August 6, 2012 4:23 pm at 4:23 pm #1022278
GAW, Rabbeinu Yonah, off hand.
MDD, Rabbi O’Shanter, off hand.
Naming names is not a source, and Rabbanu Yona’s ???? ????? (unless you mean the perush on Brachos, then maybe) is not a Halacha Sefer, nor is it used to source Halacha.
Once again, source?August 6, 2012 4:28 pm at 4:28 pm #1022279
Toi: Halacha is Halacha. I’m glad you follow it.
Choppy, correct, but that is exactly the problem. If you don’t know the Halacha, then how will you ever convince anyone to be Tzanuah?August 6, 2012 4:35 pm at 4:35 pm #1022280
GAW: No, Rabbeinu Yonah actually holds that. Then again, he holds that even eyes are Ervah because they are praised in Shir Hashirim. Suffice it to say I think no one holds like the Rabbeinu Yonah.August 6, 2012 4:39 pm at 4:39 pm #1022281
GAW: No, Rabbeinu Yonah actually holds that. Then again, he holds that even eyes are Ervah because they are praised in Shir Hashirim. Suffice it to say I think no one holds like the Rabbeinu Yonah.
In addition, based on the Gemaros in Brachos, it would seem that (if that is what Rabbanu Yona says) that he is correct (besides that the Amoraim on the Gemorah disagree. I would like to think that the Amoraim on the Daf had a reason).August 6, 2012 4:45 pm at 4:45 pm #1022282
There are valid opinions halacha l’maaisa (mainly among Sefardishe Poskim) that women must dress in a cover similar to how the Arab women dress today. It is brought down in many halacha seforim and it is in fact how the Jewish women in various kehillos dressed (before they were forced out and moved to Eretz Yisroel.)August 6, 2012 4:52 pm at 4:52 pm #1022283
mdd: Why did you feel the need to write about YU when you disagree with someone’s view on tznius?August 6, 2012 5:03 pm at 5:03 pm #1022284
Whatever Rabbeinu Yonah says in “Sha’arei Te’shuvah” is his halochic opinion.August 6, 2012 6:00 pm at 6:00 pm #1022285
GAW: It should be in the Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah on the Rif on that Daf in Brachos, if I recall correctly.August 6, 2012 6:53 pm at 6:53 pm #1022286
Sam: Thanks, I’ll take a look when I get home.August 6, 2012 6:59 pm at 6:59 pm #1022287
IN the meantime, it (to the best of my knowledge) doesn’t say in any of the Halachic seforim (or course Hashkaficly it is nice, as MDD points out, but we are dealing with Halacha) that a woman must dress in a manner that doesn’t cause histaklus by a man.
I am looking forward to being corrected.August 6, 2012 7:09 pm at 7:09 pm #1022288
Al pi halacha (not just hashkafa), a woman is prohibited to dress in a manner that will cause Hirhurim.August 6, 2012 7:17 pm at 7:17 pm #1022289
Al pi halacha (not just hashkafa), a woman is prohibited to dress in a manner that will cause Hirhurim.
1: That is different than what MDD said. I could probably source that.
2: Source in Halacha?August 6, 2012 7:24 pm at 7:24 pm #1022290
GAW: Look at either the last or second to last paragraph in Igros Moshe CM 2:11 (maybe it’s 2:12?). It doesn’t relate it to Hirhur (sort of) but it means something (what it means, exactly, I’m still not sure).August 6, 2012 7:34 pm at 7:34 pm #1022291
mdd – Please, I don’t need you to tell me what to do. First of all, it’s not a daas yachid.* Second, it makes no difference if it would be, because I hold this is a davar pashut, and last time I checked numbers don’t determine Halacha. We are having a Halachic discussion and I am giving my honest opinion that I am confident about. Oh and FYI I’m in BMG. Not that I have something against YU.
*For example, the Chazon Ish (OC 16) was metzaded like the Aruch HaShulchan, R’ Moshe (Igros 1:42) relied on him, as does R’ Ovadia (Yabia Omer 6:13) and many others.August 6, 2012 8:47 pm at 8:47 pm #1022292
It is for sure true as far as hirhurim go. GAW, speak to Rabbi Forst of Far Rockaway.
Yeshayhu Ha’Novi (and the relevant Gemora) castigated married women of his time for dressing and acting in certain ways(which were meant to attract the attention of men).August 6, 2012 9:06 pm at 9:06 pm #1022293
Yittai, they said it concerning ervah minhagis — hair of a married woman, not about wearing mini-skirts and low-cut dresses.
And any red-bloodied man will tell you that one does get used to and becomes unaffectable by the ladies dressed in the abovementioned fashion.
Your shittos sound like the YU, not like the BMG.August 6, 2012 9:14 pm at 9:14 pm #1022294
Yittai, look in Igros Moshe. He openly states the chiluk I mentioned.August 6, 2012 9:16 pm at 9:16 pm #1022295
Oh please, yitayningwut. What’s your point about mentioning being in BMG, when we all know your hashkofos (if not halachas) are the polar opposite from BMG. Whether your reliance on the extreme kulos of Rabbi Abadi (I know his former affiliations too) that the Yeshiva communities doesn’t even come close to using, whether on eating foods without a hashgacha based on reading the ingredient list or the myriad of other issues you’ve often mentioned here where you take a very liberal view of things.August 6, 2012 11:08 pm at 11:08 pm #1022296
<sidebar> yitay – are you in Chicago? The guy in front of me at 7-11 was buying wrigleys gum and I wanted to tell him they weren’t kosher but was afraid it was you and that you would yell at me.August 7, 2012 1:40 am at 1:40 am #1022297
Toi, The Aruch HaShulchan bemoans the fact that never-married girls do not cover their hair and Rav Ovadia says thst they should when davening and making berachot just as men do (really one should ask why the minhag is not lie him).August 7, 2012 2:07 am at 2:07 am #1022298
Syag – Lol, no, I’m not. Do I come off as someone who would yell at you? If so, I apologize. I guess I need to change the way I express myself. I am so not the type to do that.
As for this thread, I’m out. I can’t deal with it. We are operating on different premises, so there’s no point.August 7, 2012 2:15 am at 2:15 am #1022299
yitay – PLEASE be moichel me! I didn’t mean you were the yelling type at all. I meant it tongue in cheek because it felt like pure deja vu from that thread about the girl who saw someone buy a “non-kosher” candy bar at 7-11 and you said she may be relying on the ingredients. Truth is, on his way out his kids asked for the gum and he said he couldn’t give it to them until he found out if it was kosher. I only meant to bring back good memories of an old thread 🙂August 7, 2012 2:16 am at 2:16 am #1022300
Yitay: I’m sorry. It’s too bad that someone here couldn’t just discuss a Halachic concept without making personal attacks.August 7, 2012 4:31 am at 4:31 am #1022301
Just last night I was told off for saying that one has to wash for a “mezonot” roll. The person claimed that I was “poseling” people who don’t wash and say “mezonot”August 7, 2012 1:11 pm at 1:11 pm #1022302
Yeshayhu Ha’Novi (and the relevant Gemora) castigated married women of his time for dressing and acting in certain ways(which were meant to attract the attention of men).
Yitay, a woman is obligated to be dressed tzniusdic so as not to cause men to stumble as far as hirhurim( and histaklus) are concerned.
These are two completely different statements. One may not dress B’davka to attract the attention of men. That is Da’as Yehudis (Vered). You have not given me a source that one must make sure that one’s clothing does not cause hirhurim & histaklus in some men. It is not the woman’s fault if some (or even many or most) men are twisted (starts with a P).
If you meant the top statement, thaen I agree & have a source.August 7, 2012 3:08 pm at 3:08 pm #1022303
Gavra: “Twisted”? It it the human nature of men to notice when a woman is dressed as such. It isn’t twisted. Hence women’s obligation not to dress as such.August 7, 2012 3:51 pm at 3:51 pm #1022304
Syag – No worries, it’s all good 🙂
Sam – Yup.August 7, 2012 6:11 pm at 6:11 pm #1022306
Gavra: “Twisted”? It it the human nature of men to notice when a woman is dressed as such. It isn’t twisted. Hence women’s obligation not to dress as such.
Only if they are dressed “as such”. As the old (untrue) statement goes:
“Just because I am dressed like a Wh-re (Zona), doesn’t mean you can treat me as one”. It just isn’t true, not in the Jewish, work or outside world.
However, there is a chasm of difference between dressing like a Zona and “obligated to be dressed tzniusdic so as not to cause men to stumble as far as hirhurim( and histaklus) are concerned”. One can dress “normal” and still not make the Meah Shearim/Beitar crowd happy, and even cause hirhurim by many men if they see her. Such a woman is not Mechuyav to dress in a Burka or Goth so that men won’t look at her as a woman (as opposed to a Goth).October 25, 2012 3:26 pm at 3:26 pm #1022307
Ittisa is asking me if I have a source why the area from the knee to the torso is any different then the area from the elbow to the shoulder. Anyone have anything off the top of their heads?October 25, 2012 6:07 pm at 6:07 pm #1022308
Is Ittisa considering brandishing the area from the knee to the torso?October 25, 2012 7:21 pm at 7:21 pm #1022309
Is Ittisa considering brandishing the area from the knee to the torso?
No. She was reviewing Hilchos Tznius and couldn’t find a source as per why sleeves ARE allowed, and if they are, why aren’t loose pants with a long blouse (like the Muslims wear). I had my ideas why, but wanted to get yours.October 26, 2012 1:23 am at 1:23 am #1022310
GAW: See T’shuvos B’nei Banim Chelek 1 (maybe 2?) who is M’chalek between the two.June 26, 2014 6:10 pm at 6:10 pm #1022312
“You have not given me a source that one must make sure that one’s clothing does not cause hirhurim & histaklus in some men. It is not the woman’s fault if some (or even many or most) men are twisted (starts with a P).”
Not sure if this is what you want – Orchos Tzadikim Shaar Hagaveh:
??? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???, ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ???????? ??June 26, 2014 11:23 pm at 11:23 pm #1022313
PAA- Firstly, one can say that your [hashkafic] source is focused on when the intent is to dress up for the men (similar to yeshaya hanavi above).
Secondly, I’m having a hard time understanding the kal vachomer. Is it from the issur of men to look at clothes to the issur of a woman dressing up for men? If so, one can only make such a k”v if the intent of the woman is to attract. Otherwise the burden would be on the man just like it is with the clothes. Even as such the k’v is difficult as for a man to have hihurim is clearly the primary issue.June 27, 2014 12:45 am at 12:45 am #1022314
I think the kal vachomer is that looking at clothes is ????? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? and women who are ?????? ???? ?????? is even more ????? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? therefore it is surely assur.June 27, 2014 1:51 am at 1:51 am #1022315
Why does everyone assume that everyone else gets to choose what to wear?June 27, 2014 2:39 am at 2:39 am #1022316
“It is not merely a custom or a rule that lacks universality.”
It definitely lacks universality.June 27, 2014 2:47 am at 2:47 am #1022317
“Pants are inherently a Beged Ish”
“My Rosh Yeshiva told me that years ago, the first women who wore pants were not allowed to because it’s a beged ish. Now, however, there are pants made specifically for women, and it is normal for women to wear them.”
WADR, they are both wrong. Trousers have been worn by both men and women for thousands of years. They went out of style for women in Christian Europe, but not in the Islamic Middle East, so the absolute ban on women wearing trousers is a clearly goyish influence from the Christians.
Trousers came back into style for American women on the frontier in the 19th century, wearing men’s pants for outdoor work and for riding horses. Levi’s finally produced a model of blue jeans for women in the 1930s and they became an immediate hit. Today the overwhelming majority of Jewish and non-Jewish women in free countries wear trousers at least part of the time.
Meanwhile, to this day, modest Muslim women wear trousers (often with a long tunic covering the top of their trousers).June 27, 2014 1:11 pm at 1:11 pm #1022319
I am amazed that someone can take a statement which says “??? ???? ????” and try to minimize the severity by relegating it to the realm of “mere” hashkafah.June 27, 2014 2:45 pm at 2:45 pm #1022320
Charliehall, a MO professor, telling us about foreign influences!?! The problems with pants are that they cause hirhurim and are inapproptriate (look Pesochim 3B (I think)).June 27, 2014 2:55 pm at 2:55 pm #1022321
DY: The Ribbono Shel OLam cares more about the Hashkafa of the matter than the pure Halacha. Look at any Navi and you will see that is the case.
Unfortunately, I have been hearing the term to “Jew” someone is to “trick” them into something that would then not need to be followed under strict Halacha or contract law, all in the name of “following halacha”, but not with the Hashkafic aspects of Yashrus and V’Ahavta ‘Lerayacha Kamocha in mind. There was actually a Mishpacha article last week about this, where a “frum” guy sold his home to another frum guy, but was convinced by the buyer not to get a lawyer’s contract, as they are two “frum” guys. Huge mistake. It is becoming more and more common in the business world to know to never trust an Orthodox Jew.
Specifically here, following the letter of Tznius without the spirit (to get dressed up before men so they can stare at her) IS in fact against Das Yehudis, as I pointed out earlier in the thread (as FNY said as well).June 27, 2014 3:45 pm at 3:45 pm #1022322
pants are that they cause hirhurim
That is an assumption which Rav Vosner (who allows snowpants) disagrees with.June 27, 2014 4:10 pm at 4:10 pm #1022323
Gavra, I put “mere” in parentheses because I think it is important. I don’t know if there’s more importance to either; they are both ratzon Hashem.June 27, 2014 4:12 pm at 4:12 pm #1022324
“Charliehall, a MO professor, telling us about foreign influences”
This does show, however, that the charedi world is also subject to foreign influence.June 27, 2014 4:56 pm at 4:56 pm #1022325
mdd: By your source, it should be Muttar to wear pants if one feels uncomfortable and/or scared by wearing a skirt. That’s not the source.June 27, 2014 7:14 pm at 7:14 pm #1022326
DY- No one is saying hashkafa is unimportant. The orchos tzadikim is an important sefer and everything in it should be taken seriously when one is working on one’s self. When one is dictating dress codes to others, however, one is required to prove one’s position from a halachic source. And, obviously, the burden is on the dictator.June 27, 2014 7:37 pm at 7:37 pm #1022327
“The orchos tzadikim is an important sefer and everything in it should be taken seriously when one is working on one’s self. When one is dictating dress codes to others, however, one is required to prove one’s position from a halachic source. And, obviously, the burden is on the dictator”
I am very far from dictating dress codes to others. But as you said the Orchos Tzadikim is for people to work on themselves. I quoted the relevant portion for women to work on themselves. But either which way, you don’t have to use the Orchos Tzadikim as the source; you can use the kal vachomer as the source. Unless you have a pircha in which case I would like to hear it.June 29, 2014 6:27 am at 6:27 am #1022328
The obvious issue with the kv: men looking at “tzivonim” has both a kal and chamur aspect. Kal – clothing vs. women. Chamur – man looking vs. woman dressing.June 29, 2014 1:26 pm at 1:26 pm #1022329
When one is dictating dress codes to others, however, one is required to prove one’s position from a halachic source.
The Orchos Tzaddikim didn’t hold back from saying how women shouldn’t dress. I am still amazed that you think people should or should not be “dictated to” based on whether you choose to call it halachic or hashkafic.
And the answer to your “pircha” is that the kal vachomer is based on the reality that men do notice women.June 29, 2014 9:36 pm at 9:36 pm #1022330
I have been hearing the term to “Jew” someone is to “trick” them into something “
My understanding of the term is that it means to finagle/bargain them down financially. Because everyone knows how cheap the Jews are. Clearly. I once saw a People’s Court, when Judge Wapner was still alive, and the plaintiff foolishly used that term when talking about the defendant(not Jewish) who tried to get him to lower his price on whatever it was that was in dispute. The Judge immediately gave him mussar about the offensiveness of the term, adding that it would nevertheless not influence his decision that this had been said by the plaintiff, but he wanted him to know that it was unacceptable to ever use such a term. And the plaintiff apologized.
He lost the case anyway.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.