April 26, 2009 11:34 pm at 11:34 pm #689351
That was amazingApril 26, 2009 11:52 pm at 11:52 pm #689352
Can’t be squeak. Why would something like this get posted under a different name then ones own?
Also, I thought the moderators were cracking down on multiple usernames?April 27, 2009 12:32 am at 12:32 am #689353
The title just makes one sick. Tremendously said by the self appointed RovApril 27, 2009 1:42 am at 1:42 am #689354
TheRov: Reb Moshe who is the posek acharon for the USA clearly stated that the gedolei acharonim in shulchan oruch permitted sheitels even if they looked exactly like hair and were not choshesh for such maris ayin, and that even if a husband was against sheitels, he has no right to forbid his wife from wearing one. They are 100 percent mutar no matter what they look like, as long as they cover her hair.April 27, 2009 1:44 am at 1:44 am #689355
The Rov, if you want to debate sheitels, please go to one of the sheitel threads.April 27, 2009 7:29 pm at 7:29 pm #689356
ames: I hope you are not making your own decision regarding horseback riding. It is not just a matter of sensitivity. Please ask your husbandApril 27, 2009 8:18 pm at 8:18 pm #689357
I would like to give a definition of tznius. Tznius means covering halachically mandated areas, and not deliberately acting in a way which is an invitation for others to join in immoral activity. (This is a fine line, and only the RBSH knows what’s in her heart.)
It does not include anything innocent that may happen to attract a man’s interest. That is his problem. Otherwise, a girl could not get orthodonture, as that might make her too beautiful. She would not be allowed to wear jewelry, or any nice dress, and would be obligated to dress like a shlump. She could not walk down the street because maybe somebody will take improper interest.
As a matter of fact, probably many of our daughters who are pure and innocent, when they hear they cannot wear something that might be too tight, never ever would have thought of themselves as objects, and this is the first time they are hearing it. It is giving them the wrong idea and stirring up a yetzer hara in them they may never have had to begin with. Just like we don’t allow — education in yeshivas, since it will have the opposite effect, this constant focus on their bodies for tznius purposes may be no better.
Years ago it was the norm that frum weddings and events and kiruv programs had no mixed dancing, but no mechitzah either. The ruchnius of the singing and dancing prevented anybody from looking at the opposite circle for improper purposes. After all it was separate, and each side was so involved with their hisorirus and dveikus.
To tell a girl that she cannot rollerblade because it may attract attention from men is wrong, since it is an innocent activity and she is dressed properly. (Maybe wear pants under the skirt for extra measure.) The same with horseback riding. The chumash tells us that our imahos rode on animals (Vatipol rivkah me’al hagamal).
A man’s yetzer hara is his problem. For many men, there is nothing a woman can wear that will get rid of the man’s yetzer hara. Still the Torah does not obligate women to torture themselves for the sake of a man’s yetzer hara. Lo hinachta bas l’avrohom avinu. It is not their fault that they are so beautiful, the RBSH made them that way for his own reasons. They probably don’t even realize how attractive they are. Just like a flower doesn’t know how attractive it is.
It is the Muslim approach that we torture women because a man may do something improper. They must wear burkas, they cannot go to school etc. etc.
The Torah’s approach is that innocent girls are innocent girls, and if they cover the halachic areas and don’t deliberately try to entice people, they have fulfilled their obligations. Of course this kind of dancing on a machine is pretty much deliberately enticing men, and would not be tzniusdig. However, rollerblading or horseback riding is simply innocent and healthy physical exercise. It is dangerous not to get exercise, and even the Rambam wrote this in Hilchos Dayos. To insist that a woman must do all her exercise indoors in a women’s only gym denies her the benefits and enjoyment of fresh air which is a big component and joy of exercising. Running outdoors and seeing the beautiful scenery is far different than on a treadmill. People are far more motivated to run outdoors in beautiful weather, and very few will maintain a routine on a tedious treadmill. They will give it up sooner or later. There is nothing like running by a beautiful lake or pond and seeing beautiful trees and flowers and scenery along the way. (Also, try running in a rich neighborhood with mansions, and see all the beautiful houses.)
Let men worry about their own obligations.April 27, 2009 10:56 pm at 10:56 pm #689359
areivim is right; there is more to the issue. I tried to hint to it, but my post was deleted. Ask your LOR if it is appropriate.April 28, 2009 5:06 am at 5:06 am #689362
squeak, i love how areivim’s right, but when i said it no one thought i was right… just kidding – i just feel smart now 😉April 28, 2009 12:23 pm at 12:23 pm #689363
The chumash tells us that our imahos rode on animals (Vatipol rivkah me’al hagamal).</em
PY, please note-that was a camel. A horse is different and as already said by others, it may be a halachic problem, speak to your LOR.
~a~April 28, 2009 1:58 pm at 1:58 pm #689364
PY – who says that they were not riding side-saddle?April 28, 2009 2:33 pm at 2:33 pm #689365
Lets make it short & simple:
Kol Kvuda Bas Melech Pnima!!!April 28, 2009 4:36 pm at 4:36 pm #689366
Thanks, Ames. Lo hinachta bas is quoted in gemara Ksuvos, (I don’t have in front of me) regarding certain stringencies in tznius, meaning if you go too far, you will have eliminated any girl from qualifying as a daughter of Avrohom Avinu. Nobody will be kosher. I don’t remember the exact cases.April 28, 2009 5:00 pm at 5:00 pm #689368
Pashuteh, your post was excellent.April 28, 2009 5:47 pm at 5:47 pm #689369
Squeak: I have a rayah that they were not riding side-saddle from beginning of Pesachim (3a). Last Rashi on page says that because they were afraid they might fall, they rode normally so they could hold on with both hands and legs.April 28, 2009 6:56 pm at 6:56 pm #689372
I have to say that as long as i am dressed tzniusly according to halacha then that is fine.
I am allowed to look pretty and nice as long as it follows the guidlines of halacha.
If a man looks at me then that is his problem his michshul.I don’t have to go out of my way and look extra ugly so that nobody should dare look at me.
As a girl I have to watch my mode of dress and as men you have to watch your eyes.I don’t have to wear a burqa so that a man should never be nichshul because i look tznius and nice..April 28, 2009 7:07 pm at 7:07 pm #689373
Interestingly, bas yisroel, what might be tznius to you might not be for others. I’ll give you an example: I was going to the kosel and we were waiting on the line by the checkpoint. Right ahead of me was a Jewish family (not frum) wearing pants and sleevless shirts. The mother was telling her daughtor that now that we are going to the Kosel, we have to dress tzniusdik and not wear…(I couldn’t understand what she was saying but I can well imagine). Get what I mean? for them, they were wearing their most tzniusdik clothing and I thought they looked totally pritzusdik.April 28, 2009 7:22 pm at 7:22 pm #689374
Mepal, you have to follow your halachic guidelines (meaning, from your Rav). Anything else is optional.
I’m going to wear open toed sandals in the summer without stockings of any sort because I was given a psak that its fine. Other people don’t hold by that but its irrelevant to me. I have to follow MY halachic path and be consistent.April 28, 2009 7:29 pm at 7:29 pm #689375
Mepal: Do you know what “prutzah” means in Hebrew? I HATE HATE HATE when people use that expression (pritzusdik) to say that somebody was not dressed in a tzniut manner. There’s a huge gap between what you might consider not tzniut and like a “prutzah”.April 28, 2009 7:29 pm at 7:29 pm #689376
hey i’m remembering a medrash the talks about rochel giving over the simanim to leah and it says that it was her midda of tznius. so clearly the definition of tznius isn’t so pashut.
and putting tznius aside, can a married girl go horseback riding? (notice how we all tried to get it through and only oomis was able to…)April 28, 2009 7:54 pm at 7:54 pm #689377
Pashuteh Yid, that would make it really hard for rivka to slide off. she must have been riding side saddle. (and if she was three she probably could have ridden regular anyway. or is that already too old?)April 28, 2009 8:02 pm at 8:02 pm #689378
I am talking about following the halochos of tznius-covering elbows knees ect.
I have heard from people that to look tznius you have to look like a neb because if you look like a neb then people won’t pay any attention to you! That’s crazy!That is not what being tznius is all about!
As a yid you are suppose to dress in a bekovidik manner, and to davka dress in a really nebby manner is a chilul Hashem!April 28, 2009 8:04 pm at 8:04 pm #689379
I have heard a talmid chochom once say that it is only acceptable for a girl to go side saddle in public!April 28, 2009 8:52 pm at 8:52 pm #689381
Jewess, I apologize for not using the correct term. Have you got a better one to share? Or better yet, can you give an exact definition of prutza?
Bas Yisroel: those people who feel that tznius=nebby have a totally warped way of thinking. I agree with you 100%. The point is, how are we expressing ourselves to others by the way we look? When someone is dressed like a shluch, what would a nuchri looking at him think? Personally, I get embarrassed when I see someone dressed not put-together, dirty (an embarrasment for what Klal Yisroel is being portrayed as. Every single Jew is a representive of the Jewish people). What do they think of us when we’re dressed so inappropriatly? We are supposed to look like prince/princesses. We should always be dressed put together and clean.
I hope you understand what I am trying to express and I hope I didn’t cause more confusion than there is already.April 28, 2009 10:35 pm at 10:35 pm #689382
Its funny how guys are saying how girls are not tznius enough (whether or not they are right) when they shouldnt be looking close enough to notice the small details. (Even the ones who dress a little less tznius are still covered up pretty well, and if they are not no amount of saying how untznius they are will change how they are dressing).
(This doesnt really have to do with the DDR but it does have to do with tznius)April 28, 2009 10:46 pm at 10:46 pm #689383
Mepal, I loved that story about the nonfrum family at the kotel. It shows that even the simplest of our brethren knows and tries to follow morah mikdash to the best of their understanding and ability. Mi k’amcha yisroel. Deep down they all have beautiful Jewish hearts.April 28, 2009 10:47 pm at 10:47 pm #689384
aussie, I agree with that second part, its like at a shiur, the speaker will say to women that theres a problem in tznius and they have to correct it, its up to them and something along those lines. People who are going to a shiur, are not the ones who have the problem in tznius.
A side point on tznius: Now, with the weather the way it is this week there is a problem of women walking around with uncovered legs and in flip flops (I happen to think it looks completely ridiculous to be in completely tznius until the knee, and then “beachwear”, but,) I have heard many people (chashuv, respected people) say how terrible it is that they are walking around like that. Rather, think to yourself how good it is that at least their hair is covered, (assuming its someone married), aren’t wearing something too tight etc. No one knows what she came from and this level may be an increase in her level of tznius.April 28, 2009 10:52 pm at 10:52 pm #689385
I’m going to wear open toed sandals in the summer without stockings of any sort because I was given a psak that its fine. Other people don’t hold by that but its irrelevant to me. I have to follow MY halachic path and be consistent.
completely dependant on minhag hamakom.April 29, 2009 1:13 am at 1:13 am #689386
I cannot understand what is not tzniusdig about it, as long as the skirt length is long enough. So many girls dress that way that nobody notices it really, and it is covering the legs. Having said that, if this bothers your husband, talk to him about it, find out WHY he feels it is immodest (does he really feel that way or does he think he OUGHT to feel that way – there is a big difference). Personally, I feel that in the wintertime this is a great way for women to dress, in order to keep warm. Men at least have pants.April 29, 2009 1:30 am at 1:30 am #689387
moish, the issue that oomis mentioned is not the one I was trying to bring up.April 29, 2009 1:38 am at 1:38 am #689388
Ames: I don’t see why pants under a skirt would be no good. If anything it should be more tzniut!
I couldn’t believe it, but somebody recently told me that she thought that leggings under a skirt are not tzniut.April 29, 2009 1:43 am at 1:43 am #689389
an open bookParticipant
i don’t think pants under a skirt is a problem in specific situations (like while doing some sort of activity where it is helpful), but when a skirt over pants/leggings is worn regularly as clothing, it can lead to the person wearing a shorter skirt than they normally would, while they rationalize that their knees are covered by the pants anyway. my mother pointed this out to me when we were talking about it, then i started noticing when i saw that this is true.April 29, 2009 1:54 am at 1:54 am #689390
ames: a long skirt so it’s not showing the pants?April 29, 2009 1:54 am at 1:54 am #689391
AOB: Are you sure that the women who were wearing the leggings don’t always wear shorter skirts? I don’t feel like my legs are any more covered when I wear leggings and a short skirt than when I just wear a short skirt. I may not feel the cold, but I don’t look at it as more kosher. Also, in that case, then tights could be considered covering too, since leggings are technically footless tights.April 29, 2009 2:17 am at 2:17 am #689392
an open bookParticipant
jewess: i didn’t say it was everyone, & i didn’t say it was a sure thing. but it is possible, & it’s not so far-fetched, i’ve seen it myself. yes, leggings are like footless tights, but somehow they are considered more like a type of pants & tights are thought of like socks, i think. none of this is a physical problem, it’s more in the person’s outlook.April 29, 2009 2:34 am at 2:34 am #689393
“He doesn’t like it because he says it’s not tznius for a guy to be thinking I’m headed to (or from) the gym”
And maybe if a woman is seen walking on the street after dark, the men who see her might think she is on her way to or from the Mikvah. PUHLEEZE! Sometimes it feels like guys go too far in dreaming up these scenarios. Any guy who is busy thinking of women going to and from the gym, has entirely too much time on his hands, IMO.April 29, 2009 3:59 am at 3:59 am #689394
oomis, just remember that she is talking about her husband’s opinion. Perhaps expressions such as PUHLEEZE! should not be used when responding to such a comment. I’m sure you agree, and that you didn’t realize the origin of the opinion.April 29, 2009 4:12 am at 4:12 am #689395
A side point on tznius: Now, with the weather the way it is this week there is a problem of women walking around with uncovered legs and in flip flops (I happen to think it looks completely ridiculous to be in completely tznius until the knee, and then “beachwear”, but,) I have heard many people (chashuv, respected people) say how terrible it is that they are walking around like that. Rather, think to yourself how good it is that at least their hair is covered, (assuming its someone married), aren’t wearing something too tight etc. No one knows what she came from and this level may be an increase in her level of tznius.
kapusta, I like your attitude!
~a~April 29, 2009 11:31 am at 11:31 am #689396
I have always said that an obsession with avoiding woman is still an obsession with woman. Just think about what “very” frum men have on their mind:
1) Is this woman wearing appropriately thick or flesh tones stockings
2) How much of her hair is showing out of her shaitel
3) How tight or lose is her clothing
4) open toed shoe, dangling earrings, too much makeup
5) Can she wear pants under her skirt or not
6) Should a woaman go horseback riding
And the worst of all is how may think in these terms about children. Its perverted. For anyone to think of a child in those terms is sickening. I have no words to describe how disturbing it is that many newspapers block out pictures of five, six year old girls. Its not an impressive thing. That they feel they “need” to do it is just very scary.
A goy, or even a jew who isn’t carefull may notice a woman for a second and move on. They dont spend to much time on those womens personal issues. That all these frum guys are sitting around and discussing the fit of a womans blouse is horrible. I venture to say that they are the worse ones, not the goy.
A posek who must address these issues for woman to know what to do is a different issue. Thats their responsibility and extremely appropriate.April 29, 2009 1:17 pm at 1:17 pm #689397
There is nothing wong with the word puhleeze. It is an eyeroll and a “what are they going to come up with next?” feeling that is my instinctive reaction. If however it offended ames, then I do apologize to her, as that was certainly not my intent. I was more expressing support for HER OWN attitude about her husband’s line of reasoning. If you look at her own statement, she says, “I say, why the heck is it my problem what he thinks..” (and yes, I assume she is referring to the GUY who sees her walking in a skirt and long pants underneath, and NOT to her HUSBAND). And she is right, and so is AZI, that we cannot be responsible for the thoughts of every person on the street. Any guy who is so carefully scrutinizing women on a regular basis to see if they are tzniusdig enough, is looking way too much at women altogether and has a problem.
I am reminded of a male teacher of mine in seminary, who would regularly comment on our skirt lengths (fortunately I was never the object of his scathing remarks), and even at that time, I was wondering to myself, “He came into the classroom and we were already seated – why is he staring at our legs? Is that really appropriate for him to be commenting on this all the time?”April 29, 2009 2:05 pm at 2:05 pm #689398
I agree with most people here that pants under the skirt is no problem. Pashuteh Yid’s klal godol in tznius: Adding material never lessens the level of tznius, and can only add to it, no matter where that material is added.
In mathematical terms:
The level of tznius is a monotonically increasing function of the amount of material.
BTW: A corollary of this has been discussed in other threads regarding slits. PY holds that a skirt which is say 40 inches long, but with a 5 inch slit is clearly more tzniusdig than a 35 inch long skirt. As before, since there is more material in the skirt with the slit, it is the more tzniusdig. Otherwise there must be some new issur of hosafas begadim which I was never previously aware of. When you add 5″ of material to a 35 inch long skirt, but don’t have enough to make it all the way around the skirt, you have violated an issur. You are better off not adding any material at all. Now tell me, does that make even one drop of sense? Hmmm, hosafas begadim.
I agree with Azi and Oomis, as I wrote at length before. The women’s job is to cover the halachic areas, and not to deliberately invite men to commit an immoral act. As long as she goes about her business, it is the man’s problem to control his yetzer hara, and not to invent all kinds of new prohibitions corresponding to whatever filth he has on his mind at that particular moment. He must simply grow up.April 29, 2009 2:54 pm at 2:54 pm #689399
A while we are at this subject.
When girls walk with High Heels & tight clothing on the street, its not so far from going on the DDR.April 29, 2009 3:07 pm at 3:07 pm #689401
oomis, I tend to think an eyeroll regarding the opinion of another’s husband doesn’t do much to increase the esteem of said person for spouse. That’s just my opinion, and something I am mapkid on. If you don’t think it’s important, I understand.April 29, 2009 3:54 pm at 3:54 pm #689402
makpid/typoApril 29, 2009 4:01 pm at 4:01 pm #689403
Ames: We are not in the business of mind control. If a girl is dressed properly, she has done her part.
Proud Jew: Not necessarily. Where in Shulchan Oruch is there a measurement for the height of heels? Just because XYZ gets one individual excited, doesn’t mean a women must stop doing that. If some guy happens to find green dresses with purple polka dots to be extremely attractive, do all women have to stop wearing those colors?April 29, 2009 6:36 pm at 6:36 pm #689404
“oomis, I tend to think an eyeroll regarding the opinion of another’s husband doesn’t do much to increase the esteem of said person for spouse. That’s just my opinion, and something I am mapkid on. If you don’t think it’s important, I understand”
I am very makpid on people having kovod and esteem for their spouses. That does not require me to agree with what their spouse thinks or says, and I can feel that the person is expressing an opinion that is a little unreasonable. Had I called ames’ husband, “stupid,” or “ignorant,” you would be right to think I was insulting him. However, I was basically sighing, “what will they think of next,” and I don’t feel I was being disrespectful. That being said, I reiterate that if AMES herself and not you (the unsolicited chauvinist for her feelings)feels I insulted her husband, then I sincerely apologize to her, as that was certainly not my intent. And for the record, I certainly DO think that’s important.April 29, 2009 9:01 pm at 9:01 pm #689405
oomis, I forgive you for your labelings (unsolicited chauvinist for her feelings) because it appears this subject is one you feel strongly about. I tried to point the issue out to you with gentleness, and I’m glad that you agree with the issue in general.April 30, 2009 2:20 am at 2:20 am #689406
But just so you know, I was not offended in the least
Good to know. No offense was intended. 🙂April 30, 2009 6:30 am at 6:30 am #689407
PY: He must simply grow up
Why dont you wake up to the world. This is something that all men have from age 10 to 100 (if not younger). It is not something that makes the man immature. It is something that god put in the world and it was put here for a very good reason (. In fact it was taken away but needed to be put back again). The reason woman have tznius is so they dont make it harder for the men to fight the urge. (No it was not put there because the girl is a bas yisroel who is like a princess and a princess is dignified.)
As for what is considered not tznius it all depends on your perspective. I went from being extremely religious to not religious at all in just 6 months and what i view now as not tznius is very diffrent than what i considered not tznius 6 months ago. (This is the same with every aspect of religion.) In fact what a girl I may have looked twice at I wouldnt even look at once now because she is dressed so tznius.April 30, 2009 1:39 pm at 1:39 pm #689408
aussie’s right, I think. It’s not a matter of growing up, it’s a matter of overcoming the temptation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.