Who says above knee osur

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Who says above knee osur

Viewing 14 posts - 101 through 114 (of 114 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1022331

    notasheep
    Member

    I’m sure Rav Falk gives plenty of sources in Oz V’hodor Levusha on this topic. And whilst I’m not sure I would agree with everything he says, covering the form of the legs from the knees up is absolutely non-negotiable. And that means with a skirt.

    #1022332

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    notasheep – Once again, Rav Vosner disagrees with you, as he allows women to wear snowpants.

    #1022333

    benignuman
    Participant

    I am pretty sure that there was another thread on this topic where the sources were discussed.

    In short (no pun intended), covering until the knee is a gemara in Brochos and is required regardless of what people do (although a poster last time disputed this). Wearing pants or tights above the knee (and not covering it with a skirt) is a matter of Das Yehudis. This means the tznius standards of the frum women in your community.

    #1022334

    notasheep
    Member

    Wearing a snowsuit for something like skiing is allowed since a person can’t really go skiing without one. However they are so bulky that the form of the legs is not really distinguishable any more, they just look like two big chunks.

    However most people do not wear them as everyday wear, and a ruling for such a situation would NOT therefore allow women to wear leggings or trousers without the skirt on top as a matter of course.

    #1022335

    frumnotyeshivish
    Participant

    There are two broad types of questions that might be asked on this topic:

    1. What should I do? How should I dress? What is required of me? What is ideal for me?

    2. What should we do about the broad “crisis”? How do I control others’ behavior? How come everyone else dresses like either a Muslim or a harlot?

    The first line of questioning is not only ideal but required of all Jews. The second line of questioning is very tricky. It is possible for someone to ask these questions with altruistic motives, in which case they are only USUALLY wrong for doing so, but often times they arise out of catty pettiness in which it is difficult to envision it ever being okay.

    #1022337

    oomis
    Participant

    Not to go into it here, but I was told that there is an entirely different reason why (even bulky) pants would not be permitted for women, even where the shape of the legs is not discernible.

    #1022338

    notasheep
    Member

    Oomis, I was merely trying to point out why a snowsuit might be permitted for certain situations, such as skiing. In no way do I agree that that means that wearing non form-showing trousers is therefore also permitted. And nor do I mean that a girl should decide she can take up skiing as a regular hobby or sport so she can wear a snowsuit.

    It’s like the heter with showing hair at the front – a specific ruling was given by R’ Moshe for a very specific sheila and it has somehow been twisted to become a worldwide ‘accepted’ ruling.

    A girl who respected herself and the image she gives across would not even ask questions about ‘who says that this is assur?’ – as FNY said, this comes from pettiness.

    #1022339

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    notasheep – Nasata Divarecha L’shiurin!

    #1022340

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    It’s like the heter with showing hair at the front – a specific ruling was given by R’ Moshe for a very specific sheila and it has somehow been twisted to become a worldwide ‘accepted’ ruling.

    IIRC, he doesn’t write that context into the teshuvah. However, he does acknowledge that he’s arguing with the Chasam Sofer, and worse, people somehow use it to expose a lot more hair than he ever allowed.

    Tefach means area, but it seems that many women think it’s linear. And they’re makpid on the Chazon Ish’s shiur.

    #1022341

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    And they’re makpid on the Chazon Ish’s shiur.

    Like!

    #1022342

    benignuman
    Participant

    This all depends on whether one views the examples of Daas Yehudis mentioned in the Mishna as fixed or as something that can change depending on the tznius standard of frum women in each time and place.

    If they are fixed, then Reb Moshe’s disagreement with the Chasam Sofer is limited to what Reb Moshe was specifically mattir. If, however, Daas Yehudis is different depending on the time and place, then once one argues on the Chasam Sofer (who held that every hair must be covered) there is no limiting principle beyond substantial coverage and the norms of the community.

    #1022343

    benignuman
    Participant

    I have not read through every post in the thread. Has anyone posted a source for the proposition that being able to tell the form of legs is problematic?

    #1022344

    notasheep
    Member

    Like I said earlier, I’m sure Rav Falk cites sources in his book.

    #1022345

    benignuman
    Participant

    notasheep,

    I don’t have access to the book at this time but if I remember correctly (I read the book many years ago) the only source was discussing garments so thin such that they are see through. In such a case the Gemara in Berachos (25b) applies: ????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ?????.

    While many nylon stockings are see through and would be problematic, this should not apply to pants.

Viewing 14 posts - 101 through 114 (of 114 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Trending