Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
DaMoshe, if it would cause a problem, it would be assur, but the assumption is that it’s less common than for men.
ZD, they wanted criticism? Your opinions get more incredible from post to post.
Flatbusher, that is the underlying issue, but it’s much more subtle, because the type of picture a frum publication would print is highly unlikely to be an issue.
How is that relevant? If that is supposed to imply that Rav Forst is perfectly fine with cholov stam, that’s untrue.
Not for public discussion.
I still believe that
Oh, I’m sure you do, but it’s pretty telling to see where that comment is made.
no one has banned men from going to any other venues where there are women, unless I missed something
Have you never seen a mechitzah at a chasunah for dancing? This is worse.
Hmmm… I’m wondering why your comment on DaMoshe’s post wasn’t that people shouldn’t rely on the comments here but should ask a Rav…
That scenario is still inappropriate, but if you want to argue that mixed gyms are not categorically assur, you can suggest a situation where there’s a curtain separating the men and women, the women are all above 90, they are wearing burkas, and only exercising their (gloved) pinkies.
ZS, they opened themselved up to deserved critiscm
No, they opened themselves up to UNdeserved criticism.
Ubiquitin, this is why we are fundamentally in DISagreement.
And your analogy is again inapt. How can you possibly even begin to compare this to clear expression of hate, in which case the audience is irrelevant? It’s also pretty naive to assume that we are not at least part of the intended audience.
DY regarding point 1I copied from the other post on this subject
They’re not the same discussions; the overall policy is not the same as how it’s implemented in particular cases. Regardless, nobody has a “right” to take offense at innocent things. Your analogy is flawed, because those who claim to be offended are not the intended audience, and undoubtedly only look at frum papers to stir up trouble. Daily, there are countless other seriously offensive items published in various media which go practically unnoticed; the motive here is, or should be, obvious.
Regarding point two I’ll just quote golfer: “Still, it’s easier to refrain from publishing any photos of ladies, than to have to sit in judgment and then offend by publishing a photo of this rebbetzin and not that one.”
“Easy” has little to do with how much time it takes or how physically tedious it is.
Rama?
You are correct meikar hadin; the minhag is based on a chumra, as are the additional 70 kolos to begin with.
It’s an entirely irrelevant question. If I as an individual am either in the extreme minority and/or am not in the category of ???, it doesn’t change what Chazal say one iota.
And if you don’t believe Chazal, I’m not having this discussion.
This Chazal is not even a chiddush; if you think the world isn’t filled with gezel and arayos, you live in a different world, or reality, than I do.
Ubiquitin, your first point is wrong because there’s no disrespect, there’s intolerance for more religiosity masquerading as a claim of disrespect.
You second point is wrong because easier is not limitedlimited to one Photoshop session, it’s the overall policy which is easier.
can I say no and then violate the entire ???? ?”??
Arayos (and gezel) are ???? ?? ??? ?????? ??????? ???, in other words, there’s a strong yetzer hara for them. It’s not intentional and it’s not evil, but it’s there, and we need to accept that and deal with it properly.
You are not trying to understand Chazal, there’s nothing particularly difficult about it. You are arguing with them.
And here we go again with the Taliban/Islam anology. Let me ask you: do you eat Halal? No? You’re even more fanatical than the Taliban!
We don’t take our cues from Islam; not l’chumra, not l’kula.
Sam, it’s hard to not think that it’s much worse to be in a mixed gym than passing by women doing laundry.
Just look, for example, at the ??? ???? on ???? ???? ?????. It’s on the next page in ??”? from the one I linked above.
Flatbusher, are you doubting Chazal?
BTW, it’s not an assumption about frum men more than anyone else.
Or b’farhesia.
I won’t bother explaining again why this is far from fraudulent.
This is a case of people with an agenda making an issue out of nothing (which is predictable, and why it wasn’t a good idea), and you should be astute enough not to buy into it or give it any credibility.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=37961&st=&pgnum=191&hilite=
And while I’m at it, might as well post the Shulchan Aruch on harchakos arayos:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14398&st=&pgnum=106
:??????? ??. – ??.
?”? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???’ ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?”? ????? ???’ ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ???’ ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ??????
:??”?
????? ??????. ???? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??????
See, though, .???’ ??? ?”?:
???? ?????. ??? ?? ?? ???? ???????? (?? ??: ???) ???? ???? ?????? ???’ ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ?????
So it seems that according to ‘???, it’s only a chumra (minhag, to be more precise) which serves as identification as a Jew, not just any chumra (minhag).
I don’t know where you saw that Pshat.
I basically quoted the Shulchan Aruch.
HaLeiVi, it’s only assur if it’s ?????? ?????? ????.
They say a story about the Manchester Rosh Hayeshiva zt”l that they showed him a family photo, and he asked who a certain female in the picture was, and they told him it was his daughter-in-law. Apparently, he was makpid not to look at a woman’s face, but not makpid on a picture.
CA, we’re not talking about definite intentional gazing, which is a b’feirush’e din in Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 21, as I recall).
We’re talking about putting oneself in a makom nisayon, and for most people, it’s not such a nisayon to be near a woman who isn’t wearing gloves.
Being in a mixed gym is a nisayon which no one should put himself into. It’s the same idea as mixed swimming.
I don’t know why the keilim aren’t a problem.
FriendInFlatbush, if it’s not “truly assur”, but nevertheless people’s yiras chet keeps them away, is that not enough of a reason to want a kosher gym?
RebYidd23, if the women are blind, it’s still a problem.
Golfer, as usual, a voice of seichel.
It doesn’t matter why they’re going, it matters if they’ll see it. And they will.
It varies. You should ask the shadchan what the expectation is.
Yes, it actually was, because I am fully aware of the fact that we usually misunderstand each other. It was not very nice of you to call me a contortionist twice in the same thread, but of course, it’s quite possible that I’m misunderstanding that as well.
Presumably, if it’s under hashgochah, there’s some sort of policy in place to take care of the bishul akum problem. It comes down to how much you hold of the hashgochah’s standards (there are various opinions as to what a Yisroel has to do to take it out of the category of bishul akum) and how reliably they implement their standards.
That’s why I said probably. I retract.
But Syag’s probably right.
And you don’t like it when you perceive others as being intolerant of your kulas, but then you go ahead and show your intolerance at others’s chumras.
CA, the policy of not publishing pictures of women who are dressed okay is a chumra. Do women need to wear gloves?
But you said it’s wrong because they mock us for it.
If it’s a chumra you don’t want to keep, that’s fine, nobody’s forcing anything on you, but don’t be so intolerant of others’ ideals.
If we gauge whether something is right or wrong by how Jew haters and/or religion haters react to it, we would have to give up frumkeit in total to satisfy them, and it wouldn’t even work for the Jew haters.
They also make fun of kashrus (even worse than rob does), taharas hamishpacha, milah, and other mitzvos. Should we give these up as well?
What ridiculous analogies. There’s no doubt about Avi Weiss and YCT, they are trying to destroy Yiddishkeit. Your conjecture that maybe Hamevaser violated copyrights is in any way comparable??!!
And are you really trying to compare evil murderers to newspaper publishers who alter a picture out of a sensitivity to potential aveirah??!! Do you really believe what you posted?
Actually, you’re the one who seems to want to censor what a certain paper publishes, so if you really insist on inane analogies…
If you just want to criticize, then I can’t expect you to see that you’re going way overboard.
Rabbiofberlin, I never said or implied anything of the sort.
Regardless, your wild extrapolation to burkas is wrong. If you want to try to understand the reasoning behind the policy, read some of the posts on this thread: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/pictures
A couple of quick points.
It probably is copyrighted, my question is is this a copyright violation, and should we be conjecturing that it is without ant any legal knowledge.
Yes, ubiquitin, it is about context, and I explained why I don’t think this context lends itself to the criticism levied.
No, I would not have hed this picture published. It might not have been fraudulent or illegal or disrespectful, but it was still not a good idea.
ZD, even if true, that’s a totally unrelated point, but I’m curious: do you have any real source that it’s a copyright violation, or is that just an assumption?
Nonsense. They were not trying to fool anyone into thinking there are no female world leaders, or that they did not attend the rally, and nobody was fooled. I know you’re a photographer, Wolf, but there’s nothing holy or sacrosanct about a photograph that it can’t be altered.
I didn’t read this article, but as I recall, the article that this thread was based on did mention Hillary Clinton’s presence, yet they were accused of misrepresentation.
When someone on the CR claims he’s a goose farmer from Alaska, is that a falsehood? Not in my book, because the intent isn’t to actually present false information as true.
If someone presents himself as both a talmid of Rav Yisroel Belsky and Rav Menashe Klein for illustrative purposes, is that a lie? Not to me.
Their readership knows full well that the absence of a female in a picture doesn’t mean there weren’t any present, and so do all of these journalusts, and all of the commenters here in the CR. Neither the intent, nor the result, was for anybody to have misinformation.
No it hasn’t. When the media twists and distorts a story to show us in a bad light, those involved in the story have not retroactively caused a chillul Hashem.
We know good and well that some newspapers don’t print pictures of women, not out of disrespect for women, but rather so that men don’t look at pictures of women. You and I have a right to disagree with that policy, and think it’s complete overkill, but to ascribe it to false motives is a much bigger distortion of the truth than photoshopping a picture, which was never intended to misrepresent the events.
Those hypocrites accuse the frum papers of falsehood and disrespect, but are the ones who perpetuate falsehood and disrespect.
I only know that it’s odd to be the only one posting mareh m’komos…
There is an enormous amount of misinformation in this thread: I am a BTL-holding T14 graduate who is currently employed as an associate at a V10 firm. not that he is bragging or something
I took out all of the extra parts.
Yeah, we want solid statistical analysis, not anecdotal evidence.
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1115&st=&pgnum=291&hilite=
(another mareh makom on whether lifnei iver applies when the machshil holds something is assur but the nichshol holds it’s muttar)