- This topic has 46 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
How far does this apply?
What do you mean? It’s Assur to get physical pleasure from any interaction with any woman (aside from your wife) with any of the five senses. What more needs to be said?
Hanaah is Hanaah any type.
Looking for the purpose of having pleasure is assur. OMre than that is for sure assur! Turning away when yuo do see something which could be assur is exhilarating victory!
Csar and Think first- If I may answer for Sam2, I dont think he means physical pleasure per se. He means you are you using the physical- your eyes- to have a hanaah. It clearly says “Hamistakel” looking, which is explained as looking for the purpose of pleasure. Touching for enjoyment without looking is assur, but not because of Hamistakel etc..
If you would dream about an etzbah ktana that you never saw you wouldnt be oiver on hamistakel either.
I’ll take it one better… who says that this doesn’t include one’s wife as well?
Yeah, you’ll tell me that logically one should be able to look at one’s wife, but the statement as quoted seems absolute to me. Perhaps one should not be allowed to at his wife as well.
(And, no, I don’t seriously believe this myself. I’ll continue looking at my wife, thank you very much.)
The Wolf
Mistakel is Targum for Misbonen. It means to gaze, not just looking.
Wolf: See the Rambam who explicitly states that this doesn’t apply to one’s wife.
Mistakel implies looking intensively, perhaps more like to stare.
If a man avoided looking at women he would keep bumping into them since he wouldn’t see them coming, and that would raise many more problems.
Sam2, CSar and Think first, are you saying that a saleswoman cannot be nice to a male customer? Can’t tell him about a sale (or vice versa as he is getting the pleasure of making a sale)? That his sister cannot give him chizuk or vice versa (he is getting pleasure from her getting solace)?
Avi K, something about your careful selectin of examples tells me that you understand this well enough. Why didn’t you ask about getting solace from the saleswoman?
akuperma;
cmon use your brains, we arent talking about a chosid shoteh,
ro’eh means to see, bc ur eyes are open
histakel means to gaze or stare whith thought
avi k- once again, you manage to skew a simply explained comment. we’re obviously refering to a sort of carnal satisfaction. dont be obtuse.
It means to gaze, not just looking.
Mistakel implies looking intensively, perhaps more like to stare.
I used to think this as well. But I believe it is clear from the Gemara in Avoda Zara 20a that the term ?????? is either lav davka or doesn’t necessarily mean that. The gemara asks ????????? ?? ??? on R’ Shimon ben Gamliel who commented when he saw (???) a woman who was exceedingly beautiful. (The Gemara’s answer also, that he must have bumped into her turning a corner, does not imply that it is redefining ???????, but rather simply that it wasn’t his fault.)
Hmm. So, if a girl is dressed to kill or is dressed to be a head turner, every guy who turns his head to look at her is over this aveira… and she gets a seperate aveira for every guy she caused to sin by turning his head to look at her.
That would include dressing for weddings, yomim tovim, shabbosim and any other occassions, wouldn’t it.
Susie- as long as a girl dresses within the guidelines of tznius , she’s not over anything I’d someone looks at her.
Who says she gets an aveira?
Yitay: I used to think like Akuperma, then I saw that Gemara and thought like you. Then I realized that the Gemara wasn’t talking about the Issur Histaklus but about the issue of V’nishmarta. The point was that these women were so exceptionally beautiful that even seeing them could be a problem.
And about your Diyuk in the Lashon, the Aramaic Shorech Istakula is closer to the Hebrew R’iyah than to Histaklus.
Sushe: The Aveira we’re discussing is looking at women. A woman who’s dressed up probably isn’t looking at women. If you wanted to talk about Lifnei Iveir, you should have said so.
Sam – The Gemara of venishmarta explicitly says ??? ?????.
Yeah, but if it was part of the Issur Histaklus it would have said “Afilu B’etzba…” like the Gemara does in other cases. Histaklus is Assur even when V’nishmarta isn’t an issue and V’nishmarta is an issue even where Histaklus isn’t.
Yes, I meant she gets an aveira for Lifnei Iveir for every guy she causes to look at her by dressing inappropriately (halachicly).
Csar: Why the obsession with women? Notice all your threads start a topic of women? Is there nothing more you delve into?
Sam2 – eh. L’mayseh it uses the word ????? and it refers to stam looking. That’s good enough for me to teach me teitsh of the word.
Wolf: See the Rambam who explicitly states that this doesn’t apply to one’s wife.
True, true.
But you can also make the case that if you’re not allowed to talk with your wife for pleasure (see: Al Tarbeh…) then certainly you can’t look at her for pleasure.
The Wolf
sushe – She causes the guy to look? And have inappropriate feelings? Which guy?
Yitay: I hear. Both P’shatim are tough for me. The only real issue is that I feel like I saw someone somewhere make that Chiluk between L’histakel and Lir’os. Otherwise I’d say it has to be like you say.
yit – if she dresses inappropriately (acc. to halacha) that causes guys to look at her. You are aware that a female can dress in a manner that causes males to look at them, whereas they would not have had she been dressed appropriately. Hence Lifnei Iver multiplied by however many extra looks she caused.
Sushe: Learn the Halachos of Lifnei Iveir before you make such a statement. But yes, someone who does such a thing will have to answer for that in Shamayim. But I don’t think it’s Lifnei Iveir.
sushe – I hear.
The Gemara about Raban Gamliel is asking how he could look at her enough to take notice of her beauty. That is Histaklus, the Targum of Ma Esbonen El Besula. Normal, necessary looking, as in a conversation that is Mutar does not fall into this category. However, the Rosh’s son, Reb Yehuda writes that although this is the case one should refrain from all looking.
Al Tarbe has nothing to do with pleasure. Sam2 quoted a Nusach — which I believe is in Avos D’rav Nosson — that says Al Tarbe Sicha Im Isha Bashuk Afilu Im Ishto Mipnei Ma Yomru Habrios. And if you go Kepshuto, and not even Ishto Nida, then the Pshat is, like Toi quoted from the Chazon Ish, that it refers to what is outside and beyond what is called for in a normal relationship. It happens to weaken Shalom Bayis in many cases when the husband hangs around too much.
The Kol Bo brings a Medrash about a tour of Gehenom, with descriptions of punishments for those who caused men to look at what was not Tzenius.
wow this make me think of what goes on here (israel)
i have countless times spotted men doing shmiras einiem
evidently their definition of shmiras einiem is looking down at the street but when they see womens shoes (pink,high heels,etc.)they look up stare at the women and then return to their vigilant watch of the pavement
no offence to all those trying shmiras einiem out but i think instead of shmiras einiem to do shmiras rosh
HaLeivi, I tried but she told me the price. LOL
Women can dress in a burlap sack and still be stared at. In fact, women who dress in all-covering garments such as those worn by certain types of extremely frum women, tend to inadvertently b’davka draw attention to themselves, though not purposely. One will notice whatever is unusual. So if a woman walks by in a burka and people stare, is her clothing tzniusdig?
oomis1105 – That is a great point, and I believe what you are implying is absolutely correct.
Oomis: a man who stares at a woman dressed in a burka is unlikely to have bad thoughts when looking at her. though many seem to think it’s untznius cuz they r calling attention to themselves, i highly doubt it is.
I have a question….
whats the mekor for an issur to look/gaze at a woman who is not an erva e.g. a non-jewish woman?
Leave aside the issur of hirhur which l’chora is a different issur to that of histaklus.
On the ball,
The issur of histaklus is an issur of hirhur.
WolfishMusings,
It is clear from the context of the Gemara in Berachos that it doesn’t apply to one’s spouse.
on the ball: A non-Jewish woman is still an Ervah according to the Rambam. If she wasn’t, the whole handshake Shailah would be moot. (Tosfos holds that she isn’t an Ervah and that a non-Jew is only 4 Issurim Mid’rabannan, but the Rambam holds otherwise.)
Benignuman: Have you a source for your statement that Histaklus = Hirhur? I would have thought its possible to be mistakel without hirhur and vice versa?
An indication would be that they are learnt from 2 different pesukim.
Histaklus is learnt from ‘Lo sosuru acharei..veacharei eyneichem’ which Chazal darshen (see Rashi) as ‘Znus’.
Hirhur on the other hand is learnt out from ‘Vnishmartem mikol davar ra’ in this weeks parsha (Ki Seitzei.
Hence my original question; l’chora the Issur Torah of Histaklus should only apply to women with whom there is an Issur Torah of Znus – and possibly only an Ervah. (That’s why its known as Histaklus B’Aarayos’) – so why does it apply to non-Jewish women (which according to some shittos are not even Ossur min Hatorah)?
Computer777- Attracting attention to yourself is also a lack of tzniyus. Tzniyus is much more than just how much skin you are showing.
On the ball, the Pasuk in Iyov, quoted above, is not about an Erva.
Benign, it is also clear from the Gemara in Shabbos, that says it is fitting for a Talmid Chacham that his wife gets dressed up for him.
On the ball,
I wasn’t saying that histaklus = hirhur I was saying that histaklus without hirhur isn’t assur (hirhur without histaklus is).
As the Rambam writes hamistakel b’etzba ketana shel isha ??????? ?????. If there is no kavana to have pleasure then he has not violated the issur.
L’maysa there appears to be a stirah in the Rambam. In Issurei Biah (21:2) Rambam seems to hold that histaklus is d’rabanan and in hilchos Teshuva (4:4) he bring the posuk of Lo Sasuru.
M’drabanan non-Jewish women have a din Nidda. They are therefore all arayos (d’rabanan).
Benignuman –
Firstly, how do you define Histaklus without Hirhur? More specifically – what exactly is Hirhur? If I admire a woman’s beauty but have no sexual thoughts – is that hirhur?
Secondly, maybe the answer to the Stirah in the Rambam is the point I originally made.
I.e. that Vlo Sosuru applies to Arayos D’Oraysoh and the Issur Histaklus that applies to ALL women, even non-ervah, is D’Rabbanan.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.