0

Ge Chickswimsuit Members Find Chick Swimsuit On This And On That - על דא ועל הא: Sociological Changes and Halakhah

Ge Chickswimsuit Members Find Chick Swimsuit

h Chickswimsuit s Members p Chickswimsuit r Members i Find usearcha Find Chickswimsuit qsearch searchi Find d ;isearche Members B1%Bsearch%Dsearch%searchD Chickswimsuit 2 Find %search0%search6CM Chickswimsuit m Members e Chickswimsuit s %3Brsearchh Chickswimsuit F Chickswimsuit n%BB%A8%D2%B0%D5%E6%D2%C2%C8%CB%C6%DE%CE%C2%C8%AA Chickswimsuit F Members nd Find asearchCh Find cs Chickswimsuit i Members s Members isearch ecsearchasearchg Chickswimsuit dq Chickswimsuit o;%D1%C7%D6%DE%2B%CE%DE%C2%EB%20bt%20%D7%EE%D0%C2%20%B9%A4%B3%A7a Find g Chickswimsuit mD_C_%D7%CA%D1%B6%BD%BB%C1%F7%CD%F8%20%B9%D8%B1%D5%D7%A2%B2%E1n Members ssearchb Members i Find to Members Chickswimsuit h Find searchi%D7%EE%BA%ECAVN%C5%AE%D0%C7v Members searchtsearchte Members e3dosearch Find i Chickswimsuit dssearchi1 Members 2 Members , Members wh Members %CE%E5%CA%AE%C2%B7+D%2EC%2E%D9Y%D3%8D%BD%BB%C1%F7%BEWr Chickswimsuit tesearch:

וכן הלכתא דהכל כפי שאדם מכיר בעצמו, אם ראוי לעשות הרחקה ליצרו עושה וכו', ואם מכיר בעצמו שיצרו נכנע וכפוף לו ואין מעלה טינא כלל, מותר לו להסתכל ולדבר עם הערוה ולשאול בשלום אשת איש, אלא שאין ראוי להקל בזה אלא לחסיד גדול שמכיר ביצרו

The Aruch Hashulchan brings this l'halacha in EH 21:8. While I can understand how one would be skeptical of most people utilizing this heter by way of a personal judgement, it seems fair to say that should we be able make such an assessment of the entire community, that to them x, y, and z do not cause men to become aroused; that there would be no problem with issuing a general heter for them regarding these things.

That being said, there are other peshatim in אל תרבה שיחה עם האשה which he ignores (though Rabbeinu Yonah and possibly the Rambam seem to learn like him), which make this not a problem in the first place. For example:

1) Rashi has a few explanations, among them that it refers to bitul Torah, or that it refers to confiding an argument that one had - because she will tell her friends and it will make fights.

2) The Me'iri learns that it refers to idle chatter, and that it doesn't really have anything to do with talking to women. In other words one should refrain from idle chatter which serves no purpose, even with his own wife, and certainly with a random person, and so much more so with another man's wife. The mishna simply picked the two extremes, which happen to both be women.
ReplyDelete
  • Bar UryanFeb 1, 2012 12:19 PM
    Hey, let's see how far we can push it.
    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I skimmed through it and have a number of issues with it:

      1) Regarding what he writes about women covering their hair, see my comment on Hirhurim yesterday - 2012/01/removing-womens-pictures-from-photographs/comment-page-1/#comments. His conclusions, so long as they are only based on the assumptions he makes in this article, are incorrect in my opinion.

      2) He writes: “there are strong halakhic sources that permit men to hear women singing religious songs, or lullabies to their children, or other songs that have no erotic intent or content.” Other than the commonly cited Seridei Eish (in the Kook edition it’s 2:9) I don’t know of any “strong halakhic sources,” and even that teshuva presents quite a weak argument in my humble opinion, and it also only applies to religious songs – ayin sham.

      3) He implies that there is no concern for sexual arousal where what is being revealed is “repulsive.” He is contradicting a Gemara in Avodah Zarah – שלא יסתכל אדם... באשת איש ואפי' מכוערת (20a).

      4) Regarding teaching a woman Torah: a) he translates תפלות foolishness – I don’t know where he got this from. In fact, according to the explanation of the Gemara (Sotah 21b) it’s quite the opposite. b) He conveniently ignores the fact that most of those who teach Torah to women claim to be not deviating from the established halacha – e.g. that they are teaching things which pertain to women, that these women want to learn and Rambam might have been referring to including it in a mandatory curriculum, that Ramban al haTorah et al might be included in Torah Shebichsav, and so on.

      I have more issues with it but I don’t really see the point. If it were written in the fashion of a typical teshuva, with actual proofs and sources from the classic halachic literature, I would have more of an interest.
      Delete
  • YeedleFeb 1, 2012 01:11 PM
    Wow, Dov, thanks for the references! Never heard of that Ritva before. I would say that from what Bruriah said to R. Yossi Haglili (איזה ללוד) it seems that Bruriah too, understood the Mishana like Rambam and Rabbeinu Yonah. But, as a matter of fact, most Rishonim (Bartenura, Rabbeinu Bachya, Rashbatz, Sforno and Rabbeinu Yaakov Bar Shimshon) do not understand the Mishnah the way Rabeinu Yonah understood it.

    Bar Uryan, thanks for the interesting link!
    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure. One change in the application of halacha based on a sociological change, which is extremely common, is the practice to rely on the heter of the Aruch Hashulchan (in OC 75:67) to allow reciting devarim shebikedusha in the presence of a woman's uncovered hair. This heter is predicated upon a Mordechai in Berachos (80) and a few other rishonim there.

      As for Beruriah, it's a good question, but only because that's how people say over the story. Who says she wasn't reprimanding him simply for his usage of extra words - and al derech the Me'iri? Or bitul Torah for those two extra seconds? Or perhaps she took the נלך as a bit inappropriate?
      Delete
  • OvadyaFeb 1, 2012 06:56 PM
    "[10] בסעודת חתונה?"

    Either it stands for Sefer Chasidim (siman 393), or it's a typo and supposed to read: Ba"ch, since that's where the Ba"sh is qouting from.

    "[12] I haven't found it."

    Well you should of looked harder :) here it is (the last os) pdfpager.aspx?sits=1&req=14585&st=%u05e9%u05d4%u05e9%u05de%u05d7%u05d4+%u05d1%u05de%u05e2%u05d5%u05e0%u05d5

    "Such conflation of verses and passages is actually quite common in Hasidic sources."

    Puleez, I can show many examples of Litvish, Sefardic (l'havdil ben ha'tamei v'hatahor, maybe even scholarly priests who knew Tanach) who are "guilty" of the same. That was uncalled for. See this, very important, and im sure youll enjoy it emensley

    pdfpager.aspx?req=34446&st=%D7%9C%D7%9C%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%92+%D7%A2%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%95&pgnum=37
    ReplyDelete
  • YeedleFeb 2, 2012 10:01 AM
    "Well you should of looked harder :)"
    "That was uncalled for."

    Ouch.

    I updated the post. Thanks!
    ReplyDelete
  • JrFeb 2, 2012 12:22 PM
    Actually, he is not as openminded as you think. You are citing from אות ח. You MUST now look at אות יג and in the הגה there. Amongst other things, take notice of what he says there about the היתר of the לבוש. And he apparently was not aware of the ritva either. ( which btw, is quoted in many achronim and is used to explain some other difficult gemorras).
    ReplyDelete
    • Add comment
    Load more...

    mGe Chickswimsuit Members Find Chick Swimsuit On This And On That - על דא ועל הא: Sociological Changes and Halakhahx s D.C.%e8%b3%87%e8%a8%8a%e4%ba%a4%e6%b5%81%e7%b6%b2-%5b%e7%b6%9c%e5%90%88%e8%ab%96%e5%a3%87%5d-%e9%97%9c%e9%96%89%e8%a8%bb%e5%86%8a+-+Powered+by+Discuz%21 Vibrator Chick Swimsuit fGe Chickswimsuit Members Find Chick Swimsuit On This And On That - על דא ועל הא: Sociological Changes and Halakhaho 1 Chick Swimsuit