Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
PurpleOne,
You don’t need to cover below the ankle. There is a machlokes regarding between the ankle and the knee.
That is all m’ikkar hadin. But one cannot dress in a manner that would be viewed by his or her community as untzniusdik, even if the standards of that community are well beyond what the halacha requires.
You principal problem is going to be bishul akum. So you can have something for which there is no issur bishul akum, i.e. foods that are regularly eaten raw or foods that are not fit for a royal table.
“Wearing just leggings is no good because skin-tight clothing is considered no different from being naked.”
That is absurd. The Gemara says that something transparent is also assur, but skin-tight is hardly the same thing as transparent. See the teshuva from R’Moshe cited by Sam above.
Theoretically all spandex would be in keeping with the halacha. However frum Jewish women the world over have a broader sense of tznius than the bare minimum and keep a higher standard. The standard a woman must keep is dependent on her community and her personal sense of tznius (l’chumra only).
Snowbunny,
If you feel that is tzniusdik, then yes.
In addition to the tznius standards found in the Gemara women are free to increase their tznius. However when a particular manner of tznius becomes widespread within a community, each woman within that community must abide by those standards.
So there is no halachic reason why Bais Yaakov girls can’t dress as you suggest. However because they do not dress that way it would be untzniusdik for an individual girl to dress in a such a fashion.
I am falling asleep at my desk. Without coffee I am as inefficient as it gets.
The Gemara in Brachos 24a says that a women’s “shok” is considered erva.
There is a dispute among the Achronim what “shok” refers to, the thigh or the calf (i.e. lower leg). According to those opinions that “shok” refers to the calf, a woman must cover her lower leg down to the ankle.
I can explain what I heard in more detail but I can’t document it, because as I said, I don’t know the source. There is a machlokes Rishonim what constitutes “Chupa” to effectuate a nisuin. The Rambam holds that the Yichud is what creates Nisuin. The Ran and others hold that the canopy that we use is the chupa that creates nisuin. Here is one version that I have heard.
The Rambam holds that “birchas nisuin” has to be made before the nisuin (i.e. before yichud). Ishus 10:3.
The Ran holds that “birchas nisuin” should be made under the chuppa. Pesachim 4a (in dafei haRif).
So what I heard is that the minhag is to be mekayem both shittos. The brochos are made under the chuppa as the Ran holds, but because according to the Rambam it is Yichud that is chuppa the brochos are properly being made before nisuin.
However, there is a problem of hefsek between the brochos and the Yichud according to the Rambam. So in order to demonstrate that the brochos under the chuppa are for the yichud too, they hold hands from under the chuppa until they get into the yichud room.
I am not Avi-K (whoever that is).
It was not at all clear that there was shishim. We are talking about a full piece of american cheese and a normal size cholent pot that was not full (cholent for 6 people).
The lid was partially glass. Metal rim and metal handle in the middle. Eyewitnesses thought it touched the metal but weren’t sure.
Mdd,
I thought the “ein b’yadeinu” was because it won’t work (i.e. all the force in the world won’t make a large segment of the population frum) not because we don’t have the manpower.
Sam2,
The issur of chibah in public is so as not cause hirhurim in others. I don’t think you can bring a raya from an Amoira where it was obvious it wasn’t chiba b’rabbim, to a case of newlyweds where it obviously is chiba b’rabbim.
Mdd,
I don’t see the difference between the two. The reason the Torah doesn’t mandate enforcement on a large scale is because “ein b’yadeinu l’haamid mishpatei haDas al tila.”
Please go into it. What do you think pshat in that Gemara is?
The dance when the last child is married is called the Mazinka. There are different traditions. In some the mother and the father dance around the bride and groom with brooms. In others the children and close relatives dance around the mother and father with brooms.
Here is a shaila (maaseh shehoya):
Erev Shabbos a cholent is cooking on a stove. A person is trying to put a piece of bread with a slice of American cheese into the microwave above the stove. The cheese falls off and hits the lid of the cholent pot which is on the fire, and then falls to the floor.
What is the status of the cholent and does the Pot need to be kashered?
Daniel,
I had trouble understanding what you wrote. I am absolutely in favor of drafting athletes and artists (I didn’t know they were exempt). I don’t think it is appropriate for any state to fund athletics or art.
Let’s stop with the hyperbole. It wouldn’t destroy the Yeshivos. It would just lower their numbers and/or their structure.
Yserbius123,
Presumably they use a gartel when it is Chupas Nida. Harchokos don’t apply yet because Yichud is still ossur.
I have heard that the reason for holding hands after the chuppa is to be mamshech the kinyan from Chupa to the Yichud room. I know of no source for this however.
“Charaidim don’t consider themselves “citizens” of Israel. Most of them (even those who take money) would be just as happy if the Arabs took over, as long as there would not be a subsequent massacre.”
I seriously doubt that this is true. Most Chareidim I know take pride in the success of Israel and enjoy their position as citizens with full rights and free travel to the places they hold dear.
Also, there would almost certainly be a subsequent massacre. You can rephrase the statement so that “Jews are a small minority in the Middle East and all Jews should take part in their defense.”
FIA,
I typed that quote from memory. It, or something very similar to it, is printed in the book Reb Yaakov by Yonosan Rosenbloom.
R’Yakov Kaminetsky said in response to the Satmar Rebbe “with all due respect to the Satmar Rav, Hashem doesn’t need the Satmar Rav’s permission to perform miracles.”
Daas,
I was unaware of that Gemara. I don’t recall ever seeing that we are kofin on mitzvos eseh. I will look into it and get back to you.
Mdd,
I know that is the stam assumption. I understood that Gemara to be saying that if the Bais Din sees a problem spreading in the otherwise frum community, then they can declare horaas sha and execute somehow outside of the Torah’s normal requirements. The purpose is to shock the rest of the population back into proper observance. But if you are dealing with a population that is completely frei, executing a person for turning on a light on shabbos will create anger and possibly violence from the rest of the population.
At a certain point things are so bad that executing doesn’t help and if doesn’t help then it is just murder, plain and simple.
Chevron,
I would propose the system work something like this. Participating Yeshivos get to set aside a specific percentage of their student body. The Yeshiva evaluates the candidates and chooses.
The problem you point out, that Yeshivas have different percentages of capable talmidim is a real one. But I suspect that the percentages of top quality talmidim will even out because people will try to go to institutions where they feel they have the best shot at a dichui.
See above for my response to your last question. I answered in response to mdd.
Daas,
Chas V’shalom, I never “conceded” anything. I have maintained since the beginning that there are two separate dinim: (1) that a married woman must cover her head having nothing to do with erva, and (2) that if and when hair is normally covered it gets the status of erva.
R’Moshe cannot make up issurim d’oraisa, there has to be another source for it according to your reading (You can’t make a kal v’chomer unless you have some other din in which it is already more chomur). According to my reading R’Moshe is NOT saying that basar is d’oraisa. He is saying that basar is has a greater status of erva than hair and can therefore be erva, with respect to krias shema (he is not discussing walking around in public, which is a SEPARATE DIN), even if it not normally covered.
You are only understanding R’Moshe they way you are because you are trying to understand the Gemara in Kesubos as erva based. There is no discussion of erva in that Gemara, there is no questions from the Gemara in Berachos.
Rashi s.v. “v’derech mavui” says “that the public are not common there.” Neither Rashi nor the Gemara mentions men in connection with covering hair. There is no indication that it has anything to with men (in her home it is mashma it would be mutar even if there was a man or two around). The issue is public versus private. Similar to the way that a Rav or a Rosh Yeshivah won’t go out of his house without a hat and jacket on, but will meet people in his house without them.
Daas,
It is not that bein adam l’makom isn’t important, it is that forcing private bein adam l’makom on a large scale is not what the Torah authorizes and it doesn’t do anything to force someone to shake a Lulav if in their mind they are doing nothing.
I am not saying that if they see a siman yaffeh they should be exempt. Under my proposed system it would require more than just siman yaffeh to make it into the quota. I am just borrowing the 5 years as an amount of time that is sufficient to allow us to judge the long term prospects of someone’s Torah future.
Mdd,
Cite the language that you feel is “clear.” Which part of my chiluk are you claiming has no source, that these executions outside the normal halachic requirements is horaas sha, or that horaas sha by definition means something that in isolated incidents and not on a mass scale?
nfgo3,
Generalizations are not necessarily “untested and unproven.” E.g. if I have statistical evidence that the average Jewish IQ is nearly 2 standard deviations above the national average, I can then make the generalization “Jews are smart.”
Daas,
It is meduyak in the Gemara that Daas Yehudis cannot be D’Oraisa (unless you say the Gemara is lav davka, which is dochek). The gemara quotes the Mishna that says going out with uncovered hair is Daas Yehudis and the Gemara asks “uncovered hair, that is
D’oraisa?” The clear implication is that it therefore cannot be Daas Yehudis.
I used arms as my example along this debate because it was the only part of the body I was certain was only Daas Yehudis. However I have never seen any source for an chiyuv D’Oraisa for a woman to cover up body parts not during tefillah, and while I can’t prove it, I am pretty sure it is only d’rabbanan or Daas Yehudis.
The bathhouses in those days were public places and therefore the requirement to cover hair should apply, even if it there are only women around (unlike baring arms, there is no indication in the Gemara that hair covering has anything to do with men being around). The Gemara is clear however that the chiyuv to cover hair does not apply in the home.
“R’ Moshe and others clearly write that arms are assur despite any prevalent mode of dress.”
R’Moshe is discussing saying Krias Shema, he is not saying that in a frum society where women commonly go out with bare arms, it would still be ossur to walk around like that. Pashtus, Daas Yehudis a minhag and if the minhag changes, the minhag changes.
“It is worth noting that the Chofetz Chaim very strongly condemns saying berachos in front of uncovered hair. He does not hold of the Aruch Hashulchan’s heter.”
It seems to me that even the Aruch Hashulchan (and R’Moshe) wouldn’t hold of this heter nowadays. Boruch Hashem in recent times hair covering has become the norm it most frum communities.
Sam2,
I am not arguing on R’Moshe. I am explaining R’Moshe.
You and your sister are talking about different things. The requirement to walk around with a body part covered is different from the prohibition of davening in front of erva. Don’t conflate the two and the contradiction disappears.
A married woman is required to cover her hair m’d’oraisa. Not davening in front of uncovered hair is a d’rabbanan, which, according to R’Moshe, does not apply if women habitually violate the halacha and don’t cover their hair.
A women is not allowed to uncover her arms in public because of Daas Yehudis. Not davening in front of uncovered arms is d’rabbanan which applies, according to R’Moshe, even if women habitually don’t cover their arms.
Daas,
Because the former is private, bein adam l’Makom, and the latter is a duty owed to the public, it is bein adam l’chaveiro. The enforcement is not pointing a gun at someone, it is merely saying that if you don’t contribute in this manner that society has requested that you must stop taking benefits from that society.
The 5 years is to allow the bochur the chance to develop in his learning so that he can properly decide his future and so he can have a chance at meriting one of the exemption spots in his Yeshiva. The number comes from here:
????? ???? ??? ????, ???? ???? ????, ???? ???? ????. ???? ?? [????? ?”? ?”?] ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????
?’ ?????? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ?
I am not ignoring it, I am explaining it.
It is mefurash in the Gemara in Kesubos 72a-b that Covering Hair is d’oraisa. It is also mefurash in the Gemara in Kesubos 72a-b that covering arms is Daas Yehudis, i.e. the tznius minhagim of B’nos Yisroel. It is also clear from the Gemara that Daas Yehudis is not d’oraisa.
R’Moshe is not arguing on a mefurashe Gemara. Rather he is saying that regarding the halacha of saying krias shema in front of erva, the hanacha rishona would be that hair would be mutar. However, because there is a posuk that requires a portion of the hair to be covered, that portion becomes a mokom mechusa and is m’meila erva.
If it had not been for the Gemara in Brochos 24a (that says “saar b’isha erva), hair would not have been considered erva for krias shema even if it was normally covered because I would have thought that only basar could be erva. Kamashma lan the posuk in the Shir Hashirim which shows that saar could be erva.
The issue of davening in front something uncovered is separate from the issue of walking around with something uncovered. With regard to the former, hair is more meikel. With regard to the latter hair is much more chamur.
Mdd,
The halacha you are referring to and the Gemara it is based on are describing a hora’as sha. Not something to be implemented on a broad basis across the board for an extended period of time. If a community is sliding and extreme measures need to be taken against a person then the Halacha says the community leaders can execute someone. There is no source that I am aware of, however, (outside of the ir hanidachas) that allows killing or force on a large scale outside of the strictures of Bais Din and the normal halacha.
Daas Yochid,
The chiluk I am making is between public and private conduct. So someone who opens their store on shabbos will lose their license (eventually, there might be fines first). But nothing will happen for turning on a light in your home.
For people who just “want to learn” I would say (something along these lines) they should be permitted to get a dichui for 5 years. After 5 years the various Torah institutions can each select a small group to continue learning within their institution. The rest will then have to report for army duty. Alternatively, at they could choose to enroll in a Hesder style program.
Anyone who after 5 years still refuses to serve, will lose all state financial benefits but will be permitted to work.
Mdd,
Please give me the citation within Megilas Ta’anis and especially the source for Tzidikiyahu.
Please explain what the proper pshat in the Gemorah of the Sanhedrin leaving the Lishkas HaGozis.
Being drafted is part of the public sphere and therefore can be made mandatory. But to reiterate, I am talking about drafting not actually serving, which cannot be forced. Similarly, it would be okay to have a core curriculum that included Tanach and Talmud and if a school refused to provide these subjects it would be fined and eventually closed.
Basar is not d’Oraisa. Please find me a source that says it is an issur d’Oraisa for a woman to walk around in public with uncovered arms.
This is what R’Moshe says: hair in a vacuum is not erva b’etzem. It can become erva, however, if it is always kept covered. Basar is erva b’etzem but it can become not erva if it is always kept uncovered (which is why a face is not erva).
Now, because there is a chiyuv min HaTorah for married women to cover their hair, m’meila the hair of married women will become erva and it will be assur to daven in front of the uncovered hair of a married woman.
You are mixing up the cause and the effect.
There has been a misunderstanding of my position on both ends.
1) I was initially responding to Popa’s claim that we would Make the Chilonim keep the Torah. I was saying that the Torah provides no mechanism by which this can be done. The individual punishments of malkus and misa are not meant to be used as a club to force compliance on a broad sector of a society.
I did not say that we should not, or could not, have a society that is run al pi Torah. We can pass laws making it illegal for a store to be open on Shabbos. We can require all eateries to keep a basic level of Kashrus. We should not however pass a law that says if you put a piece of cheese on your hamburger you get fined X shekalim or you go to jail. (Is an atheist who keeps the Torah at gunpoint better than the atheist that keeps nothing at all?)
In other words we can establish that society will run al pi Torah in the public sphere, but we can’t legislate what people do in the privacy of their homes, even if we are the majority.
2) The purpose of the draft is that it forces people to make a choice whether or not they are willing to put their money where their mouth is with respect to the Medinah. If someone holds the Medinah is treif, then why should he get money from the Medinah, why should he get unemployment, child checks and free health care?
I don’t think that anyone should be forced at gunpoint to be a soldier (do you really want a disloyal soldier on the battlefield).
This is presupposing that the frum army units will be run al pi halacha.
As an aside, I find it truly ironic that some people will, in the same breath, say that it is proper to force people to keep all of halacha, but then say that no Gadol has held that Chareidim should be forced into the army, while admitting that there have been Gedolim that held it was a chiyuv to serve in the army.
He is saying hair is more kal than basar with respect to saying kriyas shema, not with respect to the chiyuv for a married woman to cover her head. With respect to a head covering he says clearly that it is a d’oraisa:
??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?????
Can you point to any source that says it is d’oraisa that a woman must cover her arms (not b’shas tefilla)?
TorahHashkafa,
It is not a matter of one is more or less than the other. They are both necessary and they operate on different planes.
It is like asking what is more important for a Jew to live, eating food or learning Torah and keeping Mitzvos. If you don’t eat you will die, but if you don’t learn Torah and keep Mitzvos, what is life worth?
Health,
On a previous thread I listed the Mizrachi Gedolim that held that there is a chiyuv to participate in the army, chiyuvis not just kiyumis. Maybe we understand the word chiyuv differently.
More importantly, as I wrote above, I don’t mean that someone should be forced at gunpoint into the army. They should be drafted and have to come down for an interview. If they claim that they hold it is assur on the grounds that the entire Medinah is treif and being in the army is an assur of hischabrus, then they will receive a patur, but they will also be ineligible for any financial assistance from the treifene medinah.
Everyone is drafted. They come in for their interview and if they claim that they are from the groups that hold it is assur, their claim will be investigated. If it holds up they will be given a p’tur conditioned on their never taking financial aid from the Government.
It is a lower form of erva.
But that is not why married women cover their hair. They cover their hair because of the drasha of the Gemara in Kesubos. The effect of their covering their hair is to make the hair erva, but it is not the cause.
That chiyuv for a women to cover her hair is stricter than any erva based chiyuv for a women to cover up.
Popa,
What are you talking about?
Chevron,
I support drafting the Chareidim into the army, I don’t necessarily support forcing them to serve if they genuinely hold it is assur (I assume you are referring to those who hold that working with the Medina on anything is treif altz hischabrus with reshaim).
That last heter is ingenious.
They could just simply institute a dress code for men as well.
Some fancy restaurants and country clubs have dress codes for both men and women (skirts or dresses for women and jackets and ties for men).
Daas,
I looked it up. I don’t see how it supports your position.
Please look up the Gemara about hair covering in Kesubos. I believe it is on daf 72a going over onto 72b.
Perhaps I should rephrase to clarify. The system wasn’t meant to impose observance on large group that doesn’t want to observe the law.
A Sanhedrin should not be executing people left and right. If, to enforce the Torah law, they are required to execute to many people, they will stop enforcing the law, not ratchet up the enforcement.
All this is theoretical, of course. There is no Bais Din today that has the authority to use corporal punishment.
Whether or not it is proper to force Torah observance on a large scale depends on what is meant. If you mean there is broad nationwide acceptance of Torah observance and what is necessary is a mass scale system of enforcement on the occasional infraction, then yes. If you mean that there is large minority that do not wish to observe the Torah at all, and you mean forcing them at gunpoint to keep the Torah, then no.
TorahHaskafa,
To answer your questions:
1) That is a false choice. I think Hashem performed all those miracles because (to the extent that it possible to fathom why Hashem does anything) Hashem loves the Jewish people and protects them to allow to keep Torah and Mitzvos in Eretz Yisroel. One of those mitzvos is saving lives and providing physical protection of the Jewish people and the land.
2) I agree with the Gedolim that support drafting Chareidim.
Popa,
The Torah does not describe imposed observance on a mass scale. It describes maintained observance by on rare occasions enforcing Religious law. When the Sanhedrin starting executing too many people, because the Torah was not being kept, they didn’t ratchet up the enforcement, they quit.
It just won’t work against a large segment of the population.