- This topic has 133 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Yitay: I know. But hopefully he’ll see these and think when he’s sobered.
I didn’t mean nowadays for men although it’s hard to wtite everything now.
Yitay,
It is not uncommon for halachos to be derived from diyukim in Shas. It is clear from the Mishna and the Gemara that there is a concept of a minhag of B’nos Yisroel in tznius above and beyond that of the general population (it’s called Daas Yehudis, not Daas Nashim).
That such minhagim are binding is clear from the Gemara in Pesachim I cited, and many halachos in Shulchan Aruch that have their origins in minhag (like wearing a head covering for men).
I don’t know where you live, but where I live the frum women still cover their arms and certainly their bodies and legs. Such customs are therefore binding on all Jewish women in the community.
With regard to point 3.
I maintained that there are some areas that are “erva b’etzem” and have to be covered regardless of local custom. I will admit that I am not certain that this is right, but I understand the argument.
The Gemara in Brochos (24a) says “tefach b’isha erva.” The Rishonim explain that this means a tefach in the areas that are normally covered. The Gemara asks that you are not allowed to ogle even the finger of an erva. The Gemara answers that it is talking about one’s wife and for krias shma. Rav Chisda says “shok b’isha erva.” Rashi explains “to gaze and so too for his wife for krias shma.” This is strange, didn’t the Gemara just get finished saying that with respect to gazing there is no difference between body parts, why does Rashi explain Rav Chisda as talking about histaklus (gazing)?
L’maysa you can be m’dayek from the statement of “?? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?????” that there is a separate grade of issur regarding the “makom hatoref.” The Tzlach explains that Rashi understood that if you stare with intent to have hanaah then it is assur even to stare at a finger, however the makom hatoref itself is assur even without intent to have hanaah.
According to Rashi (al pi the Tzlach), Rav Chisda is saying that a man cannot look at a woman’s shok even without intent to have hanaah, because shok is erva b’etzem like the makom hatoref.
The Pri Megadim and the Mishna Berurah pasken like this Tzlach.
At least in the US except for maybe Williamsburg and Kiryat Joel, there is no monolithic community. Even in Borough Park there are many types of Chassidim and Yeshivish people. Certainly in Flatbush and elsewhere.
The term “community standards” would not apply and Im not even sure it would in Williamsburg either as I think there are others who live there as well.
Zahavasdad,
There is no need for a monolithic community. If they share a minhag it will be binding even if they don’t share anything else.
Among the frum in Borough Park is there an substantial population of women that do not cover their arms?
I too was told that the leg must be covered knee up and ankle down. I’m almost positive its not just because its a school policy.
Among the frum in Borough Park is there an substantial population of women that do not cover their arms? </em >
Probably not anymore as most of the non-charedim have left.
I have never been there, but who attends the Young Israel/Temple Emmunel of Borough Park?
I come from a very large Jewish community. I grew up in the metropolitan area of a big city and the majority of the Jews in the suburb I grew up in were unaffiliated. There are like three yeshivish families there because two of them run shuls and the other one is stuck in that suburb because it is very difficult with mortgages and stuff.
The rest of the frum community is completely modern orthodox, and I daven at the modern orthodox shul because that is where my friends all are. The minhag hamakom is not to cover your legs, however, I do because as I have become very close to the yeshivish part of the nearby city, and aspire to lead a yeshivish lifestyle, and covering my legs is part of integrating into the yeshivish community, along with taking on a ton of other nuances as well that the suburb I grew up in does not necessarily take on.
Yitayningwut,
Sorry, I wrote Ritv”a, it’s in the Ria”z.
benignuman –
It is not uncommon for halachos to be derived from diyukim in Shas.
If we would derive an particular case of borer from a psak an amora made about nosein ta’am lifgam, I could hear. But if we would derive the entire concept of borer from that secondary place, I would find it extremely strange. Same here. You don’t hear a word about specific guidelines for dressing; it’s kind of hard to believe they just forgot to mention it.
That such minhagim are binding is clear from the Gemara in Pesachim I cited
Find me a source that someone has to follow a minhag neither they, nor their parents, nor everyone their community ever followed.
where I live the frum women still cover their arms and certainly their bodies and legs.
In many communities it is normal for observant Jewish woman to adhere to a very different standard than that of certain parts of the NYC metropolitan area. Whether it is skirts that just barely reach the knees, sleeves that don’t go all the way to below the elbow, or completely sleeveless, there are many communities where such is the norm among the (relatively) observant Jewish population.
As for your final point, about Rashi:
While the Pri Megadim and the Mishna Brura are certainly not to be taken lightly, and you are entitled to hang your hat on them, you are suggesting something which is far from the pashtus.
First of all, what is the svara that ???? ????? should be assur? If the svara is that things that are normally covered will lead one to hirhur by merely a glance – then obviously it is subject to the time and place, and not just to the Jewish minhagim either. Whatever people are used to seeing is not ervah, and whatever they aren’t, is. In fact, the Pri Megadim himself acknowledges that there’s no such thing as an “absolute” ervah: ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??????, ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???, ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?????. Therefore the whole ervah Gemara should bichlal not apply to a place and time where exposed hair and legs are prevalent! And if you want to say otherwise, that there is such a thing as a shok being an ervah even where people see hundreds of them every day wherever they go, why??? It’s a ???? ?????.
Second, if Rashi actually meant that, then why did the Gemara need to come on to krias shma? This understanding puts words into Rashi’s mouth which force the Gemara away from the pashtus.
DaasYochid – Do you have a direct quote, a link, or at least an precise mareh makom? My only seforim here are on Hebrewbooks.
yitayningwut: If you’re going to argue against the Pri Megadim and the Mishna Berura, you’re going to need support from other Achronim rather than arguing against them yourself.
It’s not on Hebrewbooks, but it is on Otzar Hachochmah. I have the yellow one; it comes with Piskei Ri”d. It’s on 24b.
Look what I found! The first forty pages are available as a free sample. Mod, please allow.
http://www.otzar.org/wotzar/getimg.aspx?62561-17-700-0-1-
(second column)
Thank you.
no prob
DaasYochid –
Very interesting, and thanks for the link. However: 1) I don’t think there is a reasonable indication that he is saying it is an “absolute” ervah regardless of current social norms. 2) Most rishonim do not say this pshat – and I would suspect because of the kasha I mentioned, that if so the Gemara could’ve used this.
Let me put something else out there. The Gemara in Kesubos (17a) potentially permits negia b’ervah to an individual who is not affected by it. While I am not advocating relying on this, as the Ritva at the end of Kiddushin says this is only for a ???? ???? ???? ????? or something like that, it is something which we see in theory is possible. Moreover, the Aruch Hashulchan (EH 21) brings it down as the halachic norm regarding things which the society in general is already “used to.” Meaning, as I understand it, that even though for things which affect most people we say only a ???? ???? should be meikil, something which everybody is used to does not require such a standard. In a community where it is common for people to dress a certain way I find it hard to believe that a certain normally exposed area will cause hirhur per se more than any other, so even if we admit the Ri’az, I would say this halacha is an anachronism in many places today. And if the whole idea of dressing a specific way is based on what is called “ervah,” it won’t apply either in such places.
Yitay,
You might be misunderstanding my position. I agree with you respecting Daas Yehudis. The reason there are no formal guidelines is because they are organic, rising out of the tznius practices of frum Jewish women in each generation. If someone lives in a community where sleeveless is common, then it is mutar. But if someone lives in Lakewood then it is proper to say that it is ossur.
Legs are a separate matter.
It is interesting that originally I had my doubts about the Tzlach’s mehalech in Rashi, but debating with you I am becoming more and more convinced that it is right.
There is an issur to look at the makom hatoref even if there is no intention of deriving hanah or if hanah is mutar (the issur applies even towards one’s wife). See Nedarim 20a, Sh”A O”Ch 240:4.
The Gemara in Brachos understood R’Yitzchak (because he doesn’t mention krias shema), when he said “tefach b’ishah erva,” as dealing with a general issur when looking with intent to derive pleasure because if he meant without such intent women would have to walk around with their faces and hands covered. So the Gemara asked that if there is intent to have hanah there is always an issur even without a tefach. The Gemara answers that R’Yitzchak meant regarding his wife, where intent is mutar, specifically regarding Krias Shema.
Comes along R’Chisda saying “shok b’isha erva.” Is R’Chisda arguing on R’Yitzchak? There is no indication that this is a machlokes. If there is no machlokes, what is R’Chisda adding. R’Yitzchak said that it is tali on tefach. If R”Y was speaking about all parts of the body then clearly shok would be included. If he was speaking only about m’komos mechusim, then what is the point of bringing a posuk for shok, pok chazi if it women normally cover that part of the body.
Rather Rashi understands that R’Chisda is saying that shok has a din of “erva mamesh” as derived from a posuk in Yeshaya. R’Chisda is saying that the shok of arayos, m’divrei kabbalah, is on the same plane of issur as makom hoteref. The issur is not because you might have hirhurim but a separate issur of looking at erva, just like the makom hatoref. Rashi adds that this would also mean that you cannot say krias shema in front of shok even by one’s wife, even if there is no intent of hanah, just like you could not say krias shema when the makom hatoref is exposed regardless of intention of hanah.
Note that the Gemara comes on to krias shema to explain R”Y, but does not come on to krias shema, doesn’t even ask the question, regarding R’Chisda.
Also note that according to this pshat there comes out a kulah: one can daven in front of one’s spouse uncovered arms if he doesn’t have intent to derive pleasure.
Yitayningwut,
The things called “erva” in the passuk are absolute, otherwise there’s no reason for the Gemara to point to them. Everything would be talui in minhag hamakom.
The Ria”z is not saying pshat in the gemara per se, he’s saying what the halachic nafka minas are.
You wrote earlier that there’s a chilluk between issur v’heter and the momonus of the kesuvah. You’re wrong, though, because there’s no explicit contract on das Yehudis; things which are assur (tznius related or if she’s machshil him) cause her to lose her kesuvah.
DY: Rav Schachter says otherwise. He says if a couple isn’t Frum and then he becomes a Ba’al T’shuvah and she doesn’t, she doesn’t lose the Kesuba for that. The Kesuba is a contract. One of the implicit terms is that they follow Halachah. If that is not the case in a particular instance, then why does she lose the Kesuba?
Ben: You are trying to use an assumption from the Shulchan Aruch to back-read a Gemara. That doesn’t work. How would the Rambam have read the Gemara?
Sam2,
I am not 100% sure what you are referring to. Are you talking about the Shulchan Aruch about not walking 4 amos with an uncovered head or the Shulchan Aruch about not looking at the makom hatoref?
The Shulchan Aruch didn’t just make these statements up out of nowhere. For example, the Shulchan Aruch’s statement that it is assur to look at the makom hatoref is based on the shitah of Reish Lakish in Nedarim 20a, and is meduyak in the Gemara in Berachos (“????? ????? ????? ?????” implies that there is a separate level of issur for the makom hatoref).
It is not a leap to think that Rashi would read the Gemara in Berachos to be consistent with the Gemara in Nedarim.
Can someone summarize the various opinions of the poskei coffee room?
Sam, that’s not a stirah to what I said. If he knew she wasn’t keeping halachah when they got married, then in that case it wasn’t part of the implied contract.
DY: Yes it is. Because if that’s not customary among the women at the time (or what this girl did before the wedding) then he can’t expect her to do it afterwards without explicitly saying so).
Ben: The fact that I dispute your claim about 4 Amos was not relevant to my critique of your reading of a Gemara based on an assumption.
Sam2,
Please explain your problem with my reading of the Gemara and why my assumption is invalid. While you are at it, you can explain how the Shulchan Aruch does not mean that one has to wear a kippah.
benignuman –
As the Rema (EH 25:2) paskens, the ikkar halacha is not in accordance with the Shulchan Aruch in OC you cited. R’ Yochanan in Nedarim (20b) dismisses that opinion. Also, interestingly, the issur mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch is about histaklus, not re’iyah.
Let’s be clear. You yourself cited Shabbos 64a-b as the source of the issur to gaze at the ???? ?????. If we just look at that Gemara, we see the formulation of the issur is a complaint about the people ???? ?????? ?? ??????. Rashi explains ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????. What we see is clearly not some gezeiras hakasuv saying there’s a sheim ervah to the etzem zach regarding which an issur will magically be chal when someone looks. It is about pleasure being illicitly derived. Being “satiated” by looking. The formulation of the issur is that a ????dike re’iyah is bad. This is why a doctor may look. This is why me’ikkar hadin there is nothing wrong with ??????? ????? ????? between man and wife.
If someone lives in a community where sleeveless is common, then it is mutar.
Interesting. I’m glad to see we’re on the same page here.
Comes along R’Chisda saying “shok b’isha erva.” Is R’Chisda arguing on R’Yitzchak? There is no indication that this is a machlokes. If there is no machlokes, what is R’Chisda adding.
This is takeh a good point. I disagree with your conclusion though. If you are right, why does Rashi limit it to an eishes ish? And furthermore, again, what in the world is the svara to make certain things “ervah be’etzem”??* Also, the other things – hair and singing – are clearly derived from the pesukim by noting their hirhur factor. Is the Gemara jumping back and forth? (BTW in case you are not aware, the Aruch Hashulchan famously paskened in his day in OC 75 that hair is not ervah. So he certainly didn’t learn like you.)
*I can think of only one reason why something would be ervah be’etzem. That is a different kind of ervah, the ervah of ???? and the like to which the Gemara applies the verse ??? ???? ?? ???? ???. Interestingly enough the pasuk in Yeshaya is talking about ervah in this context. But this would obviously only be a davening issue, it’s not something you can extend to hilchos tznius.
Legs are a separate matter.
Bottom line: You are saying a chiddush in the Gemara. I think it is a major dochek, and I think the pashtus is that ervah defined by one subjective standard: what generally causes hirhur. Ayy your kasha what R’ Yitzchak is coming to add? Mir shtarbt nisht fun a kasha. It’s not enough to say such a chiddush which there is no svara for (you haven’t provided any). We’ll have to think of a better answer.
The things called “erva” in the passuk are absolute, otherwise there’s no reason for the Gemara to point to them.
It’s an asmachta. It didn’t say eyes are ervah even though the same place where it says hair and singing also says eyes, because in the Gemara’s place and time eyes were not gorem hirhur to stam bnei adam. Hair, legs, and singing were, so the Gemara made the point by making asmachtas. Besides, the Aruch Hashulchan (OC 75) says nowadays you can make a bracha in front of a woman’s exposed hair. Plenty of poskim go with this heter. They all clearly cannot learn like you.
The Ria”z is not saying pshat in the gemara per se, he’s saying what the halachic nafka minas are.
He doesn’t have to be saying pshat! If it’s takeh a nafka minah, it’s a good pshat, so I can ask why the Gemara didn’t use it as pshat.
there’s no explicit contract on das Yehudis
It’s understood. Hence the ??? ??? ?????? said during the kiddushin.
Ben: I would, but Yitay beat me to it.
Also, 4 Amos without a Kippah is a Midas Chassidus, not a Chiyuv (according to the Shulchan Aruch, at least; Zman Hazeh might be different).
I meant the ones Chaza”l identified as ervah, asmachta or otherwise.
DaasYochid – I mean it’s an asmachta as in they looked at what caused hirhur in their day and gave a shmooze about those things by finding asmachtas to support them. In other words they were not trying to make these things into “absolute” ervah.
I’m going to answer the OP once and for all.
Most of us girls cover our legs because it is more tznius, and we want to be tznius, and we learned in school we should, and most of our friends do.
I personally wear tights because I like them better than socks.
Sam2,
You are misreading the nosei keilim. Less than 4 amos is a middas chassidus, more than 4 amos is required, because that is the minhag. It is true that originally kisui harosh was middas chassidus but the minhag was already widespread enough in the times of the Shulchan Aruch that it was binding.
B’ezras Hashem, tomorrow morning I will explain why Yitay is wrong in his reading of the Gemara and his kashos on my pshat.
Sam, I think you misunderstood me. I didn’t mean that being oiver an issur automatically is a violation of the kesuvah; it’s just that it’s implied that a halachic violation of tznius, which is assumed at the time of marriage was accepted (except, according to R’ Schachter, apparently, where she’s not frum) will be in violation of the kesuvah.
Ben: The Taz was talking about his time. His Chiddush of Chukas Hagoyim is strange yet almost-universally accepted. You’re still missing my point. The Lashon of the Shulchan Aruch indicates that it’s a Middas Chassidus for even more than 4 Amos.
Sam2,
I wasn’t referring to the Taz. I don’t think his chiddush of Chukas Hagoyim is universally accepted (see R’Moshe’s Teshuva on not wearing a kippah to work). My point is that minhagim are binding, albeit at a lower level than a d’rabbanan.
The Shulchan Aruch says “lo yelech.” Why does that sound like a middas chassidus to you? Especially, given the fact that the Magen Avraham and others comment on the Shulchan Aruch by saying “but less than 4 amos is a middas chassidus.”
Yitay,
You appear to be assuming that all histaklus is in order to have pleasure. If you learn like that then Rashi is very shver. I am understanding that there are two categories of histaklus. There is histaklus for pleasure and histaklus stam (e.g, looking a woman in the eyes when she is talking to you). According to me kol hamistakel b’etzba k’tanah, with intent to derive pleasure (the ??? ?????? of the Gemara in Shabbos) is assur k’ilu they were mistakel b’makom hatoref, which is assur with histaklus stam.
The Rema in E”H 25:2 does argue on many of the psakim in O”C 240 but he does not argue on halacha that it is assur to gaze at the makom hatoref (which is not brought down in E”H). Similarly, R’Yochanan in Nedarim is not arguing on Reish Lakish, he is arguing on Yochanan ben D’Havai. We pasken m’ikkar hadin like Reish Lakish that it is ???? ?????? ????? ???? even regarding one’s wife. It is assur even if there is no intent to derive pleasure (as pleasure is muttar between a man and his wife).
The way I am learning the Gemara, and as I think is meduyak in Rashi, is not a stirah to the Aruch Hashulchan’s heter. Aruch Hashulchan does learn the Gemara differently than I do, but also differently than you (he paskens ???? ?????? ????? ????).
When deriving “shok b’isha erva,” R’Chisda used a posek that refers to shok as “erva” (as Rashi explains). In contrast when Shmuel says “kol b’isha erva” he quotes a posuk praising the beauty of a woman’s voice and Rashi explains “?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???.” Rav Sheshesh then says “sa’ar b’isha erva” from the same type of posuk. Thus according to Rashi we learn out from a posuk that shok IS erva, while we learn out that kol and sa’ar can create tayva. Therefore regarding shok there is issur regardless of whether it actually is m’orer tayva, while kol and sa’ar will only be ossur in societies where it is m’orer tayva.
You are probably aware that there is an issur of davening in front of exposed erva mamesh. As the Aruch Hashulchan says (in OC 74)”???? ????? ?”? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???”
I think that according to Rashi’s understanding of the Gemara, “shok” was given the status of erva mamesh (m’drabbanan) and it is assur to daven in front of, even without histaklus, and assur to be mistakel even without intent to derive pleasure l’gabay arayos.
I am certainly saying a chiddush in the Gemara, but so are you. The Gemara makes no mention of the principle you are reading into it (l’maysa I think I might have answer to my kasha that fits your pshat).
BTW when Rashi says “eshes ish” he means arayos.
Ben: If it was Assur, the Shulchan Aruch would say Assur. The Lashon of “Lo…” inherently implies a Lechatchilah/Middas Chassidus. The point of the Magen Avraham is that less than 4 Amos is an even lower (higher, depending on how you look at it) level of Middas Chassidus.
Yitay:If you don’t think it is meduyak from the gemarah that these areas have be covered because of ervah,you do agree that they have to cover these areas based off hirur for the man and the issue of bchukosaeim lo..,(Rav Moshe).I still believe the gemarah was saying the halachos of saying krias in front of ervah and these areas certainly were covered and have to be covered.
benignuman –
The Rema in E”H 25:2 does argue on many of the psakim in O”C 240 but he does not argue on halacha that it is assur to gaze at the makom hatoref
This is not true. The proof is that in OC the Shulchan Aruch says looking, and kol sheken something else. The Rema is explicitly matir the something else, so ???? ????? ???.
We pasken m’ikkar hadin like Reish Lakish that it is ???? ?????? ????? ???? even regarding one’s wife.
I disagree.
Therefore regarding shok there is issur regardless of whether it actually is m’orer tayva
You said a pshat, and fit it into the cheshbon very nicely, but it makes no sense. Why should it be this way? Why should it be assur to look at a shok if it indeed causes no hirhur?! I can start making hanachas about aliens and then say a pshat in a Gemara based on that – the cheshbon might work out perfectly, but if I don’t show why it is reasonable to assume that my hanachas about aliens are correct, it is shtusim to say such a pshat in the Gemara!
You are probably aware that there is an issur of davening in front of exposed erva mamesh.
Yes, and this has nothing to do with anything. It is assur to daven in ?????? ???????? as well. That’s a whole different sugya, nothing to do with tznius.
I think that according to Rashi’s understanding of the Gemara, “shok” was given the status of erva mamesh
I already bavorned this tzad when I mentioned ????. If the Gemara is coming from this angle (which is a massive dochek according to the simple cheshbon of the Gemara) then it would have no bearing on hilchos tznius anyway.
I am certainly saying a chiddush in the Gemara, but so are you.
I am not saying a chiddush in the Gemara. This is the pashtus.
when Rashi says “eshes ish” he means arayos
I know. That doesn’t help you; it’s not what my problem was. My problem was that according to you it is forbidden to look at the ???? ????? of someone permitted to you, so the halacha should not just extend to people who are arayos.
I am going to state as simply as I can what I think is the most reasonable understanding of tznius.
The pasuk says “What does the Hashem seek of you, but to act justly and to love mercy, and ???? ??? ?? ????? – to walk quietly/hiddenly with your God? (Micha 6:8)
This is not a pasuk directed at women. It is a pasuk directed at all people. This is also not a pasuk talking about clothing. It is a pasuk talking about all aspects of life.
The idea this pasuk is conveying is that what Hashem wants is for a person to have a rich inner life; not to be focused on exteriors. That one’s avodas Hashem should be a private experience. That one’s life shouldn’t be for show.
One of many things which represent a life focused on exteriors is for a woman to dress in public in a way that is provocative to most normal men. Doing so is therefore a lack of tznius.
Tznius, as it pertains to skirt and sleeve lengths, is nothing more than this. Therefore, to find out what fits the parameters of tznius, look around the society you live in and see what will get you to be ogled. If you won’t be ogled by your average guy on the street then it’s tzniusdig. If you will, it isn’t, because knowingly causing people to ogle by definition represents a lifestyle focused on exteriors and on other people’s opinions; the opposite of a rich inner life.
Most importantly, the bottom line is that there is NO absolute rule. It all depends on how society perceives things.
Looking at all the Gemaras I have seen I do not notice anything which contradicts this understanding. On the contrary, I think it is the most reasonable.
Yitayningwut started his post with these words:
“I am going to state as simply as I can what I think is the most reasonable understanding of tznius.”
I would like to commend him on a well considered , very eloquent and quite correct presentation of the tznius issue.
Aside from other issues, you’ve completely overlooked the concept of “das Yehudis”, which is quite obviously a higher standard for us than what is found in the broader society.
Yitay,
Your description of tznius as a general concept is very nice, and I assume it is correct. However, that does not mean that everything that in modern times we refer to as “tznius” fall under that same rubric.
For example, the requirement for a married woman to cover a portion of her hair, is d’oraisa, applies regardless of norms of the time, and has nothing to do with hirhur.
Similarly, the requirement to cover “osso makom” is not because of hirhur (it applies to ones spouse as well). The Bais Shmuel on the Rama in E”H 25 says that the Rama did not mean to allow the “something else” that you refer to and therefore it is not ???? ????? ???. You will probably argue that the Bais Shmuel is dochek and it is. But that is the accepted view point of the majority of poskim (e.g. the Aruch Hashulchan, Chachmas Adam etc.) and therefore is the ikkar hadin.
You are taking your assumption of that all tznius regarding covering up body parts is based on hirhur and you are putting into the Gemara. Without a source for that assumption, you are presenting a chiddush as well. The fact that it is clear to you does not make it the pashtus. There are certainly things that must be covered up because of hirhur but there are also things that must be covered despite no chashash hirhur or where hirhur is mutar.
I can’t say for certain why Chazal would make “shok” like “osso mokom” but I can speculate. There is an aspect of tznius that is based on human dignity. A person should be dignified and embarrassed by certain displays of baseness. This is how many of the poskim explain ???? ?????? ????? ????. Chazal said that with respect to arayos (and even one’s spouse when davening) we will treat the “shok” like osso makom, as a place for which it is debased to reveal and untzniusdik to look at, even when there is no daas and no chashash of hirhur.
Why didn’t Chazal make this rule apply to one’s spouse as well? I can’t say for certain, but perhaps because it would interfere to greatly with the mitzvos between a husband and wife.
old man – Thank you.
DaasYochid –
Das yehudis is not a standard which we are told to make, it is a standard based on observation. The mishnah (in Kesubos) is saying that the Jewish women happen to have a minhag tznius which is stricter than the non-Jews, and therefore the agreement to live together as a Jewish couple is an implicit agreement to live according to that minhag tznius. What if there is no specific minhag tznius, are we supposed to make specific rules based on the old minhag tznius? There is no indication to support this. If there is a apecific minhag tznius in one locale, does that bind another local which does not have that minhag? There is no indication to support this.
I’m all for a minhag tznius, and by extension, a halacha of das yehudis. But let the community decide its minhag tznius for itself. As for halacha, I don’t think there is any real source that any particular body part is obligated to be covered regardless of the society one lives in.
If I were starting a community I would say to look around at the general populace. When you dress up, don’t dress the way they dress to kill. Be a bit more low profile than that. That is a minhag tznius which is a higher standard than the general society around us, but at the same time does not bind everyone from the beginning of time until the end of time to the same arbitrary, absolute standard. I don’t think Chazal really said anything more than this.
benignuman –
Covering the hair is a completely different sugya; it’s not about tznius. It’s a gezeiras hakasuv, so whatever its rationale it isn’t really relevant to this discussion.
It is obvious that the Beis Shmuel is a dochek, since pashut pshat is the Rema’s whole point is to say even ???? ????.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9727&st=&pgnum=149
At the end of the day, you’ve found me a makor – which I do not agree with l’halacha – but a makor nonetheless, that one may not gaze at ???? ????. But the bottom line is you haven’t sufficiently demonstrated that the legs or any other body part are of that status. Admittedly it is your reading in the Gemara (Berachos 24a), but a) I am not convinced of the svara of that reading (#1 because why should it be that way and #2 because it is quite a massive dochek to say that the Gemara intends to differentiate between legs and hair/voice without telling us), and b) that reading is contradicted by the fact that ???? ???? is assur l’shitascha for everyone, while legs are explicitly only ervah for people who are arayos.
When we began this discussion I was asking for a makor, not a rationalization. I understand that those who believe women are always obligated to cover specific parts have pshatim in the Gemara and poskim which fit their view, but I have yet to see a true makor – i.e. a Gemara which according to the simplest, least dochek pshat, or the pshat that is explicitly the consensus of the rishonim, that mentions this obligation.
Yitayningwut,
My point is that the inyan of tznius is obviously more than just not sticking out, otherwise there would be no need for a das Yehudis.
DaasYochid –
I don’t think so. I think the idea is that the general society is focused on exteriors and getting people to look (or “like,” in the Facebook generation), and das yehudis says not to fall into that trap.
Covering the hair is a completely different sugya; it’s not about tznius.
Of course it is – sa’ar b”isha ervah. The gezeiras hakosuv is needed to give it the issur, because it’s less of a taavah than other things, and is muttar for single girls, but at the end of the day, it’s still ervah, and is tznius related.
It’s also completely illogical to say that the full hair covering, which is das Yehudis and explicitly tznius based, is because of tznius, but the partial hair covering which is das Moshe, is not.
DaasYochid – The “absolute” factor of covering hair has nothing to do with sa’ar b’isha ervah. I’ve written about this numerous times here and other places. For starters:
??”? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?”? ?”??? ???? ????”, ???? ????? ?? ???, ????
?) ????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ????.
?) ????? ???? ???’ ??????? ?????? ??? ???? “???? ?? ??? ????” ?”? ????. ???? ????? ???? ????? ???.
?) ??? ???’ ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? “???”, ??? ?? ????? ???? “???
?) ?? ?? ?????, ?????? ??”? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????
?) ?? “??? ???? ????” ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ?”? ?”???? ?????” ?????? ???? ????
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.