Has the concept of tznius changed over time?

louche

Mon, Jul 13 2009, 1:00 am

Seraph wrote:

Breasts of a nursing woman, according to some poskim, are not erva,

Hmm, that may explain all those perplexing church paintings of the madonna...and here I thought it was just that those medieval painters were DOMs.

Atali

Mon, Jul 13 2009, 11:33 am

Seraph wrote:

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.

What is your source that breasts of a nursing woman are not erva?

Atali

Mon, Jul 13 2009, 11:34 am

chocolate moose wrote:

I DIDN'T SAY A leg didn't need to be covered as a shirt covers the trunk of the body. But it doesn't need a formless shape like a sleeve does.

No one holds that.

But that does not mean that the covering should be see through. Although some poskim hold that it may be see-through, others do not.

chocolate moose

Mon, Jul 13 2009, 11:57 am

Atali wrote:

chocolate moose wrote:

I DIDN'T SAY A leg didn't need to be covered as a shirt covers the trunk of the body. But it doesn't need a formless shape like a sleeve does.

No one holds that.

But that does not mean that the covering should be see through. Although some poskim hold that it may be see-through, others do not.

See through, like an open knit, or see-through, sheer?

Atali

Mon, Jul 13 2009, 12:02 pm

chocolate moose wrote:

Atali wrote:

chocolate moose wrote:

I DIDN'T SAY A leg didn't need to be covered as a shirt covers the trunk of the body. But it doesn't need a formless shape like a sleeve does.

No one holds that.

But that does not mean that the covering should be see through. Although some poskim hold that it may be see-through, others do not.

See through, like an open knit, or see-through, sheer?

See-through, as in sheer or semi-sheer.

Atali

Mon, Jul 13 2009, 12:35 pm

chocolate moose wrote:

I was told by the rov that color and thickness does not matter for tights. I did not ask for shirts or sleeves.

But it's not the same thing. The trunk of the body has different dinim then the legs.

Most Chabad rabbonim allow sheer tights, that does not mean that it is not preferable to me machmir.

Seraph

Mon, Jul 13 2009, 3:13 pm

Atali wrote:

Seraph wrote:

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

What is your source that breasts of a nursing woman are not erva?

Ben ish chai. I don't hold by him, but such a psak exists. and I'm sure he's not the only one.

Atali

Mon, Jul 13 2009, 3:14 pm

Seraph wrote:

Atali wrote:

Seraph wrote:

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

What is your source that breasts of a nursing woman are not erva?

Ben ish chai. I don't hold by him, but such a psak exists. and I'm sure he's not the only one.

I find that surprising since it seems to directly contradict a gemara I saw, but I will have to look into it more.

Hashem_Yaazor

Mon, Jul 13 2009, 3:35 pm

If a nursing woman exposes her breasts, the Shema may not be read nor a blessing recited in her presence. According to one opinion, since a woman normally exposes her breasts when nursing, her breasts at that time are considered to be like her palms and her face, and this view is to be accepted in pressing circumstances. In Europe, women do not regularly cover their heads and thus the Shema may be read in their presence (Ben Ish Hai, vol. 1, Bo, paras. 8–12; trans. Hiley: vol. 1, 175–176).

cassandra

Mon, Jul 13 2009, 3:51 pm

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

Ironic that the Ben Ish Hai that is famous for "telling women that they don't have to cover their hair" is also known for telling women that "nursing breasts are not ervah".

NotInNJMommy

Mon, Jul 13 2009, 4:09 pm

There is some aspect of exposing breasts (ie. for nursing) that is more lenient. We hang Shmira (shir lamaalos, etc.) above all the doorways when a new baby comes home, and when asked about a woman uncovering to nurse in front of the shmirah, he (our rav) said that there was an aspect to that part of the body that was more lenient, and not to worry about it (ie. in the case of incidental exposure during nursing). We didn't discuss sources.

Last edited by NotInNJMommy on Mon, Jul 13 2009, 4:11 pm; edited 1 time in total

Barbara

Mon, Jul 13 2009, 4:10 pm

cassandra wrote:

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

Ironic that the Ben Ish Hai that is famous for "telling women that they don't have to cover their hair" is also known for telling women that "nursing breasts are not ervah".

Not at all ironic, as AIUI, his reasoning on both is similar. Ben Ish Hai looks to the question of what modest women do in the society in question in determining what is required. So in the modern-day US, he would indeed say that breastfeeding women must cover up; in some society frequently featured in National Geographic, he might hold differently. The same goes for hair covering according to his reasoning -- the habits of women at that period must be taken into account.

Atali

Mon, Jul 13 2009, 5:03 pm

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

But that is not the same as saying they are not erva in the sense that they can be uncovered in front of other men

cassandra

Mon, Jul 13 2009, 5:05 pm

Barbara wrote:

cassandra wrote:

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

Ironic that the Ben Ish Hai that is famous for "telling women that they don't have to cover their hair" is also known for telling women that "nursing breasts are not ervah".

Yes, in terms of whether or not a man can recite kriat shema in front of it. It is the same teshuva that is being misconstrued on two counts. (There may be more, but I don't know..)

Atali

Mon, Jul 13 2009, 5:32 pm

BTW, the Mishna Berura says (free translation):

"And therefore it is necessary to be careful that if she is nursing and her breasts are exposed not to say and davar shebkedusha"

So apparently he holds differently. (I am still trying to find the source from the gemara that I had in mind)

katb

Tue, Jul 14 2009, 8:39 am

Ha ha. I go away for 5 minutes and when I come back this thread is 9 pages long and everyone is outraged by my veil comment! I'm not going to read through all 9 pages, all I can say is that I don't think sarcasm comes accross well on this forum...

In any case, one person says Tamar was thought by Yehuda to eb a harlot because she covered her face, yet another person says Rivkah (I think it was Rivkah) covered her face because she was in awe of Yitzchak......how do those 2 fit together? And surely if these women covered their faces then there were SOME VEILS FLYING ABOUT THE DESERT so I'm not wrong......!