Question

Hello Rabbi, and happy holiday,
In tractate Berakhot 24a it says:
Rabbi Yitzhak said: “A handbreadth of a woman is nakedness.” In what regard? If you say with respect to looking at her—did not Rav Sheshet say: Why did Scripture count outward ornaments together with inward ornaments? To tell you that anyone who looks at a woman’s little finger is as though he looked at the private place! Rather, it refers to his wife, and to the recitation of Shema. Rav Hisda said:
That is, apparently the entire distinction between “a handbreadth is nakedness” and just “a handbreadth” (which is not nakedness) is a distinction that has practical significance only regarding his wife, but with regard to a woman who is not his wife, this distinction has no significance (that is, a little finger is equivalent to the private place in terms of severity). According to this, what is the logic of the laws of modesty requiring women to cover a handbreadth that is considered nakedness? Either way: if there is a reason to cover a handbreadth of nakedness, then they should also have to cover a handbreadth that is not nakedness (like a little finger), and if there is no reason to cover a little finger, then there is also no reason to cover the private place (since they are equal in severity). One could answer that this stems from the prohibition on reciting Shema facing nakedness, but all of that applies only at the time of reciting Shema, which people customarily recite in the synagogue where no women are facing them, whereas during the rest of the time there would be no issue with being in the presence of nakedness.