Modern Orthodox "Minhagim"

If you didn’t want to start a rift, you should have left the term “Modern Orthodox” out of it. It could have been asked as a general question. I know plenty of people who would probably be identified as Modern Orthodox who are makpid on these areas of halacha.

Not covering hair is clearly problematic mid’Oraisa, although I think some try to rationalize it by saying it stops being an ervah when it becomes normal in society for women to keep their hair uncovered. The Aruch Hashulchan says this regarding saying Krias Shema, but doesn’t seem to hold that it applies to the actualy uncovering of the hair.

Although most contemporary poskim do seem to asser pants, I don’t know of earlier sources to prohibit. Maybe some never accepted it as assur. Before asking for a source that it’s muttar, do you know the sources that it’s assur?

Popa, what should I have for supper?

First of all the practice of frum women not to cover their hair was almost universal outside of Chasidim before WWII and afterward for a couple of decades.

Rabbi Michael Broyde published a lengthy limud zechus on those frum women that did not cover their hair. In an extreme nutshell there are multiple Rishonim and some Acharonim that understand the Gemara in Brachos 24a to be arguing on the Gemara in Kesubos (72?a-b) and those Rishonim pasken like the Gemara in Brachos that hair is only problematic m’drabbanan. We can then apply the Aruch HaShulchan and Reb Moshe’s reading of the Gemara in Berachos to say that hair could be erva but is not erva if in that society it is typically uncovered. Therefore in the societies of these women, where haircovering is uncommon it is permitted not to cover one’s hair.

The primary problem with pants is lo yilbash. But once women’s pants become widespread it is hard to see how it can be lo yilbash. If there is no lo yilbash then the only problem would be tznius which would depend on the local Daas Yehudis.

for the record, a large number of modern orthodox women do wear skirts and cover their hair. you would say I was stereotyping. Well sir, that’s what you’re doing too!

Ben: I recently saw an incredibly Charif T’shuvah by the Tzitz Eliezer against women wearing pants. See the end of Chelek 11, I think (maybe 11:62 or so?).

Second what benignuman said. I would add to other things:

First, Rav Broyde even identifies three acharonim who say that haircovering is optional.

Second, in much of the world including the US, trousers have been women’s garments as long as they have been men’s garments, and indeed they are the standard modest wear for women in most of the Muslim world; this is not a recent phenomenon. In the California State Railroad Museum there is a photograph from a century ago of female railroad workers; every single one is wearing either trousers or overalls. For a long time women had to wear trousers designed for men, but Levis introduced their first jeans designed specifically for women, the 701, in 1934. The target market according to the company was women who worked on ranches and farms, but they quickly caught on in a much larger market and were actually featured in a *Vogue* article in 1935 as casual wear for women!

When the skirts are so short, it is better for a woman to wear pants which cover her entire leg.

DaMoshe:

Your assertion that some Modern Orthodox women do these things but, at the same time, that this has nothing to do with Modern Orthodoxy makes no sense and is also not true.

The reason your assertion makes no sense, and comparisons to L”H, et al. are also irrelevant, is that L”H is certainly no more prevalent among traditional orthodox than by anyone else. So while various Jews of various stripes may fall prey to the Yetzer HaRa in various aveiros and for various reasons, the non-MO still understand that whatever aveira they are doing is forbidden, unlike MO which tries to justify these things, as in, for example, the questionable Broyde piece that a different poster referred to.

The reason your assertion is also not true is that, as above, Rabbi JB Soloveichik created Modern Orthodoxy to institutionalize compromise of the Torah seemingly based on what he felt (against the gedolim of the time) was necessary for then-modern America, and on his mistaken assumption that traditional Orthodoxy would become a museum piece.

Again, this is not like someone walking into McDonalds for a cheeseburger because he just couldn’t resist it (for whatever reason). At least in that case, he knows he’s wrong. Whereas MO “kulas” are wrongly promoted as bona fide kulas.

Even back then, Rav Schwab essentially begged MO to “get with the program” and stop the MO stuff, but the MO refused. Strangely, at least on an institutional level, they still seem to spurn his call, even as MO likes to claim legitimacy as an outgrowth of TIDE, which Rav Schwab himself also denounced as impossible and not true.

147:

I happen to think you are incorrect in that assertion, but which posek gave you that idea?

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/who-says-above-knee-osur?view=all#post-397331

R’ Yehuda Hertzl Henkin quotes his grandfather as saying that some pants are more Tznius than some skirts. R’ Ovadia says the same.

Nisht: No. It’s the same Michael Broyde who was kicked off the BDA for creating a fake persona and infiltrating Conservative message groups with it. That aside, his piece on hair-covering was discussed and accepted or rejected as a Limud Z’chus on its own merit. Everyone agrees the logic is sound and that it’s a Chelek of Torah. The question is whether L’ma’aseh it’s Emes. If you insist on judging a Halachic argument based on the author, I expect a public declaration of the impermissibility of quoting the Sefer Nachal Eshkol. (Which, to quote R’ Ovadia, is not authoritative but if the Svaras are good we can accept them.)

HaKatan: You’re slipping!! You didn’t mention Zionism at all! Are you feeling ok?

You talk about the “questionable” piece from R’ Broyde. R’ Broyde stresses in the article that he’s attempting to be melamed zchus for the women who don’t cover their hair. However, in the piece, he stresses that it should NOT be relied upon, nor used as a heter. He stresses that married women should cover their hair! I don’t see anything questionable about that!

MO does NOT attempt to justify what they are doing. Perhaps a few people do, but I’ve never heard a MO Rav try to justify why a married woman can uncover her hair in public. You’re making things up and attacking a large group of people. You should ask for mechilah.

Nishtdayngesheft,

That isn’t why Rabbi Broyde was removed from the BDA. The reason is what Sam2 explained. What you wrote is motzi shem ra.

HaKatan,

The opening poster wanted to know what source existed for the practice of married women not covering their hair. Rabbi Broyde wrote an lengthy piece on that very subject. Neither I nor Rabbi Broyde said that this was a normative halachic ruling, but that doesn’t mean that generations of ehrliche women didn’t have anything to rely upon. Ask your local Talmud Chacham about the concept of limmud zechus.

What are the other reasons that pants are problematic, other than beged ish and Daas Yehudis (aka tznius)?

Sam2,

Thanks for the citation. I will look it up when I get a chance.

By the way, the word is “Das”, not “Daas”.

benignuman:

See here, for starters:

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/who-says-above-knee-osur