From the Desk of Don Coyote

Notes and musings from an anonymous friend

Hi מכרכר,

Your blog and its comments have much that is insightful and inciteful, exciting and excited. Searches for models of hedonism. I'm having a problem commenting on a very lively post, 'Natan's Latest Post, A digest of 'The Craziest Ban' '. If there's such a thing as a guest post, is there such a thing as a guest comment? If you are able, kindly post the following:

As a second-hand observer of the original post, I want to offer the following. (My apologies for lumping a few things together.)

As pointed out by מרכבות פרעה, not everything is a “ban”. When reading school rules, as sent home at the beginning of each year, many of them appear odd. But they do the job. Maybe because when there are one hundred rules the students keep the twenty important ones better. Even an ill-advised rule, if not extreme, is advantageous in that it imbues the students with a feeling of responsibility, accountability and being on your toes. This advantage holds across divisions of the school experience; rules in the gym benefit the classroom and vice versa.

Back in the day, they experimented with “dress down Friday”. What could be wrong with that? Then when employee performance tanked, they learned their lesson. Ended up that dress IS more connected to performance than they thought. Peripherals impact the core.

About bunches of boys with bamba, the same issue is in the private arena, when you take your young boy to shul, and he bothers your own davening. But you do it to acclimatize him to shul. Eventually he's gotta and gonna settle in. Then you can't be too strict with him lest he come to detest the place. Neither can you be strict with the other guy's kid because you can't interfere with HIM being comfortable in shul. You're aware of the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel. He'll grow up and sit like a mensch.

Especially Chassidim. The weekday coffee and the Shabbos herring are main draws that make people comfortable to come and engage in their devotions. The shteebel is meant to be a homey place. Even 'Shteebel' is a homey name, and it was designed in contrast to the austere Bais Haknesess.

We have a boy in shul who I think has a mild form of ADHD. So, we put up with him. The whole community has a responsibility that he be mainstreamed, even at the expense of a more focused davening. Those opposed can (and do, with our blessings) find somewhere else to daven.

As opposed to girls. They have no future in the men's section. If they sit quietly is one thing. But if not, why should they be kept there at all?

Then what about common sense? Isn't there such a thing as erring on the side of caution? Even if this rule is inane, why isn't that—i.e., an error on the side of caution—mentioned as a positive aspect of the rule? Unless one feels that society has no need to be cautious in that direction.

In the context of Issur Eishes Ish, Rambam says that it takes effect with the Biah. Inasmuch as the whole context is Ishus, he doesn't mention the details (= the intention) of that Biah. For that you're meant to look in the beginning of Hilchos Ishus.

Yours, Don