Reply To: Proper Etiquette or Against Halacha?

Home Forums Controversial Topics Proper Etiquette or Against Halacha? Reply To: Proper Etiquette or Against Halacha?

#773644
aries2756
Participant

“I don’t know why you assume that someone who is makpid on this halacha would only be makpid while on a date. “

DY, once again it was not i who made this assumption. It is you who are making assumptions. I simply implied that a bochur should be careful of his manners and not act like a “jerk” again meaning watch their manners on a date. Again to be careful not to come off looking like a “jerk” on a date to someone who does NOT understand what he is doing. I did not say anything against following halacha. My question was does HE always follow this halacha or was he just being Makpid on the date. My point being that if he was not always makpid dating was NOT the appropriate opportunity to follow this halacha since it might be misunderstood as him NOT having manners and it would be a turn off for the girl because of the miscommunication. HOWEVER, I did say that if this was his normal practice by all means he should be himself and do what was normal for him.

I hope I have made this dummy proof for all who did NOT understand me before and for all who took it upon themselves to say that I trample on halacha and so on. I suggest that a bochur not be a hypocrite and start following this halacha in the dating process if he is not normally makpid in this halacha. Can I be more clear than this. Should I give more examples? If he followed a woman into the bank earlier that day and did not open the door for the date but chose to go in before her because his Rebbe told him to that evening then he is a hypocrite.

So when I said he should be himself that means if he always is makpid he should continue to be. So are we on the same page? Are we in agreement on this? Is there a reason to argue? Did we not say the same thing? Did I say that a bochur who follows this Halacha should NOT follow this halacha? What exactly is the nitpicking about and the argument about? What part of this did you NOT understand?