A: GAW: “LUL – I wouldn’t expect the Mishna Berurah to explain the SA any other way than his own shittah. Others disagree.”
1. That’s not true. Sometimes the Mishna Brurah disagrees with the Shulchan Aruch. In those cases, the Mishna Brurah is not explaining the SA according to his own shita.
2. Benignuman seemed to think that the MB is disagreeing with the SA here. He is not – he is explaining what the SA is saying.
3. Are you trying to say that you understand the SA better than the MB does???!!!!
4. There is nothing whatsoever in the words of the SA that says that upper legs and upper legs go by minhag hamakom.
B: GAW: “Your second source specifically says “b’makom shetzarich lihiyos mechuseh”, i.e. Da’as Yehudis. I’ve already proved from the Teshuva in Even Haezer earlier that Rav Moshe holds Da’as Yehudis depends on the place.”
1. “b’makom shehetarich l’hiyos mechuseh” refers to those parts of the body that have to be covered.
2. Rav Moshe clearly states in the above teshuva that these parts have to be covered regardless of the place.
C: “Also, as pointed out earlier, no one disagrees that hair needs to be covered in some fashion (Da’as Moshe), and not doing so is Mevatel the Drasha from the Torah (a “sin”, although not a Lav or a Bitul Aseh, l’cheorah).”
I thought you had said or implied that hair didn’t have to be covered. It is true that all you had said was that it’s not a lav or a bitul aseh, but that seemed to be response to my saying that it is assur for hair to be completely uncovered, thereby implying it is not assur.
I do not know what category of issur it is and never claimed to know. I merely stated that it is assur.
D: “Finally, Rav Moshe (in that very teshuva!!) says that Ervah for Kriyas Shema has nothing to do whatsoever with what a woman may or may not walk on the street. If you read the teshuva inside (again?), you will see it.”
My points were:
1. That we see that the places that have to be covered for K”S have to be covered in general. R’ Ovadiah, Zatsal, writes about z’roah and shok having to be covered in general, and R’ Moshe writes about hair having to be covered in general. It is not necessarily clear from these teshuvos that we learn it from K”S, but I never made that claim. I merely said that we see that these areas have to be covered in general.
It is true that R’ Moshe doesn’t mention shok and z’roah here. Again, I never claimed that he did – R’ Ovadiah talks about shok and z’roah here and R’ Moshe talks about hair. I am also positive that R’ Moshe has a teshuva where writes that shok either refers to the leg from the knee up or to the entire leg. He might write that the bottom half of the leg depends on minhag hamakom. But he almost definitely writes that the leg from the knee up is completely assur according to everyone.
I don’t have Igros Moshe at home, but I will try to find it over Shabbos, and post it M”S, bli neder.
2. Rav Moshe in the above Teshuva is davka more lenient for Krias Shema. It seems that the halachos are more stringent when it’s not for Krias Shema.
But I will try to read Rav Moshe’s Teshuvos over Shabbos inside.
I also have several other sources regarding the fact that it is assur in general for a man to see these areas even when not saying Krias Shema and that it is assur for a woman to not cover these areas. But I am too tired to post them now, and I have to get ready for Shabbos, so it will probably wait till M”S or Sunday as well.