April 19, 2012 2:28 am at 2:28 am #602983CsarMember
How far does this apply?April 19, 2012 2:59 am at 2:59 am #970624
What do you mean? It’s Assur to get physical pleasure from any interaction with any woman (aside from your wife) with any of the five senses. What more needs to be said?April 19, 2012 3:05 am at 3:05 am #970625CsarMember
Who said Hamistakel Betzba Ktana Shel Isha is limited to physical pleasure? Even emotional pleasure.April 19, 2012 4:27 am at 4:27 am #970626Think firstMember
Hanaah is Hanaah any type.April 19, 2012 4:40 am at 4:40 am #970627RABBAIMParticipant
Looking for the purpose of having pleasure is assur. OMre than that is for sure assur! Turning away when yuo do see something which could be assur is exhilarating victory!April 19, 2012 2:19 pm at 2:19 pm #970628yungerman1Participant
Csar and Think first- If I may answer for Sam2, I dont think he means physical pleasure per se. He means you are you using the physical- your eyes- to have a hanaah. It clearly says “Hamistakel” looking, which is explained as looking for the purpose of pleasure. Touching for enjoyment without looking is assur, but not because of Hamistakel etc..
If you would dream about an etzbah ktana that you never saw you wouldnt be oiver on hamistakel either.April 19, 2012 2:39 pm at 2:39 pm #970629WolfishMusingsParticipant
I’ll take it one better… who says that this doesn’t include one’s wife as well?
Yeah, you’ll tell me that logically one should be able to look at one’s wife, but the statement as quoted seems absolute to me. Perhaps one should not be allowed to at his wife as well.
(And, no, I don’t seriously believe this myself. I’ll continue looking at my wife, thank you very much.)
The WolfApril 19, 2012 3:03 pm at 3:03 pm #970630
Mistakel is Targum for Misbonen. It means to gaze, not just looking.April 19, 2012 3:16 pm at 3:16 pm #970631
Wolf: See the Rambam who explicitly states that this doesn’t apply to one’s wife.April 19, 2012 3:23 pm at 3:23 pm #970632akupermaParticipant
Mistakel implies looking intensively, perhaps more like to stare.
If a man avoided looking at women he would keep bumping into them since he wouldn’t see them coming, and that would raise many more problems.April 19, 2012 3:38 pm at 3:38 pm #970633Avi KParticipant
Sam2, CSar and Think first, are you saying that a saleswoman cannot be nice to a male customer? Can’t tell him about a sale (or vice versa as he is getting the pleasure of making a sale)? That his sister cannot give him chizuk or vice versa (he is getting pleasure from her getting solace)?April 19, 2012 5:07 pm at 5:07 pm #970634
Avi K, something about your careful selectin of examples tells me that you understand this well enough. Why didn’t you ask about getting solace from the saleswoman?April 19, 2012 5:26 pm at 5:26 pm #970635sefardi tahorParticipant
cmon use your brains, we arent talking about a chosid shoteh,
ro’eh means to see, bc ur eyes are open
histakel means to gaze or stare whith thoughtApril 19, 2012 6:42 pm at 6:42 pm #970636ToiParticipant
avi k- once again, you manage to skew a simply explained comment. we’re obviously refering to a sort of carnal satisfaction. dont be obtuse.April 19, 2012 11:50 pm at 11:50 pm #970637
It means to gaze, not just looking.
Mistakel implies looking intensively, perhaps more like to stare.
I used to think this as well. But I believe it is clear from the Gemara in Avoda Zara 20a that the term ?????? is either lav davka or doesn’t necessarily mean that. The gemara asks ????????? ?? ??? on R’ Shimon ben Gamliel who commented when he saw (???) a woman who was exceedingly beautiful. (The Gemara’s answer also, that he must have bumped into her turning a corner, does not imply that it is redefining ???????, but rather simply that it wasn’t his fault.)April 19, 2012 11:58 pm at 11:58 pm #970638
Hmm. So, if a girl is dressed to kill or is dressed to be a head turner, every guy who turns his head to look at her is over this aveira… and she gets a seperate aveira for every guy she caused to sin by turning his head to look at her.
That would include dressing for weddings, yomim tovim, shabbosim and any other occassions, wouldn’t it.April 20, 2012 12:44 am at 12:44 am #970639Think firstMember
Susie- as long as a girl dresses within the guidelines of tznius , she’s not over anything I’d someone looks at her.April 20, 2012 12:45 am at 12:45 am #970640
Who says she gets an aveira?April 20, 2012 12:54 am at 12:54 am #970641
Yitay: I used to think like Akuperma, then I saw that Gemara and thought like you. Then I realized that the Gemara wasn’t talking about the Issur Histaklus but about the issue of V’nishmarta. The point was that these women were so exceptionally beautiful that even seeing them could be a problem.
And about your Diyuk in the Lashon, the Aramaic Shorech Istakula is closer to the Hebrew R’iyah than to Histaklus.April 20, 2012 12:57 am at 12:57 am #970642
Sushe: The Aveira we’re discussing is looking at women. A woman who’s dressed up probably isn’t looking at women. If you wanted to talk about Lifnei Iveir, you should have said so.April 20, 2012 1:06 am at 1:06 am #970643
Sam – The Gemara of venishmarta explicitly says ??? ?????.April 20, 2012 1:18 am at 1:18 am #970644
Yeah, but if it was part of the Issur Histaklus it would have said “Afilu B’etzba…” like the Gemara does in other cases. Histaklus is Assur even when V’nishmarta isn’t an issue and V’nishmarta is an issue even where Histaklus isn’t.April 20, 2012 1:21 am at 1:21 am #970645
Yes, I meant she gets an aveira for Lifnei Iveir for every guy she causes to look at her by dressing inappropriately (halachicly).April 20, 2012 2:17 am at 2:17 am #970646snjnMember
Csar: Why the obsession with women? Notice all your threads start a topic of women? Is there nothing more you delve into?April 20, 2012 2:39 am at 2:39 am #970647
Sam2 – eh. L’mayseh it uses the word ????? and it refers to stam looking. That’s good enough for me to teach me teitsh of the word.April 20, 2012 2:39 am at 2:39 am #970648WolfishMusingsParticipant
Wolf: See the Rambam who explicitly states that this doesn’t apply to one’s wife.
But you can also make the case that if you’re not allowed to talk with your wife for pleasure (see: Al Tarbeh…) then certainly you can’t look at her for pleasure.
The WolfApril 20, 2012 2:48 am at 2:48 am #970649
sushe – She causes the guy to look? And have inappropriate feelings? Which guy?April 20, 2012 3:07 am at 3:07 am #970650
Yitay: I hear. Both P’shatim are tough for me. The only real issue is that I feel like I saw someone somewhere make that Chiluk between L’histakel and Lir’os. Otherwise I’d say it has to be like you say.April 20, 2012 3:57 am at 3:57 am #970651
yit – if she dresses inappropriately (acc. to halacha) that causes guys to look at her. You are aware that a female can dress in a manner that causes males to look at them, whereas they would not have had she been dressed appropriately. Hence Lifnei Iver multiplied by however many extra looks she caused.April 20, 2012 4:05 am at 4:05 am #970652
Sushe: Learn the Halachos of Lifnei Iveir before you make such a statement. But yes, someone who does such a thing will have to answer for that in Shamayim. But I don’t think it’s Lifnei Iveir.April 20, 2012 4:06 am at 4:06 am #970653
sushe – I hear.April 20, 2012 8:21 am at 8:21 am #970654
The Gemara about Raban Gamliel is asking how he could look at her enough to take notice of her beauty. That is Histaklus, the Targum of Ma Esbonen El Besula. Normal, necessary looking, as in a conversation that is Mutar does not fall into this category. However, the Rosh’s son, Reb Yehuda writes that although this is the case one should refrain from all looking.
Al Tarbe has nothing to do with pleasure. Sam2 quoted a Nusach — which I believe is in Avos D’rav Nosson — that says Al Tarbe Sicha Im Isha Bashuk Afilu Im Ishto Mipnei Ma Yomru Habrios. And if you go Kepshuto, and not even Ishto Nida, then the Pshat is, like Toi quoted from the Chazon Ish, that it refers to what is outside and beyond what is called for in a normal relationship. It happens to weaken Shalom Bayis in many cases when the husband hangs around too much.
The Kol Bo brings a Medrash about a tour of Gehenom, with descriptions of punishments for those who caused men to look at what was not Tzenius.April 20, 2012 9:54 am at 9:54 am #970655menucha12Member
wow this make me think of what goes on here (israel)
i have countless times spotted men doing shmiras einiem
evidently their definition of shmiras einiem is looking down at the street but when they see womens shoes (pink,high heels,etc.)they look up stare at the women and then return to their vigilant watch of the pavement
no offence to all those trying shmiras einiem out but i think instead of shmiras einiem to do shmiras roshApril 20, 2012 10:35 am at 10:35 am #970656Avi KParticipant
HaLeivi, I tried but she told me the price. LOLApril 20, 2012 7:32 pm at 7:32 pm #970658oomisParticipant
Women can dress in a burlap sack and still be stared at. In fact, women who dress in all-covering garments such as those worn by certain types of extremely frum women, tend to inadvertently b’davka draw attention to themselves, though not purposely. One will notice whatever is unusual. So if a woman walks by in a burka and people stare, is her clothing tzniusdig?April 20, 2012 11:06 pm at 11:06 pm #970659
oomis1105 – That is a great point, and I believe what you are implying is absolutely correct.April 22, 2012 2:14 pm at 2:14 pm #970660computer777Participant
Oomis: a man who stares at a woman dressed in a burka is unlikely to have bad thoughts when looking at her. though many seem to think it’s untznius cuz they r calling attention to themselves, i highly doubt it is.August 13, 2013 12:20 pm at 12:20 pm #970661
I have a question….August 13, 2013 12:22 pm at 12:22 pm #970662
whats the mekor for an issur to look/gaze at a woman who is not an erva e.g. a non-jewish woman?
Leave aside the issur of hirhur which l’chora is a different issur to that of histaklus.August 13, 2013 3:02 pm at 3:02 pm #970663benignumanParticipant
On the ball,
The issur of histaklus is an issur of hirhur.
It is clear from the context of the Gemara in Berachos that it doesn’t apply to one’s spouse.August 13, 2013 3:25 pm at 3:25 pm #970664
on the ball: A non-Jewish woman is still an Ervah according to the Rambam. If she wasn’t, the whole handshake Shailah would be moot. (Tosfos holds that she isn’t an Ervah and that a non-Jew is only 4 Issurim Mid’rabannan, but the Rambam holds otherwise.)August 13, 2013 3:59 pm at 3:59 pm #970665
Benignuman: Have you a source for your statement that Histaklus = Hirhur? I would have thought its possible to be mistakel without hirhur and vice versa?
An indication would be that they are learnt from 2 different pesukim.
Histaklus is learnt from ‘Lo sosuru acharei..veacharei eyneichem’ which Chazal darshen (see Rashi) as ‘Znus’.
Hirhur on the other hand is learnt out from ‘Vnishmartem mikol davar ra’ in this weeks parsha (Ki Seitzei.
Hence my original question; l’chora the Issur Torah of Histaklus should only apply to women with whom there is an Issur Torah of Znus – and possibly only an Ervah. (That’s why its known as Histaklus B’Aarayos’) – so why does it apply to non-Jewish women (which according to some shittos are not even Ossur min Hatorah)?August 13, 2013 5:07 pm at 5:07 pm #970666CuriosityParticipant
Computer777- Attracting attention to yourself is also a lack of tzniyus. Tzniyus is much more than just how much skin you are showing.August 13, 2013 5:13 pm at 5:13 pm #970667
On the ball, the Pasuk in Iyov, quoted above, is not about an Erva.August 13, 2013 5:15 pm at 5:15 pm #970668
Benign, it is also clear from the Gemara in Shabbos, that says it is fitting for a Talmid Chacham that his wife gets dressed up for him.August 13, 2013 6:55 pm at 6:55 pm #970669benignumanParticipant
On the ball,
I wasn’t saying that histaklus = hirhur I was saying that histaklus without hirhur isn’t assur (hirhur without histaklus is).
As the Rambam writes hamistakel b’etzba ketana shel isha ??????? ?????. If there is no kavana to have pleasure then he has not violated the issur.
L’maysa there appears to be a stirah in the Rambam. In Issurei Biah (21:2) Rambam seems to hold that histaklus is d’rabanan and in hilchos Teshuva (4:4) he bring the posuk of Lo Sasuru.
M’drabanan non-Jewish women have a din Nidda. They are therefore all arayos (d’rabanan).August 13, 2013 8:55 pm at 8:55 pm #970670
Firstly, how do you define Histaklus without Hirhur? More specifically – what exactly is Hirhur? If I admire a woman’s beauty but have no sexual thoughts – is that hirhur?
Secondly, maybe the answer to the Stirah in the Rambam is the point I originally made.
I.e. that Vlo Sosuru applies to Arayos D’Oraysoh and the Issur Histaklus that applies to ALL women, even non-ervah, is D’Rabbanan.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.