Has the concept of tznius changed over time?

OldYoung

Thu, Jul 09 2009, 8:51 pm

louche wrote:

OldYoung wrote:

cassandra wrote:

Similarly, I would not put on sweatpants without a skirt and drive to the gym like that where I live, but if I were on vacation I might work out in a hotel gym in pants because wearing pants isn't a halachic violation for me and I don't have to worry about cultural identification in a place where there are no other Jews.

I did not read the entire thread, but this kind of caught me by surprise. Why wouldn't someone have to worry about cultural identification in a place without Jews?

Because in a place without Jews you're not trying to blend in and be accepted by the local culture, and you for sure aren't concerned about whether they think you're frei or modern or chassidish or yeshivish or if the fact that you're chewing gum while wearing a shocking pink blouse and no stockings will mean your kids won't be accepted to the local school or be able to find a shidduch.

Got it, and thanks for clarifying. I am assuming this was what Cassandra meant. At first glance though, I thought she was talking about (external) cultural identifcation by non-Jews.

Seraph

Fri, Jul 10 2009, 1:42 am

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...

Imaonwheels

Fri, Jul 10 2009, 2:40 am

There is some what of a double standard going on here. We are asked to recognize different shitot and know that some poskim allow to not cover the lower leg. Fine. That has to require recognition that there are also many shitot which say the lower leg is shok. Shok is erva by all. That means to have a non sheer covering on the lower leg is base halacha for many poskim. In the past it was less of an issue because skirts were longer.

To ask a BY or other similar school to condone uncovered legs is impossible, it would be a violation of their halachic shitot.

As much as schools can make mistakes in teaching tznius parents make more. School dress codes are not piskei halacha and are not meant to be. They are uniform standards required by an institution to avoid being over by its standards and to avoid endless hairsplitting with students, parents and faculty. Parents should also not get into a school rule vs halacha discussion that would cause a lack of respect for the school with their kids. The value of following the rules because they are the rules while you are in the school is important.

The halacha as I learned is that one must follow minhag hamakom for stringencies but may not follow it lower than the halacha. And AFAIK, holding 2 standards is also very problematic. If one all year long follows certain shitot and minhagim they have a chazaka of taking that on. All of a sudden to go on vacation and drop those things are also a chinuch disaster because most kids do not get the fine points and interpret things with a child's reasoning. That will be embedded and difficult to remove later. Children will also move this to other areas like kashrut or even lower standards below those of the parents because the message is that tznius is about fitting in.

As to the 60s and 70s. You can see pictures of the "frum mini" in the 60s. It was a skirt similarly cut but going just to the bottom of the knee while standing straight. If our gc would see such pictures they may not know that it was definitely not considered tznius and rabbonim objected. There is a nature in some women to copy styles that aren't Jewish. Why is there so little delineation of the concept of minhag [gentile] applied today? Discussion of the need to copy the non Jewish world in their fashions?

In the 70s the uniform in the outside world (like my public school) was low cut bell bottoms, tube or halter and high platforms. Hair had to be long or feathered ala Farrah Fawcett. Anybody in a dress went to Catholic school. My mother, far removed from frumkeit did not allow me pants until 6th grade making my only friend a member of some fundamentalist xtian sect for a while.
Why? She had no idea and neither did my bubby, but they knew from "somewhere" that pants were not appropriate for women.

And halachic psak has always, realistically for the most part, assumed greater intuition and bina yesira for women while recognizing their vastly deficient learning inside the sources. (I know there are exceptions) So we have whole arguments about what we were told. When I read them I am sorry but the looks "inside" are quite different as is the manner of reasoning. I doubt many women have done extensive halachic research in to what is shok. That would require knowing the Gemoras well and in context, going through the rishonim, BY, SA and nosei kelav, achronim until the present poskim according to your shita. This of course requires a knowledge of the relevant poskim and their place in the halachic chain. After you have a good grasp of all of that you can then think about paskening for your self. But first you have to understand the concept of minhag hamakom, family minhag and the psakim of the mora d'asra of your place. A semester course in a subject for someone not already carrying the title yoreh, yoreh can only elucidate the opinion of the one teaching the course.

Atali

Fri, Jul 10 2009, 7:24 am

Seraph wrote:

amother wrote:

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?

Ruchel

Fri, Jul 10 2009, 8:43 am

Quote:

To ask a BY or other similar school to condone uncovered legs is impossible, it would be a violation of their halachic shitot.

I see the BY girls (among others) going out of school and especially in the summer many don't cover their legs. Sometimes they have long skirts, sometimes knee ones.

Quote:

Children will also move this to other areas like kashrut or even lower standards below those of the parents because the message is that tznius is about fitting in.

I see not only children do it! how many people will eat not glatt/CY when out of a big community! how many women who cover it all will uncover some!
and here I'm only mentioning those staying inside halacha fully...

Quote:

As to the 60s and 70s. You can see pictures of the "frum mini" in the 60s. It was a skirt similarly cut but going just to the bottom of the knee while standing straight.

If only it was the worst thing the frum wore at the time...

Barbara

Fri, Jul 10 2009, 10:26 am

Seraph wrote:

amother wrote:

This is a serious question, not an argumentative one; please take it as such.

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?

Barbara

Fri, Jul 10 2009, 10:33 am

ora_43 wrote:

SNIP
BTW Barbara part #3 is why it is tznua to go out in a shtreimel or whatever else, even if it grabs attention. There's a problem with trying to get attention for its own sake, but not with dressing in a uniquely Jewish way -- that we're supposed to do (not necessarily by wearing a shtreimel, though, and of course there are exceptions in certain cases, such as for parnasa or to avoid anti-Semitism).
SNIP

That's more or less where I come out when I think about this. In the end, I think that while there may have been a time and place where tziniut was more or less *modest,* I'm not sure that's the case any longer. There is a growing gap between what is considered acceptable and modest in secular and frum society, and given that this increasingly creates a paradox in which tziniut dress actually draws attention *to* people.

I don't really agree that tziniut requires us to dress in a uniquely Jewish way, OTOH. I've heard of communities in which it is not considered tziniut to wear current fashions, even if they are completely within halachic guidelines. That I don't get.

louche

Fri, Jul 10 2009, 11:39 am

Barbara wrote:

I've heard of communities in which it is not considered tziniut to wear current fashions, even if they are completely within halachic guidelines. That I don't get.

that's not so much an issue of tzniut, but an issue of "chukat akum". we're forbidden to follow the customs of the non jews, even those that appear to be completely innocuous. we're "am levaded yishkon," a nation that dwells apart, and where we can't literally dwell apart, we have to maintain our apartness anyway. we're supposed to look different, though women are not supposed to call attention to themselves. Yeah, I know...go and reconcile those two. You can't, unless you spend your entire life in an insular community and never set foot outside its precincts.

however, after a style becomes accepted for a long time, if it's not untzanua, it no longer calls attention to itself and may be adopted. this extends all the way to things like style of eyeglasses. when wire rims are the latest thing, they're unacceptable. 15 years later, they're ok, and plastic rims, the latest thing, is not ok. ditto for wide vs. narrow neckties and lapels, flare vs. straight-leg slacks, hair styles...some of this is simply a matter of practicality--after a while, the old style is no longer available and one is forced to buy the "new" style, which by then is old.

Last edited by louche on Fri, Jul 10 2009, 11:47 am; edited 2 times in total

Atali

Fri, Jul 10 2009, 11:42 am

Barbara wrote:

Seraph wrote:

amother wrote:

Because there are different halachic opinions on this matter, and if one chooses to hold by the stricter opinion (that women MUST cover their legs with opaque tights) one cannot choose to follow a more lenient opinion without doing hataras nedarim.

The same applies with any other area, even if it isn't a halachic requirement. For example, if a woman takes on to daven maariv (totally not required) and then wants to stop she needs to do hataras nedarim.

Atali

Fri, Jul 10 2009, 11:53 am

louche wrote:

Barbara wrote:

I've heard of communities in which it is not considered tziniut to wear current fashions, even if they are completely within halachic guidelines. That I don't get.

I learned that not all non-Jewish fashions are chukas hagoyim, but rather according to the Rema fashions are included under chukas hagoyim if they are meant to express a negative character trait that is not encouraged by Judaism.

What exactly is to be included in that varies according to the community, but generally anything with tznius issues falls under that category, and some include clothes that are particularly casual, such as denim, since being laid-back about life is not encouraged by Judaism.

(ducking for cover here Help

)

Atali

Fri, Jul 10 2009, 11:54 am

louche wrote:

Barbara wrote:

I've heard of communities in which it is not considered tziniut to wear current fashions, even if they are completely within halachic guidelines. That I don't get.

This is another issue, separate from chukas hagoyim but also relevant.

louche

Fri, Jul 10 2009, 1:29 pm

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.)