My goal here is not to give the majority view, but to give some minority views I perceive as legitimate.
Brachot 24a: “Rav Chisda said a woman’s shok is ervah”
Rashba on the Gemarah: “The prohibition applies to men as a measure of erotic thought, but places no restriction upon women”.
Divrey Chamudot on Rosh, Berachot, chapter 3, 37: The concept that tefach constitutes ervah relates to parts of the woman’s body normally kept covered...logically, the law should depend upon local custom, for we were concerned with body parts that women do not normally keep covered. Since men are used to seeing these parts, they... do not invite erotic thought.
Ben Ish Hai: Some say that since a woman normally exposes her breasts when nursing, it is regarded at that time like her hands or face. Only when she is not nursing, and insists on concealing them, is it forbidden to recite the shma in her presence. We may rely upon this reasoning when there is no alternative.
Yaskil Avdi: As for the upper arms, the Ben Ish Hai quoted a view that during nursing, a woman’s breasts are like her hands. Since he applied the prohibition only where women are careful to cover their breasts, it is clear that where they are not, her breasts are like her hands, even when she is not nursing. This thinking may be extended to upper arms in our day. Since women are not careful to cover them, they are like hands.
Avnei Tzedek on Yoreh Deah, 72, responding to whether a woman may wear pants: women’s trousers can be distinguished from men’s...there are two points in your favor: 1. There is no intention to resemble men. 2. They are different from a man’s...even pious, modest women have long practiced this, without a complaint being heard.
When it comes to pants, the majority view is that there is no kli gever issue. The issue raised however, is tzniut in terms of exposing the shape of the leg. Thus, there is a substantial difference between loose and tight-fitting pants.
A large part of skirt-wearing today however, is societal. A woman who wears skirts once admitted to me, “If I were hiking in China maybe I’d wear pants. But I’m in Israel, in a society where Orthodox women wear skirts, and I want to identify with that group”. Rabbi Getsel Ellinson says, “By wearing a skirt, a Jewish girl identifies with this group and separates herself from more permissive circles. To a certain extent, in the last few decades the skirt has become a sort of yarmulka for the scrupulously observant girl...By her refusal to wear trousers, she demonstrably declares that she is unwilling to resign herself to the dictates of modern style and that she takes exception to the immorality so rampant these days in society at large.”
I see nothing wrong with a skirt becoming a sort of kipah - as long as it is openly acknowledged as such. As long as it is understood that wearing skirts might be halachikly preferable, but pants are not assur, yet women are choosing to do the preferred action as part of actively identifying as Orthodox. Instead, women are often simply taught that pants are assur, and not exposed to the various opinions. I object to this willful keeping women in the dark. Furthermore, when skirts become a marker of frumkeit, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: Women who are frum feel pressure to wear skirts in order to not be perceived as being less frum, therefore most frum women wear skirts, therefore women who wear pants are judged even more, continuing the cycle of societal coercion. Furthermore, it is possible to dress according to the letter of the law, wearing skirts and elbow-length, while still dressing in such a way as to attract men’s attention in an immodest fashion, while being extremely gashmiut oriented, and while engaging in non-shomer behavior, which is arguably more of a halachik violation than wearing pants. Thus, to claim that wearing skirts symbolizes a rejection of materialistic and sexualized secular values is wishful thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment