a revealing dress has no place at work- make one wonder? I do not agree with 'modesty rules' as such- but it sounds like those women were hardly dressed for work- revealing? sound a bit unprofessional.

prehaps he should learn to control is sexual urges as a health minister im sure he can find a pill for that. Very sensative these ultra orthadox heaven forbid should a women dispaly her elbows but its ok to riot in the streets in support of a child abuser and call our security forces Nazis when ever they feel like it.

I'm secular and somewhat allergic to Haredi dictates, but even I agree with the rav here. Perhaps you can shut off your own ogling urges and imagine having men's back cracks, groin curves, and/or pubic hair rammed in your face at work every day.

Some women show that they do not deserve equal rights.If he was secular would they wear bikinis to work? Dress however you feel like and dump those shawls! This is not a taliban ruled country yet!

dont be so ridiculous as a company CEO i employ over 250 people in Israel we have charedi empoyees and it has never been an issue. People can wear what ever they feel appropriate and comfortable in. Our female employees are educated people and very much aware of social ettiqute. Who do thsese so called men think they are dictating to women what to wear has any one ever mentioned to him to change his clothes, have a shower or to use deodorant ?

in the first place, in a government establishment, is unprofessional and shouldn't be acceptable even by secular standards. Secondly, deputy health minister Liztman did not ask them to change, the women changed their clothing styles out of their respect for the man and his religious beliefs - and that's admirable. Perhaps if more people bothered with some basic respect to the people they work or live with, things would be much better.

He did not ask them to change their style, these good Jewish daughters did it on their own out of respect, something some of you TBs do not have , not for others not for your own selves! Modest dress is a sign of respect for G_d, for ones self and for others!

Dressing with degree of modesty is a mark of professionalism. Wearing revealing or alluring clothing detracts from the work experience and sexualizes matters. Women know this. Most normal women, raised with some degree of common sense, know this.

What is "professional" ? Years ago a bank clerk had to wear a suit [ in my birth country ] They too changed and are allowed to come in jeans and Tshirt now , they are the same professionals as before . Roman , i told you already , it's not the package , it's what is inside That's important . Of course , there are limits , but those women certainly know them .

You either have it or you're #5.

I have 2 words for your attitude: Sinat Chinam You attack The Health Minister without reading the article. and you chose to believe what the media writes about the woman accused of child abuse simply because she is a hareidi. If Tzipi Livni was accused of this or Edna Arbel (tembel) or some other secular leftist, you would never believe it till she was proven guilty without a shadow of doubt. Did you scream like this about Chaim Ramon teh convicted sex offender? You still have time to issue a public apology and repent before Yom Kippur!

You certainly don't seem to smart. I think you are a CEO in your dreams.

true, what in the package is more important but the wrapper certainly gives away whats in the package. great mail can find its way to spam if not packaged right. diamonds are kept in a safe, garbage is thrown revealed in the streets if you respect the package, wrap it securely out of sight if evil eyes

In the UK and Europe, professional women are generally careful not to wear revealing clothing. The only instance I have come across someone wearing deliberately revealing dress is when my bank wanted to sell me their services and appointed a female staff member to talk to me. They lost out on the deal. I can however understand the screams of dismay from the secular israelis: respect for anyone is just not part of their ethos. During the 60's it was portrayed as cheeky playfulness, but during the occupation, the true colours of the israeli character have shown through - a truly revealing dress code! It exists right up to government level and is clearly reflected in the international popularity of the state

So Go and fast , you certainly need it .

Has no-one ever changed a bit to accomodate a good boss? If they'd brought him apples would you accuse him of bribary. This is just nice to hear they want to do something appropriate for a boss.

This soft spoken and super- efficient Rav certainly deserves and has genuinely earned their respect. He is the most hardworking member of the Knesset ( acc. to Jerusalem Post survey..) Of course his English is perfect too, (being American born) which is such a boon and so rare among our public representatives.

You have no evidence of the workers being afraid to be fired, nothing to even imply that Litzman would fire anyone just because they're wearing clothes that are immodest in his eyes, and when it comes to professionalism... when you're in a public service industry, you represent your organization in the way you dress. Dressing in a sloppy or immodest manner in a public service organization, least of all an actual government branch, just transmits to the public they serve that the package does indeed suit the content - or lack of good content, for that matter.

The fact that the minister did not order a dress code, and the staff made a choice of their own free should be seen for what it is--a sign of mutual respect and integrity. Maybe if we all took this approach towards each other we could band together and face our enemies.

Maybe they fear .....i wrote . Had i to add ???? Read also my last sentence : there are limits .... But you know : the robe does'nt make the monk [ French saying ] They represent this office ONLY when in contact with the public , or with other representants . Not in their dayly work .

"Maybe they fear to be fired" The existence of a question mark is irrelevant - it is implied in the sentence. And the existence or lack of one does not make it anything other than what it is - one step away from libel. It's this kind of idle thinking, gossip, and supposition based on *nothing* that leads people to perceiving the "Other" as evil. You have, in this article, both the views of Deputy Minister Litzman and his female employees - the former says clearly that he did not ask for any such changes, the latter say they just didn't want to make him feel uncomfortable when working with them. And I'm sorry, but I don't see any separation between clerks working with the public as part of their immediate job and employees *of the same organization*. Both work in, and represent, the exact same organization and branch of the government, both may end up meeting other officials or members of the public as part of their job (the women working in Litzman's office essentially meet anyone *he* meets). There are indeed limits, and it's apparent these women didn't quite know them. In their own words, they're not dressing like religious women, just going a bit beyond openly revealing clothes. The question remains - perhaps revealing clothes aren't exactly suitable in a government establishment in the first place?

missing their kindergarten mates. Mum should have enrolled them in kaytana (summer school). Kids really do need to be occupied, very sad.

i have'nt . You ALWAYS insinuate that i have "bad" ideas , they are only in your paranoiac head i think . You are WRONG , a question mark is RELEVANT . It can be seen as a sarcastic question then . They want to please their boss ? Fine . Sometimes it's called [ sorry ] "tucheslekkerai" The nearest employees , who see their boss very often , who are his assistants , yes , they can occasionally meet other people . They are not sitting the whole day on his side [ he could not i think , it's against Halacha , he alone with a woman ! . ] Those women are not representing the State , they are employees of the State and represent only themselve . I said it : there are limits , and they know them .

But adding question marks wouldn't have made your question sound like it was sarcastic - it would have made it sound, just like it does now, as if you were idly wondering what was going through these women's heads. And implying that they were afraid to be fired implies that they had reason to be afraid. Perhaps you should think before you write? And when it comes to Halacha forbidding a man and a woman (who aren't married) to be alone in the same room, it is enough for the door to be open or merely unlocked for that to not pose a problem.

and wonder of wonders, we understand your English. In both these areas, you are similar to the softly spoken Rav Litzman. I think in yiddish it's called edelkeit, refinement. You either have it or you....don't. You ...do.

As someone who's revolted by anything that smacks of religious coercion, I still fail to see what the problem is in this case. It sounds as if MK Litzman didn't even request, let alone require, that these women adopt a more modest dress. They made the decision on their own and I think they should be commended for their effort to show respect for the sensibilities of the MK...even though it's quite possible they don't share them.

You again put ideas in my head i had'nt . I never implyed that they could be fired , their boss said that he did'nt ask them anything . You know , people can go very far to please their boss , be they men or women . For your warped ideas : i don't say this happens here . So don't say i imply something as you always do . With you i have to be very cautious because of your personal "interpretations" Thanks for your clarification regarding man + woman in a room .