- This topic has 18 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
A while back, there was a discussion about the required guidelines. Sacrilege (and possibly others) noted “toes and heels” need to be covered to which I expressed my surprise to hearing that heels are included in the “must cover” list.
What I meant to say is, I am surprized that heels need to be “covered” as in only closed back shoes maybe worn. Many people wear sling back shoes, so how does this mesh with the understanding of tznius a large part of Orthodoxy adheres to?
It was then I realized my mistake. While I see many people in my circle / neighborhood wearing sling back shoes, IT IS WHILE THE LEGS ARE COVERED WITH HOSE OR TIGHTS, and not bare legged.
My point in this post is not to debate wether or not bare legs are ok or not; its merely to clarify whatI meant to say, and retract the comment I made that sounds like taking bare legs lightly.
I realize that my statement could be misunderstood, and for this I apologize.
Many people wear sling back shoes, so how does this mesh with the understanding of tznius a large part of Orthodoxy adheres to?
Oy! This is how non-tznius dress spreads unfortunately. Just because “a large part of Orthodoxy” does something, does not make it permissible.
Obviously, someone still does not understand 🙁
‘Just because “a large part of Orthodoxy” does something, does not make it permissible.’
Actually, numerous poskim over the centuries have used that argument to declare things mutar.
My name in the OP! *squeal*
‘t
I didnt realize that you didnt understand that I wear open toe and sling backs… just gotta have ’em trusty uh, hose as you call them underneath.
Just because “a large part of Orthodoxy” does something, does not make it permissible. “
And conversely, just because “a SMALL part of Orthodoxy” does something, does not make it assur.
Actually, numerous poskim over the centuries have used that argument to declare things mutar. “
Good point. Acharei rabbim l’hatos.
Or struggled to find a ????? ???? ??????
And conversely, just because “a SMALL part of Orthodoxy” does something, does not make it assur.”
I am correcting myself, humbly. I MEANT to say, just because a small part of Orthodoxy does something,does not make it HALACHA.
bpt,
Can you name one Posek who rules that toes/heels may not be uncovered?
Shok B’Isha Erva is above the ankle according to the most stringent opinions. The Shevet Halevi rules that a woman does not have to wear stockings if her skirt reaches below her ankle.
“(does a smiley face count the same as the sarcasm face?)
😉 “
Sometimes, but not usually. 🙂
(And yes, I got it)
absolutely not
I can’t give you a posek, but I have been told, that heels should not be exposed is a ruling from the days of the gemara when women, who always wore skirts to the floor – or close to it – would put little bags of perfume under their heels so that as they would walk a pleseant smell would be emitted to attract attention. The implication was that you should at the very least wear socks (or “hose”) when wearing backless/slingback footwear. But Halacha l’Moshe miSinai? no.
bpt: The big issue is the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law. Was the letter followed? Yes, it was. The spirit? Not at all. This problem is rampant. Even the frum stores don’t see it anymore!
no she was not dressed properly. heard a great story from reb. leah horowitz- she walked into a store and was horrified to see hoe a certain frum girl was dressed. when she was trying to figure it all out she realized that the girls was all perfectly covered but was dressed like a cowboy. the “look” was very wrong!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.