Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 313

Sunday, January 23 2000

• Histaklus b'Nashim
• Re: Avodah V4 #294
• Re:moser
• Re:Histaklus ba'anashim
• MO following Mendelsohnn?
• Re: MO vs RW
• Re: Histaklus ba'anashim
• Re: Histaklus b'Nashim
• Re: Histaklus BaNashim
• Intrinsic value, metzuveh v'oseh
• Techelet
• Re: Avodah V4 #311
• On the importance of shoveling snow off your sidewalk
• RE: points to ponder
• Re: Internet
• Re: Histaklus BaNashim
• Re: Histaklus BaNashim
• dud shemesh
• Re: Histaklus BaNashim

R. Gershon Dubin wrote:

> 	Human nature has not changed,  and women do not have hirhurim when 
> looking at men.

and R. Richard Wolpoe responded:

> Have you asked them?

Just to bring a proof from goyish society, which if anything is far 
more "open" than fruhm society, all the controversies in sports 
reporting are over women reporters being admitted to men's locker 
rooms, where the men are running around unclothed. No one even 
suggests that male reporters should be admitted to women's locker 
rooms. To me, at least, that makes it apparent that the chashash 
is only of men looking at women and not vice versa.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

> >
> >However, Janet herself explained that she was thinking of R. Eliezer
> >Berkovits.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> This is especially because it is such a convenient rumour for those who
> would want to write him off (it is either that or he had charata on the
> books he wrote).What I suggest anybody does, if they are interested in
> acertaining the truth, is speak to his son Dov, who was, last time I
> heard, teaching at Yakar (an Orthodox but fairly wacky (should I say
> Habbakuk) shul/institute in Jerusalem) and hence is eminently traceable.
> 


Rav Dov Berkovits is now director of Mila, a Torah Learning and Teaching
Center in Jerusalem, lives in Shilo and if any one is interested in
calling him, you can get his phone number from me off list.

Reuven

Rabbi Yosef Blau writes: " It
is imperative that criteria be established that will determine when it
is permissible to  take complaints to the authorities, both in Israel
and the United States, and when to testify against Orthodox offenders.
The term "moser" has become an excuse for allowing responsibility to be
shifted from criminals to victims."

Is one a moser only if complaining or testifying against an *Orthodox*
Jew?  And is, say, a homosexual sex offender, who violates a yehareg v'al
yaavor, to be considered Orthodox?  For that matter, if a person
scrupulously observes the mitzvos ben adam lamakom, but embezzles or runs
a Ponzi scheme, is he any more Orthodox than one who is scrupulously
careful about ben adam lachavero but not ben adam lamakom?
Sadya N. Targum
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

In response to H. Maryles's comment that "women simply do not have
Hirhurei Aveirah when they
 watch men dancining, probably even eroticly," David Finch responds,
"This is not consistent with the observation and experience of many of
my, uh, friends. ("Doc, my friend has this weird pain in his foot. . . .
") Nor is it consistent with the science (real science, like it or not)
of physical sexual 
response, about which contemporary neurologists know a lot."

If DF is correct, how does he explain the almost total non-existence of
pornography directed at women? Surely some entrepreneur would have sought
to profit from such a market, if it existed.

One must conclude that, as usual, Chazal understood human nature in
distinguishing between stimuli for men and for women.

Sadya N. Targum
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

In a message dated 1/21/00 3:49:07 PM Eastern Standard Time,  Rich Wolpoe 
writes:
<< Look at the opposition to Mendelsohnn during his time, but eventually MO 
 followed his shitos..  But he was seen (with soem justification) as poreiz 
geder
 IN HIS TIME>>
Is this true? Is MO really following Mendelsohnn? This is the first time I 
ever heard such a statement. And I know many MO who would be very insulted by 
it. The MO I know see themselves as following traditional gedolei yisrael 
such as RYBS, R. Hirsch, R. Kook, R. Hildisheimer and the RAMBAM.  

----- Original Message -----
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: MO vs RW


> On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 08:42:59AM -0600, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M.
Bechhofer wrote:
> : 2. Choshen Mishpat is a law book. It is neither "machshir" or
"mekkadesh".
>
> I wasn't commenting about the book, I was commenting about following the
book.
> IOW, is performing masah umatan al pi halachah merely a kosher practice,
or
> is it a kadosh one?
>

Kosher, not Kadosh. Is there precedent anywhere in Shas to say that a kinyan
between one Jew and another is inherently a kadosh act? Or, that not
commiting ono'oh is in and of itself a kadosh act? That is, without holy
intentions (lishma).

> :        The intent, or "lishma", of the MO is invariably no purer than
the
> : RW, and vice versa.
>
> I thought we were discussing ideals, not societies. What's relevent is
> that mod-O aspirations are based on the notion that TuM is kadosh, not
just
> muttar. And a major part of derech eretz in the life of the typical
"balebus"
> is choshein mishpat.
>
> OTOH, to the RW, going out and earning a parnasah is a necessary evil.
>
> I didn't think what I said was so innovative. There is much Torah written
> on the subject of the berachah/tzivui of "umil'u es ha'aretz vikivshuha"
vs
> the kelala of "bezei'as apecha tochal lechem".
>

I think what you say here is an old, and, inaccurate canard. I know of
plenty of sources in Right Wing tracts - such as the Michtav Me'Eliyahu,
Pachad Yitzchok and others, that note and explain how one's secular pursuits
can be consecrated by the right lishma. I know of no MO sources to that
effect.

Indeed, I submit to you that "work" as such, i.e., a cobblers's or
blacksmith's trade, or, more contemporaneously, computer programming or
bookkeeping, would not be granted by TuM philosophy any exalted madreiga
whatsoever. From the perspective of true TuM, as defined from the Litvishe
perspective by RYBS and from a quasi-Chassidic perspective by RD Norman
Lamm, TuM is really pursuit of *secular knowledge*, and has no regard for
"derech eretz in the life of the typical balebus".

Which brings us back to an earlier contention of mine, that YU is a Litvishe
Yeshiva. While dilutions have occured since its heyday in the 40's and 50's,
at its prime, the TuM philosophy adhered to by RYBS and YU was precisely the
Nefesh HaChaim's "Hoibt-Litvishe" philosophy, with the "mere" addition of
Madda. Indeed, if anything, a true TuMnik would have looked down from an
even higher ivory tower (one consisting of tusks of both Torah and Madda) at
a simple tradesman than a "Torah Only" adherent.

Do you have explicit sources to challenge my contention?

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

In a message dated 1/22/00 6:16:42 PM US Central Standard Time, 
targum1@juno.com writes:

<< 
 If DF is correct, how does he explain the almost total non-existence of
 pornography directed at women? Surely some entrepreneur would have sought
 to profit from such a market, if it existed.
  >>

The non-existence of pornography directed at women? You have indeed obtained 
modesty, Baruch HaShem. It's out there, truckloads of it, and plenty of 
entrepreneurs have made plenty of money off of it.

Not far above pornography are the TV shows that revolve around the sex lifes 
of various young glamor figures like lifeguards, Beverly Hills college 
students, single big-city professionals, etc. These shows are totally 
egalitarian. They pander equally to female as well as male sexual fantasies. 
In fact, that's about all they do, unless their plots are so subtle that they 
make no impression at all. These shows produce daily cash flows that equal 
the annual GNP of Poland. 

David Finch

In a message dated 1/22/00 3:42:06 PM US Central Standard Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

<< Just to bring a proof from goyish society, which if anything is far 
 more "open" than fruhm society, all the controversies in sports 
 reporting are over women reporters being admitted to men's locker 
 rooms, where the men are running around unclothed. No one even 
 suggests that male reporters should be admitted to women's locker 
 rooms. To me, at least, that makes it apparent that the chashash 
 is only of men looking at women and not vice versa. >>

This is not a great proof. Many, many people have suggested that male 
reporters be admitted to women's locker rooms. Most of them are men who work 
sports desks on newspapers, magazines, and broadcast outlets throughout the 
United States and Canada (and Argentina, Newfoundland, and the Outer Solomon 
Islands, for that matter). The fact that they have not yet surmounted this 
barrier doesn't mean that they've lost all hope for the future. 

David Finch

In a message dated 1/22/00 1:54:47 PM US Central Standard Time, 
Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk writes:

<< [Re: Harry Maryles's post] I understand the distinction.  However, dispite 
your dislike of sources,
 to me you really need to go back to them to fully understand the issue. >>

From my exposure to him, R'Maryles has no dislike of sources. But he's pretty 
careful how he uses them. He's usually right, except when he disagrees with 
me. (I like sources, too, but I'm too unwise and uneducated to identify and 
cite them correctly, or even to know when they exist. Harry could give them 
to me on any issue, should he wish to.)

I don't know (and doubt I'd complete understand) the halacha on whether 
histalkus is assur even in relation to a woman's little finger, as you 
suggest. I agree that even a female finger can trigger histalkus. Anything 
can trigger histalkus, including all sorts of images that are superficially 
nonsexual. We all know that. The only sure way to rid ourselves of histalkus 
is to try to turn ourselves into nonsexual beings. I can't think of 
*anything* that'll rid the world of Judaism quicker than that. No desire, no 
sex, no children, no dor l'dor. We'll be gone in two generations. Did HaShem 
create us that way?

Another thing. I'm not sure I buy the theory that too many books leads to 
immodest looks. But if, as you say, talmid chachim are particularly 
vulnerable or susceptible to being twisted around and led astray by their 
(hidden) sexual impulses, then why would the rest of us allow them to be 
poskim on this subject? Shouldn't they be disqualified? Or at least taken 
with a grain of salt?

David Finch

Re this eino metzuveh veoseh business, I heard/put together an
interesting Lubavitch explanation of the difference.

The LLR, R' Shimon Hecht, was explaining Ch. 35 of the first
part of Tanya, which talks about the need to do mitzvot as the
"fuel" to feed the "flame" of the Shechinah which burns on one's
head (one's body as the "wick"), that learning Torah isn't
enough, but one needs Actions to really get the Shechinah to burn
on one's head, as it were. 

Rabbi Hecht brought two statements of the Alter Rebbe (R' Shneur
Zalman of Liadi) which contradict.

1) Bowing in the time of the BHM"K was better, because it was
in response to the visible Presence of Hashem which one felt
there.

2) Bowing today is better than in the time of BHM"K, because 
it is done out of faith, rather than out of immediate experience.

The late Lubavitcher Rebbe ztvkll"h reconciled them as follows:
one refers to Quantity, the other to Quality (shades of Milot 
haHigayon).  The quantity of the experience in the BHM"K was
so overwhelming that one just felt one had no choice but to
bow down in front of the King of Kings - one feels totally
nullified before that Presence, and one feels one must honor
Him.

Today, however, since one only bows out of a feeling of being 
commanded to, out of one's faith in Hashem, it has a greater
quality.  It is a purer expression of faith, because it does
not arise out of an external stimulus, but rather comes from
inside, from one's knowledge of God through Torah and Mitzvot.
Thus his action, his intellect, are aligned with (nullified in)
the Will of God - the mitzvah indicates God's will, and he
acts accordingly.

I raised the point that this could then explain Gadol hametzuveh
ve'oseh.  The one who bows down out of awe at the tangible Presence
is bowing down out of an impetus that arises from his own intellect
(since emotions generally arise from thoughts) - he is not metzuveh,
but clearly he's doing a Good Thing (tm), having an appropriate
reaction. 

The one who bows down from a sense of being commanded, however,
does so as an expression of the Divine will.  The initial impetus
that led to his bowing down, came from the Will of God, as the
mitzvah of bowing down at this point in the service.

The initial impetus of the one at the BHM"K is his *own* intellect,
reacting the the Divine presence.  So in terms of which intellect
initiated the action, the metzuveh v'oseh is greater than the 
eino metzuveh v'oseh - the former's intellect is nullfied to that
of God, while the latter's is reacting to God. 

Rabbi Hecht agreed with this understanding.

As a result of Micha's comments on my previous post on the subject of
the newly derived techelet in Israel, I read the articles currently
posted in the P'til Tekhelet website <tekhelet.co.il> to supplement the
information that I had obtained some years ago on this subject.  As a
result, I have a clearer picture of the current status, but am still
uncertain of the validity of the new techelet product.  I must confess
to being less than an expert in both the scientific and halachic aspects
of techelet, but am sufficiently knowledgeable in both that my questions
should have some weight.

I believe that the Amutat P'til Tekhelet organization has produced
enough evidence for the murex trunculus snail as the source of the
biblical techelet to make us take their claim seriously.  This has also
been the conclusion of secular experts on these organisms, and is
consistent with the archaeological evidence in southern Lebanon and
northern Israel on the murex dyeing industry that existed until some
1400 years ago.  The murex trunculus produces a secretion that leads to
a mixture of indigo (blue) and dibromoindigo (purple) dyes, while the
related murex brandaris species produces basically the dibromoindigo
dye.  The latter dye is, presumably, the biblical argaman, while the
trunculus derived dye is, presumably, the techelet dye that is
biblically mandated for tzitzit.

Even given the above conclusions, the question remains as to the proper
processing of the trunculus dye and the resultant color.  As I
recollect, Dr. Ziderman in his lengthy article on the subject some years
ago had concluded that the violet-purple mixture of dibromoindigo and
indigo that was produced from the trunculus snail was the biblical
techelet dye that was required for tzitzit.  Some objected to that color
as being, apparently,  inconsistent with descriptions in the talmud that
spoke of techelet as having the color of the sky and being easily
confused with the dye from the indigo plant (the talmudic kelah elan
according to the Aruch, an early Rishon).  Subsequently, researchers in
Israel found that the original trunculus dye was converted to indigo if
the dye in the reduced state (the soluble form that is needed in vat
dyeing) was exposed to ultraviolet rays from the sun (or from uv lamps
?).  The color was then supposed to be indistinguishable from the dye
produced from the indigo plant.  The question that I then raised was how
can the test given in B. Menachot 42b-43a which depends on the effect of
the first mixture in lightening the color distinguish between the indigo
molecules from the animal and plant sources.  Micah contended that
perhaps some dibromoindigo remained from the trunculus dye, or that
absorbed non-dye material from the source or the medim used to develop
the dye caused the color change in the indigo plant dye but not in the
trunculus dye.  In the absence of enough information to duplicate the
talmudic test, the question must remain unresolved.  However, the
suggestion that some dibromoindigo is supposed to remain in the techelet
dye is probably well-taken if it refers more than to a trace amount.
There is a technical article which, apparently, makes the claim that
dibromoindigo is much less soluble than indigo in an
aqueous-dimethylformamide solvent.  That solvent may be similar in
action to the talmudic mixture of well-aged urine and other components
(urine contains urea, an amide, and an indole derivative that is
analogous to the original source of the indigo in the murex snail).  If
this is correct then the talmudic test would cause the plant indigo dye
to become much weaker, while the trunculus dye would retain its
dibromocomponent (the color would change, but that may have been
considered irrelevent).  The second talmudic test which involves baking
the faded dyed string in some kind of dough to see if its color darkened
is more mysterious, unless the trunculus derived dye also contained at
least a trace of an iodine derivative which could interact with starch
in the dough to form the deep blue-purple starch-iodine complex.  In the
absence of information on the minor components in the trunculus
secretion, the latter suggestion is merely speculative.

In any case, the above considerations raise the question of how much
dibromoindigo should be left in trunculus derived dye to be valid as
techelet (the proportion of dibromo to unbrominated indigo could,
presumably, be controlled by the level of uv radiation and time of
exposure)?  Does the precise shade of the dye really matter (if it does
then we are at a loss to duplicate the real techelet in the absence of a
valid, well-preserved archaeological example of real techelet), or is it
sufficient to have the right source and a color in the right part of the
spectrum?  I noted the techelet today in the tzitzit of one of our
mitpallelim.  In sunlight, the color was light blue akin to aqua.  These
tzitzit were, apparently, produced in Israel some 4 years ago, and have
not, ostensibly, faded.  How is this color similar to indigo which
should be between blue and violet in the spectrum?  Is there a quality
control check on the color produced in the new Israeli process before
shipping the tzitzit?

Some clarifications of these issues would be greatly appreciated since
the opportunity to fulfill a biblical mitzvah in the intended manner
after 1400 years of neglect is very appealing.

Yitzchok Zlochower

In a message dated 1/21/00 9:16:01 AM US Central Standard Time,
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:

<< And,  to combine two threads,  a lot of baloney.  The
**overhwhelming**  proportion of immigrants who came to this country in
the very early part of the 20th century discarded their religion upon
arrival if not sooner.  (The saying was that dredging New York Harbor
would turn up thousands of pairs of tefilin whose owners chucked them as
soon as they saw the "promised land")

Undoubtedly, there were many who did give up Torah U'mitzvos upon entering
US coastal waters. However, I would hesitate to use the term "overwhelming".
In order to use this term, one must ignore the countless individuals who
cried the first time they worked on shabbos and those who caved in only
after suffering ordeals you and I (assuming you too are of a generation
raised in post - depression America) cannot imagime, let alone comprehend.
Many people had to decide between working on shabbos and feeding the
children, or at the least, as in the case of my grandparents, shmiras
hamitzvot meant that often only the children ate dinner. The day's food
often consisted of a shnaps and kichal in the shteibel and with luck  a
slice of herring if a 'g'veer' had yahrtzeit that day.
Do we want to sit in judgement on that dor, or lump those who failed these
nisyonos into the same group as those who equated and escape from Europe
with an escape from the yolk of Torah?


Simcha Klagsbrun

For those of us in the northeast, we have gotten the first snowfall of the 
season this past week.

What I noticed with this snowfall, and with those of the past, is that many 
people who are otherwise very fastidious with mitzvahs, neglect the need to 
shovel snow off their sidewalk.

For those that do not shovel the snow off their sidewalk, they put the 
public in danger.

Given that, why are so many people inactive when it comes to the obligation 
of this bor be’rishus ha’rabim?




______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

> > > <<Re Pesach-  Is Pesach connected only to Yetziat Mitzrayim
> > > or is it an
> > > optimum time for Geula in general?>>
> > >
> > > We observe Purim this year in the second Adar in order
> > > to connect the
> > > geula of Purim to that of Pesach.  There may be something to
> > > "geula being
> > > in the air" at this time of year.
> > >
> > > Gershon
> > >
> Watch out for Rabbi Pinchas Winston's new book "From Redemption to
> Redemption"
> addresses the Purim to Pesach theme.
> 
> Mrs. Gila Atwood

>>Who volunteers to vet all the offensive sites to protect the rest of us? 
>> Vechi omrim le'adam chateh bishvil sheyizkeh chaverecha?
>
>Can't it be done by software?

Only up to a point.  One of the methods that this type of software uses is
to check for certain words, but this is subject to errors.  It might rule
out a site with information for people with breast cancer, for example.
Another example: in our Agency, monitoring software is used to prevent
people from surfing inappropriate sites during working hours.  It flagged a
discussion on the Agency Intranet because someone had used a phrase like "a
seductively simple but inadequate argument".

On the other hand, sites can use strategems to avoid being flagged, such as
inserting punctuation between letters (S*E*..., etc.)  Finally, there is no
way for software to recognize the subject of a picture.

Therefore, most of this software is supported by human beings who check out
the sites and update the program's lists periodically.  Also, in many
cases, operators of adult sites will nominate themselves for exclusion, to
show that they are trying not to reach children.

Kol tuv,
Arnie

Arnie Kuzmack
kuzmack@cpcug.org

On 22 Jan 00, at 20:19, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:

> I don't know (and doubt I'd complete understand) the halacha on whether 
> histalkus is assur even in relation to a woman's little finger, as you 
> suggest. I agree that even a female finger can trigger histalkus. Anything 
> can trigger histalkus, including all sorts of images that are superficially 
> nonsexual. We all know that. The only sure way to rid ourselves of histalkus 
> is to try to turn ourselves into nonsexual beings. I can't think of 
> *anything* that'll rid the world of Judaism quicker than that. No desire, no 
> sex, no children, no dor l'dor. We'll be gone in two generations. Did HaShem 
> create us that way?

Actually there is a Gemara in Sanhedrin that says that after the 
Churban, the Sanhedrin davened that the yetzer hara for sexual 
relations be taken away from people. The hens stopped laying 
eggs, and everyone stopped reproducing altogether. As a result, 
they davened that the yetzer hara be restored except for having 
relations with close family members. Beyond that, we are 
instructed to control our taavos.

So in this world we have to be sexual beings, but we are also 
instructed to control our taavos.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

----- Original Message -----
From: Avodah <owner-avodah@aishdas.org>
To: <avodah-digest@aishdas.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2000 11:41 PM
Subject: Avodah V4 #312


The topic of Hirhur/Histaklut and Chana's questions comes up in other
spheres as well (singing etc.)

The issue of the difference of the wedding is that it is a Se'udat
Mitzvah and many poskim hold that the fact that this is a Se'udat
Mitzvah is what changes the issue.

IIRC this comes up also with singing together at the table at Se'udat
Shabbat.


Shoshana L. Boublil

regarding the dud shemesh:

it is important to note the second edition of shmirat
shabbat DOES NOT forbid using water from the dud.  he
wrote that "baal nephesh" will distance himself from
using the water.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

On 22 Jan 00, at 19:53, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:

> The gemorra in Brochos 24a says that that histaklus is assur even in
> relation to a woman's little finger.  This is brought by the various
> authorities (eg Rambam issurei bi'a perek 21 halacha 2, Tur/SA Even
> Haezer 21:2).  That is, we have it on good authority (the
> gemorra no less) that some people can have hirhurim looking at a
> woman's little finger (not to mention her face).  Similarly, it is
> suggested in all the authorities, based on the gemorra, that a man run
> in front of a woman, or turn to the wall if he sees her in the
> marketplace.

I think it's important to point out that in the times of the Gemara, 
women went out a lot less than they do today. A woman in the 
marketplace would have been a rarity, and that's why the men were 
told to run from her. At least to that extent, I think there is room to 
argue that we live in different times.

> This is why I say the position of those in Meah Shearim is totally
> consistent.  There is a risk that if a man looks at a woman's little
> finger, or her face, he will have hirhurim.  So, in order to avoid the
> possibility, such men do not look at either a woman's face, or her
> finger.  Such actions are a fence against the danger of stirring up
> hirhurim.

Yes, it is totally consistent. But it's not the way most of us live 
today. 

> What I am trying to understand is why those who hold that the reason to
> have separate seating or no possibility of viewing women dancing is a
> fence lest one might come to histaklus do not appear to hold that a
> similar fence needs to be made regarding seeing her finger or her face.
> And yet the actions of this particular olam appears to be in favour of
> just such a distinction.
> 
> Carl Sherer in suggesting that the difference is between a nuisance and
> an attractive nuisance would seem to be implying that a man never finds
> a woman attractive (or distracting) when speaking to her (eg at a shop
> counter, in the street, at work, as part of one's function as a Rabbi),
> but that same man finds her incredibly attractive when either seated
> near him at a wedding, or when dancing.

I would not say that he never finds her attractive; otherwise I would 
not have classified her as a nuisance at all. There is no doubt in 
my mind that if he does find her attractive, he should catch himself 
and look away. However, at a wedding where the woman is most 
likely "dressed to kill," I think there is an extra chashash that a 
man who is not her husband will find her attractive. How much 
more so if he watches her dance where her dancing could easily 
stir up hirhurim.

> But I am finding this difficult to credit.  Maybe I am just clueless,
> being female, but from what Carl is saying, there is something intrinsic
> about weddings that does something to a man who is otherwise under
> control (not dancing, because if it was just dancing, then mixed seating
> would be fine, it would just be the dancing that would be the problem).

I have been to weddings where that distinction was made. There 
was mixed seating (for married couples) for the meal, and there 
was a mechitza for the dancing. It requires an extra large hall (the 
only times I saw this done was in the largest hall in Yerushalayim 
and BTW the same family made both chasonas), so that the dance 
floor is at least somewhat removed from the tables. And even then, 
if a man who is seated in view of the ladies' dance floor does not 
leave the table, he could potentially have a problem.

> And not only that, his statement would seem to contradict the gemorra,
> the Rambam, the Tur, the Shulchan Aruch and everybody else who makes it
> clear that a man *can* (not necessarily *will* but *can*) have hirhurim
> when he sees a woman's little finger.

I think to some extent all of us who interact with women in the 
workplace or elsewhere buy into the argument that our senses 
have become somewhat dulled and that literally seeing a woman's 
small finger is unlikely to cause us hirhurim. In essence, that's the 
Levush's argument as I understand it. I think that it's a question of 
where we draw the line (obviously some of us on this list would 
draw it a lot more tightly than others), but what each of us is trying 
to identify is situations where someone is likely to have hirhurim.

There are Rabbonim in Israel who have no contact with women (or 
no contact with women other than their wives). Personally, I don't 
pretend to be on their madreiga, and I think it would be yuhara for 
me to try. I suspect it would be for many other people on this list 
as well. But such Rabbonim do exist (I have met two of them). And 
there is at least one computer programming company I have heard 
of in Yerushalayim where the men work on one floor and the 
women on another.

I also wonder to what extent having to interact with women for 
parnassa might be considered a heter, but I do not have any 
sources to prove that.

> My understanding of the answer to this question is that we rely on the
> Levush!  The Levush says that in a society where contact of this nature
> is common, there is no need (it is inappropriate to) make fences of this
> nature, and therefore casual glancing is OK (of course if an individual
> finds himself doing more than casual glancing, it would be incumbant on
> him to look away, just as the gemorra prescribes, but we are not
> poskening for the miut).

Sometimes (i.e. in the situation that I identified as an "attractive 
nuisance") I don't think the men who are looking are a miut. I am 
thinking of what is traditionally the first after dinner dance at MO 
weddings in the US, where the women take the entire dance floor 
and are dancing a real dance while all the men are seated at the 
tables. I would bet that nearly every man in the room is looking and 
most are having hanaa even if they are not having "erotic thoughts" 
about any particular woman.

> So what I am trying to understand is how, if you reject the Levush in
> relation to weddings, you can accept him in relation to talking to a
> woman.  Maybe there are other sources which say casual looking is
> generally OK, but in relation to weddings it is not.  I was just trying
> to seek them out (and understand them).

I think it's because most of us don't go to weddings dressed quite 
the same way that we go dressed to work or to shop. This is 
particularly true in Israel, where much of the work force dresses 
casually. You personally, because you work in a large law firm 
where you may well have to dress to the nines every day, may not 
appreciate that, but most women do not dress anywhere near as 
well for work or going shopping as they do to go to a wedding. 
When I worked in New York (in the prehistoric days before "Casual 
Friday" :-), I also was accustomed to seeing women dressed to kill 
every day. Not true anymore (for me anyway). I think this fits in 
with the distinction between the Levush's shita and the Ben Ish 
Chai's shita that you discuss. We are used to seeing women on a 
daily basis; we do not often see them dressed to the nines.

> But, it seems to me, that any baal/as simcha needs to bear in mind the
> extent of the suffering his/her particular choices will inflict on all
> of his/her guests.  That goes for the Rosh Yeshiva.  That also goes for
> his female guests who may desire to, but not be permitted to, dance (or
> the lonely person who knows no-one except their spouse on the other side
> of the mechitza). I realise that, while from the female side I do not
> see (and cannot see) the internal struggles that revolve around the
> issur of hirhurim, I am also aware that those on the other side of the
> mechitza do not see the tears that I have seen in similar cases.  

Since we made aliya, my wife and I have reached the point that 
there are "her simchas" and "my simchas." She feels comfortable 
enough not to go to mine for exactly the reasons you describe. But 
I continue to schlep to hers, often because I feel badly about 
making her drive home alone. But one spouse or the other not 
knowing anyone at a Simcha is a big problem, especially in Israel 
where seating is not assigned, and one can find oneself at a table 
that is totally inappropriate, or even without a seat at all. A couple 
of months ago I went with my wife to a chassona outside 
Yerushalayim which was definitely one of her social obligations 
(because I did not want her to have to drive home alone with the 
baby late at night), found what might have been the last seat in the 
room, and was appalled when the elder gentleman who invited me 
to the table stuffed his main course in a plastic bag and walked out 
of the room as soon as it had been served. I kept the baby for the 
entire evening, which precluded me from dancing, even after he 
awoke and wanted to nurse, because the women were in a 
separate room, and I had no idea how to find my wife. 
Uncomfortable? Somewhat. (The only people I actually knew there 
were the chosson's father and a cousin of the Kallah's with whom I 
am not friendly). But I'm not sure if I would have been any better off 
had the seating been mixed as my wife only knew three or four 
people on the women's side. Fortunately, there was a sefer 
around....

For
> example, it doesn't seem to matter where I go around the world, every
> year on simchas torah there is some little girl crying because she is
> too old to dance and she just cannot understand why. 

This may well be a separate topic, but it is one that interests me 
all the same. At what age do you all think it is inappropriate for a 
girl to sit with her father in shul? I'm interested in hearing any and 
all opinions.... Especially if anyone has halachic sources....

> So while we all need to consider the halacha and what it says (and not
> just the simple formulas that are bandied about but the full complexity
> which can be found on just about every issue on which there is machlokus
> - for which I am afraid I believe you need to look at sources), I would
> also put in a plea to not forget, in circumstances where there are a
> range of opinions on which one can rely, and to look at the wider
> picture of who will bear the brunt of your decision as well.

If what you're suggesting is that someone whose entire chevra is 
MO (and would feel uncomfortable with separate seating) should 
not make a separate seating affair that will make all of their friends 
uncomfortable, I think there is definitely room for your suggestion. I 
suspect that someone who would feel more comfortable with mixed 
seating is also less likely to find themselves having hirhurim over 
seeing well dressed women occupying a dance floor.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]