September 6, 2009 3:08 pm at 3:08 pm #1135258
There are appropriate times for things and the gemara as you quote it (we really ought to look it up for ourself and not trust Josephs quote) is clear that it was misuse(using them at the wrong time) not using to much at the appropriate time, that was a problem. Where do you see from this gemara that a kallah at her own wedding is not an appropriate time?September 6, 2009 3:12 pm at 3:12 pm #1135259
Correct. As the Gemorah and poskim makes clear, appropriate usage is to use it for the husband at home. Not for the street. (Also see the Shevet HaLevi on that point.)
This problem was widespread enough to cause the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash.September 6, 2009 3:23 pm at 3:23 pm #1135260
I mean think about it. The Gemorah says this is a reason the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed! That is how serious this issue is. And this is how bad the problem was.
Something to ponder.September 6, 2009 3:46 pm at 3:46 pm #1135261
I feel really bad for you. Even though you didn’t answer me, the readers are assuming that you hold it’s ossur to wear makeup outside on the street. You must have Grosse Platzos to argue with the Shuchan Aruch which I quoted in my previous posts. You see clear from that Simon that it was for the street also, not just for the home. That doesn’t mean this Simon can’t agree with this Gemorrah. Just when you go out -you shouldn’t over do it and it shouldn’t be only for the outside. It should be for the inside & out. When you’re looking up the Simon I quoted before, also look up the Halacha of someone who is Megaleh Ponim B’torah Shelo K’halacha!September 6, 2009 3:53 pm at 3:53 pm #1135262
Lets be clear, nowhere in the gemara or the Shevet Halevi can one infer a Kallah should or should not wear makeup on her wedding day.September 6, 2009 4:14 pm at 4:14 pm #1135263
jphone: Correct.September 6, 2009 4:29 pm at 4:29 pm #1135264
I quoted the Gemorah and the Shevet Levi, and you take issue with that? Take up your issue with the Gemorah and the Shevet Levi, not myself. And don’t make “assumptions.”
And the cosmetics should not be for the inside AND outside. That is clear from the poskim, including what I quoted (amongst others.)
You mention Shulchan Aruch, so let me quote you some Shulchan Aruch:
Shulchan Aruch (73:1): A man must give his wife clothing like women normally wear outside. A woman should not go outside much. The beauty of a woman is to stay inside – “Kol Kevudah…”
Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 13:11): A man must give his wife clothing like women normally wear outside in order that she can go to her father or a house of mourning or Simchah. She may go to these places to bestow Chesed to her friends and relatives, in order that they will come to her. She is not a prisoner who may not come and go. However, it is degrading for a woman to always be outside and on the streets. A man should prevent his wife from doing so. She should go outside once or twice a month, according to the need. The beauty of a woman is to stay inside – “Kol Kevudah Bas Melech Penimah”.September 6, 2009 4:46 pm at 4:46 pm #1135265
Health, and here are some additional poskim and meforshim of interest:
Gra (4): Hash-m did not create Chavah from Adam’s foot, lest she roam too much (Bereishis Rabah 18:2). “Ishtecha k’Gefen Poriyah” is only when she is modest “b’Yarkesei Veisecha” (Medrash Tehilim 128:3).
(Magid Mishneh): Bereishis Rabah (45:5) says that when the Torah discusses the detriment of women, it says that they go out – ‘Va’Tetzei Dinah”. The Sifri (Tetzei 242 (23)), regarding a Na’arah Me’orasah who was enticed to Zenus, says that a breach (going out in the city) calls to the thief. Bereishis Rabah (8:12) reads “Kivshuha” like ‘Kavshah’ to teach that a husband should prevent his wife from going out too much.
Kesef Mishneh: A wife must give straw to her husband’s animals, but she need not give water. This is because normally one leaves the house to go to the river or spring for this, and “Kol Kevudah…”September 6, 2009 5:34 pm at 5:34 pm #1135266
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that every time this thread loads, there is an ad for a sheitel company, where the sheitel head (or is it a real face) is wearing lipstick?September 6, 2009 5:49 pm at 5:49 pm #1135267
I will be nice, even though you choose not to be. You are throwing all these things at me which I agree with. The only thing that the Shulchan Aruch disagrees with is your implication that women shouldn’t wear makeup outside. They are allowed to and they should if they go out. Again, look up the Simon that I quoted in my previous posts. You will see clearly that a Kallah should wear make up and even a Boigeres who isn’t married should wear makeup.September 6, 2009 5:54 pm at 5:54 pm #1135268
jphone, its probably done on purpose to add an effect 😉September 6, 2009 5:59 pm at 5:59 pm #1135269
I repeat: Do not assume “implications” on my part. I merely quoted halachic sources. I did not interpret them. It was you who did not like the Gemorah, Shevet Levi, etc. that was quoted.
As far as Shulchan Aruch is concerned, as you see from the verbatim quote of it as well as the Rambam, it indicated that a woman should strictly limit the amount of time spent outside of the home. Again, that is Shulchan Aruch and Rambam, not myself.September 6, 2009 6:01 pm at 6:01 pm #1135270
Joseph, I’m just curious, do you impose this all on your wife? (Like I said, just curious. I have no intentions to make laytzanus here.)September 6, 2009 6:07 pm at 6:07 pm #1135271
Why should there be a need to “impose”? Every Jewish wife, IMHO, would be happy to follow halacha — however her husband’s Rabbi interprets it.September 6, 2009 6:08 pm at 6:08 pm #1135272JotharMember
Joseph, do the daughters of the roshei yeshiva in your yeshiva wear makeup on their wedding day? If yes, they clearly disagree with you.September 6, 2009 6:12 pm at 6:12 pm #1135273
Jothar, Nowhere have I indicated in this or any thread that a kallah shouldn’t wear makeup on her wedding day. Please reread.September 6, 2009 6:14 pm at 6:14 pm #1135274
Joseph, if your wife is happy to do all that, ashrecha.
Jothar, who says the girls ask their fathers?September 6, 2009 6:23 pm at 6:23 pm #1135275
You tell me not to assume any implications on your part, but then you say to me that I didn’t like the gemorrah or Rav Wosner’s psak. Where do you see any of this latter part in my posts? The reason I said you implied that wearing makeup outside is ossur, is because you quoted this on a blog discussing makeup on your wedding day. Anybody would come to this obvious conclusion. If this isn’t what you meant please inform us. Also, please tell us the reason why you quoted this gemorrah and shevet levy on this post? So from your implications, I wanted the readers to understand how the Simon I quoted previously can agree with this gemorrah and psak! EDITEDSeptember 6, 2009 6:51 pm at 6:51 pm #1135276
I’m beginning to see the makings of the following psak. If you have an outdoor chuppah, then no makeup. If chupa indoors, then makeup ok.September 6, 2009 8:31 pm at 8:31 pm #1135277
Health, You need to get a feel for the Coffee Room before coming in with both guns blazing. There is no such thing as a topic staying on topic in this neck of the woods. It is always a good idea to read all the preceding posts, prior to making any rash assumptions.September 6, 2009 10:25 pm at 10:25 pm #1135278
Health: where do you see in TD 381:6 a heter to wear makeup outside the house???September 6, 2009 11:09 pm at 11:09 pm #1135279
I hope you’re kidding.
2 Posute diyukim. 1. If the mechaber held there was a difference between inside and out- since there is no other Simon that says B’fayrush that it’s ossur (to wear makeup) the mechaber would definetly have been mechalek – because of L’hafrish m’issurah and because a husband can see his wife when she’s outside the house also. 2. It says “A Boigeres should wear makeup (in order for her to look good around her potentional matches)”. Shidduchim was always done in the street in the time of the gemorrah. See Taanis 26:2 Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says …September 7, 2009 1:23 am at 1:23 am #1135280rabbiofberlinParticipant
Allow me to comment on the ongoing discussion between joseph and health- if joseph’s source is the gemoro in shabbos 62B that interprets the possuk in ‘Jeshaya 3″ then ‘ikker chossur mehasefer”. The gemoro clearly says that the “bnos zion” (not clear if we are talking about married or single women-although the context points to single women) painted their eyes and then “meramzos es habachurim’- they hinted, or signaled- to the bachurim. It is clear that the sin had nothing to do with the actual “kichul’ (painting) but the sin was in the fact that in such a way they used their eyes to attract the attention of “bachurim’ and hence endangered their moral well-being. This is absolutely clear from the whole context as they also walked in a certain way so as to attract attention.
So, it is not correct that the churban came because of excess make-up. It is why and how you do it that seems to be the source of the sin. there were a lot of other sins also that contributed to the churban.
health has a pretty clear source as to the need for women to wear make-up and,earlier, I pointed out the mishneh in Hamadir (kesuobos) that actually forces the husband to allow his wife to wear make-up ,otherwise she can get a “get ‘from him.
it is clear from many sources that women are allowed and actually should look good with make=up and the like. I don’t understand the purpose of encouraging young women to avoid make-up. This was never the case in three thousand years of Jewish history.there may be a need to moderate it but certainly not to ban it.September 7, 2009 2:26 pm at 2:26 pm #1135281
I’m beginning to see the makings of the following psak. If you have an outdoor chuppah, then no makeup. If chupa indoors, then makeup ok.
Someone got it right finally!!
ROB, thanks for clearing things up!September 7, 2009 3:49 pm at 3:49 pm #1135283
squeak, how do you do that? And can I do that on my personal computer if I’m connected to a network of computers?September 7, 2009 8:06 pm at 8:06 pm #1135284
Heath. Hang out in the CR long enough and soon you’ll be asking, Jphone when are you ever serious.
Mepal. Once Joseph finishes dusting off all his sources and twisting them to suit his needs, the psak I rendered will be no less logical than any that he will issue for the CR.
That Milano Collection wig head, is STILL wearing lipstick after all those sources Joseph quoted. We ought to boycott that business since, in Joseph “learned” opinion, they would have been major contributors towards the churban. 🙂September 7, 2009 9:03 pm at 9:03 pm #1135285
hey jphone, be nice ;-).
And you’re absolutely correct. You should not be supporting Milano’s wigs! She doesnt listen to us! (or make that, some of us!)September 7, 2009 9:50 pm at 9:50 pm #1135286
jphone, Because you have no answer to the Torah sources I quote, is no reason for you to denigrate them. I quoted the halachic sources verbatim (in translation), not interpreted them or rendered any psak. And “dusting off” is no way to refer to our holy Gemorah, Rishonim, Achronim or meforshim.September 7, 2009 9:59 pm at 9:59 pm #1135287
Health: Your diyukim are very weak. Shulchan Aruch is talking about hilchos aveilus and may have felt no need to state the “obvious” that a woman should not wear makeup in the street. A bogeres may be referring to only when she is actually formally meeting a prospective husband and not while she wanders the streets.
Stop telling everyone they are “arguing on Shulchan Aruch”!September 7, 2009 10:01 pm at 10:01 pm #1135288oomisParticipant
“it indicated that a woman should strictly limit the amount of time spent outside of the home. Again, that is Shulchan Aruch and Rambam, not myself. “
Then I presume she should not be working outside to support her husband’s learning .September 7, 2009 10:11 pm at 10:11 pm #1135289
oomis: Not a bad idea. How about working inside the home? 🙂September 8, 2009 1:20 am at 1:20 am #1135290
Are you and Joseph one and the same? edited. Can I ask you a question, if the husband goes in the street is it possible that he might see his wife (of course only in a time when it’s mutter for her to go)? So the Taam Hadovor is still there. Then it’s mutter to wear makeup in the street also. There is no difference; only with a Krum mind is there a difference. Also, as far a Boigeres is concerned, do you think they set people up with Shiduchim, like nowadays? Look up the gemorah I quoted. So it’s mutter to wear makeup anytime she went into the street -women at that time only went into the street if they had to. If you would have looked it up it says- “Kivon Sheh Ohmedes L’nahsay”.September 8, 2009 1:22 am at 1:22 am #1135291
When you quote things IN CONTEXT, i’ll take your quotations seriously.
Regarding my “dust off” comment, it was not a reference to the Rishonim who you quote out of context, rather to you.
Please, lets stay on topic. Can you name a source that states a girl should not wear make up at her wedding. The gemara in shabbos has nothing to do with wearing makeup and in fact, the eye shadow they put on is not a major detail in the discussion. The shevet haleci discusses a woman who has her priorities all mixed up. Just ONE source that alledgedly says that girls should not wear make up at their wedding. One.
If the seminary in question feels that not wearing makeup before, during or after the wedding helps them grow in their avodas hashem in general and in the area of tznius in particular, then all the power to them. I take back the sarcastic comments i made earlier. However, i do not take back a single comment said in regards to your out of context quotes of gemarrahs, rishonim and poskim. Your comments do nothing but cast aspersions on many, many fine upstanding people.September 8, 2009 1:37 am at 1:37 am #1135292
jphone, They were simply verbatim translations of the meforshim. No apologies need me made to you, for the Rishonim and Achronim having said what they have. Even if you don’t like the Gemorah, Shulchan Aruch, Rambam, Magid Mishneh, Shevet Halevi, Gra, Sifri, Bereishis Rabah, or Kesef Mishneh I provided translations for.
No CR thread stays on topic, this being no exception, and we have long since moved from makeup on wedding day, for which I never indicated any halachic objections to – as I know none.
Health, No PM and I are not one. If you would have bothered reading the CR a bit prior to making rash attacks, you would know that PM is in Eretz Yisroel whilst I am not. Furthermore, no Taam Hadovor permits the impermissable in public. But I’m sure PM will respond more dutifully, as he typically does, to your silly remarks.September 8, 2009 2:05 am at 2:05 am #1135293
I asked that because you both post similary. Which remark is silly? I suppose yours’ is -“Furthermore, no Taam Hadovor permits the impermissable in public”. I know the Taam Hadovor only pushes off Aveilos (A D’oraysah acc. to poskim), not the issur of makeup in the streets (A D’oraysa or a D’rabbonon or some Chumra made up by some Krumme mentchen -tell me which one is it?)!September 8, 2009 2:26 am at 2:26 am #1135294
No Health, what is krum is to try to twist Shulchan Aruch into the opposite, with your personal “diyukim”.September 8, 2009 2:38 am at 2:38 am #1135295
Is this the first time in your life that you were Up Geshlogged? Because it doesn’t look like you are taking it too well! I’m refering to your name calling, eg. silly, krum. Like I said before, I feel really bad for you.September 8, 2009 2:41 am at 2:41 am #1135296
Health, Refuah shelamo. I note you are the party that has been calling people names throughout the thread, including most recently calling PM an “Am Haratzos”, lazy and krum.
For your elucidation, PM is a Rov in Eretz Yisroel.September 8, 2009 3:23 am at 3:23 am #1135297
Thanks for the Brocha, but B”H I’m very healthy that’s why I post as Health, Bli Ayin Horah. First of all, me calling him names, has nothing to do you with you. You however, started calling me names first. I guess that answers my question -why is wearing makeup ossur in the street? Because the Rov PM Paskened so. Is he also the Menahel of this Girl’s seminary? Or is that you? Did he turn this so-called Issur of makeup into a D’oraysa also? It’s not the first time I found a Rov that Krummed up the Shulchan Aruch. I live in a town where it’s done a lot. But I’m not as smart as them, they have the whole world calling them Rov and giving them money because they know how to put on the Frum show. I don’t know how to make myself LOOK Frummer than everyone else, but one thing I’ll never do is Krum up the Shulchan Aruch, no matter who tells me to!September 8, 2009 3:25 am at 3:25 am #1135298
health: “I’ll just assume your Chutzpah is due to your Am Haratzos and your laziness”
People who feel a need to resort to unprovoked insults to defend their point undermine the credibity of their arguments.September 8, 2009 3:42 am at 3:42 am #1135299AnonymousInactive
Ok kids, it’s time to stop bickering. If you can’t stick to the topic and debate like mature adults, I’ll have to close this thread.September 8, 2009 4:01 am at 4:01 am #1135300
It wasn’t “unprovoked”. Now that you rested from the computer- did you look up the mechaber? Something that is posut pshat even without it saying it in big black print, is called arguing with the Shulchan Aruch. No one should argue with the posut pshat of the Shulchan Aruch. If you don’t understand posut pshat- ask someone. In this case I told you what posut pshat is!September 8, 2009 5:14 am at 5:14 am #1135301BemusedParticipant
My goodness, Health.
Listen, I too have been caught in the trap you are in now. I too have occasionally taken the blog too seriously, and taken personal offense at anonymous posters who are for all intents and purposes, “make believe acquaintances” (although there are very real people behind the screen names, and I’ve had my share of feeling horrible for hurting a poster).
You are getting very riled up. Please be careful; you’re not doing yourself any favors. I mean that sincerely. Whether you agree with a post or not, don’t fall into the trap of anger.
Take a deep breath, and say to yourself, “I have responsibilities in life, and they don’t include getting into arguments on the internet”. Ask yourself if this argument is helping or hurting you.
Please don’t take offense; I’m writing because a number of your threads across various posts indicated some sort of very strong emotion, and that’s a sign of a poster taking the threads much too seriously. If something needs to be said, you can state it in a depersonalized manner, without insults or fierce emotion, and you are guaranteed to feel better when walking away from the computer.
I hope you have taken these words with the goodwill in which they were written.September 8, 2009 10:13 am at 10:13 am #1135302
You can cite verbatim perek after perk of shas. Siman after siman in shulchan aruch. I can to. Quoting out of context is something, lihavdil elef havdalos, missionaries do. Why must you resort to the same.
No halachic source assurs makeup or the like to be worn by a woman married or single at any time (hilchos aveilus aside). Excessive make up is a different story. The entire thread here began with the seminary here assuring all makeup because some “went overboard”. Overboard according to whose standard? The seminaries? Shulchan Aruchs?
Is assuring everything because people “go overboard” the correct approach or is teaching people, what is considered proper and what is not?September 8, 2009 12:46 pm at 12:46 pm #1135303gavra_at_workParticipant
This is typical Charaidi EY. They “need” extra Shmira from the rest of the world, so they create chumras that will not allow them to have any contact with those outside.
Its the same concept with not allowing ballplaying.
I think if it doesn’t hurt anyone and WE know it is NOT TORAH M’SINAI, then it’s OK. I feel bad for them but realize this is the way they are brought up, creating new Gedarim not out of fear of Hashem, but what began as fear of having their followers leave the “Charaidi Lifestyle” to someone who may work, or perhaps a (C”V 😉 Tzioyni (Joseph’s greatest fear :-), but now seems to be the fear of not being the “most Machmir”.
I do not plan on responding to this post, as it gets too sticky. Joseph, please realize the comment was made as a joke (not as an insult) & was mentioned because to a certain extent it is true.September 8, 2009 5:20 pm at 5:20 pm #1135304Pashuteh YidMember
What gets me nervous is that if a seminary can ignore the countless gemaras which say that it is the derech of women to wear makeup, and that the father or husband must provide them, and that women are mechuyav to use them, then maybe we must be choshesh that they are trying to shmad girls to another religion. Remember that not all forms of apostasy are kulas. The tzeddukim or karraim believed that one cannot have any light burning all shabbos long because of the posuk lo sivaaru aish bchol moshvoseichem byom hashabbos. They also believed that a tvul yom could not prepare the parah adumah, but we are meikil. They were far more machmir than we are, yet they are apostates.
The next thing is that they will then not allow their young children to play with children from homes where the mother does use makeup because it is a bad influence.
It is a vicious cycle. The more chumras they invent, the more separation they need from those who don’t keep the new chumras. This then requires even more new chumras to prevent any contact between the groups.
Joseph, although you have numerous sources that makeup is the norm for Jewish women throughout the doros, and have one that possibly says it can be harmful when overdone, so you assur the entire concept? Food is also harmful when used to an excess. Even water can be fatal if one drinks too much. So you are going to assur these, now, as well?September 8, 2009 6:39 pm at 6:39 pm #1135305dveykus613Participant
It’s funny – this whole time I agreed with Joseph, but I also agree with pashuta yid, and I see that point very clearly as well…to stand up for Joseph I think he was making a point which he believes is the torah viewpoint, and there is definitely something to be said (even though I am a woman who needs makeup for myself!) to, as some people mentioned in this post, moderate the makeup (depending on surroundings – in certain places of e”y that could mean just “base”/foundation to cover blemishes but not lipstick or eye makeup, in other places it could mean more but a more subduesd look) but whether referring to makeup or anything else, as far as tznius is concerned, a woman shouldn’t dress in a way that FOR THAT LOCATION makes her stand out and makes people look at her as more interesting or “drop-dead” than the women around her. (This can be perfume which makes people look her way too, or loud clothing, etc etc). As far as the school, I hear pashuta yid’s point, though I don’t know where the school is coming from, and it could be in their circles, well, who knows, even if in theory I don’t agree with it. The point with all of the above, and I’m beginning to feel redundant when I post, is that everyone should ask their local rabbi and abide by the “minhag hamakom” of the location that they live in….and the daas torah of their Rav…September 8, 2009 10:19 pm at 10:19 pm #1135306
Health: I can’t imagine what I said that could have possibly “provoked” your tirade against me and Rabbonim in general, but I apologise none the less.
To set the record straight, my wife wore makeup to our chasuna and continues to wear makeup even outside the house, and I personally see nothing wrong with it when done appropriately and in moderation. I assume my daughters will do the same, even after they complete their studies in “Snif”.
However the “posut(sic) pshat” of the Shulchan Aruch you quoted (which I had looked up even before my first post on this thread, FYI) is absolutely of no relevance to our discussion. All that one can deduce from SA is that there is SOME unspecified circumstance under which a woman, and even a single girl of marriageable age, may wear makeup, even during shloshim. This “circumstance” is clearly related to matrimony and is certainly no PROOF that any woman may wear makeup outside the house when she is not in the presence of her (current/future/prospective) husband. It is also certainly not proof that she may not.September 8, 2009 11:45 pm at 11:45 pm #1135307
PY, no one is “assuring the entire concept.”
There are many sources, but another to the ones already quoted is ???? ?????? Vayishlach Piskah 5, which says that makeup and perfume is intended to beautify a wife for her husband and that beyond this it should be used scarcely if at all.September 9, 2009 1:09 am at 1:09 am #1135308squeakParticipant
To Health: I have been observing this discussion, and I wanted to comment on your altercation with PM. As it happens, PM is a highly respected poster in the CR. We have had the benefit of his elucidating posts on a wide variety of topics, and I personally find that I have benefited from his insight in any discussion that he participated in. I am sure that many other posters here feel the same as I do.
In all fairness, I notice that you have started posting in the CR only recently, and I think that may be why you do not understand the caliber of the person whom you are debating. I would like to request that you treat all posters that you come in contact with in the CR with the same level of respect and benefit of the doubt in your discussions that you expect to receive from us. Is there a humane way that we can achieve your cooperation with this? Thank you so much.
(But by all means, feel free to beat up on someone after you have seen enough to judge. This is the CR after all. However, we will judge your own character by this.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.