Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
EloQuint-
Many more people listen to goyishe music than you think. And trust me, your average yeshiva bachur knows when the latest LG song is being played, and it isn’t the tumah of the tune which is making him go wild.
heretothere-
“Can you show me a psak froma Rav who said that it was not a halacha?”
That’s not the way halacha works. The one trying to impose restrictions has the burden of proof. You bring me a valid makor, as kasha is attempting to do, and I’ll accept it.
charliehall-
“Is being a top poker player something to be proud of? Chazal would not think so!”
Clearly you missed my point. I did not in any way indicate whether or not playing poker is a good habit. I simply showed from the fact that women generally do not do well at the game that their brains work differently.
heretothere-
These are curses, not laws. It is saying that unfortunately the world will run its course that way, not that anyone is obligated to act that way. Would you suggest that the halacha says a woman must have pain in childbirth and may not take a painkiller? Because it says that there too.
kasha-
Thanx for the clarification 😉
This might draw me some hate from the more extreme feminists among us, but I think it is possible that halacha sees women in general as not being good critical judges of a situation. Consider for example, the ratio of women to men in chess and poker tournaments. You’ll see that even in a world which promotes egalitarianism the women still are a very small minority in those games for which the main requirement is critical thinking. Perhaps they have other strong points which men don’t have nearly as much as they do, but their general weakness in the area of critical analysis might be the halacha’s reason for disqualifying them as witnesses, which demands the eid to be a good judge of the situation he is witnessing.
kasha-
That is just as speculative an approach as mine. It only isn’t speculative if the actual source of the halacha specifies that reason, which it does not. Therefore aside from the fact that it’s a gezeiras hakasuv, all we have is speculation.
About a woman not being an eid, I can speculate more. But I’m not sure I see the point. All I was trying to say is that you have no proof that a woman has a general obligation to obey her husband, and that I think in general they have an equal say. I never said anything about men and women having the same dinim in kol hatorah kulah, and I don’t think I ever implied that. It seems like your using my opinion here to pin the entire feminist agenda on me and then debate me on points I never made, which is just not fair.
On the other hand, if you’re stam interested in my opinion on other matters, I’ll gladly share it. Let’s just first be clear where we stand.
(Agav, I’m not even so sure your speculation is plausible, because who said the chicken came before the egg? That is, perhaps the kinyan was set up in a way that the man acquires and not the woman specifically because of the reason I gave!)
thanx mod.
koma-
I do not mean to say that halachic terminology is meaningless. Heaven forbid. What I do mean is that in the context of this discussion, the terminology used in a purely legal sense is not at all relevant. Allow me to explain.
When talking about a mitzva, there is the one performing the mitzva and the object through which it is performed. This idea of ‘cheftza shel mitzva’ is a legal terminology which specifies that object that the mitzva is done through. When analyzing the man’s mitzva to marry and procreate, the woman is legally classified the ‘object’. In the same sense, when analyzing one’s obligation to save a life, the one being saved is the ‘object’. This legal terminology is simply a way of examining the details of the mitzva being performed, but in no way does it reflect Chazal’s values regarding whether a certain person or kind of person is truly regarded as an object.
I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear before.
bluhbluh-
Great answer.
Alternatively, but along similar lines, I would suggest that perhaps the prayer for Moshiach is a sort of disclaimer on the prayer for the house, i.e. We want a big nice house but we’re not getting too settled because really we want Moshiach to come. Then we go to the next topic and pray for the welfare of those at the meal.
Same. It’s all about preserving quality of life either for this person or for that. This one will have a bigger chain reaction when his life is made better, while this one will have a lesser one. Therefore it’s better for society as a whole to return the man’s aveidah.
I recently posted my opinion about this halacha but I can’t find it to link you the whole discussion, but maybe someone else knows where it is.
Basically I do not think this has anything to do with a man being inherently better than a woman. We have no right to judge who is better or worse. But it is a halacha about survival. The halacha sees men as more capable of cultivating our social norms/culture/religion etc., and therefore it’s more important to save the man. It is like if in the middle of the war you can save either the general or the philosopher, you save the general, not because he deserves to be saved, but because he is a better protector of the society as a whole, and thus in this context he can be described as more important. But in truth that isn’t necessarily accurate.
This is the link you refer to:
I don’t think I need to answer that question to defend my approach, but I’ll answer it anyway. Perhaps a man is emotionally capable of loving two women, while the opposite is not true. This is pure speculation, but it’s possible, and I also heard my Rebbi Rav Tzvi Berkowitz of NIRC say a similar pshat.
koma-
Cheftza shel mitzva and the like doesn’t mean anything. It’s a purely legalistic term and does not at all imply that a woman is an object. FYI there are places where a man is also called a ‘cheftza’ (object) such as in discussions in the meforshim regarding making a future-tense neder. If you know what I’m talking about fine, if not then learn Nedarim, my point is you can’t bring a proof from a purely legalistic term regarding the hashkafa of the matter. This has already been demonstrated above with regard to the word kinyan.
emoticon613-
A hip-hop/rap etc. style song can be a very upbeat, joyful, funny song, to gladden the heart of someone who is down.
A heavy metal song (and for that matter a more somber rap song) can, believe it or not, with the right lyrics, speak powerfully about religious fervor to people feeling down. I know of more than one Christian punk rock/heavy metal band whose lyrics are very neutral and could easily be adapted to fit very frum Jewish hashkafos, and there’s no doubt in my mind and heart that Jewish kids with an American taste in music who are feeling down would benefit from such tunes. What makes the genre angry in general is not the actual tune, but the lyrics and the tone of voice of the singer. When that is modified, you can have a very nice song in my opinion.
Furthermore, let’s talk about other genres. classical music I don’t assume you are nauseated by, and neither opera, except they might not be your taste. Does country bother you? There are a lot of country songs which not only have nice tunes but have very meaningful lyrics – it isn’t about lost love every time. Jazz, when it doesn’t sound like classical music, has really nice tunes to any regular frum person’s ear, it’s just the lyrics that make it not-nice sometimes. (I don’t know where it came from that people who never heard non-Jewish music call any music with a heavy beat Jazzy, when I say Jazz I’m referring to the 20s until the 50s style music in general.) What about the light rock and soft rock? Granted, the lyrics may sometimes bother you, but can you not appreciate any of the tunes? Even heavy rock, it’s generally the words that make the song disgusting sometimes, but the tunes could be adapted easily into regular, upbeat, nice songs.
I could go on and on, but my point is very simple. I don’t believe you are truly against goyishe music per se. Therefore, if someone plays a song at your wedding which is a cover of some groovy funk song, if the tune fits the mood there’s no reason to be upset. If, however, the not-nice lyrics are sung, or it’s the kind of song that everyone will be reminded of the not-nice lyrics, e.g. a very recent pop song, then it is inappropriate. But I don’t think there is anything wrong for a singer to sing a seventies song from Germany which sounds very nice as long as he changes the lyrics to make them ‘kosher’.
sofdavar-
In my posts above I specifically differentiated between tunes and lyrics. Of course lyrics can be bad and disgusting. My whole point was to say that if a singer uses the tune but with different words there is no problem, because there is no inherent ‘tumah’ in the tune, but obviously nivul peh is assur.
From what you wrote it seems your posek says it is not ‘in the spirit of the law’. I think everyone should follow their rav, and if your rav tells you that you may not listen to such music then you should follow him. But I don’t understand the psak. If there is anything wrong at all, then those who talk about using non-Jewish tunes for davening (sources I quoted above) should make some mention of that. But they don’t, they just say it’s fine.
emoticon613-
So it sounds to me you are saying is that it isn’t the Jewishness or the non-Jewishness that really makes a difference to you, but the genre, e.g. heavy metal or rap. I presume it’s the wildness of those genres that bother you.
Without arguing with you about that yet, I am perplexed. If that is the case, why then are you opposed to Jewish songs that have their source in non-Jewish ones? If the song sounds nice it shouldn’t bother you regardless of who composed the tune, and if it doesn’t who cares who made it up? Why the witch hunt?
According to your explanation, it would make sense for you to tell the band playing at your wedding not to play wild songs, ones that imitate the styles of hip-hop and heavy metal, but what reason would you have to be makpid on songs with a Jewish source specifically?
Furthermore, I disagree with you even with regard to these genres. What makes a lot of this music despicable to my ears is the lyrics and the tone of voice of the singers, NOT the actual song. I am no ignoramus either when it comes to knowledge of various genres of music (not that there’s something wrong with someone who is) and I can say there certainly are tunes that I actually think are very nice in both of the genres you specified. It’s the words that make many of them them disgusting and bad, but that doesn’t ‘passel’ the tune.
‘Wild’ music is not inherently bad. When it is contained, there is a time and place for it. Whether for some on Purim, or just someone who is in a mood that needs uplifting and can’t deal with cheesy old European style music, (I’m not making fun, these are just feelings commonly felt when one is in that kind of mood) some times people just need to let go. In the proper context, even such music has its place. Though obviously only if the words are ‘kosher’. That is my opinion.
I checked and didn’t see anything contrary to what I’ve said.
Kasha-
I looked through the SA in YD that you cited, with the Shach and Pischei T’shuvah. There is no SA EH 69:8, so you’ll have to give me that mar’eh makom again.
What I see is as follows. A woman has an obligation to honor her husband, on a level that is not an obligation for her husband. I don’t know the drasha for this, but it is clear. Therefore I retract anything I said which would imply otherwise.
However I have yet to see a makor that says a woman is obligated to OBEY her husband, beyond the scope of the normal obligations of kavod. Kavod does not require me to listen to my parents when it comes to a choice of schools for my kids, so kavod should not obligate a woman to obey her husband there either. (Agav, it could be this case is not really relevant because a father has the obligation to teach his sons and not a mother, so for that reason it might be the husband gets to decide. But not because the wife has a general obligation to obey. I just used this case for argument’s sake.)
I stand by my understanding of the Rashi in Kedoshim.
Thank you for correcting me on the first point.
See my edited post.
Kasha-
Hold on, you might have a point. Let me think about it.
Derech agav, to those who quoted R’ Moshe saying he was anti-feminism, the point as you are presenting it is not accurate. Sure he was opposed to the idea that women are the same as men and should be pursuing all the same career choices etc., but he also held that the world was correct for realizing that women are equal to men and neither the husband nor the wife is more ???? than the other:
In IM 5:20.33, R’ Moshe explains the halacha of an ??? ????? who does ????? in front of her husband on ???. He explains that such a woman is one who realizes her own importance. He adds parenthetically, about the few wives of gedolim over time who were noheig that way:
According to those of you who maintain that “the man is the captain”, I wonder why she would be allowed to lean. Are you insinuating that these gedolim throughout the ages weren’t ???? when their wives acted in a way contrary to the Torah hashkafa? Because that doesn’t sit well with me, especially when you cannot prove that such a concept even exists in halacha.
Kasha-
There is absolutely no blanket chiyuv for a person to OBEY his parents. There is only a chiyuv to honor them. Sure, honoring them means obeying them when they ask for a cup of water, but when they expect something unreasonable one is not obligated to listen. Check the gemara in Kiddushin and the SA. If it costs money, or if it’s telling the child who to marry or where to learn, there’s no chiyuv, because the chiyuv is not to obey but rather to honor, and honoring has it’s limits.
And sure a wife is obligated to honor her husband. But a husband is obligated to honor his wife as well. The gemara (Yevamos 62b) says ?????? ???? ?????, it is proper that he honor her even more than himself.
What I assume you are referring to is the gemara in Kiddushin quoted by Rashi in the beginning of Kedoshim:
??? ??? ????? ?????: ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ????, ??? ?????. ?????? ??? ?? ??? ???, ??? ????, ????? ???? ?????, ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???, ????? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ??? ???? ????? ????
The gemara is not referring to what you call obeying. It is saying a simple thing. A woman has obligations which revolve around her husband, so in that respect she is like a worker who can’t drop his job to honor his parents. A man has less obligations to his wife, not necessarily overall, but less that demand him to remain inside the house and not be able to honor his parents. That is how I understand it, and thus it is not a valid source that a woman has a general obligation to obey her husband.
Kasha-
I don’t understand your question. I said that the general rule is to do what is normally expected in any given society. When heretothere asked for specifics I said I don’t know. I could guess, and my guess would be that washing feet is not included in our day and age, and maybe preparing a Shabbos meal is. But I don’t know, so I told him the best thing is to ask your rav. I was simply defending a very basic concept mentioned by SJS, that the application of a rule can change over time although the rule remains the same.
That which you say “no one denies”, I deny. Show me a makor that a woman is OBLIGATED to obey her husband, as a general principle.
heretothere-
I don’t know, it’s a good question. SJS said she’s gonna ask her rabbi, sounds to me like the right way to go.
SJS-
np 🙂
heretothere-
“I remember being taught in yeshivah that once something is a obligation it does not cease to be an obligation even if the original reason for it no longer exists.”
Usually you are correct. However what SJS is saying doesn’t contradict that. It could be that chazal never said that the woman must wash her husbands feet, they just said she has to do whatever is normal for a woman to do for her husband. The reason they said she has to wash his feet is simply a translation of that rule into the language of their day and age. In other words, washing the husband’s feet is the application, not the law.
I’ll give you an example. For issur v’heter, the gemara sometimes says you need 1 eid or a chazakah etc. But most poskim will tell you that a video camera or something like that is good enough, because the gemara never meant to say davka those things, they were just the application of the rule for those days, but the real rule is that you need to know, and a video camera suffices for that.
Similarly here, one can make the case that the rule was never davka to wash the feet, but rather to do what is normal in any given society. Therefore although the application might change, the rule stays the same.
The Mishnah B’rurah (53 s.k. 82) says it is mutar unless the song is meyuchad specifically for mass. Therefore if it is a song that is sung both outside the church as well (l’havdil, parallel to the tunes chazzanim use for l’cha dodi and mimkomcha etc., not the actual nusach) then it is fine. He is quoting a Bach (Shu”t Bach haYeshanim 127) and though I don’t have one offhand I distinctly remember that the Bach’s reason that such a song is problematic is because of uv’chukoseihem lo seileichu, (which applies to anything meyuchad for avodah zara, not because of any inherent tumah) which does not apply to regular songs of non Jews specifically because of what I mentioned above that music is a chochmah, and he quotes the gemara in Avodah Zara that “lav minayhu gamrinan”, i.e. the goy didn’t “make it up”, he just thought of it.
The same halacha is found in Birkei Yosef of the Chida, if I remember correctly it’s in 560 by the g’zeirah not to listen to music after the churban.
gavra_at_work-
To your first point. I know it’s a chassidish concept. I am pointing out, albeit as a misnaged, that the concept was made up and has no makor in Halacha, because there’s no such thing as a song which is tahor or tamey. If you make up a concept and that concept generates halachos that the gemara didn’t hold of, then your concept is false according to halacha, period.
As for your second point, the opposite is true. There was a pretty common sheilah back in the day even for those who didn’t sing/listen to music, and that is can the tunes from the church be used by chazzanim in davening. If you had seen my previous posts you would see I quoted the MB no less, b’sheim the Bach, that there is no problem. So first of all it was relevant, and not only that it was discussed and they said it was fine!
sofdavar-
Well perhaps you associate the music with elements of society you do not wish to be connected to, and that makes you feel like there’s tumah in the songs.
Again, in the halachic sources relied upon by all major poskim – that is, in shas with the rishonim and the SA, the concept does not exist. This makes me very skeptical of your claim that there is something evil inherent in the music composed by a bad person.
chesedname-
“My point as others have made if there is no agreement, or compromise possible, one has to be able to pull rank, this isn’t something anyone can argue with otherwise a lot of disagreements would never be finalized.”
I disagree. Neither has the right to ‘pull rank’. This is exactly the situation where one should consult their rav, and let him decide, because neither of them is competent enough to make the decision on their own, nor has the right to.
emoticon613-
First of all, your source is not accurate. Rashi in fact is a proof to me. It’s the gemara that says that Acher went off because he sang Greek music (Chagigah 15b) and Rashi explains the problem by referencing that by the churban there was a g’zeirah not to sing/listen to music. Rashi conspicuously says nothing about there being an inherent problem with non-Jewish music, as you claim there is.
Secondly, I am very familiar with the situation you are describing yourself in. However it does not prove anything, and I will explain why:
When you listened to non Jewish music you were probably at a stage in your life you feel you grew past, that then you weren’t doing good things and now B”H your on the right track.
Many times we here something, see something, or even smell something and it reminds us of someone, or of another point in our life. Sometimes we don’t even know that we are reminded, it’s subconscious, but the reminder is noticeable when for no reason we start displaying emotions similar to those we would display if we were consciously reminded.
It is possible that the non Jewish music isn’t what bothers you at all. It’s the subconscious memories that come along with it. Memories you might even be completely grossed out and nauseated by.
I’m not trying to psychoanalyze you after reading one blog post. No one could do that. All I’m trying to do is show you one possibility why you might feel that way other that due to your assumption that the music is inherently evil, because I do not believe it is.
The reason I do not believe it is because I have not come across a single source in the gemara, rishonim, SA, or any literature written by someone universally regarded as a great posek that says it, and I have asked my rav and my rebbi, both of whom have shas and poskim on their fingertips, and they said the same thing.
However I do wish to note that songs which have not-nice words are definitely problematic. But that is not an issue with the music, and if you were to sing or play the song with different words and no one would be reminded of the not-nice things there wouldn’t be a problem.
Kasha-
BTW the source is Nedarim 66b and it’s talking about a woman buying her husband things he likes.
TMB-
The halacha delegates each spouse specific obligations. The specific obligations I am talking about are the ones each spouse has the right to demand from the other in Beis Din, or force a get.
There is no specific halacha which states across the board that a wife is obligated to abide by the husband’s wishes. If what he wishes happens to be something in the ‘marriage contract’ so to speak, then she must abide by it, but not because his wishes carry weight per se, rather because this particular thing was agreed upon by them getting married. Therefore I don’t think the idea of one spouse having more authority in this area is accurate, because he/she never actually has authority, rather they are each bound by their own specific obligations to the marriage. I hope I am being clear.
My point is that you cannot show from the fact that a woman has many obligations in a certain area that this area is ‘the husbands domain’ or vice versa. Each spouse has requirements, and it ends at that. The rest should be decided through discussing and compromising.
Kasha-
It is said that a good woman does the will of her husband. It is not a halacha, but is considered proper. But I don’t think that is relevant, I think that refers to caring for him extra etc., not that she shouldn’t speak up if she disagrees with his mehalech, because she definitely has that right.
SJS-
My point exactly. And that halacha is the mishnah in K’subos I referred to.
TMB-
I agree, but it does not say that beyond those specific obligations either spouse’s decision carries any more weight.
TMB-
That argument presented there is fallacious because the same way the gemara (and SA and Rambam) says there are things a woman is obligated to do for her husband, it also says a man has things he is obligated to do for his wife. Moreover, the obligations of a man to his wife are explicit in the Torah (???? ????? ?????? ?? ???? in mishpatim) while the obligations of a woman to her husband are not – other than the fact that she must be faithful to him. These halachos do not in any way imply that the wife is owned by her husband or has less of a say than he does.
My point is there’s a big difference between that and forcing her to do something she doesn’t want to do. But besides, there’s a bigger reason why the case is not similar to Wolf’s point. Over there the reason they forced her was not because of her husband’s decision, rather they held that there was an obligation on the husband to move and she had no right to stop him. The same would be if the wife had a mitzvah to move somewhere, they would force the husband to give a get if he did not agree to move. That is a mishnah in K’subos. It has nothing to do with the husband’s right to have the final say.
squeak-
I’m not sure if you’re trying to argue with what I said, but for the record that gemara about a slave is only talking about an eved ivri and not an eved kena’ani, whereas I was referring to an eved kena’ani.
chesedname-
To rephrase: They didn’t force her to move, they forced her to accept a divorce, and that’s a big difference.
chesedname-
They didn’t force it on her. They forced her to accept a divorce, and that’s a big difference.
TMB-
The halacha differentiates between ‘Kinyan Issur’ and ‘Kinyan haGuf’. Kinyan issur means that you go through a procedure in which you make an act of acquisition but you don’t actually acquire anything, you just have new rules that apply to you. Kinyan haguf is when you actually acquire the item. A slave is a kinyan haguf. A woman is only a kinyan issur; a man doesn’t own his wife. This is in the gemara. It’s probably what the Wolf was referring to.
mosherose-
Check the Rema.
exactly
mosherose-
Yes I do think so, because there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s like asking do you think Hashem would let a tzaddik use long division even though the method was made up by a goy who probably didn’t have high moral standards. Music might be an art, but it isn’t something you make up. It’s mathematical, you just figure it out. It makes no difference who ‘discovered’ the tune, if it’s nice it’s nice and if it’s not it’s not.
This isn’t lo yilbash. And though this should be obvious to those who learned the sugya I will cite a source for anyone else – see R’ Akiva Eger Y.D. 182 where he says lo yilbash is taluy in social norms.
emoticon613-
While I have respect for daas Torah, R’ Elya Weintraub is not a halachic source. Show me somewhere in shas or poskim – as in Rishonim or someone widely regarded as a halachic authority.
sofdavar-
The gemara about shir hashirim is clearly talking about any song, not any genre of music. The rishonim and poskim don’t disagree.
a) My rav holds it’s fine, contrary to the AKO statement.
b) I learn in BMG, and many of my very ehrliche friends who follow the standard Lakewood Rabbonim are ignoring ‘the list’, so I assume their rav told them it’s fine too.
I don’t know exactly what the argument is about, but clearly there is what to be dan l’kaf z’chus for a kosher store-owner who still sells the booze on ‘the list’. He should still respect your wishes to abide by whatever your own rav tells you, and he should not be showing disdain.
sofdavarhakolnishma-
First of all most frum, ehrliche people who hear a song that is actually classified ‘rock’ or ‘jazz’ would probably think it is either 1) very nice or 2) incomprehensible, just as classical music is not understood by many people who are just used to simple jingles. The styles you probably really mean are heavy metal, hip-hop, and the like.
That’s just semantics. But you are wrong anyway. I am going to guess that you aren’t Syrian. Have you ever been to the kosel and heard their tune for slichos? To a regular Ashkenazic Jew it sounds really funny, the tune sounds like a bunch of kids singing a nursery rhyme. Yet they are so inspired by the tune, as you probably get inspired by koh echsof. You hear the tunes the Arabs play over the loudspeakers in their mosques, and they sound dull and boring. Yet they are inspired by that in the very same way that we are inspired by u’nisaneh tokef. And it isn’t just the Arabs; the music of Jews from Arabic regions sounds the same.
My point is, who gave you the right to judge an American singer composing tunes for an American crowd, by saying the songs don’t match the words? They don’t match the words TO YOU, because YOU are used to the music of the society and community YOU grew up in. Of course the American-style Shema Koleinu won’t inspire you and the American-style Al Naharos Bavel won’t make you cry, because you were brought up with a different kind of music. But to someone more American-oriented, the songs are more-often-than-not on target and in line with what would seem to be the original intent.
There is no good or bad style of music, and I challenge anyone to find me a makor in halacha (shas/poskim) that proves otherwise.
qaws-
As hello99 said, the gemara says hard cheese is a problem. In fact, my rav holds that although c.s. is mutar lechatchila for everyone he still holds that hard cheese is assur, because there is a gezeirah in the gemara against gevinas akum regardless of how sure we are that nothing was added – it is similar the gezeirah of pas akum and bishul akum.
Powdered milk has another heter besides what you mentioned. R’ Ruderman and R’ Tzvi Pesach Frank held that since powdered milk did not exist at the time of the gezeirah (assuming there was a gezeirah on milk and not just cheese, not like my rav) it never became assur.
TMB-
I disagree with you. For Rabbi Neustadt, a rav respected in the chareidi world to quote R. Y. H. Henkin for a source clearly indicates that he is considered reliable IN TERMS OF SOURCES. Obviously it has no bearing on how reliable he is in terms of psak. But it clearly shows that he is believed by the mainstream-right when he quotes his grandfather and he isn’t regarded as a liar.
And yes, I’ve been through his seforim, but his personal views are irrelevant to what I am trying to say here. All I am saying is that he is considered reliable when he quotes his grandfather.
80-
You are right, I stand corrected. However I do still think charliehall’s general position can be maintained, albeit with a ‘loophole’ due to shas had’chak and not l’chatchila, as I have demonstrated.
qa-
You are incorrect, as R Y. H. Henkin’s reports about his grandfather are taken seriously by many mainstream poskim. See for example http://www.torah.org/advanced/weekly-halacha/5762/vayigash.html where Rabbi Doniel Neustadt, a rav who has a halacha coulumn in the Yated no less, quotes him matter-of-factly regarding this very psak.
As for Rav Solovetchik, yes the quote says he only allowed it in times of duress, but who’s to say that charliehall’s situation does not fit the criteria for that. That is for a competent rav to decide.
My point is that you cannot simply dismiss charliehall’s claim that these great poskim did indeed, at least in some circumstances, permit a mechitzah of only 10 tefachim, for it is backed up by reliable sources.
80 and TMB-
read footnote 9 on page 8
I doubt you will question the integrity of both R’ Yehudah Herzl Henkin and R’ Herschel Shachter.
SJS, That’s exactly my point, I understand the halacha differently, and I’ve stated my understanding of it.
I’m not talking about survival in the physical sense, but rather about the survival of our halacha, culture, social norms, etc.
off topic, but cute 😉
Like I said, it’s not about deserving more. If you are in middle of a war and you can save the general or the great philosopher, you save the general, not because he’s a better person or deserves more, but because in the current situation you need him more. Men may not deserve anything more than women, and that doesn’t contradict a halacha that says save them first, because the halacha determined that a man is more necessary for the general survival of our culture/social standard than a women.