When did knee-high skirts become the standard of Haredi women?

Question

Long skirts and dresses, covering ankles and feet was the standard of the women's fashion before on the dawn of the 20th century when the Beyt Yaakov movement began (actually earlier, but that's not the point).

Currently (I live in Jerusalem and work with a couple of Haredi seminars there.) "knee-high" skirts are de-facto standard of the Ultra-Haredi women both in the Litvaks and Hassidishers communities:

When and by approval of what Rabbis, did knee-high skirts become the standard of Beyt Yaakov graduates and teachers? In other words, when Haredi women were allowed to show their calves (with stockings of course)?

(I'm not arguing about how long exactly - just below, long below etc.)

This question would be more compelling if it included as much evidence as you have of the previous and current skirt standards in Beyt Yaakov. Is it your own anecdotal observation of one institution? Analysis of clothing company sales data? Interviews with Beyt Yaakov students of yore and today? — Isaac Moses, Oct 05 '18 at 14:19
@IsaacMoses בתוך עמי אני יושבת. I work with a couple of Haredi seminars in Jerusalem. I added a sample picture. — Al Berko, Oct 05 '18 at 14:29
Al Berko, thanks for explaining the source of your view of current conditions. Can you do the same for your view of previous conditions? — Isaac Moses, Oct 05 '18 at 14:33
meanwhile, perhaps igros moshe on stockings would be helpful — josh waxman, Oct 05 '18 at 14:39
@joshwaxman Because the logic was that stockings (of different transparency) cover the leg and therefore it does not fall under טפח באשה ערווה — Al Berko, Oct 05 '18 at 14:39
yes, that it one possible logic. but read igros moshe, as linked, who holds (based on Mishna Brura) that the calves are not considered erva, but still, for those who would insist on wearing stockings, gives a different reason. — josh waxman, Oct 05 '18 at 14:46
that is, my question is about the "of course". how do you know that they "of course" prescribe to the logic you describe? — josh waxman, Oct 05 '18 at 14:47
oops! my bad, I forgot to link! http://parsha.blogspot.com/2007/10/rav-moshe-feinstein-on-stockings.html — josh waxman, Oct 05 '18 at 14:48
@joshwaxman I don't think R. Moshe had the correct metziut there. — Alex, Oct 05 '18 at 14:54
metzius about stocking deniers? everything else is sevara, rather than metzius, I would think... meanwhile, could beis yaakov be relying on rav moshe and his logic? — josh waxman, Oct 05 '18 at 14:57
@joshwaxman Metzius meaning that the “nude stockings” that Jewish women wear are see-through rather than simply skin-color. — Alex, Oct 05 '18 at 15:02
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/45226/halachik-source-for-wearing-stockings — Al Berko, Oct 05 '18 at 15:04
@Al wouldn't it be the same way nobody wears long robes and scarves like they did in the rambam time and place? Das Yehudit is always changing and doesn't need approval of any rabbis. A minhag is what people choose it to be. — Orion, Oct 05 '18 at 15:14
@josh surely you of all people aren't wedded to the mishna berura as a posek and are aware of what shok meant to chazal. why not just agree with the chareidim on this one? theres plenty of other good stuff to argue on. — Double AA, Oct 05 '18 at 15:33
Huh? Why should I think he didn't know what chazal meant? I happen to agree. — josh waxman, Oct 05 '18 at 17:00

josh waxman · Accepted Answer · 2018-10-14T22:30:01.290

6

In terms of when, we can point at least to the 1940's era. Here is an image from the 1940s of Beis Yaakov girls. The article discussing it details how, in later printings, using Photoshop, sleeves are lengthened, necklines raised, and knee-length hems extended a four+ inches.

It is not clear which posekim they are relying upon. However, the following is from the Jewish Observer in March 1973, with a typewriting task for Bais Yaakov girls:

Note that it condemns specifically miniskirts, saying that "there is absolutely no question that a skirt that ends above the knee is against a fundamental Jewish law". This would track well with the position of Rav Moshe Feinstein, following the Mishna Berura, that the shok which is deemed "erva" is the thigh.

edited Oct 14 '18 at 22:30

answered Oct 14 '18 at 19:09

josh waxman

20,700
44
86

Everyone agrees the thigh is Ervah. The question is just if the calf is also Ervah. – Double AA Oct 14 '18 at 20:10
the question is, when the Gemara deemed a shok erva, which shok were they talking about? Which is what I wrote, no? – josh waxman Oct 14 '18 at 21:54
@josh that's a question. It's not the only relevant question nor is it particularly interesting as 1) there isn't much doubt about which body part the amoraim referred to as shok, 2) you can't, as you are trying, prove from someone covering the thigh what they think about what the shok is, since everyone thinks thighs should be covered. All your quote shows is skirts that only reveal calves are debatable (at least in the Acharonim) which tracks well with every Jewish authority ever, no matter what you think about the shok. – Double AA Oct 14 '18 at 22:00
sure. you are convinced of this. regardless, neither of the two comments on this seems relevant to my answer, which targeted the "when" and a little bit "who". both seem more like a non sequitur taking issue with the position itself. – josh waxman Oct 14 '18 at 22:03
It is not relevant? I wrote "following the Mishna Berura, that the shok which is deemed "erva" is the thigh", to which you wrote "Everyone agrees the thigh is Ervah. The question is just if the calf is also Ervah". I was clarifying, rather restating, my sentence, which for some reason you seem to be taking issue with?? – josh waxman Oct 14 '18 at 22:05
Ah. I think I see it. You are reading "there is absolutely no question" as that there IS a question about calves. I was reading it as an entire endorsement of contemporary Beis Yaakov practice, of knee-length skirts. – josh waxman Oct 14 '18 at 22:08
Meanwhile, I would just say that everyone agrees that the thigh is "Erva", not that the thigh is Erva. There is a big difference, in terms of Biblical vs. Rabbinic, and then (IMHO) in how we might treat attempts to impose earlier absolute readings of the text in the face of later social development of das yehudis, when backed up by a plausible and authentic rabbinic development within that religious community's halachic literature. (That is really what it comes down to, I think.) – josh waxman Oct 14 '18 at 22:11
(Sorry, I was confused by your wording, and didn't relate your use of "the question" to the quote, and so misread what you were saying. I thought your comment was directed to my words " that the shok which is deemed...") – josh waxman Oct 14 '18 at 22:22

When did knee-high skirts become the standard of Haredi women?

1 Answers1