Q&A: And Torn Open on Both Sides
And Torn Open on Both Sides
Question
The Rabbi argues that modesty is a function of what is socially accepted. But from Rashi on Gittin 90a, it would seem otherwise. The Talmud says, “and torn open on both sides” — this is the trait of a bad person. And Rashi explains “and torn open on both sides” as: “near the joints of her arms, in the manner of the Edomite women in France, whose flesh is visible at their sides.” In other words, what was accepted in France among the non-Jews was to walk around exposed beneath the arms, and Rashi still regards this as immodest (something associated with the Edomite women). Seemingly, according to Rashi, it follows that modesty is not connected to what is accepted in a given place, but to the thing itself—whether the flesh is exposed or not.
Answer
For some reason, I missed this question.
I never said anywhere that everything socially accepted is modest. I said that modesty depends on social norms. Therefore, one should not infer from my words that there is no such thing as an immodest society. Of course there is. My claim is that the determination of what is modest and what is not should be made by halakhic decisors who live within the society in question, because the standards are a function of the norms.