8

I've been reading Oz vehadar (R' Pessach Eliahu Falk) and one doubt came up:

If a woman should stay tznuah even in private (like rules on what pajamas not to wear, and about the length of the nightgowns, etc.), how come there are plenty of women-only gyms, and beaches in which women can be on bathing suits - of course, assured no men are around - and so on? Should I quit all these?

Fred
  • 16,984
  • 1
  • 45
  • 85
loyodaat
  • 163
  • 3
  • This site is not for personal rulings, I would suggest you edit accordingly. What are his sources? Does he list any? – user6591 Dec 28 '15 at 03:31
  • 7
    That book is not to be trusted for objective Halachic psak. It is the opinion of one individual, and anyone who wishes to follow his unique opinion has the right to. However, he does not quote the Talmudic and Halachic sources accurately, as anyone proficient in the actual sources knows. He often bases his psak on subjective conjecture rather than solid source. – Chaim Dec 28 '15 at 03:34
  • @Chaim Are you proficient in the actual sources for tznius? I'm asking because some parts of this book put me almost in panic. – loyodaat Dec 28 '15 at 03:57
  • 8
    @loyodaat Don't panic. You should ask your rabbi what rulings are right for you. Not unlike other issues, there are lots of different positions in traditional Judaism about these issues, despite R' Falk's exceedingly monolithic presentations. – Double AA Dec 28 '15 at 04:37
  • 1
    you have to distinguish between halacha and mida chasidut (extra piety). and even then it has its domain where it is valid and where it is just folly – ray Dec 28 '15 at 06:18
  • 2
    @loyodaat Take R'Falk with a grain of salt. As DoubleAA suggests, he does not necessarily represent the majority of views. Many mamash tzanuot are freaked out by him. – SAH Dec 28 '15 at 09:58
  • 1
    @loyodaat Even very very frum people will go to women's-only swimming wearing regular bathing suits. The pajamas rules are, I think, based on the assumption that there may be males in the house. Also, you will find some schools, camps, etc. having the girls wear tznius pajamas as something to do with marit ayin and/or chinuch. So it is not because you have to be that tznius on your own (although it might be meritorious to be). – SAH Dec 28 '15 at 10:09
  • 4
    I normally stay out of these things, but I echo the other commentors' statements to consult with your personal rav and not take Oz Vehadar as a black and white halacha book. And this is coming from a charedi who was told this by her very charedi teacher in seminary. -Rebbetzin HaQoton – Reb Chaim HaQoton Dec 28 '15 at 10:52
  • 2
    Proficient enough to know what's a fabrication and what's authentic. I've spent many hours working through some of the alleged sources he brings, and often he takes a very broad read on the source text to prove his point... – Chaim Dec 28 '15 at 12:55
  • 1
    ...Take the discussion of skin-colored tights, as an example. In Oz V'Hadar Levusha on page 341, he determines they are unanimously agreed to be Assur to wear. He even seems to be invoking Rav Moshe Feinstein as agreeing with him. However, anyone familiar with Igros Moshe Even HaEzer 4:100:6 knows that Rav Moshe held they were Muttar! This article goes through that excerpt in depth, well worth reading: http://parsha.blogspot.com/2008/09/does-rabbi-falk-conceal-from-his.html?m=1 – Chaim Dec 28 '15 at 12:56
  • 3
    Rabbi YH Henkin's sharp critique of Oz VeHadar Levusha: http://freepdfhosting.com/3637dbd864.pdf – Shalom Dec 28 '15 at 14:48
  • 1
    @Chaim R Moshe there is very clearly speculating about others' reasons. He makes no indication of his own position there. – Double AA Dec 29 '15 at 01:50
  • 2
    @Double AA he certainly justifies the practice as having fair grounds. And my main point was that R' Falk's wording definitely makes it sound like it is unanimously Assur, which it is not – Chaim Dec 29 '15 at 02:02
  • 1
    @Chaim For the sake of precision, Rabbi Falk said that "many poskim" define shok as the calf (he is correct), and that "it is fully accepted Orthodox practice" to cover calves (this is only correct in some communities). He also sort of hints that the Mishna B'rura and R' Moshe Feinstein rule that calves must always be covered (which is not true). Later, he indicates that "it is unanimously agreed by all Poskim that legs must be covered so that they do not attract attention" (whereas this would actually only apply in communities where calves are universally covered). – Fred Dec 29 '15 at 04:26
  • @Chaim ... He forbids using skin-colored stockings to cover the calves. But R' Moshe permits it, since R' Moshe holds that it's unnecessary to cover the calves. R' Moshe suggests that there might be some benefit for children to cover their calves according to those opinions that shok refers to the lower leg, since, even the skin-colored stockings would technically cover the 'erva, and small children present no problem with hirhur anyway. For an adult woman, though, R' Moshe indicates there's not as much point to covering the lower leg with skin-colored sheer stockings, due to hirhur. – Fred Dec 29 '15 at 04:43
  • 1
    @Chaim Anyway, Rabbi Falk doesn't directly cite R' Moshe in prohibiting skin colored stockings, though he indirectly cites R' Moshe as supporting a requirement to cover the lower leg. In reality, R' Moshe says that covering the lower leg is unnecessary. Perhaps R' Moshe would say otherwise for a community where all women cover their lower leg, but even then R' Moshe would hold that skin-colored stockings are better than nothing, in that they do technically cover (what that community regards as) 'erva even if they do not solve the problem of hirhur. – Fred Dec 29 '15 at 04:49
  • 1
    @Fred thank you for that finely-honed reading of the text. My point is proven therein: the subtlety and word-manipulation he uses reach the point of being not truly understandable to anyone except someone who actually knows all the sources he references. And even then, we must critically inspect his writing to see how his wording can be justified. – Chaim Dec 29 '15 at 19:48
  • similar http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/70560/759 – Double AA Nov 23 '16 at 21:55
  • For those who are trying to say Rabbi Falk does not quote sources accurately because of what they find in Sefer Oz v'Hadar, you should reserve that judgement unless you have learned through the companion sefer Lavusha Shel Torah. It is a large 2 volume set with with extensive citation of each detail mentioned in Oz v'Hadar. Every footnote in Oz v'Hadar saying "Mekorot" is referring to Sefer Lavusha Shel Torah. And it is awesome. For those trying to learn the inside of Oz v'Hadar, the companion volume is essential. – Yaacov Deane Jan 22 '17 at 12:48
  • 1
    And concerning what practice you should follow, the recommendation from @DoubleAA is correct. Ask your personal Rabbi. – Yaacov Deane Jan 22 '17 at 13:37
  • 1
    Quoting sources accurately in a different place (if he indeed does that) does NOT excuse misquoting or misrepresenting things in the first place, particularly in a volume meant for general consumption. – Double AA Jan 22 '17 at 17:19
  • i wouldn't take this book too seriously... – bondonk May 23 '17 at 09:51
  • @mevaqesh http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/Henkin%20QX.1.pdf Rabbi Henkin's "Contemporary Tseniut", Tradition Fall 2013 – Shalom Jun 23 '17 at 00:30
  • 1
    @Shalom Have another link to Henkin's critique? The one provided (back then) is dead. – Oliver Jan 19 '18 at 01:18
  • @Oliver See the comment above yours :) – ertert3terte Jan 19 '18 at 02:52
  • @ShmuelBrin If you're speaking of pg. 6 - that's arguably a "sharp critique". By supplying a link (with no direct page number) I was expecting (hoping for) more of a book-review with the whole link devoted to it. Thanks anyway. – Oliver Jan 19 '18 at 03:00
  • @Oliver here try this one: should stay up for a while: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/Henkin%20QX.1.pdf – Shalom Jan 19 '18 at 19:15
  • @Oliver he sums it up pp. 37-38: Books such as Oz ve-Hadar Levusha are as much about ideology and musar as they are about halakha. This ideology prohibits a woman from standing out—and from being outstanding. ... I have no quarrel with the author of the Mishneh Halakhot, who is entitled to his opinion. I do have a quarrel with popularizers such as Oz ve-Hadar Levusha, who copy such opinions as if they were basic halakha. ...There is a danger here of losing sight of the real basics of modesty—not to mention being so concerned about not thinking about women that one can think of nothing else. – Shalom Jan 19 '18 at 19:22
  • @Shalom do you think you can get another link to Rav Henkin critique? Both are down by now. Thanks – Julio GB May 20 '21 at 04:53
  • 1
    @JulioGB here we go. Tradition journal now has its archives online; this one should be more stable: https://traditiononline.org/contemporary-tseniut/ – Shalom May 20 '21 at 10:16

3 Answers3

1

When discussing the question of covering one's hair at a women's only gym, dinonline writes, "From the various rabbonim that I have consulted on this matter, it seems controversial, just like the two sides of your question. Some said that it is not permitted and others said that it is. However everyone agreed that it isn’t the preferred thing to do, and if possible she should be dressed b’tznius" http://dinonline.org/2017/01/24/covering-hair-in-all-womens-gym/ There is certainly a grey area which would be addressed differently depending on your particular circumstances. There's no one size fits all halacha in this regard.

NJM
  • 14,246
  • 2
  • 19
  • 57
  • Given the comments to the OP, the topic seems a bit more complicated than that. As this comes out inconclusive, I’m not sure that this even answers the question. Either way, some sources would be nice. – DonielF Aug 21 '17 at 22:14
0

comments above are very interesting

to answer see Mishna Brerura 2.1
regarding Tznius for men (in my understanding woman should not be more lenient regarding this then men) Tznius not for sexual reasons just out of respect/fear of G-d (he is everywhere, so should should at respect him as you would a king in that place if possible, being in private or in the dark does not change anything in this regard)

...
והאדם צריך להתנהג בצניעות ובושה לפני הקב"ה ואפילו כשהוא לילה ובחדרי חדרים הלא מלא כל הארץ כבודו וכחשיכה וכאורה לפניו יתברך ...
וכן צריך ליזהר תמיד מחמת טעם זה שלא במקום הכרח מלגלות מבשרו ואפילו מעט כל מה שדרכו להיות מכוסה בבגדים לעולם אבל רשאי לגלות ידו עד קוב"דו וצוארו עד החזה ע"כ ...
אם לא שאי אפשר בענין אחר וכן בבית המרחץ שדרכן של בני אדם לילך שם ערומים וא"א בענין אחר אין בזה משום פריצות וכן כשרוחץ בנהר הדין כן רק יזהר לפשוט וללבוש סמוך לנהר כל מה שאפשר בכדי שלא ילך בגילוי הגוף שלא לצורך...

it seems that it you should try to get dressed as near the beach as possible so as not to walk with open body without necessity

"Should I quit all these?" so it seems that if it is something you need (i guess health is something you need) then you should not quite if there is no other way (it seems that "no other way" does not include unusual measures just other ways that are customable) of doing it

if it is not something you need or there are other ways of achieving it (maybe going to gym with cloths, see NEW YORK POST) then you should try quit or do it the other way.

kouty
  • 22,732
  • 3
  • 29
  • 58
hazoriz
  • 7,506
  • 2
  • 21
  • 53
-1

The source in Halacha regarding tznius/hair covering in private areas begins From the passage in Ketubot (72b),

It would seem that a woman is only required to cover her head when she is out on the street. In her house or courtyard, she may walk about with her head uncovered. Although some have attempted to explain the gemara differently (Bach, Even Ha-Ezer 115), this is the plain understanding of the gemara and the Rishonim.

There is, however, a Talmudic source that seems to praise a woman who is meticulous about covering her hair even in the privacy of her own home:

Furthermore, it is told of R. Yishmael ben Kimchit [who was a High Priest] that he went out and talked with a certain [non-Jewish] lord in the street, and spittle from his mouth squirted on his garments [rendering him impure], whereupon Yosef his brother entered and ministered in his stead, so that their mother saw two High Priests on one day. The Sages said to her: What have you done to merit such [glory]? She said: Throughout the days of my life, the beams of my house have not seen the plaits of my hair. They said to her: There were many who did likewise and yet did not succeed. (Yoma 47a)

The closing words of the Sages imply that they questioned the explanation provided by Kimchit. Nevertheless, there are those who inferred from here that it is good for a woman to be meticulous about covering her hair even at home, and even when not in the presence of other men. To this we can add the words of the Zohar, which is very stringent about a woman covering her hair. Just as many learned from the Zohar to be stringent about covering the entire head, they learned from it to be stringent about covering the head even at home and in one's courtyard.

It should be noted that the accepted practice for generations has been to be stringent about this. So ruled the Chatam Sofer: "The rule that emerges: All hair anywhere on the head or forehead of a married woman, even in her room, is a sexual incitement" (Responsa Chatam Sofer I:36).

Although it would appear that in the time of the gemara, women were not meticulous about covering their heads in their courtyards, but only on the street, women have been stringent about this for many generations, until our very day. The reason seems to be that since a woman is meticulous about covering her hair outside, removing that cover in her house in the presence of strangers is deemed an overly intimate gesture. Of course, in the absence of strangers, the great majority of Jewish women do not conduct themselves as did Kimchit, and do not cover their heads in the privacy of their own homes.

It should further be noted that the propriety of a wig is subject to major controversy. The mishna in Shabbat 64b speaks explicitly of a woman who goes out into the public domain wearing a wig. The Shiltei Gibborim (no. 375) demonstrates that the gemara refers to a married woman who uses the wig to cover her head, and he writes that an allowance should be granted even to a wig made from the hair of that very woman. The Peri Megadim (Orach Chayyim 75, Eshel Avraham no. 5) and the Iggerot Moshe (Even Ha-Ezer II:12) rule similarly.

source

Shoel U'Meishiv
  • 15,505
  • 1
  • 37
  • 80
  • The requirement of a married woman covering her hair even in private originates from the ten takanot of Ezra. It is found in Bava Kama 82a. It is the requirement of the sinar. The story of Kimchit is only a support for the practice. – Yaacov Deane Jan 22 '17 at 13:33
  • 1
    @yaa Sinar is an underwear not a hat. The takana of Ezra is to wear pants even if wearing a skirt. It has nothing to do with one's head. – Double AA Jan 22 '17 at 14:05
  • @DoubleAA Your translation of the word, sinar, is correct. But your understanding of the meaning of the takanah is not according to traditional teaching. This particular subject about the meaning of the takanah of the sinar is found in Sefer Ya'arot Davash by Rabbi Yehonatan Eibschitz. Rabbi Eibschitz brings the explanation as it is taught by the Gaonim. That the meaning of this takanah is actually speaking about a married woman covering her hair in private follows what is brought in Otzar HaGaonim in the name of Rabbeinu Chananel. – Yaacov Deane Jan 22 '17 at 16:27
  • For what it's worth, this is just one of the details brought by Rabbi Falk in Sefer Lavusha Shel Torah mentioned above. – Yaacov Deane Jan 22 '17 at 16:32
  • 1
    The entire text of material in Otzar HaGeonim about Sinar on BK 82a is: מיגר שרגילות נשים לחגרו על מתניהם בסמוך לוסתן מפני שלא יתלכלכו בגדיהן בוסת ומגיע עד לקרקע which clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with hair. It's basically a menstrual pad worn when expecting a cycle to keep her clothes clean. – Double AA Jan 22 '17 at 17:17
  • @YaacovDeane In that section on pg 83 there is no commentary on the enactment of Sinar. It just quotes the Gemara שתהא אשה חוגרת בסינר משום צניעותא and moves on. – Double AA Jan 22 '17 at 22:25
  • @YaacovDeane Not sure what you mean, but the next line I see is about Ezra's next listed Takana of Chafifa, which is incidentally related to hair, I suppose (at least according to some interpretations of the later Gemara). – Double AA Jan 22 '17 at 22:43
  • Apparently, that's not how Rabbi Yehonatan Eibschitz understood it. He seems to have understood the hair reference as going on the subject of the sinar. You're entitled to your view. – Yaacov Deane Jan 22 '17 at 22:45
  • In Lavushah Shel Torah, he cites Ya'arot Devash. It's worth pointing out that he only brings the first citation which is brief. But there is also a second citation in the 2nd volume of Ya'arot Devash which discusses the subject in more detail and how he understands the subject. This is also why Sefer Ma'avar Yabbok brings the same concept in relation to halacha l'maaseh on the subject of viduy for women prior to death. – Yaacov Deane Jan 22 '17 at 22:55
  • @YaacovDeane It's literally just quotes from the Gemara. You are referencing me to an obscure source that just regurgitates the Talmud verbatim. Why are you wasting my time? I read the Talmud already on the original page, as I assume did you. The Talmud says "שער אמרי דאורייתא לעיוני דלמא מיקטר אי נמי מאוס מידי משום חציצה ואתא איהו תיקן חפיפה". No need to go read R Chananel to understand that that is not talking about Sinar. This is not my opinion. These are facts. – Double AA Jan 22 '17 at 22:56
  • Rabbeinu Chananel had semicha from Hai Gaon. That's not vague. And Rabbi Eibschitz was the Rav of Altona, Hamburg and Wandsbek. Again, not vague. Similarly, the author of Ma'avar Yabbok, Rabbi Aharon Berachia of Modena is purported to be one of the last to receive true semicha from Rabbi Yaacov Beirav. Again, not vague. They aren't obscure sources or individuals. Again, you're entitled to your view. But there are definitely valid viewpoints about this that don't follow your opinion and they are definitely greater than you or me. – Yaacov Deane Jan 22 '17 at 23:15
  • 1
    @YaacovDeane Why are you listing irrelevant things? I didn't attack any of those people or call them vague. I'm not discussing viewpoints on anything. There's just the facts of what is on that page of Otzar haGeonim. What you hold about other things for other reasons is not under discussion. You can't just lie about what is in Otzar haGeonim and get away with it by claiming it's a different viewpoint. As it says in Inyanei deYoma "Alternative facts aren't facts. They are falsehoods". – Double AA Jan 22 '17 at 23:19
  • 1
    FWIW this and this are the pieces of R Eybashitz, and he while he says (in a homiletic sermon, mind you) that the Sinar is an example of a woman's general obligation to cover up at home, that explanation is not only not cited in anyone specific's name, it directly contradicts the position of the Gaonim I cite above. Also, it doesn't rely on anything from the Otzar haGeonim, let alone a quotation about hair as relates to Chafifah. Please no one rely on Yaacov Deane's word for anything without looking it up. – Double AA Jan 23 '17 at 01:53