Encore Archive

Welcome to Encore, the place where you will find the latest thoughts and reflections by CLAL faculty and associates on topics of the moment. Each week you will find something new and (hopefully) engaging here!

To access the CLAL Encore Archive, click here.

To join the conversation at CLAL Encore Talk, click here.

(In the fall of 1978, Sh'ma ran a series of articles on the contemporary relevance of the Jewish virtue of tzniut or modesty. Over the next three weeks, we will reprint several of these articles on what remains a timely topic.)

Modesty is Expressed in Many Fashions

Laura Geller (Sh'ma 9/162, November 24, 1978)

The articles by Posner and Handleman, (Sh'ma 8/161) are fascinating, not only for what they say but for what they don't say. In both cases, the "ideology" of tzniut is described, but its implications for behavior are not articulated. No one could argue with the principle of "preserving the integrity of the individual," and no one would disagree with the perception that our personhood is kadosh. The problem arises when we ask more specific questions about tzniut as a life mode, as "the bedrock of Judaism." What is really meant by modesty in dress? Does it mean that I should not wear a pants suit to work? Does it mean I should not appear on a public beach in a bathing suit? Does it mean that I should cover my hair? Can I wear sleeveless dresses? Handelman says that a person's body is covered because it is kadosh. Is my body less kadosh in a bathing suit than in a long dress? For me the question is not one of modesty in dress but rather appropriateness in dress. Unfortunately, the authors don't articulate the application of their principle.

Both articles seem to imply that there is a relationship between a permissive style of clothing and a casual attitude toward sex. What is the relationship? Do "permissive clothes" somehow cause permissive sexual relationships? Is the world we live in really a situation where "our bodies, and the precious inner jewels of our personality, are open to all comers"? I don't think so (and I live in California!) In the area of sexuality, as in the area of dress, the major issue is one of appropriate response. It is appropriate in certain instances to "open up" emotionally, to touch or kiss or be physically intimate. In other situations it is inappropriate. Who is to judge? Each individual should be encouraged to make his/her own decisions based on his/her own understanding of the sanctity of personhood.

But, Posner will reply, what about institutional anti-tzniut? What about co-ed dorms? Evidence from co-ed dorms suggest the opposite conclusion to that of Posner. Students report that living in close contact with members of the opposite sex does not lead to seeing them as sex objects but rather seeing them as people. The very casualness of that living arrangement leads to a growing perception of the sanctity of persons.

The major problem in both articles, notwithstanding the protestations to the contrary, is the unequal way tzniut is applied to women and men. Although both authors state that tzniut applies to men too, the emphasis is clearly on women. If tzniut standards apply equally to men, why do "modern Torah scholars put the importance of tzniut especially for girls higher than indispensable institutions like Yeshivot"? Why is a woman's desire for aliyot labeled as a "cry for women to grab a share of public functions"? The argument that some women want to daven with tefillin because they believe that the true validation of religious identity and personal sanctity is dependent on acts which are publically witnessed" is preposterous and offensive. Many women have chosen to see themselves as obligated in the mitzvah of tefillin. Public recognition is no more at stake when women want aliyot, to daven with talit or tefillin, to hold the Torah, to study Talmud, or to comprise a minyan, than when men want those things. Why be so quick to label women's religious needs as "anti-tzniut?" For many Jewish women, involvement with what Handleman has labeled "public functions" is an integral part of their Jewishness.

If tzniut is a life mode, I have to ask what values are transmitted through that mode? Is the message of tzniut the sanctity of personhood, as the authors claim, or is it inequality, limited roles for women and lack of personal autonomy and choice?