The tzniut (modesty) rules: What's their purpose?
Okay, let's start with the basics (copied from here).
Sources Regarding Kol Isha [the rule, sometimes observed with exceptions, sometimes not observed at all, forbidding a man to listen to a woman sing] by Gil Student [of Hirhurim].
There are two main talmudic passages that deal with kol isha.
1. Berachos 24a
Rav Yitzchak said: A tefach [Shira: I think that's roughly 2 inches, or see here] of a woman is nakedness ('ervah).
For what? If you say for looking at it, Rav Sheshes said: Why did the Torah count outer ornaments with inner ornaments? To tell you that anyone who looks at the small finger of a woman is as if he looked at the obscene place. Rather, [Rav Yitzchak is talking about] one's wife an[d] kerias shema [the reading/recitation of the Sh'ma, a biblical quotation affirming the oneness of God--I think the reference is to a man getting sexually distracted while reciting the Sh'ma].
Rav Chisda said: The thigh of a woman is nakedness as it says (Isaiah 47:2) "expose a thigh to cross a river" and it says (ibid. 3) "your nakedness will be exposed and your embarrassment will be seen."
Shmuel said: The voice of a woman is nakedness as it says (Song of Songs 2:14) "for your voice is sweet and your countenance comely."
Rav Sheshes said: The hair of a woman is nakedness as it says (ibid. 4:1) "you hair is like a flock of goats."
2. Kiddushin 70a
[Rav Nachman said to Rav Yehudah]: Would you like to send regards to Yalta [Rav Nachman's wife]?
He [Rav Yehudah] said: Shmuel said: The voice of a woman is nakedness."
I've blogged about my objection to the kol isha rule ad nauseum, but, for my newer readers, "Damned if we do and damned if we don't" is probably one of my better posts on the subject.
What about the other prohibitions? I'm not particularly fond of the rule that married women (and, according to some opinions, widowed and divorced women) should cover their hair because it's considered immodest--raising the rather interesting question of why a never-married woman's hair is not considered immodest--but I can understand the prohibition in light of ancient Near Eastern attitudes that deemed women's hair a sexual display. However, in my opinion, such a prohibition makes little sense in contemporary times, when naked hair is the least of our modesty concerns.
As for the notion that even looking at a woman's pinkie is forbidden, that attitude is such a major overreaction that I honestly don't understand it at all.
But I don't need a quote from either Rav Chisda or Yishaya/Isaiah to convince me that a woman's--or man's--naked thigh is immodest (certainly the upper part, at least).
And therein lies the basis of my question: Why do (some interpretations of) the rules of tzniut make sense, while others seem to have no connection to reality?
As I said in my post "Tzniut (modesty) for *men,* for a change", "The rabbis actually measured the permissible amount of a married woman's hair that can be left uncovered right down to the exact number of centimeters?!!!!
. . . An extra half-inch of exposed hair is going to cause uncontrollable sexual desire? What world are these people living in?"
And as I said here, concerning kol isha, "Whoa, wait a minute: “Rav Ovadia rules that the prohibition applies even if the singer is not alive.” ???!
Men are so obsessed with women that listening to the singing of even a dead woman is prohibited as a potential turn-on???!"
But the pi-->èce de r
-->ésistance is here (see the comments).
As kisarita said here, (hat-tip: Robert Avrech)
kisarita said...
. . . In my opinion, refusing to shake hands, itself sexualizes a non sexual situation. . . .
June 22, 2009 5:45 PM
Isn't that exactly the result of objections to bare feet, to the singing voices of even deceased women, and to "too many" centimeters of a married woman's hair being visible? Don't objections such as the aforementioned and the objection to shaking hands with persons of the opposite sex take non-sexual situations and make them sexual? Isn't that the exact opposite of what the rules of tzniut are supposed to accomplish? If the alleged purpose of the rules of tzniut is to minimize inappropriate sexual attraction and/or distraction, doesn't this obsession with "tzniut," rather than minimizing inappropriate attraction, make anything even remotely resembling sex the center of attention?
Have the rules of tzniut, as interpreted by some of the more right-wing segments of the Orthodox community, ceased to be matters of common sense, and morphed, instead, into chukim, laws for which there's no logical explanation, which one is supposed to obey just because HaShem said so, like the laws of kashrut (Jewish dietary laws)? How much do the rules of modesty really have to do with modesty anymore?
September 2, 2009 correction:
One of my e-mail correspondents has reminded me that "a "chok" has legal force, while there is no actual law to wear a skirt that is x inches below the knees." So I should say that I think that the rules of tzniut have become similar to chukim, in that, as with chukim, there is no logical explanation for some of them. (I should also mention that this e-mail correspondent doesn't think that the tzniut rules are illogical, just that they are "societally governed," and "people still use them as social markers (such that having an uncovered head in shul still advertises one's availability).")