[Avodah] Sleeves that Cover the Elbows

[Chana Luntz]

RYL writes (on Areivim):
> I in no way justifying spitting, name calling and other modes of
> threatening anyone.  However, I must say that I think that these women
> undermine their own case by they way they are dressed in this video.  Are
> they not aware that halacha requires women to wear sleeves that cover their
> elbows, and that low necklines are not allowed?  And if they are aware of
> this,  then why do they ignore this?

How do you know that the halacha "requires women to wear sleeves that
cover their elbows"?

Yes, I am sure you could quote me a book written by the type of rabbi
whose opinion on the internet and secular education you would reject out
of hand who would unquestionably say this, but as with so often, these
sorts of books quote only one, and often one of the most machmir, shitos.

In terms of more original sources, it is noteworthy that the gemora in
Brochos 24b, which refers to women's tefach, shok and hair as being ervah,
does not mention arms. The mention of arms comes rather primarily in the
gemora in Kesubos 72b and the Yerushalmi in Gitten. After the Mishna in
Kesubos has said that a woman violates das Yehudis and can be divorced
without a kesuba, with one of the forms of violating das Yehudis being
to "spin in the marketplace" (along with going out into the marketplace
with uncovered hair), on Kesubos 72b Rabbi Yehuda explains this in the
name of Shmuel: that this is במראה זרועותיה לבני אדם mareh zroteha l'bnei
adam. In a not dissimilar discussion in Bavli Gitten 72a-b it says:

    ... this is the way of a bad man, that he sees his wife going out
    and her head is uncovered and she spins in the marketplace and wears
    split clothing on two sides and she bathes with men [and he does
    not object].

And Rashi there explains this as:

    And wears split clothing on two sides: -- revealing the upper arms
    in the manner of the non Jewish women in France that their flesh is
    visible from their sides.

The corresponding language in the Yerushalmi Mesechet Gitten Perek
9 halacha 11 actually mentions arms but the reference is uzeroteha
chalutzot וזרועותיה חלוצות -- ie:

    ... and from where that if she goes out with her head uncovered and
    the sides [of her clothing] open and her arms chalotzot, the Torah
    teaches if you find in her a thing of ervah...

Now the Rokeach in Hilchot Tephila siman 424 says:

    ... and the hair whether of his wife or other another woman or the
    shok or a tefach of basar or revealed arms [zerotecha megulot] is
    forbidden and if there is ervah opposite him even if he averts his
    eyes it is forbidden for him to recite shema or to pray...

Now it is true that the Eliyah Raba siman 75 si'if katan 2 says.... And
I see in the Rokeach siman 424 that a tefach of her flesh or in her
revealed arms is forbidden, ie he understands the Rocheach as holding
that a tefach of arm (whether you define that as the whole arm, or the
upper arm, parallel to the usual definition of shok) is assur, and the
Mishna Brura (75:2) specifically follows the Eliyah Raba.

However, as Rav Yehuda Henkin says (Understanding Tzniut p23):

    [a] close examination of Rokeach yields a different conclusion. Note
    that he changed the order of the Gemara and began with hair and shok
    followed by tefach, rather than listing tefach first; the implication
    is that tefach does not apply to either shok or hair. But he also
    did not write "a tefach of her skin or her upper arms" but rather
    "a tefach of her skin or when her upper arms are uncovered" ie
    tefach does not apply to zeroa either, which has its own measure,
    that of being uncovered. We are constrained to interpret this as
    being le-kula, as referring to uncovering most of the limb, for if
    more than fifty percent of the upper arm is covered, it certainly
    cannot be deemed "uncovered".

In addition, the Korban HaEdah mesechet Gitten perek 9 writes:

    גמ' ופריך והא תני וכו' צדדיה. מבגדיה קרועין אע"פ שאין בשרה נראית א"נ
    בשבשרה נראית איירי וזרועותיה בעינן שיהו חלוצות לגמרי אבל אם זרועות
    בגדיה קרועות אע"פ שבשר זרועותיה נראה אין זה פריצות:

    Gemora .. sides: her clothes are torn even though no flesh is seen
    or alternatively we are dealing with when her flesh is seen and the
    arms this requires that they be fully exposed but if her arms are
    in torn clothing even though the flesh of her arms is seen this is
    not pritzus.


Rav Henkin thus concludes on pages 24-25:

    It thus emerges from Rashi, Yerushalmi and Korban Ha-Edah that pritzut
    in exposure of the upper arms comes not from the arms themselves
    but from the body being visible via the arms. ...

Rav Henkin himself prefers to follow the view that more than a tefach of the
upper arms is a problem, and hence writes as follows:

    A typology can be established according to this as follows:

    1. sleeveless dresses - forbidden by all opinions, as the body can
       be seen;

    2. short sleeves, loose - forbidden if body can be seen;

    3. short sleeves, tight - body cannot be seen, but prohibited if
    most of the upper arm is uncovered (rubo k'kulo);

    4. sleeves halfway to elbow - proscribed because of tefach meguleh,
       room for limmud zechut;

    5. sleeves to within a tefach of the elbow - minimum permitted;

    6. sleeves to elbow - recommended;

    7. sleeves to below elbow - first level chumra;

    8. sleeves to wrists - second level chumra.

    The above does not supplant any communal or familial minhag.

Similarly with necklines, Rav Henkin has an extensive discussion and
provides different calculations on what might be considered a tefach
when referring to "tefach b'isha ervah" - and notes on p17 "if this
third definition of tefach is used [where both the length and the width
need to be at least a tefach], few of the necklines women normally wear
today expose a tefach."

> It is a far cry from dressing according to the guidelines of Tznius and
> "making women disappear."  YL

But there is also the small matter of making different halachic
interpretations (including those of tznius) disappear into the global
mash of chumrisation that is at work today.

These women are operating within a community that has these particular
dress standards (you can see that pretty clearly from the fact that they
all dress in a not dissimilar way). It may not be your halachic standard
(it might not even be Rav Henkin's) but there is enough ambiguity in the
primary sources rishonim and achronim for this to be a valid halachic
explanation of what is in those sources, even if it is not the opinion
that has come to dominate today.

Regards
Chana