Tagged: noticing things
May 25, 2011 2:53 pm at 2:53 pm #597090
A while back, there was a discussion about the required guidelines. Sacrilege (and possibly others) noted “toes and heels” need to be covered to which I expressed my surprise to hearing that heels are included in the “must cover” list.
What I meant to say is, I am surprized that heels need to be “covered” as in only closed back shoes maybe worn. Many people wear sling back shoes, so how does this mesh with the understanding of tznius a large part of Orthodoxy adheres to?
It was then I realized my mistake. While I see many people in my circle / neighborhood wearing sling back shoes, IT IS WHILE THE LEGS ARE COVERED WITH HOSE OR TIGHTS, and not bare legged.
My point in this post is not to debate wether or not bare legs are ok or not; its merely to clarify whatI meant to say, and retract the comment I made that sounds like taking bare legs lightly.
I realize that my statement could be misunderstood, and for this I apologize.May 25, 2011 3:52 pm at 3:52 pm #771834shlishiMember
Many people wear sling back shoes, so how does this mesh with the understanding of tznius a large part of Orthodoxy adheres to?
Oy! This is how non-tznius dress spreads unfortunately. Just because “a large part of Orthodoxy” does something, does not make it permissible.May 25, 2011 7:58 pm at 7:58 pm #771835apushatayidParticipant
Obviously, someone still does not understand 🙁May 25, 2011 8:17 pm at 8:17 pm #771836charliehallParticipant
‘Just because “a large part of Orthodoxy” does something, does not make it permissible.’
Actually, numerous poskim over the centuries have used that argument to declare things mutar.May 25, 2011 8:42 pm at 8:42 pm #771837SacrilegeMember
My name in the OP! *squeal*
I didnt realize that you didnt understand that I wear open toe and sling backs… just gotta have ’em trusty uh, hose as you call them underneath.May 25, 2011 8:47 pm at 8:47 pm #771838
Just because “a large part of Orthodoxy” does something, does not make it permissible. “
And conversely, just because “a SMALL part of Orthodoxy” does something, does not make it assur.May 25, 2011 8:48 pm at 8:48 pm #771839
” Obviously, someone still does not understand 🙁 “
Sorry, let me try again.
Last week, someone said that “heels need to be covered” to comply with tznius.
I said I never heard of that.
What I meant was, heels (that are covered with hose or tights or socks) can be “exposed” as in sling back shoes.
But what it may have sounded like, was that I was saying its ok to go bare legged, with heels exposed.
And that is not what I meant to say.May 25, 2011 8:48 pm at 8:48 pm #771840
Actually, numerous poskim over the centuries have used that argument to declare things mutar. “
Good point. Acharei rabbim l’hatos.May 25, 2011 8:51 pm at 8:51 pm #771841me tooMember
Or struggled to find a ????? ???? ??????May 25, 2011 9:55 pm at 9:55 pm #771842
And conversely, just because “a SMALL part of Orthodoxy” does something, does not make it assur.”
I am correcting myself, humbly. I MEANT to say, just because a small part of Orthodoxy does something,does not make it HALACHA.May 26, 2011 9:28 pm at 9:28 pm #771843
” just because a small part of Orthodoxy does something,does not make it HALACHA. “
That. Oomis, depends on which “part” is doing the doing 🙂
(does a smiley face count the same as the sarcasm face?)
😉May 26, 2011 10:10 pm at 10:10 pm #771845Dave HirschParticipant
Can you name one Posek who rules that toes/heels may not be uncovered?
Shok B’Isha Erva is above the ankle according to the most stringent opinions. The Shevet Halevi rules that a woman does not have to wear stockings if her skirt reaches below her ankle.May 26, 2011 10:32 pm at 10:32 pm #771846
As I noted in the OP, I was stating MY opinion, so no, I don’t have to name a posek; its what we (meaning the larger BP community) accepts as the standard.
Does your Rov says is ok for your wife / adult daughter to walk outside bare legged? I’d love to hear it. (not the name, just that you asked, and he said yes)May 26, 2011 11:40 pm at 11:40 pm #771847
“(does a smiley face count the same as the sarcasm face?)
Sometimes, but not usually. 🙂
(And yes, I got it)May 27, 2011 2:27 pm at 2:27 pm #771848
Here’s another tznius issue that recently came up.
At a simcha, a family friend wore a dress made of black and a contrast color / contrast fabric. Without going into too much detail, the construction of the dress and placement of the contrast fabric, was done to acheive maximum impact and maximum wow factor.
Some of the other women were scandalized, and some were livid, becuase now the bar just got moved. Because the livid ones don;t like to lose at this game, and the stakes just got higher.
To be fair, all the tznius checkpoints (elbows, knees, ect) of the dress were within the accepted parameters, and she was wearing pumps, so even the heels were covered!
But was the woman dressed tnizusdik?
You decide.May 27, 2011 2:33 pm at 2:33 pm #771849YW Moderator-80Member
absolutely notMay 27, 2011 2:44 pm at 2:44 pm #771850A Heimishe MomParticipant
I can’t give you a posek, but I have been told, that heels should not be exposed is a ruling from the days of the gemara when women, who always wore skirts to the floor – or close to it – would put little bags of perfume under their heels so that as they would walk a pleseant smell would be emitted to attract attention. The implication was that you should at the very least wear socks (or “hose”) when wearing backless/slingback footwear. But Halacha l’Moshe miSinai? no.May 27, 2011 2:55 pm at 2:55 pm #771851A Heimishe MomParticipant
bpt: The big issue is the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law. Was the letter followed? Yes, it was. The spirit? Not at all. This problem is rampant. Even the frum stores don’t see it anymore!May 27, 2011 5:31 pm at 5:31 pm #771852adorableParticipant
no she was not dressed properly. heard a great story from reb. leah horowitz- she walked into a store and was horrified to see hoe a certain frum girl was dressed. when she was trying to figure it all out she realized that the girls was all perfectly covered but was dressed like a cowboy. the “look” was very wrong!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.