Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Additionally, sweatpants would be just as untzniusdik as pantsuits (which you are maskim is problematic.) They both demonstrate the outline and/or split (which the poskim I quoted previously, i.e. R’ Ovadya Yosef, R’ Scheinberg and R’ Elyashiv [amongst others], say is impermissible.)
rabbiofberlin, Regarding your car trip example: if instead of sweatpants, she used a miniskirt, would that change the metzius of its permissibility? If you claim that tznius is unnecessary when only surrounded by immediate family, then you seem to say that a miniskirt too would be acceptable in that environment.
But even more importantly: is she able to get from her home into and out of the car unseen? When driving, is she invisible to others on the road or street?
“i’d say I’ve built a good couple of gederim with just that.”
Do not be overconfident that you have built “enough” gedarim.
rabbiofberlin, So you agree that, due to the tznius violation, a woman wearing jeans or corporate suitpants on a summer day is assur?
“a” is used with href to link to another webpage
li goes together with ul and ol:
- This is li line 1 with ul
- This is li line 2 with ul
- This is li line 1 with ol
- This is li line 2 with ol
avi: please change your username now to avithetzaddik1
The cars need to be parked somewhere when you are walking…
rabbiofberlin,
I think that concert made your thinking go a bit wobbly! (joke)
Beged Hiddur – So pants, surely an important particle of clothing, would constitute hiddur. Yet surely you are moida that regular usage of pants by a female (c’v) is not covered by the beged hiddur exemption, as there is no special cause for its usage (like cold or rain.) So the Bach’s situation is inapplicable in this situation.
Now, even if you taaine it is NOT hiddur, you seem to be whitewashing the tznius problem. A miniskirt (c’v) is not a Beged Ish either. Yet surely you are moida that it is assur due to tznius. So how can you allow pants, EVEN IF lo sibash IS inapplicable!?
Walk??
And where do the unlucky half park their cars with half the parking spots made illegal?
Wolf: Thanks again.
Btw, I notice that you are fond of quoting my Coffee Room posts in your blog.
Wolf, Any other tags work here?
Wolf, any idea why the “i” tag doesn’t work? What tags do work here?
squeak: At least this time the line isnt too bad!
Which reminds me of the (true) story:
Two guys were retiring from their Company. One was semi-frum and the other Asian. The Company planned a retirement party for them. The party was not going to be Kosher (food). The semi-frum guy invited his buddies, including a certain frum Yid. He told him that he was sorry but could’nt come since it wasn’t Kosher. The retiree said, nu come and don’t eat.
Well the party came and went. The frum guy of course was a no-show. After the party the 2 retirees bumped into the frum guy. So the semi-frum guy asked him why didn’t you come? So the frum guy said ”Morris said I can’t come.” Morris? Morris, who? asked the Asian. ”Morris Eyin” said the Yid.
The semi-frum guy, red in the face, shlepped the Asian away (who still had no idea who this Morris Eyin was), without another word.
Emesdika maaisa!
Unless, of course, you are one of the afficianado’s that stocked up on Kahlua while it was still made Kosher…
Avrohom Avinu kept Shabbos even before he was megayer. How could he, if he wasn’t yet a Yid (chayiv misa)? He wore tzitzis too. And since he had no chiyuv to wear them, he was “carrying” on Shabbos, hence “violating” it.
18 – Freshman (teenager)
19 – Sophomore (teenager)
20 – Junior
21 – Senior
Gitty –
Just a thought. Why don’t you print out all the 130 + posts on this thread. Then when you have some spare time, when your not on the computer and perhaps a bit harried, read the posts people wrote to you, at your leasure – with no need to even respond.
Afterall, all the posts on this thread — is about Gitty.
Add me to the petition. I completely agree.
Of course not. Thats exactly what the mean by verifying the votes.
illini:
That “line” Harei ein tovel vesheretz beyado, comes from the Gemora (Zevachim 22b ?) and is repeated in the meforshim as an analogy (i.e. Rambam Hilchot Teshuva, Rashba on Avodah Zara 75b).
ICOT,
If we agree O.P. is a reshus harabim mdoraisa, what constitutes a “break”? Why is Queens (or even Nassau) not affected by O.P.? Brooklyn and Queens are both part of the same city. Why should the Brooklyn-Queens “border”, be considered any differently than say the difference between Flatbush and Crown Heights (insofar that O.P. would prevent an eiruv)?
These really are somewhat academic, as I think (for whatever technical reasons) Reb Moshe (and the Satmar Rebbe I believe) paskened an Eiruv wasn’t possible in Flatbush, Boro Park or Manhattan.
notpashut:
VERY GOOD! Another Yid fun gegent?
ICOT:
Neither am I familiar with all the intricacies. Yet, didn’t Reb Moshe pasken that Ocean Parkway IS a Reshus Harabim M’doraisa?
And if it is, how far from Ocean Parkway can there be no eiruv?
noitllmr, efsher we can petition yweditor to add more threads to the main page…
ICOT, the issue being Ocean Parkway’s status as a rshus harabbim?
ICOT: Sorry, can’t resist (feel free to disregard this post); do you frequent a large shtiebel on 17?
ICOT: Are you a mispallel by Rav Feivel?
zevi, Does the Gemora allow using the computer on Shabbos Kodesh? Or is it wrong on that to…?
As have I.
And you are blatantly incorrect, as I have amply demonstrated. Nor will I continue going in circles with you on this.
smalltowngirl, why do your kids require Facebook?
rabbiofberlin,
The Bach (Yoreh De’ah 182) says if it is needed i.e. it is raining and the only raincoat available is of the opposite gender, it is permissible to wear the opposite genders clothing IF one is not FULLY dressed like the opposite gender. Perhaps this is what you refer to. The Rambam disagrees with this Bach. In any event, it is only applicable in those conditions I mentioned, not a blanket heter.
And like I pointed out on the previous page of this thread with the NUMEROUS listed mekoros, that the consensus is very clear against.
In this case clearly the consensus is against pants, be it on beged ish or tznius, it is assured on one or the other, or both.
Btw rabbifofberlin, you said that “In the privacy of her own home, a woman does not even have to cover her hair”. See Mishnah Berurah 75:14 and Beiur Halachah where it says it must even be covered inside the home.
jf02,
To quote the article:
“Under a Supreme Court precedent, a company can close a particular operation without negotiating a closing with a union. But it must negotiate over the effects of such a decision on workers.”
The judge merely ordered them to negotiate the effects of the closing. He ruled Wal-Mart had the right to close the department.
My point is that you parrot the union funded propoganda machines, as those websites you so dutifully linked to.
I say all the power to Wal-Mart, and I hope they continue their massive success in the future.
(P.S. keep your (sic)’s to yourself. A fast-paced forum is not a spelling bee.)
rabbiofberlin, I think it is very safe to venture and say that the pants wearing crowd does not consistently follow the Bach’s positions in all regards.
Do you disagree with that?
(meaning accepting the Bach’s psak in all areas of halacha.)
I didn’t have access to it at this time. My point is that the poskim I quoted that don’t prohibit based on beged ish, DO prohibit it for another reason — tznius. What is the Bach’s position on it regarding tznius?
Additionally, if someone based their wearing it on the Bach (assuming there is such a basis), that individual would be obligating themselves to accept essentially ALL of the Bach’s position — not pick-a-posek-where-it-suits-me attitude.
jf02,
I recall that well. They outsourced their meat packing to outside vendors. Purely economical. Sure the union went berserk. Where is a NLRB decision ordering them to reverse? I’ve seen no such action. (Though wouldn’t be shocked, as the nlrb is staffed by pro-union hacks.)
If its within their legal rights to close a store, before or after unionization, I say go for it. The unions are run by thugs, and any sane business tries to keep them away.
The biggest employer in America… I’m surprised there aren’t MORE lawsuits. Any yodle can sue for whatever they want.
Any more talking-points from those union websites? Why not just post the link, instead of cut-and-paste.
Yes, I am aware of that. G-d bless Sam Walton’s soul. May he rest in peace.
The Minchas Yitzchak 2:108, Shevet HaLevi YD:63, Tzitz Eliezer 11:2, Sha’arei Shalom on Kitzur Shulchan Arukh, Mevaser Shalom (notes 3:2) say that pants are Beged Ishm – “A man’s clothing shall not be worn by a woman” (Devorim 22:5). Lo Yilbash.
Even those that don’t refer to Beged Ish, prohibit it due to tznius. (i.e. Yabia Omer 6
Siman 14, Mekor Chaim, Rav Ovadia Yosef, Yaskil Avdi)
Halichos Bas Yisrael quotes R’ Scheinberg and R’ Elyashiv as well as prohibiting it. iIt is clear that all thse poskim hold that wearing pants is prohibited.
(Pesachim 3a states that it is not proper for women to straddle a horse or donkey because of immodesty.)
When a man is called up to the Torah, he is supposed to touch the Torah only with his Talis, not with his bare hand.
jf02,
You prove my point. Both of those are union funded websites. And I dispute your “verification.” Where is there “proof” they fired someone who wanted to unionize? That is against the law, and you should be able to point me to uscourts.gov where they lost a lawsuit on that point.
Wal-Mart is highly successful for themselves, there customers (lowest prices generally speaking), AND their employees (who voluntarily work for them, often where they were unemployed until Wal-Mart moved in), PRECISELY because they have kept the union thugs at bay.
G-d bless Sam Walton.