I think that extreme asceticism is showing off. Even if only to one’s god.
For Christians, there is a parable that directly tells them not to make a show of their piety. That didn’t stop nutcases from having themselves walled up to die when retreating from the world into a religious community just wasn’t extreme enough.
Asceticism is not a central tenet of Judaism. It is in some other religions. For instance, celibacy isn’t a tenant of Judaism, while Catholic priests and nuns take a vow of celibacy.
Many of the mitzvot are more logical- do not steal, visit and care for people who are ill… and more. Some don’t make much logical sense. Very observant Jews attempt to follow them because they believe it is important, even if the reason isn’t clear. However, as lergmom explained, there is variation in observance.
As to the plastic bag, it isn’t for show… I’d be willing to guess that he doesn’t want to ride an airplane with it, but is doing what he believes is important do do.
I don’t think it’s necessary to question a person’s true motives while still thinking that what he’s doing is nutty.
Well, yes, one can independently come to the conclusion that it’s nutty without addressing motivation, if one wishes.
I want to point out that buying three tickets can solve many of the seating problems mentioned here.
I’ll amend my prior response and say that if the guy buys three tickets and his two phantom companions are bumped, I’ll change seats upon request. I assume nonexistent passengers are the first to be bumped?
“Yes, that is really what I meant. Why not declare that the sealed airplane is good enough? Why is the plastic bag better? Is it that conspicuous displays of piety are more attractive? Look at me! I’m kohanim! I’m more special than you are!”
In all fairness, I don’t perceive kohanim doing what they do as trying to “show off.” I believe they’re sincerely motivated. I also think that they’re nutty, and if there is any FAA type of rule about plastic bags on flights, they need to abide by them.
When we flew to Israel, there were Haredi on our United flight. We were on a two seat row, so it worked out for us. There was very little overhead room, though – the big hats are stowed in boxes for the flight and not counted in carry-on luggage, apparently.
My guess is the guy in the bag had a rabbi who would have said, “Are you nuts?” if asked.
The Talmud requires sex in marriage. It’s grounds for divorce if a husband doesn’t have regular sex with his wife. [url=<a href=“http://tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/190197/daf-yomi-123%5DHere’s%5B/url”>http://tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/190197/daf-yomi-123]Here’s[/url] an article about some of the marriage details in the Talmud. It’s an interesting read if only because it gives insight into the lives of modern day people who spend their days studying this ancient stuff and then applying it to their current lives often as strictly as possible.
Here’s an excerpt for those who don’t want to read the whole thing:
"Finally, in this week’s reading we learned how often a married Jewish couple should have sex. The answer, we read in Ketubot 61b, depends on the husband’s occupation: If his job keeps him away from home or is very physically demanding, he can have sex less often than if he lives a sedentary life. Thus “men of leisure” must have sex with their wives “every day,” while laborers do it twice a week, camel drivers once every 30 days, and sailors once every six months. Two things are remarkable about the Talmud’s treatment of this subject. The first is that sex is considered not as the husband’s right but as the wife’s: A man owes his wife sexual fulfillment, not vice versa. The second is that celibacy is not seen as a virtue, as it is in Christianity, but an evil to be avoided, so that a man is forbidden to vow to abstain from sex with his wife.
The rabbis can imagine men wanting to leave their wives in order to devote themselves solely to Torah study. The wife of Rabbi Akiva is praised for allowing him to study in a distant city for 24 years, sacrificing her sexual pleasure for his scholarly achievement. But this is seen as an extraordinary case, and in general the rule is that a Torah scholar must have sex with his wife at least every Shabbat. The justification here is not just procreation, but intimacy and pleasure. As we have seen many times before in the Talmud, while Judaism is severe about sexual misconduct, it sees conjugal intimacy as one of life’s blessings and necessities."
“My guess is the guy in the bag had a rabbi who would have said, “Are you nuts?” if asked.”
Being curious about this idea of riding a plane in a plastic bag, I found one taped discussion online in orthodox cicles on the idea. The way it got into the news is that someone took a picture of this man on the plane in the bag, and reported it as a gender separation issue. It went into the news as that until someone corrected the information.
The talk concluded with raising the questions- is this safe? and is this wise? with the discussion about calling attention to oneself with this unusual behavior.
It seems to me that there is an awareness about this issue. I don’t know if it will be a continued practice or not.
I guess this also proves that sex isn’t work.
I’m pretty sure the plastic bag idea came from a rabbi–I think he was named in one of the articles, but I’m too lazy to check.
I’ve mentioned it before, but does anyone know of any cases in which a woman traveling alone asked a man to move? Is it always men?
The bus situation described by zoosermom is of a female making men move or not sit beside her.
Right. I meant Orthodox women.
Not sure if ultra orthodox women would travel alone, and they arent the one with the issue, its the man.
@lergnom wrote:
The Talmud might require sex in marriage, but I don’t believe any culture with such rigid taboos about sex can expect it to become easy and healthy. Isn’t the refusal of men to sit next to women due to their fear of having a sexual thought about someone who is not their wife?
Here’s an article about all the backpedalling and effort that is sometimes necessary for a healthier sex life for an orthodox couple. A rabbi has the final say in what they’re allowed to do.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/magazine/the-orthodox-sex-guru.html?_r=0
Wow! We have some sort of cosmic thread convergence going on, with the impaired wife thread, this thread, and now, with this quote, the grammar threads.
Celibacy is used incorrectly in that sentence. Celibacy – as in the vow of celibacy that Catholic priests and nuns take – is refraining from marriage. Celibate means unmarried. I think someone mentioned the improper use of this term as one of their pet peeves in the one of the grammar threads.
The Christian virtue that the writer had in mind is chastity, not celibacy. (If I recall correctly, priests and nuns don’t take vows of chastity; I believe that if they have sex, it is just a regular old sin like anyone else’s.)
The term is only being used incorrectly if they are referring to how the catholic church defines “celibacy.” The english dictionary defines it as the “state of abstaining from marriage and sexual relations.”
Catholic nuns do take a vow of chastity and while priests do not specifically take that vow they are obligated by canon law to refrain from sexual relations.
Fair enough. From my years of Catholic school, I thought that was the technical definition of the term that applied broadly, not just in the context of Catholic doctrine. I believe it is the historical definition of the term.
But, in any event, the quote reflects a misunderstanding of at least some traditional Christian views. In Catholicism, at least, there’s the concept of “chaste sex” which is loving (potentially procreative) sex in the context of a marriage. A elderly person with nine kids and an active sex life with his/her spouse can be said to have lived a chaste life (assuming no extramarital sex). So, the quote reflects a misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine at least.
Totally off point, I know, but I thought the quote was interesting.
Technically, if we are speaking within the Catholic culture, “chaste” does not mean abstaining from sexual relations. The term for that is “continence.” Married couples who have abstained from sex before marriage and only have relations with their spouse can still be considered “chaste.” In the Catholic context “chaste” really means “sexually pure” meaning you have abided by the laws of the Catholic religion which allow sexual relations between married people.