Friday, August 9, 2013

Daas Torah - Prohibition against clear and flesh colored stockings




שו"ת אגרות משה 
 
אבן העזר חלק ד סימן ק


ו. אם יש טעם להקפיד שילכו הבנות באנפילאות כשאין מקפידין שלא יהו דקות כך שהבשר לא יראה מתוכן.


ובהא שיש אנשים שמקפידים שלא ילכו נשותיהן ובנותיהן בלא אנפילאות על רגליהן אבל אין מקפידין שיהיו האנפילאות באופן שא"א להראות שכתר"ה הקשה דאיזה חלוק יש דאם חשיבין לערוה גם למטה מהארכובה שקורין קני"א אין מועילין כלום דערוה בעששית אסור ואם כהמ"ב שאינו בדין ערוה אין צורך אנפילאות, האמת הוא שהוא לצניעות יותר מחמת שלהלכה עד הקני"א אינו ערוה. אבל איכא גם טעם להצניעות בזה משום שבעצם אין החוטים אף מהאנפילאות הדקין שייך שיראה בשר הרגלים והראיה שכשהן צבועין לבן ושחור לא נראה בשר הרגלים ורק מחמת שצבועין בצבע כמראה הבשר לכן נמצא שבעצם הם מכוסין ולא נראין כלל רק שנדמה לאינשי כנראין, שלכן אף במקום שהוא בדין ערוה ממש נמי הא איכא חלוק מאחר דעכ"פ הערוה מכוסה אך שיש לאסור משום דאיכא הרהור עכ"פ מזה שנראין כבשר וא"כ באם הוא מקום שאינו מביא לידי הרהור כהא דלמטה מארכובה אף אם היה עכ"פ בדין ערוה לא היה שום איסור, ונוגע לדינא ממש בקטנות שליכא הרהור אך שמ"מ הוא בדין ערוה שיהיה מותר באנפילאות כאלו, וזהו אולי טעמם.


והנני ידידו 
משה פיינשטיין
=================================================
שו"ת שבט הלוי חלק א סימן א

כבוד ידידי הרב הגאון הצ' אהוב למעלה ונחמד למטה כש"ת מו"ה בנימין זאב. יעקבזון שליט"א רב פאג"י סנהדרי' יצ"ו. אחדשה"ט באהבה וכבוד.

יקרת מכתבו קבלתי ושמחתי להקשיב משלומו הטוב. ואודות שאלתו שאלת חכם בענין הנשים גם נשואות ההולכות בלי גרבים, אם יש בזה גלוי ערוה מצד הדין ואם צריך למחות.

אעבור פרשתא דא בקיצור וה' יהי' אתנו.

בברכות כ"ד ע"א אר"י טפח באשה ערוה למאי אילימא לאסתכולי והאמר ר"ש וכו' אלא באשתו ולענין ק"ש א"ר חסדא שוק באשה ערוה. ופירש"י שוק באשת איש ערוה להסתכל וכן באשתו לק"ש. ובשו"ע סימן ע"ה ס"א טפח מגולה באשה במקום שדרכה לכסותו וכו' וברמ"א וי"א דוקא באשתו אבל באשה אחרת אפילו פחות מטפח הוי ערוה. וכתב בספר משנה ברורה שם אבל פניה וידיה כפי המנהג שדרך להיות מגולה באותו מקום וכן פרסות רגל עד השוק והוא עד מקום שנקרא קני"א בל"א במקום שדרכן לילך יחף מותר לקרות כנגדן וכו' אבל זרועותיה ושוקה אפי' רגילין לילך כדרך הפרוצות אסור ע"כ, וציין שם דדבריו לקוחים מהח"א ופמ"ג.

והנה מוכח מזה דדעת הגאון מ"ב דדרך הפרוצות דהוא בכלל דת יהודית שמוציאין עבורה אשה מבעלה מעיקר הדין עפ"י המבואר כתובות ע"ב מתחיל רק מארכובה דהיינו קני"א ולמעלה ונמשך בזה אחרי החיי"א ופרמ"ג, ובמכתה"ג דבריו צ"ע, דדברי החיי"א אינם משמע כן וגם בדברי הפמ"ג צ"ע.

וז"ל החיי"א כלל ד' ס"ב כל גופה של אשה מה שדרכה להיות מכוסה נקרא ערוה וכו' וכן פרסות רגליה במקום שדרך לילך יחף מותר אבל זרועותיה ושוקה אפי' רגילין בכך כדרך "פרוצות" אסור ע"כ, הרי דלא התיר אלא פרסות רגליה, אבל לא חלק הרגל שלמעלה מן הפרסה דהיינו קנאכע"ל בל"א עד ארכובה (קני"א) דזה באמת בכלל שוק כאשר אבאר אי"ה להלן.

אלא דעיקר העתקת מ"ב בזה מהפמ"ג, וגם זה צ"ע, דז"ל הפמ"ג במ"ז סק"א והוי יודע דלשון שוק הוא מארכובה (עיין רש"י ויקרא ז' ל"ב, ובתוי"ט פ"י דחולין מ"ד וכ"פ הרמב"ם פ"ט ה"י ממעה"ק ושוק לפעמים נקרא ירך, כ"ז בפרמ"ג), ונמצא כל הרגל עד הקני"א במקום שהולכין יחף ומגולה אפשר אין חשש וכו' עכ"ל. הנה הפמ"ג כתב זה דרך אפשר והמ"ב החליט הדברים.

אמנם גם גוף דברי רבינו הפמ"ג לא זכיתי להבין מש"כ דשוק באדם מתחיל רק מארכובה דהיינו הקני"א ולמעלה והיינו משום דהבין הפמ"ג דשוק דאדם דומיא דשוק דבהמה דמבואר לענין חזה ושוק במשנה וגמרא חולין שם ובתוי"ט שם וברמב"ם הנ"ל דהוא מפרק ארכובה התחתונה ולמעלה עד הגוף ב' פרקים דהיינו פרק אמצעי מן הרגל ופרק העליון וס"ל להפמ"ג דארכובה התחתונה של בהמה כנגדה ארכובת האדם דהיינו הקני"א ורק משם ולמעלה מתחיל השוק, וזה צע"ג דהא כבר הוכיחו תוס' מנחות ל"ז ע"א ד"ה קיבורית דשוק דאדם לא הוי כשוק דבהמה, דשוק דאדם מתחיל מיד אחר הרגל התחתון לפני הארכוביא דהיינו הקני"א, וכן הוכיח הגרעק"א בתשובותיו מהדו"ת סימן כ"ח בראיות נכונות דשוק דאדם למטה מן הקני"א, וא"כ תמה אני על עצמי דמה"ת לנו לחלק בין שוק דאדם דמתניתין דאהלות פ"א שהביאו תוס' הנ"ל ועוד כ"ד דמוכח כן כמבואר בתשובת הגרעק"א לשוק של ענינינו דלימא דשוק של גלוי ערוה רק למעלה מן הארכובה, וכיון דכל חילי' דפמ"ג רק מדמיון שוק של בהמה וכבר כתבנו דאין משם ראיה, א"כ שוב הדרינן לסתם לשון שוק שבשאר מקומות שכולל נמי חלק הרגל אשר למטה מן הקני"א, ושפיר דייק החיי"א לכתוב וכן פרסות רגליה וכו', דרק זה מותר באיתגליא, וכל השאר צריך להיות מכוסה, או בבגד, או עכ"פ בגרבים.

ונראה לענ"ד ראיה לזה מלשון הב"י ממש"כ על דברי הטור בסימן ע"ה שכתב וכן אם שוקה מגולה וכו' וז"ל הב"י כלומר שאע"פ שאינו מקום צנוע באיש הוי ערוה באשה, ואי ס"ד דהיינו ממקום הברך עד הגוף, היתכן קס"ד כזאת שמקום זה לא יהיה ערוה באשה מקום שהוא המרגיל הכי גדול לערוה ורגליה יורדת מות כתיב. ותו דגם באיש מקום זה מקום צנוע הוא, כדמשמע במגילה כ"ד ע"א ע"ש רש"י ד"ה פוחח ועש"ה כ"ד ע"ב רש"י ד"ה קטן, ועש"ה בהגהות הב"ח אות ב' דמפורש כן וע"ש בטו"א ורש"ש בזה. אלא כנ"ל דהבית יוסף קרא גם לפרק שלמטה מן הארכובה שוק וזה דקמ"ל דגם זה בכלל ערוה לענין ק"ש וגלוי ערוה לענין אשת איש.

וכיו"ב מדברי הב"ח שם במה שכתב דהיה סברא מבחוץ דאין לחוש כלל לגילוי השוק וכו' ואפילו בא"א ליכא איסור להסתכל בהם (לולא דקמ"ל הטור) דמן הסתם הן מלוכלכות בטיט וצואה ולא יגיע לידי הרהור וכו' יעש"ה ופמ"ג הנ"ל ואי ס"ד דהב"ח אשוק שלמעלה מן הארכובה עד הגוף קאי, א"כ אין לך תמהון לבב גדול מזה שיעלה על לב שום טועה דיהיה מותר להסתכל בא"א בירך הסמוך למקום הגוף ממש. וגם וכי שם מן הסתם מלוכלך בטיט וכו' (והיינו מחמת מלאכה וכיו"ב כמש"כ הפמ"ג), אלא ודאי כמש"כ עפ"י תוס' מנחות הנ"ל דשוק דאדם מתחיל למעלה מרגל התחתון, ועפ"י דין צריך להיות מכוסה או בבגד או בגרבים וכיו"ב, ולא מצאתי כדי סמיכה להתיר, מאחר שבחיי"א מבואר לאיסור ובפמ"ג אינו מבואר להיתר כנ"ל. והקב"ה יצילנו משגיאות ויטהר לבנו לעבדו באמת. ידידו דוש"ת מצפה לחסדי ה'.

ועיין בלשון רשב"ם ב"ב נ"ז ע"ב ד"ה לפי, משמע קצת כדברינו, וכבר העיר בזה בתשובת צור יעקב ח"ב סי' א' בהגה בן המחבר זצ"ל, וע"ש בפנים התשובה. וכבר כתבנו דבתשובת הגרעק"א מהד"ת הכריע כדהתוס' מנחות ל"ז דיש חילוק בין שוק דאדם לבהמה והיינו לחומרא כמש"כ. .
Posted by at

58 comments :

  1. koillel nickAugust 9, 2013 at 2:17 PM

    Mishna Brura siman 75 permits no stockings, and his source is Pri Megadim.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Daas TorahAugust 9, 2013 at 2:30 PM

    see Shevet Halevi I just added who objects to this understanding

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mighty Garnel IronheartAugust 9, 2013 at 3:38 PM

    Yes, of course he does.
    Look, why don't they just go ahead and make the burka mandatory? It's logical, after all. If clear stockins are forbidden then why aren't black ones? They're still tight so you can see the shape of the woman's ankle, chas v'chalilah. Put the women in burlap sacks. And while we're at it, who gave them permission to learn to read?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ben TorahAugust 9, 2013 at 4:43 PM

      If you don't like Judaism find yourself another religion. Christianity is pretty liberal about these stuff.

      Delete
    2. PizazzAugust 9, 2013 at 9:17 PM

      While I understand you taking offense at the Mighty's tone, it is pretty ridiculous to equate his words with arguing against the Torah and Judaism. He is merely using his own logic to bemoan why others don't' see fit to accept a position that is unquestionably sanctioned by the Torah. IN other words what is the logic in accepting an illogical stringency? I am not saying I agree with him and definitely not with his tone, but you are frankly an irrational exaggerator.

      Delete
    3. StevenAugust 10, 2013 at 12:18 PM

      Ben Torah, Is this Judaism?? Really?? And men aren't allowed to wear watches because they are women's clothing, google it. Well, hats were started being worn by women, google it. So they should also be banned.

      Instead of quoting simanim, people should start quoting the fifth chelek of common sense, before it becomes too much and too ridiculous and masses of young people frie out to nothing and keep nothing, instead of being happily frum and wearing whatever coloured stockings or watches. Don't think there were also chumras three hundred years ago and people were presumably also Jewish and frum and happy.

      Delete
  4. Ben MIkraAugust 9, 2013 at 4:04 PM

    any other colour or pattern permitted?

    ReplyDelete
  5. RaffiAugust 9, 2013 at 4:25 PM

    This is a major, major issue in the Jewish community that has long been ignored. Thank goodness our gedolim are finally doing something about it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousAugust 9, 2013 at 4:27 PM

    MGI , it would be nice if you had some respect for halachic pluralism. Achronim are allowed to disagree with the Mishna Brura. They should not be mocked as if they are out of bounds.

    ben dov
    1honestlyfrum.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mighty Garnel IronheartAugust 9, 2013 at 4:58 PM

    I have tremendous respect for halachic pluralism. If the Satmar community wants to make their women wear black stockings and if the Lev Tahor community thinks that a 5 yeear old girl's hair has to be covered then fine. But when those same folks turn around and look at women from other communities who wear, chas v'shalom, clear pantyhose or, rachamana litzlan, sandals without socks because that's the norm where they live and they scream "Prutzos" because they think their standard is the universal one-size-fits-all standard then I get pretty intolerant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousAugust 9, 2013 at 5:41 PM

      This is not what you wrote before. You ridiculed gedolai haposkim who represent a stricter shitta, rather than objecting to communal intolerance of other shittos.

      ben dov
      1honestlyfrum.blogspot.com

      Delete
    2. DovAugust 9, 2013 at 5:47 PM

      Just to add to what MGI is saying, the 'psak' shown above stresses that this ruling is halacha gamur, not a 'hidur' or 'stringency'. Now while it may be just as fair to consider the view of the M'B a kula vs. this being a chumra, it's nevertheless unfair to present this as the only acceptable view, which will inevitably lead to the problem that MGI is describing.
      Unfortunately I find that in many segments of the chareidi community(mostly in Israel or chassidic communities, but others as well)it's not considered sufficient to say 'this may be a chumra or one of multiple halachic views, but we nonetheless choose to follow it'. Rather stricter halachik views are presented as unanimous, such as in the case here. I can understand the fear (although I disagree) of granting legitimacy to other hashkafic views, but what's wrong with granting credence to more lenient halachic views? Or does it go hand in hand? R' Eidensohn - maybe this is something you can lend your insight to and help clarify somewhat.

      Delete
    3. Daas TorahAugust 9, 2013 at 6:20 PM

      Good question. I think it is primarily whether you will be called a sheigetz if you disagree from those who yell and spit etc. and whether that bothers you enough to conform.

      For example, would you sit next to a woman on a bus in Israel - based on Rav Moshe's clear psak that there is nothing wrong with it and that if you don't maybe there is something wrong with you?

      Delete
    4. AnonymousAugust 9, 2013 at 6:50 PM

      Dov, it's an interesting question to what extent tshuvos and proclamations must or should mention alternate views. I don't know, but I do suspect many MO Jews would not be angered by a document that omitted a stricter opinion.

      ben dov
      1honestlyfrum.blogspot.com

      Delete
    5. Ben MIkraAugust 9, 2013 at 6:53 PM

      The problem with the wording is that it implies previous authorities may have been violating Torah law, since they may have had a more lenient view.

      Delete
    6. DovAugust 9, 2013 at 8:04 PM

      My question is really from the other perspective - Why do many of the chareidi rabbonim/poskim feel it necessary to issue these rulings in such strong and absolute terms, when they surely realize that there's other reliable views? maybe if the 'hamon am' would realize that they're choosing a more stringent path, but others are also halachically sound, then there would be less of the sheigetz yelling and spitting. As in your example - I have no problem if other people on the bus consider it inappropriate, but assuming they know of R' Moshe's psak then what gives them the right to attack me; Unless a) they don't accept Rav Moshe and/or his psak on this matter (likely the case).

      There also seems to be more sensitivity and reaction-ism when it comes to issues such as these - I don't think a fistfight ever broke out regarding the opening of bottle caps on Shabbos, although that could be a shailoh of a Torah prohibition.

      What it seems like to me is that an essential component of the chareidi hashkafa (at least among certain groups) is that when dealing with issues which they feel core to the hareidi lifestyle, as presenting their rulings in absolute terms, whether it be halacha or even minhag. This is certainly far from the Litvishe way of things, but unfortunately true Litvishe yiddishkeit seems to be disappearing.





      Delete
    7. Dan QuintoAugust 9, 2013 at 9:14 PM

      Dov: If they pasken that it is halacha gamus and that any other psak to the contrary is wrong, they have a right or even an obligation to publicize their psak in such strong language and completely disregard and dismiss another psak they hold to be incorrect.

      Rav Moshe says its muttar, as a kula, to sit near a woman on a bus. But he also says it should be avoided. ("If there's no other choice.") So everyone agrees it is best to not sit next to a woman, including and explicitly Rav Moshe. So to create buses, ideally, we should create separate seating.

      Delete
    8. Daas TorahAugust 10, 2013 at 9:40 PM

      The translation of Rav Moshe's bus teshuva is here

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2010/11/rav-moshe-feinstein-sitting-next-to.html


      Rav Moshe did not say or imply that it is best to create buses with separate seating! In fact Rav Moshe states that there is something wrong with you if you can't sit next to a women without being overcome with lustful thoughts.

      Igros Moshe (E.H. 2:14).... But if he needs to travel on the buses and subways because of his work then it would be permitted even if it brings about lustful thoughts. He needs to fight against these thoughts by distracting himself and thinking about words of Torah as the Rambam (Issurei Bi’ah 21:19) advises. He can rely on this to allow him travel to work. However if he knows that he has a lustful nature and these circumstances will cause him to be sexual aroused – then it is prohibited even if he needs to travel on the buses and subways for his job. But G-d forbid that a person should be that way. This is a result of idleness as it states in Kesubos (49) concerning a woman but it applies also to a man. Consequently he needs to be involved in Torah study and work and not be that way.

      Delete
    9. Dan QuintoAugust 11, 2013 at 4:45 AM

      DT, you skipped a relevant part of the psak:

      "there is no prohibition for this reason to sit next to a woman when there is no other place available."

      "When there is no other place available." If there is another place available to sit not next to a woman, Rav Moshe is saying in this psak you must choose to sit there instead of next to a woman.

      So clearly Rav Moshe prefers men to not sit next to a woman. So Rav Moshe is clearly in favor of separate seating if possible.

      Delete
    10. L'maan HaemessAugust 11, 2013 at 6:24 AM

      Daas Torah
      You write - "In fact Rav Moshe states that there is something wrong with you if you can't sit next to a women without being overcome with lustful thoughts."

      This is not exactly what R' Moshe says. He says there is something wrong with you if you can't avoid Kishuy.

      He also says in the previous paragraph:

      Thee is no Issur to sit near a woman IF THERE IS NO OTHER PLACE TO SIT.

      So that means that if there is another place, it is Ossur. This is the rule that such things are only Muttar B'dleca Dirca Achrina. So obviously R' Moshe agrees that to create separate seating buses is a correct thing to do of possible.

      Delete
    11. Daas TorahAugust 11, 2013 at 10:47 AM

      No that is not what he said or meant. He makes no statement that sitting next to a woman is ossur. Rav Moshe would not have insisted on separate buses, or separate sidewalks or separate hours in stores etc etc. He would not have suggested investing millions of dollars in creating separate bus lines. He did not say one should avoid walking down the street because you might see a woman or that you should not get a job in a mixed office.

      Even in the teshuva he doesn't say that one should stand up rather than sit next to a woman. He simply doesn't view it as a major issue and in fact views it as abnormal for a person to be bothered by sitting next to a woman.

      Delete
    12. L'maan HaemessAugust 11, 2013 at 5:36 PM

      Daas Torah
      I Quoted the words "IF THERE IS NO OTHER PLACE TO SIT"

      You deny that he says this. Until now I perceived you as a man with integrity, but now I see that when you have an agenda, as obviously this is an issue that you have feelings about, you lose your integrity.

      Furthermore, The way the Goyishe women dress in our times in the summer months, I don't believe that anybody with intellectual honesty would deny that most men would have some sort of Michshoil, at least B'machshovo. If you deny this, you are simply dishonest. Truthfully, according to the thinking that you are presenting, Chaza'l should not have written, "D'ika Dirca Achrina Rosho Hu" which is referring to a case where in the final analysis the man isn't looking, but he's a roshe just for not avoiding the situation. But you say that this is not a potentially harmful situation. You are wrong.

      Delete
    13. Dan QuintoAugust 11, 2013 at 5:41 PM

      You fail to account for Rav Moshe' statement in the teshuva of "when there is no other place available."

      Yes, Rav Moshe clearly says it is preferable to not sit next to a woman if an alternative seat is available not next to a woman.

      Rav Moshe clearly would prefer an arrangement of separate seating.

      And arranging seating between men and women on different sides of the bus does NOT cost "millions of dollars".

      Delete
    14. HenochAugust 11, 2013 at 6:07 PM

      Just to echo your opinion about R' Moshe's opinion, when my family lived on the Lower East Side in the path of R' Moshe's walk home, he frequently stopped my mother to say hello and make small talk with her. I have numerous similar stories.

      Delete
    15. L'maan HaemessAugust 11, 2013 at 6:40 PM

      Henoch

      That's nice. So I'll tell you what I remember. By a Chasuna in a hall on a grand staircase, R' Moshe ZTZ'L was going down and a bunch of girls were coming up and he squeezed himself to the side and faced away from the girls until they passed him. I guess your mother was dressed and behaved completely B'tznius and to speak to her, at the appropriate physical distance, did not pose a problem. Sitting next to a Shiksa (or even an Isha Tznua) on the train with unavoidable physical contact is not the same thing.

      Delete
    16. HenochAugust 11, 2013 at 7:11 PM

      Look I suppose we can trade stories and draw our own conclusions. Someone once asked a Rov whether he can enter an elevator with one woman inside. the Rov answered 'Why not?' He answered 'There is a woman alone inside!' The Rov said ' I think YOU should avoid that situation.' Similarly here, those of us who have no reaction to sitting in a train next to a complete stranger don't need to be concerned. Those who have a need should take adequate precautions.

      Delete
    17. Daas TorahAugust 11, 2013 at 7:18 PM

      L'maan Haemes - if you can't communicate in a more civil fashion I will not be allowing a more of your comments through.

      Dan Quinto - I did address the issue of "if there is no other place." The simple question is how far do you go with protecting a person seeing women. In Israel they were talking about setting up an alternative bus line - which would involve millions of dollars.

      The issue of protecting men from arousing stimulation is an ancient one. There are two basic approaches 1) To maximally shield men of contact with women. 2) To accept that as long as it is in the course of normal activities one comes across women - that is life and you learn to live with it.

      Rav Moshe Feinstein clearly held by the second view. He has a number of teshuvos related to this issue. Thus if you are on a bus - you don't sit next to a woman if there are other places. But if there are no other places - it is not a big deal to sit down next to a woman and Rav Moshe adds that if in fact it arouses you then don't do it - but a normal person doesn't react that way.

      Four illustrations. 1) Rav Scheinberg poskened in Israel that an Israel bachur should not go to a home for Shabbos meals if there were girls there. However it was alright for Americans since they were used to seeing girls.

      2) I once met Rav Dovid Feinstein in the downsstaris minyan of the Young Israel of Avenue K one Shabbos in Flatbush. After davening I got into a discussion with him about various issues in the Igros Moshe. In the mean time, the men had already gone upstairs for the kiddush and the women were now going up. I told him there was a second set of stairs that we could go up to and thus not walk behind the women. He said it wasn't necessary so we walked up behind the women. 3) When Rav Dovid was sitting shiva for his father, a woman hesitated to enter the room where he was sitting. He told her to come in - "This is the Feinstein mishpacha." 4) I was told there there were no mechitza's at the wedding of Rav Moshe's sons.

      there are many sources on this - some of which I have posted before. The more you avoid seeing women - the stronger your arousal is when you do see one. There is the germora "the greater a person - the greater is his yetzer."

      Delete
    18. L'maan HaemessAugust 11, 2013 at 10:46 PM

      My apologies for the sharp words. The fact that you published them uncensored supports you integrity. Please accept my apology.

      To the issue at hand, I disagree with the way you deal with this issue using logical arguments rather than Halachic ones. You can't differentiate between lifestyles of people or their minhagim unless the question is whether or to not to be Machmir more than the Shulchan Aruch but to be more lenient than the Shulchan Aruch is not a possibility no matter who. Therefore the first thing needed is to know the Halacha. If you could offer an accurate english translation to Shulchan Aruch Even Haezer 21,1 you would be offering a real service to your readers to shed light on the basis of what the Halacha requires here.

      Delete
  8. FredAugust 9, 2013 at 5:44 PM

    I'm very gratified that Haredi Rabbonim and their askonim have taken it upon themselves to issue another takana regarding women's stockings. By doing this, they have highlighted one of the most critical issues facing Klal Yisroel in our time. I'm really glad they have their priorities straight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yoniAugust 9, 2013 at 6:00 PM

      LOL not all readers will realize your words of satire.

      Delete
  9. Orthodox DemocatAugust 9, 2013 at 5:48 PM

    Most Americans follow Reb Moshe and seems to OK it (He mainly discusses why the 'other folks' are 'makpeed).
    In Bnai Brak for sure one must follow Rav Vosner (even outsiders -minhag HaMookim).

    Bottom line - there is none.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Daas TorahAugust 9, 2013 at 6:16 PM

      Is it minhag hamakom or that you or your wife will be attacked for having another psak?

      See Rav Moshe's psak to Rav Binyamin Silber about living in Bnei Brak when you disagree with the Chazon Ish.YD III 88

      Delete
    2. yoniAugust 9, 2013 at 8:50 PM

      Where is Rav Moshe's psak found please?

      Delete
    3. Daas TorahAugust 10, 2013 at 9:23 PM

      YD III 88

      Delete
    4. Ben WaxmanAugust 10, 2013 at 10:51 PM

      there are plenty of buses that go through bnei brak. i have never seen anyone change their seat to conform with rav vosner when the bus enters bnei brak.

      Delete
  10. Avraham1August 11, 2013 at 10:20 AM

    Rav Moshe argues that flesh colored stockings cover the skin. This depends on the stocking's thickness. Very fine stockings are transparent.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mighty Garnel IronheartAugust 11, 2013 at 12:13 PM

    See, here's the slippery slope I was trying to get at earlier. As I've written elsewhere in the past, there is a left side to Orthodoxy that people feel is pretty clear. Take out the mechitza from your shul, you're no longer Orthodox. Mix meat and milk, drive on Shabbos, etc. However there doesn't seem to be a right sided border. To take it to the biggest extreme to date, you could attend a Holocaust denial conference in Tehran and hug the president of Iran after he calls for the destruction of Israel and you're still an Orthodox Jew. A nutty one, perhaps but no one looks at you like they look at the guy whose wife has sleeves that end above her elbow. And I think there's a problem with a system where the guy who hangs around with someone who wants to replicate the Holocaust is still "one of us" but the short sleeved lady is a prostitute that deserves to be spit on.
    Which brings us back to the stockings issue. Let's look at cold hard logic: we believe the more modest the better. Black stockings are better than sheer stockings. Why stop there? Dispense with the stockings and demand a dress that goes down past the ankles. If sleeves below the elbows is good and down to the wrists is better why not oversized sleeves that also cover the hands? If you're going to be logical you have to take things further and further and each new stop becomes the new "normal". At what point do you say: enough!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ben WaxmanAugust 11, 2013 at 1:09 PM

      Dispense with the stockings and demand a dress that goes down past the ankles.

      actually this style is frowned upon in many circles because than you look like a "mercaznik".

      Delete
    2. Ben WaxmanAugust 11, 2013 at 1:12 PM

      Mix meat and milk, drive on Shabbos,

      actually these examples are WAY too far to the left. let's take more practical examples. instead of milk and meat, how would we judge someone who openly declared "i have no problem eating meat and fish together"? or "riding a bicycle on shabbat isn't a problem". or the guy who concludes that there really isn't a problem in opening an umbrella?

      Delete
    3. Ben MIkraAugust 11, 2013 at 2:16 PM

      is it also forbidden [in Bnei Brak] for men to expose their arms or legs?

      Delete
    4. sima irhakodeshAugust 11, 2013 at 5:39 PM

      I am a EDDIE FAN,,,,he just gets to the nitty gritty of each issue.

      Delete
    5. L'maan HaemessAugust 11, 2013 at 5:48 PM

      You write:
      I think there's a problem with a system where the guy who hangs around with someone who wants to replicate the Holocaust is still "one of us" but the short sleeved lady is a prostitute that deserves to be spit on.

      The answer is two wrongs don't make a right. If you can justify your position, fine, but finding someone elses faults to exonerate yours is not correct.

      You write:
      we believe the more modest the better. Black stockings are better than sheer stockings. Why stop there? Dispense with the stockings and demand a dress that goes down past the ankles. If sleeves below the elbows is good and down to the wrists is better why not oversized sleeves that also cover the hands? If you're going to be logical you have to take things further and further and each new stop becomes the new "normal". At what point do you say: enough!

      The answer is we don't know everything. Chaza'l knew to evaluate what is needed and they gave us guidelines and it is our job to define their words to the best of our ability. A reasonable Halachic discussion to that end is acceptible and applauded. If you come wit a correctly based argument in Halacha, then you should be taken seriously, whether to agree or to present another correctly based argument in Halacha. But when you say whatever you want without a Halachic basis the you are stepping out of the line of Torah abiding Jews.

      Delete
    6. Ben WaxmanAugust 11, 2013 at 9:34 PM

      strange that no one demands that people who adapt chumrot justify what they are doing with reasonable halachic discussions.

      we don't know everything but we do know that our mothers and grandmothers didn't feel the need to dress the way women did today.

      Delete
    7. L'maan HaemessAugust 11, 2013 at 10:50 PM

      Ben Waxman
      You say:
      strange that no one demands that people who adapt chumrot justify what they are doing with reasonable halachic discussions.

      Again, I repeat, two wrongs don't make a right. If you can justify your position, fine, but finding someone elses faults to exonerate yours is not correct.

      Delete
    8. yoniAugust 12, 2013 at 4:45 AM

      HAEMESS,,,,not much of a concrete answer on why those who adopt chumros do not need a halachic basis for it..

      Delete
    9. Ben WaxmanAugust 12, 2013 at 5:49 AM

      we aren't talking about halacha but about how groups interact.

      Delete
    10. L'maan HaemessAugust 12, 2013 at 6:19 PM

      Yoni
      There are various factors which could justify, and/or even deem preferred, adopting a chumra. There are also many instances in which adopting a chumra is not correct and/or can even be harmful. This is a very broad and deep discussion, so you are correct is noticing that I didn't deal with this. Adopting kulos, on the other hand, if they defy Halacha, are forbidden altogether(unless in special situations such as Sakana etc.)

      Delete
    11. Ben WaxmanAugust 12, 2013 at 8:56 PM

      by definition, a qula does not defy halacha. a qula is a psak within the halachic system, not outside of it.

      Delete
  12. Student VAugust 11, 2013 at 7:11 PM

    How could the Jewish people have survived if they hadn't addressed this critical issue which is so deeply affecting all of our lives? Luckily for us, they are truly on the cutting edge and know exactly what issues matter most to the Jewish masses, and more importantly, what issues will change our society for the better and cause God to be pleased with us!

    Will this psak also affect the male Scottish Jews?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ben MIkraAugust 11, 2013 at 8:00 PM

    I have a vort, which some may see as not serious, but my sevara is based on Torah and logic, and historical fact.

    A Rosh Yeshiva I knew , who learned in Brisk, once said , regarding frum women who wear denim skirts - "rachmono l'etzlan".

    I will argue quite the opposite - there is a Torah prohibition, or several , on dressing in Haredi garb, especially Chasiddishe garb, whilst wearing denim and Jeans is in fact a genuine form of Jewish dress.

    The Torah prohibits dressing like goyim, and following goyishe minhag and chukkot. The chassidishe garb, which is also becoming adopted by non Hassidim, even Sephardim, is not only a goyish dress style, but it was enforced upon Jews by Amalek - such as Chielmnicki and the other mamzerim. It is enforced assimilation , by Polish and Russian Amalek, to make the jews look more "gentrified". As such it must be resisted. There is even grounds for yehareg v'lo yaavor, since it was a case of Kiddush Hashem.

    Denim jeans on the other hand is a Jewish form of dress. It was invented by Levi Strauss, it has the colour of techelet, which is also Jewish, and is a purely Jewish form of dress.

    it could be argued that Chassidic dress what dress of shmad, which is what occurred during the pogroms. But it has also become a form a gaavah - where a shtreimel, made from the skin of an impure animal, can cost thousands of dollars.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. raAugust 12, 2013 at 12:54 AM

      Your attempt at humor fell flat. Levi Straus was a secular non-Torah Jew. Nothing he did, said or made qualifies as being Jewish.

      Furthermore, even if Jews were forced to do something due to outside pressure, once it becomes "a Jewish thing" it can become mandatory.

      And, finally, the standard Chareidi -- whether Litvish or especially Chasidish -- form of dress has NEVER been a non-Jewish mode of dress. Goyim never wore shtreimlech, kaputas, or any overall general mode of dress of us Jews.

      Delete
    2. HenochAugust 12, 2013 at 2:08 AM

      Black hats (fedoras) may qualify as a begged isha due to the fact that it began as a womans hat. See the following from Wikipedia: 'A fedora /fɨˈdɔːrə/ is a felt hat originally designed for a woman but is now most commonly worn by men.'

      Delete
    3. Ben MIkraAugust 12, 2013 at 3:28 AM

      Levi Strauss was still a Jew. Cossacks were still goyim.
      I can only base my statements on what I heard from a Chassidic rabbi on the origins of the clothing. The caveat was that they made certain shinuim, so that they were not exact copies of the goyish clothing.

      Not sure it can become mandatory - would u also say that about Bris, which was forbidden by some Edom/Amalek types?

      Delete
    4. yoniAugust 12, 2013 at 4:49 AM

      Levi Straus was a secular non-Torah Jew. Nothing he did, said or made qualifies as being JEWISH

      EXCEPT HIS JEWISH MOTHER who ensured him a Jewish neshamah.

      Delete
    5. Ben MIkraAugust 12, 2013 at 9:57 PM

      Not sure a fedora can be called beged isha. Many fashions can migrate between genders. Men used to wear skirts. So if a man wears a skirt in Israel, it might be lo tilbash, but in Scotland, it might be quite normal.

      Delete
  14. ChaimAugust 12, 2013 at 12:56 AM

    There are numerous Sefardic halachic Seforim that indicate a Jewish woman must wear something similar to what is known as a buka. It was the common and required form of dress of Jewish women in much of the Jewish world outside of Europe.

    If I recall, R. Eidensohn cited some of the quotes from these seforim some time ago on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Daas TorahAugust 18, 2013 at 10:46 AM

    non anonymous comments!

    ReplyDelete
  16. dovidAugust 26, 2013 at 4:43 PM

    I think the chazon ish is 60% between r. wosner and mishnah berurah


    http://torahmusings.com/2011/11/tights/

    Other authorities disagree with the Mishnah Berurah. Most importantly, the Chazon Ish (Orach Chaim 16:8) leaves the debate unresolved.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )