- This topic has 403 replies, 78 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
…credit to Rav Falk
Intellegent, I am glad you do not want to antagonize others, nor do I. I reread your post, perhaps you did not mean to tell people what they can wear, but you did. Read it again for yourself. You can tell people what you wear, what you think is tzniusdig, that’s your opinion and that’s fine. I am also glad that you realize that there are people out there who may think that you are not dressing tzniusdig enough. So let’s lay off being the final deciders and let people make their own decisions and respect those decisions. Give the same respect to others that you want for yourself.
To The Big One,
I am gratified to finally have met The One who decides what “Torah norms” are . Your gaivah borders on avodah zarah, you seem to be worshipping yourself and what you do. It’s secondary that you managed to psychoanalyze others ( a medical or psychology degree perhaps?)so succinctly but couldn’t bother to relate to the issue that is under discussion.
Gavra at work,
You are correct that 40 sa’ah minus a tiny amount is not a mikvah. Same as for all other measurements, agreed.
However, no one today will argue what an inch or centimeter is, there are objective agreed upon standards. No such standardization existed in the time that chazal set these measurements. They are units that are by nature approximate. It is for this reason that ad hayom hazeh there is no agreement on what a tefach is, what an amah is, what a beitzah or kezayis is, what a sa’ah is, and even what a shekel is. We use approximations, and a chumrah in one measurement may easily end being a kulah for a different halacha. So even the specifics are not always so specific, kal v’chamor the generalities.
to gavra at work….Although you are right in ssying that measurements are exact in halacha, it isd also clear that, at times, the Torah and the chachomim use rounded off measurements (see malkos and sefirah). There is also a concept of “guzmos” in gemoro, so ,at times, measurements are not exact. How and when to apply this is the question of the day.
Joseph, according to that posuk, why are women in Lakewood and other places going out to work multiple jobs? Shouldn’t they be at home taking care of the house, kids, etc. instead of working to support their husbands?
Maybe we should make up a new kesuba for kollel families, where, instead of it saying the husband will provide for the wife, it says the opposite – the wife will provide for the husband.
to blue and rabbi:
You missed the point. The point was that any undefined halacha (e.g. “bright” or “long hair”) is not a halacha at all. Halachos are specific (e.g. a succah higher than 20 Amos is Passul), even if we do not know what those specifics (an Amah) are. If bright would be a halacha, then the chachomim would give a shiur as to what is bright and what is not, or they would have said a Tefach is OK for hair, more is too long, and we would be arguing over what is a tefach!
In this case (tznius), there is halacha, minhag hamedina (which halacha says to follow if their standards are better in certain cases, as not to be look worse than the general population (don’t know if that applies today, when you can’t even look outside!)), and minhag (which is a personal thing). They are different issues. The original poster just seems to have gotten them confused.
Feif Un,
Ask them. The posek is eternal.
Feif Un,
The last time Joseph mentioned this quote in a thread about tznius, I asked a question I’ll reiterate here, since I don’t remember receiving an answeer from him. Even if a woman doesn’t work outside the home, she still must leave the house to perform all sorts of errands, especially if she has children. Some of these include: bringing children to/ from school, camp, learning groups, and playdates; bringing children to/ from medical & other appointments; errands such as grocery shopping, buying clothers & other necessities; and bringing children to the park, zoo, or museum, or just supervising them outside while they play. All of these important tasks require that a woman spend time outside the home. So how can she fulfill “Kol Kevodo…”, if this is understood literally, while performing these tasks?
anon for this,
Shulchan Orach says that a woman should spend her time at home and be very limited in time outside the home. Obviously the tasks you mentioned that a woman needs to do outside would likely be perfectly fine. Ask your local Orthodox Rabbi for specific questions.
1) WOMEN SHOULD STAY INSIDE
(c) Poskim
1. Shulchan Aruch (73:1): A man must give his wife clothing like women normally wear outside. A woman should not go outside much. The beauty of a woman is to stay inside – “Kol Kevudah…”
i. Gra (4): Hash-m did not create Chavah from Adam’s foot, lest she roam too much (Bereishis Rabah 18:2). “Ishtecha k’Gefen Poriyah” is only when she is modest “b’Yarkesei Veisecha” (Medrash Tehilim 128:3).
(b) Rishonim
1. Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 13:11): A man must give his wife clothing like women normally wear outside in order that she can go to her father or a house of mourning or Simchah. She may go to these places to bestow Chesed to her friends and relatives, in order that they will come to her. She is not a prisoner who may not come and go. However, it is degrading for a woman to always be outside and on the streets. A man should prevent his wife from doing so. She should go outside once or twice a month, according to the need. The beauty of a woman is to stay inside – “Kol Kevudah Bas Melech Penimah”.
i. Source (Magid Mishneh): Bereishis Rabah (45:5) says that when the Torah discusses the detriment of women, it says that they go out – ‘Va’Tetzei Dinah”. The Sifri (Tetzei 242 (23)), regarding a Na’arah Me’orasah who was enticed to Zenus, says that a breach (going out in the city) calls to the thief. Bereishis Rabah (8:12) reads “Kivshuha” like ‘Kavshah’ to teach that a husband should prevent his wife from going out too much.
2. Rambam (Nedarim 12:11): If a woman vowed not to give water to her husband’s animals, he cannot annul it. A wife need not do this for her husband.
i. Kesef Mishneh: A wife must give straw to her husband’s animals, but she need not give water. This is because normally one leaves the house to go to the river or spring for this, and “Kol Kevudah…”
3. Rambam (Melachim 7:4): In Milchemes Mitzvah everyone goes to fight, even a Chasan from his room and a Kalah from her Chupah.
i. Radvaz: Women do not fight, due to “Kol Kevudah.” Rather, a Kalah leaves the Chupah, i.e. she forfeits the week of Sheva Berachos because her husband must go to fight. Alternatively, women supply water and food for their husbands, like Aravi women do nowadays.
ii. Sefer ha’Chinuch (Mitzvah 603): Women do not fight in war.
iii. Question (Minchas Chinuch): What is the source to exempt them? This is an Aseh that is not Zman Grama!
iv. Rambam (introduction to Sefer ha’Mitzvos DH v’Atah): Women are exempt from optional wars.
v. Rashash (Sotah 44b b’Mishnah): It is a Chidush that women go. Perhaps they go to prepare food for the men.
4. Rosh (Kesuvos 13:17): If a man married a woman from a city of the same quality as his own, even if he married her in his city we force him to live in her city. We learn from “Be’ulas Ba’al”… Another reason is because he can go to visit his friends, but she cannot, due to “Kol Kevudah.”
5. Rosh (Shevu’os 4:2): The Ri ha’Levi learns from our Gemara that we do not disgrace an honorable woman to go to Beis Din, due to “Kol Kevudah.” Rather, we send a Shali’ach of Beis Din to hear her claims. The Aruch and R. Chananel agree. The Ramban and Teshuvos of the Rif and Rav Sadya Gaon do not allow this. The Rif allows only that Beis Din send scribes to record her claim. The same applies to a Chacham for whom it is degrading to argue with Amei ha’Aretz in Beis Din; his honor is greater than a woman’s.
i. Teshuvos Maimoniyos (Mishpatim 5): The Gemara (Nazir 12a) says that women are Kevu’os due to “Kol Kevudah.”
(a) Gemara
1. (R. Yochanan): Avner told Do’eg ‘We learned that an Amoni and a Mo’avi are forbidden, but an Amonis and a Mo’avis are not!’
2. Question (Do’eg): If so, you should say that a Mitzri is forbidden, not a Mitzris!
3. Answer (Avner): Mo’avim are forbidden “Because they did not go out to greet you with bread and water.” This does not apply to women. It is normal for men to go out to greet, but not for women.
4. Objection (Do’eg): The men should have gone out to greet the men, and the women to greet the women!
5. Avner was silent.
6. Question: How can we answer?
7. Answer #1 (Chachamim of Bavel): “Kol Kevudah Vas Melech Penimah” (it is dishonorable for women to go outside, even to greet women).
8. Answer #2 (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael): We learn this from ” … Where is your wife Sarah?” (It is praiseworthy that she stayed in the tent.)
9. (Beraisa – R. Yehudah): “Amoni” and “Mo’avi” are forbidden, not Amonis and Mo’avis;
10. R. Shimon says, “Because they did not go out …” – it is the way of a man …
11. Nazir 12a (R. Yochanan): If Reuven made a Shali’ach to be Mekadesh an unspecified woman and the agent died, Reuven may not marry any woman (Leah), lest the Shali’ach was Mekadesh Leah’s relative to Reuven.
12. Question (Reish Lakish): When a Hekdesh bird flies away, we are not concerned about other birds (lest it is the Hekdesh bird; we follow the majority. The same should apply here (most women are not Leah’s relatives)!
13. Answer (R. Yochanan): Because woman do not roam, the Safek is considered Kavu’a (fixed), so we don’t follow the majority.
14. Sotah 44b (Mishnah): In a war that is a Mitzvah, everyone goes to fight, even a Chasan from his room and a Kalah from the bridal canopy.
15. Gitin 12a (Beraisa): If a wife was exiled to a refuge city, her husband must feed her. He can tell her to feed herself from her earnings only if she earns enough to feed herself.
16. Question: If she can earn enough, this is obvious!
17. Answer: One might have thought that due to “Kol Kevudah…”, she need not work and he must feed her. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.
18. Shevu’os 30a – Question: What is the source that (women are invalid witnesses, so) Shevu’as ha’Edus does not apply to women?
19. Answer (Beraisa): “V’Omdu Shnei ha’Anashim” refers to the witnesses.
20. Question: Perhaps it refers to the parties in the case!
21. Answer #1: The Torah would not say “men”, for women also need to come for judgment.
22. Answer #2: If you prefer, you can learn from “Shnei” (masculine).
23. Question: What objection might one have to the first answer?
24. Answer: Normally women do not come to Beis Din for judgment (rather, they send a man to plead their case), due to “Kol Kevudah…”
Don’t have time to check now, but believe kol kevudah is a hanhaga tova, but not a halacha. I think the gemara even applies it to non-Jews, and since non-Jewish women did not usually go out, there was no taynah on the bnos amon and moav why they did not greet the yidden with food and water, so as a result we have the halacha of amon vlo amonis. Please check before quoting me on this.
P.Yid,
As always, you “don’t have time to check now” when you’ve been proven wrong. Well the comment immediately preceding your last (the first on this page), which was posted simultaneously with your last, should disabuse you of your false notions.
P.Yid,
As always, you “don’t have time to check now” when you’ve been proven wrong. Well the comment immediately preceding your last (the first on this page), which was posted simultaneously with your last, should disabuse you of your false notions.
What is with all the confusion over here? It is written in black and white what a woman is allowed to wear. Why are people always looking for loopholes. The LAW is the LAW, you must conform to it, or there will be much to pay in the next world.
blue shirt,
You ask that I “lay off” being the final decider on how people should dress. All though I am definitely not the “final decider”, there are those who could be the final deciders, NOT the person buying/wearing the garment as they are Nogeya BaDavar and cannot think straight. I will not specify this time what is appropriate and what is not but I would think of thinking of your tznius standards (I assume you are a male but wherever it applies) and not attack others based on their opinions to which they are rightfully entitled.
Also, I think you should rethink the way you “talk” to others.
gavra at work—The “dating problem” posting seems to have disappeared. I did look up the gemoro in Bava Basra 91B you mentioned” the “memreh’ of Rav Jochanan about the two youngsters walking (playing- Rashi) together and still “belo cheth” is very interesting. i admit I did not remember it . There is also a Marsho on this. If you read this posting, I thank you for this mekor. I will try to discuss it at a later date.
t.black, have you ever read the law, or do you just spew nonsense for the heck of it. the HALACHA is the color red may not be worn, as it was the color that harlots wore, since nowadays that is no longer true, the red color goes away as an issur according to many. as far as skirt length,etc. the HALCHA is the bone right below the thigh, is what must be covered. now the bone at the knee is a ball and socket structure. there is a MACHLOKES whether teh whole knee needs to be covered or not, so it is NOT black and white, and you DO NOT know what you are talking about. same goes for the elbow. teh HALACHA is that the bone of the upper arm must be covered, and that uses a ball and socket structure as well at the elbow. as far as kneckline, their is no definitve psak as to what needs to be covered. just the breast bone, which is actually not that high. teh question is, does the breast bone also mean the bones above it as well, and that is where that machlokes comes in. as far as tightness, no sefer predating the 80’s will talk about the styles worn today by alot of frum women, as these styles are completely new. so that also will be a mochlokes amongst rabbonim today.
so much for BLACK AND WHITE! see, when you are knowledgable, you can see where all the confusion is! when you live in the bais medrash and drink the kool-aid you are served, and tought to be the only way, then you become an am haaretz, and look foolish when you open your mouth.
and for all you idiots out there that say i have a inferiority complex, my wife dresses %100 tzniusly according to MY rabbonim. if my wife buys something i think may be questionable, which rarely happens, i as MY ROV, not a discussion board!
Reb Zalman:
I hate to bring it up, but haven’t the Roshei Yeshiva waived the Klall of “Kol Kavod” to support Lakewood? And if not, why don’t the husbands go to work? If yes, then the women should be out so that the men should work less (or do less food shopping) and have more time to learn!
(I am looking for an explanation, not Stam to argue, and would love for someone to provide one)
Rabbi: Baruch T’heyeh
Reb Gavra,
All I have done is quote VERBATIM the Shulchan Aruch, the Gemora, the Gra, the Rambam, the Magid Mishneh, the Kesef Mishneh, the Radvaz, Sefer ha’Chinuch, the Minchas Chinuch, the Rashash, the Rosh, and the Teshuvos Maimoniyos.
About “waiving” all of that, I dunno. Ask your local orthodox Rabbi. I just stated the norm as written in the aforementioned poskim, rishonim, and meforshim. They are direct quotes.
As far as I know, everything that is listed in the first post of this topic by suraschier is absolutely necessary.
And yes, ChanieE (I only read page 1) – unmarried women must indeed keep their hair short, in the way all (Israeli) chareidim of decent level keep it. Go ask some Beis Yaakov girls anywhere around the chareidi areas of Jerusalem on how to keep your hair: they’ll tell you.
Once again: suraschier is completely right. These things are, summarized in a few lines, the absolute and fundamental basic principles of the outward appearance of a Jewish woman.
Reb Zalman:
That is the problem. I agree with you and asked my LOR, and I am working (otherwise I wouldn’t be here!).
I what to know if their (in Kollel with wives working) LOR told them that their wives should go out, and if they did, then it is an amasla for those who do go out. If they did not ask, how could you blame anyone for thinking that these chashuv beni torah did not ask, and therefore those who do go out just followed the yeshivish velt?
Daniel_Breslauer
I hate to break it to you but Israeli kids tend to have MUCH longer hair than Americans. (I am referring to the very frum bais yaakov girls in both countries.) The difference is that you will barely see anyone with their hair out of a pony unless it is really short.
Many girl schools in Lakewood have a rule, that if your hair is longer than a certain length, then you have to put it up in a ponytail, but if it is shorter, then you don’t have to tie it up at all. So, NO, there is no problem with a girl having long hair. What are you going to bring up next? whether a girl can even leave her house? Oh wait someone has already brought up that insanely absurd topic. YIKES!
Zalman, my post was sent before yours appeared hours later.
But nevertheless, I will break it to you gently, depite all your sources, it is not at all clear that it is a halacha, rather than a hanhaga tova. They all say it is the derech of a woman not to go out much, etc., but not any clear issur. It is a matter of judgment.
Your quote that the SHulchan Oruch E”H 73 says Kol Kevudah is actually a quote from Hagahos R. Zalman. The mechaber doesn’t say it, nor does the Rama. The Rama says Isha lo sargil atzma laztzeis harbeh. She should not get into the habit of going out a lot (or excessively) she’ain yofi l’isha ella laishev bzavyos beisa. It is the beauty of a woman to stay in the confines of her home. This is a matter of beauty, not any clear cut prohibition. If it were, no women would be allowed to work, yet ruba dreuba of all chareidi kollel wives work a whole day.
Sorry, you did a lot of beautiful research, but did not succeed in any kind of a proof. (There is none, so don’t soend any more time looking.)
yoshi: “What are you going to bring up next? whether a girl can even leave her house? Oh wait someone has already brought up that insanely absurd topic. YIKES!”
That “insanely absurd” topic was “brought up” by the Tanach (Tehilim 45:14), the Gemorah, Shulchan Orach, Rambam, the Gra, the Magid Mishneh, the Kesef Mishneh, the Radvaz, Sefer ha’Chinuch, the Minchas Chinuch, the Rashash, the Rosh, the Teshuvos Maimoniyos, and whole host of Rishonim, Mforshim, etc. (See above.)
And do you know what they said about it?
Shulchan Aruch (73:1): A woman should not go outside much.
Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 13:11): A man should prevent his wife from doing so. She should go outside once or twice a month, according to the need.
Gra (4): Hashem did not create Chavah from Adam’s foot, lest she roam too much (Bereishis Rabah 18:2).
YIKES!
Interesting how people are bringing sources about whether it’s okay to go out for a few hours at a time, while people send their dauhters to Sem for a YEAR!
Certain Israeli (or American) “chareidi” rabbonim want girls to keep their hair short or tied back, good for them. That does not make it halachically required for anyone other than the followers of those rabbonim, if even that. The attitude expressed by certain posters is what turns Jews off the derech. First, you state that minority halachic opinions are absolute requirements, then you denigrate those who chose not to keep those minority opinions. There are plenty of DECENT girls with long, unbraided/pony-tailed hair.
Re Joseph and sources brought to refute Yoshi: So if that’s the case, how did we get from there (those sources) to here? What changes would you propose making?
tzippi: Yiridas Hadoros.
Daniel_Breslauer: youre proof that a single girl must keep her hair short is: “Go ask some Beis Yaakov girls anywhere around the chareidi areas of Jerusalem on how to keep your hair: they’ll tell you.”
wow! that is your version of halacha?
ask a girl! that is teh most absird, most idiotic thing i have ever read on this site. there is NO HALCHIC BASIS for having short hair. maybe some rabbonim, and that is some, feel it should be that way, but not all. and if it anything, it would be a midah tovah at most, nowhere near halachic mandate. just as satmars shaving a married womens hair is not halacha. fo whatever you think is the norm, and what is considered halacha, there will be some group who thinks you are wrong, and even stricter things are halach, and you are all wrong. halacha is decided al pi gemora, whic we no longer really do, so we have to pasken from achronim. and noone says a girls hair has to be short.
as for staying in the house, this no longer applies, as society has changed. that was never said in halchic terms, it was explaining a pasuk. how is a women regal, by staying home, because regal women stayed home. even then, women worked fields. it is very well known that even in the time of the gemoro women worked. just not like now, usually in family owned businesses. many tannaim and amoroims wives worked. the gemora is filled with stories, including reb akivas wife. nowadays, very few women stay home, and society actually frowns upon it in a way. you people are taking a gemora that explains how to be mekayim the posuk, and using it for a society 2 thousand years after. that is sheer stupidity. yes, its technically still applicable, but to say its halchic is nonsense.
mariner,
In the days of yore a wife working would mean she would work from home, ala the Chofetz Chaim’s wife who had a grocery AT HOME.
“No longer applies”? I’m sorry to say but that sounds like the kind of stuff you’d expect to hear from the Reform movement. Explaining a pasuk? Exactly. And the way Rambam explains it (like Shulchan Orach) is that a wife should be mostly at home. Rambam’s opinion of that is leaving the house once or twice a month. (See the previous page with all the mekoros.)
mariner:
“you people are taking a gemora that explains how to be mekayim the posuk”
I would certainly hope so!
“using it for a society 2 thousand years after. that is sheer stupidity. yes, its technically still applicable, but to say its halchic is nonsense.”
So the 1,500 year old Gemora is no longer relevant? And the 800 year old Rambam is stuff for the olden days? And the 450 year old Shulchan Orach is ancient history? And the other mentioned poskim and mforshim of more recent vintage are chopped liver?
How could I forget to mention. Tanach itself is quite aged far more than “2 thousand years” and thus surely “no longer applies” to our modern post-feminist “society.” After all, the newer stuff were just “explaining a pasuk” and hence “that was never said in halchic terms”, so certainly the pasuks themselves were “never said in halchic terms”, aside from the point that something this ancient “no longer applies.”
I mean “taking a gemora that explains how to be mekayim the posuk, and using it for a society 2 thousand years after, that is sheer stupidity.” (“Yes, its technically still applicable, but to say its halchic is nonsense.”)
[Brought to you by Hebrew Union College, in conjunction with the Jewish Theological Seminary]
Joseph & Zalman,
In my previous post I gave several examples of tasks that wives in frum communities, especially those who are mothers, typically perform, even if they do not work outside the home. These include taking children to/ from school, camps, learning groups, & doctor appointments; taking children to the park & other outings & supervising outdoor play; and household shopping & other errands. In many frum communities, these tasks cannot be performed without leaving the home.
My question to you is, why do you suppose it is that there has not yet been a statement from the gedolim discouraging women from performing these tasks, & describing how these duties should be performed so that women are only required to leave home twice a month?
joseph,. you need to stop drinking whatever it is you drink. the pasuk says women are like royalty. teh gemnora asks what does that mean, the gemora answers, that they stay in the home. royalty stays home, they have servants do their bidding. a husband back then, was to treat his wife accordingly, and provide for her. nowadays that is not possible in most homes, as the market has fluctuated to the point that 2 incomes are needed to stay afloat, as in a market like ours, based on free market science, supply and demand would demand that a household income from the 1920’s with inflation, will be devided now, yes, post feminist society, between man and his wife. because of this FACT, the idea of treating your wife as royalty HAS to change, otherwise you must say the torah is wrong. i will not say that, so i choose to say that teh rabbonim never meant for this to be a set in stone definition of what royalty is. today, it must have a differant meaning, as royalty and its definitions change.
now of course since today royalty is garbage, you have to go to the highest common denominator. tha between other halachos that we have set in stone, as in what bones to cover, etc, and the social norms. this is not reform or conservative, but what the orthodox believed up until recently. using insults to argue against my points is childish, and shows how wrong you are. i am in no way sayig that short sleeve shirts, and go-go skirts are muttar. that would be against halacha.
and ny the way, technically you are the one saying that teh deifinaition of tznius changes, as you and your chevra feel open toes shoes are assur, yet, women wore sandals anb went barefoot up until way after the churban bayis sheini. they also didnt wear sheitels. they wore coverings more like burqas. so everyone allows change it seems, except when the change isnt to YOUR liking. well sorry, judaism isnt a monopoly. it has a basic set of laws, and then minhagim that must fit into those laws. and has barriers setup by rabbonim, for their communities to make sure daily activities dont in any way minimize the basic rules. hence, in yekke communities, rav hirsch got rid of all traces of kabbala from davening due to shabbsai tzvi. the satmar shave womens hear off completely for mikvah and other reasons. sfardish chachamim were always makpid to pass over taharas hamishpacha and kibud harav to their misspallilim, so that when the time came, and they were able to again strengthen their kehillos, the families would be pure, and they would have the respect needed to make changes, as they are doing today. probelm is, here in american ashkenazick communities, they are predominately chassidic in nature, as the litvish communities were all but wiped out. (this is fact,, as most real genuine litvaks came before the war, including the families of most of the litvish gedolim today). chassidic communities are controlled heavily by rebbes, and the mentatilty of my way or the highway has taken effect throughout teh communities, irregardless of the fact that it is keneged all that judaism is. judaism is the sole religion that has no one right way to behave, save for the basics.
{brought to you by a orthodox jew who hasnt gotten drunk on the kool aid}
anon for this, Ask your local Orthodox Rabbi.
mariner, You have have drunk the liberal American kool-aid and don’t even realize it!
Let me repeat something another poster once posted on these boards:
“they are simply like stalks of wheat in the field of Golus, under the influence of whatever current goyish wind is blowing.
they are hardly to be blamed, they were never taught what Yiddishkeit means. They were born in an era of the greatest darkness in the history of the world, but think they walk in light.
they fulfill the Pasuk of “Hoster Hester”. not only is His face hidden, but they dont even know that it is hidden.
remember and use their posts
when Tisha B’Av comes, realize what we have lost, all the light, and try to weep.”
Joseph, I did ask my LOR, & he had no problems with this. Again, why do you suppose the gedolim haven’t addressed this important issue?
anon for this, The Gedolim have. Just ’cause you haven’t heard about it, don’t assume they haven’t addressed it. IF you’d like to know the resolution, ask your LOR.
Joseph, would you share with us the suggestions that the gedolim have made regarding how household/ childraising tasks should be performed so that women can avoid leaving the home?
anon: There are different perspectives. Ask your LOR.
joseph, you really need to learn reading comprehension. seriously.
you are implying that i think that the torah is outdated. never said anything of the sort. what i did say, which is true, is that what is considered regal has changed. the pasuk says a women should be reagl, not that a women should be in a house. if that is what god wanted, he would have said so. he didnt, he left it ambiguous for a reason, because ambiguous leaves open for change. in the times fo the gemora and even the rambam, and i would say even rav moshe, women stayed home, even goyim. but today they dont. even royal family women go out and work, albeit its usually charity work, but work in of itself. and taht the chofetz chaims wife worked in a store in their house, says who. from all storeis i heard, that is not true. the store was in the judengraiz, which was the jewish main street. like our ave j. yerushalyim was filled with men an women in the market place. ill prove it froma gemora, the one that talks about pulling the hair covering of a women in the marketplace, if you are chayiv to pay for boosha. if women halachically have to be home, then what were they doing in the markket place to begin with.
and btw, im a registered conservative, and no amount of american liberalism, aka progressivism, aka socialism, aka nazism, aka obamaism, is anywhere in my life. i am a nra member, and believe in reality. you dont, and that is your choice. fine. but dont take us all down with you!
that post that you qouted, although very artsy, but is irrelavent. teh times changing, and certain mannerisms changing, as long as they still fall in line with halacha, and not what you consider to be halacha, but is really just chumros or gedarim, is fine.
mariner, You are wrong. Both historically and halachically. Shulchan Orach and Rambam amongst a whole host of others are VERY CLEAR about this. See the previous page for the quotes and mekoros. No one said they can NEVER go out. Rambam suggests once or twice a month. But to you Rambam and Shulchan Orach are “outdated.” But at least get your facts straight. For example, the Chofetz Chaim’s wifes grocery was at HOME (regardless “from all storeis i heard.”)
You are religiously a liberal (unfortunately, despite your being in denial), no one is talking politically.
The Reforms also keep yelling about “is irrelavent. teh times changing.” Shulchan Orach and Rambam are talking HALACHA not chumros or “mannerisms.” Why don’t you open up a Shulchan Orach and Rambam so at least you’ll know what you are talking about, instead of just spewing the latest propaganda from the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance.
mariner: “that post that you qouted [from Shulchan Orach, Rambam and the Gemora], although very artsy, but is irrelavent.”
NO PART of the Torah is EVER IRRELEVANT.
re anon for this: don’t give up – my inquiring mind wants to know the answer to the question you asked too.
Joseph,
So, bottom line, what’s the story? Do you keep your wife at home at all times that it isn’t absolutely necessary for her to go out?
The Wolf
Joseph:
I believe the next question is how did your LOR respond to your unique situation after you asked him? Did you also ask why other people do not follow this Klall?
And if my wife shaves her hair (which she doesn’t) is anyone here going to start having their wife shave? It is irrelevant. Ask YOUR LOR, and I’ll ask mine. No one is paskening here, just discussing halacha. (Which is why I repeatedly refer you to YOUR LOR.)
Obviously different poskim treat this halachic issue with their own perspective. Neither you nor I are qualified to issue a psak din on your personal life situation.
jospeh, i just proved my opint, you have the language skils of a 3rd grader.
“they are simply like stalks of wheat in the field of Golus, under the influence of whatever current goyish wind is blowing.
they are hardly to be blamed, they were never taught what Yiddishkeit means. They were born in an era of the greatest darkness in the history of the world, but think they walk in light.
they fulfill the Pasuk of “Hoster Hester”. not only is His face hidden, but they dont even know that it is hidden.
is what i was refering to as artsy, not the shulchan oroch you bafoon.
and nowhere does teh shulchan oruch, the rambam or any other say taht a women cannot go out every day, all day if she so chooses. they are talking about how a women is to be treated, how she is to be royal. if she chooses to go out, then that his her choice, you backwards, self centered caveman. hows that for name calling. it seems that is the only arguin you understand, as you keep calling me liberal, which i dont see at all. so now i call you a caveman. i have come down to your level, so maybe now you will understand my point.
here it goes again for you, since you are having such a hard time understand:
teh wording is kol kevodah- bas melech penima. teh word used is kevoda, her koved, or kovod to her, depending on how you want to learn it. either way, it is not a kovod that a women has to be makpid on. when discussing what is considered bas melech penima, it is stating that her kovod is that of a daughter of a king who stays home. nowathis is a fact. as this is used to the point that a women does not have to go to a bais din in certain cases f called, yet she can chose to go if she wants. meaning, this rule is for her choice. nowadays most women, choose, or are forced due to financial reasons, to go out. to say that a women then is not a bas melech is ridiculous, it means in our generation, teh bas melech penima comes to mean other things, still within the translation of those words. this is nothing new. all over the gemora this is used. that words take on differant meanings as the world progresses. again this, can only be done as long as what is happening is still in line with halacha. kol kevodah bas melech penima is not a mitzva aseh, it is a honhoga tovah. it is not part of any version of the 613 mitzvos, not the rambam and/or the sefer hamitzvos, etc.
as for the chofetz chaim, he yarshened money from his weatlhy aunt, and bought a store. in no story on the internet does it say anywhere it wasin his house. you decided it was because it fits with your version of judaism, but the reality is this is not so.
it is well known that his home was tiny, 2 rooms. one for sleeping, the other for everything else. he had no posseisions, sae some chairs and tables.
nowhere in any story of people meeting with the chofeetz chaim, does it say he rana grocery from his shouse. its nonsense. he bought a store with the money his aunt yarshened him, and was too succeful , to the point he closed for most of the day, for he felt other stores were getting hurt. his rebbetzin did most of the work, doing the stocking and bookkeeping. so not only did she work, but she was an accountant to boot.
the chofetzs chaim was a fierce proponent of women’s studies. he invented bais yaakov. people thought he was out of his mind, him and the gerrer rebbe. he had alot of big gedolim against him, yet he pushed on, and they mostly all came around when they heard him out. his idea was exactly what i said, that norms change, but as long as they fit into halacha, it is fine.
i am not saying that women should go around dressed untzniusly. i am saying that what the perosn who posted the original post is very wrong in assuming that her level tznius is a black and white halacha. tznius is a ver gray thing. yes, tehre are parts that are black and white, which would be everything above elbow and knee, but the actual knee and elbow is a gray area. open toe shoes are a very gray area, tights are extremely gray area.
to say that there is only one way with tznius is am haaratzus, and may border on kfira, as you are saying that zeh vezeh “lo” divrei elokim chayim.
as for gavra at work, joseph never asks his LOR, he just assumes things, and we all know the saying when you ass, you make an ……..
mariner,
To quote yourself “you really need to learn reading comprehension. seriously.” I specifically stated that the quote of “they are simply like stalks of wheat in the field of Golus…” I was quoting VERBATIM another poster. (Did your eyes miss: “Let me repeat something another poster once posted on these boards:”?) Now mariner, aside from your atrocious spelling errors, anyone taking a quick glance at your drivel will immediately notice the run-on sentences and other elementary errors throughout.
You said “that post that you qouted…” What did I “quote” in the referenced post? Nothing except Gemorah, Shulchan Orach, and Rambam. So your sly attempt to backtrack your own words has just failed miserably. You have made clear you think that the Torah is outdated and no longer relevant (in your own miserable words.)
You ask: “and nowhere does teh shulchan oruch, the rambam or any other say taht a women cannot go out every day, all day if she so chooses.”
UMMM, mariner after all this discussion you STILL have not READ THE QUOTED AND TRANSLATED mekoros from last page!? Rambam actually specifies a SPECIFIC NUMBER of times she can go out per month! mariner, please at least keep up with the conversation before a making a fool out of yourself.
P.S. I can recommend a good English-as-a-Second-language (ESL) program for you.
P.P.S Better for you to keep quiet and be though of as a fool, than to open your trap and confirm it.
mariner:
Can you repeat all that in English for the rest of us? Most of us here aren’t familiar with Ebonics.
Mariner, while I agree with everything you say, I think you were a bit too harsh on Joseph. I have trouble understanding his thought process, as well, since when I expect a long post, he often gives a very short one, and other times vice versa. Nevertheless, he is a sincere yid with a very different hashkafa than mine. However, we should all refrain from name calling. I think your terminology was too harsh.
Joseph, we have shifted into this digression in response to my question which you never answered. I asked can you show me any mekor that women must dress ugly when they go out and cannot look attractive in public. I asked about the chiyuv to buy them a new dress for yontof, and how the gemara discusses their jewelry in rehsus harabaim on Shabbos. You then changed the subject to saying they are not allowed to go out at all. Please get back to my original question about whether women are supposed to have two sets of clothes; an ugly set for outside, and a pretty set for inside.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.