Short Skirts

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Short Skirts

Viewing 42 posts - 51 through 92 (of 92 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2011087
    ujm
    Participant

    GHadora: The requirements that the knees be covered at all times in public, whether when walking, bending, going up/down stairs, in/out of a car or when the wind is blowing, isn’t anyone’s “vision of Tznius”; it is an absolute obligation.

    #2011130
    AviraDeArah
    Participant

    Ujm – i think we all are aware of the subjective definition of tznius that has permeated the frum community, as well as the non-halachik mockery of cut off points, “oh so this is an issur, but one inch here isn’t….oh i see”, which of course does not enter the realm of reasonable discussion about any other halachik issue. Men never make fun of the exact position necessary to fulfill the mitzvah of tefilin, even though it’s down to centimeters, nor do the same detractors of tznius ever mock the exacting halachik definitions involved in eruvin, sukkah, kezayis, or literally any other jssue. This is because the yatzer hora in our time is not bothered by our outstanding, heretofore unachievable exactness in mitzvos…his prize is the core, the elokeihem shel aileh soneh zimah hu…the God of these people despises immorality; the chasam sofer writes that the only force that can rival and overcome Hashem’s love for us is His hatred of pritzus and znus.

    #2011146

    Avira > in sefardi communities, levels of religious observance among those who refer to themselves as orthodox vary quite a lot.

    Sephardim did not experience Haskala and Cantonists the way (esp Eastern) Europeans did. Haskala divided us into modern/conservatives and Czar’s requirement for kahal to provide conscripts divided kahal from the poor in the community. R Berel Wein traced animosity of some Israeli parties to religious communities to the latter. Sephardim are more prone to keep the community together regardless of observance levels. Thus, variability. Ashkenazim also have variability, but each variation exists within their own community that often does not consider other communities worthy of mention, thus an illusion of homogeneity.

    #2011147

    Avira > . Men never make fun of the exact position necessary to fulfill the mitzvah of tefilin

    You compare mitzvot bein Adam (Chava, to be precise) l’haverah v. l’Makom. L’ Makom are easily measured. Mitzvos of nidah and neros as precise as tefilin. L’Havero may vary depending on society. Maybe because women have relative less of l’Makom, l’Havera are more prominent. Maybe men should pay attention to those also. given how relatively well established views on tznius are, how many men/boys are up on the halokha of, say, whether they can say kiddish when their mother is not dressed appropriately?!

    #2011163
    AviraDeArah
    Participant

    AAQ – young men shouldn’t have to know what to do if their nother is not tznius; it’s a very sad thing indeed and improper chinuch either way….

    I don’t think there should be a distinction made between tefilin and tznius; both are discussed by halachikally binding(pardon the pun) literature and both have certain parameters that are completely universal, while tznius also includes standards that are subjective, the poskim make it clear which things are universal and which things aren’t.

    Single women covering their hair is subjective. Knees, elbows and collarbones are not. The latter are the things that are most derided, based on the supposed ridiculousness of measuring such things with rulers etc….you don’t hear the same derision regarding issues that depend on local custom.

    #2011165
    AviraDeArah
    Participant

    Also, there are instances of mitzvos bein odom lechavero that are lrecise; charging one penny for ribbis, performing a favor for the lender, or even saying “thank you” to him are assur, and no one seems to have a problem with that

    #2011144
    Kuvult
    Participant

    When will Chasidim wear long pants? Their short pants are a distraction to many.

    #2011244

    GH- I’m assuming your comment about an inch here and there is referring to beyond covering the knee, which is halacha. In that case I agree with you about the destructive methods, the twisted mindset of how to enforce e halacha and the creepy inapprpriateness of those men who walk around searching for exposed skin in the name of Torah.

    But if you are trying to convey, as you may have done in the past, that an inch less than halacha is good enough cuz it’s only an inch, then on that you are not just wrong, but are living a bizarre standard where all the rules are goalposts. That isn’t compatible with Torah.

    #2011285

    Avira > young men shouldnโ€™t have to know what to do if their nother is not tznius;

    This example came up to my mind from the question a bachur asked Hazon Ish, saying that he can not say kiddush (or maybe go home for Shabbat). Hazon Ish explained that mitzva of kibud av vaem is more important and he can simply look to the side when saying kiddush. You can come up with your own examples of bein adam l’havero that most people are not trained in. Should you make natilas yadaim when you would wake up people in process (R Salanter).

    Here is one from R Twersky: daughter of Rosh Yeshiva, whose husband is her father’s student. Husband does not eat gebrochts, father does. Should they go visit for Pesach? Maybe eat at a separate table? Answer, qualified as not a psak: eating at a separate table is a problem when we celebrating leaving Mitzraim as families … following a chumrah in the face fo your teacher is a problem, referring to a similar story of Chasam Sofer and two Sanzer chasidim.

    #2011287
    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    Syag: Your reading intention in to my comments which are NOT implied. Narrow point that objective halachic standards are increasingly distorted and expanded beyond intention and behaviors that manifest that subjective and vigilante type behavior are being normalized.
    P.S. I’ve never said that “an inch less” than halacha is “good enough”. Good enough for whom??? I have said we shouldn’t marginalize those of our brothers and sisters whose observance may not be 100 percent but rather seek to provide positive incentives for them to keep growing in their yiddeshkeit, but ultimately its a personal decision.

    #2011232
    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    “The requirements that the knees be covered at all times in public…. isnโ€™t anyoneโ€™s โ€œvision of Tzniusโ€; it is an absolute obligation.”

    Actually it is someone’s vision, and a distorted one at that, in multiple cases we have read about in recent years, including here on YWN, where misguided zealots endow themselves with enforcement authority and have physically and verbally abused women who most of us would agree are meeting commonly accepted tzinius standards based on their vision of a more rigorous standard. Most frum women actually go beyond the minimum standard and when visiting another community with more rigorous standards, seek to conform with “minhag hamokom”. For some, that may not be enough. Harassment of even young girls standing outside of a BY or walking in the park by these self-appointed tzinius vigilantes are becoming all too common .

    #2011311
    ujm
    Participant

    AAQ, your story about the Chazon Ish isn’t factual. The Chazon Ish had the opposite approach. To clearly illustrate this allow me please to share with your a verified and sourced story of the Chazon Ish:

    A Yeshiva student from England refused to shake hands with his step-mother when greeting her. His father was extremely upset with his refusal. He demanded his son display โ€œderech eretzโ€ towards his step-mother and shake her hand. The son refused stating he was taught it was impermissable with a non close blood relative. This affected the fathers relationship with the son. Some family members told the son to give in al sholom bayis. The son asked a shaila from the Chazon Ish. The Chazon Ish responded with a short and sharp answer โ€“ โ€œChok Vโ€™lo Yaavor, Issur Gamurโ€ (It is a prohibition that one dare not violate; It is absolutely forbidden,) Violating this halacha was out of the question despite sholom bayis and kibud av. (Oz Vehadar, p. 494).

    #2011331

    extended quotes from Rabbi Avraham Edelstein Laws of Outreach Male-Female interactions, 2019

    Tosafos Yom Tov, who writes in the Lechem Chamudos [perek 3] that in each locale the local practice determines what is considered sufficient attire.

    Some Acharonim interpret the words of the Lechem Chamudos literally and that the determination of which parts of the body need to be covered is subjective.23 However, others understand that the Lechem Chamudos is merely ruling that the status of the forearm is determined by local custom, but matters of sanctity cannot be said before exposed upper arms and thighs

    Mishnah Berurah writes that even in a society in which married women regularly go out with their hair exposed, men may not utter matters of sanctity before such women. This is because her hair is inherently considered by Chazal to be something personal and intimate…However, a number of Acharonim contend that in such a society, when there is a need, it is permissible for matters of sanctity to be expressed in the presence of a married woman whose hair is uncovered.T hese poskim understand that a womanโ€™s hair is not intrinsically an intimate part of her body. Rather, the reason that a man may not recite Shema in the presence of a woman whose hair is exposed is so that the sight should not cause him to have illicit thoughts. Hence, in a society in which many women expose their hair, the sight of such hair will not induce illicit thoughts. Therefore, matters of sanctity can be said there. This is the view of the Sโ€™ridei Eish,31 the Ben Ish Chai,32 the Aruch HaShulchan,33 Rav Moshe Feinstein,34 and Rav Ovadia Yosef.35

    T here appears to be a contradiction in the writings of the Chazon Ish regarding this matter. On one hand, the Chazon Ish writes unequivocally that the fact that many women go out without covering their hair does not justify saying words of sanctity in their presence.36 On the other hand, the Chazon Ish permitted giving a Chazal-based mussar lesson to an audience that includes women whose hair is uncovered if the speaker does not focus his attention on it.37 Rav Pesach Eliyahu Falk explained that the Chazon Ish maintained that it was forbidden for a man to say words of Torah before married women whose hair was exposed. However, for the important need for kiruv, it is proper to say matters of sanctity there.38

    However, the Chazon Ish maintains a more lenient position. He holds that closing oneโ€™s eyes or turning away is even permitted lโ€™chatchilah.42 In fact, the Chazon Ish held that a man is permitted to say matters of sanctity with his eyes open, even if he can see the problematic area with peripheral vision โ€” as long as he does not perceive that which he is seeing.43 However, according to the stringent view of the Mishnah Berurah, ideally the only solution is for the man to turn his entire body away so that he is facing in a different direction.

    It is said that when the Chasam Sofer needed to utter sacred matters in the presence of a woman who was not properly dressed, he donned glasses and shut his eyes.

    In 1970, Rav Ovadia Yosef was awarded the prestigious Israel Prize by then prime minister Golda Meir. When Mrs. Meir extended her hand in congratulations, Rav Yosef did not respond, causing international condemnation for his refusal to shake a womanโ€™s hand.

    T he Shach rules that even if we are stringent like Rambam, physical contact that is not sensuous, such as when a male physician examines a female patient, is not prohibited by the Torah.73 Some other Acharonim argue that there is a Torah prohibition, even in this case.74 But, the later poskim follow the position of the Shach.75 Some authorities understand the ruling of the Shach to mean that there is still a rabbinic injunction โ€” except in cases of danger to life.76 But, the mainstream view is that physical contact is permissible when there it is no sensuous pleasure elicited.77

    . A formal handshake is not usually an expression of affection. Consequently, there is room to argue that such handshakes should be permitted in halachah. This was indeed the perspective of traditional German Jews. In fact, Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch used to extend his hand in greeting to women.79 Other rabbanim would only accept the hand of a woman who extend

    Rav Isser Yehuda Unterman (1886โ€“1976), the late Chief Rabbi of Israel, was once asked why he was lenient in shaking the hand of a woman who greeted him. He replied, โ€œI am not being lenient about touching [women]; I am stringent about respecting humanity.โ€83 Similarly, Rav Chaim Berlin (1832โ€“1912), wrote that if a non-Jewish woman extends her hand in greeting, a man should shake her hand as the Torah wants us to convey a demeanor of amicable respectability.84

    Rav Yaakov Yitzchak Ruderman said in the name of Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski that the Rabbanei Ashkenaz were matir formal handshaking. Likewise, this was the position of Rav Shimon Schwab.

    In three responsa, Rav Moshe Feinstein wrote that the view that permits such handshakes should not be relied on since there is a concern that the handshake will be affectionate.86 Rav Menashe Klein also adopts a stringent approach out of concern that although a handshake may be begin as a cold formality, it can evolve into an affectionate expression.87 The Chazon Ish considered such physical contact to be one of the crimes for which a person should give up his life rather than transgress.88

    Steipler Gaon was of the opinion that even if the only recourse is to embarrass the person extending his/her hand, there is no justification for a man and woman to shake hands.

    Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky very cautiously suggested that a man might be able to be lenient to shake an outstretched hand if failure to do so will cause a social disgrace

    Rav Moshe Sternbuch proposed that perhaps the Chazon Ish was so strict over the issue of handshaking because he was referring to a warm and affectionate handshake as opposed to a cold formality.99 Rav Sternbuch wrote that in the event that failure to accept a handshake would generate an interpersonal crisis, one should seek rabbinical guidance.100

    Rav Yitzchak Hutnerโ€™s guidance was to accept a womanโ€™s outstretched hand โ€œlike a hot potatoโ€ in order to avoid embarrassing her.102 Even though Rav Moshe Feinstein published three responsa that would forbid handshakes in all cases, orally he instructed people differently. Many rabbanim have reported that Rav Feinstein instructed people that under extenuating circumstances, they could be lenient.

    It is clear from the above that the local circumstances in which interactions between males and females take place play an important role in determining the halachic conclusions. The location, the degree of sensitivity of the participants (are they used to mixed events or not), and the nature of the event (is it one of levity or not) are all-important variables. Thus, the Kโ€™sav Sofer writes that we are not strict to maintain strict separation of the genders at a wedding ceremony because it is a controlled, serious situation, and not one of levity.1

    Rav Feinstein made it clear that ideally, boys and girls should be separated at an early age, but not at the expense of closing down the school or of having to send the girls to a public school.

    #2011335

    Ujm my source, as far as I can recall, was reliable but secondary, and I am not able to find the source right now. I was almost ready to agree with your claim, but see my other posts with quotes from Laws of Outreach sefer. Chazon Ish was strict on handshakes, but more lenient on Brochos. So, I’ll stand by my recollection of the story.

    Also, see those quotes for multitudes of subtle psychological considerations and opinions on these issues – will the person be offended? is handshake cold/warm/hot potato(e)?

    One more thought here: given variety of opinions, there is a greater danger here to use your bias to be either meikel or machmir and justify your own thinking by finding appropriate quotes. Just in an example above, one person might (incorrectly) learn that he’s following Chazon Ish by shaking hands, learning it from Kiddush, or similarly (incorrectly) conclude from not shaking hands to not making Kiddush.

    #2011347
    AviraDeArah
    Participant

    Ujm, while AAQ’s story has yet to have been sourced, i don’t see a contradiction – turning away during kiddush or brochos is a viable heter expressed by many poskim, usually as a bedieved, or even shaas hadchak. Honoring one’s parents is just as important as any shaas hadchak situation i can think of, so the two stories are not in conflict.

    AAQ – I must say that some of the shitos outlined in that article seem out of context and some seem pretty hard to believe at all; can you copy and paste the footnotes too?

    #2011369

    Avira, see a sample below, I may be already over of copyroght. just google or duck-duck-go Rabbi Avraham Edelstein Laws of Outreach! Male โ€“ Female Interactions. I do not know the source. It is NLE, Ner LeElef organization.

    :)ื– ืœืœื› ืฃื•ืง ืชื›ืจืขืž ื’ ืงืœื—( ื“ืžื— ื™ื“ืฉ ืœืข ืœ”ื–ืจ ืชืฉืจื“ ืขื•ื“ื™ ืจื‘ื›ื• ืื™ื“ื™ ื™ืชื‘ื‘ ื•ื™ื“ื™ ืฃื•ื˜ืขื™ ืื ืœื™ืขื•ื™ ืืœ ื”ื–ืœื• ืฃื› ืœื ืฃื› ืชืขื™ืงืชื‘ ืจืžื•ื—ื• ืœืง ืื“ื™ืคืง ืฉื™ ื“ื™ ืงื•ืฉื™ื  ืœืข ืืื•” .”ืŸืœืฆื™ืœ ืื ืžื—ืจ ืŸื•ื“ื‘ื ื“ืข ืื•ื” ืฉื ืฃื› ืœื ืฃื› ืขืงื•ืชื‘ ืจืžื•ื—ื• ืœืง ืชื•ืขืž ื”ืฆืจืžื‘ ื•ืจืžื ืืื• ืื ื”ื™ื’ ืœืฉ ื”ื ื™ื“ืž ื”ืงื ื™ ืืœ ื“ื™ืœ ื“ื™ ืงื•ืกืค :)ื‘ื› ืŸืžื™ืก ืื™ื˜ืคืฉืž ืชืฉืจืค( ื™ื— ืฃืกื•ื™ ื“ื•ืข ื”ืฉืื” ื•ื ืชื™ื‘ื” ืœืขื‘ ืฃื›ื‘ ื—ืจื•ืื” ื–ื•ื—ืื™ ื•ื‘ื•ื”ืื• ื•ืจื™ื‘ื— ืชื™ื‘ืœ ื—ืจื•ื ืื•ื‘ื™ืฉื› ืืคื•ืจื™ื ื™ืฉื ื ื’ื”ื ืžื‘ ื™ืชื‘ืชื› ืœืื™ืฆื‘ืงืž ืŸื˜ืงื” ื™ืจืคืกื‘ื•” ื”ืฉืขื™ ื™ืชืœื‘ืœ ืจื”ื–ื™ืœ ืšื™ืจืฆ ืื™ืžืฉ ืืจื™ ื™ืื“ื•ื“ ืื•ืœืฉื” ืชื‘ื™ื— ืชื•ื ืื•ื” ื”ื–ื• ื”ืงื–ื— ื”ื–ื™ื—ื ื”ื–ื‘ ื”ื– ืืคื›ื‘ ื•ื–ื—ืื™ื• ืšืคื™ื”ืœ ืŸื›ื• ืชื™ื‘ื” ืชืœืขื‘ .”ื”ืจื™ืชื™ ื”ื‘ื™ื— ื”ื–ื‘ ืชื•ืจื•ื”ืœ ืงื–ื•ื—ื‘ ืืคื›ื‘ ืืชื–ื™ื—ื ื”ื™ื”ืช ืšื›ืœื“ ื”ื‘ื™ื— ืšืจื“ื› ื“ื™ื‘ ื“ื™ ืชืขื™ื’ื ื• ื”ื–ื™ื—ื ืื•ื”ื“ ืŸื•ื™ื› ืชืื– :)ืฅืจืชืช ืŸืžื™ืก( ืื™ื“ื™ืกื— ืจืคืก .”ืชื•ื™ืจืข ื™ื•ืœื’ืœ ื’ื™ื™ืก ื“ื’ื‘ื‘ ืชืคื˜ื•ืขืž ื“ื™ื”ืฉ ื™ืค ืœืข ืฃื ื™ื“ื•ื”ื™ ืฉื™ื ืฃื›ื‘ ืชื™ืจื›ื ื” ืืœื• ืชื™ืจื›ื ื” ืฃื›ื‘ ื™ื“ื•ื”ื™ ืขืงืชื™ ืืœ” :)ื ืชื•ื ืฅืจืชืช ืŸืžื™ืก ืื™ื“ื™ืกื— ืจืคืก( ื“ืกื—ื” ืจื•ืงืž ืืฉื‘ ืื™ืœืขื‘ ื“ื™ ืชื—ืช ื•ื“ื™ ื—ื™ื ืž ืŸื”ื› ื””ื“ ืืก ืชื•ื—ื ืž ืชื•ืคืกื•ืช ืŸื™ื™ืข ื“ื’ื‘ื‘ ืชืคื˜ื•ืขืž ื“ื™ื”ืฉื› ืื ื•ื•ื’ ื™ืื” ื™ื›ื‘ ื™ืจืฉื“ ื”ืืจื  ืชื™ื“ื•ื”ื™ืœ ื™ื“ื•ื”ื™ื•” .”ืืฉ ืชื•ื—ื ืžื‘ ื‘ื•ืชื›ืฉ ื•ืžื› ืšืจื•ืฆืœ ืืœื ื•ื ื™ื ื”ื– ืจืชื™ื”ื• ื™ืžืœืฉื•ืจื™ื” :)ื‘ื› ืŸืžื™ืก ืื™ื˜ืคืฉืž ืชืฉืจืค( ื™ื— ืฃืกื•ื™ ื“ื•ืข ื’ื”ื•ื  ื”ื™ื”ืฉ ื•ื‘ ื•ื ืจื‘ื™ื“ืฉ ืื™ืคื› ืชื–ื™ื—ืื‘ ืื™ืฉื•ืขื” ืื•ืœืฉื” ืœืข ืจื‘ื“ืž ื“ื™ืกื—ื” ื™ืื“ื•ื‘ื• .ืœ”ื›ืข ‘ื•ื›ื• ืืชื™ื ื™ืจืชืช ืŸืžื™ืก ืื™ื“ื™ืกื— ืจืคืกื‘ ื”ื ื”ื•” ืืชื•ืื‘ ืื™ืจื›ื ื” ืกื•ืžื™ื ื• ื’ื”ื ืž ืื•ื” ื”ื–ื“ ืŸื•ื™ื› ืืžื™ืช ืืœื“ ืืชื•ื‘ืจืœ ืชื™ื“ื•ื”ื™ ืฃื›ื‘ ื™ืจื›ื ื• ืชื™ืจื›ื  ืฃื›ื‘ ื™ื“ื•ื”ื™ ื˜ื™ืงื ื“ ืื”ื• ืืคื•ืจื™ื ื™ืจืขื‘ ื•ื ืžื–ื‘ ืื•ื™ื‘ ืœืขื ืž ืฉื•ื‘ืœืœ ื•ืจื™ืชื™ ืจืฉืื› ื”ื–ื” ื’ื”ื ืžื› ืชื•ืฉืขืœ ื•ืœ ืŸื™ืจื™ืชืž ืŸื›ืœื• ื•ื‘ ื•ืฆืฆื•ืœืชื™ ืื’ื”ื ืžื› ืชื•ืฉืขืœืž ืขื ืžื  ื™ื“ื•ื”ื™ื” ื”ื™ื”ื™ ืื ืชื•ืžื•ืงืžื” ืœื‘ื ืชื™ืจื›ื ื” ืืข ื™ื“ื•ื”ื™ื‘ ืื’ ื”ื–ื‘ ืจื™ื”ื–ื”ืœ ื“ื™ืกื—ื” ืื‘ ืŸื›ืœ ื•ืฆืฆื•ืœืชื™ื• ืื™ืจื›ื ื” ื•ื’ื™ืขืœื™ ืืœืฉ ื™ื“ื› ืื™ื™ื•ื’ื” ืชื•ื‘ื•ื—ืจื‘ ืšืœื”ืž ืื•ื”ืฉื› ืื•ืฆื” .”ืจื•ืกืื“ ืื˜ื™ืฉืค ืชื™ื“ื•ื”ื™ ืืข ื™ื“ื•ื”ื™ :)ืืฆืชืช ื“ื•ืžืข ื‘ ืงืœื—( ืงืœืืค ื•ื”ื™ืœื ื—ืกืค ื‘ืจื”ืž ื”ืจื•ืช ืœืฉ ื”ืฉื•ื‘ืœ ืจืคืก ืืœืฉ ืฅืœืžื•ืž ืื”ื™ ืืœ ื•ืืœ ื‘ื•ื™ื— ืจืชื•ื™ื” ืœื›ืœ ื™ื•ื”ื“ ื”ื™ืจื›ื ื• ื™ื“ื•ื”ื™ ืŸื™ื‘ ืชื•ืฉืขืœ ืืœืฉ ืฅืœืžื•ืžืฉ ื”ืžื“ ื•ื™ืจื‘ื“ื› ืจืžื•ืœ ื”ื•ืžืช ื™ืชืขื“ ืชื•ื™ื ืขืœื•” ืงืœื—ืœ ืฉื™ืฉ ืื™ืจื‘ื“ ื™ื ืฉ ื•ื™ืจื‘ื“ื‘ ื‘ืจื™ืง ืชืžืื‘ื• ืชืจื› ื‘ื™ื™ื— ื”ื™ืœืข ืื‘ื™ ืืื“ ื•ืชืฉื ื”ื ื™ืืฉ ื”ื“ื  ื•ื ืฉื™ื ืชืฉื ืชื™ื“ื•ื”ื™ื• ื™ื“ื•ื”ื™ ืŸื™ื‘ ืชื•ืฉืขืœ .”ืื™ื ืค ื”ืžื›ืž ืื”ื™ื ื™ื‘ 89 90 91 92 93

    #2012596

    Guys this is not the right people or forum for this discussion

    #2012644
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    AAQ, wasn’t this copied in reverse?

    #2012650
    ujm
    Participant

    With the Chazon Ish saying that the Sanhedrin would’ve executed women wearing pants in public, ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจโ€Ž those wearing short skirts.

    #2012696

    RebE, apologize, I did not look at what I copied. Don’t know how to control my Ctrl-V. You’ll be better off going to the original source, anyway.

    Ujm, does you source have more details on that English student story? It is bothering me that he possibly disregarded his father’s halakhic sources and went somewhere else. Oz Vehadar is an unclear reference, this seems to be a publishing house only, not a sefer.

    #2012705
    AviraDeArah
    Participant

    AAQ – he’s referring to rav falk’s sefer “oz vehadar levushah”

    #2013077

    Avira, thanks for the reference. Given that he is from England, makes sense that he knows the story of Talmid from England. Still, I would not call this “sourced” unless Rav Falk says that he heard this from that person. The book is full of secondary references, well collected, but certain to support the author’s passion. His references to kulos are present (Igros Moshe allowing women to bath in the presence of non-Jewish life guard) but very rare. Understandable generally giving the topic and the goals, but one definitely cannot confirm a full picture of attitudes from the book (above mentioned kulos on kiddush in presence of low-tznius mothers by Chazon seem not to be mentioned, I think).

    #2013338
    ujm
    Participant

    L’maaisa, if the Sanhedrin were around, which they soon will be, the punishment they implement (as described above by the Chazon Ish) would quickly eliminate these kinds of problems after only one or two incidents. Afterwards the rest will quickly fall in line.

    #2016222
    ujm
    Participant

    “It is an assault on men to wear short skirts, period. And Iโ€™m not a male so donโ€™t tell me to get help.”

    Does anyone disagree with this very true and common sense point?

    #2016447

    If we can guarantee that Sanhedrin would do exactly what Chazon Ish says, we do not need a Sanhedrin.

    #2016460
    Yserbius123
    Participant

    What about the tzniyus regarding long jackets?

    #2016484

    Of course, if all members of Sanhedrin will vote that way – then there is no death penalty, of course because deliberation is ot valid if there is no diversity of views … something to keep in mind in discussions

    #2016482
    philosopher
    Participant

    Yserbius, shorter jackets are more tzniusdig than long jackets?

    #2016694

    I think long jackets signify more self-importance (doctors v residents). Also makes it difficult to run after avoda zora (discussion between R Ashi and Menashe)

    #2016842
    ujm
    Participant

    “If we can guarantee that Sanhedrin would do exactly what Chazon Ish says, we do not need a Sanhedrin.”

    AAQ: That’s the same point I made. After one or two executions the problem would be solved and the rest would fall in line.

    “Of course, if all members of Sanhedrin will vote that way โ€“ then there is no death penalty, of course because deliberation is ot valid if there is no diversity of views โ€ฆ something to keep in mind in discussions”

    If the Sanhedrin decided to execute such a woman, they’d be utilizing their extrajudicial powers rather than their normal judicial authority. Much like when Rabi Shimon Ben Shetach, the head of the Sanhedrin, hanged 80 women for practicing witchcraft. He did so without any formal convening of the Sanhedrin or Beis Din to try those women. And he used a method of execution outside the normal four methods of Beis Din. As such, I don’t think they unanimity concern is at issue in such a case.

    #2016854
    Maivin
    Participant

    Shorts skirts are a big issue. big. these days its one of the girls biggest Yetzer Hara’s. and to be ‘in’ at skl or social life.
    BUT. I do not thing its aprops for men to be discussing it.
    Bnos Yisroel! You know what the right thing is!

    #2016860

    ujm: Thatโ€™s the same point I made. After one or two executions the problem would be solved and the rest would fall in line.

    But ont the point I meant! I mean that it is presumptuous for us to say that Sanhedrin will consist of 70 reincarnations of Hazon Ish. I presume it will have a variety of opinions and a robust debate. for example, at your execution rate Rabbi Akiva would disapprove of a Sanhedrin like that. It sounds like a difference between our visions of Sanhedrin is same as between French and American revolutions.

    #2016876
    ujm
    Participant

    AAQ: This hasn’t to do with our visions of the Sanhedrin. Forget than neither of us are anywhere on the madreiga of the Chazon Ish. But Rambam himself writes that Beis Din can execute 100 people per day, if need be. And above I brought the story from the Gemorah where Rabi Shimon Ben Shetach, the Nasi of the Sanhedrin, hanged 80 women in one shot.

    #2016878
    AviraDeArah
    Participant

    Ever notice how it’s fine for women to reprimand men for “male” issues such as wasting time during kolel hours, but if men address women’s issues, it’s “creepy”.

    Can the be attributed to an assumption that women are oppressed by men and are controlled by them by means of how they dress? Those are common attitudes in the feminist movement

    #2016882

    I’ve noticed your josephesque tendency to not accept criticism and to then accuse the other of violating halacha or of being attached to inappropriate hash hashgofos. Sorry, not flying here. If you want to have a halachik convo, feel free. But when men, especially single men, talk about what women are wearing and why you think they are doing so you are obviously looking in places you shouldn’t. Rationalize all you want, especially add in something about how you are so unbelievably learned that you can deliberately scope out women’s skirt lengths specifically to know where you need to avoid going.. Thats also a feminist, MO, haskala, krum attitude.

    I worked for someone who actually was a baal aliya who was careful about shirts anayim. When I was in my 8th month and very visible pregnant I told him not to worry, I wouldn’t need to take off time from school. His response: I’m not sure what you are referring to.

    #2016885
    Maivin
    Participant

    100% to the point @syaglchochma.
    agreed

    #2016888
    AviraDeArah
    Participant

    I wasn’t addressing the details of the issue in this post, i was wondering why people feel this way – you explained it quite well, that the “creepy” factor is because per force, the man addressing them must have taken notice of the way they are dressed.

    I can see that very clearly if the statement was made in person, but for a man to air his grievances on a forum doesn’t imply that he is noticing the way you or any individual dresses. There are gechidei segulah who never notice anything about women, like the boss you mentioned, but for the vast majority of ehrliche men, there is a huge nisayon for shmiras aynayim which is made a thousand fold worse by the “personal” decisions women make.

    #2016889
    ujm
    Participant

    The Gemorah, Rambam, Shulchan Aruch and sh”ut seforim from ancient times down to modern seforim all talk about and discuss the obligations of women and what is and isn’t appropriate regarding dress, behavior and many other matters, on a wide spectrum. And all are authored by men. These halachic requirements and obligations are taught, learnt and discussed in yeshivos the world over, all populated by male rebbeim and male talmidim. It has been this was 2000 years ago through today, with no pause in between.

    Men bear the halachic responsibility and obligation to to insure and enforce that their wives and daughters are always in compliance with these Torah and halachic obligations that they, as women, are duty-bound to adhere to. When a wife or daughter fails in these regards, it is the husband and father who rightfully bears blame.

    The very idea that men aren’t supposed to discuss women issues and the laws relevant to them has no basis in Torah, Yiddishkeit or Halacha. It purely comes from modern Westernized thinking of the post-feminist movement. The pro-abortion arguments, in fact, are fully predicated on this modern foreign idea.

    If Jewish men would abdicate their responsibility to insure that Hilchos Noshim are known and followed, compliance would undoubtedly go down 25 notches. Which is why rabbonim the world over keep impressing in their droshos to men (including often and importantly regarding tznius) the necessity to know and follow these obligations.

    #2016912

    Nice try. Now let me know how many of those discussions, classes, learning sessions were in coed settings, on soap boxes in public squares, from pulpits in reform synagogues. You should be very concerned about your desire to push so hard to justify discussing your failures at keeping your eyes where they belong and your rush from getting women to discuss their bodies with you. Face it.

    #2016910
    Maivin
    Participant

    wow strong point ujm
    understand where you’re coming from, makes sense I guess.
    But either way. someone should address these girls.

    #2016935
    ujm
    Participant

    Maivin: Thank You.

    AAQ: Are you comparing Rabi Shimon Ben Shetach’s simultaneous hanging of 80 women to the French revolutionaries??

    #2016975

    ujm, we have apparently one case of mass execution by Shimon b’ Shetach in history (who lived in generally very bloody and desperate times) v. opinions in Makkos that executing one person in 70 years makes a bloody court. So, how do we weigh inappropriate dresses v. other problems Sanhedrin will be dealing with – say, murderers, informers, communists, idol worshippers, pandemic rule breakers?

    I expect a Rabbi Akivesque Sanhedrin member to argus this defense: as to the extent (pardon the word) of the problem in Israel – we do have some reasonable segregation in Israel, so that a charedi man from Bnei Brak needs to go out if his way to Tel Aviv to complain about attire. So, for one this is going to impeach the witnesses – either they are not shomer shabbat or they travelled to Tel Aviv l’dvar aveira, all dressed in black etc.

Viewing 42 posts - 51 through 92 (of 92 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.