Open Orthodoxy

gaw: it’s not an ervah, where? You think the M’B is referring to a shul? If yes, I think you should have a conversation with your rav. Unless his name is Avi Weiss or Yssochor Katz.

iacisrmma – As far as women are concerned, it is not Ervas Dovor. Period. Read the MB. I was just as surprised, and personally I agree that the Rosh is more Mistaver, but I (and you) can’t say that is an OO p’sak.

LUL – Not at all. My argument was that many women whom you consider not following the Halachos of Tznius really are, whether MO or Chassidish.

Personally, as I’ve said in the past, I would define MO as a Talmid or follower of a Talmid of Rav Yoshe Ber, whether it is Rabbi Twersky HYD, Rabbi Shechter, Rabbi Meiselman, or Rabbi Avi Weiss.

Nisht – Yes. But it has the advantage of being very specific. If you hold Rav Yoshe Ber as the father of MO (which I believe most agree), then his talmidim who follow him are also MO.

GAW: “LUL – Not at all. My argument was that many women whom you consider not following the Halachos of Tznius really are, whether MO or Chassidish.”

Not at all what? How do you know what I consider following the halachos of tznius? I didn’t specify any halachos in my original post. When I said halachos, I meant things that are halacha and not minhag hamakom, whatever those halachos may happen to be.

If you want me to be more specific: hair that is not covered at all, knees, upper arm above the elbow, mixed swimming, shorts.

On the other hand, I was not referring to not wearing socks which is minhag hamakom or to the elbows themselves which might not be assur halachically, or to nail polish of any color.

Just curious- what did you think I was referring to? Wearing thick stockings? Wearing burkas?

“This is a very unique definition. Not one that I have seen shared by anyone else. Certainly not the people who you are calling MO, except perhaps Rabbi Shachter.”

Maskim. I don’t really see how you can put Rav Twersky, HY”D in the same category as Avi Weiss unless the category is Jewish and you are including all Jews (which perhaps is what we should be doing anyhow, but that’s another story).

IITFT – In my personal definition, nothing. You are all more than welcome to have your own, but I personally believe that fits the term “MO” in the best fashion. Like LUL says, my definition is “unique”, and I don’t expect others to agree. And yes, your grandfather may be MO (per my definition) if he considered Rav Yoshe Ber his Rebbe. It seems you don’t believe that is the case.

LUL – Regarding Tznius: Covering hair at least partially is a Limud from a Pasuk, but not a Lav or even a Bittul Asei. I’m not sure about mixed swimming (with a Burkini to avoid the other issues) being a real issue at all. Knees, upper arm and elbow according to many would only be required/enforceable if minhag hamakom (which is a totally different discussion!!). Shorts, if Derech Pritzus, would be a real problem, but you would have to show me that is a real issue in your community. B”H I don’t see them on religious women (even those who go to Young Israel, which may be your definition of MO) at all.

Knees and above are completely assur. That is from Chazal, and there is no disagreement on it. Upper arm above the elbow is also. It is also completely assur to not cover your hair at all. By mixed swimming, I meant while wearing a bathing suit. I’ve seen many Modern Orthodox women wear shorts and go mixed swimming wearing bathing suits.

One major differnce between the more Charedi communities and the more modern ones is how people look at other people

If someone keeps 60-70% of Halacha. The Charedi communties will look at such a person as a sinner and might throw them out if they dont immediately agree to abide. The more modern communities will look at the 60-70% that they do keep

So if a woman is seen outside the community having hair uncovered and wearing pants. But is known to keep kosher and shabbos. How do you react to such a person, Do you look at the part that they keep or the part they dont keep and what do you say to the person. Telling the tochcha many times will backfire.

Knees and above (i.e. shorts) according to the Mishna Berura is universal but the Shulchan Aruch doesn’t hold that way

You’re got it backwards, I believe. The M”B is meikil for under the knees, many Rishonim held even below the knees is ervah.

K-cup: ??? ???? ???? is a phrase found in Chazal :????? ?”?.

???? is mentioned in :?????? ??.

As they are mentioned in Chazal, ??? and ???? are not subject to minhag. Tzemach Tzedek says regarding this that ???? and ???? are the same letters.

Clarification: upper arms and Above the calves

k cup – above the calves is like calling a face “above the neck”. The claves end at the knee, after that it is a thigh. Very different body part.

Besides, are you asking about Ervah for Kriyas Shema or a prohibition regarding walking down the street as such? They are not the same.

The poskim I’ve seen assume they’re the same parameters.

Except for the Aruch Hashulchan, who is mechadeish that Krias Sh’mah can be considered more lenient b’sha’as had’chak.

“If someone keeps 60-70% of Halacha. The Charedi communties will look at such a person as a sinner and might throw them out if they dont immediately agree to abide. The more modern communities will look at the 60-70% that they do keep”

This is a misunderstanding.

Chareidim do not look to throw people out.

Keeping half Shabbos is not keeping Shabbos at all.

Your definition certainly does not apply to knowledgeable MO.

Your difference would seem to be more related to those who have robust Jewish education or not.

There are differences, but this is not it.

Joseph, no. I’m saying some rishinom don’t hold that there is a strict “halachic line” of calf, knee, above knee, ECT…, that hold its dependent up to a point, and when the gemmarah refers to calf it was not to give halacha definition. I know that is not the halcha. They all to my knowledge hold a tank top would not be allowed as well.

The only difference is a borderline case, “at the knee” that when your sitting might be iffy. Some people have said that is clearly assur, I’m saying we pasken it’s assur.

There are Sefardish seforim that pasken that married and unmarried women must wear a full head covering (that leaves only the face visible.)

“If someone keeps 60-70% of Halacha. The Charedi communties will look at such a person as a sinner and might throw them out if they dont immediately agree to abide. The more modern communities will look at the 60-70% that they do keep”

Au contrarie ,

Many invariably look

down on those who keep 100% as naive, gullible , BTish at the minimum

There are Sefardish seforim that pasken that married and unmarried women must wear a full head covering (that leaves only the face visible.)

As I’ve pointed out to LUL elsewhere, Rav Vosner and some Achronim are Choshesh for the Magen Avraham and Rashi, and hold that a woman has to have her hair braided, whether there is a requirement of covering (i.e. under the covering) or not.

“2: That exact Rashba is used as a source for the Mattirm (for Kriyas Shema), as he brings in the concept of “Ragil Bahen” being Muttar. Therefore (the argument goes) anything that is Ragil does not create Hirhur, and hence Muttar to read Kriyas Shema before it (note the Rashba L’Shittaso against the Rosh l’gabei the din of an absolute Ervah except Oso makom).

Used by whom?”

IIRC the language matches the Mordichai and Tosfos L’Gabei Kol Isha. I’d have to go back and check sources.

“He is clearly distinguishing between hands, face, and feet, which would also be assur if not ???? ???, and ???.”

He’s actually discussing Ishto, so it has nothing to do with Histaklus.

“The ???? ??? also quotes a ???? who argues on that ??”?.”

I’ve seen the ???? inside. He doesn’t say anything about why the Issur exists, and if it is only because at the time of the Gemorah it was a Makom Mechusah.

“See ????? ????? who disagrees with ???? ??????’s understanding of the ??”? and calls it a ???? ?? (he is obviously comparing ?”? to dressing. Rav Moshe, as I recall, specifically only said they’re different for ???).”

I’ll have to see it inside.

“See also, for example, ???? ?????? in ??? ???? who equates ?”? with ???????. We know that ??????? ?????? ?????? is ???? ????? ????? ????, so it’s referring to incidental ???????, so there is a ???? for women to cover these areas to prevent incidental ???????.”

I don’t see where you are talking about, unless you mean the part about Ishto (which has no Shaychus to our discussion). Had the ???? ?????? meant to create an Issur on the woman, he should have included it in Halacha Daled, or said so somewhere.

Gavra, generally speaking in Litvish communities people are not choshesh.

Daas Yochid,

The Shulchan Aruch doesn’t mention shok b’isha erva, because, as the Bais Yosef explains (Orech Chaim 75), that is only an example of a makom mechusa that I might have thought was not considered a makom mechusa (the Bais Yosef cites the very Rashba you cited). The way the Bais Yosef read the Gemara in Brochos, there is one klal, makomos that are normally covered are erva when uncovered. But it depends on what is normally covered and that will change based on the tznius standards of the time and place. This all presumes that the issur for krias shema parallels an issur of incidental histaklus (which is against the pashtus of the Gemara and the Shulchan Aruch). As you wrote, intentional histaklus is assur for even parts that are normally uncovered.

On the other hand, the Mishnah Berurah does understand the Gemara in Berachos to be delineating a base line of what must be covered, and that is why shok is singled out (albeit with a more meikel definition of shok). While the Mishnah Berurah’s position has become the presumption in the Yeshiva world, one can’t say that it is wrong to rely on the Shulchan Aruch.

The Gemara in Kesubos is setting forth the minhag of tznius (aka Daas Yehudis) at the time, which included arms. To break Daas Yehudis is certainly assur, but as a minhag its parameters can change over time. Short sleeves were common even in Bais Yaakov’s in the 40s.

My point is not that the MO communities that wear short sleeves and shorts are doing the best thing, but rather that they have solid halachic ground to rely upon.

Daas Yochid,

On the Aruch Hashulchan you cited, he does understand an issur in r’iyah but this is limited to makomos mechusim. So it would still depend on the norms in the time and place. Furthermore, I think that by r’iyah he does not mean incidental (he specifically says that there is makkos only when there is kavanah) but rather where there is intent for r’iyah but not for hanaah. In contrast, histaklus of mokomos megulim is only assur if there is intent lhonos.

On the other hand, the Mishnah Berurah does understand the Gemara in Berachos to be delineating a base line of what must be covered, and that is why shok is singled out (albeit with a more meikel definition of shok). While the Mishnah Berurah’s position has become the presumption in the Yeshiva world, one can’t say that it is wrong to rely on the Shulchan Aruch.

Exactly. If you look in the Shaar HaTzion 75:5, it is Muchach that the MB Paskens that Da’as Yehudis does not change depending on the time and place, rather it goes after what Chazal said at the time of the Gemorah (similar to the Sefer HaEshkol). Just one point that it would then be Brachos/Kesubos, as Da’as Yehudis uncovered would be an Ervah for men due to hirhur, as per the MB 75:8.

Furthermore, I think that by r’iyah he does not mean incidental (he specifically says that there is makkos only when there is kavanah) but rather where there is intent for r’iyah but not for hanaah. In contrast, histaklus of mokomos megulim is only assur if there is intent lhonos.

I’ll accept your phrasing, but the point I’m making is that it is obviously a chiyuv for a woman to cover that which is assur for a man to see (even without ????? ??????).

It’s also on the woman. Kal vachomer from daled.

Also clear from ??????, because if a woman loses her ?????, she obviously did something wrong.