462

    LUL – except here, Rav Moshe is someone one whom you can be Somech.

    I have a problem with this statement. If you are talking about someone contemporary, I could understand it. But I have a hard time seeing how you can claim to understand a source better than a Rishon.

    In most circumstances it is quite obvious. Sometimes the Girsah we have is very different, and sometimes the shittah is trying to defend their p’shat. In either case, most of the “Classic” Rishonim by these types of Machloksim have shittos that understand them both ways, and we the reader have to interpret the way we understand best.

    I think we are in a good place here. Yasher Koach.

  • #1210463

    benignuman
    Participant

    Avi K,

    I didn’t see that in my edition of the Igros Moshe. Can you point me to the line you are referring to. It seems to me that in Even HaEzer 1:114 he says the opposite.

    That being said, my point was that they are not disregarding the idea of dressing modestly, they just have a different definition of what is modest. So they cannot be said to have disregarded the requirement.

  • #1210464

    Joseph
    Participant

    benignuman, if their definition of modesty includes sleeveless in the streets/office, and their community views that as modest (but if it goes uncovered more than to the shoulder then immodest) whereas the secular American world has an even lower definition of modesty in this regard, you see that as halachicly okay?

  • #1210465

    benignuman
    Participant

    Joseph,

    Yes.

  • #1210466

    Joseph
    Participant

    benignuman, replace sleeveless in my above comment with miniskirt, and still yes?

  • #1210467

    lightbrite
    Participant

    I think OO is doing good things. Before I knew what OO was, I read articles by Zev Farber and other rabbis. I thought that maybe there were open minded rabbis out there. Now I realize that these articles and rabbis are part of OO. And they are faced with a lot of rejection in the frum world.

    I don’t want to be part of a congregation that forces someone with a same sex attraction to be abstinent or marry someone of the opposite sex and live without loving and feeling loved. It is not the same as other attractions that we have laws against.

    Okay I know that I am making myself vulnerable to attacks. So have at it.

    Thanks always

  • #1210468

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    I don’t want to be part of a congregation that forces someone with a same sex attraction to be abstinent or marry someone of the opposite sex

    Hashem is the one forcing them.

  • #1210469

    lightbrite
    Participant

    I don’t believe that Hashem would do that.

  • #1210470

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    DY: “Hashem is the one forcing them.”

    +1

    “It is not the same as other attractions that we have laws against.”

    Who says?

    There are many people who are forced to be abstinent for many reasons. What about all the singles? And mamzerim? (while technically, there are ways that mamzeirim can get married, they are not so practical, and are therefore probably irrelevant for most mamzeirim). And what about agunos?

    Life is hard. Good morning, America. And there are many things in life that are much harder than that. What about all the people who went through the Holocaust? What about all the kids who are abused and/or molested (and this category probably includes most or all people who are gay, btw)?

  • #1210471

    lightbrite
    Participant

    I know it doesn’t matter what I believe. Still would Hashem rather that so many Jews commit suicide chas v’shalom, go otd, or live in misery?

    Reform isn’t the same. Reform in many ways looked outward and tried to make Judaism work with the secular world.

    Seems like OO is doing the opposite. Looking inside the frum world and doing something about the issues that are right there.

    I don’t expect anyone here to agree or say that OO is right. Just wanted to share. Just didn’t feel right about keeping quiet. Thank you.

  • #1210472

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    GAW: “LUL – except here, Rav Moshe is someone one whom you can be Somech.”

    Benignuman: “I didn’t see that in my edition of the Igros Moshe. Can you point me to the line you are referring to. It seems to me that in Even HaEzer 1:114 he says the opposite.”

    GAW, This ^ was my point. I did look at Igros Moshe inside on Motzei Shabbos and it was the same inside as it was in R’ Ellinson’s sefer. I still don’t see what you are saying. He says the opposite. The only thing that is more meikel because of society is saying K”S in front of a woman with uncovered hair.

    I don’t have the Igros Moshe at home, but if you tell me the volume and page # where this Teshuva is (as well as the line you are referring to), I can look it up in hebrew books. Thank you.

  • #1210473

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    I don’t believe that Hashem would do that.

    It’s a clear pasuk in the Torah.

  • #1210474

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    I know it doesn’t matter what I believe. Still would Hashem rather that so many Jews commit suicide chas v’shalom, go otd, or live in misery?

    No, he wants them to overcome their temptations and live productive lives.

  • #1210475

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    DY: “No, he wants them to overcome their temptations and live productive lives.”

    +1

  • #1210476

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    GAW: “lilmod ulelamaid – Joe is known to cut and paste from Frumteens”

    Just for the record, I’m not Joseph. Never have been and never will be 🙂

  • #1210477

    FuturePOTUS
    Participant

    lightbrite, I think I understand what you mean. It’s hard to understand how God could create such a challenge in a person that could never be actualized. But there’s an important difference between Open Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy. We ask what God wants out of us, they seem to say the opposite. Where they change halacha to suit themselves, we change ourselves to fit the Torah. Part of how we’re still around is because we never changed our religion to fit the world around us, the lesson not to do that is what we can take out of Chanukah. The other sects of Judaism (Reform, Conservative, etc.) that changed the religion are declining in numbers drastically, and a secular study shows that years in the future, Orthodoxy will be the only remaining functioning Jewish sect in America. To look elsewhere, l’havdil, the pope changed Catholicism to fit “modern times” and numbers are declining there, parishes are closing, and I heard from a Christian man just yesterday, that he’s destroying the religion. We cannot change religion to suit modern times, we must change our attitude towards it. I believe the question of homosexuality in Judaism to be a different discussion.

  • #1210478

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    LB – You are a wonderful, spiritual person who has a lot of Ahavas Hashem and is working very hard to grow closer to Hashem and to do the right thing.

    But it seems to me that you have a hard time with the concept of bending your will to Hashem’s Will and not trying to change His Will to fit with your own.

    While Loving Hashem and having a positive attitude are very important, it is at least as important to remember that our purpose in life is to be “Ovdei Hashem” – to serve Hashem and to be willing to do whatever He wants us to do, no matter how hard it is.

    What if Avraham Avinu had said, “How could a loving G-d possibly tell me to sacrifice my son? This makes no sense!” He would have been well-excused for thinking that and refusing to go forward with Akeidas Yitzchak.

    If he had done that, where would be today? We are around today in his zchus. We daven to Hashem in the zchus avos (merits of the fathers). What does this mean? Why should Hashem favor us because of what our ancestors did?

    It is because we have inherited their spiritual genes. Avraham’s sacrifice gave us the potential and ability to make similar sacrifices. Hashem is not asking us to do what Avraham Avinu did, but He asks us to make similar sacrifices, each on his own level. Different people have different challenges; some are harder and some are easier. Hashem gives greater challenges to those who are greater because He knows they can handle it and they have the ability to reach greater heights. The greater the challenge, the greater the reward in the end, and the greater the accomplishment, and the greater the person will feel in the end when they overcome their desires in order to bend themselves to Hashem’s Will.

    We all have challenges, and we all have opportunities to serve Hashem by bending our will to His.

  • #1210479

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    LB – I don’t know if you saw my earlier post. By the time it was moderated, you had already posted your next post, so it might have gotten missed. I wanted to make sure you see it, so I am posting the link”

    http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/open-orthodoxy/page/4#post-642352

  • #1210480

    LUL – Even HaEzer 1:69

  • #1210481

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    GAW – Thanks. My question was: What volume of Igros Moshe is it in? And on what page?

    If I had an Igros Moshe, I could find it myself. But since I don’t, I will have to look in hebrewbooks, and I find it hard to find things there if I don’t know the exact volume (and preferably page number). Thank you.

  • #1210482

    benignuman
    Participant

    Lilmod,

    I was referring to Avi K’s citation to Igros Moshe, not GAW’s. With respect to losing one’s kesuba, Rav Moshe says it explicitly even for the d’Oraisa of hair covering. Arms and other body parts that are just minhag is a kol shekein.

  • #1210483

    lightbrite
    Participant

    Thank you LU <3

  • #1210485

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    “With respect to losing one’s kesuba, Rav Moshe says it explicitly even for the d’Oraisa of hair covering.”

    He says they don’t lose their kesuva, but he says they are still doing something wrong.

  • #1210486

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    LB – you’re the best! By the way, I am impressed that you were willing to put yourself “out on the line” in order to express your thoughts. I do think it’s important for you to do so as you try to figure things out. (as long as it’s done respectfully, which it always is).

    shkoyach!

  • #1210487

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    FuturePotus – Shkoyach! That was very well-put!

  • #1210488

    benignuman
    Participant

    Joseph,

    Miniskirt is little harder. I think the analysis remains the same according to the Bais Yosef, and so in such a situation the community would have al mi lismichu. However, I personally think that Mishnah Berurah’s read of the Gemarah in Berachos works better, so I couldn’t say that I believe it is halachicaly okay.

  • #1210489

    Joseph
    Participant

    Why is miniskirts harder than sleeveless?

    And how’s the MB’s read better?

  • #1210490

    Avi K
    Participant

    Lilmod, Rav Moshe’s teshuva is in Iggrot Moshe Even HaEzer vol. 1. 114. Rav Ovadia disagrees (Yabia Omer vol. 3, Even HaEzer 21). So it would turn on who is muchzak (has possession ofthe asset) as in such a case we leave it with him or her. The Supreme Rabbinical Court (file 835204/1 – available on-line) in fact ruled that the husband is muchzak in the ketuba so here she would lose it. What an American bet din would do is another question as it is a machloket (see’Shiur #12: “Muchzakut” With Regard to the Ketuba Payment” by Rav Yair Kahn Translated by David Silverberg available on-line) However, the rabbinical courts here have accepted the Community Property Law as halachically binding as minhag hamedina. Thus they are both muchzak in matrimonial property. An interesting situation would be if she grabs the value ofthe ketuba before leaving as she might then be considered the muchzeket (see

    ????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???? – available on-line).

    FuturePOTUS, to my understanding OO is not condoning acts but looking the other way. Is this different than looking the other way regarding people who commit financial crimes (also a toeva – Devarim 25:13).

  • #1210491

    Avi K
    Participant

    It should be noted that Rav Ovadia does not say that he must divorce her. In fact, he says explicitly that the situation in our times could be reason to allow him to stay married to her.

  • #1210492

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    FuturePOTUS, to my understanding OO is not condoning acts but looking the other way. Is this different than looking the other way regarding people who commit financial crimes

    There is a difference between condoning certain relationship and looking the other way. Many mainstream more modern places do look the other way , but they will not openly endorse anything

  • #1210493

    benignuman
    Participant

    Joseph,

    Arms, from the Gemara in Kesubos, are clearly only a Daas Yehudis (i.e. minhag). Legs, on the other hand, are mentioned in the Gemara as erva. The Shulchan Aruch (following the Rambam) understands legs as just an example of something you might have thought was not a makom mechusa, but really is. To me this is a more dochek reading of the Gemara. I explained why at length in a previous thread but I can’t remember what it was called.

  • #1210494

    benignuman
    Participant
  • #1210495

    LUL – Volume 3, pages 168 & 169. It is very clear this is what Rav Moshe holds.

  • #1210496

    “FuturePOTUS, to my understanding OO is not condoning acts but looking the other way. “

    Naivete is hardly a laudable trait

    Here are some of several articles by Rabbi Gordimer worth a read

    Will the Real Modern Orthodoxy Please Stand Up?

    Open Orthodoxy and the Rebirth of the Conservative Movement

    The Open Orthodox Race to the Edge and Beyond: When Will It Stop..

  • #1210497

    lightbrite,

    There is a bigger greater destiny for the World with the Torah as the Compass and lodestone.We all must bend if our inclinations for the it (and yes all suffer if you wish to call it that)

    By choosing to harp on one topic and individuals you’re avoiding

    asking the bigger questions e.g.how come the Holocaust?How come there is suffering?Are we heading somewhere?Where are we heading?

  • #1210498

    FuturePOTUS
    Participant

    I think making a halachic permission of nursing in shul goes beyond simply looking the other way. Same with recommending donations to rebuild a church and other ‘heterim.’ Also, by looking the other way, they are more or less condoning an action. ‘Celebrating’ toevah marriage isn’t far from endorsing it, but that is more difficult for them to permit because it is explicitly banned in the Torah.

    I’m not sure if it’s halachically different than financial crimes, but I don’t see why it should be.

  • #1210499

    Lightbrite,

    Anyone born with a predilection to murder,adultery, or ,say,shoplifting and will be unable to control themselves

    Should we give them a free pass??

    “The greste k’fira in heintige tzeitin, is k’fira in bechira !”

    which applies to anyone who for whatever sad reason is an

    and has little/zero attraction for the opposite gender

    On the other hand if they “come out of the closet” We absolutely have to push them out, if Orthodoxy is to mean anything at all

  • #1210500

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    Avi K and GAW – thank you for the sources. I will look at it when I have a chance, b”n.

  • #1210501

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    So I just checked on HebrewBooks, and they don’t seem to have the third volume of Igros Moshe. I guess that explains why I couldn’t find these shu”tim when I tried to look last week.

    And it’s too late to borrow from a neighbor now. So it will probably have to wait. Oh, well.

  • #1210502

    lightbrite
    Participant

    It is Time for Truth and everyone: Thank you for hearing me out and offering me thoughtful feedback. There is a lot to process B”H.

  • #1210503

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    LB – you never cease to impress me! I am extremely impressed by your intellectual honesty, sincerity, and humility. kol hakavod!

  • #1210504

    Lightbrite,

    Anyone born with a predilection to murder,adultery,incest, or ,say,shoplifting and will be unable to control themselves

    Should we give them a free pass??

    Where were you and OO when civilizations of the past accused us for being ‘narrow’,’rigid’ and “destroying peoples’ happiness” due to our refusal to bend for the prior mentioned?Should we have bent? What about all those poor individuals’ “suffering” [ read Shakespeare if/when examples are needed]?

    “The greste k’fira in heintige tzeitin, is k’fira in bechira !”

    which applies to anyone who for whatever sad reason is an

    and has little/zero attraction for the opposite gender

    On the other hand if they “come out” and flaunt it We absolutely have to push them out, if Orthodoxy means anything at all

  • #1210505

    lightbrite
    Participant

    LU: ?

    IITFT: You asked.

    “Where were you and OO when civilizations of the past accused us for being ‘narrow’,’rigid’ and “destroying peoples’ happiness” due to our refusal to bend for the prior mentioned?Should we have bent? What about all those poor individuals’ “suffering” [ read Shakespeare if/when examples are needed]?”

    Obviously we were together then. Hmmmm… that is a good point. That if I and anyone who happens to be affiliated with OO today looked back at how we survived generations ago, then I and we would see that our firmness in our beliefs, our Torah as it is, is our strength and instead of trying to change it today we can honor it. Because Torah is who we really are.

  • #1210506

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    LB: “our Torah as it is, is our strength and instead of trying to change it today we can honor it. Because Torah is who we really are.”

    + 1 billion!!!!

  • #1210507

    lightbrite
    Participant

    Listened to *What’s More Important to God? Effort? Doing All the Mitzvot? Being a Nice Guy?* by Rabbi Zev Leff

    Which recapped and elaborated about info in this thread about doing Hashem’s Will instead of making Hashem fit what we want.

  • #1210508

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    LB – nice! That’s an idea – Rav Leff would be a good Rav/teacher for you. You should check out his website and other shiurim.

  • #1210509

    lightbrite
    Participant

    !!!! Had no clue that he had a website! Found it ~ Thanks LU 🙂

  • #1210510

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    LB -lol, I thought that was where you heard his shiur, so I wasn’t sure if there was a point to telling you about his website. Glad I did in the end!

  • #1210511

    mw13
    Participant

    LB:

    doing Hashem’s Will instead of making Hashem fit what we want.

    +1

    In order to truly develop a relationship with Hashem, we need to honestly figure out what it is that He truly wants us to do, based on what He has told us and based on the teachings of those who have gotten truly close to Him.

    Projecting our own personal pre-conceived notions/beliefs/feelings (which are often based more on the society around us than on any objective criteria) is not only intellectually dishonest, but also perverts the nature of our relationship – we would then be trying to mold God into our image, instead of trying to mold ourselves into God’s image.

    As you correctly observed, staying true to Hashem and His Torah is what has sustained us through the ages and through all of our travails. All of the various movements that have attempted to edit Judaism to fit their own ideas instead of Hashem’s everlasting and unchanging will have fallen and faded into history. Because it is our connection with Hashem, on Hashem’s terms, that keeps us going.

  • #1210512

    Avi K
    Participant

    Time, by calling Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s sheeta, which is the consensus sheeta, aberrant you have put yourself beyond the pale, anecdotal statements notwithstanding.

  • #1210514

    WinnieThePooh
    Participant

    One more thing to add to LB’s comments. There is a concept that Hashem “looked into the Torah and created the world”. If there is a particular issur against a relationship in the Torah, then the world/nature does not contradict that since the Torah came first. To question how can the Torah or Rabbis say something is forbidden when it goes against human nature and tendencies, and Hashem could not possible have meant that, is looking at things from the wrong perspective. Hashem made a mitzva/assur, and created the world accordingly, which means that human nature can and is supposed to try to achieve that ideal, even if it is challenging for a particular individual.

    I can appreciate LB, from reading your posts here and on other threads, that it is far easier for a ba’al teshuva to stop eating non-kosher, keep shabbos, etc. than to change a mindset and feel comfortable with Torah-true hashkafa. Kol Hakavod on your efforts to understand.

  • #1210516

    “Time, by calling Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s sheeta, which is the consensus sheeta, aberrant you have put yourself beyond the pale, anecdotal statements notwithstanding.”

    Consensus ? Of Blogdaism?Really?

    ” created the world accordingly, which means that human nature can and is supposed to try to achieve that ideal, even if it is challenging for a particular individual.”

    The present rage of Epigenetics proves anyone change if they wish it enough.

    The public,media, etc., need to and are attempting to shut down the whole debate now about whether anyone could change precisely because they’re fully aware how it will become public knowledge in a few years that it’s false in toto and anyone COULD change, of course!

    They’re goal is that by then ,it will already be too late and the debate will have indeed been shut

  • #1210517

    Avi K
    Participant

    Time , that is what I have received from my rabbanim. In fact, Rav Shlomo Zalman has very strong rebuttals of the Chazon Ish’s opinion as Well as Rav Schmelkes’ opinion that it ismolid zerem. Among other rebuttals he says that closing a circuit is like closing a door. Moreover, it is not permanent so it cannot be a Torah prohibition. Regarding the issue at hand (in case you have forgotten, riding in an elevator that was activated by a gentile) see Rabbi Chaim Jachter’s on-line series of articles “The Use of Elevators on Shabbat” and “Non-Shabbos elevator on Shabbat” by Rabbi David Sperling (also on-line).

  • #1210518

    WinnieThePooh
    Participant

    “The present rage of Epigenetics proves anyone change if they wish it enough.”

    I agree that a person can change or overcome their natural tendencies, but not because of epigenetics. Just because epigenetic properties are not encoded in the gene itself does not mean they can be consciously controlled. Don’t know about you, but no matter how hard I try, I cannot get my histones to change their methylation status.

  • #1210519

    So how is it that Rabbi Dovid Feinstein who doesn’t follow that electricity=boneh, is adamantly against using elevators on Shabbos?

    Rabbi Chaim Jachter, Rabbi David Sperling

    are the consensus? 🙂

  • #1210520

    Avi K
    Participant

    Time, I do not know that Rav Dovid Feinstein holds. His father (IM, OC 2:80) held that it is permissible if the gentile is not instructed to operate the elevator. See also “Shabbos elevators: Rav Meir Triebitz’s Teshuva” where he even allows asking a gentile to push the button (although he does not wish to advertise this heter). In any case, you have no right to disparage people who are lenient as they have ample halachic grounds to do so.

  • #1210521

    K-cup
    Participant

    It’s time for the truth, just about everyone pasken like R Shlomo Zalman ztl, and is machmir unless it’s tzarich gamur. Does Rav Dovid hold you can never use a shabbos elevator? ( And a shabbos elevator is really the same as a regular elevator in the case you are discussing due to not pushing buttons).

  • #1210522

    Ferd
    Participant
  • #1210523

    lightbrite
    Participant

    Does anyone in OO put Rabbi Avi Weiss in check? Does he need to consult with or be accountable with anyone in his court before doing something very controversial?

    Is he free to do whatever he feels/believes is right from now on because he is leading a movement?

  • #1210524

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    LB- that is one of the problems with the movement -that he is not following Daas Torah and simply deciding things on his own. That is one of the ways that you can determine if a Rav is reliable or not.

  • #1210526

    Avi K
    Participant

    Lightbrite, the question is whether he keeps anyone in check. When I knew him thirty years ago I had the distinct impression that he was personally frummer than he let on. In fact, he once commented that many people who started with him would no longer daven in HIR – and did not seem displeased. Today he is 72 and sort-of retired (he said that he would like to retire the word “retire”) and has turned over his shul to a younger man.

  • #1210527

    lightbrite
    Participant

    Avi K: Are you saying that the people that used to go to HIR are now too frum for it and now go to a traditional O shul?

  • #1210528

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    LB- that is one of the problems with the movement -that he is not following Daas Torah and simply deciding things on his own. That is one of the ways that you can determine if a Rav is reliable or not.

    I do not belive that either Rav Schecter or Rav Lichtenstein ZTL belived in Daas Torah either, and they are certainly gedolim (Or was in Rav Lictensteins case)

    OO is not an organization, its just a loose movement of a few shuls somewhat related to Hebrew Institute of Riverdale and Yeshiva Chovevei Torah.

  • #1210529

    lightbrite
    Participant

    Thank you, Daas Torah is the term.

    I thought even MO Gedolim go off of Daas Torah.

    So much to learn.

  • #1210530

    mw13
    Participant

    Another relevant op-ed on OO:

    Open O’ers and the Siddur

    Goes to show what OO is really up to, and what their vision of so-called Judaism looks like – prioritizing passing fads from the society around us (celebrating MLK Jr Day, anti-Trumpism, etc) over actually observing Halacha (having a mixed-gender Christian group perform in a shul, fasting on Friday, changing the teffilos) and even the cardinal principles of Judaism (the coming of Moshiach, the rebuilding of the Bais HaMikdosh, and even the authenticity and authorship of the Torah itself).

    This is not authentic Judaism.

  • #1210531

    mw13
    Participant

    zdad:

    I do not belive that either Rav Schecter or Rav Lichtenstein ZTL belived in Daas Torah either, and they are certainly gedolim (Or was in Rav Lictensteins case)

    Just out of curiosity, do you believe that there is any reason to listen to the opinions of R’ Schachter or R’ Lictenstein over the opinion of say, any random poster here?

    And if so, why?

    LB:

    I thought even MO Gedolim go off of Daas Torah.

    So much to learn.

    http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/do-mo-believe-in-non-strawman-daas-torah

  • #1210532

    Joseph
    Participant

    Rabbi Hershel Schachter said following Daas Torah is required. See the thread about marrying whoever the Rov tells you that you have to.

  • #1210533

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    The Rav Schecter thread about marrying whomever your Rav says is missing alot of key information. We have no proof that he said that about random people. It was likely a reason that he said 2 specific people should marry and with a reason.

  • #1210534

    Avi K
    Participant
  • #1210535

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    ZD – I agree that the other thread is probably missing information. However, from what was given over (by more than one poster), it does sound pretty clear that he believes in Daas Torah.

    “We have no proof that he said that about random people. It was likely a reason that he said 2 specific people should marry and with a reason”

    I’m not sure what you mean by this? Are you saying that the Gedolim don’t tell everyone who to marry and only do so in specific cases? I don’t think anyone implied otherwise, and either way, it still means that he believes in Daas Torah, since he is saying that any time a Gadol does tell someone whom to marry, he has to listen.

    Aside from the other thread, I have heard that he believes in Daas Torah. I once heard that someone asked him why he doesn’t wear techeilis and he responded, “Rav Elyashiv doesn’t wear techeilis, and I should wear techeilis?”

  • #1210537

    mw13
    Participant

    Avi K, if you don’t believe in Daas Torah at all, why do you care what R’ Lichtenstein has to say?

  • #1210538

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    It depends on what your defination of Daas Torah is.

    Are you asking the Rav if Quinoa is kosher for Passover or are you asking the Rav if you should buy that house on 46th St in Borough Park

  • #1210539

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    ZD – Basically the first but even more. We are not just talking about personal halachic issues – We are talking about halachic issues that involve changes in communal religious practice that the Gedolim say are wrong.

  • #1210540

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    I was answering MW’s direct question about if someone should listen to Rav Schter over a random CR poster , not about OO in general.

  • #1210541

    nishtdayngesheft
    Participant

    ZD,

    You’ve had this discussion already numerous times and it was clearly e planned that buying a house on 46th can very likely entail a shailah for a rov. There are many variables that are shailos that should be asked if one is concerned with following Halacha. There are also items that may be Hashkafic.

    And quinoa on pesach may not be a “da’as Torah” shailah as much as a straight halachic shailah.

  • #1210542

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    ZD -“I was answering MW’s direct question about if someone should listen to Rav Schter over a random CR poster , not about OO in general.”

    ZD: I was responding to the statement of yours below. I had said that the problem with OO is that they don’t follow Daas Torah. You claimed that neither does Rav Shachter. I am trying to say that my impression is that R’ Shachter does hold of Daas Torah. I guess your second to last post was on a tangental point raised by MW. But either way, my point still remains. When it comes to these types of issues, I am fairly certain that R’ Shachter would hold of Daas Torah, and that is what makes him different from OO, and that is what the conversation had been about (at some point).

    LU: “LB- that is one of the problems with the movement -that he is not following Daas Torah and simply deciding things on his own. That is one of the ways that you can determine if a Rav is reliable or not.”

    ZD: “I do not belive that either Rav Schecter or Rav Lichtenstein ZTL belived in Daas Torah either, and they are certainly gedolim (Or was in Rav Lictensteins case)”

Viewing 233 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.