Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
gavra, I believe it is derived from Shabbos 112a, the issur of “tying a knot and bow that is to remain for 24 hours.” See Rashi, Meiri, and Chidushei HaRan on this gemorah. There are other sources and poskim as well.
The passage gavra is quoting is P. 589 stating “Sleeves must amply cover the elbows. They should not be loose enough to roll up.” As 80 correctly assumed.
There is good reason many (including Litvish) beis yaakov’s use this sefer, per the instructions of gedolei yisroel shlita.
gavra, are you doubting the requirement that clothing not be tight, or simply questioning the source whilst acknowledging that fact? If the latter, why would you acknowledge clothing cannot be tight yet assume one part cannot be whilst another can be?
Boro Park has a special kedusha that keeps them out.
oomis, you conveniently disregarded the point that it is an issur m’doraisa for boys and girls to be “friends”, platonic or otherwise. Apparently Chazal (???? ???? ???), Shulchan Aruch, Maharal, the Ran, Rav Moshe, etc. are insufficient?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22288885/R-Moshe-Feinstein-on-Platonic-Relationships
earlier someone cited the chofetz chaim saying it is lo yilbash. is that a halachic prohibition?
That’s what it says in Chofetz Chaim perek 6.
He also writes about how important it is for a Jew have a beard in Nidchei Yisroel & Zachor Limiriam. In Sefer Hamitzvos Hakozer he’s machmir like the Chinuch and says a Jew who takes off his beard is also oiver Lo Sillbash and Chukas Ha’akum. In Machane Yisroel he says a Jew in a goyishe army that has no choice but to take off his beard, should let a goy shave him. He wrote an entire Sefer, Tiferes Ha’odom, on how important it is for a Jew to have a beard. He writes there that a Jew that takes off his beard is mavatel a tzivuy Hashem. He writes that no chillel Hashem is comparable to one who brazenly goes in public with a clean shaven face. He does not says oiver an issur d’oireisa, but rather such a person walks down the street and proclaims “The tzivu Hashem of Lo Sashchisu is not important to me.” In perek 2 he writes that shaving is worse than eating treif.
If there is any error in these citations, please so state.
Two of my children married their platonic friends, when they realized that they had developed feelings of attraction to the friends they really cared about.
Obviously then it wasn’t so “platonic” in the first place! And if it were, it sure serves as additional proof it doesn’t remain too “platonic” for long. Who knows how many sins occured — without your knowledge — prior to this so-called “platonic relationship” resulting in marriage. Sure, in this case it ended in marriage, but in so many more cases it sure doesn’t.
And that is why “platonic relationships” are assur m’doraisa. (See above posts for sources.)
Toras HaYichud 3:2:4 writes that men who know of the prohibition of arayos and tznius and yet who still watch television, read unsuitable material or watch movie, etc., are considered prutzim.
Rav Shmuel Neiman, in Nine to Five: A Guide to Modest Conduct for Today’s Workplace writes regarding male-female interaction in the workplace:
It is forbidden to make small talk about matters unrelated to business. Men and women working together should not discuss politics, current events, recent tragedies or gossip, even if they do not do so regularly. Discussing these matters on a daily basis, is a violation of halachos that border on giluy arayos, which requires one to sacrifice his life rather than transgress. (p. 9)
When conversing with female employees or co-workers, one must be careful not to us the word “we,” so that the man and woman are not referred to as one unit. For example, one should not say, “We must talk with the editor,” or “We must purchase that software program.” Rather, he should say, “The editor must be consulted,” or “Please purchase that program.” (pp. 10-11)
It is a custom amongst yirei shomayim not to call a woman other than one’s wife or immediate family member by her first name, thus keeping a respectful distance between the two parties. Referring to a woman by her first name brings inappropriate familiarity into the relationship. Similarly, a woman should refrain from addressing a man other than her husband or immediate family member by his first name. (p. 20)
It is appropriate for male and female employees [to] refrain from all conversation when they meet anywhere outside of the office. This includes not discussing even job-related matters when meeting in the hallway or elevator at work.
So the idea of a guy/girl friendship being completely free of hormonal input is bogus.
And I must reiterate that the prohibition here is NOT the words that are spoken. It is 100% permitted to speak to a women for a purpose such as business, asking directions, or having any essential discussion. It is the unessential, unnecessary, and especially friendship-oriented interaction that is prohibited.
Rav Moshe’s famous Teshuva (Igros Moshe EH 4:60) prohibiting m’doraisa girls and boys being friends is based on a statement of Chazal in Avos D’Reb Nosson, and a ruling of the Ran. Basically, it says that any friendly interaction between boys and girls is prohibited. Rav Moshe ZTL continues by saying that there is no such thing as a platonic friendship between boys and girls. He points out that objectively boys should logically choose other boys as friends, – they have more in common, they are more alike etc., and not girls – and the only reason someone would prefer a female friend is because she is a female. And that is Asur.
Now Rav Moshe ZT’L does NOT mean that every boy/girl friendship is for the purpose of lust. The dynamics of mixed gender friendships are so different than same gender friendships, and the reason is because of the subtle but oh-so-obvious sexual dynamic taking place between the parties.
Rav Moshe Feinstein writes clearly that mixed schooling is forbidden “min hadin”. Rav Ovadiah Yosef quotes him and agrees with him. In a tshuva (Igros Moshe, Yore Deah – Chelek 3, Siman 78) he states: ACCORDING TO ALL AUTHORITIES, CO-ED EDUCATION IS ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN. In fact, he says that the nature of this prohibition is so basic and simple, that there is absolutely nothing to talk about, and no room for discussion.
Even Rav Soloveitchik zt”l, who himself founded a co-ed school more than half a century ago, did so only because “he had no choice” – not because he held it was permissable. In fact, I heard that Rav Hershel Shachter (who probably more than anyone else knew what the Rav Soloveitchik held) mentions (in one of his writings) that Rav Soloveitchik told him that he was afraid that after 120 years, he would be questioned by the Heavenly court why he participated in the founding of a coed school.
Going to a mixed school is not merely a matter of a “chumra” in tznius. It involves numerous transgressions of Scriptural prohibitions, and is therefore vehemently opposed by all the contemporary poskim.
And it is self-evident that, especially in the teenage years when the hormones are raging, coming into daily, close contact with the opposite gender, as is inevitable in any co-ed school, involves regular transgression of this prohibition for both boys and girls.
Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer:
“A person must stay far, far away from the women, and it is prohibited to signal with your hand, to hint with your eyes, to any prohibited women. It is furthermore prohibited to laugh together with them and to be frivolous in her presence, or to watch her beauty. Even to smell her perfume is forbidden….”
Reb Moshe, in Igros Moshe EH 4:60, paskened that it is assur to talk to the opposite gender in a social context, and assur to be friends with them, and even seeming platonic relationships between boys and girls are assur min hatorah.
In the Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah number 188, it states there that it is assur for boys and girls to talk to each other.
The Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 22:8) and the Aruch Hashulchan (E.H. 22:6) present examples of a man and a woman who grew up together or are related – such as cousins. Libo Gas Bo also applies to a man and a woman who are very friendly with each other, such as those who work together in an office or if the man and woman dated. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (cited in Nishmas Avraham 3:94-95) and Dvar Halacha (7:17), state that Libo Gas Bo applies even if the man and woman have only had minimal interaction such as a woman who has visited a doctor a number of times or a man and woman who had some business dealings together.
It is an issur d’oraysah. Rav Moshe, in the Igros Moshe, states that Lo Sikrevu means you can’t talk to girls. Rav Moshe is quoting a statment of Chazal in Avos D’Reb Nosson and rulings of the Ran and others. Avos: “Al tarbeh sichah im haishah” – Do not talk more than necessary with women. The Mishnah continues: “Whoever does talk more than necessary with women causes bad for himself . . . and in the end will end up in Gehinnom!” Re derech chibah: The Halachah (Rambam) prohibits negiyah even in a non-affectionate manner. Casual negiyah is also prohibited — see the Steipler’s Letters quoting the Chazon Ish for details — even if it doesn’t “mean anything”. Even regarding a simple handshake between strangers, Rav Moshe writes that you should not rely on this as a heter.
Rav Moshe addressed the Derech Chibah issue in his Teshuva, saying that whenever boys and girls are friends, even innocently, that is considered Assur, like Derech Chibah. R. Moshe Feinstein repeatedly (Iggeros Moshe, Orach Chaim vol. 1 no. 113; Even Ha-Ezer vol. 1 no. 56) ruled that a man enjoys shaking a woman’s hand and it is therefore
prohibited. The Steipler writes in his letters in the name of the Chazon Ish that it is absolutely prohibited. Regarding a so-called heter that you will embarass her if you don’t shake hands, it’s simple logic: If someone asked you to call them on Shabbos and you telligng them sorry I cant do that would embarrass them for asking, would you be mechalel shabbos to prevent their embarrassment? Or if someone offered you non-kosher food and refusing would embarrass them would you eat treif?
The Gemora (Shabbos 152a) quotes a posuk: “Ki hu amar vayehi” – Hashem decreed, and so it was! “Rav Kahane said, this is a woman. She is just full of dirt and blood, yet everyone runs after her”. Meaning, there’s no logic behind it, Hashem said it should be that way, and it is. It’s a Gezeiras Hakasuv. This is probably why, when Chazal say the angels came down to this world demanding a chance to keep the Torah, the aveirah that defeated them was Arayos. Because even though the angels were physical then, they still retained their angelic intellects which told them philosophically that money honor and power are not worth pursuing in this world. And through their great understanding of the futility of these Tavvos they rejected them. But women don’t work that way. No matter how wise you are the Taavah is still there, so the Malachim were unable to undo their Taavah for Arayos. The only way – the one and only way – to resist women is self discipline. Period. You can’t use your THINKING to fight the Taavah here, you can only use your ACTIONS. You have to resist, discipline, and STAY AWAY. This is why restraint from Arayos is called Kedusha (holiness) as opposed to refraining from any other sin. Refraining from other sins could be holiness, but it could also be simple wisdom. It could be you’re a Sameach b’chlko. Even a non-religious guy would be happier if he was a Sameach B’chelko, so not running after money does not necessarily have to do with religion or holiness. As opposed to Arayos, where “EVERY PLACE you find restraint from Arayos, there you find holiness” (Rashi Kedoshim). Because there is only one possible reason for not doing Arayos — self-discipline, and that’s what we mean here by holiness. This is also why we find more Gedorim and Siyagim against Arayos than any other sin. This is why, even though Sefardim always rule like the Bais Yosef even when the majority of poskim are against him, when it comes to issues of Arayos, writes the Chikrei Lev (II:180b), they are permitted to be strict, even against the Bais Yosef, with support of a majority of poskim.
??? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ????
-???? ??????? ?? ??,?
Gemorah in Eruvin:
R’ Yose HaGilili once met Beruria on the road and asked her “By which road should we travel to Lod?” Beruria replied “Fool, didn’t the Rabbonim say (in Avos) “don’t talk excessively with women?” You should have asked “Which (road) to Lod?”
Playing with Fire; Tradition (Torah.org)
“Rabbi Akiva said, jesting and lightheadedness accustom a person to immorality. The oral transmission is a protective fence for the Torah. Tithes are a protective fence for wealth. Vows are a protective fence for abstinence. A protective fence for wisdom is silence.”
This mishna was authored by Rabbi Akiva, one of the greatest sages of the Mishna. The Talmud tells us that he was an unlearned shepherd until the age of forty, at which time — on the prompting of his wife — he went off to study Torah. He began his career studying the aleph-bet with the youngest schoolchildren. Twenty four years later he returned home, leader of the generation, followed by thousands of students. He attributed all his Torah study to his wife’s devotion (Talmud Kesuvos 62b). He met his death brutally at the hands of the Romans for teaching Torah publicly (Talmud Brachos 61b).
This mishna recommends a number of protective fences which safeguard or foster proper Torah observance. The first warns us to refrain from loose, unbridled behavior when in mixed company. The Talmud states — in the context of adultery but in reference to all sins — “A person does not sin unless a spirit of ‘madness’ enters him” (Sotah 3a). Anyone who thinks rationally — who considers long term consequences rather than immediate gratification — realizes that wickedness does not pay. One of the most basic tenets of Judaism is that we will be brought to task for all our actions (Fundamental 11 of Maimonides’ 13), if not in this world then in the next. And Divine retribution will most certainly be more severe than the few moments of pleasure evil has to offer. Only if we do not allow ourselves to think consequences — thanks to the “madness” of lightheadedness — will we allow ourselves to live in blissful (if temporary) ignorance of this truism.
If there is any one area in which Judaism goes to an absolute extreme, it is the separation of the sexes. Traditionally, boys and girls from very young ages were sent to separate schools. In the synagogue men and women would pray on separate sides of a partition (‘mechitza’). Mixed social gatherings and dating were almost non-existent. And, (as we know from “Fiddler on the Roof”), even marriages were prearranged by the parents, possibly through the meddling of a matchmaker. The prospective couple met briefly if at all before the “shidduch” was finalized. (Some of us might consider those the good old days. If it were only so easy — and inexpensive… 😉
Much of this practice has its basis in Jewish law. One illustrative example: A man and woman are forbidden to be alone together — in a private setting where others are unlikely to intrude. This is certainly not an unfounded concern. But it goes further. This law is extended by the Rabbis to the earliest age a girl might be considered at risk with the opposite sex — according to some opinions three years of age. Well now, there are certainly sick-o’s out there; there’s no doubt about that. But is it really necessary for the Rabbis to make such a blanket decree? Do the Rabbis really think that the average man cannot be trusted babysitting a three year old child?! Who do the Rabbis take us for?
Our Sages, however, as usual, understood human nature far better than we. This is one area in which Judaism tells us to run the other way as fast as we possibly can. Do not just trust yourself; you are playing with fire. There are no “safe” and “harmless” ways of engaging the opposite sex, just as there are no non-volatile ways of playing with dynamite. We cannot open Pandora’s Box, assuming we can contain it afterwards. Be careful what we expose our children (and ourselves) to. Don’t allow home entertainment to be a means of glorifying and inculcating us with sexual fantasies. And don’t place young men in an environment in which they will waste all their energy and effort trying to impress members of the opposite sex. At least let our synagogues be a place of uninterrupted focus on prayer. And neither should we make young ladies feel that they are objects, that they are less “important” if they are not as attractive to men. Let young men and women concentrate on developing the talents of youth. They can consider marriage when they are emotionally and psychologically ready — not when they are physically interested. The Torah says it straight. Its outlook has never been popular; there are many who would like to dismiss it as old-fashioned and anachronistic. But the Torah speaks truth, without shame or timidity — and with no regard for public opinion. It is we who are not always willing to hear.
It is not not allowed to greet someone from the other gender even through a Sh’liach & even through her husband. Lo Sasuru Acharei Ainaichem prohibits seeing anything that can generate lewd thoughts. We find more Gedorim and Siyagim (fences and safeguards) against Arayos than any other sin.
1) Even Hoezer Siman 21 S’if 7 Ein Shoialin Bishloim Isho K’lal Afilu Al Y’dei Sh’liach “V’afilu Al Y’dei Baloh” V’osur Lishloiach Lo Divrei Sh’loimim, even sending her the greeting is forbidden! 2) G’moroh Yuma 74: Omar Raish Lokish etc. & Rambam Hilchois T’shuvoh 4 Uk’var Kosvu Horishoinim, where you can see how the Yetzer has people do things that are not explicitly Osur Kdai Sheloi Y’hei Liboi Noikfoi V’yachazir Bit’shuvoh. 3) Maseches Kalloh 1 Omar R’ Elozor Kol Hshoiseh, even unintetionally. 4) G’moro Nidoh 13. Kol Hameivi….Ein Machnisin Oisoi Lim’chitzosoi Shel HKB”H & the Rambam explains V’im Poga B’machashovoh Chetoi Godoil B’harbeh 5) Chinuch 188 even if he knows he will not faulter. 6)Y’rushalmi B’rochois P’1 H’8 Omar HKB”H Im At Uhiv Liboch V’einoch Ano Yodaano D’at Dili, what A Z’chus & S’char 7) Midrash Shir Hashirim 3, 13 T’nino B’shem R’ Doiso, ….Omar Hakodoish Boruch Hu Mi Shehu Oimeid B’yetzer Shel Haznus Maaloh Ani Olov K’ilu Oimeid Bishteihem (including S’char for A”Z which is not around anymore & there is no other way to get S’char for it) 8) G’moro Makois 23: R’ Shimoin Bar Rebi….Gezel V’aroyois….Hapoiresh Meihem…..Sheyizkeh Loi U’l’doiroisov…..Ad Soif Kol Hadoirois. I can go on & on, on the Isurim,on the Oineshim, & on the S’char.
???”? (????? ????? ????? ?:?):?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??, ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?????, ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ??????.
“Even to speak with her when she is behind a fence is not something we tell him to do. He should die rather than speak to her from behind a fence.”
This Rambam is talking about even an unmarried woman whom he lusts.
+1 for mw13.
If there is any comparison to the Nazi’s to be made, it is to the Zionist collaboration with Adolf Eichmann ym”s v’zichrom in the liquidation of Hungarian Jewry.
What’s the kasha? Who doesn’t love Kasha Varnishka?
ME2: What that Rosh is saying, in so many words, is that since a woman is not supposed to make too much traveling due to “Kol Kevudah”, he should move to her city so she could be near childhood friends without necessitating too much travel (which she can’t do). He on the other hand, has no restrictions on too much travel, so he can travel to visit his childhood friends even if he no longer lives in that city.
1) Women should stay inside:
(a) 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…”
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.”
(c) 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.
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…”
A parent has an obligation to not allow a pritzasdik girl influence their child. If they must point out to their child that person is dressed inappropriately and is an aveira, that is their obligation.
WIY — you are absolutely correct.
Some previous discussions:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/hat-and-jacket-at-chuck-e-cheese
WADR oomis, you are arguing with the Sefer HaChinuch, not with me.
How can one NOT “judge”? Are you going to allow your children to befriend someone who watches TV? Someone who eats treif? Someone who is “friends” with opposite gender people? Someone who dresses pritzusdik? Someone who is a mechutzif? Someone who repeatedly creates chillul Hashem?
Are you going to say in all those cases, sorry I can’t judge them; Yankele my son, go be best friends with them! If so, you are a fool who risks spiritually killing your child.
“So instead of being busy with that mitzvah”
WIY:
Since when does one have a right to discourage ANY mitzvah with a dismissive comment of “So instead of being busy with that mitzvah”??
And mind citing specifically which Gemorah you are alleging paskens that tochacha is inapplicable?
The requirements to give Tochachah are:
1) You have to first assess that there is at least a reasonable possibility of the person listening to you. (Sometimes there are Halachic ways of assessing this.)
2) You have to give the Tochachah in a non-aggressive manner, and never in front of people.
3)You have to make the person understand that the only reason you are giving him the Tochachah is because you care about him, and it is for his good, so that he can get Olam Habah.
It also says in Sefer HaChinuch perek 239 that you should give someone tochacha privately and in a nice way; but if they don’t listen to you, then you should embarrass them in public so that they will do teshuvah.
To add to popa’s point about the necessity of 2 kosher eidim, the witnesses would need to make their testimony in front of a kosher Beis Din of dayanim who would have to question them and decide the case based upon Jewish law.
So Charlie’s question would not come to this conclusion, as his question presumed accusations made by secular authorities.
Of course. No less than before he was indicted. Just because some sheigetz prosecutor, seeking to advance his career, makes some unfounded politically-motivated anti-semitic allegations against a Yid, is no reason to treat him any differently than any other tzaddik.
And you’re asking about mere accusations, so all the more so. Even if he were convicted (which wasn’t your question), it would be meaningless, as a secular court conviction, based on their corrupt secular court standards of evidence and utilizing corrupt secular law — which are against halacha — have no standing.
Is Gravity Real? Scientist Takes On Newton
charliehall, that’s a unique opinion you have, though you are entitled to it. I though would certainly put Rashi ahead. Do you follow Rambam’s admonitions to working men to work 3 hours a day and learn 8? Or do only select and choose the Rambam’s you like?
“One’s appearance must appear refined and respectable.”
See Mesilas Yesharim 23 in the opening paragraph (“Path of the Just” page 163, Feldheim) where the Ramchal explains that tznius clothing are those which are respectable (??????????) but not “overly fancy”. Although Mesilas Yesharim is a “mussar” text which guides people to do more than the minimal requirement of halachah. Nevertheless here the Ramchal is defining tznius clothing, which should be worn to develop humility, rather than giving a “higher level” of tznius.
Bright colored clothing or clothing that otherwise attracts attention are not permitted.
See Rama Y.D. 178:1, Kitzur Shulchon Oruch 3:2, note the Shach 178:3 who explains that black is a modest color.
A married woman must cover her hair.
See Chayei Adam 4:5 which cites Bamidbar 5:18.
An unmarried woman’s hair should be short or tied back, such as in a braid.
This reflects the notion that one should look respectable but not over made up. Torah sources indicated braided hair (see Shabbos 95a) and hair pulled back (see Misdrash Shir Hashirim 4:3) is attractive, but not ostentatious like those described in Yeshayahu 3:16 (see Rashi there).
Makeup and perfume is intended to beautify a wife for her husband, beyond this it should be used scarcely if at all.
See Tanchuma Vayishlach Piskah 5
anon: I mentioned there are other career choices that would more easily accommodate a partial workweek.
BTW, of the dozens of surgeons that you’ve “met”, how many of them do you know their working hours?
P.S. it was charliehall who first noted the apikorsus and licentiousness in Universities. (Last comment of the first page.)
anon: I would imagine there are semi-retired surgeons who may work on a schedule of something like half a work-week i.e. 20 hours/week (even if a non-retired surgeon’s work week is actually more than 40 hours/week.) I could see someone else obtaining a reduced workweek.
In any event, I’m sure there are positions other than surgeons that could accommodate a half workweek (i.e. 18-20 hours) for a semi-retired folk or someone else having such a need. (Don’t some working moms work reduced hours?)
SJS: “But your chances of getting…”
“Chances” falls into G-d’s realm.
oomis, yes you are mistaken. I’ve already lost count how many times on this thread it was mentioned already that the madreiga of Kimchis is not obligatory. Yes, it is recommended. No, some people may not be on that level, and they are still 100% kushere yidden in every sense. Yes, the Gemorah cites Kimchis as a lesson to emulate, if possible, as much as attainable for each individual in their capacity.
SJS: Read the employment sites. There are many decent and even high paying positions available without a degree.
I agree with you about trade schools. I believe Agudah has one as well (COPE).
anon: 3 hours a day is 18 hours a week (6 days/week).
Thank you gavra, great answer.
SJS: And they discussed this with you and told you otherwise? Or you’re using conjecture?
“in order to get most decent jobs (aside from cashier at Target), you need a degree”
Strongly disagree. Read the many (secular) articles describing many good paying jobs available without college.
“Or you need a trade – so then trade school.”
Great idea.
“To Kasha: what profession can one make an adequate living in these days for just three hours a day?”
So if you don’t want to go with the Rambam that you should work 3 hours a day and learn 8 (and that’s what the Rambam considers a “working person”) but not learn a full day on the public dole, you can go with the Rema and Shach in Hilchos Talmud Torah that says you are allowed to live off tzedaka in order to learn. But in any event, as I demonstrated earlier Yisoschor-Zevulin is not a tzedaka relationship, its a business partnership where Yisoschor is a “working man” by working in learning for his partnership with Zevulin. I’m not aware of any reason why it must be a one to one match, but it could be a one to one match I suppose.
blinky: You are mistaken. A Jewish store owner cannot sell pritzus to another Jew. See what the Steipler had to say about that. And the shop owner DOES share the aveira — including all the thousands of additional aveiros by people who see her wearing pritzus.
And the husbands ARE responsible for the wives and daughters. Unless she is a moredes and refused to listen to him telling her not to wear pritzus (in which case he must divorce her without her getting the kesuba), he fully shares the many aveiros with her for allowing her out that way.
SJS: Says who? You have any verifiable source for that? We just had full discussions that a child can marry someone without the parents approval.
One thing I am, admittedly intuitively, confident of. There is a lot lot lot more unproductive freeloading loafers who sit behind a desk in an office offloading their responsibilities to colleagues (and anyone who worked in a large organization/company as I have sees them all the time — and amazingly getting away with it), then their are people in Kollel not trying to learn their best. I am, again intuitively AND from observation, confident there are very very few of the latter especially compared to the former.
So lets direct the bulk of our criticism to the freeloaders in the office, rather than the constant criticism of our holiest Torah learners, while you hear extremely little criticism – comparatively – in our circles of the former.
Similarly, there is much flexibility when it comes to Kollel. Some Kollels have longer hours, some have shorter hours. Some even might not have hours, but you have to learn a certain number of hours. Sometimes a person learns at home, or the Rosh Kollel monitors how he uses his time. I’m sure there are many other situations as well. A person must choose a Kollel in which it’s realistic that he will not violate geneivah.
Work is usually a lot more straightforward. It’s 8 hours a day – sometimes required to be 9 to 5, and a person must work that entire time, with maybe a half hour break at a specific time – otherwise that’s what weekends are for (obviously once in a while for something extraordinary is not (in my opinion) geneivah, though it should be discussed with the people giving him the paycheck). Additionally, work is based on results so no matter how much or how little one works, if one is being paid, he must work the entire time until he meets his work goals specified by his employer on a regular basis. If a person cannot do that, just like any other job, if one cannot fulfill his duties, should not choose that profession.
“So the parent “forcing” their son to go to college is a decision a parent makes because they feel it is the best thing for their child”
I then suppose you would equally posit that the parent “forcing” their son to go to Beis Medrash is a decision a parent makes because they feel it is the best thing for their child.
“So then is tzedaka supporting his learning?”
We’ve had a long discussion on this earlier on the thread (see my previous comments), but it is worth noting that even IF it is the Rema and Shach says you are allowed to live off tzedaka in order to learn.
“this little nugget gets trotted out every now and again when it’s completely irrelevant to today’s professional world.”
“this little nugget” is an actual Rambam, and hardly “completely irrelevant”.
Any other “little nuggets” you can think of that are “completely irrelevant”? My friend prints Seforim. Perhaps I can suggest all those “little nuggets” in Rambam that are “completely irrelevant to today’s professional world” be expunged from future prints.
We could start with those who routinely dress that their knees aren’t covered in all positions.
“learning is only shayach for people who can do the following: 1) learn every minute of every seder that they are supposed to (any minute in seder not learning is geneivah)”
simcha613: You can equally posit, for you to remain consistent in your position (to reverse your comment), that…
Working is only shayach for people who can work every minute of all working hours that they are supposed to (any minute during working hours not working is geneivah.)
The apikorsus and licentiousness on campuses today in 2010 is far greater than in 1930 to the point they aren’t even comparable. (Including the apikorsus at YU, such as the toeiva’niks gatherings, the bales of Apikorsus to be found in their library, ideas espoused even in the Limudei Kodesh courses that are against the Torah, never mind secular courses where clear anti-Torah ideas and ideals are taught by teachers who have all but carte blanche to say whatever they want, etc.) Rav Aharon Kotler ZT’L said many times that he will not enter YU because it is bad. His son, Rav Schneur ZT’L, followed suit.
Another point why attending modern universities ought give one deep pause if they value their Yiddishkeit and frumkeit and wish to keep it.
The Rama 246:4 rules explicitly that it is absolutely prohibited according to Halachah to engage in a curriculum of secular studies. To read secular studies now and then, is permitted, he says. The Birkas Shmuel (Kiddushin #27 p.42) and Kovetz Shiurim II:47 rules in accordance with this Rema.
Rav Elchonon Wasserman said that the confusion in Germany happened when people thought, mistakenly, that by Jews possessing secular knowledge the Goyim will hate them less. This caused a “negiyos” – a vested interest – that caused the German Jews to desire that their rabbis have a secular education as well.
Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT’L also denounced college in a Teshuva, and in a famous speech delivered to his students, published under the title “The Counsel of the Wicked” (Vaad LeHaromas Keren HaTorah, New York, 1978). There he reiterates that everyone has an obligation to become great in Torah, we should not care so much about Cadillac’s (yes, this was said in the “olden days”), and that learning Torah is what we should be pursuing, not secular stuff. He says in America you do not need college to make a Parnassa, and we should be willing to live on little, not a lot, for the sake of Torah, and that R. Nehuray’s statement of abandoning all skills in favor of Torah applies all that more today that we live in a country where you can make a parnassa without college, with no miracles needed.
The Chasam Sofer in Parsha Beshalach states clearly that certain secular knowledge is useful for learning certain Torah topics, such as cow anatomy being useful for shechitah, and arithmetic for Eruvin and Sukkah. But that before we embark on obtaining secular knowledge – and of course that means only to the extent that it is useful for our Torah studies – we must first fill ourselves with Torah-only knowledge. After we are strong in Torah, only then can we move to acquire the useful secular knowledge that we need for our Torah studies.
He quotes the Rambam, who he describes as “the father of philosophy” in our religion, in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, stating that a person may not learn philosophy until after he has “filled his stomach” with Shas and Poskim, which are the things, and only the things, that bring us Olam Habah. Then he quotes the Rashba, saying that there is a cherem against learning any secular studies if you are under age 25!
Sitting and learning all day is the ideal. “Talmud Torah kneged kulam.” Chazal say, one word of Torah is higher than an entire lifetime of doing these Mitzvos. Chazal often mention that Toroso Umnoso is the ideal, that we do nothing all day but learn. Nowadays poskim say that w cannot reach that level, but clearly the closer the better. Also, Shulchan Aruch Hilchos Toalmud Torah, in the Shach ad loc, says that nowadays learning all day is the ideal, and that if someone has the ability to do it, he should. The Shach adds that regarding learning all day in general, nowadays we cannot reach our potential in learning the way the Rambam etc. did, since we are not on that level. Therefore, we should learn all day if we can.
The Rambam writes that a “working person” is someone who learns 8 hours a day and works 3. Not works 9am to 5pm.
The Rambam praises those who learn all day and don’t have jobs, as the elite “Shevet Levi” of our days. Clearly, even if working is endorsed, it is inferior to those who learn.
The Rama then says it is a Midas Chasidus – praiseworthy – for someone who can become a Gadol B’Torah and make an independent living, but continues that not everyone is capable of this. It is clear that he is saying that if you have a choice between becoming a Godol B’Torah or making a living, becoming a Godol B’Torah comes first.
The Shach on the spot points out that the Halacha always follows the Minhag and the Minhag is like those opinions that one may depend on the community to support him in order to learn. He says that this is because of the Halachah of Ais La’Asos, meaning, even if it is theoretically prohibited to rely on the community, but because nowadays we cannot do both, become great in Torah and make independent livings, the right thing to do is to learn Torah and be supported.
He continues by saying that if someone spreads Torah and spends all his time learning and teaching, even if he has a skill with which to make a living, it would be wrong of him not to allow the community to support him, since this way he would be able to spend his time learning and teaching, rather than working.
See, its very nice to make an independent living, but it is more important to become a Godol B’Torah. If you cant have both, then Torah is the right choice. Whatever advantages there is in making money, they do not come close to those of becoming a great Torah scholar.
charliehall,
Obviously you did not read through this thread, as I’ve previously addressed your points. But since you are probably a nice guy, I’ll reiterate it for you.
1. The Rema and Shach in Hilchos Talmud Torah says you are allowed to live off tzedaka in order to learn.
2. In any event, a Yisoschor-Zevulin relationship is NOT tzedakah anyways — its an equal business partnership between the Yisoschor (i.e. Kollel learners) and Zevulin.
Kollel support is support in return for learning. Tzedakah is support in return for nothing. As long as I am earning your support – regardless of whether it is through defending you in court or learning Choshen Mishpat – I am employed.
None of this “living off tzedakah” material has anything to do with kollel people. This is a common error. Tzedakah means that I give you money for no other reason that you need it – I do not demand anything in return for my donation. If I do demand something in return for my donation, it is not a donation but payment for services rendered. So if I pay you to entertain me, to be my personal trainer, to sing and dance for me, to be my baby sitter, I am not a baby sitter living off charity, but rather a paid worker. And so the statements about people living off tzedakah refer to people who are given money because they are poor, with no expectation from the donor that they learn, or work, or sleep, or do whatever they want. However, if someone gives money to you because he wants to merit the zechus of supporting Torah, and expects you to learn Torah because that is what he is supporting you to do, then that is not tzedakah at all but rather a simple business deal, the same as if I pay you to play baseball.
If I give you tzedakah money because you are poor, and you sit home all day watching television, then you may be an unproductive member of society but you are not a thief – I gave you tezdakah for food, and you are spending it on food. It was my choice to do that. But if I give you money to learn in Kollel and you stay home all day watching TV then you are a thief, because you took money specifically to learn and you did not keep your end of the bargain.
Thus, taking money for learning in Kollel is NOT living of tzedakah. Since I, the recipient, must provide something in return for payment received, that is a simple business deal. If I do NOT have to provide anything in return for payment received, that is Tzedakah. Since Kollel people must learn Torah in return for the payments they receive, they are NOT living at all off Tzedakah. Not any more than any person who renders services for payment received.
Regarding maaser – The maaser goes to the Yeshiva. The Yeshiva pays the Kollel. The Maaser is only going to them in return for and under the condition that they learn. This is not living off Tzedakah. This is a receipt of money in exchange for doing something, which is not the same as living off Tzadakah. This is providing a service that is considered valuable to those who provide the payment. it is no different than a singer getting money to sing or a baseball player getting money to play. The fact that you are allowed to use your maaser to support these fellows is no different than the fact that you are allowed to use your maaser to support Tzedakah organizations that pay fundraisers, administrators and other workers. Maaser is not the same as Tzedakah. Nobody would consider the head of Hatzolah as someone who “lives off tzedakah” even though he is paid through donations given to the organization. The same thing applies to someone who learns, and because he learns, is supported by whatever source, including maaser.
You don’t have to be a Talmid Chochom to sit and learn all day in Kollel. The Rambam says all you need is a DESIRE to learn. That’s all it takes, and that’s all it should take.
“I see that some people are bringing the hashkafa of yeshivahs like YU that follow R’ Shimshon Refael Hirsch’s teachings of Torah im derech eretz.”
Derech HaMelech –