[Avodah] Sleeves that Cover the Elbows

[Chana Luntz]

RYL writes:


>Then I guess I have to conclude that what R. Fuchs wrote in Halichos Bas
Yisroel is either misleading or incorrect or both.  See

>http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bas_yisroel.pdf 



Yes, exactly.

 

Rav Henkin wrote Understanding Tzniut and various other articles and pieces
because he was concerned that standards were being articulated at the most
chumradik level to an audience without the knowledge to determine when (or
whether) what they are being told is a chumra, and when it is not.  

 

There is, unfortunately, a lot around on this topic that is indeed
misleading or incorrect (or correct only for particular communities) or
both.  


>On the other hand, given the Kedusha of EY wouldn't one expect women living
there to conduct themselves at least according to 7 above. 



There is an assumption here, that chumra equals kedusha.  

 

But there are good reasons to understand that not to be the case.  The one
time that we had a conflict between a more stringent opinion and a more
lenient opinion and it was resolved by HaShem himself, namely the disputes
between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai, HaShem ruled in accordance with Beis
Hillel.

 

And two reasons are given in the gemora there (Eruvin 13b) - one is
precisely because Hillel was the more lenient, and Shammai was the more
strict and the second was because Beis Hillel studied both their own
opinions and the opinions of Beis Shammai, but not the reverse.

 

And to make reference to a recent daf yomi - we see this in action.  Beis
Shammai held that when saying krias shema in the morning, one was required
to stand up, and when saying it in the evening, one was required to sit
down, while Beis Hillel did not require any special positioning (Brochos
10b).  So, a number of rabbis thought - well what is the harm in doing it
Beis Shammai's way - as a chumra - it doesn't contradict Beis Hillel, it
just adds to it.   So for example R' Elazar on Brochos 11a where he was
standing up, but decided to lie down to say Shema - and Rabbi Yishmael
criticised him, because, even if he was only following a chumra, the
students might see and assume that was the halacha, distorting the halacha.

 

So too here, if these women had not dressed the way they did, RYL over in
America (not to mention others in Eretz Yisrael) might have no reason to
learn that there is a lot more variance in the halacha than he is or they
are aware of.  That is surely a mailah and arguably more fittingly derived
from the kedusha of eretz yisroel than following mere chumra.

 

And indeed the second story on Brochos 11a has R' Tarfon going on the way,
and davka going out of his way to lie down to say the evening Shema, to be
choshesh for the view of Beis Shammai, and he then concludes that he put
himself in danger from bandits, and the Chachamim say that it would have
been appropriate if he had indeed come to harm - and here it doesn't sound
like there were anybody (except possible bandits) watching.  The message
would thus seem to be that inappropriate chumra may at times be more
destructive and wrong than going m'ikar hadin,

 

BTW on one of Avodah and Areivim recently, there was a bit of a discussion
about MO citing more charedi poskim but not vice versa, as if that was some
sort of a lack.  Rather I would have thought we see from the whole incident
with Beis Hillel, Beis Shammai and the Bas Kol, that citing more stringent
opinions that one does not agree with is the derech of Beis Hillel and does
not mean that one ultimately holds that one must or should follow such
positions or such poskim.


>YL

 

Regards

 

Chana

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120816/ef35481a/attachment-0002.htm>