- This topic has 115 replies, 41 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
What I am hearing, and what really disturbs me a great deal, is that it sounds like there are those who will glom onto any spark of a halacha as they understand it, in order to find a way to NOT be chvalrous. I cannot believe that Hashem intended for men to shove women aside. TO the contrary, a man is to be mechabeid his wife more than himself. That idea does not “shtim” with what I am reading here. IF an elderly man is drowning, and his youner granddaughter is with him and ONLY one can be saved (maybe she is in her 20s), you would go to save the grandfather and let the girl drown???? THe Zaydie himself would demand that you save his granddaughter. BUT HALACHA says to save the man??? There are mitigating circumstances for every halacha (and don’t go out and ask your LOR when you see two people drowning, because by the time you get a p’sak, they will both be dead).
Will Hill- I am deeply offended that you would consider me a woman’s liber. I dont think that men must treat women equally or any other way except like a mentch. (whats the female for mentch? Does it get conjugated differently?) My only point was that women need to be given respect, like men need to be given respect, each in their own distinct ways. I am not saying “women first” but rather that women should not be delegated to the garbage pail! mentchlakeit is necessary to everyone, no matter their gender!
000646- I think you have the appropriate mindset for this topic. Men should protect their families, and men normally are physically stronger and are able to withstand more.
Men are more likely to be able to survive in the water of the sinking Titanic, in comparison to women. Nothing against either gender- just physiological facts.
will hill—I don’t get what you were trying to say regarding a Kohein and Yisroel. The shuls I’ve gone to, the kohein always got priority over a yisroel-hence the order of aliyos, leading the bentching etc…etc.
The premise is that there is a hierarchy regarding performance of mitzvos. So what would be the din if two men were drowning one is a Kohein and one is a Yisroel?
Will Hill, so do you really think that had you or any rabbonim who follow the shulchun aruch been on the Titanic they would have abandoned their wives and made sure to get on a lifeboat first??
According to the gemara quoted above, it would seem that if two men are drowning, one healthy & one with a physical disability which prevents him from doing some mitzvos(such as blindness or deafness, or another physical or mental disability); then saving the healthy man should take precedence, since he can perform more mitzvos. Is this indeed the case?
Some posters have been brainwashed to the point that they cannot view the Torah without the blurred slant feminism has wrought upon society.
Will Hill,
You said “Anyone who did not make it to a lifeboat, perished. “
This is not true.
There WERE people pulled from the water after Titanic sank,
and the only reason why a lot more weren’t saved was because only two lifeboats were willing to go back to pick people up, the rest were afraid that they would be mobbed and capsized by the people in the water and even the two that went back took a while to decide to do so.
As the ship was sinking nobody could have known who would have died, but one thing was for sure: men generally have a better chance at surviving then woman and children in such a situation.
This would apply to just about any other situation like a ship sinking
Will Hill-thank you for the clarification. I did my own asking of a Rov meanwhile, and was told that is what the shulchan oruch states as you said if all things are equal
“”To reiterate: If all things are equal, i.e. there is a man and a woman in the river, and you only have the capacity to save one, Shulchan Orach states in black and white to save the man.””
I heard a story that R’ Ephraim Wachsman told over of a great Rov (I can’t remember who and in what time period I imagine a great many years ago) who was indeed in this situation– where he and his son and daughter were in a boat that capsized and the father saw he only had the strengh left to return to shore with one of his children. He explained to his daughter this halacha and she understood and started to cry as she said goodbye to her father and brother. The tears tore through the fathers heart and he said “but I am her father, and I WILL find the strength to bring her back as well”, and he did save both of them. (R’ Wachsman proceeded to parallel the situation to Hashem and Klal Yisroel’s responsibilty to each other etc…..)
So, yes it might be the halacha, but l’maasa, we should ask Hashem to never let us have to make the choice.
The Torah is all true, and the Shulchan Aruch is true,,,
I think the issue that people have with you bringing this up is that you give across the flavor of using this notion of chivalry to throw out basic and decent mentchlechkeit (and I don’t mean holding open the car door etc….). Don’t present yourself in a way that will let others think that way about people who very admiringly like yourself learn and live by the Shulchan Oruch. V’hamaivin yovin.
Now that we’ve hashed out Mi Yichya Umi Yomis, lets get back to the original hot topic. Opening the door for the girl.
Two points disconcert me greatly, from some of the comments I see. One is that some have proposed that the guy can open the door for the girl but then scatter before she gets in, and let her close it herself. Reason being, due to the potential tznius issue involved post-opening the door. Well, this shouldn’t be the case. Why does this issue exist? She should be dressed modestly, meaning any normal activity — i.e. getting into a car — does NOT pose a tznius breach. The fact that in reality we all know this IS a problem, tells us that too many of us are not upholding tznius appropriately.
Second, I completely agree with the posters that pointed out this concept of opening the door comes from the goyim. Like has been raised, the vice versa situation would be considered “weird”. (i.e. the girl opening the door for the guy.) This belies the myth that the opening of the door has anything to do with mentchlichkeit issues. Next, will these prima donnas expect the guys to pull out their chairs for them to sit?
Rambam states that “we find that every woman performs five tasks for her husband. She spins, washes his face, hands, and legs, pours his drink, makes the bed, and serves him. There are six tasks some women do and some don’t: grind and bake and cook, wash, nurse children, and feed the animals.” Is this Rambam okay with the goyim or must we update our halachas for the 21st Century?
Zalman,
Does your wife wash your face for you? How about grinding your flour? You are being ridiculous, not only in your concept of “updating halachos” (Halachos don’t get “updated”, their application does- women don’t need to grind and feed animals to be fulfilling their spiritual and important role in today’s world), but in your choice of place to post this. Will Hill, you too. I am probably more Charedi than the two of you put together, and I think you need to reflect a little before you post things on an internet blog. The fact that you’re right re the discriminate door opening (man for woman and not vice versa) does not lend wisdom to your manner of presentation. Please, a little seichel.
Will, as a guy who has been married a long time let me make a prediction. With an attitude like yours you will make some girl very, very happy and be cause her to offer up heartfelt prayers of thanksgiving to Hashem.
She will be ecstatic that she didn’t marry you and be more grateful than you can believe that the Almighty didn’t saddle her with an arrogant woman-hating guy with a Napoleon complex.
I’m as serious as cancer about this.
Women want to be loved, cherished and valued. They thrive on decent treatment, little services and courtesies that let them know you adore them. “Walk three paces behind me, woman. G-d doesn’t think you’re worth half of one of me. And if there’s a fire? Get out of the way. I’m the one who deserves to survive because I have a beard,” sends an entirely different message that women hear loud and clear. The message is “Self-centered jerk. Run away as far and as fast as you can.”
The only sane basis of any society at any time is “Women and children first.” It is a man’s first duty to protect pregnant women and young children. Without them there is no future. Us men, especially young men? We’re a dime a dozen. The Nation only needs a few of us. Women? Every one of them is precious.
Let’s look at those lifeboats. The children go before the women. The women go before the male passengers. The passengers go before the crew. The crew before the officers. And if someone dies it’s the captain who “goes down with the ship.” That’s how it’s always been. The whole point of being a warrior is serving your people by being willing to die protecting the women and children. That’s what warriors do. That’s what they’ve always done from the forty years in the desert on.
Bemused, That isn’t the point, what my personal situation is. This is a side-point. I just quoted a halacha that the goyim wouldn’t like. Does that mean we run away from it? An emphatic NO!
BTW, if a girl would have turned me down because I didn’t open the door for her, I would B’H be thankful to the Ribono Shel Olam for keeping me away from such a vain person. The Eibershter has many ways of protecting us.
Well my wife doesn’t do the washing, as those stuff is mostly automated today with technology, but she does do the other things Rambam mentions, pouring the drinks, making the bed, serving me, etc. I lost the connection how this relates to the discussion here.
A husband and wife have different marital obligations and responsibilities. The Rambam here brought down some of the wife’s. Both Rambam and Shulchan Aruch bring down the obligations of both husband’s and wife’s.
to Zalman,
This was what the goyim believed then. They changed, we didn’t. Bemused is correct. Halacha doesn’t change, the interpretation and application of it changes. If you don’t believe this, then you better not sell your chametz this year.
source: Aish.com
“And for many centuries, since most Jews were able to deal with their chametz in this simple manner, there was no uniform, institutionalized method in Jewish life of making certain that chametz was not “possessed” by Jews during Passover.
This situation began to change in the late Middle Ages. The catalyst for this change was the fact that Jews were increasingly involved in the production and sale of liquor in Europe. The rabbis therefore invested a great deal of ingenuity and creativity in structuring the sale so it would be truly legal — and yet the Jew would be protected as far as his rights of repurchase after Passover was concerned. ” This was initially applied only to prolple whose business was in trading/selling food and in recent centuries, the kula was extended to all Jews and all chametz.
Th halacha didn’t change, the application and interpretation did.
a few points about ba’aley madrega.
A ba’al madrega doesn’t all of a sudden become frum when it comes to someone else’s degradation.
A ba’al medraga does the right thing for the right reasons and doesn’t promote his superiority.
A ba’al madrega has seichel and is not tzadick harbeh.
A ba’al madrega has a keen sense of when he can “break the rules.” The gemarah (kidushin 81b-82a)says ain mishtamshin b’isha klal, but lshem shamayim it is muttar. Moreover, the gemarah (nazir 23b) says that an aveirah lishmah is as great as a mitzvah shelo lishmah (which leads to lishmah).
I wish this world was filled with ba’aley madrega.
R’ Zalman, most girls that dress perfectly tznius have developed a sensitivity, especially if this is the first or second time they are dating, that it would be extremely uncomfortable for the bochur to watch her get in the car.
Most of these girls would not turn down a bochur because he didn’t open the door, they probably would admire his sensitivity to not wanting to make her feel uncomfortable. He can still open the door to the hotel lounge behind him as was hashed out in previous posts down to the actual mechanics of it—-I don’t think it is goyish at all for him to do so as they are entering a building with him in front of her. That is taking it way too far.
(I mean if there are those who are maintaining that it is goyish for him to hold the door open as he enters, still continuing in front of her and she then holds the door open as she proceeds inside so he can continue in front of her—then we have real problems. The alternative would be-he enters the building, she stands outside the building until he gets in and the door closes, and then she proceeds to open the door..etc. please please I hope that no one will say even sarcastically or facetiously that this is the way to do it to avoid chukas hagoyim {i know that might have been an invitation for just that but i just needed to write that})
Third, most wives who admire their husbands who are true bnei torah, and mentchen get great pleasure serving their husbands the way the Rambam has spelled out (obviously the way it would play out in our day). It is something taught to them as kallahs (and hopefully witnessed in their own homes) with great understanding and sensitivity, and is something that wives of b’nei Torah take great pride in.
We are the nurturers and builders of klal yisroel and are grateful for that role, no apologetics-just pride.
Rabbosai, Please take a deep breath. We are having a discussion of halacha, and quoting the meforshim that doesn’t jibe with someones idea of modern society shouldn’t cause a tantrum.
A. Nuran, what you said was out of line. I’m afraid to say that you come across as having been strongly influenced by the feminist movement. This is totally out of line with Yiddishkeit. If there is a conflict between the norms of modern society and the Torah, as explained by the meforshim, we choose the Torah over modern mores.
nossond,
I liked your post. This is rather belated, but I would like to express my appreciation for ALL of your posts- I learn from them.
Zalman, forget it. I don’t think you understood my post, and I don’t think belaboring the point will help matters. Last hopeful bid- at least print this thread out in its entirety and show it to your Rosh Yeshiva or other spiritual mentor. Ask for his comments on your presentation of Halachah, and seek his guidance on future postings.
If reading Will Hill’s orginal post were my first introduction to frumkeit, I would probably be running the other way as fast as possible.
Talk about a chassid shoteh.
Bogen,
you said,
“I’m afraid to say that you come across as having been strongly influenced by the feminist movement.”
Its funny to see you make a statement like that when you clearly don’t even know what feminism is.
The feminist movement and chivalry are two very different things,if anything feminists will generally not be for chivalry as they will say men and woman should be treated as exact equals all things being even.
bemused: your welcome.
kiruvwife:
I understood one of your earlier posts saying that the guy shouldn’t close the door for her because of a potential tznius breach when she gets herself in. All I was trying to say is that she should not be in a position that would cause such a breach. I think this lack of proper decorum is more prevalent than many would admit, for example when a girl gets into a car it raises problems. Do you agree/disagree with this assessment?
Can you clarify your point regarding the hotel door? Would it be appropriate for her to open the door for him to allow her in (first)? Why/why not?
Bogen, thanks for putting it so well. Nuran engaged in an ad hominem, and that will not win his arguments any points. I think it is a sad commentary that a couple of posters took issue with will hill for simply quoting Shulchan Aruch and Rambam. If the Shulchan Aruch/Rambam makes someone uncomfortable hearing/seeing it, the problem is with the person not C’V with the Shulchan Aruch/Rambam.
As Yidden we do not do what “we” feel is right, or what seems right based on the outside world. We follow Shulchan Aruch.
R’ Zalman–I know girls, myself included in my dating years, that it was uncomfortable to be watched while getting into a car–no issues of not dressing tzniusdik–just a sensitivity, and I appreciated when the bochur wouldn’t stand there and wait while i got in. Not every tzniusdik girl/woman would have this issue. But is wasn’t the issue of lack of tznius just a sensitivity.
As far as hotel door-she should not go in first. He can go in first, and still hold open the door behind himself (don’t need any special degrees or sugyas to figure it out) so she can come in and he should continue and all laws of shulchan oruch are kept, no chukas hagoyim, no chivalry, just plain and simple mentchlechkeit.
Yes, we as yidden follow the shulchan oruch. But for example, just because the shulchan oruch doesn’t point out “rochel bitcha ha’ketana” how wide your smile should be when greeting guests into your home, we need to also have seichel when it comes to mentchlechkeit. If a bochur is going to delve into each potential mannerism that might be chivalry when with normal seichel and of course a well versed knowledge of shulchan oruch to back him up, he might be left in the hotel by himself.
That was my point and I think many others.
kiruvwife, Okay, thanks for clarifying your point. Just to understand where you are coming from, and not to make any point with this question, why do you hold he should open the door and walk in first and hold the door behind him as opposed she open the door for him and let him in first? (Assuming the door opens by pulling it out.)
Also, do you agree there is a widespread tznius problem these days, an example of which is when a girl gets into a car there is a breach? (Nothing to do with shidduchim specifically.)
R’ Zalman, I guess it’s the “weird” thing. If the bochur is by default reaching the door first it would just be weird for him to wait for her to open the door for him. No chivalry or mentchlechkeit issue.
Where I live there is a massive tznius problem–(i’m referring to the not yet observant), so I have my work cut out for me. But unfortunately when I come and visit the predominantly frum cities for a chasuna etc., it hurts to see our girls not take pride in tznius. I don’t necessarily fault them for it, just the metzius of yeridas ha’doros. It should be taken very seriously, because there is a problem, (as you pointed out) and it should be taught as a subject in and of itself, which I believe is something that is taking place in NY girls BY schools right now.
kiruvwife, generally dates are walking side by side, not him ahead of her.
I completely agree with you regarding the tznius problem today and its education.
Will Hill,
I think you are being wise.
yes R’ Zalman side by side, but usually the bochur is entering first.
I don’t feel qualified to continue on this point any further. Cyclical arguing gives me brain cramps.
All points well taken-just everyone please continue to be a mentch and follow the shulchan oruch and we’ll all be in great shape!
Feminism and chauvinism are two separate and distinct ideas. In its most simplest form: Feminism believes that women are equal to men. Chauvinism says that men should treat women with respect and dignity, not that women and men are equal.
I do not think that women are equal to men. They each have their own role in life and are different and should be treated as such. Ashes Chayil- the men treat their wives as “women of valor”. Women need to provide meals for their families and be mothers- (more than a full time job and enough to keep 10 men employed!) But seriously, women are not better then men, and men are not “superior” to women. They are different and have different roles in life and should stick to their role. No one gender should be treated as garbage but menchlakeit should be given to everyone. My point is that if one person is carrying arms full of groceries ect and needs a door to be opened- open it! It is not rocket science to figure out how to do it properly. We are not talking about men or women drowning here. Rather, normal occurrences where doors, cars and streets are involved. Middos need to be stressed. Without the proper middos, all the facts in the world can be skewed. One needs to know how to act and be like a yid- rachmanim, bayshanim and gomlei chasadim (merciful, embarrassed at the right times, and full of kindness)!
kiruvwife, if you can provide one more elucidation (non argumentative) on your point. If they reach the door simutaneously side by side, why do you propose he open it for her rather than vice versa. (Say she pulls the door open allowing him in first; is that not the mentchlich thing to do?)
Havesomeseichel I don’t think you meant it this way, but if men and women (or any two things) aren’t equal, that means that one is greater than, and one is lesser than.
So Will Hill after stirring up the hornet’s nest, and then sitrring it up some more, you now think that this issue is best left not discussed on this blog eh? I recall a certain Mishne in Chagiga which describes a wise person as one who possesses foresight to see the consequences of his actions. The lack of it, seems then to indicate wisdom’s converse.
Personally I found this entire thread inane beyond belief. To be sure there are statements in the Shulchan Arukh regarding how men and woman should appear in public, what is appropriate and who takes priority in a vacuum. But none of those statemens is meant to supplant basic decency. As I put it before, the issue should not be “Am I allowed to hold open the door for a woman?” Rather, the issue is “How can I best express kavod habriot in a Halachikly accepted manner?” Are people looking to use the Shulkchan Arukh as a tool to denigrate people, or as a means to elevate us all?
Actually, “holding the door open” is a good barometer for the girl to gage the “boy”, like any other behavior displayed by the “boy”, to see which world he is living in, rather than an halachuk issue.
R’ Zalman, as you can tell I have never learned gemorra nor do I wish to, and the back and forth of this, is just not that exciting for me.
Just be a mentch–since he’s going to walk in first, I imagine most bochurim wouldn’t expect the girl to open the door for him. This is just the way it is. No women’s lib no chivalry, no going against shulchan oruch or halacha……if she does end up opening the door first, so what. (I think it’s less likely to happen).Then he’ll go in first and they’ll continue. I hope this was sufficient, because if it wasn’t I honestly don’t know what else to say other then Shalom Al Yisroel, and may all those in klal yisroel who are looking for they zivug find it b’karov and build a bayis ne’eman biyisroel no matter who opened the door!!!!
Tzippi- Just to clarify…
When I said that the two are not equal, I meant it that the two are just incomparable. They each have different roles and places in life and society. As the saying goes, “compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges…” They are almost different species and therefore cannot be classified as “lesser” or “greater”. Is an orange an elevated fruit? Is it “better” then the apple?
“Furthermore the Gemorah states (Brachos 61a & Eiruvin 18b) that if a man and woman simultaneously reach a narrow passageway the man should go first since it is improper for him to walk behind a woman. The Gemorah then adds that this Halacha applies even to a husband and wife, and Rashi (Eiruvin ibid.) explains since it is unbecoming for a husband to walk behind his wife.”
Everone is talking about holding a door open re: the above quote. Just curious, in light of the above, anyone EVER take their date bowling? 😉
cantoresq-Well said thank you!
In my dating days the door issue was indeed telling. In Yeshivisha circles if a girl was particular about this, it was a bad sign. Stam for one party to open the door for the other is indeed mentchlich. But for the expectation to exist that particularly the guy do it for the girl, this idea comes from outside cultures (b’cholkoseihem).
To do it as a kibud, surely a husband and wife both have an obligation to honor one another. (Perhaps they should each open the others door!)
thank you ames… I try!
If chivalry is against the Torah why is it the guys taking the girls on dates?
But for the expectation to exist that particularly the guy do it for the girl, this idea comes from outside cultures (b’cholkoseihem).
I find it so curious that whenever a guy wants to find a “legitimate” excuse to not act like a gentleman, he refers to the “bechukoseihem lo seleichu” card. The fact that Non-Jews do or do not do a particular mannerly thing for a woman, in no way makes that mannerly thing THEIR thing. Good manners are , or should be, universal. If men are to be considered as “stronger” than women, or their protectors, then it makes total sense that they should likewise treat them deferentially with good manners. Not to be outdone by the men, good manners are incumbent upon us ladies as well. If I see someone is behind me as I go through a door, I hold it open for them. I saw a lady on the avenue the other day struggling with a door and a baby stroller, and I ran up to her and grabbed the door to help her. That is just plain doing the right thing.
If you are going to find halachic reasons to justify one’s acting in a boorish manner, I imagine Hashem is NOT pleased.
There is a chazal, and I would love for someone to find chapter and verse, my father often quotes it, that says it is the derech of the world for the man to pursue the woman. I.e., the boys should be making the efforts to find the girls. (This would apply not just to the boy paying, but maybe traveling to date the girl.)
ATH44 is correct. Women should not espouse or be part of the goyish custom of the man paying for the entire date. They should pay their own way!
tzippi.
The gemarra you quote is located both in Nidda (31b) and Kiddushin (2b). It is the reason the torah writes ??-??? ???, ???, and not vice-versa
I find it so curious that whenever a guy wants to find a “legitimate” excuse to not act in accordance with the Torah, he mockingly (i.e. letzanus) refers to the “bechukoseihem lo seleichu” or other Torah concepts. Good manners are, and should be, universal, per the Torah. Men considered as “stronger” than women, or their protectors, is another “bechukoseihem” idea and has nothing to do with manners or our Mesorah. So it doesn’t makes sense that they should treat them “deferentially”.
If you are going to find non-halachic reasons to justify calling Torah behavior “boorish”, I imagine Hashem is NOT pleased.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.