Does this book actually contain halacha, or what?

its too strict for most people if not everyone but if u want to at least get an idea about the severity of tznius laws its a must read

i know of a seminary that does not have this book in its beis midrash because they are afraid that it will turn girls off because its overly strict.

I stay away from it. I don't need to be told I dress like a goy when I'm trying hard to be good.

It makes me feel better that the book is more than halach, though. Less head-in-sand.

Tznius "laws" are for the most part customs, hence, a Gateshead tznius "sefer" should not be considered "the" tznius "sefer" for the rest of the world.

the book is very strict there is no way anybody could do everything in the book.

The book completely misses the point of tznius, in an overwhelming amount of pages.

what do you mean misses the point of tznius? granted, a major portion of the book is focused on dress but it does talk about other parts of tznius as well.

Tznius is an attitude, and can't- shoudn't- be encapsulated in an illustrated encyclopedia the size of Harry Potter. The pratim that are itemized, in such an extreme manner, are offensive. The book itself doesn't strike me as all that tzanua, as I have a hard time understanding how a man can feel comrfortable composing an anthology on the ways in which a woman can attract a guy. White socks!?!? Shoes that make noise!? PLEASE.

a rabbi at my seminary said that the rabbi faulk book is too detail oriented.

it misses the bigger picture of tznius by breaking everything down to inches. details are a part of halacha, but there's also the philosophy behind it.

I know way too many girls who are turned off by all aspects of tznius because they think every inch of themseves is "problematic" and they are bad, evil, wrong, etc. It's so horrible. We are people of dignity, now act like it. That's all. You want measures? Stick with rivis and kazayis, please don't turn self respect into yet another science for the OCD soul.

Does your seminary really have a beis medrash?

Most seminaries do. Some may call it the "library" so as not to sound too left-wing, but I think that any decent seminary will have a good-sized room filled with seforim, no matter what you call it.

I daresay Bais Ruchel talmidos are even more machmir than Rabbi Falk's book. Try me! lol

I read this book just to find out what the buzz was since I know of women's learning groups the learn this "sefer." Anyways, I've seen the book and the illustrated workbook and I am not impressed by the author's inclusiveness. I think I have said this before, but there are differences between Ashkenazim and Sephardim regarding tzniut including the 'requirement' to wear nylons (I believe the Ashkenazim also differ as an Ashkenazi Rabbi told me this). Based on this information, as well as other pieces of information, I believe that he has misrepresented what is the bottom line halacha.

You do know that there is no requirement, right.

That is why I used quotes, Brianna. I have posted numerous times that Sephardim do not hold as do some Ashkenazim. (And I believe that even Rav Feinstein held this as a chumrah, but I'm not sure and could be corrected there).

Search for "Ben Ish Hai" and you will find my post which is directly from a Sefer about how the history of hair-covering and nylons (or lack thereof) in Europe vs. Iraq. It is interesting from a historical and halachic perspective.

Even in the seminary where I was for shana alef, which is quite a right-wing place (think BY in spirit, if not in name), they taught us that covering one's lower leg is a place where the halacha follows minhag hamakom. (The extent of minhag hamakom is another story, but whatever...) Granted, I cover my legs by choice, but that's a matter of my own personal sensitivity, and not a requirement for everyone everywhere.

The most recent issue of Tradition (which embarrassingly is the Fall 2003 issue that came out in Fall 2004) has an article by R. Yehuda H. Henkin which is partially structured as a critique of the Falk book. He goes through many different sources to try and determine what should be considered objective halakha and what is minhag or chumra. His main criticism is that R. Falk does not seem to distinguish between these things, and also the fact that R. Falk makes no mention of many well know kulos that by necessity are used today. It is slightly techincal, but it is really worth the read. An article like this has been needed for a really, really long time.

I second that. What else would you call a room full of seforim where people learn torah??

I have leafed through the book and agree with most posters on this thread.

I wear socks (to the knee) purely to keep minhag hamakom. I hate socks and would have all the members of my family wear them only of the dead of winter. I do otherwise for G-d.... or is it society......??
Whateva

What are these kulot?

I once happened to glance into that book and all i can say is Ridiculous.

I read it for comic relief.

I've considered doing that. Is it worth the time, though?

you have 570 posts on H.com and you are asking if this is worth the time?

Touche. Anyway, I merely skimmed it- I couldn't get through the whole thing if I tried. The chosson kallah book is also really funny, and the ilustrated insert for Oz Vehadar- plus, he has this great pmaphlet on sheitels. Sometimes I think he was really writing a long Purim shpiel and it all got misconstrued.

It reminds me of when I read The Pleasant Ways of the Jewish Daughter for kicks (by Rabbi Wagschal, I believe). The first couple times I tried to read it, I couldn't do it, but then I decided to just read it and laugh at it. I suspect this would be much the same.

Try "The Kuntres," available in any fine Judaica store. You won't stop laughing for weeks.

I feel kinda bad . I mean they do mean well.

Whatever. Save the trees, do some actual learning with your time, and get your head out of the gutter if you mean so well. Seriously, do you know what a disserivce some of these books can be??

Unlike Rabbi Falk's book, I don't believe there is ANYONE who takes the kuntres seriously. I've heard that even the guys in his yeshiva s###### at it.

....so to speak....

I believe the book has created and fanned the flames of intolerance. Eg. French girls dress differently to English (gateshead ) girls - for some reason which I just cannot fathom they love the Gateshead Seminaries and are encouraged upon arriving there to buy a new wardrobe for sem. What's the point? It's just pretending - when they get home they're just gonna wear their normal clothes? Plus Sem is expensive why should they spend more money? The only justification given is Gateshead is a small kehilla, approx 8 jewish streets, stuffed with approx 4/5 yeshivos and 2 sems and nebach the poor bochurim.......There was nothing overtly sexual about the clothes these girls were wearing, they were just pretty girls, a friend managed to get away with wearing her normal clothes because she was small, quiet and unassuming..people notice the girls who make the most noise - no matter what they wear.

I only skimmed the sheital pamphlet (wasn't about to pay money for it). But he works himself into a real corner with that one. He doesn't like snoods because they slip back or he doesn't like the elastic band of other snoods because it shows the hair by the ear. He doesn't seem to care for the large hats (that only English women must wear because in America the hat wearers tend to wear Parkhurst hats or or crushable type hats and I have no idea what he is refering to).

I imagine he doesn't really like hats at all since he doesn't seem to address must more than baseball caps that he finds unfeminine. So, he has basically assured everything besides short sheitals that look plastic, which the young ladies don't want to wear.

Now, I am no fan of sheitals at all and I think that cloth coverings are the preferable form of hair covering. But, I can't imagine that the good Rabbi has done much to improve the current situation by knocking sheitals/falls and then practically assuring snoods and essentially hats based on the hair that (might) show by the ear.

And, note to the Rabbi. . . . .that hair by the ear very often shows in sheitels. It is really something when you see a blond lady with brown hair peaking out or a brown haired lady with gray peaking out.

Why do you guys always feel the need to ridicule those who go lifnim meshuras hadin and want to dress even more tzniusdig than halacha? So what if I believe that the only parts of my body that should be exposed are my face and neck and my hands from the wrist down? So what if I don't wear flashy colors, nail polish, or excessive makeup? Why is this only web site where more observance is ridiculed and not praised? I just don't get it.

Mindy- I have no problem with people taking on pesonal chumras. I do however take serious issue with someone coming out with a book that makes it seem as though this is the final halachic word, without any real discussion of the hashkafa of tznius, or allowing for other opinions, standards, levels, sensitivities, etc. I question the motivation of a man who has spent so very much time on topics such as intensity between engaged couples and what a girl/married woman should be makpid on. Is this really so tzanua? I'm not espousing squeaking by in halacha- if you read any of my posts in the discussion on sdingle women using the mikvah, then you know that's not my take- halacha is not something to work around, and I have several personal 'chumras' that are for my own personal growth. But I would never take a topic as subjective, personal, intricate, overdone, subject to minhag hamakom like tznius and publish an encyclopedia that delineates chumras that I don't think anyone has ever heard of, all while being male. I'm annoyed at the appraoch, not at the concept. This is one of the lessons learned through chava and the nachash- you turn a geder into a halacha, and rather than beautifying your observance, you have corrupted it.

Because it's not "lifnim....", it's not "more tzniusdig than halacha", (BTW, what is that supposed to mean?) It's not "more observance."
You are falling into the same trap you fell into months ago.

I'm waiting for some cummunity to take on the extra chumra of a burkah.

Because more chumras does not necessarily (or even likely) mean religiously better.

Rav Schachter: "I hold of more chumras than my father, but he is more religious than I am." If you ever met Rav Melech Schachter you'd understand exactly what he meant.

They already do. Read the Mishpacha article on shawls. There is a small movement in my local communty of shaal wearers. To each her own, whatever, I would never ridicule a woman for her personal tznius standards. Being a receiver of that riducule in occasion (for not wearing sheitels) HOWEVER I would *never* say not wearing sheitels is for everyone. I just say, personally for me, etc. Pushing others to adopt one's chumras or things that are not even chumras, just their personl thing, is WRONG and deserves to be pointed out (which some may see as ridicule). Actually me and dh occasionally do a parady of the women who wear sheitels over their eyebrows (must be they hold eyebrows are head hairm huh?) LOL

Most people know that the more learned one is the less chumros they need to adopt. (Many times adoptions of chumros comes from not being clear on what the actual halacha is).

Exactly my issue. I would have no problem with a sefer that presents halacha from an objective standpoint while stating that the author believe this minhag hamakom in Satmar is superior (hat over sheital, no three-quarter sleeves, etc). But many (if not most) people are not on this level, and I have a feeling that many people have ended up mocking tzniut, rather than developing more sensitivity toward tzniut through this book. (I actually believe that I did develop more sensitivity to tzniut through this book, but I can't believe he outlawed what shoes!)

I actually have less problems with this book than with the engagement book, which really speaks only to a very small audience. And, although he makes that disclaimer in the begining, it might have been better to write that book in Yiddish so that only the small audience that it was geared to could read it.

Goodness, if I applied the "rules" in my community, I would have to outlaw shawls because it seems to be a trend that is taking root based on the fashion of the day. The shawl wearers are buying shawls because they are being sold in department stores currently (or was that last season?).

Naw, I have a few Parkhursts . The thing that makes me laugh is how one quickly fashion spreads in the frum world - Hundreds of young women are wearing their falls in bunches with bandannas or crocheted beanies.

The hair uncovered by the ears is the sign of an ill fitting sheitel or no u ncomfortable ear pieces. HOw is it different to women who purposely show their tefach in front of a band fall?

cynic, i dont understand. 'lifnim meshuras hadin' means doing more than the din. Which is what extra tznius rules are. I don't have any problems with doing any of those extra rules. I have no problem covering my shaitel. I have no problem not wearing eye or lip makeup. I have no problem wearing seamed tights. And most of these are not rules written in a book. It's family mesorah. And I'm proud to keep it.

Don't you mean poncho? I refuse to buy anything which will look dated and naff in two months. Those darned ponchos are everywhere. If you mean shawls - there is a faction in the community who have abandoned their sheitels, they put a fringed shawl around their shoulders and carry a tehillim around.

The shawl movement really got my goat. I was like, HELLO! we're already wearing loose fitting blouses - are you giving men that little credit, that they are apt to stare at womens' chests if theyre not wearing an extra shawl above their already loose fitting sweaters? EEEEEK. How are we supposed to wear the shawls on wedding dresses? We might as well stop wearing shirts inthe first place, it'll save us money, and only wear shawls... I was really taken aback. I had never heard of such a thing.

I supposed that's how the rest of you feel when you view the tznius minhagim in my world -- covered shaitels, seamed tights, etc.

can someone please enlighten me on this "shawl movement"?

Mindy, I'm just curious (and I'd like to ask Rabbi Falk also, so it's not just you): Where exactly is the line between chumros/"dressing more tzniusdig than halacha" and Bal Tosif? I have a problem with the Rabbi Falk book because it represents chumros as the bottom-line halacha, which it is absolutely not, and I think it is a major Bal Tosif problem.

For example, the Aruch HaShulchan's well-known psak that today one may recite Kriat Shma in front of a women whose hair is uncovered because it is not objectively ervah and men are accustomed to seeing women with their head uncovered.

In the BY I used to attend, Rabbi Falk's book was taught as halacha during lunch hour. That's just wrong.

When it comes to what men are accustomed to, where does one draw the line? It's now so common for women to wear pants, that if anything, wearing a skirt surprises people (I've been asked so often if I am Amish), that I wonder if it is still the same issur- or is it that Jews are still held to a higher standard, and men are also accustomed to orthodox women wearing skirts? Just curious.