[Avodah] Pisuk raglayim

[Meir Shinnar]

> Just to start at the beginning. We discussed pisuq raglayim back in volume 2,
> v2n157 - n160. Take a look at
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n155.shtml#01>, where RYGB raises the
> question of pisuq raglayim and men, and the conversation that ensued at
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=P#PISUK%20RAGLAIM>, and
> the subsequent two entries in the topic index.
>
> (I'm surprised you don't have a conversation from 8 years ago at your
> fingertips. <grin++>)
>
> On Fri, February 9, 2007 8:15 am, R Meir Shinnar wrote:
> :> Pisuq ragalayim isn't a modern invention. It's das Moshe, Sinaitic, assur
> :> even if everyone does it and no one finds it "interesting". It comes from the
> :> kevesh and not having stairs. The big she'eilah is what's the matir for men.
>
> : 1) The kohanim wore michansayim... From the keves, one should learn,
> : if anything, that skirts should be assur...
>
> Collecting a few of RYGB's points: Rav Moshe Tzuriel (mashgiach, Sha'alvim)
> argued that the kapote is superior to the jacket because it eliminates pisuq
> raglayim questions. The kohein's kusones serves a similar purpose -- except
> when running up stairs.
>
> : 2) Is there any classic halachic source from before the nineteenth
> : century that codifies pisuk raglayim as assur for either men or women?
>
> As for RMT's meqoros, RYGB adds:
> > Rabbi Tzuriel told it to me personally, but in the Beis Yechezkel vol. 1
> > p. 304 he quotes the Maharil in the Likutim and Sefer Eleh Ha'Mitzvos
> > l'R"M Chagiz.
>
> The Maharil would place it at 14th, not 19th cent. Whether the Chazal can be
> taken to assume such an issur lema'aseh is debatable. I would say yes, but I
> am sure you would question it.

>RYZirkind found Rashi in Pesachim 3a "lashon neqi'ah", which speaks of the
>issur of women taking harchovas haposi'os. A different problem that is
>somewhat related. But at least shifts the kohein's precedent to a question of
>women.
I have looked in the Maharil - both skimmed and by search ob bar Ilan.
 I did not find anything there.  I did find that he described short
jackets as being worn by rekim - a denigration - but not any
connection of the short jackets to the issue of pisuk raglayim -
perhaps RYGB can provide such a source. Perhaps RMT suggested a
rationale for the preference for long coats - but that is not proof
that the Maharil held that rationale.   I don't have either the Sefer
Eleh Mitzvot nor the beis yechezkel - perhaps someone can find it.
(the entire discussion cited by RGB in the name of the maharil - that
the change from long to short was problematic because of hukas hagoy -
and that short was problematic because of pisuk raglayim - and that
after a while it was ok because it was no longer hukas hagoy (in the
avodah you linked to ) - I couldn't find in the Maharil - and is quite
problematic, because if pisuk raglayim was a problem - why did it
disappear? (hukat hagoy would disappear, but not this....)

I did do a search on pisku raglayim - and found nothing relevant.  The
rashi on pesachim is that pisuk raglayim is something that we want to
avoid mentioning - nothing to do with the keves -but (and I thank R YE
Henkin - and see bne banim 4, p 141) - this refers to spreading the
legs - not to separating them as with pants (see Meiri)

R Zirkind's point was different - that the maskana of the gmara was
that the problem with requiring the keves for the mizbeach was not
related to pisuk raglayim - but to harchavas hapsiyos - therefore
eliminating the whole keves as a source..

I would add another, perhaps more fundamental point of approach - not
just to this issue.  Pants have been worn for a long time - even by
women (in the Muslim world).  They were worn in Europe in the
nineteenth century.  There are many responsa dealing with this issue -
some being mattir at least some types of pants, some assur, some
mattir bish'eat hadechak or as preferable to some other clothing. The
issue for almost all poskim is either a) beged ish or b) zniut (eg,
the term bigde shachatz is frequently used) - but almost no one refers
to the issue of pisuk raglayim - and we are talking about people with
a fairly encyclopedic knowledge (eg, rav ovadya's yosef's tshuvot -
and permission of pants under certain conditions).
While some may bring an issue of pisuk raglayim - the notion that this
is clear cut issur -  It's das Moshe, Sinaitic, assur
> :> even if everyone does it and no one finds it "interesting". It comes from the
> :> kevesh and not having stairs. The big she'eilah is what's the matir for men.
is what is problematic.  There may well be valid grounds for a posek
to assur pants, as some do, or to be mattir them, as some do - but the
backgrounds for the issur for most poskim who assur is far more
general issues of zniut and of beged ish - which suggests that they do
not find the issur of pisuk to be so clearcut...
Now, of course, it is possible that one has valid arguments that
everyone ignored - and discovered a new sinaitic issur.  However, the
likelihood is that one has invented rather than discovered it...-
because of the belief that it should be assur.

However, the difference between creating a new sinaitic issur to
bolster our convictions that something is assur - and creating a new
heter for a sinaitic issur because we believe it should be muttar
(such as, to be topical, mishkav zachor) - is quite small - and
reflects a distortion of the sources.  We should be careful - that our
issurim are real issurim, and our heterim are real heterim

meir Shinnar