- This topic has 133 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
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.
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.
?) ???, ??? ???? ???? ??? ??”? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ????, ????”? ???? ????? ???.
?) ??????? ??????? ???, ??”? ?”? ?????? ???????? ???? ????? ???? ??????.
?) ???”? ???”? ????
?) ???? ??”? ?”? ?’ ? ???? ?”? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? (????? ?”?, ??”? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????
?) ??? ????? ???? ????? ??”? ???? ???”? ???? ???? ?????.
See ?”? that ????? ?? ?? is only if she’s ????? him, or if there’s ??????. Why would it be ?? ??? unless ????????? it’s ???????
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.
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.
?”? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???????? ?? ??? ?”? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???”?
??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? (?????? ??, ?) ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? (?????? ??, ?) ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????
??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???’ (??? ?????? ?, ??) ?? ???? ??? ????? ????
??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???’ (??? ?????? ?, ?) ???? ???? ?????
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).
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.
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.
The thing with the numbers was addressed to DaasYochid.
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.
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.
Ben: The YU Seforim Sale has the second volume of Or Yitzchak and is open this Motzaei Shabbos and Sunday.
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)).
A pantsuit is certainly dignified.
Gavra,
What do you wonder?
Also, trousers are untzniusdik for a different reason (the same reason. women don’t ride normally on animals).
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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”.
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
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?
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.
Charlie – To confirm what you wrote about R’ Henkin, the relevant teshuva is here (in ??):
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21434&;st=&pgnum=212
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.
Is a Kilt in Scotland considered Begged Isha?
no its sorta minhag hamakom and is normal over there..
“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!!!
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.
Or, they could probably ship.
Sam2 and Yitay,
Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately I was out of the country until tonight.
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: ???-?????? ?????????? ????????????, ????-??????; ????????? ??????????–?????? ????????, ???????? ????? ??????.
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.
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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.