Female Derangement Syndrome

There is an illness that it affecting some people in our community.  It's an insidious illness... often there are no warning signs until the initial outbreak.  Once an outbreak occurs, however, it leads to violence, vandalism and destruction.  It seems to strike most often in the Chareidi communities of Israel, although, I suppose, it is possible for it to strike elsewhere as well.  The illness is called Female Derangement Syndrome.  Despite it's name, just about all those afflicted with the illness are males.

The most recent outbreak of this disease occurred in Emmanuel, in Israel.  A fellow who operates a Go Kart ride decided to allow some teenage girls to take a ride on the Go Karts.  This, apparently, did not sit well with Rabbi Yehoida Gadasi, a local Emmanuel rabbi.  When he heard that girls were on the Go Karts he proceeded to march on to the tracks, yell at the girls, force them from the Go Karts, yell at the operator, curse him, pick up the Go Karts, smash them against the floor and damage them.  He accused the owner of "opening a brothel" by letting the girls ride the Go Karts.

If something like this were an isolated incident, we could dismiss it as the work of a "lone nut."  But, unfortunately, this seems to be part of a larger trend.  Far too many reports are coming in of cases where violence against women or their activities.  We've all heard of the reports so far... whether it's a woman getting beaten up for riding in the wrong section of a Mehadrin bus or throwing acid in a girl's face or cursing, spitting on a woman and throwing cinder blocks at her (!) for not dressing in a tznius fashion, or throwing chairs at women at the Kotel,or any of the other acts of violence that have been committed against women in the name of "modesty."  Clearly the people who commit these acts must be sick.  They clearly suffer from Female Derangement Syndrome... a sickness whereby one is led to irrational violence by the otherwise lawful actions of women.  


You might ask how I know that these men are sick?  Perhaps they're just control freaks out to control everything women do and they use violence towards that end?  I suppose that's a possibility, but I can't help but think that some of these people are just plain mentally ill.  Someone who equates allowing girls to ride a Go Kart to opening a brothel is just not playing with a full deck, in my (non-professional) humble opinion.  If Rabbi Gadasi really believes that a girl riding a Go Kart is the equivalent of a whore, then he's clearly not rational.  If someone thinks that a woman deserves to be beaten up for sitting in the wrong seat on a bus, then he is (again, in my non-professional humble opinion) incapable of dealing with the real world and the standards that most normal human beings (and the Torah, too, for that matter) apply to social interactions.  To me, that's a sign of illness.  


Now, I don't mean to excuse these men because they have a "sickness."  One can be sick and still be considered responsible for criminal acts they commit because of the sickness -- and men who suffer from Female Derangement Syndrome should be no different.  But ultimately, the onus is on the community to deal with these individuals, to treat them if possible or put them in a position where they can cause no further harm.  Sadly, however, the community usually just turns a blind eye to the monsters in their midst.  The community must do more to rein in these lunatics.

The Wolf

(UPDATE:  One of my commentators informs me that Rabbi Gadasi is Sephardi and not Chareidi.  This leads me to a question -- is being a Chareidi exclusively an Ashkenazi phenomenon?)

Leggings Under A Skirt Is Not Tznius?

Perhaps someone can explain this to me.

A friend of Eeees recently received a letter from her kids' school. In short the letter said that it was a violation of tznius rules for a woman to wear leggings under her skirt (even if the skirt is of the proper length).

For the life of me, I can't figure this out. How are leggings any worse than tights? On the contrary, I would think that leggings are better than tights since it is less form-fitting on the exposed lower leg.

Can anyone please explain the logic of this to me?

The Wolf

Tznius Lunacy Abounds

From the tznius craziness files this week:

Don't Sing So Well...

A young bride moves to Lakewood to be with her husband's family. Her sister-in-law, who is affiliated with a local tznius organization which was sending out a mass-mailing in the community. The mass-mailing was to include a CD with songs sung by women. (I would presume that the mailing was meant only for women.) The sister-in-law recruits the young bride (who apparently has had some voice training) to record a few tracks for the CD. Sister-in-law, who also sings (but not as well as the young bride) also recorded some songs for the track.

So, what happened?

my mother ending up slipping to me, that the tznius organization wasn’t going to be using any of the tracks that I sang on. They loved my voice, it’s beautiful, don’t get them wrong. However, in comparison to my sister-in-laws voice (which is quite nice) mine is much more trained, and since the purpose of the organization is to promote tznius, they didn’t think it was a good idea to have a voice like mine on their cd.

A trained singing voice is not tznius? Keep in mind, we're not talking about a woman singing in front of men, since were that the case, the women would not have recorded any tracks at all. We're talking about women singing in front of women -- and it's still not considered tznius! One wonders where this is headed next. Will women swimming together not be allowed to wear a standard bathing suit because it's not tznius?

(UPDATE 2/25 8:30AM: See below for explanation on this next item)
Your Blog Might Lead To Mixed Dancing

Next up on the hit parade, Altie, of MoVinG oN, a Chabad-Lubavitch female blogger, reports that she received an email from "The Committee for the Furtherance of Jewish Purity" (whomever they may be), telling her that she must close her comments to males and restrict what she writes to things that don't reflect badly on Chabad or Crown Heights. Ideally, of course, it would be better for a Bas Melech to not blog at all, as the idea of a woman expressing her thoughts violates the principle of kol k'vudah bas melech p'nima. As the letter states:

Kol kvuda bas melech pnima. A girl’s purpose is to be a mekabel. Not to overly express herself to the world around her. Al achas kama vkama to express herself in a way that is nontznius, and therefore is a drastic chillul Hashem and chillul shem Lubavtich.

and (emphasis added)

Obviously, to cease to express yourself through the derech of the internet, or bchlal in the world, as stated above: kol kvuda bas melech pnima, that would be the ideal. We hope that one day you will realize this remedy on your own. As for now, we are merely requesting the abovementioned guidelines to follow.

From the positive can be inferred the negative, and we hope that “a word to the wise is sufficient”. We would hope to not have to resort to any unpleasant measures, but of course we will do what must be done.

Interestingly enough, in their next email, they asked her to rat out her "blogging friends."

Incidentally, if you could share with us some information about a few of your 'blogging' friends (which as you know, the Rebbe would be very against having such friendships in the first place. It goes against everything the holy Torah dictates), then your help would show your sincere desire to not cause us to take necessary actions.

The committee would have made ol' Joe McCarthy proud.

The Pop Star Who Came To Lakewood

Moving right along, we have the letter from a store clerk in Lakewood who doctors products when the containers contain non-tznius images... and then catches flack when he or his staff misses one of the thousands of packages. He tells the story of one instance where a package contained an image of a female teen pop-star. The store clerks went to work marking up the containers but apparently missed at least one. A woman who bought a missed package came into the store and made a scene, screaming “What if a boy bought this and took it to another level?”

Took it to another level? What was he going to do? Call Miley Cyrus' agent to arrange a hook-up?

Eventually, the matter went to a local posek who ruled that as long as the images are covered, they can be sold.

The clerk, however, put the problem in focus:

There are so many problems. But no. A picture of a teen pop star was more important to wast the posek’s precious time. We have people dealing drugs to our kids, and this woman convinced the posek that our disposable package with a smiling girl will destroy our kids. I work in a store. I hear all. I know what is going on in this town. There are so many crazy problems. I never once heard someone say their child went off because of a fruit snacks package with a cd offer from M.C

Tznius Is In The Eyebrow Of The Beholder

And lastly, we have the case in Israel where an eyebrow shaping advertisement has drawn the wrath of local officials in Modiin Ilit (in Israel). It seems that the shape of an eyebrow is enough to cause the passions of men to erupt and, as such, the ads are not tznius. As Rafi (from Life In Israel) points out, this is likely to have an economic impact on the women of Modiin Ilit, as cosmotology is a very popular career among the wives of the community.

I always find it amazing how overboard we go with tznius. It's one thing to have rules and guidelines. There should be guidelines for acting and dress (for men AND women). I do believe that there is wisdom in a limited separation of the sexes. But the extremes to which some people carry it are just too much. I've often observed that the very first place we encounter tznius is when the prophet tells us to walk humbly with God. When he told us that, he wasn't advising us regarding skirt lengths, stockings and women singing in public. Do you think the women who caused a scene in the Lakewood grocery was adhering to the principle of Hatzneah Leches Im Hashem Elokecha? I don't think so - on the contrary, I'm convinced her actions were the direct opposite.

The Wolf

UPDATE 2/25 8:30am: Apparently the item on Altie's blog was a hoax. My apologies for posting it.

The Princess and the Prostitute

Eeees and I were walking back from shul one Yom Tov morning when we passed by another shul in the neighborhood which we do not attend. As we passed by, she told me that the rebbetzin of the shul gave a speech to the women in the shul about their manner of dress in shul. Apparently, the key note of the speech was this: do you want to look like a princess or a prostitute?

Now, I know that some people might have a problem with the way some of the women dress in my neighborhood. Some of them might wear clothing that some would consider too tight. And, as the rebbetzin in the shul, I suppose she sincerely thought that she had some say in the matter, especially when it came to how they came dressed to shul.

Let's even say, for the sake of argument, that she was right -- the women dress in clothing that is too tight, perhaps the skirt is slightly above the knee (which, knowing the shul, I doubt), or the sheitel is too attractive. Nonetheless, I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that the women in my neighborhood do not, in fact, dress like prostitutes. There are many degrees of dress between princess (which, from the context, I'm assuming is code for tznius*) and prostitute.

In fact, I think that by framing the question this way, the rebbetzin probably lost most of her audience. Had she framed it in terms of a laxity in the spirit of tznius, her audience might have been able to internalize the message, seen how it applied to them and made the adjustments the rebbetzin was aiming for. But by framing it as "dressing like a prostitute," she probably lost them completely. The ladies attending the speech probably said to themselves "Well, that doesn't apply to me. I don't dress like a hooker!" and then proceeded to dismiss the rest of what she said.

The Wolf

* Although most of the formal gowns worn by European princesses certainly wouldn't qualify as tznius...

Do Risque Fashions Save Tznius?

The laws of tznius, as they are applied to clothing and commonly understood by many in the "frummer" parts of the community, seem to be composed of two related rules:

1. A strict definition on what parts of the female body have to be covered. Collarbones, knees, elbows, etc.
2. An ideal that a woman should not draw attention to herself. The skintight evening gown that may cover her collarbones, elbows, knees, et al, is still no good if it leaves little of her figure to the imagination. The garment may be "kosher" from a covering point of view, but it still attracts attention to the wearer and is therefore forbidden.

However, it should be noted that whether or not an outfit is risque (and attractive) often depends on the surrounding culture. What was considered scandalous a hundred years ago might not even be shocking by today's standards. I don't think you would have seen anyone in Victorian England wearing a bikini at the beach -- and yet, today, it's considered normal beach attire* and is not shocking at all to most people.

I think that if you took all the fashions in contemporary America and graded them in terms of how much they reveal and how likely they are to find acceptence as "normal" within society, you'd find that they probably fall into a bell curve. The most attractive (and/or revealing) outfits would be at the right end of the scale. You'd probably find burquas at the left end. The curve would be the percentage of the population who felt that the particular outfit was in good taste. As you got closer to the average, the percentage of approvers would continue to rise. As you went further out to the sides, the number of approvers would fall.

Tznius, would, in essence, say that only outfits that fall within a certain middle region of the curve would qualify as tznius. Too far to the left and you're attacting attention for being too dowdy (think about the comments that the Beit Shemesh burqua lady was getting -- even before the more serious allegations came to light) and too far to the right and, well... you're just not tznius anymore. In the middle of all this is the average -- the golden mean which would be the norm. So, if you took all clothing in a given society and rated them on a scale of 1 to 100 for attractiveness (with 50 as the average -- the height of the curve), you'd find some outfits (like a burqua) rated at 1 or 2 and some (like a very revealing bikini) to be a 95 or 100. A reasonable rule might be that in order for an outfit to be considered compliant with the rules of tznius, it must fall into a certain range -- say 30 to 70. Anything over 70 is too attractive while anything under 30 is just so ugly/unusual that it draws attention.

Now, let's pretend, for a moment, that Orthodox Jews are the only people who exist on the planet -- or, barring that, that Orthodox Jews live in completely enclosed environments where they will never see a non-Orthodox Jew.

Since Orthodox Jews are the only ones in this society, the (assuming that no one will willfully violate tznius standards) only clothing that will exist is that which falls within that portion of the curve which is acceptable. In theory, the average (the top of the bell curve) will remain the same -- the only thing that will change is that the extreme portions of the curve (to the left and right) will disappear -- as those fashions will be outlawed. So, in our Torah compliant society, only outfits rated 30 to 70 would exist.

The problem here, however, is that attractiveness (as opposed to objective rules about body parts that must be covered) is relative to the society. Therefore, in a society where only clothing 30 to 70 exists (and you'd better believe that the "70" outfits will be more popular than the "30" outfits), the outfit rated 70 now becomes too attractive. Men will start to stare at the outfits rated 60 to 70 (human nature being what it is) and soon those outfits will come under fire as well as being too attractive. Eventually, those outfits, too, are banned -- pushing more and more people to some center where everyone dresses virtually alike.

However, we don't live in such a world. We live in a world where there are people who are not commanded to keep the mitzvah of tznius. We live in a world where bikinis, strapless gowns, showing cleavage, etc. are not uncommon. In other words, having such fashions in our society prevents the mitzvah of tznius from regressing into some nightmare where everyone has to dress identically all the time -- a condition that is so restrictive that, in a free society such as ours, would probably lead to more women dropping out of observance of the mitzvah than keeping it.

In short, I think you can make the case and say that risque fashions save tznius from falling into obsolescence.

The Wolf


* And it works the other way too. In ancient Greece, athletes used to compete in the nude. I think most people, even today, woudl find that shocking.

Am I A Deviant? I Think That Some Jews Would Think I Am...

In the comments to this post, a topic sprung up about the propriety of common courtesy vis-a-vis tznius. In the post, I mentioned that I was fairly certain that Rabbi Falk (of the famed tznius sefer Oz V'Hadar Levushah) would allow someone to say "thank you" to a person of the opposite gender who held a door open. Two people (Joseph and Rabbi Waxman over at his blog) have rightfully pointed out that it's entirely possible that Rabbi Falk would not permit it.

Truth be told, I don't know what Rav Falk holds. If anyone knows him personally, I'd love to hear what he has to say. But that aside, it's not really about Rav Falk, because (as Joseph pointed out), even if Rav Falk does not hold that way, there almost certainly is someone who does.

Upon reflection, I realize that to whomever holds that position, I must be a really dangerous deviant. After all, I am routinely (multiple times daily) guilty of the following breaches of tznius according to that position:

• If a woman holds a door open for me, I actually have the nerve to say "thank you" to her.
• If I bump into a woman on the subway, or step on her toe, or hit her with my bag, I actually say "I'm sorry."
• When I get on the bus in the morning and evening, I say "good morning" or "good evening" to the bus driver -- regardless of the gender of the driver.
• When I pass people on Shabbos* I say "Good Shabbos" to them if they appear to be Jewish, or "good morning/afternoon/evening" to them if they don't appear to be Jewish.
• When I walk into the local grocery, I say good morning, etc. to the person behind the counter, who just as often is a woman as is a man.
• I say hello to the person at a checkout counter when I buy something -- and yes, often times that person is a woman.

I suppose that with these multiple lapses of tznius that I commit daily, there are those in some communities who would view me as downright lecherous.

In the comments to my previous post, Joseph expressed a concern that such common courtesy can lead to inapporopriate behavior. In his viewpoint (and others, I suppose) the fact that a torrid affair could arise from a "thank you" is enough grounds to prohibit it. But in truth, I think he vastly overstates the danger. The odds of a simple "thank you" leading to something inappropriate are so remote as to be negligble. Does it happen? I'm sure it does sometimes -- but not enough to make a general rule of rudeness about it. Making such a rule falls right into the "If Only One..." fallacy.

The Wolf

* I do so sometimes on weekdays too, but more often people are rushing on weekdays and don't want to be bothered.

The Story of Revital Avraham - Fact? Fiction?

For a while now, the letter of Revital Avraham has been making the rounds of the internet and shuls. However, it seems that the story finally found someone who can give it major publicity -- Rebbetzin Jungries. As she writes in her weekly Jewish Press column:

Special Note: A young girl, struggling with the Angel of Death, wrote the following letter. At her request, the letter was sent to many rabbis and rebbetzinsin a position to disseminate her message among our people. Tragically, she is no longer here to see her letter published, but as we approach Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, her neshamahwill surely have an aliyahin the knowledge that her request has been fulfilled and her message read and taken to heart by many.

She then reprints her letter in full. I'm not going to reprint it, but I will provide a summary. The letter can be seen in English and the original Hebrew here.

In short, the letter from Revital Avraham says that she is nineteen years old and is dying. She was a young girl blessed with physical beauty from an early age. She attracted attention from others around her and grew her hair long. She was told by her teachers to keep her beauty for that someone special in her life, but she did not listen and continued to flaunt her looks.

When she was sixteen, she received a warning when her hair caught fire while frying an omlette. She was terribly upset that her hair was gone. Her father tried to console her saying:

Revital, Hashem has made a miracle. You could have been entirely burnt! You now have an opportunity to change and leave your foolish attitude behind you."

However, she was sixteen and probably had an attitude like many teenagers. Her hair grew back over the next two years. She began wearing tight clothes and even "got involved in some trouble." (Her words -- we have no way of knowing what that entails.)

When she was 17, her beloved grandmother died. Her grandmother had tried to help her on her mend her ways, but could not do so. After her death, Revital changed her behavior for the better for a while, but then fell back into her old habits.

A while later, Revital had a dream. Her grandmother was sitting on a stone crying. When asked why she was crying, she wordlessly pointed to her head. However, Revital ignored that warning as well.

A short while later, after complaining about headaches, she went to see a doctor where she was given the bad news that she was dying.

Now dying, Revital is writing this letter to warn young girls of the dangers of dressing immodestly and being overly beautiful.

The letter ends with the postscript that Revital died shortly after composing the letter and asked in her will that it be distributed.

Let me state up front that I have no idea whether or not the story is true. In fact, that's a part of the purpose of this post -- to ask if any of my readers knew Revital (even second-handedly) or any of her relatives.

To me the language of the letter in no way sounds like it came from a nineteen year old -- nineteen year olds simply don't speak that way -- it's just idiomatically wrong. But then again, that's because I read the translation. I read the original Hebrew, but I'm not familiar enough with modern conversational Hebrew to know if it's more in line with the way an actual nineteen year old would write.

Another problem that I have with this is that in all my searches on the web (and I've done a few already), I could never find any other details to corroborate the story. No place of residence, no date of death, no name of school -- nothing. A lack of detail in a story is one of the first signs that it's an urban legend.

The last concern I have about this letter is the implication that it makes -- i.e. be sure to keep the mitzvah of tznius properly or else be subject to terrible life-threatening illnesses. Assuming for a moment that the story is true - how does Revital know that her illness is due to her lack of adherence to the mitzvah of tznius? There are, unfortunately, people who are very stringent in tznius who get sick and there are those who are lax and live long, healthy lives. Is it because she had a dream where her grandmother pointed at her head? That's quite a leap to come to that conclusion. And it's also quite a leap to apply it universally as a warning -- especially when we see that there are plenty of people who are lax in the mitzvah of tznius and don't end up with brain tumors.

So, does anyone know of any corroborating evidence for the story? Does anyone know if the whole thing is a hoax or urban legend?

The Wolf

Today's Lesson: Bride + Makeup = Bad

Ynet is reporting that the Darchei Rachel seminary in Jerusalem is providing a scholarship of 1000 NIS (about $265) to brides from their seminary who forgo makeup on their wedding day.

The payment comes about as a result of an uptrend of girls who are wearing makeup. The administrators of the school would like to fight this trend and so they are putting this offer out there. It is too soon to judge whether or not the new rule is effective.

There are a few things that I find interesting about this new development:

Firstly, the new rule wasn't promulgated as an outright ban but rather as an incentive. My guess would be that the administrators knew that an outright ban would probably fail, so instead complience with the new rule is being incentivized. I'm sure that in addition to the payment, there will probably be pressure put on the girls from the teachers and the administration to adhere to the new rules. I'm curious, however, if it will morph into an actual ban once enough girls take the bait and it becomes the "norm" not to wear makeup to one's own wedding.

Secondly, I'm actually deeply disturbed by the whole idea that makeup on one's own wedding day is a bad thing. Although it's not explictly stated in the article, I would assume that the school administrators are viewing this as a breach of tznius (does anyone else have any other reasonable explanation?) . I thought the idea of being a bride is that they are *supposed* to look beautiful for their husbands. Hence, we even relax some of the restrictions of Yom Kippur and Tisha B'Av for a bride in the period immediately following their wedding.

I suppose the point could be made that wearing makeup is a breach of tznius because she will be seen by other people (aside from her new husband) at the wedding. But that's just downright silly -- if that's the case, then there should be a prohibition on her wearing a white wedding gown -- that probably draws far more attention to her at the wedding than any decent makeup job will do. Or is that the next ban?

Thirdly, I'm concerned because this represents a further shift to the right in the Chareidi world, an instance of taking something that was perfectly acceptable until now and stating now that it is not acceptable. As one hareidi educator said in the article:

"This education institution is for the sector's most righteous girls, who are strict about everything. However, I remain skeptical in regards to the initiative's success, in light of the fact that makeup is acceptable in the haredi society and because it's a particularly exciting day."

In other words, they want to take something that, until now, was perfectly acceptable and make it now unacceptable (and, perhaps, in fifty to a hundred years, say that it was *never* acceptable).

Lastly, I'm concerned because they are taking the approach of using a bazooka to kill roaches. If there is a problem with girls wearing makeup, then why put pressure on brides? Why not incetivize the girls with a pledge not to wear makeup during their attendance at the school? The problem (to my view) is not so much that brides are wearing makeup, but that girls are. Well, if that's the case, then aim at the girls -- don't aim at brides where even if there was an outright ban on makeup you could still make a reasonable exception due to the nature of the event.

The Wolf

Yet Another Tznius Letter... Making Promises for God to Keep

Remember when a Lakewood lady received a note telling her that her skirt did not cover her nees [sic] in back?

Well, it seems that yet another anonymous missive has been sent in Lakewood, and this time, the person who sent it must be pretending to be God. The Lakewood Scoop has published a letter* mailed to a childless couple in Lakewood. The letter reads (any typos are mine):

I am writing you because I realize what great parents you would be.

I promise you that if you accept upon yourself to wear much longer skirts and to always dress in loose (even baggy) clothing whether pregnant or not, Hashem will bless you both with children.

Dear husband, it is your obligation to compliment your wife on how beautiful she looks this way. As it is truly beautiful to keep her real beauty just for you personally.

You will both be blessed by Hashem.

Let's put aside for the moment the fact that the person is incredibly insensitive to send such a thing to a childless couple. Let's also put aside for the moment that if the recipient is living in Lakewood, they are probably already observant of the laws of tznius (albeit perhaps not to the letter writer's standards). Let's also put aside the fact that the letter writer is obviously a busy body, assuming that s/he knows what is right not only for her to wear but also for what he has to compliment her on. Let's even assume that the letter writer had the best of intentions in mind when sending the letter -- that s/he meant it l'shem shamayim (for the sake of Heaven) and truly didn't mean to cause any harm.

Even with all that, I am *still* deeply disturbed by this letter. This person has actually gone ahead and abrogated to himself the ability to promise something in God's name! How the hell does he know what God has in mind for this couple? Who gave him/her license to pedal such theodicic claptrap? Does s/he think s/he can order God around to provide her with a child if she starts wearing longer skirts and he compliments her on it? Who gave this person the right to do such a thing?

You know, it's not often you see the prohibition of a false prophet being transgressed these days, but I think that this letter actually comes close to that line in spirit.

Lastly, I've always wondered about the value of a promise made anonymously from whom you can't collect and to whom you can't turn to for recompense when the promise does not come true. If the writer had guts, s/he identify him/herself** so that the couple can demand recompense if the promise fails to come through.

The Wolf

* I have no idea of the veracity of the story. I'm assuming it's true, but make your own judgments.

** Yes, I'm well aware of the irony of an anonymous writer stating that. But I don't go around making promises that I can't fulfill - and I don't drag God into it either.

Standards Of Halacha In The Workplace

Ynet (via Vos Iz Neias) is reporting that a new dress regulation will be taking effect at the Shas' Maayan Torah education network in Israel. Specifically, the regulation states that all women employed there must wear a full head covering when reporting for work. In addition, the only acceptable form of head-covering for women is a scarf -- wigs are not permitted (the article doesn't address snoods or other non-hair-like coverings). According to a source in the article, women have been threatened with dismissal if they do not dress according to code.

This new regulation has many women outraged. As you can imagine, there are women who work there who cover their hair with sheitels or other materials. In addition, the article makes no distinction between married and unmarried women.

Some of the VIN commentors have taken the approach that an employer has the right to dictate how employees dress and if you don't like it, you're free to go work someplace else. That's certainly true. If my boss, for whatever insane reason, dictated that employees come to work in bumblebee costumes everyday, I could either go to the costume shop or find a new place to work.*

However, in the above case, my boss has made his bumblebee decree for arbitrary reasons. In this case, however, there is a rationale behind the regulations -- obstensibly, the rationale is halacha. Whomever is issuing these decrees obviously feels that women are required by halacha to wear complete head coverings. And, I suppose, it's not entirely unreasonable to use halacha as a guideline for employee conduct in a religious office in a religious state.

But one has to wonder just how far this can be taken. If one can rule that millions of otherwise observant women who cover their hair with sheitels are violating halacha (despite the fact that millions of frum Jews around the world and in Israel itself view this as perfectly acceptable and within halacha) and therefore worthy of termination, then where does it end?

Should an employer be allowed to raid the contents of employee lunchboxes to make sure they're only using chassidshe shechita or cholov yisroel? Should an employer be allowed to tell employees that they can't go to an otherwise glatt kosher resturaunt for lunch because it doesn't meet his/her personal standards (real or imagined)? Should an employer be allowed to fire a worker who rides to work on a non-mehadrin bus where one is available? In short, where does it end? At what point do we say that the employer doesn't have the right to enforce his brand of halacha at the workplace

Yes, there is still the principle that a worker is not a slave and is free to quit her job at any time. If she doesn't like the rules, she's free to move on. But that's not really the answer is it? I don't know what the economic situation in Israel is like at the current time, but I can't imagine that they're unemployement problem is any better than ours is here in the U.S. Just saying "go get another job" is not the answer -- it's not always so easy. Who says the person can find another job quickly, and at the same salary? In addition, employees have certain intagible benefits that come from being in a job -- seniority, repuation, familiarity with co-workers and the surrounding of the workplace, job security and other benefits that we all enjoy from working at a place after a certain amount of time. By forcing a worker to move on, they lose a lot (if not all) of these benefits. I'm not convinced that forcing an worker to lose these benefits simply for the sake of someone else's interpretation of halacha (when their own is kept by millions of otherwise frum women around the world) is acceptable and proper.

Again, no one argues that there should be minimum standards of dress for both genders in the workplace. And, yes, halacha should probably play a role in that code in a religious office in Israel. But you can't just apply the strictest standard of halacha. It's simply not fair.

The Wolf



* Yes, I understand that there may be other options, but that's really beside the point.

The Time Has Come To Speak Up

Rabbi Horowitz has written a column about the recent conviction of Elhanan Buzaglo. Buzaglo, who was working one of the "modesty patrols" in Israel, was paid $2,000 to beat up a 31-year old divorcee who, it was felt by some members of the community, did not live up to their ideals of tznius. After agreeing to a plea bargain, Buzaglo will be in jail for four years.

In his column, Rabbi Horowitz suggests that we have reached the point where we can no longer be silent. If we are going to address the problem of abuse and violence in our community, we have to first confront it, stand up in public and denounce it, and demand of our leaders (both religious and secular) that it has to end.

As he writes:

The time has come for us to speak out, telling our children and students in unequivocal terms, “These people are criminals and sinners – and do not represent us!” Our publications should begin reporting these incidents in the news sections of our papers, condemn them in our editorials, and call upon the police to arrest and prosecute the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law.

We should stop using politically correct terms like “misguided youths” to describe cowards who beat women for sitting in the “wrong” sections of buses and physically assault peaceful citizens who do not dress according to their standards – observant or otherwise. “Misguided youth” implies that they engaged in a prank, like a water fight, or that they went overboard in pursuit on a noble goal. There is nothing noble about these acts – or the terrorist mentality that glorifies them.

and

We must clearly and unequivocally condemn the violence each time it happens in the strongest language. Halachic (Judaic law) rulings ought to be issued, that those who commit violence against innocent people are rodfim (individuals who present a real and present danger to others) and one is obligated by our Torah to defend the victim and report the criminals to the police.

I am posting this column on my website (www.rabbihorowitz.com ) and I respectfully call upon charedim worldwide to post a comment at the bottom of the column with your name and email address and the city where you live supporting the sentiments expressed here.

I *strongly* urge you to go to Rabbi Horowitz's site and sign - preferably with your real name and city, but if not, at least go and lend your support in the thread. As Rabbi Horowitz concluded:

If enough Torah-observant individuals stand up, distance ourselves from these criminals, and demand action from our elected officials, we might affect changes which will restore honor to G-d’s name and end these acts of terror that plague us.

Amen, V'Ken Y'hi Ratzon...

The Wolf

This Must Be The Stupidest Tznius Story I've Ever Heard

From a Chabadtalk thread:

Well mcp, just for the record, a few years ago I was driving and I almost crashed because I was driving with my eyes closed, only because I tried to avoid seeing a couple of young women who were very poorly dressed...

I find it extremely interesting. Of course, one is required to be martyred rather than engage in prohibited sexual relations. The gemara even takes it to an extreme where they prohibited a dying man from hearing a married woman's voice. But, in that instance, there was no danger to anyone except the potential sinner. And yet, this guy knows better*... because he's not only willing to risk his own life by closing his eyes while driving, but he's also willing to risk the lives of his passengers and anyone else on the road.

Talk about being a tzaddik on yenem's cheshbon (someone else's account)!

The Wolf

* Actually, he doesn't know better. The halacha is that while you are required to die rather than sin sexually, you are not required (or permitted) to kill someone to prevent them from sinning sexually. If this applies to someone who is actually sinning, it certainly applies to someone who is an innocent passenger in a car or walking or driving on the road. Or that's my take on the matter. However, I'm not a rav. If anyone knows otherwise, please feel free to say so.

Hat tip: OnionSoupMix

The Right Way and The Wrong Way

I was reading Rabbi Maryles's post this morning about the upcoming Jerusalem mayoral elections. In his description of the chariedi candidate, R. Maryles quotes from the World Jewish Digest that in 1987, the candidate entered a movie theatre on Shabbos and started shouting "Shabbos! Shabbos!" to the people in the theatre. I suppose that he was hoping to make an impression on the moviegoers as to the importance of the mitzvah of Shabbos. I don't know how well he succeded in his mission, but my guess would have to be that he probably failed. I'm willing to bet that most moviegoers in that situation would be completely put off by someone shouting in the middle of the movie and would be, at best, indifferent to the shouters message and, at worst, antagonistic to the message.

If this was a one time event, then I would say that it's just the actions of one person who doesn't understand human nature. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. In many chariedi communities in Israel, people seem to take the negative approach to kiruv. Rather than trying to reinforce in a positive manner why people should keep the mitzvos, they respond in a negative manner which, in all likelihood, destroys any chance of their message being heard. I highly doubt that anyone who had a rock thrown at their car on Shabbos is now keeping Shabbos because of that rock (or at all). I think the chances of someone keeping the mitzvah of tznius (however they choose to define it) because they've had acid thrown in their face is are infintesimal. I'd be willing to wager dollars to donuts that no one who was on the El-Al flight that was disturbed by a man who didn't want to see a movie is any frummer today because of his example.

Now, I'm not casting any judgements on the chareidi point of view regarding the requirements of tznius, not watching movies, keeping Shabbos, etc. What I am making judgements about are their methods. I don't know why they seem to think that the enforcer's role is the best one. The enforcer's role only works when there is no other option - but in Jewish communities almost anyone on the globe today, one can always opt out (i.e. cease belonging to the group, or being frum altogether). So, forgetting for the moment whether their goals are right or wrong, their methods are clearly the wrong ones to use.

Therefore, as a public service to the chareidi community in Israel, I would like to offer the following guide:

Instead of throwing rocks at cars on Shabbos:

• Line the roads when a car goes by and sing Shabbos zemiros.
• Hand the drivers literature about the beauty of keeping Shabbos.
• Invite them to come spend a meal or a Shabbos afternoon with you.

Instead of going into movie theathers and shouting "Shabbos! Shabbos!" at the moviegoers:

• Stand outside the theather and invite people on the ticket line to come home with you for a Shabbos meal.
• Invite them to come to your house or shul after the movie for a friendly discussion on the beauty of Shabbos.
• Describe to them how keeping Shabbos is much more meaningful on many different levels than going to a movie.
  

Instead of attacking women and setting fires to stores for violations of tznius:

• Organize an economic boycott.
• Educate people about the importance of the mitzvah of tznius.
• Explain to people that it's not merely about keeping "women in their place" -- tell people that tznius applies to both genders in various regards.
• Encourage people to innovate new fashions that meet both the letter and spirit of the laws of tznius.

Instead of looting electronics stores for selling MP3/MP4 players:

• Organize a peaceful economic boycott.
• Educate people about how bad these devices are with the goal of eliminating demand.

And on and on. In other words, find a peaceful means to get your message across. Now, you might ask (and rightfully so) how many potential Shabbos drivers will stop and agree to spend a day with a chareidi family? I agree the answer is not many. But there are still two advantages to this solution: 1. However few, the number of people who pull over and stop driving will be greater than the number of those who continue driving (and speed up, compounding the issur of driving on shabbos); and 2. Even if no one agrees, you're doing far less harm to the cause of Shmiras Shabbos by following my suggestions than you are by throwing stones.

In short, I ask you to keep this in mind: a person is responsible not only for his or her own sins, but also, to varying degrees, for sins that he or she causes other people to commit. I would venture to say that by pushing people further away from keeping the mitzvos by these actions (both the people who are the victims of these actions AND those who might have chosen to become frum but now chose not to because of your actions) you are doing far more harm to yourself and your standing in Heaven than if you simply left matters alone.

The Wolf

Weddings, Shuls, Eichah and Fire Lieutenants

Just a couple of random points:

First a Mazel Tov

Eeees and I know a woman who is an older single. She's sweet, intelligent and, in general, a very fine person and yet, for whatever reason, she simply did not find her bashert. Eeees and I (and countless others) searched high and low for this elusive Mr. Right, but alas, we were not successful. A few months ago, I even offered her the services of this blog. However, she informed me that she was actually seeing someone and that the situation looked promising. That promise has since come to fruition and the wedding is scheduled for tonight. So Mazel Tov to the Morah and the soon-to-be Mr. Morah! I will, God willing, be at the wedding tonight, dressed in my favorite smiley tie in celebration of the new couple. If you see me, give me a tap on the snout and come over and say hello!

The Lost Shuls Of Brooklyn

Neandershort has a piece on the former shuls of Brooklyn that have since been converted to churches of various denominations. While it is tragic to see former shuls that have been converted to churches (I used to live next door to the Young Israel of Bayswater many a moon ago. The building is now a Witness hall), I'm not sure what is to be done about it. You can't force people to stay in a neighborhood. Demographics switch all the time in response to various economic, technologic and social changes. As Jewish people move out of a neighborhood, Jewish shuls will close (to be replaced by new shuls in the neighborhoods they are moving to). I suppose that once it becomes necessary to sell the building that it would be preferable if it were sold to a non-religious institution... but, for all practical purposes, the economics of the situation will usually dicatate that it is a church that buys the building.

If it's of any comfort, the process works the other way too. I spent sixteen years laining in a shul that very clearly was once a church-- right down to the remains of the pipe organ behind the aron kodesh.

Laining Eichah

In my former shul, I lained Eichah (Lamentaions) on the night of Tisha B'Av. In my present shul, I don't (not by choice... there is someone else who has been doing it since before I arrived). If you're going to lain Eichah (or anything else, for that matter), please, please pay attention to the trup (cantillation). It some cases it can prevent you from making a grave mistake. Consider this verse (Eichah 2:20)

כ רְאֵה יְהוָה וְהַבִּיטָה, לְמִי עוֹלַלְתָּ כֹּה: אִם-תֹּאכַלְנָה נָשִׁים פִּרְיָם עֹלְלֵי טִפֻּחִים, אִם-יֵהָרֵג בְּמִקְדַּשׁ אֲדֹנָי כֹּהֵן וְנָבִיא. {ס} 20 'See, O LORD, and consider, to whom Thou hast done thus! Shall the women eat their fruit, the children that are dandled in the hands? Shall the priest and the prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord?

The way the verse is supposed to be read, the words בְּמִקְדַּשׁ אֲדֹנָי must be read together. God's name here is not a noun, but an adjective - it is describing the Mikdash (Temple) as a Temple of God. However, if you pause between the word Mikdash and God's name, the verse takes on a completely different meaning. With a pause in the wrong place, it makes it sound like God (along with the kohen and the prophet) were slain in the Mikdash! So, please, be mindful of the trup!

Fire Lieutenants

Our last bit today is a story (brought to my attention by an anonymous reader) about a new lieutenant in the Pikesville (MD) Volunteer Fire Company. What makes it remarkable is that the lieutenant is an Orthodox woman. Of course, there are the naysayers who start screaming "Busha" (shame) and "Kol K'vuda..." and "she should be home making dinner..." To all these people, I have one thing to say: She's putting her skin on the line to save people's lives. If you're willing to take her place and do it, then go volunteer and get the necessary training. Otherwise, shut up and be thankful that someone is willing to run into a burning inferno to save your life and the lives of your family. Or will you be screaming "Busha" at her as she pulls your sorry butt out of the proverbial frying pan?

The Wolf

Women Should Not Be Seen Or Heard...

... or so some would have you believe.

There is going to be one Orthodox female competitor at the Beijing Olympics -- a young women named Bat-El Gaterer, who will be competing for Israel in the Taekwando competition.

Of course, the story has made the rounds of some of the "frum" news-blogs -- specifically Yeshiva World and Vos Iz Neias. While there are a fair number of commentators on those sites who are encouraging Ms. Gaterer in her Olympic quest, you also have your share of detractors. Examples include:

I suppose it’s all right for girls to learn martial arts to protect themselves, but, to perform in public in front of men (even dressed fully covered) is a breach in Tznius. I hope this sweet Jewish girl, who is concerned with keeping Shabbos and Kashrus, will grow in her Yiddishkeit and give up her competition in the Olympics one day and settle down to become a frum aidle aim b’Yisroel.

and

now this is something I'm sure all bais yakov and bais rochel girls can be proud of bravo! not.
or may i say it "a real cilul hashem"

and

STOP CALLING EVERYTHING A KIDDUSH HASHEM!!!
Hashem is NOT proud of her. A frum jewish girl does not belong performing on the world stage!!! KOL KVUDAH BAS MELECH PNIMAH!!!

It's when I see comments such as these (including the first one from someone with the moniker "basmelech" -- presumably a woman) that I have to wonder... is it simply there goal that women should never be seen or heard in a public forum at all? If all you can do is shout "KOL KVUDAH..." every time a woman dares to step out of the shadows and excells at something, then what message are we sending our girls? That there is nothing for them to strive for besides being wives and mothers?

Of course, the thing that I find interesting is this: the objecters don't seem to be objecting to the outfit that she has to wear during the competion... they seem to be objecting to the very fact that she is participating at all. My reading of their comments (and I could be wrong) suggests that they would have similar problems with a piano recital, a cooking contest or even a quilting bee. It's the very idea that she's competing and possibly drawing attention to herself that is untznius.

Well, in some respects, they are right. Drawing attention to yourself is, by definition, not tznius. But that has to apply equally to both men and women. When we were told hatzneah leches im Hashem... (walk humbly with God), the prophet wasn't only speaking to women... he was speaking to all of us. Humility and humbleness are positive virtues that apply equally to both genders. While there may be some differences in the practical halacha (especially with regard to dress) between men and women, the spirit of hatzneah leches applies to all Jews equally. Bat-El shouldn't be castigated for particpating in the Olympics any more than any man is. Yet, I have not heard anyone object to the men's basketball team participating in the Beijing games on the basis of tznius.*

So, why the hoopla? Why are some people getting all worked up over this? It's actually very simple... they don't understand what tznius is about. They think it's about keeping women in the house -- out of public sight, out of public mind. They think it's all about a myriad of rules about elbows, collarbones, the color red, and knees. They think that Kol K'vudah means that a woman has the inside of her home excel in and nowhere else. Of course, history shows us that that idea is false. Devorah was a judge. If you're going to call Ms. Geterer untznius because she's going to be in the spotlight for the few minutes that she's going to compete, what would you say about Devorah who was in the national spotlight for forty years? What would you say about Huldah who also served as a prophetess for the nation?

The point isn't that women have to be hidden away in their homes. The point is that everyone has a calling... and while fulfilling your calling, do it in the most humble way possible. If you're a talmid chochom, don't flaunt your Torah knowledge for personal aggrandizement. If you're a businessman, don't brag about your latest deal -- recognize that Hashem had a part in helping you with your success. If you're an athlete, be gracious and calm. Praise your competition, play honorably, and win or lose gracefully. Those actions are far more in the spirit of tznius than telling a woman that she can never have any public recognition of her deeds.

The Wolf

*I don't want anyone to think that I'm against Jewish athletes competing in the Olympics. I don't think that we aren't meant to compete and stand out above others where our skills allow. The point was that if you're going to say that Ms. Geterer's competing isn't tznius, one could also make the case for the basketball team.

Va'ad HaTznius in Lakewood?

Yeshiva World is reporting that there were two meetings in Lakewood this past week concering the current state of tznius in the Lakewood (and, presumably, the greater Jewish world). Among the speakers were such luminaries as R. Mattisyahu Solomon, R. Shmuel Kamenetzky, R. Malkiel Kotler and R. Ephraim Wachsman. There are links to the audio on the YWN site, but, for whatever reason, I have not been able to get the links to work properly. As such, I don't know directly what was said, but can only go by second hand reports. However, it seems that at least one person broached the idea of setting up a Va'ad Hatznius in Lakewood.

Now, let me state up front that I don't live in Lakewood, so I don't have a particular dog in this fight, so to speak. However, the whole notion of setting up such a council here in the United States is troubling to say the least. Nonetheless, let's say for the sake of argument that this is something that is actually going to happen. I think, however, that there are several important questions that must be addressed in public before setting up such a Va'ad.

Among them are the following:

1. Who will be on the Va'ad Hatznius. Specifically, it's fine and well for R. Solomon, R. Kotler et al to call for the formation of them, but are they going to be involved in a day-to-day basis? Or is the leadership of this going to fall into the hands of lay-people? The reason I ask is that while I might trust R. Solomon with decisions on how to handle recalcitrant people, I'm also certain we all know people who would go beyond the bounds of what we consider normal in dealing with people. Considering that this type of an organization is one that, by its very nature, would attract those who seek to simply control other people's lives, what controls are going to be in place to make sure that it's led and operated by people who are *truly* acting l'shem shamayim and not simply on a power trip?

2. What powers, specifically, will the Va'ad have? Will they have the ability to expel people's kids from school? Refuse them entrance into the shul? Demand that they sell their homes and move out of the neighborhood? Slash their tires? In short, what is the prescribed method for dealing with people who cannot/will not dress in a tznius fashion in the neighborhood? What are the grounds for appeal (if any). What does it take to get back into the good graces of the Va'ad?

3. Will there be a mechanism in place to deal with people who take things too far. If one person throws acid at someone whom they deem to be dressed in an untznius fashion will there be a mechanism for punishing that person and making sure they don't do it again? In short, how do you prevent vigilante action by rogue members (or rogue former members) of the Va'ad?

4. Will there be a mechanism for the community's voice to be heard? It's all fine and well to say "it's up to the gedolim..." but I don't think that will fly well - even in Lakewood. If people start becoming concerned with the way the Va'ad is operating (for whatever reason), will they have a voice in rectifying the problem, or will they be shut out and subject to a "if you don't like it, move" attitude?

5. How do you prevent people from spying on one another to turn in people whom they have a grudge against? If I have an argument with my neighbor, I don't want to have to worry about the Va'ad showing up the next day because he claims that he saw something not tznius (real or fabricated). In other words, how do you substantiate claims, who has the right to make a claim and under what circumstances can claims be made?

6. Whose standards of tznius will be used? For some women, walking around with bare feet is not a problem. For others, feet must always be covered. In some groups, a married woman must always wear a sheitel... others hold a sheitel is, in itself, untznius. In some communities, the color red is verbotten, in others it is not (unless it is intentionally loud). In other words, whose standards are going to be used? Will it automatically be the most machmir standard? And what if someone doesn't want to adhere to that standard, but to a standard which is halachically acceptable, but not up to the "community standards?"

7. What expectations of privacy can a person have? In the YWN thread, one poster tells of an incident in his own personal private back yard where someone commented that his wife was not tznius enough in her own private backyard. Is that private enough? Can a woman walk around bareheaded in her own backyard if she has a reasonable expectation of privacy there (i.e. that no one will come in and see her?). What about in one's home? Or do I have to worry that the Va'ad will take action against me if my wife dares to take off her sheitel in her own home amongst her family? In short, in what places/circumstances will a claim be automatically disregarded?

These are only some of the questions that I think must be fully answered. Unfortuantely, I don't think that it is possible to run such an organization here in the United States. I think that there is too much potential for abuse in such an organization. As always, I think that the best way to advance the cause of tznius is to show the beauty of the mitzvah and not to ostracize people.

The Wolf

Are Women's Shabbos Clothing Inherently Immodest?

There's an interesting item tucked away in this week's Machberes column in the Jewish Press.

Ultimate Coats by Modest Design announced, in chassidishe advertising weeklies, that it has two styles of coats for weddings or other occasions. The ad notes that the Rimanover Rebbe, in his city, had ordained that Jewish daughters should wear an oiber malbush, loosely translated as an upper [outer] garment or overcoat. Presumably, this is a light overcoat that covers dresses, etc. When women are elegantly dressed, on their way to or returning from smachos, the overcoat would cover their nice outfits and embrace them in modesty.

OK, seems nice. But why is it necessary?

Regarding Ultimate Coats, Rabbi Shraga Feivish Hager, Kosover Rebbe in Boro Park, writes that he has been troubled for years that when Jewish daughters go to smachos they are dressed in their finest Shabbos and Yom Tov outfits. Of course, they are going to a mitzvah in making their friend happy, especially kallos at their weddings. Nevertheless they are going through the streets or on the Boro Park/ Williamsburg bus, etc., where there are married men and bochurim. He has long been searching for a solution. Thank Heaven, the Kosover Rebbe writes, that righteous women have come up with an answer. A nice thin overcoat that will guard them well. Though it may be hot in warm weather, it is a good thing, he says. Rabbi Getzel Elyakim Berkowitz, Kiryas Yoel Dayan, in a letter written last year, also praises the new garment for street wear, especially when going to smachos.

What this says to me (and perhaps I'm reading it wrong) is that Shabbos and Yom Tov outfits are inherently immodest. After all, if they conform to the laws of modesty, then why the need for an additional cover? If they are inherently immodest, then why have women been walking in the streets in them until now?

Of course, we're all aware that there are women's outfits that may fit the technical definition of tznius but violate the spirit of the law. However, I'm inclined to believe (and again, please correct me if I'm wrong) that the followers fo the Kosover Rebbe already wear garments that are tznius according to both the letter and the spirit of the law. I don't think the Kosover Rebbe has too many "Hot Chanies" in his kehilla.

In addition, this leads to other questions as well. Once we've decided that a woman should not be seen by men in her Shabbos finery, then what does a hostess wear? Imagine if a couple wants to have his wife's sister and husband over for a Shabbos meal. What do they wear? Can they wear their Shabbos finery in front of their brothers-in-law? If so, then why not in the street? If not, then are they required to change into something less fine specifically for the meal? I'm sure that there are other perfectly legitimate social situations where similar questions could be asked.

Personally, I find this to be another symptom in our over obsession about tznius. Yes, modesty is important - but, as in all things, one has to find the happy medium.

The Wolf

UPDATE:  I just saw that Josh, over at Parsha, has a much better and extensive take on this.

Just How Far Does A Beis Din's Jurisdiction Extend?

Does it extend for five thousand miles? Or across three centuries?

It seems that (according to Vos Iz Neias) a Kol Korei was issued in Kiryas Joel* banning silver and gold shoes for women because such shoes are immodest, stunning and attention-getting.

According to the Kol Korei, the basis for the prohibition of gold and silver shoes is a ban issued by the Bais Din of R. Yechezkel Landau (the Noda B'Yehuda, who passed away in 1793).

Now, I'm sure that the people in Prague (where the R. Landau lived) would certainly have adhered to the ban. But just how far does the jurisdiction of R. Landau's Bais Din go? Does a local Bais Din have the power to prohibit all Jewish women everywhere in the world from wearing a particular style of shoe? Do the Rabbanim of Kiryas Joel follow the decrees of every properly constituted Bais Din in the entire world? If so, how could you possibly avoid running afoul of contradictory rulings? (It reminds me a lot of Ned Flanders' plea to God: "I've done everything the Bible says - even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff!")

Of course, I don't think that's the case. A local Bais Din's ruling should only apply to the community in which it is located. I can't see how basing this ban in Kiryas Joel based on a ban by a Prague Bais Din makes it legitimate.

Interestingly, according to the article, it seems that shoes that were bought in Prague before the ban were not included in the ban. This leads me to two thoughts:

1. The ban was not entirely for tznius reasons. If it was, why should shoes bought before the ban be exempted? Were they any more modest than the post-ban bought shoes?

2. The ban was about tznius, but R. Landau was concerned about the welfare of the community to such an extent that he didn't want to see people lose money on the shoes they already bought and was willing to let women in his community wear shoes that were non-tznius anyway, becuase he understood that you can't be a tzaddik with someone else's money.

If the latter point is true, then perhaps some of today's community leaders can take a lesson from this and understand that you shouldn't cause undue monetary losses to people in the name of enforcing chumras.

Nonetheless, I'd still be interested in hearing from people on this. How far does a Bais Din's jurisdiction last? How much time has to elapse before a ruling can be reconsidered? Or do we say that since we aren't as wise as R. Landau, we can't convene a Bais Din to overrule him and therefore the shoe ban lasts forever?

The Wolf


* I have not seen the Kol Korei. If anyone can send it to me, I'll be more than happy to put it up.

When The Cure Is Far Worse Than The Disease...

Source: Ynet

A fourteen year old girl was attacked in Israel when a man, purported to be from a "va'ad hatznius" poured acid on her face, legs and stomach, causing light burns. Her crime: wearing loose-fitting pants and a short sleeve shirt.

What's even more interesting is that the group had been threatening the victim's older sister for a while and it's possible that they attacked her thinking she was her older sister.

We can argue whether or not tznius regulations are too strict or should be relaxed. We can argue whether or not sheitels are acceptable, or snoods, or even no hair covering at all. But one thing I think we can all agree upon is that vigilante groups are bad. And people taking it upon themselves to throw acid upon teenagers is worse. And that doing all this in the name of Torah is the ultimate Chillul HaShem.

Ultimately, in any place where you don't have a theocratic authoritarian regime, adherence to religious rules has to come from within. You can't force someone to do the mitzvos in a place where there is freedom of religion. If you want to encourage observance of Torah U'Mitzvos, you have to do it by showing people that keeping the Torah is good. You have to do it through setting a positive example, not by throwing acid on people or beating up women on a bus.

Ultimately, however, whoever did this horrible act has done far more harm than good. If there was any chance of this family might ever become shomrei Torah U'Mitzvos, it has now been shot to hell. If there was ever any chance of showing these people that the Torah is the proper guide to life, it's gone now. And the same thing applies to probably hundreds, if not thousands of people who might have been on the fence and now have been pushed away due to this horrific act.

Congratulations. You saved us from one short sleeve shirt. But you caused a huge Chillul HaShem, an untold amount of Chillul Shabbos, eating of treif, and general non-observance of the mitzvos for hundreds or thousands of people whom you just pushed away from following the Torah -- and their descendants.

Good job fellas.

The Wolf

Hat tip: FailedMessiah

Going Overboard on Tzniyus

Baseball Fans love to argue over who belongs in the Hall of Fame. Every fan has his or her own opinion both on players who are not yet in the Hall and on players who are actually in the Hall. We can spend endless hours arguing over the merits of Phil Rizzutto vs. Pee Wee Reese, whether Don Mattingly or Bert Blyleven really should be inducted or if we should induct players who were undoubtedly great on the field, but had off-field problems.

Part of the problem, I suppose, comes from the fact that there is no clear definition of exactly who a Hall of Famer is. Bill James, the noted baseball writer and statistician, said in his book Politics of Glory “The Hall of Fame is a self-defining institution that has by and large failed to define itself.” Since the guidelines of what, exactly, a Hall of Famer is are vague and ambiguous, there will always be arguing about who belongs in the Hall.

A similar problem exists with regard to the Orthodox Jewish community and the concept of tznius. When we hear the word “tznius,” the first thing that pops into our heads is a myriad of restrictions regarding clothing, appearance and behavior – with about 90% of the regulations aimed at women. And yet, the very first mention of tznius (as a concept) has nothing to do (specifically) with women… it has to do with the way we behave in general. The prophet Michah (6:8), exhorted us to “walk humbly with God.” From the context of the paragraph, it’s fairly clear that he wasn’t thinking of skirt lengths when he uttered his famous phrase. It’s clear that the idea was meant in terms of one’s behavior and that it applied to everyone -- men and women.

For good or for bad, however, the concept of tznius has morphed over time, to include restrictions on how women (and, to a far lesser extenet, men) dress and behave. However, as with the Hall of Fame, there is no clear definition of tznius, but rather one that varies greatly over time and distance. It’s kind of funny in a way – no matter where (or when) we come from, we all agree that a esrog is the fruit indicated in the verse pri etz hadar and we all agree that tefillin need to be black and have four parshiyos. Yeah, we may disagree in some minor details (the order of the parshiyos, etc.), but we agree in the main details. And yet, when it comes to tznius, the definition of how women are to dress varies greatly from one community to the next. In some communities a wig is the only acceptable head covering. In others, a wig is forbidden, only a kerchief or a turban is acceptable. In some communities, women shave their heads completely upon marriage, thus making absolutely sure that no one sees their hair (including, I guess, their husbands). And on and on it goes. Since we’ve failed to establish some universal standards for tznius (beyond, I suppose the bare minimum) each community argues for what it thinks is the proper standard.

However, of late, I think that we’ve been taking things a bit too far. We’ve taken the concept of tznius, as it relates to women’s dress and behavior, and begun carrying it to an extreme. Whereas at one time it may have meant simply being modest in dress and behavior, it is now approaching the point where we have ever-increasing restrictions and regulations. It has been noted in more than one place that black seems to be the newest fashion trend among Orthodox Jewish women. However, it that because it is just the “fad of the season” or is it because we’ve become afraid to wear any other color because it might be ruled “untzniusdik?”

There are things that are happening today in the name of “tznius” that would have been unheard of fifteen years ago. Consider the following paragraph from Miraim Shaviv’s recent article in the Jewish Chronicle:

Firstly, standards of modesty are becoming increasingly stringent and require increasing effort to follow. A CD recording by a top rabbi from Lakewood, New Jersey, for example, reportedly asks women not to swing their arms while they walk and not to allow their daughters to wear colourful banana-clips in their hair. Women know that if they wear skin-coloured stockings, they must include a seam so it is clear they are not bare-legged. Schoolgirls do not wear shiny shoes that could “reflect their underwear”.

Shiny shoes that reflect their underwear?! Who thinks these things up?! I can't remember the last time I heard something so bizarre! Do shiny shoes reflect underwear? And even if they do, who looks at girls’ shoes to see their underwear? Swinging their arms? This is a problem?! Colored banana clips is a violation of tznius? Where do these things come from? We’re going from the idea that a woman should dress modestly and not call undue attention to herself with immodest dress to the extreme where she can’t wear anything that is the least bit out of the “ideal” and behave in any way that causes them to be anything other than completely socially invisible.

The extreme example of this, of course, is the recent case of the followers of Rabbanit Keren in Ramat Beit Shemesh in Israel who have chosen to completely cover themselves and wear multiple layers of clothing in a manner similar to the Afghan women under the Taliban. Thankfully, there have been some rabbis that have called her approach unacceptable and extreme. But as popular culture has sometimes shown us with immodesty, what is extreme today will be “in” tomorrow. Considering the fact that her following (by most accounts) seems to be growing and the general direction that tznius regulation seem to be taking, I wonder when (not if) this will become more mainstream. Rabbi Falk’s book, Oz V’Hadar, which is often criticized for being overly stringent, will one day be looked upon as a book that only “loose girls” follow. “Truly proper tzniusdik girls” will one day go far beyond the restrictions in Oz V’Hadar.

Lest you think that I’m being alarmist, please consider the case of the Mehadrin Buses in Israel. While some may think that it is a good thing to have women sit in the back of the bus, there is certainly no halachic problem with men and women sitting together on a bus. It’s done in communities all over the world without a word of Rabbinic protest. You may decide to choose for yourself not to ride on a mixed bus, but you have no right to try to force the matter on others who do not want to accept this stringency upon them. And yet, a woman was beaten up for refusing to go to the back of a non-Mehadrin bus.

Lest you think I’m being alarmist, we’re approaching the point where we are delegitimizing any forum where women and men might possibly appear in the same place at the same time. Concerts with family seating (as the famous Lag BaOmer concert in Beit Shemesh), weddings, school functions, etc. are being phased out. More and more fundraisers (such as Chinese Auctions) are becoming either gender-segregated.

Lest you think I’m being alarmist, we’re reaching the point where the very image of a woman is a problem. Major newspapers such as the Yated and HaModia have a long-standing policy of not publishing pictures of women. This has, in turn, forced book publishers to no longer put women’s faces on the covers of books, since books with pictures of women could not be advertised visually in a display ad. Women’s faces are being “Photoshopped” out of official photographs. Oorah put an ad in last week’s Yated, saying that if there was enough demand, they would publish their auction catalog without women’s pictures. Is it any wonder that some women have gotten the wrong impression and began wearing face-concealing burkas?

Lest you think I'm being alarmist, we have now come to the point where rabbis issue hechsherim on clothing stores(!) and people commit violence against stores which sell clothing that is in their opinion, immodest.

As with just about all things in life, there is a key word that one must apply to one’s actions and thoughts – moderation. In all things, one must be moderate. Going overboard on anything is a bad thing – and that includes tzniyus. Going overboard on tzniyus regulations to the point where you begin measuring how thick stockings have to be, or how shiny your shoes are or what color banana-clip you can wear in your hair only serves to alienate women from Judaism, not to attract them to it. And when you alienate women from Judaism, it's usually the tzniyus restrictions that are the first thing to go.

The Wolf