- This topic has 25 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I am an FFB woman and I was always told that the shirt needs to go to the collarbone and you have a tefach of leeway in that you can go to the side a bit or in the back. Lately several people have been giving me a hard time over the boat neck style shirts that I like to wear which show part of the collarbone and goes a little bit to the sides.
Can anyone help me find a source?
TIA
edited
The Toras Histaklus by Rabbi Binyamin Zilber says the reason for covering the collarbone is to not reveal the flesh as it starts sloping towards the body. Therefore the issue is not covering the collarbone but rather not revealing the flesh below the collarbone. Therefore if part of the collarbone is covered you have fulfilled the requirement.
The tznius book, (I think it’s Rabbi Falk, correct me if I’m wrong) says you should cover the areas that are outside a necklace worn. meaning where the necklace lies naturally may be uncovered, further out the side and back, keep it covered.
Queen………
and is that necklace 16″ 18″ 22″ or 14″ in length? Are those pearls matinee or opera length?
Even more perplexing is a rigid necklace that would open up more space right to left than a chain that hangs.
The information you give leaves much to interpretation.
This reminds me of a chasanah I attended more than 50 years ago. The boy was a BT and the girl from a Brooklyn Chasidic sect. Her future mother in law was told to wear a dress that had a high neck and long sleeves, she arrived at the hall in such a gown, but it had cut outs in the bodice and an open back.
My mother A”H rushed over and quickly wrapped her own mink evening wrap around this lady, explaining that she’d be much more comfortable that way.
lawyer: The length of the necklace doesn’t matter, because it is only to see what needs to be covered on the sides and back of the neck, in the front, the collar bone needs to be covered, no necklace needed. It should be a chain necklace which hangs loosely (not a rigid necklace). I hope you find this a little clearer.
I didn’t think I need to add this, but just in case it isn’t clear, everything beyond the necklace, side and back, including the back and bodice, needs to be covered. Sorry if this sounds preachy. I don’t make the halachos, I just keep them.
The queen, I learned what you said, but I think a bit more is acceptable in some communities (not mine, just accounting for differing understandings)
Some communities are a bit more acceptable of what isn’t so acceptable in halacha.
The obligation to keep anything covered that is supposed to be covered (not addressing what areas might be included) has nothing to do with any shiur tefach.
Tefach b’isha ervah is the source for a man not being permitted to say kriyas shema (or any devorim shebkedusha) when his wife – and all the more so another woman who is ossur to him – reveals a tefach or more of what is supposed to be covered. Up until that tefach, he is still allowed to say any of the above.
It has nothing to do with how much a woman can allow herself to be uncovered.
Son (no pun intended), I think you may find that Reb Binyamin Zilber disagrees with you.
Son is right. Whatever leeway may or may not be allowed regarding the collarbone itself vs. below it, it is hard to see what a Tefach has to do with it. Does R’ Zilber specifically state otherwise?
son and mobico: That is incorrect. Just because you only learned OC Siman 74 and not the rest of Shulchan Aruch doesn’t mean that relevant Halachos aren’t included in the other Simanim.
pcoz and Sam2:
I’m always happy to learn new things.
Where would you suggest I look?
Edit: Found the mekor sourced for R’ Zilber; I’ll have to track it down to see it inside.
According to Rav Yehuda Chenkin, one can reveal up to a tefach below the collarbone (*as long that is accepted practice within your community).
Chenkin is unreliable. He’s okay with mixed dancing, too.
Rav Falk ZT”L always went with the most machmir opinions in his seforim and it was written for Gatehead Bais Yaakov girls, who may have different shittos of tznius and different minhagei hamakom.
Anyway, that’s as specific as I’m gonna get. I don’t think men should be commenting on this thread. An ehrliche mensch should not know much about woman’s clothing and minhagei tzniyus have always been determined by women.
Yseribus: That’s completely false. It has always been men, specifically Rabbonim, who have regulated tznius.
Should we discard all the Seforim HaKedoshim written by male Rabbonim and Halachos established by men and learnt on a regular basis by bochorim, yungerleit, baalei batim and Gedolei Rabbonim regarding the intricacies of tznius and other Hilchos Noshim?
Yserbius, many women today supposedly need to know the sources of halacha of tznius and then proceed to trample on basic halacha because they think they can “pasken ” that rabbanim like Rabbi Falk was a “machmir”. Is it written anywhere in the Torah that you cant to go with a wig and hair till the waist? Does it say in the Torah that you can’t wear a bodysuit? It’s ridiculous that these women think they can pasken halacha because they supposedly know the sources which they then proceed to write off as “machmirim”. And how do you think these “female dayanim” go dressed? Bare elbows, short skirts, no stockings, hair and wigs length till their behinds, form fitting clothing, etc, etc. They brazenly disregard basic halachas they claim to be experts in.
It could be both sides are right – R Falk is a machmir and, among those who say R Falk is a machmir, there are those who dress inappropriately.
There was an incident in NYC a couple of years ago – a redneck attacked a Jewish lady, thinking she was a Muslim. This is now my personal test for tzniut excesses – when you are confused for a Muslim.
I also do not understand black fashion both for men and women. Gemora disapproves red, but not other colors. IT also disapproves black and recommends it only when someone cannot control his yetzer hara and needs to do something inappropriate. It may be that some were wearing black because of poverty, or maybe we are mislead by old-time grayscale photography. Similar, l’havdil, all these Greek statures that are white does not mean they were all wearing white, just the colors wore off.
Rabbi Falk was not machmir. We can judge if he was machmir from seeing those those who disregard him as being too machmir and “pasken” for themselves “straight from the sources” look like these days. First it started with shorter skirts and leggings because “the knee is technically covered”. Then came the xl long hair and wigs till their b_____ because where does it say you can’t go with this (zoina) length hair? Then it progressed to uncovered legs, knees exposed and nowadays it’s mini skirts, no tights and bare elbows… there is no end to the pritzes because everyone decided they are poskim who know what the sources are…
R Falk is/was a yuge machmir. There are things in his tznius book that are extreme for anywhere aside form gateshead and meah shearim. the one lady who is a talmida of his with whom Im aquainted dresses like a chassidishe rebbetzin. I’ve gone through the book and there are a bunch of chumros that no one should have to listen to. I don;t remember because i’m past my fiery stage of caring about stupid things like this. Also, hello old friends.
Toi, I told ‘ya that your back, despite your denying so.
The only sad part is that, if this comment is any indicator, your hashkofos have moved leftwards.
> your hashkofos have moved leftwards.
maybe he moved to DC? This is an observable trend – politicians moving to DC (such as Supremes) move leftwards over time.
Also an observation relevant to this topic: hemlines vary with the stock market. So, tzniyus is up during recessions.
If I remember correctly, Rabbi Falk’s book quotes
the Sefer Shevet Mussar, to support his chumrahs.This bothers me for two reasons:
[1] Sefer Shevet Mussar is not a Halachah sefer,
It is a mussar book, and many people would say that
it is an extremely tough mussar book.[2] Most Ashkenazic Rabbis have a very low opinion
of any books written by Sephardic Rabbis,
and normally ignore them completely.Yet Rabbi Falk makes an exception with Sefer Shevet Mussar,
and accepts its opinions about tznius, even though it was
written by a Rabbi from Izmir [Turkey] who was Sephardic.Maybe Rabbi Falk does not know that Sefer Shevet Mussar
was written by a Sephardic from Turkey?==================================
If I remember correctly, the number of pages in Rabbi Falk’s
book about tznius increases every year.I would like to see a graph showing the number of pages
in that book for each year. The graph would look like this:YEAR NUMBER OF PAGES
==== ============
1990 100
1991 125
1992 150
1993 200
1994 225
1995 275
1996 310
1997 345
1998 402
1999 444
2000 475
2001 512
2002 555
2003 600
2004 650
2005 700
2006 750
2007 800
2008 832
2009 867
2010 907
2011 950
2012 990
2013 1,014
2014 1,111
2015 1,219Please note that I used FICTIONAL DATA to illustrate a point.
These are *** NOT *** the real number of pages year-by-year!!!Square: You once again built a strawman with your false claim that Ashkenazic Gedolim have anything other than a very high opinion of Sephardic Gedolim.
40 years of experience living with Orthodox Jews have shown me
that most Orthodox Jews have a low opinion of Sephardic Jews,
especially those who are “the most religious” (the Chareidim).@SR, The only thing your more bitter about then your single status is the made up stuff about rabbis
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.