Short Skirts

Avira > in sefardi communities, levels of religious observance among those who refer to themselves as orthodox vary quite a lot.

Sephardim did not experience Haskala and Cantonists the way (esp Eastern) Europeans did. Haskala divided us into modern/conservatives and Czar’s requirement for kahal to provide conscripts divided kahal from the poor in the community. R Berel Wein traced animosity of some Israeli parties to religious communities to the latter. Sephardim are more prone to keep the community together regardless of observance levels. Thus, variability. Ashkenazim also have variability, but each variation exists within their own community that often does not consider other communities worthy of mention, thus an illusion of homogeneity.

AAQ – young men shouldn’t have to know what to do if their nother is not tznius; it’s a very sad thing indeed and improper chinuch either way….

I don’t think there should be a distinction made between tefilin and tznius; both are discussed by halachikally binding(pardon the pun) literature and both have certain parameters that are completely universal, while tznius also includes standards that are subjective, the poskim make it clear which things are universal and which things aren’t.

Single women covering their hair is subjective. Knees, elbows and collarbones are not. The latter are the things that are most derided, based on the supposed ridiculousness of measuring such things with rulers etc….you don’t hear the same derision regarding issues that depend on local custom.

When will Chasidim wear long pants? Their short pants are a distraction to many.

Avira > young men shouldn’t have to know what to do if their nother is not tznius;

This example came up to my mind from the question a bachur asked Hazon Ish, saying that he can not say kiddush (or maybe go home for Shabbat). Hazon Ish explained that mitzva of kibud av vaem is more important and he can simply look to the side when saying kiddush. You can come up with your own examples of bein adam l’havero that most people are not trained in. Should you make natilas yadaim when you would wake up people in process (R Salanter).

Here is one from R Twersky: daughter of Rosh Yeshiva, whose husband is her father’s student. Husband does not eat gebrochts, father does. Should they go visit for Pesach? Maybe eat at a separate table? Answer, qualified as not a psak: eating at a separate table is a problem when we celebrating leaving Mitzraim as families … following a chumrah in the face fo your teacher is a problem, referring to a similar story of Chasam Sofer and two Sanzer chasidim.

“The requirements that the knees be covered at all times in public…. isn’t anyone’s “vision of Tznius”; it is an absolute obligation.”

Actually it is someone’s vision, and a distorted one at that, in multiple cases we have read about in recent years, including here on YWN, where misguided zealots endow themselves with enforcement authority and have physically and verbally abused women who most of us would agree are meeting commonly accepted tzinius standards based on their vision of a more rigorous standard. Most frum women actually go beyond the minimum standard and when visiting another community with more rigorous standards, seek to conform with “minhag hamokom”. For some, that may not be enough. Harassment of even young girls standing outside of a BY or walking in the park by these self-appointed tzinius vigilantes are becoming all too common .

extended quotes from Rabbi Avraham Edelstein Laws of Outreach Male-Female interactions, 2019

Tosafos Yom Tov, who writes in the Lechem Chamudos [perek 3] that in each locale the local practice determines what is considered sufficient attire.

Some Acharonim interpret the words of the Lechem Chamudos literally and that the determination of which parts of the body need to be covered is subjective.23 However, others understand that the Lechem Chamudos is merely ruling that the status of the forearm is determined by local custom, but matters of sanctity cannot be said before exposed upper arms and thighs

Mishnah Berurah writes that even in a society in which married women regularly go out with their hair exposed, men may not utter matters of sanctity before such women. This is because her hair is inherently considered by Chazal to be something personal and intimate…However, a number of Acharonim contend that in such a society, when there is a need, it is permissible for matters of sanctity to be expressed in the presence of a married woman whose hair is uncovered.T hese poskim understand that a woman’s hair is not intrinsically an intimate part of her body. Rather, the reason that a man may not recite Shema in the presence of a woman whose hair is exposed is so that the sight should not cause him to have illicit thoughts. Hence, in a society in which many women expose their hair, the sight of such hair will not induce illicit thoughts. Therefore, matters of sanctity can be said there. This is the view of the S’ridei Eish,31 the Ben Ish Chai,32 the Aruch HaShulchan,33 Rav Moshe Feinstein,34 and Rav Ovadia Yosef.35

T here appears to be a contradiction in the writings of the Chazon Ish regarding this matter. On one hand, the Chazon Ish writes unequivocally that the fact that many women go out without covering their hair does not justify saying words of sanctity in their presence.36 On the other hand, the Chazon Ish permitted giving a Chazal-based mussar lesson to an audience that includes women whose hair is uncovered if the speaker does not focus his attention on it.37 Rav Pesach Eliyahu Falk explained that the Chazon Ish maintained that it was forbidden for a man to say words of Torah before married women whose hair was exposed. However, for the important need for kiruv, it is proper to say matters of sanctity there.38

However, the Chazon Ish maintains a more lenient position. He holds that closing one’s eyes or turning away is even permitted l’chatchilah.42 In fact, the Chazon Ish held that a man is permitted to say matters of sanctity with his eyes open, even if he can see the problematic area with peripheral vision — as long as he does not perceive that which he is seeing.43 However, according to the stringent view of the Mishnah Berurah, ideally the only solution is for the man to turn his entire body away so that he is facing in a different direction.

It is said that when the Chasam Sofer needed to utter sacred matters in the presence of a woman who was not properly dressed, he donned glasses and shut his eyes.

In 1970, Rav Ovadia Yosef was awarded the prestigious Israel Prize by then prime minister Golda Meir. When Mrs. Meir extended her hand in congratulations, Rav Yosef did not respond, causing international condemnation for his refusal to shake a woman’s hand.

T he Shach rules that even if we are stringent like Rambam, physical contact that is not sensuous, such as when a male physician examines a female patient, is not prohibited by the Torah.73 Some other Acharonim argue that there is a Torah prohibition, even in this case.74 But, the later poskim follow the position of the Shach.75 Some authorities understand the ruling of the Shach to mean that there is still a rabbinic injunction — except in cases of danger to life.76 But, the mainstream view is that physical contact is permissible when there it is no sensuous pleasure elicited.77

. A formal handshake is not usually an expression of affection. Consequently, there is room to argue that such handshakes should be permitted in halachah. This was indeed the perspective of traditional German Jews. In fact, Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch used to extend his hand in greeting to women.79 Other rabbanim would only accept the hand of a woman who extend

Rav Isser Yehuda Unterman (1886–1976), the late Chief Rabbi of Israel, was once asked why he was lenient in shaking the hand of a woman who greeted him. He replied, “I am not being lenient about touching [women]; I am stringent about respecting humanity.”83 Similarly, Rav Chaim Berlin (1832–1912), wrote that if a non-Jewish woman extends her hand in greeting, a man should shake her hand as the Torah wants us to convey a demeanor of amicable respectability.84

Rav Yaakov Yitzchak Ruderman said in the name of Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski that the Rabbanei Ashkenaz were matir formal handshaking. Likewise, this was the position of Rav Shimon Schwab.

In three responsa, Rav Moshe Feinstein wrote that the view that permits such handshakes should not be relied on since there is a concern that the handshake will be affectionate.86 Rav Menashe Klein also adopts a stringent approach out of concern that although a handshake may be begin as a cold formality, it can evolve into an affectionate expression.87 The Chazon Ish considered such physical contact to be one of the crimes for which a person should give up his life rather than transgress.88

Steipler Gaon was of the opinion that even if the only recourse is to embarrass the person extending his/her hand, there is no justification for a man and woman to shake hands.

Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky very cautiously suggested that a man might be able to be lenient to shake an outstretched hand if failure to do so will cause a social disgrace

Rav Moshe Sternbuch proposed that perhaps the Chazon Ish was so strict over the issue of handshaking because he was referring to a warm and affectionate handshake as opposed to a cold formality.99 Rav Sternbuch wrote that in the event that failure to accept a handshake would generate an interpersonal crisis, one should seek rabbinical guidance.100

Rav Yitzchak Hutner’s guidance was to accept a woman’s outstretched hand “like a hot potato” in order to avoid embarrassing her.102 Even though Rav Moshe Feinstein published three responsa that would forbid handshakes in all cases, orally he instructed people differently. Many rabbanim have reported that Rav Feinstein instructed people that under extenuating circumstances, they could be lenient.

It is clear from the above that the local circumstances in which interactions between males and females take place play an important role in determining the halachic conclusions. The location, the degree of sensitivity of the participants (are they used to mixed events or not), and the nature of the event (is it one of levity or not) are all-important variables. Thus, the K’sav Sofer writes that we are not strict to maintain strict separation of the genders at a wedding ceremony because it is a controlled, serious situation, and not one of levity.1

Rav Feinstein made it clear that ideally, boys and girls should be separated at an early age, but not at the expense of closing down the school or of having to send the girls to a public school.

Ujm, while AAQ’s story has yet to have been sourced, i don’t see a contradiction – turning away during kiddush or brochos is a viable heter expressed by many poskim, usually as a bedieved, or even shaas hadchak. Honoring one’s parents is just as important as any shaas hadchak situation i can think of, so the two stories are not in conflict.

AAQ – I must say that some of the shitos outlined in that article seem out of context and some seem pretty hard to believe at all; can you copy and paste the footnotes too?

Guys this is not the right people or forum for this discussion

AAQ – he’s referring to rav falk’s sefer “oz vehadar levushah”

If we can guarantee that Sanhedrin would do exactly what Chazon Ish says, we do not need a Sanhedrin.

Of course, if all members of Sanhedrin will vote that way – then there is no death penalty, of course because deliberation is ot valid if there is no diversity of views … something to keep in mind in discussions

I think long jackets signify more self-importance (doctors v residents). Also makes it difficult to run after avoda zora (discussion between R Ashi and Menashe)

Shorts skirts are a big issue. big. these days its one of the girls biggest Yetzer Hara’s. and to be ‘in’ at skl or social life.
BUT. I do not thing its aprops for men to be discussing it.
Bnos Yisroel! You know what the right thing is!

I’ve noticed your josephesque tendency to not accept criticism and to then accuse the other of violating halacha or of being attached to inappropriate hash hashgofos. Sorry, not flying here. If you want to have a halachik convo, feel free. But when men, especially single men, talk about what women are wearing and why you think they are doing so you are obviously looking in places you shouldn’t. Rationalize all you want, especially add in something about how you are so unbelievably learned that you can deliberately scope out women’s skirt lengths specifically to know where you need to avoid going.. Thats also a feminist, MO, haskala, krum attitude.

I worked for someone who actually was a baal aliya who was careful about shirts anayim. When I was in my 8th month and very visible pregnant I told him not to worry, I wouldn’t need to take off time from school. His response: I’m not sure what you are referring to.

I wasn’t addressing the details of the issue in this post, i was wondering why people feel this way – you explained it quite well, that the “creepy” factor is because per force, the man addressing them must have taken notice of the way they are dressed.

I can see that very clearly if the statement was made in person, but for a man to air his grievances on a forum doesn’t imply that he is noticing the way you or any individual dresses. There are gechidei segulah who never notice anything about women, like the boss you mentioned, but for the vast majority of ehrliche men, there is a huge nisayon for shmiras aynayim which is made a thousand fold worse by the “personal” decisions women make.

Nice try. Now let me know how many of those discussions, classes, learning sessions were in coed settings, on soap boxes in public squares, from pulpits in reform synagogues. You should be very concerned about your desire to push so hard to justify discussing your failures at keeping your eyes where they belong and your rush from getting women to discuss their bodies with you. Face it.

it’s b’feirush that it’s assur. No questions asked.

coffee > because they didn’t teach it is wrong properly

I think Gemora in Makkos 7 says that it is a teiku whether executing 1 in 7 or 70 years makes a court “murderous” due to excessive execution (you can see the reason by the way it asks from 7 to 70 and not other way around). Then R’ Akiva & R Tarfon suggest not executing anyone, and R Shimon b’ Gamliel retorts that they’lll also increase number of murders.

And just to be honest, the world has changed so much in the last two centuries, that it is really difficult to extrapolate what would be the preferred way to dress today. I’m not advocating for any leniency or stringency. Just humility.