Why Do Girls Have to Cover Their Legs?

Home Coffeeroom Bais Medrash Why Do Girls Have to Cover Their Legs?

Viewing 133 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
  • #608309

    WIY
    Member

    Ok I know very little about this topic so please fill me in, why do women who properly cover their knees have to cover their legs? Whats the source for this and what are girls required to cover their legs with?

  • #952045

    I think it is actually a chumra. Obviously, I was required to cover my legs when i was at the bais yaakov i went to, so i started doing it outside of school as well. As long as the whole leg is covered, either by your skirt being long and wearing knee highs, or by leggings and socks, or tights, you are following the minhag.

    The denier concept is Super chumra, and the people that wear black tights/ socks from succos to pesach are taking their chumras to a whole different level that i respect, but feel is completely unneccesary.

  • #952046

    golfer
    Participant

    Snowbun, some of the people you see covering their legs with black tights all the time, for instance black tights at a wedding with slingbacks, think they are being fashionable. Perhaps erroneously. This is not to be confused with the people who wear them as a chumra, in which case it’s not Succos to Pesach- (why would the season make a difference as far as tznius is concerned?) it’s all year.

    As for the exact halachic requirements, I would like to leave that to the more learned posters who can quote the relevant sources and offer proper references for what they say.

    Feel free to consult me on matters of fashion, though.

  • #952047

    I heard succos to pesach from a bunch of my friends. i know people who do that…

  • #952048

    benignuman
    Participant

    The Gemara in Brachos 24a says that a women’s “shok” is considered erva.

    There is a dispute among the Achronim what “shok” refers to, the thigh or the calf (i.e. lower leg). According to those opinions that “shok” refers to the calf, a woman must cover her lower leg down to the ankle.

  • #952050

    So then why don’t bais yaakov girls just wear flip flops and ankle length leggings?

  • #952051

    benignuman
    Participant

    In addition to the tznius standards found in the Gemara women are free to increase their tznius. However when a particular manner of tznius becomes widespread within a community, each woman within that community must abide by those standards.

    So there is no halachic reason why Bais Yaakov girls can’t dress as you suggest. However because they do not dress that way it would be untzniusdik for an individual girl to dress in a such a fashion.

  • #952052

    What if I lived in memphis tennessee, and nobody else covered their legs, if I moved there, would i be able to wear flip flops and ankle length leggings?

  • #952053

    superstar
    Member

    If the halacha is to cover the legs, how is it ok for them to show with nude socks? It looks the same as with no socks.

  • #952054

    sam4321
    Member

    See Igros Moshe chelek 4 EH 100:6.

  • #952055

    benignuman
    Participant

    Snowbunny,

    If you feel that is tzniusdik, then yes.

  • #952056

    ThePurpleOne
    Member

    snowbunny-

    theres a concept known as “minhag hamakom”.. that means if ur in a place such as tennessee u dont need to be machmir and cover ur legs.. but in flatbush u wud need to.. for ex in camp i wear ankle sox but in the city wouldnt..

  • #952057

    yytz
    Member

    Wearing just leggings is no good because skin-tight clothing is considered no different from being naked. Actually, that’s the style now on college campuses and high schools, to wear skin tight leggings and a shirt that doesn’t extend down past the waist. So for all practical purposes, aside from the color of the leggings, people are seeing them naked.

    It reminds me of the story of the charedi rabbi at the bus stop in Israel with the scantily and tightly-clad women. All the people looked at the rabbi to see how he would react. He simply handed the woman an apple. The woman said, “Why are you giving me an apple?” He said, “Chava didn’t know she was naked either until she ate an apple.” Of course, it’s not a real story, and the fruit wasn’t an apple…

  • #952058

    1. Tights are also skin tight

    2. Socks are skin tight

    3. Obviously, I am wearing a skirt over the leggings…

  • #952059

    benignuman
    Participant

    “Wearing just leggings is no good because skin-tight clothing is considered no different from being naked.”

    That is absurd. The Gemara says that something transparent is also assur, but skin-tight is hardly the same thing as transparent. See the teshuva from R’Moshe cited by Sam above.

    Theoretically all spandex would be in keeping with the halacha. However frum Jewish women the world over have a broader sense of tznius than the bare minimum and keep a higher standard. The standard a woman must keep is dependent on her community and her personal sense of tznius (l’chumra only).

  • #952060

    yytz
    Member

    Oh, sorry, I thought you were using a more extreme example!

    I don’t know what’s wrong with flip-flops. There are definitely very frum women who wear flip-flops and sandals. But more yeshivish people may believe it’s better to cover up the feet too. And flip-flops or sandals are pretty informal, so that doesn’t go along with the custom to dress fairly formally all the time.

  • #952061

    ThePurpleOne
    Member

    the halacha is that u must cover below the ankle. its a chumra for between ankle and knee. therefore, why wud leggings help anything? ur feet below ur ankles not covered and thats the main point. also the portion bet ur knee and ankle is allowed to be skin tight.. ever heard of baggy tights? not rlly..

  • #952062

    interjection
    Member

    As far as I know there is no source regarding why feet have to be covered but many men have a thing for feet so many hold closed toe shoes are better than sandals. If the legs from the knees down have to be covered depends on each person’s posek; it’s not assur to show the legs just depends how your rav interprets ???.

  • #952063

    benignuman
    Participant

    PurpleOne,

    You don’t need to cover below the ankle. There is a machlokes regarding between the ankle and the knee.

    That is all m’ikkar hadin. But one cannot dress in a manner that would be viewed by his or her community as untzniusdik, even if the standards of that community are well beyond what the halacha requires.

  • #952064

    WIY
    Member

    How is wearing those beige/light colored see through stockings or whatever they are called accomplishing anything if you can still see the leg?

  • #952065

    yitayningwut
    Member

    Where does it say that a woman is obligated to cover areas which are called “ervah”?

  • #952066

    SaysMe
    Member

    wiy- some are translucent, some are pretty or completely opaque. They are just skin colored so you might not know that

  • #952067

    FIA
    Member

    yitayningwut: are you suggesting they might be allowed to go in public with erva uncovered?

  • #952068

    ThePurpleOne
    Member

    fia-

    noo hes NOT hes just asking 4 a source!!

  • #952069

    sam4321
    Member

    Yitay:???

  • #952070

    yitayningwut
    Member

    ThePurpleOne understands what I’m asking.

    A few people implied or said straight out that the Gemara says it is “assur” for a woman to leave certain body parts exposed. What Gemara is this?

  • #952071

    WIY
    Member

    SaysMe

    But my question is can it be transparent? What is the actual requirement?

  • #952072

    sam4321
    Member

    Yitay:Berachas 24 in conjunction with a passuk in the Torah.There other sources in the Yerushalmi.The idea of ervah is something which is hidden which makes it an obligation to cover areas which are always covered.You know this already nit sure what ur q is.

    WIY: The Igros Moshe I sourced before answers your q.

  • #952073

    yitayningwut
    Member

    sam4321 – In that Gemara it does not say anything about women being obligated to cover anything; only about not gazing, and about krias shema. Where does it say that specific areas are not allowed to be exposed?

  • #952074

    my leggings cover my ankles.

  • #952075

    ThePurpleOne
    Member

    wiy-

    girls have to cover a lot and there are diff recquirements for everything. some have to be covered and cannot be too tight (ex legs, stomache..) and some have to be covered but can be as tight as u want (ex arms)and thats why shells can be skin tight cuz only has to be covered not loose.. and some can be tight and transparent but should be covered (legs below knee).. got it? if u want more info read rabbi falks book.. its RLLY machimir on e/t but has the right ideals and approaches for a torah jew..

  • #952076

    benignuman
    Participant

    Yitay,

    With respect to hair covering and arms it is in the Gemara in Kesubos 72a-b. It is also clear from that mishna and Gemara that anything that Bnos Yisroel have a minhag to keep covered must be kept covered.

    There is an issur brought down in the Gemara (Shabbos 64b and other places) that one is not allowed to look at “erva.” There is an assumption therefore that if men are not allowed to look, then women must cover “erva” up. Therefore if a gemara refers to some body part as “erva”, the poskim assume that it must be covered.

    Hair covering is unique in that it is D’oraisa and must be covered even if the hair is not considered erva.

  • #952077

    interjection
    Member

    Don’t read rabbi falks book.

    What exactly does it say in kesubos?

    Edited.

  • #952078

    interjection
    Member

    WIY: there were many sources given in this thread

    http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/tznius-in-brooklyn/page/2

  • #952079

    yitayningwut
    Member

    benignuman –

    anything that Bnos Yisroel have a minhag to keep covered must be kept covered

    Sounds quite fluid, doesn’t it? Who is to say that a minhag can even exist in places where the general population is not careful about something? If people are generally used to seeing it, and your typical woman doesn’t cover it, you are still going to call “minhag tznius”??

    Furthermore, if your whole argument rests on this then you shouldn’t be using terms like “assur” and “muttar.” It would be more fitting to say “this is what a Jewish woman does” and “this is not what a Jewish woman does.” But I don’t agree anyway, because to see what a Jewish woman does, you look at what the Jewish women do.

    There is an assumption therefore that if men are not allowed to look, then women must cover “erva” up.

    Yes, I know very well that there is such an assumption. I am challenging it.

  • #952080

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    Yitayningwut,

    Do you think it’s reasonable to assume that a woman loses her kesuvah for not covering certain areas, but it’s muttar to do so?

  • #952081

    benignuman
    Participant

    Interjection and Yitay,

    The Mishna in Kesubos is discussing things women can do that will lose them their kesuba. It says that someone who “violates Daas Moshe and Daas Yehudis” loses her kesuba. The Mishna then gives examples of each.

    Rashi explains that “Daas Yehudis” are the minhagim of B’nos Yisroel. The Meiri explains that these are minhagim that B’nos Yisroel keep out of tznius so that Jewish women should have higher standards of tznius then the general non-Jewish population.

    There are many, many sources that minhagim of a community are binding on all members of the community. See, e.g., Pesachim 50a-b. The language of the Mishna about Daas Yehudis itself assumes some sort of binding power. The Mishna uses the word “oiver” a term used for the violation and she is punished for her violation by losing her right to her kesuba.

    Uncovering arms is classified in the Gemara as Daas Yehudis. No hair covering at all is deemed a violation of Daas Moshe and the Gemara says it is Torah prohibition. Partial uncovering of the hair (i.e. only covering the top) is deemed a violation of Daas Yehudis.

    “Yes, I know very well that there is such an assumption. I am challenging it.”

    Why? The assumption seems fairly reasonable, why would you assume the opposite, that women are free to walk around in public in a manner that would require all men to look away?

  • #952082

    yitayningwut
    Member

    DaasYochid –

    Do you think it’s reasonable to assume that a woman loses her kesuvah for not covering certain areas, but it’s muttar to do so?

    It’s not a matter of issur v’heter, it’s a matter of minhag. The halacha of losing kesuba is not a punishment for being oiver on an issur, it’s a matter of what was expected when she accepted the contract. She accepted whatever minhag is the norm, so if she violates it she has breached her contract and forfeits her kesuba.

    benignuman –

    why would you assume the opposite, that women are free to walk around in public in a manner that would require all men to look away?

    First of all, because shteit nisht. With all the tznius books manufactured nowadays, you won’t find one Gemara delineating guidelines of how a woman is obligated to dress. Yes, you find halachos of kesuba etc. based on the way the women dress, but you don’t actually find the directive anywhere.

    Second, because even if it is reasonable that there are guidelines, it is just as reasonable that the guidelines are completely subject to the norms of any particular time and place. To say that the Gemara names certain things as absolute “ervah” and that those things always must be covered is quite a leap.

    Third, the Gemara in Berachos doesn’t say you aren’t allowed to look at the things it names “ervah.” It says that you aren’t allowed to say krias shema in front of them, because they take one’s mind away. The same Gemara speaks out very clearly what you are not allowed to look at: ?? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?????. A man is enjoined even from looking (read: gazing with the intention of pleasure) at a woman’s small finger, if she is forbidden to him. According to your reasoning even burqas should not be sufficient; women should be obligated to wear gloves.

  • #952085

    benignuman
    Participant

    Yitay,

    I have a longer response to your third point and I don’t have time right now to post it. I will therefore deal with your first two points.

    1. The woman loses her kesuba for violating a minhag of B’nos Yisroel (not the non-Jewish culture, as the Meiri explained). Are you disputing that minhagim are binding? (e.g. Yarmulka is a minhag, but the Shulchan Aruch still says a person must not walk 4 amos without one.)

    2. With respect to those things that are Daas Yehudis (like covering arms), I agree that it would depend on the norms of the frum Jewish community in which the woman resides.

    With respect to No. 3 you are making a mistake in lomdus. I will explain b’ezras hashem after Purim.

  • #952086

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    Yitayningnishtgut, shteit nisht?

    Look at the Ritv”a in hilchos brachos. I’m sure there are more sources, I’ll try to find them noch Purim. A freilichn!!

  • #952087

    yitayningwut
    Member

    1. I am disputing that a minhag from 2000 years ago or even 200 years ago is binding in a society that simply doesn’t act that way. At any rate, this wasn’t really my first point. Point #1 was that as far as I know nowhere in shas do we have an explicit directive from Chazal that women have to cover specific body parts. We have hilchos kesubah which people are trying to infer such directives from, but interestingly enough the halacha itself doesn’t seem to be stated anywhere.

    2. Then why would you not take the next step, and subject the entire idea of tznius to such standards? If, for example, the frum women of the area do not cover their legs, why wouldn’t you agree that tznius does not demand that a woman cover her legs?

  • #952088

    Sam2
    Member

    Ben: I will dispute your claim that the Shulchan Aruch says that one must not walk 4 Amos without a Kippah.

  • #952089

    yitayningwut
    Member

    DaasYochid – Dunno what you are referring to exactly, but I just skimmed through the entire Hilchos Berachos of the Ritva and didn’t notice anything relevant.

  • #952090

    yitayningwut
    Member

    Sam2 – My shtika was not k’hodaah, I’m simply not responding to anything off-topic.

  • #952091

    Although we could take a completely different twist on this thread, and say that I have heard that the bare minimum of ones arm that a woman has to cover is half way between the shoulder and elbow… so why are woman supposed to be so machmir on covering her elbows and wearing 3/4 sleeves as well?

  • #952092

    ThePurpleOne
    Member

    snowbunny-

    isnt it basic halacha that we gotta cover our elbows? which rabbi says otherwise?

  • #952093

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    not Mishnah berurah who says even men.

  • #952094

    Sam2
    Member

    DY: Yes, but the M”B says even men because that was the custom then. Meaning he explicitly states that by men it’s based on the custom.

  • #952095

    yitayningwut
    Member

    Sam – DaasYochid is trashed if you haven’t noticed. Lol 😀

  • #952096

    benignuman
    Participant

    Sam2,

    The following is a quote from from the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 2:6

    ??? ??? ?’ ???? ?????? ????

    I did not mean that the shulchan aruch uses the Yiddish term yarmulke, if that is what you were challenging.

  • #952097

    Sam2
    Member

    Yitay: I know. But hopefully he’ll see these and think when he’s sobered.

  • #952098

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    I didn’t mean nowadays for men although it’s hard to wtite everything now.

  • #952099

    benignuman
    Participant

    Yitay,

    It is not uncommon for halachos to be derived from diyukim in Shas. It is clear from the Mishna and the Gemara that there is a concept of a minhag of B’nos Yisroel in tznius above and beyond that of the general population (it’s called Daas Yehudis, not Daas Nashim).

    That such minhagim are binding is clear from the Gemara in Pesachim I cited, and many halachos in Shulchan Aruch that have their origins in minhag (like wearing a head covering for men).

    I don’t know where you live, but where I live the frum women still cover their arms and certainly their bodies and legs. Such customs are therefore binding on all Jewish women in the community.

  • #952100

    benignuman
    Participant

    With regard to point 3.

    I maintained that there are some areas that are “erva b’etzem” and have to be covered regardless of local custom. I will admit that I am not certain that this is right, but I understand the argument.

    The Gemara in Brochos (24a) says “tefach b’isha erva.” The Rishonim explain that this means a tefach in the areas that are normally covered. The Gemara asks that you are not allowed to ogle even the finger of an erva. The Gemara answers that it is talking about one’s wife and for krias shma. Rav Chisda says “shok b’isha erva.” Rashi explains “to gaze and so too for his wife for krias shma.” This is strange, didn’t the Gemara just get finished saying that with respect to gazing there is no difference between body parts, why does Rashi explain Rav Chisda as talking about histaklus (gazing)?

    L’maysa you can be m’dayek from the statement of “?? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?????” that there is a separate grade of issur regarding the “makom hatoref.” The Tzlach explains that Rashi understood that if you stare with intent to have hanaah then it is assur even to stare at a finger, however the makom hatoref itself is assur even without intent to have hanaah.

    According to Rashi (al pi the Tzlach), Rav Chisda is saying that a man cannot look at a woman’s shok even without intent to have hanaah, because shok is erva b’etzem like the makom hatoref.

    The Pri Megadim and the Mishna Berurah pasken like this Tzlach.

  • #952101

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    At least in the US except for maybe Williamsburg and Kiryat Joel, there is no monolithic community. Even in Borough Park there are many types of Chassidim and Yeshivish people. Certainly in Flatbush and elsewhere.

    The term “community standards” would not apply and Im not even sure it would in Williamsburg either as I think there are others who live there as well.

  • #952102

    benignuman
    Participant

    Zahavasdad,

    There is no need for a monolithic community. If they share a minhag it will be binding even if they don’t share anything else.

    Among the frum in Borough Park is there an substantial population of women that do not cover their arms?

  • #952103

    miritchka
    Member

    I too was told that the leg must be covered knee up and ankle down. I’m almost positive its not just because its a school policy.

  • #952104

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    Among the frum in Borough Park is there an substantial population of women that do not cover their arms? </em >

    Probably not anymore as most of the non-charedim have left.

    I have never been there, but who attends the Young Israel/Temple Emmunel of Borough Park?

  • #952105

    I come from a very large Jewish community. I grew up in the metropolitan area of a big city and the majority of the Jews in the suburb I grew up in were unaffiliated. There are like three yeshivish families there because two of them run shuls and the other one is stuck in that suburb because it is very difficult with mortgages and stuff.

    The rest of the frum community is completely modern orthodox, and I daven at the modern orthodox shul because that is where my friends all are. The minhag hamakom is not to cover your legs, however, I do because as I have become very close to the yeshivish part of the nearby city, and aspire to lead a yeshivish lifestyle, and covering my legs is part of integrating into the yeshivish community, along with taking on a ton of other nuances as well that the suburb I grew up in does not necessarily take on.

  • #952106

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    Yitayningwut,

    Sorry, I wrote Ritv”a, it’s in the Ria”z.

  • #952107

    yitayningwut
    Member

    benignuman –

    It is not uncommon for halachos to be derived from diyukim in Shas.

    If we would derive an particular case of borer from a psak an amora made about nosein ta’am lifgam, I could hear. But if we would derive the entire concept of borer from that secondary place, I would find it extremely strange. Same here. You don’t hear a word about specific guidelines for dressing; it’s kind of hard to believe they just forgot to mention it.

    That such minhagim are binding is clear from the Gemara in Pesachim I cited

    Find me a source that someone has to follow a minhag neither they, nor their parents, nor everyone their community ever followed.

    where I live the frum women still cover their arms and certainly their bodies and legs.

    In many communities it is normal for observant Jewish woman to adhere to a very different standard than that of certain parts of the NYC metropolitan area. Whether it is skirts that just barely reach the knees, sleeves that don’t go all the way to below the elbow, or completely sleeveless, there are many communities where such is the norm among the (relatively) observant Jewish population.

    As for your final point, about Rashi:

    While the Pri Megadim and the Mishna Brura are certainly not to be taken lightly, and you are entitled to hang your hat on them, you are suggesting something which is far from the pashtus.

    First of all, what is the svara that ???? ????? should be assur? If the svara is that things that are normally covered will lead one to hirhur by merely a glance – then obviously it is subject to the time and place, and not just to the Jewish minhagim either. Whatever people are used to seeing is not ervah, and whatever they aren’t, is. In fact, the Pri Megadim himself acknowledges that there’s no such thing as an “absolute” ervah: ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??????, ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???, ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?????. Therefore the whole ervah Gemara should bichlal not apply to a place and time where exposed hair and legs are prevalent! And if you want to say otherwise, that there is such a thing as a shok being an ervah even where people see hundreds of them every day wherever they go, why??? It’s a ???? ?????.

    Second, if Rashi actually meant that, then why did the Gemara need to come on to krias shma? This understanding puts words into Rashi’s mouth which force the Gemara away from the pashtus.

  • #952108

    yitayningwut
    Member

    DaasYochid – Do you have a direct quote, a link, or at least an precise mareh makom? My only seforim here are on Hebrewbooks.

  • #952109

    FIA
    Member

    yitayningwut: If you’re going to argue against the Pri Megadim and the Mishna Berura, you’re going to need support from other Achronim rather than arguing against them yourself.

  • #952110

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    It’s not on Hebrewbooks, but it is on Otzar Hachochmah. I have the yellow one; it comes with Piskei Ri”d. It’s on 24b.

  • #952111

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    Look what I found! The first forty pages are available as a free sample. Mod, please allow.

    http://www.otzar.org/wotzar/getimg.aspx?62561-17-700-0-1-

    (second column)

  • #952112

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    Thank you.

    no prob

  • #952113

    yitayningwut
    Member

    DaasYochid –

    Very interesting, and thanks for the link. However: 1) I don’t think there is a reasonable indication that he is saying it is an “absolute” ervah regardless of current social norms. 2) Most rishonim do not say this pshat – and I would suspect because of the kasha I mentioned, that if so the Gemara could’ve used this.

    Let me put something else out there. The Gemara in Kesubos (17a) potentially permits negia b’ervah to an individual who is not affected by it. While I am not advocating relying on this, as the Ritva at the end of Kiddushin says this is only for a ???? ???? ???? ????? or something like that, it is something which we see in theory is possible. Moreover, the Aruch Hashulchan (EH 21) brings it down as the halachic norm regarding things which the society in general is already “used to.” Meaning, as I understand it, that even though for things which affect most people we say only a ???? ???? should be meikil, something which everybody is used to does not require such a standard. In a community where it is common for people to dress a certain way I find it hard to believe that a certain normally exposed area will cause hirhur per se more than any other, so even if we admit the Ri’az, I would say this halacha is an anachronism in many places today. And if the whole idea of dressing a specific way is based on what is called “ervah,” it won’t apply either in such places.

  • #952114

    benignuman
    Participant

    Yitay,

    You might be misunderstanding my position. I agree with you respecting Daas Yehudis. The reason there are no formal guidelines is because they are organic, rising out of the tznius practices of frum Jewish women in each generation. If someone lives in a community where sleeveless is common, then it is mutar. But if someone lives in Lakewood then it is proper to say that it is ossur.

    Legs are a separate matter.

    It is interesting that originally I had my doubts about the Tzlach’s mehalech in Rashi, but debating with you I am becoming more and more convinced that it is right.

    There is an issur to look at the makom hatoref even if there is no intention of deriving hanah or if hanah is mutar (the issur applies even towards one’s wife). See Nedarim 20a, Sh”A O”Ch 240:4.

    The Gemara in Brachos understood R’Yitzchak (because he doesn’t mention krias shema), when he said “tefach b’ishah erva,” as dealing with a general issur when looking with intent to derive pleasure because if he meant without such intent women would have to walk around with their faces and hands covered. So the Gemara asked that if there is intent to have hanah there is always an issur even without a tefach. The Gemara answers that R’Yitzchak meant regarding his wife, where intent is mutar, specifically regarding Krias Shema.

    Comes along R’Chisda saying “shok b’isha erva.” Is R’Chisda arguing on R’Yitzchak? There is no indication that this is a machlokes. If there is no machlokes, what is R’Chisda adding. R’Yitzchak said that it is tali on tefach. If R”Y was speaking about all parts of the body then clearly shok would be included. If he was speaking only about m’komos mechusim, then what is the point of bringing a posuk for shok, pok chazi if it women normally cover that part of the body.

    Rather Rashi understands that R’Chisda is saying that shok has a din of “erva mamesh” as derived from a posuk in Yeshaya. R’Chisda is saying that the shok of arayos, m’divrei kabbalah, is on the same plane of issur as makom hoteref. The issur is not because you might have hirhurim but a separate issur of looking at erva, just like the makom hatoref. Rashi adds that this would also mean that you cannot say krias shema in front of shok even by one’s wife, even if there is no intent of hanah, just like you could not say krias shema when the makom hatoref is exposed regardless of intention of hanah.

    Note that the Gemara comes on to krias shema to explain R”Y, but does not come on to krias shema, doesn’t even ask the question, regarding R’Chisda.

    Also note that according to this pshat there comes out a kulah: one can daven in front of one’s spouse uncovered arms if he doesn’t have intent to derive pleasure.

  • #952115

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    Yitayningwut,

    The things called “erva” in the passuk are absolute, otherwise there’s no reason for the Gemara to point to them. Everything would be talui in minhag hamakom.

    The Ria”z is not saying pshat in the gemara per se, he’s saying what the halachic nafka minas are.

    You wrote earlier that there’s a chilluk between issur v’heter and the momonus of the kesuvah. You’re wrong, though, because there’s no explicit contract on das Yehudis; things which are assur (tznius related or if she’s machshil him) cause her to lose her kesuvah.

  • #952117

    Sam2
    Member

    DY: Rav Schachter says otherwise. He says if a couple isn’t Frum and then he becomes a Ba’al T’shuvah and she doesn’t, she doesn’t lose the Kesuba for that. The Kesuba is a contract. One of the implicit terms is that they follow Halachah. If that is not the case in a particular instance, then why does she lose the Kesuba?

    Ben: You are trying to use an assumption from the Shulchan Aruch to back-read a Gemara. That doesn’t work. How would the Rambam have read the Gemara?

  • #952118

    benignuman
    Participant

    Sam2,

    I am not 100% sure what you are referring to. Are you talking about the Shulchan Aruch about not walking 4 amos with an uncovered head or the Shulchan Aruch about not looking at the makom hatoref?

    The Shulchan Aruch didn’t just make these statements up out of nowhere. For example, the Shulchan Aruch’s statement that it is assur to look at the makom hatoref is based on the shitah of Reish Lakish in Nedarim 20a, and is meduyak in the Gemara in Berachos (“????? ????? ????? ?????” implies that there is a separate level of issur for the makom hatoref).

    It is not a leap to think that Rashi would read the Gemara in Berachos to be consistent with the Gemara in Nedarim.

  • #952119

    apushatayid
    Participant

    Can someone summarize the various opinions of the poskei coffee room?

  • #952120

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    Sam, that’s not a stirah to what I said. If he knew she wasn’t keeping halachah when they got married, then in that case it wasn’t part of the implied contract.

  • #952121

    Sam2
    Member

    DY: Yes it is. Because if that’s not customary among the women at the time (or what this girl did before the wedding) then he can’t expect her to do it afterwards without explicitly saying so).

    Ben: The fact that I dispute your claim about 4 Amos was not relevant to my critique of your reading of a Gemara based on an assumption.

  • #952122

    benignuman
    Participant

    Sam2,

    Please explain your problem with my reading of the Gemara and why my assumption is invalid. While you are at it, you can explain how the Shulchan Aruch does not mean that one has to wear a kippah.

  • #952123

    yitayningwut
    Member

    benignuman –

    As the Rema (EH 25:2) paskens, the ikkar halacha is not in accordance with the Shulchan Aruch in OC you cited. R’ Yochanan in Nedarim (20b) dismisses that opinion. Also, interestingly, the issur mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch is about histaklus, not re’iyah.

    Let’s be clear. You yourself cited Shabbos 64a-b as the source of the issur to gaze at the ???? ?????. If we just look at that Gemara, we see the formulation of the issur is a complaint about the people ???? ?????? ?? ??????. Rashi explains ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????. What we see is clearly not some gezeiras hakasuv saying there’s a sheim ervah to the etzem zach regarding which an issur will magically be chal when someone looks. It is about pleasure being illicitly derived. Being “satiated” by looking. The formulation of the issur is that a ????dike re’iyah is bad. This is why a doctor may look. This is why me’ikkar hadin there is nothing wrong with ??????? ????? ????? between man and wife.

    If someone lives in a community where sleeveless is common, then it is mutar.

    Interesting. I’m glad to see we’re on the same page here.

    Comes along R’Chisda saying “shok b’isha erva.” Is R’Chisda arguing on R’Yitzchak? There is no indication that this is a machlokes. If there is no machlokes, what is R’Chisda adding.

    This is takeh a good point. I disagree with your conclusion though. If you are right, why does Rashi limit it to an eishes ish? And furthermore, again, what in the world is the svara to make certain things “ervah be’etzem”??* Also, the other things – hair and singing – are clearly derived from the pesukim by noting their hirhur factor. Is the Gemara jumping back and forth? (BTW in case you are not aware, the Aruch Hashulchan famously paskened in his day in OC 75 that hair is not ervah. So he certainly didn’t learn like you.)

    *I can think of only one reason why something would be ervah be’etzem. That is a different kind of ervah, the ervah of ???? and the like to which the Gemara applies the verse ??? ???? ?? ???? ???. Interestingly enough the pasuk in Yeshaya is talking about ervah in this context. But this would obviously only be a davening issue, it’s not something you can extend to hilchos tznius.

    Legs are a separate matter.

    Bottom line: You are saying a chiddush in the Gemara. I think it is a major dochek, and I think the pashtus is that ervah defined by one subjective standard: what generally causes hirhur. Ayy your kasha what R’ Yitzchak is coming to add? Mir shtarbt nisht fun a kasha. It’s not enough to say such a chiddush which there is no svara for (you haven’t provided any). We’ll have to think of a better answer.

  • #952124

    yitayningwut
    Member

    The things called “erva” in the passuk are absolute, otherwise there’s no reason for the Gemara to point to them.

    It’s an asmachta. It didn’t say eyes are ervah even though the same place where it says hair and singing also says eyes, because in the Gemara’s place and time eyes were not gorem hirhur to stam bnei adam. Hair, legs, and singing were, so the Gemara made the point by making asmachtas. Besides, the Aruch Hashulchan (OC 75) says nowadays you can make a bracha in front of a woman’s exposed hair. Plenty of poskim go with this heter. They all clearly cannot learn like you.

    The Ria”z is not saying pshat in the gemara per se, he’s saying what the halachic nafka minas are.

    He doesn’t have to be saying pshat! If it’s takeh a nafka minah, it’s a good pshat, so I can ask why the Gemara didn’t use it as pshat.

    there’s no explicit contract on das Yehudis

    It’s understood. Hence the ??? ??? ?????? said during the kiddushin.

  • #952125

    Sam2
    Member

    Ben: I would, but Yitay beat me to it.

    Also, 4 Amos without a Kippah is a Midas Chassidus, not a Chiyuv (according to the Shulchan Aruch, at least; Zman Hazeh might be different).

  • #952126

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    I meant the ones Chaza”l identified as ervah, asmachta or otherwise.

  • #952127

    yitayningwut
    Member

    DaasYochid – I mean it’s an asmachta as in they looked at what caused hirhur in their day and gave a shmooze about those things by finding asmachtas to support them. In other words they were not trying to make these things into “absolute” ervah.

  • #952128

    I’m going to answer the OP once and for all.

    Most of us girls cover our legs because it is more tznius, and we want to be tznius, and we learned in school we should, and most of our friends do.

    I personally wear tights because I like them better than socks.

  • #952129

    benignuman
    Participant

    Sam2,

    You are misreading the nosei keilim. Less than 4 amos is a middas chassidus, more than 4 amos is required, because that is the minhag. It is true that originally kisui harosh was middas chassidus but the minhag was already widespread enough in the times of the Shulchan Aruch that it was binding.

    B’ezras Hashem, tomorrow morning I will explain why Yitay is wrong in his reading of the Gemara and his kashos on my pshat.

  • #952130

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    Sam, I think you misunderstood me. I didn’t mean that being oiver an issur automatically is a violation of the kesuvah; it’s just that it’s implied that a halachic violation of tznius, which is assumed at the time of marriage was accepted (except, according to R’ Schachter, apparently, where she’s not frum) will be in violation of the kesuvah.

  • #952131

    Sam2
    Member

    Ben: The Taz was talking about his time. His Chiddush of Chukas Hagoyim is strange yet almost-universally accepted. You’re still missing my point. The Lashon of the Shulchan Aruch indicates that it’s a Middas Chassidus for even more than 4 Amos.

  • #952132

    benignuman
    Participant

    Sam2,

    I wasn’t referring to the Taz. I don’t think his chiddush of Chukas Hagoyim is universally accepted (see R’Moshe’s Teshuva on not wearing a kippah to work). My point is that minhagim are binding, albeit at a lower level than a d’rabbanan.

    The Shulchan Aruch says “lo yelech.” Why does that sound like a middas chassidus to you? Especially, given the fact that the Magen Avraham and others comment on the Shulchan Aruch by saying “but less than 4 amos is a middas chassidus.”

  • #952133

    benignuman
    Participant

    Yitay,

    You appear to be assuming that all histaklus is in order to have pleasure. If you learn like that then Rashi is very shver. I am understanding that there are two categories of histaklus. There is histaklus for pleasure and histaklus stam (e.g, looking a woman in the eyes when she is talking to you). According to me kol hamistakel b’etzba k’tanah, with intent to derive pleasure (the ??? ?????? of the Gemara in Shabbos) is assur k’ilu they were mistakel b’makom hatoref, which is assur with histaklus stam.

    The Rema in E”H 25:2 does argue on many of the psakim in O”C 240 but he does not argue on halacha that it is assur to gaze at the makom hatoref (which is not brought down in E”H). Similarly, R’Yochanan in Nedarim is not arguing on Reish Lakish, he is arguing on Yochanan ben D’Havai. We pasken m’ikkar hadin like Reish Lakish that it is ???? ?????? ????? ???? even regarding one’s wife. It is assur even if there is no intent to derive pleasure (as pleasure is muttar between a man and his wife).

    The way I am learning the Gemara, and as I think is meduyak in Rashi, is not a stirah to the Aruch Hashulchan’s heter. Aruch Hashulchan does learn the Gemara differently than I do, but also differently than you (he paskens ???? ?????? ????? ????).

    When deriving “shok b’isha erva,” R’Chisda used a posek that refers to shok as “erva” (as Rashi explains). In contrast when Shmuel says “kol b’isha erva” he quotes a posuk praising the beauty of a woman’s voice and Rashi explains “?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???.” Rav Sheshesh then says “sa’ar b’isha erva” from the same type of posuk. Thus according to Rashi we learn out from a posuk that shok IS erva, while we learn out that kol and sa’ar can create tayva. Therefore regarding shok there is issur regardless of whether it actually is m’orer tayva, while kol and sa’ar will only be ossur in societies where it is m’orer tayva.

    You are probably aware that there is an issur of davening in front of exposed erva mamesh. As the Aruch Hashulchan says (in OC 74)”???? ????? ?”? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???”

    I think that according to Rashi’s understanding of the Gemara, “shok” was given the status of erva mamesh (m’drabbanan) and it is assur to daven in front of, even without histaklus, and assur to be mistakel even without intent to derive pleasure l’gabay arayos.

    I am certainly saying a chiddush in the Gemara, but so are you. The Gemara makes no mention of the principle you are reading into it (l’maysa I think I might have answer to my kasha that fits your pshat).

    BTW when Rashi says “eshes ish” he means arayos.

  • #952134

    Sam2
    Member

    Ben: If it was Assur, the Shulchan Aruch would say Assur. The Lashon of “Lo…” inherently implies a Lechatchilah/Middas Chassidus. The point of the Magen Avraham is that less than 4 Amos is an even lower (higher, depending on how you look at it) level of Middas Chassidus.

  • #952135

    sam4321
    Member

    Yitay:If you don’t think it is meduyak from the gemarah that these areas have be covered because of ervah,you do agree that they have to cover these areas based off hirur for the man and the issue of bchukosaeim lo..,(Rav Moshe).I still believe the gemarah was saying the halachos of saying krias in front of ervah and these areas certainly were covered and have to be covered.

  • #952136

    yitayningwut
    Member

    benignuman –

    The Rema in E”H 25:2 does argue on many of the psakim in O”C 240 but he does not argue on halacha that it is assur to gaze at the makom hatoref

    This is not true. The proof is that in OC the Shulchan Aruch says looking, and kol sheken something else. The Rema is explicitly matir the something else, so ???? ????? ???.

    We pasken m’ikkar hadin like Reish Lakish that it is ???? ?????? ????? ???? even regarding one’s wife.

    I disagree.

    Therefore regarding shok there is issur regardless of whether it actually is m’orer tayva

    You said a pshat, and fit it into the cheshbon very nicely, but it makes no sense. Why should it be this way? Why should it be assur to look at a shok if it indeed causes no hirhur?! I can start making hanachas about aliens and then say a pshat in a Gemara based on that – the cheshbon might work out perfectly, but if I don’t show why it is reasonable to assume that my hanachas about aliens are correct, it is shtusim to say such a pshat in the Gemara!

    You are probably aware that there is an issur of davening in front of exposed erva mamesh.

    Yes, and this has nothing to do with anything. It is assur to daven in ?????? ???????? as well. That’s a whole different sugya, nothing to do with tznius.

    I think that according to Rashi’s understanding of the Gemara, “shok” was given the status of erva mamesh

    I already bavorned this tzad when I mentioned ????. If the Gemara is coming from this angle (which is a massive dochek according to the simple cheshbon of the Gemara) then it would have no bearing on hilchos tznius anyway.

    I am certainly saying a chiddush in the Gemara, but so are you.

    I am not saying a chiddush in the Gemara. This is the pashtus.

    when Rashi says “eshes ish” he means arayos

    I know. That doesn’t help you; it’s not what my problem was. My problem was that according to you it is forbidden to look at the ???? ????? of someone permitted to you, so the halacha should not just extend to people who are arayos.

  • #952137

    yitayningwut
    Member

    I am going to state as simply as I can what I think is the most reasonable understanding of tznius.

    The pasuk says “What does the Hashem seek of you, but to act justly and to love mercy, and ???? ??? ?? ????? – to walk quietly/hiddenly with your God? (Micha 6:8)

    This is not a pasuk directed at women. It is a pasuk directed at all people. This is also not a pasuk talking about clothing. It is a pasuk talking about all aspects of life.

    The idea this pasuk is conveying is that what Hashem wants is for a person to have a rich inner life; not to be focused on exteriors. That one’s avodas Hashem should be a private experience. That one’s life shouldn’t be for show.

    One of many things which represent a life focused on exteriors is for a woman to dress in public in a way that is provocative to most normal men. Doing so is therefore a lack of tznius.

    Tznius, as it pertains to skirt and sleeve lengths, is nothing more than this. Therefore, to find out what fits the parameters of tznius, look around the society you live in and see what will get you to be ogled. If you won’t be ogled by your average guy on the street then it’s tzniusdig. If you will, it isn’t, because knowingly causing people to ogle by definition represents a lifestyle focused on exteriors and on other people’s opinions; the opposite of a rich inner life.

    Most importantly, the bottom line is that there is NO absolute rule. It all depends on how society perceives things.

    Looking at all the Gemaras I have seen I do not notice anything which contradicts this understanding. On the contrary, I think it is the most reasonable.

  • #952138

    old man
    Member

    Yitayningwut started his post with these words:

    “I am going to state as simply as I can what I think is the most reasonable understanding of tznius.”

    I would like to commend him on a well considered , very eloquent and quite correct presentation of the tznius issue.

  • #952139

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    Aside from other issues, you’ve completely overlooked the concept of “das Yehudis”, which is quite obviously a higher standard for us than what is found in the broader society.

  • #952140

    benignuman
    Participant

    Yitay,

    Your description of tznius as a general concept is very nice, and I assume it is correct. However, that does not mean that everything that in modern times we refer to as “tznius” fall under that same rubric.

    For example, the requirement for a married woman to cover a portion of her hair, is d’oraisa, applies regardless of norms of the time, and has nothing to do with hirhur.

    Similarly, the requirement to cover “osso makom” is not because of hirhur (it applies to ones spouse as well). The Bais Shmuel on the Rama in E”H 25 says that the Rama did not mean to allow the “something else” that you refer to and therefore it is not ???? ????? ???. You will probably argue that the Bais Shmuel is dochek and it is. But that is the accepted view point of the majority of poskim (e.g. the Aruch Hashulchan, Chachmas Adam etc.) and therefore is the ikkar hadin.

    You are taking your assumption of that all tznius regarding covering up body parts is based on hirhur and you are putting into the Gemara. Without a source for that assumption, you are presenting a chiddush as well. The fact that it is clear to you does not make it the pashtus. There are certainly things that must be covered up because of hirhur but there are also things that must be covered despite no chashash hirhur or where hirhur is mutar.

    I can’t say for certain why Chazal would make “shok” like “osso mokom” but I can speculate. There is an aspect of tznius that is based on human dignity. A person should be dignified and embarrassed by certain displays of baseness. This is how many of the poskim explain ???? ?????? ????? ????. Chazal said that with respect to arayos (and even one’s spouse when davening) we will treat the “shok” like osso makom, as a place for which it is debased to reveal and untzniusdik to look at, even when there is no daas and no chashash of hirhur.

    Why didn’t Chazal make this rule apply to one’s spouse as well? I can’t say for certain, but perhaps because it would interfere to greatly with the mitzvos between a husband and wife.

  • #952142

    yitayningwut
    Member

    old man – Thank you.

  • #952143

    yitayningwut
    Member

    DaasYochid –

    Das yehudis is not a standard which we are told to make, it is a standard based on observation. The mishnah (in Kesubos) is saying that the Jewish women happen to have a minhag tznius which is stricter than the non-Jews, and therefore the agreement to live together as a Jewish couple is an implicit agreement to live according to that minhag tznius. What if there is no specific minhag tznius, are we supposed to make specific rules based on the old minhag tznius? There is no indication to support this. If there is a apecific minhag tznius in one locale, does that bind another local which does not have that minhag? There is no indication to support this.

    I’m all for a minhag tznius, and by extension, a halacha of das yehudis. But let the community decide its minhag tznius for itself. As for halacha, I don’t think there is any real source that any particular body part is obligated to be covered regardless of the society one lives in.

    If I were starting a community I would say to look around at the general populace. When you dress up, don’t dress the way they dress to kill. Be a bit more low profile than that. That is a minhag tznius which is a higher standard than the general society around us, but at the same time does not bind everyone from the beginning of time until the end of time to the same arbitrary, absolute standard. I don’t think Chazal really said anything more than this.

  • #952144

    yitayningwut
    Member

    benignuman –

    Covering the hair is a completely different sugya; it’s not about tznius. It’s a gezeiras hakasuv, so whatever its rationale it isn’t really relevant to this discussion.

    It is obvious that the Beis Shmuel is a dochek, since pashut pshat is the Rema’s whole point is to say even ???? ????.

    http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9727&st=&pgnum=149

    At the end of the day, you’ve found me a makor – which I do not agree with l’halacha – but a makor nonetheless, that one may not gaze at ???? ????. But the bottom line is you haven’t sufficiently demonstrated that the legs or any other body part are of that status. Admittedly it is your reading in the Gemara (Berachos 24a), but a) I am not convinced of the svara of that reading (#1 because why should it be that way and #2 because it is quite a massive dochek to say that the Gemara intends to differentiate between legs and hair/voice without telling us), and b) that reading is contradicted by the fact that ???? ???? is assur l’shitascha for everyone, while legs are explicitly only ervah for people who are arayos.

    When we began this discussion I was asking for a makor, not a rationalization. I understand that those who believe women are always obligated to cover specific parts have pshatim in the Gemara and poskim which fit their view, but I have yet to see a true makor – i.e. a Gemara which according to the simplest, least dochek pshat, or the pshat that is explicitly the consensus of the rishonim, that mentions this obligation.

  • #952145

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    Yitayningwut,

    My point is that the inyan of tznius is obviously more than just not sticking out, otherwise there would be no need for a das Yehudis.

  • #952146

    yitayningwut
    Member

    DaasYochid –

    I don’t think so. I think the idea is that the general society is focused on exteriors and getting people to look (or “like,” in the Facebook generation), and das yehudis says not to fall into that trap.

  • #952147

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    Covering the hair is a completely different sugya; it’s not about tznius.

    Of course it is – sa’ar b”isha ervah. The gezeiras hakosuv is needed to give it the issur, because it’s less of a taavah than other things, and is muttar for single girls, but at the end of the day, it’s still ervah, and is tznius related.

    It’s also completely illogical to say that the full hair covering, which is das Yehudis and explicitly tznius based, is because of tznius, but the partial hair covering which is das Moshe, is not.

  • #952148

    yitayningwut
    Member

    DaasYochid – The “absolute” factor of covering hair has nothing to do with sa’ar b’isha ervah. I’ve written about this numerous times here and other places. For starters:

    ??”? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?”? ?”??? ???? ????”, ???? ????? ?? ???, ????

    ?) ????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ????.

    ?) ????? ???? ???’ ??????? ?????? ??? ???? “???? ?? ??? ????” ?”? ????. ???? ????? ???? ????? ???.

    ?) ??? ???’ ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? “???”, ??? ?? ????? ???? “???

    ?) ?? ?? ?????, ?????? ??”? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????

    ?) ?? “??? ???? ????” ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ?”? ?”???? ?????” ?????? ???? ????

  • #952149

    yitayningwut
    Member

    It’s also completely illogical to say that the full hair covering, which is das Yehudis and explicitly tznius based, is because of tznius, but the partial hair covering which is das Moshe, is not.

    Aderaba, I think this is very logical. Since they became used to wearing hats and stuff the hair became a ???? ?????; hence ??? ???? ???? naturally evolved.

  • #952150

    benignuman
    Participant

    Yitay,

    I think that you are understanding tznius too narrowly. I agree, and I think that it is muchach from the sugyas that the chiyuv to cover hair is unrelated to “saar b’isha erva.” But that does’t mean that it doesn’t reflect an idea of tznius. It is just a tznius that is not related to hirhurim. It is a tznius about dignity (and would therefore apply to a bald head as well). Both you and Daas are too focused on hirhurim.

    I obviously think that my pshat fits in better in the Gemara than yours. I also think that the difference in character between shok and saar/kol are clear in the nature of the limmudim. Saar and kol are limmudim based on posukkim that discuss tayva. Shok is based on a posuk that describes erva as a symbol of shame, not hirhur.

    Look at the Radak on those pesukim in Yeshaya. The same posuk that the Gemara understands to be discussing the revealing of shok, also discusses the revealing of hair as a source of shame. Why then doesn’t Rav Sheshesh use the same posuk to dervie “saar b’isha erva”?

    According to me, it is beautiful. Uncovered hair as a source of indignity does not need a posuk in Yeshaya because there is already such a limmud from the Torah. But the posuk in Yeshaya is understanding gilui shok and gilui saar as providing the same moshul.

    Rav Sheshesh is discussing a different din. The din of hirhur, the tznius of kol and tefach b’isha, not the tznius of dignity. Rav Sheshesh and Shmuel’s dinim are necessary because they are not basar and absent these limmudim I would have thought they could not have din erva like tefach. K’mashma lan that hair and kol can be erva for hirhur if ones lives in a society where they are normally covered.

    My pshat is not the simplest but I do think that it is the least dochek.

    I thank you, because if not for this conversation I would never have looked up that posuk again and I would never have seen the Radak.

  • #952151

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    ?) ???, ??? ???? ???? ??? ??”? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ????, ????”? ???? ????? ???.

    ?) ??????? ??????? ???, ??”? ?”? ?????? ???????? ???? ????? ???? ??????.

    ?) ???”? ???”? ????

    ?) ???? ??”? ?”? ?’ ? ???? ?”? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? (????? ?”?, ??”? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????

    ?) ??? ????? ???? ????? ??”? ???? ???”? ???? ???? ?????.

    See ?”? that ????? ?? ?? is only if she’s ????? him, or if there’s ??????. Why would it be ?? ??? unless ????????? it’s ???????

  • #952152

    benignuman
    Participant

    Daas,

    Read what I wrote above to Yitay. Not all tznius is based on erva (in the hirhur sense). Of course, as we had it out in the Shaving Heads thread, I think you are completely misunderstanding R’Moshe.

  • #952153

    yitayningwut
    Member

    benignuman –

    The same posuk that the Gemara understands to be discussing the revealing of shok, also discusses the revealing of hair as a source of shame. Why then doesn’t Rav Sheshesh use the same posuk to dervie “saar b’isha erva”?

    You only have this kasha because of your hanacha that there is such a thing as ervah outside of hirhur. According to me that the whole ervah thing is not absolute and it is entirely dependent on hirhur, it is pashut why the Gemara chose to bring an asmachta from Shir Hashirim and not from Yeshaya:

    In Yeshaya it happens to use the word ervah, but it has nothing to do with hirhurim, so the pasuk as it relates to us is really nothing more than a siman – it says the word shok and it says the word ervah. Shir Hashirim is a much better place to bring an asmachta from, because it is all about hirhurim. Since hair and voice are mentioned in Shir Hashirim, we don’t need to run to other places. The shok of a woman is not mentioned in Shir Hashirim, therefore we have to resort to an obscure siman l’davar.

    My pshat is not the simplest but I do think that it is the least dochek.

    ?”? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???????? ?? ??? ?”? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???”?

    ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? (?????? ??, ?) ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? (?????? ??, ?) ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????

    ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???’ (??? ?????? ?, ??) ?? ???? ??? ????? ????

    ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???’ (??? ?????? ?, ?) ???? ???? ?????

  • #952154

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    Ben,

    Of course there’s an inyan of dignity/kavod haShechina, but that even applies to the home, where nobody sees. I’m discussing where it’s in front of men (not her husband).

  • #952155

    yitayningwut
    Member

    3) Shver. Give me a good explanation.

    4) I know they did. That does not change the fact that I think they only said it about a time and place that hair causes hirhur. And the Aruch Hashulchan agrees with me on this.

  • #952156

    yitayningwut
    Member

    By the way if we’re dropping names the Agudah (siman 73) says ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??????. Rabbi Abadi used to be machmir like you guys but was chozer in Ohr Yitzchak 2 OC 30.

  • #952157

    yitayningwut
    Member

    The thing with the numbers was addressed to DaasYochid.

  • #952158

    benignuman
    Participant

    I didn’t know the second volume of Ohr Yitzchak came out. Is it selling in regular seforim stores?

    This chazara must have been very recent.

  • #952159

    yitayningwut
    Member

    It came out a year and a half or so ago. I may have seen it in Judaica Plaza in Lakewood sometime last year, I can’t remember. You can stop by the rabbi’s house and he’ll be glad to sell you a copy. Or if you somehow manage to locate me through the internets I can put you in contact with someone who can ship it to you.

  • #952160

    Sam2
    Member

    Ben: The YU Seforim Sale has the second volume of Or Yitzchak and is open this Motzaei Shabbos and Sunday.

  • #952161

    From the Rabbanu Yona, Brachos 17a Dafei HaRif:

    ^??? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?????

    ??? ????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ? ? ? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????

    ??? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????

    ??? ???? ????

    http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=37952&st=&pgnum=356

    He says the same regarding Tefech, that it is Muttar to read Kriyas Shema as long as there is no Histaklus to the Ervah. At the very least, it makes one wonder.

    (I hate to interject in this argument of lamdanim. I just know a Rishon (and unfortunately, am not much of a Lamdan)).

  • #952162

    A pantsuit is certainly dignified.

  • #952163

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    Gavra,

    What do you wonder?

    Also, trousers are untzniusdik for a different reason (the same reason. women don’t ride normally on animals).

  • #952164

    yitayningwut
    Member

    DaasYochid – I don’t want to get sidetracked here, but suffice it to say the whole pisuk raglayim thing is not that pashut, and not universally agreed upon.

  • #952165

    Gavra,

    What do you wonder?

    Also, trousers are untzniusdik for a different reason (the same reason. women don’t ride normally on animals).

    First point first:

    I wonder how “Makpid” people were at the times of the Rishonim regarding Tznius (especially of non-Jews). It seems that the whole “separate sidewalks” and “please enter our community with long sleeves” is not supported by Halacha.

    Second point:

    Trousers (L’cheorah, but I am not a Lamdan) would not prevent a man from reading Kriyas Shema (unless you have proof otherwise), as no Ervah is “uncovered”. I assume you have proof to the contrary, but I remember seeing and posting B’shem Rav Vosner that women are allowed to wear snowpants. Of course there is a chiluk, but it is certainly not clear-cut.

  • #952166

    Sam2
    Member

    DY: It’s interesting, though, if that’s the reason. The Gemara in Pesachim seems to say that riding normally (not sidesaddle) is Muttar if there’s some extenuating circumstances (e.g. fear or falling off). It leaves open a lot of Kulas for possibly even tight pants if that’s the only source of the Issur.

  • #952167

    charliehall
    Member

    “how the Shulchan Aruch does not mean that one has to wear a kippah”

    Just had this discussion yesterday at minchah, when someone incorrectly claimed that the S”A required a yarmulke. Any haircovering will do, as seen in numerous communities, particularly in Europe, where no Jew wears a yarmulke outside of shul or home. (When I first went to Europe I was given a stern warning by a rabbi not to unfavorably judge Jews who wear other forms of headcovering outside of shul.)

    “A pantsuit is certainly dignified.”

    I’ve seen women praying while wearing trousers in numerous modern orthodox synagogues. Perhaps more importantly, I recall Rabbi Yehuda Herzl Henkin quoting his grandfather as saying that loose trousers were fine for women. Anyone able to confirm (or disprove)?

    “women don’t ride normally on animals”

    Not any more. But a century or two ago, women in America DID ride on animals a lot and women in America have been wearing trousers as long as men (only about two centuries). I saw a photograph in the California Railroad Museum in Sacramento from a century ago that was a group photo of dozens of railroad workers for the Southern Pacific Railroad; every single one was wearing trousers or overalls. Women also have been wearing trousers in the Muslim world for a long time. Because of this, the argument that trousers are “beged ish” is problematic.

    “the whole pisuk raglayim thing is not that pashut, and not universally agreed upon.”

    The Religious Zionist Kibbutz movement explicitly permits women to wear trousers, except on Shabat.

    “The Gemara in Pesachim seems to say that riding normally (not sidesaddle) is Muttar if there’s some extenuating circumstances (e.g. fear or falling off)”

    I’m not a posek, but sidesaddle should be asur. It is dangerous.

  • #952168

    As I have posted more than once:

    There are THREE (really four) different aspects of what is known as “Tznius” (which is like calling lighting a fire on shabbos “Mukzta”). They are:

    1: Ervah

    2: Das Moshe/Yehudis

    3: Tznius

    4: Histaklus

    1: Ervah is a din in Kriyas Shema (which is why the halchos are in Keriyas Shema). Many Rishonim hold it applies to other brachos as well. The idea is that a Davar Sheb’kedusha may not be done/said before any Ervah. That includes for a man (as per the Gemorah Brachos) a woman’s hair, shok, etc. This has NOTHING to do with the general idea of a man looking at a lady. See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 75 for more details.

    2: Das Moshe/Yehudis is what the Torah (add: or Chazal) perscribes that a female should not have uncovered when she goes out in public. This includes hair of anyone who is not a Besulah (as per Even HaEzer 21:2). The Mishna in Kesubos (72B) differentiates between the two. Ayin Shom. (Rav Moshe IIRC also has some teshuvos on the matter).

    3: Tznius: There is a general concept of Hatznya Leches. This applies to both males & females, both in manner of dress and action, to be “low-key”. (There are also halachos of Tznius in OC 240, which I will ignore for this discussion). An example is a woman covering her hair in her own yard (a private domain), where there is no Chiyuv (seemingly even if others will see her), but there is a concept of “Tznius”. (Offen a Bais Shemuel in Even HaEzer). In general, Chassidim are more Machmir in this.

    4: Histaklus: A man may not stare at a woman. Period. If he does, he is Over “Lo Tasuru”. It certainly is a good thing for women to make sure that men have no reason to stare at them, but unless it is “Trai Ivri Nahara”, then it is not “Lifnei Iver”.

  • #952169

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    One a side note about Beged Ish/Isha

    Until recently Men wore Heels, not women, I am not sure when it changed, but certainly in the last 100 years

  • #952170

    yaff80
    Member

    Daasyochid:

    “trousers are untzniusdik for a different reason (the same reason. women don’t ride normally on animals).”

    I always thought this was because of simlas gever like a male doesnt wear a skirt?

  • #952171

    Sam2
    Member

    yaff: As evidenced in this thread, that depends on the time and place. There are certainly some places (maybe there are none left in the world, but high-class places from, say, the mid-1800s through the 1980s) where it’s Begged Ish but they are few and far between. It depends on what is an acceptable mode of dress in normal society.

  • #952172

    yitayningwut
    Member

    Charlie – To confirm what you wrote about R’ Henkin, the relevant teshuva is here (in ??):

    http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21434&amp;;st=&pgnum=212

  • #952173

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    I know that pantsuits are not universally agreed upon; my point was that those who don’t wear them (virtually all chareidim and many modern orthodox as well) don’t refrain because of dignity issues.

  • #952175

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    Is a Kilt in Scotland considered Begged Isha?

  • #952176

    ThePurpleOne
    Member

    no its sorta minhag hamakom and is normal over there..

  • #952177

    charliehall
    Member

    “Until recently Men wore Heels, not women”

    250 years ago men wore wigs. And the fedora hat started out as a women’s hat. Had the initial use defined the halachah, every fedora-wearing Jew would be over on beged ishah.

    “Is a Kilt in Scotland considered Begged Isha?”

    No, and in fact in Scotland a kilt is traditionally ONLY a man’s garment. A woman might have worn a plaid skirt, which is a different garment, but never a kilt.

    “To confirm what you wrote about R’ Henkin”

    Thanks!!!

  • #952178

    Sam2
    Member

    Ben: I stopped by the Seforim Sale tonight. They’re still open tomorrow and still have Chelek Beis of the Or Yitzchak. Tomorrow’s the last day though, so if you know someone in or near YU/Washington Heights maybe they could get it for you.

  • #952179

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    Or, they could probably ship.

  • #952180

    benignuman
    Participant

    Sam2 and Yitay,

    Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately I was out of the country until tonight.

  • #952181

    benignuman
    Participant

    Yitayningwut,

    I meant to post this rebuttal after Pesach but I forgot.

    I don’t think your argument that my pshat is not “pashut pshat” holds up in this case. You say that given that the Gemara is listing things that are Erva it is cannot be pashut pshat that “erva” means different things regarding each one. If this were the Rambam or the Shulchan Aruch, I would agree with you. However in two respects the Gemara here is different:

    (1) Gemara is not meant for laymen to be able to just pick up and read, it is meant (like mishnayos) to be learned with a Rebbi who will transmit a mesorah as to how it should be understood (in this case Rashi.)

    (2) More importantly, this is not one person giving a list. These are statements of Amoraim who lived hundreds of years apart. Therefore the inference that they all meant the same thing by the word “erva” is not nearly as strong.

    Finally, you wrote: “Shir Hashirim is a much better place to bring an asmachta from, because it is all about hirhurim. Since hair and voice are mentioned in Shir Hashirim, we don’t need to run to other places. The shok of a woman is not mentioned in Shir HaShirim, therefore we have to resort to an obscure siman l’davar.”

    There are two problems with this:

    (1) There are other body parts mentioned as a source of tayva in Shir Hashirim that were almost certainly covered in the times of Chazal, but are not mentioned in the Gemara.

    (2) While the word “shok” is not mentioned in Shir HaShirim, the other word for the same body part, “yerech” is mentioned: ???-?????? ?????????? ????????????, ????-??????; ????????? ??????????–?????? ????????, ???????? ????? ??????.

  • #952182

    yitayningwut
    Member

    Ben –

    I disagree with your premises.

    1) Yiftach b’doro kiShmuel b’doro. If I cannot trust my own logic then I cannot trust someone else’s. It’s one thing if I don’t know the sugya, but if I do, then if I don’t hear a good argument against me I will not believe I am wrong, no matter who is talking.

    2) True it’s not on person giving a list, but the Gemamra is mesudar. A bunch of related statements cited together, pashtus are related.

    To your second points:

    1) Some things are pashut that they cause hirhur. There’s no need to bring an asmachta that the makom hatoref is like the makom hatoref.

    2) Yerech is not the same as shok, the opinion of the MB notwithstanding. There are numerous proofs to this and the MBs opinion is very shver.

    I apologize for not being able to respond that often or get more in to detail; I am very busy lately.

  • #952183

    Sam2
    Member

    Ben: See the Rabbeinu Yonah there, I believe, who says that Ein Hachi Nami every body part mentioned L’shevach in Shir Hashirim is an Ervah.

Viewing 133 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to RSS Feed For This Article