Surprising Critique of Modesty Book
Moshe Ben David
tsniut: 'Modesty: An Adornment For Life' by Rabbi Pesach Eliyahu Falk of
Gateshead, England.
Written by someone who consistently espouses a bold, unabashed, truly
authentic, thoroughly Orthodox point-of-view (that many would call "
`Haredi" or "Ultra- Orthodox") , the similiartiy I found between what he
writes and what was posted to this very newsgroup on the topic some time ago
by such people as Yisroel Markov and Janet E. Rosenbaum, was nothing
less-than shocking to me.
What makes it additionally ironic and even uncanny is that the author of the
critique is someone who has been quoted in numerous posts by the very same
individual who vigorously defended Rabbi Folk's work against the
aforementiond critiques.
Life is just full of surprises.
I would really love to see Rabbi Falk reply to this critique and I would
urge people not to form any conclusive, definitive opinions or positions
about the issue before themselves either reading the book and/or a defense
of it.
--
Kol Tuv,
Moshe Ben David
toichen
> Someone just brought to my attention a critique of the popular work on
> tsniut: 'Modesty: An Adornment For Life' by Rabbi Pesach Eliyahu Falk of
> Gateshead, England.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/fdxd
My friends and I know Rabbi Falk personally and respect him greatly,
however many of us would not bring that book into the home for many
reason. The most important reason is, that tzniyus is an approach, a
system of life rather than a set of laws. You can have a woman who
keeps her sleeves above her elbows and wears trousers, and yet is way
more tzniyus than the Orthodox JAPs who infest Boro Park's streets.
Obviously, short sleeves and trousers are wrong, but poking people's
eyes out is far worse. Paradoxically Rabbi Falk has managed to turn
tzniyus on its head and ultimately defeat its purpose. It is now
possible to be provocative by showing everyone how stricly you adhere
to the standards of tzniyus, which misses the point entirely. Tzniyus
is first and foremost an attitude, it is an appreciation of oneself as
a Jewish woman and acting in a manner that fits that role. By
consistently stressing the do's and dont's of tzniyus rather than the
philosophy of tzniyus, Rabbi Falk has succeeded in creating an
alternative form of expressing one's uniqueness, rather than a system
of restraint and balance.
toichen
Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd
Artscrewll Guide to Tznius. It includes some great illustrations of outfits
which frum women and girls should avoid at any cost. This is invaluable to
men so that they can be clear that what their wives and daughters wear is
not found in the illustrations; it is also excellent for male teachers and
administrators in Beis Yaakov type schools.
IS, ending my visit.
Moshe Ben David
news:dd1c0ee8.03062...@posting.google.com...
> "Moshe Ben David" <spammers...@airpost.net> wrote in message
news:<bdg8hf$smlj2$1...@ID-67534.news.dfncis.de>...
> > Someone just brought to my attention a critique of the popular work on
> > tsniut: 'Modesty: An Adornment For Life' by Rabbi Pesach Eliyahu Falk of
> > Gateshead, England.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/fdxd
>
> My friends and I know Rabbi Falk personally and respect him greatly,
> however many of us would not bring that book into the home for many
> reason. The most important reason is, that tzniyus is an approach, a
> system of life rather than a set of laws.
Did you actually go to the url I gave and read any of what appears on that
page?
At the top of the page, just prior to the first post /critiquing/ Rabbi
Falk's book are two posts that appear to be written by teenage girls which
/praise/ the book and seemingly refute your above claim with statements such
as:
(exact quotes from each post. Translations in brackets and use of *'s for
emphasis are mine- MBD)
"...a very strong theme in his sefer is that a bas yisroel should value her
status, and this should be reflected in her manner of dress and ACTION. "
"...He therefore doesn't just provide the bare-bones halacha. Doing so would
just dry up this whole mitzvah and make it unpalatable like school rules. He
first lays down a strong foundation of hashkafa [outlook;ideology] and then
teaches the halachos, interspersing them with hashkafa as well. He makes
admirable the desired goal. He describes the way a bas yisroel and (future)
eishes chayil, mother of future generations, provider of the kedusha
[holiness] in her home, should dress and [***]behave[***], to create the
maximum kedusha for her family and klal yisroel. After all this is what
tznius is about."
-----------
"But I think if you really read the sefer the way it is supposed to be read,
and not just read the halachos, then you'll WANT to follow it. He instills a
pride in being a tznua. Being tznius (in dress, [***]character[***],
[***speech***] etc.) is REAL beauty."
>You can have a woman who
> keeps her sleeves above her elbows and wears trousers, and yet is way
> more tzniyus than the Orthodox JAPs who infest Boro Park's streets.
It is deeply painful and disturbing to see a faithful and observant Jew talk
in such a vile way, smearing and slandering the fellow beloved children of
HaKadosh Baruh Hu of an entire neighborhood.
In _Shir Ha Shirim_ (Song of Songs) which is an allegory for the intense
love between G-d and his chosen, treasured people, the 'b'not Yerushalayim'-
the aristocratic daughters of Jerusalem who symbolize the nations of the
world tell the kallah (bride) who symbolizes the Jewish People, that she is
black ( in this context symbolizing ugliness and impurity).
The kallah responds that she is really white but has only become black from
the sun exposure she endured while working in the vineyards of her captors.
This is a 'mashal' for the Am Yisrael in galut (exile). The Am Yisrael is
b'etsem (intrinsically and fundamentaly) uniquely pure and holy and remains
so eternally. Only living for so many years among the gentiles takes its
toll and all of their wickedness, immorality and filth inevetably has a
tainting and corrupting influence that, on some level, inevetably effects
even the most pious, devout and clositered Jew.
This has increasingly worsened with time and has reached unprecedented lows
in our generation. As the gentile and secular world continually degenerates,
the 'kedushat beit' Yisroel is also continually chipped-away at.
The non-observant Jewish world long ago became almost indistinguishable from
the world at large in this areas.
Tragically, even the walls of the Torah-observant world started to crumble
very slowly and have been increasingly breached HOWEVER the Torah-observant
Jewish world, Baru`h Hashem, is still infinitely superior in these areas. A
wall with many holes is still infinitely superior to no wall at all.
While the rates of such things as rape, out-of-wedlock birth, adultery and
divorce may have been slowly increasing in the Torah-observant world, they
are still /vastly/ below those of the general population.
Yes, there does exist a problem of women who while fulfilling the /letter/
of the laws of tsniut (often just barely) are vein and materialistic and may
act in ways that are not tsniut such as by being loud, boisterious ("Yenta
types") and conspicuously ostentatious. We live in an imperfect world and
the yeitzer hara does not discriminate between Jews; he continually finds
whatever it takes to tempt and ensnare Jews whoever and wherever they may
be. Even in the frummest communities, no one is immune to human frailities
and weaknesses.
HOWEVER:
1. What about the all of the /truly/ tsnua Torah-true women who uphold both
the /letter/ as well as of the /spirit/ of the law? Baru`h Hashem, I know of
more than a few myself. You completely ignore them and imply they that they
have no presence in Boro Park. (a similar tactic to that employed by a
certain self-hating Jewish novelist, albeit on a much grander and graver
scale.)
2. Even the average "Orthodox JAP infesting the streets of Boro Park" [sic]
is infinitely more of a tsnua than the average woman in any non-Orthodox
neighborhood.
3. Outside of those case when it is done for a constructive purpose within
the guidelines outlined in hala`ha, it is a grave sin to condemn and
denounce any group, community or neighborhood of observant Jews.
This is written explicitly in Sefer `Hafetz `Haim. Additionally, the late
Rabbi Avraham Pam (zt'l) , known by many as 'The `Hafetz `Haim of Our
Generation' was known to stress this point.
All those who are 'ma`aminim'- believers in the fundamentals of Judaism and
who at least make a sincere effort to observe hala`ha , are considered
'akhim b'mitzvot'- our brethern and while we must never accept as correct or
follow the example of whatever they may do wrong, we must nonetheless always
look for, appreciate and praise the /good/ in them and find ways to judge
them as favorably as possible.
There is definitely a time and a place for chastisement, rebuke and
condemnation but your comments in this post did not fit by any of the
criteria outlined in hala`ha and comprised nothing more than a vile, cheap
shot.
> Obviously, short sleeves and trousers are wrong, but poking people's
> eyes out is far worse.
This is a complete non-sequitur.
>Paradoxically Rabbi Falk has managed to turn
> tzniyus on its head and ultimately defeat its purpose.
Such hyperbole hurts your credibility and weakens your argument.
The critique I cited is far more reasonable and balanced. It concludes as
follows:
"While Rabbi Falk's book has many worthwhile features, what is happening
among many of its readers is, they are feeling that they are sinners and
have already hopelessly "crossed the line" of being a non-tznuah."
"If that were the truth, we would not change the halachah to change anybodys
feelings - we would work on changing peoples feelings to accomodate the
halachah. But Rabbi Falk's intermingling of Halachah, mussar, his own
personal opinion and accepted norms, has caused girls to think "I have
already touched the tree.""
>It is now
> possible to be provocative by showing everyone how stricly you adhere
> to the standards of tzniyus, which misses the point entirely.
Whether or not that is true, what seems to me a far more prevalant and
disturbing problem is that of people just-barely adhering to the /letter/ of
the law in this area while clearly violating its /spirit/. Such as clothing
that is deliberately vein and provocative while nonetheless meeting the
/technical/ specifications of the law.
>Tzniyus
> is first and foremost an attitude, it is an appreciation of oneself as
> a Jewish woman and acting in a manner that fits that role.
See the quotes from girls who read the book above.
<remainder snipped>
Henry Goodman
"toichen" <toi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:dd1c0ee8.03062...@posting.google.com...
Please could you tell this ignorant Englishman who has never been to Boro
Park but understands it to be a suburb of New York what is special about the
women who "infest" it in your language.
Shabbat shalom
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
Janet Rosenbaum From:
>http://tinyurl.com/fdxd
>Written by someone who consistently espouses a bold, unabashed, truly
>authentic, thoroughly Orthodox point-of-view (that many would call "
>`Haredi" or "Ultra- Orthodox")
FWIW, the halacha teacher at Nishmat also told us not to read R Falk's
book, as it was written "for another community."
Janet
Susan Cohen
"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:bdhllb$h7l$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...> [snip]
> > toichen
>
> Please could you tell this ignorant Englishman who has never been to Boro
> Park but understands it to be a suburb of New York what is special about
the
> women who "infest" it in your language.
From his previous posts, I have to assume that they are simply girls who
don't want anything to do with him.
Susan
Yisroel Markov
<spammers...@airpost.net> said:
>Someone just brought to my attention a critique of the popular work on
>tsniut: 'Modesty: An Adornment For Life' by Rabbi Pesach Eliyahu Falk of
>Gateshead, England.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/fdxd
>
>Written by someone who consistently espouses a bold, unabashed, truly
>authentic, thoroughly Orthodox point-of-view (that many would call "
>`Haredi" or "Ultra- Orthodox") , the similiartiy I found between what he
>writes and what was posted to this very newsgroup on the topic some time ago
>by such people as Yisroel Markov and Janet E. Rosenbaum, was nothing
>less-than shocking to me.
Look, Janet, we're quoted authorities now! ;-)
Seriously, shouldn't this tell you something?
>What makes it additionally ironic and even uncanny is that the author of the
>critique is someone who has been quoted in numerous posts by the very same
>individual who vigorously defended Rabbi Folk's work against the
>aforementiond critiques.
>
>Life is just full of surprises.
>
>I would really love to see Rabbi Falk reply to this critique and I would
>urge people not to form any conclusive, definitive opinions or positions
>about the issue before themselves either reading the book and/or a defense
>of it.
I've heard quite a few negative reactions to this book similar to ones
found at the URL above. Not everybody appreciates the
fire-and-brimstone style employed by R' Falk, and this includes
several women who are tznuot in both letter and spirit, such as my
wife.
Also, R' Yehuda Henkin posted the following to Avodah list 11:31
(6/19/03, see http://www.aishdas.org/avodah ):
Shalom,
There was recent discussion of R. E. Falk's book "Oz Vehadar Levushah:
Modesty--An Adornment for Life" regarding Resp. Igrot Moshe's views on
women's hair-covering. Awaiting publication in Tradition Magazine is
an article of mine, "Contemporary Tzniut," of over forty pages.
Following is the part which refers to the above.
With Torah blessings,
Denying Igrot Moshe
Rabbi Yehuda Henkin
Resp. Igrot Moshe, in any case, permitted uncovering up to a square
tefach of hair within the hairline. This contradicts Oz veHadar
Levushah's portrayal of contemporary Halachah as uniformly forbidding
any display of hair. In defence of its position, Oz veHadar Levushah
claims, first, that Resp. Igrot Moshe gave no general heter to expose
any hair above the forehead:
"People assume that Maran Hagaon Harav Moshe Feinstein zt"l allowed
women to leave less than a tefach uncovered.This is totally incorrect.
He allowed this only under pressing circumstances, as is evident from
the wording at the beginning of the Responsum.[1]"
To buttress this contention, the author then cites a report by a
London rabbi of a conversation with R. David Feinstein, in which the
latter spoke about his father's ruling:
"Hagaon Rav Dovid shlita said to me that it is clear from the text of
the teshuva that his father zt'l never intended to give an all-out
heter for the exposure of two finger-widths of hair. The teshuva was a
personal heter given for an exceptional case. As he writes, "she [the
lady who did not agree to cover her hair] should not be considered a
major sinner ch"v." This is also indicated from the introductory words
of the teshuva, "In the first place I intended not to answer your
query in writing, as it is adequate that I give a verbal heter when
the circumstances justify it" etc. The responsum also finished with
the words "It is correct for women to be stringent and cover their
hair completely, as the Chassam Sofer held." All this clearly implies
that no general heter was given."
But Resp. Igrot Moshe did not write "she should not be considered a
major sinner," in the singular. Instead, he wrote "those [women] who
want to be lenient" (ailu harotzot lehakel) in the plural, referring
to women in general, and there is no mention of any specific "lady who
did not agree to cover her hair." Also, Resp. Igrot Moshe did not
write "she should not be considered a major sinner." Instead, he wrote
"they should not be considered violators of dat Yehudit" (ein
lehachshivan k'ovrot al dat Yehudit), i.e., not sinners at all,
neither major nor minor. Thus he concluded, "even a scholar and a
yarei shamayim should not refrain from marrying such a woman."
This pattern of wishful or willful misreading of Resp. Igrot Moshe is
evident in other points raised, as well. The teshuvah was not "a
personal heter given for an exceptional case." The hesitancy at the
beginning of the teshuvah refers to replying specifically in writing,
not to any hesitancy about the reply itself, and no "pressing
circumstances" are involved except as regards writing the heter as
opposed to transmitting it orally. If there is reluctance to give a
"general heter" it is in the sense of not circulating it, lest it lead
women who untill then covered all of their hair to lower their
standards, but the heter was there for anyone who needed it. This
explains the remarkable fact that although the teshuvah professes to
disagree with Resp. Chatam Sofer,[2] it makes not the slightest
reference to minhag which is a key component of the latter's argument.
Resp. Igrot Moshe had no intention of prompting women who already had
a minhag lehachmir to abandon it.
Oz veHadar Levushah's second argument is that Resp. Igrot Moshe
retracted his earlier view:
"The ruling mentioned (O.C. 4:112) is written in a responsum dated
5717 and again in a responsum (E.H. 1:58) dated 5721. There is,
however, a third responsum (O.C. 4:15) dated 5732 in which it is
written explicitly that even less than a tefach of hair must be
covered in line with other "covered areas" of a woman's body which
must be fully covered, and even less than a tefach may not be
exposed.[3]"
This refers to the fact that in the two earlier responsa Resp. Igrot
Moshe argued that even Hagahot Maimoniot cited by Rema, who forbids
viewing less than a tefach of flesh in women other than his wife,
would permit less than a tefach of hair, i. e., that there is no
disagreement on this matter. In the third responsum, however, he wrote
that the question "depends on the controversy concerning less than a
tefach [of flesh] brought by Rema," i. e., there is disagreement on
this matter. According to Oz veHadar Levushah, therefore, the last
teshuvah of Resp. Igrot Moshe on the subject rules "explicitly" that
any amount of hair must be covered.
However, besides the fact that there is nothing explicit about it,
Resp. Igrot Moshe did not specify that we rule according to Rema on
this issue, but only that it is a matter of controversy. In addition,
as opposed to the first two responsa which discuss the Rema / Hagahot
Maimoniot view, the third responsum has no discussion at all and
merely mentions it in passing. It is unlikely that this represents a
retraction of his previous arguments.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Oz veHadar Levushah, p. 236.
[2] Orach Chayim, no. 36.
[3] Oz veHadar Levushah, p. 238.
----------------------------------------
Given that R' Falk is one of those who explicitly and unabashedly
advocate re-writing history, I'm not surprised.
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Steven Goldfarb
>But Resp. Igrot Moshe did not write "she should not be considered a
>major sinner," in the singular. Instead, he wrote "those [women] who
>want to be lenient" (ailu harotzot lehakel) in the plural, referring
>to women in general, and there is no mention of any specific "lady who
>did not agree to cover her hair." Also, Resp. Igrot Moshe did not
>write "she should not be considered a major sinner." Instead, he wrote
>"they should not be considered violators of dat Yehudit" (ein
>lehachshivan k'ovrot al dat Yehudit), i.e., not sinners at all,
>neither major nor minor. Thus he concluded, "even a scholar and a
>yarei shamayim should not refrain from marrying such a woman."
I'm confused - how can a scholar marry "such a woman" when she's clearly
already married? After all, if she were single, then there wouldn't be any
need for her to cover her hair in the first place.
--sg
--
---------------------------------------
Steve Goldfarb Eppur si muove
s...@stevegoldfarb.com (and still, it moves)
http://stevegoldfarb.com/ - Galileo
Moshe Ben David
wished to add that the following:
Among the communties and neighborhoods with the highest standards of tsniut,
both in the letter as well as the spirit of laws and ideals of tsniut, are:
-Meah She`arim in Yerushalayim Ihr HaKodesh
And l'havdil (Yibeneh Tsion v'Ireha)
- Kiriat Tosh, near Montreal Canada
- New Square, NY (Rockland County)
- Kiriat Yoel (" )
- Union City, NJ (Klausenburg)
- Mt. Kisco, NY (Nitra)
- Kiriat Kashoi (near Mt. Kisco)
- Willamsburg, Brooklyn
This is not intended as an exhaustive list and should not be taken as a
dispargement or denigration of any other Torah-true community.
B. Tkatch
(toichen) wrote:
>The most important reason is, that tzniyus is an approach, a
>system of life rather than a set of laws.
(The following paragraphs are complete opinion. I am only saying it so
if anyone deems it incorrect, they can correct it. I am mostly
ignorant in these areas.:)
I thought it was both. A few laws about what *must* be covered, and
then the basic attitude of not drawing attention to oneself.
Also, that men and women are alike on these rules, except in two
cases:
The ankles, where traditionally men are more strict.
The elbows where traditionally women are more strict.
The rules I though were simple about what must be covered.
Neckbone to ankles.
Men only: Ankles
Ankles to feet
neck to elbows
women only: elbows
Unless in an area where it is appropriate to be dressed that way, such
as the showerroom. But even then it mayn be reccomended to only
uncover that which is required.
B.
Yisroel Markov
<s...@panix.com> said:
>In <3efc8500...@News.CIS.DFN.DE> ey.m...@iname.com (Yisroel Markov) writes:
>
>>But Resp. Igrot Moshe did not write "she should not be considered a
>>major sinner," in the singular. Instead, he wrote "those [women] who
>>want to be lenient" (ailu harotzot lehakel) in the plural, referring
>>to women in general, and there is no mention of any specific "lady who
>>did not agree to cover her hair." Also, Resp. Igrot Moshe did not
>>write "she should not be considered a major sinner." Instead, he wrote
>>"they should not be considered violators of dat Yehudit" (ein
>>lehachshivan k'ovrot al dat Yehudit), i.e., not sinners at all,
>>neither major nor minor. Thus he concluded, "even a scholar and a
>>yarei shamayim should not refrain from marrying such a woman."
>
>I'm confused - how can a scholar marry "such a woman" when she's clearly
>already married? After all, if she were single, then there wouldn't be any
>need for her to cover her hair in the first place.
AFAIK the original question was about a *bride* who wanted to be
lenient after the wedding.
cindys
"Steven Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bdi1bb$j1a$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> In <3efc8500...@News.CIS.DFN.DE> ey.m...@iname.com (Yisroel
Markov) writes:
>
> >But Resp. Igrot Moshe did not write "she should not be considered a
> >major sinner," in the singular. Instead, he wrote "those [women] who
> >want to be lenient" (ailu harotzot lehakel) in the plural, referring
> >to women in general, and there is no mention of any specific "lady who
> >did not agree to cover her hair." Also, Resp. Igrot Moshe did not
> >write "she should not be considered a major sinner." Instead, he wrote
> >"they should not be considered violators of dat Yehudit" (ein
> >lehachshivan k'ovrot al dat Yehudit), i.e., not sinners at all,
> >neither major nor minor. Thus he concluded, "even a scholar and a
> >yarei shamayim should not refrain from marrying such a woman."
>
> I'm confused - how can a scholar marry "such a woman" when she's clearly
> already married? After all, if she were single, then there wouldn't be any
> need for her to cover her hair in the first place.
She could be divorced or widowed. Once a woman begins to cover her hair, she
must do so always. (I also once had this question, and someone explained it
to me.)
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)
"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
> She could be divorced or widowed. Once a woman begins to cover her hair, she
> must do so always. (I also once had this question, and someone explained it
> to me.)
More likely, the teshuvah was talking about a woman who openly wished
to be meqel in that way after she would be married. Also, it is not
universally true that a divorcee or widow must continue to cover her
hair - some authorities will allow not covering hair in specific
circumstances, for example to aid in shiduhhim (of course, in some
communities, it would hinder such...).
Shabbat Shalom!
-Shlomo-
Harry Weiss
Boro Park is a neighborhood in the borough of Brooklyn, which is part of
the city of NY, where the vast majority of the population are Charedim.
There are hundreds of Yeshivahs and shuls there.
There is a reputation there, (deserved or not - I don't know, not being in
NY that often) that it is an area where everyone has to outdo their
neighbor with everything, inlcuding, the latest most expensive sheitel
possible, and other things of that sort.
> --
> Henry Goodman
> henry....@virgin.net
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Garry
<SPAMBLOCK.M...@ThePentagon.com.SPAMBLOCK> wrote:
>Also, that men and women are alike on these rules, except in two
>cases:
>
>The ankles, where traditionally men are more strict.
>The elbows where traditionally women are more strict.
>
I assume that this is the remanant of a tradition somewhere, which we
adhere in a legal/symbolic kind of way? Or is there reasoning that
the ankles of a man are more seductive to a woman than those of a
woman are to a man?
_______________________________________
A haggadah that feeds the hungry! A carefully translated and revised version of the Haggadah, handsomely printed.
The entire purchase price goes to charity. http://www.matzoh.net/hagg/main.html
Feel free to contact me thru matzoh.net. Garry
Raphael
This is in addition to other issues, such as the author's already-publicized
misrepresentation of R' Moshe Feinstein's psak on leaving one tefach of hair
uncovered.
Raphael
Moshe Ben David <spammers...@airpost.net> wrote in message
news:bdg8hf$smlj2$1...@ID-67534.news.dfncis.de...
toichen
> > however many of us would not bring that book into the home for many
> > reason. The most important reason is, that tzniyus is an approach, a
> > system of life rather than a set of laws.
>
> Did you actually go to the url I gave and read any of what appears on that
> page?
>
> At the top of the page, just prior to the first post /critiquing/ Rabbi
> Falk's book are two posts that appear to be written by teenage girls which
> /praise/ the book and seemingly refute your above claim with statements such
> as:
I have read the book, and I am aware that some people see it
differently than I do. Rabbi Falk does discuss the Jewish attitude to
tznius at the beginning of the book, however I feel and so do many of
my friends, that his subsequent stress on laws detracts from his
initial discussion.
> >You can have a woman who
> > keeps her sleeves above her elbows and wears trousers, and yet is way
> > more tzniyus than the Orthodox JAPs who infest Boro Park's streets.
>
> It is deeply painful and disturbing to see a faithful and observant Jew talk
> in such a vile way, smearing and slandering the fellow beloved children of
> HaKadosh Baruh Hu of an entire neighborhood.
I did not smear the entire neighbourhood, I did criticise the way
someone women are dressed. I believe this criticism has been made by
many, and there is nothing that I am adding except of course for the
way I presented it. I actually expected far more flames, however Susan
was the only one who fell for the bait.
> The kallah responds that she is really white but has only become black from
> the sun exposure she endured while working in the vineyards of her captors.
As an interesting aside, it would seem that blondes are prettier than
dark girls, see also the gemora in Sotah.
> Only living for so many years among the gentiles takes its
> toll and all of their wickedness, immorality and filth inevetably has a
> tainting and corrupting influence that, on some level, inevetably effects
> even the most pious, devout and clositered Jew.
>
> This has increasingly worsened with time and has reached unprecedented lows
> in our generation. As the gentile and secular world continually degenerates,
> the 'kedushat beit' Yisroel is also continually chipped-away at.
This is a common misconception. The gentile world has been morally
degenerate for many centuries. Sexual mores are a pendulum and swing
to extremes over many hundreds of years. Classical Greece and Rome
were just as degenerate as society today if not more so. Read gemara
Avodah Zora or Suetonius.
> 1. What about the all of the /truly/ tsnua Torah-true women who uphold both
> the /letter/ as well as of the /spirit/ of the law? Baru`h Hashem, I know of
> more than a few myself. You completely ignore them and imply they that they
> have no presence in Boro Park.
There are many fine women in Boro Park, my criticism was aimed solely
at those who dress provocatively. If that wasn't clear, I apologise,
and make that clear now.
> 2. Even the average "Orthodox JAP infesting the streets of Boro Park" [sic]
> is infinitely more of a tsnua than the average woman in any non-Orthodox
> neighborhood.
Point being...?
> All those who are 'ma`aminim'- believers in the fundamentals of Judaism and
> who at least make a sincere effort to observe hala`ha , are considered
> 'akhim b'mitzvot'- our brethern and while we must never accept as correct or
> follow the example of whatever they may do wrong, we must nonetheless always
> look for, appreciate and praise the /good/ in them and find ways to judge
> them as favorably as possible.
I love all JAPs, how's that?
> > Obviously, short sleeves and trousers are wrong, but poking people's
> > eyes out is far worse.
>
> This is a complete non-sequitur.
I wrote that so that none of the secular Jews in the newsgroup would
feel justified dressing in short sleeves or trousers. That sentence
was indeed immaterial to the point I was making.
> >Paradoxically Rabbi Falk has managed to turn
> > tzniyus on its head and ultimately defeat its purpose.
>
> Such hyperbole hurts your credibility and weakens your argument.
My credibility on this NG is non-existent, and I am happy it is that
way. Let people read what I say and take it for what it's worth. I
have zero interest in being held up personally to any standard.
> >It is now
> > possible to be provocative by showing everyone how stricly you adhere
> > to the standards of tzniyus, which misses the point entirely.
>
> Whether or not that is true, what seems to me a far more prevalant and
> disturbing problem is that of people just-barely adhering to the /letter/ of
> the law in this area while clearly violating its /spirit/. Such as clothing
> that is deliberately vein and provocative while nonetheless meeting the
> /technical/ specifications of the law.
Of course, that was precisely (one of)my point(s).
toichen
Henry Goodman
"Moshe Ben David" <spammers...@airpost.net> wrote in message
news:bdhgf6$t32vj$1...@ID-67534.news.dfncis.de...
Since the book under discussion was written in Gateshead, I find the
omission of Gateshead from your list rather surprising.
Shavua Tov
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
>
Henry Goodman
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@his.com> wrote in message
news:3efc729e$1...@vienna7.his.com...
Thanks ROTFL
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net>
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
cindys
<bac...@vms.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:bdlt7k$jb6$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> In article <bdis0a$rn6$2...@reader1.panix.com>, Harry Weiss
<hjw...@panix.com> writes:
> > Henry Goodman <henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> Access http://www.machers.com for a guided tour of Boro Park.
>
> Josh
Thanks, Josh. What a great site!
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Harry Weiss <hjw...@panix.com> writes:
>> Henry Goodman <henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
snip
>>> Please could you tell this ignorant Englishman who has never been to Boro
>>> Park but understands it to be a suburb of New York what is special about the
>>> women who "infest" it in your language.
>>> Shabbat shalom
>>
>> Boro Park is a neighborhood in the borough of Brooklyn, which is part of
>> the city of NY, where the vast majority of the population are Charedim.
>> There are hundreds of Yeshivahs and shuls there.
>
> Access http://www.machers.com for a guided tour of Boro Park.
Josh, I was _sure_ you were pulling our leg with this URL. What a
pleasant surprise.
>> There is a reputation there, (deserved or not - I don't know, not
>> being in NY that often) that it is an area where everyone has to
>> outdo their neighbor with everything, inlcuding, the latest most
>> expensive sheitel possible, and other things of that sort.
I've heard of that reputation from relatives in New York.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
May Eliyahu Chayim ben Sarah Henna (Eliot Shimoff) have a refuah Shlaima.
May Mikhah Shemu'el ben Lei'ah Yesharah (Michah Berger) have 1 2!
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
Wait til you see the guided tour of Willamsburg that should be up in 8-10
weeks on http://www.forgotten-ny.com :-)
Josh
> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.
>
toichen
> Park but understands it to be a suburb of New York what is special about the
> women who "infest" it in your language.
> Shabbat shalom
Mr. Goodman you will be please to learn that I am from the few members
of the human race who also live out of the USA. To answer your
question. Boro Park is a neighbourhood in Brooklyn. Brooklyn forms one
of the five boroughs of New York City. New York City is part of New
York State and New York State is part of the USA. The vast majority of
Boro Park's residents are orthodox Jews. A significant percentage of
the fairer gender of the socio-economic cited above, dress in a manner
which is at odds with classical Jewish values. This included up to 1
mm of makeup (I am basing myself on an article in the Jewish Tribune),
provocative clothing, when I say provocative, I mean clothing that
demands attention from pedestrians, overdone sheitels, bent over
double with all the jewelry they are wearing etc.
I hope that satisfies your curiousity.
toichen
Moshe Ben David
news:2003Jun2...@mm.huji.ac.il...
> >> There is a reputation there, (deserved or not - I don't know, not
> >> being in NY that often) that it is an area where everyone has to
> >> outdo their neighbor with everything, inlcuding, the latest most
> >> expensive sheitel possible, and other things of that sort.
"EVERYONE"??!!!!
Baru`h Hashem, I know of enough powerful counter-examples to know that it is
not "EVERYONE" !
Truly modest and non-materialstic people, many of whom live in humble and
often cramped quarters.
> I've heard of that reputation from relatives in New York.
You need to find better relatives.
Or at least make it clear to those relatives that you have no interest in
hearing their badmouthing of observant Jews.
> Moshe Schorr
> It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
And it is a tremendous 'aveirah' (sin) to badmouth observant Jews or even to
"merely endorse" such hearsay as you have done here.
> May Eliyahu Chayim ben Sarah Henna (Eliot Shimoff) have a refuah Shlaima.
> May Mikhah Shemu'el ben Lei'ah Yesharah (Michah Berger) have 1 2!
Slandering observant Jews does not help with this but guarding one's tongue
does.
Harry Hazzeri
Sounds like a true masturpiece. Wonder which haskomos it carries.
Harry Hazzeri
Yeah, I would suspect they rebuffed highly immodest proposals of his.
Let's just say that "JAPppy" as they may have been, I'm sure they were
no match for the likes of Monica Lewinsky.
Henry Goodman
"toichen" <toi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:dd1c0ee8.03062...@posting.google.com...
Thanks very much. I was, of course, aware that you are privileged to live in
Jerusalem.
Unfortunately, the pictures on the site Josh recommended did not include the
level of detail in your description.
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
>> Please could you tell this ignorant Englishman who has never been to Boro
>> Park but understands it to be a suburb of New York what is special about the
>> women who "infest" it in your language.
>> Shabbat shalom
>
> Mr. Goodman you will be please to learn that I am from the few members
> of the human race who also live out of the USA. To answer your
> question. Boro Park is a neighbourhood in Brooklyn. Brooklyn forms one
> of the five boroughs of New York City. New York City is part of New
> York State and New York State is part of the USA. The vast majority of
> Boro Park's residents are orthodox Jews. A significant percentage of
> the fairer gender of the socio-economic cited above, dress in a manner
> which is at odds with classical Jewish values. This included up to 1
> mm of makeup (I am basing myself on an article in the Jewish Tribune),
That reminds me of the Broadway show, "The Smell of the grease-paint, the
roar of the crowd".
> provocative clothing, when I say provocative, I mean clothing that
> demands attention from pedestrians, overdone sheitels, bent over
> double with all the jewelry they are wearing etc.
But a lot of surgeons do a nice living from all the hernia operations ! :-)
BTW you forgot the plastic covered sofas and the crystal chandeliers in the
living rooms.
Josh
Joel Shurkin
<ey.m...@iname.com> wrote:
I made a comment in another thread about legalisms being confused for
Torah. I rest my case.
J
--
"The opponents of war were easily silenced by chages of cowardice and lack of
patriotism; and in 200 B.C., T. Quinctius Flaminus sailed against Macedon.²
Will Durant, Caesar and Christ.
Joel Shurkin
Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions
Baltimore
Moshe Ben David
>> Unfortunately, the pictures on the site Josh recommended did not include
>the
> level of detail in your description.
Fortunately; "V'lo taturu...akharei einikhem". This verse prohibits
deliberated looking at women, /for the sake of getting a good look/, even
when not done with lewd intentions.
Micha Berger
: I have read the book, and I am aware that some people see it
: differently than I do. Rabbi Falk does discuss the Jewish attitude to
: tznius at the beginning of the book, however I feel and so do many of
: my friends, that his subsequent stress on laws detracts from his
: initial discussion.
Here here!
Or, if you prefer, zei'er gut gezogt!
I also think his failure to point out the difference between minhag,
settled law, and personal ruling robs the book of some value. Although
he has the SA as precedent.
-mi
Micha Berger
: Please could you tell this ignorant Englishman who has never been to Boro
: Park but understands it to be a suburb of New York...
Boro Park is a neighborhood in Brooklyn, one of NYC's 5 boroughs.
And I could think of other neighborhoods in NYC where the style pushes for
far greater problems than those in BP.
-mi
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
Thanks for the mussar.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
Janet Rosenbaum From:
>I wrote that so that none of the secular Jews in the newsgroup would
>feel justified dressing in short sleeves or trousers. That sentence
>was indeed immaterial to the point I was making.
However, there are those among the religious Jews in the newsgroup who
continue to feel justified dressing in short sleeves or trousers.
Janet
Janet Rosenbaum From:
I think it's time to repost the laws of tsnius again.
From: Yisroel Markov <y...@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: In The Spirit of Adar: Tzniut
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:19:40 GMT
V'Nishmarto Mikol Dovor Ro
Laws of Tz'niyus for Our Degenerate Age
INTRODUCTION
Why This Sefer Is Needed
V'nishmarto mikol dovor ro -- shelo yistakel ish b'ishoh no'oh afilu hi
penuyoh.
"Guard yourself from every evil thing" (D'vorim 23:10) that a man should not
look at an attractive woman, even if she is unmarried. (Avodoh Zoroh 20a)
Keneses Yisroel is under siege, beset by pernicious influences of a
morally degenerate society. These influences seek to infiltrate our
holy encampment through our eyes (immodest images), ears (foul music),
nose (seductive perfumes) and throat (Mexican food). The Torah says,
"Ve-shomru B'nei Yisroel," that we Jews are commanded to be vigilant,
watchful, on guard; and Chazal teach us, "Shomer chinom nisba al ha-
kol" - he who is watchful unnecessarily is rewarded with total
satisfaction. This teaches that tz'niyus, modesty, requires more than
simple vigilance; it requires vigilance that is chinom - unnecessary!
But how do we know how to be unnecessarily vigilant? Chazal go on:
"Ve-ha-shoel mesholem es ha-kol" - one who asks is rewarded for
everything! Just a few generations ago, our forebears lived in a
pure, unblemished state - where the street cleaner knew all of Shas
b'al peh, where his daughter covered her collarbone, where Calvin
Klein was the name of the shtetl idiot. Torah wafted through the
streets, enveloping the inhabitants like the smog over Los Angeles.
No more. Today, we have our carpeting and convection ovens, but we
have lost our k'dushoh. Boruch H-shem, most Goyim no longer burn down
our homes, but they are raising our daughters' hemlines and selling
them light-colored hosiery. This book is a comprehensive guide to the
dress and comportment of every Bas Yisroel - young and old, married
and single, beautiful and me'is (conventional looking). Readers will
be grateful to know that extreme care has been taken to eliminate from
the text any inaccuracy, ambiguity or leniency. The book will make an
ideal gift for the Bas Mitzvoh, the Bais Yaakov and seminary student,
the recent baalas t'shuvoh, indeed any woman who believes that the
Ribbono shel Olom cares what color tights she wears. Also, married
men must learn these halochos and take care that their wives and
daughters observe them; but no peeking at the diagrams!
CHAPTER ONE
Tz'niyus - Not Just About Wearing Gabardine Tights in 90-Degree Weather
Many women mistakenly think that tz'niyus is about covering your legs
and arms. This is wrong. Tz'niyus is also about covering your feet
and wrists. More than that, tz'niyus is really a way of life, a set
of rules that governs everything you do - whether you are cooking
meals, sewing clothes, scouring pots or doing laundry. Tz'niyus means
avoiding attention, wrapping yourself in anonymity. One famous Gadol
was married to his wife for twelve years before he learned her name.
Even then, he only found out by accidentally overhearing a
conversation between his next-door neighbors that was so loud, every
syllable came right through the wall against which the Gadol was
pressing a tall glass. Tz'niyus does not require passivity. As we
learn from the holy Imahos, a Bas Yisroel can be strong and decisive,
provided she channels her energy in the proper direction. For
instance, my wife was once cleaning a chicken for Shabbes when she
looked up at the clock, realized it was time for my shower, and rushed
upstairs to turn the water on. Lessons of tz'niyus cannot be delayed
until a daughter is older. Children old enough to walk are old enough
to understand the word "pritzus." Scrupulous mothers change their
infant daughters' diapers only in a darkened room and then only when
the smell becomes unbearable. Fathers may not change diapers of boys
or girls because it is hukos ha-goy, a Gentile practice, for a man to
do such things. Shunning Goyisher practices is the hallmark of
tz'niyus. Unfortunately, many of our wives and daughters read the
Gentile fashion magazines which glamorize un-Jewish things - immodest
clothing, excessive makeup and slender waists. Seemingly innocuous
practices can degenerate into the worst abominations.
Suntans can lead to sun worship! Crosswords can lead to Ch- tianity!
Reading books can lead to critical thinking! The laws of tz'niyus
prohibit a woman from assuming a public or leadership role. We learn
this from D'voroh haN'vioh, who served as a judge and prophetess, who
masterminded Am Yisroel's war against Sisera, who celebrated the
nation's military triumph in song . . . okay, so maybe she's not such
a good example. Even a woman's thoughts must be tz'niyusdig.
Thinking should not be done in a way that draws attention to oneself.
Pronounced scratching of the head is forbidden.
CHAPTER TWO
The Severity of Violating the Laws of Tz'niyus
It is impossible to exaggerate the gravity of tz'niyus violations.
But we shall try. The Gemoro says, "Kol b'ishoh ervoh," everything
about a woman is nakedness. Thus, a woman should rightly conceal
every millimeter of her body. But Chazal in their holy wisdom saw how
difficult this would be for many women, so they permitted a woman to
show her face, hands and feet. Nevertheless, it is preferable not to
rely on this leniency.
A woman who dresses immodestly may be violating innumerable issurim. The
potential avayros include:
1. Causing men to look (lifnay iver)
2. Dressing like a shiksoh (hukkos ha-goyim)
3. Testifying to one's own low moral character (lashon hora)
4. Setting a bad example for one's daughters (lo sechallel
b'noscho l'haznosah)
5. Distracting men from learning (bittul Torah)
6. Distracting men from looking where they're going (bor
bir'shus horabbim)
7. Degrading the reputation of B'nos Yisroel (chillul H-shem)
8. Degrading the reputation of one's parents (kibbud ov v'em)
9. Inciting jealousy (lo sachmod)
10. Inciting you-know-what (lo sinof)
11. Challenging H-shem's authority (Anochi H-shem E-lokecho)
12. Worshipping fashion (Lo yihyeh)
13. Causing sellers of tz'niyusdig clothing to lose money
(hosogas g'vul)
14. Causing men to have to walk further to avoid seeing you
(bittul z'man)
15. Inviting attack by the Tz'niyus Patrol (V'nishmartem
me'od l'nafshosaychem)
(This is only a partial list. For a complete list, with m'koros, see
my Almost as Bad as Lashon Hora: The 263 Issurim Relating to Tz'niyus.)
CHAPTER THREE
The Principal Duty of a Married Woman: Covering Hair
In Halochoh, it is always important to understand which of our
practices are strict Halochoh (like sh'miras Shabbes), which are
minhog (eating kreplach), and which are merely aytzos tovos (marrying
a woman named Peshie). But this does not apply to covering hair.
Basically, all hair-covering rules should be treated as D'Oraysoh
obligations. The s'forim are clear that looking for leniency in kisuy
sa'aros leads to complete abandonment of Torah standards (r"l), social
breakdown, mass hysteria, and shortages of Muenster cheese, lo alenu.
Hair-covering is not simply a mitzvoh. It is a way of life.
Preferably, you should never permit your hair to be visible, not in
public or private, not by Yid or Goy, not even by your manicurist. We
learn this absolute rule from the actions of Kimchis and the example
of Yul Brynner. Every aspect of one's life is affected by this
inspiring objective. For example, one should live in a place where
the climate favors uninterrupted hair- covering. This is one of the
many halochic reasons to live in Monsey rather than Eretz Yisroel.
(See also my article in the May 1996 Jewish Observer, "The Age-Old
Dilemma: Move to Eretz Yisroel or Put in That Paysach Kitchen?")
Unfortunately, the myth has arisen that some frum women in Europe,
even from chosheve families, did not cover their hair.
This is sheker of the worst kind and a clear violation of lashon hora
and motzi shem ra (libel; for Litvaks, laybel). Admittedly, recent
biographies include family photographs that seem to show a lapse in
kisuy sa'aros and other areas. But these pictures have been
misinterpreted. In fact, the women in those days were so tz'niyusdig
that they did not want to be photographed at all, so they had
non-Jewish women (maids and the like) pose in the family photograph in
their stead. So these pictures actually prove that there was a higher
level of tz'niyus in those days! Boruch H-shem, it is much easier
today to be strict in kisuy sa'aros. For example the invention of the
chin strap makes it easier to keep your sheitel on while sleeping.
(And, for those who toss and turn a lot, there is Krazy Glue.) Today
we have extra-long snoods that not only cover every hair, but are
great for cleaning up spills in the kitchen.
Nevertheless, we still find women seeking leniencies regarding hair
covering, such as the t'shuvoh of Rav Moshe Feinstein that, some
claim, permits a woman to leave less than a tefach of hair uncovered.
But a careful reading of Rav Moshe's teshuvoh reveals that he never
gave such a heter, he didn't mean to give the heter, and he later
retracted the heter bifnei am v'edoh (in the presence of many reliable
eccentrics). In any case, the t'shuvoh was obviously directed at a
particular woman under specific circumstances, so the heter can only
apply to another woman who shares the original woman's first name,
birthday, weight and shoe size.
More importantly, those who run after leniencies fail to understand
that kisuy sa'aros is the foundation on which the existence of Am
Yisroel depends. This is proven from Dovid haMelech's statement,
"Ayleh ba'rechev v'ayleh ba'susim" -- Goyim live like horses, with
their hair uncovered, but for us, "b'shem H-shem E-lokenu nazkir," our
existence as Yidden depends on how often we say "boruch H-shem."
CHAPTER FOUR
Rules Governing Kashrus of Garments
* Kosher Dresses and Blouses. When buying a dress or blouse, a Bas
Yisroel must pay attention to many factors. Of course, the neckline
must be high and the sleeves long. Many poskim also agree that a
garment is not acceptable if one paid full price. Similarly, the
garment must not be tight, see-through or clingy; it is ossur for the
outline of a woman's body to be visible because this violates the laws
of tz'niyus and makes it possible to determine if the woman is
overweight.
* Kosher Skirts. A skirt is like a sukkoh. If it conforms to
Halochoh, then it is a holy mitzvoh object. But if the skirt falls
short, then it becomes possul - a sin to wear and a trap for others.
Yet, a mere millimeter of fabric can separate a kosher skirt from a
trayf one (just as a millisecond can separate chillul Shabbes from an
innocent game of "poison the squirrel"). So, as with a chicken, you
must take a questionable skirt to a posek.
* Yet, many Rabbonim today lament how infrequently they are asked to
look at women trying on their new skirts. Many women think a skirt is
kosher if it covers the knees when bending or sitting. But this is a
tragic mistake, because a skirt must be suitable for all possible
activities, including rock climbing, walking in typhoon-strength winds
and running to avoid molten lava.
* Kosher Fabrics. We have found that nearly all fabrics - whether
natural or synthetic -- are likely to cling or shrink; therefore, we
recommend that women wear garments made of more tz'niyusdig material,
such as wood or plastic. (Of course, one should always be careful to
choose a wood that is not flashy or a plastic that is not
transparent.) While these are not always as comfortable as wool or
cotton, we must remember that the mitzvoh is about tz'niyus, not
comfort. Did the Kohen Godol complain that the Choshen was too bulky?
Did the Krechtzer Rebbe complain that, when it rained, his streimel
smelled like a diseased ferret? Indeed, given that a woman's clothes
are her armor against the modern world's depravities, it is fitting
that her garments be ill-fitting, a hard, protective shield that
clanks when she walks.
* Diet and Tz'niyus. Another problem arises if a girl is growing. The
dor ha'midbor were zocheh to have clothes that grew as they grew; so
did Alice in Wonderland and the Incredible Hulk. But our dor is not
so worthy. I myself have watched for years as my pants stayed the
same while my waistline grew. For our young women, such growth is a
michshol, a trap. Overnight, sleeves and hemlines can become too
short, necklines too low, and the whole outfit can become too tight,
r"l. Girls in such a situation should stop drinking milk and eating
healthy foods; after all the mitzvoh is to dress b'tz'niyus, not to be
5'10". Besides, no choson wants to feel like a midget (in keeping
with the Gemoro, which classifies short people as no better than a
cheresh or a shoteh.)
* Kosher Robes, Pajamas, Swimsuits, etc. The obligation to dress
b'tz'niyus applies at all times and in all places. A woman alone in
the bath or shower must be conscious that the Shechinoh is there and
knows if she is washing behind her ears. Thus, a woman's bath towel,
bathrobe and slippers must conform to halochic standards. Showercaps
should be attractive but not showy. When bathing, a woman must take
care that her window shades and curtains are drawn and that her
medicine cabinet conceals no hidden video cameras. In preparing for
bed, a Bas Yisroel should undress unobtrusively under her covers or,
better still, in her closet. Pajamas should not have a suggestive
appearance or crude slogans, but poskim permit modestly placed cartoon
characters. Swimsuits pose many challenges. Today's bathing suits
are designed to accentuate the most superficial aspects of a woman,
obscuring her inner beauty and exposing her weakness for ice cream
sundaes with chocolate fudge sauce. Lycra and other synthetic fabrics
cling closely to one's curves and secants. The presence of male
lifeguards adds an additional complication for the Bas Yisroel seeking
the energizing effects of swimming. In order to avoid these problems,
erlicher Yidden have selflessly moved to Lawrence and bought homes
with private swimming pools.
CHAPTER FIVE
Local Standards
This brings us to an important aspect of the laws of tz'niyus. Just
as different localities follow different shitos regarding tzays
ha-kochovim (nightfall) or paying taxes, different communities have
different standards for tz'niyus. Some communities require a hat on
top of a shaytel, while others have banned shaytlach altogether. Many
neighborhoods in Eretz Yisroel prohibit makeup, while most kehillos in
New York require a woman to wear a fur coat.
As a general rule, a woman must conform to the local standards,
unless she is accustomed to observing a more stringent practice. In
that case, she must maintain her high level of observance, and she
must never publicly display arrogance (yuharoh) about her more
exacting standards, though privately she is entitled to mock her
neighbors. We learn this from Rav Yishmael who, the Gemoro relates,
routinely mocked his colleagues for eating OU tuna fish.
CONCLUSION
The Eternal War: Yidden vs. the Umos ha-Olom
Fashion is simply one front in our ongoing battle against the moral
corruption of the Goyisher velt. The shiksoh proudly bares herself,
while we proudly bear our mesoroh. They idolize idleness, while we
worship worship. The brazenness of modern culture is so total, that
we don't even notice its more shameless manifestations. Have you ever
noticed that the Statue of Liberty is not wearing undergarments? That
Donald Duck is naked from the waist down?
Even the English language has become a repository for degenerate
exhibitionism. White meat of chicken is named for a part of the
woman's anatomy. Certain whales have names that cannot even be
written here.
Media that were once refined have grown coarse. Newspapers feature
photographs of undressed women. Magazines boast tawdry covers with
lurid articles that aggrandize giluy arayos, shefichas domim and
higher education. Radio broadcasts smutty talk and ear-splitting
noise with filthy lyrics. (One recent song, for example, coarsely
proclaims, "I Wanna Hold Your Hand.") Another medium that has become
corrupted is soup can labels. In our home we simply remove the labels
from the cans before we put them on the shelf. This not only promotes
k'dushoh in the kitchen, but adds an element of mystery to the
preparation of meals. Thus, we follow in the footsteps of the
Perushim and separate ourselves from the depravities of society. We
close our ears to their so-called music and shut our eyes to avoid
seeing their television, movies and traffic lights. Adrift in a sea
of moral corruption, we garb ourselves in the life-vest of tz'niyus,
as we sail on our raft of Torah down the Mississippi River of life.
As a well-known Rov told me, "The sign of a true Bas Yisroel is not
her physical beauty, but her ability to make really good kasha
varnishkes."
Copyright (c) 2000 by Eli D. Clark
All Rights Reserved
Janet Rosenbaum From:
>>The ankles, where traditionally men are more strict.
>>The elbows where traditionally women are more strict.
>I assume that this is the remanant of a tradition somewhere, which we
>adhere in a legal/symbolic kind of way? Or is there reasoning that
>the ankles of a man are more seductive to a woman than those of a
>woman are to a man?
There is no halacha on ankles at all. Elbows aren't even in halacha
except to the extent that they mark the end of the upper arm.
Men have to dress like bnei Torah, and women have to cover much of their
upper arms and legs.
Janet
Andy Katz
<jero...@frog.hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Pronounced scratching of the head is forbidden.
Shame on you, Janet, for posting this sans warning!
However often I read this it always catches me off guard.
Now you'll excuse me while I mop the rest of my coffee from my
keyboard.
Andy Calvin Klein Katz
____________________________________________
"There's more to being a Jew than jewlery!"
Charlotte York, "Sex & The City"
The Simpsons
a...@earthlink.net
Andre...@aol.com
Bastard Nation
http://www.bastards.org
B. Tkatch
>On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:34:57 +0000 (UTC), "B. Tkatch"
><SPAMBLOCK.M...@ThePentagon.com.SPAMBLOCK> wrote:
>
>>Also, that men and women are alike on these rules, except in two
>>cases:
>>
>>The ankles, where traditionally men are more strict.
>>The elbows where traditionally women are more strict.
>>
>
>I assume that this is the remanant of a tradition somewhere, which we
>adhere in a legal/symbolic kind of way? Or is there reasoning that
>the ankles of a man are more seductive to a woman than those of a
>woman are to a man?
Who said anything about seductive?
B.
Garry
<SPAMBLOCK.M...@ThePentagon.com.SPAMBLOCK> wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 01:52:47 +0000 (UTC), Garry <s...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:34:57 +0000 (UTC), "B. Tkatch"
>><SPAMBLOCK.M...@ThePentagon.com.SPAMBLOCK> wrote:
>>
>>>Also, that men and women are alike on these rules, except in two
>>>cases:
>>>
>>>The ankles, where traditionally men are more strict.
>>>The elbows where traditionally women are more strict.
>>>
>>
>>I assume that this is the remanant of a tradition somewhere, which we
>>adhere in a legal/symbolic kind of way? Or is there reasoning that
>>the ankles of a man are more seductive to a woman than those of a
>>woman are to a man?
>
>Who said anything about seductive?
>
>B.
Maybe I misunderstand the purpose of the rule then. Why does a woman
cover her upper arm?
BlackMonk
"Janet Rosenbaum From:" <jero...@frog.hcs.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:bdpogm$6no$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
> * Kosher Fabrics. We have found that nearly all fabrics - whether
> natural or synthetic -- are likely to cling or shrink; therefore, we
> recommend that women wear garments made of more tz'niyusdig material,
> such as wood or plastic.
Exactly. That's why I go to all those websites that specialize in women
dressed in plastic. I'm looking for a properly modest woman.
I'm soooo misunderstood.
Susan Cohen
"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:bdqcan$u9i0v$1...@ID-133514.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Janet Rosenbaum From:" <jero...@frog.hcs.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> news:bdpogm$6no$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
> > * Kosher Fabrics. We have found that nearly all fabrics - whether
> > natural or synthetic -- are likely to cling or shrink; therefore, we
> > recommend that women wear garments made of more tz'niyusdig material,
> > such as wood or plastic.
>
> Exactly. That's why I go to all those websites that specialize in women
> dressed in plastic.
Oh, I just don't want to know....
Susan
B. Tkatch
>>>>
>>>>The ankles, where traditionally men are more strict.
>>>>The elbows where traditionally women are more strict.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I assume that this is the remanant of a tradition somewhere, which we
>>>adhere in a legal/symbolic kind of way? Or is there reasoning that
>>>the ankles of a man are more seductive to a woman than those of a
>>>woman are to a man?
>>
>>Who said anything about seductive?
>>
>>B.
>
>
>Maybe I misunderstand the purpose of the rule then. Why does a woman
>cover her upper arm?
Same reason a man does. Because it is "dirty". There is a lot of sweat
there, and if touched the hands must be washed before reciting G-d's
name. IIUC, all such areas must be covered. And they are, neckbone to
elbows and neckbone to knees.
There is another reason that it is is a "normally covered area", but
if one would live in a country where that area is not normally
covered, it would *still* need to be covered for the first reason.
B.
Garry
<SPAMBLOCK.M...@ThePentagon.com.SPAMBLOCK> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:48:52 +0000 (UTC), Garry <s...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>>The ankles, where traditionally men are more strict.
>>>>>The elbows where traditionally women are more strict.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I assume that this is the remanant of a tradition somewhere, which we
>>>>adhere in a legal/symbolic kind of way? Or is there reasoning that
>>>>the ankles of a man are more seductive to a woman than those of a
>>>>woman are to a man?
>>>
>>>Who said anything about seductive?
>>>
>>>B.
>>
>>
I'm sorry if we're getting sidetracked. The statement I origianlly
found puzzling was the statement that covering was required for
>>>>>The ankles, where traditionally men are more strict.
>>>>>The elbows where traditionally women are more strict.
>>>>
Can you explain this difference?
B. Tkatch
>found puzzling was the statement that covering was required for
>
>>>>>>The ankles, where traditionally men are more strict.
>>>>>>The elbows where traditionally women are more strict.
>>>>>
>
>Can you explain this difference?
Not really. Just what i thnk i have noticed. I very well may be
incorrect, and i'd like to be set straight. :)
B.
toichen
I humbly bow my head in face of their superior learning.
toichen
Jonathan J. Baker
>Neckbone to ankles.
And yet, in Boro Park, or Chasidish parts of Monsey, the well-dressed woman
wears a knee-length skirt. They look down on the long skirts favored by
the "moderns" in Flatbush.
>Unless in an area where it is appropriate to be dressed that way, such
>as the showerroom. But even then it mayn be reccomended to only
>uncover that which is required.
--
Jonathan Baker | It's almost time ta muze
jjb...@panix.com | about the Destruction.
Webpage: <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/>
Janet Rosenbaum From:
>Maybe I misunderstand the purpose of the rule then. Why does a woman
>cover her upper arm?
The mishna says "shok b'isha erva" --- so a woman has to cover her "shok,"
which is derived from elsewhere to be the upper parts of the limbs.
There's a few inches of leeway, particularly on the arms.
Janet
Janet Rosenbaum From:
>> However, there are those among the religious Jews in the newsgroup who
>> continue to feel justified dressing in short sleeves or trousers.
>I humbly bow my head in face of their superior learning.
Even if you didn't, you wouldn't have to worry about seeing me in
pants. I almost never wear them in the summer.
ObHalacha: I was thinking about going hiking on Sunday, and there's a
huge tick problem now in Massachusetts, meaning that one has to wear
pants with socks over them to prevent tick bites. I was wondering how many
women would bother do this when I thought of a tshuvah on the question
of whether women have permission to wear pants under a skirt in order to
go skiing. The answer begins "Who told her she could go skiing?"
Janet
B. Tkatch
<jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <> "B. Tkatch" <SPAMBLOCK.M...@ThePentagon.com.SPAMBLOCK> writes:
>
>>Neckbone to ankles.
>
>And yet, in Boro Park, or Chasidish parts of Monsey, the well-dressed woman
>wears a knee-length skirt. They look down on the long skirts favored by
>the "moderns" in Flatbush.
>
Maybe it's neckbone to knees? Knees to ankles is another thing?
B.
Jonathan J. Baker
Anyway, wouldn't pants with socks over them be complete beged ish
(menswear, hence forbidden)? Who wears that today? Gerer Chasidim
on Shabbos, to simulate white hose & knickers.
Micha Berger
:> However, there are those among the religious Jews in the newsgroup who
:> continue to feel justified dressing in short sleeves or trousers.
: I humbly bow my head in face of their superior learning.
Thank you. I am currently wearing both short sleeves and trousers.
-mi
toichen
> toi...@my-deja.com (toichen) writes:
> >> However, there are those among the religious Jews in the newsgroup who
> >> continue to feel justified dressing in short sleeves or trousers.
>
> >I humbly bow my head in face of their superior learning.
>
> Even if you didn't, you wouldn't have to worry about seeing me in
> pants. I almost never wear them in the summer.
Are you invisible in the winter?
> ObHalacha: I was thinking about going hiking on Sunday, and there's a
> huge tick problem now in Massachusetts, meaning that one has to wear
> pants with socks over them to prevent tick bites.
Why wouldn't 200 denier tights do the job?
toichen
Henry Goodman
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:bdtlh6$10s3nj$5...@ID-113975.news.dfncis.de...
That's why you shouldn't write "Jew" when you mean "Jewess"
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
Garry
and why it's necessary to make statements like "Neither Jews nor
Jewesses are permitted to eat pork"....
B. Tkatch
That's good, since the complain was short sleeves *or* trousers. Now,
being short sleeves generally do not fit on the legs, it would be
quite interesting to find someone wearing trousers on their arms. :)
For the record, i *only* wear short sleeves, summer or winter, unless
i am not feeling well. If i wear a long sleeve shirt, i fold it up,
even on the sabbath.
B.
Henry Goodman
"B. Tkatch" <SPAMBLOCK.M...@ThePentagon.com.SPAMBLOCK> wrote in
message news:s306gv4b90vdmv06g...@4ax.com...
Ah, but do you wear a jacket over it? Some people insist on wearing a jacket
for davening, even on weekdays.
Jonathan J. Baker
>>> :> However, there are those among the religious Jews in the newsgroup who
>>> :> continue to feel justified dressing in short sleeves or trousers.
>>> : I humbly bow my head in face of their superior learning.
>>> Thank you. I am currently wearing both short sleeves and trousers.
>>That's why you shouldn't write "Jew" when you mean "Jewess"
>and why it's necessary to make statements like "Neither Jews nor
>Jewesses are permitted to eat pork"....
"She's the Jewess in Jewish Jeans" - old SNL parody commercial.
Susan Cohen
"Jonathan J. Baker" <jjb...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bdvan7$rh$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> In <om> Garry <s...@spam.com> writes:
> >On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 06:45:03 +0000 (UTC), "Henry Goodman"
> >>"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
> >>> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 06:28:27 +0000 (UTC), toichen <toi...@my-deja.com>
>
> >>> :> However, there are those among the religious Jews in the newsgroup
who
> >>> :> continue to feel justified dressing in short sleeves or trousers.
> >>> : I humbly bow my head in face of their superior learning.
> >>> Thank you. I am currently wearing both short sleeves and trousers.
> >>That's why you shouldn't write "Jew" when you mean "Jewess"
>
> >and why it's necessary to make statements like "Neither Jews nor
> >Jewesses are permitted to eat pork"....
I hope this was sarcasm.
I can see if we are discussing something that only affects women, but if you
were serious, that's silly.
>
> "She's the Jewess in Jewish Jeans" - old SNL parody commercial.
Oh, wow, I remember that. I remember the whole "designer jeans" craze that
has pretty much set up the jeans industry for life.
Susan
Garry
<fla...@his.com> wrote:
>
>"Jonathan J. Baker" <jjb...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:bdvan7$rh$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>> In <om> Garry <s...@spam.com> writes:
>> >On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 06:45:03 +0000 (UTC), "Henry Goodman"
>> >>"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
>> >>> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 06:28:27 +0000 (UTC), toichen <toi...@my-deja.com>
>>
>> >>> :> However, there are those among the religious Jews in the newsgroup
>who
>> >>> :> continue to feel justified dressing in short sleeves or trousers.
>> >>> : I humbly bow my head in face of their superior learning.
>> >>> Thank you. I am currently wearing both short sleeves and trousers.
>> >>That's why you shouldn't write "Jew" when you mean "Jewess"
>>
>> >and why it's necessary to make statements like "Neither Jews nor
>> >Jewesses are permitted to eat pork"....
>
>I hope this was sarcasm.
>I can see if we are discussing something that only affects women, but if you
>were serious, that's silly.
Yes it was, although I think it follows logically from the previous
statement.
>>
>> "She's the Jewess in Jewish Jeans" - old SNL parody commercial.
>
>Oh, wow, I remember that. I remember the whole "designer jeans" craze that
>has pretty much set up the jeans industry for life.
>
>Susan
>
_______________________________________
Janet Rosenbaum From:
>Anyway, wouldn't pants with socks over them be complete beged ish
>(menswear, hence forbidden)? Who wears that today?
People going hiking so the ticks don't climb into their pants,
and people bicycling so their bicycle chain doesn't rip their pants.
Also, when I was in 6th grade, that was actually in fashion.
We were actually copying the Gerrer Chassidim that wear the jeans
skinny at the ankle with large colorful socks or legwarmers over.
Wrt toichen's question about 200 denier tights: tights snag on
branches, and most people don't wear light-colored tights, needed so that
one can see the ticks once they stick to one. Ticks can also probably get
through tights --- if they can burrow under the skin, an extra layer of
fabric is no obstacle. Pants are loose on the body, so the ticks don't
have any way to get to the skin from there.
At any rate, it's frequently dangerous or immodest to hike in skirts.
Immodest because skirts aren't guaranteed to stay down in every
situation, and dangerous because if the skirt is long to avoid the
previous problem, they're easy to trip on particularly while climbing.
If nineteenth century Polish poskim saw no problem in permitting women
to do farm work in pants, surely hiking isn't any different.
But, yes, we must demonstrate against the pritzut of modern society, and
wear skirts always! Frostbite, Lyme disease, hiking accidents, and the
risks of sudden gusts of wind will not faze the true bas yisroel ---
for as it is said, G'd protects the stupid.
Janet
B. Tkatch
Yes, at prayers. At least when I remember to bring it. :)
Come to think of it. I need a new hat. My old "weekday hat" has since
died....
B.
Susan Cohen
"Garry" <s...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:jll6gvsjorgm0f4ou...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:41:18 +0000 (UTC), "Susan Cohen"
> <fla...@his.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>That's why you shouldn't write "Jew" when you mean "Jewess"
> >>
> >> >and why it's necessary to make statements like "Neither Jews nor
> >> >Jewesses are permitted to eat pork"....
> >
> >I hope this was sarcasm.
> >I can see if we are discussing something that only affects women, but if
you
> >were serious, that's silly.
>
> Yes it was, although I think it follows logically from the previous
> statement.
Yes, it absolutely does, but I just wanted to be sure :-)
Susan
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>>toichen <toi...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>:> However, there are those among the religious Jews in the newsgroup who
>>:> continue to feel justified dressing in short sleeves or trousers.
>>
>>: I humbly bow my head in face of their superior learning.
>>
>>Thank you. I am currently wearing both short sleeves and trousers.
>
> That's good, since the complain was short sleeves *or* trousers. Now,
> being short sleeves generally do not fit on the legs, it would be
> quite interesting to find someone wearing trousers on their arms. :)
LOL!
> For the record, i *only* wear short sleeves, summer or winter, unless
> i am not feeling well. If i wear a long sleeve shirt, i fold it up,
> even on the sabbath.
Could you explain the significance of the phrase "even on the
sabbath"? Thanks In Advance.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
May Eliyahu Chayim ben Sarah Henna (Eliot Shimoff) have a refuah Shlaima.
May Mikhah Shemu'el ben Lei'ah Yesharah (Michah Berger) have 1 2!
Henry Goodman
<mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:2003Jul...@mm.huji.ac.il...
> "B. Tkatch" <SPAMBLOCK.M...@ThePentagon.com.SPAMBLOCK> writes:
> > Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> >>toichen <toi...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >>:> However, there are those among the religious Jews in the newsgroup
who
> >>:> continue to feel justified dressing in short sleeves or trousers.
> >>
> >>: I humbly bow my head in face of their superior learning.
> >>
> >>Thank you. I am currently wearing both short sleeves and trousers.
> >
> > That's good, since the complain was short sleeves *or* trousers. Now,
> > being short sleeves generally do not fit on the legs, it would be
> > quite interesting to find someone wearing trousers on their arms. :)
>
> LOL!
>
> > For the record, i *only* wear short sleeves, summer or winter, unless
> > i am not feeling well. If i wear a long sleeve shirt, i fold it up,
> > even on the sabbath.
>
> Could you explain the significance of the phrase "even on the
> sabbath"? Thanks In Advance.
>
I assume he is referring to the well known concept of "bigdei Shabbat"
In this country most people who do not wear a jacket during the week wear
one on Shabbat (at least during davening), also long-sleeved white shirts
are the norm.
In hot weather I usually wear a jacket for Shabbat Minchah (now we have an
Eruv I can carry it to shul), take it off for the subsequent shiur and don't
bother to put it on for Maariv (tefillat chol doesn't need bigdei Shabbat)
B. Tkatch
>"B. Tkatch" <SPAMBLOCK.M...@ThePentagon.com.SPAMBLOCK> writes:
>> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>>>toichen <toi...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>>:> However, there are those among the religious Jews in the newsgroup who
>>>:> continue to feel justified dressing in short sleeves or trousers.
>>>
>>>: I humbly bow my head in face of their superior learning.
>>>
>>>Thank you. I am currently wearing both short sleeves and trousers.
>>
>> That's good, since the complain was short sleeves *or* trousers. Now,
>> being short sleeves generally do not fit on the legs, it would be
>> quite interesting to find someone wearing trousers on their arms. :)
>
>LOL!
>
>> For the record, i *only* wear short sleeves, summer or winter, unless
>> i am not feeling well. If i wear a long sleeve shirt, i fold it up,
>> even on the sabbath.
>
>Could you explain the significance of the phrase "even on the
>sabbath"? Thanks In Advance.
There are those that hold that folding up a long sleeve shirt,
constitutes carrying.
B.
Jonathan J. Baker
>"Jonathan J. Baker" <jjb...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> >and why it's necessary to make statements like "Neither Jews nor
>> >Jewesses are permitted to eat pork"....
>> "She's the Jewess in Jewish Jeans" - old SNL parody commercial.
>Oh, wow, I remember that. I remember the whole "designer jeans" craze that
>has pretty much set up the jeans industry for life.
Thinking about it, it was most closely copying the Jordache commercials
which actually was a Jewish jeans company, Jordache being combined from
parts of the names of the three Israeli designers who created the company.
Come to think of it, a lot of the designer jeans companies were Jewish:
Guess?, Jordache, Calvin Klein, and even non-designer companies like
Levis.
Steven Goldfarb
>Come to think of it, a lot of the designer jeans companies were Jewish:
>Guess?, Jordache, Calvin Klein, and even non-designer companies like
>Levis.
Not surprising, given that the garment industry in general is very Jewish.
A friend recently told me a story about his parents letting Ralph Lipshitz
and family stay in their apartment "back in the day". Might have been his
parents, actually. He later became Ralph Lauren of Polo fame. But even the
bronze guy on 7th avenue working his sewing machine is wearing a yarmulke
(it's a statue commemorating the garment district)
--sg
>--
> Jonathan Baker | It's almost time ta muze
> jjb...@panix.com | about the Destruction.
> Webpage: <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/>
--
---------------------------------------
Steve Goldfarb Eppur si muove
s...@stevegoldfarb.com (and still, it moves)
http://stevegoldfarb.com/ - Galileo
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 06:27:34 +0000 (UTC), mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> "B. Tkatch" <SPAMBLOCK.M...@ThePentagon.com.SPAMBLOCK> writes:
snip
>>> For the record, i *only* wear short sleeves, summer or winter, unless
>>> i am not feeling well. If i wear a long sleeve shirt, i fold it up,
>>> even on the sabbath.
>>
>>Could you explain the significance of the phrase "even on the
>>sabbath"? Thanks In Advance.
>
> There are those that hold that folding up a long sleeve shirt,
> constitutes carrying.
AHA! That's what I had thought. I expressed that idea here and was
roundly disputed. Do you recall a source possibly?