Wednesday, January 4, 2017

Tznius - Halacha versus Values and pseudo-Halacha

update see here http://woland.ph.biu.ac.il/?page_id=146 under heading האם קיימים "דיני צניעות" where there's a big argument on the topic.

I am working on a future post showing that the area of sexual morality is governed by values which are presented as if they are clear cut halacha. Part of the nature of viewing values as halacha is describing the observance and transgression of these values in extreme and hyperbolic ways. A consequence of this is the obsession over small details and the inability to differentiate small and large transgressions of these values. Also there is the implicit mistaken assumption that there is one right way to do things - as expressed by Rabbi Falk's magnum opus. [see Dr. Benny Brown's article on the subject http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2011/04/halachasizing-of-lashon-harah-mussar.html] and the issue of to'eles http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/01/chofetz-chaim-speaking-lashon-harah.html]

The following article captures the phenomenon well. I am not saying that there are no requirements to be modest clearly there should be and there are requirements. Nor am I saying that the standards of modesty are wrong. However I want to focus on the dynamics of observing modesty  and eventually compare that to the dynamics of such clearly halachic issues as stealing or keeping Shabbos. Modesty is a value just as avoiding lashon harah.

In both cases we have a contemporary reality of a similar dynamic of focusing on the terrible consequences of violating these values because they are mistakenly viewed as cut and dry halacha - and therefore losing the nuanced sensitive perception that is inherent with a value. A skirt that is a little short is viewed as adultery. A concern for sexual pleasure with one's wife is regarded as adultery.

Perhaps the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt fiasco promoting adultery is being tolerated because of this distortion of realty. Revealing the truth and thus embarrassing the gedolim responsible has been described as worse than adultery. As the Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Yisroel Rav Weinberg told me - with this type of description - words lose all meaning. Or put another ways - words can mean anything you are told they are supposed to mean.


Welcome to a culture that no one outside will ever understand—that of the yeshiva girl. It’s an insular, narrow space, where the outside world is demonized en masse; where religion becomes a competition in which everything is tallied up, right against wrong, and every additional stringency that is taken on instantly earns communal admiration. (One of my few relatively modern teachers in high school dubbed this “Orthodox Compulsive Disorder.”)

When choosing to be Orthodox, I sought authenticity and reason, passionate spirituality, closeness with God and with history. I love my religion, traditions, law, community, the small politics, the debates over the Shabbat table about the heights of the mechitzah in shul. But the widespread neuroticism, the vehement zeal: This is something new. This isn’t the brand of Orthodoxy that I embraced and emulated growing up, and it’s not the religion for which my parents defied our Russian family’s avowed secularism.

I don’t want to be that girl: the aspiring writer who has broken free of the tightly knit Orthodox community or school system and then proceeds to write about her love-hate relationship with said background. Because the truth is, I’m not that girl who’s broken away. I pray daily, recite benedictions before and after food, study Torah (but not Talmud). I still feel uncomfortable reading Aramaic texts traditionally limited to men. Friday afternoons find me running around the house, covering bathroom lights with special Shabbat covers, choosing tablecloths, filling the hot-water urn. And if it matters, which I suppose it does these days, I dress the part, too, despite being taught otherwise by secular grandparents: I wear modest skirts that reach my knees, sleeves that cover my elbows, and I refrain from any physical contact with males.

But I also wear stilettos. I also study Tennyson, Nabokov, and Joyce; I read the New York Times avidly, attend film screenings and art galleries. In the past few years, after leaving the comforts of my high school, where everything had been carefully dictated and prescribed, I’ve been trying to balance Torah u-Madda, religious studies with science or secular studies.

So much so have I entered the world of Torah u-Madda that I’d almost completely forgotten about the world I left behind. It took a conversation about hosiery to remind me why I am where I am today.

My friend’s query about that prospective bride’s tights floods my mind, for a half-second, with memories of the all-girls Orthodox high school we attended together. Kind teachers encouraging us to understand that our long sleeves might be a bit too tight. Running past teachers down the stairwell before they noticed that I wasn’t wearing tights in my ballerina flats. While my friend had gone on to seminary in Israel and chosen to be more stringent, I had chosen to go to Yeshiva University, bastion of modern Orthodoxy. To the outsider, the two seem indiscernibly similar, but to the insider in the Orthodox Jewish community, the two worlds couldn’t be more different.

My younger sisters, who still attend that all-girls high school, have been alluding to problems with particular teachers in vague text messages and sighing phone calls. When I came home one weekend, we went to a local coffee shop to discuss their issues in depth. One sister began to cry as told me how her rabbi had told the class that one who transgresses the boundaries of forbidden physical contact, even in the most casual and unaffectionate of manners, a mere handshake, is considered adulterous and thus is deserving of death, according to biblical law. “That just makes me want to go to the Gap and buy a pair of skinny jeans,” she told me, pulling her denim skirt to cover her knees as she sat down.

Another teacher announced proudly that the walls of her house have never seen her hair, just like the righteous mothers of the Talmud. “I sleep with my head covered, girls. Always.”

Yet another teacher brought in an article from the ultra-Orthodox magazine Mishpacha. The story followed a Jew in 1950s Soviet Russia who expressed an interest in studying Judaism but never did so because of the danger involved. The teacher explained: “Girls, what do we learn from this? That this man clearly sinned! One should always follow through with one’s intentions!”

My sister tried to argue; as the daughter of Soviet immigrants, she grew up with an understanding of what it meant to be Jewish in the USSR. “He was risking his life—” my sister began. The teacher dismissed her: “Yes, but one must risk one’s life for the sake of Torah.” [...]

Looking back, I wondered at the hold this education and lifestyle had over me, the fearful guilt with which everything had been infused. The second I had secretly questioned a stringency or attitude, I would rush to hush my doubts. This is your evil inclination speaking. They are clearly right, they are clearly holier, you know nothing because your family isn’t religious.

It disturbs me that a shred of this irrational guilt still remains, no matter how modern and progressive I claim to be.

It plagued me last summer in Israel. My first day in Jerusalem, I stepped out of the Western Wall plaza, half-dizzy from elation, and was immediately approached by an old, pious-looking woman. She was shaking her finger, screeching, “Erva!” and pointing to my hair, which was partially covered with a scarf. “Nakedness! How dare you not dress as a daughter of Israel, in the holiest of places? Where is the respect? How dare you not respect your husband, and the holiness of this place?” I was at such a loss for words that I didn’t know how to explain that I’m not even married, I’m not required to cover my hair—and I wondered why I’ve grown defensive. Why did I feel a need to explain myself to this woman? Where was the respect from her end?

There were other moments. Like being shoved into the back of a bus leaving from the Kotel on Saturday night. Women to the back! Young men (boys! children!) hooted and sneered into megaphones by the bus stop that there ought to be a separation of seating. And at first, I accepted it, without thought—of course, this is where a woman belongs.

Even during a Shabbat spent in a Jerusalem suburb with a Chardal (Zionist ultra-Orthodox) family. In front of her guests, my hostess scolded her 16-year-old daughter, “I see your collarbone, Leah. If you wear that shirt one more time, I swear I’ll take it away from you.” The hostess then turned to me, glanced at my coincidentally floor-length skirt, and commented, “You see Avital’s skirt? Girls, you should wear something like that. It’s so tznius.”

I wish I could have shown her the shorter and tighter pencil skirts that I left behind in my closet. Instead I quipped, “Yes, have you seen the Ramat Bet Shemesh women? They’ve taken to wearing burqas. Now, those are really tznius.”

My sarcasm went undetected. “Yes, indeed,” the hostess said, taking her glasses off with a sigh. “Those women are so modest. We can’t judge them, they’re on a much higher level than we are.”

It was just like the world of my high-school days, a world where so much is fueled by guilt—but also by exhibitionism, where it’s fashionable to publicize one’s piety, determined by the denier count of one’s stockings and the looseness of one’s sweater. Mention a restaurant you ate at yesterday, and the girl sitting next to you might raise her eyebrows and say, “Really? You eat there? Because I’m not sure about that kashrus certification. It’s not so reliable.” Your classmate might come into school one day, holding a tube of sewing glue, and whisper in your ear, “It’s for the slit in the back of your skirt. I can see the back of your knee.”

So much, it seemed, depended on covering ourselves—and in some circles, it still does. One young woman recently apologized to me that her husband doesn’t know any modern Orthodox young men to introduce me to, and that perhaps if I wore tights it would be a different situation. Soon afterward, I found out that she’s having an extramarital affair with a yeshiva student and is pregnant with his child. “Well,” I thought, “at least she wears tights.”

Back in high school, when we girls would ask our teachers for the source of the laws of modesty, the classic answer was to turn to Micah 6:8. Yet now it dawns on me that the same text has been misread, poorly taught. When Micah enjoins Israel to “do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk modestly with thy God,” his final verb is to walk with God. Modestly is simply the adverb.

He essentially is asking that our piety, our walks with God, be done modestly—he’s not asking us to hide our women. Nor to confine them to specific streets, nor to the back of the bus.

Perhaps, rather, he is asking us to keep our piety modest. No one needs to know how many pages of Talmud you’ve learned today, what kosher certification you don’t trust, how intensely you sway during prayer—or how thick your tights are.

70 comments :

  1. -Soon afterward, I found out that she’s having an extramarital affair with a yeshiva student and is pregnant with his child.-
    Just wondering if the halacha is that since rov Beot are from the husband, that the child would not be considered a Mamzar?? Or maybe since obviously, the child is coming from very frum parents, that would probably have taken on many extra stringent Choomras of being together, that we should assume that rov Beot are from the lover and therefore the child should be considered a Mamzer?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Despite the alleged chareidi avidity to observe every nuance of halacha, many chareidim do not seem to know halacha very well even in issues like Shabbos and brachos. Not that I blame them. To be familiar with the corpus of halacha developed until now requires years of effort and turning oneself into a walking encyclopedia. Half an hour halacha seder is not enough and devoting the day to pilpul doesn't help.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just received this comment
    I cannot comment on your blog. Unsure why, so I’ll email this comment.

    Though I agree with the general point, I find the method of teaching tznius to girls weird. It seems to be taught in a method of levels where more stringent is always viewed as better. The outcome seems to be this strange mixture of chumros, agada of Kimchis, and constant details which constantly change and are not mentioned in the poskim. It then becomes a certain “look,” which cannot be defined clearly. I find that Charedim are more critical about a jean skirt that covers everything than a skin tight skirt that is just above the knee. One looks not refined and one looks somewhat as part of our society.
    These methods would never pass in a men’s Bais Medrash. Why can’t it be taught like Hilchos Shabbos. For example “here are the issurei Deoraisa, this is a Rabbinic decree. Here are the machlokos, here is the general minhag, and no jean skirts are not mentioned by any poskim so go throw Falk’s book in the garbage.” we’d end up with normal halachic discussions.

    I have sisters, I am married with daughters. I have instituted this method into my home. Falk’s book is banned. I refuse to discuss jean skirts, white sneakers, and other nonsense that he seems to think exists in the poskim. In general we are machmir with machlokos De’oraysa (eg tights - though we recognize that Pri Megadim and Miahna Brura are lenient) and meikil with machlokos Derabannan (wigs - seems to be agreed upon that it is at least a basket - though we recognize that many poskim forbid). We try to encourage being a tzanua person. Not loud and not gaudy. This applies to both boys and girls.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Very important discussion. R' Falk's book has unfortunatly become the accepted standard of tzniyus in so many schools. A new approach must be formulated and the many parents and educators who realize that Falk's book is wrong must be ready speak up and not be intimidated by the right wing extremists who now dominate so much of the yeshiva community.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rabbi Eidenson, I love your opening comment, and I agree 100%, and I actually made a similar comment recently.

    The article, however, while I hear her valid points and her pain and frustration, all of which are legitimate. Not everything she is saying is true. Some of the things which she considers superfluous are in fact halacha. But I agree that in the swirl of confusion with which these things are presented, it's hard for the average person to know what's what.

    I think our 'gedoulim' don't tell us the truth. They want to control us, because they don't trust us. They don't trust that if we'll be given The Torah as it is, we'll be amply observant. So they believe in 'big government' so to speak, and they add extra sanctions to keep the people in check. But they have violated what Rashi says about Chava, quoting the passuk,
    אל תוסף על דבריו פן יוכיח בך ונכזבת

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why can't they teach it like in a men's Bais Medrash? Isn't it accepted amongst "the Poskim" that women aren't able to handle real Torah study and besides, it's a waste of time since they're not obligated in Talmud Torah? This approach is a natural consequence of that attitude. Women are too stupid to handle real learning so give them a simplistic laundry list of requirements that they can handle.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This ties in with the famous "Rupture and Reconstruction" essay. We have lost the sense of what "tznius" is. The word appears only a few times in Tanach but it never refers to sleeve and skirt length. Like the Reformatives have taken Tikun Olam and totally changed its meaning, Modern Chareidism (tm), afer turning the laws of Loshon Horo into a method for hiding paedophilia and other crimes, has done the same with tznius.
    Because really, who's less modest? The women with a $3000 sheitl and $1000 glittering tight ballgown that covers her entire body, or the women with the affordable dress that might show a bit of collar bone and only goes to her knees?

    ReplyDelete
  8. How is this not a community-wife attitude?
    When Rav Eliashiv, z"l, made public statements on the halachic definition of death, he didn't say "Well I hold by cardiac but others say respiratory". He said "It's cardiac. Period. People who disagree are murderers."
    Then there's Rav Shteinman, caught on video stating that pretty much all gentiles on murderers.
    Once upon a time we learned Judaism from our parents. Now we learn it from books and legal pronouncements. Is it any wonder the nuances, the search for halachic depth, the appreciation of eilu v'eilu are all gone? We have become insecure as well. If my way is the right way, great. But if there's more than one right way, how do I justify my choosing what I'm doing? Why not do it differently if the different way is just as good? Easier to cut down all other approaches. Takes far less effort and thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  9. you missed my point. It is not about intellect. It is about providing information versus control and manipulation.
    The same thing was done with lashon harah and that applies to men as well as women

    ReplyDelete
  10. An interesting note. Rabbi Falk produced a book about the rules of conduct from the time of engagement to marriage "for those people who don't have a mesora" but he doesn't say that about tznius. In fact he says the opposite.

    on page 177 N. Biographies with pictures harmful to tznius.

    3. How the "non-Kosher" pictures came about: Concerning the basic question as to how these chosheve women went around in an inadequate manner of dress, the answer in most cases is probably quite simple; when the picture was taken the wman was almost certainly in a private garden and totally out of the eye of the public. Her friend took the photo there in the garden and neither of them ever imagined that this picture would be published in a book to be seen by hundreds if not thousands of people. Since she was in a secluded area, she wasw not so careful to ensure that all was fully ocvered. The desired practice of dressing with full tznius even in private is predominatntly for a tefach while the amount uncovered is these pictures in invariably less that a tefach...Pushing these pictures is therefore lashon harah and even motzi shem ra on these chosheve women, since they give the impression that these women were carefless in matters of tznius and this need not be true at all. That is a s afar as real Torah homes are concerned where halacha was kept to its fine details. It must, however, be conceded that during pre war years the dress of the ordinary frum Jewish woman was wanting in many types of communities and was a considerable lack of knowledge concerning the halachos of tznius in dress. In general, in those post haskala years many areas of halacha were in need of serious improvement....Hopefully as a result of this and similar protests, publishing houses who reproduce photograhgps will in the future either omit inappropriate pictures altogether or "doctor" the pictures beforehand, thereby ensuring that harmful parts of the pictures are not reproduced

    ReplyDelete
  11. Again there is a difference whether we are dealing with halacha or principles(i.e. mussar). The definition of death can be a point of halachic disagreement where in fact one sides can believe that the other is a murderer. A rule based system (halacha) approaches matters differently than a mussar or values system. See Dr. Benny Brown's essay on the halachiization of lashon harah - (link is in the archives) for a full discussion of the topic.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Check this out:

    http://vintagefrumteens.blogspot.com/2007/04/halacha-tznius-rabbi-falks-sefer.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. And it was done to Torah study, to give the impression that if you don't learn all the time you can't be a good Jew, so all of the working Jews who making more money than just enough to get by, are not good Jews. It was also done about the internet. They proclaim that any Jew with a smartphone is a shaigetz. They always lie to the people.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Garnel, You are on a tangent. They teach women hilchos shabbos in a more normal fashion without turning to the sugya. Why is tznius taught so differently?
    i can now post. Thank you Rabbi E.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The point is that disagreement is avoided in modern presentations of halacha. We are frequently told "It's a halacha psukah that..." when, in fact, it almost never is. The definition of death is a great example of this point as the biggest proponents of cardiac death deny all legitimacy to the brain-stem death side.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well he`d be a big proponent of a Chareidi version of Photoshop then!

    ReplyDelete
  17. No, I understood your point. My point related back to the last few posts you put up. The woman was created to be subservient. She can`t even drive safely. Throw a few quotes from the gemara and midrash in as to how intellectually limited women are and you have a system where the male teachers act as if the women can`t handle a real discussion of the issues.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Avoiding loshon hora is an obligation, not just a value.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Modesty is a halacha. So how's describing its requirements any different than describing cardiac death, when there's differences of opinions involved? In either case a Posek isn't required to disclaim that others disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  20. If you look at the poskim, you'll find that a majority of pre-WWII Achronim pasken against wearinga wig, requiring instead something like a snood.

    ReplyDelete
  21. We have very detailed descriptions of what is and what isn't loshon hora, rechilus and ms"r courtesy of the Chofetz Chaim and other poskim.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Chizhik made that up as she is wont to do in many of her articles.

    ReplyDelete
  23. that is correct there is a very detailed description. And therefore what?

    ReplyDelete
  24. You are correct. But that doesn't address the fact that there is a difference in the way straight halachic topics are presented and mussar topic which are transformed in to halachaic rules.

    Denying legitimacy to opponents in halachic issues is an not a new issue. Goes back at least to Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel


    Berachos(11a): R. Ezekiel learnt: If one follows the rule of Beth Shammai he does right, if one follows the rule of Beth Hillel he does right. R. Joseph said: If he follows the rule of Beth Shammai, his action is worthless, as we have learnt: If a man has his head and the greater part of his body in the sukkah14 while the table is in the house, Beth Shammai declare his action void, while Beth Hillel declare it valid. Said Beth Hillel to Beth Shammai: Once the Elders of Beth Shammai and the Elders of Beth Hillel went to visit R. Johanan b. Ha-horanith, and they found him with his head and the greater part of his body in the sukkah while the table was in the house, and they made no objection. They replied: Do you bring a proof from this?15 [The fact is that] they also said to him: If such has been your regular custom, you have never performed the precept of the sukkah in your lifetime.16 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: One who follows the rule of Beth Shammai makes his life forfeit, as we have learnt: R. TARFON SAID: I WAS ONCE WALKING BY THE WAY AND I RECLINED TO RECITE THE SHEMA’ IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY BETH SHAMMAI, AND I INCURRED DANGER FROM ROBBERS. THEY SAID TO HIM: YOU DESERVED TO COME TO HARM, BECAUSE YOU ACTED AGAINST THE OPINION OF BETH HILLEL.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The issue of women is an issue primarily concerning values. The problem is when the reality assumed or presented is different than the reality we experience.

    ReplyDelete
  26. loshon hara is a value which is largely dependent upon the question of to'eles. In addition the Maharal notes that there is no issur of lashon harah if you do not conceal from the person that you are saying bad things about him.

    As the Klausenberger Rebbe noted. The Choftez Chaim has a conceptualization of lashon harah that it is literally pumping poison into the atmosphere and therefore it is critical that it be stopped. If you view lashon harah without to'eles as a bad midah or something undesirable - you have a much lower concern for occasionally speaking it or speaking it when there is a question of to'eles.

    So the issue is - is the obligation one of values of mussar of not doing something unethical? Or is it something for which you destroy the world and your soul when said inappropriately and therefore you take zero chances of making a mistake about it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. where is modesty a halacha rather than a desirable trait or goal?

    ReplyDelete
  28. However if you look at earlier poskim you will see that there is nothing wrong with a wig.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Sexual moraility and Tznius are not quite the same.
    Are they halacha or values? Halacha seems to be quite strict, although even then it is not quite clear what is halacha and what is not. we are told in rambam that a man can do as he pleases with his wife, then we see an endless bunch of halachos (in his halachic work) about how a man should not be overly sexual, should withdraw immediately after completion of the act, etc etc. The Shulchan Aruch is not satisfied and adds even more strictures and atatcks against those who do what the Rambam says is permitted. so to buttress your argument, you have to negotiate these halachic sources and show why they are not actually halacha.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I like the example used in parenting and teaching - do you focus on teaching guidelines and values and helping kids derive limits etc from the context or situation itself or do you focus on rules, halacha . So a classic example from the article is burquas which do a great job covering the body but at the same time grabs the attention of all around. Not focusing on the underlying values as RDE says does not teach the nuances of to'eles. This is part of the education and control of the masses by providing lots of do's and don'ts , objectifying people rather than providing the guidelines and values that guide behavior

    ReplyDelete
  31. Tziniut starts from the inside. A modest heart lead to a modest wardrobe. A woman can be covered in a burka, but that does not mean her heart is modest... it could be the opposite, a sort of inverted desire to show off, to get attention, to be different from the crowd.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Just as we have nitty gritty details what is and isn't loshon hora, we have nitty gritty details what is and what isn't tzniusdik.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Does anyone argue that there's no Halacha prohibiting women from walking in the street with a tank top and miniskirt?

    ReplyDelete
  34. could you please clarify,"as the Klausenberger Rebbe noted" . What did he note? the Chfetz Chaim viewing loshon hora as poison, or also the option of viewing Loshon Hora without toeles as a bad middah? just the first part or both parts?
    Also, if you view Loshon Hora as a bad middah, what about all the issurim that the Chofetz Chaim lists in the beginning of hilchos Loshon Hora?

    ReplyDelete
  35. halahca is a collection of rules of what to do and what not to do which is assumed to apply equally to all people. Generally derived from Torah commandes or rabbinic decree
    Morality mussar principles are guidelines as to what one should aspire to accomplish which can manifest itself in deed and thought depending on the situation and the person.
    Problem comes when something which is mussar is translated into a collection of rules which produces results that is counter to perfection or sanctity. Principles often use agada or stories to reinforce their importance.

    halacha issues require compliance the specific rules while principles require strategies to accomplish goals. These strategies are not uniform across people, situations or time.

    ReplyDelete
  36. But that is the point. In both cases mussar values has been turned into halacha. Yes you can make rules about anything - but that doesn't make it halacha but just look like halacha.

    The Rosh Yeshiva of Slobadka told my son that the Chazon Ish had said"He didn't understand the need for seforim about lashon harah. A person just needs to keep in mind not to say something which hurts someone else."

    ReplyDelete
  37. Did you see the what the Seridei Aish wrote?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Could you expand please? Those are quite big assertions.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Only the Chofetz Chaim's viewing lashon harah as poison.

    ReplyDelete
  40. http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/01/chofetz-chaim-speaking-lashon-harah.html

    ReplyDelete
  41. Have you cited the maare makom for the Seridei Aish? What does he say?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Why pick the most extreme example? What about the incident a few years ago in Immanuel where Sephardi girls were excluded from a Chasidish school because their sleeves only went to their elbows, not their wrists? That's what this post is about.

    ReplyDelete
  43. And yet we follow Beis Hillel because they mentioned Beis Shammai's position before their own, indicating that they did give it consideration, while Beis Shammai simply issued diktats. Then there's the incident where Hillel was physically intimidated by Beis Shammai'niks in the Temple because he brought a sacrifice according to his opinion, which was the halacha, and the Shammai'niks were insistent that he do it their way!

    ReplyDelete
  44. As the WolfishMusings blog quoted years ago, if you make the derech an inch wide don't be surprised when most people fall off.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Yes, but determining what those values are is the problem. Is it a value to say "We don't care about reality, we see things the way Chazal described them?" Do we say that we believe that the world is a flat disc under a dome and that the sun revolves around it, passing underneath it at night to heat up the water? Do we say that Jews have 32 teeth and gentiles have 33?

    ReplyDelete
  46. For a fascinating presentation of the essence of Tznius (more accurately and inspiringly defined as "Kavod") listen/download this 2-part lecture in Hebrew by the renown speaker (with half a century of OTD experience and shimush from many gedolim, zt"l and shlit"a), Rav Yechiel Yacabson:

    http://www.kolhalashon.com/New/Shiurim.aspx?Lang=Hebrew&Path=Hebrew|RavDirectory|RavDir_%D7%99|0032|R0032&English=True&SearchValue=%D7%A6%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%AA

    ReplyDelete
  47. I wasn't referring to your assertions, but to Moe Ginsburg's:

    "Chizhik made that up as she is wont to do in many of her articles."

    ReplyDelete
  48. I picked the most extreme example to illustrate the point. If there are no halachas on particular requirements of tznius regarding women's dress, how would you know it is prohibited for a Jewish woman to go in the street in a tank top and miniskirt?

    As far as that school, the candidates rejected for entry were wearing short sleeves well above the elbow and skirts well above the knee. Additionally, if the Beis Yaakov's tznius standards is to require sleeves until the wrists, that is their absolute right to have as a school uniform requirement even if it is above and beyond minimal halachic requirements for tznius. And they have the absolute right to enforce it as such.

    ReplyDelete
  49. First, this dovetails nicely with the Loshon Horo part of the discussion. Yes, there is a halachic requirement to avoid loshon horo but the impression one gets from reading the CC's works that the only thing one can safely talk about is the weather is a relatively recent innovation. The problem is that having made the innovation, frum society then revised history to make it appear as if the way it is post-CC is the way it had always been.
    It's the same thing with tnzius. The extreme example winds up being the only example. Until you're in a near burka then you're a prutza, nothing in-between. Then this is presented as "And that's how it always has been!" which simply isn't true.
    Second, the candidates rejected for entry were Sephardi. That was their p'gam. They were dressed completely appropriately al pi halacha and the lie that they weren't popped up after the whole scandal developed.
    You're right that a school can develop its own uniform and expect students to adhere to it. But it's a bit arrogant to
    a) tell students how to dress in their homes, especially when the halacha is being followed
    b) to present this more stringent position as the universally accepted position for all time

    ReplyDelete
  50. There are however instances where there clearly is a halacha, but it's guidelines haven't been clearly defined in the poskim. Such as tzniusdiker dress code for women and loshon hora. The halacha has a concept of overes al das yehudis in connection to tznius, so we see that there is a halacha, but all of the guidelines thereof are unclear. The lack of clarity doesn't mean there is no halacha. So the question is how do we define it? Do we leave to the rabbis? Does the arbitrary guideline of a rabbi become halacha? I think not. The Torah says lo sisa shema shov, and arur make re'ehu baseser, and lo sonu etc, so there is a prohibition. So maybe the people need to be taught whatever guidelines are clear in halacha and the rest be left to their own conscience. Maybe all teaching beyond those guidelines should be in explaining the spirit of the law so that the people can have a guide to follow.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Obviously bull. Classic urban legend- the girl who gave me mussar on a minor halachic detail was busy doing the worst aveira possible.
    Come on.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I am reminded of a Shabbat spent visiting friends in Har Nof. (This was long enough ago that there was a substantial mix of Dati and Chareidi residents.--Perhaps there still is but our friends moved out.)
    We walked through the park from our friends house to the apartment we had rented for Shabbat. Second daughter (then around 12 or so) to oldest daughter: I didn't know you can smoke on Shabbat. Oldest daughter: You can't. 2nd: daughter--so why are those yeshivah boys over there (pointing to a few boys about her age dressed in yeshivish garb) smoking. Oldest: because they are violating Shabbat. Some combination of hostess and me: Often in very large families the parents are too stretched to give the younger children enough supervision; also, when you treat wearing a blue shirt the same as chillul shabbos, youngsters who need to express their individuality can't distinguish between serious aveirot and minor violations of communal norms, and so do the former even when they might stop at the latter if they understood the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Forgive me if I am not convinced by your argument, which seem to be none other than "it is false, because its's obviously false, and in any event she makes up stuff all the time".

    I have no idea whether it is true or not, and I don't like much of what Chizik writes, or where she writes it, (although I think she does write well), but I think accusing her of knowingly falsifying material requires a bit more basis.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I love the Chofetz Chaim cherry-picking. In all normative Halachic areas he is considered the greatest latter authority by 80% of Klal Yisrael, including almost all commenters on this board.
    But when it comes to Lashon Hara, suddenly the Cc is an extremist and an inventor who we don't have to listen to.
    We'd much prefer listening to a hearsay anecdote from the Slabodka Mashgiach than to the very clearly footnoted Sefer of the greatest Halachic authority of the past 300 years.
    Smacks to me of self-serving.

    In the area of Tznius I agree that it's been totally misconstrued and misrepresented and there's a LOT of baloney masquerading as Tznius Halacha.
    And certainly R'Falk is not of the stature of the CC, nor is he someone who has been considered a great Posek in other areas. His sole claim to infamy is his tznius book.
    So I have no problem with someone who rejects his approach.
    But to do that with the CC and his approach to LH, is hypocritical and disingenuous.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Did you read the previous discussions of about Lashon Harah including Dr. Brown's article?
    It sounds like you are responding purely on the level of authority. The Chofetz Chaim is the biggest authority and therefore any disagreement regarding the nature of Lashon Harah can't be true. Putting footnotes in a sefer doesn't not prove that the assertions are accepted. Please give me a source that one can not disagree with the Chofetz Chaim.

    You might want to read the first teshuva in Shevet HaLevi where he rejects the Choftez Chaim's psak regarding tznius. Or you might peruse the Mishna Berura with the comments of the Chazon Ish to see how many times that Chazon Ish rejects the Chofetz Chaim's views despite his footnotes. are they also being hypocritical and disingenuous?!

    Bottom line - if you have some response other than "my posek is bigger than your posek" please share it with us.

    ReplyDelete
  56. You are totally right!! I don't agree with the Mishna Brurah Chelek Gimmel, so I am tossing it!! There is no proof that the Chofetz Chaim knew what he was talking about. In fact there are many who argue with him in psak, so lets just toss it!!! In fact, I can't think of a single posek who didn't/ doesn't have those who argue with him, so let's revert back to the Tzadokim, the Torah is in the corner, whoever wants to know, they can open it and learn. What do we need the "rabbis" for?!?!?!.
    DISCLAIMER: THIS POST IS 100% SARCASTIC

    ReplyDelete
  57. Sarcasm doesn't deal with the question. Might make you feel good and superior. But it is again "My poskek is superior to yours". Please take a look at the introduction to the Igros Moshe. We are not dealing with the issue of authority but sources in the mesorah. You might have noticed that the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch did not address the issue of Lashon Harah as the Chofetz Chaim did.

    ReplyDelete
  58. If you would read the article, you would know that Dr. Brown does not disagree with the Chafetz Chayim, rather he places the sefer Chafetz Chayim within the context of the discussion of lashon hara from the time of Chazal until now.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I am absolutely not responding on the level of authority or "my Posen can beat up your Posek"; I am referring to cherry-picking Poskim, which is defined as "to select the best or most desirable".
    Meaning that you and most of the readers here will follow the psak of the CC over any other Posek in almost every circumstance, except when it infringes on something dear to their hearts. At that point, the Shem Mishmuel becomes a Bar Plugta of the CC.
    I'm not saying "MY Posek is bigger than your Posek", I'm saying "YOUR Posek is bigger than your Posek".

    You obviously disagree, but I see intellectual dishonesty in this. And that was the point of my post- the disingenuousness of our Posek-picking, not the comparative greatness of various Rabbis.

    ReplyDelete
  60. My apologies on the sarcasim. My issue still remains. You seem to imply that anyone can pick and choose what he listens to just because he can't follow the thread back to whichever Rishon you feel is authoritative. The decision of who is authoritative (what we might call the Final Authority) seems not to be clear. The reality is that most people are not well enough versed in halacha to be able to make such a determination. They are left with listening to what the Rabbonim say for guidance, and asking that which they don't understand. You are right, this can lead to abuse by individuals that are not capable of paskening a halacha but promote themselves as capable, but what else can there be? until the Zman Moshiach when the Sanhedrin Hagedola will be in the Bais Hamikdosh, we don't have much alternative. I just don't think that taking the sefer chofetz chaim and putting it in the context of a 'good idea' is such a good idea. Why can't I, the poshua Baal Habayis, without much learning, decide that much of the Mishna Brura, written by the same author, is also just a good idea couched as halacha?

    ReplyDelete
  61. we are not talking about whether you can speak more or less lashon harah. We are talking about the nature of lashon harah as to whether it is a collection of rules (halacha) or it is a principle. Either way it is not G-d's will for you to speak lashon harah.

    If it is a principle and yet you present as a collection of rules - then there are times when you will not speak when you could because you are not violating the principle but you will violate one of the rules. On the other hand there are times when the rules don't cover something that the principle will and thus you will end up speaking lashon harah because you didn't find a rule that covered a specific case.

    Similarly with tznius. A principle such as don't draw attention to yourself can indicate certain things are prohibited while a list of dimensions and shapes and fabrics might not deal with it or rather every time someone raises a new case a new rule will be needed.

    We have a principle not to be disgusting - a rule based approach requires listing all the situations that might happen. Similarly with the principle of being holy.

    The Chofetz Chaim decided to turn lashon harah into a halacha when it had always been viewed as a principle

    ReplyDelete
  62. RDE, you wrote: "The Chofetz Chaim decided to turn lashon harah into a halacha when it had always been viewed as a principle."

    Assuming you're correct about that (though not conceding so), you've previously noted on other topics (such as gittin) that the rabbonim of today theoretically could get together and make new takanos, restrictions, rules, leniencies, etc., if they determined Klal Yisroel needed such a change in the current generation. Going on that principle, there's a strong argument to be made that, effectively, that's exactly what happened with the Chofetz Chaim's takanos or rules regarding loshon hora - and them essentially having been endorsed and accepted as authoritative by the gedolei harabbonim who for the past many decades have accepted the Chofetz Chaim as the binding last word on the issue of loshon hora.

    (This same idea might also be applied to tznius standards, if one argues the halachas regarding them weren't originally so specific.)

    ReplyDelete
  63. you are ignoring the fact that the concept of lashon harah as halacha is a recent innovation. It has been viewed as a mussar concept, as a desirable goal. The Mishna Berura deals with topics that have always been viewed as halacha.

    ReplyDelete
  64. So the Chofetz Chaim made it up(the fact that there are halachos to lashon hora)?

    ReplyDelete
  65. If you want to view them as takanos they need to be stated as such. Takanos are rabbinic or man made ordinances. The Chofetz Chaim is saying that these are doreissa principles. As the Rambam points out - upgrading a minhag or rabbinic prohibition to Torah status is itself a Torah violation of not adding to the Torah.

    But the bigger problem is that the complex collection of rules from in the Chofetz Chaim are really difficult to apply in daily life. As can be seen from child abuse - the halachos are so complex that each time you need to ask a gadol what to do - and even then the answer was often wrong. If you focus on lashon harah as a principle that one should not speak bad things about people unless there is a to'eles that can not be achieved otherwise - you don't need to be a major talmid chachom to answer the questions.

    ReplyDelete
  66. the Chofetz Chaim made up a complex collection of rules and said that the rules must all be obeyed. In contrast prior to the Chofetz Chaim the idea was that one must avoid saying bad things unless there was a to'les that could only be obtained by saying the bad things.
    Which do you think is easier and faster to comprehend? Which do you think covers more real life situations?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Please stop speaking in generalities. Give a concrete example of a Lashon HaRa rule which the CC gives which you disagree with, and we'll go from there.

    ReplyDelete
  68. The Chofetz Chaim says that your motivation must be pure and not because you have hatred Be'er Mayim Chaim 4:32


    ספר באר מים חיים - הלכות לשון הרע - כלל ד
    ד) שיכוין לתועלת, דהיינו, כדי שיתרחקו בני אדם מדרך רשע כשישמעו שהבריות מגנות פועלי און, גם אולי הוא בעצמו ישוב על ידי זה מדרכיו הרעים כשישמע שהבריות מגנות אותו עבור זה, אבל לא יתכוין המספר להנות מהפגם ההוא שהוא נותן בו, ולא מצד שנאה שיש לו עליו, רק מצד האמת:

    ReplyDelete
  69. Even if you are right that this Halacha is wrong, why denigrate the whole Sefer because of this? Every Halacha Sefer probably has some mistakes in it!

    ReplyDelete
  70. I am addressing the concept of lashon harah and tznius - is it really halacha or a Jewish value. In both systems lashon and and pritzus are not acceptable - but the question is whether to deal with them by a collection of rules or inner attitude? It is clear that both of these things have traditionally been viewed as mussar values not as a system of halacha..

    ReplyDelete

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