Open Orthodoxy

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Open Orthodoxy

Viewing 50 posts - 51 through 100 (of 234 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1210350

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    Iacisrmma: “gaw: The Ezras Nashim is not part of the Beis Knesses?”

    This is a side point, but I actually always wondered if the Ezras Nashim has the exact same din as the Beis Knesses. I always wondered if there might be more leniencies regarding standing when the Aron Kodesh is open, or saying Tehillim during parts of davening when it might be a problem.

    #1210351

    iacisrmma
    Participant

    gaw: it’s not an ervah, where? You think the M’B is referring to a shul? If yes, I think you should have a conversation with your rav. Unless his name is Avi Weiss or Yssochor Katz.

    #1210353

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    Iacisrmma- are you saying that there is a halacha that it is assur for a woman’s elbows or knees to ever be revealed any time she is in shul even if there are no men present? Obviously, people should try to be tznius at all times, but I never heard of a specific halacha like that – which doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Does it? Where does it say that? And is that only during davening times?

    And if that is the case, why doesn’t every shul have a sign posted saying that it is assur to enter if your knees, elbows, collarbone, or hair are uncovered?

    #1210354

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    iacisrmma – As far as women are concerned, it is not Ervas Dovor. Period. Read the MB. I was just as surprised, and personally I agree that the Rosh is more Mistaver, but I (and you) can’t say that is an OO p’sak.

    LUL – Not at all. My argument was that many women whom you consider not following the Halachos of Tznius really are, whether MO or Chassidish.

    Personally, as I’ve said in the past, I would define MO as a Talmid or follower of a Talmid of Rav Yoshe Ber, whether it is Rabbi Twersky HYD, Rabbi Shechter, Rabbi Meiselman, or Rabbi Avi Weiss.

    #1210355

    nishtdayngesheft
    Participant

    “I would define MO as a Talmid or follower of a Talmid of Rav Yoshe Ber, whether it is Rabbi Twersky HYD, Rabbi Shechter, Rabbi Meiselman, or Rabbi Avi Weiss.”

    This is a very unique definition. Not one that I have seen shared by anyone else. Certainly not the people who you are calling MO, except perhaps Rabbi Shachter.

    #1210356

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    Nisht – Yes. But it has the advantage of being very specific. If you hold Rav Yoshe Ber as the father of MO (which I believe most agree), then his talmidim who follow him are also MO.

    #1210357

    gavra_at_work,

    Ludicrous

    So hashkapha counts for how much?

    How many notable Conservatives and Charedim ( according to your own chevra’s defintion would that include?Scores

    My grandfather studied in Yeshiva College in 1937-38 (he had enough with the antics going on and walked out together with a few friends and went over to chofetz chaim ]

    Would that make him and/or my family MO?

    #1210358

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    GAW: “LUL – Not at all. My argument was that many women whom you consider not following the Halachos of Tznius really are, whether MO or Chassidish.”

    Not at all what? How do you know what I consider following the halachos of tznius? I didn’t specify any halachos in my original post. When I said halachos, I meant things that are halacha and not minhag hamakom, whatever those halachos may happen to be.

    If you want me to be more specific: hair that is not covered at all, knees, upper arm above the elbow, mixed swimming, shorts.

    On the other hand, I was not referring to not wearing socks which is minhag hamakom or to the elbows themselves which might not be assur halachically, or to nail polish of any color.

    Just curious- what did you think I was referring to? Wearing thick stockings? Wearing burkas?

    #1210359

    Rav Yoshe Ber would have been first to stand up and proclaim

    that orthodoxy is foremost about Core Beliefs

    Would you studied from, means precisely how much?Zero

    #1210360

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    “This is a very unique definition. Not one that I have seen shared by anyone else. Certainly not the people who you are calling MO, except perhaps Rabbi Shachter.”

    Maskim. I don’t really see how you can put Rav Twersky, HY”D in the same category as Avi Weiss unless the category is Jewish and you are including all Jews (which perhaps is what we should be doing anyhow, but that’s another story).

    #1210361

    Avi K,etc.

    (presumably the Rabbi you are implying in Rabbi D C

    It’s the Modox crowd who often are inclined to rely on some of his maverick Heterim, ironically.)

    Once more, Very shrewd to quibble about minutiae

    #1210362

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    IITFT – In my personal definition, nothing. You are all more than welcome to have your own, but I personally believe that fits the term “MO” in the best fashion. Like LUL says, my definition is “unique”, and I don’t expect others to agree. And yes, your grandfather may be MO (per my definition) if he considered Rav Yoshe Ber his Rebbe. It seems you don’t believe that is the case.

    LUL – Regarding Tznius: Covering hair at least partially is a Limud from a Pasuk, but not a Lav or even a Bittul Asei. I’m not sure about mixed swimming (with a Burkini to avoid the other issues) being a real issue at all. Knees, upper arm and elbow according to many would only be required/enforceable if minhag hamakom (which is a totally different discussion!!). Shorts, if Derech Pritzus, would be a real problem, but you would have to show me that is a real issue in your community. B”H I don’t see them on religious women (even those who go to Young Israel, which may be your definition of MO) at all.

    #1210363

    benignuman
    Participant

    “If you want me to be more specific: hair that is not covered at all, knees, upper arm above the elbow, mixed swimming, shorts.”

    The only one of these that I would say is for sure asur regardless of community, is “hair that is not covered at all.” Knees and above (i.e. shorts) according to the Mishna Berura is universal but the Shulchan Aruch doesn’t hold that way. Upper arm is b’pashtus dependent on the community. And mixed swimming, while an exceedingly bad idea, is not the subject of a particular Rabbinic prohibition as far as a I know.

    #1210364

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    Knees and above are completely assur. That is from Chazal, and there is no disagreement on it. Upper arm above the elbow is also. It is also completely assur to not cover your hair at all. By mixed swimming, I meant while wearing a bathing suit. I’ve seen many Modern Orthodox women wear shorts and go mixed swimming wearing bathing suits.

    #1210365

    Joseph
    Participant

    benig/gaw, am I reading you correctly in claiming that a woman going sleeveless in the public street is not necessarily assur/pritzus everywhere?! And pray tell where the S”A “doesn’t hold” that displaying the upper legs (i.e. shorts/miniskirt/swimwear) in the public street (or beach/mixed pool) is always assur/pritzus?

    #1210366

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    One major differnce between the more Charedi communities and the more modern ones is how people look at other people

    If someone keeps 60-70% of Halacha. The Charedi communties will look at such a person as a sinner and might throw them out if they dont immediately agree to abide. The more modern communities will look at the 60-70% that they do keep

    So if a woman is seen outside the community having hair uncovered and wearing pants. But is known to keep kosher and shabbos. How do you react to such a person, Do you look at the part that they keep or the part they dont keep and what do you say to the person. Telling the tochcha many times will backfire.

    #1210367

    K-cup
    Participant

    Lilmod ulamemaid, Previous posts address halacha of tznious, please provide sources for where chazal state above knees and above elbows is completely Assur.

    #1210368

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Knees and above (i.e. shorts) according to the Mishna Berura is universal but the Shulchan Aruch doesn’t hold that way

    You’re got it backwards, I believe. The M”B is meikil for under the knees, many Rishonim held even below the knees is ervah.

    K-cup: ??? ???? ???? is a phrase found in Chazal :????? ?”?.

    ???? is mentioned in :?????? ??.

    #1210369

    K-cup
    Participant

    Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 75:1 talks about how tznious is dependent to your surroundings

    Rashi in Kesubos 72a includes calf as such a case, Kaf Hachayim 75:2 includes calf and arms, and I believe Rav Moshe also includes calf and arms as depending on your community but I need to double check. ( They all say body/low neckline is always ervah).

    Bottom line it is not completely clearly Assur by chazal, there are many more sources who hold arms and knees are not always ervah.

    #1210370

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    As they are mentioned in Chazal, ??? and ???? are not subject to minhag. Tzemach Tzedek says regarding this that ???? and ???? are the same letters.

    #1210371

    If the discussion is about calves, how does that allow knees?

    #1210372

    K-cup
    Participant

    Clarification: upper arms and Above the calves

    #1210373

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    benig/gaw, am I reading you correctly in claiming that a woman going sleeveless in the public street is not necessarily assur/pritzus everywhere?! And pray tell where the S”A “doesn’t hold” that displaying the upper legs (i.e. shorts/miniskirt/swimwear) in the public street (or beach/mixed pool) is always assur/pritzus?

    Absolutely not. Dressing Derech Pritzus is Assur in all scenarios for both men and women (SA/Rema Yoreh Deah 178.1). The question is whether not covering the knee or elbow is Derech Pritzus. Seemingly shorts or the type would be. The SA where he discusses the issue of Issur for women (Even Haezer 21) only mentions hair.

    As they are mentioned in Chazal, ??? and ???? are not subject to minhag. Tzemach Tzedek says regarding this that ???? and ???? are the same letters.

    Machlokes Rishonim. The Sefer HaEshkol agrees with you (Pashtus), the Rosh (and perhaps the Rashba) does not. Besides, are you asking about Ervah for Kriyas Shema or a prohibition regarding walking down the street as such? They are not the same.

    #1210374

    k cup – above the calves is like calling a face “above the neck”. The claves end at the knee, after that it is a thigh. Very different body part.

    #1210375

    K-cup
    Participant

    Ym moderator 29, that is specifically not the context of the sources I gave. What you are saying is the Sevara to argue, (Wich is the psak we accept) and is based on the language and names of the parts of the body the gemarra uses. But other rishinim and achronim specifically do not distinguish above the calf, knee, above knee, ECT..

    #1210376

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Besides, are you asking about Ervah for Kriyas Shema or a prohibition regarding walking down the street as such? They are not the same.

    The poskim I’ve seen assume they’re the same parameters.

    Except for the Aruch Hashulchan, who is mechadeish that Krias Sh’mah can be considered more lenient b’sha’as had’chak.

    #1210377

    Joseph
    Participant

    K-cup, are your arguing that in some places where the “minhag” is for women to go in the street with a tank top (that has a high neckline) and a miniskirt, that it might not be a halachic problem to do so?

    #1210378

    nishtdayngesheft
    Participant

    “If someone keeps 60-70% of Halacha. The Charedi communties will look at such a person as a sinner and might throw them out if they dont immediately agree to abide. The more modern communities will look at the 60-70% that they do keep”

    This is a misunderstanding.

    Chareidim do not look to throw people out.

    Keeping half Shabbos is not keeping Shabbos at all.

    Your definition certainly does not apply to knowledgeable MO.

    Your difference would seem to be more related to those who have robust Jewish education or not.

    There are differences, but this is not it.

    #1210379

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=32296&st=&pgnum=35&hilite=

    ???”? makes a distinction between ??? (always ????) and other areas (e.g. hands, face) which are ???? in ???? ?????.

    #1210380

    K-cup
    Participant

    Joseph, no. I’m saying some rishinom don’t hold that there is a strict “halachic line” of calf, knee, above knee, ECT…, that hold its dependent up to a point, and when the gemmarah refers to calf it was not to give halacha definition. I know that is not the halcha. They all to my knowledge hold a tank top would not be allowed as well.

    The only difference is a borderline case, “at the knee” that when your sitting might be iffy. Some people have said that is clearly assur, I’m saying we pasken it’s assur.

    #1210381

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    The poskim I’ve seen assume they’re the same parameters.

    Which Shittos (by that I mean Rishonim or earlier Achronim, not modern day Rabbonim) have said that they are the same? Rav Moshe is very careful to say they are different, when he discusses the Aruch Hashulchan you mentioned.

    ???”? makes a distinction between ??? (always ????) and other areas (e.g. hands, face) which are ???? in ???? ?????.

    1: That discusses Kriyas Shema.

    2: That exact Rashba is used as a source for the Mattirm (for Kriyas Shema), as he brings in the concept of “Ragil Bahen” being Muttar. Therefore (the argument goes) anything that is Ragil does not create Hirhur, and hence Muttar to read Kriyas Shema before it (note the Rashba L’Shittaso against the Rosh l’gabei the din of an absolute Ervah except Oso makom).

    #1210382

    Joseph
    Participant

    There are Sefardish seforim that pasken that married and unmarried women must wear a full head covering (that leaves only the face visible.)

    #1210383

    According to some of the common definitions of MO presented here (gavra ,et al.):

    1)There is another whole recent thread “Is Hareidism a new movement” and attempting to posit MO by comparison as closer to Normative.Does that jive?

    2)Are,say,Skokie alumni out?(Better go inform Harry M ‘the Centrist’ )

    3)Should we show more empathy to all MO wannabees [on their numerous blogs]who sadly for them lacking the requisite credentials?

    4)What about females?

    Better start opening a host of Kiruv Centers?

    5)In which rubric would Louis Ginzberg or David Halivny Weiss fall?

    6)Is MO

    Cultural Club or Alumni Golf Association?

    6)On some blogs[e.g.Slifkin’s]

    several months ago they consorted to lambast, tar and feather Rabbi Gordimer (a “righteous in his generations”) as being fraudulent /false member of MO (“How dare He?!”),claiming his articles as too frum/yeshivish , irrespective of his MO credentials.

    ( They virtually wished to revoke his YU diploma,plus the fact that he was a Talmid.)

    How would that reconcile?

    The Game must go on….?

    #1210384

    “If someone keeps 60-70% of Halacha. The Charedi communties will look at such a person as a sinner and might throw them out if they dont immediately agree to abide. The more modern communities will look at the 60-70% that they do keep”

    Au contrarie ,

    Many invariably look

    down on those who keep 100% as naive, gullible , BTish at the minimum

    #1210385

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    It is Time for Truth – My definition is extremely uncommon and has a following of one person that I’m aware of. 🙂

    #1210386

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    There are Sefardish seforim that pasken that married and unmarried women must wear a full head covering (that leaves only the face visible.)

    As I’ve pointed out to LUL elsewhere, Rav Vosner and some Achronim are Choshesh for the Magen Avraham and Rashi, and hold that a woman has to have her hair braided, whether there is a requirement of covering (i.e. under the covering) or not.

    #1210388

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    2: That exact Rashba is used as a source for the Mattirm (for Kriyas Shema), as he brings in the concept of “Ragil Bahen” being Muttar. Therefore (the argument goes) anything that is Ragil does not create Hirhur, and hence Muttar to read Kriyas Shema before it (note the Rashba L’Shittaso against the Rosh l’gabei the din of an absolute Ervah except Oso makom).

    Used by whom?

    He is clearly distinguishing between hands, face, and feet, which would also be assur if not ???? ???, and ???.

    The ???? ??? also quotes a ???? who argues on that ??”?.

    See ????? ????? who disagrees with ???? ??????’s understanding of the ??”? and calls it a ???? ?? (he is obviously comparing ?”? to dressing. Rav Moshe, as I recall, specifically only said they’re different for ???).

    See also, for example, ???? ?????? in ??? ???? who equates ?”? with ???????. We know that ??????? ?????? ?????? is ???? ????? ????? ????, so it’s referring to incidental ???????, so there is a ???? for women to cover these areas to prevent incidental ???????.

    #1210389

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    “2: That exact Rashba is used as a source for the Mattirm (for Kriyas Shema), as he brings in the concept of “Ragil Bahen” being Muttar. Therefore (the argument goes) anything that is Ragil does not create Hirhur, and hence Muttar to read Kriyas Shema before it (note the Rashba L’Shittaso against the Rosh l’gabei the din of an absolute Ervah except Oso makom).

    Used by whom?”

    IIRC the language matches the Mordichai and Tosfos L’Gabei Kol Isha. I’d have to go back and check sources.

    “He is clearly distinguishing between hands, face, and feet, which would also be assur if not ???? ???, and ???.”

    He’s actually discussing Ishto, so it has nothing to do with Histaklus.

    “The ???? ??? also quotes a ???? who argues on that ??”?.”

    I’ve seen the ???? inside. He doesn’t say anything about why the Issur exists, and if it is only because at the time of the Gemorah it was a Makom Mechusah.

    “See ????? ????? who disagrees with ???? ??????’s understanding of the ??”? and calls it a ???? ?? (he is obviously comparing ?”? to dressing. Rav Moshe, as I recall, specifically only said they’re different for ???).”

    I’ll have to see it inside.

    “See also, for example, ???? ?????? in ??? ???? who equates ?”? with ???????. We know that ??????? ?????? ?????? is ???? ????? ????? ????, so it’s referring to incidental ???????, so there is a ???? for women to cover these areas to prevent incidental ???????.”

    I don’t see where you are talking about, unless you mean the part about Ishto (which has no Shaychus to our discussion). Had the ???? ?????? meant to create an Issur on the woman, he should have included it in Halacha Daled, or said so somewhere.

    #1210390

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    He’s actually discussing Ishto, so it has nothing to do with Histaklus.

    As I demonstrated, they have mostly the same parameters.

    I’ve seen the ???? inside. He doesn’t say anything about why the Issur exists, and if it is only because at the time of the Gemorah it was a Makom Mechusah.

    I haven’t, but I’ll go with the ???? ???.

    I don’t see where you are talking about

    ?.

    http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14243&st=&pgnum=153&hilite=

    http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14243&st=&pgnum=154&hilite=

    #1210391

    Avi K
    Participant

    Gavra, generally speaking in Litvish communities people are not choshesh.

    #1210393

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    As I demonstrated, they have mostly the same parameters.

    I haven’t seen you demonstrate anything.

    When I went into the Sugyah, I had fully expected to learn just like you, that if it is Assur for Kriyas Shema, than a woman has to cover it when she goes outside. I was unable to find anyone who said so. as I’m willing to follow based on the Halacha rather than my preconceived notion (unlike OO or extreme right groups), I had to admit that there is no tie-in, especially after Rav Moshe specifically says there is not one.

    Where does Halacha Gimmel say anything about what a woman is or is not allowed to do? It seems to be discussing what a Man may or may not do, even in a place where everyone would agree that she may be unclothed or sing as such (a swimming pool?). Or are you saying that Halacha Gimmel only applies in the Shuk? (I think not!!)

    If you can find me someone who ties the two together, I would be grateful.

    #1210394

    benignuman
    Participant

    Daas Yochid,

    The Shulchan Aruch doesn’t mention shok b’isha erva, because, as the Bais Yosef explains (Orech Chaim 75), that is only an example of a makom mechusa that I might have thought was not considered a makom mechusa (the Bais Yosef cites the very Rashba you cited). The way the Bais Yosef read the Gemara in Brochos, there is one klal, makomos that are normally covered are erva when uncovered. But it depends on what is normally covered and that will change based on the tznius standards of the time and place. This all presumes that the issur for krias shema parallels an issur of incidental histaklus (which is against the pashtus of the Gemara and the Shulchan Aruch). As you wrote, intentional histaklus is assur for even parts that are normally uncovered.

    On the other hand, the Mishnah Berurah does understand the Gemara in Berachos to be delineating a base line of what must be covered, and that is why shok is singled out (albeit with a more meikel definition of shok). While the Mishnah Berurah’s position has become the presumption in the Yeshiva world, one can’t say that it is wrong to rely on the Shulchan Aruch.

    The Gemara in Kesubos is setting forth the minhag of tznius (aka Daas Yehudis) at the time, which included arms. To break Daas Yehudis is certainly assur, but as a minhag its parameters can change over time. Short sleeves were common even in Bais Yaakov’s in the 40s.

    My point is not that the MO communities that wear short sleeves and shorts are doing the best thing, but rather that they have solid halachic ground to rely upon.

    #1210395

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    I haven’t seen you demonstrate anything.

    You can bring a horse to the water, but can’t make him drink.

    #1210396

    benignuman
    Participant

    Daas Yochid,

    On the Aruch Hashulchan you cited, he does understand an issur in r’iyah but this is limited to makomos mechusim. So it would still depend on the norms in the time and place. Furthermore, I think that by r’iyah he does not mean incidental (he specifically says that there is makkos only when there is kavanah) but rather where there is intent for r’iyah but not for hanaah. In contrast, histaklus of mokomos megulim is only assur if there is intent lhonos.

    #1210397

    Joseph
    Participant

    In the 40s America wearing shatnes was also common among the Orthodox population. Mixed dancing in Young Israel’s were still common for another few decades past that. Many halachas were still not kept fully during those decades.

    #1210398

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    On the other hand, the Mishnah Berurah does understand the Gemara in Berachos to be delineating a base line of what must be covered, and that is why shok is singled out (albeit with a more meikel definition of shok). While the Mishnah Berurah’s position has become the presumption in the Yeshiva world, one can’t say that it is wrong to rely on the Shulchan Aruch.

    Exactly. If you look in the Shaar HaTzion 75:5, it is Muchach that the MB Paskens that Da’as Yehudis does not change depending on the time and place, rather it goes after what Chazal said at the time of the Gemorah (similar to the Sefer HaEshkol). Just one point that it would then be Brachos/Kesubos, as Da’as Yehudis uncovered would be an Ervah for men due to hirhur, as per the MB 75:8.

    #1210399

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    The Shulchan Aruch doesn’t mention shok b’isha erva, because, as the Bais Yosef explains (Orech Chaim 75), that is only an example of a makom mechusa that I might have thought was not considered a makom mechusa (the Bais Yosef cites the very Rashba you cited).

    There is no indication that ???? ?????? fluctuates according to the generation/locale. See ?????, for example, who gives the face and hands as the counter example, rather than saying that it excludes a time or place where it is normal for it to be exposed.

    Again, see ????? ????? and others who say such a thing is ???? ?? and has no affect on the halachah. This is not the Mishnah Berurah’s chiddush.

    #1210400

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Furthermore, I think that by r’iyah he does not mean incidental (he specifically says that there is makkos only when there is kavanah) but rather where there is intent for r’iyah but not for hanaah. In contrast, histaklus of mokomos megulim is only assur if there is intent lhonos.

    I’ll accept your phrasing, but the point I’m making is that it is obviously a chiyuv for a woman to cover that which is assur for a man to see (even without ????? ??????).

    #1210401

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    I’ll accept your phrasing, but the point I’m making is that it is obviously a chiyuv for a woman to cover that which is assur for a man to see (even without ????? ??????).

    Then what is the point of Halacha Daled? He only says “Assur” for the woman there, not in Halacha Gimmel.

    The issur in r’iyah is on the man, not on the woman.

    #1210402

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    It’s also on the woman. Kal vachomer from daled.

    Also clear from ??????, because if a woman loses her ?????, she obviously did something wrong.

Viewing 50 posts - 51 through 100 (of 234 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.