Separate gender seating Mehadrin buses

[Flechette]

As can be see from the comments section at this Haredi site, opinions amongst the Haredim themselves are also strongly divided http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/article.php?p=34810

[muman613]

Why does the seating have to be front/rear? Why not seperate sections on the left and right, seperated by a mechitza?

[Flechette]

Pressure is growing for El Al to have Mehadrin airliners, with women disembarking from the rear.

[Ultra Requete]

I' m not Israeli nor Jewish and I can't say it's entirely bad idea but I can see something which Feminazist/Liberals will protest especialy when women are seated in back like blacks in Jim Crow era times or Jews/Poles and other untermenshen in ocupied Warsaw. Left/right or separate busses for man and woman woud be more.. hmmm Politicly correct. 

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

That picture looks more like a greyhound bus line than an Israeli public bus, and if that was really a view of a mehadrin line, I find it hard to believe the men's section could be so tiny!  They have about 5 rows of seats in the front!   

I doubt whoever supposedly took this picture would ever have the guts to even get on one of those mehadrin buses.   

BTW "flechette" it was quite obvious who you are from the moment you started posting here.  You didn't think you were fooling any of us did you? 

Just to chime in on the discussion I am against the silly idea for separate buses.  There is not a basis in halacha, and this is simply a chassidishe-invented societal chumra (extreme chumra, probably invented in modern settlement of kiryat yoel in monroe ny) being adopted by the general haredi public which apparently as it becomes a bigger demographic becomes more and more imaginative and has a greater sense of entitlement.  This was not the societal norm of religious society as a whole in Israel, and there is no reason to make this a societal norm except fanatacism.   No one, of even the "frummest" Jews in Israel could have even imagined such a scenario on the Israeli public bus system 10 or 15 years ago, let alone when the state first began, as seating was never mandated to different sections of the bus.  It is the ignorant masses who don't understand Judaism and think "frumkeit" and man-woman separation defines Judaism that want this chumrah enforced. 

And before anyone starts crowing about "gedolim" who signed on to this crazy idea, I GUARANTEE you that there are some rabbis in support of this thing who are only supporting it because their hand has been forced by ignorant extremists and the masses of idiots who want it.   And knowing some rabbis who are close to gedolim, this unfortunately DOES happen in Jewish society.

[muman613]

That picture looks more like a greyhound bus line than an Israeli public bus, and if that was really a view of a mehadrin line, I find it hard to believe the men's section could be so tiny!  They have about 5 rows of seats in the front!   

I doubt whoever supposedly took this picture would ever have the guts to even get on one of those mehadrin buses.   

BTW "flechette" it was quite obvious who you are from the moment you started posting here.  You didn't think you were fooling any of us did you? 

Just to chime in on the discussion I am against the silly idea for separate buses.  There is not a basis in halacha, and this is simply a chassidishe-invented societal chumra (extreme chumra, probably invented in modern settlement of kiryat yoel in monroe ny) being adopted by the general haredi public which apparently as it becomes a bigger demographic becomes more and more imaginative and has a greater sense of entitlement.  This was not the societal norm of religious society as a whole in Israel, and there is no reason to make this a societal norm except fanatacism.   No one, of even the "frummest" Jews in Israel could have even imagined such a scenario on the Israeli public bus system 10 or 15 years ago, let alone when the state first began, as seating was never mandated to different sections of the bus.  It is the ignorant masses who don't understand Judaism and think "frumkeit" and man-woman separation defines Judaism that want this chumrah enforced. 

And before anyone starts crowing about "gedolim" who signed on to this crazy idea, I GUARANTEE you that there are some rabbis in support of this thing who are only supporting it because their hand has been forced by ignorant extremists and the masses of idiots who want it.   And knowing some rabbis who are close to gedolim, this unfortunately DOES happen in Jewish society.

I think seperate seating is a wonderful thing and it prevents socializing like Pirkie Avos suggests. Men and women who are not married, especially, and even married men and women should not socialize lest they come to sin. This is not a 'new' invention, it is a central idea of Judaism. Do you think the men were dancing with the women during the Song of the Sea? I have heard it said that Miriam danced with the woman but the men did not dance. This is one reason, I believe, that men and women dance separate.

This thing which you don't understand about Chassidism is that a Chassid does go beyond the letter of the law. While Torah doesn't explicitly mention any mitzvah concerning seperation, it is implied. There certainly is a lack of tzniut in the world, especially in modern civilization where you cannot escape lurid and immodest images, women wearing beach clothes on the street, and immodest talk between males and females. Seperate seating, both in shul, and in public is a good measure to prevent these kinds of things.

Let me find some sources to back up what I am saying:

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3246/jewish/Why-Is-Torah-Law-So-Restrictive-of-Contact-Between-the-Genders.htm

Question:

I understand that Torah law forbids all physical contact between a man and a woman -- or even for them to be alone in a room together -- unless they are first-degree relatives or married to each other. This applies to any man and any woman, regardless of their ages or whether or not  they are sexually attracted to each other. And then there are all those rules about "modest" dress. Isn't that carrying it a bit far? Are we really such animals?

Answer:

When a man and woman are together in a room, and the door closes, that is a sexual event. Not because of what is going to happen, but what has already happened. It may not be something to make novels of, but it is a sexual occurrence, because male and female is what sexuality used to be all about.

It is true that in our world today, in the "free world" certainly, people have, on the whole, stopped thinking in these terms. What happened was that we started putting up all these defenses, getting steeled, inured, against the constant exposure and stimulation of men and women sharing all sorts of activities -- co-educational school, camps, gyms -- is that we started blocking out groups of people. We can't be as naturally sexual as G-d created us to be. When a man says, "I have a woman friend, but we're just friends, nothing more, I'm not attracted to her in any sexual way, she's not my type," you've got to ask yourself what is really going on here. Is this a disciplined person? Or is this a person who has died a little bit?

What does he mean "she's not my type?" When did all this typing come into existence? It's all artificial. It's not true to human sexuality. And it really isn't even true in this particular context because given a slight change of circumstance, you could very easily be attracted. After all, you are a male, she's a female. How many times does a relationship begin that is casual, neighborly, and then suddenly becomes intimate? The great awakening of this boy and girl who are running around, doing all sorts of things, sharing all sorts of activities, and lo and behold, they realize -- what drama, what drama -- that they are attracted to each other. These are grown-ups, intelligent human beings, and it caught them by surprise. It's kind of silly.

So closing a door should be recognized as a sexual event. And you need to ask yourself: Are you prepared for this? Is it permissible? Is it proper? If not, leave the door open. Should men and women shake hands? Should it be seen as an intimate gesture? Should any physical contact that is friendly be considered intimate? Hopefully, it should.

These laws are not guarantees against sin. They have never completely prevented it. There are people who dress very modestly. They cover everything. They sin. It's a little more cumbersome but they manage. All these laws are not just there to lessen the possibility of someone doing something wrong. They also preserve sexuality -- because human sexuality is what G-d wants. He gave us these laws to preserve it, to enhance it -- and makes sure it's focused to the right places and circumstances -- not to stifle it.

We have become callous about our sexuality. Even in marriage, a kiss on the run cheapens it, makes it callous -- then we run to the therapist for advice. And do you know what the therapist who charges $200 an hour for his advice says? He tells the couple not to touch each other for two weeks. Judaism tells you that free of charge. Yes, there are two weeks each month during which a husband and wife don't touch. This therapy has been around for 3000 years. And it still works. It's a wonderful idea.

When you don't close the door on yourself and that other person, you are recognizing your own sexuality. You are acknowledging the sexuality of the other person. Being modest, recognizing our borders, knowing where intimacy begins and not waiting until it is so intimate that we're too far gone, is a very healthy way of living. It doesn't change your lifestyle dramatically, but enhances it dramatically, and you come away more capable of relaxing, better able to be spontaneous, because you know that you can trust yourself. You've defined your borders. Now you can be free. It takes a load off your mind and it makes you a much more lovable person.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I think seperate seating is a wonderful thing and it prevents socializing like Pirkie Avos suggests. Men and women who are not married, especially, and even married men and women should not socialize lest they come to sin. This is not a 'new' invention, it is a central idea of Judaism. Do you think the men were dancing with the women during the Song of the Sea? I have heard it said that Miriam danced with the woman but the men did not dance. This is one reason, I believe, that men and women dance separate.

Muman, you can quote me a whole book and it is not going to cause me to accept your propaganda.   If men and women are in danger of "socializing" and "coming to sin" they can choose not to ride the bus or to sit by other women or by other men and keep their mouths shut.   They don't have a right to mandate it for everyone else who CAN control themselves. 

Furthermore, it is ridiculous for you to compare normal bus seating with mixed dancing, as mixed dancing IS forbidden by halacha, while sitting in the same public place as people of the opposite sex, without a mechitza or some type of gender-specific seating arrangement, IS NOT.  It has absolutely no makor (source) for being assur (forbidden) except in your imagination.  Consider a bus to be a moving room.   A moving public room.  Like a moving auditorium.   And no there is not an issue of yichud here (nor would any separate-bus proponents claim it to be).  So it is equally absurd that you brought a source about that as if there is any comparison.

You can think something to be a wonderful thing, and that's your right, but that does not make it obligated upon the Jewish people, even if it was a wonderful thing (which I don't think it is, nor do many of the women victimized by it).   Judaism is a sane religion.   Some of us will not allow it to be commandeered by those who wish to impose their own irrationality upon everyone else.

Do you think the men were dancing with the women during the Song of the Sea?

Did I ever suggest this?  Although I am certainly not convinced by "you heard it said."  Anyone can say anything.

But I believe it is in the Rashi if I remember correctly.  That doesn't mean everyone agrees.  Furthermore I am not entirely familiar with the halacha of mixed dancing.  It is erroneous to automatically assume that every single thing we do today is straight from Sinai.   But it is possible that this has an ancient source.  I won't deny that at this point before looking into it further.  Have you studied the Talmudic sugiya discussing mixed dancing?   I certainly haven't yet but would like to.

Of course if they succeed in establishing separate lines, they will probably tell us that this was always done by frum Jews since buses were invented.  Starting with separate camel seating for husbands and wives and male and female children when they used to travel to the Temple.

[judeanoncapta]

I think this is psychotic and is not mandated by Halakha at all.

This is further proof that the haredi ideology has nothing to offer the jewish people but psychoses.

[Zelhar]

I think this is psychotic and is not mandated by Halakha at all.

This is further proof that the haredi ideology has nothing to offer the jewish people but psychoses.

I agree with you, except that I have to say not even all Hardis want this 'glat kosher' bus.

[GoIsraelGo!]

At my brothers Chabad Center the women sit on the left and the men sit on the right.
I have not seen the men up front and women in the back.
Is this a different sect of Judaism where the women sit in the back?


                                   Shalom - Dox

[Zelhar]

At my brothers Chabad Center the women sit on the left and the men sit on the right.
I have not seen the men up front and women in the back.
Is this a different sect of Judaism where the women sit in the back?


                                   Shalom - Dox

The separation between men and women is the principle, not how it is executed. The women also board the bus from the rear door an I think they pay to a female teller at the rear entrance.

The sect behind these buses is the anti-zionist "Ha'eda Hacharedit העדה החרדית ". They are very zealous when it comes to modesty, or as judeanoncapta said, their zeal has crossed to line to psychotic. If they had their wishes come true, Israel would be an Arab state. Then they wouldn't have to impose their 'kosher buses' because the muslims know how to treat women just as well.

[muman613]

At my brothers Chabad Center the women sit on the left and the men sit on the right.
I have not seen the men up front and women in the back.
Is this a different sect of Judaism where the women sit in the back?


                                   Shalom - Dox

The separation between men and women is the principle, not how it is executed. The women also board the bus from the rear door an I think they pay to a female teller at the rear entrance.

The sect behind these buses is the anti-zionist "Ha'eda Hacharedit העדה החרדית ". They are very zealous when it comes to modesty, or as judeanoncapta said, their zeal has crossed to line to psychotic. If they had their wishes come true, Israel would be an Arab state. Then they wouldn't have to impose their 'kosher buses' because the muslims know how to treat women just as well.

How come you say this? Haradi are serving in the IDF and are not anti-Zionist as far as I know. I think you are confusing them with the NK.

[GoIsraelGo!]

Thank you for the explaination Zelhar.

[Moshe92]

At my brothers Chabad Center the women sit on the left and the men sit on the right.
I have not seen the men up front and women in the back.
Is this a different sect of Judaism where the women sit in the back?


                                   Shalom - Dox

In religious synagogues, men and women are always separated, but I have never heard of a synagogue where the women sit in back of the men. This bus tradition is completely made up. There is no basis for it in Judaism.

[judeanoncapta]

At my brothers Chabad Center the women sit on the left and the men sit on the right.
I have not seen the men up front and women in the back.
Is this a different sect of Judaism where the women sit in the back?


                                   Shalom - Dox

The separation between men and women is the principle, not how it is executed. The women also board the bus from the rear door an I think they pay to a female teller at the rear entrance.

The sect behind these buses is the anti-zionist "Ha'eda Hacharedit העדה החרדית ". They are very zealous when it comes to modesty, or as judeanoncapta said, their zeal has crossed to line to psychotic. If they had their wishes come true, Israel would be an Arab state. Then they wouldn't have to impose their 'kosher buses' because the muslims know how to treat women just as well.

How come you say this? Haradi are serving in the IDF and are not anti-Zionist as far as I know. I think you are confusing them with the NK.

What are you talking about?

Haredim, for the most part, dodge the draft.

The only Haredi Rabbi that supported Haredim going to the army, Rabbi Aryeh Leib Shteinman, had his car set on fire in Meah Shearim and was the victim of an intense smear campaign in Jerusalem.

[muman613]

Regarding Haredi participation in the IDF:

The Nahal Haredi unit of the IDF was created in 1999 for Chareidim who want to serve their country while adhering to the highest religious standards. Currently, the battalion is about 70 percent Chareidi and 30 percent National Religious. Since its inception, more than 2,000 soldiers have gone through Nahal Haredi’s three-year program. There are about 700 soldiers in the battalion at any given time

http://www.nahalharedi.org/

Hesder yeshivot, which combine military service and Torah study, turn out 1,200 recruits each year—a 40 percent increase over the last 5 years (New York Times, 31 December 2007).

The IDF draws about 10 percent of its staff officers, 15 percent of its combat support officers and up to 40 percent of its combat officers from the National Religious sector.

http://www.ou.org/index.php/jewish_action/article/38157/

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Unfortunately muman, you do not understand Israeli society or the perspectives of the various religious sectors that live there.

Regarding Haredi participation in the IDF:

The Nahal Haredi unit of the IDF was created in 1999 for Chareidim who want to serve their country while adhering to the highest religious standards. Currently, the battalion is about 70 percent Chareidi and 30 percent National Religious. Since its inception, more than 2,000 soldiers have gone through Nahal Haredi’s three-year program. There are about 700 soldiers in the battalion at any given time

http://www.nahalharedi.org/

As judea pointed out, many haredim lashed out against Rav Shteinman for supporting this proposal, and I challenge you to find me among those who are considered "the gedolim" - support for nahal haredi for haredi Jews.  Perception of Rav Shteinman certainly dropped due to his "audacity" to take a principled (and logical, reasonable) stance against the desires and common thinking of the ignorant masses, who would rather avoid the army and claim frumkeit as the reasoning.  Of course, in my view, for his intellectual honesty and courage, Rav Shteinman's stature only increased.

VERY few haredim (compared to the population size of haredim) serve in these nahal haredi units, and those who do are considered 'outcasts' and 'failures' in haredi society.   One who "makes it" in haredi society is one who succeeds at learning and stays in kollel long enough to forego military service entirely.   If you "don't make it" it means you had to get a job instead because you either didn't enjoy the learning full-time and couldn't cut it because of that, didn't succeed at it as well as others, are not brilliant and/or not cut out for it, have a different point of view from the rest of haredi society and somehow value work despite the fact that your parents raised you to resent having a job as something second-class to kollel-learners, don't desire to live in utter poverty begging for money to feed your kids pay rent (begging from relatives, from tzedaka or whatever else), your hashkafa changed radically from that cookie-cutter extremist hashkafa of haredi society, or you became 'less frum,' or off the derech entirely.

The bottom line is, haredi society as a whole in Israel scorns this organization, and at most it is "b'dieved" not le'hathila.   Meaning, one who can't make it in the kollels, or desires to work for a living against the grain of his societal upbringing, changes hashkafa in some other way, strays from how he was raised, or unfortunately goes off the derech and can't stay in yeshiva anymore, these are the people who then are "FORCED" to get jobs and in that case have no choice but to serve in the military.   The Nahal haredi is the way to stay religious while serving.  Or serve in a cultural environment more similar to what they are used to having grown up religious.    And if they are really off the derech, it can be societal pressures and family pressure that causes them to serve in the religious units rather than just go join the regular army units.  A compromise of sorts. 

To have a job is considered second-class by most haredim.     

Hesder yeshivot, which combine military service and Torah study, turn out 1,200 recruits each year—a 40 percent increase over the last 5 years (New York Times, 31 December 2007).

The IDF draws about 10 percent of its staff officers, 15 percent of its combat support officers and up to 40 percent of its combat officers from the National Religious sector.

http://www.ou.org/index.php/jewish_action/article/38157/

You said in this quote how much the IDF draws from the NATIONAL RELIGIOUS SECTOR .   And that is exactly the sector that fills the ranks of Hesder yeshivot.   That does NOT address haredim.  Hesder yeshivot have nothing to do with Haredi Jews.  The religious zionists go to hesder yeshivot and then serve in the military.  And their sector is the most patriotic in all of Israeli society, as recent polls show.   (despite the fact that the state has declared war on them and wants to expel them from settlements).

The national religious (aka religious zionists) are a different group of people entirely than haredi Jews.   The fact that they had to be called "religious zionists" is precisely because the haredi Jews (the majority of the religious) are antizionist, and so this distinguishes them from those "other" frum Jews we commonly refer to as haredim, and/or ultra orthodox Jews, who are against the state, against serving in the military, and in general against self-defense and most Kahanist principles.  They have a watered-down galuth-based Judaism based mostly on personal piety and dress code.  Many poisonous anti-Jewish notions continue to graft onto the haredi hashkafa and the disdain for jobs and army service are a few of them.

[Zelhar]

Regarding Haredi participation in the IDF:

The Nahal Haredi unit of the IDF was created in 1999 for Chareidim who want to serve their country while adhering to the highest religious standards. Currently, the battalion is about 70 percent Chareidi and 30 percent National Religious. Since its inception, more than 2,000 soldiers have gone through Nahal Haredi’s three-year program. There are about 700 soldiers in the battalion at any given time

http://www.nahalharedi.org/

Hesder yeshivot, which combine military service and Torah study, turn out 1,200 recruits each year—a 40 percent increase over the last 5 years (New York Times, 31 December 2007).

The IDF draws about 10 percent of its staff officers, 15 percent of its combat support officers and up to 40 percent of its combat officers from the National Religious sector.

http://www.ou.org/index.php/jewish_action/article/38157/

Yeshivot Hesder are part of the national religious sector. Some of them are more strict and extreme and are nicknamed Chardali (Charedi-Leumi), still they belong to the naitonal-religious sector. It is just like judea and KWRBT are saying- very few serve in the IDF, and most rabbis discourage their men from serving in the IDF, including yeshiva drop-out.

[muman613]

I also support the idea that a sector of Jewish society should devote themselves entirely to study of Torah. I have given Tzadekkah to organizations which support poor Torah scholars in Israel, and I believe they support the Charedie also. The reason I find this acceptable is because our Torah established two classes, Levi'im and Kohan'im who were exempt from having to make a normal living and were dedicated to serving Hashem in the Mishkan, and in the Holy Temple. Today we do not have an established class of Levi'im nor Kohan'im in Israel and the closest thing we have is the Haredi studying Torah day and night.

It is said that the strength of Israel comes from two places, the first is the physical world where we must physically fight and, second the spiritual world where we must learn Torah and have trust in Hashem. Some of the Jewish people must not fight and they must be dedicated to spiritual pursuits. Some may consider my outlook a misunderstanding but it is how I feel.

 PS: It is true I have little contact with the truth on the ground. I am simply stating my understanding in this issue. I also don't like creating divisions like this in the Jewish people. I love all Jews, Askenaz, Sephard, Natl Religios, Haredi, Mizrachi, etc.

[muman613]

Regarding the issue of 'looking at women' I found this Daf Yomi from 'Avodah Zarah' which makes this request {separate seating} seem more understandable.

http://www.dafyomi.co.il/azarah/insites/az-dt-20.htm

Avodah Zarah, 20

1) WHAT IS "HISTAKLUS?"

    OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa that relates that once, when Raban Shimon ben Gamliel saw an idolatrous woman who was beautiful, he exclaimed, "How abundant are Your works, Hashem!" (Tehilim 104:24). The Gemara later asks how was it permitted for him to look at her? The Torah commands, "v'Nishmarta mi'Kol Davar Ra" -- "You shall guard yourself from any evil thing" (Devarim 23:10); this verse requires a person to protect himself from seeing things ("Mistakel") which later might cause him to have forbidden thoughts. The Gemara answers that the case of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel was different, because it was a case of "Keren Zavis," a corner. RASHI explains that when a person turns a corner, exiting one alley and entering another, he might suddenly cross paths with another person (who is turning the opposite way) and he will not have time to close his eyes. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel did not see the woman approaching and did not have a chance to close his eyes.

    What are the parameters of the prohibition against looking at a woman? (See also Insights to Shabbos 149:2, Bava Basra 168:1.)

        (a) The S'MA (CM 154:14) explains that there is also difference between the act of "Histaklus" and the act of "Re'iyah." "Histaklus" refers to seeing by chance, without intention to look at the person or thing. "Re'iyah" refers to intentionally looking at a person or thing. According to the S'ma, it seems that it is prohibited even to briefly glance at a woman, and one should be careful to avoid situations in which he might need to glance at a woman.

        (b) Many others dispute this view. The BEIS YOSEF (OC 229) writes that the definitions of "Histaklus" and "Re'iyah" are the opposite of what the S'ma writes. The Gemara in Chagigah (16a) explains, according to one opinion, that when the Mishnah there (11b) says that "anyone who does not have compassion for the honor of his Creator is better off having not been created," it is referring to one who looks at a rainbow. The TUR (ibid.) rules that it is prohibited to "gaze profusely at a rainbow" ("Mistakel Bo Harbei"). The Beis Yosef quotes the AVUDRAHAM who writes that the ROSH was asked how is it permitted to look at a rainbow in order to recite the special blessing for a rainbow if one is not supposed to look at it? The Rosh replied that "Ro'eh" (seeing) is not the same as "Mistakel" (gazing, which is prohibited). He describes "Mistakel" as an act of continuously and intently looking at the object. According to this, the Gemara here, too, is prohibiting only gazing ("Mistakel") at a woman, but not glancing or looking in passing.

        The MAGEN AVRAHAM (OC 225:20) discusses a similar question regarding looking at an evildoer. The Gemara says that it is prohibited to gaze ("Mistakel") at the face of a Rasha. What does this mean? The Magen Avraham explains that this means that one is not allowed to take a long look, concentrating on his image and figure. One is allowed to "look" ("Ro'eh") in passing at a Rasha, though.

        The SEDER YAKOV cites many authorities who question the statement of the Magen Avraham from our Gemara. If there is a fundamental difference between "Histaklus" and "Re'iyah," then why does the Gemara not answer its question by saying simply that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel merely "saw" ("Ro'eh") the woman and did not "gaze" ("Mistakel") at her? This is also a question on the Beis Yosef.

        The NETZIV (in HA'EMEK SHE'EILAH 52) answers that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel clearly did not merely glance in passing at the woman. The fact that he praised Hashem for this woman's beauty means that he concentrated on it. The Gemara answers that he did not purposely look at her; he merely encountered her suddenly at a "Keren Zavis" (see IGROS MOSHE OC 40 who also explains the Gemara in this manner). The Netziv concludes that the premise of the Beis Yosef is correct with regarding to the definition of "Histaklus." He describes the Mitzvah of "v'Nishmarta" as referring to looking in a way that causes one to have forbidden thoughts (as implied by the Gemara on 20b). Looking in a way that will not lead to such thoughts is permitted. However, it is appropriate to be stringent, so that one should not end up looking with improper intentions.

        (c) The BI'UR HALACHAH cites support for the Magen Avraham from our Gemara. He says that "Histaklus" can sometimes refer to intent gazing, and sometimes to seeing inadvertently. He points out that our Gemara asks a question only from the Isur of looking at a woman. Why does it not ask about from the Isur of looking at a Rasha, which would apply even if the idolatrous woman was a man? It must be that looking at a Rasha is, as the Magen Avraham states, prohibited only when one gazes intently. This is why the Gemara did not question Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's conduct from the Isur of looking at a Rasha. The Gemara instead questions his conduct from the Isur of looking at a woman, where even looking, without concentrated intent, is prohibited.

        The Bi'ur Halachah clearly understands the Magen Avraham to be saying that the Isur of looking at a woman is more severe than the Isur of looking at a Rasha, even though the Gemara uses the term "Histaklus" with regard to both. Since the Bi'ur Halachah, later in the Shulchan Aruch (OC 239), does not discuss this with regard to looking at a rainbow, we may assume that he applies there the same definition of "Histaklus" that he applies to the Isur of looking at a Rasha.

        The Seder Yakov challenges the proof of the Bi'ur Halachah. First, why would the Gemara question Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's conduct from the Isur against looking at a Rasha, which is only an Isur d'Rabanan, when it could question his conduct from an Isur d'Oraisa (gazing at a woman)? Second, perhaps the woman was not a Rasha and the Isur of looking at a Rasha did not apply.

        Even though this Bi'ur Halachah seems to argue on the other opinions, he might still agree with the Magen Avraham's definition of "Histaklus" in the case of a Rasha as being intense and constant gazing. When the Bi'ur Halachah says that *any* "Histaklus" at women is forbidden, he means merely that if it is done intentionally even for a short period of time it is also forbidden. This is apparent from the words of the MISHNAH BERURAH (OC 75:7), who writes that the prohibition of "Histaklus" involves "looking in order to have pleasure." This obviously does not exclude looking for even the shortest period of time with such intent. He continues and says that simply looking without pleasure is permitted, although it is not proper to do so (it is not "mi'Tzad ha'Musar"). He adds that the MINCHAS SHMUEL writes that an Adam Chashuv, an important person whose conduct serve as an example for others, should be careful even in this case.

        The Igros Moshe (OC 1:40, 4:15) also states that the prohibition of "v'Nishmarta" refers to looking at a woman with intention to gaze at her and derive pleasure from viewing her, similar to the explanation of the Netziv. However, he states that it is still imperative that every man look downwards as much as possible while he is walking in a public place. He qualifies this by adding that a person should not make himself into one who never looks where he is going, thereby colliding with objects or with other people, causing injury to himself or others (see Sotah 22b). The Seder Yakov says that this is apparent from our Gemara. After all, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel himself was looking upwards when the woman passed in front of him. (Y. Montrose)

20b
2) THE PROHIBITIONS OF "V'NISHMARTA" AND "V'LO SASURU"

    QUESTION: The Beraisa states that we learn from the verse, "v'Nishmarta mi'Kol Davar Ra" -- "You shall guard yourself from any evil thing" (Devarim 23:10), that it is prohibited to have sinful thoughts during the day which might lead to becoming Tamei at night.

    There is a similar precept in the Gemara in Berachos (12b). The Gemara there states that the reason why the Chachamim instituted that the Parshah of Tzitzis be recited as part of the reading of Keri'as Shema is because it contains five important topics. One of these topics is that a person must refrain from thinking sinful thoughts about women, which is expressed by the verse, "v'Lo Sasuru [Acharei Levavchem] v'Acharei Einechem" -- "You shall not turn away [after your heart and] after your eyes" (Bamidbar 15:39)."

    Why are both of these verses -- "v'Nishmarta" and "v'Lo Sasuru" -- necessary? They both seem to be teaching the same thing!

    ANSWERS:

        (a) The SEMAK (Lavin 30) answers that the Isur of "v'Lo Sasuru" is a prohibition against looking at women in a promiscuous manner ("Derech Z'nus"). The Isur of "v'Nishmarta," on the other hand, is a prohibition against looking even without any promiscuous intent, but only with intent to enjoy an attractive sight.

        RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN zt'l in IGROS MOSHE (EH 1:69) gives a similar explanation. Our Gemara prohibits looking at all types of things which might cause a person to have sinful thoughts (such as the colored clothing of a woman one knows, animals mating, etc.). The purpose of this prohibition is so that the man not experience Tum'ah later because of the thoughts he had earlier in the day. It follows that this prohibition applies even when one is not having promiscuous thoughts at the moment that he is viewing these things.

        The Isur of "v'Lo Sasuru" is a different prohibition altogether. This Isur mandates that a person not think of committing the sin of promiscuity. (It is reasonable to suggest that Rav Moshe understands the Semak, who says that "v'Lo Sasuru" means looking at a woman with promiscuous intent, means that the Isur of "Lo Sasuru" applies only when the man's thoughts would constitute a sin if they were manifested in action; when, however, there is no prohibition for him to have relations with the woman (for example, she is unmarried and Tahor), then this prohibition would not apply.)

        We now understand the different practical aspects of each commandment. The Isur of "v'Lo Sasuru" involves thinking about having forbidden relationships. This Isur, therefore, applies equally to women as it does to men. It would not apply, it seems, to a single woman who is not a Nidah, since having relations with her is not Asur mid'Oraisa. However, "v'Nishmarta" tells us that a man may not look at women for pleasure at all, since it might cause him to become Tamei later. This Isur applies to a single, Tahor girl as well, as the Gemara teaches.

        RAV TZVI PESACH FRANK (as cited in TZITZ ELIEZER 15:53) argues with this understanding. He comments on the Gemara's phraseology that a person "should not have sinful thoughts [about women] during the day *and come to Tum'ah at night*." Why does the Gemara need to add the last phrase, regarding encountering Tum'ah at night? It must be that since such sinful thoughts cause a person to transgress the Isur of becoming Tamei, one must do all he can in order to avoid such thoughts which lead to Tum'ah. Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank suggests that if a person had sinful thoughts but they did not cause him to become Tamei later, then he did not transgress the Isur d'Oraisa of "v'Nishmarta." The Torah is merely giving a safeguard to prevent transgressing the Isur of becoming Tamei. The Chachamim therefore state that the Torah is telling us that one should not have sinful thoughts because they will bring him to Tum'ah.

        RAV SHLOMO ZALMAN AUERBACH zt'l (as cited in Tzitz Eliezer ibid.) and the TZITZ ELIEZER himself argue that this suggestion of Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank cannot be correct. When the Chachamim stated that it is prohibited to have sinful thoughts, they made a blanket prohibition because of what *might* happen as a result of the thoughts, regardless of whether or not it actually happens. Hence, even if the person does not end up becoming Tamei, he still transgresses "v'Nishmarta" (or at least the Isur d'Rabanan of "v'Nishmarta").

        (b) The RAMBAN (in SEFER HA'MITZVOS, Shichechas ha'Lavin 11) says that the main point of the Mitzvah of "v'Nishmarta" is indicated in the context of the verse. The verse is discussing the conduct of a soldier in an army encampment during a time of war. The Torah is saying that especially at such a time one must make every effort to ensure that the Shechinah is with the army encampment. One spiritual mishap by a single individual could cause the deaths of all of the soldiers in the army! Although the Ramban cites our Gemara, he insists that the prohibition itself is not the main point of the verse. Apparently, he means that he understands that the main prohibition against looking at women and having sinful thoughts is learned from the verse, "v'Lo Sasuru."

        The SIFRI D'VEI RAV, commenting on the Sifri (Devarim ibid.) carries this thought further. He says that the Torah is telling people in a war that they must be very careful, even with things which are not explicitly prohibited by the Torah (as the Gemara mentioned earlier (12a), such as drinking from the mouth of a fountain erected for Avodah Zarah. (See Tzitz Eliezer (ibid.), who has great difficulty with the approach of the Sifri d'Vei Rav). (Y. Montrose)

So maybe those who want to avoid transgressing these ideas would have to wear a blindfold or something?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Regarding the issue of 'looking at women' I found this Daf Yomi from 'Avodah Zarah' which makes this request {separate seating} seem more understandable.

The request is not any more understandable from this information.  In fact, it is proof against your case.  This whole discussion of guarding one's eyes is precisely about individual self-control.   There shouldn't be billboards with women in revealing clothing, but on the other hand, you CANNOT ENFORCE a person to not look at women (living breathing women in society) for enjoyment or in a promiscuous manner.  A man has to control himself and be encouraged to do so.   You cannot enforce Judaism on people with Taliban-style fundamentalist extremism.

[muman613]

Regarding the issue of 'looking at women' I found this Daf Yomi from 'Avodah Zarah' which makes this request {separate seating} seem more understandable.

The request is not any more understandable from this information.  In fact, it is proof against your case.  This whole discussion of guarding one's eyes is precisely about individual self-control.   There shouldn't be billboards with women in revealing clothing, but on the other hand, you CANNOT ENFORCE a person to not look at women (living breathing women in society) for enjoyment or in a promiscuous manner.  A man has to control himself and be encouraged to do so.   You cannot enforce Judaism on people with Taliban-style fundamentalist extremism.

So you do suggest that the men wear some kind of blindfold? How can a man go to work, or to any destination, using this transportation without coming to gaze unintentionally at a woman. I do believe that this may be a part of the question. There is something to lose when a man must worry about whether he will somehow come to sin because of gazing at these women.

Obviously you put the whole responsibility on those who want to prevent their souls from transgression. I obviously don't agree with you and I don't agree that this is a taliban-style imposition. Every Jew {and I assume this bus is for religious Jews} should be able to operate in their community without being forced to commit sins. I am sure that there are non-separate methods of transport in these places also. I see no reason that the operator of the bus lines can cater to this community and meet the stricter requirements of those who live according to Rabbinic Torah Judaism.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

So you do suggest that the men wear some kind of blindfold?

Why does a man need a blindfold in order to not gawk at women?  He just needs self-control.   The issur is not "a woman entering the field of vision of the eyeball" .... The issur is to take PLEASURE out of looking at women.  That means gazing and "checking them out."   Why can't a man prevent himself from doing this?   Not everyone is a pervert that gawks at every woman.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

How can a man go to work, or to any destination, using this transportation without coming to gaze unintentionally at a woman.

Forget about transportation.  There are women in the workplace too.   And get this, there are even women who dare to walk outside on the sidewalk!   Oh heavens, how will the men keep their pants on?!    The same way Jewish men have always done so (or at least the good Jewish men) - With SELF CONTROL.   

When G-d says not to eat pork, does that mean we have to go around massacring pigs wherever they might be?   Root out the hog from society?   No.  It means don't eat it, even if some goyim insist on packaging bacon and distributing in supermarkets.    You cannot root out the evil inclination from the world by "banning" it.  People need to resist temptation.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

{and I assume this bus is for religious Jews}

Once again, you assumed wrong.   This is a public bus line that SOME haredi Jews are trying to coerce to adopt certain standards just because it happens to run through certain neighborhoods that are mostly religious.  It is amazing to me how insistent you are about defending certain points of view when you admit that you don't really know about them or at least admit to be operating on assumptions (which often turn out false).   Why not check out the facts and see if your assumptions are true before trying to convince other people of untenable positions?

should be able to operate in their community without being forced to commit sins.

It is not a sin to ride on a bus with men and women seated near each other.   This is what we meant when we said that there is not a HALACHIC basis for the separate seating.  That means, halachically, there is no violation of Jewish law to have the buses with normal seating.  Therefore no sin.    No one is forced to gawk at members of the opposite sex.  And in the big bad world out there when people step off the bus, there are no mechitzas to prevent gawking at women on the sidewalk either.  Because that is insane.

I am sure that there are non-separate methods of transport in these places also. I see no reason that the operator of the bus lines can cater to this community and meet the stricter requirements of those who live according to Rabbinic Torah Judaism.

You miss the point entirely.  These extremists are trying to coerce the buslines.  And in doing so, they intend to force them to adopt these standards so that there are not any longer "non-separate methods of transport in these places also" .  And what gives them the authority or jurisdiction to do so?  Nothing.

There are many Jews who live according to "Rabbinic Torah Judaism"  (MYSELF INCLUDED) who do not agree with this silly sociopathic demand of certain haredi extremists.  There are even haredi Jews who do not find this demand appropriate.   As such, they DISAGREE with the extremists and with you that these stringencies are "requirements" of Judaism.  They are not requirements.  That was the whole basis on which several commenters in this thread argued against this crazy chumrah.   

You should have quit while you could have saved face.   After admitting ignorance on the issue, you then stated that your opinion was that it was good for society to have separation.   It is one thing to state an opinion based on "personal preference."  It is quite another to start asserting that your opinion is actually mandated by Jewish law.  It isn't.   And you certainly can't prove it.