Open Orthodoxy

It’s also on the woman. Kal vachomer from daled.

I don’t understand what you mean.

Also clear from ??????, because if a woman loses her ?????, she obviously did something wrong.

That presumes it is Da’as Yehudis, which gets us back to the same discussion as before.

Finally, you are not answering why one is declared “Assur” while the other is not, and we only infer it from Hilchos Kesubah (and not Brachos). This is Rav Moshe’s point by hair as well.

Again, see ????? ????? and others who say such a thing is ???? ?? and has no affect on the halachah. This is not the Mishnah Berurah’s chiddush.

And Rav Moshe in Even Haezer 1:69 (IIRC) says that it (Da’as Yehudis) does (the “Pritzus in Spring Valley” question, if I got the number wrong). So we have a Machlokes HaPoskim, and a Limmud Zechus.

And Rav Moshe in Even Haezer 1:69 (IIRC) says that it (Da’as Yehudis) does (the “Pritzus in Spring Valley” question, if I got the number wrong).

I don’t know what you’re referring to. As I said, hair is different. In 1:56, it’s clear that there’s a chiyuv on women to dress with tznius.

ZD, I didn’t mean losing the document, I meant losing the right to collect the money as stated in it.

I don’t know what you’re referring to. As I said, hair is different. In 1:56, it’s clear that there’s a chiyuv on women to dress with tznius.

To levelset, I don’t think anyone would say there is no such “chiyuv” to dress Tzanuah. As with all things, the question is how much, the geder and why.

Rav Moshe says there (and I’ll try to look up if that is the correct spot) that as long as a woman dresses similar to other women in her area, even though it is not “Tzanuah” and she should do better, it is still not Overes Al Da’as Yehudis since she dresses similar to other women.

gaw, where is your cutoff? Sleeveless is halachicly assur? Short sleeves halfway between shoulder and elbow? Miniskirt assur? Why is halfway not always assur but sleeveless/miniskirt is?

gaw, the net result of taking your comments to its natural conclusion is that sleeveless and miniskirts aren’t necessarily assur in the street.

Sources from contemporary Poskim that minhag hamakom does not make a difference (in terms of “shok” and “z’roah” and hair with the exception of Krias Shema with hair):

1. Yabia Omer 6, Orach Chaim Siman 14, letter 3: “Haholchos b’gilui zroos overes al hadin, v’af al pi sheze darchan k’sil lamo, pshita sheasur l’kros krias Shaema u’l’varech k’negdan… ain l’hakel bazeh klal. u’cvar casav haGaon m’Lubavitch: ha’im nomar sh’im yirtzu hanashim lnhog laleches bimos hakayitz b’shuk meguleh, sh’ail bazeh mishum shuk b’isha ervah, m’pna shenahagu cach? yishtaka hadavar v’lo yomar, vadai, kaivan shehu ervah, lo moil mihhag bazeh”

“Those who walk around with revealed arms are transgressing the law, and even though this is their usual foolish way, it is obvious that it is forbidden to say krias shema and to make brachos in front of them.. and one is not allowed to be lenient in this matter. And the Lubavitcher Rebbe (The Tzemach Tzedek, grandson of the Tanya) already wrote: Would we say that if women want to walk around in the summer with uncovered “shok” (upper leg) that it is not included in “shok b’isha erva” since they are accustomed to do so? We can certainly not say such a thing. SINCE IT IS ERVAH, THE MINHAG (CUSTOM) DOES NOT HELP”.

2. Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim 1, Simanim 42,43:

“rak b’searos megulos, shenispartzu b’davar rov hanashim b’avonoseinu harabim, ain l’esor l’kros krias Shema k’negdan m’taam shecasav Aruch HaShulchan, shekaivan shenispartzu b’davar harbei nashim, af sheovros issur, ail din ervah lkrias Shema u’l’divrei Torah..aval im nireh bsaral b’makom shetzarich lihiyos mechuseh, af sheholchos megulos mitzad pritzus, yesh l’esor m’lkros Krias Shema v’amiras Davar Torah k’negdan.”

“Only with uncovered hair, which has become widespread amongst most women due to our many sins, we can’t forbid the recitation of Krias Shema in front of them for the reason given by the Aruch HaShulchan, that since it has become common amongst many women, even though THEY ARE COMMITTING A SIN, it is not ervah regarding the recitation of Krias Shema and Divrei Torah… but if their skin shows in places that it is supposed to be covered, EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE NORM TO WALK AROUND THAT WAY BECAUSE OF PRITZUS, it is still forbidden to recite Krias Shema or to say Divrei Torah in front of them.”

We see the following from these sources:

1. In terms of hair, upper arms and upper legs, the “minhag hamakom” makes no difference in terms of its being forbidden to walk around that way.

2. The only situation in which one of these things becomes more lenient due to minhag hamakom is for saying Krias Shema or Divrei Torah in front of a woman with uncovered hair. However, even in terms of uncovered hair, it is still forbidden to walk around that way.

3. These halachos are not just about a man saying krias Shema in front of a woman. It is also forbidden for a woman to walk around with these areas uncovered even if no one is saying Krias Shema.

4. The halachos of Krias Shema are actually more lenient (I think DY may have pointed this out earlier).

A: GAW: “LUL – I wouldn’t expect the Mishna Berurah to explain the SA any other way than his own shittah. Others disagree.”

1. That’s not true. Sometimes the Mishna Brurah disagrees with the Shulchan Aruch. In those cases, the Mishna Brurah is not explaining the SA according to his own shita.

2. Benignuman seemed to think that the MB is disagreeing with the SA here. He is not – he is explaining what the SA is saying.

3. Are you trying to say that you understand the SA better than the MB does???!!!!

4. There is nothing whatsoever in the words of the SA that says that upper legs and upper legs go by minhag hamakom.

B: GAW: “Your second source specifically says “b’makom shetzarich lihiyos mechuseh”, i.e. Da’as Yehudis. I’ve already proved from the Teshuva in Even Haezer earlier that Rav Moshe holds Da’as Yehudis depends on the place.”

1. “b’makom shehetarich l’hiyos mechuseh” refers to those parts of the body that have to be covered.

2. Rav Moshe clearly states in the above teshuva that these parts have to be covered regardless of the place.

C: “Also, as pointed out earlier, no one disagrees that hair needs to be covered in some fashion (Da’as Moshe), and not doing so is Mevatel the Drasha from the Torah (a “sin”, although not a Lav or a Bitul Aseh, l’cheorah).”

I thought you had said or implied that hair didn’t have to be covered. It is true that all you had said was that it’s not a lav or a bitul aseh, but that seemed to be response to my saying that it is assur for hair to be completely uncovered, thereby implying it is not assur.

I do not know what category of issur it is and never claimed to know. I merely stated that it is assur.

D: “Finally, Rav Moshe (in that very teshuva!!) says that Ervah for Kriyas Shema has nothing to do whatsoever with what a woman may or may not walk on the street. If you read the teshuva inside (again?), you will see it.”

My points were:

1. That we see that the places that have to be covered for K”S have to be covered in general. R’ Ovadiah, Zatsal, writes about z’roah and shok having to be covered in general, and R’ Moshe writes about hair having to be covered in general. It is not necessarily clear from these teshuvos that we learn it from K”S, but I never made that claim. I merely said that we see that these areas have to be covered in general.

It is true that R’ Moshe doesn’t mention shok and z’roah here. Again, I never claimed that he did – R’ Ovadiah talks about shok and z’roah here and R’ Moshe talks about hair. I am also positive that R’ Moshe has a teshuva where writes that shok either refers to the leg from the knee up or to the entire leg. He might write that the bottom half of the leg depends on minhag hamakom. But he almost definitely writes that the leg from the knee up is completely assur according to everyone.

I don’t have Igros Moshe at home, but I will try to find it over Shabbos, and post it M”S, bli neder.

2. Rav Moshe in the above Teshuva is davka more lenient for Krias Shema. It seems that the halachos are more stringent when it’s not for Krias Shema.

But I will try to read Rav Moshe’s Teshuvos over Shabbos inside.

I also have several other sources regarding the fact that it is assur in general for a man to see these areas even when not saying Krias Shema and that it is assur for a woman to not cover these areas. But I am too tired to post them now, and I have to get ready for Shabbos, so it will probably wait till M”S or Sunday as well.

gaw, seriously? You’re uncertain whether sleeveless and/or a miniskirt is pritzus/assur for every Jewish woman everywhere?!

No, I’m avoiding the question on purpose, because the line does depend on the time and place.

But if it makes you happy…..

A Lexus is Pritzus and not Tznius. 🙂

LUL – Also, if you ever go through Rishonim and Achronim on a Sugyah, it is normal that the Shittah brings others to support. Then, when looking at the source, it doesn’t support that Shittah, and others bring the source for the other shittah. That is why you always need to look at the source inside.

Personally, I trust the Beis Yosef himself who quotes the Rosh and Rashba that I brought earlier over the MB “interpretation”.

Finally, I did not see the MB bring any textual proof from the SA to his shittah, he rather brings the Rayah directly from the Gemorah (as pointed out earlier, similar to the Sefer HaEshkol).

benignuman, K-Cup: Please explain why it can never be the community “minhag”, and thus muttar, to wear sleeveless and/or miniskirts.

And then explain how sleeveless and miniskirts are halachicly different than any garment that shows any skin above the elbow and/or above the knee.

gaw, please explain how sleeveless and/or miniskirts are or are not of the same “pritzus” status as any other garment that fails to completely cover everything above the elbow and/or above the knee.

gaw, where have you explained the difference in pritzus status of a sleeveless shirt versus a short sleeve shirt or the difference in pritzus status of a miniskirt versus a skirt that stops an inch above the knee?

I’m in a Modern Orthodox (my definition here is that they self-identify as such) shul in the Boca Raton/Palm Beach area for Shabbos this week, and Avi Weiss is here for shabbos (note this is not his shul, I learn in a Yeshiva and would never go to such a place). We asked a shaila to the Yeshiva Mashgiach as to what to what to do here, and he said to treat him as the average person there treats him. We were told not to go out of our way to respect him, or (importantly) to disrespect him. He will most probably be giving a speech sometime over Shabbos. (For those of you who are wondering, he is at this shul because the person who pays for the full operation is a huge supporter of his, and money is the key to everything. It’s complicated.) I’ll update everyone as to what happens, or what he says after Shabbos. Have a Good Shabbos everyone!!

Shavua Tov!!

OK update: He was apparently only staying in the place where we were, although he will be at the shul I was at in two weeks or so. I did speak to him for five or ten minutes and I noticed as follows: He seems to be incredibly sincere about what he does, and really believes what he’s doing is correct. He is a very soft spoken individual, and he has a calming affect on people and really draws people in. He’s so soft spoken and easy going, it’s hard to have any strong emotions against him in person, which I have no doubt plays out to his advantage. We didn’t speak of anything to do with Open Orthodoxy or any hashkafa at all. It was kind of funny how after the conversation he used the elevator and had a non-Jew press the buttons.

Do you know there is a mehitza in the picture?

Maybe she is the rabbi?

I know she is the Imam, so she can’t be the Rabbi 🙂

Lilmod,

You wrote: “The Shulchan Aruch says no such thing. He writes (75/1): “tefach meguleh b’isha b’makom shedarka l’chsoso, afilu hi ishto, assur l’kros krias shema k’negda”. Which you translated as: If a tefach is showing in a woman of the places that are supposed to be covered, a man is not allowed to say Krias Shema in front of her. But that is not what the words actually mean. “Shedarka l’chsoso” doesn’t mean “supposed to be covered” it means “that is her way to cover it.”

The Bais Yosef, in his sefer Bais Yosef explains his opinion and how he learns the Gemara. The Mishna Berurah’s mehalech in the Gemara does not fit the Bais Yosef. The Mishna Berurah is allowed to argue on the Bais Yosef, but he is certainly arguing.

According to the Bais Yosef the Gemara’s statement of “shok b’isha erva” is an example of something you might have thought was not a makom mechusa, because it was typically uncovered by men, k’mashma lan it is a makom mechusa, because women usually keep it covered. The Bais Yosef is clear that there is no separate, special or new din from shok b’isha erva. And, according to the Bais Yosef’s way of learning the Gemara, shok must mean the lower half of the leg, which men did not always cover.

On the other hand, the Mishna Berurah, l’shitoso, could learn that shok b’isha erva is referring to the top half of the leg, because it is stating a special din by shok that it always has the status of erva.

LB – I would only do it in a Frum store. To be perfectly honest, I think I only did it once (I don’t have a car, so it’s usually not possible), and that one time, not only was it a Frum store, but it was a Gemach store (everything costs around $3.00; some is new and some is hand-me-downs).

In any case, Frum people usually trust Frum people, and even not-Frum Jews often trust Frum people. I remember being in a not-Frum sock store when I was in a high school, and when I got to the counter, I realized I needed to ask my mother (who was in the car) something before I paid, so I asked the guy if I could go out to the car. He let me take the socks with me, saying something like, “of course I would trust a nice Jewish girl.”

And in Eretz Yisrael, it happened more than once that I didn’t have enough money, and the guy told me I could pay him back another time. Once, it was in Machane Yehuda! And another time in Angel’s.

Jews tend to trust other Jews, Boruch Hashem!

Joseph,

As I think GAW was saying (I haven’t actually read every post), Daas Yehudis means dressing like a modest Jewish woman and not like the prutzim. Now, even today with the lower standards that exist in some communities, and even by the goyim, there is still a concept of dressing modestly. While what is considered modestly is less modest than in our communities, it is still adhering to the idea of Daas Yehudis.

The question is how far you can go theoretically. I don’t know.

LUL – You do have the more difficult task. I agree that there are two different shittos, one saying Da’as Yehudis is at minimum what it was at the time of Chazal, the other holding it depends on the time and place. You are saying there is only one shittah.

As long as there are valid shittos that say Da’as Yehudis depends on the time and place (for example, the Iggors Moshe in Even HaEzer, or the Diveri Chamudos semi-quoted earlier by DaasYochid), the room for leniency exists (whether I personally use it or not). That creates a Limmed Zechus on many Jews from both this generation and prior generations (which both of us should view as positive). Whether you or I would Pasken like that, and go out with elbows uncovered (or Ittisa), is irrelevant.