[Avodah] Habituation

[Isaac Balbin]

> From: Michael Makovi <mikewinddale at gmail.com>
> 
> Thank you, then, for that explanation. I still hold by my position. I
> tend to prefer the positions that reconcile as much as possible.

I'm not sure I understand this general rule. Are you saying that where there is a Jewish Mesora or traditional understanding which in one's eyes doesn't reconcile "as much as they understand", that a yid may choose a minority opinion which is not at all accepted?

As I understand it, such a decision is taken not by an individual yid, but by a Posek to whom one directly addresses the question.

A Posek learns how to pasken especially through the shimush he undertakes which is a continuation of a Mesora.

At University, there is no Mesora and we can choose an argument because it makes most sense and can justify it. The study of halacha is an intellectual exercise, but the determination of halacha by a yid transcends the intellectual exercise.

> Furthermore, I prefer a few kelalim to many peratim - Occam's Razor.

Is this a preference, together with its ramifications that have been communicated as being the basis of valid conclusions lehalacha and l'maaseh for a private yid to make on their own, or are you just being mefalpel?


> 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 do think all yidden have to be exceedingly careful with their choice of words. It goes hand in hand with Kabolas Ol Malchus Shomayim and being Kafuf to one's Posek/Rav HaMuvhak.

The AhS's position was always "sensible and coherent".

(to be sure, it is alleged that one reason the Aruch Hashulchan was "replaced" by the Mishna Brura was this controversial ruling).

R' Chaim Ozer had a Psak on Gelatin. It wasn't miskabel, despite the uniformly acknowledged gadlus of R' Chaim Ozer in Psak. One would not also decide to follow R' Chaim Ozer's psak on this because it has more klalim and less peratim. A yid learns the psak etc and then discusses how they ACT based on their Posek.

That being said, I'm assuming that you are a yid who has not reached the level of Horaah. Correct me please if I am wrong!

> 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.

I'd suggest that if you ever did shimush (please correct me if you have done shimush!)
this would show many examples of people who break your rules.
Should one consider doing away with Hilchos Yichud on this basis as well?

> 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.

Is a blind man (today) patur from Hilchos Yichud? There was a recent Psak that a blind man may use his hands to determines how a woman "looks" if that is important to him being able to determine that she is attractive to him for the purposes of marriage. 
Can he also use those hands on any woman he sees in general in order to determine what she "looks like"?

I think the analogy is flawed. There is a Gavra and Cheftza shel Isur here and there is a Metziyus. One can't extrapolate in the way you suggest

> So we have a three-tiered progression:

I'm not at all sure why the term "progression" is used here.
The Aruch Hashulchan and Mishneh Brura's world were the same.

> 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 am not acquainted with R' Messas. It might be an idea to discuss his position with R' Ovadya or one of his sons?

> 
> I myself wholeheartedly agree with your belief that tzniut is bound
> entirely by societal norms, and that none of its laws are absolute.

You quote R' Henkin's book below. Please re-read the section on (for example) the length of a skirt. Based on your thesis, there should not be such a shakla v'tarya. Today, it is commonplace for women to wear tight jeans and very short skirts. As a result *most* of us (!) don't have hirhur and the shok should be redefined.

Does a Posek agree with that reasoning?

> However, I must admit that I am differing with the AhS in this.

It is one thing for a yid to say that they understand the svaros and shakla v'tarya of (A) better than they understand that of (B), but a yid has to be kafuf to their Posek or Rav HaMuvhak. If a yid's posek decided to pasken against the Aruch Hashulchan, that's another matter. What is the meaning of the "Tzarich Iyun" that many conclude with?


>> 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.

Is a yid allowed to poke if he could call attention by raising his voice or asking another lady to tap the woman whose attention he was seeking?

> 
> 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.

Many people subscribe to statistics that the slightest intimacy between (unmarried) males and females today leads to the bedroom.
Would there be less 21 year old virgins today or more, when compared to 100 years ago?
What has habituation achieved?

> 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.

Where do Chazal define a "platonic" woman?
(I'm assuming we aren't talking about those with a different gender bias, but having mentioned that, I wonder why the Rambam according to your thesis should not have absolved homosexual males from all tznius issues relating to women? Lo Plug? Well, indeed. Lo Plug cuts both ways. A yid can't pick and choose based solely on their sechel)