Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 149

Mon, 28 Apr 2008

• 1. Re: When does mixed swimming mean? (Doron Beckerman)
• 2. Re: When does mixed swimming mean? (Rich, Joel)
• 3. Re: When does mixed swimming mean? (SBA)
• 4. Re: Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 148 (Meir Shinnar)
• 5. Re: Shaliach for a mitzvah (Arie Folger)
• 6. Re: HQBH speaks through History [was R' Angel & GeirusRedux] (Rich, Joel)
• 7. Re: Shabur Malka v Caesar (Doron Beckerman)
• 8. Re: letter of RSRH (SBA)
• 9. Re: Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 148 (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: When does mixed swimming mean? (Rich, Joel)
• 11. Mixed swimming (Gershon Dubin)
• 12. Re: When does mixed swimming mean? (Michael Makovi)
• 13. Re: Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 148 (Michael Makovi)
• 14. Re: Shabur Malka v Caesar (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Eating Two Kezeisim of Matza for Motzi-Matza. (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Violate Shabbat to Save a Jentile (Micha Berger)

Regarding tight clothing, I think the best source is "Mah Yarech Baseser"
(based on "Chamukei Yerechayich"). Baseser does not mean merely "covered",
but "concealed/hidden from view". If I wanted to hide money I would not
allow its outline to be clearly visible underneath its covering - that's not
hidden.

[ That's as far as the Yarech, though. There are somewhat more lenient
standards for the torso (based on the description of the Badim as protruding
from the Paroches K'shnei Dadei Ishah (Gemara Menachos and Rashi to Yoma)),
and there is no prohibition on clothing which follow the contours of the
arms. ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080428/30faebd2/attachment-0001.htm 

> Fwiw iiuc there is now a line of full body non-skin tight bathing 
> suits available.
> CKVs
> Joel rich

If a certain beach or pool were mixed but permitted only davka such
bathing suits for women, would mixed swimming per permissible then?

Mikha'el Makovi
_______________________________________________
CLOR but technically why would it be (I suppose we could branch into our
meta discussions like does everything require a heter or is down time
assur  or are concerts assur or does halacha frown on family seating or
should we be choshesh for the pregnancy in ambatya issue discussions )?

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

From: "Michael Makovi" < >
A friend of mine recently learned that there is no issur of mixed
swimming per se, and asked why then do we avoid it? I replied to her:

>>>>
Actually, it makes a LOT of sense. There's no halacha for davka
swimming; rather, you have halachot of tzeniut, which applies to
swimming no more than to shopping at the mall. Why should the addition
of water change anything?
>>

Actually the addition of water seems to add quite a bit to it all.

See the last page of Gittin [90b]: 
"Middas adam ra sheroeh es ishto...verochetzes im bnei adam."

"Im bnei adam salka daatach!?"

[Peirush Rashi: "Im kein raglayim ledavar shezonah hi, ve'asurah lo".

Tosfos: "Afilu adam ra eino sovel zeh me'ishto...afilu kala shebekalos eino
oseh ken.."]

"Ela bemakom shebnei adam rochtzin - zu mitzva min haTorah legarsho"

No issur of mixed swimming!? My foot!!

SBA

PS: The SR zt'l once said pshat in "Im bnei adam salka daatach!?"
- How can you call persons who engage in mixed swimming "bnei adam" ??

SBA

 

WRT mixed swimming
This discussion has come up in the past, and, as I previously
documented, it was common practice for rabbanim and rebbitzens to go
mixed swimming at least through the 1950s -  including names that are
well known - and the standards of tzniut were comparable to what is
seen at most family friendly beaches and pools.  It has become
unacceptable - but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is assur (one
can argue about making a new issur shehachadash assur min hatorah....
:-)
but there is little basis for forbidding, for example, mixed swimming,
and allowing walking on the boardwalk next to the beach....
Meir Shinnar

On Monday, 28. April 2008 11.43:08 avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org wrote:
> But certainly in the case of donations to a charitable institution, such as
> a yeshiva, where the money does *not* get passed on to a third party - in
> such a case it is very difficult for me to see how the case can be compared
> to your description of sending a get through the mail.

Someone is going to handle it for the yeshivah. After all, the walls of the 
batei midrash are not known to take a check and walk it to the bank. Instead, 
a gizbar does the work. Thus, AFAICT, the point is once more moot.

But again, it is a nice theoretical discussion about the nature of *giving* 
tzedaqah.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

>>>>>

        Please do not conflate TIDE with TuM.  They are two very
different philosophies, often at odds with each other.  This has been
extensively discussed on A/A before you came aboard.
        
        
        
        --Toby Katz
        =============
        
        
        And, of course, I must supply my traditional link (to the Star
Trek episode
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_That_Be_Your_Last_Battlefield  )when we
come to disputations concerning the various brands of orthodoxy (which
we always define in the same manner :-))
        KT
        Joel Rich
        (I'll supply text version for anyone interested who has no
internet access)

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080428/621cf454/attachment-0001.htm 

RZS writes:
>> So how did Rava know that the pasuk applied in his own day, and proved
that
Caesar was a greater king than Shabur? <<

I think all of your questions provide the answer to the problem. Since there
was no clear contemporary ruler who was undisputedly greater than the other,
Rav Papa asked the question. Rava, however, was referring to the overall
picture of widespread fame and might throughout history,  in which Rome was
surely the greater as evidenced by the Passuk in Daniel and R' Yochanan's
Memra - that Passuk is the ultimate in defintion of influence, and RY
applied it to Rome. Rav Papa should surely have known that the overall
greater power is Rome - they are surely the more influential and famous,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080428/bd644005/attachment-0001.htm 

From: "Michael Makovi" < >
> BTW, I get the feeling that quite a few passionate devotees of RSRH have
no idea that his Kanous included Zionism and wouldn't be surprised to learn
> that if push came to shove many of them would dump RSRH - rather than
their own Zionist hashkofos.             >> R' SBA

I think even more of his followers are active devotees of his Zionism
too. 
>>

"His zionism"?? What does that mean?

>>(Actually, I wonder if were he alive today, he might simply be
the very mainstream Agudat Yisrael/non-Zionist; 

Maybe in Chul. 
But mainstream Agudah in EY? I strongly doubt it.

>>given that his son-in-law and the descendants thereof were extremely
involved in the Agudah, this seems like a safe assumption until someone
takes the time to do a detailed analysis.)

But how many of his descendents are/were involved in Israeli Aguda?

>>In any case, his Zionism wasn't a promiment part of his hashkafa

Only as much as and when necessary. He was busy dealing with the main
Shoresh Poreh Rosh veLaano of Germany at the time - which was Reform.

>>>> I simply say, "No one [even Rav Hirsch] is perfect". ;)

But had he been a Zionist (CV!) then you would consider him 'perfect"'???

SBA

Meir Shinnar wrote:
> WRT mixed swimming
> This discussion has come up in the past, and, as I previously
> documented, it was common practice for rabbanim and rebbitzens to go
> mixed swimming at least through the 1950s -  including names that are
> well known - and the standards of tzniut were comparable to what is
> seen at most family friendly beaches and pools.

No, you did not document this, you merely claimed it, while refusing
to name names.   I do not accept that the people who did this were
bnei samcha.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

 

Actually the addition of water seems to add quite a bit to it all.

See the last page of Gittin [90b]: 
"Middas adam ra sheroeh es ishto...verochetzes im bnei adam."

"Im bnei adam salka daatach!?"

[Peirush Rashi: "Im kein raglayim ledavar shezonah hi, ve'asurah lo".

Tosfos: "Afilu adam ra eino sovel zeh me'ishto...afilu kala shebekalos
eino oseh ken.."]

"Ela bemakom shebnei adam rochtzin - zu mitzva min haTorah legarsho"

No issur of mixed swimming!? My foot!!

SBA

PS: The SR zt'l once said pshat in "Im bnei adam salka daatach!?"
- How can you call persons who engage in mixed swimming "bnei adam" ??

SBA

 ==============================================
Vrochetz means to swim? One might posit that mixed sponge bathing or
microwave cleaning would be assur due to the bodily contortions involved
in cleaning one's body, not the medium of water.

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

It is hard to make a serious argument for "chadash" to refer to issurim
that were accepted midorei doros and people were poretz geder during the
last few (relatively speaking) years.  The Gemara that RSBA quoted
(rochetzes im benei adam) makes it clear that not only was it not done, it
was unthinkable.

I will grant, though, that as long as the standards of tzenius of the
Shulchan Aruch (can we agree on that <g>?), including shok and se'ar,
are maintained, it is hard to make a case against "family bathing".

But I am fairly sure the shulchan aruch standards and the "family" standards are mutually incompatible.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com


_____________________________________________________________
Click now and invest wisely with these mutual fund resources!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/Ioyw6i3nobGxxkyBCrXeUciYJcs8rstpphwligb3vpSwJcGINPcNku/

> Actually the addition of water seems to add quite a bit to it all.
>
> See the last page of Gittin [90b]:
> "Middas adam ra sheroeh es ishto...verochetzes im bnei adam."
>
> "Im bnei adam salka daatach!?"
>
> [Peirush Rashi: "Im kein raglayim ledavar shezonah hi, ve'asurah lo".
>
> Tosfos: "Afilu adam ra eino sovel zeh me'ishto...afilu kala shebekalos eino
> oseh ken.."]
>
> R' SBA

But who says its davka the water? Maybe it's that when she's bathing,
she's naked, and any women who bathes naked at the same time and place
as the men...the water would be irrelevant, because if she were to be
naked in a dry waterless bath house, we'd be no less critical place.
It would seem to be davka how she's dressing.

> "Ela bemakom shebnei adam rochtzin - zu mitzva min haTorah legarsho"

Well, now I'm simply curious, what'd be the problem if the bath house
has separate hours for men and women, and they use it at different
times, with never one seeing the other? The men and women use the same
physical location, but NEVER at the same time. Why is this grounds for
divorcing her? Where is the immorality?

Mikha'el Makovi

> but there is little basis for forbidding, for example, mixed swimming,
> and allowing walking on the boardwalk next to the beach....
> R' Meir Shinnar

Indeed, the water is irrelevant. Sitting on the pool deck, without
getting wet, would also be prohibited. Swimming is a pervasive example
of a non-tzeniut environment, but it's lav davka.

Mikha'el Makovi

Doron Beckerman wrote:
> RZS writes:

>> So how did Rava know that the pasuk applied in his own day, and 
>> proved that Caesar was a greater king than Shabur?
 
> I think all of your questions provide the answer to the problem. Since 
> there was no clear contemporary ruler who was undisputedly greater than 
> the other, Rav Papa asked the question. Rava, however, was referring to 
> the overall picture of widespread fame and might throughout history,  in 
> which Rome was surely the greater as evidenced by the Passuk in Daniel 
> and R' Yochanan's Memra - that Passuk is the ultimate in defintion of 
> influence, and RY applied it to Rome. Rav Papa should surely have known 
> that the overall greater power is Rome - they are surely the more 
> influential and famous,

But Rava didn't contrast Rome to Persia, nor did he contrast the Roman
Emperor to Persian kings in general, but to one specific king, Shapur II,
who actually did quite well against Rome.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:05:28AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: No, it's got nothing to do with that; the question is which matzah
: the "al achilat matzah" is on.  Is it on the prusah over which the
: hagadah was said, or is it on the shlema...

To which I would still add that this chiluq only exists if you separate
mishneh lechem from lechem oni. And thus, shouldn't apply to those who
only use two matzos.

:                            Obviously for those who eat from neither one
: but from the box, there is no point in eating more than one kezayit.

Wouldn't your sevara indicate that they're wrong to do so? If there is a
haqpadah to eat from the persuah or the sheleimah, then how can one eat
from neither?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 8th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           Chesed for another?

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:11:09AM -0400, Michael Makovi wrote:
: In short, Rabbi Unterman said that "mishum eiva" to justify saving a
: jentile's life on Shabbat, does not mean avoiding their animosity by
: pragmatic means, but rather, it is synonymous with "darkei shalom" a
: positive moral goal in and of itself which can be used to modify would
: what otherwise be the valid halacha, from a legal-logical standpoint,
: were it not for this moral consideration...

RALichtenstein makes the same point.

He proves the point in part by showing that darkhei Shalom (you'll see
why I capitalized in a minute) is given as a reason for giving tzedaqah
to nachriim. But vehalakhta bidrakhav is also given as a reason. It
would seem that darkhei Shalom is either using Shalom as a sheim H',
or referring to emulating His "oseh shalom".

It is therefore noteworthy that RAL is disagreeing with his father-in-law.

...
: One commenter opined that since the Gemara offers many opinions on how
: to save a life on Shabbat, it appears to be an ancient undisputed
: halacha whose rationale is irrelevant - sometimes we save him so that
: he'll keep Shabbat in the future, and sometimes because Shabbat was
: given to us not vice versa. He further said that since Ben Azzai says
: descent from Adam and the resulting universal tzelem elokim
: is a klal gadol, we cannot exclude jentiles from the obligation to
: save a life...

That quote is problematic, as some girsa'os are "miYisrael", some not.
Yes, the latter makes more sense given the reference to Adam.

But in any case, I would agree with this commentator that pasqening based
on rationale is dangerous because it may be a post-facto sevara that
the halakhah doesn't really hinge upon. A major problem with a return
to inserting more value orientation into the halachic process. We must
first identify the values.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 8th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           Chesed for another?


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 149
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."