PLEASE, SHOW ME YOUR KNEES!

Thanks to fellow-blogger Dovbear I have been thinking a lot about tzenua lately.
No, I haven't taken leave of my senses.
I'm still the same randy middle-aged git with gleaming eyes and a nice beard as I have always been.
But after the stockings episode and the bit about morons flinging poo at little girls in Beit Shemesh, tzenua and its wonderful absence have been at the top of the cauldron.
I can't help dreaming of a lack of tzenua.

Which is why a recent posting on Dovbear's blog gives me great pleasure.

Quote:

1. True or false: The full knee is part of the upper leg.
2. True or false: The full upper leg is considered ervah and does not depend on minhag hamakom.
3. True or false: Since it is a body part that is considered ervah, I must cover my upper leg at all times.
4. True or false: I must also make sure that my knee is covered at all times, since my knee is part of my
upper leg.[Source: Tznius ad absurdum.]


I didn't used to think of knees as sexy bits. Attractive, yes, but not sexy.
Hardly the part of you I would feel up.
However, according to the e-mail cited on Dovbear's blog, knees are erva.
And erva, we know, is an assault on our male saintliness.
All erva should be covered up right now.

[Erva, for the uninitiated, means genitalia. And hence also the wine-cup of the navel. And velvety skin. And pretty much anything feminine that can make a saintly man hot and sweaty. Such as the soft soft hair, the melodic voice, the warm little hands, and the nice dimpled knees. Even female names, and especially their e-mails.]

If you have any questions or comments about WHY the knees are erva, please email miss TzniusRevolution@gmail.com for clarification, that being the originator of the e-mail encouraging teenage girls to cover their knees.


Reader Tesyaa had a cogent comment: "You know, I've never heard molestation blamed on lack of tznius. Earthquakes, cancer, terrorist attacks, yes - lack of tznius is definitely the cause. But molestation? 
If you name the cause, you'd have to admit that it exists."


For those who are now worried that the deficit of tzenua might come to an end, if TzniusRevolution's cause gains traction, please be of good cheer. Here in San Francisco you can still walk around naked in public if you wish, and you need not even bring a towel.
Not that I would recommend it, given what the weather is usually like.
The nudity, that is, but not the bit about not bringing a towel.
Heck, a nice warm fluffy towel might be a good idea.
But yes, it's been cold and wet recently.
Nudity outdoors isn't advisable.
Unless you like blue.


On the other hand, if you have 'the soft soft hair, the melodic voice, the warm little hands, and the nice dimpled knees', possibly I can recommend an agreeable place where you can be as nude as you truly want to be.
Just drop me a line, and I'll even provide a towel.
I'm all about a lack of tzenua in private.
Did I mention the towel?
It's fluffy!


APPENDIX: GLEANINGS OF ERVA

Berachos 24a states that a man should not recite Krias Shma in the presence of erva. Regarding this odd ruling -- erva not normally being associated with a worshipful man -- the Gemara clarifies that one may not recite the shma in the presence of a woman's 'shok', 'se'ar', or while listening to her singing voice ("kol be-isha erva" - the sound of a woman is a reproductive organ).
Furthermore, a man may likewise not recite shma in the presence of a tefach (the largest possible palm-span) of a part of a woman's body which is normally covered, but is, at that time, not so.

Concerning 'shok', Berachos 24a cites Rav Chisda: "the shok of a woman is nakedness as it says, 'uncover a thigh to cross a river....", and al pi Yeshayahu "Your nakedness will be visible..."

The Pri Megadim and the Mishna Berura observe that 'shok' refers to a woman's thigh, a lovely curvaceous part of the upper leg. But the Chazon Ish spends much time wondering if 'shok' could also refer to every yummy bit from pelvis to ankle, without reaching a conclusion.
So when in doubt.......


The Gemara also records, in the name of Rav Sheshes, that "the hair of a woman is nakedness...".
However the Shulchan Aruch states, in agreement with rav Sheshes, that an unmarried women's hair need not be considered erva.
A remarkable leniency.
The Rema more or less agrees with this interpretation..

Yoisef Karo paskened about reciting the krias shema in the presence of naughty bits, that instead of turning one's head, one could also simply close the eyes; and if darkness veiled the offending part(s) sufficiently, even that was unneccesary.
Being blind, obviously, was ideal.

The Chazon Ish agrees with the Mechaber, as do many posseiks since his day. Key is not being distracted by pulchritude, NOR even seeing it.
A host of angelic pole dancers in utter nudity could be nearby, but as long as one has cleared one's mind of them, and does not have them in view, and they are beyond finger distance (further than a "tefach") it is permitted to recite the krias shma.
Which in any case ought to distract one.
Yes.


Clearly, as long as one can NOT place one's trembling tefach upon the bare knees in question, there is NO problem.


There is nothing to see here, just move along.



==========================================================================
NOTE: Readers may contact me directly:
LETTER BOX.
All correspondence will be kept in confidence.
==========================================================================