Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 135

Tue, 14 Jul 2009

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: David Riceman <drice...@att.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:46:46 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Bar Mitzvah on "Early Shabbos"


Gershon Dubin wrote:
> No;  can't cite the source but it's not my sevara.
>
> RLT:
>   
>> If a boy becomes Bar Mitzvah on a Shabbos, may he lead Maariv of the 
>> "early Shabbos" which is still before shekia? 
>>     
Of what value is this answer? It contains neither a source nor an 
explanation.  Couldn't you tell us the sevara without its attribution?

It does, however, seem correct.  See AhS OH 53:12, who discusses the 
case explicitly.

David Riceman



Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Yitzchok Zirkind <y...@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:01:59 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Bar Mitzvah on "Early Shabbos"


Source is Ramoh O"C 53:10, S"A haRav 53:13, M"B 53 s"k 33.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Gershon Dubin <gershon.du...@juno.com>wrote:

> No;  can't cite the source but it's not my sevara.
>
> Gershon
> gershon.du...@juno.com
>
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 05:29:17 -0700 (PDT) Lawrence Teitelman
> <lteitel...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > If a boy becomes Bar Mitzvah on a Shabbos, may he lead Maariv of the
> > "early Shabbos" which is still before shekia?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090714/f2c9313f/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:33:35 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Bar Mitzvah on "Early Shabbos"


On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 08:42:06AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Wouldn't it be talui in the machloket as to whether accepting early
: shabbos literally turns Friday night into shabbat or is it just accepting
: some additional obligations/restrictions on Friday?

I also thought of the oft-rehashed Brisker Torah on Sukkos and tosefes
Shemini Atzeres, often the same discussion. As well as the role of tosefes
YT on qiddush beleil seder. (You are yotzei qiddush, but not 4 kosos
which requires zeman achilas haqorban, not just that it be Pesach.)

The Taz is choleiq with the Maharshal. The Maharshal cites the practice
of a R' Tevil who wouldn't eat on Shemini Atzeres so as to avoid
making a berakhah leisheiv basukah before qiddush for SA. The Tax holds
that tosefes qodesh is a de'Oraisa and makes it the neft day, "for him
the previous day along with any of its halachic obligations has passed.
And it is as if it is night and actually the next day."

And as with 4 kosos, Shema and omer require night, not the next day, and
therefore the Taz says are not impacted by tosefes.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie



Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Meir Shinnar <chide...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:54:33 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles


>
>
>
> >>>>
>
> I totally agree with you and I don't think that R' Micha is correct that it
>  is a breach of tznius for a man to accept an aliyah, be  a shaliach
> tzibbur, be a rosh yeshiva and the like ("but nebach men are forced to  do
> these
> unpleasant jobs because /somebody/ has to do them")
> RTK
> Well maybe I don't /totally/ agree with you because I don't think women
> should do these jobs.  I think what is not a breach of tznius for a man
> /would/ be a breach of tznius for a woman.  I truly believe that men and
>  women
> are different and that the Torah reflects reality.
>
> It would not be an honor to women but a denigration of their specifically
> womanly honor to have them do the same things on a public communal level in
> the  synagogue that men do.  It be a concession to the false C and R
> premise that what women do in the home is not valuable and is somehow  not
> "real"
> in the same sense that what men do outside the home is valuable and  real.
>
Much of the discussion with RTK ultimately returns to fighting R and C -
which, to some of us, is  the fight of yesteryear.  Furthermore, no one (at
least here) is advocating either egalitarianism, or that what women do at
home is not valuable.  The question, in stead, is finding the right model to
accomodate reality - that an increasing part of many women's lives are not
part of the home, and there should be some religious expression of that
reality.    The easist (and most traditional and least revolutionary...) is
that  of copying men's roles - not because of egalitarianism, but that is
the model available.    That isn't discarding what women do in the home as
not valuable...
Meir Shinnar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090714/febf6171/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Meir Shinnar <chide...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:30:43 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles


To complement RCL's tale about refusing food as being a model for the
shliach tzibbur - which does not reflect a midda of tzniut, but of manners -
this is not just a Sefardi Ashkenaz split, but an intraashkenaz split as
well.  my father has a similar story.  When he was a (literally) starving
student at the Technion, his one real meal during the week was if he was
invited to a meal for shabbat.  When the hostess offered seconds, there
were, depending on where in Europe (in Haifa his hosts were all Ashkenazim)
came from, two possible appropriate responses.1) Accept immediately.  For
one half this  was right, for the other half it showed poor breeding/manners
and compromised chances of being reinvited - any one well brought up knew
you had to wait for the third offer.
2) Refuse and wait for the third offer - for one half of the cases, the
offer of seconds was not repeated (important for a starving student), and
also was a partial insult to the hostess....
There was little time to make a decision, which had major consequences...

This also suggests that the waiting for the third time for being a shliach
tzibbur does not necessarily reflect the model of tzniut that RMB (n the
name of RHS) suggests - and the language used is more in agreement with the
manners/breeding issue than with tzeniut

RMB
>Again, I ask you as well to propose your definition of tzeni'us as "the
>other shitah", the one we do follow, in contrast to RHS simply running
>with the literal translation of the word and buttressed by other
>sources.

Tzeniut has not classically been understood to saying that one should not
fulfill communal roles.  It is not that the need to fulfill them means that
tzeniut is pushed aside - it means that the category is inapplicable - we
don't have the vision of someone who disappears and is invisible as the
model - because a community can not function that way.  The edict of sna et
harabbanut in pirke avot is not usually understood to be an issue of
tzeniut.  Indeed, once one gets into communal roles, one has the opposite -
the positive value of the honor associated with being the leader (eg, the
issues of the kavod hamelech and (related) kavod harav and kavod of a talmid
chacham..) .  there may be illegitimate reasons that motivate people - and
those are decried - and there is the issue of middot that people have to be
sure that they are doing it for appropriate reasons for their own self - but
it is a tremendous hiddush (or I would argue distortion) to argue that all
public roles are only permitted as a dchuya - and the only real application
of this has been to women's roles.

Does it mean that some people lack tzniut in their fulfillment of public
roles? No question  (my favorite example was from a chazzan in my youth,
who, for Hineni he'ani mimaas, would stride down in his hazzan's hat, saying
loudly three times   HINENI HINENI HINENI then softly he'ani mi'ma'as ..),
and, as matters of hinuch, yes, we should be educating that the primary role
of being a shliach tzibbur is being the shliach of the tzibbur.  Does that
mean that  a public role is inherently a violatioh of tzeniut which is only
dchuya? chas veshalom. lo haya velo nivra

It is one thing to oppose innovation - it is another to propose radical
innovations in the name of opposing innovations.....

Meir Shinnar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090714/c57b9a0f/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:58:27 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles


On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 01:30:43PM -0400, Meir Shinnar wrote:
: To complement RCL's tale about refusing food as being a model for the
: shliach tzibbur - which does not reflect a midda of tzniut, but of manners -
...

Mah beinaihu? Is not tzeni'us one middah among the set we call "having
good manners"?

...
: RMB
: >Again, I ask you as well to propose your definition of tzeni'us as "the
: >other shitah", the one we do follow, in contrast to RHS simply running
: >with the literal translation of the word and buttressed by other
: >sources.
: 
: Tzeniut has not classically been understood to saying that one should not
: fulfill communal roles.  It is not that the need to fulfill them means that
: tzeniut is pushed aside - it means that the category is inapplicable - we
: don't have the vision of someone who disappears and is invisible as the
: model - because a community can not function that way.  The edict of sna et
: harabbanut in pirke avot is not usually understood to be an issue of
: tzeniut.  Indeed, once one gets into communal roles, one has the opposite -
: the positive value of the honor associated with being the leader (eg, the
: issues of the kavod hamelech and (related) kavod harav and kavod of a talmid
: chacham..)...

You still have me lossed. Why are you placing tzeni'us as an antonym of
kavod? Dignity breeds kavod without always jumping into the limelight.

And the whole question wasn't whether communal roles would at time
outrank tzeni'us, it was in changing the role of half the community
which would multiply the number of times tzeni'us takes a back seat.
Is that a positive change? Is a desire for that change a positive one?
Is not feminism's search for empowerement *frequently* aimed at allowing
women the opportunity to erode the concept of tzeni'us?

...
: Does it mean that some people lack tzniut in their fulfillment of public
: roles? No question  (my favorite example was from a chazzan in my youth,
: who, for Hineni he'ani mimaas, would stride down in his hazzan's hat, saying
: loudly three times   HINENI HINENI HINENI then softly he'ani mi'ma'as ..),
: and, as matters of hinuch, yes, we should be educating that the primary role
: of being a shliach tzibbur is being the shliach of the tzibbur.  Does that
: mean that  a public role is inherently a violatioh of tzeniut which is only
: dchuya? chas veshalom. lo haya velo nivra

And last, I still don't see how you provide any proof that the word
"tzeni'us" means something other than "acting betzin'ah", that
vehatznieah lekhes isn't dachui by the need to have leaders. You aren't
even arguing hutrah, you are telling me to follow a different and
unprovided definition of the word without a source behind the claim
that RHS -- or actually RYBS, since he discussed it in Nefesh haRav (pg
281) -- got it wrong by translating the word literally. Tzin'ah is the
antonym of parhesia, no?

: It is one thing to oppose innovation - it is another to propose radical
: innovations in the name of opposing innovations.....

I am not opposing innovation, I'm opposing following desire, even
religious desire, without a weighing of pros and cons as measured in
Torah terms. The problem isn't with the concept of innovation as a
whole. (If it were, could I follow some blend of derakhim none of which
existed in 1850? Would I take the initiative, much to RRW's irritation,
of picking and choosing among nusachos for my own tefillah? Etc...)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
mi...@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: David Riceman <drice...@att.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:17:30 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Bar Mitzvah on "Early Shabbos"


Rich, Joel wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be talui in the machloket as to whether accepting
>> early shabbos literally turns Friday night into shabbat or is it
>> just accepting some additional obligations/restrictions on Friday?
>>     
Is there such a machloket? Where is it documented?

David Riceman



Go to top.

Message: 8
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:47:51 +0000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] R Tzadok-TSBP


> But Torah is Da'as Hashem, as is physics. I don't think physics will ever
> be complete, nor will there ever be a perfect mapping from the Torah to a
> mission statement. Approximations of the Divine Intellect, yes; but not
> actually getting there. Pragmatically, living a life lishmah requires
> finding that approximation, as I called it: "a mission statement I can
> actually encompass." Hillel gave one approximation. The Besh"t another,
> and the Gra a third. Vekhulu.
> -Micha"

IMHO Setting up a unified theory AND then pigenholing into it is mamash
misleading WADR to the g'dolim who did it!

The process might fit "man's search for meaning" but is bound to produce
the kind of error's such as Shaul being meracheim on Amaleik!

Another example
The C movement is caught up with using a meta-mitzva of bal tashchit
and not wasting money and having pity "al mammom yisroel" to be mamesh
mattir all kinds of s'feiqos in kashrus!

But we see from Mishnayos that in kodoshim a ta'aroves of 1 olah into a
1,000 hullin can cause all 1,001 to be destroyed!

Chassu al mamonam is therefore a bad use of meta-mitzva!

And I contend any use of overriding theories is bound to mess up the
system.

OTOH Qoheles states specifically there is a time for everything. Thus,
the overriding point is that there is no single overrding middah for
every scenario!

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile



Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:03:33 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Categorical imperative


On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:57:43AM +0000, Dov Kaiser wrote:
: I have wondered from some time whether the categorical imperative finds
: expression in halakha. Perhaps I am misunderstanding Kant's concept
: altogether, but I frame it my mind as follows: Supposing that there is a
: halakhic imperative not to destroy grass, is there a halakhic imperative
: not to walk on the grass because, if everyone did it, the grass would be
: destroyed, even though my individual act of walking on the grass will
: contribute only negligibly to its destruction? This has exercised my
: mind far more since making aliyah 4 months ago. In Israel, a vast array
: of my individual decisions are affected by the categorical imperative,
: because if they were copied by the majority of my fellow Israelis,
: their impact could be huge.

I think RnTK was more on target when she compared it to R Prof Auerman's
game-theoretic treatment of halakhah.

The categorical imperative isn't just a means of deciding what is
moral, it's a definition of moral. Hillel says morality is all various
expressions of "ma desani lakh", and lehavdil Kant wrote that the moral
is that which you would want everyone to be doing.

The objections raised here and on Areivim (do you want everyone to go
into medicine?) are akin to ones in Hillel's definition. If you assume
everyone is equivalent, then if I do not like missing physics lectures,
I should make sure none of my friends miss physics lectures.

There is a level of absstraction from how his situation differs from mine
in both cases. I don't think I need to be the 90 millionth best doctor
available in the US, and if my MD would be that person, he should get
out of the field as well.

Kant's logic is that the moral is that which is the right thing to do
regardless of your desired goal. The hypothetical imperative is to match
a hypothetical goal (if you want to be rested, get some sleep) and the
categorical imperative is that which you would do regardless of your
particular goal. Thus, you would want anyone to do it, regardless of
what they're trying to accomplish.

I don't think that definition of morality is compatible with the Torah.
We see rishonim expound Divine Command theory (whatever Hashem commands
is by definition moral), we have Hillel proposing negative symmetry, the
Ramban discusses moral in terms of qedushah (even beyond Divine
Command), etc... But as a moral theory, I don't think Kant's fits the
mesorah.

I think your closing sentence explains why:
: However, halacha certainly does endorse the notion that some modes of
: conduct are for the elite (the baalei nefesh, medakdekim, or however
: else it is sometimes phrased in halachic literature). Clearly, the
: intention was never that such conduct be copied by the masses (lo kol
: harotzeh litol es hashem...). Wouldn't the categorical imperative,
: as I have (mis)understood it, dismiss this approach, insisting that if
: the conduct cannot be generalised, it should be not be followed?

In short, if morality includes notions of self-construction and avoiding
self-destruction, there is no categorical. Every imperative is conditional
on where I'm holding.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
mi...@aishdas.org        greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
http://www.aishdas.org   in fact, of our modesty.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)



Go to top.

Message: 10
From: "Chana Luntz" <ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:09:46 +0100
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles


RMB writes:

> The line is subtle, and probably the subject of machloqes. My 
> own opinion is that tzeni'us is not drawing attention to 
> oneself, more of a mode of interaction with others, whereas 
> anavah is realizing that one is part of Hashem's bigger plan 
> rather than thinking I'm in charge. (Thus the connection to 
> other ayin-nun words like answering, reacting, etc...)

You ask me to further define tznius in accordance with common practice.

I think that part of the issue is that there are two distinct meanings of
tznius in common understanding:

(A) as the opposite of pritzus.  Pritzus is inappropriate sexuality, and
tznius is the opposite of that.

(B) the use of tznius in tzanua laleches - which is a lot closer to anavah -
in fact this is often translated as walking humbly with one's G-d.  The
b'tzina, the privacy part of this, is not the public action, but the
dedication of the heart toward G-dliness, rather than towards external
reward.

I can understand the desire by RHS (and others, Getzel Ellinson tries to do
the same thing) to unite these two separate definitions, but I am not
totally convinced that it can be done, without (mostly) losing (A) (and even
parts of (B).  And even if it can be done, it does not mean that RHS's
attempt is the right one. While RHS's formulation may appeal to the Western
mind, which sometimes struggles with the idea that there is inappropriate
sexuality - or at least inappropriate expression of sexuality, I don't think
it is right or true to source.  When the gemora contrasts the tznios and the
pritzos in terms of what they assume about their husbands' failure to return
in time to nullify a get, - it has nothing to do with drawing attention to
themselves, it has to with their willingness to contemplate alternative
sexual relationships.  I could bring dozens of other examples.  By trying to
stretch a single definition to cover both of these two separate situations,
you may end up distorting both definitions, and it seems to me that a
definition that tznius means a non public role does just that.

> But the line isn't my point. Whether it's an issue of 
> tzeni'us or of anavah, it would still mean that accomodating 
> feminist aspirations in the synagogue is actually enabling 
> the further spread of middos that don't fit the Torah's ideal.

Again, I have a basic problem with the whole thesis that the ban on women
having aliyos has anything to do with tznius or anavah.  The gemora says
quite straightforwardly that the reason why women cannot have aliyos is
because of kovod hatzibbur.  Like it, don't like it, that is it.  Tznius,
anavah, what have you is all modern apologetics, and in attempting to do so,
you end up having to say all sorts of things that are, to my mind,
problematic - not just about women, but about men.  And of course, about the
halacha of aliyos, and public roles etc etc
 
> You mean like when the CC published the book that gave him 
> his nickname anonymously? Or the Bahir, or the Chinukh, or 
> the numerous other anonymously published sefarim that were 
> written before the author was known for other reasons...
> (<http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/11/8/Anony
> mous-Sefarim>
> has an interesting topic on anonymous works, acrostics, 
> leaving the name implied, etc...)
> 
> I think the burden of proof is actually on the suggestion 
> that there is another definition of tzeni'us (or anavah) that 
> fits common practice. I don't even know if there is a 
> different shitah to claim we follow.

There is no question that there is, in halacha, a concept that one should
not run after kavod - that is all over the place.  And indeed it is an
important mida.  But that does not mean that there should be no public
roles, or that somebody who takes them necessarily finds themselves with
diminished midos.  There is also a concept that gluttony is a bad thing, but
that does not mean that the ideal is that one should not eat, and that one
who eats has diminished midos.  Just as one should eat in order to serve
one's creator, one should take public roles in order to serve one's creator.
Thus there appears to be a confusion and instead of identifying the
inappropriate desire as bad, food is identified as bad.  So too here -
desire for kavod is bad, the public role is not in and of itself bad, it is
how it is used.
 
> But here we're talking about the opposite -- a set of 
> innovations that overturn major fundamental mimetic issues 
> (significant change to our lifestyle). To invoke burden of 
> proof again, it's one thing to say we could be doing more; 
> it's another to say that we should take major steps AWAY.

...

> Actually, I say that exactly -- that the lifestyle halakhah 
> and history pushed men into gives us many conflicts between 
> tzeni'us and other responsibilities (many of them, like 
> leading a minyan, are chiyuvim) and therefore tzeni'us often loses.
> 
> Now, justify changing women's lives to embed the same decision.
> 

But you are talking here as though RHS's argument is the only bar to women's
aliyos - strip away his argument and then women's aliyos are a shoe-in.  Now
*that* is very dangerous.  Once you say that the reason for the rule is X,
and people are able to attack X, you actually make the rule more likely to
be broken.  And to do that on the basis of a novel view of a modern Rosh
Yeshiva at YU, without reference to the reason the gemora gives, strikes me
as extremely problematic.
 

> : I think this is a non sequiter - ie you are raising a 
> completely different
> : topic here, that of the home and the synagogue, something 
> which has little
> : to do with our other topic regarding the definition of tznius.
> 
> I'm not as sure. I think at least one element that makes 
> davening in a WTG more tempting than behind the mechitzah or 
> at home, and why being a Maharat is a calling for someone who 
> wants more than being an eim habanim semeichah is this notion 
> of the synagogue centered avodas Hashem.

Yes, it is.  But that does not mean that a notion of synagogue centered
avodas Hashem has anything to do with tznius.  You are insisting that the
two are linked.  I think the issues are quite different - that is we have to
deal with the reasons driving a synagogue centered avodah Hashem separately.
And it has nothing to do with whether you can find a way of defining tznius
as per RHS to pick up the two classic tznius definitions.  
 
> And I think that too is intimately tied to confusing the role 
> in the limelight and the quiet service of the home. Shul 
> worship has the disproportionate place it does in our psyche 
> at least in part because it's showier.

Part of the reason I don't think that is the case, is that where there are
genuine female communities based on the home, women generally have little
interest in the synagogue. You would need to show me a situation where the
historical female community centered around the home(s) was intact, and yet
the synagogue remained attractive because it was showier.  If you can do
that, then you may have a point - but I don't think you can.  First the
female home community disappears, then the synagogue becomes attractive as a
home substitute.  Then there is a push for full female involvement in what
has become the home substitute.
 
> : But you see, by defining tznius the way you do - you are 
> not just saying
> : that what Rn Jungreis does a violation of tznius (even if 
> the pros outweigh
> : the cons) you are also saying that what Moshe Rabbanu did was also a
> : violation of tznius - after all, it is impossible to think 
> of anybody who
> : was more "out front" than he was....
> 
> Yes. Dechuyah.
> 
> ...
> : It is probably barely necessary for me to say that I think this
> : understanding is dead wrong.  

...

> I think you're conflating tzeni'us and anavah. Someone who 
> violates tzeni'us for the right reason coild still be anav 
> mikol adam, but MRAH certainly did NOT live with an attitude 
> of besokh amo hu yosheiv, or vehatznei'ah lekhes im E-lokav! 
> There was nothing betzin'ah about it!
> (Even his sex life became millennia of public discourse!)

The issue is much more fundamental than that.  "Lo kum b'yisroel k'Moshe
od."  Reasonably fundamental principle could we say?  But you are
disagreeing with that. You are saying that Moshe would have been greater if
he had not had to have a public role.  It certainly implies, if not states,
that there may be millions of yidden who are and were in fact greater than
Moshe, because he had to take up a public role, and they didn't - and even
if there weren't certainly that there could be - since Moshe had a
fundamental and inescapable midos problem due to the nature of his role.

But one of the fundamental principles of our belief is that Moshe Rabbanu
was the greatest Jew that ever lived, and, (perhaps excluding Moshiach - who
is also going to have an extremely public role), will ever live.  Certainly
the traditional way of understanding his greatness is that at least part of
the reason he was so great was *because of* the public role he occupied, and
certainly not despite it.  Yes, it was because of the way he was able to
handle the test of that public role, agreed, but passing that test allowed
him to be the greatest person that ever lived.

And you are turning this whole understanding on its head - and why?  Because
for some reason you don't like the reason the gemora gives for why women
can't have aliyos, and you want to substitute some alternative
understanding.

> ...
> : Which is why I think the issue is not whether one is public 
> or not, but
> : whether one is l'shem shamayim or not.  One can do exactly 
> the same thing
> : and take exactly the same role, and if one is doing it for 
> the kovod he or
> : she will garner, then it is not l'shem shamayim and it is not tzanua
> : laleches and it is all about ga'ava.  And if one is 
> fulfilling the public
> : role l'shem shamayim then one can be doing exactly the same 
> action, and
> : indeed it will be tzanua laleches.
> 
> I don't see it. Betzin'ah means "in private", and doesn't 
> address lishmah.

And Dovid haMelech dancing before the aron was not in private, therefore he
was not tanuah laleches according to you.  It was clearly not necessary, why
does he not accede to Michal's criticism?  

That is why I think that a much more classic definition of tanua laleches is
not that it is only open to the hermit who walks with G-d privately, but it
is open to all whose (by definition private) heart (since nobody knows what
goes on in our hearts except Hashem) is properly dedicated to Hashem (ie
l'shem shamayim) even if he or she happens to be "walking" in public - ie
occupying public roles.  Many Xtians have a different view, and certainly
the Buddists do, they glorify the private individual living in his cave.  We
do not, we glory in the creation of communities and the public roles that
they produce.  That is a much harder test.  It is much harder to maintain
tanua l'leches in such an environment - but that does not mean that, in my
view, the ideal is not to try.  Nor that it is impossible.  The assumption
is that the most noble of us will succeed, as Moshe Rabbanu was able to
succeed and will indeed be nobler because of that success.  Your definition
sets the fundamental concepts of Yehadus against the possibility of tzanua
laleches - and makes a lot of the Xtian criticism of our halachic system
valid as stunting midos development.  Mine validates the stress that Yehadus
indeed places on the public and community as important and necessary and of
assisting in midos development.  You just need to understand the ban on
women having aliyos has having to do with something else.

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana




Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Meir Shinnar <chide...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:44:47 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles


On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 01:30:43PM -0400, Meir Shinnar wrote:
> : To complement RCL's tale about refusing food as being a model for the
> : shliach tzibbur - which does not reflect a midda of tzniut, but of
> manners -
> ...
>
> Mah beinaihu? Is not tzeni'us one middah among the set we call "having
> good manners"?
>
it isn't that zniut isn't good manners, it is that the focus is on manners
rather than zniut....(and the proof is that we don't enforce zniut in the
ways that RJR has suggested or in multiple other ways)  - it just isn't a
value in communal life..



>
> ...
> : RMB
> : >Again, I ask you as well to propose your definition of tzeni'us as "the
> : >other shitah", the one we do follow, in contrast to RHS simply running
> : >with the literal translation of the word and buttressed by other
> : >sources.
> :
> :
>
> You still have me lossed. Why are you placing tzeni'us as an antonym of
> kavod? Dignity breeds kavod without always jumping into the limelight.
>
The issue of kavod in this context is not merely dignity - it has intrinsic
right to the limelight -  the insistence of some rabbanim on certain
kibbudim and the limelight that it entails.  The trappings of serara -
whether king's crown and throne, rabbi's chair in the mirzrach, are all
factors of limelight - that are not merely dignity.  We attach a positive
value to the limelight for our leaders. (and, to go back to the first point,
we expect our leaders to show good manners while they enjoy the limelight..)


>
> And the whole question wasn't whether communal roles would at time
> outrank tzeni'us, it was in changing the role of half the community
> which would multiply the number of times tzeni'us takes a back seat.
> Is that a positive change? Is a desire for that change a positive one?
> Is not feminism's search for empowerement *frequently* aimed at allowing
> women the opportunity to erode the concept of tzeni'us?
>

No - and this (IMHO) reflects a misunderstanding both of feminism and of the
halachic role of tzeniut.

I would argue that the problem of tzeniut is one of seeking the limelight
for the sake of being in the limelight - not of getting or being in the
limelight.  (and this goes with the simple pshat of the word)  Getting the
limelight because of doing something intrinsically acceptable is not
problematic at ll -  not a question of hutra or dchuya - tzeniut doesn't
factor in.  Yes, as an individual one has to worry that being in the
limelight won't lead to a lack of tzeniut - but it isn't that being in it is
intrinically tzanua.  (Again, I don't know of any classical source that says
that if approached for any public position, I have worry that it is not
tzanua and do the balancing - from mussar, I may have to worry it doesn't go
to my head - but not that it is a problem of tzniut.)

What has to be understood (and not yet addressed) is, that for good or for
bad, the role of half the community has changed - and is no longer one that
is primarily in the home.   but if a woman has the right and option to be a
lawyer/doctor/teacher/..... - she will be in the public sphere and not in
the home. (By your criteria, how tzanua is it to get up in front of a class?
In front of a court? a doctor wearing a white court? in business
conferences?)This has never been thought to be a problem of tzeniut for men
- so why is it one for women....?_

If you believe that that is an intrinsic violation of tzeniut - then you
should be fighting that.  If you don't believe it is a violation of tzeniut
- this isn't a question of seeking the limelight for the sake of the
limelight (a problem of zniut), but of getting the limelight because it is
part and parcel of doing what is right - where we then the question is the
religious model that corresponds to it (Note: I am not advocating a
particular solution - merely that there needs to be a solution).




>
> ...
>
> And last, I still don't see how you provide any proof that the word
> "tzeni'us" means something other than "acting betzin'ah", that
> vehatznieah lekhes isn't dachui by the need to have leaders. You aren't
> even arguing hutrah, you are telling me to follow a different and
> unprovided definition of the word without a source behind the claim
> that RHS -- or actually RYBS, since he discussed it in Nefesh haRav (pg
> 281) -- got it wrong by translating the word literally. Tzin'ah is the
> antonym of parhesia, no?
>
Acting betzina means one doesn't seek the limelight - but not that one is
striving to avoid the limelight...(I will reviw Nefesh Harav..)

>
> : It is one thing to oppose innovation - it is another to propose radical
> : innovations in the name of opposing innovations.....
>
> I am not opposing innovation, I'm opposing following desire, even
> religious desire, without a weighing of pros and cons as measured in
> Torah terms. The problem isn't with the concept of innovation as a
> whole. (If it were, could I follow some blend of derakhim none of which
> existed in 1850? Would I take the initiative, much to RRW's irritation,
> of picking and choosing among nusachos for my own tefillah? Etc...)
>
Formulating the problem as one of following desire is what is(IMHO)
problematic -and quite paradigmatic in much of the responses to this issue -
as it attributes impure motives to the other side.  Are there those to whom
this is applicable? Absolutely.  However, there are many others for whom the
issue is not desire, not even religious desire - but the question of how to
have modes of religious expression that reflect their reality.

Meir Shinnar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090714/40971bdd/attachment.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 12
From: "Joseph C. Kaplan" <jkap...@tenzerlunin.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:44:18 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles


I don't think RRW's analogy to tefillin does the trick.  He writes: "Now
plug in Men violating Tz'nius as little as possible (but not absolute zero
for practical reasons.)"

But that's just the point - men do NOT violate tzni'ut as LITTLE as
possible; they violate it as MUCH as possible if you accept RHS and RMB's
definition of tzni'ut for men.	As I thought of this some more, I thought
about the usual wedding.  There are 11 roles that men play out under the
chupah (aside from the groom): mesader kiddushin, two eidim, reader of the
ketuba and those reciting the seven brachot.  At most weddings I attend,
there are, indeed, 11 different men who walk up to, and stand under, the
chupah to perform these roles (sometimes one or two fewer).  Now, if we
took RHS's analysis and RMB's understanding of tzni'ut for men seriously,
or if RRW's claim that men violate tzni'ut as little as possible, we would
have just two men doing all these public tasks (the two eidim who could one
of whom could be mesader kiddushin, the other read the ketuba, and they
could split up the sheva brachot between themselves), thus protecting the
other men in the audience from violat
 ing their tzni'ut.  THAT would be men violating tzni'ut as little as
 possible; THAT would demonstrate that we really mean that men and women
 have the same type of tzni'ut obligations.  But we all know that's not how
 we do it. To the contrary, we consider these roles kibudim - honors - not
 unfortunate, but necessary, violations of tzni'ut.  We say "We *honor*
 Rabbi Ploni with the fourth bracha," not "We request Rabbi Ploni to
 violate his tzni'ut by reciting the fourth bracha because we need someone
 to so it." 

Equal tzni'ut obligations for men and women might sound good on paper but
it's not related in any way to the Judaism I see practiced by both the
people AND their leaders.

And, while on this topic, I can't say how happy I am that RTK agrees with me, even if not completely.  It's made my day!

Joseph Kaplan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090714/62c87fd5/attachment.htm>

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 135
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


< Previous Next >