Re: "Dirty thoughts" in Judaism

In <474c3d7c$0$16502$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "cindys" <cstein1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

"Steve Goldfarb" <slg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
In <474c1362$0$24256$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "cindys"
<cstein1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Again. It does not make any sense to me, and I will never understand how a
*thought* can be an aveira, but I have been assured by several
O sources, including my LOR and several members of SCJM in the past, that
*hirhurim* are indeed aveiros. This is not my opinion. This is not my
interpretation. This is what has been told to me (by others) as being the

Perhaps we aren't talking about a simple thought here, but instead about
deliberately creating a "bad" mindset. If so, then this would support a
"mussar" point of view I think.

You can't commit premeditated murder without premeditating - so while
premeditiating isn't murder, nevertheless it's still something you
shouldn't do.
The subject is not murder, premediated or otherwise. IIUC, when the O world
references "hirhurim," they are euphemistically making reference to what
they (NOT ME) consider to be inappropriate sexual thoughts. And again, to
their (NOT MY) view, the hirhurim themselves are sinful, not just because of
what they could lead to (which would certainly be problematic), but even if
someone could be 100% certain the hirhurim would lead nowhere, in and of
themselves, the hirhurim are considered sinful, according to the Orthodox
(NOT MY) view. If I have misunderstood the Orthodox (NOT MY) view, then I am
open to correction (from someone who has actually studied the halacha). And
God help the first person who claims that the Orthodox position is Cindy S's
interpretation or position or tries to make this all about *me*.

Cindy, I understand your frustration, but I want to add this as a data point to
my argument that when people post third-party opinions it creates difficulties
in discussion, as you've observed (and I'm not criticizing you, just pointing out
what happens). When I made this argument to Jay regarding his habit of posting
anti-O articles and then disavowing any view about them, he snidely suggested
that I only felt this way about leftwing opinions. I didn't dignify his
comment with a response, but I do think it applies more broadly. I think you
were clear that this is the (mainstream?) O view, and that you weren't endorsing
that view, but as people here would view you as O, it's understandable why they
would assume you endorse the view.

I think it is valuable to post you understanding of halacha, but it's hard
to have a conversation about it. Perhaps if you provided your own view, or
explained why you disagree with the O view, it would be clearer. I don't
have much knowledge about this area of halacha, but I do wonder whether there
are some subtleties in defining exactly what is prohibited and what is not
that would make the halacha seem more reasonable. After all, as I understand
it, something should not be prohibited if it is impossible to abide by.

New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)