[Avodah] Habituation

[Michael Makovi]

Rn' Chana explained how the AhS could hold there is an absolute issur
of exposing hair for a married woman, but not for an unmarried one. In
short: the sugyot regarding Sotah and divorcing one's wife speaking
only of married women, and furthermore say nothing about hirhur. By
contrast, he sugya in Berakhot speaks of hair in general (married or
not), and speaks of hirhur. It is thus possible, but not obligatory,
to say (as I do) that hair-covering applies to ALL women (married or
not), and is mitigated by hergel.

Thank you, then, for that explanation. I still hold by my position. I
tend to prefer the positions that reconcile as much as possible.
Furthermore, I prefer a few kelalim to many peratim - Occam's Razor.
So I'll still prefer my own position, viz. that hair-covering applies
to married and unmarried women equally, but that hergel mitigates the
issur. This is the simplest explanation, and has more kelalim and
fewer peratim.

But still, Rn' Chana has at least made the AhS's position sensible and
coherent. I still disagree with it, but at least it makes sense to me
now. Thank you.

[Email #2. -micha]

As I said, I don't see a meaningful difference between distraction and
habituation. Either way, hirhur / hana'ah is absent, and that, to me,
is the critical factor. If a blind man cannot see an attractive woman,
for example, that seems to me to mitigate the issur of looking at her,
even though he's neither habituated nor distracted. He won't have
hirhur / hana'ah from her, and to me, that's enough.

So whether Rav Aha was distracted by the mitzvah of simhat hatan
v'kalah, or whether he was holy and habituated to sexuality in
general, I don't see a nafqa mina.

> I want to stress that I am NOT campaigning for any particular act to be
> considered mutar or assur. Quite the contrary, it seems to me that *none*
> of these acts are inherently assur or inherently mutar -- they must *all*
> be evaluated in light of the norms of the society and the sensitivity of
> the individual. If it can be safely presumed that no significant
> hirhur/hanaah will result, then it is mutar, else it is assur.

> R' Akiva Miller

You adduce the Arukh ha-Shulhan in your support, but I think he'd
disagree with you. The AhS says the man can say berakhot in the
presence of uncovered hair, but he still prohibits the uncovering of
the hair. (Rabbi Henkin clarifies this point in many of his writings.)
According to the AhS, there is a non-negotiable issur of exposing
hair, regarding of societal norms or hirhur / hana'ah. Societal norms
and hirhur / hana'ah permit the man to see her hair, but the woman
remains prohibited to expose her own hair to men.

So we have a three-tiered progression:
1) Everything is absolute; women must cover their hair, and men cannot
say berakhot around uncovered hair, regardless of hirhur - Mishnah
Berurah
2) Men's berakhot can take habituation into account, but the issur for
women is absolute regardless of societal norms - AhS
3) Everything is subject to societal norms - Me, Rabbi Yosef Messas,
and a very very very very few others

I myself wholeheartedly agree with your belief that tzniut is bound
entirely by societal norms, and that none of its laws are absolute.
However, I must admit that I am differing with the AhS in this.

> A similar thought appears in "Understanding Tzniut" by Rabbi Yehuda Henkin,
> on page 95, where he writes:

> "As opposed to any touching at all between husband and wife when she is in
> a state of niddah, which is explicitly forbidden in the Shulchan Aruch
> [Yoreh Deah 195:2...], no such sweeping prohibition of all physical contact
> is found in relation to other 'arayot. Thus, while the Shulchan Aruch [Even
> ha-Ezer 21:1] forbids numerous forms of interaction with 'arayot including
> winks and gestures and pleasurable gazing, simple touching without
> intention of affect is not one of them."

> In other words, Rabbi Henkin is unaware of any *inherent* issurim in this
> area. None of these issurim is *always* in effect. They *all* carry the
> stipulation of being in effect *only* when they cause some amount of
> hirhur/hanaah.

> R' Akiva Miller

Handshaking is prohibited only b'derekh hibat biah, so indeed,
handshaking is prohibited only where there is hirhur / hana'ah. All
the more so would merely touching (say, poking) a woman be permitted,
as long as hirhur / hana'ah is absent.

What I suspect, however, is that different occasions call for a
different standard of hirhur / hana'ah. With your spouse, the
slightest bit of hirhur / hana'ah will lead to the bedroom, and so all
physical contact is prohibited. By contrast, with a stranger or
platonic friend, a mere handshake is unlikely to lead to the bedroom,
and so a different level of hana'ah / hirhur is tolerated.

Similarly, the laws of kol isha are stricter during Shema than during
the ordinary day, because reciting Shema requires purer thoughts. A
different amount of sexual thought is tolerated during Shema than
during the course of the day.

So I'd say ALL the laws of tzniut are subject societal norms, but that
different occasions have different standards for how much hirhur /
hana'ah is permitted.

Michael Makovi