Can you cite me any Rishon at all who indicates that there is any objective standard of Tzniut (aside from Makom HaErvah)? I agree they all cite their standards. Do any of them at all indicate that if the custom were to change, the Halacha wouldn't?

@DoubleAA There are certainly some communities that have a higher standard of tznius and others who have a more basic standard, both within accepted halachic standards. Someone should respect a community they visit if it has higher standards for tznius. In terms of sources for an objective minimal standard, I would recommend this link - yeshiva.org.il/wiki/…

@TorasEMES613 That link provides no sources at all that objective Erva exists, and certainly doesn't name any Rishonim (which is what I asked for) who address the issue.

The gemara (Kesuvos, 72b) - A woman is halachically obligated to cover her arms (Ze'roa). Most opinions hold that "ze'roa" refers to the elbow (the more lenient opinion). The "Shok" (B'rachos, 24a) - different opinions whether this refers to down to the ankle. According to the above link, the Chafetz Chaim (M"B, Siman 75, S"K 2) holds that the "shok" refers to the leg up to the knee and therefore a woman should cover at least past her knees (which would include when sitting). These are two examples, aside from other areas that should be covered (e.g, avoiding a plunging neckline).Why a Rishon?

@DoubleAA Didn't reference you in the previous comment. Are you looking for a Rishon that defines "Zero'a" and "Shok" (for example, while using language such as "everyone agrees that such is the definition"). Why would one think that these standards mentioned in the gemara are subjective (based on societal "norms") rather than objective? It's clear from the gemara that this is what "ervah" is, rather than something relevant to a given time period (for example).

@TorasEMES613 I said above "I agree they all cite their standards. Do any of them at all indicate that if the custom were to change, the Halacha wouldn't?" Re Zeroa: Dat Yehudit is defined by most (all?) Rishonim to be a Minhag, as you know. No indication it can't change. Re Shok: If the gemara meant to tell you it was objective Ervah, why don't Rishonim use that to answer why it says Shok in addition to Tefach (cf. Beit Yosef OC 75)? That would be a pretty obvious answer to a pretty strong question. The Rambam and Shulchan Arukh do not define any objective Ervah (cont)

locations (even Shok!). They just say "whatever location is usually covered". Sounds like they mean it literally, no? All kinds of Rishonim make up rules out of nowhere about Kol HaRagil Bo and Sear MiChutz LTzamata. Did they have special Mesora about these cases, or did they think everything was subjective? Why too doesnt anyone discuss the depth of a forbidden "plunging neckline" till 100 years ago? Was it that whatever is normal is ok or that the collarbone was an unwritten tradition for 1500 years since Rav Ashi? I think I have enough basis to ask for an early explicit source on the matter

@DoubleAA I would love to answer fully, but time is limited. To say that Tefach discounts the possibility of the Shok being asur by an objective standard discounts whether any amount up to a Tefach showing would be b'di avad. Pg. 187/188 - "Woman & the Mitzvot" - P'ri Megadim, Orach Chaim 75, Mishbitzos Zahav and Mishna B'rura: "The shok extends from the knee upward, hence below the knee poses no problem wherever women customarily leave it exposed." (Assuming it covers the knee when sitting, as well) Also, in this context, see Mishna: Chullin ch. 10, Hullin 134b, Rambam - מעשה הקרבנות - ט: י

@TorasEMES613 I'm not discussing with you whether there is any shemetz of a possibility that the Mishna Berura was right about Shok being the thigh. I don't know why you are quoting me Mekorot about that. (Though, incidentally, see this if you want your head to spin.)

@DoubleAA - From "Woman & the Mitzvot" - "According to the sources quoted, one must cover the leg to the knee and the arm to the elbow. In either case, the need to cover further extremities depends upon local custom". Also, it's important to note that the halacha is different in general and in relation to tznius as per davening. So, just because there are opinions that say that in areas where someone may recite K'riyas Shema in the presence of women dressed a certain way, does not reflect on her obligations as per tznius. That's the distinction that Rav Moshe mentioned - uncovered hair - Shema

@TorasEMES613 Again, I'm looking for Rishonim, not later Achronim. I agree the Chayei Adam writes about objective Erva and he is quoted by the Mishna Berura, so no need to quote R Ellinson any further. Where they are coming from is beyond me though. (Incidentally, your read of RMF by hair is not so simple in light of Igrot Moshe EH 1:69.)

@DoubleAA I was going to reference that. It would be nice to invest the time to get the sources for the Rishonim. In any case, the authors of the Chayei Adam and Mishna B'rura would define what areas objectively refer to ervah if it is classified as objectively ervah. If you find the source from a Rishon, please let me know. But, again, major Poskim (who are Acharonim) should suffice in any case as reliably defining ervah. Often answers are uncovered with proper time investment (lack of time availability shouldn't indicate whether Rishonim didn't offer such an objective definition).

I have invested much time into finding such a Rishon, and have not found it. The fact that you haven't found any either is, as you say, insufficient proof, but I thought I'd pick your brain anyway. As far as I can tell, just about all of Hilchot Women's-Clothing was made up in the last 200 years, though I would be happy to be shown otherwise.

@DoubleAA Here's a source - the Bach (1561/62-1640) an early Acharon who wrote about 400 years ago (Siman 75, S"K 2) beta.hebrewbooks.org/tursa.aspx?a=oc_x187: ונראה דנקט שוק דאפילו פחות מטפח נמי חשוב ערוה וכדנפקא לן (כ״ד ע״א) מקרא (ישעיה מ״ז ב) גלי שוק עברי נהרות וכתיב (שם ג) תגל ערותך דמשמע כל שוק הוי ערוה אפילו פחות מטפח...מה שאין כן שוק שלה אי לאו דגלי לן קרא דערוה היא, וכן קול ושער הוה אמינא דאין לחוש להן אפילו באשת איש, אי לאו דכתיב קרא (שיר השירים ב׳ י״ד) כי קולך ערב, ושערך כעדר העזים (שם ל׳ אי) דמדמשבח לה קרא בגוייהו שמע מינה תאוה הוא, והכי מוכח להדיא ממה שכתב רש״י וז״ל שוק

@DoubleAA While I presented the source in Hebrew for your benefit, just to paraphrase for others. The Bach (Rabbi Yoel Sirkis - known by the acronym of his work "Bayis Chadash" - Ba"Ch), quotes verses from the Book of Yeshyahu and Shir HaShirim, with respect to the Shok, a (married) woman's hair and voice (when singing) to demonstrate clearly that the places of Ervah are objective (objective Ervah does exist). I'd recommend checking out the source in full as I reference the link above. Thank you for your question and efforts to arrive at a source. I'm happy to have helped demonstrate otherwise

@TorasEMES613 That is my best source to offer too (though it still isn't a Rishon) (my second best is a line in the (forged) Eshkol). However, it's not clear the Bach stands by his Chiddush of Pachot MiTefach by the end of the paragraph (which you didn't finish quoting), and most everyone rejects him anyway. See, for example, the Arukh HaShulchan who says "ותמוה לפרש כן, דאם כן לא הוה ליה לסתום זה." If the Bach really is claiming some sort of objective Ervah, the Arukh Hashulchan thinks he is the first person to do so ever, and therefore rejects him.

Re your second comment: the Gemara quotes those verses. He just quotes the Gemara. They dont show by themselves that objective Ervah exists. The verses of Kol and Sear just show that Kol and Sear, when not a public form of them, are Ervah too even though they are not strictly body parts. Hair that you are used to and voices that you are used to are not Ervah, dependent on the locale. That's how Rishonim know that unmarried women's hair and speaking voices are ok: because it's usually uncovered. Unmarried women's pubic hair is accordingly forbidden, but married women's eyebrows are ok. (cont)

(cont) The verse of Shok teaches that even though for a man the calf is uncovered, for a woman it is covered and problematic (at least, that's what all Rishonim who comment that I am aware of say).

@DoubleAA Thanks for pointing that out. The Ba"Ch quotes the Gemara and is even more explicit - when he notes one might think that there is no issue with hair (and some of the other Ervah) and then notes that these pesukim clearly demonstrate otherwise - that there is an objective source.

@TorasEMES613 It is an objective source that hair can be Ervah. Not which hair is Ervah. As I said above, pubic hair would likely be Ervah nowadays and eyebrows not (both for both married and unmarried women). If it weren't for the Pasuk I would think even pubic hair is not Ervah as it's not Body. (When I say pubic hair is Ervah, I mean that if 1 tefach of pubic hair was sticking out of her clothing while all the flesh was covered, it would still be prohibited to recite Shema there. I realize it's not a common case, but it is discussed in the Gemara there a few lines earlier regarding men)

@DoubleAA It's apparent from the context that "hair" refers to head hair. In any case, look at what the Bach wrote about Shok (like hair) - you wouldn't think that Shok is Ervah, so the pasuk clearly demonstrates it is.

@TorasEMES613 I disagree very strongly with your first statement!! What source do you have for it? You claim women's pubic hair is not Ervah??? Re your second statment: as I said above, Rav Chisda mentions Shok to teach you that even though you might have thought it was different then other normally covered female body parts for some reason (eg. men's calves show or its dirty) it is actually the same as all other body parts and can become Ervah if normally covered like any other part. That is the simple read of ALL rishonim who comment. It also explains why the Rambam and ShA don't mention it.

@DoubleAA In terms of you quoting the Aruch HaShulchan, if you look at the Bach, you will see that the Aruch HaShulchan is only disagreeing with some of the sources the Bach quotes, rather than the Bach, with whom he appears to agree that up to a Tefach is okay. In any case, the Aruch HaShulchan does not dispute the Bach's point that Shok is an objective standard (as well as the other Ervah he refers to).

"he Aruch HaShulchan does not dispute the Bach's point that Shok is an objective standard" You just made that up! The AhSh doesn't discuss if objective Ervah exists at all AFAICT. I further claim the Bach doesn't even say it. He just says calves (and feet) can be Ervah if they are normally covered, even though they are dirty and you might think that since they are dirty no one will want to look at them and they won't be distracting.

@DoubleAA That part of the body is already Ervah automatically-and I don't know how one could read otherwise in my words. The pasuk quoted is making clear that head hair that one may otherwise not think is Ervah-is in fact Ervah.You're 2nd point-you were asking for a source that Ervah is objective, which I provided.The Bach makes clear that even certain areas one may think would be fine to have uncovered are in fact Ervah (and therefore because many in society may consider immodest dress to be adequately modest, does not allow one to uncover the Shok(or other areas that are objectively Ervah).

@DoubleAA In case you misunderstood what I wrote: You indicated that the Aruch HaShulchan was completely disagreeing with the Bach, which is not the case. Regarding up to a Tefach, the Bach also says that up to a Tefach is okay. The Aruch HaShulchan was disagreeing with the sources that the Bach quoted (and also disagreed with) that even less than a Tefach is a problem. Regarding objective standards, I was not saying that the Aruch HaShulchan agrees with the Bach, just that he doesn't disagree with him in the section that you cited.

I don't know why pubic hair is Ervah automatically, why you have made up that Sear only means head hair, and you have provided no source that objective Ervah exists, as I have explained ad nauseum above. If you won't listen to me then I have no need to keep talking to you. No Rishon says it. There are even Rishonim who say otherwise. The Aguda says "Shok is Ervah in places where it is usually covered" and the Raavya says "Everything [listed in that gemara] is only Ervah if it is usually covered". The objective standard is clear: טפח מגולה באשה במקום שדרכה לכסותו אסור לקרות כנגדה.

@DoubleAA I recommend reviewing all my comments and people could see the quoted sources. Good night.

You're only hope for using the Bach was those sources about less than a Tefach for Shok, because they imply that Shok is a uniquely enticing body part objectively. This is what I stated was "my best source to offer" and that is what I showed was rejected. The parts about the Pesukim is just pshat gemara and has no relevance to our discussion. I don't know why you kept harping on it. All Rishonim and the Bach included already explained that they mean can be Ervah, not are Ervah. I don't know what is so exciting about the Bach's quoting a Gemara and explaining it normally.

@DoubleAA First, pointing out that that Bach holds the Shok to be the lower leg. Secondly, instead of continuing to extend the back and forth, I recommend people look into the sources I quoted and will understand what I wrote to be accurate.

@TorasEMES613 Of course the Bach held it to be the lower leg. The Mishna held it was the lower leg! You think he would be To'eh biDvar Mishna? || I recommend reading the sources without the preconception that objective Ervah must exist; you may find that they read better the other way. Why do they all give different answers for mentioning Shok, and why don't we have lists of objective Ervah boundaries in early codified Halacha? These are not simple questions at all.

(links to Raavyah and Agudah; you may be interested further in the writings of Rs Abadi and Willig who both rule that Shok is the calf and is not objective Ervah.)

room mode changed to Gallery: anyone may enter, but only approved users can talk

@StackExchange Wait a second...