Has the concept of tznius changed over time?

cassandra

Fri, Jul 10 2009, 1:30 pm

louche wrote:

cassandra wrote:

Denim is casual because it's beginnings are in clothing that was made for people who did hard labor as opposed to people who were able to sit around all day so they could wear clothing that was difficult to clean and would wear out easily otherwise. I guess manual labor is anathema to Judaism these days too.

you know it.
Exceptions include certain chassidim in fields like bookbinding, custom cabinetmaking and food service, a few auto repair guys, some charedi farmers in EY, and so on, in which they actually do the work as opposed to just owning or managing the business. But I'm not entirely sure they enjoy a great deal of respect (except from people who admire revolutionary men who take it upon themselves to support their families by the sweat of their brow.)

Yes, but even they have to wear polyester pants instead of clothing that is actually appropriate for their jobs because otherwise they'd be showing how "laid back" they are.

Atali

Fri, Jul 10 2009, 2:05 pm

louche wrote:

cassandra wrote:

The issue isn't wearing denim (or other casual clothing) when doing physical labor, the issue is wearing it stam.

Atali

Fri, Jul 10 2009, 2:07 pm

Ruchel wrote:

Nowadays there are even wedding dresses in (white, thin, gorgeous) denim. I suppose that's why I don't notice charedis around me having a problem with it. I know BLUE denim is a problem for men in some very very strict circles though. But never heard for women, or black denim. I see it all the time.

Maybe it is different in France. I have never seen a denim wedding dress.

People differ on whether it applies to black denim. I read an Israeli kol korei that expressly prohibits it but others are more meikel.

Last edited by Atali on Fri, Jul 10 2009, 2:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

louche

Fri, Jul 10 2009, 2:33 pm

Ruchel wrote:

I don't see them often, more in magazines or fashion stuff than irl, but it's not like I go to 5 weddings a year or stuff... Anyway thin, not discolored denim can be extremely pretty and flattering. I see ladies at shul on shabbes with denim suits/outfits

Oh, ruchel, ruchel...you must come to the US and visit some charedi communities where wearing denim is tantamount to saying "I am a [gentile]."

I personally draw the line at wearing denim on shabbos. denim is for work and casual wear, period. I see no way to justify it on shabbos except for a person who is becoming frum, lives in a secular area, and the only tzniusdik skirts that she can find are denim.

cassandra

Fri, Jul 10 2009, 4:00 pm

Atali wrote:

The issue isn't wearing denim (or other casual clothing) when doing physical labor, the issue is wearing it stam.

I was going to respond because your premise makes absolutely no sense on so many levels, but it's just too much. I don't even have a basis on which to argue.

I see how not wearing denim because it's not viewed as "refined" is a possibility, not because it symbolizes a value that is contrary to Judaism.

Atali

Fri, Jul 10 2009, 7:11 pm

cassandra wrote:

Atali wrote:

The issue isn't wearing denim (or other casual clothing) when doing physical labor, the issue is wearing it stam.

If being refined in considered important, what does it say about the opposite?

B'kitzur:

Very casual clothing, a category which some say includes denim (or certain types of denim), is designed to represent a more laid-back, anything goes type of attitude. With some types of denim (such as stonewashed) this is even more clear. This is the reason why most workplaces don't allow denim, although this is starting to change. Denim is meant for vacation, not work.

The reason why some rabbonim consider denim to be in violation of b'chukoseihem is because they consider this value of being laid-back and casual not to be consistent with Torah hashkafa which emphasizes that one should be constantly mindful of Hashem's presence serving Hashem. They view this "relaxed and on vacation" attitude as not Jewish.

At least this is what I recall, I will bli neder look into it more.

hadasa

Sat, Jul 11 2009, 6:25 pm

cassandra wrote:

entropy wrote:

I'm going to have to disagree; A Chumra is not halacha, it's a subclass of minhag.

It happens that there is a halacha that you don't drop minhaggim, and that includes chumras.

Chumra, as I have always learned it, is choosing the more severe halachic opinion.

It's not always a difference of opinion AFAIK. For example, the Shulchan Aruch Harav says in several places that the Halachah is thus and thus, but "Hamachmir tavo alav Berachah" or "Ra'ui lebaal nefesh lehachmir". There are some things where my Rabbonim consider our Derech to be basic Halachah, e.g. that all a woman's hair must be covered in the presence of strange men, other opinions notwithstanding, and other things which are not basic Halachah, but a standard chumrah of our community, such as covering one's hair even alone at home.

entropy

Sat, Jul 11 2009, 6:34 pm

cassandra wrote:

entropy wrote:

I'm going to have to disagree; A Chumra is not halacha, it's a subclass of minhag.

It happens that there is a halacha that you don't drop minhaggim, and that includes chumras.

Chumra, as I have always learned it, is choosing the more severe halachic opinion.

Minhag: A practice that is not required by halacha. (unless you are already committed to it)
Chumra: A minhag that has an aspect of severity in relation to halacha.

If you come up with your own fences and take them on as chumras it wouldn't necessarily be anyone's halachic opinion.

Seraph

Sun, Jul 12 2009, 7:51 am

Atali wrote:

Seraph wrote:

amother wrote:

I think Cassandra and First Lady, you have a different take on what you define as a Chumra.
Here's an example:
In school we had to go with very thick stockings b/c the school demanded so & not because I thought it's important. Once I got married I put on much thinner stockings but still within the realms of Halacha according to our standards. I certainly went lower according the the school's standards or the standards of some in my community. So I went lower on a Chumra and not on a Halacha as I think thicker tights is definitely a chumra and certainly not halacha.
I agree with First lady but I don't think this is what Cassandra meant when talking about Chumra being Halacha.

When I took on myself to wear thick stockings, I was told to REALLY think long and hard about it, because even though its not pashut halacha, going "backwards", to a "lower level" is a big problem...
Unless you start wearing them with the thought "I'm NOT taking this on" its a problem to go backwards, even if you don't believe in it. And even if you did, it still might be a problem. If you just wore it as part of a school uniform, that is one thing, but did you wear it on non school days? If so, it probably was a halachic shaila to start wearing thinner...

I don't know, maybe I am just a more impulsive person in general, but when I took on wearing opaque tights I didn't think so long and hard about it. I felt it was the right thing to do (see-through tights always bothered me. What's the point of them anyway?), and started wearing them.

I didn't spend time thinking, "what if I want to stop wearing them?", since I decided to take it on it was a non-issue. If I believe that wearing them is the correct thing to do, why would I want to walk around without them while deciding?

I didnt think for that long. Just half an hour or so. And then decided to do it anyhow... But I realized its not just something I can stop doing on a whim.

Seraph

Sun, Jul 12 2009, 7:54 am

Barbara wrote:

Why should doing something that is permitted by halacha be considered *going backwards*? Eg, your rabbi holds that women need not cover their calves. You decide that while you don't *need* to cover your calves, opaque tights just look more modest to you. Until the air conditioning breaks in the hottest August on record. Why is it problematic to shed the tights then, if you've always acknowledged that its not halachically required?

Because even within halacha, there are better ways and less good ways to follow that halacha. There is din, and there is going lifnim meshuras hadin. I think opaque tights is going lifnim meshuras hadin, and stopping to go lifnim meshuras hadin IS going backwards.

chocolate moose

Sun, Jul 12 2009, 9:00 am

Seraph wrote:

Barbara wrote:

But your legs are covered be it with knee hi's, if it's socks, or regular hose. Why would you think that darker or thicker is better?

Seraph

Sun, Jul 12 2009, 9:10 am

chocolate moose wrote:

Seraph wrote:

Barbara wrote:

But your legs are covered be it with knee hi's, if it's socks, or regular hose. Why would you think that darker or thicker is better?

Why is an opaque shirt better than one made out of lace or some other transparent material?
Obviously, some feel that fully covered means covered by something that isnt see through.

chocolate moose

Sun, Jul 12 2009, 3:23 pm

Seraph wrote:

chocolate moose wrote:

Seraph wrote:

Barbara wrote:

But your legs are covered be it with knee hi's, if it's socks, or regular hose. Why would you think that darker or thicker is better?

Why is an opaque shirt better than one made out of lace or some other transparent material?
Obviously, some feel that fully covered means covered by something that isnt see through.

A shirt is a different din than tights.

Seraph

Mon, Jul 13 2009, 12:22 am

chocolate moose wrote:

Seraph wrote:

chocolate moose wrote:

Seraph wrote:

Barbara wrote:

But your legs are covered be it with knee hi's, if it's socks, or regular hose. Why would you think that darker or thicker is better?

Why is an opaque shirt better than one made out of lace or some other transparent material?
Obviously, some feel that fully covered means covered by something that isnt see through.

A shirt is a different din than tights.

According to you. Others, apparently, hold differently.

Seraph

Mon, Jul 13 2009, 12:50 am

Imaonwheels wrote:

I heard from a rav once in a shiur that showing shok is as serious as exposing your breasts.

Or worse.
Its probably as bad as uncovering your hair. Wink

Halacha says "Shok bi'isha erva" and "Se'ar bi'isha erva". As in erva mamash. Breasts of a nursing woman, according to some poskim, are not erva, hence, showing your shok is worse than showing your breasts.