June 19, 2013 1:06 pm at 1:06 pm #609725
Does the guidelines of “Lo Yilbash” change by what is excepted as masculine/feminine, or does anything once assur because of Lo Yilbash stay assur even after it becomes excepted to do?
For example – Shaving non-facial hair -> Is it assur because of Lo Yilbash? Until recent doros, it was not excepted for a man to do so. However, now, it is not necessarily a feminine thing.
The same is with perfumes, shaving beard (R’ Chaim Kanievsky in his sefer Orchos Yoisher has a Siman about shaving and he brings that it is Lo Yilbash) – anything which was once considered feminine? Maybe even trousers for ladies?
It is mistaber to say that “simlas isha” would be defined by the current social norm, not on history. However, from this “psak” (however reliable it is) it seems that this is not so.June 19, 2013 2:37 pm at 2:37 pm #968701
dont believe everything you read.June 20, 2013 3:36 am at 3:36 am #968702147Participant
Technically, a woman’s pair of pants is a Begged Isho & not a Begged Gever, and by Toroh law could be worn by a Halachic compliant woman albeit socially she will get herself into social trouble.
Meanwhile I wear a watch 6 days a week and when spending Shabbos where there is an Eruv, I wear a watch 7 days a week.
By my standards, already abstaining from a watch on the street 1 day a week, is quite a high Madreigo, without abstaining all 7 days a week.June 20, 2013 3:50 am at 3:50 am #968703jewishfeminist02Member
Wearing a watch is considered “carrying”? Really??June 20, 2013 4:24 am at 4:24 am #968704EnderParticipant
147: Although I haven’t gone through the sugya recently, I am pretty sure that most contemporary poskim hold that women wearing “womens” pants is not lo silbash. However, most of these same poskin hold that wearing pants is still assur because of Tznius problems. This is why many women will wear pants at a women’s gym, which has fewer tznius concerns.
I would hypothesis further that this is the reason that many MO women wear pants with a skirt over them.June 20, 2013 5:43 am at 5:43 am #968705
The Gemara mentions putting the remaining perfume on the head of the Shamash, but if he is a Talmid Chacham then you shouldn’t. This is because a Talmid Chacham shouldn’t go out with perfume. So it seems that at one point perfume on men was not considered Lo Yilbash.June 20, 2013 9:17 am at 9:17 am #968706
It’s B’feirush in the SH”A that Lo Yilbash changes with the times (YD 178:1, if I recall correctly). There is, however, a T’shuvas HaRashba (4:90) that was not available at the time of the Mechaber (and see the Rama CM 25:2). My guess would be that that is the Da’as HaOsrim.June 20, 2013 12:47 pm at 12:47 pm #968707
jewishfeminist – Apparently wearing a watch on Shabbos is carrying. However, if it is a nice watch (something you wear for the looks rather than for the fact that it tells the time), it is a ????? and therefore not worse than a bracelet, and muttar. AYLOR.June 20, 2013 12:50 pm at 12:50 pm #968708
The Rambam says ??? ????? ??????, which would contradict R’ Chaims psak.June 20, 2013 3:00 pm at 3:00 pm #968709
At times, I puzzle about R”chaim’s piskei halocho. His assertion that “shira” is not a girl’s name and the girl should get a new name is one of those piskei halocho that are incomprehensible.June 20, 2013 3:45 pm at 3:45 pm #968710
Reb Moshe held that wearing a wristwatch is not carrying. However, he said that B’nei Yeshiva should refrain from wearing one, since people won’t discern between a wristwatch and a pocket watch.June 20, 2013 3:53 pm at 3:53 pm #968711gavra_at_workParticipant
At times, I puzzle about R”chaim’s piskei halocho.
They are not “his”. Rav Chaim (I believe) doesn’t “Pasken”, but rather quotes the P’sak of others.
In this case, in Beni Brak it may very well be Assur to wear a watch, as only women wore them. This would be similar to any culture in which certain items are worn specifically by one gender (such as skirts in the US (vs. Scotland), or moss on a troll).June 20, 2013 4:16 pm at 4:16 pm #968712
“At times, I puzzle about R”chaim’s piskei halocho.”
Just because people claim he said it, doesnt mean he did.June 20, 2013 4:21 pm at 4:21 pm #968713
gavra at work: What yo uwrite may bew true. In other words, if you are a follower of the Chazon Ish and -YBLT-R”Chaim shelita, then you follow his precepts. Otherwise, follow your own Possek.June 20, 2013 5:33 pm at 5:33 pm #968714jewishfeminist02Member
That makes a lot of sense. I used to wear cheap watches from Target as primarily functional items, but I got tired of them breaking all the time. So about a year and a half ago, I treated myself to a really nice watch and b”h it has lasted this long and doesn’t show any signs of giving out on me. I do use it to check the time, but I also really like how it looks on me. It also has sentimental value now because we used it for chalipin at my wedding!
B’zman hazeh, nobody wears pocket watches anymore so I wouldn’t think that is a concern.June 21, 2013 12:33 am at 12:33 am #968715rebdonielMember
The Igrot Moshe paskened that watches ought not to be worn on shabbat (OC 1:111). Plenty of people here in Brooklyn do wear gold watches on shabbat, since it is understood that such watches function like a takhshit and not for purely functional reasons, which would be assur. Thus, many poskim would say not to wear a watch unless you’d wear it even if the battery were dead.June 21, 2013 5:21 am at 5:21 am #968716
Actually, Reb Moshe held that wearing it, even for telling time is fine. If it is being worn, it is a Beged. But as I said, he wanted that it shouldn’t be worn.June 21, 2013 12:12 pm at 12:12 pm #968717yitayningwutParticipant
Claiming R’ Chaim Kanievski is only paskening that way for Bnei Brak does not help much.
A person who doesn’t know that the whole world considers him their posek is not humble, he is stupid. And a person who knows that the whole world considers them their posek should not be reckless and issue unqualified psakim like this which will be thought by laypeople to apply universally while in reality only apply only to their little hamlet. They should clearly specify as such. As a wise person once said, ?????, ????? ???????, ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????, ????? ???????? ????? ?????? ??????, ????? ?? ???? ?????.
Being that I assume R’ Chaim to be neither stupid nor reckless, I assume that either he actually is of the opinion that this applies universally, or someone using his name is, and their logic is probably somewhere along the lines of the Rashba that has been mentioned here.
At any rate, when you learn the sugya, the pashtus is that this halacha does change with the times.June 21, 2013 2:10 pm at 2:10 pm #968718on the ballParticipant
Jewish men used to wear jewellery as Mefurash in the Torah.
Just thought I’d throw that out there.June 21, 2013 5:40 pm at 5:40 pm #968719
On The Ball, where? They had cuffling then?July 28, 2013 10:38 pm at 10:38 pm #968720
Just for those who say “don’t believe everything you see on the news”, just this week I found out who the psak was too (the story was a little different) and I know the person personally and I can verify that R’ Chaim did say this.
????? ????? ????????July 28, 2013 10:56 pm at 10:56 pm #968721–Participant
anything which was once considered feminine?
Such as fedoras?July 29, 2013 3:09 am at 3:09 am #968722charliehallParticipant
‘His assertion that “shira” is not a girl’s name and the girl should get a new name is one of those piskei halocho that are incomprehensible.’
We had nine women named “Shira” jointly sponsor kiddush last Shabat Shira. There are no men in the community named “Shira”.July 29, 2013 5:54 am at 5:54 am #968723rebdonielMember
He feels that it’s probably not a real name.July 29, 2013 7:54 am at 7:54 am #968724–Participant
He feels that it’s probably not a real name.
What determines what a real name is?July 29, 2013 4:41 pm at 4:41 pm #968725WolfishMusingsParticipant
He feels that it’s probably not a real name.
Well, at the risk of asking a stupid question, what is a “real name?” What qualifies one name as real and another not?
The WolfJuly 29, 2013 5:01 pm at 5:01 pm #968726RedlegParticipant
The issue is not Hotzah on Shabbos. When wristwatches were introduced in the late 19th century, they were intended for women. Men carried pocket watches which were obviously an issue on Shabbos. After WW1, when the utility of having a watch strapped to one’s wrist where it was instantly available rather than having to fish it out of a pocket, it became an article of men’s wear as well. Many Rabonim in Europe, including, apparently, R’ Kanievsky felt that a wristwatch was still an article of women’s adornment and , as such, was assur als lo yilbosh.July 29, 2013 5:39 pm at 5:39 pm #968727Geordie613Participant
I heard this psak from Dayan Dunner in London. R’ Chaim quotes this as the psak of the Chazon Ish and not his own. They showed him a picture of his shver Rav Elyashiv wearing a watch. He said The Chazon Ish did not allow it. Dayan Dunner commented that everything else Rav Elyashiv did according to the Chazon Ish, so its interesting that on this point he differed.July 29, 2013 6:57 pm at 6:57 pm #968728
redleg: you have anything to support your theory about wristwatches being made (exclusively) fo women?? and how do you answer the fact of a mirror , that, originally ,was ossur (see shulchan aruch)as “lo silbash” yet today, as everyone uses it, is muttor? Is a mirrro ossur for men??July 29, 2013 7:01 pm at 7:01 pm #968729
rob: Presumably R’ Chaim holds that they are. There are opinions like that.
And from Wikipedia:
In the early 1900s, the wristwatch, originally called a Wristlet, was reserved for women and considered more of a passing fad than a serious timepiece. Men, who carried pocket watches, were quoted as saying they would “sooner wear a skirt as wear a wristwatch”.July 29, 2013 7:04 pm at 7:04 pm #968730
According to wikipedia (almost as authorative as “my friend said he heard from someone in shul at a kiddush, that someone asked r’ chaim and he reportedly said”)….
Before wristwatches became popular in the 1920s, most watches were pocket watches, which often had covers and were carried in a pocket and attached to a watch chain or watch fob. In the early 1900s, the wristwatch, originally called a Wristlet, was reserved for women and considered more of a passing fad than a serious timepiece. Men, who carried pocket watches, were quoted as saying they would “sooner wear a skirt as wear a wristwatch”. This changed in World War I, when soldiers on the battlefield found pocket watches to be impractical and attached their watches to their wrist by a cupped leather strap. It is also believed that Girard-Perregaux equipped the German Imperial Navy with wristwatches in a similar fashion as early as the 1880s, to be used while synchronizing naval attacks and firing artillery.July 29, 2013 7:37 pm at 7:37 pm #968731
Thanks to Sam2 and apushateyid for pointing us towards the Wikipedia entry. However, if you follow the trail to the book from which the entry is derived, you realize that the use of some kind of wristwatch already happened in teh NINETEENTH century , by the German navy in the 1880’s and the British in the Boer War (1899-1902) and used by thoe most manly of people,soldiers . It was refined in the early twentieth century and fully popularized after the First World War. i would suggest that the Chazon Ish, living in Vilna, Lithuania at the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century, did not see those wristwatches on men until much later. Hence, maybe this explains his opinion on this. Whether one should consider it similarly today is rather problematic.July 29, 2013 8:09 pm at 8:09 pm #968732
rob: There is a similar P’sak in the T’shuvos V’hanhagos. R’ Moshe Shternbuch says that it’s Assur for women to smoke because it’s Begged Ish. I found that the law in South Africa until the 1970s was that it was illegal for women to smoke in public. Presumably, the concept of a woman smoking was so foreign to him that he found it inconceivable. Perhaps if he had been familiar with other places and known that women could smoke, he wouldn’t have said the same.July 30, 2013 2:17 am at 2:17 am #968733YW Moderator-42Moderator
With all due respect to Rav Kanievsky, I don’t understand this supposed psak.
He is supposedly quoting the Chazon Ish who lived many years ago. Fashions change with time. I understand that in the Chazon Ish’s time, men wore pocket watches and women wore wrist watches; but nowadays, almost nobody wears a pocket watch and wrist watches are a normal thing for both men and women to wear (at least here in America). In fact, one of the gifts that a kalla “traditionally” gives her chosson is a fancy watch. So unless you hold that lo yilbash is based on what they wore at the time of Moshe Rabeinu, I can’t hear any svara for watches to be a problem (unless you are making a gezeira because of Shabbos but that is very different than lo yilbash).July 30, 2013 2:21 am at 2:21 am #968734YW Moderator-42Moderator
On a different but related point, nowadays, many men (I’m not sure about women) have stopped wearing wrist watches because they are always checking their cell phones. So it has now become basically a “beged Shabbos” for these people although not necessarily because it is a fancy piece of jewelry. I wonder if this somehow affects the halacha regarding carrying.July 30, 2013 3:49 am at 3:49 am #968735charliehallParticipant
“Many Rabonim in Europe, including, apparently, R’ Kanievsky felt that a wristwatch was still an article of women’s adornment and , as such, was assur als lo yilbosh.”
By that logic, fedora hats should be asur for men because they are beged ishah. In fact, if you go back far enough, so would trousers!July 30, 2013 5:10 am at 5:10 am #968736Avi KParticipant
At one time men in Israel did not use deodorant. When the first American bachur came to Ponevich and was seen to use deodorant some of the Israelis complaied to Rav Cahaneman that he was over on lo tilbash. Rav Cahaneman said “halavai that all of the bachurs would use it”.July 31, 2013 6:58 pm at 6:58 pm #968738RedlegParticipant
Charliehall, you are absolutely correct. Es iz, doch, a rayyah that current fashion should be the criterion for the din.July 31, 2013 10:29 pm at 10:29 pm #968739WolfishMusingsParticipant
I remember a certain poster who tried to convince me that I was in violation of “Lo Yilbash” because I like to cook. Apparently he held that cooking was a woman’s job and that if I cooked a meal for my wife on anything other than an ad-hoc basis, I was in violation.
But then again, this was the same poster who tried to convince me that I needed to get divorced because my marriage lacked the “kashrus” of going through a shadchan.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.