How is it possible for R. Papa to says the buttocks are not erva? Does that mean that from the ikker halacha a woman is conceivably prohibited from showing more than a tefach above the knee or below the collar bone, but may expose her entire rear end and not be considered to have violated any laws of tsnius or erva according to R. Papa? I find this respectfully astounding.
Indeed, one can infer from Brachos 24b that if a person needs to recite Shma and must use a partition for that when sleeping naked next to one of his own children over 12 or 13, it is mashma that - unlike the statement in Even Ha'ezer 21 - there may be no age limit when parents and children can all be in each other's presence unclothed, regardless of embarrassment, because Brachas 24b simply says that for SHMA once must have a separation with one's older children ("banav"). And we already know according to Even Ha'ezer that one may sleep naked with one's own daughters until the age of 12 or until embarrassment. But Brachas makes no such specification. If this is a true inference from what we find in Pesachim 75, Brachos 24b and Even Ha'ezer, then I think this is a major chiddush in the halachic area of tsnius, which is not what we might expect.
David Goldman, USA
1 Certainly this is not possible as you correctly assert. The Gemara is not discussing what a woman must cover, rather which parts have a Din Ervah for Davar she'b'Kedushah. Even parts of the body that are not considered Ervah as far as Davar she'b'Kedushah is concerned must still be covered for Tznius.
2 The Halachah you quote from Even ha'Ezer is based on the Gemara in Kidushin 81b, where there are two Leshonos as to the age limit regarding lying with a son or daughter unclothed. The first Lashon gives the age as nine for a girl and twelve for a boy, whereas the second Lashon specifies twelve and thirteen respectively. This would be reconcilable with the Gemara in Berachos as these ages are younger than those given in Berachos with regards to Kriyas Shema.
However, the Rosh in Kidushin (4:25) rejects the above Girsa of the Gemara in Kidushin and says that the correct Girsa is the same as the Gemara in Berachos with regards to Kriyas Shema. Here your question arises, and is asked by the Magen Avraham (73:2). He offers no answer, and as of yet I have not found one.
Dov Freedman
Thank you. There seems to be a bit of confusion in all this. Certainly the Beis Yosef knew the Rosh's claim but evidently did not accept it in Even HaEzer...Also one must ask under whst circumstances would a man ever actually face a woman's buttocks like that for Divrei Kedusha in the he first place?
I also read a reference to the Tosafos Yom Tov on the Rosh (Divrei Chamudos) where he says that erva depends on society, and even the upper arms can be considered not to be erva.
In any event, it is noteworthy that halacha does not have any set of objective standards of tsnius at all. I also saw the statement of the Ben Ish Chai about uncovered breasts of a nursing woman as not erva. Of course this must imply that a woman uncovers more than merely that part. And if course how does it work if she stops nursing, then starts again, stops again, etc? Does "temporary" erva go "on" and "off"? It doesn't sound that way in the Ben Ish Hai.
The more set requirement in halacha just seems to be one's eyes and not putting oneself in a nisoyon rather than absolute standards of tsnius per se under all circumstances.
In any case, the cases from the braisas etc. clearly show that according to the Torah concepts of tsnius and shame even within a family are not so fixed at all. This itself is a chiddush for our way of thinking. And could have implications for things like the issur of mesira to social services for immodesty within a home. I'm not a posek, only suggesting an opinion.
1 You are correct in your assumption that the Beis Yossef certainly knew about the Rosh in Kiddushin. In fact the Beis Yossef quotes the Rosh in his Pirush on the Tur in Even ha'Ezer, but chose not to bring him in Shulchan Aruch so as not to get involved in the different Girsa'os in the Gemara (Chlekas Mechokeik EH 21:12).
2 The Gemara that says that Agavos are not considered an Ervah is relevant as to whether a lady may say a Davar she'b'Kedushah when this part of her anatomy is uncovered.
3 The Divrei Chamudos you quote is in Berachos (3:37:116), and although I believe a careful reading of the Divrei Chamudos shows that he is in fact coming to say that even parts of the lower legs and arms which we do not consider an Ervah become an Ervah for Davar she'b'Kedushah in places where it is the Derech to cover them, there are Poskim who hold like you say, and it is possible that the Divrei Chamudos would also agree to this. However, the Mishnah Berurah (OC 75:2) clearly states that upper arms and legs are always forbidden irrespective of local custom.
4 The Ben Ish Chai (Year 1 Bo 10) quotes this Halachah as Yeish Omrim and says one may rely on them b'Sha'as ha'Dechak. Here also the Mishnah Berurah (OC 75:3) rules with the more stringent opinion.
5 Apart from the parts of the body that are considered an Ervah Min ha'Torah, Chazal ruled that parts of the body that are usually covered are also considered an Ervah as far as Davar she'b'Kedushah is concerned, and as you point out there is a body of opinion that this depends on the custom in each time and place.
6 As regards to your original question (which the Magein Avraham asks) I have now found that the Mishnah Berurah (Biur Halacha 75:1 DH Shnayim) answers that even above the age of eleven or twelve it is still permissible to lie unclothed together as long as the two bodies do not touch. This, however would not be permissible for Davar she'b'Kedushah.
Further answers are given by the Yeshu'as Ya'akov (OC 73:1) and Eliyah Rabba (73:5), however see Machzik Brachah (ibid.)
Dov Freedman