- This topic has 125 replies, 52 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Going back to the “opening doors for the girl policy”- I think it’s totally pointless. I always tell the guys not to bother it only wastes time and I’m perfectly capable of opening my own doors, thank you very much
Toras Moshe: Why are you bringing it down from the Rambam (the things that a mans wife has to do for him), bring it down from the Gemara in Kesubos Daf Daled amud Bais (4b) that says “All the things a woman must do for her husband, a nidah must do for her husband EXCEPT for Pouring his drink, making his bed, washing his face, hands, & feet” Therefore we know that generally she always has to do it.
tvt – nice job at cleanup. Your lomdus seems correct to me, but I think one point needs to be clairified. Every woman who is not an ervah falls into davar sheyesh lo matirin. (By ervah I am not including nidah, b/c that also has matirin.) Therefore, one should be careful about his interactions with every such woman. The problem that is specific to a Kallah is the fact that he is SUPPOSED to have a relationship with his Kallah, and he does NOT need to have a relationship with any other penuyah (and therefore SHOULD NOT). So there is clearly a fine line as to what parts of a relationship are appropriate and what are not. What should they share and what should they not. You may think that complimenting each other is something they should not share, that it crosses this line, but I don’t think it is so clear cut.
To all you smart Talmidei Chachomim:
Do any of you know the exact definition of Ervah?
Squeak,
I was being facetious. I don’t see anything wrong with a chosson and Kallah discretely complimenting each other.
I think what many of these issues come down to is that this generation seems to have lost its ability to apply the concepts of:
1) Hamachmir yachmir l’atzmo, and
2) Chanoch L’naar al pi darko
Our current leaders seem disinclined to allow young people to ever take the chinuch they have received and ever use it to make an actual decision. (This is partcularly puzzling given that this chinuch was provided by those same leaders. It doesn’t say much for the confidence they have in their own ability to be mechanech.) The result is that we find it easier to just issue one-size-fits-all chumros, guidelines, bans, etc.
Now, some will ask “What about Al Ta’amin B’atzmicha?
That’s true.
That’s why we need to have a chinuch and to use that chinuch wisely. I don’t think it is intended to mean you can never make a decision.
Same old, same old.
TO UJM AND ALL YOU OTHER GENIUSES OUT THER CHIVALRY IS NOT A LIBERAL FEMENIST IDEA IF ANYTHING ITS OLD FASHIONED AND CONSERVATIVE
Kalla b’lo bracha asura lebaala kenida (kesubos). Also any unmarried woman is assumed to be a nida which is an erva d’oraisa. Note that yichud is prohibited and has the severity of yichud d’oraisa due to her being a nida.
Thanks, Geshmakenstein.
Well-said, TVT. I also agree with Gritz that chivalry is not a new liberal way of thinking. Kovod should be shown to all people. A man is commanded to give more kovod to his wife than to himself. How can he knwo the proper way to do that if he has no good manners before he gets married? It doesn’t change with time.
As far as opening the door for a female date – I always did it then, and still do it now for my wife. Incidentally, she impressed me because after I opened the door for her, she would lean across and unlock my door from the inside. I agree with oomis1105, this is simply good manners.
I perused the comments on this matter just recently and, as I have always said, people on this website do NOT learn, they just parrot what they MIGHT have heard. Mr. Geshmakenstein’s latest posting is a perfect example of this.
He writes (and oomis1105 repeats it): ‘yichud is prohibited [with an unmarried woman] and has the severity of yihud d’oraisa ,due to her being a nidah”.
I don’t know know where Mr. geshmakenstein learned his gemoro and halachos but his facts are WRONG. Mi-d’oraisa ,only yichud with an ‘ervah” or married woman is prohibited. “bais din shel dovid gozru al hapenuyah”. The Bet Din of dovid hamelech forbade yichud with a “pnuyah” (unmarried woman)because of the story of Amnon and Tamar. (look it up ,geniuses)
Additionally, what does the maamar ‘kallah belo berocho…” have to do with anything? This is only an admonishment to have chupah vekiddushin and make the birchos nisuin. Nothint to do with yichud.
oomis1105, don’t be taken in by people who don’t know what they are talking about. And a kallah ,as far as I know, is never called an “ervah”. To answer one of the questioners,(lgbg) ‘ervah’ takes its name from the parshyot in vaYikro who describe the forbidden relationships and are mainly the family forbidden connections. It does include a “niddah” (Vayikro 18)The possuk calls them all “ervah”.
RabbiofBerlin, you are not a perfect person yourself. Yes, people have said the wrong thing but squeak and others already made the points you mention. Some are learned, others are not. You should only berate the unlearned ones who do not yield when corrected.
“He writes (and oomis1105 repeats it): ‘yichud is prohibited [with an unmarried woman] and has the severity of yihud d’oraisa ,due to her being a nidah.”
I never said that. That was Geshmakenstein’s quote, not mine. All I did was ask for the makor where it states that a kallah is erva to her chosson, and therefore should not be complimented by him or vice versa. I wanted to know the exact source for that. I made absolutely no comments about yichud d’Oraisa or otherwise.
lgbg: There are different levels of ervah. The best definition of the higher level(more chamur)ervah is anyone appearing on that list found in Parshas Acharei Mos which the Torah specifically calls an ervah. We read this section at mincha on Yom Kippur. Chazal added other arayos, called shniyos. There are other categories and this is a very simplistic definition, but it’s ok to start with.
rabbiofberlin: “I perused the comments on this matter just recently and, as I have always said, people on this website do NOT learn, they just parrot what they MIGHT have heard. Mr. Geshmakenstein’s latest posting is a perfect example of this.
He writes (and oomis1105 repeats it): ‘yichud is prohibited [with an unmarried woman] and has the severity of yihud d’oraisa ,due to her being a nidah”.
I don’t know know where Mr. geshmakenstein learned his gemoro and halachos but his facts are WRONG. Mi-d’oraisa ,only yichud with an ‘ervah” or married woman is prohibited. “bais din shel dovid gozru al hapenuyah”. The Bet Din of dovid hamelech forbade yichud with a “pnuyah” (unmarried woman)because of the story of Amnon and Tamar. (look it up ,geniuses)”
If rabbiofberlin would pay a little more attention he would realize that a nida is an erva. The penuya that is only asur mederabanon is when she is tahor, which was common during the time of the beis hamikdash, whereas nowadays unmarried women don’t toivel. Also kalla b’lo bracha asura l’baala k’nida means that she is miderabanan an erva, because a nida is an erva. And I learned Halacha and Gemara from someone that was obviously a better teacher than yours because you seem to have trouble comprehending that a nida is an erva, which is a posuk in chumash. The only one that gave you semicha is yourself.
Also oomis1105 I looked up the gemara with bruria, and I correct myself that it is not eruvin 42b like I quoted before, but eruvin 53b. And the Tana was R’ Yossi haGlili.
I would also like to clarify that I freely used the term yichud d’oraisa which is a borrowed term. The exact issur d’oraisa is lo s’karev according to the opinion of the Rambam.
Well, I did not see this posting till today. Geshmakenheistein, can you corrobarate your assertion that the “penuyos” in the time of the bais hamikdash were “tehoros”??? And , by the way, last time I looked, Dovid hamelech was before the bais hamikdosh. You have to show me a legitimate source that says that penuyos were toivel ,’commonly”, during that time.
I did not say that niddah is not an ervah- see my posting. The Torah does call her an ‘ervah”, although, as a matter of course, generally,only the family ‘aroyos” are called commonly ‘ervahs”.
kallah belo beracha has nothing to do with ervah. The term “keniddah’ is a talmudic device of emphasizing the severity of the transgression.
And lastly, I think that the lav of “Lo Tikrav’ (correct spelling) has to do with touching, kissing, etc…If my memory serves me right, yichud has nothing to do with ” “lo tikrav”.
I am pretty sure you had a good rebbe, the question is , did you quote him correctly?
Wow, Lo Tikrav is the correct spelling.
Unlike some other “posters”, I returned to the sources…And,indeed, my memoy served me right. Yichud has NOTHING to do with “lo tikrav” (the rambam quotes it as lo Tikroivu-plural). Yichuhd is prohibited (ossur) from a different posuk altogether. see gemoro Avoido Zorro 36:B.
I do not believe that the penuyos were toivel duriing Bais hamikdosh times and I think “Geshmakenstein”s assertion is, unfortunately, wrong.( the ramabam is in Hilchos Issurei Biah, chapter 22, if my memory is correct)
Someone as makpid on dikduk as yourself should not be using the word “toivel” see here
blueshirt
Thank you for explaining, I’m just not understanding why this is considered ervah.
But thank you anyways
I once made a comment on a date after the guy opened the car door for me a few times. One time, there was a narrow space between parked cars, enough room for 1 person. I was closest to the passenger side. Now, I was unsure if i should step back which would be an obvious motion showing that i expected him to open the door, or as a ‘liberated’ and independent Bais Yaakov gradute, should i just do it myself. i made a somewhat sarcastic comment, “oh please, I can open it myself.” After repeating this to someone older and wiser, i got berated. Think about it this way she said, “the guy is doing his best, there is a certain amount that he is performing to put his best foot forward. Chivalry is good thing in this day and age, its a sign of respect.Dont mock his effort at trying to put his best foot forward.
What I could have offered gently and sensitively is, “I see there isn’t much space there, thank you for wanting to open it, maybe I’ll just squish through” or something along those lines.
Now, as an experienced dater, recently another guy got insulted. Yes, insulted and upset when I opened a door ahead of him. I think it had something to do with some idea of rigid male/female roles in his head. In conversation about it on another date, i deduced (intuited) that it had to do with his sense of kavod as well. Now, THAT was a real eye opener for me and really clarified things for me. My thoughts were, “Wrong move, buddy. It’s downhill from here. Have a nice life……NEEXXTT??”
I realize now. Taking a step back, walking slowlier (?) to the car and letting him have the chance to open the door if he wants, is the least i can do to make him feel good, chivalrous, protective, manly, respectful etc.
I’d be pleasantly surprised if my husband actually did that after marriage:)
hello lgbg, I will explain, but I don’t think I understand you fully. Do you mean why a kallah is considered an ervah, or someone else? Let me know and then I can answer you.
GreatAspirations: You’re right, the way it was said made he difference. One way says you’re not interested in him opening the door at all, one says in this specific case, you’re trying to help him out.
As for after marriage, true, I don’t always open the car door or other door for my wife, but I still do it many times. Holding open a regular door happens more often, and I get a smile and a thank you. When I open the car door for her, her face really lights up with a smile. I don’t do it every time, because I don’t want that to fade. It’s also difficult when we’re each strapping a kid into the back seat.
Feif Un: Thanks for the affirmation. Your’r right, the difference is in how its said.
I’ve come to realize that my job on a date is also to make the guy feel as comfortable as possible. He drove, had to endure meeting parents, probably chose the venue (or at least I let him feel that way), he’s paying etc. He has alot to ‘perform’, so my goals should really be to acknowledge his best efforts.
blueshirt
Yes that’s my question, because what i learnt about ervah it has nothing to do with a kallah being an ervah to her chosson.
Thank you
Hi lgbg, there have been so many comments made that I don’t know if anyone made this specific point. Other than having agreed to marry each other sometime in the future, a chosson and kallah have no halachic relationship. They are not permitted to have relations just like they were not permitted before they became engaged. Again, the engagement is halachically meaningless. So the kallah is an ervah to the chosson and any other man because she has not gone to the mikvah. A niddah is one of the arayot, although a slightly atypical one because most arayot are within a specific family.
The tricky part here is that there is an emotional bond between them (I hope) while the physical bond must wait till the wedding. So the degree to which they should interact, see each other, spend time together, etc…is not simple, and as usual, there are many different approaches, and each couple should follow their halachic and spiritual authority.
blueshirt,
Thank you for explaining,I aprreciate it, because you see that is not the way I understood the word erva which was used in this thread.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.