Tznius Standards

Pashuteh,

Thanks, I agree with that assessment that conversations get unintentionally overheated at times. We can all be more careful.

Pashuteh, answering a question that has no foundation in fact is something I cannot help you with. No one on this thread, myself or others, have said “that women must dress ugly” inside or outside. You will not be able to find a single statement to that effect. Either that is your misinterpertation, or that is a demagoguery of what has been discussed and can only lead one to believe that an attempt to delegitimize tznius standards is at hand.

I already provided you the source for having special dress for the husband inside the home.

eph, maybe you are a little forgetful but this is you qouting another post

“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.”

as for my run on sentences, and spelling, i could care less. this is a message board, not an english literature paper. though even on a message board, reading comprehension is needed.

as to pashuteh yid, joseph needs to see that tehre are people that are not going to take his ramrodding of his form of judaism down other peoples throats any longer. he never has answers for anything. he qoutes one source, then wants to make believe that all seforim agreed.

Joseph, please share with us the suggestions your wife has implemented in order to minimize time spent outside the home performing household/ childcare chores, or advice given by your LOR on this issue. As Tzippi mentioned, she’d like to hear these suggestions too, & so I’m sure would others.

Let me ask the question from the other side of the token:

Does anyone here believe that the wives should be prancing around anywhere, anytime outside whenever they well please too?

(I’m sure there are folks that do, as we live in terrible times. But it is they that are flaunting the clear instructions in halacha that a wife should be limited in the amout of time spent outside. Regardless of the entire discussion on how limited, how much time. Rambam I guess says once or twice a month, the shulchan orach just says it should be limited, etc.)

As the site on “Lubavitch and Rav Belsky’ is closed, I am using this post to answer Zalman’s diatribe agsint me on that post, ref. teaching gemoro to women/girls. I will not, for now, enter into a long discussion of this because it requires a long post,but I would urge you to look at the “Perisha” on the Tur. ( I do hope you know what the Perisha is..)

Anothier thing_ amongst the long posts you wrote , you brought down a Radvaz On the Rambam about milchemet mitzvah (or choivah,according to some sources). You mentioned that the Radvaz -commentary on the Rambam-syas that this does not mean actually going to war but just “leaving her “shevah brochos”. Well , the Radvaz in Hichos melochim does NOT say anything of that kind. Please tell me where you found that statement. From all Poskim , and the gemoro, it is evident that it DOES mean to go to war and waging war(kallah mechuposso..) there is one source that seesm to imply a similar appraoch and I will wait to see whether you know it too….

Berlin, Please do. Examples of halachos that are in Shulchan Orach and Rambam that applied previously but are no longer applicable in the new generations. And please specify if your claim is universally accepted or a fringe view. Thanks

Berlin, you are just questioning the correct meforesh for # i?:

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.

…at least thats what I think the commentor wanted to say (2 posts above mine.)

Pashuta- while I appreciate your attempt to make a distinction between chumrah/mihag and halacha, in this case I disagree with you.

1. Nodbody says women should dress ugly out of the house, rather her honor is in her house.

Can you provide a source that says that women should dress up when they leave the house?

2. There is a concept (which is halachic especially tznius) where keeping the rules only as specifically stated is not enough. There is something called ruach hatorah- not to be a minuval b’rshus hatorah. I think we all know this is very relevant to tznius. as there is even the concept of daas yehudis, things which are not written in the shulchan aruch but must be kept. An other example could be students copying from one another, it is not clear halchicly if it is technically genvas daas. (it might be in the case of college students but hard to make it for younger students as they are not getting an monetary compensation for their papers/tests this is a subject I have done qutie a bit of research on ) however, i think everyone would agree that this is not behaviour a jew should do. there are many other examples, where the Torah does not forbid something but it’s obvious that one is not suppose to do it. A mashal. If a husband and wife have a strong good relationship, the husband will know not to do (and to do) certain things with out his wife having to tell him and spell out specfically. Hashem told us eloyki elo sonah zima- Hashem loves kedusha and tznius kedoshim tehyu ki kadosh ani.

Jospeh, as I’ve indicated in previous posts, I’m not discussing the issue of women working outside the home. I’m asking about tips on how to perform household/ childcare tasks such as transporting children (to school/ camp/ playdates/ learning groups/ doctor & other appointments), supervising children at play & taking them on outings, & grocery & household shopping, all while minimizing time spent outside the home. I do spend most of my time with my family, but haven’t figured out how to do these tasks without leaving the house. (I usually bring my kids along, both to maximize the time I spend with them & to teach them appropriate public behavior).

It’s clear that you’d prefer not to share specific ideas, so I’ll end the conversation here.

to zalman, you probably have littel respct for me. THis is OK. i can live without it. Interestingly, I have quite a lot of respect for you and your research/knowledge. It is not always correct but, at least, you seem to know most of the background. For that, I do respect you.

As far as the issue of war and women. I checked and there is no such RADVAZ,At least not on the relevant rambam in hilchos melochim.

Your “rayoh” from the Rambam – sefer Hamitzvos- actually SUPPORTS the contention that women (and kallohs-“afilu kallah mechuposso”) go out to WAR in times of milchemet mitzvos. As you quote: OPTIONAL WARS” OPTIONAL WARS.

I have to check the Sefer Hachinuch but a milchemet mitzvah is clearly NOT a mitzvas ashei shehazman geromo.

I congratulate you that you did find the ONE acharon who seems to change the simple meaning of the mishnah. The Reshash (R’Shmuel Stresson mevilna) indeed writes that. But, as you quoted, his original understanding was that women do go to war in such case-and he writes, “this is a chidush”. He then writes “ulai” MAYBE, this is to prepare the meals,etc. I did not find any rishon or acharon who holds that view.

Lastly, you did not comment on the “Perisha” on talmud torah to women..Look it up..

to zalman… a few mitzvos that are not applicable today or never were:

Ben Sorer Umoreh, Ihr hanidachas, Mechyas Amolek, Binyan hamishkan,Negoim in houses(according to the medrash).

I am not saying that they are “irrelevant” ,Chas vesholom. You will get schar learning those as any other mitzvoh. It just so happens that some mitzvos cannot be applied today.

If you want actual halochos, I’ll show you some too.

Joseph, I guess I’m getting stuck on the Rambam saying that ideally a woman should leave her home no more than twice a month. Since I need to leave my house almost every day to take care of the aformentioned tasks, and most of my friends with similarly-sized families have schedules like mine, I don’t see how most women can meet this ideal. I was asking about ideas on how to accomplish this.

And in my experience a task performed with a child in tow tends to be more “public” than the same task performed alone. For example, grocery shopping with my children takes longer & involves more interaction with others (e.g., due to bathroom breaks) than grocery shoppping alone. I am comfortable with this because this allows me to spend more time with my children & model correct public behavior, which I consider to be a higher priority at this time than minimizing my time spent outside the home. But the quotes above seem to imply that this is not correct.

This is not to say that I disagree with the Rambam C”V. I’m just confused about how these statements apply to the everyday lives of myself & most of the frum women I know, given the daily tasks we perform. And the questions I’ve been asking have been an attempt to find an answer to this.

Berlin,

C’V, I most certainly respect you despite your mistaken views. I’m sure the RBS’O will give you the strength to see the Emes! But even until such time, we love you no less.

I’ve provided you several sources sating they don’t go to war. Do you have any Rishonim/Achronim stating OUTRIGHT (meaning its clear from the text) that women go to war? (I know the Gemorah, but want to know if you have any psak Rishonim/Achronim thats how they pasken.)

After my research on that issue, I think I’ll let you quote me the Perisha you refer to. Thanks in advance.

You told Matisyahu regarding his statement that woman cannot learn Gemora, you said its a “declarations that you cannot suport” (obviously you were wrong, I provided the support), that his position was “ignorant” (its actually the most widely accepted position), and you called it ” that (false) assumption.” So what gives?

So now tell us some mekors that a woman CAN learn Gemora. I provided you more than sufficient that she cannot. Do you have any Rishonim/Achronim? (Rather than your assumed interpertations.)

Rashi comments that Tiflus means lechery, meaning the study of Torah will lead women to immoral sexual acts. BTW anything more than the simple meaning of Torah Shel B’Ksav is not allowed for woman (like I demonstrated in the old thread.)

Berlin: “a few mitzvos that are not applicable today or never were:”

I asked for Mitzvos that WERE applicable when brought down in Shulchan Orach/Rambam but became non-applicable since, like mariner implied regarding the afore discussed Shulchan Orach and Rambam.

mariner,

State your mekor that “nowadays” Geirim do not break off their ties with their ex-family in a manner different than previous generations. You seem to have a fixation that halacha changes with time (even though as you put it, it “no longer applies” though “its technically still applicable.”)

rabbiofberlin, In any event, Milkhemes Mitzvah a war during the times of the Tanach when a king would go to war in order to fulfil something based on, and required by, the Torah without needing approval from a Sanhedrin, such as war against Amalek.

Milkhemes Mitzvah by definition is not applicable byom hazeh.

1. Rambam Hilchos Melachim 5:1,2

And even in the times when there were milchomos mitzvah, the troops were divided into three groups of equal size: combat, support, and learning. And the women were never in combat. You’ll find no such instance in Jewish history.

In fact, the Chinuch writes that the prohibition of showing fear in battle and the other mitzvos that apply to battle (e.g. yateid al azeinecha) are incumbent upon men and not women, as women do not go out to battle. Since these mitzvos apply to milchamos mitzvah, wars against Amalek and the Seven Nations of Canaan, as well as milchamos reshus, the Minchas Chinuch asks why women are exempt – the Mishna tells us that even a kallah must go out from her chuppah to fight in a milchemes mitzvah.

Rav Soloveitchik, (certainly not an anti-Zionist), explained that aside from the mitzvah of waging war (chovas tzibur) against Amalek and the Seven Nations, there is an obligation (chovas yachid) incumbent upon each Jew to kill members of these nations (Melachim 7:4). The participation of women in battle is not based on the communal obligation of warfare, but on their mitzvah as individuals to fight against these evil nations. This does not effect their exemption from mitzvos that relate to the communal act of war. The same reasoning applies to the reading of the Mashuach Milchama. There still exists a dispensation from the communal act of war for those people normally exempted, but they must participate in some way to fulfill their obligation as individuals to assist the destruction of evil.

This thread is really an example of “two Jews, three opinions.” I can only look on and read this threat with a bewildered look on my face while I see the discussion between Joseph and mariner.

Even though I am more inclined to support Joseph here, I think that both of you should show respect to the other. It’s pretty obvious that the two of you hold different opinions (based on different hashkofos); you’ll never agree, just forget it. Your discussion is like a Merkaz HaRavnik and a NKnik discussing religious Zionism: they can talk for another couple of years, but they are just so far apart that they will never get to agree.

Now let’s get back to the topic. Let me assure that you can come to Jerusalem and ask a whole range of rabbonim here, who will tell you that indeed any type of dress and hairstyle other than what is generally accepted and seen here is indeed forbidden. Go ask any motz of the Edah. In America, ask a motz of the CRC, I guess.

to zalman, thanks for your truly good input. As said, I only was “mekatreg” matisjohu because he simply repeated things he ahd heard. It is incumbent upon people to know the mekoros if you want to have an intelligent discussion.

I freely admit that the preponderance of opinions is in your favoir as far as torah shebaal peh for women. this is evident from the Poskim you brought down. However, when yo usee the Perisha (on Tur)you will be surprised at his words. As far as the meaning of ‘tiflus”, look in the Lechem Mishneh that writes that this Rashi (that you qoute) “einoh besifrenu”. In other words this is a disputed rashi. The general impression is that REb Eliezer and the ones who paskened liek him did not trust women with that knowledge (daaton kallos ,etc). I am not going to engage into a debate whether this a correct view, etc. Suffice it to say that the makkilim feel that in today’s society, the place of women ,and their input, has changed. You will not accpet that and thsi is fine too. All I ask is to allow other ipinions without accusing them of heresy.

Will Hill qutes the Aruch Hashulchan, which I know. Will he pasken like him in other matters too? Like- for example, that a woman’s hair TODAY is NOT an ervah? It is easy to be selective. Incidentally, I cherish the Aruch Hashulchan as the best sefer on halacha, if you truly want to understand the whole process fro mthe gemror onwards.

My next posting will deal with women and war, where, I am sorry to say, the mekoros contradict you.

to zalman, you ask for mekoros on war and women.

First, I must correct you about what you wrote that “(today)there is no milchemet mitzvah bayom hazeh”. The rambam that you keep on quoting (hilchos melochim, fifth perek, first mishneh) CLEARLY writes that “ezras yisroel miyad tzar sheboh aleihem” as a milchemet mitzvah, just like milchemet amolek and shiva ammamim. “To help Jews from the enemy that is attacking them”. This is the QUINTESSENTIAL milchemet mitzvah. I submit that, today, when the enemies of Israel are so intent in destroying us in Eretz Ysroel and elsewhere, the defense of jews in the world is surely a milchemet mitzvah.

For this, the mishneh says “afilu chosson mechuposio,vekallah mechpusso”. Apart from the obvious symmetry here ,that clearly suggests that both go out to war together,you will not find any Possek who gives the explanation that you give on “kallah mechupusso”.(only the reshash ,as metioned, does that. I do not see a Radvaz on that)

Let’s move on to the Minchas Chinuch- who does say what you said, that the mitzvah of “mechyias amolek'” does not apply to women because men are the ones who wage war.

Well, I wish you had looked at the MINCHAS CHINUCH on that mitzvah who clearly says that this is ‘daas jochid” and that the Rambam paskens differently. He adds(his words); “because in truth, in a milchemet mitzvah, ALL go out to war, even a bride..etc”.

Well, I have only brought down the mishneh and the Rambam and I daresay you will find few Poskim who agree with the Chinuch, as shown by the words of the Minchas Chinuch.

I look forward to your comments.I have other interesting rayos if you so require.

A Big Fat Yosher Koach to Yoshi 🙂

As no-one (except the poster, who is long gone) is telling anyone else what they should be doing, agree with everyone that for practical application of any halacha, one should ask their LOR.

joseph, heresy is a very big word. Not every disputed item of halacha becomes “heresy”. The makkilim (as far as I know) were reb Joshe Ber Soloveichik z’l and the Lubavitcher rebbe z’l. I realize that both of these personalities are not “lefi daatcho”, but then much bigger machlokes happened in past centuries without it becoming a litmus test on yiddishkeit. There are very specific instances when one is called an ‘apikores” and having a certain view on women’s learning does not include this.

Lastly, every godol has the absolute right of stating his opinion. For example, I have never disputed the Satmarer rebbe z’l right in stating his views on Israel and Zionism.I may disagree but he surely is entitled to his opinion.

I have a problem with calling every one who disagrees with a Psak an “apikores”,because this just cheapens the dialogue but then, there is always time for teshuvoh.

Berlin:

Just to repeat what has already been quoted on this thread previously:

“In fact, the Chinuch writes that the prohibition of showing fear in battle and the other mitzvos that apply to battle (e.g. yateid al azeinecha) are incumbent upon men and not women, as women do not go out to battle. Since these mitzvos apply to milchamos mitzvah, wars against Amalek and the Seven Nations of Canaan, as well as milchamos reshus…”

AND:

“The Rambam (Melachim 7:1) writes that the Mashuach Milchama read the parsha warning not to fear and granting dispensation from battle for a newlywed, someone who had just built a house, or someone who planted a vineyard before all battles, both milchamos mitzvah and reshus.

“

So Ra’avad is disagreeing with Rambam on this.

AND (final repeated quotation):

“Rav Soloveitchik, (certainly not an anti-Zionist), explained that aside from the mitzvah of waging war (chovas tzibur) against Amalek and the Seven Nations, there is an obligation (chovas yachid) incumbent upon each Jew to kill members of these nations (Melachim 7:4). The participation of women in battle is not based on the communal obligation of warfare, but on their mitzvah as individuals to fight against these evil nations. This does not effect their exemption from mitzvos that relate to the communal act of war. The same reasoning applies to the reading of the Mashuach Milchama. There still exists a dispensation from the communal act of war for those people normally exempted, but they must participate in some way to fulfill their obligation as individuals to assist the destruction of evil.”

Who said woman not going to war (assuming that they dont) has anything to do with tznius, maybe its just because they are usally physicly weaker and more emotinal then men and all around just not really cut out for physical fighting.

000646, I think you would have a change of mind if you met me… (I trained in the DEP for the Marine Corps. for several months, and I put a lot of men to shame).

-Yes, men have the potential to be stronger, and have large muscles, but not all do, (especially these days with obesity on the rise, & the lack of physical activities), Many women could be very powerful, and strong. Although some may have to work harder then others, (genetics plays a part in this as well).

Anyways, proceed with your arguments everyone, I just wanted to add that little tidbit to the thread.

Yoshi I agree with you 100 percent however as a general rule men are better suited at doing the dirty rough things such as killing especialy in the days of chazal