Rom Chickswimsuit Is Mirost Chick Swimsuit On This And On That - על דא ועל הא: Sociological Changes and Halakhah

I skimmed through it and have a number of issues with it:

1) Regarding what he writes about women covering their hair, see my comment on Hirhurim yesterday - 2012/01/removing-womens-pictures-from-photographs/comment-page-1/#comments. His conclusions, so long as they are only based on the assumptions he makes in this article, are incorrect in my opinion.

2) He writes: “there are strong halakhic sources that permit men to hear women singing religious songs, or lullabies to their children, or other songs that have no erotic intent or content.” Other than the commonly cited Seridei Eish (in the Kook edition it’s 2:9) I don’t know of any “strong halakhic sources,” and even that teshuva presents quite a weak argument in my humble opinion, and it also only applies to religious songs – ayin sham.

3) He implies that there is no concern for sexual arousal where what is being revealed is “repulsive.” He is contradicting a Gemara in Avodah Zarah – שלא יסתכל אדם... באשת איש ואפי' מכוערת (20a).

4) Regarding teaching a woman Torah: a) he translates תפלות foolishness – I don’t know where he got this from. In fact, according to the explanation of the Gemara (Sotah 21b) it’s quite the opposite. b) He conveniently ignores the fact that most of those who teach Torah to women claim to be not deviating from the established halacha – e.g. that they are teaching things which pertain to women, that these women want to learn and Rambam might have been referring to including it in a mandatory curriculum, that Ramban al haTorah et al might be included in Torah Shebichsav, and so on.

I have more issues with it but I don’t really see the point. If it were written in the fashion of a typical teshuva, with actual proofs and sources from the classic halachic literature, I would have more of an interest.

Sure. One change in the application of halacha based on a sociological change, which is extremely common, is the practice to rely on the heter of the Aruch Hashulchan (in OC 75:67) to allow reciting devarim shebikedusha in the presence of a woman's uncovered hair. This heter is predicated upon a Mordechai in Berachos (80) and a few other rishonim there.

As for Beruriah, it's a good question, but only because that's how people say over the story. Who says she wasn't reprimanding him simply for his usage of extra words - and al derech the Me'iri? Or bitul Torah for those two extra seconds? Or perhaps she took the נלך as a bit inappropriate?