Forum Replies Created
So much pain. Ouch.
The road of divorce is terrible. But yes, death by marriage is worse. I have met men who have had their entire souls destroy piece by piece by an evil wife. And alas, have seen destructive husbands tear a good bas yisrael apart.
Beards, Payos, Hats, Jackets…
From my little experience – we need to get our heads screwed on straight before marriage. If that means therapy, so be it. Problem is, is that at shidduch age we are all so sensitive about what gets out – and being in therapy would be a certain deal breaker. But often that’s when it’s most necessary.
Healthy people don’t abuse. Healthy people don’t marry abusers. Yes, there are acception. But that’s the rule. As was said – the red flags are there.
And it’s on both sides. Broken people abuse. And broken people are charmed by abusers. Heck, abused children will seek out abusers.
Treat your spouse like a king/queen and your kids will know what to look for – and what to run away from.
And let us never take our spouses for granted and realize that shalom bayis is not a given, but an avodah. I once was by a wedding of a dear friend. As his Rosh Yeshivah left he leaned over to him and I listened in. “Chaim, Chazal teach us a wife is a ‘grindstone on his neck’ – know two things. One must work! What you feel now will only continue if you work! And secondly – though it is a grindstone – it is made of gold,silver, and the most precious of jewels. Remember that, when it feels like a grindstone”
He kissed him, and left.
OH! The late Lubavitcher Rebbe! Why didn’t you say so?
Oh well. Nevermind.
Mental health is the aleph beis. And then –
1- As sister bear said so eloquently, you’ve to be the kind of person you’d like to marry.
2- Middos, lifeplan – and be good friends. That is what turns the spark that gets you married into a lifelong, healthy, fulfilling relationship.
And believe. In today’s messed up world, with siyata d’shamaya, your head screwed on straight, and a trustworthy mentor who’s not just a yes man (or woman) – it can be done. The two nightmares – marrying and being miserable for the rest of your life – or marrying someone who hid all of their chesronos and getting divorced – it doesn’t have to be that way. Believe.
I feel like there is so much pessimism that kids believe that have to settle. Now, settle they must, on hollywood garbage – but not on the real deal.
As chazal teach us, before marriage, keep both eyes open. Afterwards – just one.
Yes, Rabbi Halperin is a great resource
I am sure that if you e-mail them, that will provide you with ideas and expertise ( they said at Otis elevators inc. that no one understand the elevator like Rabbi Halperin – since Otis himself)
Many intelligent things have been said by intelligent tzanuas on this thread.
I will take their respectful hint; they have said all that needs to be said. I will their respectful hint and get lost.
If anyone has an interesting shaala please start another thread about.
PS: Reb Doniel, I looking the Klausenberger Rebbe’s seforim there, and didn’t see anything.
Squeak – I am not insulting you. Perhap you have an irresponsible nephew, brother, – a relative who is not your child – who is deep in credit card debt, and you wanted to lend them the money to pay it off? Why is that obvious? You seem to be a generous sort. Anyway, I apologize. I was just trying to understand your shaala. Then the Gemara would apply; as far as chinuch – the Bris Yehudah writes at the end of Perek 2 that it would seem that for an adult (fiscally reliant) it would be permissible, and leaves with a tsarcih iyun. I suppose his safek is that still, you are teaching negatives habits to another Jew, regardless of your chinuch obligation them, and that is the point of chazal.
After you are matir neder, please tell us your psak.
You are being intellectually dishonest.
I quoted those Gemaras in response to the Gemara in Taanis. You posted that they were referring to divine punishment. I replied that people executed those judgements. I was not responding to your quoting of the quoting of the Chazon Ish.
You need to think deep and hard about what you accept as reliable & quotable and something you base your life on. It is no doubt convient to be able to dismiss the opinion of somehow who sees things differently based a flippant “anti-torah blogs” without any basic logical reasons. But it doesn’t actually mean anything. Storybooks are not Halacha. Storybooks are stories. But Haskafah comes from Rabbonim themselves, not what the Chazon Ish said – to make a point. Do you the every word the Chazon Ish said he said Halachicly? Yes, I know, mamish mamish, kadosh v’tahor, if we would understand…that this is the silly attitude of artscroll biographies.
Yes, I am disagreeing with you. I will leave you to analyze your own psycology and motivations; I request that you do me the honor of responding to my actual points. Of course, if you have no actual points, you may continue to conjecture about my motivations, and protect your opinions from any arguement. In which case I have little to respond, if the basis for having a valid opinion is to have yours.
The Chazon Ish was a human being. He said something to make a point. He would not have executed a woman based on that. And quoting it here is irresponsible. Ever Gadol has a Torah Sh’Baal Peh and a Torah SH’bKsav. Yes, and this the problem with these seforim, that the context of what was said is totally lost. When Gedolim write, they tell us everything they feel we need to know. When a Gadol says something, for a certain time, place and person – there’s context. Which is lost. Which is why these sforim are fine for hissorerus. But silly to base haskafah or Halacha on.
SJS is right. While Rabbonim are responsible for their communities , and we as a community are responsible for our entire community, and each head of a family for their family – there is an unhealthiness, to put it mildly, of constantly analyzing women’s hemlines and styles. This is another frum atzas hayetzer to get men to focus on women’s dress or lack thereof, and blame them for the effects.
Which is why I personally think this thread is silly. Chazal had power, and established Haskafah for Khal Yisrael. Do we?
Then perhaps men should focus on the details of esrogim, and not women’s skirts. No doubt other women, mechanos, – Rabbonim, parents, will handle that. Sigh. And I have pulled into the blutteh as well. A Gmar Chasimah Tovah. I have much to think about. Personally.
Yes, this is why I have been mocking this conversation.
You know, you could look at the Gemaras. Could you do that for us, and see what some of them are talking about? And see if they are comparable to the Gemara in Taanis?
Maybe Shaul actually cut off some guys head?
Maybe Chazal cursed the other to die? (Or lose their eyeballs – just like the Gemara in Taanis, via a curse?)
Right, so when you said ” see Chazon Ish” , you didn’t mean anything he actually wrote – you meant see a storybook about him. Ok. And you assumed we knew that. That misleading, but ok.
Now for some beautiful context- Sandhedrin can dish our whatever onesh it wants for whatever. There is a din that one is beaten for not listening to beis din. And if you don’t listen, you get hit again. Until – well, you’re dead. Hence this story about the Chazon Ish. But that is a method of enforcement of ANYTHING the sanhedrin decides. They also killed someone for pulling off a branch on shabbos and another case, who was merely a drabban. The actual onesh is not death; not listening to the supreme body of Halacha is – like a zaken mamrey.
That’s a Gemara. But if you want a real source, maybe it’s in some artscroll biography.
I suppose most of our girls , even those horrible horrible short skirt wearing ones (many who have been told that if they are not attractive are not worthy of existing – by the media, and ultimately by the frum male population in it’s subtle requests in the world of shidduchim), would listen to a Sanhedrin of the greatest Talmidey Chachamim in the generation telling them not to wear something specific.
Problem is that we don’t have that clarity, even if most Rabbonim forbid something, there is no Din Sanhedrin on them. While I do wish our girls ( and please, there is no “us” and “them”) would dress differently, I am not so arrogant as to wish death upon them. I wish them a year of health, wealth, spiritual success & self-esteem – and then tzinius will grow by itself, without me needing to burn any tires. Yitamu Chataim, and not Yitamu Chotim. Of course, Beruriah was a girl.
And maybe see those Gemaras?
Great, I’ve had to say something logical again.
So yes, tzinius is important, yes there’s a problem – and I’m not in the slightest interested in discussing it, merely to laugh at the discussion – but can we leave corporal punishment out of it?
Ah, I see.
“For example, I have a family member who is paying credit card debt (which is a terrible waste of money). I want to pay off the debt on their behalf – but without letting them skip out on the lesson of the pitfalls of financial indiscretion. I think one way to do this would be to hold them to a punishing payback schedule so they can see what it would cost to pay for their mistakes (and as a side point- I plan on gifting the extra money back when they manage to finish paying).”
I’m sorry, I answered too quickly. You may certainly make them pay the actual credit card debt with it’s accrued to date interest, as this is the sum you put out. But you wish to cut – and I understand why.
But if you’re not speaking of a minor and you’re speaking of a family member that you are not fiscally responsible for, then I believe Rav hava mina would not apply – they would be like any other person, as the chazakah that you are not makpid on them does not apply, as they are not reliant on you. The Gemara explicitly says “Banav U’Bney Beso” – aka, though who are reliantly upon him. Since their needs are essentially his, any fiscal transaction between are pretense. The Gemara, still forbids this based on chinuch.
But you speak of an adult who is not reliant on you. The Gemara wouldn’t apply.
I believe that it would be Ribbis D’Orayasah (as it would be ketzutzah) then, which regardless of your intentions would be ossur. Which is forbidden even if the borrower says that the ribbis is a gift. Due to the fact that in your case the borrower is a totally separate financial entity. There is no chazakah in your case ( assuming this person is not financially reliant on you).
I would suggest signing a heter iska with a merciless “profit” rate. What you do in the future would be irrelevant. they are relatively simple and straightforward (but make sure you and your – well, victim- fully understand it’s terms for it to be halachicly & legally valid- Rabbi Reisman has a few english versions in the end of his sefer).
Okie. now I feel the need to say something sober.
Merely being pretty is not a sin. A girl does her’s, and Hashem does the rest. There are plenty of sickos out there; the fact that some guy is out of control is not her problem. She need not wear a burqa. Or even a hijab. I suppose eventually they will come into style. You know, like a Tommy Burqa. In which case they will cost $600 and frum girls will have fist fights over the last one at Estis. But until then…
But as far the oneshim of chazal…I mean, if you’d like to learn literal haskafah from that one, you’d also –
Lose your eyes if you misquote a source (Chagigah 3b)
Die if you –
Teach a posuk wrong (Bava Basra 21b)
Come late to a drasha ( Bava Basra 22a)
If you get mad at your chavrusa (Bava Metziah 84a)
If you try to fool a talmid chacham (Brachos 58a)
Do something mutar in public that other may not know is ossur for them (avodah zara 17)
Pushing off a yoledes’s korban (Shabbos 55b)
There’s a lot more death in chazal, but I’ll spare ya.
Obviously, she did something wrong in inyaney tzinius. Deeply wrong. But it doesn’t mean the onesh for a lack of tzinius is death. Chazal are teaching us how important the inyan is, but not literally.
Though OOmis, your attitude towards chazal is very sad.
Yes, the story is in Mesechta Taanis. But Gemaras are meant to studied b’iyun. But your attitude is very sad. There is a whole shas out there, full of depth. Sad sad.
Either learn Gemara, or accept that women don’t learn Gemara, and don’t impose your opinion on it.
Anyway, back to sarcasm.
Kasha, care to source, or just have us search all eight chelakim of chazon ish (and the igros, and emunah u’bitachon and heck, throw in maaseh ish…)
Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the subject on his/her back with the head inclined downwards; water is then poured over the face into breathing passages, thus triggering the mammalian diving reflex causing the captive to experience the sensations of . In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex. It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage and, if uninterrupted, death. Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years. The term waterboarding was coined in 2004.
In 2007 it was reported that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the U.S. intelligence service, was using waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners and that the Department of Justice had authorized the procedure. Al-Qaeda suspects upon whom the CIA is known to have used waterboarding are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. According to Justice Department documents, the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed provided information about an unrealized terrorist attack on Los Angeles.
Of course, if you are married to Khalid Sheik Mohammed, I’d probably skip the waterboarding and just get divorced. Guys like that are explosive when you least expect it.
Me? Mocking? Certainly not. I am just trying to profit off of this highly logical,
well thought out, sourced ,
revealing no insecurities , and merely a healthy self-image inside and out –
debate, containing a great deal of new and exciting, unique ideas for the betterment of mankind and all of Starfleet.
I get 5% if you order that poem from amazon. Is that so bad?
No no no no….please, have a look inside!
One may NOT lend his children interest in order to them a lesson.
Bava Metziah 75a – Rav has such a hava minah, and the Gemara rejects it, because it will teach his children to lend with interest, realizing how much can be made (Rashi).
Yorah Deah 160,8 forbids it based on this Gemara, even if his ultimate intention is return the money to them as a gift (see the Taz).
Time for a commercial break!
This thread has been sponsored by:
THE BLIND MEN AND THE ELEPHANT
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The First approach’d the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -“Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”
The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he,
“‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
Anyway, commercial break is now over. If you’d like to sponsor the new commercial break , please contact the ad department at yeshiva world news. And tell them I sent you.
I definitely agree. In fact, I would recommend water boarding. In fact the CIA recently proved that it’s an effective technique & and quickly gains compliance, yet leaves little lasting damage. Over a period of two weeks, it can work wonders.
I’m pretty sure some of their experts are actually looking for work, so if you can pay government scale, which isn’t too much, I would look into it.
who are the ten people who entered gan eden alive?
SJS – you are 100% right.
Ah yes…now for scene eight hundred and ninety. But this is a special edition, apparently. A double feature! O boy!
I brought popcorn, anybody have root beer?
ACT ONE, SCENE SEVEN HUNDRED AND SEVENTY TWO.
OP: Women are so prust! We must give them tochacha!
FrumGuy: Yes! If only we would throw bleach at them!
WorkingOutMyAngeAtBaisYakov: come on! It’s so much worse to call people bad names! And I heard from my random seminary teacher a irrelevant vort which means you have be nice to everyone!
YeshivishYUguy: Yes, and Halachically speaking there are many halachos! Please see all relevant sources and Ravs! I happen to personally know of psak given to an irrelevant situation in an irrelevant place! It may have even been the Rav himself!
FrumGuy: And burn tires!
TiredBaalBus: Yes! And you never know where people are coming from! And it’s the fault of the Roshey Yeshivas, anyway! And the kollel guys. And my mother-in-law. And her mother-in-law. Back to the first mother-in-law!
EuropeanBubby: It because of the schmutz we bring into our home! The radio! Gevalt!
WorkingOutMyAngerAtBaisYakov: And besides, you need to have self-control? Why are you looking at me? Just because I’m exposed in a public place is my own private public place business! You are so prust!
FrumGuy: TIRES! And Bleach! And bleached tires! Down with the evil prutsas! We need to throw them while blindfolded, of course.
KollelWife: We need to show everyone the real , true, beauty and essence of the baas yisrael!
AngryFrumLady: Don’t you start with the holy mother-in-laws! But it is the Roshey Yeshivas fault!
FrumGuy: You are all going mamish mamish to gehenenom! It says in mesechta chagiga 108b and in Shabbos 160a and in Bava Basra 207a that anyone who is not like me is mamish mamish not geshmak!
And Maran Rashkebehag Rabbi Falk Shlita brings down seventy hundred more mareh mekomos.
Come on, it is the aseres yemey teshuvah. Can’t we all look inward? Just a little bit? Aren’t there any halachos we can discuss? Not just smash our personal haskafos against each other?
Is this really going to help anybody?
We’ve kind of done this a few times. Come now, each of us has where to look inward.
Certainly tochacha is only relevant when it has actual purpose coming from it?
PS: I do not refer to anyone specifically with my pseudo screen names. Merely the tired pattern that gets played, over and over again when anything comes to tzinius.
If the clothing was extremely expensive, rethreading can sew up the holes without any trace (literally replacing the threads one by one). It’s very expensive though, figure about $60 for a small hole. But if it’s $1000 gown or whatever it is that the royalty wear in flatbush, it’s worth it. (I know, you live in Idaho. Sorry. No insult intended. And where can I catch a mincha there?)
The Shulchan Aruch speaks of women. Men, who have no actually obligation L’Halacha to go the mikvah may shower after going to the mikvah. R’ Wosner writes this explicitly in Shevet Levi.
I think that this is a really bad place to work out shalom bayis issues. And as SJS said, moredes is rarely a recourse. Find a Rov and/or a competent (oy! make sure you get a competent one!) marriage counselor (with a phd. Who charges an arm and a leg. Not some little girl who just graduated with 15 month counseling degree and has been married for six months).
I believe the issue has been pretty much resolved.
You are stating one viewpoint which not everyone agrees to. However, allow me to point out a general problem with the way you presented this position. Locke argued that if the knowledge is truly innate, you should have no need to say that it is obvious. You only need to resort to demonstrating how obvious it is if the knowledge is not innate. And being obvious doesn’t in any way prove the knowledge is innate either.
Actually, it’s exactly what I’m trying to say from a philosophical perspective. We have senses other then our logic. But Locke was right; they are not obvious. But neither is playing a violin. But it is knowledge; I believe there are stages of knowledge that one attain by increasing his sensitivity – and , for lack of better word; listening. But definitely not like logic, which ultimately is objectively universal.
Because I cannot prove it to you does make it not true. But it does mean that I cannot prove it to you. It means that I am sensitive to it, and you are not. I can say that it is obvious – to me, because that experience is not universal. But something does not have to be universal to be true.
Truth to be told, Locke’s premise was wrong. For instance, after years of logical thought certain things because obvious. But try explaining them to a local ditz (male or female). You certainly would say that something is obvious. It wouldn’t make it less true. Sensitivity is real in logic as well. Philosophical thought takes time to – get hold of.
AND as far as the Sinia experience, you have good logical God. You do not have a superlogical God. God wish to cook us anyway, make evil good and good evil. Remove logic, and nothing can ever, ever, be demonstrated. The ultimate arbiter, our minds, which is the final decider if something is logical or not, is perfectly useless. What is good? What is evil? What is true? If our lenses is broken we see nothing. “Logic is futile” (that’s actually not a quote from a great philosopher, but rather from Dilbert, speaking as his boss demands the ability to store smell on his computer).
I think we have a schematics issue here. We are using the word logic as what we absolutely and totally know. Certainly, the laws of nature don’t enter that realm.
friends, this is beyond fascinating and I’m thrilled to have a real logical conservation here that doesn’t end with ask your Rav. But I must go! I hope to check later.
So therefore, I see the role of mesorah as being able to strengthen our superlogical senses to perceive God, which then makes room for logic, which then proves Judaism (via Sinai and the like). A good God is pretty much a universal, non-logical belief.
And I am agreeing with you. We cannot find God through logic. But I believe we have other tools. But those of course, I cannot articulate to you. But yes, I believe that we can perceive absolute reality.
Nothing to do with his famed letter. Descartes proved there is an experience of perception which implies an experiencer, hence some sort of independent existence. But I can be perceiving within the dream of an ant/a hallucination/ a video game etc. . There must be a perceiver. But does the perceiver perceive absolute reality? Nope.
And by the way, latin is soooo not yeshivish.
Also, you may indeed by hallucinating. But within your hallucination you are going to keep doing what works to get the results you want. We may indeed be hallucinating (I mean, ever since I dropped LSD I haven’t been sure). We don’t know. But it doesn’t make the slightest difference!
But Torah deals with absolute reality. How are we to approach the absolute?
Yes, but in this world we have the principle of consistency based on experience.
Man walks into street. Man gets hit by car.
Man walks into street. Man gets hit by car.
Man learns the principle of large object, squishing small object. This applies for everything in our world.
But what experience do we have with the realm of divine? ZERO!
Logically speaking, you have just elaborate the agnostic approach. We cannot know if there is or is not a God. Just like we don’t know if we are the cosmic dream of an ant. Can you tell me if we are or are not?
And just because my tools of existence are all I have, does that mean that I can apply to something which is by definition beyond them? If God is unknowable via logic, just because logic works elsewhere, what good is logic for God?
Unless we assume there is a God, who wants us to know Him, – ah ha, he must make himself Knowable to me via those highly limited tools, because He wants me to know Him, and will present Himself to me in a way I can perceive.
But if we know nothing about Him – why should he care? Maybe I can’t know anything about him? Again, just because I cross the street- what does that have to with him?
We need to assume God, then get logical.
No no no SJS, that’s physics! Science, and an assumption that things are consistent. Not logic! Nothing to do with logic. It is purely logical to think that person next to you will turn into a pillar of salt. It’s not rationale. Or reasonable. Or sensible. But don’t subsitute those things for logic. If tomorrow, people turned into salt, that would be ok. But if tomorrow, things could be true and false at the same time – well, we’d have an existential problem.
Gavra – yes, the only solution, to my knowledge.
BP- is something true because it is helpful? What I made a false religion, but one that psychologically infused a person with joy, happiness, made then make billions and lose 50 pounds, gave then wonderful marriages, perfect kids-
Does that make it true?
When we say logic, we mean the rules of existence that are not based on experience, that are part of our very being, like something cannot be true and false at the same time.
Science is pure observation. The only way science progress is by observation something different from what it saw until now. A contradiction to a law of science is not illogical; we merely must understand the phenomena that has presented it itself before us.
But it has nothing to do with logic in a philosophical sense. Logic has no beef with miracles. If say, an alien turned lot’s wife into salt via advanced technology – with a stun gun, right in front of Lot – would that be illogical? Or merely rules of nature that we don’t understand?
SJS – logic is very different from the laws of nature.
Mamish mamish. Ok, I’m yotzeh being yeshivish.
Of course, our own powers of perceptions are the basis of any and all belief. But it’s important to realize that logic is not our only basis of perceptions – though it is certainly essential, and the only objective one. But our subjective powers are no less real.
Our a priori knowledge is vast, and includes – but is not limited – to logic. Experience does not teach us all of logic, merely practical logic. But there is a great to deal to logic which is postpriori.
When people get wary of questions, and when the Achronim disagree about the study of philosophy, it is because of this – that philosophy sees logic as axiomatic. It’s not. It’s merely apriori.
But as Kant points out, God – Torah – by definition is beyond human perceptions and limits, including logic. Hence, logic is futile before God. We may only perceive God via our other perceptions – and certainly those do not suffice.
To say that God is logical is to limit Him to human terms. Such a God is not God. How did that master of logic perceive God –
“Two things fill the mind with ever-increasing wonder and awe, the more often and the more intensely the mind of thought is drawn to them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.”
Once we perceive the existence of an
– Kind & Benevolent God,
via non-logical means!
then we may presume that he made it possible to find him. As logic is the most universal, we may then resort to logic. But even then, if one could perceive Yahdus through irrational means, it would be equally valid. And may do. Of course, one can present this to another person. But if someone says that the beauty of Yiddishkiet, it’s purity and structure and history are enough for him – well, that is equally valid! And if people which to encourage others on that path, it is equally valid.
But for someone of us that won’t suffice. But it’s certainly an equally valid approach.
Nah…those cases are pretty much tarud b’melachto; it would be permissible even in front of Jews (he is focused on making a production/class and not on his students dress. Of course, this applies only during the class – before, after & any social connection and the like would have normal rules of tzinius). This is why we permit women to see male doctors in all settings, even if a female is available, and there is no pikuach nefesh (say, elective surgery & the like- a different schmooze as well) . Presumably, this would apply to lifeguards as well. Still, women presumably are more comfortable around a female staff.
I wonder though, about other attendees (not the instructor) of the class. They presumably are not tarud b’melachto, and may merely be attended the class for it’s fringe benefits. Presumably, if it is not an all-female class, it would be problematic.
Of course, even the instructor, this means you can assume his mind is elsewhere. Of course, if it’s clearly not, based on comments & actions – then it would be forbidden.
Again, I see no difference between Jews & Non-Jews. Jews who are professionals in these areas are permitted to interact with immodest women, based on the heter of tarud b’melachto. Of course, a Ben Torah should choose his profession with brains. I’m not sure if women’s clothing designer is what a Ben Torah does for parnassah (try astrophysics. Much more fun. And you get to play with explosives. And no women – except in astronaut suits, which are pretty tzinius. Meah Shearim is actually going to bring in a few.)
As far as pants…that’s a different schmooz. Di L’Tzara B’Shaato.
For all practical applications, please speak to your LOR. This is theory only.
And you can see the subtle & slippery slope here. Bnos Yisrael who keep tzinius in all settings around men are certainly in the geder of ??? ????.
And it’s off (well, not really. I need a stamp. I ran out of stamps. I wish I had more stamps. But I’ll find one.). $100 (with a memo ‘earmarked for teacher salaries’). Now we got – $300 in the mail. Nu chevra? Then we go back to figuring how to close there $4,000,000 defict. Now it’s $3,999,500.
Of course, another $500 would make it $3,999,000 – any takers? All of you who know how to figure it all out – come help!
Ok, Tachlis. Someone give me the address, let’s send it directly to Bais Yakov – with a note that it is to be used for salaries.
Address? And then confirm as you send it off.
A quick google yields the following:
Beth Jacob of Boro Park
1371 46th Street
Brooklyn, NY, 11219
Please verify first. -Mod
Certainly, Da’as Yehudis is a social principle; aka one of dignity. One woman (and a man, in a different context) must maintain her dignity at all times. In an all-female environment, one may maintain her dignity even when dressed differently then in the street. This applies to every single place and enviroment a woman is in.
Each situation has it’s daas yehudis. I understand there is a modesty which frum women have when swimming amoung themselves; this too would be daas yehudis.
One certainly loses dignity when being exposed in front of non-jews- unlike when around women. Hence, daas yehudis would forbid it. Forbidden, even in the Bahamas.
Beyond that, we have the dorasayah aspect of lifney iver. Lifney Iver does apply to a non-jew, as well. Hence, we have the multitude of issurim regarding causing a non-jew to worship avodah zara, to the point the beis yakov forbids business parntership with an akum; worrying that it will lead him to swear in the name of his god. Worry not, the Remah permits it based on the fact that non-jews are not prohibited from Shituf (aka christianity) – who leaves out the shaala of paganism.
We find a machlokes haposkim as far as if non-jews are obligated in hirhur relative to a woman who is forbidden to them. I presumably the lifney iver is contingent on that. Of course, the question continues of trey avrey d’nahar, which I wonder how to apply to modesty. Presumably trey avrey d’nahar always applies (aka creating issur and non merely facillitating it).
I would find this, therefore, to be forbidden (I didn’t see R’ Moshe, but I presume that his permission for a male lifeguard is based on tarud b’malachto, just like a doctor. I would be hesitant to apply this to a hairdresser; surely enough intelligent bais yakov girls become shaitel machers? In Israel, I have heard that charedi beaches often have male lifeguards, based on the fact that beach requires additional strength to pull a woman out of the water, and therefore they are mekel – even though they could easyily hirer female lifeguards)
Yes, hence, I think we should a first marriage as a trial run, and then get it right the second time around.
Alas, too many couples try this. I would add, nothing prepares you for marriage like being a healthy human being with healthy parents. If you weren’t zoche – fix yourself up beforehand (though marriage can heal).
To think that the greeks figured out the basic concept without help of modern geometry is fascinating. Well, actually, the egyptians. Which makes you wonder about Yosef. but, onward. The Gemara in succah…area…but not now!September 2, 2010 9:49 pm at 9:49 pm in reply to: The Application of the Laws of Shmiras Halashon to Shidduchim #694455
Listen, I studied and learned Agunos. I still wouldn’t pasken. When dealing with people’s lives – you’ve got to bring in a real authority. Just like pikuach nefesh. A brief – “sure, I’d love to talk to you, but I’m running to night seder, can I call you at ten” suffices – and then buzz the LOR.
3.1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510
5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128 4811174502 8410270193 8521105559 6446229489 5493038196 4428810975 6659334461 2847564823 3786783165 2712019091 4564856692 3460348610 4543266482 1339360726 0249141273 7245870066 0631558817 4881520920 9628292540 9171536436 7892590360 0113305305 4882046652 1384146951 9415116094 3305727036 5759591953 0921861173 8193261179 3105118548 0744623799 6274956735 1885752724 8912279381 8301194912 9833673362 4406566430 8602139494 6395224737 1907021798 6094370277 0539217176 2931767523 8467481846 7669405132 0005681271 4526356082 7785771342 7577896091 7363717872 1468440901 2249534301 4654958537 1050792279 6892589235 4201995611 2129021960 8640344181 5981362977 4771309960 5187072113 4999999837 2978049951 0597317328 1609631859 5024459455 3469083026 4252230825 3344685035 2619311881 7101000313 7838752886 5875332083 8142061717 7669147303 5982534904 2875546873 1159562863 8823537875 9375195778 1857780532 1712268066 1300192787 6611195909 2164201989 3809525720 1065485863 2788659361 5338182796 8230301952 0353018529 6899577362 2599413891 2497217752 8347913151 5574857242 4541506959
Is very interesting. And it goes on forever…
Rav Arush (I , being male, listented to his warning, forbiding my race to read the ‘Women’s Wisdom’. But I did read Garden of Peace, and found it excellent, though needed sometimes to be taken with sechel).
Tachlis! Yada Yada yada yada…we have $500 for bais yakov, right? Confirm Rabbosia, and we’ll all send out our check with our word of honor! Then we can go back to figure out the velt problems in dah mikvah.
You are being such a guy. Poor OP is in pain; not a question of fair. Question of HELP. “????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???’.
Of course it’s fair. Ice cream cost money and so does school. But if a family didn’t have food to eat, and wished the grocer could continue to give food for free – well, sympathize!
And let us all send BY a nice check! Our schools are a bigger priority then any other tzeddaka! Their just not as dramatic. It’s cooler to sponsor chai lifeline then pay for toilet paper in bais yakov. But ultimately, OUR schools – OUR responsiblity – is aniyey ircha kodemim. That means the needs of your community – and there is not greater need for the khal then Bais Yakov – come first. So shell out rabbosia!
I’m in for $100 if four people will match me. I dare anyone to up the ante.
[Emphasis added by mod.]
I don’t believe it would be stealing; I suppose when people I don’t where it will come from – I mean, they could see their car, house, whatever. It may be a very good idea, but certainly we have all been in positions when we must obligate and then make it happen. For a surgery or the like. Or you could take out a bank loan. Or whatever.
Defaulting after the appointed time would be a different story. Like Gavra said – often, we just need to make it happen.
It’s sad though. Both sides of the coin are true. Schools gotta pay their teachers. But the fact of religious life is that you need an income in excess of 120k to made ends meet – I mean it that reasonable? That to send your childrent to a Frum school you need to be in the 90th income percentile?
The only people who get me mad are the people who don’t prioritze tuition – over bungalow colonies – or even summer camps – or worst, lexuses.
I hope that vouchers will take off and/or a kehilla fund. It’s a great idea, and I heard it’s taking root in chicago. My sympathies, but ultimately, when it’s between the teachers and the parents – I side with the teachers. They are not obligated to pay anyone elses tuition via getting their measly checks six months late (I look at the breaks that they get as part of their salary for community service).
Interesting. More power to them. When it becomes an absolute that Rabbeim get paid, the quality of the people we entrust our children too will improve. Sadly, now many nebachs go into chinuch, and we pay the psychologist bills later. Why not save the money now?
R’ Elyashiv has a teshuva ( In Techumim, I believe chelek chaf), and says that the Rabbeim do not have a greater obligation to the limud of tinoko shel beis rabban then anyone in the community. Hence, they may strike ( there is a similar din by the chevra kadisha).
But when it becomes a reality that tuition must be paid even at the expenses of – seminary! or summer camp! – well, then there salaries will come on time. They are noble individuals, trying to live an ideal. Alas, doesn’t always happen that way. They cannot carry the tuition breaks of the school – Halachically, a child should stay home, rather then a Rebbe not be paid. Let the parents fundraise – why should he pay for there child’s education?
Let them unionize, and be treated like mentechen.
Oomis, your personal emotions about the issue are fascinating; but totally irrelevant to the Halachic framework. We, you see, are orthodox Jews, basing our lives on the cold logic of Halacha. I’m sure you’ll find our conversations fascinating. It’s a whole different way of thinking.
We also asks experts in Jewish, known as Rabbis, when we are in doubt as to how to live our lives and don’t rely on our own gut feelings. It’s interesting, really.
We do this because often we find our emotions are inaccurate relative to the view of authentic Torah Judaism. So we try to find out the truth based on authentic Torah sources, and ask for help when we are in doubt.
mw13, nobody on this thread indicated they read Reb Moshe’s teshuva and disputes the “interpertation”. In fact there is nothing to “interpert”. Reb Moshe says shaking hands is assur. Who claims Reb Moshe says otherwise?
Reb Moshe also says being friends with a girl is not just assur, it is an issur d’orayso.
No one of stature disagrees with Rav Moshe. Check it out for yourself, and report back if – and who – you think disagrees.
But you have trouble believing that anyone actually paskened against R’ Moshe’s lukewarm teshuvah? Sheeesh. Do you R’ Moshe word is law for all Talmidey Chachamim who come after him? Do you know anything about Halacha? And you can’t possibly believe that SJS’s Rov couldn’t have permitted? Do you know the sugya of Lo Sikrevu? When what were how?
If you have learned the sugya – and say it’s not a possibility – well, I would disagree with you. Again, I don’t think it’s permitted, but I see it as a possibility. Some things are impossible. This is not. It is a gray area. Yes! Those exist! And just because nothing is published with a definete ruling to the opposite does not make it an impossiblity, if the Sugya w/Rishonim & Shulchan Aruch logically leave room for the possiblity!
And if you don’t, we can discuss it. A Rov, learned and competent, may indeed disagree with R’ Moshe – as R’ Moshe did with the greats before him! Sheesh.