Sunday, March 04, 2007

Yom HakiPurim II

INTRO to Tefilla:

Dear Jewish Daughter,

The Holy Day passed and many of us have not done proper teshuvah. The Satan lures us in through glitz 'n glamour and successfully diverts our focus from what really matters. Those that have not busied themselves on the Day of Atonement to return to the ways of Hashem, fear not. The good father gives you a second chance.

Following tefillah is a Kitzur Megillah – and was designed to be said on shishan purim. Remember to write Amalike on your right shoe and to pound that foot against your chest at every "Vaeis". Let us hope that in this zechus all runway vashtis will grow tails and other bodily horrors, Amen.










(Taken from a Yiddish publication)

81 comments:

Chananiah Yom Tov Lipa said...

Oh...you shouldn't have mentioned it.
Those clattering shoes....
Never fails to turn me on...
I can't resist the sensual sound of that click-clack-click-clack.

No matter how many rules are passed, Vashtis out there will find a way to strut their stuff.

I can tell you as an Achashveirosh myself, that kings do find it attractive when a woman is oblivious of her own beauty. It's getting harder to find that innocence these days. Total turn-off when women primp tug-n-nacht 6 months in shemen hamor and besumim.

socialworker/frustrated mom said...

I won't comment since I am a woman lol.

Baal Habos said...

>But I’m left to speculate… What do the kings think?


Us Kings don't think. We're too busy entertaining the Harem. ;)

Skeleton said...

But the real question is, does the Esther just lay there like karka be'alma?

Avi said...

Shpitzle, is it true that Brittany Spears shaved off all her hair, because she wants to marry a Satmer chosid ?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Shpitzle Shtrimpkind said...

CYL- Oh, Kings Shall be Kings…

Modesty won't ever change that no matter how hard it tries.

Clattering of the shoes is the equivalent of a noisy key ring. When you accompany that with a rushed walk, one can feel very important. Are we going to abolish everything achashveirosh likes?

It's amazing really, and probably the biggest eye opener for me around blogs, that men find the really um women attractive. One would assume that those hiding under a huge coat are seen as a coat, especially since that's the intent.

Now that we've established that tsnuis doesn't especially serve the purpose, why don't we just let go of the 'noose'?

SW FM - Hey, you just did! :^)

Baal Habos - You lucky ba---kings.

Skeleton - It's a very sad situation. Some Esthers actually enjoy lying lazily in the Karka Be'alma. Others are too embarrassed to admit to themselves that they yearn to be seen. The problem is that the definition of beauty is completely distorted. Those women that are blessed with ample restrictions think that beauty lies in the silky synthetic uncovered sheitle or open back shoes. There's also the negative body image, where a young girl is taught that her figure is "nisht sheyn, ekledig, mees, prust, nisht eidle" and some more deceptive adjectives. When women will start to understand that beauty is not in the accessories, they will be able to rise from the pit of nothingness.

Anon - Thank you.

Skeleton said...

Shpitz, did Yoelish define karka be'alma for you? We're not on the same page, it appears.

Tznius is about a woman knowing and appreciating her sensuality, yet having the dignity and modesty to reserve it for where it belongs. Suppression not only punishes women by killing or redirecting their natural instincts into self-hatred, it punishes the men in their lives as well.

It gets me wondering: How did we, am yisroel, get from a 'chimuz' (see Rashi in Vayakhel 22), to Jewish women being known for their beauty and lack of body hair (a gemara somewhere, referenced in Amnon v'Tamar and pilegesh b'Givah), and the long hair of the wife of On ben Peles to shaving our heads, not touching the rest of our body hair, and trying to look as ugly as possible?

We have adopted some very Christian influences on beauty, chastity, sensuality, and simplicity. Amish without the anabaptism.

I doubt that men really find the "um" women attractive more than the wannabe Playmate of the Chodesh. It's just a male fantasy of many to rob a 'virgin' of her 'innocence', or a woman who really is beautiful and she doesn't know it and doesn't have the attitude and haughtiness that comes along with conceit at one's beauty.

Interestingly enough, there's a gemara that one of the evils that will be abolished when Moshiach comes will be that of the [prostitutes] who veil themselves and so arouse the curiousity and lust of men who are eager to explore what's underneath. There's nothing so alluring as a woman's mystery and innocence.

Lakewood Venter said...

awesome!!!!

socialworker/frustrated mom said...

lol that's the point which I am sure you knew.

JewishBiFemme said...

Your blog is bound to give me a heart attack one day.

Sounds to me the freakin retard who put it in a magazine for lashem shumayim is a sexual pervert.

Nail buffing? cluttering heels is a turn on? He listed all those things that gives him a hard on. What normal frum guy is busy listing things like that or learning things regarding Esthers sexiness?

Women are naturally gorgeous even if you strip them from all those things listed they will always give a sexual vibe. Have you seen l'havdal those Muslim women who are covered from head to toe? OMG you can see their beauty shine thru their eyes..

Those that are trying to mazaka zein froien are the biggest pervs who are to busy preachin and looking.

Whats next? We ladies get pushed deep in the closet only to be used for baby making thru a hole ok ok. ill shut up.

Maybe men should stop primping..Its so gay.... and sexy.. Is it ok for women to get turned on by men?

psst psst..zei viniger mazaka and start sticking up for womanhood...

Shpitzle Shtrimpkind said...

Avi- Mrs. Shpearz has been a chassidistah all along, but had to remain anonymous as par Chassidim. What did you think the sudden onset of babies was about? Birth control is a no-no around us.


Skel- With analogies to spare, I was having a hard time figuring out in what sense you had meant it. I resorted to guesses. I should learn that the elusive jackpot and I don’t cross paths. My apologies.



You’ve said it yourself. Women will be women to men, regardless of what they do. If the women will be provocative, men will be aroused. I don’t have to argue with you that latex and fish-net sells. And then, if women will be modest, men will be enticed by the mystery and innocence.



Given, the effectiveness of tsnuis is doubtful. A woman is made responsible for the actions of men, as such that she is not much in control of anyhow. The responsibilities have been shifted to a party that should not particularly be left to blame for it.



Tznius is about a woman knowing and appreciating her sensuality, yet having the dignity and modesty to reserve it for where it belongs.



Ideally, your definition of tsnuis is marvelous. It makes me wonder if you’re not replacing tsnuis entirely with class (dignity in your words). Seems terrific, but doesn’t conjure with what we identify as tsnuis today.



The ultimate sheileh is what reserving sensuality entails.



Without a clear definition, we’re just a few good rebbelech away from bald heads and big navy coats.



Lakevent - Really?



SW FM - Yeah… Thanks for the commentless comment!



JBF - Take a breather gal, because I want to share my own assumption. Hope your heart can hold this. Take some asprin.



I think that the important meldung was written by a woman. Someone that honestly believed that breaking the heals off the shoes will help cure a sick child. Sigh. The sad thing is that the intentions seem so pure.



Let’s be honest girl, women may be very beautiful prior to primping, but everyone wants to primp. I for one, as striking as I would seem to you when moving about from under a black shmata, would rather just show my face. While men may see beauty in anything, women don’t. We’re perfectionists, and in order for us to have a healthy self image, we often need to feed ourselves with fat free ice cream diet that are chock full of nourishment for the confidensitory system.



Men have already achieved the ultimate status in tsnuis. I know a man that includes burping as a priority in personal hygiene. It has successfully kept a five yard distance between us. It’s not a rule at all, but many men neglect taking care of themselves.

Skeleton said...

That wasn't an analogy - "karka be'alma" ([piece of] soil of the Earth) is what meforshim say Esther was like when Achashveirosh was having relations with her. IOW, an inanimate object, so as not to enjoy or actively partake in something forbidden. Kind of wondering if women whose sensuality has been stripped from them are ever comfortable being women.

"My ideal" of tznius, which you redefine as "class", is what tznius is really about, before inzer oilem hut zich genimen dertzi, along with hefty dose of thousands of years of societal norms. The Torah says "v'hatzna leches im hashem" - You shall [walk] modestly with your God. This applies to men and women equally, and means modesty, dignity, humility. Yet nobody ever klebs pashkevilin that men yapping loudly on cell phones on the street are in violation of v'hatzna leches as much as women, if not more so as they can be louder and more excitable. The gemara says that a man who chooses to walk the path of the river when women are bathing there rather than another pathway is a rosho. Were the gemara written nowadays, all you'd hear is about the pirtzeh of the women bathing in the river. Tznius-wise, women do have additional restrictions on dress men don't, while men have restrictions women don't (like kol isha), but they are different in nature. Some of them are actually very appreciable - they are there to keep women from turning into sex objects for men, something that goes back to time immemorial. The concepts of tznius as we have them today are twisted beyond recognition and objectify women instead of vice versa, by emphasizing over and over again what temptresses females are and how all Liliths would do well to don shrouds and remain in the kitchen.

Reserving sensuality means being pretty on the street and hot and sexy in the home.

Chaya said...

A woman wrote that....seriously?
And I thought it was a joke...written in the Purim spirit...

JewishBiFemme said...

HAHAHAHAHA MEN sigh...

luz shoin up die froien..

Even if they are tzniuzdig & just sit there doing nothing they are a turn on.

So it was written by a woman? hmm interesting.. Maybe she noticed when she did do those listed above the ladies started flirting or worse she got turned on by women who do those things LMAO!!

Maybe she thinks if we start wearing paper slippers with no heels we will cure all sicknesses.

No matter what we do to better ourselves in tznius women are still sensual in every way they can even wake up the dead with a whisper.

Hashem created us like that why do people view women as sinful, dirty as if women are the ones responsible for all tzuras????

men get away with everything!!!

Shpitzle Shtrimpkind said...

Skel Your comments are so fantastic, it’s worth writing a post just to get you on a roll.


On the Esther subject, there is a gerseh that says that Esther never had sex with the king. Alright, I’ll shut up till my Yoelish can help me out. Really, what the hell did they teach me?



Our woman being Karka Balma is not nearly the beginning of our sexual problem. The sex ed is disastrous.



The Torah instructs us to follow our rabbis. Which ones do you choose to accept and which of them are deemed unworthy of leading us? I recognize nothing of what you say to be the religion I was brought into. How does one pick and choose? Why are you allowed to discard some pesukim and keep others?



Tsnuis has objectified women for years now. It effectively prevented infidelity, which, we now know for a fact, is the worstest sin (of course, worst than gay yeshiva activity). With the world degrading more and more into liberal hefkeyris, the Rabonim argue that stricter rules are constantly required.



“Reserving sensuality means being pretty on the street and hot and sexy in the home.”. Nice! You should know that that really means being pretty on the street and hot and sexy in the man’s mind. Your Torah okay with that?



I’m just being the yetzor harah’s advocate in effort to understand what part of our heritage you censor in order to get this very ideal religion. From what I was taught, there are paskim that would not see it your way. Don’t tell my twelve minutes of education was not in a Jewish Private School.



Chaya Oy, yoy, yoy. My dream. If this is a joke then I’d be laughing non-stop all year round. Ahahaha! "Achtunk! Froen! Going mit a pundello is like going with dee nachthemed in dee gas!". Ahahahaha!



JBF LOL! Oh, you’re so funny.



Listen, we can make endless lists of what’s not tsnuis. Anything that’s a turn on is to be turned off. I shant spill top secrets, but sources revealed to me that there is a guy that's shtadling for thicker tights at the higher ups. No pun included!



Luz shoyn up dee froen...



Yep, people really believe that walking in paper slippers will cure all machlas. Or almost all, because not such healthy things will come out of walking paper-foot on the way to dropping the kids onto the bus.



The point is that in our society we draw a direct line between events and our behavior. When I had a little health issue of my own, my family thought it appropriate to put me through a sin-scan, and based on my actions they achieved a prognosis.

Skeleton said...

My dear Shpitz, I'm not censoring any of our religion, merely trying to present a side your heavily-censored education didn't teach you.

(Yes, there's a gerseh Esther never even lived with him, but that a shin-dalet that looked like her went instead. There are also those that say she did. Another example of pick 'n choose and eili v'eili)

The Torah instructs us to follow our rabbis. Which ones do you choose to accept and which of them are deemed unworthy of leading us? I recognize nothing of what you say to be the religion I was brought into. How does one pick and choose? Why are you allowed to discard some pesukim and keep others?

You choose according to several factors, like mesorah, minhag hamokom, and personal preference. Because one Rabbi/Rebbe's derech doesn't suit you doesn't mean he is unworthy - his derech may just not be the one for you. The Satmar Rebbe z"tl was a tzaddik and certainly worthy, but what if someone feels he will be a better Yid by following R' Aharon Kotler z"tl or RSRS? That's why we know there's eili v'eili and shivim panim latorah, there are ways of serving Hashem as diverse as meditation or gemara learning. Like every gadol has/had his "fit", so do we need. It's the smushing and squeezing of everyone into one homogeneous narrow-minded enclave that's not allowing you to see how much variety there can be to being a dedicated Jew without being miserable or misled.

We don't "discard" pesukim - pesukim are only found in Tanach. Unless by that you meant poskim - that's more complicated but generally it has to do with our ethnic-cultural backgrounds. Yes, generally everyone picks and chooses. The same chassidim who are so stringent with women on dress, following the strictest opinions, also pick the most lenient ones when it comes to things like tefillah, taneisim, or zimun.

Tsnuis has objectified women for years now. It effectively prevented infidelity...

That is untrue. Even in 18'th century Europe, in places like Prague or the Germanic cities where R' Yaakov Emden was, had problems with women committing adultery. This was mostly prior to haskalah, when women hadn't much status, were not sexually liberated at all, and likely shaved their heads and nothing else while dressed like the Statue of Liberty with an overcoat.

Nice! You should know that that really means being pretty on the street and hot and sexy in the man’s mind. Your Torah okay with that?

Yes. See what I wrote before about how in tarnation we got from a 'chimuz' (Rashi defines it as genital jewelry, worn by the women in the midbar, and donated to the mishkan), to On ben Peles' wife being lauded for uncovering her long hair (it appears she did not shave...), and Jewish women being reknowned for their beauty. We weren't always this puritannical, and it seems the rabbis then were OK with it, sometimes even endorsing it. We've come a long way.

nuch a chosid said...

grrrrrrreaty post.

You haven't managed yet to disappoint my early praise on your wrting from day one of this blog.

You 'touched' on a very 'touchy' subject here. It's a stick with 2 ends, and i can't say that i have enough knowledge in the halacha part of he subject to be able too debate it throughly.

But practically, there is a very fine line in between that gets distorted by both sides of the picture.

There are many sources that a Isha has to be Tzenua, and she also has to look good (for her husband).

No one can deny that the way some woman dress in these days it is no doubt NOT the definition of a tzenua.

Going back just a few years even the decent goyim dressed tzenues'dig, did u see those pictures, the gowns, and fully covered up, what's going on in our times is a replay of S'dom V'amora.

A tzadik said: that it'll come a time when 'Sheker hachein" 'sheker' will have a chein, V'hevel hayofi, and 'hevel' will be considered beauty, yet "isha yiras hashem hu tishalol" a g-d fearing woman will be laughed at. (tishalol=holeleos).

So the question remains, where is the line to be drawn...

One thing is sure, not every journal ad is a valid "posak" to say what's right or wrong. allthough if he paid for the ad, he can write whatever he wishes...

But there are many competent Rabonim poskim who define for their kehillos and affiliates what's right and what's wrong, and a 'isha Yiras Hashem' dresses classic elegant within the bounderies of Tzenious, following the path her parents-school-affiliated rabbis- lead acording to their translation of the poskim.

which can be very different, from one to another, on many details.

Shaving/not shaving the hear, to wear to not to wear a sheitel or other headgear, length and thickness of stockings and so on and so forth.

The late Satmar Rebbe Rabeinu Yoal Zy"a once said:
In der alter heim before WWII when he was the official Ruv of the town Satu-mora (satmar) in Hungary/Romania he would say different and contradicting speeches in the various shuls of his town.
In the shtible-klauz where the chasidim davened, he would speak and ask the woman they should stop wearing sheitles and change to Shpitzles, which is more tzenuas.
yet in the official shul where the ahskeneizim davened, he would beg them to cover their hair and put on sheitels.

Hoezentragerin said...

"A tzadik said: that it'll come a time when 'Sheker hachein" 'sheker' will have a chein, V'hevel hayofi, and 'hevel' will be considered beauty, yet "isha yiras hashem hu tishalol" a g-d fearing woman will be laughed at".

NOC,
Come to think of it, that mamer chazal never quite jived with me.
If beauty hardly mattered, why does the torah mention the physical status of almost every women mentioned in the Torah?

Skeleton,
Please stop commenting. you put the rest of us women, to shame :)

Bas~Melech said...

I posted my humble opinion on this subject on my own blog a couple of weeks back, don't know how to embed a link but it's torahthought.blogspot.com

TheraChosid said...

Hi, I'm new. It seems to me that one distinction which was already mentioned should be plainly stated. There is a clear halacha that everybody adheres to. The rest is whatever the Rav/Rebbe/Rabonim add to make a fence around the torah.One problem with the girls education (chassidishe or litvish) is that girls are taught everything as if its gospel(sorry for the poor choice of words)without learning sources (whats from the torah, whats a minhag and so forth).Therefore, it looks like there are different torahs and picking and choosing but its not really.Its not. Its like trying to not get burned by fire, some wear hats, some gloves, whatever works.

Another thought, not sure which tanna said it, but the thrust of it was that we will have to give a cheshbun for all the things in the world that we didn't use or stayed away from enjoying (like your wifes/womans beautiful hair). The meforshim say that chava sinned because she added to Hashems decree not to touch the tree (Hashem said just not to eat from it). Because she added the extra chumra, it lead her to sin.(she touched it by mistake and nothing happened. When peoples needs are not being met because of too much repression (men and women) it can lead to the biggest of sins, the chumras actually cause bigger sins. "Kol hamosif, gerayah" all who add to the torah detract it.

By the way, middle of the road modesty, always a turn on. A women could wear all the headgear and the thickest tights (also a turn on)its the gleam in her eye or laughter that always reveal the playful woman that she is, thats a turn on. Sorry, so preachy, i'm new, i'll learn, i promise (billyneder)

Skeleton said...

NAC - dunno which pictures you have seen, but they must've not included any of Roman decadence, Greek debauchery, or pagan kedeishos. Christianity did put a lid on some of Europe while Islam took care of parts of Asia and Africa and the Middle East, but the European aristocracy still found plenty of time to take their clothes off. Ain chodosh tachas hashemesh - the world was never a more moral place than it is today. The only difference, which is largely a perceived one, is today's availability of smutty media whereas entrepreneuring playboys of amuhl had to do with mosaics, tapestries, and paintings. True, women did not dress the way they do today, but it was be'etzem an ander velt that has little to do with ours to be brought as a practical example.

Hoezen, ah bessere kashe, or perhaps it's the terutz itself, would be to ask why is Shlomo Hamelech, he of the thousand wives/concubines, telling us beauty doth not matter?

Your stats aren't correct, btw. If you'd do the numbers, the looks of fewer women are mentioned than the ones that aren't.

Can't. Stop. Commenting. It'd leave me with too much time to learn ;-P

Semgirl said...

Shpitz....How do you come up with this stuff...You were machshil me. This was so hysterical, I couldnt stop laughing out loud...

WWRF.....(what would R Falk say) .

frumhouse said...

Shpitzle - I just ran across your blog and love it!

As far as modesty vs. beauty goes - I agree with some of the comments that say Jewish women were always supposed to be known for their beauty.

In Egypt, wasn't it because the women kept themselves desireable and attractive that the Jewish people continued? Weren't their mirrors considered to be holy objects?

We don't need to be ostentatious about our looks in order to look good. Must we become androgynous beings in order to comply with halacha?

Shpitzle Shtrimpkind said...

Skeleton - You’d guess by the way the facts are spilling from you that your skeleton’s been a around for say – 6,000 years or so.



You’re incredible. Hoezen, you and me and the rest of us girls should meet in an underground tunnel (look for the cellar latter hidden behind the sefarim shank – and grab a chumish outta it) to study the real Torah from you - with mesuras nefesh. Oh, what a kiddush hashem, my mamma will be so proud.



Which gave me an idea. How about you teach my mother all that? She’d love to hear it too. I’m sure you wouldn’t mind if she’d bop you in the head nonstop until you stumble away with swollen purplemellons.



Isn’t it distressing to be so right yet so speechless? Regardless of the validity of your position, no one will hear you. No one will grant you a single right one, or a free ‘buffing’ coupon (sans color). Judaism hasn’t been our religion for a while now; otherwise we wouldn’t be taught that the ‘sherayim yidden’ are the Zaloinim and Aroinim only (see? Eileh Veileh! – which, while we’re on the subject, I wonder how there could be multiple version of the facts, and on what those factual accounts are based).



Our religion is called Past Es. It does not originate from Judaism or an Italian dish for that matter, but its clutch is powerful enough to keep us chained to our chairs. No amount of Torah will disprove any part of it just like the Koran wouldn’t. On what then, it manages to keep a grip on our throats I can’t figure. How did this evolve, and why do all the sheep just walk into it voluntarily?



It’s funny, how many people do what they want anyhow, but how adamant they will be when arguing about their religion. What’s with us?



Will this change?



Nuch - Shaving/not shaving the hear, to wear to not to wear a sheitel or other headgear, length and thickness of stockings and so on and so forth.



This is my problem. Why do rebbes have to be explicit about tsnuas? Why was the Satmar rabbi required to put a stocking onto his hand and examine if it’s thick enough. Why does one rabbi yell shvartsah shtrimp and the other dikkeh sims? Tsnuis is ruding the world to an impossible dress code. With every new style comes a new machlah – that is, a new kahl korah. Once we start to go into the details, we lost it all to tsnuis.



Is it possible to understand and observe modesty without abiding to details?



On another subject, the ishuah tsnuah, the one that is an ishuah, is also highly condemned. How many women in our society understand that it is okay to drop the dress at home?



Hoezen - According to what I’ve learnt (A Hilf Far Daym Kind coloring book, Bereshis, 62:4) all women looked the same. Big shmata dresses and big shmata turbans.



Bas Melech- Thank you dear. We’ll check it out.



Hi Therea - and welcome. Not- not preachy at all.



The education in the schools are definitely at the root of most this. I’ll be honest with you, until all those wise scholars started learning in Beth Medrish Hablog, I was under the assumption that a massahla of a tsadik is the din. (I’m an authentic Satmar artifact, with ignorance to prove for it) We are raised that the halacha lies in a deed of a gadol. There is no such thing as a tsadik’s actions being questioned, and if he said something we don’t like, then we just pretend he never did. The rest… as they say, … is ruach hakodesh. The education for boys in chassidish yeshivas are also highly censored. But go explain anything to anyone.



It’s also surprising to learn that modesty is appealing. If only our women would understand that.



Ugh.



Sem Girl - Laughing out loud? Oish. Things are only getting worst :)



Frumhouse - Tanks and Velkum! So there goes, another vote for beauty versus the beast. Where are all the people that tattooed taboo into my body from the day I was born?



Can’t we get one of them onto the blog, for tearing apart sake?

Shpitzle Shtrimpkind said...

Oh, I meant 'ladder'. Sorry bout that.

Skeleton said...

Oh, what a kiddush hashem, my mamma will be so proud.

Which gave me an idea. How about you teach my mother all that? She’d love to hear it too. I’m sure you wouldn’t mind if she’d bop you in the head nonstop until you stumble away with swollen purplemellons.


Ha, don't bet on it. Mein eigene mamme can't stand it when I open my mouth and tells me I am a live rayah on why women aren't allowed to learn or know anything and should be ignorant. Oy vey vey, mein tuchter, vee iz dein temeemes? Az der rebbe zichroine livrucha hut azoi gezugt, hut er zicher gevist besser fin azelche oiber-chachumim vi dir.

see? Eileh Veileh! – which, while we’re on the subject, I wonder how there could be multiple version of the facts, and on what those factual accounts are based

If you aren't talking about Judge Whatshisname but rather about conflicting midrashim or psakim, those vary between differences in perception or interpretation (majority), or a multitude of other explanations ranging from the supernatural to nishtani hateva to textual mistakes, transliterations, or historical inaccuracies (hopefully very few).

How did this evolve, and why do all the sheep just walk into it voluntarily?

Depends who you ask, and the explanation covers something like 2,500 years, of which I'm missing plenty. Grab a tub of popcorn if you ever want to figure it out - you'll need it.

Will this change?

No. It looks like what will happen in the next several decades is further polarization, with 'frum' people getting progressively more farfrimt and vice versa. When the numbers even out a little, al kul punim in der efntlichkeit instead of how it's now with a lot of the not-so-farfrimt oilem being underground, or communities will separate along these lines, things might change.

On another subject, the ishuah tsnuah, the one that is an ishuah, is also highly condemned. How many women in our society understand that it is okay to drop the dress at home?

From the Devil's Advocate: Why is it OK then? If (one of) the rationale(s) for shaving the head is Kimchis had seven kohanim gedolim because the rafters of her home never saw her hair, does that not mean she was exceptionally modest in other aspects of dress at home as well? To say that a woman must shave her head because of tznius, and yet be seductive and provocative at home, is quite a double standard as well. So we are at least being consistent when we teach our uberheilige version of modesty.

Once we start to go into the details, we lost it all to tsnuis.

Der Yid has an ad summertime against der beged pritzus known as a "beiding suit". Don't bochurim and sheltered men read Der Yid too? Isn't this itself a breach of tznius - it can only make guys wonder what this thing looks like.

Is it possible to understand and observe modesty without abiding to details?

Good question.

yingerman said...

I still think beauty is in the eye of the holder.
Some guys get turned on by the makeup, I personally am an Achashvayrosh type, I assume if she's got stuff covering her face, she probably needs it.
About the clattering heels, its probably to draw attention away from other points of scenery. Like this goyta who walked in to my plsce this morning, she had a ous'gevashana uglyness worn above her neckline, but the rest was not gezunt for a married man, let alone a bochur. Tight short skirt, panty lines showing, and she was wiggling it.
So would Achashvayrosh fall for that?
Yes, she was very ugly, but the Persians were famous for their tznuis and only procreated in the dark, so in reality Achashvayrosh would never see a face.
Esther Hamalka was chosen only 'cause that was THE BIG PLAN.

Anyway, as always love the post!

Skeleton said...

Yes, she was very ugly, but the Persians were famous for their tznuis and only procreated in the dark...
*cough* Tznius? Didn't Achashveirosh summon Vashti to appear in the buff? If they procreated only in the dark, how did Achashveirosh see all the girls who "came by night and left in the morning" to know whether he liked them or not? Why the 12 months prepping if "All cats are grey in the dark, mother"?

It's All Good Now said...

I followed your advice, klapt al chayt with my foot but as usual, I ended up with "foot in mouth" disease. And to think my toes were polished at the time!!

Hoezentragerin said...

"Hoezen - According to what I’ve learnt (A Hilf Far Daym Kind coloring book, Bereshis, 62:4) all women looked the same. Big shmata dresses and big shmata turbans".

Oh don't tell me you don't remember what they taught us about Sarah, that she was 127, as pure as a 7 year old at the age of 20, and as beautiful as a 20 year old at the ageo f 100....

Re Esther never sleeping with with the king, does the name Draiovosh not ring a bell?

frumbabe said...

cant stop giggling . men stare me down whatever i do...

ex said...

Interesting Gemurah in Mesechtes Nuzir second Perek, (skeleton, please look up the daf).

If a woman wants to be a nuzir (which is the same idea/concept of a Neder) her husband can object to it. (shitas Chachumim).

so the gemurah explains, since the husband can only object things that will make her look ugly (Einu nefesh) so how does a nuzir ( who cant drink wine) fit into that, so that the husband can object?

Cause after a nuzir's 30 days, they have to shave (before bringing kurbunois) and a woman who is shaved is UGLY (Menuveles).

Enough said.

The gemurah continues, that even though she can wear a -human hair-wig (Paieh Nuchris), she is still considered ugly, since its not her natural hair.

ex said...

As for Esther, the gemurah also has a shitah that she did it and she even said to Mordcheh that she did.
Tosfois in Kesubois (daf 11;2 I think)even brings a terutz, (on how was morcheh able to live with her after that, since he married her, and she willingly had relations, she should of been ussir to him) that a married woman does not become ussir by having relations with a GOY.

Go figure.

Chananiah Yom Tov Lipa said...

What's the difference what the Gemureh says? We don't pasken from Gemureh.
Azoi huben mir geteen in der haym!
Yeedishe Techter! SHER UP EIYERE HUER!

Didn't you ever see Fiddler on the Roof? TRADITION!

Shpitzle Shtrimpkind said...

Skel - Quite remarkable, actually, that you can survive your mother’s scorch. I never open my mouth, rather sit mum, acutely aware of the frustration hurling in me. My theradentist advised me to find relief in a popular tooth massage named 'grinding'.


Am I the only one that’s so afraid of this society that I pretend never to have an opinion?



No. It looks like what will happen in the next several decades is further polarization, with 'frum' people getting progressively more farfrimt and vice versa. .



Based on the pattern we’re seeing, it seems we’ll digging our faces further into the sand. But the number of open thinkers might be way higher than we’re privy to know. I’m wondering if technology might not be the onset of a revolution. When a large number of people will begin to communicate with each other via the web as anon, we’ll learn that we’re not the only ones for whom oh-so-frum is simply a mask. That might prompt some to come crawling out of hiding which may attract a following.



To say that a woman must shave her head because of tznius, and yet be seductive and provocative at home, is quite a double standard as well. Exactly. The same message is sent on covering up, and it’s cruel – just cruel. Watch a 4 year old on a swing, and you’ll see her tug on her skirt if it slid up a bit, even though she’s fully covered otherwise. What follows for this kid are years and years of focus on elbow and collar bone, until she’s suddenly sent to the mikvah sans hair for the monster’s inspection.



It is brutal. It’s amazing that we all walk to the gallows so gracefully. Mikvah, is mikvah. Relations, are relations. So what, you faint a bit? You move on. Obstetrician, is obstetrician. All that after we’ve been embedded with such unease to our bodies. Forget that these events should be the pinnacle of happiness; instead, they’re the anxious and strained reflections of our teachings.



The ad in Der Yid is not as great as the drushes the men enjoy about bi-hoor. What’s it got with them? Why do men get to hear about how curvy a tight skirt looks on a woman? You said it well – tsnuis objectifies women.





Yingerman I’m gonna ask this question one more time, and if the men still reply with a resounding affirmative, then I gotta run break the good news to my womenfolk.



Hypothetical scenario: In a beauty pageant between a very frum but plain women that wears no accessories and lots of headgear, and a mannequin head that’s covered with a silky human hair sheitle (nebech made of the aforementioned woman’s hair), who of the two would win the crown of Miss JewSA?



It’s not surprising that women view beauty in the eye of attire. We’re taught that by implication - men sin if we wear blank-blank or bleep-bleep. Not by who we are by gender, but what we dress in. My poor friends and sisters, drooling starry-eyed at the fancy lady’s synthetic sheitle, thinking she’s the apex of beauty for it…



I think I just made the discovery of the century. Der Blatt front page, here I come.



Ugh. Now they’ll ban being a woman altogether. Forgetit



As for Esther’s fate being THE BIG PLAN, I’m inclined not to believe such a simplistic theory.



IA GN LMFO!!! (laughing my foot out). You’re such a good girl, why – oh why, nemstee nisht aroop dee narisheh palish? Seiz ales narishe chitsoynees. Seiz ozoy prust, in azoy goyish. Mammi hut azalcha tsar dervaygen. Zee ken nisht shloofen banacht. Keyviyoochel kikt tsee in er veynt.



Hoezen - No, they taught me that she was as wrinkled as a hundred year old, as unproportional as a pregnant-twenty year old, and as physically immature as a seven year old.



Actually, I either had a G rated education entirely, or I didn’t mentally appreciate how zaftig things could be if you think of them certain ways. At least I find a fountain in the desert called Merriam Webster.



Frumbabe - Try to stop giggling. That could help :)



Ex Wow, Ex. Guess you didn’t need any Merriam, eh? I can’t wait for our Pesach Gemaras. I think I don’t need my dictionary anymore.

Interesting information, and defies every theory that people were so utterly modest and sexually proper years ago.



I’m going to ask again, because I’m very curious. There was a movie based on the story of Purim released in 2006, and its story was completely unlike the Megillah. Anyone know if there are historical facts to support it of if it’s just a Hollywood Dramatization?



CYLT Rebbeh! Vee bistee geveyn? Dee alleh kofrim zoogen shreklicheh zachen! Of course we must shave our hair! It’s all in the mesorah!

Baal Devarim said...

Shpitzle:
"Anyone know if there are historical facts to support it of if it’s just a Hollywood Dramatization?"

I haven't seen the movie, but given that the Megillah is actually a work of fiction, any Hollywood depiction is necessarily a dramatization of the megillah itself. There can be no historical facts to support any Hollywood story, since the historical record militates against any version of the story ever having happened.

Shpitzle Shtrimpkind said...

BDM - Thanks. The Movie, One Night With The King had a completely different approach to the story and made me wonder if there are alternate (historical)versions besides the megillah.

Skeleton said...

ex- Nazir 28 end of amud aleph continuing into amed beis.

Shpitz, I googled for ^. In the gemara bin ich b'erech vee a hune in de b'nei udem...

On the head-shaving business, yesh omrim that this was a takanah by the Vaad Arba Artzos. Can someone provide a source? I'd like to see if it's true, and if yes, what the reason for it was.

Am I the only one that’s so afraid of this society that I pretend never to have an opinion?

No, our fear is in proportion to what we stand to lose if found out.

David_on_the_Lake said...

Difficult for a man to comment..
I think its a normal desire to want to look good..there doesnt have t be asexual element to it.

Skeleton said...

Gotta love the Wiki for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Night_with_the_King

and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Esther

TheraChosid said...

I much enjoyed the trailer.I still believe the story of the megillah. One thing you should realize is that the megillah only says the highlights(the jacket of the dvd). I mean when mordecha told ester to talk to the king to help the yidden he really let her have it "if you don't help Hashem will find someone else.Perhaps thats the whole reason you became a queen." In other words, she was really a queen, lived that life and it was entirely possible that being the queen went to her head and she was caught up in the life. That's why he spoke so harsh to her. We don't read the whole story that doesn't mean its not there and a part of the story as well.We need to imagine how they felt (I do this with my kids. I asked them to tell me things they love to do and then I pesach I told them they couldn't do itthoes things as a slave.I try to get them to imagine what it was like. But of course, I took it too far. My wife yelled at me when I got to the slaves walking on broken bones that permanently healed the wrong way) Besides the megillah is a really cool story, how could it not be true.

This whole tzinus thing kinda gets me.If your an actor, you need to put on clothes of the person your portraying. That helps get you into the mood and etc, but that not acting. The fun part comes you get into the mindset, look within yourself and find a similarity so you can play the part convincingly. Tzinus is the costume to put you in the holy mood (please dim the lights, I'll get the music), but its not acting, its not the fun stuff (when does the fun stuff begin?)that yiddishkeit is supposed to be about. But I guess its easier to worry about the costume. I mean the list of dont's is pretty large. So if you don't speak loshon hora, don't leave the house, speak to noone (while learning of course) that's what frumkeit is suppossed to be about?

Maybe it bothers me, because If there no fun part just a longer list of things not to do, more clothes to wear, thats boring(I can't stand boring,which is why I like the taupe and dark brown shtrimp the best ). They need to stress the special fun stuff, like doing true chesed with others and reaching out to people, learning with your kids,having a special relationship with your wife, stuff I can relate to.

Chananiah Yom Tov Lipa said...

Shpitz, you mean where were you? :)
Well, first I had to get over my hangover, then I had to get my wife to talk to me again, and finally I was busy arangeteen in finding the mekoires for the helige din of shaving the hair. (Perhaps I will give my Shabbos Hagudol Drosho on the topic to be mechazek the oilum.)
One thing about tsniyus: Du in Ameirike we are exposed to the most pritzisdike zachen (nisht vee siz geveyn in der heim). At least in private, couples should be able to appear attractive to each other(, etc ;-)) I think that would increase Sholem Bayis and prevent the unfortunate stories we hear about.

Shpitzle Shtrimpkind said...

Skel “No, our fear is in proportion to what we stand to lose if found out.”



Sensibly, of course, you can say so to some degree. Fear however, is often more of a psychological exaggeration or cowardness than a security instinct to protect our assets. Our fear, in my opinion, is mostly the consequence of the intimidation and threats we’ve been ingrained with, rather than a sensible safety precaution. Many people huddle in their corner while they don’t have much to lose, while others actually stand to gain when ‘moving on’ or out.



”Gotta love the wiki” Gotta digest that it exists first. This is just fantastic.



I owe you one, and then some, so I'll try my bestest to run across the answer to your Q.



David - “Difficult for a man to comment”. Now that’s the comment of the century! We should have it engraved in every beth medrish or tsnuis-hanhalla shtible. It just seems ludicrous that men should be possessed with women in order to avoid being possessed with women.



Therachossid In case you’re interested, the movie is absolutely a love story, set in an ancient setting. It smells of popcorn, not history.



Besides the megillah is a really cool story, how could it not be true

I go with your brilliant shitta of cool=true. I’ll have my children believe in Harry Potter and the University of Witchcraft (so cool, I’m sure) and I myself will insist that Monica Geller-Bing now lives in upstate NY…



Your analogy between tsnuis is actually interesting, and in fact new to me. I’ve never heard of tsnuis being about dressing for 'the job' (or maybe I did, but I didn’t derhear). The question remains what the dress code at ‘work’ is. Does a Jewish girl have to portray a certain inhuman devotion to God? If so – ditto. Tsnuis is at its peak of performance. But if a Jewish woman should be someone that respects herself, then we can throw out all the horrific details.



I cannot contain from asking. What pray tell, is interesting about taupe? Used to be a day before now, that there was a selection between taupe and orangish (eeuw). Now we’ve got hundreds of the same feet, with the same line running through in the middle (often, not in the middle). I vote for gray, the new shvartz.



I agree that Judaism has place to be about giving. I believe contrary to what I was taught - that Judaism should bring happiness into our lives. It shouldn’t be all about repressing desires.



CYL - I’m not familiar with any unfortunate stories. It seems that our divorce rate is unbelievable low. Looks like we’re all doing great on the (, etc ;-))



Just kidding, about drawing a line between marital status and marital happiness. But I do wonder if not being happy means that the people are unhappy. Most our people seem to just BE, it’s as if missing major parts of life doesn’t have any effect on them. Neither positive nor negative.



You think?



Good Shabbos!

LubaGal said...

I know this is a little off-track, but it has the same idea.
Modesty is NOT about UGLINESS. That is not what Tznius is about...


The Meaning of Hair Covering

By Aron Moss of Chabad.org


Question
I heard an anthropologist talking about shaitels (wigs). He said how ironic it is that observant Jewish women wear wigs. In biblical Judaism, the rule was that married women should cover their hair in order to be modest and unattractive. In more recent times, women wear wigs, which are sometimes more attractive than natural hair. So wearing a wig actually defeats the whole purpose of covering the hair! He was giving this as an example of how cultures forget the reasons behind their ancient traditions, and customs can evolve in a way that contradicts their original intent. Do you have any comments?

Answer:
That anthropologist has not only mistaken a wig for real hair, but has also confused true modesty for his own version. He equates modesty with unattractiveness, but that is his definition, not Judaism's. From the Jewish perspective, modesty has nothing to do with being unattractive. Rather, modesty is a means to create privacy. And that is what a wig achieves.

Modesty has nothing to do with being unattractive The hair-covering was never intended to make a married woman look ugly. Beauty is a divine gift, and Jewish tradition encourages both men and women to care for their appearance and always look presentable. Jewish tradition also encourages modesty; not in order to detract from our beauty, but rather to channel our beauty and attractiveness so it be saved for where it belongs -- within marriage.

By covering her hair, the married woman makes a statement: "I am not available. You can see me but I am not open to the public. Even my hair, the most obvious and visible part of me, is not for your eyes."

The hair-covering has a profound effect on the wearer. It creates a psychological barrier, a cognitive distance between her and strangers. Her beauty becomes visible but inconspicuous; she is attractive but unavailable.

The wig achieves the desired effect exactly, because a wig allows a woman to cover all her hair, while maintaining her attractive appearance. She can be proud of the way she looks without compromising her privacy. And even if her wig looks so real as to be mistaken for natural hair, she knows that no one is looking at the real her. She has created a private space, and only she decides who to let into that space.

Perhaps in other religions modesty and beauty don't mix. This is not the Jewish view. True beauty, inner beauty, needs modesty to protect it and allow it to thrive.

Shtreimel said...

Skeleton,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05549a.htm


You gotta love (envy?) how the catholics manage to discuss the issues.

Skeleton said...

For Baal Devarim:

4677 AD
-Critical View:

Most modern historical scholars consider the Holocaust to be either an entirely fictional occurence, or an exaggeration of historical events. Another version claims it is based in German mythology or the tales of the Brothers Grimm. The following supports those claims:

1. Considering the major battles being fought all over the world, with Germany fighting on several fronts, it is highly unlikely Hitler would've expended energy and resources on getting rid of the Jews.

2. Most of the so-called "concentration camps" were not based in Germany proper. It is highly doubtful the countries they were allegedly located in would have allowed mass extermination to take place on their soil.

3. Figures of those killed include over 90% of Dutch Jews. Based on overwhelming evidence of the monarchy, government, and populace of the Netherlands in the 20'th century, they were overwhelmingly Jew-friendly and it is highly unlikely such extermination of Dutch Jews could have taken place.

4. Hitler's close friends and acquaintances include some with Jewish genealogy or Jewish-sounding names, like Eva Braun.

.....I could go on, but I'll give my imagination a rest and hope the point was made.

Hardly 50 years had gone by since the Holocaust and denial was on the rise. Partly to blame is the German meticulousness in destroying the evidence. Had they been even more meticulous, had more foresight in predicting their end, and less arrogance, even less evidence might have remained, resulting in a pretty amazing coverup of a huge story in human history. After all, the dead tell no tales.

How much more so, when the history in question goes back to a time period that was not as well-documented as the last few centuries, new evidence keeps on being discovered, and the lines keep on getting redrawn between what we know about then and what we don't.

Megillas Esther is not the Torah - we aren't mechiyev to believe that each word is divinely inspired. Isn't the megillah, as we know it today, a rewrite of a document written by Mordechai and rewritten by the AKH? Is it possible some things were lost in translation, mistranslated, or a little embellished? Perhaps. The devil is in the details when something goes back long enough as to hardly be verifiable. We are missing enough details in human history to let go of some of the arrogance.

Shpitz - As much as we have a beef about the my-way-or-the-highway way our societies run in, live and let live goes both ways. If couples want [her] to shave and live a pietist life, good for them. Whatever floats their boat. Happiness can be found anywhere, even in asceticism and self-flagellation. We may think their choices or ideas are wrong, but they are entitled. Where our society goes wrong is in disallowing or socially punishing those that cannot fit that pietist mold. Der rebbe z"tl hut takeh gehat gitte kavunes, I don't think his intent to minimize a woman's seductiveness was malicious. It was well-intentioned and what he saw as being a good path to avodas hashem and subsequent happiness. However, when it no longer results in happiness it shouldn't be adhered to out of fear of hellfire, fear of social consequences, or "tradition".

Shtreimel said...

Skeleton,
I would like to interject here and then leave the scene for BD who is quite capable himself.

a) The holocaust and its deniers can teach you a great many things. Amongst others, millions of people can believe things that are not true simply because that is what they would rather believe (or forced to believe). Also, you can deny anything in the world. People deny evolution daily, and they are not exiled to mars. Smart (and honest) people will examine the evidence available (not rely on proof that might one day become available, as “new evidence keeps on being discovered”) and hopefully conclude that the holocaust did happen. For unlike some (most) stories in the Torah, which have absolutely no data to support it, and in addition have substantial facts contradicting it, the holocaust has many proofs.

Speaking of which, the fact that in Austria and in Germany people are arrested for denying the holocaust, won’t help the cause in the long run, I believe.

b) Megillas Esther IS the Torah. Other than Iyov, there is no doubt in the Mesorah that it ain’t allegorical. If you follow the religion I was brought up then you ARE mechiyev to believe that it is divinely inspired!

c) It is possible that certain things were lost in translation, but it is entirely more plausible that it never happened, and that Purim is a pharisaic attempt to be megayer an old tradition. We might never know, but we can decide based on the information available, nisht azoi?

Skeleton said...

Lubagal -

Nice pshetl, but a minority opinion (albeit heavily relied upon), as you may be aware. Try telling it to R' Ovadiah Yoseph.

Shtreimel -

On comment on Catholicism - that's the religion that blows my mind. Why anyone on earth would want to be Christian, is more'n I can fathom. Surely you can boomerang by asking the same about Judaism, but hey, at least we were there first :-)

The theory on ^ is that it may be due to Christianity 'selling' some very marketable commodities like Peace, Love, and Brotherhood, all the while holding a dagger behind its back. "Smol dochech v'yimin mikreves", ha. [bitter laugh]

a. That people believe what they want to, or are forced to, or are convinced to, or are raised to, is nothing new. Borat believes Jews have horns, and he's not the only one <-- pathetic crack, yeah I know. That was hardly my point, and is irrelevant here. The point I was trying to make was about availability of evidence and historical veracity - that evidence, while the only concrete proof, can easily be tampered with or lacking. That 5 years had to go by in which millions were exterminated by the Germans, and the rest of the world kept its jaws clamped shut should show you how 'reliable' evidence can be and how incomplete pictures of history can be.

Ancient Persia likely had few bloggers. Most of the known history, it seems, was documented by Herodotus (Greek) about the Persian Wars. So what this boils down to is your skepticism of the AKH and mine of Herodotus, although tbh I can't make sense of the timelines.

b. No, Torah is the five chumashim. We need to agree on a commond definition of "divinely inspired" - whether it implies direct word from God or some form of perception or ruach hakodesh. A person who denies that "al tevashel gedi b'chailaiv imo" came from God is a kofer, someone who, for example, denies that Yeravam ben Nevat erected the bal is not. Whether we must absolutely believe that Achashverosh did indeed rule over 127 countries, or have seven serisim the stupidest of which was Memichen, is debatable, although granted that denial of divrei chazal isn't sanctioned. Far from it.

c. Whether to believe or not is anyone's prerogative, purely from a secular point of view. I merely proclaim the evidence to the contrary lacking. If evidence to the contrary was more complete and definite, I might have to reconsider.

As a side note, this raises the interesting issue of how Jewcentric (fuhgettabout geocentric) history is taught in our circles.

TheraChosid said...

Megillas Ester is part of tanach and is Divinely written like the others. The reason it was accepted in tanach (rewritten or not) is because it was al pi ruch hakodesh unlike other seforim (actually forgot the name of the sefer that was the first to be rejected into the tanach Ben something) which is still quoted in perkei avos. This is because only parts were from ruach hakodesh and others not.

and the megillah (or the original manuscript) was written close to the time of the events.

The reason the AK"H worked it over, much like the tefillos was to be sure to include only the parts that were divinely inspired.

But one thing which is important is to know that the torah doesnt talk about melachim, only people. And that fact is lost on us. Fiction, movies and books make black and white stories come to life. People with feelings, doubts, emotions. Thats what makes these stories interesting. But emotions and feelings and doubts are not things we explore in our communities, instead we are more interested in how high the gallos were. And the frum novels of tanach don't help any. Everbodys always got the best of intentions and they are these 2 dimensional characters ppplllleease, get real. Penina made fun of Chana so she would daven to hashem, get real. Maybe on some level realy deep, deep, deep down she did, but come on? If we could looke at green skinned ester as a person there is alot to learn. Scared little girl/queen goes to the king. That's cool and cool=true (friends cast and all).

Another thing. I learned that both opinions in the gemara are true, her skin was olive. Pretty women with olive skin are really pretty.I also remeber learning the gemara that one tanna said that if you said her name three times that she was so pretty that it would cause a man to shichvas zera.That sounds like a good lookin woman to me.

Shpitz
Point well taken, truth be told light and dark brown really are my favorite, Taupe is just better than the other color, but I like it cause its very much like tights. While we are on the subject, a woman needs to be wearing tights or pantyhose for me TO find her appealing. The bare legs never did it for me. Which would mean the tsinus thing really does work for me (or maybe my taste became like that because i really didn't have an option. I'll never know).

Baal Devarim said...

Skeleton:
"I could go on, but I'll give my imagination a rest and hope the point was made."

It wasn't; unless your point was that instead of resorting to rational discourse all you can do is pull out the tired and stupid old trope of Holocaust denial whenever someone mentions the questionable historicity of canonical works.

As Shtreimel mentions, your example only hurts your case. The holocaust has much evidence to back it; so does the fact that the Megillah is a fictional work. The reason Holocaust denial exists is because people are blinded by hateful dogma; the reason people maintain the Megillah is genuine history is because they are blinded by unyielding faith-based creeds and fundamental religious tenets.

Which one is more like the other?

Any unbiased person (say, someone who's never before heard of the Jews, the Jewish religion, or Germany) examining the evidence for the Holocaust will conclude it did actually happen; the same person examining the evidence for the Megillah -- even taking into account the dearth of historical sources! -- will conclude that the story is fictional. What Holocaust denial teaches us is that to get to the truth we need to drop our deep-seated biases and look at the evidence with an unprejudiced eye.

As an aside, we know way more about ancient Persia than you are willing to allow. The Persians were very good at keeping documents -- especially for royal affairs. Many of those documents survive. We certainly know enough to state that the story, as recounted in the Megillah, did not happen.

Shpitzle Shtrimpkind said...

LubaGal - Interesting approach. Although I can't help wonder why a woman only needs to cover her hair once she's married. Seems like a paradox. Shouldn't she logically cover it from the thirteen, to be reserved for her own someone? What's with women baring enticing hair in public?

Skeleton "Happiness can be found anywhere, even in asceticism and self-flagellation. " Absolutely; happiness is subjective. The question remains as to what percentage amongst us would find happiness in restrictions and godliness. Maybe the answer to this question is the explanation as to why "my way or the highway" is today's way. Namely – I would guess that the dayin's shtible for bedikah of female clothing or the Satmar Rebbeh's tish would not be very busy when people are presented with uninfluenced choices.

"Most of the known history, it seems, was documented by Herodotus (Greek) about the Persian Wars." Accordingly, the massacre (or probable war thereof) should then be documented (?).

Shtreimel said...

Skeleton,

The Greek history is either collaborated by archeological finds or by other means, or it is viewed with skepticism (as are the stories of the Trojan wars etc.). It is hardly an AKH vs. the goyim debate.

Torah is the Pentateuch, granted. But when talking about Torah Sh’bechsav, Vs. the up for interpretation (in the OJ view) there’s no difference between Torah, Neviim, or Kesivim. The stories are supposed to be as accurate.

How do you figure otherwise?

“how Jewcentric (fuhgettabout geocentric) history is taught in our circles.”

History, what’s that? You had a history teacher? A history class? We don’t even learn Nach, for all it matters.

Thera,
Ben Sirah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Sira

The above link has a host of other books that made it into the canon of Christianity with various successes in each faction.

“I also remeber learning the gemara that one tanna said that if you said her name three times that she was so pretty that it would cause a man to shichvas zera”

Yeah, that’s always fun to remember!

Skeleton said...

BD -

Yes, the Holocaust is an overused example, probably primarily because it invokes stronge emotions. But that's not why I used it. Rather, to prove that the evidence that does exist (there's a lot more, to be seen the Red Cross opens its archives) is a relatively small percentage compared to the scale of the happening, mostly due to destruction of evidence. When dealing with ancient history we don't need to suspect tampering or destruction of evidence - nature took care of that, in addition to some of the writings that survived being plainly fabricated. I reiterate that the picture we have of history is incomplete. Which doesn't mean I'm holding my breath for conclusive proof of the story of Esther to be discovered because I don't think it will, merely that it cannot be conclusively proven otherwise. How many of the historical aggadata concerning the tannaim is corroborated by Livy, Tacitus, or even Josephus? To you that may mean they are fictional; to me they mean history may have varied and conflicting sources, the truth of which may be lost forever.

As to your assertion of the survival of Persian documents - can you provide proof of that? A quick Google search reveals most of the information sourced to Herodotus, some of it indirect and quoted. There's archeological evidence in form of tablets, murals, and sculptures but little in writing that isn't riddled with controversy.

Shpitz -
According to Temani tradition, females cover their hair at 3. According to the (Rambam?) a beulah (female who's had sexual relations) must cover her hair regardless of marital status. Opinions vary, even as to the reason for covering whether it's to detract from her seductiveness, preserve her beauty for her husband, or anything in between.

The original 'reasoning' may have been a social norm back in the day, that women covered their hair. There are some (relatively) contemporary authorities who rule that since haircovering became lax and is no longer followed in secular society at all, a woman who does not cover cannot be accused of not adhering to daas yehudis and may not be divorced without kesubah.

Shtriemel -
At discussion here is Persian history, which I merely pointed out was documented by Greeks, then at war with Persia. As for Greek history itself, it's as you say, yuh yuh nisht nisht. Some of it is accepted as factual, some viewed as fictional or mythological.

Torah is the Pentateuch, granted. But when talking about Torah Sh’bechsav, Vs. the up for interpretation (in the OJ view) there’s no difference between Torah, Neviim, or Kesivim. The stories are supposed to be as accurate.

How do you figure otherwise?

By the Rambam's ikrim, which demands unquestioning faith in the Torah, that it was handed over directly from Hashem and has never been changed, but does not say the same about na"ch. By the fact that the taryag mitzvos are from the Torah, that the historical part of the Torah is not what really matters inasmuch as the mitzvos are not incumbent on its veracity (although we are mechiyev to believe the 'stories' as well). I'll try looking further into the subject.

Boys don't learn Na"ch, but girls supposedly do. Or at least a heavily sanitized version of it.

Shpitzle Shtrimpkind said...

Skeleton, ah, well, I'm afraid you're calling for the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Pigs…

Lack of evidence should not be the reason to believe anything.

Shtreimel said...

Skeleton,
You missed my point. Where the Greek history is corroborated by facts, logic dictates it to be true, even if we have one source that claims otherwise.

A Rambam that differentiates the validity of nach vs the Torah? Where?

The 6th Ani Ma’amin. Look at it again.

Skeleton said...

SS-

I wasn't the one who wrote Megillas Esther, I assure you. It does exist. You are misreading my comment as an assertion that lack of evidence means something is true whereas I am stating that considering dearth of evidence, one thing can be almost as good as another. Michael Jordan himself couldn't win the Magic, but alone on the court with Shaq you could get good bets on either.

Baal Devarim said...

Skeleton:
"I reiterate that the picture we have of history is incomplete."

That's a red herring. The picture we have of anything is incomplete -- including our picture of reality itself. Nothing is ever complete. That doesn't (and shouldn't) prevent us from asserting the accuracy of reality -- or of history. The point is, our knowledge is complete enough to make certain assertions entirely reasonable.

"Which doesn't mean I'm holding my breath for conclusive proof of the story of Esther to be discovered"

That's another diversion. Nobody is denying the historicity of Esther because we don't have conclusive proof. Historians deny it not only because of the complete absence in historical sources of a story that involves high drama, palace intrigue and internecine warfare -- which is telling enough by itself -- but because we do actually have evidence that contradicts many details of the story! You conveniently chose to ignore that.

"As to your assertion of the survival of Persian documents - can you provide proof of that?"

Are you kidding? Start here:
Persepolis fortification tablets
and here:
Achaemenid royal inscriptions

"By the Rambam's ikrim, which demands unquestioning faith in the Torah, that it was handed over directly from Hashem and has never been changed, but does not say the same about na"ch.

You are simply wrong here, again. Unquestioning faith in Na"ch (and Chaza"l -- to an extent) is part and parcel of Orthodox dogma.

"inasmuch as the mitzvos are not incumbent on its veracity"

The mitzvos are meaningless (well, not meaningless, but certainly not binding) without belief in an actual yetzias mitzrayim and a sacred covenant at Sinai. That is another thing we can state with a high degree of assurance didn't happen.

Skeleton said...

Shtreimel-

Ouch. Tzadok mimeni. I'll rethink on that 6'th ikkar and whether it's all-inclusive on the word of Hashem and literal historical information or there's some latitude on the latter, subject to interpretation.

BD-
...[snipped for brevity]

The mitzvos are meaningless (well, not meaningless, but certainly not binding) without belief in an actual yetzias mitzrayim and a sacred covenant at Sinai. That is another thing we can state with a high degree of assurance didn't happen.

^That is something I'm not equipped to debate, being woefully inadequate. I don't shoot from the hip, being pretty certain I'll misfire, especially when the other guy has a bigger gun.

There are a number of thoughts on the subject, but in a nutshell, belief is a choice and stands apart from logic and reality. I couldn't (and have little interest...zifts) in making a dent in your misbelief, and mine is too precious to me to sacrifice. Trying to argue two sides in an argument is exhausting and self-defeating. I throw in the towel and hope we can find some common ground.

(^ this is no way implies that I agree with, or surrender my views to, your divrei kefirah, but rather that you know your client better than I know mine)

TheraChosid said...

I'm not really sure whose arguing what ,but it is true that mitzvos are meaningless unless predicated on the assumption that the revelation of sinai happened. In other words, you need to believe that Hashem revealed himself and said if you want to become close to me do my will and this is what it is i.e. the mitzvos. If not we would just be guessing what he wants from us.Judaism as distinct from all other religions is based upon a fact of history. 600,000 people (ages 20-40) saw it and retold it more or less the same way and rewrote it with much accuracy (different torahs written at different times were found to be the same), and not like John Smith, for example saying" G-d talked to me".That lends judaism a certain degree of validity with the witnesses and all.However this fact cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt but neither can any history of the day.If you've read any archeological journals (or watch the discovery channel like me) most of it is conjecture.

However, to assume that someone would be convinced of Judaism because of the irrefuteable facts of history is also ridiculous.Even if events could be placed, the meaning ascribed to them cannot be objectively proven. Revelation of Divinity cannot be found in archeological digs. Judaism makes a reasonable claim which like any other religion addresses larger questions.

Truth be told, much of the arguments are emotionally based. We've decided where the arrow belongs (that's the emotional part)and are wrapping the target around it (the intellectual part), both sides are guilty.

Side point, I learned in a tshuva somewhere that the reason for shaving is for chatzitza reasons for the mikva.

Skeleton said...

therachosid-

The Kuzari makes that argument.

Shaving has little to do with chatzitzah. There is no equivalent 'rule' on shaving body hair.

TheraChosid said...

Skel
True. My main point was that trying to prove the historical basis of the Torah to gain validity or lack thereof is a worthless endeavor.

The shaving I was talking about was of the head and I believe it was a Tshuva of the Tzemach Tzedek having to do with chatzitzas harosh but havent seen it myself

Skeleton said...

Shaving because of chatzitzah may be mentioned, but s'iz ah shvache teritz due to a. We have no mesorah that women used to shave their heads b. as aforemntioned, there is no parallel on body hair which a. practically speaking, is a bigger problem chatzitzah-wise b. for plenty of our women, is longer than their head hair. Pardon my being graphic.

Baal Devarim said...

Skeleton:
"belief is a choice and stands apart from logic and reality"

Oy! There's just so much to say to that -- as you might well imagine! But since you've been gracious enough to "throw in the towel," I'll let it stand.

"but rather that you know your client better than I know mine"

I don't know about that, but I do know both clients well enough to be able to tell which is the more coherent one.

TheraChosid:

As Skeleton points out, you've attempted a (weak) restatement of the Kuzari. The Kuzari argument is fatally flawed; I'll let you look up the refutations yourself if you're really interested.

"600,000 people (ages 20-40) saw it and retold it more or less the same way and rewrote it with much accuracy"

This is a historical impossibility. 600,000 adult male slaves (ages 20-60) and their families never left ancient Egypt after it was decimated by plagues. In light of what we know, that claim is simply absurd. Ancient Egyptian history and culture is the most well documented and established (backed by a treasure-trove of archaeological finds and incredibly intact relics) of all ancient cultures. The Exodus, as told in sefer Shemos, never happened.

"Judaism makes a reasonable claim"

No, it really doesn't. In light of modern archeology, ANE history, Egyptology, anthropology, paleontology, astronomy, cosmology, and modern biblical scholarship, most ontological claims of Orthodox Judaism are patently ridiculous. Of course, as long as you stick to non-ontological claims you're on firmer ground -- but that isn't Orthodox Judaism.

As for the hair / Mikvah issue: In the eyes of some poskim, the problem with hair of any reasonable length is that there's no surefire way to verify that each individual strand gets submerged with the rest of the body. This is very difficult to verify visually. Perhaps that is what you mean by "chatzitza reasons."

TheraChosid said...

Baal Devorim
There is plenty of evidence check out the following link http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/exodusscptcs.html

‘The continuing archaeological discoveries’ says Fulton...have a wealth of archaeological evidence corroborating the Biblical account.’ The paper is a synopsis of Peter James published book called Centuries of Darkness and British archaeologist David Rohl published A Test of Time. Of the few classes I took of jewish history (undergraduate), there is plenty of evidence. If you want to say theres no conclusive evidence, i.e. there is evidence on both sides, I can swing with that , but to say things like "never happened" and "patently ridiculous" I mean any body with a basic knowledge of archeological journals knows theres plenty of proofs to go around. And even with all the evidence, what they no for sure is still a drop in the bucket.

By the way, What astronomical facts have you found that disprove the bible?

TheraChosid said...

The correct link is as follows the whole link was cut off

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/exodusscptcs.html

Shpitzle Shtrimpkind said...

Here you go…

Baal Devarim said...

Therachosid:
"There is plenty of evidence check out the following link"

You don't expect me to refute every crackpot theory and Christian apologetic link you dredge up, do you? The link you provided is to a fundamental Christian website trying to prove the divinity of Jesus. Of course they claim the exodus really happened. There's a reason the theories they expound are not accepted in the mainstream: they are not credible at all!

Moreover, even according to Rohl's theories, there is no way that ten plagues decimated Egypt as described in the bible. And no way that 600,000 slaves with their families left Egypt. That number is absurd. No serious scholar is willing to give credence to that astronomical figure -- even those controversial few that argue for "some kind" of exodus.

So, my initial claim stands: the Exodus, as told in sefer Shemos, never happened.

"I mean any body with a basic knowledge of archeological journals knows theres plenty of proofs to go around."

Exactly. But all of them go against events as described in the bible! I recommend reading up on your archeology.

"What astronomical facts have you found that disprove the bible?"

For one, the sun can't stop -- it never moved in the first place. For another, the visible light of stars in galaxies many millions of light-years away tells us the world is much much older than the biblical 6000 or so. There are other inconvenient facts in astronomy as well.

TheraChosid said...

When I asked What astronomical facts have you found that disprove the bible?"I meant concerning the exodus, but to be fair you mentioned "astronomy" was not in line with Orthodox Judaism so you went with the creation bit, I thought if you would give me an astronomical reason why the exodus couldnt have happened, that might be interesting.

Your ascertation that the link were from christians has nothing to do with the subject. Any science is empirical and discoveries are only as valid as the assumptions made about them.The fact that a christian scientist made a discovery with assumptions that make sense doesnt bother me any more than it should you if an orthodox Jew would make a discovery or a plausible assumption to fit data.I mean should we discredit discoveries made by atheist because they have something to prove? These are not the only ones, and many of their claims are just as valid as the mainstream which is not so mainstream anymore (there are many others who agree and/or are in between, saw a special on the History channel).

You said
"But all of them go against events as described in the bible!" again an overstatement, you seem to be partial to those.Any theology is not discrdited by natural sciences, if you want to believe there is a way to reconcile the two, if not theres room for that as well.

In stead of parting with a dig,(you seem partial to those to) I'll just say its been fun, and now back to the sensual sound of clattering shoes.

Chananiah Yom Tov Lipa said...

This is gevaldik, even the apikorsim gratn zich for the heilige seder nacht!

And you Shpitzle, have the zchis of hosting the Shloishim yom koidem hachag shoyalin vedorshin.

Baal Devarim said...

TheraChosid:
"a christian scientist made a discovery with assumptions that make sense doesnt bother me"

It shouldn't. But the "discovery" doesn't actually make any sense -- and that *should* bother you. When the only supporting arguments you can find are the nonsensical babblings of Christian fundamentalists (or any other fundamentalists), it's time to rethink your position.

"plausible assumption"

And here's the rub: it needs to be plausible!

"there are many others who agree and/or are in between, saw a special on the History channel"

You know, you may interpret this as a dig, but it is the truth: you seem to get your facts mostly from TV -- whether the History channel or the Discovery channel. Those may be interesting to watch and may even have some educational value, but they are really poor substitutes to reading the scholarly literature on the subject. You put way too much stock in whatever shows they chose to run; being in the business of entertainment, they will show whatever they think will garner the biggest audience -- truth be damned. That's the nature of the (mass entertainment) beast.

"You said
"But all of them go against events as described in the bible!" again an overstatement,
"

Not so. Archeology (and History) does really repudiate most historical biblical claims -- at least those that antedate the united monarchy. Look at what happened with Biblical Archeology -- a field of study that started with the objective to prove the stories in the bible. But reality -- to most everyone's surprise -- intervened, as it is wont to do.

"Any theology is not discrdited by natural sciences"

It is if your theology rests on ontological claims, as is the case with Orthodox Judaism.

"In stead of parting with a dig,(you seem partial to those to) I'll just say its been fun"

I agree. And please excuse any harsh words you (apparently) feel were directed against you personally; it's in the spirit of ריתחא דאוריתא. All, as you say, in good fun.

Chananiah Yom Tov Lipa:
"This is gevaldik, even the apikorsim gratn zich for the heilige seder nacht!?

But of course! We're Apikorsim, dammit, not Goyim! ;-) Besides, even the Apikorsim were forced out of Egypt in the end. See here. (Link courtesy of Hasidicrebel.)

TheraChosid said...

The link was funny.
Shalom al yisroel.

TheraChosid said...

My last comment on this and not meant as a debate, nor directed towards anyone in particular, any group, corporation or LLC, but check out the following link

http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/838

(still haven't learned the fancy 'hear you go' trick)its the papyrus they found that speaks of teh plagues from a egyptian priest.
Not a debate, I like it better when we all get along ("it's time for letting go....")

nuch a chosid said...

:-(

I am appalled at the discussion board turning into a apikorsim carnival.

It's a shame what's happening here.
the apikorsim have invaded this blog,
this is so unfair that have plenty of blogs to them selves,
and finally we get to enjoy a good nice blog they invade the place and bring their trash in and stink it up

Shpitzel, please.....!!!! please....!!!!

Ex said...

Skeleton,
Thanks for helping me understand reasoning of Chazal, Soiteh somewhere in the Chufs and Kiddushin and prob some others..)
Hamlameid es Bitoh torah, melamduh tiflois.
I was not able to understand the connection of how when a woman knows so much torah, it connects with apikorses..
I still do not understand, but it just affirms that what Chazal said is RIGHT>>>..

ex said...

Another point , about shaving:

I am not here to teach, and I do not qualify,
Yes you know alot, (and was highly impressed at first) but you still dont know EVERYTHING.
There are plenty of tshuvas in the gedoilei achroinim, (Chasam Sofer as an example,) that explains the "tekunah"
Remember the phraise? "Loi Lumadni, aineh riyah".

(and yes Chatzitzu IS a major issue-not cause its hair DUH, -its since hair is a part of your body and if one hair is tangled with the other and water cannot reach that tiny spot, then its just like one finger wasnt ttoivelt bebas acahas -also the fact thtat long hair would Tzuf al penei hamoyim, hair in other areas if you usually remove them, and you did not before you went to mikvah that is considered a chatzitzah.

And a compliment:
"Tzudku mimani.. Nice of you , at least you admit.
But you used it just to give him a finger.. after all the arguments and you fighiting back, came the yid gimel ikrim... yes sure is Tzudku mimeni,,, but dont say , you have to RETHINK what the ikrim means... The ikrim means as its said, you should RETHINK YOUR standing, since the Rambams (or would you rather call him Dr. Maimonedies...??? ) is pretty clear.

BTW , how come when Megilah says something you can doubt it , but you stop at the Rambam????
Even funnier, ALL (except for pirush hamishniayis) of the Rmabams sefurim were not written in lushoin koidesh, so why did you step back cause of the RAMBAM???

Shtreimel said...

Thera,
The Ipuwer papyrus, read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_papyrus

Besides, as BD has been trying to tell you, even if these plagues happened, the evidence that the Torah’s version is bogus is overwhelming.

Or, do you already know this, hence “My last comment on this”?

Nuch,
You can censure your own blog brother, but spreading frenzied alerts? Come on, only people who are terrified censure, the rest debate.

Think of it this way. I, the proud owner of an apikorsishe blog, let anyone comment on my posts. Many, if not most (!) of the commenters (including yourself) are religiously bound and spread their chazerie back at my place. Yet, I love each and every one of them, as it gives me the opportunity to re-check my position, and adjust my thoughts.

Shpitz, it seems is pretty content with her beliefs, and debating the accuracy of events depicted in the canonical bible does not get her into a frenzy. OTH, you seem to have very shaky beliefs. Deal with it brother, talk to your rabbi, read some sforim, and if it still doesn’t work you can talk to me. I promise to make you an erliche yid in no time!

Ex,
Ditto for the compliment to Skeleton. Not everyone has got the courage to admit when they’re wrong.

Skeleton said...

ex -

Want to trade shtechs?

I wasn't able to understand what chazal said about ben arbaim l'binah, but it doesn't look like you're over the hill yet.

I'm also sure that Devorah (the shoftes) would love your assessment that a woman knowing Torah connects with apikorsus. But perhaps you don't know na"ch.

As for the shaving issue; you are reading it wrong. As a tradition, I respect it. Yes, the Chasam Sofer and a number of other achronim write favorably about it, although AIUI they stronger argument cited is the uncovering of hair rather than the chatzitzah issue. However, if you look at it with an open mind, you must wonder why this takanah is quite recent in light of that women have been toveling for thousands of years without shaving. Surely there must have been legitimacy in that or we'd all be ben niddos and our ancestors mechayev kares. The issues you mention of hair tangling or not being submerged are reasonable, but they have existed for thousands of years and were dealt with. A. there needs to be a shomeres to ensure all hair is submerged B. hair on the head needs to be combed just like body hair does. I think it's fallacious making a claim about one but not the other.

That said, whoever wants to do it and doesn't mind, ashrei lo. But for people who have a problem with it, it's yatzo scharo b'hefsedo. You cannot claim they have no point - R' Moshe Feinstein z"tl ruled that a woman cannot shave against her husband's will as this was customarily done to the yefas toar to make her repulsive.

Shoot me, but it's my own personal theory that if a woman covers her hair properly and adequately, that is a greater madreigah than shaving. The Yerushalmi (Prishim) women have it right - tichel on the street and beautiful hair at home. On another note, the taaneh that hair is impossible to cover properly and shaving prevents hair from showing is bunk. I have seen the stubble of most of my neighbors . Turbans shift, women lift it to speak on the phone, etc. Al pi halacha, stubble has the same din as hair, unattractive as it may be.

As to the ikrim, they are short, and there's a lot more to emunah than that. I merely stated that Shtreimel's comment about divrei neviim was something I needed to think (research), whether the Rambam means a. the historical info as well as the divrei neviah from Hashem b. since Mordechai was a navi, does that mean Megillas Esther, while being part of Ksivim, is actually neviah c. since Mordechai was part of the AKH, does that mean everything the AKH said/wrote is deemed as neviah rather than riach hakodesh (although I don't know a practical difference - another thing to research) d. How about meforshim/midrashim? How does the ikkar extend to that?

Your barb about the Rambam's writings not being in L"H went whoosh. Please explain.

I did not back off because of the RAMBAM (ahem....Dr. Maimonides ;-)). Rather, on the debate with BD I backed off because I didn't feel myself equipped to keep debating, and on the comment from Shtreimel I backed off because I saw I was wrong and did not ch"v want to say something with an avek apikorsos.

On your general attitude, if it's any comfort to you (since you seem to believe people like me are messengers of the Sitra Achra anyway), it's men like you that make me want to drop Yiddishkeit altogether. In more pain than Your Smugness would care to know about, I've asked "What is my tafkid in this World?" Aren't we taught that Hashem equips everyone with what they need to accomplish whatever they need to in life? So, if Torah knowledge is indeed forbidden to me, why did He give me a well-functioning brain? After all, if the only thing creatures with XX chromosomes are supposed to do is reproduce, it doesn't take much intelligence for that. No answers have been forthcoming to the aforementioned question, other than the immeasurably stupid "your tafkid in life is to fight your rebellious streak and intellect". How comforting. Pardon me for not seeing Torah the way you do, and instead trying it to see it as caring and respecting ALL of God's creatures, including *gasp* women.

Skeleton said...

ex -

One more thing.

"Tzudku mimani.. Nice of you , at least you admit.
But you used it just to give him a finger.. after all the arguments and you fighiting back, came the yid gimel ikrim... yes sure is Tzudku mimeni


While I did paraphrase what Yehudah says about Tamar, Tamar is a woman, hence tzadkah. Shtreimel presumably is a male. Then again, you probably think dikduk is the province of maskilim and meshimudim.

Thea Ava Martinez said...

Hello good day :) , I read your article and I found it interesting and mindful please keep on posting different kinds of discussion.

gofastek.com

Nathalie Uy said...

WHAT EVER YOU DECIDE TO DO, MAKE SURE IT MAKES YOU HAPPY.
imarksweb.net
imarksweb.net