- This topic has 256 replies, 59 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Wow~
This story made it the ywn homepage just now!
Keeeewl.
Joseph: scarcely can mean different things for different people.
I find it interesting that this was presented as an incentive rather than as a ban. I would guess that the administrators figured that an outright ban would simply fail, and so it was presented this way.
Here’s a question to ask yourself — once enough girls “take the bait” and it becomes the “norm” for a bride to not wear makeup, will the incentive then turn into an outright ban?
The Wolf
Great Idea!
putting a “link” to interesting discussions on the main page.
Maybe this will continue for selected topics
Wolf, I think people would just choose another seminary. Its not like a Rav making a ban for his whole community.
Wolf – there’s not enough bait in the can to entice enough girls for that. The only way it could reach that proportion is if the girls themselves adopted the idea wholeheartedly.
mepal, I wouldn’t know anyway if she is or isn’t wearing makeup. It matters not to me, so that’s not where I’m coming from.
mepal –
Merriam-Webster
scarcely
One entry found
Function: adverb
Date: 14th century
Mepal —
Maybe. But once one seminary does it and they present themselves as “frummer” becuase of it, how long before others strive for the same.
Squeak —
If it becomes the “norm” then perhaps that’s just what might happen.
The Wolf
Just a few ccomments. To ‘esthrh”- the posuk in jeshaya that you quote has no relationship to eyeshadow or the like. “Umesakros eynaim” (transliteration of the possuk) means that they ‘flashed’ their eyes -simlarly to the beginning of the posku “netuyos goren’- (theri outstretched necks). it was a sign of immodesty on behalf of the girls. it has nothing to do with make-up.
Joseph, fine. So “by a narrow margin” can mean different things to different people. I dont feel its appropriate to go into the details, but what may be ‘scarce’ to one will be excessive to another. Being a female, I know exactly what I’m talking about here.
Wolfish – don’t be such a cynic.
Wolfish-
Is that so bad?
Wolf, unfortunately, the world does’nt really work that way. It would be nice if people would ‘strive’ in that direction.
Wolfish – don’t be such a cynic.
It’s funny — I wasn’t always a cynic. 🙂
The Wolf
I’m with Joseph and arevim here. If something becomes the norm then naturally it is taboo to go against it.
In answer to the general question of make-up ,to include perfume, the gemoro in Kesubos (daf 70A) and the rambam (Ishus perek 13-8) clearly indicate that “kishut” (make-up and perfume,see rashi) are a major part of a woman’s attribute and a husband cannot forbid it to her for any lenght of time, otherwise he has to divorce her with the kesubboh. and the gemoro continues; (daf 71B); ‘sheken bnos yisroel miskashtos beregel”. daughters of israel “made up’ on yom tov.
Whether this was only for the home, as some suggest, may be true but it strains logic to think that all women remained in the house all the time and never went out ‘made up”.
Joseph: one example, while in seminary, a dorm-mate was getting ready for a wedding. After puttin on her makeup, she asked me if she put on too much. I looked at her and seriously couldn’t tell she was wearing anything at all. So, what was excessive for her, was more that scarce for me. Get it?
it’s a shame institutions spen effort and money, and worst of all – public points, about such. In the days of old, when people were more modest than we can even think of, people still wore make-up.
And what about the Chosson, doesn’t he have a say???
P.S. How about make sure she wears a head covering on her wedding, which is a Halacha! (and around here a lot of people don’t, which is a mistake)
EDITED
While I don’t think I could ever pass the test (even though it was almost 9 yrs ago) of not wearing makeup for my wedding, I do hear the point – about tight dresses too, obviously – but I assume these frum girls in yerushalayim already mostly would wear looser dresses and shaitels, which is minhag yerushalayim. But I hear the point that when she is the center of attention, and everyone is looking at her, there is something to be said for that refinement of tznius of not being all made up and “GORGEOUS” for everyone to ogle at – especially if her husband agrees to it. But this of course would be with a clause that afterwards, she should be very nicely made up in every way for her husband privately. Not to say I’d be able to pass this ideal, but I see it could be a legitimate ideal….
Though the answer to everyone to quiet this down (which I know is exactly what the mods probably DON’T want :p), is of course (if you feel you are on the level to be able to listen( to ask your own Rav…
what kind of high school is Darcei Rochel, I never heard of it.
I personally feel that they should teach the girls to wear the makeup in the home, and do it naturally as opposed to putting it on special for the street.
makeup on a wedding day is a very positive attribute, our grandmothers way back in Hungary wouldn’t dare go to the chuppah without!!!!!!!!
1. What is the source of this article? Has anyone confirmed this article to 100% accurate? Perhaps the article is misleading or based on hearsay. Can someone confirm the report?
2. Assuming that the article is 100% accurate it needs to be clarified if any Gedolim were consulted on this issue. It does sound EXTREMELY bizarre being that it DEFINITELY goes against Halacha (See Gemorah Kedushin for example) and the words I’ve personally heard from very big Tamidei Chochomim. It is VITALLY important that a woman look beautiful for her husband. All the more so on her wedding day! Can you imagine a chason going to b’dekin and getting turned off by his pale faced kalah?!
EDITED
..way back in Hungary…
I’m chuckling
mepal: First you told me that you being a female you get it, but can’t go into details. Now you are asking me if I get it? 🙂
Anyhow, you are discussing scarcely using makeup from a beauty standpoint, whilst I am talking about scarcely using it from a religious/modesty standpoint.
“P.S. How about make sure she wears a head covering on her wedding, which is a Halacha! (and around here a lot of people don’t, which is a mistake)”
My friend, it is you who are making a mistake by saying this. Additionally, what you said is not a correct statement in general, though it may be the psak you received. V’ain mokom l’ha’arich kahn.
Joseph: I was hoping you get it after reading my example. 🙂
And I see what you’re saying….
Editor: The “homepager’s” are hitting the CR hard already. Another win for the link.
Dveykus, if the kallah’s the center of attention so she shouldn’t call attention to herself, how far does she have to go not to be unusually attractive? Wear a potato sack (with sleeves, that covers her legs)?
If this is a mesorah for the people who run the sem and who choose to send their kids there, fine. But then why are they having such a hard time not wearing makeup to their chasunas?
I say do what ever you want.
maybe i’m just not gettng it, but what does too much makeup in seminary have to do with makeup at weddings, why don’t they offer scholarships to girls who don’t wear makeup in seminary?
In seminary it is against the rules. Before the wedding though, they are exempt from the rule. Hence the incentive for voluntary compliance.
Head covering after Yichud is a non question, with absolutely NO heter.
Could any one give any explenation what’s the difference between after the Yichud and the next day???
MD: I’ve always wondered the same thing.
Could any one give any explenation what’s the difference between after the Yichud and the next day???
Yichud is (IIUC) supposed to give the presumption that the couple has been intimate. As such, you would probably be correct.
However, it is well known that (at least now) the couple are usually NOT intimate during Yichud. As such, it is also well known that her status really has not changed since leaving the chuppah. (Which makes me wonder why we don’t just skip the yichud and send a pair of eidim home with the couple after the wedding…)
The next day, OTOH, is a different story altogether.
The Wolf
Yes, anyone can give the explanation.
Stop the bologna.
Nobody is doing it for the husband, is tight fitted clothing that u go on the street also for your husband,
And why is she dressed at home like a cleaning lady?
This is a request to please not turn this thread into another tznius thread. There are many other threads that discuss it and if you would like, please bring up the issue there.
Thank you.
Hein Hein eidei Yichud, hein hein eidei bi’ah. And even without that, there’s no clue anywhere that actual ‘intimacy’ plays any role in her being any more “married”.
If she’s any less “married” before the next morning, why then don’t you need another ‘Eidus’- witnesses???
kapusta: The whole point of this issue is tznius.
MDShweks: Igros Moshe writes that covering hair is not dependent on chuppa or yichud. However, HaRav Shmuel Kaminetzky shlita told me before my chasuna that after yichud she must cover her hair. So there is clearly a machlokes between the Gedolei HaPoskim on this issue. Follow your Rav, but don’t try to force your opinion on everyone else.
This is a request to please not turn this thread into another tznius thread. There are many other threads that discuss it and if you would like, please bring up the issue there.
Kind of hard not to make this a “tznius thread” when tznius is, presumably, at the root of the new program.
The Wolf
And even without that, there’s no clue anywhere that actual ‘intimacy’ plays any role in her being any more “married”.
MD,
So then let’s turn it around even one step further — why doesn’t she put on a wig right under the chuppah? If being intimate has nothing to do with the matter, then she should put it on the moment before she gets married.
IOW, what hetter is there (IYO) for her to not have her head covered during her walk from the chuppah to the yichud room?
The Wolf
(Self edited for added clarity)
Wolfish: The kallah covers her hair before the chuppa, to avoid your concern.
Wolfish: The kallah covers her hair before the chuppa, to avoid your concern.
I know that in theory, that would be the case, but I very often see that that doesn’t happen either.
IOW, I’ve seen cases where kallahs go into the yichud room sans wig and come out with it. How should that be permitted according to MD?
The Wolf
The Wolf, well for that you mite rely on: 1. those that say “marriage” happens by Yichud and not by the Chupa as we know it. 2. Since she is permitted to ENTER the chupah without, and it’s one long public apearance.
Of course, it’s preferable to wear it already by the chupa.
Wolfish: It is done in practice, not just theory. What you described, would not be permitted according to many.
Joseph-
Wolf-
I meant tight clothing, short skirts type of tznius.
Joseph, I know many people who were told they dont have to cover before the chupa, but the rav would not be mesader kidushin if not.
I’ve been at chassanahs where the kallah keeps her hair covered at the conclusion of the chuppah and comes out of the cheder yichud with her shaitel on. It is a little bit of a balagan trying to get things straightened out, but no worse than the chassidishe kallahs who come out of the cheder yichud with the chassanah tichels on.
As far as the whole issue of make up goes, I see more and more kallahs with a thick coating applied, almost masking their natural beauty plus the glow they would surely have on this most important day of their life. The hanhala of the school may be seeking to give them an example that hits close to home for the younger girls so that they can see how their friends look beautiful even without the extra coating on their faces (which by the way cost a pretty penny to have done professionally). And since all the makeup gets rubbed off during the course of the chassanah so there is little for the chassan to enjoy anyway. And since a lot of the family pictures are taken after the guests have all gone home and it is just the family and close friends left, who is to say that she can’t put on some makeup to make those pictures come out nice, especially since she’s all worn out from the excitement and dancing and all.
regarding covering at the chuppah- that is the reason you flip the “deck tich” over the entire head after the breaking of the glass; no hair sticks out while walking to the yichud room.
Without even getting into the wisdom/necessity/importance of the rule, if no makeup, ever, is the chosen derech of that seminary but they have to BRIBE their grown students/graduates to follow it, then they’ve done a pretty pathetic job conveying their values. Parents should get their money back–oh, that’s right, they are…
monseyite: you brought up a good point there.
but unfortunately that happens all the time- the one time since you were born that the school allows you to… it’s such a tieva to try! And the school lets it anyhow.. (so it must not be that bad…)
On the other hand, maybe it’s comparable to a mother that strictly forbids her children to have candy. What happens? If the parent has NOT patiently over and over again ingrained in the child the evils of candy (NOT my opinion ;)) and how it rots your teeth and inside ect, and how we are “special and lucky” not to eat it, than you can be 99% sure that the child will at some point sneak some candy.
Even IF you ingrain it in them, they probably will have some anyway.
forbidden waters are sweet
so maybe the problem is, that they are not allowed to, strictly, and therefor when they are allowed to, they jump in head first, and as the original poster wrote
“…leading many brides to put on HEAVY makeup”
maybe, just a suggestion, because I am not part of that Kehilla and cannot fully understand the mentality, but maybe they should have classes for Kallahs on how to put on makeup. lightly that it enhances the natural beauty of a woman and not diminishes it with heavy makeup, teaching them to have a balance, so that when they graduate and are allowed to do whatever they want, they are “trained”.
Comparative to the mother and candy- instead of absolutely forbidding it, show the child how to have it in MODERATION.
slightly wacky idea, I know…!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.