- This topic has 44 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
This thread is dedicated for anyone wishing to explain to our MO brethren (who often misuse this Chazal) how Tu B’Av does NOT justify mixed dancing or men watching women dance or women dancing in public.
Here is the background:
Mishna Taanis 4:8
“Israel had no holidays as joyous as Tu B’Av and Yom Kippur, when the young women of Jerusalem would go out and dance in the vineyards”
The King’s daughters would borrow from those of the High Priest. Daughters of the High Priest would borrow from the Assistant High Priest’s daughters; daughters of the Assistant would borrow from the daughters of the Priest designated to lead the People in times of War, the Kohen Anointed for War’s daughters would borrow from the daughters of the Ordinary Priest. And the daughters of the rest of the Jewish People would borrow from each other, so as not to embarrass those who didn’t have.”
“And the daughters of Jerusalem would go out and dance in the vineyards located on the outskirts of the city. And everyone who didn’t have a wife would go there.” (Notice the relative lack of concern about controlling the situation when the opposite sexes are mixed, perhaps because the recent fast (in the case of Tu B’Av) and the fast on that very day in the case of Yom Kippur, have triggered a sense of self-control, which would not ordinarily necessarily be present.)
“And what would they say?”
“Young man, lift up your eyes and choose wisely. Don’t look only at physical beauty – look rather at the family – ‘For charm is false, and beauty is vanity. A G-d – fearing woman is the one to be praised…’ (“Mishlei”/Proverbs 31:30)”
Just waiting for someone to explain that they didn’t really dance and that it was just all spiritual 🙂
The Wolf
1- People, a nice clean fight. PLEASE no emotional flares from either side.
DING!
Let’s take it to the other extreme. Let us conclude from Chazal that a single man should be analyzing all available single women, in all situations (such as, a wedding), that he may be desire her, and seek her for marriage.
Does this contradict anything else Chazal teach us?
‘
What do Chazal teach us about looking at women for desire? Is it possible this could be permitted?
Step by step people. Calm down! Intelligent, organized! No bombs from either side!
WOLF – no sarcasm. Back it up. Prove it. Explain it. Present your position. What are Chazal teaching us? Without hysteria or cliches. Just your interpretation of chazal.
Back it up. Prove it
Back up what? All I said was that I was waiting for someone to make the position. Furthermore it was a joke — see the smiley on the end?
I’m not sure what it is, exactly, you want me to prove.
The Wolf
No no mien tireh volf – I just mean, I’d like to know what chazal meant , and not what it doesn’t mean. That’s the Talmudic – and scientific method. Then we’ll know what Chazal meant. Sorry, I got overenthusiastic.
Taynis last Amud (since we want to be accurate here:):
???? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????: ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???:
??????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???’: ??? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ???
????? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???????? ???????
(emphasis mine)
Not exactly what the OP said, but she? was missing info, not trying to pull the wool over us.
Excellent. So Gavra, what does it mean?
Is this an academic conversation or related to policy?
If it is academic, I don’t really care.
If it is related to policy, I don’t think we usually get policy from a mishna. We follow our Rebbeim and mesora.
Now for some emotion:
RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
1: Only those men who were looking to get married went to the fields to look.
2: The women attempted to convince the men to marry them by looking at their Beauty, Yichus, and if they had neither, tried to convince them to marry “Leshem Shomayim”.
I infer that women who are looking to get married should “show off their beauty” to convince their prospective husband to marry them, if it is is a place which is only Tachlis (the modern comparison MIGHT be a date). A wedding would not qualify.
Go Bench Go! (as in the bench Popa broke)
BIG REDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!
GAW, you could make a strong argument that a wedding would count. Most of the friends of the bride and groom are of marriageable age and it would be a great place for prospective men to scout prospective women.
There are many women who have trouble getting shidduch dates. This would be an excellent venue. Obviously, they should be dressed tzanua.
And LOL at the misuse of Tu B’Av.
myfriend, I don’t represent MO any more than you represent Yeshivish society. I represent SJSinNYC and that’s it.
I don’t think Tu B’Av is appropriate in today’s climate. At least not for me.
I did dance in white dress on the day I got married. My own mini Tu B’Av.
gimme a break, SJS only has MO creds here. I’ll in real life she’s on the opposite side with the real hard core MO people in MO land (I think it’s somewhere near LA). She hangs out here because she is a closet charedi.
To the Wolf: Look at the Tiferes Yisroel on that Mishna, and you will find a very clear explanation; that it is a metaphor for something totally spiritual.
It is easy for us to understand it all in the mundane, if it only referred to Tu B’Av – but it very hard to extrapolate that meaning onto Yom Kippur. Do you really think that the boys and the girls went out to the parks on Yom Kippur? When? Before Ne’ila? Or perhaps after Mussaf?
Learn the Tiferes Yisroel commentary in its entirety,and you will understand.
It was in reference to the notion that no man should ever see a woman dressed nicely to look at.
It is not just the Mihna. The issue replayed in the closing discussion of the masechta. What are we to do with historical account that has no halachic uploads? Here is one approach:
Rambam, introduction to Mishne Torah paragraph Udvarim hallalu b’dinim gezeros ve’takonos… “but all the things in the Bavli gemara are incumbent on all Israel to follow them, and we instruct (force) every city and city and every medinah to hold by these customs,all the customs which the sages of the gemara followed, and to decree their decrees and to follow their enactments.” (translation mine) The Rambam is telling us that we are creatures of the Bavli, and all the non Halachic text is the instructions for minhag and societal structure and culture. I am not aware of a gemara that gives as clear a program for shadchanus as we have it today. And the Mishne calls them joyous days, because the system apparently worked well. The trouble is how to recast this in our advanced stage of alienation from the lifestyle of then.
“perhaps because the recent fast (in the case of Tu B’Av) ‘
By the 6th day after the fast, it is not so recent.
When the temple stood, the 9th of Av was not a fast day.
There are many sources besides “Tu B’Av” that show that the stringencies of modern day Chassidus were not the norm throughout the vast majority of our history.
Chassidus is not for everyone, and non-Chassidic paths of keeping Torah and Mitzvos must be available to any child who does not connect to Chassidus.
I take offense to the first line of the post and to the fact that the moderators did not edit it out. Who do you think you are to be so divisive amongst us in this CR. What exactly was this crack about “OUR MO BRETHREN???????? Do you honestly believe you are more Jewish than anyone else?????
There are many sources besides “Tu B’Av” that show that the stringencies of modern day Chassidus were not the norm throughout the vast majority of our history.
Great, What does Shulchan Aruch when writes “????? ?? ????? ???? ????”
What he Chassidic? PS: Please tell me what it means, not what it doesn’t.
????? ?? ????? ????
Stay very far away from women. I can read Hebrew 🙂
Toeles is a mitzva, and is not included.
(You and I agree on this one, I think).
Gavra, Moq asked what it *does* mean, not what it doesn’t.
Helpful:
That’s why I answered:
Stay very far away from women.
many of the posters are giving excellent reasons to justify this mishneh and gemoro and I will not comment upon the merits of this gemoro (I am all for it) but I just want to point out how some posters are very selective in their quotes.”Nat” quotes a “tiferes yisroel” on mishnayos to “explain” this gemoro in a way different from its plain meaning. OK- if the tiferes yisroel (a magnificent commentary, by the way)is so authoritative, do you follow his line of thinking as far as the creation of the world? if you don’t know what he says about, look at his “drush ohr hachaim’ at the end of nezikin. If you follow his line of reasoning on this, you may very well be thrown out of yeshiva nowadays.
My point is not to enter into polemics on this but to show that every person here is very selective in what he quote and follows. Let people decide on what their minhag is and don’t excoriate them if someone has a different view. It may be equally valid.
It is a well known halachic rule – we at this point do NOT paskin a halacho straight out of the gemorah. We have rishonim and achronim and a quite decent book called Shulchan Orech that we follow. We do not celebrate the Tu B’Av simcha any more at all, no where in klal yisroel.
Look at the Tiferes Yisroel on that Mishna, and you will find a very clear explanation; that it is a metaphor for something totally spiritual.
See! I knew someone would bring it up. 🙂 Just like those who completely ignore p’shat in this week’s parsha and say that Yaakov never really kissed Rachel. 🙂
The Wolf
wolfish: bull’s eye on this parsha’s events. thi is becoming an epidemic.
my friend, who do you think you are when you write “modern orthodox brethren” there is a reason that moshiach is not here today and offensive comments like that only further show us why moshiach isn’t coming yet. Argue through the use of halacha, arguing w/emotion only fuels the sinas chinam.
“every person here is very selective in what he quote and follows. Let people decide on what their minhag is and don’t excoriate them if someone has a different view. It may be equally valid. “
Well said.
“????? ?? ????? ???? ????”
If this becomes a central driving principal then there needs to be separate coffee rooms for men and women. When Shabbos guests come over separate dining areas for men and women.
There are some great stringencies in the area of tsnius (between husband and wife) that the Mechaber brings down, against which the Remah argues.
“This thread is dedicated for anyone wishing to explain to our MO brethren (who often misuse this Chazal)”
Uncalled for.
aries:
aries2756
“Who do you think you are to be so divisive amongst us in this CR.”
Because that isn’t divisive at all.
Wolf:
“Just like those who completely ignore p’shat in this week’s parsha and say that Yaakov never really kissed Rachel.”
Umm… Yaakov Avinu also married two sisters, an issur di’Oraysa. At that time the Torah had not yet been given, and the Avos did not follow the halacha the same way we do today. (Exactly what their halachic status was before matan Torah is the subject of much discussion.)
just wana point out. There are many places in chazal and the gemara where it says they did things which seem strange to us, and are assur for us to do. Ex: yaakov avinu kissed rochel by the well, yaakov married 2 sisters… the whole story with the 600 remaining men from Shevet Binyamin who each grabbed a girl from the vineyards of Yosef. (this is SEPARATE FROM TU B’AV)
IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT TODAY IT IS MUTAR. We don’t paskin streight out of the pshat of the Torah, Mishna or Gemara.
Yes Yaakov avinu kissed Rochel but does it mean that any man can kiss any women? Does it mean that one doesn’t have to be shomer negia? does it mean one man can marry 2 wives does it mean that that’s how to make shidduchim today? C’MON!
Yes Yaakov avinu kissed Rochel but does it mean that any man can kiss any women?
I never said that it did.
The Wolf
Getting back to Ta’anis. The only possible problem with that Gemora is the girls dancing. But it is possible to learn a pshat there that they were just walking around in circles. Otherwise, how is that Gemora different from modern times shidduch dates?
wolf i wasn’t directing my post specifically at you.
Josh31
Member
“????? ?? ????? ???? ????”
If this becomes a central driving principal then…
Perhaps Shulchan Aruch has an “appeals process” where certain, unliked, sections can be repealed?
There are some great stringencies in the area of tsnius (between husband and wife) that the Mechaber brings down, against which the Remah argues.
This is not one of them. No one argues on this “stringency”.
And about Ya’akov Avinu kissing Rochel Imeinu, look in Medrash Rabba, Parshas Va’eyetze. And remember, IT WAS BEFORE THE MATAN TORAH. Ya’akov Avinu also married two sisters — a chiyuv kares after the Matan Torah.
my friend again, i have nothing against the chareidim and how dare you speak ill of one of the gedolie hador?!!! i hope you are aware of the gemara in sanhedrin that states that anyone who mocks a talmid chachom is an apikores. When the Rav zl uses the word brethren he is speaking out of love and rationalism. He strongly disagreed w/the chareidi approach but he never harbored any feelings of sinas chinam towards them. Hence he still called them brethren, as opposed to many of the chareidim who labled him as an apikores.
“the stringencies of modern day Chassidus were not the norm throughout the vast majority of our history.”
I have to concede the first 130 years.
Eruvin 18B
Rabbi Meir says, Adam HaRishon was a Chasid Gadol … for 130 years sat in fasts, separated from.. etc.
But then we have Yaakov Beraishis 29:7 rebuking the shepherds for not working enough.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.