The tznius legacy: not fit for translation?
In the archive, I also found this post:
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 interesting 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. I wonder if it is left out because it includes a requirement to wear stockings that are recognizable as such, which would make sheer stockings prohibited. Many women who would never dream of walking out in uncovered legs, do wear sheer stockings and, perhaps, are not ready to commit to opaque or seamed ones. I’m just guessing, though. Perhaps the author finds the details do not cover everything that has now been banned, like denim or too long or natural-looking sheitels, or falls, and that is the reason for keeping it relatively obscured in Hebrew. From another incident recorded in the book, it seems to be an assumption that girls would not be taught Hebrew.
At the request of Mother In Israel, I provided the text in my own translation in the comments section as follows:
(you can check p. 552 of the book cited above for the original):
1) Head covering constitutes all the hair of the head, and the one who wears a kerchief call a tichel has to be careful that it will be of a size that would cover all the hair and also to pay attention that it will fit behind the head in a fashion that no hair will show even if it is blown by the wind, etc.
2) A woman who goes to her doorway has to be very careful that she be dressed in a tzanua and fitting fashion, appropriate enough to be seen by others.
3) Dresses have to cover the arm, including the elbow in any position even if the arms are stretched, etc.
4) Dresses have to cover the knees even when she sits or walks.
5) Dresses have to cover the upper body so that the collarbone remains covered.
6) There should not be slits in the dresses that reveal part of the knee or leg.
7) Her legs have to be covered with stockings [the word used is “garbiyonim”] when she goes out of the house* and it should be recognizable that she is wearing them. [from this I derived in my post above that the stockings would have to be opaque or seamed to show up as stockings rather than bare legs]
8) It is superfluous to add that it is necessary to pay attention to the ways of tznius and its importance in dress and the styles worn in the matters understood by everyone, on top of what is possible to specify and also there is no need to specify. [The English translation on this part does appear but most inaccurately as: “It is superfluous to mention that care be taken that the style and manner of dress conform to the ideals of tznius [written in Hebrew] and true dignity of a bas Yisrael [in Hebrew]]——————————————————————-
R’ Falk’s book on tznius actually goes into far more detail and is far more machmir—down to tightness of fit and color.
*Note that the proviso for stockings includes a mention of "when she goes out of the house," even though point #2 indicates that in house and outside standards are one and the same if someone comes to the door. So there is a hint here that the stockings are not covering real erva.
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 interesting 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. I wonder if it is left out because it includes a requirement to wear stockings that are recognizable as such, which would make sheer stockings prohibited. Many women who would never dream of walking out in uncovered legs, do wear sheer stockings and, perhaps, are not ready to commit to opaque or seamed ones. I’m just guessing, though. Perhaps the author finds the details do not cover everything that has now been banned, like denim or too long or natural-looking sheitels, or falls, and that is the reason for keeping it relatively obscured in Hebrew. From another incident recorded in the book, it seems to be an assumption that girls would not be taught Hebrew.
At the request of Mother In Israel, I provided the text in my own translation in the comments section as follows:
(you can check p. 552 of the book cited above for the original):
1) Head covering constitutes all the hair of the head, and the one who wears a kerchief call a tichel has to be careful that it will be of a size that would cover all the hair and also to pay attention that it will fit behind the head in a fashion that no hair will show even if it is blown by the wind, etc.
2) A woman who goes to her doorway has to be very careful that she be dressed in a tzanua and fitting fashion, appropriate enough to be seen by others.
3) Dresses have to cover the arm, including the elbow in any position even if the arms are stretched, etc.
4) Dresses have to cover the knees even when she sits or walks.
5) Dresses have to cover the upper body so that the collarbone remains covered.
6) There should not be slits in the dresses that reveal part of the knee or leg.
7) Her legs have to be covered with stockings [the word used is “garbiyonim”] when she goes out of the house* and it should be recognizable that she is wearing them. [from this I derived in my post above that the stockings would have to be opaque or seamed to show up as stockings rather than bare legs]
8) It is superfluous to add that it is necessary to pay attention to the ways of tznius and its importance in dress and the styles worn in the matters understood by everyone, on top of what is possible to specify and also there is no need to specify. [The English translation on this part does appear but most inaccurately as: “It is superfluous to mention that care be taken that the style and manner of dress conform to the ideals of tznius [written in Hebrew] and true dignity of a bas Yisrael [in Hebrew]]——————————————————————-
R’ Falk’s book on tznius actually goes into far more detail and is far more machmir—down to tightness of fit and color.
*Note that the proviso for stockings includes a mention of "when she goes out of the house," even though point #2 indicates that in house and outside standards are one and the same if someone comes to the door. So there is a hint here that the stockings are not covering real erva.
Comments