Toras EMES 613

@DoubleAA First, pointing out that that Bach holds the Shok to be the lower leg. Secondly, instead of continuing to extend the back and forth, I recommend people look into the sources I quoted and will understand what I wrote to be accurate.

@DoubleAA I recommend reviewing all my comments and people could see the quoted sources. Good night.

@DoubleAA In case you misunderstood what I wrote: You indicated that the Aruch HaShulchan was completely disagreeing with the Bach, which is not the case. Regarding up to a Tefach, the Bach also says that up to a Tefach is okay. The Aruch HaShulchan was disagreeing with the sources that the Bach quoted (and also disagreed with) that even less than a Tefach is a problem. Regarding objective standards, I was not saying that the Aruch HaShulchan agrees with the Bach, just that he doesn't disagree with him in the section that you cited.

@DoubleAA That part of the body is already Ervah automatically-and I don't know how one could read otherwise in my words. The pasuk quoted is making clear that head hair that one may otherwise not think is Ervah-is in fact Ervah.You're 2nd point-you were asking for a source that Ervah is objective, which I provided.The Bach makes clear that even certain areas one may think would be fine to have uncovered are in fact Ervah (and therefore because many in society may consider immodest dress to be adequately modest, does not allow one to uncover the Shok(or other areas that are objectively Ervah).

@DoubleAA In terms of you quoting the Aruch HaShulchan, if you look at the Bach, you will see that the Aruch HaShulchan is only disagreeing with some of the sources the Bach quotes, rather than the Bach, with whom he appears to agree that up to a Tefach is okay. In any case, the Aruch HaShulchan does not dispute the Bach's point that Shok is an objective standard (as well as the other Ervah he refers to).

@DoubleAA It's apparent from the context that "hair" refers to head hair. In any case, look at what the Bach wrote about Shok (like hair) - you wouldn't think that Shok is Ervah, so the pasuk clearly demonstrates it is.

@DoubleAA Thanks for pointing that out. The Ba"Ch quotes the Gemara and is even more explicit - when he notes one might think that there is no issue with hair (and some of the other Ervah) and then notes that these pesukim clearly demonstrate otherwise - that there is an objective source.

@DoubleAA While I presented the source in Hebrew for your benefit, just to paraphrase for others. The Bach (Rabbi Yoel Sirkis - known by the acronym of his work "Bayis Chadash" - Ba"Ch), quotes verses from the Book of Yeshyahu and Shir HaShirim, with respect to the Shok, a (married) woman's hair and voice (when singing) to demonstrate clearly that the places of Ervah are objective (objective Ervah does exist). I'd recommend checking out the source in full as I reference the link above. Thank you for your question and efforts to arrive at a source. I'm happy to have helped demonstrate otherwise

@DoubleAA Here's a source - the Bach (1561/62-1640) an early Acharon who wrote about 400 years ago (Siman 75, S"K 2) beta.hebrewbooks.org/tursa.aspx?a=oc_x187: ונראה דנקט שוק דאפילו פחות מטפח נמי חשוב ערוה וכדנפקא לן (כ״ד ע״א) מקרא (ישעיה מ״ז ב) גלי שוק עברי נהרות וכתיב (שם ג) תגל ערותך דמשמע כל שוק הוי ערוה אפילו פחות מטפח...מה שאין כן שוק שלה אי לאו דגלי לן קרא דערוה היא, וכן קול ושער הוה אמינא דאין לחוש להן אפילו באשת איש, אי לאו דכתיב קרא (שיר השירים ב׳ י״ד) כי קולך ערב, ושערך כעדר העזים (שם ל׳ אי) דמדמשבח לה קרא בגוייהו שמע מינה תאוה הוא, והכי מוכח להדיא ממה שכתב רש״י וז״ל שוק

@DoubleAA I was going to reference that. It would be nice to invest the time to get the sources for the Rishonim. In any case, the authors of the Chayei Adam and Mishna B'rura would define what areas objectively refer to ervah if it is classified as objectively ervah. If you find the source from a Rishon, please let me know. But, again, major Poskim (who are Acharonim) should suffice in any case as reliably defining ervah. Often answers are uncovered with proper time investment (lack of time availability shouldn't indicate whether Rishonim didn't offer such an objective definition).

@DoubleAA - From "Woman & the Mitzvot" - "According to the sources quoted, one must cover the leg to the knee and the arm to the elbow. In either case, the need to cover further extremities depends upon local custom". Also, it's important to note that the halacha is different in general and in relation to tznius as per davening. So, just because there are opinions that say that in areas where someone may recite K'riyas Shema in the presence of women dressed a certain way, does not reflect on her obligations as per tznius. That's the distinction that Rav Moshe mentioned - uncovered hair - Shema

@DoubleAA I would love to answer fully, but time is limited. To say that Tefach discounts the possibility of the Shok being asur by an objective standard discounts whether any amount up to a Tefach showing would be b'di avad. Pg. 187/188 - "Woman & the Mitzvot" - P'ri Megadim, Orach Chaim 75, Mishbitzos Zahav and Mishna B'rura: "The shok extends from the knee upward, hence below the knee poses no problem wherever women customarily leave it exposed." (Assuming it covers the knee when sitting, as well) Also, in this context, see Mishna: Chullin ch. 10, Hullin 134b, Rambam - מעשה הקרבנות - ט: י

@DoubleAA Didn't reference you in the previous comment. Are you looking for a Rishon that defines "Zero'a" and "Shok" (for example, while using language such as "everyone agrees that such is the definition"). Why would one think that these standards mentioned in the gemara are subjective (based on societal "norms") rather than objective? It's clear from the gemara that this is what "ervah" is, rather than something relevant to a given time period (for example).

The gemara (Kesuvos, 72b) - A woman is halachically obligated to cover her arms (Ze'roa). Most opinions hold that "ze'roa" refers to the elbow (the more lenient opinion). The "Shok" (B'rachos, 24a) - different opinions whether this refers to down to the ankle. According to the above link, the Chafetz Chaim (M"B, Siman 75, S"K 2) holds that the "shok" refers to the leg up to the knee and therefore a woman should cover at least past her knees (which would include when sitting). These are two examples, aside from other areas that should be covered (e.g, avoiding a plunging neckline).Why a Rishon?

@DoubleAA There are certainly some communities that have a higher standard of tznius and others who have a more basic standard, both within accepted halachic standards. Someone should respect a community they visit if it has higher standards for tznius. In terms of sources for an objective minimal standard, I would recommend this link - yeshiva.org.il/wiki/…

Contrary interpretations of the Bible's view on monolatrism are non-normative and unacceptable from a traditional Jewish perspective.

So the Bible's mention of foreign god's does not imply acquiescence to the belief that those gods are real entities outside of the minds of those people that believe in them.

...Or even that the demon doesn't exist.

The traditional Jewish view is that, even if some entities that are worshiped actually exist, they do not exist as entities that are outside G-d's dominion. For example, if someone worships a demon, that is "idolatry" even though the Jewish belief is that the demon is entirely subject to G-d's will.

@Daniel The traditional Jewish perspective is that when the Bible refers to other gods it refers to the notion of those gods. It is therefore a violation of "avodah zarah" (imprecisely translated as idol worship) to worship another god regardless of whether it exists in some form or not.

Hatzlacha.

That analogy is apt.

You're welcome. Sorry about the clutter, Hod. Hope you got some algorithms done.

correct!

ad kan intuition

which is called conCAVE (down)

it looks like a cave (e.g. -(x^2))

if you look at a graph of this...

if the slope keeps getting less positive/more negative, the 2nd deriv must be negative

Ok, all the 2nd deriv is is a description of how the slope is changing as you increase x

(it was a question about ta'anis bechoros, btw)

are you clear on the intuition behind the 2nd deriv test?

-(x^4/12)

why?

even though it isn't a constant

because x^2 is always positive, so -(x^2) is always negative

e.g.: if f''=-(x^2), it is concave down...

The site lit up when I did a google search before Pesach.

Thanks for the votes!

no, it is concave up

whoops, I meant concave up

It seems to me that my answer to ShmuelBrin's question is satisfactory.

and since it is raised to an even power, it is positive for any x, even negative numbers

which will make it have the same sign as the original function (positive, in this case, because otherwise it won't be concave down)

so the second derivative will also be to an even power...

for the whole function to be concave down, it must be a function to an even power...

but...

no, it will not always be a constant

ok

what is C here, btw?