In the course of discussions often found here that include matters of sexual aspects of Tznius (modesty), there is a prevailing attitude that makes many assumptions about the baseline of sexual modesty. Included are such things as mixed seating at weddings or concerts, mixed swimming, hair covering, women singing, women’s clothing styles (e.g. skirt and sleeve lengths, closed collars, tightness of clothing, etc), …or even touching between the sexes (e.g. social kissing or hand shaking).
Certainly there are Halachic sources that are very strict on all these aspects. But there are also legitimate source in Halacha that are lenient. I’m not going to go into a Halachic discourse on precisely what those sources are and how to interpret them. I want to focus on the general approach of the more lenient ones.
Most of the discussion revolves around women’s obligations in appearance and men’s reaction to it. Halacha demands certain standards of behavior in sexual matters.
The question is: Are these standards fixed or are they subjective? Does the culture we live in have any impact? Does one who lives in a culture where the standard of sexual modesty is very strict mean that Jews must also be that strict? Or does it mean that we nonetheless have our own less strict standards? The same question may be asked in reverse: If we live in a culture that has very lenient standards of sexual modesty, does the mean we my lower our own? And how lenient may we be in that respect?
These are important questions that I believe deserve serious Halachic treatment. There are have been many books written about Tznius obligations. Bur in my view they can and in some cases are very misleading citing Chumros only. I believe that such a book do not look at the underlying principle of sexual modesty: which is to prevent sexual thoughts… mostly in men. And that is a highly subjective parameter. It is based on the culture one lives in. It is of course also based on individual differences in the human psyche.
There are ample examples of behavior of our sages that demonstrate this principle. Rav Papa(?) carried his niece on his shoulders during a wedding and when he was asked how he could do that he basically answered that it didn’t affect him. But another Gemarah tells us that anyone who stares at even the small finger of a woman transgresses a severe sin.
This should be understood to mean that if one looks at or does anything that will give him sexual thoughts then it is prohibited. Obviously for most people looking at the small finger of a woman is not going to bring forth a prurient thought. Otherwise Halacha would mandate that woman keep their hands covered at all times. No one Paskins like that. The onus is upon the individual to avoid what ‘turns him on’.
Let us examine the concept of Erva, nakedness. There are of course some clear areas that are considered Erva. But is there a universal standard? Well yes, there are obvious parts of the body that must be covered. But how much of it is not so clear as some would have us believe. Aside from what is clearly nakedness, the actual parts of the body that must be covered by a woman is relative a given culture. What for example in a culture like ours does one do with the Gemarah’s concept of Tefach B’Isha Erva?
If I understand it correctly, this means that in the most lenient sense of the Halacha, a woman may wear a dress or skirt that is one hand breadths length above the knee and still be considered within the minimum parameters of not being an Erva.
Why is that the case? Because in culture where this is considered normal Halacha does not consider it an intrinsically sexually stimulating sight. In the United States, where most women commonly dress this way one might consider it permissible for an observant woman to dress that way. Of course I don’t know that there is a single Posek anywhere that would permit this. But I wonder why not?
That Tznius is relative to the culture was made clear in the famous Teshuva by the Levush where he states that in his day when men and women are more commonly found together socially, it is no longer considered improper to sit together with members of the opposite sex. One may therefore recite “ShaHasimcha B’Mono (that the simcha is in God’s proverbial holy place) at a wedding. This is a phrase said at every Sheva Brachos before Bentching, the grace after meals. Clearly the culture determined the Tznius requirement there.
Just as the Levush made clear the relative aspects of Tznius with respect to sitting mixed at a wedding, so too should his rationale apply to other aspects of Tznius.
Another issue is context. If it were objectively forbidden to touch women or look at certain parts of their body under all circumstances, a religious Jew could never become an OB-Gyn. We know that this is not the case. If it were a woman would be forbidden to go to a male OB-Gyn under non life-threatening situations. The same is true for female doctors who examine male patients Or even a female barber for a male customer. Context too is all important.
It all boils down to what will stimulate sexual thoughts.
There is a caveat about making judgements about what is or is not sexually stimulating dress or behavior from western culture. It is completely over-sexualized. Sexual promiscuity is practically the norm.. Our culture is so obsessed with sex that it is almost impossible to avoid a sexually stimulating cue no matter where one is. So to try and extrapolate appropriate dress or behavior from western culture is almost impossible.
How then is one to behave? Should we therefore adopt the most stringent level of modesty? This is certainly the Charedi approach. The more Charedi, the more stringent.
I’m not sure what the answer is but one thing is certain, It does not mean adopting every Chumra in the book. One is allowed to look normal in the culture we live in. And although we live in a highly sexualized culture, there are still ways of determining what is appropriate (non sexually stimulating) and what isn’t.
