Reply To: Clarification to mod and DaMoshe

Avira,

“The very essence of klal yisroel is tznius – this is what made bilaam turn his curse into a bracha, when he saw that the yidden had tents that were made to preserve the privacy of each family.

It isn’t just a nice thing. And I don’t care what the Lubavitcher rebbe said about it – if he erred in it, then i can tell you exactly why he did according to reports that are known in the Yeshiva world, but i will not write about it on here because it’s extremely offensive.”

So like I posted yesterday, there is no lubavitch mandate/ chinuch to hate on litvaks. Posts like this make me wonder whether the litvaks can claim the same?

In any case, The Rebbe strongly promoted tznius, called for lubavitch to dress like Beis Yakov.

This isn’t what the conversation was about. The conversation started on whether I should tell my little daughter that my friend’s Chessed would be worth much more if she dressed tznius, thus denigrating her publicly about something she wasn’t focusing on at the time, instead of appreciating the real her- her Neshama, as expressed in the Chessed she does.

Tznius is very important and tznius dress is more emphasized by women while shmiras eynayim more by men (lo sosuru applies to women too and Tznius dress applies to men too.)

It is one Mitzvah of the 613, and a beautiful one. Actually I don’t think it’s even one of the 613 directly (only lo sasuru) unless it falls under vhaya machanecha kadosh- which was speaking of bathroom placements.

In any case it’s important but not the sum all of Yiddishkeit.

When Moshe said אכן נודע הדבר, even though Shlomie bas divri had just happened, he wasn’t referring to that, he was referring to lashon hara.

When Eliezer went to search for a wife, he didn’t inquire into her Tznius (although all imahos were), he tested her Chessed.

So yes, Tznius dress is more emphasized by a woman, and reflects her general yiras shomayim (if not due to external factors), but it’s not the only Mitzvah that matters.