benignuman

Fkelly,

You are right, but the reason is because in fraternizing with them over fine wine you might learn from their bad ways/marry their daughters. If this is the reason, then it should not apply to someone who is frum in public because other people will not know that they are not frum and there will be nothing to learn from.

Squeak,

You’re kidding, right?

Veltz and Kanoi,

There is no such thing as perfect knowledge and almost nothing can be proven as fact with 100% certitude.

Accordingly it would be absurd to require a shliach tzibbur (or anyone for that matter) to believe anything without doubts. That is why in American Law there is a concept of beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal convictions. However, in civil cases the standard is more probable than not (aka preponderance of the evidence) which means 50+ epsilon.

I think that there can be little argument that someone who believes that it is more probable than not that the Torah is true and lives his life accordingly, is eligible to be the shliach tzibbur.

The question is someone who is basing his/her Torah true lifestyle on something like Pascal’s Wager or to remain within the community he/she loves.

Shnitzy,

Parshas Bereishis is anything but clear and should not be taken literally. See the second perek of Chagiga.

The is no meaningful difference between the Top 10 Vault firms and those from 10-20.

What you are looking for is generous compensation, decent work-life balance and serious work.

I think that the criteria should be expanded to include people with yeshivish degrees, even if it is not a BTL (i.e. online degrees or guys and girls that did most of their credits in a Yeshiva/Seminary and transferred them to a real college).

I didn’t know the second volume of Ohr Yitzchak came out. Is it selling in regular seforim stores?

This chazara must have been very recent.

Yitay,

I think that you are understanding tznius too narrowly. I agree, and I think that it is muchach from the sugyas that the chiyuv to cover hair is unrelated to “saar b’isha erva.” But that does’t mean that it doesn’t reflect an idea of tznius. It is just a tznius that is not related to hirhurim. It is a tznius about dignity (and would therefore apply to a bald head as well). Both you and Daas are too focused on hirhurim.

I obviously think that my pshat fits in better in the Gemara than yours. I also think that the difference in character between shok and saar/kol are clear in the nature of the limmudim. Saar and kol are limmudim based on posukkim that discuss tayva. Shok is based on a posuk that describes erva as a symbol of shame, not hirhur.

Look at the Radak on those pesukim in Yeshaya. The same posuk that the Gemara understands to be discussing the revealing of shok, also discusses the revealing of hair as a source of shame. Why then doesn’t Rav Sheshesh use the same posuk to dervie “saar b’isha erva”?

According to me, it is beautiful. Uncovered hair as a source of indignity does not need a posuk in Yeshaya because there is already such a limmud from the Torah. But the posuk in Yeshaya is understanding gilui shok and gilui saar as providing the same moshul.

Rav Sheshesh is discussing a different din. The din of hirhur, the tznius of kol and tefach b’isha, not the tznius of dignity. Rav Sheshesh and Shmuel’s dinim are necessary because they are not basar and absent these limmudim I would have thought they could not have din erva like tefach. K’mashma lan that hair and kol can be erva for hirhur if ones lives in a society where they are normally covered.

My pshat is not the simplest but I do think that it is the least dochek.

I thank you, because if not for this conversation I would never have looked up that posuk again and I would never have seen the Radak.

The age one learns to read (within reason) is not that important. What is important is the ease with which they read and love of reading.

Yitay,

Your description of tznius as a general concept is very nice, and I assume it is correct. However, that does not mean that everything that in modern times we refer to as “tznius” fall under that same rubric.

For example, the requirement for a married woman to cover a portion of her hair, is d’oraisa, applies regardless of norms of the time, and has nothing to do with hirhur.

Similarly, the requirement to cover “osso makom” is not because of hirhur (it applies to ones spouse as well). The Bais Shmuel on the Rama in E”H 25 says that the Rama did not mean to allow the “something else” that you refer to and therefore it is not ???? ????? ???. You will probably argue that the Bais Shmuel is dochek and it is. But that is the accepted view point of the majority of poskim (e.g. the Aruch Hashulchan, Chachmas Adam etc.) and therefore is the ikkar hadin.

You are taking your assumption of that all tznius regarding covering up body parts is based on hirhur and you are putting into the Gemara. Without a source for that assumption, you are presenting a chiddush as well. The fact that it is clear to you does not make it the pashtus. There are certainly things that must be covered up because of hirhur but there are also things that must be covered despite no chashash hirhur or where hirhur is mutar.

I can’t say for certain why Chazal would make “shok” like “osso mokom” but I can speculate. There is an aspect of tznius that is based on human dignity. A person should be dignified and embarrassed by certain displays of baseness. This is how many of the poskim explain ???? ?????? ????? ????. Chazal said that with respect to arayos (and even one’s spouse when davening) we will treat the “shok” like osso makom, as a place for which it is debased to reveal and untzniusdik to look at, even when there is no daas and no chashash of hirhur.

Why didn’t Chazal make this rule apply to one’s spouse as well? I can’t say for certain, but perhaps because it would interfere to greatly with the mitzvos between a husband and wife.

Veltz,

Did you friend tell you that he couldn’t get a job in NYC or are you assuming that because he works in Westchester? He might have chosen to go to Westchester because the commute is much easier, he can have a better quality of life, etc. Do you know that the Westchester firm pays less than NYC firms?

Popa,

Georgetown is top 13 (Cornell dropped).

I know BTL’s that have gotten into every top law school except Yale. It might also be worth it to go to a slightly lower ranked school (but still within the T-14) if you can get an academic scholarship.

Additionally, if you are pretty confident in your abilities you can go to lower ranked school and then transfer after your first year. For example, someone who finishes top third in their first year at Georgetown or Cornell should easily be able to get into NYU for their second year where their chances of getting a good job are vastly improved.

Sam2,

I wasn’t referring to the Taz. I don’t think his chiddush of Chukas Hagoyim is universally accepted (see R’Moshe’s Teshuva on not wearing a kippah to work). My point is that minhagim are binding, albeit at a lower level than a d’rabbanan.

The Shulchan Aruch says “lo yelech.” Why does that sound like a middas chassidus to you? Especially, given the fact that the Magen Avraham and others comment on the Shulchan Aruch by saying “but less than 4 amos is a middas chassidus.”

SecularFrummy,

Good enough for what?

Having doubts about the existence of our Creator is not a reason to stop doing mitzvos. And if a person is harboring doubts but doing all the mitzvos, that is not a reason for him to leave the community.

The pashut pshat reason that Hashem is not mentioned in Esther is that the Megillah was originally an official document of the Persian government and the Persian government wasn’t about to endorse the Jewish religion.

That is why the references to Hashem are veiled (“revach v’hatzoloh yamod layehudim m’mokom acher), Achashverosh is portrayed as not realizing that Haman was trying to kill the Jews, and the Megillah ends with a statement about how wonderful Achashverosh was.

BTW the Torah and Tanach often round off large numbers (and even not so large). Dibra Torah k’loshon b’nei adam.

Yitay,

You might be misunderstanding my position. I agree with you respecting Daas Yehudis. The reason there are no formal guidelines is because they are organic, rising out of the tznius practices of frum Jewish women in each generation. If someone lives in a community where sleeveless is common, then it is mutar. But if someone lives in Lakewood then it is proper to say that it is ossur.

Legs are a separate matter.

It is interesting that originally I had my doubts about the Tzlach’s mehalech in Rashi, but debating with you I am becoming more and more convinced that it is right.

There is an issur to look at the makom hatoref even if there is no intention of deriving hanah or if hanah is mutar (the issur applies even towards one’s wife). See Nedarim 20a, Sh”A O”Ch 240:4.

The Gemara in Brachos understood R’Yitzchak (because he doesn’t mention krias shema), when he said “tefach b’ishah erva,” as dealing with a general issur when looking with intent to derive pleasure because if he meant without such intent women would have to walk around with their faces and hands covered. So the Gemara asked that if there is intent to have hanah there is always an issur even without a tefach. The Gemara answers that R’Yitzchak meant regarding his wife, where intent is mutar, specifically regarding Krias Shema.

Comes along R’Chisda saying “shok b’isha erva.” Is R’Chisda arguing on R’Yitzchak? There is no indication that this is a machlokes. If there is no machlokes, what is R’Chisda adding. R’Yitzchak said that it is tali on tefach. If R”Y was speaking about all parts of the body then clearly shok would be included. If he was speaking only about m’komos mechusim, then what is the point of bringing a posuk for shok, pok chazi if it women normally cover that part of the body.

Rather Rashi understands that R’Chisda is saying that shok has a din of “erva mamesh” as derived from a posuk in Yeshaya. R’Chisda is saying that the shok of arayos, m’divrei kabbalah, is on the same plane of issur as makom hoteref. The issur is not because you might have hirhurim but a separate issur of looking at erva, just like the makom hatoref. Rashi adds that this would also mean that you cannot say krias shema in front of shok even by one’s wife, even if there is no intent of hanah, just like you could not say krias shema when the makom hatoref is exposed regardless of intention of hanah.

Note that the Gemara comes on to krias shema to explain R”Y, but does not come on to krias shema, doesn’t even ask the question, regarding R’Chisda.

Also note that according to this pshat there comes out a kulah: one can daven in front of one’s spouse uncovered arms if he doesn’t have intent to derive pleasure.

Zahavasdad,

There is no need for a monolithic community. If they share a minhag it will be binding even if they don’t share anything else.

Among the frum in Borough Park is there an substantial population of women that do not cover their arms?

With regard to point 3.

I maintained that there are some areas that are “erva b’etzem” and have to be covered regardless of local custom. I will admit that I am not certain that this is right, but I understand the argument.

The Gemara in Brochos (24a) says “tefach b’isha erva.” The Rishonim explain that this means a tefach in the areas that are normally covered. The Gemara asks that you are not allowed to ogle even the finger of an erva. The Gemara answers that it is talking about one’s wife and for krias shma. Rav Chisda says “shok b’isha erva.” Rashi explains “to gaze and so too for his wife for krias shma.” This is strange, didn’t the Gemara just get finished saying that with respect to gazing there is no difference between body parts, why does Rashi explain Rav Chisda as talking about histaklus (gazing)?

L’maysa you can be m’dayek from the statement of “?? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?????” that there is a separate grade of issur regarding the “makom hatoref.” The Tzlach explains that Rashi understood that if you stare with intent to have hanaah then it is assur even to stare at a finger, however the makom hatoref itself is assur even without intent to have hanaah.

According to Rashi (al pi the Tzlach), Rav Chisda is saying that a man cannot look at a woman’s shok even without intent to have hanaah, because shok is erva b’etzem like the makom hatoref.

The Pri Megadim and the Mishna Berurah pasken like this Tzlach.

Sam2,

The following is a quote from from the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 2:6

??? ??? ?’ ???? ?????? ????

I did not mean that the shulchan aruch uses the Yiddish term yarmulke, if that is what you were challenging.

Interjection and Yitay,

The Mishna in Kesubos is discussing things women can do that will lose them their kesuba. It says that someone who “violates Daas Moshe and Daas Yehudis” loses her kesuba. The Mishna then gives examples of each.

Rashi explains that “Daas Yehudis” are the minhagim of B’nos Yisroel. The Meiri explains that these are minhagim that B’nos Yisroel keep out of tznius so that Jewish women should have higher standards of tznius then the general non-Jewish population.

There are many, many sources that minhagim of a community are binding on all members of the community. See, e.g., Pesachim 50a-b. The language of the Mishna about Daas Yehudis itself assumes some sort of binding power. The Mishna uses the word “oiver” a term used for the violation and she is punished for her violation by losing her right to her kesuba.

Uncovering arms is classified in the Gemara as Daas Yehudis. No hair covering at all is deemed a violation of Daas Moshe and the Gemara says it is Torah prohibition. Partial uncovering of the hair (i.e. only covering the top) is deemed a violation of Daas Yehudis.

“Yes, I know very well that there is such an assumption. I am challenging it.”

Why? The assumption seems fairly reasonable, why would you assume the opposite, that women are free to walk around in public in a manner that would require all men to look away?

Yitay,

With respect to hair covering and arms it is in the Gemara in Kesubos 72a-b. It is also clear from that mishna and Gemara that anything that Bnos Yisroel have a minhag to keep covered must be kept covered.

There is an issur brought down in the Gemara (Shabbos 64b and other places) that one is not allowed to look at “erva.” There is an assumption therefore that if men are not allowed to look, then women must cover “erva” up. Therefore if a gemara refers to some body part as “erva”, the poskim assume that it must be covered.

Hair covering is unique in that it is D’oraisa and must be covered even if the hair is not considered erva.

FIA,

The concept of hefsek that I explained is an explanation for a minhag, I don’t know of any poskim that hold it is required for someone who doesn’t have the minhag.

With regard to married couples holding hands in public, there is definitely a strong argument that it is mutar. The issur of chiba b’rabbim is that it might cause hirhurim to those watching. The issue is what level of chiba might cause hirhurim. The Aruch Hashulchan writes that one should avoid “chiba yiseira” in public.

Arguably holding hands is not “chiba yiseira.”

Note that the Shulchan Aruch does not bring down the shita that chiba b’rabbim is assur (it is mentioned as a “yesh omrim” in the Rama).

Nisht,

There is a machlokes haposkim about whether or not Yoshon applies m’doiraisa in chutz l’aretz. While m’ikkar hadin we pasken that it is muttar, to be choshesh for the machmir shitta in an issur d’Oraisa is certainly commendable.

Chalav Yisroel is itself an issur d’rabbanan. R’Moshe held that m’ikkar haDin american milk is considered Chalav Yisroel based on an “anan sehadi.” R’Moshe held however that there were grounds to be machmir and therefore it would be commendable for a person to drink only milk directly supervised by a Jew (b’toras chumra).

If a person wants to take on a new chumra (for an extra zchus), it makes more sense to choose the keeping of Yoshon even in Chutz L’aretz, then to choose being machmir for a Chalav Yisrael label on your milk.

I didn’t realize that we were talking about a non-frum Jewish person’s kitchen (I thought we were talking about non-kosher dairy restaurant kitchen).

You have to be careful about gvinas akum which doesn’t have the same leniency that R’Moshe held of for chalav.

In terms of pots and pans, you would have to be worried about them cooking shrimp, clams and lobster.

RebDoniel,

I think that when it comes to Wine, we are not more lenient for a tinok sh’nishba. The fear is that you will learn from their ways, it is not a punishment. Where is the R’Moshe you are referring to? R’Moshe holds that for someone to be a mechallel shabbos b’farhesia, they must not limit their doing of melacha on shabbos at all (someone who drives, but not in front of the Rav won’t be a mumar).