Shalom and Haredim

Isn't there a circularity here? The norms construct a prohibition, but they themselves were constructed from a prohibition that originated in Halacha. Is it possible to establish norms arbitrarily and then act in accordance with them?

Yes. The question of how the norms were constructed doesn't really matter. As long as these aren't norms that are only practiced by criminals. The prohibition from time immemorial was also based on the norms that were practiced at the time. It didn't come down from Sinai.

My Haredi friend's argument was not a matter of modesty, it was a matter of the ruling of the Rishonim according to the Gemara. It is clear that this halakhah is not from the Torah in any way, and I also know the rabbi's argument that the Rishonim have no formal authority, but if most of the Rishonim interpreted the Gemara there as binding law, does that not tell us anything?
From what I saw in the Gemara, it is a discussion among the Amoraim about how to act, in a narrative/legendary framework (meaning it was not a discussion in the Beit Midrash, but they are telling us what happened) but the discussion is very similar to a regular halakhic discussion. Although they did not bring verses, because it is not from the Torah, in my opinion it is certainly possible to understand from this that this is some kind of sage ruling.
I also think that this is another matter of gaps, that among the Haredi, legends from the Gemara are taken much more literally.
So I am trying to understand where the interpretive line is drawn between what we understand as the sage ruling for generations and where it is about Amoraim customs that can be applied or not applied.

I did not address the question of whether this is halakhic or whether the discussion is halakhic. The question is whether this ruling is based on the norms that prevailed at the time, such as the swimsuit parable.

And how am I, the learner, supposed to make this distinction? In the end, we are expected to use common sense but also be committed to the Torah sources, which have not given me a solid reason for wearing a swimsuit. So we will simply stick a convenient reason on them?

I don't understand where this delusional discussion is going. You deny the existence of human interpretation of the sources of halakha? Both laws from the Torah and from the words of the sages. What do you want from me? Every law undergoes interpretations and decisions regarding the methods of application in different circumstances.

I'm trying to understand how people base their rulings on halakhic sources that didn't provide a reason for their rulings. Obviously, the ruling also stems from social customs that prevailed at the time, but where does the line cross?

Use common sense and understand from the context.

Okay, thank you Rabbi and Shabbat Shalom 🙂