![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 23 April 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lnvanderb.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello RK, pleased to be edit warring with you again :-). Could you stop tinkering with the orthodox views and then claiming that these are still orthodox views? You're correct that many "customs" of tzeniut have evolved into halakha, but this is hardly localised to tzeniut. There are literally hundreds of instances where custom has become law, and it is utterly pointless to make that point over here (do it on halakha if the mood strikes you).
I also slashed Rabbi Monique's block quote. I've complained to you previously about long quotes that add little to the article, apart from reinforcing a POV you've just represented. She manages to take Reb Moshe's p'sak for extenuating circumstances and turn it into a lechatechilah. That is not how halakha works, unless you happen to be of the persuation that any bedieved can be turned into a heter. (Outsiders, please excuse the jargon.) JFW | T@lk 16:37, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Response:
I'm curious why you've chosen the spelling tzeniut as opposed to tzniut. To my knowledge, tzniut is equally close to the correct pronunciation and is the more common transliteration. -- WikiGnome 19:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For those new to two Jews, three (or more) opinions: Neither Tzniut nor Tzeniut is correct, as is the case with Tznius and Tzenius. It's just more of do you say Shabbat or Shabbos? Same explanation: Israeli Hebrew/Sphardic vs. Ashkenazic/Historical European pronounciation(s). As for the letter "E" in Tz: Tzeniut was moved to Tzniut in 2006 (common spelling). P.S. Re "S" Tznius has also been in place since 2006. Nuts240 ( talk) 14:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
A reference, Ben Cherney's article 'kol Isha', was deleted. It's a perfectly good primary source and an Orthodox one, although it happens to discuss lenient as well as strict perspectives. Deleting sources inconsistent with ones POV is against WP policy. -- Shirahadasha 16:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Why the need to twist this article's views when dealing with Orthodoxy, to convey the views of a minority from the Orthodox Feminist Alliance when the teachings of the rest of Orthodoxy are not like it in any way, shape, size or form on the subject of tzeniut especially regarding kol isha (female voices) in Halakha? IZAK 05:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
IZAK, I found a link to Saul Berman's 1980 Kol Isha article (naturally enough, on the Edah website) and I'm adding it to the references. We've discussed the Sederei Eish's classic responsum before. There are lenient minority views, and historically whole communities who've accepted them. Leniency in this area is not the preserve of JOFA. -- Shirahadasha 01:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I'll second Shirahadasha. The views of "normative" Orthodoxy are already well-represented, and the careful reader will not make a mistake as to what the majority holds. But we cannot excise the minority from this disussion. Witness the following quotation from Rabbi Avraham Shammah: From my childhood [under Syrian Jewish-Orthodox immigrants to Israel] until my adulthood I do not remember closing my ears, nor was I instructed to do so, and I heard the best music, both from the Orient and the West, even when performed by female singers, and even at live performances. Apparently, the principle is based on the fact that there is no intent here for some forbidden pleasure. [People] have testified to me that there were Torah-observant Jews at the performances of the famous Egyptian singer, Umm Kulthum [considered by some to be Egypt’s most famous and distinguished twentieth century singer], and even more than that, they listened to her songs and learned them well, even though some of the songs had inappropriate words. Prayer leaders (among them scholars) used her tunes [in the prayer services], until this day, with the approval of halakhic authorities, who knew quite well the source [of these tunes].
I'm sure many would also like to excise from the public record, the fact that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef drank coffee in Egyptian-Arab coffee houses. Sevendust62 ( talk) 11:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
BS"D
I though that a mechitza had to be taller than the tallest woman. And, unless I am much mistaken, shoulder hieght was a Psak from a modernish posek. Could someone clarify, Please. Shaul avrom 11:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Suggest that disputes over the height of a Mechitza be mentioned in the Mechitza article, not the Tzeniut article. There are multiple positions on what the proper height should be. Best, -- Shirahadasha 17:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Mekhita can be 40 some inches or less tall accordint to Moishe Feinstein, taller than than the tallest person according to most others, usually considered to be 70 in. 88.152.101.127 01:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, we added a section on this issue to the Mechitza article. Please add content and discuss the issue there. Best, -- Shirahadasha 01:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Think it should be mentioned that showing wealth in houses and cars is also discouraged by poskim an untnius, or tnius in speach and action, sitting positions, bicycles, women driving, eating on the street, drinking water in public, etc. 88.152.101.127 01:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Not much here is mentioned on women's hair covering except that it is halakha according to Orthodox Judaism. The article acknowledges that a number of Modern Orthodox Jews do not cover their hair outside of synagogues. Is there any dispute as to whether or not this practice is halakha? I understand that it was relatively common and relatively undisputed practice for Orthodox and Modern Orthodox women to leave their hair uncovered until recently? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.222.101 ( talk) 19:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure the irony of the following sentence early in the article isn't lost on anyone:
"The Talmud boasts that humility is one of the characteristic traits of the Jewish people. (Talmud, Tractate Yevamot 79a.)"
Perhaps a rephrasing would be appropriate?
I think a section should be added about the historical practices of modesty among Jewish men and women as mentioned in the Talmudic literature... which I see no where mentioned on this site. I have already added a bit about this in the
Modesty article under the Jewish section. I believe this is important due to apprently mass ignorance about the high level of modesty many of even our not so distant ancestors kept. Throughout practically all non-European communities the same level of modesty in dress was observed up unto this last century - just as it is mentioned in the Talmud BEFORE the rise of Islam. Some examples of a small minority which still practice such levels of modesty are some of the most traditional individuals among
Yemenite Jews and
Ethiopian Jews. The particular aspect of traditional tzniut among these various communities concerned use of the radheedh. I already wrote a little about this in the Jewish section of the article on
Modesty. There I kept it short. Is anyone willing to put together a similar section concerning tzniut in the Talmudic period unto the Middle Ages and/or on tzniut as observed in the majority of non-European communities up unto this last century? I believe this information must be included somehow in this article...
Omedyashar
23:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Here are some references: In the photo section of Mori Yosef Qafehh's book Halikhot Teimon one sees how Yemenite Jewish women of the area of Sa'ana dressed in private and in public. They wore a radheedh in public which they would pull over their face leaving their eyes exposed, when they would encounter a man with whom they were unfamiliar. The style of Jewish women's hair/head-covering in Yemen was very clearly distinct from the style of the muslim women. The Jewish women of Sa'ana area placed the radheedh on top of the gargoush - a hood type haircovering which was slightly coned at the top.
There is a book in English called "The Yemenites: 2,000 years of Jewish History," with photos showing how Jewish women of other regions in Yemen dressed/dress.
________________________________________
Israel & Ishmael ( Studies in Muslim - Jewish Relations) Edited by Tudor Parfitt in chapter titled "Cover Her Face:" Jewish Women & Veiling in Islaamic Civilisation by Yedida K. Stillman pages 13 - 29 [also includes a chapter on the Hemerayit Kingdom of Yemen]
Pictures of female Jewish dress (references learned from the above book):
Jewish woman in Smyrna, Turky in late 1700's/early 1800's; painting of Jewish woman indoors -- hair covered face exposed/ outdoors -- only eyes exposed; From "A History of Jewish Costume, 1973, page 42; A. Rubens.
Actual photo of Jewish woman in Baghdad, Iraq wearing a radheedh which the Jews there called khiliy and the Muslims called pica -- from "Album of Jewry of Iraq," A. Twena Ramla, 1981 p.171
Actual photo of a group of several Jewish women from Tunis, Tunisia in early 20th century visiting a cemetary, all but one wearing traditional dress - consists of a large radheedh called 'tantar,' which sits on top of a cone type hat the women wear underneath it; The radheedh practically covers them entirely; from Robert Attal. [Here is a similar and clearly related photo I found online: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/pages/J12I276T.jpg ]
Actual photo of Jewish Berber woman from Tafilatt/lt?, Morocco wearing radheedh; Jean Besancenot Collection.
Actual photo: Rabat - Les mellahs de Rabat - Sale', Paris 1927; J. Goulven. Omedyashar 20:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
the ark is covered by the parochet a curtain to hide the scroll definitely worth the trouble because it's holy! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.199.249.30 ( talk) 20:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
This article mistakenly states that "Conservative, Liberal, and Reform congregations do not separate the sexes during services." In fact, some Conservative synagogues do employ a mechitza. I have edited accordingly.
Writing "ground rules", especially extra-stringent ones, is just plain inappropriate. Ankles must be covered? Nobody holds that to be the law. Sleeves must cover the wrists? Wrong, only the elbows. Not a single hair may be visible? Wrong again! A tefach of hair may be showing according to most poskim - covering everything is only a stringency. The other points are subject to argument, so I won't go into them now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.25.204.163 ( talk) 18:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I see that like many hot-button issues, hair covering within tznius is going through many revisions. I do not believe that the current state of the article about wigs is accurate. For example: 1) I wrote modern wigs, which was changed to modern practice of wearing wigs. This is simply untrue. It is by no means a modern practice. My reference to various sources, including Rema was edited out. It actually goes back much further than that, to the Rishon, Yesha d'Trani. 2) Rav Elyashiv himself does not assur *all* wigs, as he made clear in a recent conversation made public. It will likely get edited back and forth a bunch of times, with all sorts of inaccurate information. A pity. joshwaxman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.213.80 ( talk) 20:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
A single-purpose IP has lately been inserting the blatantly false claim that hair-covering by married women is merely a "custom" rather than a law. Of course this is like claiming that wearing seat belts is an American custom not required by law; in fact it's not such a widespread custom, because many people don't wear them, but there can be no question at all that it is a law, and any attempt to insert "another point of view" would be deleted instantly and without comment. It's sad that I feel the need to add this comment to justify my deletion of an equally blatant falsehood. -- Zsero ( talk) 17:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
A new anonymous IP (that has never edited before) is now claiming that the Mishna says uncovered hair is merely a breach of dat yehudit — an interpretation explicitly rejected by the Gemara! -- Zsero ( talk) 17:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
And more IP addresses that have never edited before show up and start contradicting an open gemara. The gemara's words are not ambiguous; there is only one way to read them: that when the mishna says going in the street with uncovered hair violates dat yehudit it means hair that is covered by a basket, and that going with literally uncovered hair is de'oraita. That is what the gemara says, and the gemara is the authority and source for jewish law; no later source can contradict it, and no earlier source matters. So what are these IPs on about, and where did they all suddenly come from? -- Zsero ( talk) 19:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the Columbia IP address is me... just created a username. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Expert483 ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Can someone clarify:
...it doesn't seem to make sense. AndyJones ( talk) 20:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The "not to be worn in the presence of men" statement is dubious, IMO. It depends on how you define pants. I have lived in modern orthodox communities and religious settlements in Israel where women wore palazzo or gaucho style pants, or split skirts (which are halachically pants) with fitted blouses and a head-covering. One could argue such women are very left-wing and progressive orthodox in their manner of dress, but they are still within the orthodox fold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.235.119 ( talk) 20:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
In the female singing voice section I think there is a serious case of undue weight for the so-called "novel ruling". Its arguments are expounded upon, many quotations given. Its opposition is treated likewise. I think one sentence is all that is needed. Debresser ( talk) 06:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Haroldsultan has made edits which suggest that tzniut should be more leniently interpreted than what is currently described, on this page, as the normative Orthodox position. I think that editing a page such as Tzniut is more serious than many people give it credit for, because Wikipedia editors can make real contributions to Jewish outreach. They usually don't get to see the contributions they make, but people they might not expect are reading the pages. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of Jewish people are likely to view the Tzniut page in the near future. In practice if not in Halakha, English Wikipedia's pages are some of the most authoritative Judaism related pages on the Web, because Wikipedia is so many people's first stop for research. For example, I was directed to this page as part of the independent Judaism related study I am doing, connected to an organized program I participated in. The perceived stringency of Orthodox Judaism alienates many Jews from the religion as a whole, and if a more lenient view than what is described in the articles exists, presenting it on Wikipedia will help to combat that perception. I, for one, was happy to see the lenient view. The last thing we want is for Jews to become angry with Judaism because of what they believe is over-restrictiveness--and people really do use Wikipedia as a source for their Jewish knowledge. -- AFriedman (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm still convinced that he believes in what he's writing, partly because of an off-Wikipedia email correspondence I've had with him. I'd like to find out where he got his ideas from, and whether those sources would be verifiable by this encyclopedia's standards. In the meantime, if you would add the additional sources you mentioned that support what Wikipedia already says, I would find those helpful. -- AFriedman (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
OK. I'll try and conduct my own investigation of whether verifiable sources exist to back up his edits. -- AFriedman (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Debresser. -- AFriedman (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
That was quite an astounding edit. Not everyone agrees with Maimonides on every issue, but that's quite a strong stance on his part. I think you've also presented it very well. -- AFriedman (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
That's so true. I'd like to learn more Talmud and Rabbinic commentary myself. -- AFriedman (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Re: a shiur, that might be very nice. I'll have more time after Dec. 23, when my last final exam is over. What part of the world do you come from, and what branch of Judaism do you belong to? I'd be interested in seeing any Userboxes you put on your Userpage, if you're so inclined. Also, I think Wikiversity might be an interesting place to develop pages related to Judaism and other topics. Over there, you're allowed to do OR and develop learning resources of many different types. -- AFriedman (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion seems to be going off topic and for people who are interested in the new topic, I'm moving the discussion to Zsero's talk page. -- AFriedman (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Howdy! I do understand AFriedman's comments above that many people turn to WP for authentic knowledge and it is a powerful tool for kiruv. That being said, kiruv can not be the goal of any WP article as it is inherently a POV perspective and in violation of soapboxing. If we are creating an article on tzniut than it should present the facts. Statements like:
Conservative and Reform Judaism do not regard these rules as applicable.
means (IMHO): Understand that these are the rules. C & R Jews do not follow them. This is POV-pushing. A few lines later in the article:
Conservative and Reform Judaism chooses not to follow...
Anyway, you get my drift. Kiruv is great, but this is not the place. Joe407 ( talk) 16:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Joe, I agree with your edits and I've put a couple of templates in the article. In terms of kiruv vs. POV pushing, I also agree that the goal of a Wikipedia article should not be kiruv. However, everyone has a point of view and I do think that the desire to represent one's POV (e.g. by editing Judaism-related Wikipedia articles with kiruv in mind) is a legitimate reason to edit Wikipedia. It is certainly consistent with the desire to build an encyclopedia, and in a good editor's hands tends to lead to valuable contributions. Few people who know about a subject can be truly unbiased, and article neutrality tends to be achieved by individual editors coming in with thoughts of their own, working with other editors and being respectful of other editors' POVs even when they are not the same. The point where someone is going against WP policy about POV pushing might be when that person is actively getting in the way of other editors who are working to make the article NPOV, or violating some other policy about how to behave on WP.
As an analogy: An editor with a great deal of pride in New York City recently added Frederick Douglass' view of his time in New York City to the article about the American historical figure Frederick Douglass. I don't think there's any problem with an edit like that.
Re: Reform Judaism, obviously the best way to verify the article's information is by looking at Reform responsa. I don't know what they would say offhand. -- AFriedman (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
One issue with this is that something like a declaration of the CCAR would only apply to the U.S. Mzk1 ( talk) 22:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I think this article is conflating three separate topics:
Modesty (character and dress)
Separation between men and women (avoiding emmisions)
Separation between men and women (avoiding going too far)
I am not suggesting removing or splitting anything, only putting a statement at the top that issues of separation of men and women are included. Is there another article on this somewhere?
Also, shouldn't the article be titled Modesty in Judaism, and redirect from Tzniut? English, you know.
Finally, the Observances section is a mishmash. It shouldn't be too hard to go through the Shulchan Aruch (one chapter, there), check the commentaries, and write something more specific. Every basic work, starting from Maimonidies, has more or less the same chapter. I would think it qualifies as a secondary source. (One problem with Judaism articles is that a lot of things are too obvious to someone in the inside to be written about.) Mzk1 ( talk) 21:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to add this but it won't let me:
Western Sephardim and other Orthodox Jewish groups have a long standing rabbinic tradition to hear women sing in live performance. Women in Spanish Jewish circles sang even love ballads with men in duos since medieval times with no objection. According to this view, the prohibition of kol isha applies only in limited circumstances causing sexual arousal. [1]
![]() |
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Tzniut and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here. |
Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." Articles do not have to be peer-reviewed to be in WP, but they do have to be from "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (emphasis added) per the SOURCES section of the verifiability policy. I agree with Debresser that the source in question does not meet that standard not because it is not peer-reviewed per se but because the publisher, http://www.jewishideas.org, does not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy needed to qualify it as a reliable source. It appears to be largely a one-man (or actually, one-rabbi) operated website and is very similar to a blog or other self-published site whose use is generally prohibited by this section of that same policy. It seeks to take on the airs or trappings of an serious academic institution, but I can find no evidence that it has yet proven itself as such. (Bear also in mind that even papers published on major university websites are frequently turned down as reliable sources when they're just the work of individual scholars and have not received any peer review or similar vetting, such as that by a PhD committee.) |
What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.— TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Tzniut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I added the "needs better sources" flags because this article is full of assertions without proper sourcing, either at all or with very poor sources. Please refer to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. When adding a source, ask yourself, does this source authoritatively make this point? A popular magazine or e-journal that is not undergoing rigorous editorial scrutiny is probably not very authoritative. Narc ( talk) 05:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the sources should be improved. I was reading the section on Dress and expecting some clear Halachic laws based on primary sources, but instead it detailed common practices, sourced from blogs. Please can someone add sources from Shulchan Aruch and other Halachic works. I think a book written in the past 50 years is useful for showing examples of how the laws have been applied in recent years, but not in showing what the laws say, since they often reference earlier sources, which I would like to see. The point is to detail the actual Halacha. Thanks Jack Hodari ( talk) 09:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
please see above spelling re +2022 Nuts240 ( talk) 15:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 23 April 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lnvanderb.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello RK, pleased to be edit warring with you again :-). Could you stop tinkering with the orthodox views and then claiming that these are still orthodox views? You're correct that many "customs" of tzeniut have evolved into halakha, but this is hardly localised to tzeniut. There are literally hundreds of instances where custom has become law, and it is utterly pointless to make that point over here (do it on halakha if the mood strikes you).
I also slashed Rabbi Monique's block quote. I've complained to you previously about long quotes that add little to the article, apart from reinforcing a POV you've just represented. She manages to take Reb Moshe's p'sak for extenuating circumstances and turn it into a lechatechilah. That is not how halakha works, unless you happen to be of the persuation that any bedieved can be turned into a heter. (Outsiders, please excuse the jargon.) JFW | T@lk 16:37, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Response:
I'm curious why you've chosen the spelling tzeniut as opposed to tzniut. To my knowledge, tzniut is equally close to the correct pronunciation and is the more common transliteration. -- WikiGnome 19:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For those new to two Jews, three (or more) opinions: Neither Tzniut nor Tzeniut is correct, as is the case with Tznius and Tzenius. It's just more of do you say Shabbat or Shabbos? Same explanation: Israeli Hebrew/Sphardic vs. Ashkenazic/Historical European pronounciation(s). As for the letter "E" in Tz: Tzeniut was moved to Tzniut in 2006 (common spelling). P.S. Re "S" Tznius has also been in place since 2006. Nuts240 ( talk) 14:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
A reference, Ben Cherney's article 'kol Isha', was deleted. It's a perfectly good primary source and an Orthodox one, although it happens to discuss lenient as well as strict perspectives. Deleting sources inconsistent with ones POV is against WP policy. -- Shirahadasha 16:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Why the need to twist this article's views when dealing with Orthodoxy, to convey the views of a minority from the Orthodox Feminist Alliance when the teachings of the rest of Orthodoxy are not like it in any way, shape, size or form on the subject of tzeniut especially regarding kol isha (female voices) in Halakha? IZAK 05:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
IZAK, I found a link to Saul Berman's 1980 Kol Isha article (naturally enough, on the Edah website) and I'm adding it to the references. We've discussed the Sederei Eish's classic responsum before. There are lenient minority views, and historically whole communities who've accepted them. Leniency in this area is not the preserve of JOFA. -- Shirahadasha 01:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I'll second Shirahadasha. The views of "normative" Orthodoxy are already well-represented, and the careful reader will not make a mistake as to what the majority holds. But we cannot excise the minority from this disussion. Witness the following quotation from Rabbi Avraham Shammah: From my childhood [under Syrian Jewish-Orthodox immigrants to Israel] until my adulthood I do not remember closing my ears, nor was I instructed to do so, and I heard the best music, both from the Orient and the West, even when performed by female singers, and even at live performances. Apparently, the principle is based on the fact that there is no intent here for some forbidden pleasure. [People] have testified to me that there were Torah-observant Jews at the performances of the famous Egyptian singer, Umm Kulthum [considered by some to be Egypt’s most famous and distinguished twentieth century singer], and even more than that, they listened to her songs and learned them well, even though some of the songs had inappropriate words. Prayer leaders (among them scholars) used her tunes [in the prayer services], until this day, with the approval of halakhic authorities, who knew quite well the source [of these tunes].
I'm sure many would also like to excise from the public record, the fact that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef drank coffee in Egyptian-Arab coffee houses. Sevendust62 ( talk) 11:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
BS"D
I though that a mechitza had to be taller than the tallest woman. And, unless I am much mistaken, shoulder hieght was a Psak from a modernish posek. Could someone clarify, Please. Shaul avrom 11:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Suggest that disputes over the height of a Mechitza be mentioned in the Mechitza article, not the Tzeniut article. There are multiple positions on what the proper height should be. Best, -- Shirahadasha 17:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Mekhita can be 40 some inches or less tall accordint to Moishe Feinstein, taller than than the tallest person according to most others, usually considered to be 70 in. 88.152.101.127 01:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, we added a section on this issue to the Mechitza article. Please add content and discuss the issue there. Best, -- Shirahadasha 01:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Think it should be mentioned that showing wealth in houses and cars is also discouraged by poskim an untnius, or tnius in speach and action, sitting positions, bicycles, women driving, eating on the street, drinking water in public, etc. 88.152.101.127 01:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Not much here is mentioned on women's hair covering except that it is halakha according to Orthodox Judaism. The article acknowledges that a number of Modern Orthodox Jews do not cover their hair outside of synagogues. Is there any dispute as to whether or not this practice is halakha? I understand that it was relatively common and relatively undisputed practice for Orthodox and Modern Orthodox women to leave their hair uncovered until recently? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.222.101 ( talk) 19:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure the irony of the following sentence early in the article isn't lost on anyone:
"The Talmud boasts that humility is one of the characteristic traits of the Jewish people. (Talmud, Tractate Yevamot 79a.)"
Perhaps a rephrasing would be appropriate?
I think a section should be added about the historical practices of modesty among Jewish men and women as mentioned in the Talmudic literature... which I see no where mentioned on this site. I have already added a bit about this in the
Modesty article under the Jewish section. I believe this is important due to apprently mass ignorance about the high level of modesty many of even our not so distant ancestors kept. Throughout practically all non-European communities the same level of modesty in dress was observed up unto this last century - just as it is mentioned in the Talmud BEFORE the rise of Islam. Some examples of a small minority which still practice such levels of modesty are some of the most traditional individuals among
Yemenite Jews and
Ethiopian Jews. The particular aspect of traditional tzniut among these various communities concerned use of the radheedh. I already wrote a little about this in the Jewish section of the article on
Modesty. There I kept it short. Is anyone willing to put together a similar section concerning tzniut in the Talmudic period unto the Middle Ages and/or on tzniut as observed in the majority of non-European communities up unto this last century? I believe this information must be included somehow in this article...
Omedyashar
23:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Here are some references: In the photo section of Mori Yosef Qafehh's book Halikhot Teimon one sees how Yemenite Jewish women of the area of Sa'ana dressed in private and in public. They wore a radheedh in public which they would pull over their face leaving their eyes exposed, when they would encounter a man with whom they were unfamiliar. The style of Jewish women's hair/head-covering in Yemen was very clearly distinct from the style of the muslim women. The Jewish women of Sa'ana area placed the radheedh on top of the gargoush - a hood type haircovering which was slightly coned at the top.
There is a book in English called "The Yemenites: 2,000 years of Jewish History," with photos showing how Jewish women of other regions in Yemen dressed/dress.
________________________________________
Israel & Ishmael ( Studies in Muslim - Jewish Relations) Edited by Tudor Parfitt in chapter titled "Cover Her Face:" Jewish Women & Veiling in Islaamic Civilisation by Yedida K. Stillman pages 13 - 29 [also includes a chapter on the Hemerayit Kingdom of Yemen]
Pictures of female Jewish dress (references learned from the above book):
Jewish woman in Smyrna, Turky in late 1700's/early 1800's; painting of Jewish woman indoors -- hair covered face exposed/ outdoors -- only eyes exposed; From "A History of Jewish Costume, 1973, page 42; A. Rubens.
Actual photo of Jewish woman in Baghdad, Iraq wearing a radheedh which the Jews there called khiliy and the Muslims called pica -- from "Album of Jewry of Iraq," A. Twena Ramla, 1981 p.171
Actual photo of a group of several Jewish women from Tunis, Tunisia in early 20th century visiting a cemetary, all but one wearing traditional dress - consists of a large radheedh called 'tantar,' which sits on top of a cone type hat the women wear underneath it; The radheedh practically covers them entirely; from Robert Attal. [Here is a similar and clearly related photo I found online: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/pages/J12I276T.jpg ]
Actual photo of Jewish Berber woman from Tafilatt/lt?, Morocco wearing radheedh; Jean Besancenot Collection.
Actual photo: Rabat - Les mellahs de Rabat - Sale', Paris 1927; J. Goulven. Omedyashar 20:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
the ark is covered by the parochet a curtain to hide the scroll definitely worth the trouble because it's holy! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.199.249.30 ( talk) 20:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
This article mistakenly states that "Conservative, Liberal, and Reform congregations do not separate the sexes during services." In fact, some Conservative synagogues do employ a mechitza. I have edited accordingly.
Writing "ground rules", especially extra-stringent ones, is just plain inappropriate. Ankles must be covered? Nobody holds that to be the law. Sleeves must cover the wrists? Wrong, only the elbows. Not a single hair may be visible? Wrong again! A tefach of hair may be showing according to most poskim - covering everything is only a stringency. The other points are subject to argument, so I won't go into them now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.25.204.163 ( talk) 18:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I see that like many hot-button issues, hair covering within tznius is going through many revisions. I do not believe that the current state of the article about wigs is accurate. For example: 1) I wrote modern wigs, which was changed to modern practice of wearing wigs. This is simply untrue. It is by no means a modern practice. My reference to various sources, including Rema was edited out. It actually goes back much further than that, to the Rishon, Yesha d'Trani. 2) Rav Elyashiv himself does not assur *all* wigs, as he made clear in a recent conversation made public. It will likely get edited back and forth a bunch of times, with all sorts of inaccurate information. A pity. joshwaxman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.213.80 ( talk) 20:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
A single-purpose IP has lately been inserting the blatantly false claim that hair-covering by married women is merely a "custom" rather than a law. Of course this is like claiming that wearing seat belts is an American custom not required by law; in fact it's not such a widespread custom, because many people don't wear them, but there can be no question at all that it is a law, and any attempt to insert "another point of view" would be deleted instantly and without comment. It's sad that I feel the need to add this comment to justify my deletion of an equally blatant falsehood. -- Zsero ( talk) 17:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
A new anonymous IP (that has never edited before) is now claiming that the Mishna says uncovered hair is merely a breach of dat yehudit — an interpretation explicitly rejected by the Gemara! -- Zsero ( talk) 17:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
And more IP addresses that have never edited before show up and start contradicting an open gemara. The gemara's words are not ambiguous; there is only one way to read them: that when the mishna says going in the street with uncovered hair violates dat yehudit it means hair that is covered by a basket, and that going with literally uncovered hair is de'oraita. That is what the gemara says, and the gemara is the authority and source for jewish law; no later source can contradict it, and no earlier source matters. So what are these IPs on about, and where did they all suddenly come from? -- Zsero ( talk) 19:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the Columbia IP address is me... just created a username. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Expert483 ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Can someone clarify:
...it doesn't seem to make sense. AndyJones ( talk) 20:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The "not to be worn in the presence of men" statement is dubious, IMO. It depends on how you define pants. I have lived in modern orthodox communities and religious settlements in Israel where women wore palazzo or gaucho style pants, or split skirts (which are halachically pants) with fitted blouses and a head-covering. One could argue such women are very left-wing and progressive orthodox in their manner of dress, but they are still within the orthodox fold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.235.119 ( talk) 20:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
In the female singing voice section I think there is a serious case of undue weight for the so-called "novel ruling". Its arguments are expounded upon, many quotations given. Its opposition is treated likewise. I think one sentence is all that is needed. Debresser ( talk) 06:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Haroldsultan has made edits which suggest that tzniut should be more leniently interpreted than what is currently described, on this page, as the normative Orthodox position. I think that editing a page such as Tzniut is more serious than many people give it credit for, because Wikipedia editors can make real contributions to Jewish outreach. They usually don't get to see the contributions they make, but people they might not expect are reading the pages. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of Jewish people are likely to view the Tzniut page in the near future. In practice if not in Halakha, English Wikipedia's pages are some of the most authoritative Judaism related pages on the Web, because Wikipedia is so many people's first stop for research. For example, I was directed to this page as part of the independent Judaism related study I am doing, connected to an organized program I participated in. The perceived stringency of Orthodox Judaism alienates many Jews from the religion as a whole, and if a more lenient view than what is described in the articles exists, presenting it on Wikipedia will help to combat that perception. I, for one, was happy to see the lenient view. The last thing we want is for Jews to become angry with Judaism because of what they believe is over-restrictiveness--and people really do use Wikipedia as a source for their Jewish knowledge. -- AFriedman (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm still convinced that he believes in what he's writing, partly because of an off-Wikipedia email correspondence I've had with him. I'd like to find out where he got his ideas from, and whether those sources would be verifiable by this encyclopedia's standards. In the meantime, if you would add the additional sources you mentioned that support what Wikipedia already says, I would find those helpful. -- AFriedman (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
OK. I'll try and conduct my own investigation of whether verifiable sources exist to back up his edits. -- AFriedman (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Debresser. -- AFriedman (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
That was quite an astounding edit. Not everyone agrees with Maimonides on every issue, but that's quite a strong stance on his part. I think you've also presented it very well. -- AFriedman (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
That's so true. I'd like to learn more Talmud and Rabbinic commentary myself. -- AFriedman (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Re: a shiur, that might be very nice. I'll have more time after Dec. 23, when my last final exam is over. What part of the world do you come from, and what branch of Judaism do you belong to? I'd be interested in seeing any Userboxes you put on your Userpage, if you're so inclined. Also, I think Wikiversity might be an interesting place to develop pages related to Judaism and other topics. Over there, you're allowed to do OR and develop learning resources of many different types. -- AFriedman (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion seems to be going off topic and for people who are interested in the new topic, I'm moving the discussion to Zsero's talk page. -- AFriedman (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Howdy! I do understand AFriedman's comments above that many people turn to WP for authentic knowledge and it is a powerful tool for kiruv. That being said, kiruv can not be the goal of any WP article as it is inherently a POV perspective and in violation of soapboxing. If we are creating an article on tzniut than it should present the facts. Statements like:
Conservative and Reform Judaism do not regard these rules as applicable.
means (IMHO): Understand that these are the rules. C & R Jews do not follow them. This is POV-pushing. A few lines later in the article:
Conservative and Reform Judaism chooses not to follow...
Anyway, you get my drift. Kiruv is great, but this is not the place. Joe407 ( talk) 16:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Joe, I agree with your edits and I've put a couple of templates in the article. In terms of kiruv vs. POV pushing, I also agree that the goal of a Wikipedia article should not be kiruv. However, everyone has a point of view and I do think that the desire to represent one's POV (e.g. by editing Judaism-related Wikipedia articles with kiruv in mind) is a legitimate reason to edit Wikipedia. It is certainly consistent with the desire to build an encyclopedia, and in a good editor's hands tends to lead to valuable contributions. Few people who know about a subject can be truly unbiased, and article neutrality tends to be achieved by individual editors coming in with thoughts of their own, working with other editors and being respectful of other editors' POVs even when they are not the same. The point where someone is going against WP policy about POV pushing might be when that person is actively getting in the way of other editors who are working to make the article NPOV, or violating some other policy about how to behave on WP.
As an analogy: An editor with a great deal of pride in New York City recently added Frederick Douglass' view of his time in New York City to the article about the American historical figure Frederick Douglass. I don't think there's any problem with an edit like that.
Re: Reform Judaism, obviously the best way to verify the article's information is by looking at Reform responsa. I don't know what they would say offhand. -- AFriedman (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
One issue with this is that something like a declaration of the CCAR would only apply to the U.S. Mzk1 ( talk) 22:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I think this article is conflating three separate topics:
Modesty (character and dress)
Separation between men and women (avoiding emmisions)
Separation between men and women (avoiding going too far)
I am not suggesting removing or splitting anything, only putting a statement at the top that issues of separation of men and women are included. Is there another article on this somewhere?
Also, shouldn't the article be titled Modesty in Judaism, and redirect from Tzniut? English, you know.
Finally, the Observances section is a mishmash. It shouldn't be too hard to go through the Shulchan Aruch (one chapter, there), check the commentaries, and write something more specific. Every basic work, starting from Maimonidies, has more or less the same chapter. I would think it qualifies as a secondary source. (One problem with Judaism articles is that a lot of things are too obvious to someone in the inside to be written about.) Mzk1 ( talk) 21:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to add this but it won't let me:
Western Sephardim and other Orthodox Jewish groups have a long standing rabbinic tradition to hear women sing in live performance. Women in Spanish Jewish circles sang even love ballads with men in duos since medieval times with no objection. According to this view, the prohibition of kol isha applies only in limited circumstances causing sexual arousal. [1]
![]() |
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Tzniut and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here. |
Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." Articles do not have to be peer-reviewed to be in WP, but they do have to be from "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (emphasis added) per the SOURCES section of the verifiability policy. I agree with Debresser that the source in question does not meet that standard not because it is not peer-reviewed per se but because the publisher, http://www.jewishideas.org, does not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy needed to qualify it as a reliable source. It appears to be largely a one-man (or actually, one-rabbi) operated website and is very similar to a blog or other self-published site whose use is generally prohibited by this section of that same policy. It seeks to take on the airs or trappings of an serious academic institution, but I can find no evidence that it has yet proven itself as such. (Bear also in mind that even papers published on major university websites are frequently turned down as reliable sources when they're just the work of individual scholars and have not received any peer review or similar vetting, such as that by a PhD committee.) |
What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.— TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Tzniut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I added the "needs better sources" flags because this article is full of assertions without proper sourcing, either at all or with very poor sources. Please refer to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. When adding a source, ask yourself, does this source authoritatively make this point? A popular magazine or e-journal that is not undergoing rigorous editorial scrutiny is probably not very authoritative. Narc ( talk) 05:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the sources should be improved. I was reading the section on Dress and expecting some clear Halachic laws based on primary sources, but instead it detailed common practices, sourced from blogs. Please can someone add sources from Shulchan Aruch and other Halachic works. I think a book written in the past 50 years is useful for showing examples of how the laws have been applied in recent years, but not in showing what the laws say, since they often reference earlier sources, which I would like to see. The point is to detail the actual Halacha. Thanks Jack Hodari ( talk) 09:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
please see above spelling re +2022 Nuts240 ( talk) 15:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)