Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Nechomah, supply and demand will likely indicate an insufficient supply of almanahs compared to the number of divorces.
This is exactly why beis din tries to convince a Kohen not to divorce a lot harder than trying to convince a non-Kohen to keep his first wife.
Here is the translation for the post on the previous page, relevant to the present discussion:
In a place where it is customary for a woman not to go out to the market place wearing merely a cap on her head, but also a veil that covers her entire body like a cloak, her husband must provide at least the least expensive type of veil for her. If he is wealthy, [he must provide her with a veil whose quality] is commensurate with his wealth.
[He must give her this veil] so that she can visit her father’s home, a house of mourning or a wedding celebration. For every woman should be given the opportunity to visit her father and to go to a house of mourning or a wedding celebration as an expression of kindness to her friends and relatives, for [this will have a reciprocal effect], and they will return the visits. For a woman [at home] is not confined in a jail, from which she cannot come and go.
Nevertheless, it is uncouth for a woman always to leave home – this time to go out and another time to go on the street. Indeed, a husband should prevent a wife from doing this and not allow her to go out more than once or twice a month, as is necessary. For there is nothing more attractive for a woman than to sit in the corner of her home, as [implied by Tehilim 45:14]: “All the glory of the king’s daughter is within.”
Don’t put words in my mouth. And don’t expect me to answer for an anonymous claim of a claimed event. And don’t argue against SA with bubbe maaisas. Using your so-called arguments, you’re motzi la’az on the Rambam and Mechaber. Why are you putting the Rambam’s holy psak in scare quotation marks? Do you consider the Rambam and Mechaber to be extremists?
jf02, as late as the 1950s and part of the ’60s in America, Shatnes was a neglected Torah obligation that the vast majority of frum Americans were blissfully unaware of and, unfortunately, violated daily. Until an all-Jewish hero from Vienna arrived on these shores, namely Mr. Joseph Rosenberger, who opened Shatnes Labs and preached the obligation to avoid wearing Shatnes. Did the pre-Rosenberger era where it was normative to wear Shatnes define the halacha for Shatnes or somehow make it permissible to wear Shatnes? Most certainly not.
Same here. A lot or a majority or even a vast majority of the hamon hoam violating halachic precepts does not redefine halacha or make the forbidden to be permitted.
I hope to address your gallivanting concern when I have the opportunity to use a keyboard.
It is certainly halacha. The Rambam and Shulchan Aruch are citing and paskening a Chazal l’halacha.
If you claim that this is a “Shulchan Aruch that we don’t pasken by anymore” (wow!) you’re going to have to cite gedolei poskim who say such a strong (and strange) thing rather than just your own boich svara. Override a halacha in Shulchan Aruch? It is theoretically possible in a small number of cases, but one needs poskim (of yore) with very big shoes to even contemplate such a possibility, put their halachic reasoning against SA in writing, and have it accepted by the gedolei poskim. On this issue no one of note ever even postulated against the SA. It’s been the normative Jewish practice from Sara Imainu through Chazal through SA and on.
The other question was a silly semantical back and forth that is neither important nor worth wasting keystrokes over.
It isn’t just Chazal. And it isn’t just Rambam. It is paskened as halacha l’maaisa by the Mechaber in Shulchan Aruch. And virtually all the poskim over the centuries who discuss it. It isn’t even controversial.
At least not before Susan B. Anthony’s times.
If you simply want to disregard halacha that you disagree with and don’t like in favor of a post-feminism view, be intellectually honest and say that outright.
The idea to “suggest that women be out of the home as frequently and as much as they desire” is clearly and unambiguously in contravention of everything in the Torah from Sarah Imainu through everything Chazal clearly implore of us in the Gemora through what the poskim pasken l’halacha, including the Shulchan Aruch.
Most Syrian Jews descend from Spanish Jewry.
Gamanit, due to the many sins of our generation we aren’t able to fully maintain the righteous standards our holy zeidas and bubbes held and lived by their entire lives, as enumerated and cited in the Gemora, Rambam, Shulchan Aruch and numerous other poskim and seforim hakedoshim. So therefore you would suggest that we throw out the baby with the bathwater?
It’s true that today that, to our sorrow, women can’t stay indoors as much as is appropriate and halachicly expected. Would you therefore c’v suggest that women be out of the home as frequently and as much as they desire? In contravention to everything Chazal and the poskim implore of us? At least we should aim that they stay inside, and not outside in public, as much as is attainable in our weak generation.
Barry, chareidim are far far more educated than non-chareidim. In the things that are important.
What’s that have to do with galavanting? Nothing I said should have led you to confuse two unrelated comments.
???? ????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???????. ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????. ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ????????? ??? ?????? ?? ??. ????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ????. ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???????. ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????. ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?????:
iacisrmma, as I mentioned, every year in NYS there are a number of marriage licenses issued for people of those ages.
As far as beis din, the reason you never heard of such an enforcement action is simply because today in America and elsewhere beis din doesn’t have enforcement powers. Beis din also has rights to force people to do a large number of other things, including via the use of corporal punishment, but the civil laws nowadays prevent beis din from excersing said powers halacha grants them. Until a hundred or so years ago butei dinim would routinely utilize their enforcement powers.
The ’50s laxity in Torah observance was not a result of what you’re attributing it to. It was mostly a result of that before WWII there were not too many great rabbonim in America to lead such a large flock. There were a small number, themselves mostly having come here not too long before the war, but nowhere nearly sufficient to lead so many American Jews back to the path of proper observance. Post-WWII, with the influx of the remnants of the deeply Torah observant surviving European communities arriving on these shores with some great rabbonim who built up yeshivos and the building of the Jewish infrastructure to bring strict Torah observance to the American masses of what truly turned it around.
You say not? That’s your opinion as an open orthodox adherent, but the Shulchan Aruch and Rambam says what was stated. Rambam gives an example of what is permitted travel by saying she should be permitted to visit her parents once a month.
I think it is a decent parallel to express the point I was conveying.
I was being rhetorical about the bar mitzvah. I thought that would be obvious.
You have a chiyuv to get married at a young age without waiting too long. Shulchan Aruch says beis din can force someone to marry if he’s 20 years old and says he isn’t ready to get married.
If someone isn’t ready to be bar mitzvah’d at 13 should he push it off?
Sam, you didn’t answer the question. Namely, how is a frum woman wearing pants designed for women more of a tznius problem than a woman driving?
Also note that if a woman drives, and has a car at her disposal, she will naturally be “out and about” traveling more frequently than if her travel were limited to traveling with her husband or public/paid transportation. And you then run into more instances of unnecessary travel that the Shulchan Aruch says not to do.
jf02, sure I’d characterize male drivers as gallivanting when applicable. I didn’t characterize all female driving like that, I specifically referred to the times it’s applicable. Though the issue mentioned from the Shulchan Aruch is applicable to females and makes their public gallivanting more problematic than that of males.
As far as important, in the context of the aforementioned Shulchan Aruch, it would mean any unavoidable travel.
etzhar, See above regarding important. Limud Torah is important. And if it requires the wife to go outside in public as a result, it almost surely would qualify for the limited times the Halacha (above mentioned S”A) permits a wife to go out.
Assur, because you may not place yourself in a position necessitating non-kosher.
See, I pickup the cues even when indirect.
You’re a good tochacha giver. 😉
The first question should be why are the women going out in the first place. As mentioned earlier, the Gemora, Rambam and Shulchan Aruch say they should not go out much. If it is important, it may be understandable. But to stam shpatzir outside for a leisurely ride is not understandable if it is avoidable.
Or Jill instead of Hill, for the Greens.
You don’t see Rebbetzins Kotler, Olshin, Schustal, Neuman, Salamon or Wachtfogel cruising around Lakewood.
Most yeshivish Rosh Yeshiva’s rebbetzins don’t drive.
Here are the halachic guidelines for the obligation to give tochacha:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/the-requirement-for-everyone-to-give-tochachah
In New York State the minimum age possible to legally get married is age 14. And every year there are marriage licenses issued to 14 and 15 year olds.
What’s the difference in regards to tznius between women wearing pants (from the women’s apparel section) and women driving?
Anyways, argue with Rav Chaim Kanievsky and Rav Shmuel Wosner, not me.
bump
Do I ever complain that I was given tochacha? Be advised I appreciate receiving tochacha. Including your bateling reprimand.
Figure out a better way to gently reprimand her. But don’t neglect tochacha.
apy’s suggestion to approach her rebbetzin is a wonderful and great idea, if that’s possible. But many of these public sinners have no rebbetzin they listen to. That doesn’t relieve one of their obligation.
Maybe she spent an hour debating between eating out at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse or cooking pork. So you shouldn’t provide tochacha when you see her dining at Ruth’s since she could of done worse.
You need a university degree to verify kashrus? They spent four or eight years of their life in universities getting degrees in order to become a mashgiach?
arwsf’s kind.
Tochacha is an obligation.
You should have spoken up, arwsf.
Wolf, what if he or she doesn’t feel ready by age 30? Continue waiting?
Chazal disagrees with you, Sparkly.
18 is the best age.
Sam, women wear pants nowadays also. Would you also argue that pants are therefore no longer begged ish and frum women should wear pants?
Rav Roi Tamir, in ???? ??????, quotes Rav Chaim Kanievsky forbidding women from driving as it is a prohibition of Klei Gever.
From the seforim hakedoshim.
I think the House can only choose from the top two plurality winners of the electoral college, so Johnson couldn’t even be an option.
Gamanit, You might be describing the Christian folk, but even if that you aren’t accurate. Among our bubbes you can be sure the reason they didn’t ride horses had nothing to do with what you’re talking about, but rather because of the aforementioned Rambam and SA and other aspects of tznius our holy ancestors were stringent about. And you can be sure they didn’t go gallivanting as drivers on horse and buggies. Even in the “countryside”.
If no one wins 270 it goes to Congress (the current term not the incoming class) and the Republicans control a majority of congressional state delegations to choose the winner.
Not high enough to actually win. They might go from 8% to 18% or something. Perot was in the debate despite never having had a realistic chance of an electoral college victory. He didn’t even win a single state.
No. There are over a dozen third-party candidates. None have any realistic chance of winning.