Homosexual ORIENTATION:  Did the Talmudic Sages Know?

[VISIT MY RELATED YOUTUBE CHANNEL:  https://goo.gl/MIRt7V ]

There are several cases where they made halachot (religious guidelines) regarding very specific matters, such as for example tumtum and androgenos.

RIGHT.  SO THOSE I WOULD SAY, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE INTIMATE MATTERS, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INTIMACY OF THE MATTER BECAUSE THERE ARE HALACHOT OF SEX AND THAT IS AN INTIMATE ACT REGARDLESS OF WHO DOES IT.

THAT HAS MORE HALACHOT IMPLICATIONS BECAUSE IT HAS AN ACTUAL PHYSICAL CHANGE IN THE PERSON WHICH DOES HAVE DIRECT IMPLICATIONS. SO THOSE, EVEN THOUGH THEY MIGHT BE VERY SMALL…  THEY… THEY…

Did you know they’re a smaller population than the population of people who are attracted only to their own gender?

YEAH. FOR SURE.

They’re even more of a minority than homosexuals.  And also, you said ‘;BECAUSE IT’S PHYSICAL,’’ but according to most research homosexuality is also something which is physically present.  And the way in which it developes or influences a person’s psyche, occurs as a result of different factors, whether hormonal or… It’s physical.

WELL YEAH, BUT WE DON’T MAKE RULES FOR DEPRESSED PEOPLE, WHO HAVE MEDICAL DEPRESSION…

Modern day posqim (Jewish legal experts) make guidelines…

I MEAN NOWADAYS THAT IT’S MORE DEVELOPED…

The thing is that now these things are more known than back then.  If someone thinks that the ancient Jewish Sages always knew everything, then you really have a question; but historically speaking, objectively speaking, if you look in the Talmud, you even look in the Torah and throughout the Jewish Bible, you see that although God gave 613 commandments, they are basically 613 eternal principles, guidelines by which we are to live our lives and relate to the world -- they’re essentially guiding principles.  Because if God had given every single law or every detail for every single possible situation, the book would be too thick.  It would be impractical.  So instead, God gave over this authority to apply these principles to different situations -- He gave this authority to the Great Sanhedrin.  Now, you see in the Talmud that there were generations that the ancient Sages did not have certain laws or decrees, but then after they saw that there was a need - they issued a law (halacha).  So the fact that they did not make such and such law at a certain point in time didn’t mean that they thought it was unnecessary.  It could also be a result of simply not knowing that the issue existed.

YEAH.  BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS ALMOST 100% FALSE.

Can you give evidence?

YEAH.  BECAUSE ESPECIALLY WHEN, LET’S SAY REGARDING PURIM, THAT THE ANCIENT SAGES TAUGHT THAT WHEN AHASUERUS MADE A PARTY FOR THE MEN AND THE WOMEN MADE THEIR OWN PARTY -- THAT THE WOMEN HAD LESBIAN SEX IN THEIR PARTY.   AND ALSO YOU HAVE ROME, AND GREECE!!  A HUGE PROPONENT!!

I know.  I know.

THERE’S NO…  I HIGHLY… NOBODY CAN KNOW ANYTHING 100%, BUT I WOULD SAY IT IS 99.9% THAT THE ANCIENT JEWISH SAGES KNEW ABOUT A HOMOSEXUAL ORIENTATION.  THERE IS EVEN A PLACE IN THE TORAH WHERE IT SAYS THAT ISRAEL WAS DOING IMMORAL THINGS AND THE ANCIENT SAGES EXPLAINED THAT THEY WEREN’T JUST HAVING RELATIONS WITH THE WOMEN OF OTHER NATIONS.

Right.  With regard to their knowledge as to the existence of the homosexual orientation as opposed to just a specific sexual action -- they are two distinct things -- does it not say in the Bible, regarding the men of Sodom, that from the oldest to the youngest they surrounded the house of Lot?

RIGHT.

And they, as a group, requested to know the male visitors.  Do you think that all these men of Sodom were homosexual in their orientation?

I DON’T THINK IT MATTERED.  BECAUSE AGAIN, IT WAS MORE ABOUT THE ACT THAN IT WAS ABOUT THE ORIENTATION.

Correct!  Now about Greece, and Rome, and Ahasuerus, and so forth…?

YES.  ACTUALLY… THERE IS A PHILOSOPHER -- THE ONE WHO A PLATONIC RELATIONSHIP IS NAMED AFTER -- HE WAS OUTSPOKEN ABOUT THAT HAVING SEX IN ANCIENT GREECE, IN ANCIENT GREECE WOMEN WERE LIKE LOWER THAN SLAVES, SO IN ANCIENT GREECE IT WAS CONSIDERED NEGATIVE TO HAVE SEX WITH A WOMAN.  IT WAS EXCLUSIVELY FOR BETWEEN MALES.

That’s what I was trying to explain.  So there’s a difference between doing actions as a result of a philosophical view on life, such as women being lower than slaves or that it is ignoble to be with women too much, so therefore as a society ‘we’ are going to be sexual with men more -- this is also distinct from a homosexual orientation. (Etoro and Sambia tribes are modern examples)  In the same way that in prisons men might be with other men, even voluntarily, simply because they have no other option (no women), likewise in these societies their philosophy makes it so that they have no other option.  In the same manner that a gay man can have sex with a woman even though he is not drawn to her, so also a straight man, who are not drawn to men, are able to enjoy sex with men…

RIGHT.  BUT I DON’T KNOW HOW THAT FALLS INTO ANYTHING…

If we say that the ancient Jewish Sages were simply unaware of this as an orientation and they only knew of homosexual sex as a way to debase people, such as Nebuchadnezzar; when different kings would come to him, he would rape them; or like in the context of social activity, sort of how some people in this region will sexually use donkeys, even though they are not attracted to donkeys -- so if the ancient Sages had known of a homosexual orientation and not merely acts of taking advantage of people sexually, if we say that they would have made practical guidelines about it, then we could say that there is a need to make laws about it, but they just didn’t know of a homosexual orientation; but if say they DID know about a homosexual orientation, then why didn’t they make any practical guidelines regarding this orientation?  ...for there is definitely a concept of distancing oneself from sin, especially severe sins.

BUT IT’S NOT EVEN A USEFUL QUESTION TO ASK THAT.  THE USEFUL QUESTION TO ASK IS, OKAY, RIGHT NOW IN MODERN DAYS THAT THERE IS A KNOWN PHYSICAL AND PERSONALITY ASPECT…

...and emotional…

...WHAT ARE THE PRACTICAL RELIGIOUS GUIDELINES THAT CAN BE GIVEN BY EXPERTS IN JEWISH LAW?  THEY NEED TO BE TRAINED TO BE ABLE TO TALK TO INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE A HOMOSEXUAL ORIENTATION AND NOT PUSH THEM AWAY; SO THAT THEY WON’T CAUSE GAY JEWS TO FEEL LIKE ‘’I HAVE TO GO OUT IN A PARADE BECAUSE I’M GOING TO GO CRAZY.’’

I’m in favor of parades, but modest parades.

I’M NOT IN FAVOR OF PARADES FOR ANYBODY.

No.  It lets society know that people of homosexual orientation exist, whereas currently in the religious world there are still rabbis who say that a homosexual orientation doesn’t exist in the religious Jewish community.  As long as we don’t have the Great Sanhedrin, obviously we can look at what the majority practice is, but on these particular issues most rabbis are simply remaining silent.  It’s not not been made an issue for them, because most people who are of this orientation are staying quiet; and staying quiet is not the answer.

10 Questions For Anti-Zionists

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/BEQtBv1dpNw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


1)  Do you or do you not claim that Israel intentionally targets noncombatant Palestinians?

2)  Do you acknowledge that Palestinian leadership admits to encouraging targeted killing of Israeli citizens?

3)  If you answered yes to one and two, do you realize that this means Palestinian leadership is not morally superior to Israel?

4)  Do you deny that Israel gives advance warning to Palestinians via mass text messages and dropped leaflets, before bombing a location?

5) If Israel wants to kill noncombatant Palestinians, why do they give advanced warning before attacking pre-publicized targets?

6) Do you acknowledge that Palestinian terrorists never let Israeli civilians know which bus they are going to blow up, and never give them a chance to get off the bus before they blow it up?

7)  Do you acknowledge that Palestinian missiles are admittedly aimed toward Israeli civilians?

8) If you know Palestinian leadership encourages targeted attacks against noncombatant civilians, how does supporting such leadership not equate to supporting terrorists?

9) Perhaps I've misunderstood you.  Do you or do you not support Palestinian leadership?

10)  If you do not support Palestinian leadership, do you speak out against their ADMITTED murderous methods as much as you speak out against Israel?

The EVERLASTING Covenant

Shavua' Tov yedidai ha-yeqarim.  (Good week, my dear friends.)

It's been a very long time since I've last posted anything.  Rather than continuing in this silence, I'm going to be posting old articles / writings that I had on my old sagayvah.tripod.com site, to insure they don't disappear in the case that something unexpectedly happens to that site.  I had this happen to my old hotmail account and lost a lot of information.  So here goes... This first one is fairly simple:

The Law of Moses, the so called 'Old Testament' or 'Old Covenant' that the Almighty made with the Jews, was commanded to the people of Israel as an Eternal Guidance.  The only individuals who are required to keep the body of commands included in this covenant are individuals whose mothers are Jewish or someone who has chosen to join the people of Israel (the Jews) by taking upon himself with an everlasting vow/oath to accept as binding on himself this Covenant, to uphold it.  According to the halakha, all other individuals are only legally accountable to the 7 commandments, but liability before G-d is another matter entirely. [ The only exception is the Arab people.  They have an additional command to circumcise their male children on the 8th day.  If they fail to properly do so, there is no judicial punishment.]

Psalm 111:5-9         "He has given food to those who revere Him;           He will remember His covenant forever.         He has made known to His people the power of His works,           In giving them the heritage of the nations.        The works of His hands are true and just;           All His precepts are certain.         They are upheld forever and ever;           They are carried out in truth and uprightness.        He has sent deliverance to His people;           He has ordained His covenant forever;           Holy and awesome is His name." Psalm 105:8-11, 45      He has remembered His covenant forever,          The word which He ordered to a thousand generations,        The covenant that He made with Abraham,     And His oath to Isaac.        Then He confirmed it to Jacob as a statute,          To Israel as a covenant everlasting,     Saying, "To you I shall give the land of Canaan,       As the portion of your inheritance," ....In order that they shall keep His statutes and observe His laws,    Praise the L-RD! Psalm 119:44 "So I will keep Your Torah - continually forever and ever." Psalm 119:111-112 "I have inherited Your testimonies forever,  for they are the joy of my heart. For I have inclined my heart to do Your statutes forever, unto the end." Psalm 119:144  "Your testimonies are forever right;  Grant me understanding that I may live." Psalm 119:152  "From long ago I have known your testimonies, that You have established them forever."

Keep in mind - Whenever reading any verses in the Hebrew Bible (aka 'Old Testament'), read them with the historical context in mind.  For example, at the time King David wrote the Psalms, much of the rest of the Hebrew Bible was not yet written.  Therefore, any references he makes should be understood in the context of those books which were already written, which he had in his hands. Leviticus 3:17 "It is a law forever throughout your generations in all your dwelling places.." Leviticus 6:18 "it is a permanent law throughout all your generations.." Leviticus 6:22 "by an eternal ordinance it shall be entirely offered.." Leviticus 7:36 "it is an eternal law for their generations." Leviticus 16:34 "Now this is to you an everlasting ordinance.." Leviticus 16:29 "This is to you a permanent law.." Leviticus 17:7 "This is to them for an everlasting law in all their generations.." Leviticus 23:14 "is to you a perpetual ordinance in all your dwelling places throughout your generations.." Numbers 15:15 "As for the community (of Israel), there shall be one law for you and for the one who converted and joined with you; An eternal Law throughout your generations, as you are, so shall the convert be before the ALL-TRANSCENDENT One." Numbers 19:21 "So it is a law forever for them.." And on and on and on... A prophet or teacher (or preacher) who comes along and claims to believe that the 'Old Testament' is the Word of G-d, but at the same time believes that the 'Old Testament' is no longer applicable or valid, declares that the Almighty is a liar for saying all these statements listed here.  In addition to this, anyone who teaches that the 'Old Testament' is abolished and is no longer applicable fulfills Deuteronomy 13:5 "But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams must be put to death, because he has instructed rebellion against the L-RD your G-d.....seducing you from the way in which the L-RD your G-d commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the wickedness from among you." When this verse says 'the way in which the L-rd' commanded them to walk, it is referring to the Law of Moses, the Torah, as it plainly continues on to say: "...heed the voice of the L-RD your Gd, by keeping all His commandments which I am commanding you today, and doing what is right in the sight of the L-RD your G-d."   - Deuteronomy 13:18 "...the hidden things belong to the L-RD our G-d, but that which is revealed belongs to us and our sons forever to do all the words of this Torah." - Deuteronomy 29:29 See further:  Why Jews don't accept Christianity "The Torah of the L-RD is whole, restoring the soul; The testimony of the L-RD is trustworthy, making the simple wise." - Psalm 19:7

Weekly Torah Portion: "Speak to the priests..."

(Leviticus chapters 21 - 24)
PARASHA:  "Speak to the priests, the sons of Aharon..."
                          אֱמֹר אֶל-הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן





"AN EYE FOR AN EYE"

"...eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth; as he hath maimed a man, so shall it be rendered unto him."
(Lev. 24:20)

Consider how the Torah itself elaborates on this concept:

"...and he shall pay as the judges determine. [...] eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, [...] And if a man smite the eye of his bondman, or the eye of his bondwoman, and destroy it, he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his bondman's tooth, or his bondwoman's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake. [...] If a man steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep."
(Exodus 21:22-27)





SUMMARY OF THIS WEEKS PARASHA:


Chap. 21   Laws of Priestly Holiness

- not to become impure except for in the burial of immediate family members

- not shave off their beards nor cut their flesh

- limitations on who they can marry

- certain physical abnormalities prevent a priest from serving in the Temple



Chap. 22

- not to serve in the Temple while in a state of impurity

- restrictions on non-priests pertaining to the eating of the elevation offerings

- animal offerings of Israelite must be "whole," free of certain physical abnormalities

(comp. 22:18 to 22:35; "ger" [a naturalized immigrant ie. full convert] is distinguished from "ben-nekhor" [non-Israelite])

- not to sacrifice new-born cattle until from the 8th day after birth

- not to slaughter the young cattle and its parent on the same day

- keep My commandments (study) and do them (action)

- don't profain My Holy Name, for I shall be sactified within the People of Israel

- I am YHWH who sactifies you, who took you out of Egypt to be your Authority



Chap. 23   Appointed Times of Assembly
 - weekly Sabbath [Shabbath]

- 1st month (counting from the Exodus) on 14th day, Passover [PesaH]

- 15th day of same month, Festival of Unleavened Bread [Hagh ha-Massoth] for a 7 day period.

- the 3omer, an everlasting commandment for all generations in all locations

- count days of 7 weeks of following the barely offering of the 2nd day of Passover

- leave corners of fields and what harvestors left behind for the poor and the immigrants

- 7th month (counting from Exodus) on 1st day, Zikhron teru3a, Rememberance of Sounding [the shofar] a.k.a Rosh ha-Shana (head of the year)

- 10th day of 7th month, Yom ha-Kipurim, day of Atonements, afflict yourselfs [with fasting]

- 15th day of 7th month, Hagh ha-Sukkoth for 7 day period

- 8th day following, "shemini 3Assereth," Assembly of the 8th day.



Chap. 24

- "ner tamidh" (the ever burning lamp)

- attending the lamps an everlasting commandment

- pure frankensense arranged as a memorial for the bread, an offering to YHWH

- the priest shall arrange it before YHWH as an everlasting covenant with Israel

- From Aharon to his descendents, as an everlasting commandment, they shall eat of the offering in a holy location.

- son of the Israelite woman blasphemed and cursed the Name of YHWH

- death penalty for blaspheming the Name of YHWH, whether native born Israelite or immigrant

- "eye for an eye" must be understand in light of Ex. 21:22-27

- there is one law given to you: the naturalized immigrant (full convert) like the native born Israelite

Jewish Fashion

CLAIM

"Jewish women are forbidden to cover their necks or faces because this is a Muslim practice, and we are forbidden from following in the ways of the nations."

RESPONSE

Your point is correct, but misapplied.

The prohibition against adopting the customs of the nations applies only to religious practices that are foreign to Torah and to any other irrational practices of idolatrous nations, even if it is a non-religious practice.  Non-religious practices that originate even among the idolatrous nations are PERMITTED if they are rational practices with practical and logical purposes, such as using spoons and forks, using light bulbs, medicine, and the like.

Although modesty of dress has religious significance among religious Jews, Muslims, and Christians, I personally think that it is also a very practical and logical practice, for many reasons.  I believe this is why when the Talmud records how Hazal (the Talmudic sages) discussed the abnormal modesty of Tamar, the daughter-in-law of Judah, and yet they did not speak belittling of her or rebuke her actions for being so extreme relative to the norms of modesty; Rather, they praised her for it! ...despite that her practice was without doubt extreme!

What did Tamar do?  

The Talmud Bavli, in Sotah 10b, asks:

"Because she had covered her face he thought her to be an harlot?? No! But because she would cover her face in her father-in-law's house, he did not recognize her now [while she was acting as a prostitute].

Rabbi Samuel ben Nahhmani said in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: Every daughter-in-law who is modest in her father-in-law's house merits that kings and prophets should issue from her. From where do we know this? From Tamar. Prophets issued from her, as it is written: 'The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoss;' and kings issued from her through David [who is descendant from Peress]."

She would cover her face even in her father-in-law's presence!  Now, I am in no way advocating that women begin doing this, and G-d forbid that they should be required to do this, because it's simply not a Torah obligation;  My point, however, is that the Talmudic sages did NOT reprove Tamar for her abnormal practice of modesty, which was abnormal even for her own times.  Rather, they praised her for it, without saying that the practice is obligatory; (Hilkhoth Sota 3:5 says women wear a "kupahh" in their homes.)  The Talmudic passage even seem to encourage other women to act similarly!  So if they did not reprove Tamar, but exemplified her, for un-required abnormal levels of modesty, then how do we have any authority to reprove women who do likewise in our times?  But the women being reproved on this list includes women who aren't even going beyond what Hazal required.  The women being reproved on this list includes women who are simply doing what halakha says to do - at least when it comes to modesty when in public.  If Hazal didn't deem a woman worthy of reproof for going beyond local norms of modesty, then how can we deem a woman worthy of reproof for simply dressing as she is obligated to dress, albeit that today dressing according to halakha already makes one's dress abnormal?

If a woman should be forbidden for covering her neck or even face because the practice is also found among Muslims, then please consider the fact that many Eastern Orthodox Christian women cover their hair EXACTLY as most religious Jewish women today do. They also give charity, etc... Should we stop these things practices just because they also do them?  There are also a number of countries where the Muslim women cover their hair but not their necks.  If a Jewish woman shouldn't cover her neck because Muslim women also do so, then she shouldn't cover her hair while exposing her neck the way many Eastern Orthodox Christians, Ana-baptists, and some Sub-Saharan Muslims do.

The fact is that Jewish women HISTORICALLY kept these levels of modesty which you are unfamiliar with (covering the neck, and even the face), but the practice lessened over time due to the progressively immodest dress European Christian women.

Since Islam ADOPTED the traditional JEWISH practice of modesty, these high levels of modesty continued among Jews in Islamic lands up until they came in contact with more "enlightened" culture... usually upon arrival to the secular state of Israel or after immigrating to some other Western society. Many such references to historical Jewish modesty are to be found in Jewish religious literature as well as in old pictures and paintings.  Not everything non-Jews do is forbidden. Why don't you apply the prohibition against walking in the ways of the nations to the traditionally European Christian clothing adopted by Haredi men?

Mishneh Torah in Sefer Nashim in Hilkhoth Ishuth 24:11[12]

"...What is meant by 'the Jewish religious-law?' It is the practice of modesty that the 'Daughters of Israel' are accustomed to. And these are the things that if she does one of them, she transgresses the 'dath yehudith' (jewish religious-law):
She goes out to the marketplace or to a passage way with openings at each end while her head is uncovered  (roshah parua') and without a radidh (a veil that cloaks her body) on her as all the women, EVEN THOUGH her hair is covered in a scarf / handkerchief,..."

The exact same terminology used in prohibiting an uncovered head in the above quote with regard to a woman is also used AND defined in Hilkhoth Evel 5:15 as WRAPPING ('atifa) a garment around one's head and covering up one's mouth with some of the garment.  In fact, there are several references in the Talmud and in Midrash that women cover themselves in the way a Jewish mourner is to cover himself (a garment wrapped around the head covering up to his lips).  This is NOT a new practice among Jewish women, but rather it is the remnants of traditional modesty among Jewish women which has roots going back to Eve, according to Midrash (Pirqe R. El. xiv).

http://sagavyah.tripod.com/id71.html 

SOME REFERENCES:

Commenting on Tamar's face-covering in Genesis 38:15, the Ibn Ezra does not have much to say, other than that Tamar was "Senu'ah" (modest), in reference to her face-covering.  Note: He makes no negative comments regarding her face-covering, nor does he say, as some ignorant Christian commentators have done, that it was specifically because she was covering her face that he thought she was a prostitute.

In response to a scholar who taught that Tamar covered her face with a colorful cloth so as to attract people's attention (and thus Judah recognized her as a "loose" woman), the Ibn Ezra quotes the Talmud's words "ein mevi'in ra'ya min ha-shotim" (one is not to bring proof from fools). The quote was in reaction to the scholar's attempt to back up his interpretation by mentioning that his own daughter did so.

Note: The mentioning that his own daughters did so means that his own JEWISH daughters covered their faces! ...albeit with a colorful cloth.

________

In Hilkhoth Ishuth 25:4, the Rambam indicates that the European ('arei edom) Jewish communities of his time were unique in that the women in those communities would go about in the market place with their faces "UNCOVERED:"

"It is a known thing that this is only the law in those places where women are of the practice to walk about in the market places with their faces uncovered, that everyone knows them and are able to say 'she is the daughter of So-and-So, ' or 'she is the sister of So-and-So,' as is presently the case in the European Jewish communities ('arei edom)."

It should be apparent that the Rambam considered the European practice of women uncovering their faces in the market places was something distinct from with what he was familiar.  The Rambam was born in Spain, lived in Morocco and in Egypt, and traveled throughout North Africa as well as visited the Holy Land.  Take demographics of the time into consideration and you will realize that the European Jews of that time, of "arei edom," were a small part of the people of Israel at the time. They were as much of a "fringe" of the Jewish world as some consider Yemenite Jewry today to be.  Ironically, for most of Jewish history, it was just the other way around in so far as observance of practical Jewish law (halakha l-ma'ase) is concerned.  The Rambam's observation was that the majority practice of Jewish women in his lifetime was to cover their faces when in the market places.  There is much to corroborate this observation, and little to no that indicates otherwise.

_____

In Hilkhoth Avoda Zarah 12:13, a woman's head-garment is described as something that is wrapped around her, in contrast to men who wear a turban Avoda Zarah 12:11;  So clearly the wrapping of the woman's garment is being done somewhere other than just around the crown of the head, as in the case of a turban.

In Hilkhoth Ishuth 13:13 a "radidh" is defined as a head-covering "which enshrouds her whole body like a cloak."

Hilkhoth Ishuth 13:13 also states that a man is obligated to provide his wife with a radidh in places where women only go to market places wearing a radidh.  This is to add to the man's obligations towards his wife and save her from embarrassment where modesty is ideally observed, as well as free the husband from the expense of needlessly being obligated to provide his wife a radidh in a location where she will almost certainly not wear it - in a location where women aren't of the practice to do so.  Hilkhoth Ishuth 13:13 must be understood in light of the other laws.

Hilkhoth Ishuth 24:11 and 25:4 indicate the historical majority practice of female Jewish modesty.  "olim bi-qdusha w-lo' yoradim" (We are to increase in holiness and not decrease.)  Does the beloved phrase "minhag avotheinu b-yadenu" (the practices of our ancestors are in our hands) only oblige a person when the practice was a leniency or apply only when it is currently 'in fashion'?

Hilkhoth Mamrim 2:2 & 2:5  state:

"A Sanhedrin that made a decree, an edict, or instituted a practice, and the matter spread in all Israel, and then a Sanhedrin arose at a later time which desired to cancel the words of the earlier Sanhedrin and to uproot the earlier edict, decree, or practice - the later Sanhedrin can not do so, unless it is greater than the earlier Sanhedrin in both wisdom and number. [...] In what situation?  When the matter desired to be uprooted is not a "fence" [established to distance likelihood of violation of a prohibition], but was with regard to some other Torah-law.  But if it was a matter that the earlier Sanhedrin decreed or forbade as a "fence" [for distancing likelihood of transgression], then if the prohibitive matter spread throughout all Israel, a later Sanhedrin can not uproot the matter and permit it, even if it is greater than the earlier Sanhedrin."

...needless to say, no Sanhedrin has arisen since Talmudic times, much less one that is greater than the last Sanhedrin; Even if such had arisen, it would not have authority to uproot prohibitive decrees even of a past Sanhedrin that held less stature than the current one.

And our Sages already established and the practice already spread that:

"The Daughters of Israel shall not walk with their heads uncovered in a marketplace, whether she is available (for marriage) or whether she is married."

(Hilkhoth Isurei Bi'ah 21:17)

We already clarified above the distinction between a "head-covering" and a "hair-covering."  The practice spread throughout all Israel, which is consistently understood to mean the vast majority.  The Rambam as well as R' Yosef Qaro both recognized this fact, and thus it is codified as halakha in both the Mishne Torah and Shulhhan 'Arukh (Even Ha'ezer 115, 4; Orach Chayim 75,2; Even Ha'ezer 21, 2).  Yet even in the case that the practice was never widespread among the people of Israel, it would still require a Sanhedrin, with authority over all Israel, to nullify the original decree:

"When the Sanhedrin made a decree and thought that it spread in all Israel, and thus the matter remained for many years, and after much time had passed a later Sanhedrin arose and checked, and saw that the matter did not spread to all Israel, that Sanhedrin has the authority to cancel the decree of the earlier Sanhedrin, even if it is of less number and wisdom than the Sanhedrin that made the original decree.  A Sanhedrin that canceled two matters should not rush to cancel a third."

(Hilkhoth Mamrim 2:12)

In his Intro. to the Mishne Torah, line 29, the Rambam writes that the Sanhedrin's decrees, edicts, and practices recorded in the Talmud "spread throughout all Israel, in all the places of their habitation."  This is the very reason why the Talmud is so central to Torah observance.  With this in mind, I think it reasonable that claiming those women who dress more modestly than the modern norm are violating "you shall not walk in the ways of the nations" is as outlandish and ignorant a claim as denying the Talmud's role in Torah-Judaism would be.