TEEN ISSUES-----platonic relationship 2
Justonepost Posted - 14 April 2004 8:40
Ummm...I just happened upon this site and I must say, I actually don't know what to say, maybe some of you should do a bit more research, the Shulchan Aruch Leaves the idea of dealing with women very vague topic, stay very very far away from woman, as the moderator quoted. I believe that it leaves the idea so vague without laying down specific Halachos because it is a very subjective topic, every person has different boundaries.
And just to clarify, Negiya isn't Yehareg Ve'al Ya'avor, It is a De'oraita according to the Rambam but I believe the Chazon Ish calls it Chok Velo Yaavor, not the first time I've heard that obscured
And Igrot Moshe doesn’t Pasken it's asur to speak to the opposite sex, I think he says its something which should be shied away from and only Asur in certain situations,
Also from that list of 71 it seemed there were a great amount that came back to all guys being scumbags. Sounded more like someone had a little bit of baggage that had to be let out than a desire to post a more educated posting...as the name relates, just one post. I won’t be back on this site.
And I'm sure that after I post this the moderator will tear me to pieces in a wonderful way of Ahavat Yisrael Ke'darko...He has my full permission. BeKavod.
MODERATOR Posted - 14 April 2004 8:48
“The Shulchan Aruch leaves the idea of dealing with women very vague topic, stay very very far away from woman, as the moderator quoted.”
The only vagueness in that quote is how far is "far far away". But certainly being friends and socializing with them violates that in a big way. There is nothing vague about the Shulchan Aruch's instructions to stay very far, far away from them.
“I believe that it leaves the idea so vague without laying down specific Halachos “
If you follow the instructions to "stay far far away from them" then you don’t need any specific halachos.
“Negiya isn't Yehareg Ve'al Ya'avor, It is a De'oraita according to the Rambam but I believe the Chazon Ish calls it Chok Velo Yaavor, not the first time I've heard that obscured”
No. The Chazon Ish says it is Yehareg V'al yaavor. Its quoted l’halachah by his brother-in-law, the Steipler, in his letters. The reasoning is that it constitutes an abizrayhu d'giluy arayos.
“ And Igrot Moshe doesn’t Pasken it's asur to speak to the opposite sex, I think he says it’s something which should be shied away from and only Asur in certain situations”
No. He says it is assur to talk to the opposite sex in a social context, assur to be friends with them. The young "couple" who asked the shailah stated specifically they know they should not be doing it, they just want to know if its assur black and white al pi halachah. Rav Moshe answered, yes, it is assur min HaTorah.
“as the name relates, just one post. I won’t be back on this site.
And I'm sure that after I post this the moderator will tear me to pieces in a wonderful way of Ahavat Yisrael Ke'darko...He has my full permission. BeKavod.”
I don’t need to. You already provided the answer to your own post. Quote:
“maybe some of you should do a bit more research”
Welcome to frumteens.
Justonepost Posted - 15 April 2004 7:43
First off the Shulchan Aruch
“But certainly being friends and socializing with them violates that in a big way”
Once again that is a subjective comment, it all depends on the degree of socialization and friendship and the person’s ability. For example, I myself am a Ba'al Teshuva and coming from where I do, For myself, by being shomer Nagiyah and limiting the extent of my social interaction with girls, this is my definition of staying very very far away (and when considering my past, that is very very far away) for someone who is Frum From Birth or even a Ba'al Teshuva who has different experiences very very far away can imply a complete separation.
This is what I meant when I said it leaves it vague through this statement as the whole idea of very very far away depends on your subjective definition of it and speaking to girls is not black and white Halacha but dependent on the person and the situation.
A person can still be civil and friendly without getting any sort of sexual arousal or enjoyment out of it (this applies to me, I cannot comment for others.)
“He says it is assur to talk to the opposite sex in a social context, assur to be friends with them. The young "couple" who asked the shailah stated specifically they know they should not be doing it, they just want to know if its assur black and white al pi halachah. Rav Moshe answered, yes, it is assur min HaTorah.”
Once again agreed, I'm not going to argue with what Rav Moshe said in his Teshuva, we have both read it, however the certain situations in which it is asur are those where both sides are doing it for their personal pleasure in which case it is a deoraita, however if it is only on one side it is only a derabanban (still not to be taken lightly).
The point is there are cases where a person can say Hi, how are you and not be doing it for their personal pleasure, but rather just to be friendly. In that case I don’t think Rav Moshe explicitly says it's assur.
Very often a person can make a Chillul Hashem by not saying hello, a lot of my very anti-religious friends are so bitter towards religion because of people who have treated them like garbage through ignoring them or snubbing them because they were members of the opposite sex.
They interpret this in two ways, one: Judaism is a sexist religion two: Religious people are scumbags and disrespectful to non religious because they have a 'holiness complex' while both of these are misconceptions (sadly the second case isn’t a misconception as much as it is becoming a reality among religious Jews) the point is, they have to be educated, non religious Jews today are considered by the Chazon Ish to be in the category of Tinok Shenishba (see Hilchot Shechita) and its for us, the frum community who understands religion to teach them, Im not saying this should come through the intermingling of sexes, but girls should teach girls and guys should teach guys.
However, as I don’t see this being done, I take I upon myself to go out and teach them, and to tell you the truth many of those friends both female and male are coming back, not because I have convincing powers but just because they met a religious Jew who acts like a mensch.
And if my 'medraiga' whatever that means is pulled down because of my dealing with them, even if I am breaking a Halacha its worth it if I was able to show just one Jew how beautiful the Jewish religion is.
Someone asked The Amshinover Rebbe how he could have been Rav Shlomo's Rebbe when he hugged women. He answered, whatever you think my portion in Olam Haba is, his is tenfold for all the work he did.
Us religious Jews have a responsibility to them. In this day and age of self hating Jews it's not going to come through you convincing them, its going to come through you being a light, a model and this won't be reached through a 'separation fence' we have to interact and even if this means talking to girls and me burning in the warm fiery place. For me at Least, its worth it.
Now onto the Chazon Ish.
Moderator (I'd like to get your real name moderator is very impersonal) I think we may be discussing different Chazon Ish's the one I am referring to, I don’t think is mentioned by the Steipler, I think its in his actual writings, you'll know better than I do as I do not have your Bekiyut in Torah.
It's dealing with a case of someone whose aunt was insulted when he wouldn’t shake her hand.
They took the case before the Chazon Ish and he said it's Chok Velo Ya'avor in that case. Once again I'm not playing down the importance of Shomer Nagiya I'm saying in certain cases, and many modern day poskim agree with this a person can shake the opposite sexes hand if the person will be insulted.
Certain things have to be done to avoid a Chillul Hashem
"Et La'asot La'Hashem Hafer et Toratecha"
The Seridei Esh quotes this in a piece on Kol Isha as saying sometimes a person has to do certain things to inspire and show other Jews the light.
Obviously this comes with very strict parameters and its not that I can do what I want to inspire other Jews, I just don't believe that it's as black and white as it's often portrayed.
Just on an end note Moderator, I'm in the process of writing you an e-mail just with many questions for you as I feel I have a lot to learn from you and would like to continue our correspondence and friendship in a more personal manner.
MODERATOR Posted - 15 April 2004 8:13
I took the liberty of deleting the ad hominem attacks in your post, and retained your content-related questions.
You keep repeating the same things, which are factually untrue.
The Chazon Ish said regarding shaking a woman’s hand NOT that it is chok v'lo yaavor, but Yehoreg v'lo yaavor. Again, I refer you to the Steipler's writings. It is black on white. If you were taught differently then you were taught wrong.
I would imagine that would be due to some reckoning that some teacher came up with where he figured that if he teaches his class its yehoreg v'al yaavor, they will not accept it or freak out of get "turned off" or whatever, so he took the liberty of making it palatable. Trust me - this well meaning but wrongheaded idea comes up often with teachers.
The Shulchan Aruch's statement, as ALL statements in Shulchan Aruch and Poskim, are not relative to the amount of aveiros you have been doing, but are law, meant for everyone. Had you seen such a statement in a Musar sefer or a chasidishe sefer, we could discuss it. But halachah is meant for everyone.
And therefore, the standards used when the Bais Yosef in his Halachic Code of Jewish Law, meant for everyone, when he said stay far, far away from women are standards that are absolute. The fact that you are on your way up is great, no question about that, and nobody, especially not me, can know your personal nisyonos and how much if at all you are responsible for not fulfilling the halachah based on your capabilities, but that does not change the halachah. It does not change your GOAL. It may make your culpability less, but not the violation.
Its like someone is found guilty or murder in court. At the sentencing, it is brought up that the victim had recently murdered the defendant’s wife and raped and tortured his children. The judge may let him off with a relative slap on the wrist - but unless he can claim insanity, he is guilty. Guilty, but not as culpable as someone who killed in a mugging.
You need to separate violation of the law and culpability. The above case does not mean the murder laws are relative - it means the culpability is relative. That is true halachicly as well. Hakol lefi hanisayon. But the halachah is the same.
There is no way in the world - no way at all - to interpret the shulchan aruch's words "stay far far away form women" to mean "don’t touch them". That’s simply not what it says. He would have said that had he meant that.
According to you, what would you say to a child molester who wants to do Teshuva? A rapist, molester, pervert, et al, who is still Jewish and still obligated to repent. Do you think he can use his background and his previous actions as a bench
You get the idea.
As for Rav Moshe, he does say explicitly, even seeming platonic relationships between boys and girls are assur min HaTorah - its towards the end of the Teshuva. Look it up.
What the Ashinover said about Shlomo Carlebach, he did not mean that Shlomo Carlebach had a heter to do what he did and he did not mean that Shlomo Carelbach gets gan eden for hugging women. He meant that even though Shlomo is going to gehennom for what he did, he also has zechusim for bringing people back. If he did mean anything to the effect that Shlomo gets reward for hugging women, he is simply wrong. The Amshoniver Rebbe has no authority to contradict the Torah.
In fact, Shlomo himself used to say that he is going to gehenom for what he does, but he gladly does so to help anther Jews. This was unfortunately a terrible anti-Torah Hashkafa of his, and it is based on a twisted, mistaken interpretation of a statement in the Noam Elimelech and some other chasidishe seforim.
Shlomo made the exact opposite mistake you are making - you are taking the words of the Shulchan Aruch as morally relative, and Shlomo took the words of Chasidishe seforim as legally absolute and literal.
As far as tinok shnishba, what does that matter? YOU are not a tinok shenishba. The question is not what is the excuse of the non-religious Jews, but what is YOUR excuse? Our job in this world is to do the will of G-d, and that means following the Torah even when you think it will make more Jews frum by violating it.
Would you eat a treif hamburger in McDonalds with a tinok shenishba if by doing so you would maybe be able to show him that there are Orthodox Jews who are "mentchen" and will eat with them? If they will interpret your not eating in McDonalds as "snubbing them" would you feel you are allowed to eat?
And what would be if some member of the opposite sex expects you to do more than talk to him? Or shake his hand? What if he expects a lot more? How far will you go to "make a good impression" on a tinok shenishba? What if you were with a group of tinokos shenishbu one evening and they all started to violate serious prohibitions with each other, and if you don’t join them, they will consider you a nerdy, outdated, idiotic, fanatical Taliban loser? How do you decide how for to go in violating the Torah to make an impression on those who - granted, due to no fault of their own - were raised to act like animals?
Your reckonings of "what will convince Jews" is irrelevant. Hashem KNEW when he made the Torah that one day there will be non religious Jews - and STILL he said don’t do these things.
(PS - Read the Chazon Ish again - he does not say exactly what you quoted him as saying. There is a difference between morodin velo maalin versus tinok shenishba. But that is not germane to this discussion.)
Justonepost Posted - 06 May 2004 8:07
Sorry Moderator, I left one thing out with regards to the last post maybe you could splice the two together or put them one after the other.
When I mentioned the Chazon ish's idea of the Tinok Shenishba, I never referred to myself as being one. I understand the Chazon Ish's conditions on what it takes to be called an apikorus, and he says that a lack of education is one of them and in Hilchot Shechita he mentions that, now I might be misquoting this as I don’t have the source directly in front of me please correct me if I'm wrong, but that Chachamim can't put a Cherem on a person unless they’ve educated him properly. That might be incorrect, and please correct me if it is.
But I remember that the gist of it was that these people aren’t responsible because we haven’t educated them.
And someone does not become a Rasha unless you've given them Tochacha, since the Gemara says that nobody knows how to give Tochacha anymore, and that was in the times of the Amoraim, Kal Vachomer today, can anyone really be named a Rasha?
And all I was saying is I feel its a time for us to go out there and teach those misguided Jews, and I don't see people doing it so I feel that as a frum Jew I have more than a responsibility, but rather an obligation to these Jews with no one to teach them and because I don't see this halacha of speaking to girls to be explicit, I don't feel it's as simple as it's being made to seem (I know I'm repeating myself.) I'm saying by being rude or ignoring them it can be a Chillul Hashem in those cases and, as the Rambam says, that only death can atone for that.
MODERATOR Posted - 06 May 2004 8:12
The Chazon Ish never said there’s no such thing as an Apikores or a rasha, nor did he say a tinok shenishba is not considered an Apikores. He said there is no halachah of moridin velo maalin - causing the death of an apikores - today, and other such halachos that are "punishments". But the Chazon Ish himself has said numerous times and in numerous places that there surely are apikorsim nowadays - even among the "religious" Jews.
The Halachah of not talking to girls (or boys) is indeed explicit, and if you were a posek like Rav Moshe was you would understand, like he did, that what the Poskim say about talking to girls is indeed considered "explicit".
Lchapes emes Posted - 06 May 2004 17:28
I could be way off base here, but I seem to remember what Justonepost is talking about mentioned in Rabbi Falk's sefer Modesty: An Adornment for Life. I *think* he relates the story there and quotes the Chazon Ish's response as "Choik velo yaavor, issur gamur."
I didn't interpret it as being mutually exclusive with yehareg v'al yaavor.
MODERATOR Posted - 06 May 2004 17:30
Then Rabbi Falk apparently was unaware of the other quote, or he was misinformed regarding what the Chazon Ish said, or whatever. The Steipler, who was the brother-in-law of the Chazon Ish, in his letters, quotes the Yehoreg Val Yaavor.
No comments:
Post a Comment