Torah613Torah won for me. I was totally rotfling. 😀

I’m not sure why you thing Matzos are a davar sheb’minyan. They are sold by weight, so pashtus I don’t see why they won’t be batel b’rov. Bitul doesn’t have to make anything lishmah. Rov tells me that right now I am eating the one that was made lishmah. The only real shaylah would be if your k’zayis consisted of a small piece from every single box. I also don’t see any reason to think that the fact that this person claims to know should block bitul. At the end of the day, we have a safek, therefore at the end of the day, rov comes into effect.

Thanks folks 🙂

According to many, a Davar Gush does not lose it’s heat, and therefore it is not called Eirui Kli Rishon, but Kli Rishon itself.

Granted, IIRC the Mishna Brura brings this svara to require a hot stone to kasher a sink. However, it seems very shver to me.

There is a mefurashe Gemara (Pesachim 75a) that when a hot piece of meat falls onto something it only assers b’kdei klipah because tata’ah gavar. A piece of meat is a davar gush.

No one argues on this Gemara, not Rabbeinu Tam who holds irui kli rishon has the actual din of a kli rishon, and not the Maharshal who holds a davar gush doesn’t lose it’s kli rishon status. They don’t argue with Gemaras.

See YD 105:2 and the nosei keilim. It appears clear that the fact that something retains kli rishon status doesn’t make it capable of assering things below it; that is the halacha of tata’ah gavar. Rather according to these opinions they still maintain their heat in that if something is placed, for example, on top of the davar gush, we will say the thing becomes assur as if the davar gush is still in a kli rishon.

Therefore it seems pashut to me that even if you want to be choshesh for the Maharshal, you don’t have to be choshesh for anything more than klipah anyway. And klipah you can get away – l’shitas Maharshal himself – with irui kli rishon. And we certainly are meikil like this with this klipah of tata’ah gavar which is only a chumra k’mvuar b’poskim.

So I don’t understand the big fuss. It seems to be chumra on top of chumra in the ???? ???? ???? sense.

Ashkenazim also accept this, just not for yavesh b’yavesh. Most normal cases of ta’aruvos are not yavesh b’yavesh. It’s pretty simple to be lenient l’kulei alma in the cases you mentioned since even if there were a concern for yavesh b’yavesh, it is certainly not a vadai that any chametz was mixed in, and since chametz b’mashehu is d’rabbanan, we are at most dealing with a safek d’rabbanan. I don’t know why an educated talmid chacham would berate you for being lenient with this.

DaasYochid – I don’t want to get sidetracked here, but suffice it to say the whole pisuk raglayim thing is not that pashut, and not universally agreed upon.

The thing with the numbers was addressed to DaasYochid.

3) Shver. Give me a good explanation.

4) I know they did. That does not change the fact that I think they only said it about a time and place that hair causes hirhur. And the Aruch Hashulchan agrees with me on this.

It’s also completely illogical to say that the full hair covering, which is das Yehudis and explicitly tznius based, is because of tznius, but the partial hair covering which is das Moshe, is not.

Aderaba, I think this is very logical. Since they became used to wearing hats and stuff the hair became a ???? ?????; hence ??? ???? ???? naturally evolved.

DaasYochid –

I don’t think so. I think the idea is that the general society is focused on exteriors and getting people to look (or “like,” in the Facebook generation), and das yehudis says not to fall into that trap.

DaasYochid –

Das yehudis is not a standard which we are told to make, it is a standard based on observation. The mishnah (in Kesubos) is saying that the Jewish women happen to have a minhag tznius which is stricter than the non-Jews, and therefore the agreement to live together as a Jewish couple is an implicit agreement to live according to that minhag tznius. What if there is no specific minhag tznius, are we supposed to make specific rules based on the old minhag tznius? There is no indication to support this. If there is a apecific minhag tznius in one locale, does that bind another local which does not have that minhag? There is no indication to support this.

I’m all for a minhag tznius, and by extension, a halacha of das yehudis. But let the community decide its minhag tznius for itself. As for halacha, I don’t think there is any real source that any particular body part is obligated to be covered regardless of the society one lives in.

If I were starting a community I would say to look around at the general populace. When you dress up, don’t dress the way they dress to kill. Be a bit more low profile than that. That is a minhag tznius which is a higher standard than the general society around us, but at the same time does not bind everyone from the beginning of time until the end of time to the same arbitrary, absolute standard. I don’t think Chazal really said anything more than this.

I am going to state as simply as I can what I think is the most reasonable understanding of tznius.

The pasuk says “What does the Hashem seek of you, but to act justly and to love mercy, and ???? ??? ?? ????? – to walk quietly/hiddenly with your God? (Micha 6:8)

This is not a pasuk directed at women. It is a pasuk directed at all people. This is also not a pasuk talking about clothing. It is a pasuk talking about all aspects of life.

The idea this pasuk is conveying is that what Hashem wants is for a person to have a rich inner life; not to be focused on exteriors. That one’s avodas Hashem should be a private experience. That one’s life shouldn’t be for show.

One of many things which represent a life focused on exteriors is for a woman to dress in public in a way that is provocative to most normal men. Doing so is therefore a lack of tznius.

Tznius, as it pertains to skirt and sleeve lengths, is nothing more than this. Therefore, to find out what fits the parameters of tznius, look around the society you live in and see what will get you to be ogled. If you won’t be ogled by your average guy on the street then it’s tzniusdig. If you will, it isn’t, because knowingly causing people to ogle by definition represents a lifestyle focused on exteriors and on other people’s opinions; the opposite of a rich inner life.

Most importantly, the bottom line is that there is NO absolute rule. It all depends on how society perceives things.

Looking at all the Gemaras I have seen I do not notice anything which contradicts this understanding. On the contrary, I think it is the most reasonable.

DaasYochid – I mean it’s an asmachta as in they looked at what caused hirhur in their day and gave a shmooze about those things by finding asmachtas to support them. In other words they were not trying to make these things into “absolute” ervah.

benignuman –

As the Rema (EH 25:2) paskens, the ikkar halacha is not in accordance with the Shulchan Aruch in OC you cited. R’ Yochanan in Nedarim (20b) dismisses that opinion. Also, interestingly, the issur mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch is about histaklus, not re’iyah.

Let’s be clear. You yourself cited Shabbos 64a-b as the source of the issur to gaze at the ???? ?????. If we just look at that Gemara, we see the formulation of the issur is a complaint about the people ???? ?????? ?? ??????. Rashi explains ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????. What we see is clearly not some gezeiras hakasuv saying there’s a sheim ervah to the etzem zach regarding which an issur will magically be chal when someone looks. It is about pleasure being illicitly derived. Being “satiated” by looking. The formulation of the issur is that a ????dike re’iyah is bad. This is why a doctor may look. This is why me’ikkar hadin there is nothing wrong with ??????? ????? ????? between man and wife.

If someone lives in a community where sleeveless is common, then it is mutar.

Interesting. I’m glad to see we’re on the same page here.

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.

This is takeh a good point. I disagree with your conclusion though. If you are right, why does Rashi limit it to an eishes ish? And furthermore, again, what in the world is the svara to make certain things “ervah be’etzem”??* Also, the other things – hair and singing – are clearly derived from the pesukim by noting their hirhur factor. Is the Gemara jumping back and forth? (BTW in case you are not aware, the Aruch Hashulchan famously paskened in his day in OC 75 that hair is not ervah. So he certainly didn’t learn like you.)

*I can think of only one reason why something would be ervah be’etzem. That is a different kind of ervah, the ervah of ???? and the like to which the Gemara applies the verse ??? ???? ?? ???? ???. Interestingly enough the pasuk in Yeshaya is talking about ervah in this context. But this would obviously only be a davening issue, it’s not something you can extend to hilchos tznius.

Legs are a separate matter.

Bottom line: You are saying a chiddush in the Gemara. I think it is a major dochek, and I think the pashtus is that ervah defined by one subjective standard: what generally causes hirhur. Ayy your kasha what R’ Yitzchak is coming to add? Mir shtarbt nisht fun a kasha. It’s not enough to say such a chiddush which there is no svara for (you haven’t provided any). We’ll have to think of a better answer.

DaasYochid – Do you have a direct quote, a link, or at least an precise mareh makom? My only seforim here are on Hebrewbooks.

Toi – I’m far from convinced that it’s the same people in the two groups when it comes to other halachos.

DaasYochid is the man

Sam – DaasYochid is trashed if you haven’t noticed. Lol 😀

shuli –

There are two issues here which you have to be able to clearly differentiate in your mind. There are the things which halacha actually says are a man’s role and not a woman’s, and then there is everything else.

Women and men are different. They play different roles in society. In halacha this plays out by the men having certain mitzvos that a woman does not. This does not mean that a woman is considered less of a human being than a man. If someone kills a woman they get the same penalty as someone who killed a man. If a woman is on trial she is entitled the same due process as a man. Women and men are equal as human beings, they just have different roles in society, and therefore different halachos.

Instead of merely voicing your complaints, you need to educate yourself, because you need to know how to distinguish between the things halacha actually says are the man’s role, and the stuff people just make up and force down your throat because they are able to. In doing so, you will find what is worth taking a stand for and what is not.

DaasYochid – Dunno what you are referring to exactly, but I just skimmed through the entire Hilchos Berachos of the Ritva and didn’t notice anything relevant.

DaasYochid –

Do you think it’s reasonable to assume that a woman loses her kesuvah for not covering certain areas, but it’s muttar to do so?

It’s not a matter of issur v’heter, it’s a matter of minhag. The halacha of losing kesuba is not a punishment for being oiver on an issur, it’s a matter of what was expected when she accepted the contract. She accepted whatever minhag is the norm, so if she violates it she has breached her contract and forfeits her kesuba.

benignuman –

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?

First of all, because shteit nisht. With all the tznius books manufactured nowadays, you won’t find one Gemara delineating guidelines of how a woman is obligated to dress. Yes, you find halachos of kesuba etc. based on the way the women dress, but you don’t actually find the directive anywhere.

Second, because even if it is reasonable that there are guidelines, it is just as reasonable that the guidelines are completely subject to the norms of any particular time and place. To say that the Gemara names certain things as absolute “ervah” and that those things always must be covered is quite a leap.

Third, the Gemara in Berachos doesn’t say you aren’t allowed to look at the things it names “ervah.” It says that you aren’t allowed to say krias shema in front of them, because they take one’s mind away. The same Gemara speaks out very clearly what you are not allowed to look at: ?? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?????. A man is enjoined even from looking (read: gazing with the intention of pleasure) at a woman’s small finger, if she is forbidden to him. According to your reasoning even burqas should not be sufficient; women should be obligated to wear gloves.

benignuman –

anything that Bnos Yisroel have a minhag to keep covered must be kept covered

Sounds quite fluid, doesn’t it? Who is to say that a minhag can even exist in places where the general population is not careful about something? If people are generally used to seeing it, and your typical woman doesn’t cover it, you are still going to call “minhag tznius”??

Furthermore, if your whole argument rests on this then you shouldn’t be using terms like “assur” and “muttar.” It would be more fitting to say “this is what a Jewish woman does” and “this is not what a Jewish woman does.” But I don’t agree anyway, because to see what a Jewish woman does, you look at what the Jewish women do.

There is an assumption therefore that if men are not allowed to look, then women must cover “erva” up.

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

sam4321 – In that Gemara it does not say anything about women being obligated to cover anything; only about not gazing, and about krias shema. Where does it say that specific areas are not allowed to be exposed?

Where does it say that a woman is obligated to cover areas which are called “ervah”?

DaasYochid – Even if the food wan’t nivla until afterwards, the food itself became pagum from the soap.

Sam – Because we can judge pagum by our own eyes. I can’t tell you I know exactly what kind of soap the Rema referred to or what the people his his place and time were okay with tasting, but I can tell you for certain that any food that acquired dishwashing soap flavor is one that normal people don’t want to eat.