- This topic has 176 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
Benignuman – there are certain areas of tznius that depend on Minhag hamakom (for example, the bottom half of the leg after the knee), but there are certain things that are always assur regardless of what everyone does. The leg through the knee has to be covered no matter what.
Yoreh Deah 116:3 is explicit that the only Issur is to eat them together. If they are cooked together, then you are by definition eating them together. Many are careful to avoid putting them on the same plate because it’s likely that they’ll get mixed, but that’s not an actual Issur. There is certainly no issue of being on the same table.
The Mishna in Kesubos lists a couple of such practices but does not include covering legs.
The Gemorah Kesubos there explains “sowing in the marketplace” as one who uncovers her thighs.
Sparkly: “lilmod ulelamaid – its kind of obvious that its NOT tnius for the skirt to go above the knees whether shes wearing pants or not.”
Sparkly, but if she’s wearing leggings it’s okay????
i said that its NOT okay to show knees period whether or not shes wearing leggings.
I’m a guy, so I don’t get these things, but how does one show knees while wearing leggings? Wouldn’t the leggings cover the knees?
its because your suppose to cover your knees with a skirt
That is the question at hand. Do you know why? Do you have a source in Halacha telling you this is true?
Gavra using your line of thinking why stop at leggings. A pair of pants also covers the knee.
A: Sources for covering knees:
1. Pri Megadim, Orach Chaim 75; Mishbetzot Zahav, letter 1, and Mishnah Berurah, letter 2: The shok extends from the knee upward, hence below the knee poses no problem wherever women customarily leave it exposed. (quoted in Women and the Mtzvot, volume 2 by Rabbi Getsel Ellinson, P. 187-188)
2. Hazon Ish, Orah Hayyim 15, letter 8: ….Hence the shok of Berakhot 24a must connote the thigh. The Talmud would then not be dealing with below the knee, and its laws would hinge upon custom, as P’ri Megacim wrote. It is difficult to rule conclusively. (ibid).
We see from the above that from the knee upwards is assur regardless of minhag hamakom. According to the Mishna Berurah, below the knee depends on the minhag hamakom. The Chazon Ish is unsure if below the knee depends on minhag hamakom or if it’s always assur.
B: short skirt with stockings:
Responsa Yabia Omer, Vol. VI. Yoreh Deah 14, letter 1: Nylon stockings do not constitute coverage because they are transparent and the skin is visible through the fabric. (R’ Ellinson, p. 190)
C: short skirt with socks/tights that cover the knee:
1. R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Elyashiv: “to cover the knee whether standing or sitting and not to rely on the fact that the socks are covering” (Mesila, 5730, p. 97 quoted in Halichos Bas Yisrael, chapter 4, footnote 24) (note: It uses the word “garbayim” which I am assuming means socks or tights and not sheer stockings but I may be wrong about that.)
2. I believe that Rav Moshe Feinstein has a teshuva on this as well. I don’t have an Igros Moshe, but if the place where I will be for Shabbos has one, I will bli neder try to look it up.
D: Wearing Pants (without a skirt):
1) Responsa Avnei Tzedek, Yoreh Deah 72: “…1)There is no intention to resemble men, and 2) they are different from a man’s. Both here and in Poland, even pious,modest women have long practiced this, without a complaint being heard.” (R’Ellinson, page 261-262)
In footnote 126, R’ Ellinson, writes: “Clearly, Avnei Tzedek is not dealing with the kind of trousers worn by women in our day, but with special loose-fitting work trousers, devoid of any fashion significance”
2) Rav Eliyahu Henkin also poskened that it is muttar for women to wear loose pants.
3) Responsa Yaskil Avdi, Vol V, Yoreh Deah 20: “…For a different reason, however, they should be forbidden to women. Trousers are a wild, promiscuous and immodest garment for women, since the legs are separated from each other…: (R’Ellinson, p. 263)
4.”In any event, we may distinguish between tight and loose fitting trousers. Avnei Tzedek saw nothing immodest about the latter, and Yabia Omer makes such a distinction as well. Another factor that must be taken into account, however, is the existence of a community of modest Jewish girls with their own standard. The fact that they are careful to wear only skirts, affords significant weight to this stricture. By wearing a skirt, a Jewish girl identifies with this group and separates herself from other more permissive circles.
To a certain extent, in the last few decades the skirt has become a sort of “yarmulka” for the scrupulously observant girl who strives to follow our sages’ ethical guidelines, as refelected in their halakhic rulings. By her refusal to wear trousers, she demonstrably declares that she is unwilling to resign herself to the dictates of modern style, and that she takes exception to the immorality so rampant these days in society at large.” (R’ Ellinson’s footnote 129 on p. 263. Please note that R’ Ellinson is not a Poseik and I don’t know how accepted his seifer is although it does have a haskama from Rav Ovadiah, zatsal, so his take on things does not necessarily constitute daas Torah – this footnote is his own opinion.)
E: Skirt above knees but knees covered by pants:
I don’t know since I never saw any sources on it (it’s a pretty new issue, I think) and I never asked. My svaras that on the one hand, one should not walk around with pants with a knee-length skirt over it, but on the other hand, it is okay to wear a long skirt with pants under it if her knees might show while bike riding, etc. were based on logical conclusions from the above sources on the issue of wearing pants in the first place.
However, they were only my own svaras, and I do not know what the poskim say and no one should rely on them for a psak halacha, and I might be wrong. (but I brought these sources because I wanted to show where I was coming from).
edited
“I’m looking for a source one way or the other. Also, if it is OK for a Tiyul, it is probably acceptable for the street as well (as far as the Halacha is concerned).”
I wasn’t differentiating between a tiyul and the street as much as I was differentiating between a skirt that comes just above the knees and a long skirt that may momentarily rise above the knee during the tiyul.
The difference is that when a girl walks around with a knee-length skirt over pants, she looks like she is mainly wearing pants and she stuck a skirt over them. When she is wearing pants under a skirt in case her skirt momentarily goes up, this is not the case (one has the look of pants with skirt over it and one is skirt with pants under it). According to R’ Ellinson’s understanding of the reasons why it is a problem for a girl to wear pants, it would make sense to differentiate between the two.
However, R’Ellinson is not a poseik and his understanding may be inaccurate (I can see a flaw with it).
Sparkly – psh…amazing!!! So proud!
Funny – the moderators wrote that my post was edited, and I’m not even sure what was taken out! I can’t remember writing anything else!
LuL – Thank you for the disclaimer 🙂
I’ll add to your list that Rav Vosner (who is not a maikel by any stretch) allows women to wear snowpants without a skirt. I have quoted it a different time that no one could find me a source.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/who-says-above-knee-osur?view=all#post-397331
GAW – I have heard of such an opinion, although I wasn’t sure who said it.
Rav Ellinson quotes the Minchas Yitzchak who speaks very strongly against girls wearing pants in order to ski.
L’maaseh the opinions allowing pants in general or just for skiing have not been accepted l’halacha. And it certainly would be hypocritical for someone to rely on Rav Vosner for this if she doesn’t go by him in general.
My point was that if pants are not technically assur, then I could see there being room to say that if someone’s skirt goes above her knees, it’s not a problem.
Additionally, even according to the majority opinion (which is what the oilam holds by today) that pants are completely assur, the question would be which part of the pants are assur. I left out part of the Yaskil Avdi; the next words were “to the very top” which could leave room to say that the part by the knees is not a problem.
DISCLAIMER: This is all my own conjectures and should not be applied by anyone l’maaseh!
GAW,
That is incorrect. Sewing in the market is a reference to uncovering arms. ????? ????: ??? ?? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???????? ???? ??? Kesubos 72b.
Lilmod,
The Pri Megadim you are referring to is not discussing a chiyuv for a woman to cover her legs/knees. He is discussing the issur for someone else to say krias shema in front of uncovered legs. Whether or not legs are different than other parts of the body for this halacha is a machlokes Rishonim and Acharonim (based on different ways of learning the Gemara in Brachos). The Shulchan Aruch and the Rema pasken (like the Rambam) that there is no difference. The Taz, the Pri Megadim, and the Mishnah Berurah hold that shok is different and more chamur.
The Pri Megadim may also hold that there is issur to uncover legs (I don’t know), but that Pri Megadim is not discussing such an issur. The Mishna Berurah implies that woman have a chiyuv to cover their legs until and including the knee.
I don’t have access to the other sources you have cited but you might want to make sure that they are talking what is required to be covered and not just what you can say krias shema.
Benignuman: I didn’t actually look these sources up myself. I copied them straight out of Rav Ellinson’s seifer. Yes, I know that’s not the most scholarly way to do things, but I figured it would suffice for the Coffee Room. And I do tend to trust Rav Ellinson.
I have seen the Misha Berurah inside and that is really the only source on that topic that matters. As you yourself acknowledged, the Mishna Berurah says that women have a chiyuv to cover their legs until and including the knee (irrespective of minhag hamakom, unlike the bottom part of the leg below the knee).
I brought the Mishna Berurah to show that you were incorrect in stating that it is muttar for the knees and above to show in communities where this is customary.
Sam2 – you are correct. However, see Kaf Hachaim(116:35) who requires a haiker between liver and fish – just like a haiker is required between milk and meat in Y.D. Siman 88.
Sparkly – As you can see, Tznius is a complicated subject. The easiest thing to do is to find a synagogue where you feel comfortable and dress in a way that makes you feel like you fit in. Eventually, you need to learn through all these halachos, but for right now, doing it this way makes life simple.
TRUEBT: Actually, the basic halachos are not so complicated.
Basic hilchos tznius according to all opinions:
1. Cover the top part of your legs until and including your knees.
2. Cover the top of your arms until your elbows.
3. When you are married, cover your hair.
4. Don’t wear pants without a skirt over it.
benignuman- you are correct. I don’t know why I translated “Zeroah” as “Thigh” when it should be “arm”.
Thank you.
why cant we eat milk and meat together (besides for kosher)?
“God said so” isn’t good enough of a reason?
The Wolf
Lilmod,
My point was not that nobody holds that you have to cover until the knees regardless of community standards, as I said this is implied (strongly, but not quite explicit) in the Mishna Berurah. My point was that the Shulchan Aruch (Mechaber and Rema) and many other earlier halachic sources do not hold like the Mishna Berurah.
So you are incorrect (and TRUEBT is right) in listing your 4 items of tznius as being “according to all opinions” and communities that have more lax tznius standards than ours have amudei olam upon which to rely.
Only number 3 on your list is close to “all opinions” (it is required according to 99.9% of halachic opinions).
(besides for kosher)
Is another reason necessary?
Sparkly – Are you asking for the source for the halacha?
I’m pretty sure it’s a chok. As Apushatayid said (true to his name), we do it because Hashem said to. The whole idea of a chok is that we don’t understand the reason behind it, and we don’t NEED to understand the reason for it. We do it because Hashem said to and we love Hashem and we know that everything He commands us is for our good and helps us to build a relationship with Him.
The fact that we don’t know the reason and are doing it just because Hashem said to and we love Hashem makes it more meaningful. We are doing it completely out of love for Hashem. It’s like the possuk that Hashem says that He remembers the kindness of our youth, how we followed Him into the desert, etc… The idea that we showed our love and trust in Him by following Him into the desert.. it’s the same idea here, that we follow Him out of love and trust even when we don’t understand.
This is something I am sure you can relate to, Sparkly, since you have mentioned that in the past you could have gone OTD but didn’t because of your love for Hashem.
So in essence, if you really want to know why we do it – out of love for Hashem, period.
All I can tell you about red nail polish is the following: I once read a secular book on dating called “How to get married after 35.” The author had this whole really intense shita about how much “hishtadlus” you have to put in, and how everything you do should revolve around hishtadlus to get married.
She had a section on dress and appearance, and as you can imagine, she felt that was an important part of hishtadlus – making sure you look your best at all times, in every way. I specifically remember that she wrote that you should NOT wear red polish since you are looking for a guy who is looking for a wife not a zonah. This was coming from someone who was completely secular! When I read that, I realized that red nail polish clearly has connotations that some Frum girls don’t realize.
Just Google “what red nail polish says about a person”.
As for reason for kashrus. I personally couldnt tell you one, and even if I did and you disagreed with it, would you eat non kosher?
Sparkly – I did not say that!!! Please reread what I wrote! My whole point was that I see nice Frum girls wearing red nail polish, and they obviously don’t realize that it MAY be very pritzusdik and they clearly don’t realize that! I think that Frum girls are often very temimusdik in certain ways and therefore don’t realize the messages they are sending with the way they are dressed. My impression is that red nail polish MAY very likely fall in that category.
I just think it’s so sad when I see really sweet, good Frum girls dressed in ways that MAY give off messages that they don’t intend to and aren’t fully conscious of.
Sparkly – how do you know that? Are you a boy? Did you ever ask a boy? (not that you should). Maybe you should take Apashutayid’s advice and google it. Or do an anonymous survey like I did in the CR and ask people what they think.
Sparkly – why did you ask if you are so sure it’s not a problem? You obviously have reason to believe it might be a problem or you wouldn’t have asked.
Sparkly, these were your words:
next question. is red a tznius color? (like nail polish, clothing)?
In any event, my advice still stands. Google it and/or ask people what they think.
In the igros moshe, Rav moshe thoroughly covers the halachic issues related to “social saying”, ie guys and gals hanging out for social purposes not shidduchim.
Sparkly – good point! Basically, it just leads nowhere so there’s no point.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.