Doody Length
To the knee? Below the knee? Right before ankles? You Decide!
I remember spending a long time arguing with my Rabbi in seminary about where exactly the shok ends (according to the mishna brurah). I sat there drawing the knee and cutting it in half to find the line of erva just so I could prove if I could show the bottom few inches. I think it is very important to deal with these issues so that a. we know the true halachot and b. we are able to be melamed zchut those who follow them. I think that I need to be a little more generous in the inches of my skirts though because I have certain skirts that leave me very few comfortable sitting (and sometimes walking) positions that keep me halachically covered. I’ve developed a new kind of love for the “duty length” pencil skirts that give me so much leeway to move and still can keep my outfit put together. I think the word is relative. What you think is pretty and cool all depends on what you’re used to.
age 21
Good for you. I feel I need to re-learn the rules from the sources because its easy to forget or rationalize that you have the correct length. At least if you know the halacha then you can strive for it slowly in a process fixing one skirt at a time.... Age 27
What causes us to rationalize this? Why do we not feel naturally compelled to have the real “correct lengths” already?
But why drive yourself crazy with fine lines and drawing diagrams? Isn’t it better to come up with the “cut off line” on your own, from personal experience? “Shok” is “Shok” so what does it matter where it ends and begins?
Because there’s a concept in Halacha called “Lo Plug”, we don’t differentiate based on people’s personal preferences. While it is important to ask questions based on your own experiences and reflect upon it, when deciding the actual halacha for all of bnai yisrael, the Rabbis had to pick one that works across the board, and can’t let each person’s opinion affect that. Yes, other Rabbis at that time who know the ins and outs of Halacha can disagree (hence machloket and many different opinions) but if each person decides what they think this right, then we don’t have a nation, we have everyone doing their own thing, ultimately serving themselves, not G-d. Also, when people make their own decisions they are often bound to be affected by their emotions, insecurities, and fads of the time, whether or not they realize it. These are not things to take into account when deciding an objective halacha to help us do Hashem’s will better. Does the secular law system (lihavdil) say that we can decide when we think it’s ok to run red lights or not (aside from real danger which halacha allows too)? Can you come whining to the cop that you had a long day, and wanted to get home to your parents or spouse, etc. even though that’s a mitzvah too....? No, there has to be a “Lo Plug” system where there is a blanket halacha for everyone for a society or, here, a religion to work.
I hear what you are saying, but shouldn’t Halacha be able to change with the times..be more accommodating? Jews in other countries and in the time of the Gemara wore burkas! they wore baskets as head coverings...they did not even hear of “jeggings”! So shouldn’t Halacha take this into consideration. Just like Hilchot Shabbos had to “compromise” and learn the logistics behind modern day technologies, such as the microwave, so too Hilchote Tznius should be modified and “re-vampt” to meet each generation, each country, each culture’s needs.
Also, wouldn’t you say that men(rabbis) AND WOMEN should be involved in making the laws for women...I understand why men need a say, because the way we dress does affect them, but it is in the end the women who have to follow the dress code that THEY put in place for US.
Once again, read my comment at the begining on ‘modesty at the beach’ to understand the crucial need for an un-wavering set of laws which were put in place by Hashem. Hashem gave us the Torah and the scholars who literally devote their entire lives to study the Torah are empowered to know what Hashem wants from us. Their rules are highly un-subjective and based on scripture from Torah, gemara, and mishna. It is not their opinion nor ours, it is Torah geniuses who extrapolate from the sources all the laws.... …..Age 27
I understand the need for a set of unwavering laws and I know that many laws do come directly from G-d, but I cannot agree with anything else that you wrote here, Tali. The rules may be based on scripture from the Torah, but that doesn’t make them objective. If I remember correctly, the Mishna and Gemarah discuss the different interpretations of the oral laws; different interpretations literally means different opinions. If the laws we followed today were truly objective, then we wouldn’t have hundreds of different traditions. If everyone’s opinion was objectively correct, then you wouldn’t have to choose a rabbi to consult; you could consult anybody because they would all have the same answer. The fact that there is so much debate in our religion proves that not a single rabbi is objective. This subjectiveness doesn’t mean that the rabbis are wrong; it simply means they are human. They do not have supernatural powers that give them the ability to understand the law in ways that no one else can; they simply form an opinion based on their understanding of the laws. So all the laws that you and I and all Jews follow, are based on someone’s opinion. Age 21
Well said! At the same time though, I understand that my opinion may not be as well-developed as that of a Rabbi who has studied the Torah for years and years. Leaving out the unfortunate cases of ‘Rabbis’ who pervert the Torah and practice not what they preach, I think that the opinions of Rabbis should be highly respected. An ideal rabbi (in my mind) is one who is well versed in Torah, but at the same time has a great love for people and respect for them. Therefore I would respect his opinion as it would take into account both the law and the capabilities of the individual. Age 21
And the laws given by the Written Torah are not opinionated? So therefore they are the ones we can only follow? Why do you think so many people have been following rabbis’ “opinions” for so long? If it is an opinion then could it not have changed over time? Did it change over time (regarding hilchote tznius)?
I should clarify that I wasn’t implying that we shouldn’t keep the laws simply because they are opinions. I would never say that I know more Torah than a rabbi who studied it for years, and should note that I follow many laws that are based on people’s opinions. I simply think it is dangerous to follow rabbis blindly without understanding who they really are and where their knowledge comes from. They are people; they have faults and make mistakes just like the rest of us. They are not empowered by G-d. They work hard to understand the laws and different opinions and then form their own opinions based on that. To think otherwise is to make them into demigods, and that is toeing the line of idol worship.
To answer your question, yes, the laws did change over time. The laws change all the time. For example, our own grandparents never ate Glatt Kosher meat. (They bought it straight from the butcher and cleaned and salted it themselves.) As far as I know, our own parents didn’t eat certified Glatt Kosher meat until the 1970s. Today, most people won’t eat at someone’s house if they don’t buy their meat at a Glatt Kosher supermarket. So what changed? The Torah certainly didn’t. It was the opinion of the rabbis of that time and the cultural shift in our society towards a less secular lifestyle. It’s just important to know that the way things are now is not the way it’s always been.
In regards to the laws of tznius, of course those changed throughout the centuries. You can’t deny that tznius is closely related to fashion and so is affected by the secular world that a particular group of Jews is a part of. Mrs. Lerner showed us pictures from her high school yearbook of the girls wearing skirts that were several inches above their knees; something that would never be allowed in a yeshiva today. Those restrictions changed over the last half a century. I recently read the book by the young woman who left the Satmar community (it was interesting - titled Unorthodox) and the author states that one day after her grandparents were recently married (probably 1950s), her zeidy came home and declared that the rebbe stated that everyone must shave their heads. Her bubby was outraged because she never shaved her head in Europe; why should she start now? It was just decided that it was more tznius for people to shave their heads. The laws are constantly changing to meet the needs of the community. Today, we accept them because we think that’s the way it’s always been done, but that’s not always the case.
Totally agree; I learned in a halacha class in qc about how the rebbetzins in lakewood didn’t cover their hair until a few decades ago.. and I believe rav soleveitchiks wife did not as well. Just as a side note, I am friends with a girl who knows the girl who wrote Unorthodox (and her family.. she grew up in the same community), and she told me that certain things stated there should be taken with a grain of salt. i.e a lot may be skewed.
Does that bother you at all that the laws are always changing? See the comments below:
Hilchot Shabbos were never and will never be “compromised” with technology, only adapted to new technologies. For example, just because a car, microwave or iPad exist does not mean we may engage in these technologies on Shabbos. The laws of not creating fire/electricity existed since we received the laws of our Holy Shabbos and will continue to exist. Our Holy laws of Shabbos are immutable, even as the application of these laws to modern times and technology is absolutely necessary. Only Reform and Conservative Jewry totally compromised Judaism by “changing with the times” and “allowing” driving on Shabbos, etc. SRose, age 39
What exactly is the difference between compromise and adapt?
Good q! Can someone answer this?
What about Kararite Jews who only believe in the written Torah? They say that those who believe in the Oral Torah are compromising Judaism...
Maybe we need to “adapt” to the society around us..we can wear brand name clothing, stylish hats and boots...and still be tznius...or is this not considered tznius? The Jews in Egypt (when they were slaves) did not change their way of dress...have we since then?
We see there are many different minhagim across Judaism, even with tznius and hair covering, so what happened there?? If the laws go all the way back to Moshe then why do we have different minhagim? (example: time of the Gemera some women covered themselves with burka like outfits...only leaving one eye uncovered!, Sefardim minhag (some of them) is to cover hair when married without a wig, some Chassidim wear 2 head coverings...)
It says in the Torah that we have to listen to our Rabbanim (does anyone remember which pasuk?). Therefore you have mitzvot/commandments that are derabanan vs deoraita. The differences of minhagim stem from the fact that Jews were scattered across the world in different countries and since we are in exile, we don’t have a common SanHedrin. When Mashiach comes he will unite all groups and we will all learn from Mashiach ben David how to paskin for everyone. In the meantime, the best we can do is to follow our own Rav. There’s a pasuk “Asei Lecha Rav” (someone please tell me where this is from, i forget) which means each and every person must choose for themself a rav that they trust and follow. This is our Avodat Hashem and it’s OK that there are different rulings for different people - its Galus. …...... 27
It is from Perkei Avot Perek Alef (one of the first mishnayote), its with :koneh Lecha Chaver”. So would this also include Minhag HaMakome? If I go to a conservative shul what should I wear? If I go to Boro Park what should I wear?
I think the pasuk about listening to the Rabbis is Devarim 17:11. I think minhag hamakom has more to do with respect of the traditions of a certain community, rather than your personal beliefs. If you go to a conservative shul, wear something that is respectful to them, and the same for boro park. However I believe there is a difference between going to a place and going into an institution there. In boro park there are people who walk around immodestly dressed, so if you were merely walking the streets there would be less of a respect issue. But, if you were going into a shul there, or a person’s home (who keeps a higher standard of modesty), it would be proper to dress respectfully. In the residential section of Meah Shearim in israel one would have to be respectful even outside as no one walks around there immodestly dressed. It would not be infringing on your “right” to dress however you wish; it is a question of respect for a system. To give an extreme example, no one shows up to a funeral in a clown suit because he has the right to wear what he likes.
And this is exactly the point I was trying to make. You have to dress appropriately for the setting that you are in.
And the everyday setting we are in does not have any “respectful” dress-codes to follow? This is when we are free to dress in...a clown suit if we so wish?
I suppose it would depend on the setting. There’s no blanket rule; each person has his or her own situation. Lets take queens college for example. There is a generous amount of freedom in dress; however I think nearly everyone in the student body as well as faculty would agree that a clown suit is not appropriate for an academic setting. Walking down the street in a random town though may get you some stares, but it wouldn’t be ‘offensive’.
And if a group of students or teachers found a specific mode of dress offensive then what? If I decide I find Muslim garb offensive then what? If a woman in my class finds me wearing a wig offensive because her daughter has cancer then what? Where is the line of offensive? Is it determined by a group, by individuals, by a law?
I hesitate to make a blanket statement. Every situation is different and needs to be treated as such.
I agree that every situation is different and it really depends on who is in charge or owns the setting that you are in. If you don’t want someone dressed in Muslim attire to be in your house, then you have every right to throw them out (however rude that may be). But in a classroom that does not belong to you, you cannot insist that people dress a certain way. Likewise, a classmate might find your wig offensive, but in Queens College she has no right to require that you take it off. Same goes for teachers. It’s called religious discrimination and it’s illegal. So I would say that sometimes offense is determined by the law.
You may have heard of the Westboro Baptist Church, but if anyone hasn’t, I’ll give some background info: they are members of a church who believe that terrible things happen because G-d is punishing America for various transgressions, including belief in basically every other religion besides for their specific branch of Christianity; but they believe the greatest transgression is homosexuality. To spread this so-called truth, they picket funerals of fallen soldiers, victims of violence (like the children in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting), and any funeral where they might gain public notice with signs that read “God hates fags”, “Thank God for dead soldiers”, Thank God for 9/11”, etc.; many of these signs also have obscene images of anal sex. Normal people find this incredibly offensive (the KKK denounces WBC on their website - that’s how horrible they are) and would side with the family of the deceased who had to endure such a horrible display while mourning their loved ones; however, the Supreme Court does not. The Court ruled that the WBC have protected free speech rights under the First Amendment and can picket any funeral they want with any offensive signs that they want as long as they keep in accordance with state picketing laws (which they do). Apparently, they are not considered offensive enough by the U.S. federal government and so there isn’t much normal people can do to prevent them from attending funerals, no matter how offensive we might find them. I feel confident saying that this kind of behavior is extremely un-tznius, but the law has determined that it’s fine. In this extreme example, offense is definitely determined by law.
Why do you consider this an example of un-tznius?
I find it interesting that different countries and even states have their own set laws determining offensive styles of expression.
Is it not true though that certain modes of dress could be illegal according to the secular government? How is this any different than the dress code implemented by the Rabbis and Torah? (example: nudity is prohibited in many parts of NY...ironically in NYC, however, there are plenty of “naked cowboys” roaming the streets).
Well I think the dress code implemented by the Rabbis and the Torah is universal for Jews and less subject to change (NOT completely, but LESS) whereas the dress code in NY is more arbitrary... for example in France (and other countries) I’m pretty sure there are beaches where one doesn’t have to wear anything.
Should Torah law be more flexible in your opinion? What about the consequences implemented by the secular government for dressing in such manners? Do we have the same type of punishments? Should we? Well I think the dress code implemented by the Rabbis and the Torah is universal for Jews and less subject to change (NOT completely, but LESS) whereas the dress code in NY is more arbitrary... for example in France (and other countries) I’m pretty sure there are beaches where one doesn’t have to wear anything.
Should Torah law be more flexible in your opinion? What about the consequences implemented by the secular government for dressing in such manners? Do we have the same type of punishments? Should we?
No, I don’t think it should be more flexible. I’m not so familiar with what punishments the secular government gives for dressing in such manners
Why do you think the secular law is more flexible in regard to this issue?Is it a good thing that they are?
because America’s mentality is “land of the free...” meaning we want to give everyone the right to express themselves and their individuality. It’s good to an extent, but if everyone is too free there is chaos. we need some boundaries.
It’s funny i actually saw on the news that there was a boardwalk in New Jersey that received a new policy: If anyone wears a bikini without a cover up or some article of clothing they can get a really expensive fine. I found that very interesting. Many people were upset about it but other people were relieved. (DasTorah20)
age 21
Good for you. I feel I need to re-learn the rules from the sources because its easy to forget or rationalize that you have the correct length. At least if you know the halacha then you can strive for it slowly in a process fixing one skirt at a time.... Age 27
What causes us to rationalize this? Why do we not feel naturally compelled to have the real “correct lengths” already?
But why drive yourself crazy with fine lines and drawing diagrams? Isn’t it better to come up with the “cut off line” on your own, from personal experience? “Shok” is “Shok” so what does it matter where it ends and begins?
Because there’s a concept in Halacha called “Lo Plug”, we don’t differentiate based on people’s personal preferences. While it is important to ask questions based on your own experiences and reflect upon it, when deciding the actual halacha for all of bnai yisrael, the Rabbis had to pick one that works across the board, and can’t let each person’s opinion affect that. Yes, other Rabbis at that time who know the ins and outs of Halacha can disagree (hence machloket and many different opinions) but if each person decides what they think this right, then we don’t have a nation, we have everyone doing their own thing, ultimately serving themselves, not G-d. Also, when people make their own decisions they are often bound to be affected by their emotions, insecurities, and fads of the time, whether or not they realize it. These are not things to take into account when deciding an objective halacha to help us do Hashem’s will better. Does the secular law system (lihavdil) say that we can decide when we think it’s ok to run red lights or not (aside from real danger which halacha allows too)? Can you come whining to the cop that you had a long day, and wanted to get home to your parents or spouse, etc. even though that’s a mitzvah too....? No, there has to be a “Lo Plug” system where there is a blanket halacha for everyone for a society or, here, a religion to work.
I hear what you are saying, but shouldn’t Halacha be able to change with the times..be more accommodating? Jews in other countries and in the time of the Gemara wore burkas! they wore baskets as head coverings...they did not even hear of “jeggings”! So shouldn’t Halacha take this into consideration. Just like Hilchot Shabbos had to “compromise” and learn the logistics behind modern day technologies, such as the microwave, so too Hilchote Tznius should be modified and “re-vampt” to meet each generation, each country, each culture’s needs.
Also, wouldn’t you say that men(rabbis) AND WOMEN should be involved in making the laws for women...I understand why men need a say, because the way we dress does affect them, but it is in the end the women who have to follow the dress code that THEY put in place for US.
Once again, read my comment at the begining on ‘modesty at the beach’ to understand the crucial need for an un-wavering set of laws which were put in place by Hashem. Hashem gave us the Torah and the scholars who literally devote their entire lives to study the Torah are empowered to know what Hashem wants from us. Their rules are highly un-subjective and based on scripture from Torah, gemara, and mishna. It is not their opinion nor ours, it is Torah geniuses who extrapolate from the sources all the laws.... …..Age 27
I understand the need for a set of unwavering laws and I know that many laws do come directly from G-d, but I cannot agree with anything else that you wrote here, Tali. The rules may be based on scripture from the Torah, but that doesn’t make them objective. If I remember correctly, the Mishna and Gemarah discuss the different interpretations of the oral laws; different interpretations literally means different opinions. If the laws we followed today were truly objective, then we wouldn’t have hundreds of different traditions. If everyone’s opinion was objectively correct, then you wouldn’t have to choose a rabbi to consult; you could consult anybody because they would all have the same answer. The fact that there is so much debate in our religion proves that not a single rabbi is objective. This subjectiveness doesn’t mean that the rabbis are wrong; it simply means they are human. They do not have supernatural powers that give them the ability to understand the law in ways that no one else can; they simply form an opinion based on their understanding of the laws. So all the laws that you and I and all Jews follow, are based on someone’s opinion. Age 21
Well said! At the same time though, I understand that my opinion may not be as well-developed as that of a Rabbi who has studied the Torah for years and years. Leaving out the unfortunate cases of ‘Rabbis’ who pervert the Torah and practice not what they preach, I think that the opinions of Rabbis should be highly respected. An ideal rabbi (in my mind) is one who is well versed in Torah, but at the same time has a great love for people and respect for them. Therefore I would respect his opinion as it would take into account both the law and the capabilities of the individual. Age 21
And the laws given by the Written Torah are not opinionated? So therefore they are the ones we can only follow? Why do you think so many people have been following rabbis’ “opinions” for so long? If it is an opinion then could it not have changed over time? Did it change over time (regarding hilchote tznius)?
I should clarify that I wasn’t implying that we shouldn’t keep the laws simply because they are opinions. I would never say that I know more Torah than a rabbi who studied it for years, and should note that I follow many laws that are based on people’s opinions. I simply think it is dangerous to follow rabbis blindly without understanding who they really are and where their knowledge comes from. They are people; they have faults and make mistakes just like the rest of us. They are not empowered by G-d. They work hard to understand the laws and different opinions and then form their own opinions based on that. To think otherwise is to make them into demigods, and that is toeing the line of idol worship.
To answer your question, yes, the laws did change over time. The laws change all the time. For example, our own grandparents never ate Glatt Kosher meat. (They bought it straight from the butcher and cleaned and salted it themselves.) As far as I know, our own parents didn’t eat certified Glatt Kosher meat until the 1970s. Today, most people won’t eat at someone’s house if they don’t buy their meat at a Glatt Kosher supermarket. So what changed? The Torah certainly didn’t. It was the opinion of the rabbis of that time and the cultural shift in our society towards a less secular lifestyle. It’s just important to know that the way things are now is not the way it’s always been.
In regards to the laws of tznius, of course those changed throughout the centuries. You can’t deny that tznius is closely related to fashion and so is affected by the secular world that a particular group of Jews is a part of. Mrs. Lerner showed us pictures from her high school yearbook of the girls wearing skirts that were several inches above their knees; something that would never be allowed in a yeshiva today. Those restrictions changed over the last half a century. I recently read the book by the young woman who left the Satmar community (it was interesting - titled Unorthodox) and the author states that one day after her grandparents were recently married (probably 1950s), her zeidy came home and declared that the rebbe stated that everyone must shave their heads. Her bubby was outraged because she never shaved her head in Europe; why should she start now? It was just decided that it was more tznius for people to shave their heads. The laws are constantly changing to meet the needs of the community. Today, we accept them because we think that’s the way it’s always been done, but that’s not always the case.
Totally agree; I learned in a halacha class in qc about how the rebbetzins in lakewood didn’t cover their hair until a few decades ago.. and I believe rav soleveitchiks wife did not as well. Just as a side note, I am friends with a girl who knows the girl who wrote Unorthodox (and her family.. she grew up in the same community), and she told me that certain things stated there should be taken with a grain of salt. i.e a lot may be skewed.
Does that bother you at all that the laws are always changing? See the comments below:
Hilchot Shabbos were never and will never be “compromised” with technology, only adapted to new technologies. For example, just because a car, microwave or iPad exist does not mean we may engage in these technologies on Shabbos. The laws of not creating fire/electricity existed since we received the laws of our Holy Shabbos and will continue to exist. Our Holy laws of Shabbos are immutable, even as the application of these laws to modern times and technology is absolutely necessary. Only Reform and Conservative Jewry totally compromised Judaism by “changing with the times” and “allowing” driving on Shabbos, etc. SRose, age 39
What exactly is the difference between compromise and adapt?
Good q! Can someone answer this?
What about Kararite Jews who only believe in the written Torah? They say that those who believe in the Oral Torah are compromising Judaism...
Maybe we need to “adapt” to the society around us..we can wear brand name clothing, stylish hats and boots...and still be tznius...or is this not considered tznius? The Jews in Egypt (when they were slaves) did not change their way of dress...have we since then?
We see there are many different minhagim across Judaism, even with tznius and hair covering, so what happened there?? If the laws go all the way back to Moshe then why do we have different minhagim? (example: time of the Gemera some women covered themselves with burka like outfits...only leaving one eye uncovered!, Sefardim minhag (some of them) is to cover hair when married without a wig, some Chassidim wear 2 head coverings...)
It says in the Torah that we have to listen to our Rabbanim (does anyone remember which pasuk?). Therefore you have mitzvot/commandments that are derabanan vs deoraita. The differences of minhagim stem from the fact that Jews were scattered across the world in different countries and since we are in exile, we don’t have a common SanHedrin. When Mashiach comes he will unite all groups and we will all learn from Mashiach ben David how to paskin for everyone. In the meantime, the best we can do is to follow our own Rav. There’s a pasuk “Asei Lecha Rav” (someone please tell me where this is from, i forget) which means each and every person must choose for themself a rav that they trust and follow. This is our Avodat Hashem and it’s OK that there are different rulings for different people - its Galus. …...... 27
It is from Perkei Avot Perek Alef (one of the first mishnayote), its with :koneh Lecha Chaver”. So would this also include Minhag HaMakome? If I go to a conservative shul what should I wear? If I go to Boro Park what should I wear?
I think the pasuk about listening to the Rabbis is Devarim 17:11. I think minhag hamakom has more to do with respect of the traditions of a certain community, rather than your personal beliefs. If you go to a conservative shul, wear something that is respectful to them, and the same for boro park. However I believe there is a difference between going to a place and going into an institution there. In boro park there are people who walk around immodestly dressed, so if you were merely walking the streets there would be less of a respect issue. But, if you were going into a shul there, or a person’s home (who keeps a higher standard of modesty), it would be proper to dress respectfully. In the residential section of Meah Shearim in israel one would have to be respectful even outside as no one walks around there immodestly dressed. It would not be infringing on your “right” to dress however you wish; it is a question of respect for a system. To give an extreme example, no one shows up to a funeral in a clown suit because he has the right to wear what he likes.
And this is exactly the point I was trying to make. You have to dress appropriately for the setting that you are in.
And the everyday setting we are in does not have any “respectful” dress-codes to follow? This is when we are free to dress in...a clown suit if we so wish?
I suppose it would depend on the setting. There’s no blanket rule; each person has his or her own situation. Lets take queens college for example. There is a generous amount of freedom in dress; however I think nearly everyone in the student body as well as faculty would agree that a clown suit is not appropriate for an academic setting. Walking down the street in a random town though may get you some stares, but it wouldn’t be ‘offensive’.
And if a group of students or teachers found a specific mode of dress offensive then what? If I decide I find Muslim garb offensive then what? If a woman in my class finds me wearing a wig offensive because her daughter has cancer then what? Where is the line of offensive? Is it determined by a group, by individuals, by a law?
I hesitate to make a blanket statement. Every situation is different and needs to be treated as such.
I agree that every situation is different and it really depends on who is in charge or owns the setting that you are in. If you don’t want someone dressed in Muslim attire to be in your house, then you have every right to throw them out (however rude that may be). But in a classroom that does not belong to you, you cannot insist that people dress a certain way. Likewise, a classmate might find your wig offensive, but in Queens College she has no right to require that you take it off. Same goes for teachers. It’s called religious discrimination and it’s illegal. So I would say that sometimes offense is determined by the law.
You may have heard of the Westboro Baptist Church, but if anyone hasn’t, I’ll give some background info: they are members of a church who believe that terrible things happen because G-d is punishing America for various transgressions, including belief in basically every other religion besides for their specific branch of Christianity; but they believe the greatest transgression is homosexuality. To spread this so-called truth, they picket funerals of fallen soldiers, victims of violence (like the children in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting), and any funeral where they might gain public notice with signs that read “God hates fags”, “Thank God for dead soldiers”, Thank God for 9/11”, etc.; many of these signs also have obscene images of anal sex. Normal people find this incredibly offensive (the KKK denounces WBC on their website - that’s how horrible they are) and would side with the family of the deceased who had to endure such a horrible display while mourning their loved ones; however, the Supreme Court does not. The Court ruled that the WBC have protected free speech rights under the First Amendment and can picket any funeral they want with any offensive signs that they want as long as they keep in accordance with state picketing laws (which they do). Apparently, they are not considered offensive enough by the U.S. federal government and so there isn’t much normal people can do to prevent them from attending funerals, no matter how offensive we might find them. I feel confident saying that this kind of behavior is extremely un-tznius, but the law has determined that it’s fine. In this extreme example, offense is definitely determined by law.
Why do you consider this an example of un-tznius?
I find it interesting that different countries and even states have their own set laws determining offensive styles of expression.
Is it not true though that certain modes of dress could be illegal according to the secular government? How is this any different than the dress code implemented by the Rabbis and Torah? (example: nudity is prohibited in many parts of NY...ironically in NYC, however, there are plenty of “naked cowboys” roaming the streets).
Well I think the dress code implemented by the Rabbis and the Torah is universal for Jews and less subject to change (NOT completely, but LESS) whereas the dress code in NY is more arbitrary... for example in France (and other countries) I’m pretty sure there are beaches where one doesn’t have to wear anything.
Should Torah law be more flexible in your opinion? What about the consequences implemented by the secular government for dressing in such manners? Do we have the same type of punishments? Should we? Well I think the dress code implemented by the Rabbis and the Torah is universal for Jews and less subject to change (NOT completely, but LESS) whereas the dress code in NY is more arbitrary... for example in France (and other countries) I’m pretty sure there are beaches where one doesn’t have to wear anything.
Should Torah law be more flexible in your opinion? What about the consequences implemented by the secular government for dressing in such manners? Do we have the same type of punishments? Should we?
No, I don’t think it should be more flexible. I’m not so familiar with what punishments the secular government gives for dressing in such manners
Why do you think the secular law is more flexible in regard to this issue?Is it a good thing that they are?
because America’s mentality is “land of the free...” meaning we want to give everyone the right to express themselves and their individuality. It’s good to an extent, but if everyone is too free there is chaos. we need some boundaries.
It’s funny i actually saw on the news that there was a boardwalk in New Jersey that received a new policy: If anyone wears a bikini without a cover up or some article of clothing they can get a really expensive fine. I found that very interesting. Many people were upset about it but other people were relieved. (DasTorah20)