September 1, 2010 7:54 pm at 7:54 pm #694372smartcookieMember
It’s really heartwarming to see how many of us not only care about the way we dress, but also how others dress. Mi K’amcha Yisroel.
Nobody here is worried about others’ Aveiros. It’s more that our men see these woman who aren’t dressed too eidel. That brings many problems.
Yeah, I know they’re supposed to walk with closed eyes on the avenue.September 1, 2010 7:58 pm at 7:58 pm #694373
Why would anyone want to wear 2 layers of clothing in 95 degree weather?September 1, 2010 7:59 pm at 7:59 pm #694374
because we have a Torah that we follow.September 1, 2010 8:03 pm at 8:03 pm #694375
Missme. Is your comment directed to me? If it is…..
The torah dictates that one must wear 2 layers of clothing in 95 degree (or in any) weather? The discussion here hinges on whether tank tops fill the torahs mandate of a second layer?September 1, 2010 8:03 pm at 8:03 pm #694376
Thanks, Telegrok. I remember it was a funny story.September 1, 2010 8:30 pm at 8:30 pm #694377SacrilegeMember
Missme – I believe the name of the thread is tank tops OVER shells, wherein you wouldnt see the total form fittingness of the shell. Pray-tell, why if the a shell is fitted on ones arms is that not tznius? taking into account that the elbows are covered…September 1, 2010 8:34 pm at 8:34 pm #694378
sacrilege, tight is pritzus. anything that needs to be covered, must be covered with something NOT tight. the elbows and upper arms must be covered, and the shell sleeves cannot be tight – just as any other clothing cannot be tight, otherwise it is pritzus.September 1, 2010 8:36 pm at 8:36 pm #694379tzippiMember
To YehudaF: While I hear the other side, gotta say, that was good. Thanks.September 1, 2010 8:39 pm at 8:39 pm #694380
tzippi, you expect your husband and sons to walk with their eyes closed when crossing the street (or just walking down the block)? your husband and sons don’t see your neighbors wives when they are both walking in front of your house? it is assur for them to even SEE (let alone notice) your neighbors wives and daughters when they aren’t dressed appropriately. unless they cross the street with their eyes closed (and pray a car doesn’t hit them) they WILL see. and human nature is if they see such a woman they will notice. if they don’t, they need a doctor.September 1, 2010 8:45 pm at 8:45 pm #694381aposhitermaidelParticipant
I went through Bais Yaakov and heard many classes on Tzniyus from very frum Rebbetzins and NEVER did I hear anything about a requirement for loose fitting sleeves!
As long as the elbow was covered – that is what we were told the Halacha is. I for one think it is great that shells are now worn under clothing. There are many people used to wear short sleeves or low cut shirts and and now that wearing a shell has become the norm – their arms and neck lines are covered more than they have been in the past.
Let’s be grateful for this idea and how it has caught on.
That being said – the layer on top should not be very tight or it defeats the purpose.September 1, 2010 8:47 pm at 8:47 pm #694383
sacrilege, TIGHT clothing is an aveira and against halacha, whether you live in meah sheorim, flatbush, smalltown-usa, kiryas yoel, timbuktu, london, or milwaukee. its not a sensitivity issue, its not minhug hamokem, it is plain basic outright halacha.September 1, 2010 9:02 pm at 9:02 pm #694385
exactly. elbows, upper arms, knees, upper legs, must be covered in NON-tight fitting clothing.
tight fitting clothing is against the very basic concepts of tznius and plain halacha, and as taught to every beis yaakov girl who paid attention.
there is no exceptions for tight fitting clothing. read simple halacha. whether its the waist, arms, or legs.September 1, 2010 9:16 pm at 9:16 pm #694386
its not pikuach nefesh when it is very easy to avoid, ie not riding the bike, if it involves a lack of tznius.”
Suppose it cannot be avoided, as in the girl has no other means of transportation? Maybe it is too far for her to walk, and she cannot spend money on taxis.September 1, 2010 9:26 pm at 9:26 pm #694387
Dressing in a manner that is not consistent with the accepted norms of tnzius, is not necessarily the same thing as out and out dressing with pritzus. Are you going to tell me that you equate a girl wearing a nice outfit, but the sleeves come a little above her elbow, and she is wearing sandals without stockings, with a zonah standing out on the corner at 42nd Street late at night, dressed to make some money? The former is perhaps not conforming to our ideals of tznius, but it is the LATTER that is pritzusdig.September 1, 2010 9:30 pm at 9:30 pm #694388smartcookieMember
Oomis- if her family spends money on luvav and esrog, or matzohs or any mitzvah, then spending money for tznius is a mitzvah too.
I can’t even imagine a situation where someone MUST ride a bike.September 1, 2010 9:34 pm at 9:34 pm #694389smile66Member
oomis – if you were extremely thirsty, and all you had available to you was
poison – $1
water – $50
would you buy the poison or the water? if ppl realized how terrible for them it was not to be tznius they would pay for the taxi.
i’m so happy that basmelech said that she gave up riding bikes long ago – cuz now i feel slightly more normal for not liking to ride. it’s almost impossible to stay tznius on a bike. if you wear a short skirt, no matter how long the short skirt is, it’s going to fly up in the wind, and you have to CONSTANTLY be pulling it back down, or standing up and wiggling your legs to get the skirt to go back down. it’s just not fun to ride a bike when every second you have to pay attention to your skirt, and also knowing that many times it does fly up and people see and then you feel horrible about yourself.
and if you wear a long skirt, it gets stuck all the time, and can possibly rip the skirt too, and you always have to be stopping to pull it out. plus what if it gets caught while you’re crossing a street or something?
bottom line = there is no realistically tznius way to ride a bike.
therefore = riding bikes is not tznius.September 1, 2010 9:34 pm at 9:34 pm #694390
“Are you going to tell me that you equate a girl wearing a nice outfit, but the sleeves come a little above her elbow…”
yes, “a little” above the elbow is pritzus. regardless of where you live. the same shulchan aruch applies everywhere.September 2, 2010 12:30 am at 12:30 am #694392dunnoMember
Despite popular belief, it is quite possible to ride a bike with your legs covered.September 2, 2010 12:32 am at 12:32 am #694393
100% of the time?
completely? safely? care to share the secret formula?September 2, 2010 1:15 am at 1:15 am #694394
I shared some of the comments of this thread with my wife. She has a question for those who emphaticly state “tight fitting sleeves are pritzusdik and in violation of hilchos tznius. “Can you please provide a source for this psak? The name of the Rav who issued it. The name of the sefer in which it appears. A tznius guide that mentions this. Something?”
Thanks.September 2, 2010 1:19 am at 1:19 am #694395
The source for tight clothing is anything but clear. I once saw it brought down from a Rashi in Masechta Shabbos about tying knots. They would lace up their garments or dresses instead of zippers. The gemara was discussing tying on Shabbos I think. Sometimes (maybe because of problem of tying on Shabbos) they would leave the garment tied. The gemara says a woman would not tie it too tight because then they would have to wriggle in and out of it, and it would take extra time to dress or undress. That would not be tniusdig. The gemara did not mention anything about while the garment is on the person it looks untzniusdig if it is tight. The problem was simply getting it on and off.
If anybody remembers the daf, please post. Also, if anybody has any other primary source for tightness being a problem, please post, as well.
Not everything that is attractive is untzniusdig. I mentioned orthodonture, as an example. Is getting beautiful teeth also a problem?September 2, 2010 1:20 am at 1:20 am #694396
Missme, for biking how about wearing baggy sweatpants under a kneelength skirt that won’t get stuck in the chain.September 2, 2010 2:20 am at 2:20 am #694397
When you use hyperbole like comparing bike riding to a choice of taking poison, then you fail to make your point. Bike riding may not be tzniusdig for a whole bunch of reasons, the clothing, IMO, being the least of them. I think the focus of seeing a woman’s view from the back is more probpematic. I do not advocate for bike riding. I MERELY pointed out in answer to the implied question of why would a woman need to ride a bike, that there could be a very good reason. Maybe she likes the exercise, maybe she cannot afford taxis everywhere (do you actually know how expensive car services are on a regular basis???). It is not for anyone to judge whether or not she can avoid it. The idea is to find tzniusdig ways to do something that in and of itself is not assur.
BTW, apropos of what Aposhitermaidel posted, I also never learned ONE WORD about the so-called “kosher” fit for sleeves. Not one Morah ever told us we should not wear tops made of leotard type material. In fact, they, and all the rebbetzins ALL dressed that way. They wore vests or such over them, but the long sleeves were all close-fitting. Did you never see a turtleneck sweater?September 2, 2010 2:24 am at 2:24 am #694398
“yes, “a little” above the elbow is pritzus. regardless of where you live. the same shulchan aruch applies everywhere. “
Missme, you sound very judgmental, if you truly in your heart believe that a nice sweet girl going to school in a short sleeve shirt, is morally equivalent to a hooker in Times Square. She may not be dressed to YOUR level of observance, but she most certainly is not a prutzah. I really hope Hashem does not judge any of us by such standards next week.September 2, 2010 3:00 am at 3:00 am #694399
Oomis 1105, if a woman’s dress does not conform to the minimum requirements of Halacha — it is pritsus. It is ossur for a woman to be seen dressed that way. If she is married, her husband can divorce her for that. Actually, it a mitsva for him to do so, if she refuses to behave herself.September 2, 2010 3:10 am at 3:10 am #694401
Oomis 1105, do not deceive yourself — Ribono shel Olam is much more judgmental than you would like like to think — He loves mishpat.
As far as the two types of women you mentioned go: yes, there is a difference — a difference between a small prutsa and a big one.September 2, 2010 3:16 am at 3:16 am #694402
SJSinNYC, if something is not kosher, it is treif.September 2, 2010 10:28 am at 10:28 am #694406
Do you know what a prutzah is? If people really understood then they wouldn’t toss this word around as if it were nothing.
Many women who don’t dress tzanua are still fairly modest. Most of them wear clothing that is just approximately at their knees or what not. Does it make what they are doing right? No. But it doesn’t mean they are anything close to what they are being called.
People call lettuce which does not have bugs removed treif. Its not really – if you eat around the bugs, the lettuce is perfectly fine.September 2, 2010 11:50 am at 11:50 am #694408haifagirlParticipant
Do you know what a prutzah is? If people really understood then they wouldn’t toss this word around as if it were nothing.
Thank you SJSinNYC for being the voice of reason in this discussion.September 2, 2010 12:18 pm at 12:18 pm #694409
SJSinNYC, How do you know what a prutsa is? Did you learn the divrei Chazal and poskim about the topic? Or you use for your guidlines the excuses that some women invented? A skirt not covering the knees is bad enough! And if they are allowed to get away with it, they very well may decide to start wearing short mini-skirts and claim that it is not pritsus! After all, they are not prancing around in bathing suits. A skirt covering the knees at all times is the minimum standard for not being considered a prutsa.September 2, 2010 1:02 pm at 1:02 pm #694410
Source that tightness by arms is not allowed.September 2, 2010 1:10 pm at 1:10 pm #694411
same source that any tightness is not allowed. better ask for any purported source why the upper arm should be different than the upper leg.September 2, 2010 1:12 pm at 1:12 pm #694412
mdd, I didn’t say communities should condone improper dress
Lets have a halachic definition of prutzah please. Because AFAIK, its someone who will take payment for improper behavior.
I was trying to think of an equivalent term for men to explain why its offensive, but couldn’t..
EDITEDSeptember 2, 2010 1:23 pm at 1:23 pm #694413
Good. Source for the upper leg.
And source that they are the same, other than your “Boich Svarah” (got that term from the CR!)September 2, 2010 1:23 pm at 1:23 pm #694414
You are thinking of a Kedaisha.September 2, 2010 1:33 pm at 1:33 pm #694415
So GAW, is there a halachic definition of prutza?September 2, 2010 1:45 pm at 1:45 pm #694416
SJSinNYC, you are talking about a zonah or a k’deishah. Has ve’sholom, these Jewish women are not that. A prutsa is someone who does not dress or act modestly (according to the standards of the Chazal). But part of the reason why it is ossur to act pritsusdic is because we are worried it should not come , has ve’sholom, to worse things.September 2, 2010 2:00 pm at 2:00 pm #694417
Prutza in the Gemorah (megillah 12b):
????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ?”? ?? ????
?????? ???? means Prutza (Rashi).
I can’t speak for current usage.September 2, 2010 2:08 pm at 2:08 pm #694418
I stand corrected then.September 2, 2010 2:19 pm at 2:19 pm #694419mybatMember
Since upper arms are like upper legs, why doesn’t anyone wear skirts on their arms? Or maybe we should start a trend!September 2, 2010 2:34 pm at 2:34 pm #694420
gavra, are you doubting the requirement that clothing not be tight, or simply questioning the source whilst acknowledging that fact? If the latter, why would you acknowledge clothing cannot be tight yet assume one part cannot be whilst another can be?September 2, 2010 2:38 pm at 2:38 pm #694421
Gavra, we are talking about the current usage, and the way it is used in the Rishonim and Achronim. And the gemorah, you brought, is not conclusive, either. And when someone calls a woman a prutsa, a zonah is not implied.September 2, 2010 2:40 pm at 2:40 pm #694422
Kasha: Love to see you! Welcome back!
I am just asking for a source, nothing more. Would you happen to have one?September 2, 2010 2:42 pm at 2:42 pm #694423
To Kasha & Missme:
In everyones fav. book by R. Falk, it says sleeves must not be loose.September 2, 2010 2:50 pm at 2:50 pm #694424YW Moderator-80Member
gavra thats aquite surprising statement, isnt it?
why do you suppose he says that?
what is the context?
is it possible he is referring to the arm being visible if the sleeve is TOO loose?
is he implying in that statement that skin tight is fine?
does he state elsewhere in his book anything about skin tight?September 2, 2010 3:02 pm at 3:02 pm #694426
The passage gavra is quoting is P. 589 stating “Sleeves must amply cover the elbows. They should not be loose enough to roll up.” As 80 correctly assumed.
There is good reason many (including Litvish) beis yaakov’s use this sefer, per the instructions of gedolei yisroel shlita.September 2, 2010 3:11 pm at 3:11 pm #694428
gavra, I believe it is derived from Shabbos 112a, the issur of “tying a knot and bow that is to remain for 24 hours.” See Rashi, Meiri, and Chidushei HaRan on this gemorah. There are other sources and poskim as well.September 2, 2010 3:18 pm at 3:18 pm #694429
So I’ve been googling and not that its 100% but what I have found for definitions of prutzah is “loose woman” and under pritzut “licentiousness” (morally unrestrained, esp. in inappropriate activity).
A woman who shows part of her elbow is NOT a loose woman, even if she is doing something incorrect.
I find this language inappropriate.September 2, 2010 3:21 pm at 3:21 pm #694430
SJS, mdd’s above description of a prutza from the Rishonim and Achronim is more accurate than your googling. A woman who goes around with her arms or legs showing is a prutza.September 2, 2010 3:24 pm at 3:24 pm #694431
Kasha, in fact, many frum schools do not use R. Falks sefer, since he has so many chumras in there that people confuse with halacha. For example, he has an entire discussion in exruciating detail of what types and colors and thickness of socks are permitted, when according to Reb Moshe, socks are not required at all, as long as knee is covered. R. Falk discusses the degree of reflection of light off of various colors of socks.
I am still waiting for anybody to provide a clear source that tightness anywhere is a real halachic problem.
- The topic ‘wearing a tank top with a shell under???’ is closed to new replies.