- This topic has 279 replies, 49 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
And you don’t like it when you perceive others as being intolerant of your kulas, but then you go ahead and show your intolerance at others’s chumras.
When I am forced to explain and defend their chumras, It does affect me (I work in non-jewish world and people have asked me specifically about this photos and other chumras)
I am very aware what bothers people and what doesnt
give it up zdad, they are better contortionists than you and there’s more of them.
I call em as I see em , and they clearly are Chassid Shoteh
But Syag’s probably right.
well you obviously didn’t understand me. I was talking about this thread, not his work.
That’s why I said probably. I retract.
no, that wasn’t. But thank you for proving my point.
Yes, it actually was, because I am fully aware of the fact that we usually misunderstand each other. It was not very nice of you to call me a contortionist twice in the same thread, but of course, it’s quite possible that I’m misunderstanding that as well.
If they make fun of our chumras then we certainly must keep our chumras up. I remember it saying somewhere that if we have a chumra of wearing a certain color shoelace we should give up our life rather than drop the chumra if they try to make us give it up.
i dont understand,
hamavaser was trying to put their chumra in other people?
if someone has their own chumra why does that bother you, it doesnt bother “moderate” muslims (at least not to my knowledge)
additionally, im suprised about dy’s comment, etzba ketana is by someone who looks for pleasure, not a chumra
CA, we’re not talking about definite intentional gazing, which is a b’feirush’e din in Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 21, as I recall).
We’re talking about putting oneself in a makom nisayon, and for most people, it’s not such a nisayon to be near a woman who isn’t wearing gloves.
Being in a mixed gym is a nisayon which no one should put himself into. It’s the same idea as mixed swimming.
Lior, there are three very definite things for which we must give up our lives, rather than do them. Changing our shoelaces, is not among them.
DY, a picture is surely ‘definite intentional gazing.’ I can’t think of anything else to call it. Passing in the street, or even short glances while conversing, is not.
The point of ???? ???? is exactly that it doesn’t make a difference how they are dressed or what they look like. ??????? is Assur. The only Hetter would be if it is not directly a picture of this one person or if she is not alive.
There is no Issur in printing a picture but that would mean I have to be on guard even in a publication that was meant for me. There surely is no reason (I can think of) not to print them in women’s magazines.
HaLeiVi: ???? ???? isn’t applicable on the image of a deceased woman, under the circumstances (???????) where ???? ???? would have been forbidden had it been a living person?
oomis: Changing shoelace colors, under the conditions I mentioned, is something we’re required to refuse to do even if our lives are at stake.
HaLeiVi, it’s only assur if it’s ?????? ?????? ????.
They say a story about the Manchester Rosh Hayeshiva zt”l that they showed him a family photo, and he asked who a certain female in the picture was, and they told him it was his daughter-in-law. Apparently, he was makpid not to look at a woman’s face, but not makpid on a picture.
I don’t know where you saw that Pshat. The only Chiluq I’ve seen is between ????? and ???????. If your Chiluq is true then the Gemara would have found a difference between ??? ?????? and ???? ???? other than for Leining Krias Shma. I mean, you don’t say the same about ??? ?????, do you?
The Gemara didn’t use your Pshat to explain Rebbe Gamliel when he made the Bracha ???? ?? ??????, either.
Your Chiluq might work for a ?????.
As for that story, it was probably what Chazal call ??? ?????? ???? ????.
I don’t know where you saw that Pshat.
I basically quoted the Shulchan Aruch.
Lior, I would appreciate knowing the exact source for what you stated.
oomis: The Gemora in Sanhedrin says if Jews have a “minor practice” (i.e. a chumra) of wearing a shoelace a certain way (for modesty reasons, says Rashi, so it fits into this discussion quite neatly) and they tell us “hey, that’s too Jewish, you better wear your shoelaces differently or we’re gonna kill ya”, you gotta be ready to give up your life rather than change the shoelace chumra.
oomis, its a gemara in sanhedrin if im not mistaken
:??????? ??. – ??.
?”? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???’ ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?”? ????? ???’ ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ???’ ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ??????
:??”?
????? ??????. ???? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??????
See, though, .???’ ??? ?”?:
???? ?????. ??? ?? ?? ???? ???????? (?? ??: ???) ???? ???? ?????? ???’ ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ?????
So it seems that according to ‘???, it’s only a chumra (minhag, to be more precise) which serves as identification as a Jew, not just any chumra (minhag).
DY
Ive been busy over the weekend but thanks for replying to my question
“No, I would not have hed this picture published. It might not have been fraudulent or illegal or disrespectful, but it was still not a good idea.”
so we agree as does Z-dad and probably most people here That it was not a good idea!
As far as fraudulent, illegal, and disrespectfull:
Editing a picture to depict events as they didnt happen is certainly fraudulent. You can argue as some did that “tznius” is more importnat than Emes. And that may be true. We know sholom bayis is sometimes more important than emes, Telling the truth is not the be all end all. Obviously a paper cant print Lashan Hara even if it is emes. By definition to a frum paper telling thwe truth CANNOT be their number one prioity, however that doesnt make doctored pictures truthful.
As far as the legality, I’m not sure,I doubt it is illegal.
As far as disrespect. This by definition is subjective, and not (solely) dependent on intent. If you sit down when say Obama enters the room becuase your legs are tired, you may not have meant to be disrespecful but you can bet it will be percieved that way. Editing women out of history (in this case literally) even without intent to be disrespecful is understandably percieved tha way. and silly platitude type answers (Kol Kevod Bas melech pnima etc), may work for some that are datan kalos but dont mitigate the (even if only) percieved disrespect.
I won’t bother explaining again why this is far from fraudulent.
This is a case of people with an agenda making an issue out of nothing (which is predictable, and why it wasn’t a good idea), and you should be astute enough not to buy into it or give it any credibility.
Lior: That’s not quite Pshat in Ark’sa Dim’sana. Also, it has to either be L’ha’avir Al Das or Sha’as Hashmad.
Or b’farhesia.
It seems to me from what I read ( yes, I read the section you quoted from Sanhedrin AND the Rashi), that there must be a definite correlation between the demanded action and the halachos pertaining to arayos and avoda Zara, in which case it would be yehareg v’al yaavor. Or do I misunderstand?
(oomis, see, I had my doubts… what’s bubby doing in a bais medrash!!)
Nope, Froggie, sorry – I read it right here in the CR. I am REALLY still Bubby. (Did we ever see oomis and the Yeshivah bochur in a room at the same time, though???)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.