The tzniut (modesty) rules: What's their purpose?
That may sound like a strange question. What other purpose could there possibly be for the rules of tzniut (modesty) if not to minimize inappropriate sexual attraction and/or distraction?
Okay, let's start with the basics (copied from here).
Sources Regarding Kol Isha [the rule, sometimes observed with exceptions, sometimes not observed at all, forbidding a man to listen to a woman sing] by Gil Student [of Hirhurim].
There are two main talmudic passages that deal with kol isha.
1. Berachos 24a
Rav Yitzchak said: A tefach [Shira: I think that's roughly 2 inches, or see here] of a woman is nakedness ('ervah).
For what? If you say for looking at it, Rav Sheshes said: Why did the Torah count outer ornaments with inner ornaments? To tell you that anyone who looks at the small finger of a woman is as if he looked at the obscene place. Rather, [Rav Yitzchak is talking about] one's wife an[d] kerias shema [the reading/recitation of the Sh'ma, a biblical quotation affirming the oneness of God--I think the reference is to a man getting sexually distracted while reciting the Sh'ma].
Rav Chisda said: The thigh of a woman is nakedness as it says (Isaiah 47:2) "expose a thigh to cross a river" and it says (ibid. 3) "your nakedness will be exposed and your embarrassment will be seen."
Shmuel said: The voice of a woman is nakedness as it says (Song of Songs 2:14) "for your voice is sweet and your countenance comely."
Rav Sheshes said: The hair of a woman is nakedness as it says (ibid. 4:1) "you hair is like a flock of goats."
2. Kiddushin 70a
[Rav Nachman said to Rav Yehudah]: Would you like to send regards to Yalta [Rav Nachman's wife]?
He [Rav Yehudah] said: Shmuel said: The voice of a woman is nakedness."
I've blogged about my objection to the kol isha rule ad nauseum, but, for my newer readers, "Damned if we do and damned if we don't" is probably one of my better posts on the subject.
What about the other prohibitions? I'm not particularly fond of the rule that married women (and, according to some opinions, widowed and divorced women) should cover their hair because it's considered immodest--raising the rather interesting question of why a never-married woman's hair is not considered immodest--but I can understand the prohibition in light of ancient Near Eastern attitudes that deemed women's hair a sexual display. However, in my opinion, such a prohibition makes little sense in contemporary times, when naked hair is the least of our modesty concerns.
As for the notion that even looking at a woman's pinkie is forbidden, that attitude is such a major overreaction that I honestly don't understand it at all.
But I don't need a quote from either Rav Chisda or Yishaya/Isaiah to convince me that a woman's--or man's--naked thigh is immodest (certainly the upper part, at least).
And therein lies the basis of my question: Why do (some interpretations of) the rules of tzniut make sense, while others seem to have no connection to reality?
As I said in my post "Tzniut (modesty) for *men,* for a change", "The rabbis actually measured the permissible amount of a married woman's hair that can be left uncovered right down to the exact number of centimeters?!!!!
. . . An extra half-inch of exposed hair is going to cause uncontrollable sexual desire? What world are these people living in?"
And as I said here, concerning kol isha, "Whoa, wait a minute: “Rav Ovadia rules that the prohibition applies even if the singer is not alive.” ???!
Men are so obsessed with women that listening to the singing of even a dead woman is prohibited as a potential turn-on???!"
But the pi-->èce de r
-->ésistance is here (see the comments).
As kisarita said here, (hat-tip: Robert Avrech)
kisarita said...
. . . In my opinion, refusing to shake hands, itself sexualizes a non sexual situation. . . .
June 22, 2009 5:45 PM
Isn't that exactly the result of objections to bare feet, to the singing voices of even deceased women, and to "too many" centimeters of a married woman's hair being visible? Don't objections such as the aforementioned and the objection to shaking hands with persons of the opposite sex take non-sexual situations and make them sexual? Isn't that the exact opposite of what the rules of tzniut are supposed to accomplish? If the alleged purpose of the rules of tzniut is to minimize inappropriate sexual attraction and/or distraction, doesn't this obsession with "tzniut," rather than minimizing inappropriate attraction, make anything even remotely resembling sex the center of attention?
Have the rules of tzniut, as interpreted by some of the more right-wing segments of the Orthodox community, ceased to be matters of common sense, and morphed, instead, into chukim, laws for which there's no logical explanation, which one is supposed to obey just because HaShem said so, like the laws of kashrut (Jewish dietary laws)? How much do the rules of modesty really have to do with modesty anymore?
September 2, 2009 correction:
One of my e-mail correspondents has reminded me that "a "chok" has legal force, while there is no actual law to wear a skirt that is x inches below the knees." So I should say that I think that the rules of tzniut have become similar to chukim, in that, as with chukim, there is no logical explanation for some of them. (I should also mention that this e-mail correspondent doesn't think that the tzniut rules are illogical, just that they are "societally governed," and "people still use them as social markers (such that having an uncovered head in shul still advertises one's availability).")
Okay, let's start with the basics (copied from here).
Sources Regarding Kol Isha [the rule, sometimes observed with exceptions, sometimes not observed at all, forbidding a man to listen to a woman sing] by Gil Student [of Hirhurim].
There are two main talmudic passages that deal with kol isha.
1. Berachos 24a
Rav Yitzchak said: A tefach [Shira: I think that's roughly 2 inches, or see here] of a woman is nakedness ('ervah).
For what? If you say for looking at it, Rav Sheshes said: Why did the Torah count outer ornaments with inner ornaments? To tell you that anyone who looks at the small finger of a woman is as if he looked at the obscene place. Rather, [Rav Yitzchak is talking about] one's wife an[d] kerias shema [the reading/recitation of the Sh'ma, a biblical quotation affirming the oneness of God--I think the reference is to a man getting sexually distracted while reciting the Sh'ma].
Rav Chisda said: The thigh of a woman is nakedness as it says (Isaiah 47:2) "expose a thigh to cross a river" and it says (ibid. 3) "your nakedness will be exposed and your embarrassment will be seen."
Shmuel said: The voice of a woman is nakedness as it says (Song of Songs 2:14) "for your voice is sweet and your countenance comely."
Rav Sheshes said: The hair of a woman is nakedness as it says (ibid. 4:1) "you hair is like a flock of goats."
2. Kiddushin 70a
[Rav Nachman said to Rav Yehudah]: Would you like to send regards to Yalta [Rav Nachman's wife]?
He [Rav Yehudah] said: Shmuel said: The voice of a woman is nakedness."
I've blogged about my objection to the kol isha rule ad nauseum, but, for my newer readers, "Damned if we do and damned if we don't" is probably one of my better posts on the subject.
What about the other prohibitions? I'm not particularly fond of the rule that married women (and, according to some opinions, widowed and divorced women) should cover their hair because it's considered immodest--raising the rather interesting question of why a never-married woman's hair is not considered immodest--but I can understand the prohibition in light of ancient Near Eastern attitudes that deemed women's hair a sexual display. However, in my opinion, such a prohibition makes little sense in contemporary times, when naked hair is the least of our modesty concerns.
As for the notion that even looking at a woman's pinkie is forbidden, that attitude is such a major overreaction that I honestly don't understand it at all.
But I don't need a quote from either Rav Chisda or Yishaya/Isaiah to convince me that a woman's--or man's--naked thigh is immodest (certainly the upper part, at least).
And therein lies the basis of my question: Why do (some interpretations of) the rules of tzniut make sense, while others seem to have no connection to reality?
As I said in my post "Tzniut (modesty) for *men,* for a change", "The rabbis actually measured the permissible amount of a married woman's hair that can be left uncovered right down to the exact number of centimeters?!!!!
. . . An extra half-inch of exposed hair is going to cause uncontrollable sexual desire? What world are these people living in?"
And as I said here, concerning kol isha, "Whoa, wait a minute: “Rav Ovadia rules that the prohibition applies even if the singer is not alive.” ???!
Men are so obsessed with women that listening to the singing of even a dead woman is prohibited as a potential turn-on???!"
But the pi-->èce de r
-->ésistance is here (see the comments).
As kisarita said here, (hat-tip: Robert Avrech)
kisarita said...
. . . In my opinion, refusing to shake hands, itself sexualizes a non sexual situation. . . .
June 22, 2009 5:45 PM
Isn't that exactly the result of objections to bare feet, to the singing voices of even deceased women, and to "too many" centimeters of a married woman's hair being visible? Don't objections such as the aforementioned and the objection to shaking hands with persons of the opposite sex take non-sexual situations and make them sexual? Isn't that the exact opposite of what the rules of tzniut are supposed to accomplish? If the alleged purpose of the rules of tzniut is to minimize inappropriate sexual attraction and/or distraction, doesn't this obsession with "tzniut," rather than minimizing inappropriate attraction, make anything even remotely resembling sex the center of attention?
Have the rules of tzniut, as interpreted by some of the more right-wing segments of the Orthodox community, ceased to be matters of common sense, and morphed, instead, into chukim, laws for which there's no logical explanation, which one is supposed to obey just because HaShem said so, like the laws of kashrut (Jewish dietary laws)? How much do the rules of modesty really have to do with modesty anymore?
September 2, 2009 correction:
One of my e-mail correspondents has reminded me that "a "chok" has legal force, while there is no actual law to wear a skirt that is x inches below the knees." So I should say that I think that the rules of tzniut have become similar to chukim, in that, as with chukim, there is no logical explanation for some of them. (I should also mention that this e-mail correspondent doesn't think that the tzniut rules are illogical, just that they are "societally governed," and "people still use them as social markers (such that having an uncovered head in shul still advertises one's availability).")
posted by Shira Salamone at 1:12 PM
21 Comments:
Even if a married women covering her hair, "doesn't make sense" according to our modern sensibilities, that doesn't change the fact that it is halacha. Although Rabbi's might disagree on exactly how much hair should be covered or under what circumstances, no one denies that covering hair is a Biblical injunction. It is from Numbers 5:18 and elaborated on in the Gemara in Ketubot 72.
Although we ideally should strive to understand the meaning and purpose of the Torah, the notion of abandoning commandments that we don't understand or like is the hallmark of Reform Judaism, not Conservative. You could just as easily make the argument that kashrut no longer applies in modern times. Or why should egal women be so into wearing a talit, when a talit is an out-of-date, ancient garment?
without getting into the fact that covering a married woman's hair is absolutely a halachic requirement, anonymous is mistaken that "no one denies that covering hair is a Biblical injunction." I'd refer them to Dayan M. Broyde's recent article: "The Hair of a Woman is Erotic:" An Explanation of the Contemporary Practice of Many Married Orthodox Women Not to Cover their Hair - in which Rav Broyde makes clear that there is considerable disagreement among the Rishonim as to whether the source of the halakha is biblical or rabbinic.
Jdub, you and Elie already had an interesting discussion here about whether married are required to cover their hair.
Anon., I think you may have missed my point, which is that, if I understand correctly, the rules of tzniut, unlike the chukkim of kashrut, are supposed to make sense!
forgot about that one.
The laws do make sense. For example, modesty is place-sensitive. So, without permitting women not to cover their hair, the Arukh ha-Shulkhan specifically permits saying kriat shma in front of a woman whose hair is uncovered. And many of the laws are tied to things that are specifically covered in that place. So, in Me'ah Sh'arim, tzni'ut plays a more maximal role than, say, Tel Aviv.
Also, you're misreading some of the sources. The issue with the pinky is that if one stares at a woman's pinky with lust, it's verboten. It doesn't mean a woman has to cover her hands, it means that a man shouldn't be gazing with lust. That one is on the man.
WRT to kol isha, I think R. Ovadia's point makes some sense (recognizing that I will listen to appropriate music with women singing). A woman's voice is arousing. Don't think so? Listen to Top 20 stations. The songs are selling sex, even if you can't see them, even if they're dead. Patsy Cline, who would have been old enough to be my grandmother, and is long dead, has a very sexy voice.
I don't know why these things bother you. You're not Orthodox. The Conservative movement has done away with many/all of these restrictions. These are things that folks like me struggle with (i.e., how can I justify listening to Maria Callas or Jessye Norman when I am an halakhic jew?)
These aren't chukim. They make sense. That the details get bogged down in minutiae doesn't change that.
Jdub, re a woman singing, it depends on the singer. I've said it before and I'll say it again--there's a big difference between Neshama and Madonna. I think it's a reasonable accommodation to the rules of tzniut for men to listen to female singers who aren't going out of their way to be provocative. I also think that, if the laws of tzniut made sense, the same reasonable accommodation would apply to women listening to male singers, by the way.
I understand that the rules of tzniut are place-sensitive, but that doesn't necessarily mean that none of them are chukim and/or that they all make sense. If their purpose is to prevent undue attractive, why do rules exist concerning parts of the body that are completely non-sexual? I can make a case that shoulders can be sexy, which is why I haven't been seen in public in anything sleeveless (except a bathing suit) in years. But elbows? And bare feet? I may be naive, old-fashioned, unimaginative, or whatever, but, for the life of me, I can't picture any location or context in which bare feet would be a turn-on. In my opinion, modest clothing is defined as clothing that covers parts of the body that are sexually attractive. What's so sexy about feet? I truly think that the rules of tzniut, as interpreted by some, sexualize body parts and other things, actions, ideas, etc. that aren't sexual (as kisarita was saying), which has the opposite effect from what's intended--such an approach attracts attention to sex, than than toning it down.
As for why this concerns me, as a Conservative Jew, I guess that, between working for an Orthodox organization, having an Orthodox rabbi as head of my local Conservative synagogue, and hanging around the Jewish blogosphere, I'm constantly exposed to these attitudes.
better to translate it "ogling" than "looking"
Okay, but why would anyone ogle a woman's small finger? Your improved translation does nothing to improve the logic, I'm sorry to say.
I'm waiting (patiently) for more restrictive tzniut rules for men. Pants that have a fly in front, calling attention to a man's private parts; bared muscular forearms (saw that in a Matisyahu concert); and omigosh that HAIR... wavy brown curls and soft beards and *sigh* the women's fingers that must itch to run through that HAIR.
Don't even get me started on white tzitzit against black trousers that draw attention to...you know...that area at which women are not supposed to look.
Offended? Outraged? Welcome to the club. There is being modest (which I'm all for) and there is being absurd. Seeing my pinkie is akin to seeing me naked? That's absurd. What about a man's pinkie, which looks a lot more like... well, you get the point.
I'm tired of men (and the rabbis who legislated rabbinic halacha were men--and many were borderline if not outright misogynistic) enacting stricter and stricter rules for women, but not for themselves.
When there was an outbreak in assaults against women at night in Israel, a minister in the cabinet (MAN) suggested a curfew to keep women in after dark. But it’s the men who are attacking the women, Golda Meir responded. If there’s to be a curfew, let the men stay at home, not the women.
If men are turned on by looking at a woman, the solution is simple and at the heart of Judaism's self-discipline:
DON'T LOOK.
Tribal custom rules. Pick a Jewish tribe, any one, and the customs may vary.
A women covered leaves a lot to the man's imagination. The reason for covering is to enhance lust, not decrease it. We men are to be conscious that every women is a sexual being.
The whole matter just proves once again that our biggest sexual organ is our brain.
Sigh. I grew up as a Conservative Jew so I regard most of the more right wing tzniut requirements as ludicrous. Also, I tend to believe in Gila Manoloson's appraoch to tzniut in Outside Inside which holds that the Jewish ideal is for a woman to look queenly, not shlumpy or invisible. Gila makes a big deal over the fact that Judaism does not require women to conceal their faces. I wonder how she's reacting to the 'no make on brides' request we've seen lately.
Note that even this position is considered restrictive by lots of contemporary Americans. Many women tell me that they want to look queenly at the office, but when they go out to party they wish to project a different image.
Retreating with alacrity to a more academic position, Rambam makes the point that all chukim are mishpatim and vice versa.
While the details of a chok may be arbitrary, Rambam asserts that all of Hashem's decrees are for our ultimate good, and thus even kashrut and shatnez have some valid (if unknown) purpose.
Similarly, Rambam points out that mishpatim are binding on us even if they cease to make make logical sense in a given situation. The rational reasons behind them are not the ultimate reason for obeying them - we obey them because Hashem commanded us.
While Rambam encourages investigating the reasons behind the mitzvot, he specifies that the reason for such investigations is to increase Ahavat or Yirat Hashem. We don't discard a mitzvah because we have a better way to 'fulfill its spirit'. Chazal talk about how King Solomon attempted this and failed.
All of that said, a large amount of the tzniut regulations are rabbinic or even minhagic in origin. As I do not accept the notion of Daat Torah, that means that I can't just say "it is all for our ultimate good, even if I don't understand it now."
I also completely don't understand the fear of arousal and 'wasted seed' that seems such an important part of post-Lurianic Judaism. This seems to be on the postulate level - arousal is bad because it is forbidden outside a marital context, and any discussion of the topic is pointless.
Personally I find the increasing degree of gender separation to be a greater cause of personal distress than that of tzniut. If I can't even talk to the women, what matter what they are wearing.
I talk about this briefly in a comment on Harry's blog
September 2, 2009 correction:
One of my e-mail correspondents has reminded me that "a "chok" has legal force, while there is no actual law to wear a skirt that is x inches below the knees." So I should say that I think that the rules of tzniut have become *similar to* chukim, in that, as with chukim, there is no logical explanation for some of them. (I should also mention that this e-mail correspondent doesn't think that the tzniut rules are illogical, just that they are "societally governed," and "people still use them as social markers (such that having an uncovered head in shul still advertises one's availability).")
Sheyna said "I'm tired of men . . . enacting stricter and stricter rules for women, but not for themselves." Likewise. Do *men* get beaten up in Israel for sitting in the "wrong" section of sex-segregated buses? Do *men* get sprayed with bleach in Israel for wearing clothing deemed immodest? Why is it that I've been blogging for five years and have never read a post (other than my own--see link in this post) about tzniut for men?
"The reason for covering is to enhance lust, not decrease it." Oh, come on, Eliyahu--is an old-fashioned nun's habit a turn-on?
Larry, re chukim being binding, I've already corrected my post to reflect that tradition. Sorry for using the term incorrectly.
" . . . a large amount of the tzniut regulations are rabbinic or even minhagic in origin. As I do not accept the notion of Daat Torah, that means that I can't just say "it is all for our ultimate good, even if I don't understand it now."
On that, we agree.
"Personally I find the increasing degree of gender separation to be a greater cause of personal distress than that of tzniut. If I can't even talk to the women, what matter what they are wearing."
That was one of the points I made in my "Damned if we do, damned if we don't" post, linked in this post. Women don't even get rewarded for good behavior, if men won't speak to us no matter how modestly dressed we are. (Do a search for "Ai du" on my blog--the British chassidic blogger Shaigetz had a few pithy remarks to make about gender segregation a few years ago.) Fortunately, the complete segregation of men from women is not typical of all Orthodox communities.
Here’s where I quoted from The Shaigetz's "Ai du" post.
You are all making the same mistakes that our contemporary Yeshivish leaders make, which is mix everything up and play on ignorance.
Modesty: One is required as a Jew, to dress and act modestly at all times, this is the Mitzvah of Tzniut. Anything appearance wise that draws attention to oneself unnecessarily is prohibited. That is why tzitzit are not permitted outside the clothing, walking around Miami Beach is Hassidish or Litvish garb is prohibited, etc. A woman at the beach in a swimsuit, modest relative to those around her, is in no violation of this rule as defined by the Rambam (who defines Tzinut relative to surrounding society, not absolute). A woman wearing stockings and long sleeves at the beach is.
Now the RW crowd, both Yeshivish and Chassidic are in violation of Halacha? What else is new.
Haircovering: During Sota, a married woman's hair is uncovered, not uncovered if previously covered. Ergo, a married woman's hair is covered. Why? Because it's the middle east, all women cover their hair. Why would single women not cover their hair? The same reason they dance around the Temple in a white dress on Tu B'av, to attract a husband.
Not attracting men, absurd, single women SHOULD be attracting men, married women should not. But what about attracting married men? The Ashkenazi prohibition on married men taking a second wife is 600 years newer than the last codification of the Talmud, and cannot be used to justify a Gemara decree by any intellectually honest person.
Finally, logic! *That's* what's missing in some of the allegedly-stricter interpretations of the rules of tzniut, and that's what I'm looking for. Covering one's cleavage? Perfectly logical. Covering one's toes on a hot summer day? That may be customary, in some communities, but it has no more to do with modesty than the "rule" that yeshiva students "must" wear white shirts and dark pants. Maybe that's at least part of the problem--perhaps some of these alleged issurim/prohibitions actually started out as community dress codes or "social markers" identifying Jews as members of a specific segment of the Orthodox community, and somehow morphed into modesty rules.
al, I mostly agree with you.
You have a problem with regard to the bathing suit with shok b'isha erva. you can't ignore the sources in the g'mara (or the rishonim, for that matter).
Also, sotah as a source for hair covering is pretty much an asmachta b'alma. it's an incredibly weak link, and that is recognized by many of the rishonim.
Shira, my main point was that what people say is mandated is largely tribal custom. Pick your tribe with care. Forget the nuns, too. Some Jewish women, however, married and very modestly dressed still have great sex appeal. Personally, however, I am not so fond of wigs.
I really believe it come down to pick your tribe, at least if you're not totally a literalist.
Eliyahu, I guess the bottom line is that a Jew has to pick her/his community carefully. I wish I'd figured that out *before* I chose this neighborhood. :(
JDub, nu, comments on the blog of Ms. Am HaAretz (Jewishly-illiterate), here, need to include translations.
Let's start with Sotah: See explanation, citation, exasperation, and comments here.
"shok b'isha erva"--the leg? thigh? of a woman is nakedness?
asmachta b'alma--no clue. Please translate.
Sorry I am late to the party. The approach a person takes to tzniut is usually an reflection of their approach to halacha in general. There are those who feel that every sentence and every word of the gemara is holy, and therefore take the gemara literally without allowing for the historical/cultural milieu. Usually they are also the same people who feel that one should be yotzeh lichol hadeyot(fulfill all possible opinions), with the result that the most stringent opinion carries the day(because if you fulfill the stringent opinion, you have de facto fulfilled the less stringent opinion as well.) And some of these people, such as Rabbi Falk, author of Oz v'Hadar Levusha(a popular book on tzniut) have even made up more restrictions(see the excellent review by Rav Yehuda Henkin in Tradition).
On the other end of the spectrum are those such as Eliezer Berkovitz, who opines that the Gemara contains opinions that are Torah mandated, and sometimes Torah tolerated(see Jewish Women in Time and Torah). In this view, there are some bottom line restrictions that are inviolate, but there also are layers of cultural/historical accretions that can be peeled off while still being true to Torah and halacha. Following this approach, in a society where women to not cover their hair, there is no problem with women going bare headed outside of prayer situations. And then there are many opinions in between.
The bottom line answer to your question lies in a distinction that you must make: Are the rules there as simply rules, or is there a specific goal that the rules are being used to accomplish, and as long as the goal is being accomplished the specific rules dont matter?
My humble opinion is that there are some bottom line rules, but there is also a goal/approach that can modify the application of the rules.
shana tova,
Noam S.
Noam, I'm always happy to read your responses to my posts, however late.
"The bottom line answer to your question lies in a distinction that you must make: Are the rules there as simply rules, or is there a specific goal that the rules are being used to accomplish, and as long as the goal is being accomplished the specific rules dont matter?"
The idea that the rules are being used to accomplish goals is pretty much my point. In discussing the purpose of the rules of tzniut, I said that I believe their purpose is to to minimize inappropriate sexual attraction and/or distraction. Any rule that doesn't accomplish that goal is insufficient, which is why I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect both men and women to keep their tops buttoned high enough that neither chest hair on men nor cleavage on women is visible. But any rule that has the opposite effect, leading people to obsess over sexuality when they shouldn't even notice it, is overkill, in my opinion, which is why I oppose the rule against shaking hands with a person of the opposite gender.
"My humble opinion is that there are some bottom line rules, but there is also a goal/approach that can modify the application of the rules." This is where my relative ignorance is a problem--I don't always know the rules well enough to know what to consider the bottom line. That works both ways--I've been told that some of us non-Orthos go a bit overboard in trying to keep our kitchens kosher because we don't know under what circumstances leniency is permissible.
Post a Comment
<< Home