Chick Swimsuit

16 Chickswimsuit Et Accessories Chick Swimsuit On This And On That - על דא ועל הא: Sociological Changes and Halakhah

16 Chickswimsuit Et Accessories Chick Swimsuit



[1] searche1 Accessories Chickswimsuit ccsearchs Accessories o Accessories isearchssearchhsearchesearchr Accessories hsearchs Chickswimsuit aaaaa+swimsuitc Accessories k Accessories C Chickswimsuit isearchk Accessories w Accessories msearchu Chickswimsuit td Chickswimsuit csearche Chickswimsuit s Chickswimsuit r Accessories e Chickswimsuit search Accessories hc Chickswimsuit ssearchisearchs Accessories i Accessories searchcc Chickswimsuit s Accessories or Chickswimsuit ed.c.%D7%CA%D1%B6%BD%BB%C1%F7%CD%F8%C2%DB%CC%B3 search searchcsearche Chickswimsuit s Accessories r Accessories e Chickswimsuit Accessories %D1%C7%D6%DE%D3%D0%C2%EB%D7%AA%CC%F9%C7%F8--d.c.%D7%CA%D1%B6%BD%BB%C1%F7%CD%F88
[2] Mishna, Avot 1:5
[3] In case you did not click on that link, let me quote to you what R. Pesach Eliyahu Falk writes in his (in)famous book "Oz Vehadar Levushah" p. 56 (everything is sic): "[ If a woman or girl were to adopt the principle that she will wear whatever can be proven from T'nach or Shas that our Imahos or other nashim tznuos wore, maintaining that such items must be fully tznius'dik, she would be making a serious blunder. Times have changed, and that which was fully acceptable in those times, would be strange and even extremely unrefined when worn in present-day society!

For example, Avraham Avinu sent jewelry with Eliezer his servant to be given to the girl who would be chosen to be the wife of Yitchak. Among the items sent was a nose-ring - see Breishis 24:47. Evidently, in those days a nose-ring was a refined and respectable piece of jewelry. Nonetheless, it goes without saying that, if a woman wore such an ornament within our society, she would be considered a prutza, as she would be adorning herself with something which is ostentatious and extremely unrefined according to present-day norms. This underscores the point stated: places and times differ very much from one another, and one must not assume that everything which is acceptable in one society is likewise acceptable in another.]", ad kan leshono.
[4] The biblical prohibition "שלא לבוא על אשת איש".
[5] Mishna, Avot ibid.
[6] According to R. Shapiro, Hazal's dictum not to shmooze with women, is just an extension of the biblical prohibition to engage in adultery.
[7] Should probably be amended to בני גילי.
[8] BT Eruvin 53b
[9] Tehilim, 28:5
[10] בסעודת חתונה? H/T to Ovadya (in the comments section) for pointing this out.
[11] 62:11 (here it is 62:9)
[12] I haven't found it. Lvush Hahur, appendix (Minhagim) 36 (H/T to Ovadya).
[13] An expression taken from BT Brakhot 20a. Literally it means "white geese", figuratively it means that one can look at women without getting turned on.
[14] Shir Hashirim 1:14
[15] sic, the verse actually reads ומראיך. The phrase ומדבריך נאוה comes from another verse in Shir Hashirim (4:3). Such conflation of verses and passages is actually quite common in Hasidic sources.
[16] = dangerous!
Posted by at 11:41 PM
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

8 comments:

  1. This particular "times have changed" argument is built on the Ritva at the end of Kiddushin 82a, who writes:

    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
  2. 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
  3. 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