September 9, 2009 1:40 am at 1:40 am #1135309
“oomis: Not a bad idea. How about working inside the home? 🙂 “
That actually makes more sense to me – at least Mommy is home when her babies need her…September 9, 2009 1:43 am at 1:43 am #1135310
I want to tell you -I like getting riled up. I just enjoy a good argument. But even though I enjoy it and use it as an outlet, I didn’t answer them for my enjoyment. I also don’t do it for them to see the light, I don’t believe people like this change unless they really want to. So why do I do it? Simply because of the Hamone Am, especially the women readers. A lot of people will believe someone who calls himself Rabbi and looks frum, so he must be telling the truth. A lot people think that they are being frum by taking on every chumra in the world. I live in a town where ya’know the restaurants have “catch of the day”, we have “chumra of the week”. There definitely is such a thing in Torah as chumras, but you have to know when & where. This is not one of those times!September 9, 2009 2:04 am at 2:04 am #1135311
Thank you for agreeing to me that it’s mutter to wear makeup to your chasuna. We still might be in disagreement whether there is an Inyan to be machmir not to wear makeup to the chasuna or the chumra would be to wear. Remember -I said might. As Joseph so aptly quotes always makeup is for the husband; and to me- Rav wosner’s psak makes sense too -only for the people in the street and not for the husband would be Prizous. But what I found in Hilchos Aveilos is that a women can go in the street with makeup if it’s possible that she will be seen by her husband or potentional spouse. There is no requirement that this is the purpose of her leaving her house. She could have gone out for other permissble reasons and she can still wear makeup. This you see from the words of the Mechaber which I quoted befoe -“Kivon Sheh Ohmedes L’nahsay”.September 9, 2009 2:11 am at 2:11 am #1135312
Not to be personal but are you a man or a woman? BTW, I post quite often all over the YWN including the CR, but I usually limit myself to health topics. Here I decided to post because it peaked my interest.September 9, 2009 2:17 am at 2:17 am #1135313
I’ve had the benefit of seeing your posts on health topics and teh swine flu. You have not been able to pique my interest with that, or we’d already know each other well enough.September 9, 2009 2:22 am at 2:22 am #1135314
Don’t denigrade yourself by calling yourself dumb. Also, why do you say I have disgusting traits- which post(s) are you refering to? Even if I was a little harsh in some of my responses, you should not judge me up from a few posts. 1. You probably never met me, so you should not judge me until you know me well. 2. Even if we ever met, which I don’t know because you use a Pen name, you should dan me l’caf zecus. Just like you want Hashem to judge you favorably in 2 weeks, so you should also judge me favorably!September 9, 2009 2:28 am at 2:28 am #1135315
Health, I’m sure ames was being sarcastic about calling herself dumb, so it’s likely that the part about your character traits was sarcastic too.September 9, 2009 2:28 am at 2:28 am #1135316
Where did I say I wanted to pique your interest? I understand from one of your previous posts that it’s grammaticaly correct to write TEH on the net, but must you do it -it’s so annoying?!September 9, 2009 2:42 am at 2:42 am #1135317
I guess I will have to stop. I wouldn’t want to be annoying on purpose…September 9, 2009 2:44 am at 2:44 am #1135318
You didn’t answer my question to you. The reason I want to know Squeak’s gender is because the torah says “Ko somroo l’bais yaakov v’saged l’bnai yisroel”. (I’m not sure if I got the posuk exactly right because I didn’t look it up.) If you speak to a female you have to speak more gently.September 9, 2009 3:35 am at 3:35 am #1135319
“Ohmedes L’nahsay” means “of marriageable age”, no indication of inside or outside the house.September 9, 2009 10:51 am at 10:51 am #1135320
Health, you know the saying you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar? I think its a phrase you should learn to internatlize!
Don’t get me wrong – I’ve argued strongly with all these people before. We are on opposite sides of most things too…but you should still try to speak more respectfully.September 9, 2009 5:53 pm at 5:53 pm #1135321
Thanks Ames 🙂 I like you too, just for who you are!September 9, 2009 7:01 pm at 7:01 pm #1135322
To clarify my point, I personally don’t see any reason to be “machmir” not to wear makeup at one’s own chasuna. My point is that I see no clear indication in Gemarra or Shulchan Aruch that one should, or even necessarily may, wear makeup outside,; so I don’t approve of calling a person or organization that chooses to be “machmir” “krum” or “anti-Shulchan Aruch”. There isn’t really any sefer that explores the details of the practical application of tzniyus until Rav Falk’s sefer, so each person should follow their minhag and the psak they receive from their Rav, whether “chumra” or “kula”.September 9, 2009 8:18 pm at 8:18 pm #1135323
“There isn’t really any sefer that explores the details of the practical application of tzniyus until Rav Falk’s sefer,”
If I’m not mistaken, the sefer “Halichos Bas Yisroel” has been out for quite a number of years.September 9, 2009 9:48 pm at 9:48 pm #1135324
PM, I have posted on other tznius threads that Rav Falk’s sefer is incredibly machmir on things which have no basis in halacha. Like the color and thickness of socks, which are purely optional to begin with, according to Reb Moshe and Mishna Berura. Also, denim skirts are purely a matter of taste and not halacha. The amount and length of jewelry is another example. He regulates that, but then concedes that for sephardim who normally wear huge amounts and large size jewelry it is ok. What that means is that jewelry, too, is also a matter of taste. I find it hard to take seriously a sefer which basically is based on one person’s opinion of how women should dress, rather than on concrete halacha. Yes, if you want a guidebook on the “frum” or “yeshivishe” style, this is a good manual. (My daughter was once given a camp list which had some rules for the pockets or zippers of skirts which had to either be only in the front or only in the back, I can’t even remember which, but obvioulsy nothing to do with halacha.)
However, if you want to dress your own way, and really want to know what the halacha is, this book has really little information that will be of use. It is a style manual, but not a halachic reference. Halichos Bas Yisroel seems to be a much more unbiased and honest guide to what the halacha requires.September 9, 2009 9:49 pm at 9:49 pm #1135325
jphone: I’m not familiar with the sefer, but my point was that these details are not mentioned in Gemarra, Rishonim, Shulchan Aruch etc.September 9, 2009 10:58 pm at 10:58 pm #1135326
PY: I neither endorsed nor criticized the sefer. I merely stated my observation that there is almost no earlier work to quote regarding specific details of tzniyus.September 10, 2009 2:22 am at 2:22 am #1135327
If you are judging up my character traits due to the way I posted here is ultimately judging me as a person. You should not judge up my character traits the way I respond. My response is just a small part of my character traits’, I (and every other human) have many facets to my/their middos. You really wouldn’t be able to judge up my middos unless you knew me well!September 10, 2009 2:28 am at 2:28 am #1135328
To Pashuteh yid,
Look Rabbi Falk realized if he just put out a sefer based on halacha alone, it might not sell too well. So he put out a sefer that was full of chumras; this he knew would be a big hit in our ultra-frum generation.September 10, 2009 2:48 am at 2:48 am #1135329
You say -“”Ohmedes L’nahsay” means “of marriageable age”, no indication of inside or outside the house.” I feel I’m going around & around with you. Do you remember my posts where I told you to look up the gemorah in Taanis? The reason a boigeres can wear makeup when she is an aveilah is because she has to look presentable in order to help her get married. There is/was no reason for her to look presentable in her house, she didn’t have an indoor date like some people do nowadays. The gemorrah clearly states that shiduchim took place outdoors. So she is allowed to wear makeup outside. I asked you and that guy Joe to please tell me what kind of issur there would be in wearing makeup- D’oraysa or D’rabbonon? I didn’t get an answer. But let’s say for argument sake it’s a D’oraysa, but since there is such an Inyan to wear makeup it even pushes off the issur D’oraysa of Aveilos. This same Inyan would push off the issur of wearing makeup in the streets. But this is just lomdis, there is no issur and even no reason to be macmir not to wear makeup in the streets!September 10, 2009 3:35 am at 3:35 am #1135330
Health: “The gemorrah clearly states that shiduchim took place outdoors.”
Do you really think that shidduchim only took place on Tu b’Av??? Clearly the procedure described in Ta’anis was unique to that day, the rest of the year shidduchim were conducted in the standard fashion.
Aveilus is dRabannan!September 10, 2009 3:52 am at 3:52 am #1135331
You mentioned that you don’t want to be judged based on the presentation of your posts. Similarly, perhaps it isn’t right to judge Rabbi Falks motives for writing a Sefer (to “sell”).
As it happens, I know Rabbi Falk, and his motives are extraordinarily pure, and not predicated on how well a Sefer might “sell”. You don’t need to necessarily believe that, because you don’t have that first-hand knowledge. By the same token though, isn’t it inappropriate to “judge up” Rabbi Falk’s motives based on the fact that he wrote this style of Sefer?
I have no helpful information to offer on the Sefer itself, which I did not read; I don’t need to read the content to know the motivation on the writing of it. At the least, let’s not judge based on personal feelings of “it’s full of Chumros in order to sell well”. This is not some anonymous blogger you are referencing; this is a known, named, Chashuv individual (the same would hold true even if the individual were not “Chashuv”).
As you wrote, “You really wouldn’t be able to judge up my [his] middos [motivations] unless you knew me [him] well!
Just a thought; if you disagree, no hard feelings here.September 10, 2009 1:51 pm at 1:51 pm #1135332
Wow, am I glad I didn’t go here during my machsom l’fi hours.
Rabbi Falk is a gaon atzum. That said, a kiruv rebbetzin explained to me why that book wasn’t in there library when I asked for it: she said it’s not necessarily for America, and for most people MUST be learned with a mentor.
Maybe it sounds like I’m holding two opposing thoughts here, but while Rav Falk’s shlita book is chumra-heavy, and I don’t own it nor learn it daily, I cannot let it diminish my respect for the man, nor for the tznius movement that promotes it, along with all the other phenomenal stuff they do.
Too close to R”H to continue this, IMO.September 10, 2009 1:52 pm at 1:52 pm #1135333
Speaking of Rav Falk, any word on how Rebbetzin Solomon is doing?September 10, 2009 3:19 pm at 3:19 pm #1135334
Bereishis 18:9 – …and the men said to Avraham, “Where is Sara your wife? And he said, she is in the tent”. Rashi explains that they asked about Sara in order to endear her to Avraham.
When I see someone noticing my wife because she always takes the time to make herself presentable, I also feel more endeared to her.
In my opinion, Orthodox women are much more attractive and beautiful than others because they have always presented themselves as well put-together females.
The bochrim of Slabodka who were the future Roshei Yeshiva also appeared neat and in the latest fashion. They deserved no less from their wives.
Today, many of our learners display an unkempt appearance; shirt out, tzitzis dangling to the floor, wrinkled unmatched stained suits, etc. This is clearly a chillul Hashem. These individuals also deserve women who reflect this new dress philosophy.September 10, 2009 3:23 pm at 3:23 pm #1135335
When I see someone noticing my wife because she always takes the time to make herself presentable, I also feel more endeared to her.
And of course Avrohom Avinu famously never even looked at his own wife. No one, no one other than yourself, should be “noticing your wife.” And if one does, it is not something to appreciate.September 10, 2009 3:44 pm at 3:44 pm #1135336
Joseph, not everyone is on Avrohom Avinu’s or your level; not unless you’re a malach. But we are humans and even tzadikim notice other people.
True story: When I was in yeshiva in the 60’s (won’t mention which one but it was in Baltimore), a bochur, let’s call him “Yosef”, was in the waiting room of a doctor’s office and also seated was the Rosh Yeshiva. Later that day an eltere bocher says to “Yosef” that the Rosh Yeshiva was upset that “Yosef” didn’t offer the Rosh Yeshiva to change seats with him since the Rosh Yeshiva was sitting next to a girl and it didn’t pas. “Yosef” responds that the Rosh Yeshiva was sitting next to a lamp, not a girl.
So Joseph, obviously you are on the Rosh Yeshiva’s level, but again most of us are of this world.September 10, 2009 6:24 pm at 6:24 pm #1135339
Why do you call yourself bemused, when you don’t have a sense of humor? It was a joke. I didn’t read his sefer that well to describe whether it’s full of chumras or not. But they say in every joke there is some truth and this truth is about our generation.September 10, 2009 6:33 pm at 6:33 pm #1135340
Shidduchim took place more often probably, but the standard fashion was in the same way- OUT IN THE STREET. Also, I saw Poskim that say aveilos is D’oraysa, but I don’t recall whom offhand. Who did you see that says it’s D’rabbonon?September 10, 2009 7:15 pm at 7:15 pm #1135341
Just a quic word to ‘health”. I, too, did not appreciate your harsh comments. “divrei chachomim benachas nishmo’im’. especially your colloqui with PM- whom many people on this website respect- even if one diasgress with. (look up another thread where I had long discussions with PM, always trying to be civil and polite- even when we disagreed)
That said- I agree with you on this matter of make-up and perfume.
to PM- You say that you don’t find a gemoro that says that that one must wear make-up “outside”. I imagine that this is the qualifying condition, as you yourself admit one should/could wear make-up and perfume “inside”.
It strains credulity to say that a woman must or should remove ther make-up when she goes out. Nowherer is this mentioned and unless you asset that women must stay inside (as Joseph does0 it is pretty clear that women wear make-up to look good, whether a marreid woman or a single woman. This, I think, is ‘health’ point, even if he put it rather too forcefully.September 10, 2009 8:04 pm at 8:04 pm #1135342
To Health: You are hearing from just about every poster on this board that your manner of expressing yourself comes across as distasteful. We cannot possibly do anything to make you accept our words – that is up to you alone. If you remark civily, you will be fully welcome here and we will be more happy to discuss issues with you.
To all of us, I say z’chor ma’ashecha harishonim. I’ve been going through some old posts on this site (not for this reason) and I must say that I am startled by the positive strides that we have all made in terms of having civil conversations here in the CR. The tone I took in some of my own posts a year ago makes me ashamed today. We have made our point clear to Health, now let us give him as much time as we gave ourselves to embrace it.September 10, 2009 8:20 pm at 8:20 pm #1135343
to “health”; “aninus’ is mi’deoraisa” according to the vast majority of poskim, but on “aveilus’ , there actually is a “machlokes’ although the “Remo paskens that ALL aveilus is miderabbonon and the majority of poskim follow this Psak. Other Poskim maintain that the first day of aveilus is “mido’raisa” and many rishonim maintain that all seven days are “mideoraisa”. So both you and PM are right ! ( I am indebted to this elucidation to Rav Grunwald zz’l and his wonderful sefer “Kol Bo al Aveilus”)September 10, 2009 8:45 pm at 8:45 pm #1135345
If you noticed I tuned it down. I was being harsh because I felt on the defense. Maybe I’m a little paranoid. Also thank you for answering for PM.September 10, 2009 9:18 pm at 9:18 pm #1135346
ROB: “you yourself admit one should/could wear make-up and perfume “inside”.
Actually, if you read all of my posts I even agree it may be worn outside tastefully and in moderation. My issue with “Health” is only that he insists that this school is “arguing with the Shulchan Aruch” “it’s krum and wrong” “this is crumkeit not frumkeit”.
I personally disagree with the school policy, but don’t have any objection to their choosing to be machmir and see no source in Shulchan Aruch to support or undermine their policy.September 10, 2009 10:13 pm at 10:13 pm #1135347
I can only tryMember
Your efforts at keeping conversations civil are noticed and appreciated.
This is quite likely due to the core mentchlichkeit most posters have.
Many of us know only our own communities and svivos, and may therefore find a differing opinion or kula/chumra extremely wrong and/or objectionable..September 11, 2009 12:19 am at 12:19 am #1135348
PM, you no doubt know that Shulchan Aruch says that a woman who doesn’t wear makeup according to the norms of her place can be divorced without a kesuva. Now of course, the husband can be mochel if he wants.
However, the down side is that what if he is later strolling down the street and sees all the other women wearing gorgeous makeup, and his wife looks very plain. He may either start to look at other women, or may subconsciously start getting upset with his wife that she doesn’t measure up, either of which is bad for shalom bayis.
Note that there is a story about the wife of reb Aryeh Levin who always said she was jealous of the zchus of a particular woman. This woman would put on her finest and get all dressed up to go out and greet her husband every day on the way home from work. She would wait on the corner for him to arrive.September 11, 2009 9:15 am at 9:15 am #1135349
PY: nice point and story, but I’m not sure why you addressed it to me. Did anything I wrote give the impression that I disapprove of a woman wearing makeup FOR HER HUSBAND’S benefit and enjoyment???
Maybe you were subtly criticizing my kula of giving a blanket heter to wear tasteful makeup, and demanding the level of tzidkus demonstrated in your story of the woman who ONLY put on makeup to greet her husband.September 14, 2009 6:40 am at 6:40 am #1135350
I have one question, the seminary girls (e.g. Darchei Rachel mentioned on this post) are told they must now wear skirts that are too long and the stockings must be transparent – they may not be black, white, etc. Sounds ridiculous to me, but I have enough respect for the system not to ridicule but to ask for a reason why it is more tzanua to expose part of their legs?September 14, 2009 1:09 pm at 1:09 pm #1135351
Sorry for the typo, that was supposed to be “they must not wear skirts that are too long”, not “they must now”. My apologies for all those who had no idea what I was talking aboutSeptember 15, 2009 3:34 am at 3:34 am #1135352
You would be right technically, but they are against long skirts because it’s considered modern style. Also they don’t want transparent stockings, they just don’t want colored, but the stockings shouldn’t be see through.September 15, 2009 4:18 am at 4:18 am #1135353
rwndk1: i second that!
If you are a responsible parent and sent your daughter to this school, then you obviously know the rules and Hashkafa.
As for the rest of us…
How do they say it?
“Don’t make mountains out of molehills… especially if they are not yours!”
😉September 15, 2009 5:41 am at 5:41 am #1135354
are they offering the boys any sorts of bribes for their wedding days?September 15, 2009 6:50 am at 6:50 am #1135355
ambush: the stockings are see-through in most cases, in many cases you can’t even tell they have them on. There are girls who on their own are makpid to have a higher number denier, but a girl will more likely be reprimanded for black thick than for see-through. What makes it more ridiculous is that grown up women who wear black are not considered not tzanua. My friend’s daughter is extremely tzanua who grew up with longer skirts and cotton socks (she is far from modern), she got to the seminary and they told her that the skirts had to be shorter and the stockings I believe they refer to as “skin colored”. Her father who is a big tzaddik told her not to kick up a fight and that there are different definitions of what is tzanua (he told me privately that she was right but he could not pit her against the school). The only explanation I can give is “minhag Yisrael”, like a Yeshiva bachur’s suit and hat. In other words they should call it a uniform and that’s it. From a tznius perspective it makes no sense and if so they have to be careful not to kick a girl out for this, thereby giving the message that a higher level of tznius is unacceptable.September 15, 2009 12:41 pm at 12:41 pm #1135356
If Tznius would be taught in terms of mindset and not inches and colors, I believe our children (boys and girls alike) are smart enough to understand on their own what is appropriate to wear and what is not.
This is true of the home and yeshivos.September 15, 2009 1:04 pm at 1:04 pm #1135357
Inches and color are germane to discussing tznius.September 15, 2009 1:15 pm at 1:15 pm #1135358
I agree with jphone. Tznius is not just inches and color. Its a whole feeling for yiddishkeit that must precede/come along with the rules.September 15, 2009 1:16 pm at 1:16 pm #1135359
To Joseph: of course, but…
Skirts can be however many inches are acceptable and a nice straight but not tight cut, but when a girl/woman sits in them normally she won’t be covered. Principles like that – sit down when you try on something – are possibly a better rule of them.
Anyway, this whole skirt/hose thing isn’t my party or my kids’ sems’ so I won’t comment.September 15, 2009 1:28 pm at 1:28 pm #1135360
“Inches and color are germane to discussing tznius.” Either you missed my point or ignored it altogether.September 15, 2009 2:43 pm at 2:43 pm #1135361
Should have been “rule of thumb” (but you all knew that, didn’t y’all).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.