- This topic has 69 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
rob: You’re wrong. That same Gemara says Assur L’histakel Bifnei Kallah Afilu L’chab’va Al Ba’alah, (Kesubus 17a, give or take)
Considering that most [if not all] Simcha Guidlelines are promulgated by Rabbis, how can a Rabbi who has just made such a huge wedding with 25,000 guests possibly sign such a Kol Koreh vis a vis size & expense of Simcha, and still be practicing what he preaches?
How many challah boards do you think they got?
lol in all your bickering over nothingness (nobody ever said it was a halacha, there’s alot of room for chumra sensitivities when it comes to tznius…)….nobody answered nechomah’s question!
SOCKS 🙂 but i doubt any were covered in crystals and pearls….come on though, when you look at those incredible pics from the chuppah and mitzvah tantze, dont tell me your eye isnt drawn straight to the kallah!
pba: You’re being unfair. An anti-Semite is someone who is prejudiced against Jews solely for their being Jewish. Someone who is prejudiced only against those more religious than him can be called anti-Torah, anti-God, anti-religious, etc. But I think anti-Semite is unfair. Or he could just be a hardcore Misnaged 😛
rob and Sam2,
On the surface this appears to be a stirah. On the one hand the gemara says that one should praise the kallah (in the presence of the chosson) for her beauty and on the other hand it assurs histaklus.
I think that the answer is fairly poshut.
What the gemara is assuring is gazing at the kallah to give the impression to the chosson that you are attracted to her beauty. This the gemara says is forbidden (presumably because it gets too close to histaklus for hanah). On the other hand, it is muttar to look in a quick fashion at the kallah to be able to praise her beauty in words to the chosson.
Ben: I think B’pashtus L’histakel means to look intently. The Gemara had a Hava Amina that even this would be Muttar for a Kallah but it’s not. You can see her though, without staring, and comment on her beauty. But maybe when there are 25,000 people around and you’re the center of attention, even just Stam seeing is too much. (Especially when a lot of people there are those that aren’t your friends or your Chassan’s friends and you have no idea who you are.)
YEAH!!!!!! YENTISH GOT MY JOKE!!!!! THANKS YENTISH!!!!!!
Oh, and Goq, I think they probably got 10,000 or so along with maybe 5,000 bentcher holder thingies. What other kinds of presents do you think people bring to this kind of affair?
Most mitzva tantzes are family only so the Kalla does not cover her face. Those in big time rebbishe circles attract the hamon am of chassidim, hence the desire to have the kalla cover her face.
“when a lot of people there are those that aren’t your friends or your Chassan’s friends and you have no idea who you are.”
wait, was she high?
If she gets a 40% gift to guests ratio, she will have to write 10,000 thank you notes. If she can write one in 12 minutes, she will have 2000 hours of work ahead of her, or a full time job for one year!!!
She does not get a 40% gift ratio, most people don’t give gifts. and im sure “the chasidus” would write the thank yous
Sam2- im gonna pull a sam2 on you, ready? Motzei shem ra on an entire tzibbur? im gonna have to point out that was ossur.
he he…
Toi: Not on an entire Tzibbor. On potentially one person out of an entire Tzibbor. I think it’s safe to say that in any group of 25000 Frum Jews you have a few people who are not the most upright of character.
Sam2 (and benignuman): Your quote from the gemoro kesubos (17A) is slightly erroneous- R”shmuel bar nachmeni in the name of R’jonasan says it is MUTTAR to look in a kallahs face, etc…but the gemoro says that the halocho is not like him.
However ,from this gemoro itself ,you clearly see that the kallahs did NOT cover their faces! Hence, you COULD look at their faces! if the minhag was to cover their faces, the gemoro’s statement would make no sense!
Furthermore- earlier in the sugya, the machlokes of bais hillel and bais shammai concern the statement-“_Keitzad merakdim lifnei hakallah”, but it is pretty clear that they both agreed that one looked at the kallah to see how she looked.
The answer to this contradiction is probably benignuman’s answer- R’Jonasan’s statement maintains “lehistakel”-meaning intently and this is what the gemoro refutes. Bais Hillel and Bais Shammai talk about looking casually. (see Bais shammai’s statement about “chiger and sumoh”)
sam2- it was a joke.
pba: You’re being unfair. An anti-Semite is someone who is prejudiced against Jews solely for their being Jewish. Someone who is prejudiced only against those more religious than him can be called anti-Torah, anti-God, anti-religious, etc. But I think anti-Semite is unfair. Or he could just be a hardcore Misnaged 😛
You are correct, I don’t think my definition of anti-semite would include this.
But I’m not being unfair, since I don’t think being an anti-semite is worse than this.
I’m not one for extra chumras but if i had to be in front of a group of men, especially 25000, i would definitely want to have my face covered.
I agree, and this was my reason. Not for Tznius, but sheer embarassment and/or stage fright.
The veil under discussion here was not opaque and was a sheer lace. Pictures on mainstream news sources have up close shots of her face. Had any celebrity wore it she would’ve been lauded for her vintage style choice. It doesn’t not hide her face, it doesn’t even completely cover her face. It simply obscures her face slightly and if I was a 20 year old chassidista who was the bride at wedding of 25,000 I would be grateful for the veil to ease my embarrassment and stage fright. It wasn’t a decree for the rest of the world. It was a unique situation and she reacted appropriately.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.