I think he gives a clear presentation along traditional lines. Notice where he says that we start with a principle - that the details are rabbinic and that each particular community has a different way of doing it. In short he is reinforcing my point about the nature of tzniyus being primarily a mussar principle that is local decision are presented as fixed halacha - but in fact the details vary from place to place
If the details are rabbinic that means that the laws are primarily halacha and not a mussar principle. Local minhag only pertains to details that involve machlokes haposkim or go beyond halacha. In short, this shi'ur is nothing like the essay of Shenrav linked to in an earlier blog which claims that none of hilchos tzenius are halacha.
Rabbinic doesn't mean Talmudic rabbinic rather pronouncments from community rabbis. Thus it really is minhag describing conduct to achieve the value of tznius which simple means not to be noticed. Wearing the most covering is against tznius.
Bottom line: the dress codes are strategies to fulfill a particular VALUE. Thus they only have validity if they serve to accomplish that value. A woman wearing a sheitel is not being modest if she goes to a community that doesn't wear sheitels.
Another way of describing it. If a woman from Bnei Brak came to Jerusalem and was noticed because her clothing stood out from Yerushalmis - she is violating the tznius. A person being careful of muktzeh or one of the laws of Shabbos - would do the exact same thing whether they were were Israel or New York
In sum, the mind set for dealing with fulfilling a principle is not the same as for fulfilling a halacha.
How do you know that Rabbinic has this unusual meaning here? Do you think that Rav Heineman holds there is no actual prohibition against wearing short dresses? I challenge you to ask him.
Are you saying that if you moved to an area in which none of the women covered their hair, you would instruct your wife and married daughters to keep their hair uncovered? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Sorry,. Let me reword my question. You are a Rav. I am moving to an area where the women don't cover their hair. Should my wife change and keep her hair uncovered? I want to know how you understand Rabbi Heineman, not how I understand his presentation.
Beis Shmuel (E.H. 21.2): It is prohibited to stare at a women’s beauty - The Ri writes that the prohibition is from the Torah – “Do not follow after your eyes”(Bamidbar 15:39). The Rambam holds that it is a rabbinic prohibition while to stare at an unmarried woman the prohibition is from Divrei Kabbala while concerning having hirhur (sexual thoughts) – even an unmarried woman is prohibited from the Torah.
It would seem therefore that the tefach needs to be covered is a rabbinic principle as established by Chazal. But the dress codes as to how that tefach needs to be covered are local decrees. He clearly indicated that the dress codes are rulings for the community by their rabbis. Haven't found out whether knees and elbows are rabbinic prohibition and similarly kol isha.
What is clear from the Beis Shmuel is that hirhur resulting from deliberate staring is a doreissa problem. But our question is the dress code
you have two different issues. A wife has to cover her hair. But if that makes her noticed then she is in fact violating the principle of tznius according to what Rav Heineman said.
Similarly if a woman's reciting berachos over food draw attention to her then she is not fulfilling tznius but that doesn't mean that she is exempt from saying a bracha.
Bottom line. If you view tznius as a halachic requirement not to be noticed then you clearly have cases where proper observance will violate tznius. If on the other hand you view tznius as a desirable goal to achieve - the fact that there are unavoidable situations is not a major problem. Thus you are simply reinforcing the idea that tznius is a principle not a halacha.
yes of course she needs to cover her hair and yes a woman who is wearing a wig in a society where no one else does - is making herself noticed and that violates tznius So if you want to really not be noticed the only alternative is to always stay in the house .
Elbows and knees are the most major issue involved. If they are actual prohibitions it seems misleading to say that dress codes are not prohibition based.
Yes it comes down to - not a doreissa, not Rabbinic - but a minhag. But today we really don't have really have binding local minhagim unless perhaps you are part of a major chassidic community or perhaps a litivishe community like Lakewood
yes it seem to be but the two are often conflated.
the rabbinic law is a tefach that is normally covered. if the neck line in your community is normally uncovered is it still prohibited? Was the tefach an absolute prohibition or was it only regarding Shma? What if it is less than a tefach. Rabbi Falk has an interested misreading of Rav Moshe' heter for a tefach of hair to be uncovered.
The issue is what is the shok - it seems to be a rabbinic prohibition. Bottom line accepting that the knee and elbow must be covered doesn't say whether covering them with nylon stockings or dark stockings or a semi see through blouse takes care of the rabbinic law. It doesn't say that they can be ccovered with pants or jeans.
Bottom line - there is a large disconnect between the statements of chazal - which are referring to what a man should not see or not say Shma in front of - and the claim that women have an obligation to dress in a certain way.
The Sereidi Aish when he addressed the issue of women's fashions presented no obligation for women -Torah, Rabbinic or Minhag. His entire basis was Agadata about women being punished for certain behavior.
I disagree with you. Prohibitions are often based solely on the fact that a design or fabric is fashionable . This has nothing to do with elbows and knees. Whether somethings is form fitting or concealing has nothing to do with elbows and knees. Neck line of clothings has nothing to do with elbows and knees. Whether something attracts attention has nothing to do with elbows and knees.
The fact that elbows and knees are prohibited in the context of Shma - says nothing about what if any obligation for a woman to dress in a particular way Chazal focus on what is prohibited for the man to see- not which clothing is modest.
I only recall one case concerning what clothing women are allowed to wear (if you know of others would appreciate citations) - Berachos (20a) Said R. Papa to Abaye: How is it that for the former generations miracles were performed and for us miracles are not performed? It cannot be because of their [superiority in] study, because in the years of Rab Judah the whole of their studies was confined to Nezikin, and we study all six Orders, and when Rab Judah came in [the tractate] ‘Ukzin [to the law], ‘If a woman presses vegetables in a pot’3 (or, according to others, ‘olives pressed with their leaves are clean’),4 he used to say, I see all the difficulties of Rab and Samuel here.5 and we have thirteen versions of Ukzin.6 And yet when Rab Judah drew off one shoe,7 rain used to come, whereas we torment ourselves and cry loudly, and no notice is taken of us!8 He replied: The former generations used to be ready to sacrifice their lives for the sanctity of [God's] name; we do not sacrifice our lives for the sanctity of [God's] name. There was the case of R. Adda b. Ahaba who saw a heathen woman wearing a red head-dress9 in the street, and thinking that she was an Israelite woman, he rose and tore it from her. It turned out that she was a heathen woman, and they fined him four hundred zuz. He said to her: What is your name. She replied: Mathun. Mathun, he said to her: that makes four hundred zuz.10
And according to the commentaries it was more of an issue that Jews didn't wear red garments and thus it was dressing like the goyim. But not that she was not allowed to wear it for modesty obligations
Avodas HaMelech (Avoda Zara 11:1): One should not go in the ways of the non Jew and one should not imitate them... In the Sifri Parshas Re’eh... it warns agains following after the ways of the non Jews or imitating them...One should not say since they wear an avgita than I will wear one, since they wear purple I will wear purple, since they wear kelison I will also wear one – all of these are types of clothing... The Rambam writes that the words of the prophets are known...and in the 8th chapter of Sanhedrin it states that even to change one’s shoe laces to imitate them is prohibited. The Rif there explains that the non Jews in those days had red shoe laces while the Jews had black shoe laces in order to distinguish themselves from the non Jews. Similarly the Aruch explains the cape - mentioned in Berachos (20a) which Rav Ada ripped off a woman because he thought she was a Jew - was a distinctly non Jewish garment. This is also mentioned in the Biur haGra and the Beis Yosef as well as Maharam M’Padua and the Radvaz...
So the modern wigs that are totally natural and look very real and indistinguishable from the woman's real hair, that people cannot even determine she's wearing a wig, don't fulfill the requirements to cover her hair using the heter to wear a wig?
So then you're working under the assumption of what that which was required to follow the community practice for tznius, today every woman can at will decide on her own what she wants to or not wants to do, regarding tznius, since we no longer have real kehilos for the most part??
Semi-see through would not be considered covered simply as a matter of common sense. But if a women wore tights only, with no dress or pants, she's covering her whole leg. Anyone would argue that's sufficient, despite the full form of her leg being visible through the tights-only?
Regarding the tefach, it is a tefach from where? A tefach above the knee and elbow or a tefach below the knee and elbow? Or is the tefach only regarding hair?
Rav Moshe writes that as long as the woman u would like to marry is scrupulous in mitzvos and has good midos one should not refrain from marrying a woman who isn't makpid in leaving some hair uncovered
RDE, Are you trying to argue that it isn't clear halachicly that women are obligated to cover their bodies above their knees and and above their elbows when walking in the street??
What's the maare makom? Does he in any way say that it might not be halachicly a problem for women to go in the streets with their skin above their knee exposed to the public or their skin above their elbow exposed to the public?
Any particular point you want to raise? He appears to regard hilchos tzeni'us as obligatory and states at the end that its good to go the extra mile.
ReplyDeleteI think he gives a clear presentation along traditional lines. Notice where he says that we start with a principle - that the details are rabbinic and that each particular community has a different way of doing it. In short he is reinforcing my point about the nature of tzniyus being primarily a mussar principle that is local decision are presented as fixed halacha - but in fact the details vary from place to place
ReplyDeleteIf the details are rabbinic that means that the laws are primarily halacha and not a mussar principle. Local minhag only pertains to details that involve machlokes haposkim or go beyond halacha. In short, this shi'ur is nothing like the essay of Shenrav linked to in an earlier blog which claims that none of hilchos tzenius are halacha.
ReplyDeleteRabbinic doesn't mean Talmudic rabbinic rather pronouncments from community rabbis. Thus it really is minhag describing conduct to achieve the value of tznius which simple means not to be noticed. Wearing the most covering is against tznius.
ReplyDeleteBottom line: the dress codes are strategies to fulfill a particular VALUE. Thus they only have validity if they serve to accomplish that value. A woman wearing a sheitel is not being modest if she goes to a community that doesn't wear sheitels.
Another way of describing it. If a woman from Bnei Brak came to Jerusalem and was noticed because her clothing stood out from Yerushalmis - she is violating the tznius. A person being careful of muktzeh or one of the laws of Shabbos - would do the exact same thing whether they were were Israel or New York
In sum, the mind set for dealing with fulfilling a principle is not the same as for fulfilling a halacha.
How do you know that Rabbinic has this unusual meaning here? Do you think that Rav Heineman holds there is no actual prohibition against wearing short dresses? I challenge you to ask him.
ReplyDeleteIs this Rabbi from Baltimore
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that if you moved to an area in which none of the women covered their hair, you would instruct your wife and married daughters to keep their hair uncovered? A simple yes or no will suffice.
ReplyDeleteSorry - you are not the Grand Inquistor. Please watch Rabbi Heineman's presentation and tell me what he is saying.
ReplyDeleteyes
ReplyDeleteSorry,. Let me reword my question. You are a Rav. I am moving to an area where the women don't cover their hair. Should my wife change and keep her hair uncovered? I want to know how you understand Rabbi Heineman, not how I understand his presentation.
ReplyDeleteBeis Shmuel (E.H. 21.2): It is prohibited to stare at a women’s beauty - The Ri writes that the prohibition is from the Torah – “Do not follow after your eyes”(Bamidbar 15:39). The Rambam holds that it is a rabbinic prohibition while to stare at an unmarried woman the prohibition is from Divrei Kabbala while concerning having hirhur (sexual thoughts) – even an unmarried woman is prohibited from the Torah.
ReplyDeleteIt would seem therefore that the tefach needs to be covered is a rabbinic principle as established by Chazal. But the dress codes as to how that tefach needs to be covered are local decrees. He clearly indicated that the dress codes are rulings for the community by their rabbis. Haven't found out whether knees and elbows are rabbinic prohibition and similarly kol isha.
What is clear from the Beis Shmuel is that hirhur resulting from deliberate staring is a doreissa problem. But our question is the dress code
you have two different issues. A wife has to cover her hair. But if that makes her noticed then she is in fact violating the principle of tznius according to what Rav Heineman said.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly if a woman's reciting berachos over food draw attention to her then she is not fulfilling tznius but that doesn't mean that she is exempt from saying a bracha.
Bottom line. If you view tznius as a halachic requirement not to be noticed then you clearly have cases where proper observance will violate tznius.
If on the other hand you view tznius as a desirable goal to achieve - the fact that there are unavoidable situations is not a major problem. Thus you are simply reinforcing the idea that tznius is a principle not a halacha.
Sorry, that is as clear as mud. Bottom line, should she cover her hair or not? I don't view, I am not qualified to 'view'.
ReplyDeleteyes of course she needs to cover her hair and yes a woman who is wearing a wig in a society where no one else does - is making herself noticed and that violates tznius
ReplyDeleteSo if you want to really not be noticed the only alternative is to always stay in the house .
But he didn't give each person the leeway to decide for themselves how to handle tznius. They are required to follow the tznius customs of the area.
ReplyDeleteYou cannot go below the halachic minimum requirements for tznius, even if the local community is neglegent in tznius.
ReplyDeleteWearing a wig is hardly noticable or standing out, I would think.
ReplyDeleteWould not shmiras einayim for men be a separate issue than tznius dress for women?
ReplyDeleteRegarding the tefach, a d'rabbanon established by Chazal is binding as halacha. What do you mean by "how that tefach needs to be covered"?
You agree, though, that covering above the knee and above the elbow is mandatory, correct?
Elbows and knees are the most major issue involved. If they are actual prohibitions it seems misleading to say that dress codes are not prohibition based.
ReplyDeleteYes it comes down to - not a doreissa, not Rabbinic - but a minhag. But today we really don't have really have binding local minhagim unless perhaps you are part of a major chassidic community or perhaps a litivishe community like Lakewood
ReplyDeleteone of the explanations for the heter of sheitel is that it can be noticed that it is a wig
ReplyDeleteyes it seem to be but the two are often conflated.
ReplyDeletethe rabbinic law is a tefach that is normally covered. if the neck line in your community is normally uncovered is it still prohibited? Was the tefach an absolute prohibition or was it only regarding Shma? What if it is less than a tefach. Rabbi Falk has an interested misreading of Rav Moshe' heter for a tefach of hair to be uncovered.
The issue is what is the shok - it seems to be a rabbinic prohibition. Bottom line accepting that the knee and elbow must be covered doesn't say whether covering them with nylon stockings or dark stockings or a semi see through blouse takes care of the rabbinic law. It doesn't say that they can be ccovered with pants or jeans.
Bottom line - there is a large disconnect between the statements of chazal - which are referring to what a man should not see or not say Shma in front of - and the claim that women have an obligation to dress in a certain way.
The Sereidi Aish when he addressed the issue of women's fashions presented no obligation for women -Torah, Rabbinic or Minhag. His entire basis was Agadata about women being punished for certain behavior.
I disagree with you. Prohibitions are often based solely on the fact that a design or fabric is fashionable . This has nothing to do with elbows and knees. Whether somethings is form fitting or concealing has nothing to do with elbows and knees. Neck line of clothings has nothing to do with elbows and knees. Whether something attracts attention has nothing to do with elbows and knees.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that elbows and knees are prohibited in the context of Shma - says nothing about what if any obligation for a woman to dress in a particular way
Chazal focus on what is prohibited for the man to see- not which clothing is modest.
I only recall one case concerning what clothing women are allowed to wear (if you know of others would appreciate citations) - Berachos (20a) Said R. Papa to Abaye: How is it that for the former generations miracles were performed and for us miracles are not performed? It cannot be because of their [superiority in] study, because in the years of Rab Judah the whole of their studies was confined to Nezikin, and we study all six Orders, and when Rab Judah came in [the tractate] ‘Ukzin [to the law], ‘If a woman presses vegetables in a pot’3 (or, according to others, ‘olives pressed with their leaves are clean’),4 he used to say, I see all the difficulties of Rab and Samuel here.5 and we have thirteen versions of Ukzin.6 And yet when Rab Judah drew off one shoe,7 rain used to come, whereas we torment ourselves and cry loudly, and no notice is taken of us!8 He replied: The former generations used to be ready to sacrifice their lives for the sanctity of [God's] name; we do not sacrifice our lives for the sanctity of [God's] name. There was the case of R. Adda b. Ahaba who saw a heathen woman wearing a red head-dress9 in the street, and thinking that she was an Israelite woman, he rose and tore it from her. It turned out that she was a heathen woman, and they fined him four hundred zuz. He said to her: What is your name. She replied: Mathun. Mathun, he said to her: that makes four hundred zuz.10
And according to the commentaries it was more of an issue that Jews didn't wear red garments and thus it was dressing like the goyim. But not that she was not allowed to wear it for modesty obligations
Avodas HaMelech (Avoda Zara 11:1): One should not go in the ways of the non Jew and one should not imitate them... In the Sifri Parshas Re’eh... it warns agains following after the ways of the non Jews or imitating them...One should not say since they wear an avgita than I will wear one, since they wear purple I will wear purple, since they wear kelison I will also wear one – all of these are types of clothing... The Rambam writes that the words of the prophets are known...and in the 8th chapter of Sanhedrin it states that even to change one’s shoe laces to imitate them is prohibited. The Rif there explains that the non Jews in those days had red shoe laces while the Jews had black shoe laces in order to distinguish themselves from the non Jews. Similarly the Aruch explains the cape - mentioned in Berachos (20a) which Rav Ada ripped off a woman because he thought she was a Jew - was a distinctly non Jewish garment. This is also mentioned in the Biur haGra and the Beis Yosef as well as Maharam M’Padua and the Radvaz...
So the modern wigs that are totally natural and look very real and indistinguishable from the woman's real hair, that people cannot even determine she's wearing a wig, don't fulfill the requirements to cover her hair using the heter to wear a wig?
ReplyDeleteSo then you're working under the assumption of what that which was required to follow the community practice for tznius, today every woman can at will decide on her own what she wants to or not wants to do, regarding tznius, since we no longer have real kehilos for the most part??
ReplyDeleteSemi-see through would not be considered covered simply as a matter of common sense. But if a women wore tights only, with no dress or pants, she's covering her whole leg. Anyone would argue that's sufficient, despite the full form of her leg being visible through the tights-only?
ReplyDeleteRegarding the tefach, it is a tefach from where? A tefach above the knee and elbow or a tefach below the knee and elbow? Or is the tefach only regarding hair?
Rav Moshe writes that as long as the woman u would like to marry is scrupulous in mitzvos and has good midos one should not refrain from marrying a woman who isn't makpid in leaving some hair uncovered
ReplyDeleteCan u Plz post what Rabbi falk writes
What about Rav he kin? I don't understand what u wrote in the beginning
ReplyDeleteRDE, Are you trying to argue that it isn't clear halachicly that women are obligated to cover their bodies above their knees and and above their elbows when walking in the street??
ReplyDeleteSee. Seridei Aish
ReplyDeleteabout fashion
What does he say about women's obligations
What's the maare makom? Does he in any way say that it might not be halachicly a problem for women to go in the streets with their skin above their knee exposed to the public or their skin above their elbow exposed to the public?
ReplyDeleteAsk your rabbi
ReplyDeleteThere is a significant difference between whst Rav Moshe wrote and what it is claimed he meant
He doesn't say they can
ReplyDeleteJust notes the absence of specific prohibition and gives aggadata where women were punished for lack of modesty