- This topic has 23 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I recently heard that there’s a sefer that discusses whether women are also included in the issur of
Lo Taturu…acharei eineichem-if they were to look at another improperly dressed woman.
Personally I have no idea why it would be a hava amina, but I’m hoping someone here has some clue of what I’m talking about so I can see the source. I’m thinking that it might stem out from the issur of “women being together”, which is assur for following in the ways of the mitzrim. But I can’t understand why there would be an issur of hirhur or re’iyah if the woman is not an erva to her.
Anybody have any ideas? Thanks
i recently heard in a shiur that it applies even to women re: looking at pritzus. the speaker was not saying that this is to prevent attraction and “being together” but rather just not looking at prusty stuff. the example given was magazine covers in pharmacies and groceries.
the speaker quoted someone (sorry dont remember) as saying that even a women who averts her eyes from pritzus creates a sha’as rachamim where she can say a tefillah right then.
Maybe the reason is bc everything a person experiences has an effect so it might have a negative effect
i actually remember learning that women are not allowed to look at pritzus becuase it has a negative affect on them, not because of the attraction.
acharei levavchem refers to apikorsus and this definitely applies to women. acharei eineichem refers to looking at anything that could lead to any form of ‘prohibited relationships’ and this definitely applies to women as well. The nature of what would cause a problem may be different for men and women, or it may not be. I will not elaborate. The general rule however is the same for both. See also sefer hachinuch on this mitzva for a very interesting explanation which would equally apply to both men and women.
There is a Tshuras Shai(concerning mechitzas), and Rav Vosner in his Shevet HaLevi brings proofs that lo sasuru does apply to women.
“Lo sasuru” applies to women — they are not allowed to imagine doing an aveira with a man,to whom that particular woman is an erva. Just looking at a picture of an immodestly-clad model is permissable for a woman.
Uneeq, min ha’stam, we are not concerned that a woman is going to have hirhurim about another woman, especially, just from looking at a picture with an untsniusdic model.
Uneeq: Hirhur is Assur no matter what. If it causes you Hirhur then avoid it. But we don’t assume that another woman will cause Hirhur for a woman.
Those magazines at the checkout in chain grocery stores are horrible. Only out of absolute necessity will I take my kids to those stores and then I push them ahead of me at the checkout. I avert my eyes as much as possible but if something catches my eye I just cringe inside. It’s just awful that secular society pushes those images and “stories”.
Uneeq, Gemora at the end of Kiddushin says that Yisroel(Yidden) lo nechshadu al ha’zohar ve’al ha’beheima. It is a kol she’ken that we do not suspect Bnos Yisroel of “ma’ase eretz Mitsraim”. We do have female life-guards at pools amd mikve-ladies at mikvaos. If a specific woman knows that she has a problem with those type of hirhurim, I need to investigate more.
Rav Leff on his website was asked this question(similar) about how far is too far , http://www.rabbileff.net/shiurim/ask/index.htm (question #1859)
uneeq: You make a good point. However the Rambam brings the halacha of ma’asei eretz mitzrayim in hilchos issurei biah which indicates that it is in the category of ‘znus’ and included in acharei eineichem.(although there is no kares or misah like the others) Also looking at something that could lead to sin may be in the category of acharei eineichem even if it is not a znus issue. Only chazal used the common example. Once we’re on the subject it is important to note that acharei eineichem applies to looking at something that could lead to an actual aveira. Actual aveira includes any action that is in the category of znus(or other aveira). Once again I will not elaborate v’hameivin yavin. Thoughts alone fall under a different issur namely v’nishmarta mikol davar ra and looking at something that would only lead to thoughts is an issur d’rabbanan as stated clearly in avoda zara 20. Of course the thoughts themselves are an issur d’oraisa. I know this may surprise some but it seems to be correct. See the sugya there. (Keep in mind of course that ha’over al divrei chachamim chayav misah).
i am under the impression that in the Tznius book it brings down r shmuel wosner shlit’a who is mechaleik between women looking at other women and looking at pritzus, for example women in a ladies or dressing room is not a problem, but looking at women at a beach with men present or on magazine covers is a problem, as those women are showing and flaunting themselves off to men, thats pritzus and jewish ladies cant see that. i havent seen the book for a while tho so i cant reference it, sorry.
Uneeq, “ma’ase eretz Mitsraim” is a z’nus-related issur. All the applications of it have to do with inter-gender relations.The posuk itself is mentioned in the parsha of arayos. It not the same as thinking of eating treif. I am not sure that it would fall under “lo sasuru…”. For sure, it is not nice.
in the Tznius book it brings down r shmuel wosner shlit’a
Not an American Posek. Thanks for the info, but not applicable to the OP (unless the OP lives in Israel).
Uneeq, “ma’ase eretz Mitsraim” is a z’nus-related issur. All the applications of it have to do with inter-gender relations.The posuk itself is mentioned in the parsha of arayos. It not the same as thinking of eating treif. I am not sure that it would fall under “lo sasuru…”. For sure, it is not nice.
Lo Sasuru is a much more general Issur, not to do things or think of things that are “Taa’vadik”. You should see the Chinuch on this, its almost saying addiction to any Ta’anug is the Avairah!
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=37518&st=&pgnum=48
there are three mekoros I know for this topic:
????? ?????? ????? ?”? – “??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ???”
??? ?????? ???? ??”? “??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???????
??? ?????? ???”? “???? ????? ????? ???? ??????”
this all obviously is concerning sexual pleasure driven from the act, not curiosity or any other reason – which BTW is the same by men also, just that men are much easier to be provoked.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.