Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 301 through 350 (of 354 total)
  • Author
  • in reply to: Al Tarbe Sicha Im Haisha #695608

    SJS, I thought he was differentiating between jews & non-jews. Jews have an issur of Lo Sikrevu (which includes maaseh chiba) and would be Yeharog V’al Yaavor. Non-Jews are not included in this prohibition. It would still be forbidden if it were a maaseh chibah, but for different reasons, and less stringent. Still forbidden. Just not Arayos. (This too, would be subject to debate).

    I am conjecturing that he is more wary of not calling shaking hands a maaseh chiba when dealing with yeharog v’al yaavor, and willing to permit it – with a non-jew – when the issue is more lax (though still forbidden).

    But there is no difference between religious and irreligious jews. That is curious. An Irreligious Jew would be equally stringent; the fact that he is not yet religious is irrelevant to Halacha.

    Could you ask him? I’m genuinely curious.

    in reply to: Al Tarbe Sicha Im Haisha #695603

    Pashuteh Yid – though I still strongly disagree with you as far your application to non-jews (more on that later) – I believe your reading of R’ Moshe is the correct one, and I have reason to conjecture that this was his reasoning as well. R’ Moshe was not known for being unsure of himself. V’Dai L’Chachikima.

    I find it interesting that SJS’s posek was mechalek between jews & non-jews – again, I suppose to machmir in an issue of yeharog v’al yaavor and being lenient when it’s not and relying on Rov, I suppose. Interesting (but very valid).

    And can we drop the issue of tehora? It’s inappropriate. And totally irrelevant (eshes ish is ervah 24/7).

    in reply to: Al Tarbe Sicha Im Haisha #695597


    Ok-Pashuteh Yid- I will respond to you later as you deserve, time doesn’t allow me to now.

    But for the record, there certainly is Halachic Basis for permitting a married woman to shake hands. The question is limp handshake considered affectionate or a mere business formality. The question is it a Maaseh Chibah; there are two valid Halachic ways of looking at it. Actual touching is not forbidden – remember, in a medical context we permit most things, because there is no maaseh chiba. If indeed, it is a mere formality, which you could do with your absolute worst enemy and merciless competitor – then it would be permitted. Even according to the Chazon Ish. The question is it a sign of respectful affection between two colleagues – then it would Yeharog V’Al Yaavor.

    Which is it? I am not sure. Neither are many Rabbanim. Some are. Some say it’s assur. Some say it’s mutar. Elu V’Elu.

    It certainly is not ‘obviously wrong’.

    I have no problem believing that SJS received such a heter.

    I personally am stringent on this matter, even when it means insulting a potential client (thankfully, respectful tact and humor have always pulled me through). But let us permit our minds to keep working.

    in reply to: Al Tarbe Sicha Im Haisha #695579

    6) As far as shaking hands with a non-Jewish woman for business, consider the following. What is the worst that can happen? Suppose the man actually did a complete maaseh with her. What did he violate? Answer, a drabbanan (Rambam based on gemara in A”Z). So how severe could shaking hands be? the analogy to Kashrus seems to be difficult, because A) that is deoraisa, B) that is bein adam lamakom, whereas this is bein adam lachaveiro. In addition, I heard in the name of one of the acharonim that not only is it muttar, but if one doesn’t shake the hand of a woman who extends it, it is a huge chillul hashem and makes Jews seem like barbarians with no manners.

    Let’s start with shaking hands. When speaking of Jewish woman – any Jewish woman- religious, irreligious – she is an Ervah. That means, there is an Issur – D’Orayasah! of Lo Sikrevu – getting close. This in fact Yeharog V’Al Yaavor. All poskim agree that Lo Sikrevu – that is, a Maaseh Chiba , a physical action of closeness – is forbidden. Hugging – yeah, you have throw yourself under a bus rather then hug an ervah. Or let yourself get electrocuted. Or eating by red ants. Or jump in a meat grinder. Eaten by tarantulas.

    This is Halacha L’maaseh.

    R’ Moshe writes with shock that he heard someone said that shaking hands is not calling a maaseh chiba, and says it’s very hard to understand. And we’re with – nevermind d’orayasah – Yeharag V’Al Yaavor.

    Now that before you’ve shook the womans hand, you inquire as to her yichus – well, you asks what’s so bad, can’t you just sleep with her? Heck it’s only a derabban!

    Wow, I have to respond to this one, because publicly writing that sleeping with a gentile woman is a drabban is immensely stupid & misleading.

    If it is Derech Ishus – oh, you get Kares. If it’s done publically – you get skwereed, prefebably by a aidele Kanai with a spear. This all the Rambam writes. Even if it’s not Derech Ishus.

    The Ran in Sanhedrin says that even B’Tzinah has Kares & Yehareg V’Al Yaavor.

    You know, like Zimri. Heck, it probably wasn’t all that bad anyway. What was pinchas thinking?

    So mean once, with no feelings what so ever – and no one ever finds out. Oh – and why worry about that?

    The question that Rambam deals with is what Onesh you get. The Nemukey Yosef – says in Sanhedrin that if you hold that the Malkoes is Drabban – it is still Yeharog V’Al Yaavor. Yeah, it means find the nearest bus.

    In conclusion, being with a goyah is Yeharog V’Al Yaavor – even according to the Rambam.

    Yes, so you are playing with fire. The Rishonim deal Lo Sikrevu by a non-jew ….but you are being silly. And irresponsible, to post a technicality in Rambam.

    The question is if shaking hands are a maaseh chiba. But don’t make light of sleeping around. But if it is a Maaseh Chiba – well, you’ve got to be a barbarian.

    in reply to: Al Tarbe Sicha Im Haisha #695566

    Hmmm…you are right, srp. Definitely right.

    Thank you for pointing that out.

    Point taken.

    I bow out.

    in reply to: Will Rav Amnon Yitzchak manage to change the music industry? #701520

    Charlie – The mesech chochmah by R’ Meir simcha writes in the 1920s that one day germany will be a “shulchan aruch” of slaugther for the Jews, and that those who called Berlin their Jerusalem shall see the true germans…

    But it is true, prewar jewry was not warned by Gedoley Yisrael to leave Europe. Had they known with clarity, surely they would have sounded the alarm bells. R’ Yoshe Berr uses this to prove that the Holocaust was a divine event; that the leading Torah masters were divinely blinded to it’s coming. We find a similar concept by the Churban.

    in reply to: Al Tarbe Sicha Im Haisha #695562


    in “the good marriage” – an excellent study of 50 long lasting successful marriages, it indeed states that couples found love either before- and sometimes afterwards (getting married based on mutual respect, admiration, attraction, and shared goals). Indeed, it can happen both ways everywhere.


    Alas, you are indeed naive about what actually happens in our communities, as you clutch to this that all this can lead to is marriage. I know, know, you are a most respected matriach. But reality respects no one. I wish it were so. It’s not that way. Nor has it been since the dawn of time.

    in reply to: Al Tarbe Sicha Im Haisha #695556

    SJS, your stereotypes are amusing. As with all circles, the “yeshivish” crowd marries with a variety of feeling on their way to the chuppah.

    in reply to: Will Rav Amnon Yitzchak manage to change the music industry? #701512


    Yidden (MBD)& Asher Bara (Piamenta) come to mind. I’m sure there are more. Anybody?

    in reply to: Will Rav Amnon Yitzchak manage to change the music industry? #701508

    Music is something rather wonderful. It is an expression of emotions, in a form that words do not do justice. We must ask a simple question – what emotions are our music expressing?

    This applies to all music, Jewish and Non-Jewish. Often classical music expresses majesty, royalty, bravery, sacrifice, courage,goals, accomplishment…so many Chassidish nigunim are from Military marches of Europe & songs of the Royal courts; and applied to our royalty & mission.

    while some of the new age Jewish music expresses lust & “just feel good” in a dumb way. The words are just along for the ride. One can sing any words to a tune of lust – it is still a tune of lust. Or stupidity.

    in reply to: Mixed Seating #877002

    Oomis, can you answer a simple question?

    The Shulchan Aruch says to “stay far far away from women”.

    What does that mean?

    Not what it doesn’t.

    What it does mean. Apply it to our lives.

    How should we incorporate that statement of Shulchan Aruch in our lives?

    Simple question. Just that. Please, let’s just focus on that question.

    in reply to: Mixed Seating #877001

    Thinking…that sounds wonderful. Like, actually points and counterpoints, actually responding to the actual point.

    What a dream! Sounds like a great idea! I think we should try it!

    in reply to: Will Rav Amnon Yitzchak manage to change the music industry? #701491

    R’ Amnon Yitzchak’s influence is stunning; he appeals to a much broader crowd and his oratory & media skills are legendary. I wonder why he chose this battle though; it’s not his style. I wonder why of all of this issues facing Khal Yisrael – other then spreading Yahdus to our not-yet-religous brethen , which he took to a totally different realm – he chose this one.

    On another note-

    Please hold for the standard knee jerk noise of “there’s nothing with…” without any logical statements to, just a gut based expression of feeling.

    in reply to: Is It Tzniyus For Boys To Wear Shorts #885294

    It’s a machlokes Rishonim, the Rosh & rashbah, by Kiddish V’Lo Bah Aleh if there is a chiyuv of kisui rosh. If you pasken like the Rashbah, there is. Hence a girl leaving the chuppah after kiddushin would be obligated to cover her hair. According to the Rash, the chiyuv is only achar sh’ba alehah. hence, only later. Even a woman who was married for a long amount of time could still use this heter (aka if she gets divorced, without relying on the R’Moshe of Hefsed).

    in reply to: OK, I'll dress with tznius, but how? #693015

    You women have my deepest admiration. Tzinius is not a nisayon which I can understand; and that’s fine. But what I do know is that it is extremely difficult, especially in today’s age of everything goes within our own circles & stores. Today’s generation is a transitional generation; which side shall win is yet to be seen.

    This I know: one Bas Yisrael dressing b’tzinius – even when it’s difficult/expensive, and especially with a social acceptable “come on!” available, makes a far greater impression on the collective world of tzinius then a hundred kinussim of revered Rebbetzins.

    Peers groups work both ways. And while the tide now is in the other direction, and I’ve certainly heard endless kvetching from my own daughters how difficult it is to buy modestly (and I certainly know how expensive! Hello! I do need to dress professionally in my own line of work, but my 15 year old’s clothing allowance is double mine! “yes, but Abaaaaah, everything else was sooooo pruuuust…”…ah yes. That’s why you had to buy most expensive outfit in the store. Right. But that’s a different story.).

    I wonder if it’s an investment opportunity; Modest & Stylish clothing? Probably not. Alas, things that are holy are rarely profitable.

    Kol HaKavod, and I hope you that with the shopping savvy for which Bnos Yisrael are renowned for, you will find exactly what you looking for which compromises nor your principles, sense of style, or credit card.

    With that, I leave you to your discussion.

    in reply to: Is It Tzniyus For Boys To Wear Shorts #885288

    I meant to polite, Oomis.

    There is one purpose. To symbolize a woman’s married/has been married status.

    However, even if it’s purpose is not tzinius, it still must be tzinius.

    A nurse’s white uniform is not for tzinius. It symbolizes her status.

    It still must be tzinius. Not more or less then had the nurse been wearing a regular item of clothing. Or jewelry. Or anything.

    A woman’s shaitel must be at least as tzinius as an unmarried girls hair. Simple.

    That is an absolute fact of Halacha. Just like a nurse’s uniform.

    A single girl of 45 – may there be not such thing in Khal Yisrael! – lacks a knowledge and dignity that a young married woman has. Unfortunately, there are aspects of life , relationships, family – that she will never understand.

    For the record, all Poskim agree that there is an obligation to wear a shaitel after a normal marriage. The dispensation you heard of is from R’ Moshe, who permitted dating women to present themselves as not having been married previously (obviously revealthing their real status before engagement etc.) because of the tremendous hefsed (loss) it would have caused them to cover there hair. The obligation still remains. Of that, no one disagrees

    in reply to: Mixed Seating #876954

    Charlie, you are correct, and I’d be happy to comment on a different thread. But that isn’t my question now.

    in reply to: Is It Tzniyus For Boys To Wear Shorts #885284

    Good point. To keep things to a Haskafic perspective, the concept is not only being married, but a symbol of a loss of innocence, and hence a need for additional tzinius & dignity; she is not a little girl anymore, even if she is widowed or divorced; she is an Em B’Yisrael. It is a symbol of dignity and knowing. Merely being married does not obligate a woman to cover her hair. Hence, most Kallos do not cover their hair when they walk away the chuppah, even though they are certainly Halachic married.

    in reply to: Is It Tzniyus For Boys To Wear Shorts #885282

    Perhaps there are two purposes? Perhaps there is an issue of covering the hair to symbolize the fact that she is married.

    And beyond that, the normal laws of Tzinius of any clothing item apply – the fine line between between put to together and showy?

    Is that a possibility, Oomis?

    in reply to: Mixed Seating #876951

    I know. Excellent. Wonderful. Splendid. Gevaltdik.

    I appreciate that you respect my right to disagree. Excellent.

    I now know what you weren’t saying.

    I want to know what you are saying. Not just in this limited subject.

    I am not implying anything. I merely have a simple question.

    Could you please answer this simple question? Not what it’s not. What it is. Not what it doesn’t mean. What it does mean.

    What difference does a statement in Shulchan Aruch make in our lives?

    Speak the truth you champion!

    Dear Mods, allow the truth to come to light! And perhaps, wolf, you are clever enough to write in a way that will avoid their wrath. Surely the dedication to truth will overcome all obstacles.

    “Never mind the manner, which may or may not be good; but think only of the justice of my cause, and give heed to that: let the judge decide justly and the speaker speak truly.”

    -The Apology Of Socrates (Plato)

    in reply to: Mixed Seating #876946


    Speak the truth? Ok, please do.

    What is the significance of something written in Shulchan Aruch?

    I am not asking about mixed seating.

    Or mixed swimming.

    Or Al Tarbeh Sicha.

    I am not asking what it isn’t.

    I am not asking why frummies are wrong.

    No negatives.

    I am asking what it is. Not what it is not.

    What difference does a statement in Shulchan Aruch make in our lives?

    How should we treat a statement, from hundreds of years ago, based on the opinion of someone we never met – that is, R’ Yosef Karo, and R’ Moshe Isserles?

    They also lived in very different times, and led very different lives.

    What do their published words & opinions mean in our lives? That’s it.

    Truth, please. That is what you speak, right? Please be clear and precise. What is it? What is it , in your honest opinion? What do you, personally, live by?

    in reply to: Al Tarbe Sicha Im Haisha #695480

    If one is married Al Yedey Chuppah V’Kiddushin, err on the side of talking more then less, of that I am certain. Sichah Kala refers to unnecessary speech – today, a woman’s emotional needs are so complex, vast, and often unknown to the mere mortal male, that more attention then less attention is the better idea, with marriage being so much more vulnerable today.

    The Chazon Ish rights that Rizui – time that she needs, certainly does not go into this catergory (and give a blanket heter for shanah rishonah).

    Honestly, I would not worry about it. If you marriage is so spectacular that none of the above is applicable to you, then , first, Ashrecha V’Tov Lach, and you are indeed a lucky man. Then, I would wonder.

    in reply to: Whats wrong with chumros? #692914

    The sixty percent is based on a study by queens college on Jewish Orthodox youth – living on campus. Rabbi Orlosky quotes it as well in his famed “platonic relationship” tape.

    in reply to: Mixed Seating #876911

    Wow…I see.

    I think I’ve addressed all of this issue that I can. But I see basically the same arguements being played out over and over again in different threads.

    These arguements have little to do with mixed seating, beaches, the role of women, tzinius, shaitels, kollel or the like. It’s like an old professor of mine used to say – you’ve got a catholic & protestant arguing about birth control.

    How can I argue about what is and isn’t “appropriate” when we have two different dictionaries? I view with horror a married woman spending an afternoon with another woman’s husband – with or without children; but our definitions of horror are totally different.

    This argument is about the role of Halacha in our lives; the role of logic & emotion, Mesorah & society, individualism and collectism, the wisdom of chazal and the wisdom of our age. The identity of a community, and what our ultimate ideals should be – and is a Torah a tax or a goal?

    And ultimately, we have two very different visions of what it means to be a Torah Jew in the Twenty First century, following a Torah of 3000 years.

    This arguement I cannot tackle, because it leaves the realm of what we have in common, and hence I have no tools with which to respond. Such arguements be definition cannot be argued, and instead are doomed to round in circles until the players get bored of ths subject, and start a new one, without ever really hitting the real issue, because the real issue is far too deep to really deal with.

    Morever, it cannot really be argued or proven, because the issue is in the very prism which we view the world. A camera can take a picture of everything, except for itself. We cannot argue about our prism. These, like Frodo’s ring, can only be confronted in the fires of which they were forged, in the realm which is beyond words & logic and certainly beyond debate.

    From a sociological perspective, this arguement is creeping up all over the religous world, specifically the Yeshivish community of America, but even in the Charedi world of Eretz Yisrael. And it is fascinating to watch it unfold here, again and again and again…

    But, I now see, as I suspected before, that I have little to contribute here. Mea Culpa.

    in reply to: Mixed Seating #876882

    SJS, thank you for your clear reply. If I understand you correctly, you agree that teenagers should be separated when possible, even in “neutral” settings (a wedding etc.)

    You disagree as far as married couples & singles.

    Let’s start with singles. You say if they are going to be inappropriate they will be inappropriate even in a controlled shidduch setting.

    I don’t believe this is correct. Young people when together do create attraction. But many are not tachlis oriented, or at least not that point in their lives. Do you believe that a young bais yakov girl couldn’t be taken in a by a handsome boy who has no intention of putting a ring on her finger? Now, true, this boy has bad intentions, but she doesn’t. But, as we know, men & women are drawn in – and so can the finest Bais Yakov girl. But if we separated the genders, our young “predator” wouldn’t be able to access her; he would only be able to access girls whom equally weren’t looking for tachlis in other settings, as you pointed out.

    But for our Bais Yakov girl, that makes the difference. She should have the maturity, yada yada yada – but she doesn’t. Most do not. She should. But she doesn’t. Now what? This is the situation we seek to avoid. Because everything that happens starts with a neutral conversation. And this is the main point: for many, many people this the difference. They will not seek out issurim. But if left in front of them, they will not be able to stand up to the test. Perhaps they should. But chazal teach us not to trust ourselves. And again, bitter experience shows this, again and again. Like everything. This is the essence of advertising. But if they want ice cream, won’t they buy it anyway? No, you’ve got to blare it in there face. Some people will buy it anyway. And some will be mature enough not to buy it even your advertisment. But some are in the grey area. And you’ll break their willpower, and push your profits up.

    This grey area, apparently is worth billions of dollars in advertisments and endorsements.

    However, if let our innocent bais yakov girl spend three hours in a controlled setting with one previously vetted young man – whom , if they are indeed a match, will be married in six months – the chances of something happening are much lower. Heck, in many circles today he doesn’t get her phone number until they are playing for keeps.

    You have said that never saw anything happen when married people mix. Of course you don’t see it. It’s an innocent conversation. It’s the wink of eye. It’s a little extra tension, when her husband seems so much more handsome & kind, and behold, he has the most horrible wife. Poor boy…I would appreciate him. Aish has a great article about this.

    It progresses from there, beneath your rader. I have seem this happen. I am invovled in H. This happens, again and again. And without the innocent venue, those people who stand in the grey area would be safer.

    That’s where I disagree with you; the grey area people. Most of us are there.

    Now, true, I’m not sure everything amoung married people needs to totally separated; I know that friendships with the opposite gender are deadly to a marriage. The connection certainly is deadly.

    To summarize, certainly for single people the shidduchim system is far safer then open mingling. And amoungst married people, anything that leads to relationships between a man and a woman – married to others – will only lead to destruction. Yes, not always. And I know, there is an anecdote where this didn’t happen. But often it does. And we worry. And not about others; I mean myself. Ein Apitropus L’Arayos. I have seen great people fall to this ; haven’t you? The grey area makes a big difference.

    And again, I believe that decades ago this wasn’t necessary. But 60% of the secular married population has affairs; of those will excellent marriages (!) 20%! With excellent marriages! I believe that society has gotten terribly corrupt, and that has influenced how we act, how we dress, how we interact and look at the other gender. And so, we much try to bandage this terribly wound.

    But again, it doesn’t solve the deeper problem. But it’s something.

    in reply to: Mixed Seating #876867

    What about genetic diseases? Psychological disorders that are not revealed during dating? Violence in the family? Never mind paper or plastic. Are those important to research, or should marriage be russian roulette? This approach hasn’t worked so well for the general secular community, with it’s 50% divorce rate, so I’m not sure we should envy them.

    in reply to: Mixed Seating #876866

    SJS –

    I’m sorry, but you have your head in the sand if you at the same believe that you’ve been to many coed functions and nothing has happened (!) yet so many are not shomer during engagement. HELLO?

    Do you know what the rates of frum kids on campus sleeping around is? Over 60%. I heard this from a Hillel Rabbi (a very frum one). Do you know the need of stuff seminary teachers need to clean up after? The number of Eshes Ish problems we deal with under the radar?

    NOTHING HAS HAPPENED? NOTHING HAS HAPPENED? Do you think that everyone just woke on morning and said “gee, the sun is shinning , let’s see what we can forbid today?” The game has changed. Yes, in our communities. Never heard of Tefillin dates? Come on. I’m not saying the solution is to separate everything under the sun, but this ivory tower attitude of “well, they are just immature, they will do it anyway”…ignores basic human nature that we are influenced by our surroundings, simple Skinner behaviorism – and yes, “Gedarim” of one sort or another have always existed.

    Per your logic, we should do away with Yichud, because either people are mature or they are not. Shulchan Aruch writes “One should say very, very, far away from women…” – now, true, today’s world requires more interaction (I am expecting “well, then we should have burqas response”) – but the principle remains. We need to have gedarim. This reasonings is ridiculous.

    Men & Women of all social strata, intelligence, and levels of religiosity have done stupid things they never would have dreamed of doing. Chazal teach us “En Apitrapus L’Arayos -” no one is trusted in regards to these thing. No one. Trust? Maturity?

    We have “gedarim” for a reason. Now, you need the right geder in the right time in the right place – but come on, if you think that coed events only effect the immature who will do it anyway, it’s time to wake up and smell the chulent. Speak to educators, Rabbis, people in the field. Tsey V’Lamad!

    Please, I beg of you, respond to my actual point. That people are effected by their surroundings, and gedarim help that. This we see from Chazal – Yichud – Shulchan Aruch – and basic psychology of behaviorism.

    OK mod, carte blanche.

    in reply to: Mixed Seating #876807

    :::sigh::: nevermind…

    in reply to: Going to the Beach / Mixed Swimming #697007

    Popa, I commend you for keeping the tone respectful here. Thank you!

    in reply to: Mixed Seating #876779

    “Those that won’t behave properly in a mixed setting once they reach marriagable age are clearly not ready to get married. So, lets at least let those mature enough to marry meet in a more relaxed setting.”

    I wish this were so. This is a problem amongst the married, single – everyone. Maturity has left the stage. Tachlis, without structure has gone the way of the pony express. And we as a community, cannot keep our heads in the sand, and write off everyone who acts inappropriately as “immature” and hence irrelevant.

    The age of KAJ’s mixed graduation seating with “what’s the worst that could happen, a shidduch?” are over. Far worse can and does happen. Open your eyes! Look around. Listen to the stories we never heard decades ago. Listen to the news – and I mean frum news! The rules of the game have changed totally. I wish things were different. But they are not; we need to deal with on the ground reality, even if people ought to know how to control themselves. They don’t, or stopped, or don’t care, or whatever. Now what? Do let marriages (yes! of those ‘immature’ people) keep falling apart? Do we let young people keep making dumb decisions that haunt them for the rest of their lives?

    Or do we do something. I am in doubt about mixed seating amongst married couples, but among singles I am against. The fire burns horribly.

    in reply to: Mixed Seating #876765

    Oomis & SJS – you’re right, in way. Say, thirty years ago, or even twenty, to a degree it was a positive thing to have some mingling between eligible singles, and a wedding was a great opportunity. This used to be the Hanagah be the Gedoley Yisrael, as well.

    But our culture has got straight down the tubes. Dressing to kill & Promiscuity have invaded our world in a way they never have before. Hence, we try to make more gedarim. Does it work? I don’t know; but I know that a single modern orthodox girl of twenty five years would call some of our yeshivish kollel girls – in dress, and action -well, I won’t use the term here. Guys? I dabble as a shadchan; the question I get asked about a girl – well, they didn’t get them from their Rosh Yeshiva. The secular culture has experienced this as well, to a far greater degree, and we are not immune.

    And I mean “excellent excellent” girls and boys.

    That’s the real tragedy. So we throw up another mechitzah and another mechitzah. Who thought about speaking to cousins back then? Or having a “mixed” shabbos meal? But things have changed; tension between the genders exist on a scale that we never had before, and look around you to see. So we try to separate and separate. And yes, often it’s a bummer – I also well – just don’t go to concerts anymore, even though my wife enjoyed them. To spend money to stand next some guy I never met and call it a date? But concerts did get out of hand, and the singles were certainly meeting, but not getting married. We have an epidemic of internet addiction – ultimately, we always must pay the piper.

    A price? Definetly. A response to modern times? Also. Is there another solution – or is this even a real solution? I don’t know. But this is where it’s coming from.

    The idea of a controlled,mixed, shadchan based environment is always done by Invey HaGefen. It’s been pretty successful. Each shadchan sees everyone’s picture and resume beforehand, and points everyone in the right direction, but it’s open. I think it’s a good idea.

    in reply to: Sheitels in Halacha #692528

    How sad. This interesting halacha based thread has denegrated into a blog of hearsay, feelings and assumptions.

    in reply to: Where Can I See Rav Chaim Kanievsky, Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman? #915437

    R’ Aharon Leib also daven netz in his house (6 Chazon Ish) and it’s open to the public, and you can try to speak to him afterwards. I once got him for ten minutes. Still don’t agree with the way he learned the sugya 🙂

    in reply to: Going to the Beach / Mixed Swimming #697002


    Ok, so it’s clear that discussion is not relevant as far as yemey niddasah, right? We speak of yemey tehorah. The only source I have seen here to forbid is this Kedushas Shoshanim. Again, if a husband & wife are muteres, and even to see mekomos hamecusim (aka Shabbos 142b etc. top of my head and the fact the Shulchan Aruch finds a need to forbid mekomos hamecusim during yemey tumasah! why, it’s always assur!), as is mefurash in many places in shas and shulchan aruch – this kedudas shoshanim – speaks of a hanagah of kedudasha.

    Which, of course, would not be relevant at all against the Shulchan Aruch.

    And who is this sefer? A Rishon? An Achron? An old Yerushalmer? In Halacha, we work through shas, rishonim, shulchan aruch and the poskim. Random seforim usually we aren’t machshiv, if they are not coming from a place of Halacha. I have never heard of this sefer. The Hanagah of Avraham Avinu is wonderful; it’s obviously not a lav d’orayasah or d’rabban. One would be hard pressed to find it in the Money HaMitzvos – or in Shulchan Aruch!

    (Other relatives brother & sister, father & daugther, are a different discussion, because they are Arayos, yet more kirvah is permitted w/them because a person doesn’t have tayvos for them – which is not the case by one’s wife – again, b’yemey tehorasa! and I’d like to get this Kedushas Shoshanim out of the way first)

    in reply to: Sheitels in Halacha #692501

    Don’t close this thread! It’s intelligent and sourced. Let’s let this progess, stage by stage. True, R’ Ovadia certainly forbids to wear any Shaitel; I have not though seen many Sfardim who seem to abide by this, though many do. But it’s fair to say that some certainly do not wear Shaitels under any circumstances. I have never seen a Yerushalmer wear a shaitel; they even have special Kallah Tichels – and that’s after the chuppah, when it is a Machlokes (Rashbah & Rosh, I think) if a woman need cover her hair , and many indeed do not.

    But let’s leave that for later, when we get to the Poskim.

    in reply to: Babies Looking Into Mirrors #692279

    Oomis, my apologies. I erred. I am sorry. Thank you for not responding in kind.

    in reply to: How Inclusive Is Your Shul? #692224

    Mea Culpa! Helpful, you are right. Nevermind. I suppose should the thread to “how inclusive is your community center of your chosen religon”. My church, however, isn’t as inclusive. We have all sorts of traditions that we can’t just throw away.

    in reply to: How Inclusive Is Your Shul? #692217

    What is wrong with a wheelchair ramp? As far as a mentally disabled person, obviously if he doesn’t have din Shotah, in which case he would not be obligated in mitzvos, whatever can be heard clearly is fine. The Shulchan Aruch writes that one who is blind may daven before the Amud (though may not be baal kriyah); certainly this is no different. Inclusive just means that if we can, we go through the bother of helping someone whom these simple tasks are more difficult for. That’s all.

    May don’t want to be bothered. But if it’s in the realm of Halacha without sacrificing Kavod HaTzibbur – why not?

    in reply to: Babies Looking Into Mirrors #692273

    Oomis…forgive me, are you disagreeing with the array of sources above? Care to explain why?

    The entire premise of the Rashbah is that our mesorah – even things without sources, as per the Heshiv Moshe – is ultimately something to be wary of rejecting. Hence, the Minchas Yitzchak, The Ben Ish Chai, are wary of eating the first piece of challah. Dayan Fisher disagreeed with them on a Halachic basis (based on a Gemara in Horayos. But I don’t believe that’s where you are coming from).

    And perhaps you can source the custom of giving “the spitz” to a pregnant woman? And if you can’t…well, I suppose you should consider it silly as well.

    Do you disagree? Why? You seem to respect “valid halachic sources”; does the Rashbah make the par?

    The concept is that often old wives tales are often based on something. That is precisely what the Rashbah is saying. While the Remah limits it, the Heshiv Moshe does not. There is certainly room for debate here; but you don’t seem to be basing your point on anything. You seem to be rather flippant with Halachic sources.

    Again, based on your professed respect of valid Halachic sources, chazal teach us not to teach (emphasis on teach) women Torah to the fact they are Kaley Daas. This is gemara in Sotah, 6a.

    Presumably that is a valid halachic source.

    This is written in Shulchan Aruch that a woman indeed gets schar for learning Torah, yet it advisable not to do so because most women are Kaley HaDaas. Therefore chazal advised not to so; yet the Remah that women must learn what Halachos are relevant to them. The Chafetz Chaim adds that this applies to anything which brings to Yiras Shamayim.

    Clearly that has nothing to do with Zekenos in the mesorah in regards to how to act (such as not eating the end piece of the bread) as this a Halacha which is relevant to them, and hence it is part of their limud. This would apply to any principle of Emunah, as well.

    In addition, the concept of Kaley HaDaas is not relevant to keeping a chain of a clear halachic psak; rather, halachic analysis.

    The concept is if a woman is sufficiently capably of totally disconnected her emotions from intellectual analysis. Not that she is not capable of intellectual analysis, but as the power of her emotions in influencing her final conclusion. This is something that we see – and appreciate, I should hope – in day to day life.

    How exactly to apply this principle is a subject of debate. Not random flippancy.

    For further edification, may I suggest Rebbetzins Heller’s excellent “Our Bodies, Our Souls”. She rights extensively about Klaley HaDaas and explains it rather clearly. Or she merely an old wive, as well?

    Perhaps a little more respect for valid halachic sources would be in order? Or at least, why you wish to write as you do and still profess respect for “valid halachic sources”?

    in reply to: Babies Looking Into Mirrors #692271

    The Minchas Yitzchak quotes two opinions about the above Rashbah –

    1) The Teshuvas Remah – this Rashbah only applies to something which is mentioned in the Poskim.

    2) The Heshiv Moshe – the Rashbah even applies if there is no other source.

    Correction – the Yerushalmi I thought it was referring in the beginning of Brachos refers to the Chachamim. Or at least I think so.

    in reply to: Babies Looking Into Mirrors #692270

    The Rashbah is used often to rationalize abiding by something without a known source; the Minchas Yitzchak uses in regards to not eating the first piece of a loaf of bread (many do this only on shabbos). Dayan Fisher, though, used to make fun of the minhag, as it was sourceless. He davka ate the first piece.

    But we do find sources going back three hundred years about it, though none bring a reason. Kol Davar Shachasu Bah Zekenos – it’s actually a Yerushalmi; I assume that’s where the Rashbah got it from. But where is the line? I don’t know. But I know there is one. And I know that hysteria also isn’t warranted.

    in reply to: The Most Severe Issue of All #696064

    It’s true; because of his experiences in the Holocaust he will not ever grow a beard. It is not by his choice.

    A beard is certainly a respectable thing unto itself; the Chafetz Chaim wrote a rarely learned pamphlet about it entitled “Tiferes Adam” urging people not even to “shave” with scissors even though it is certainly permissible; he writes extensively about the concept of a the way a Jew looks. So yes, it is a sign of Chashivus; but certainly many have valid reasons that they shave their beards, as the Chafetz Chaim himself points out. Hence, the lack of vomit. Remember, even before shavers, Bachurim used powder, (ach! The smell! the burning! hail shavers!).

    Today, certainly, using a Shaver which is Kosher according to all de’os – which usually will leave a 5pm shadow – is certainly commendably. Or powder, which leave the closet shave you can possibly get, and it also permissible according to all de’os. Of course, it will also take off some of your skin.

    in reply to: Going to the Beach / Mixed Swimming #696963

    Will someone please source this claim that “mixed swimming” is forbidden due to some magical issur unto itself, forbidding a family to swim together – or even a husband and wife!? Obviously, I mean in a totally private setting, such as a private indoor pool or the like.

    Source please!

    There is no gezeras hakasuv. Since swimming entails immodest clothing and behavior, which fine with men amongst men and women amongst women, a mixed setting runs into the normal issurim of hirhur and arayos.

    Hence, we avoid it so as not to run into those issurim, and have separate hours at our swimming pools. But if those issurim are not applicable (in a family/couple setting), then how can it possibly be forbidden?

    Here’s a clue – it’s not. A source, please. Not mamish pashut pas nisht…t

    in reply to: Suicide vs. Murder #691993

    Thanks for the thought out response (absolutely no sarcasm intended. I just like being able to say something, and getting a response to what I actually said! Strangest thing!)

    1- I didn’t know that a murder is reburied. But I looked into it, and that which you say (was this your source?) is a Gemara in Sanhedrin, 47b, explaining that the Kapara of the Daled Misos Beis Din is only after his execution and the rotting of the of his corpse, hence, after the Ikul HaBasar, his body is returned to Kivrey Avosav, because Kapara is complete.

    A suicide, I would propose, doesn’t have the intrinsic Kapara of his actual death being a Kapara, as it was an Averah unto itself, nor the rotting of his corpse, as by the Daled Misos it would seem to be an extension of his execution. By a suicide, that too would not be a Kapara. Hence, the suicide’s corpse would remain eternally chutz Lamachaneh.

    But not because his chet is intrinsically worse, but rather because the same Kapara is not available to him. The litmus test for this would be the following – say someone is dies a natural death, and only then we find two witnesses who reliably accuse him of murder, would we move his body? That’s a question unto itself; I know of no source for postmortem punishment from this world, one could presume that after death all punishment is given to the Beis Din Shel Maalah and we’d have to ask ourselves if being buried out of the regular graveyard is a punishment, or merely due to to the honor of the others buried there? I presume it’s the latter, as you pointed out.

    2- But I assume that someone whom we know reliably (I wonder what level would be required) committed murder would not be buried in Jewish cemetery, much like anyone else who was not Shomer the Taryag Mitzvos. Source?

    3- As far as losing his chelek of Olam HaBah, we do not find a suicide listed in the Mishnah in the beginning of Perek Chelek where those who have no chelek in Olam HaBah are listed. I later found that the Yad HaMelech on Rambam (when the Rambam speaks of a suicide, and the fact he receives no honor in burial) actually says that he heard the same thing! And he looked everywhere, and couldn’t find a source. He quotes the Maharit who assumed that this was true, but he rejects it as being sourceless! He even brings a proof to the opposite effect, that Achitofel (who killed himself) is listed as having no chelek l’olam habah. And the gemara explains that this was because he was Malbin Pney Chavero b’Rabim. Asks the Yad HaMelech, why doesn’t the egmara says that the reason was because he committed suicide? Hence, it must be that after the kapara for such a horrible chet in gehenom, he could have indeed have had a chelek l’olam habah!

    As far as Josephus, as a historian he is relied upon (we find Tosfos and the Rishonim do quote him). He had a very chashuv brother (points for guessing who). Interesting. That requires thought.

    in reply to: Is It Permitted To Say A White Lie? #691362

    Let me even add, to the say the opposite is forbidden, because often the technical truth is a lie. One may not say the truth when one must lie, because the truth is a lie! R’ Dessler writes about this at length. The husband must say that his wife is beautiful (and may not blame the ensuing disaster on his integrity!)

    in reply to: Suicide vs. Murder #691990

    Interesting. I’m not sure that suicide is worse then murder; a convicted murderer is also not buried among other jews (“Kvorim Ben Reshoim Gemurim”). However, today we don’t have a Beis Din and the like, while suicide is unfortunately still relevant.

    The Medrash Rabbah has a special drasha to forbid suicide; that would imply that it is in a category unto itself. We find that suicide is permissible in times to avoid something which is Yehareg V’Al Yaavor (hence a woman committing suicide to avoid being defiled) and the mass suicides during the crusades to avoid forced conversion. Again, if the Mitzvah is important enough to allow yourself to be killed, one may kill oneself to avoid it.

    I presume that that means that suicide is not in the catergory sfichas daamim, because if it were, well, isn’t that yeherag v’al yaavor as well? But I vaguely recall priorities in Yeharag V’Al Yaavor…anyone else?

    Anyway, what are the sources for suicide being worse then murder? Again, it seems clear that one must kill oneself before killing someone else (conversely, one must save oneself before saving another).

    I have wondered why the Poskim have a universal ban on Euthanasia; if suicide is permissible in the face of torture and certain death (an opinion held by many Poskim) – isn’t that an apt description of Terminal brain cancer or the like? True, cures are often possible, but after all hope is exhausted – ? Morphine, anyone?

    in reply to: Girls Congregating the Streets on Shabbos #691736

    Um…I don’t know that rather random sefer, but can we close this discussion about mixed swimming with one’s spouse? It’s mefurash in Halacha that it is obviously permissible; I am loath to quote the Rambam & Shulchan Aruch about this. Please, remember, something is permissible until proven otherwise. There is a halachic framework; it doesn’t work based on random seforim. There is a process.

    Moshe’le, please leave the hanahgos of couples to the privacy it deserves. There is a whole realm of Halacha here which needs to be left to those who are married, in private halachic discussion. I presume it’s not relevant to you.

    In fact, I appeal to the MODS on this. We tread dangerous ground.

    in reply to: Is It Permitted To Say A White Lie? #691360

    This all based on the principle of ‘what is the real truth’. When dating – the other person has no right to know if you are dating or not. The chosson truly does see his kallah as beautiful in his eyes, he merely wants positive feedback and encouragement. And the wife? She knows exactly where she stands in objective terms; she wants to know if to her husband she is still queen. The idea is that all of these responses are the real truth.

    in reply to: Breach in Tznius: Recent affliction attacking Klal Yisroel #1025981

    Helpful –

    Do you mean that any solution is better then no solution? That seems destructive. Obviously, when we dare do something, we need to have some realistic hope for a positive outcome. If we know a negative outcome with come about – as has come from many initiatives take from the point of view of ‘just do something’ – aren’t we using the ammo left to make things worse? Sev V’Al Taaseh Adif.

    But I don’t propose doing nothing. I propose the problems isn’t “those evil prutzahs”. I propose we as a society – men and women – need to do some soul searching, and reevaluate our priorities.

    What do we really worship? And ultimately, we’ve got to first ourselves – and then others – what real priorities are in life, and the real Torah place of money, power and beauty. If we fix the underlying problem, the symptom will fade away, without any need for bleach. Or tires. Or signs. Or terribly large seforim which have little to do with Halacha, but running on the terrible need to make more and more rules to compensate for the lost feeling of tzinius. Maybe we should – instead – try to get tzinius back? But tzinius means not just tzinius in dress – but tzinius in our lives and goals, in all aspect, men and women.

    Has the sledgehammer mehalach ever worked in our generation? EVER? Or has it just made people defensive? Has anyone really done anything because you threaten them?

    This is not Europe. There is no organized Kehilla. We need to accept these realities, and look inward.

    As far the origins of Moq, I plead the fifth, though I wish I could claim programming proficiency, it’s a skill I lack. I know nothing of .NET and the like.

    in reply to: Breach in Tznius: Recent affliction attacking Klal Yisroel #1025971

    Oops! Indeed, your tact is appreciated! No pun intend, though I wish I could claim I did.

    Also, I’m sorry I wrote in a rush, – yes, you are correct. All of the various callers had seen the yearbook picture and wanted their boy to go out with the model – regardless of her obvious issues. So what exactly is going to happen? that’s the real message our girls get, just like the father who darshans to his children about the importance of learning, and spending every night watching dvds. They too, will watch dvds while they berate their sons to learn…

Viewing 50 posts - 301 through 350 (of 354 total)