Timeline for What Does Halacha Say About Women Wearing Veils?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 10, 2013 at 5:10 | history | edited | msh210♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Aug 4, 2013 at 18:53 | history | edited | HodofHod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Aug 4, 2013 at 15:40 | comment | added | Hacham Gabriel | "And he thought her to be a prostitute because she covered her face." (Sefer Bershit) | |
| Mar 6, 2013 at 17:23 | answer | added | jake | timeline score: 6 | |
| Mar 6, 2013 at 5:13 | answer | added | MoriDowidhYa3aqov | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 5, 2013 at 20:32 | comment | added | rosends | @Ali you are concerned because experts "believe" that there is no source. But that's not how law develops. There has to be a source (other than a claim of having seen a picture) to drive the creation of practice. My wedding plate has a woman with her face covered on it because the artist was no good at noses. This is not a historical source for law. | |
| Mar 5, 2013 at 20:30 | comment | added | rosends | A bride covers her face briefly before she is married, and the veil is often placed there by her father - this negates the element of the question about "unrelated" men. | |
| Mar 5, 2013 at 19:53 | comment | added | Ariel | @SethJ Not necessarily. People didn't always wear white dresses, and there is not necessarily a chuppah either (since she puts on the veil before going to the chuppah). | |
| Mar 5, 2013 at 19:50 | comment | added | Seth J | @Ariel, in most cases that shouldn't be too difficult. | |
| Mar 5, 2013 at 19:42 | comment | added | Ariel | BTW a bride obviously does cover her face - so if you see such a portrait you have to make sure it's not a wedding portrait. | |
| Mar 5, 2013 at 18:52 | history | rollback | msh210♦ |
Rollback to Revision 9 - per comments
|
|
| Mar 5, 2013 at 18:40 | history | rollback | knowit |
Rollback to Revision 8
|
|
| Mar 5, 2013 at 18:36 | comment | added | Isaac Moses♦ | I've simplified this down to a question about Jewish law and the source for it. A separate history question could be asked, especially if this question's answer starts with "yes." (@SethJ) | |
| Mar 5, 2013 at 18:35 | history | edited | Isaac Moses♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clarified, simplified, and removed second question
|
| Mar 5, 2013 at 18:30 | history | edited | knowit | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Mar 5, 2013 at 18:02 | comment | added | rosends | the source NPR article answers your question "Keren claims to have seen an image from 400 years ago of Jewish women covered from head to toe, but Frenkel says experts believe there are no historical references to back up her claims." | |
| Mar 5, 2013 at 17:39 | history | edited | knowit | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 64 characters in body
|
| Mar 5, 2013 at 17:37 | comment | added | Gershon Gold | hebrewbooks.org/… | |
| Mar 5, 2013 at 17:30 | history | edited | knowit | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 62 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Mar 5, 2013 at 17:30 | history | edited | msh210♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Mar 5, 2013 at 17:23 | comment | added | rosends | I don't know of any (I know of one face covering -- male, and other kinds of covering for females). What prompted this? Do you have any particular case or text in mind? | |
| Mar 5, 2013 at 17:11 | history | edited | Seth J | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 18 characters in body
|
| Mar 5, 2013 at 17:09 | history | edited | Isaac Moses♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 6 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Mar 5, 2013 at 17:08 | history | edited | knowit | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 7 characters in body
|
| Mar 5, 2013 at 16:54 | history | asked | knowit | CC BY-SA 3.0 |