In Genesis 3:21, G-d clothed Adam and Eve with the kuttoneth (in this case, made with animal skin). According to one source, the kuttoneth was "a kind of shirt without sleeves, reaching down to the knees" (Cambridge Bible for Schools and College, bold emphasis mine). Similarly, the Jewish Encyclopedia, discussing the kuttoneth in English using the terms "coat" and "shirt," says, "The shirt was made at first without sleeves, and also failed to cover the left shoulder (see Müller, l.c. pp. 296 et seq.). The working classes continued to wear the 'primitive loin-cloth' (Müller, ib. p. 297), or the sleeveless coat, as this allowed full freedom of movement for both arms and legs" (bold emphasis mine). Also the Encyclopedia appears to say it was the "more luxurious classes of society— e.g., women of royal blood (2 Samuel 13:18,19 ) and men of leisure—[that] wore tunics with sleeves" (ibid), not necessarily other classes.

Are these sources accurate? If so, then is a person not inherently guilty of Ervah when wearing sleeveless clothing, at least not in the Tanakh? Thank you!

In Genesis 3:21, G-d clothed Adam and Eve with the kuttoneth (in this case, made with animal skin). Apparently, such was worn in multiple Biblical passages (e.g., Gen. 37:3; Ex. 28:39-40; 2 Sam. 13:18-19; 15:32; Job 30:18; Song 5:3). Did the Israelites ever wear them without sleeves? According to one source, the kuttoneth was "a kind of shirt without sleeves, reaching down to the knees" (Cambridge Bible for Schools and College, bold emphasis mine). Similarly, the Jewish Encyclopedia, discussing the kuttoneth in English using the terms "coat" and "shirt," says, "The shirt was made at first without sleeves, and also failed to cover the left shoulder (see Müller, l.c. pp. 296 et seq.). The working classes continued to wear the 'primitive loin-cloth' (Müller, ib. p. 297), or the sleeveless coat, as this allowed full freedom of movement for both arms and legs" (bold emphasis mine). Also the Encyclopedia appears to say it was the "more luxurious classes of society— e.g., women of royal blood (2 Samuel 13:18,19 ) and men of leisure—[that] wore tunics with sleeves" (ibid), not necessarily other classes.

Are these sources accurate in saying that the kuttoneth was sometimes worn without sleeves? If so, then is a person not inherently guilty of Ervah when wearing sleeveless clothing, at least not in the Tanakh? Thank you!

In Genesis 3:21, G-d clothed Adam and Eve with the kuttoneth (in this case, made with animal skin). According to one source, the kuttoneth was "a kind of shirt without sleeves, reaching down to the knees" (Cambridge Bible for Schools and College, bold emphasis mine). Similarly, the Jewish Encyclopedia, discussing the kuttoneth in English using the terms "coat" and "shirt," says, "The shirt was made at first without sleeves, and also failed to cover the left shoulder (see Mü ller, l.c. pp. 296 et seq.  ). The working classes continued to wear the 'primitive loin-cloth' (Mü ller, ib. p. 297), or the sleeveless coat, as this allowed full freedom of movement for both arms and legs" (bold emphasis mine). Also the Encyclopedia appears to say it was the "more luxurious classes of society— e.g.  , women of royal blood (2Samuel 13:18,19 ) and men of leisure—[that] wore tunics with sleeves" (ibid), not necessarily other classes.

Are these sources accurate? If so, then is a person not inherently guilty of Ervah when wearing sleeveless clothing, at least not in the Tanakh? Thank you!

In Genesis 3:21, G-d clothed Adam and Eve with the kuttoneth (in this case, made with animal skin). According to one source, the kuttoneth was "a kind of shirt without sleeves, reaching down to the knees" (Cambridge Bible for Schools and College, bold emphasis mine). Similarly, the Jewish Encyclopedia, discussing the kuttoneth in English using the terms "coat" and "shirt," says, "The shirt was made at first without sleeves, and also failed to cover the left shoulder (see Müller, l.c. pp. 296 et seq.). The working classes continued to wear the 'primitive loin-cloth' (Müller, ib. p. 297), or the sleeveless coat, as this allowed full freedom of movement for both arms and legs" (bold emphasis mine). Also the Encyclopedia appears to say it was the "more luxurious classes of society— e.g., women of royal blood (2 Samuel 13:18,19 ) and men of leisure—[that] wore tunics with sleeves" (ibid), not necessarily other classes.

Are these sources accurate? If so, then is a person not inherently guilty of Ervah when wearing sleeveless clothing, at least not in the Tanakh? Thank you!