This week's parsha is Tetzaveh, talks about the clothes of the kohanim in the Mishkan. A 4 year old kid was upset that they didn't wear shoes or socks or footcoverings of any sort in the Mishkan- "But they could see everyone's toes! It's not tznius!" I wasn't sure what to say, and tried to explain that
1. we separate our feet from the ground because it's tamei and symbolizes gashmius but the ground in the BHMK was kadosh-- that was too abstract, so I tried
2. like we don't have to cover hands, we don't have to cover feet (you can tell I never thought about this question before) and finally answered
3. in those times shoes were very hard to get, they cost a lot of money, so people were used to going around without shoes and seeing each others' feet, but today we're not used to that so it's not tznius anymore.
Are any of these correct and if so, which?
What should I have answered?
Full Version: Covering Feet In The Mishkan
QUOTE (existwhere? @ Feb 10 2008, 01:33 PM) 
This week's parsha is Tetzaveh, talks about the clothes of the kohanim in the Mishkan. A 4 year old kid was upset that they didn't wear shoes or socks or footcoverings of any sort in the Mishkan- "But they could see everyone's toes! It's not tznius!" I wasn't sure what to say, and tried to explain that
1. we separate our feet from the ground because it's tamei and symbolizes gashmius but the ground in the BHMK was kadosh-- that was too abstract, so I tried
2. like we don't have to cover hands, we don't have to cover feet (you can tell I never thought about this question before) and finally answered
3. in those times shoes were very hard to get, they cost a lot of money, so people were used to going around without shoes and seeing each others' feet, but today we're not used to that so it's not tznius anymore.
Are any of these correct and if so, which?
What should I have answered?
1. we separate our feet from the ground because it's tamei and symbolizes gashmius but the ground in the BHMK was kadosh-- that was too abstract, so I tried
2. like we don't have to cover hands, we don't have to cover feet (you can tell I never thought about this question before) and finally answered
3. in those times shoes were very hard to get, they cost a lot of money, so people were used to going around without shoes and seeing each others' feet, but today we're not used to that so it's not tznius anymore.
Are any of these correct and if so, which?
What should I have answered?
Number 2. There is no issur of uncovering feet, for males or females.
#2, there is nothing at ALL unsnyus about showing your feet, especially for men......
QUOTE (accolade @ Feb 10 2008, 01:56 PM)
Number 2. There is no issur of uncovering feet, for males or females.
OK, but is it correct to compare it to there being no issur of covering hands?
QUOTE (existwhere? @ Feb 10 2008, 02:15 PM)
OK, but is it correct to compare it to there being no issur of covering hands?
Why not? You could compare it to the face or the neck as well.
QUOTE (accolade @ Feb 10 2008, 03:08 PM)
Why not? You could compare it to the face or the neck as well.
Ok, thank you.
QUOTE (accolade @ Feb 10 2008, 01:56 PM)
Number 2. There is no issur of uncovering feet, for males or females.
Feet are not "inherently" untzniyus (as is a woman's private parts, thigh, hair if married, etc.), but I'd be surprised if they are not subject to the dictates of societal norms. If one lives in a society where the feet are always/normally covered, I would reckon it can be considered a degree of un-tzniyus-ness to have them bare. Have you seen evidence to the contrary?
QUOTE (Pure Myrrh @ Feb 10 2008, 05:42 PM)
Feet are not "inherently" untzniyus (as is a woman's private parts, thigh, hair if married, etc.), but I'd be surprised if they are not subject to the dictates of societal norms. If one lives in a society where the feet are always/normally covered, I would reckon it can be considered a degree of un-tzniyus-ness to have them bare. Have you seen evidence to the contrary?
If this is the case, then why do charedi women in Israel cover their feet?
After all, in Israel, one could argue that the feet are normally uncovered. So that would not be a society where one should have to cover them.
QUOTE (Shoshi @ Feb 10 2008, 05:46 PM)
If this is the case, then why do charedi women in Israel cover their feet?
After all, in Israel, one could argue that the feet are normally uncovered. So that would not be a society where one should have to cover them.
After all, in Israel, one could argue that the feet are normally uncovered. So that would not be a society where one should have to cover them.
Werent you the one that said only MO are satisfied with the bare minimum?
9
QUOTE (doodlehead @ Feb 11 2008, 07:16 AM)
Right, as opposed to the bare maximum!
QUOTE (Shoshi @ Feb 10 2008, 05:46 PM)
If this is the case, then why do charedi women in Israel cover their feet?
After all, in Israel, one could argue that the feet are normally uncovered. So that would not be a society where one should have to cover them.
After all, in Israel, one could argue that the feet are normally uncovered. So that would not be a society where one should have to cover them.
Chareidim are a separatist society in Israel, so they create their own societal norms.
This has always been one of my pet peeves. It's just another indication of how certain Charedim distort Judaism with their crazy fanaticism and extremism--particularly in areas regarding Tzniut.
Somewhat related. Is it halacha to not walk barefoot(even at home) or is it permissible if on carpeting because of the separating layer between yourself and the ground, or simply need to cover your feet for reasons of tznius?
People who use the word "charedim" do describe either themselves or those whom they do not represent are usually dishonest disturbed individuals whose words carry very little value and can be discarded as white noise.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.