I recall reading about this a while back, and recall noting how the proponents, back then at least, were mainly educators in girl's schools. I couldn't help but think that Bet Yaakov and the like infantilizes their charges, assuming they cannot make their own decisions as appropriate (thus the move in some towards dress codes), and this is a continuation of the infantilization, such that even after they graduate they assume that their charges require this type of direction. Of course, from their perspective, it is not this.
In the comments, they noted how various Israeli gedolim set up this committee to propose suggestions, and this was the result. Over the course of the lengthy comment thread, someone brought up the issue of slits on women's skirts, and someone wrote:
Even if they were made to show the leg, if the slit is below the knee there is no problem especially if the woman is wearing stockings. It is no different than a shorter skirt would be.Ed then replied (eventually):
Totaly neged Daas Torah.There was a tangent whether such a proclamation required explanation, since it seemed to be against what would seem to be the straightforward halacha. (Note: I have not learned these halachot, or sources, in great detail, and am also summarizing a lot of this from memory.)
In 5748, R' SZ Auerbach, R' Elyashiv, R' Ben-Zion Abba Shaul, R S Wosner, R' Nissim Karelitz amongst others all signed a declaration stating:
"A slit in a garment is FORBIDDEN because of Pritzus. It is forbidden even if thick tights are being worn. It is forbidden even if the complete slit is below the knee".
R' Schneur Kotler and R N Wachtfogel signed a similar statement in 5742.
The suggestion was brought that this was a geder, and the suggestion was brought that this was because as the woman walks, the leg (or stocking) is being exposed and concealed, which draws the eye. Perhaps. Perhaps not.
The discussion also encompassed the issue of whether these gedolim who made the declaration about slits in skirts consulted with people in the fashion/garment industry. This was dismissed. Why should they? They could recognize "pritzus" in the streets where they see it. But then some suggested that perhaps they did, or asked their wives (some countered that they were elderly widowers). Then, someone said it is disrespect to the gedolei haDor to suggest that they wasted their time speaking to shmatta vendors.
I don't think such would be disrespect to suggest, where at issue is finding out of metziut in order to render correct pesak. Rava {IIRC} spent years learning about the eye ailments of sheep in order to be mattir bechorot correctly. The famous story of the acharon who asked the milk merchant how much he watered down his milk, in order to be mattir chalav that fell into a maachal of basar where there was hefsed meruba. There is no shame, or waste of time, to find out about the world. (Indeed, this is an ideal of Torah UMadda as I try to practice it. When learning about tereifot and about beitzim, I took out science books in order to understand the metziut, and books on the history of medicine and science, to try to ascertain the state of science at the time of Chazal at different times.)
In this case, I do not think that, in terms of slits in skirts, it was just a matter of going out and noticing that something was pritzus, but rather I think that this is something that requires consultation with experts in the field or how women's clothing is constructed. And it is quite possible that they failed to do this consultation in this instance. (It is also possible that they did.)
(Caveat: I am no expert on women's -- or even men's -- fashion.)
The thing about slits in skirts is that there are two ways of viewing their function. One is as an attempt to expose flesh, and ervah, such that a slit is pritzus. The other is as a necessary feature of a straight skirt in order to allow a woman to walk without being forced to take baby steps or hobble about. For a man, who does not have to wear skirts (and in fact should not), the second way of viewing their function is not obvious.
And there is a clothing feature called "peek-a-boo." A peek-a-boo slit is a very high slit which exposes the thigh. Similarly, peak-a-boo blouses apparently have strips of translucent material, showing some of the flesh below. And peek-a-boo tops have a patch cut out below the collar (?) in order to expose cleavage.
Looking at the proclamation above, it seems to me quite possible that when they heard of slits, they thought of the peek-a-boo function. Thus, they say "A slit in a garment is FORBIDDEN because of Pritzus." They do not say that it is forbidden because of erva, but rather because of pritzus. This suggests that they are considering is as a feature of a garment deliberately designed to expose flesh.
If so, what if the woman wears thick stockings underneath? Even so, it is wearing a garment with a feature of pritzus, and she is buying into this pritzus in the name of fashion, so it is inappropriate and forbidden. Thus, "It is forbidden even if thick tights are being worn. It is forbidden even if the complete slit is below the knee." Because they are wearing a garment with a feature designed to entice men in public in a sexual way, and this is pritzus.
On the other hand, while a really high slit might be designed with this partially in mind, in general, the purpose of a slit which does not go so high is to allow for movement in a straight skirt. The more of a slit, the greater the stride that is possible.
It is quite possible that those who brought this issue to these gedolim did not know, or mention, this fact. And it is quite possible that they did not realize that the slit was functional rather than pritzus. And it is quite possible that they did not realize that the repercussion was to effectively cripple women, not letting them walk normally in their straight skirts.
It is also possible that they knew this full well. But it seems that this possibility was not being conveyed, or rather, not being understood, by people in that discussion thread.
a
3 comments:
Then, someone said it is disrespect to the gedolei haDor to suggest that they wasted their time speaking to shmatta vendors.
And such a disrespectful attitude towards hardworking human beings is okay, according to that person? ick.
If "Daas Torah" exists in the way "Ed" presumably believes, then the gedolim are omniscient and could not possibly have been unaware of any skirt design considerations.
Of course, you and I both realize that this is absurd. But from Ed's perspective, this attitude is sufficient to negate your argument.
"I couldn't help but think that Bet Yaakov and the like infantilizes their charges, assuming they cannot make their own decisions as appropriate (thus the move in some towards dress codes), and this is a continuation of the infantilization, such that even after they graduate they assume that their charges require this type of direction." Josh, you hit it! It is so much the case that many willingly give in to the brainwashing and do not wish to ever grow out of it. This system fosters a dependency that would never allow the girls or even grown women to develop their own ability to judge and decide. I recall one of the students I had in the "New Seminary" program said she regrets not having a uniform anymore.
The RW world has assured ALL slits. But-- revisionist history notwithstanding -- there are texts that prove that did not. I posted a while ago at
http://kallahmagazine.com/WordPress/?p=433
The Legacy of Maran Rav Aharon Kotler by Rabbi Yitzchok Dershowitz (Feldheim 2005) includes an appendix, which features, among other letters, a fascimile of the response by Rav Shneur Kotler and Rav Nosson Wachtfogel issued during aseret yemey tshuva of 5742 written in Hebrew. What I find intersting is that the letter also appears in English translation on the facing page, but the 8 point of hilchos tznius (like covering elbows, collarbone, etc.) are deliberately omitted from the English verison. The author even puts in a footnote: “The Tznius details were deleted from the English verion of this Tshuva. Please refer to the Hebrew.” So why were these 8 sentences not translated, as well? It certainly is not due to lack of space.
And then due to reader request, I included my own translation of the 8 points. #6 referred to slits:
6) There should not be slits in the dresses that reveal part of the knee or leg.
I take this to mean that the slits reveal the knee or areas of the leg above the knee. But I suppose one can interpret it to mean that any flash of leg would make it assur. But if that were the case, the wording should have been: There should be NO slits in dresses, even if they occur below the knee.
Post a Comment