I was in a yeshivish community one Shabbos, and several young women were also at the shul through a low-key kiruv shabbaton. Based on the way they were dressed, it was clear that they were trying their best to look modest, but had not quite been prepared for this community’s standards. At kiddush, one gentleman asked another: “since when did we start letting in harlots?” While none of those young women heard him, I later found out that a woman in the community reprimanded them and told them they should never come back to shul dressed like that. At least one of them decided to end her experiment with Orthodox Judaism on the spot.
Tznius is literally translated as “modesty” or perhaps “dignity” and is one of the most misunderstood concepts in all of Orthodox Judaism. The common misunderstandings about what it is and how it ought to be taught have led many to develop what Mrs. Bracha Poliakoff calls “Tznius PTSD.” She recalls how the very word “tznius” carried negative connotations, how she “struggled to relate to the concept” and “went to great lengths to avoid classes, books, or programs related in any way to this topic” because of negative experiences like “campaigns that blamed national tragedies on women’s failings in modest dress,” “lists of rules about dress presented as halachah, when, in fact, they were chumros (halachic stringencies) or minhagim related to specific communities,” and a “general feeling that tznius was a way to judge others on the most superficial aspects of themselves.”
The problems experiences like this cause cannot be overstated. In Poliakoff’s words, “we have reduced the concept of tznius to its most external and superficial aspect: dress and, more specifically, women’s dress. In doing so, we have created many issues that affect the long-term relationship that individuals, especially women, have with tznius and Judaism in general.”
To combat this challenge, Poliakoff teamed up with Rabbi Anthony Manning to produce Reclaiming Dignity: A Guide to Tzniut for Men and Women (Mosaica Press, 2023). The book is now nearly sold out of its fourth printing for very good reason. With approbations from Rabbis Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, Yitzchak Breitowitz, Moshe Hauer, Zev Leff, Ahron Lopiansky, Yosef Zvi Rimon, and Hershel Schachter, it positions itself a book that anyone in the Orthodox world can truly find value in. Within its pages itself I was pleasantly surprised to see Chareidi, Dati Leumi, and Modern Orthodox thinkers quoted next to each other and all being given equal respect. In the section of the book containing essays and reflections on tznius (of the 26, only 3 were by men) authors were lilely to identify with no title, Dr., Rebbetzin, or Rabbanit.
The goal of the book is “for readers to begin to examine their own relationships with tznius, and find ideas that resonate with them on their own journey of personal and spiritual development.” In that, it succeeds beautifully. I’ll demonstrate why with a discussion of Rabbi Manning’s halachah section which aims to “sensitize readers to the broader factors that also contribute to the halachic conclusions on these issues, all of which can only be appreciated when understood with greater nuance and depth.” I was particularly pleasantly surprised to see that Rabbi Manning modeled his desire to craft a centrist approach to these issues after Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, and even utilized the latter’s formulation of Chareidus risking Avodah Zarah while Modern Orthodoxy risks kefirah as a way of evening the playing field between both “sides” from the get-go.
Another pleasant surprise was to see that R. Manning constantly references the positions of Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin, as expressed in his book, Understanding Tzniut: Modern Controversies in the Jewish Community (significantly expanded from this Tradition article). Rav Henkin’s work is a mainstay in Modern Orthodox discussions of tznius but I have never seen a book geared towards Chareidim (albeit also geared towards Modern Orthodoxy) seriously engage with it.
That is not to say that Rabbi Manning is always in agreement with Rav Henkin. R. Manning has a long discussion of what modes of dress or behaviour fall into the category of objective Dat Yehudit and are therefore not subject to change from community to community. R. Manning writes that “The upper arm must be covered as an objective dat Yehudit. The elbow itself is included by most poskim in the upper arm and must be covered as an objective dat Yehudit. A minority of poskim regard the elbow as determined by the subjective dat Yehudit of the community.”
In one of many detailed footnotes (representative of ones in this section of the book both in breadth and depth), R. Manning outlines how different poskim fall on the question; Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Yosef Zvi Rimon say the elbow must be covered, Rav Aharon Lichtenstein did not require the elbow to be covered, and Rav Yaakov Ariel said someone should not be criticized for showing their elbows. R. Manning then discusses Rav Henkin, who offers the following typology in Understanding Tzniut:
sleeveless dresses - forbidden by all opinions, as the body can be seen.
short sleeves, loose - forbidden if the body can be seen.
short sleeves, tight - body cannot be seen, but prohibited if most of the upper arm is uncovered (rubo k’kulo).
sleeves halfway to elbow - prohibited because of tefach meguleh; no room for limmud zechut.
sleeves to within a tefach of the elbow - minimum permitted.
sleeves to elbow - recommended.
sleeves to below elbow - first-level chumra.
sleeves to wrist - second-level chumra.
The above does not supplant any communal or familial minhag.
Rabbi Manning notes this typology and “would respectfully disagree with Rav Henkin’s analysis on this point. First, what he labels as “stringencies” may actually be required by local dat Yehudit and this element of the halachah is not developed in his book, Second, the issue of the tefach leeway is widely discussed but much misunderstood.” Disagreement notwithstanding, the fact that R. Manning so thoroughly brings opinions from thinkers like Rav Henkin is a testament to his approach.
One area where I was prepared for significant disagreement, yet did not find it, was on the question of women wearing pants. Rabbi Manning there explicitly agrees with Rav Nachum Rabinovitch that this falls into the hands of individual communities:
While one can make a case that loose and baggy pants, especially with some kind of a tunic worn over them to cover the torso and upper legs, satisfy all the objective halachic concerns with pants, this would only be acceptable if the local dat Yehudit endorsed them as acceptable clothing for women, and if this was the practice of local women who are careful in issues of tzniut. There are a few communities in the Religious Zionist community in Israel where this is the case, but for the overwhelming majority of Orthodox communities, the hallmark of religious women’s clothing is skirts and dresses.
Acknowledging that even this question is fundamentally within communal hands is very important. I remember many conversations with women even at Yeshiva University who felt alienated by peers, teachers, and shadchanim because they grew up and identified with otherwise observant communities where it was perfectly normal for them to wear pants. Saying this explicitly, then, is incredibly refreshing.
Rabbi Manning even goes on to note something often overlooked when discussing different communal norms of dress:
We should also keep in mind that using the language of “stricter” and “more lenient” is often unhelpful and inaccurate in most of these areas. A woman from a community that requires arms to be covered to the wrist is not taking a “stricter” position than a woman from a community that requires arms to be covered to the elbow. Each is following their own community’s dat Yehudit and, in so doing, is complying fully with the halachah. To produce a halachic typology that presents “more covering” as an act of stricture or greater piety is not only misleading, but also promotes a culture that pressures women to feel that they always need to cover more. While it is understandable that some teachers feel that this kind of push is helpful in our morally ambiguous world, it is my view that honesty and clarity when teaching Torah is always the best policy.
Like in my recent review of Rabbi Moshe Kurtz’s Challenging Assumptions, I have to agree with Rabbi Manning here in the strongest possible way. Honesty in teaching what is or is not required is incredibly valuable in cultivating informed and passionate Jews. On that note, honesty in discussing tznius also requires understanding that although tznius does come with halachic rules about what kinds of clothing women should or should not wear in their communities, it should NOT be taught as being for the benefit of potential male onlookers, nor should it be assumed not to apply to men.
One of the reasons for tznius that is often taught to women is that they should not be complicit in the sin of lifnei iver - placing a stumbling block (in this case, dressing “provocatively”) before the blind (in this case, men who might be tempted to look at them). Rabbi Manning has very harsh words about this educational approach:
Unfortunately, young women are often taught that lifnei iver is one of the foundations of the concept of tzniut. They are led to understand that their bodies are like unexploded bombs which, in the wrong circumstances, might be detonated, wreaking havoc on the spiritual lives of the men around them! This often goes along with a message that men are helpless creatures who are incapable of controlling their sexual drives. Given the serious Torah prohibitions on sexual encounters between men and women—whether physical, emotional, or even visual—outside of marriage, women are often made to feel that they bear a heavy responsibility to safeguard the teetering neshamot of all the men around them.
This mistaken understanding of tzniut can cause enormous damage to the emotional and psychological self-image of young women. It is also largely self-defeating, when these women mature and realize the damage that has been inflicted by defining tzniut through its negative effect on others. In many cases, this trauma and guilt can lead to a total rejection of tzniut as a meaningful value. All too often, it precipitates a general disconnection from Torah. As we have seen above, tzniut rests on deep spiritual foundations and it is critical to communicate to men and women that tzniut, at heart, is about our own personal spiritual relationships with ourselves and with God. Saving men should not be used as the reason that women must observe hilchot tzniut.
Rabbi Manning notes that lifnei iver is a real halachic concern - “being part of a community means that we must consider the effects of our own decisions on others” - but at the same time, “men have the ultimate responsibility for their own thoughts, eyes, decisions, and responses.” The most a woman could be held accountable in this regard is knowingly flaunting a community’s norms of dress with the intention of drawing attention. Men, though, have these concerns as well!
Rabbi Manning stresses that “men must be aware of the way in which they project or signal sexually to women, and women also have a responsibility to control the way they look at and think about men.” To think otherwise is to engage in a tremendous category error. He also makes it very clear that while there is no objective standard of dat Yehudit for men like there is for women, communal norms of dat Yehudit halachically apply to men as much as they do to women. “In fact,” Rabbi Manning writes, “we can clearly see the daily application of dat Yehudit in the world of men as different communities adopt variant customs (often without written sources) as to how men should dress and behave in the public arena.”
In the Yeshivish community, this is usually quite visible. For example, should men wear white shirts, or can they wear blue or pink? Are jackets and hats required in the street? Are short-sleeves considered a lack of tzniut? May a man swim in a (men-only) public pool bare-chested or should he wear a T-shirt? Are shorts considered tzanua for a man (and does it depend on what type of shorts)? Is it considered tzanua for a man, and even the rabbi, to go jogging in sweatpants, or mountain biking in shorts? In some communities it may be disgrace for the rabbi to act in this way. In others, it would be seen as admirable, and perhaps set a great example for the community!
Some communities expect men to wear “a black suit, white shirt, and hat” while others allow for “casual pants, T-shirts, and sandals.” These norms, like with women, are “wholly dependent on dat Yehudit." I actually ran into this myself when I found myself offered a position to temporarily fill in as shul rabbi in a community to my hashkafic right. I found out that at least one prominent member of the community was opposed to my being offered the job because they once saw me go grocery shopping wearing black jeans and a polo shirt, things they simply could not imagine a rabbi would wear in public.
It is precisely for reasons like this that Rabbi Manning stresses the importance of men and women finding communities that are the right hashkafic fits for them. That way the dat Yehudit of their community still allows for maximal self-expression and comfort in how they present themselves. He even offers a thorough though explicitly non-exhaustive list of hashkafic principles one should consider in choosing a community for themselves or their family:
Sensitivity toward weak and underprivileged people
The importance of justice for all
Developing an energized sense of simchah in serving God, which brings one to ahavat Hashem
Developing a deep respect for halachah and the seriousness of error in mitzvah observance, which brings one to yirat Shamayim
A passion for Jewish education, especially for children
The centrality of Torah and Torah learning
The importance of earning a living, supporting a family, and not living off the charity of others
Not focusing on material gain as a life goal
Creating communities that are inclusivist, but also authentic and true to Torah values
Recognition that there is wisdom in the non-Jewish world and the value of exposure to that learning in a manner that will not detract from our commitment to Torah
That our role in this world is one of giving to others and self-sacrifice, and not personal gain
The importance of delayed gratification
The uncompromising commitment to the observance of halachah in every aspect of life
The centrality of Eretz Yisrael and the importance of fighting to protect it
Striving for shalom, particularly in relationship between husband and wife
Belief in the ultimate redemption for the world, and working to achieve that end
Achieving personal purity and sanctity in act, word, and thought
Recognizing a metaphysical reality that goes beyond the world around us
Of course, “very few of these principles, taken individually, are subject to significant hashkafic dispute.” The differences between Yeshivish, Chassidish, Chareidi, Modern/Centrist Orthodox, Religious Zionist, and other communities as well as sub-communities “arise not from disagreement on identifying these principles, but in deciding which should take priority, and how they should be balanced when they appear to be in conflict.” That balance should be carefully considered as people decide which community to call their primary spiritual home.
Of course, one cannot discuss Reclaiming Dignity without mentioning Emmanuel Bloch’s fascinating essay. He makes a strong case that it is a “a thoughtful, sophisticated, and important book” yet an apologetic one nonetheless. That is, Reclaiming Dignity is a modern reinterpretation of tznius seeking to defend the concept from critique as opposed to fully playing within halachic discourse. Yes, there is genuine (and quite thorough) halachic analysis but the core of the book is about reorienting how people view tznius itself rather than those particular halachic nuances. It is here where Bloch makes a powerful point:
“Apologetics” is not another word for “hypocrisy”: a good apology facilitates the transition from an older mindset to a more contemporary one. It makes it possible to incorporate modern moral insights while remaining loyal to tradition. From this perspective, Reclaiming Dignity is remarkably successful. Tzeniut-as-dignity is BOTH new AND traditional, and therefore, insofar as a religious tradition reinvents itself constantly, it is authentically Jewish.
Ideologically, we are witnesses to a fascinating new amalgamation of Jewish and Western values that is transpiring before our very eyes. Sociologically, Reclaiming Dignity reflects, or perhaps even crystallizes, a new alliance between previously warring factions of Anglo-Orthodoxy. It catalyzes powerful yet previously less visible social trends (an endorsement of mental health consciousness, limited concessions to gender egalitarianism, and a rejection of extremism and sectarianism).
Reclaiming Dignity celebrates the birth of a new Anglo-Orthodoxy and helps it find its own voice. Little wonder that such a rare book is greeted with unbridled enthusiasm.
It is exactly this ability to bridge so many different communities and philosophies while inserting much needed egalitarianism into the tznius conversation that makes Reclaiming Dignity one of the most important halachic and hashkafic books I have read. I highly reccomend picking up a copy while it is still in stock!
Reclaiming Dignity is available from Mosaica Press, Amazon (and Amazon.ca for my Canadian audience), and in many sefarim stores while supplies last.
Fantastic review! Makes me want to read the book again!