Why Do Girls Have to Cover Their Legs?

Snowbun, some of the people you see covering their legs with black tights all the time, for instance black tights at a wedding with slingbacks, think they are being fashionable. Perhaps erroneously. This is not to be confused with the people who wear them as a chumra, in which case it’s not Succos to Pesach- (why would the season make a difference as far as tznius is concerned?) it’s all year.

As for the exact halachic requirements, I would like to leave that to the more learned posters who can quote the relevant sources and offer proper references for what they say.

Feel free to consult me on matters of fashion, though.

The Gemara in Brachos 24a says that a women’s “shok” is considered erva.

There is a dispute among the Achronim what “shok” refers to, the thigh or the calf (i.e. lower leg). According to those opinions that “shok” refers to the calf, a woman must cover her lower leg down to the ankle.

In addition to the tznius standards found in the Gemara women are free to increase their tznius. However when a particular manner of tznius becomes widespread within a community, each woman within that community must abide by those standards.

So there is no halachic reason why Bais Yaakov girls can’t dress as you suggest. However because they do not dress that way it would be untzniusdik for an individual girl to dress in a such a fashion.

If the halacha is to cover the legs, how is it ok for them to show with nude socks? It looks the same as with no socks.

Snowbunny,

If you feel that is tzniusdik, then yes.

Wearing just leggings is no good because skin-tight clothing is considered no different from being naked. Actually, that’s the style now on college campuses and high schools, to wear skin tight leggings and a shirt that doesn’t extend down past the waist. So for all practical purposes, aside from the color of the leggings, people are seeing them naked.

It reminds me of the story of the charedi rabbi at the bus stop in Israel with the scantily and tightly-clad women. All the people looked at the rabbi to see how he would react. He simply handed the woman an apple. The woman said, “Why are you giving me an apple?” He said, “Chava didn’t know she was naked either until she ate an apple.” Of course, it’s not a real story, and the fruit wasn’t an apple…

“Wearing just leggings is no good because skin-tight clothing is considered no different from being naked.”

That is absurd. The Gemara says that something transparent is also assur, but skin-tight is hardly the same thing as transparent. See the teshuva from R’Moshe cited by Sam above.

Theoretically all spandex would be in keeping with the halacha. However frum Jewish women the world over have a broader sense of tznius than the bare minimum and keep a higher standard. The standard a woman must keep is dependent on her community and her personal sense of tznius (l’chumra only).

the halacha is that u must cover below the ankle. its a chumra for between ankle and knee. therefore, why wud leggings help anything? ur feet below ur ankles not covered and thats the main point. also the portion bet ur knee and ankle is allowed to be skin tight.. ever heard of baggy tights? not rlly..

PurpleOne,

You don’t need to cover below the ankle. There is a machlokes regarding between the ankle and the knee.

That is all m’ikkar hadin. But one cannot dress in a manner that would be viewed by his or her community as untzniusdik, even if the standards of that community are well beyond what the halacha requires.

Where does it say that a woman is obligated to cover areas which are called “ervah”?

yitayningwut: are you suggesting they might be allowed to go in public with erva uncovered?

Yitay:???

sam4321 – In that Gemara it does not say anything about women being obligated to cover anything; only about not gazing, and about krias shema. Where does it say that specific areas are not allowed to be exposed?

wiy-

girls have to cover a lot and there are diff recquirements for everything. some have to be covered and cannot be too tight (ex legs, stomache..) and some have to be covered but can be as tight as u want (ex arms)and thats why shells can be skin tight cuz only has to be covered not loose.. and some can be tight and transparent but should be covered (legs below knee).. got it? if u want more info read rabbi falks book.. its RLLY machimir on e/t but has the right ideals and approaches for a torah jew..

Don’t read rabbi falks book.

What exactly does it say in kesubos?

Edited.

benignuman –

anything that Bnos Yisroel have a minhag to keep covered must be kept covered

Sounds quite fluid, doesn’t it? Who is to say that a minhag can even exist in places where the general population is not careful about something? If people are generally used to seeing it, and your typical woman doesn’t cover it, you are still going to call “minhag tznius”??

Furthermore, if your whole argument rests on this then you shouldn’t be using terms like “assur” and “muttar.” It would be more fitting to say “this is what a Jewish woman does” and “this is not what a Jewish woman does.” But I don’t agree anyway, because to see what a Jewish woman does, you look at what the Jewish women do.

There is an assumption therefore that if men are not allowed to look, then women must cover “erva” up.

Yes, I know very well that there is such an assumption. I am challenging it.

Interjection and Yitay,

The Mishna in Kesubos is discussing things women can do that will lose them their kesuba. It says that someone who “violates Daas Moshe and Daas Yehudis” loses her kesuba. The Mishna then gives examples of each.

Rashi explains that “Daas Yehudis” are the minhagim of B’nos Yisroel. The Meiri explains that these are minhagim that B’nos Yisroel keep out of tznius so that Jewish women should have higher standards of tznius then the general non-Jewish population.

There are many, many sources that minhagim of a community are binding on all members of the community. See, e.g., Pesachim 50a-b. The language of the Mishna about Daas Yehudis itself assumes some sort of binding power. The Mishna uses the word “oiver” a term used for the violation and she is punished for her violation by losing her right to her kesuba.

Uncovering arms is classified in the Gemara as Daas Yehudis. No hair covering at all is deemed a violation of Daas Moshe and the Gemara says it is Torah prohibition. Partial uncovering of the hair (i.e. only covering the top) is deemed a violation of Daas Yehudis.

“Yes, I know very well that there is such an assumption. I am challenging it.”

Why? The assumption seems fairly reasonable, why would you assume the opposite, that women are free to walk around in public in a manner that would require all men to look away?

Yitay,

I have a longer response to your third point and I don’t have time right now to post it. I will therefore deal with your first two points.

1. The woman loses her kesuba for violating a minhag of B’nos Yisroel (not the non-Jewish culture, as the Meiri explained). Are you disputing that minhagim are binding? (e.g. Yarmulka is a minhag, but the Shulchan Aruch still says a person must not walk 4 amos without one.)

2. With respect to those things that are Daas Yehudis (like covering arms), I agree that it would depend on the norms of the frum Jewish community in which the woman resides.

With respect to No. 3 you are making a mistake in lomdus. I will explain b’ezras hashem after Purim.

1. I am disputing that a minhag from 2000 years ago or even 200 years ago is binding in a society that simply doesn’t act that way. At any rate, this wasn’t really my first point. Point #1 was that as far as I know nowhere in shas do we have an explicit directive from Chazal that women have to cover specific body parts. We have hilchos kesubah which people are trying to infer such directives from, but interestingly enough the halacha itself doesn’t seem to be stated anywhere.

2. Then why would you not take the next step, and subject the entire idea of tznius to such standards? If, for example, the frum women of the area do not cover their legs, why wouldn’t you agree that tznius does not demand that a woman cover her legs?

DaasYochid – Dunno what you are referring to exactly, but I just skimmed through the entire Hilchos Berachos of the Ritva and didn’t notice anything relevant.

Although we could take a completely different twist on this thread, and say that I have heard that the bare minimum of ones arm that a woman has to cover is half way between the shoulder and elbow… so why are woman supposed to be so machmir on covering her elbows and wearing 3/4 sleeves as well?

not Mishnah berurah who says even men.

Sam – DaasYochid is trashed if you haven’t noticed. Lol 😀