- This topic has 94 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
if one would take off his glasses or contacts and therefore not be able to see anything but blurred images are you allowed to go to a mixed beach
I would tend to say no, beaucse of maris ayin (assuming you have the full geshtel of a yeshivish / chassidish person).
In absense of that, then yes.
1) Is it permissible to see blurred inappropriate images?
2) If yes, are your glasses/contacts at the beach with you?
What’s the point of going to the beach if you can’t see anything? All you’re gonna be doing is straining your eyes which could make them worse and give you a headache.
Why don’t you just go to a separate beach?
Maybe there should be kosher beaches here in the U.S. just like in Eretz Yisroel.
‘if one would take off his glasses or contacts and therefore not be able to see anything but blurred images are you allowed to go to a mixed beach’
Someone is trying to find a heter?
the gemara in bava basra daf 57 says that if someone opts to walk near the river where the women wash their clothing – if there was another way to go he is called a rasha even if he closes his eyes.
based on that it would seem that removing your glasses is no solution if you could find a separate beach/pool.
“Is it permissible to see blurred inappropriate images?”
That almost sounds oxymoronic. If the images are truly blurred and you really cannot see without your glasses, then you are NOT seeing inappropriate things. The question is if you are permitted to go there altogether! Are you going into the water where there may be females swimming nearby? Ask a shailah.
I think your best bet is to get that thing that horses wear on their heads to prevent their peripheral vision from seeing something distracting. Oh yeah, they are called Blinders.
i’m not a posek but i think maybe if he’s in a place where nobody would recognize him, and he can barely see anything but a bunch of blobs of blurry color, then its probably okay to be there, but he defenitely shouldn’t be without a shirt (believe it or not, men do have hilchos tznius)
To all:
Now it’s not tznius for a guy not to have a shirt on. Just wait for a few more threads and his elbows and collarbone will also have to be covered.
The twin issues are: (1) mixed swimming, and (2) seeing ladies “uncovered.” The latter, in fact, is problematic when visiting various amusement parks, since women (particularly in parks with water attractions) tend to walk about dressed for the occasion.
Without imposing my view on anyone else, I once asked my rov whether, if I went to the beach, the issurim of mixed swimming fell away if was 50, or 100, or 150 yards from the nearest woman. His response was clear, and to the point: “If you’re close enough to see anything interesting, you’re too close.”
Not to be a spoilsport, but perhaps mosherose was right all along. He has long maintained that husband and wife cant go swimming together. Since there is a consensus that mixed swimming involves 2 issurim – 1. tznius/shmiras aynaim & 2. “mixed swimming/bathing” is an issur all its own aside from issur #1, perhaps issur #2 also applies between spouses, even if issur #1 does not (when she is tahor.) And even if you have heterim/meikulim, perhaps rose is right there is at least valid shittos to maintain that issur #2 is applicable.
Max well
How do you define “mixed swimming/bathing”?
Can 2 guys swim together?
How about a father and a daughter?
Then why not husband and a wife?
It’s usually ok to go the beach at 5 AM. Just be out by 6.
Let’s end this foolishness once and for all.
Mixed swimming/bathing may be assur, but it is not an issur (I call on Wolf here to help explain the difference as with Tamei/Tumah).
Let’s set aside for the moment the issue of tsnius and shmiras einayyim. There is still another issur that prohibits mixed swimming. It is kiruv l’arayyos – the same issur that prohibits sharing a bed. Armed with that knowledge, one can start to understand the distinctions:
- A father and daughter may share a bed until a certain age/time that is explicitly stated in Halacha.
- Two men may share a bed since it is explicitly stated in Halacha that they are not nechshad l’arayyos.
- A blind man is no different from a pikayach when it comes to sharing a bed because the issur has nothing to do with sight.
The same applies for swimming.
According to my rav, a man and woman may be in the same body of water together, provided they are both dressed appropriately.
Since a husband is allowed to see his wife dressed in non-tzanua clothing, wouldn’t it follow that he is allowed to swim with her?
would one of the people claiming a separate issur of “mixed swimming” please post a source.
“I would tend to say no, because of maris ayin”
does anyone else see why this is hilarious ? 😀
I would think the biggest problem with mixed swimming is not seeing others, but others seeing you. That obviously applies to women first of all. Can husband and wife go the beach together? Sure, but, assuming the wife is also going into the water (otherwise I don’t see the issur at all), is the beach completely empty? I’d be worried, first and foremost, about other men seeing the wife!
And, by the way, the question with which this topic was started gave me a good laugh.
“does anyone else see why this is hilarious ? :D”
Yes.
“It’s usually ok to go the beach at 5 AM. Just be out by 6. “
No, it really is not ok. There are no lifeguards on duty at that time, so you are oveir v’nishmartem m’eod es nafshoseichem. Have you forgotten what happened to that little girl in Far Rockaway a few years ago. She was standing in knee deep water when a rip current took her off and she drowned. That was before 9 AM and in full view of her family.
Sjs, there is no way for a woman to be dressed “appropriately” in a pool/beach in front of men. EVEN IF she were fully clothed in the pool (ha!), the wetness would make the clothing too tight.
Squeak, then a father could only go swimming with his daghter until the same age he could sleep in a bed with her.
As far as the pre-6 AM beach idea, that doesn’t help since – even though very infrequent perhaps – a man may pass by the beach that early and see her. (Or in the case of a man, a woman may come by to swim.)
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
wouldnt it be better to find a nice empty beach with your glasses/contacts than wandering around a beach filled with “interesting” blurs.
Until what age can a father and daughter sleep in the same bed? I never heard of this issue before.
Helpful, if the husband and wife were swimming together in a private setting, why would that be a problem?
As an aside, the modest bathing suits that are sold (100% tzanua) do not get tight when wet due to the material they are made of.
Helpful, if the husband and wife were swimming together in a private setting, why would that be a problem?
There is no problem. If they can do other things together, surely they can go swimming together.
As an aside, the modest bathing suits that are sold (100% tzanua) do not get tight when wet due to the material they are made of.
Aqua Modesta makes such bathing suits, IIRC.
The Wolf
squeak seemed to make the point about the age limit of father/daughter sharing a bed being the same reason as to the age of them being allowed to swim together, if I understand squeak correctly.
To those asking for a source, I believe I gave one. Kiruv l’arayyos. This is D’oraysa. You are free to dispute that mixed swimming = kiruv l’arayyos, as I do not know of an explicit source in Halacha, but this is the issur involved (if you accept that it is assur in and of itself).
I brought the example of sleeping in the same bed because that is an example of kiruv l’arayyos used in Shulchan Aruch. FTR, the SA says explicitly “afilu hu b’vigdo v’hi b’vigda”, i.e. even if both parties are fully dressed the issur applies. That is an exact quote.
Regarding a father/daughter, the SA does not specify an age limit but rather a sign of the time (when the father would be embarrassed to undress before her, it becomes a problem, until that point it is not).
To those asking for a source, I believe I gave one. Kiruv l’arayyos.
But there is no issur of arayos vis-a-vis one’s own wife while she’s a tehorah.
The whole point of arayos is that you shouldn’t be intimate with someone forbidden to you. But since you’re permitted to be intimate with your own wife when she is a tehorah, doesn’t it make sense that the argument of “kiruv l’arayos” doesn’t apply?
The Wolf
Good catch, bomb! (No, it was not intentional)
Wolf, read my previous post. I think it wraps up the entire issue nicely.
Wolf, read my previous post. I think it wraps up the entire issue nicely.
I’m sorry…. but I think you’ll have to spell it out for me. I fail to see how your post (which largely goes on about fathers and daughters) addresses the point of whether or not swimming with one’s own wife is forbidden or not.
The Wolf
OK, I thought it was clearer than that, but I’m happy to spell it out. A husband and wife are at times prohibited from sharing a bed, since it is kiruv l’arayyos (KLA), even if both sleep wearing full nightclothes. At times, but not at all times (I hope that is clear enough). If you hold that mixed swimming carries an intrinsic issur (of KLA), then the same issue applies.
IOW, exactly what you have been saying all along (that at times husband and wife may swim together).
squeak:
At best, without anything else, swimming is a form of “Kalus Rosh”.
Thanks, squeak.
The Wolf
if such swimming is Kalus Rosh it is permissible?
swimming is a form of “Kalus Rosh”.
Is that supposed to be a pun? When I am swimming 50 laps and only drawing a breath every 6th stroke, I do feel a bit lightheaded. If so, I agree.
If you meant frivolity, I disagree completely. Swimming is not = playing Marco Polo.
At best, without anything else, swimming is a form of “Kalus Rosh”.
In what manner is swimming “Kalus Rosh?”
The Wolf
In what manner is swimming “Kalus Rosh?”
In a technical sense, not in the common usage. (YD 195-1)
I sometimes forget with whom I am dealing (not you Wolf). I apologize.
In a technical sense, not in the common usage. (YD 195-1)
Am I missing something? YD 195 (and the mention of Kalus Rosh) deals with a woman when she’s a niddah. We’re discussing swimming with one’s wife when she’s a tehorah.
The Wolf
Squeak & I are both “Mechalek” between different times. I was refering to the “other” time, where squeak and I were both saying it is a problem.
People down here seem to take it for granted that with one’s own family e.g brothers and sisters its more mutar, why should that be so is there any Mekor for that?
GAW, I’m not sure where in your citation it says that swimming is kalus rosh. But the point is moot – if it is kalus rosh or something else, we are agreed on the main point I believe.
If I am difficult for you to deal with, I apologize for my thick-headedness.
The Kedushas Shoshanim says perek 17 seif 4 that yur not aloud to look at yur wife undressed even when tahor. This is from Avrohom Avinu who never looked at Soroh so that we didnt know how beautiful she was until he acidently looked at her reflection in the river. This isnot a chumra but actual halachah. So swimming with yur wife is 100% assur. Theres nothing to talk about.
This thread is halachic speculation at its worst.
We have one person inventing that swimming together is “lo sikrivu”. Then someone else is making up parameters for this “issur” (comparing it to the dinim of sleeping in same bed). Then we have someone claiming it is kalus rosh.
This is absurd. Lo sikrivu is only what Chazal say is lo sikrivu.
Even if it were to be lo sikrivu, there is no reason to assume it would have the same parameters as sleeping in the same bed. Touching a woman is also lo sikrivu, yet a father is allowed to touch his daughter over their entire lives.
The only issur in this thread is baal tosif.
popa, the igros moshe applies lo sikrivu to many common situations not specifically enumurated by chazal. as far as a father touching a daughter, thats never lo sikrivu, so that comparison is off.
someone also cited a “kedushas shoshanim”.
Swimming is not kalus rosh. It is something that Hashem commands a father to teach his son how to do. So unless you have tainos to Hashem…dayeinu.
so right:
the kedushas shoshanim was brought to demonstrate that one is not allowed to look at ones wife while undressed. Irrelevant to what I am discussing.
Rav Moshe Feinstien was qualified to extend lo sikrivu to relevant cases. That is quite different from random YWN coffee room members applying it at will.
My reference to touching was in response to people who thought that if swimming together was lo sikrivu, it would be assur for a father and daughter after a certain age, similar to sleeping together. I demonstrated that not every case of lo sikrivu has the same rules. So the comparison is on.
I still contend: baal tosif; a REAL issur d’oraisah
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.