modesty

This is what you wrote in the column on modesty – The above discussion opened with a statement by the rabbi who clearly states this:

The incident of our rabbi the rabbi who came to him regarding a matchmaking proposal where the girl's mother goes without a headscarf, whether to accept such a proposal. The rabbi replied to him: If she comes from a Lithuanian family, you can accept it because in Lithuania not everyone was so strict about it, but if she comes from a Hungarian family, do not accept it because it shows a corruption

I didn't remember. You really see here that modesty is a matter of circumstance. That doesn't mean it's permissible to go without a head covering, but modesty is a broader matter than halakha.

Not necessarily. I argue that all that has been said is that this does not indicate a general deterioration. The deterioration is due to ignorance or habit only in the hair.

Let us first say that there is a fundamental difference between nakedness according to the Torah (the religion of Moses) and nakedness according to the rabbis (the Jewish religion). The religion of Moses never changes, and does not depend on the custom of the place, and the Jewish religion changes according to the place and time, as does the current custom of the kosher women in that place (the term kosher women means women who are fully observant of the other commandments). The religion of Moses includes in covering the body the area of the torf and the main part of the body from the elbow to the knee, inclusive. From this point on, it is the Jewish religion and depends on the custom (this is not the place to go into detail with evidence). But regarding hair, the poskim disagreed on whether it is the religion of Moses or the Jewish religion. According to the majority of poskim, head covering is according to the Torah (according to the Gemara in Iruvin, page 10, the reason for this is because of the curse of Eve), and as the Gemara explained in Ketubot, page 8221;b, “the Torah is.” Indeed, Rabbi Yosef proved in Responsa Yahveh Da'at (Part 5, 62) that this is not necessary: "And behold, even though the Gemara makes it difficult in the Torah, it is not a complete proof that it is a Torah prohibition, and as the Meiri wrote similarly in Ketubot 100:10), that what was made difficult in the Gemara there, honoring the father's wife from the Torah, is nothing but the words of the scribes and they relied on the Bible, and we have also found in many places similar to this, such as in Ta'anit (28:10) Hillel darosh chodesh lau from the Torah, from the list of the festivals from the Torah? And in Mo'ed Katan (11:10) that the work of the Hol HaMo'ed is forbidden from the Torah. And so in many places (the rabbi noted that there is no Olin in Ilan for Rosh Hashanah 22:2, from the Torah. And see Rashi's commentary there). And so the Tosafot Hagiga (18:18) wrote that it is the day of the festival, and the Rashi in his rulings (Rish Moed Katan), and in the book of Ya'araim (end of verse 123), and in the Mai'iri (Moed Katan 2.). And in the Mai'iri of Rosh Hashanah (9:1) he wrote, and the addition of Yom Kippur is nothing but the words of scribes and readers of the reference book. And some disagree with what was said in the Bitzah (L.) Tosefet Yochak according to the Torah, and there is no need for this, as we have already found in several places in the Shas that reads the words of the scribes according to the Torah, when it is something that has as its main point a deviation from the Torah, even though the matter itself is not from the Torah. However, and the Shas that finally ruled regarding the head covering, which is a prohibition from the Torah. However, the minority of the poskim have taken the view that the head covering is a matter of rabbinic custom and depends on custom. This does not make any difference to the Dina, since in any case the current custom is that one hundred percent of observant women cover their heads, and in any case there is no room for leniency in this, because the custom is determined according to the kashrut women. But there is an additional branch in this that leniency is given to the wig, for example, or to the divorced and widowed woman whom Rabbi Feinstein permitted to go with her head uncovered. I will detail those who believe that head covering is from the rabbis or a custom: The head is for everyone, the gift of the rabbinic sage Rama, who wrote in the opinion of the Rambam that covering the head is forbidden by the rabbis, and this is his language: “And the rabbinic sage wrote that it is nothing but a matter of Kabbalah, and he wrote that covering the head of a woman is nothing but a precaution from the rabbis, as is clear from his language, and it is understood that he has a Talmud that “the Torah is”; his intention is to say that there is a hint from the Torah. And so the rabbi Rabbi Yosef Nissim Burla Rabbah wrote to the Sephardic community in Jerusalem at that time, in the book “Yaishev Yosef” (Part 1 of the Book of Revelation), that the prohibition of uncovering the head is a rule of the Sages, and it has a basis in the Torah: “We heard a warning from Tana Deborah R. Yishmael not to go out with the head uncovered, and even though it is not a prohibition from the Torah, and even though it is not customary, it is not a way of modesty. And they allow her to go out without a written document because of the Jewish religion.” The uncovering of a woman’s hair is a prohibition not because they have made it difficult for themselves, but rather a prohibition from the rabbis, and I will call it a beautiful saying, etc.; its prohibition is based on the warning of Tana Deborah R. Yishmael, etc.; and finally, there is a basis in the Torah. A correction and warning from the Tana Devi Rabbi Yishmael mentioned at the end of the commentary, and so the statement is repeated that it is a Tana of the Sages. Surely because of a restriction and a fence they touched upon it, the prohibitions of the rabbis and it has a basis from the Torah and because of a restriction of Esau. And he also wrote there, in what the questioner was surprised about what he said was a prohibition from the Torah, and this is his language, and his words are nothing but surprising, that sometimes he showed himself to be defeated in what I proved to be a deviation from the head not from the Torah but a reference from the Bible, and sometimes it seems from his words as if he decided in his opinion that the head of his prohibition was precisely from the Torah, but without any support and evidence for his words only in the words from the Bible, and he also did not show us any contradiction to the words that I proved to be not a prohibition from the Torah. So. And the author replied, and this is his language. I was astonished at the sight and saw that he was trying to contradict my words, etc. And praise be to God, everything is written in a book, and from beginning to end, it will not be found in any of my words that I have written, that the breaking of the head is forbidden by the Torah, but if it were in this, I said that the breaking of the head is implied in the Torah, and once I wrote that the prohibition of the reading is to break the head of a woman, I was told to say that it is implied in the reading that it is broken, etc., this is what I wrote, and I did not know where in my words he found the breaking of the head of a prohibition definitely from the Torah, this is nothing but a head's opinion and this is not one of the ways of learning that teaches to bring the law to light. And look at the book of Be'er Sheva, that the prohibition of the breaking of the head is forbidden by the Torah, in the light of the word, and upon it will fall his question. And so the Gaon Rabbi Yosef of Mashash wrote in his book Otzar Hamaktabim, Part 3: (Si’ Alef Tif”d): “The foundation of the institution for all the poskim, who built upon it like they were lifting up their temple, is what R’ Yishmael demanded, “Perah the head of the woman, a warning to the daughters of Israel not to go out with their heads uncovered” (as in Tractate Ketubot Heb.) and Par”i Z”l… “Mdkativ and Perah, from the generality of the fact that now she is not uncovered, she heard that there is no way for the daughters of Israel to go out with their heads uncovered, and so on”… and according to’ The second is that the prohibition is not based on the very act of revealing hair, but rather on the custom of the women of Israel who used to cover their heads, because in their time they thought that this was modesty for a woman, and revealing hair was considered breaking the barrier of modesty, and for this reason the Torah warned every woman of Israel not to do the opposite of the custom of the women of Israel in this matter. And so now that all the daughters of Israel have agreed that there is no modesty in covering their heads, and that there is no defilement in uncovering their heads, then the prohibition has been uprooted from its very foundation and the permission has been made. Indeed, all women uncover all the hair on their heads, and the hair of married women has returned to being like the hair of virgins, who are all fit to uncover it, because it is a matter of shame in virgins, because it is a matter of shame in revealing it, not a matter of breaking the law in revealing it. This is the law and this is the reason, indeed, in married women who are accustomed to revealing it, lest there be any breaking the law in this, God forbid. Likewise, with regard to hair on a naked woman (Berachot 24), this is a matter of shame in virgins because there is no reflection in the ordinary way of seeing it, this is the law in married women who are accustomed to revealing it, there is no reflection in the ordinary way, and every man of flesh will see that he sees thousands of women passing before him day after day with their heads uncovered, and he pays no attention to them. And he who reflects, not because of exposed hair reflects. [He wrote his words when he was serving as a rabbi in Algeria, and he thought that it was his duty that all women in the world had stopped covering their heads]. And the great Rabbi Yitzchak Simcha HaLevi Horowitz, zetzil, one of the rabbis of the United States, wrote in his book Yad HaLevi (On the Book of the Mitzvot, p. 143): “Why is it said that a woman with a disheveled head is not included in the Torah, there is no question [why it is not included in the Mitzvot], since it is not a mitzvah in itself, and depends on the place and time; there is no difference between a virgin and a man’s wife, and if the prohibition of a man’s wife is severe, what is the point, since she is also free in general from adultery, as explained in the Sanhedrin (end of the chapter Ben Sorer) and what is more, all free women at this time are considered to be virgins, and he wrote The Rambam (Chapter 21 of the Prohibitions of Entry) and the Torah and the Shulchan (Aha 6:21) in the Hadith and this is its language: “The daughters of Israel shall not go out in the market with their heads disheveled, one unmarried and the other married.” And he cites the texts there, giving us the words of Rabbi Yishmael warning the daughters of Israel not to go out with their heads disheveled, and he did not distinguish between a unmarried woman and a married woman, and so the Mishnah and the B’cham write; the truth teaches that there are places, and everything depends on the custom of the place. Today, the custom is in almost all cities of Israel, and even more so in our place in the New Land [the United States], where they all go out in the market today with their heads disheveled, and this has already been permitted. For the women of Israel who are chaste and modest, and who would be willing to have their law fulfilled as harlots and transgressors, then did not Abraham our father place a daughter sitting under her husband? And after their way is as it is today, they are like virgins before, who were in this way and were not forbidden from it, and their hair is like their hair, the places that are in their way to be covered are forbidden to be uncovered, as the Torah (Sh. 6:5) elaborated and wrote: “The hair of a woman who is in her way to be covered is not allowed to be uncovered.” But the places that are in their way to be uncovered, whether in their flesh or in their hair, are like their faces and hands, resembling being uncovered outside, and did they not say (Berakhot 24.) “A woman’s hair is a naked body, as it is said that her hair is like a herd of cattle.” The goats, and the Pharisees, "Praise be to her, she called in the body, she heard her desire, she was in a place where their path was to walk with their hair covered." And the reference is in the book of Balaam, as the wise men everywhere are accustomed to relying on some verse, as is known, so it is not a complete study of the words of Kabbalah for every place and for every time, why did they not also learn that the nose of a woman is naked, as it is said, "Your nose is like the tower of Lebanon," the eyes of a woman are naked, as it is written, "Your eyes are doves," and so on, which is mentioned there, and his friend said about him, that they said there, "The voice of a woman is naked," as it is said, "Your voice is like a veil," and yet they wrote in the glosses of Maimonides, which is cited in the Bible and in the Bible, where the usual voice is not felt, and it is As we wrote, and so in the original of the words where it is said that a woman's head is shaved in the Torah, as it is written and shaved, etc., the Pharisee of the second commentary that he wrote about it, and the same is true, they learned this from the writing and shaved from the rule of the law that it is not shaved, she heard that there is no way for the daughters of Israel to go out with their heads shaved, and from the explanation of the Darshee of the same, he wrote in the Dovmanhaga Tala Milta; I wrote all this not for practical purposes, only to teach a right regarding the daughters of Israel. And in a reply printed in the monthly "Degel Yisrael" (section of the commentary, p. 274), he further wrote: "And if I said in my reply to one of the senior rabbis in Jerusalem 6. Therefore, it is established that there is no change or alteration to them, except in the things that are explicit in the Torah, I will wait for you, as if I had taken these things from my heart, and they are explained in the words of our Rabbi Maimonides, chapter 59 of the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, and in matters that are not explicit in the Torah, not only because the Great Court could change them at any time, as Maimonides says in chapter 2 of the Demerites, but also because the custom of Israel today has the power to change the laws of the Torah, as in Yerushalmi (chapter 7 of Dabba Metzia Halacha A and chapter 12 of Bebomot Halacha A) that custom nullifies Halacha. And from the explanation of Dafi, Halacha came before As for the custom, the custom was eradicated, and in particular with regard to the matter of the head-shaving, which I have already proven with clear evidence that the whole point of its prohibition from the beginning was nothing more than a custom, that this is how women behaved in those generations, I am certain that it is a custom and that it abolishes a custom. And as for the prohibition that is more explicit than the prohibition of the head-shaving of a woman, and it is a new prohibition, all the early ones, such as the Harif and the Rambam and the Toss and the Raash and the Tur and the Shul and the Samak, all of them upheld and accepted as legal the prohibition from the Torah, even at this time and even because of a gentile, and the people practiced it - which is not within the authority of their sages - and they eat it without hindrance, and I have not seen anyone who came out against them with voices and thunders to defend them, rather all the later ones, such as the B'ach and the Be'er Gola and the T'az And the Maga and other great scholars of the latter, all went out to teach them virtue, even though the eaters did not address them with their questions at all, but rather they themselves found themselves speaking ill of the people of God, all of whom went out and stood outside the boundaries of the Torah, God forbid. And this is what has awakened in me the desire to teach a right to the daughters of Israel in this country, who all, without exception, even the daughters and wives of the sons of the rabbis who raised their voices against me, also go out with their heads uncovered in the market, and we are spared from judging them as harlots and transgressing the law of Moses. It was not fitting for Mary to say this, and I searched and found a permission for them from the Torah, saying that it is better for the Israelites to eat the meat of slaughtered animals and not to eat the meat of carrion. At a time when the great men of Israel who are mentioned as having established a new permission, hanged themselves for the sake of Israel with permissions that are floating in the air, as the Gracious One warned them about, I stood, with the help of God, on the true knowledge of the Torah, as I have shown in my book, that the whole prohibition of a woman's head being uncovered depends only on custom. And if in Jerusalem the custom is still today that women should not go out in the market with their heads uncovered, surely among them the prohibition stands in place, as I have proven in my book, and any woman who goes out in the market there with her head uncovered will go out without a ketubah as if she were transgressing the law of Moses. And there in his words he mentioned to another posek who wrote thus: I saw a holy man who understood this in the raids from the words of Rashi mentioned, namely the Gaon Dober Meslis, zetzil, rabbi and abbot of Dak Warsaw, in his book Chiddushei R'd al Sefer HaMitzvot, p. s. Similarly, the Gaon Rabbi Avraham Romano, zetzil, rabbi of the city of Sarajevo in Bosnia, wrote in his book Avraham Avraham (Chapter 2, Parshat Nasa), “Her head is unkempt from the Torah,” he wants to say that the rabbinic decree that is not permissible is called “a decree that is not permissible,” and how does the Mishnah say that the Jewish religion, because it is a custom practiced by Hebrew women, is justified. And he argues that from the Torah, namely, the reference is sufficient to cover it, and the Jewish religion needs a foil for covering it when it goes out to the chief. But from the Torah, there is absolutely no prohibition, even for the chief, of completely unkempt hair without any covering. And the poskim copied from the Torah as written in the Shas, and did not resort to interpreting it as a law from the Torah, but rather as a reference from the chief, and as the chief and the Tos did And Mordechai B. Yokedeshthu is a good thing in Gittith, and the hard thing in Gittith, from where the Ramage Devgitin said in the Hadith that it is from the Torah, and there is no reference to it from the Torah, etc. It is also possible to explain that the Gaon Shvet Shematata (Sh. D. Aut. Ch. Y.) is pleased to have it for his interpretation according to the mistake of the compiler. And likewise, in the inscriptions on page 2, the rabbi wrote that the woman's head was cut off, and the woman's head was cut off by Rabbi Yishmael, etc., and he did not know the end of the baraita, although there is no evidence to support this, and so it is a reference. And the rabbi excused him according to his error, according to the Torah, she was given a free blood transfusion, but according to the truth, according to the Torah, nothing is needed, and everything is from the rabbis. And so on. And so the gaon Rabbi Asher Grunis, zetzil, rabbi of Wiltszyn in Poland, wrote in his book, "Fruits of Asher" (S.I. 12, p. 101): “It would seem to me to say, that although they adopted the custom of a woman with her head uncovered from the Torah, it is not intended that this is one of the thirty-three commandments, only because the Torah mentions an ancient custom that women are not accustomed to walking with their heads uncovered, it is called “from the Torah.”And as we find in Toss’ Gittin 47, etc., and in Tiferet Yisrael Archin (P. 345) “It is written that the title of a virgin is rabbinical, even though it is written in the Torah as the dowry of virgins, etc.; so it was in Morgel… Thus, the Torah adopted the moral custom that was also among the nations of the world. And this is found in the Talmud that they adopted “from the Torah” and it is not from the Torah itself… [and extends it with evidence] And here we are told about the matter of shaving a woman's head that there is no explicit warning in the Torah, only that it is a form of suta ‘and shave her head’ which they understood from here, that it was their way of covering their heads. And this they said is from the Torah, because it is a tradition of the fathers since the time of the Torah, and the daughters of Israel were careful about this for thousands of years, and this is the religion of Moses and Judaism”.