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/
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."
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."
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment