Skirt Lengths

I haven't been writing much recently it seems; I keep seeing my name fall lower on the "recently updated" blogrolls of my friends who were kind enough to include me in their lists. It's mostly due to lethargy I guess, a trait I unfortunately have an unusually intimate relationship with. By the way, hope to see you by the Israel Day Parade today!

Anyway, one thing that's been plaguing my mind recently has been the issue of skirt lengths for females. My opinion about the subject has always been that longer is better, partially for reasons of tzni'ut and partially because I simply find that to be more attractive (and thus do what I can to promote such a manner of dress). Recently though, a learned friend of a friend asked me for a Talmudic source for this idea, and I couldn't think of anything offhand. Though with a lit bit of thought I came up with something very simple; the "kol Isha" Sugya. Which itself happens to be very contradictory....


Proving That Girls Must Wear Long Skirts:

It says in Brachot 24/a, discussing what one can be facing while reciting Kri'at Sh'ma, quotes Ribi Yitzchak who says "A tefach (of revealed flesh) in a woman is 'erva'", and then quotes Rav Hasda who says that "The 'leg' of a woman is 'erva', the hair in a woman is 'erva' and the voice of a woman is 'erva'".

I do not wish to discuss Kol Isha for the moment, so let's stick with the leg prohibition: The Hebrew word used is "שוק". The definition of שוק is not clear; many poskim understand it as meaning the thigh (upper portion of the leg) until the knee. Based on this understanding they not only allow men to recite K"S in the presence of women who's upper legs are covered, but in general allow skirts for women as long as they cover the thigh (and knee). What many don't know though is that other poskim understand שוק as the calf (the lower portion of the leg)! Which would mean that not only must that part of the leg be covered for men to recite K"S facing it, but that a woman must cover her entire leg in general (stockings are not considered a covering in halacha unless they are 100% opaque, so it's as if they're not there).


Proving the Exact Opposite:

In my struggle for a more Egalitarian Judaism, one thing I always feel bad about regarding the dress restrictions on women is dressing so properly that it's at times absurdly out of place. For example, my mind always told me that if an Orthodox woman is doing something like mountain climbing, a little more leniency should be provided than just being able to don trousers under a skirt, which is as far as most authorities are willing to allow. The funny thing is though that based on the reasoning of one explanation of this statement, woman's dress restrictions lessen greatly.

To begin, it would seem that this statement is extremely restricting; we just stated that a woman's lower leg cannot be revealed because it's mentioned in this statement. But isn't this part of the Gemara's statement only discussing K"S? If the leg being erva means that you can never reveal that part of the body in the presence of men, wouldn't that mean that a woman cannot speak or have her hair uncovered in front of men?

First of all, the Gemara later says that one can never gaze upon a woman's calf (if he is not married to her etc). But in regards to hair the commentators say that only a married woman's hair is considered erva, but in front of an unmarried woman's hair you can say K"S, and she does not have to cover her hair in general. And the reason they give is that only a married woman's hair is alluring. The hair of an unmarried woman is a usual sight.

We see, therefore, that much of tzni'ut (even against what in says in the Gemara) is based on what people today find alluring. So something such as wearing shorts, for example, for a girl, during mountain climbing, might have a היתר based on this mode of thought. I'm obviously not saying I find it to be ok, I'm only saying that these are not clear-cut proofs, and can be used in either direction.

On a similar vein, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein actually has a Tshuva speaking about how tzni'ut in general is dependent on what is acceptable in that place. He says, for example, that if a man lives in a place where everyone walks around with bare arms, even before kings, there is nothing wrong for him to have his arms exposed all day, even in prayer. On the other hand, he also says that if one lives in a place where ankles are always covered, it would even be prohibited for a man to have his ankles exposed. Or even if one generally has his arms or ankles covered outdoors, he may not have them bare at home.

Which is a problem for me at times: For example if I wish to go biking in shorts, I often go from a community where shorts are unacceptable for men (Ultra Orthodox Jewish communities) to a place where everyone is wearing shorts. My opinion is that in the Jewish community one must wear long pants until one reaches an area in which it is acceptable. ועוד חזון למועד.

________________________________________________

Some good sources to use in researching this subject:
1)Yabia Omer 6/14.
2) Tzitz Eliezer 1/62 (though compared to Rav Ovadia it just seems like a lot of unsourced Haredi ranting).
3) Igrot Moshe Y"D2/62
4) Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society Number IV/May Women Wear Pants?
5) And this shiur from Rav Willig of Yeshiva University, who seems to have come to similar conclusions about lower leg exposure (at 22:10).

Tzniut: Revisited for the Eight Billionth Time

You know, friends, I feel there was something I would have liked to have spoke about last week, but totally forgot about: tzniut. I know I've spoken about this topic over here until the point that "my tongue cleaves to the roof of my mouth" but, as with most matters in life, new events call for new perspectives.

There has recently been some talk about a new book on tzniut that has appeared on the book shelves. I browsed through the book I thought was the one spoken about (although it happened to have been a different book they were discussing) to get an idea about what had caused the hubbub. I didn't see anything particularly objectionable about the book, but it did seem to reinforce an opinion that I had heard about not long before, regarding how much of the area below the neck it is proper for a girl to have revealed. The opinion I had recently heard was that if a girl is wearing a button-down shirt/blouse, it is better to have the top button closed. My opinion on the matter before this had simply been that it is a queer way to carry oneself about, and that the matter had been sufficiently discussed on Seinfeld. The book contended though, that since, unlike the limbs of a woman, a higher level of stringency is placed on the torso (and directly under the neck is part of the torso) it must be covered.

I had once seen in a similar book an opinion that said that since "The Song of Solomon" considers the neck of a woman a beautiful thing, it can be inferred that it should be covered. It therefore suggested girls wear high collars to cover their necks. What I have always found disturbing about this area of "Ashkenazi halacha" is that it's entirely hypocritical. For example if they were so very concerned about the covering of the neck, what more thorough way to accomplish that than a neck-covering H'ijab? And as I've stated numerous times here, their whole approach to the subject is antithetical: According to their rulings it is permitted for a woman to to don a skirt that covers only the top part of her legs (and knees) as long as the lower half is covered by stockings. Yet it's well known that stockings themselves on a woman are considered a thing of attraction, and even getting a glimpse of the stockings on the lower leg of a woman was considered semi-erotic in the past. According to those standards, women such as the wife of the last "Rebbe" of Lubavitch was very sorely lacking in her fulfilment of Jewish laws of modesty. I mean, who said I want to see an old woman's lower legs?

I know this too is something I've ranted on in the past, but there is a well known custom among the Hasidic Jews of south-eastern Europe to not only cover their hair with a wig, but to have a kerchief at least partly covering the hair. Many women who follow that custom today seem as if all they have covering their hair is a kerchief that seems to be covering only a small portion of the hair. How does it help to have Jewish women look like Gypsies? I don't see the touch of modesty in such an outlandish fashion.

But it is well known that this is but the smallest example of the confusion prevalent among the Jews of Eastern Europe. It has always been clear to me that those on the other side of their religious spectrum were more correct, such as the Settler-girls (in Judea and Samaria) who wear pants beneath their skirts. Surely that is the most modest way of going about things.

But what of those on the extreme left? It is their argument that what is considered "modest" changes tremendously with the prevailing fashions. While I do agree wholeheartedly with that opinion, can it be said that if the people of the world all become nudist it would be correct for us to follow suit, since now those parts of the body do not inspire erotic thought? I do not feel so. There must be a middle ground. As far as the current situation of Western dress, I have always felt that it is perfectly possible to be modest while wearing jeans and a tee shirt. While perhaps not entirely ideal, as long as the important parts of the upper arms and legs are not visible, there wouldn't be much of a problem aside for the fact that the shape of the legs is evident. But then again, that is just another example of the hypocrisy of the Ashkenazi tzniut idea. They bring for an example the fact that the 'hip area' (no, not Tribeca!) should not give off it's shape through the clothing, which is one of the reasons they strongly encourage wearing skirts. Yet that logic would necessitate women to wear free-flowing tops cover the lower-back. Instead they wear skirts in which the shape of the hip area is evident, and have no free-flowing torso-garment covering it. I feel that that is perhaps one of the greatest breaches of the concept of modesty in dress. I mean, here are women criticizing the Muslim girls for wearing pants, when they themselves have the shape of their hip area evident. At least the Muslim girls generally have a 'top' that camouflages the shape of that area.

I know this sounds petty, and is a bit representative of the fact that I'm looking at girls to much, but I do still feel it's important to bring up, and that it's clear that the current Ultra-Orthodox understanding of tzniut is just silly.
.
[This post, by the way, is merely recording a few minutes of thought I had last week, while standing in the vicinity of religious Jews.]

Anything Goes!

Although it is not my way to consistantly critisize Jewish communities in this blog, as on other blogs, and although this point has been mentioned too many times already, but just to follow up on a point I made earlier in passing:

It has recently been the opinion of Chassidic and other ultra-orthodox groups that the proper way for Jewish girls and women to dress is with skirts that reveal ones ankles (when covered with stockings). To me it is quite evident from the Cole Porter song "Anything Goes" that in the past it was unheard of to have dresses or skirts that exposed ones ankles.

"In olden days, a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking. Now heaven knows, anything goes."

To me it can be presented in no clearer way that having that part of the body revealed is a thing of attraction, and is a new phenomenon, and therefore it should at least not be advertised as the "traditional" or "proper" way of going about things. The (most) proper way to dress in this situation is undoubtedly the way of many women whom the fear of G_d has touched their hearts dress; wearing clothing that covers their ankles. (Although as was previously mentioned, from a purely halakhic perspective it's ok to have ones lower legs revealed, even without stockings or any other form of socks).

.

(The link to the video is on the lyrics. The whole lyrics are here).

Request! - Modesty

1. Sources

We find the Hebrew root “צ.נ.ע” twice in the Bible; once in Micha (6:8) and once in Proverbs (11:2):

1. הִגִּיד לְךָ אָדָם מַה טּוֹב; וּמָה ה' דּוֹרֵשׁ מִמְּךָ, כִּי אִם-עֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפָּט וְאַהֲבַת חֶסֶד וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת עִם אֱלֹהֶיךָ

2. בָּא-זָדוֹן וַיָּבֹא קָלוֹן; וְאֶת צְנוּעִים חָכְמָה

In both places it means to be secretive about ones good deeds, and not to be overly flamboyant. That meaning has lasted through to the Talmudic usage - much as the meaning of "modest" in English connotes the opposite of “proud”.

There has been somewhat of a change in the usage of the word in Midrashic, and later in Talmudic literature to mean modesty in an erotic sense. For example אלעזר בר צדוק is quoted as saying (in Sukkah 49b) that this verse (1.) explains three of the most important facets of Judaism, and in regards to “הצנע לכת עם אל-היך” says this part of the verse is really discussing the need to accompany the dead, and accompany a bride. He adds though “if the Torah tells us to act modestly for things which people usually do publicly, how much more so should we be ‘modest’ in regards to things that are done in private”.

It’s also important to remember though, that 1. Halakhah as we know it is somewhat of a "created" thing, being that the Halakhic codifiers had to sift through the entirety of the Tanach and Talmud and piece together little statements, and many times just inferences, and many times what we called in my yeshiva “unnecessary inferences” (inferences that aren’t the only possible thing that can be inferred). And 2. There’s no ‘מצווה’ of 'צניעות'. It’s something that’s (like I said about hair-covering for a woman) expected of women, and especially of a Jewish woman.

In Iraq, in the era in which the Talmud was written, there was honestly not much of a problem in regards to tzniut; the norms there were obviously much more "conservative" then they are now. So all you’re going to find in the Talmud are statements like “one should not pass by when women are washing clothes in the lake” or “one should not watch a woman weaving” etc. Most of what we 'know’ about the halakhot of tzniut come from statements like that.

2. Modesty in Dress

First of all, some parts of the body are usually covered anyway, so the main concerns among the Orthodox Jews are the covering of the upper arms, legs, and neckline (an issue less necessary of concern among Orthodox Jews are the back, cleavage and belly).

In regards to wearing a skirt instead of pants: 1. Some see it as a transgression of "No male article shall be on a woman, and a man shall not wear a woman's garment", 2. The Talmud says it's better for a woman not to ride a horse (seemingly because it will cause the shape of her legs to become more evident when separated), so that could also translate to not wearing tight pants. Though in that case a tight skirt/dress is just as bad, and either way; it's unusual for a woman not to wear pants in most parts today. Either way; women who wear pants should obviously not be treated as if they're not part of the Jewish (or Orthodox) Community.

[I think the clearest example of learned and pious Jews who are somewhat lax in these areas (where the husband doesn't wear a head covering and the wife doesn't have a hair covering and wears pants) is Sefaradim in South American countries; I've met a lot of them, and many of them are just as 'pious' as any New York Kolel couple.. ]

About the covering of the upper legs and arms: Like I said, one of the major logical sources is that the Talmud says that washing clothing and weaving (by a woman) are seen as things which should be done in as private a setting as possible, being that parts of the upper arms and legs might become exposed in the process.

About head covering: There has always been somewhat of a difference of opinion about "פריעת הראש"; does it mean ‘untying’ or ‘uncovering’. For example it says "even an unmarried girl shouldn’t have her head ‘פרוע’ "; some strict opinions say this means even an unmarried girl should cover her hair, and some say it means her hair should usually be tied. (See Rambam source).

It’s important to note that according to these standards there’s nothing better about wearing a blouse and long skirt to a jeans skirt and tee-shirt (for example). There’s no source, therefore, for Orthodox girls to just dress really "fancy" or however one would term current ultra-orthodox dress. If anything there have been contemporary national-religious rabbis in Israel who say that sometimes “too much tzniut can lead to a lack of tzniut", something I see as very true. Not to mention concentrating on such things too much (instead of Torah and mitzvot) can lead to too great a concern for sexually oriented matters.

It should be mentioned that men must also practice modesty in clothing, and women must also not ‘gaze upon immodest men’, etc..

3. Other Interpretations

It should also be mentioned though that some (Reform and some Conservative Rabbinical authorities) see these Talmudic standards as having only been applicable to Jewish women when that is what the standards of the times were, but now that the standards have changed the Talmud would agree there’s nothing wrong with a Jewess in a short sleeveless dress when the weather makes it necessary, and such a thing is not seen by anyone as breaking any barriers (though the growth of the Muslim community as well as a new stress on modesty in dress among the Evangelical community could still change those standards again). (See Ritva source).

4. True Modesty

.

According to all opinions though a real problem has developed in 'our' communities, which, in a way exists among females in the Ultra-Orthodox community just as much as it does with the males, and that is; "depending on your clothing to be religious for you". It’s not just about "women dressing modestly", it’s about "everyone being modest", not just in dress, but in action; in all areas of life. Women should obviously be a little more modest than men, but it is applicable to both sexes obviously).

Much of what "צניעות" should (still) be about is doing all actions in a refined, restrained, chaste and modest manner- even things like speaking and putting on ones shoes, and definitely things like how one walks, laughs or bends over (when necessary) in a public place (among a myriad of other examples).
.

Some practical examples of this type of behavior:

It says in Genesis; "And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent", which shows Sarah didn’t go out for no reason. Similarly the pasuk in Psalms 45:14 "כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה, ממשבצות זהב לבושה" ("The king's daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold") is used to suggest that a woman shouldn’t go out much. Though there's also the issue with the "אשת חיל" in משלי who seems to be very outdoorsy, so..it's complicated...still needs looking into...

.

Also, it says that רות (and רבקה) bent in a restrained manner to pick things up.

Another example is is ישעיהו's rebuking Judean women for walking in 'too arousing' a manner (Isaiah 3): "Moreover the LOR"D saith, because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet; therefore the LOR"D will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LOR"D will discover their secret parts. In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, the chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, the bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, the rings, and nose jewels, the changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins,the glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails. and it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty." (Some even use the examples given in this verse to represent what shouldn't be worn by a woman).

It also says in the Talmud, for example, that a Roman soldier once took interest in a Judean girl because of her elegant manner of walking (so we see that one should refrain from such a mannerism).

To conclude, I should mention that רש"י on the first page of מסכת סוטה explains the גמרא as saying “The modest woman ends up with the ‘righteous’ husband, while the immodest woman ends up with the ‘wicked’ man as a husband”.

.

Cole Porter. ..his lyrics. ....Jewel Kilcher singing it!

.

__________________________________

5. Rabbinic Sources

Some surprising Rabbinic Sources I’m too lazy to translate in the meantime:


1. Rambam:

ואלו הן הדברים שאם עשת אחד מהן עברה על דת משה--יוצאה בשוק ושיער ראשה גלוי, או שנודרת או נשבעת ואינה מקיימת, או ששימשה מיטתה והיא נידה, או שאינה קוצה לה חלה; או שהאכילה את בעלה דברים אסורים...ואיזו היא דת יהודית הוא מנהג הצניעות שנהגו בנות ישראל ואלו הן הדברים שאם עשת אחד מהן עברה על דת יהודית: יוצאה לשוק או למבוי מפולש וראשה פרוע ואין עליה רדיד ככל הנשים אע"פ ששערה מכוסה במטפחת או שהייתה טווה בשוק וורד וכיוצא בו כנגד פניה על פדחתה או על לחיה, כדרך שעושות הגויות הפרוצות, או שטווה בשוק ומראה זרועותיה לבני אדם או שהייתה משחקת עם הבחורים או שהייתה תובעת התשמיש מבעלה בקול רם עד ששכנותיה שומעות אותה מדברת על עסקי תשמיש או שהייתה מקללת אבי בעלה בפני בעלה.


2. Ritva (kiddushin 81b):

דהכל כפי מה שאדם מכיר בעצמו אם ראוי לו לעשות הרחקה ליצרו עושה ואפילו להסתכל בבגדי צבעונין של אשה אסור. ואם מכיר בעצמו שיצרו נכנע וכפוף לו ואין מעלה טינא כלל, מותר לו להסתכל ולדבר עם הערוה ולשאול בשלום אשת איש…


3. Yichiel Mich’l Epstein (ערוך השולחן):

"מותר להתפלל ולברך נגד ראשיהן המגולות, [= של נשים נשואות] כיון שעתה רובן הולכות כך, והוה כמקומות המגולים בגופה"


4. Yichiel Yaakov Weinberg (שרידי אש):

"מ"מ הסכמנו כולנו, שבחירת הנשים היא נגד מנהג ישראל ונגד המוסר הישראלי בחיי הציבור, שהשתדלו תמיד לשמור על כבודה בת מלך פנימה, שהאשה הישראלית תשמור את ביתה ואת חינוך ילדי' ואל תהי' קולנית ויוצאנית, לפזר כוחה ולהרוס צניעותה, ולאבוד את חינה וטעמה על ידי ריב ומדנים פוליטיים וציבוריים"


5. Yoel Sirkish (ב"ח):

"אבל אם לובשין כדי להגן מפני החמה בימות החמה ובימות הגשמים מפני הגשמים אין שם איסור"

Fashion

Just one more thing!- It's unfortunate that the modes of dress for women (in the West) today have been influenced by fashion standards that see looking "sexy" as an ideal. For what is "sexy"? "Someone you'd consider having sex with"? Someone "sexable" (i.e. someone who embodies 'sex')? Is that at all any standard to be basing influences in dress?

Arab. Dress.

סוגיא דפריעת הראש

Last week I read a post from blogger "Bad Rabbi" (he's listed among my links as "רב שאינו הגון". In the Oct. 14 2007 post) about the subject of covering of the hair for women, from a Judaic/halachic perspective.The background for this requirement is well known; the bible (Numbers 5) has a prescribed method to deal with a ‘woman who has gone astray’. Basically the suspected woman should be brought to the priest, and it then states “ופרע את ראש האשה”, which can be understood as “then he should unbraid her hair”, or “then he should uncover her hair”. Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac of Troyes (1040-1105) suggests that simply it is perhaps more likely to mean ‘he should unbraid’, but from a semantic perspective it can really go either way.

The Talmud (Ketuboth 72a) comments; "then he should uncover the woman’s hair"- and "if so", it states, "then we see it once was covered- if it once was covered, then it should always be covered. From here we can infer" says the Talmud, "that G-d would want a woman to have her hair always covered".

The author of the ‘Bad Rabbi’ blog had difficulty in understanding the logic of this talmudic derivation; “Let us review the logic:

.

1. The hair of the woman in ‘The Sotah’ story was uncovered by the Kohen

2. If her hair was uncovered, then it must have been covered to begin with

3. If her hair was covered, then it must have been covered all the time

4. If her hair was covered all the time, then ALL women’s hair must have been covered at all times

5. Therefore all women must have their hair covered!”, to quote his understanding.

But he adds “…does it follow that just because a woman’s hair was uncovered in that act of judgment then all women’s hair must from then on be covered? Maybe the fashion of the time three thousand years ago was to keep hair covered. Does this mean that we must keep with that fashion even now? Should we wear exactly what they were wearing too? Thank goodness the story does not describe the color and the dress this woman was wearing, or else, the rabbis would have required women to wear that dress as well!A more respectable argument for covering of hair could have been made on grounds of modesty. The rabbis could have said that modesty in dress includes covering hair. Certainly those women who wear hats or otherwise cover their hair tend to be less flamboyant then those who flaunt their hair. An argument could have been made that a dignified woman should cover her hair out of modesty. Unfortunately, when asked, Rabbis always point to ‘The Sotah’ story for justification for this law, and only add the modesty issue as an afterthought.”

I pondered his argument against the logic of the Talmud on and off for a few days. Initially I thought- that his whole understanding of the halachic process was faulty; the Talmud here is not trying to prove that it is a biblical imperative for a woman to cover her hair, it cannot be suggesting that- for we know such a thing is not one of the 613 Divine Laws. Rather this form of proof in the Talmud is called an "אסמכתא" ("a leaning"). The point of bringing an asmachta is not to prove something biblically, but just to provide a verse that somewhat assists our idea. But that is not THE proof for woman’s head covering.

It is known to all reading this, that most observant Muslim women cover their hair. It would seem to us that this would be based on the Koran, or perhaps only in the Hadith. When one searches through the Koran though, to one’s surprise, he finds no such verse instructing women to cover their hair!

Why is it then that all observant Muslim women have their hair covered? From the simple understanding that the Koran felt it was understood (in that time and place, at least- I.e. seventh century Saudi Arabia) that women cover their hair. This was understood by all. The Koran does state though, that women should generally be modest. The prophet (Mica 4:8) also bequeaths man to ‘walk modestly with g-d’.

So if the argument can be made that woman should cover their hair, because she had it covered, the argument can also be made that if Moses was wearing shoes, we all should be wearing shoes. True, but who among us is not wearing shoes? It is understood.

That is what I thought at the time. But still that argument is slightly (I stress- slightly faulty) because times and norms change. There is a famous Hassidic dictum that "how do we know that Moses wore a ‘shtreimel’ (the fur hat that Hassidim wear)? For it says “ and Moses came out"!...would Moses come out without a shtriemel?!”. Rabbi Dr. Josef Breuer (1842 –1925) in his book ‘The Jewish Marriage’ brings up this problem. He writes “you might say that the practice of covering the hair does not seem to be a custom followed by Jews only; it is the common heritage of the orient, and thus it brings to mind the inferior position of woman in the east and the degradations that were associated with the harem”. After convincing the Jewish woman that this is a practice of Jews, he adds “And even if upon superficial examination there might be some truth in this argument- might it not be possible that two persons might engage in the same practice, but each for quite different reasons that the other? Does not the oriental also pray…, does not he have temples priests and prophets- and still, would you be so thoughtless as to consider identical certain phenomena and concepts which, while seemingly alike, actually represent ideas diametrically opposed to each other by virtue of the spirit in which each is performed?”

.

(I personally wish to add to his words that the New Testament also testifies to the fact that women of the orient were expected to cover their hair in the time of Paul, for he writes (I Corinthians 11.5) "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven". this is not kept in actuality by most Christians today for the very reason that it was 'only said for that time', though there is a movement today among Evangelical Christians to bring the practice back).

Though the original problem still lingers; but then it hit me- the Bad Rabbis whole premise is off. It does not say that anyone ever uncovered anyone else’s hair. It says ‘this is what you should do in this situation’. In fact there is a wording of our prestated Talmudic derivation on this verse in the Midrash. The Midrash Sifri (ibid.) formulates “this is to teach you that a woman’s hair should be covered”, not “it was covered”, but “should be covered”! In other words the Torah is telling us “this is what you should do in this situation…then uncover her hair”, i.e. I expect her hair to be covered then.

Ah but the eyes of those who do not wish to see will always be blind! For all time, those who have discarded and mocked the commandments which we understand to be of Divine origin, did so out of ignorance and an unwillingness to learn!

עבד