4

What is the Halachik source for women covering their lower legs (past the knee)? And why would sheer stockings be acceptable if the point is to cover the lower leg?

MTL
  • 19,073
  • 4
  • 51
  • 161
Chana
  • 123
  • 7

1 Answers1

4

The Talmud (Brachot 24a) mentions the calf (ie. the body segment of the leg with two bones) as a place on a women's body which was normally covered. Many Rishonim1 explain that this is mentioned to teach that the status of a covered body part for women is independent of its also being a covered body part for men (which, apparently, the calf wasn't at the time), while other explain that it was mentioned to teach that the status of covered body part applies even if it is occasionally uncovered for some reason (which, apparently, women's calves were at the time). Accordingly, this specific example is not quoted by the Rambam or Shulchan Arukh.

If for whatever reason one thinks our dress patterns must conform to theirs, then this would be the primary source for their dress patterns regarding the calf.

1 eg. Eshkol, Raavad, Sefer Hashlama, Sefer HaMeorot, Sefer HaBattim, Raah, Rashba, Shittah Mekubbetzet. See Beit Yosef OC 75 who, quoting no other explanations, apparently takes the first position and seems to interpret the Tur accordingly.

Regarding opacity: the Halacha states (Brachot 25b, Shulchan Arukh OC 75:6) that seeing Ervah through glass is problematic, so covering with something relatively transparent would not seem to accomplish much, even if you argue that it is more modest than nothing.

Double AA
  • 98,894
  • 6
  • 250
  • 713
  • There is a modern (~150 years old) extreme-minority position (דעת יחיד) that the referenced body part is the thigh. I'm not mentioning this position because (not only has it is has been resoundingly rejected by both traditional and academic textual arguments, but also) the question didn't seek sources for such an opinion. – Double AA Sep 08 '14 at 13:59
  • For the curious, the Bach (~1600) suggests that the calf is mentioned to teach that the status of a covered body part applies even to parts which are usually dirty due to proximity to the ground. I haven't seen such a claim in Rishonim though. – Double AA Sep 08 '14 at 14:18
  • 1
    See Igros Moshe EH 4:100:6 – sam Sep 08 '14 at 14:40
  • What is the heter used for those who dont cover their calfs - that is with stockings of socks etc. and what is the source for sheer? – Chana Sep 08 '14 at 14:41
  • @sam I was implicitly referencing that at the end of my last sentence. – Double AA Sep 08 '14 at 14:54
  • @Chana That is a different question. Most who are lenient either follow the minority opinion mentioned above or they hold that in communities where it is commonly uncovered there is no need to cover it. – Double AA Sep 08 '14 at 14:57
  • @DoubleAA When can one apply that idea? meaning, if it is a Halacha, then as soon as a majority doesnt keep it- it becomes ok? – Chana Sep 08 '14 at 15:33
  • 1
    @Chana Perhaps. It might not be tied to "majority" specifically. See also this related question http://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/43824/759 – Double AA Sep 08 '14 at 15:36
  • @DoubleAA, what's considered "seeing", and how opaque is acceptable in other contexts? – Seth J Sep 08 '14 at 16:26
  • @SethJ Opaque enough that you can't see it. I've heard "affects the color" as a barometer. What other contexts are you thinking of? – Double AA Sep 08 '14 at 16:30
  • Well, for example, a lot of shower doors have a "frosted" look. You wouldn't be able to identify features, but you could identify enough, maybe, to pose a possible Halachic problem. – Seth J Sep 08 '14 at 18:38
  • @SethJ You wont find many women willing to shower behind one of those with men around. That sounds very much like the "you can see it" category. – Double AA Sep 08 '14 at 18:48
  • But what about applying that to stockings? – Seth J Sep 08 '14 at 19:23
  • @SethJ What about it? If you can see the skin underneath then you see it. I don't know what else you are looking for here. – Double AA Sep 09 '14 at 17:58
  • footnote 3 http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=46549&st=&pgnum=306 – Double AA Jan 11 '15 at 15:33
  • According to the opinion that the calf (bet. the knee and the ankle) needs to be covered and a stocking is sufficient, can a woman wear a skirt which does not meet the knee (not even within a tefach) as long as she is wearing stockings? If your answer is ‘No’, kindly explain why not. – Oliver Oct 03 '18 at 00:42
  • @Oliver how much of the leg can be covered by form fitting clothes and how much must be covered by form obscuring clothes is a separate question unrelated to the sources in this answer (did I understand your question correctly?) – Double AA Oct 03 '18 at 16:28
  • @DoubleAA (Either that or I didn’t understand your reply and your original answer.) OP asked why the need for stockings [below the knee]. IIUC, you answered bec. there’s an opinion that that area is “ervah” (the “shok”) and therefore must also be covered. I’m asking, if stockings are sufficient to cover an ervah, would/n’t they be sufficient, when wearing a skirt that doesn’t reach the knee, to cover the upper thigh (from the waist to the knee) too? (Let’s leave aside the pisuk raglayim issue.) – Oliver Oct 03 '18 at 17:37
  • @Oliver anything opaque is sufficient to cover any ervah. As you alluded to their are other considerations that could prohibit various modes of dress, such as Pissuk Raglayim or Lifnei Iver. – Double AA Oct 03 '18 at 21:54