Spinoff: wearing pants

amother

Sun, Oct 27 2019, 10:57 pm

There was a thread where someone said tznius is equivalent to kosher and someone who wears pants, you won't eat at their house since you can't trust their kashrus.

For those who believe you need to cover your knees with a skirt, can you actually give me a source? I have asked so many women and they all just say it is halacha. I have yet to find one person give me a passuk. Not a sefer written by contemporaries, but actual halachic sources.

The Torah talks about basar v'chalav and many sections deal with kashrus, which animals etc. There is a vague reference about being modest in your ways, without defining modesty.

Rabbis wrote the laws of tznius in accordance with the times. The laws were written when all women wore dresses/skirts as wearing pants is modern in the world in general. Nowadays, it is considered acceptable for women to wear pants. In the non-jewish world, no men think jeans are s-xy, they think skirts/dresses are. To non-jewish men, they are so desensitized to every women wearing jeans, that seeing legs in a skirt is more attractive. If you walk in with makeup, gorgeous sheitel, dress/skirt, you are way hotter than a mom in a ponytail and jeans.

That being said, does anyone have any real halachic sources that show unequivocably that a skirt is what was meant by the TORAH, not rabbis specifically? In the midbar, they didn't have tights or sheitels, obviously. So we know tznius changes with the times.

The kohanim used to wear robes and men no longer wear skirts/dress/robe things.

I am curious to hear tznius sources, inside, in Hebrew. Thank you

amother

Plum ↓

Sun, Oct 27 2019, 11:04 pm

A lot of halacha surrounding tznius is pretty vague and not brought down by older sources, which is why we need to rely on contemporary halachic authorities. That being said, there have also been many chumros al gabei chumros that have been added to "hilchos tznius" nowadays.

I think that a lot of the objection to pants has to do with בגד גבר more than tznius. Even though it is so accepted in the world nowadays, pants are still considered a man's garment.

amother

Khaki

Mon, Oct 28 2019, 12:42 am

Yemenite women wore loose flowy pants. I've seen Indian Jewish women in a salwar khameez with pants too.

There are almost no absolute rules in classical halacha for how to dress. Historically, women just wore what the surrounding culture wore. Post WWII, particularly in the 1970s and beyond, there was a surge in books telling women what they could wear. Some of that was a reaction to changing modes of dress, and some was part of a general trend to codify everything rather than rely on common sense.

I do think it's important to know what a rule is trying to accomplish. You can say that a skirt ought to be 4 inches below the knee, but of course that's totally arbitrary. If you want knees covered at all times, just say so. Pretending there's a formula is silly. And pretending it's mesorah is sillier still. The skirt that falls 4 inches below the knee would have been unbelievable pritzus 150 years ago in most of the world.

Part of the problem with rule books overtaking common sense is that you end up with the "hot Chani" phenomenon of women whose clothes follow the letter of the law but are anything but modest.

Ruchel

Mon, Oct 28 2019, 5:47 am

4 inches is TO ME arbitrary. It needs to cover - and that may mean just knee, unless you hold the tefach under. Hot chani, yes well, please look at some - with all respects for our kedoshim - pre war pics and compare with what would be HC then. (not to mention before that problems of women going in renaissance dresses showing shoulders)
Yes, a lot is cultural. My mom's read a russian book and it keeps mentioning a woman with "no bonnet, bare elbows"

amother

Saddlebrown

Mon, Oct 28 2019, 6:19 am

I do have lots of actual sources from the Torah and Shulchen Aruch. Though I don't debate with woman who don't believe in Tzniut and want to get sources. Because they will always try a comeback and I don't want to go there.
All Frum woman know that there's rules about Tzniut. By asking for sources, many of them (especially xFrum) are asking just to prove that it's not 100% true.
So yes, Hashem said Tehei Tznuah and mentioned what needs to be covered.

(Btw, I had a scary dream a while ago of a very special woman who is in the next world.
She showed me on every part of the body- she showed me what needs to be covered, and mentioned that I should bring it to people's attention. I should publicize it to as many woman as possible.)

PinkFridge

Mon, Oct 28 2019, 9:12 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

There is so much more to kashrus than is in the Torah Shebiksav. The Torah is kind of vague about kashrus in many areas beyond split hooves, chews cuds, and fins and scales.

samantha87

Mon, Oct 28 2019, 1:35 pm

amother [ Saddlebrown ] wrote:

Are you also Saddlebrown on the other thread?

Deflecting that "everyone knows" and saying if you ask it's just to make trouble clearly works for lots of women - see the other thread - but there are also many of us who are too sophisticated for that and like OP understand that most of it is, to quote "chumros al gabei chumros."

And what is Das Yehudis? That is also just one vague line in the gemarah without details.

amother

↑ Plum

Mon, Oct 28 2019, 1:43 pm

amother [ Saddlebrown ] wrote:

And I had a scary dream last night from J-sus. He said that I am the next Messiah.

Rolling Eyes

keym

Mon, Oct 28 2019, 1:46 pm

The gemara is clear about kol bisha erva, Saar bisha erva, Shok bisha erva, tefach bisha erva. I believe these perimeters are sourced from Shir Hashirim.
What Shok means is argued extensively. Hips to knees? Thighs? Knees? Knees to ankles? Ankles? Then once the amoraim determine what needs to be covered, the question is how and to what extent. Covered? Covered and concealed? Is see through ok? Can you see the shape.
There is tremendous Talmudic discussion that creates the various shitos.

As an aside, shechita is not mentioned in the Torah explicitly at all just hinted. Yet everyone agrees with the basic process. And there are thousands of Rabbinic discussions.
Tefillin is not clear either. Just "totafos" between your eyes and tied on your hands.

miami85

Mon, Oct 28 2019, 2:04 pm

amother [ Saddlebrown ] wrote:

So yes, Hashem said Tehei Tznuah and mentioned what needs to be covered.

Also I know that this is not the topic but tznius is just as much for men as it is for women, my husband will not walk around the house in his pajamas/undershirt if anyone but our immediate family (me and my kids) is over. He is NOT "Mr. Chumra," he doesn't like baseless chumros. He has told me that knees and collarbone are halacha, I can ask him where that comes from.

I would've put this on the other thread but its already 6 pgs long 1) those of my contemporaries who have started wearing pants--I've seen that its jeans and not the more modest/conservative slacks. 2)There was a reputable caterer that was under the local va'ad of kashrus and she notably wears pants and is not makpid on hair covering, I would eat from her, but I would understand if others would equate the 2.

Frumfemme

Wed, Nov 09 2022, 9:00 pm

Dear OP:

There's a really excellent discussion on derecheha about this issue - whether pants are consider tznius or not, with sources. It appears to date back to Rashi, and comments about a riding seat (my note: historically, women rode cross-saddle, not with their legs spread for a number of reasons).

It also goes into great detail to explain the "shok" and how that definition differs in time, but the meaning is clear in each case. It's certainly worth a read if you're interested, and includes sources.

https://www.deracheha.org/dres.....ails/

As for Torah sources, of course there are not any. Trousers were not worn by either gender at that time. A harug - a simple tunic - was worn, with a cloak over it for warmth, etc. A skirt or dress is in line with a flowing harug - but pants did not come to Israel until later - therefore I suspect it would be assumed (sort of like the debate about electricity and fire). However, Rashi offers an interesting commentary in Mishna Shabbos were pants are not mentioned as one of the essential items of clothing that may be rescued from a fire, indicating thus that the sages prior to that time did not wear pants. And women were generally less visible in public, so some of these changes have occurred as the role of women in society as a whole has changed.

If it is acceptable for women nowadays to wear pants, that would rather increase the prohibition, not decrease it as we are not to imitate other's ways, based on Vayikra 20:23, and indeed many rabbis posken that way. Maimonedes also seems to hold to this view (Laws Idolatory 11:1).

In MO communities pants may be acceptable. In other communities, they seem to be only permissible under skirts if there is a danger from cold or injury. And some communities outright do not allow them under any circumstances. Beyond the basics, which many agree on, there are community standards and it is probably best to ask your own rabbi what the standards are in your community. Tznius of dress is a tough mitzvah for many of us, and sometimes we don't get it right. Kindness goes a long way on this one. I think many other mothers here have made the excellent point in this thread that tznius is for us all (men and women), is more than dress codes, and that it is possible to be 100% dressed correctly yet not a tznua.