[Avodah] [Areivim] Orthodox Exercise

[Chana Luntz]

 Seems to have moved to Avodah - so I am sending this there:

Starting with the last part of your comment first you state:

> An scjm regular, a Breslover fellow named R' Moshe Schorr, 
> has a signature that includes the line, "The home and family 
> are the center of Judaism,
> *not* the synagogue." Judaism doesn't inhere in the 
> forefront, but in day to day life. That attitude is the 
> difference between viewing these innovations as empowering or 
> enabling.

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.

To briefly discuss this completely separate topic - I do not at all disagree
that the "the home and the family are the center of Judaism" - the
identifiable problem is that the home and the family, in what we might call
"western culture" for want of a better term, are not what they were.  The
Western model for family is that of a nuclear family living in a detached
house.  The father, in general, leaves the home quite early in the morning,
and returns lateish at night tired out by his work.  The children, once they
are of school age, do similarly leaving for increasingly longer periods of
time - that leaves, at most, a single adult woman and a few small children
in the home (and often that woman also leaves to go to work coming back
exhausted at the end of the day).  Even in a Jewish home of this nature,
everybody exhausts themselves to get home in time for shabbas and do the
necessary preparation, and then collapses as soon as they can on Friday
night. The only time people are freshish and together as a family is Shabbas
day - and, guess what, they spend a very large chunk of that in synagogue
(well at least if there is an eruv, otherwise the older children and the
father do, and the mother is at home with the small children, as per the
rest of the week).  Hence during most of the week that home is an incredibly
lonely, isolating place to spend significant time.

It is even worse for the growing groups of young singles who do not live
with their parents, and who are yet to really establish a home and who
work/study and hence live in a mixed environment.  It would not be
appropriate - I would have said it it would not be tznius - but you have
appropriated (I would say misappropriated) that term to mean something else,
so I can't say that - for them to be in and out of each other's houses, and
hence need somewhere public to be the focus of their interaction with
others.

Now contrast that with the traditional form of Jewish home - which was
usually built on a courtyard of similar homes, where people live cheek by
jowl with their neighbours, relatives, extended families etc.  The girls at
least were not in school, so there was a community of females, ranging from
the very little ones, through the girls, young women, older women,
grandmothers etc, who were in and out of each other's houses, and pretty
much had very little reason to leave their local female communities for any
significant periods of time, except to do things together - like the washing
at the river on Mondays, which was generally done as a group.  Such women
had very little need for an alternative social hub - which is why they had
very little need for a shul.  The men may have, to provide "male space"
where they could get away from all these females - but the women tended to
be "three day a year" Jews, needing the shul primarily for the extra
spiritual boost of the Yomim Noraim.

While the full fledged female community as described above no longer exists,
it has a pretty close cousin in the typical Israeli charedi appartment
block.  Which is why the allegiance to and the need for shuls is so greatly
diminished there.  The problem with those who live more of the "western"
lifestyle, whether in Israel or in chutz l'aretz, is that without a
community centred on and made up of the home and others nearby, the
synagogue keeps on being called upon to step into that breach and create as
sense of community (similar to the way schools also keep being called upon
to make up for deficits to be found in the modern home) - something it is
ill equipped to do.  That is why I think any discussion of the role of the
synagogue is misplaced if the underlying dynamics are not understood.

But let us leave that topic and get back to tznius.  You write:

>     When we're conversing with someone, what are we doing 
> while they are talking? Do we spend the whole time searching for launching
points
>     for what we want to say? Or, do we actually listen to appreciate to
>     what they are trying to relate? The former stance is that of ga'avah,
>     of the hubris of believing that what we have to say and contribute
>     is primary; certainly my insight is brighter, my chiddush (novellum)
>     more inspiring, and my perspective more valuable. When when the anav
>     speaks, he responds.

and

> I also think that Rn Jungreis should continue teaching ad 
> mei'ah ve'esrim. That was the point I was making that I think 
> got us onto the topic, so I want to reiterate it and the 
> explanation: The pros outweigh the cons -- she is very good 
> at what she does. But it IS a violation of tzeni'us. We're 
> talking about conflicting values. There is no hutrah only 
> dechuyah when it comes to mussar, since values don't 
> evaporate when in conflict like a chiyuv might.

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.  Ie what you are saying is that Moshe
Rabbanu would have been a better person had he not had to have such a public
role -and although, (presumably) the pros outweighed the cons, still it by
definition came at a personal cost.

.. And we worry about people criticising Pinchas and saying he was less than
perfect!!!

It is probably barely necessary for me to say that I think this
understanding is dead wrong.  That is, it is not necessarily the case that a
public role is a breach of tznius/anava etc.  That is not to say that taking
a public role does not carry with it the *risk* that it may lead to ga'avah,
or that it can amount to a violation of tznius, but that is precisely what
the Torah tells us Moshe was able to avoid.  Similarly the debate about what
is tznius was at the heart of the dispute between Dovid HaMelech and Michal
-and it seems clear that the Torah view is with Dovid Hamelech - and yet
according to you, Michal was pretty on target.

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.

My impression is that Rn Yungreis is l'shem shamayim, and hence to my mind,
what she does is completely tznius. The reality check that the halacha
regarding refusing aliyos is supposed to engender is precisely the question,
am I responding l'shem shamayim or not - not that getting an aliyah is
inherently not tznius (which, by the way, would result in the halacha being
that what eg the Sephardim do when there are more people the baal simcha
wants to honour than aliyos, ie creating extra aliyos, is in fact assur as a
derogation in tznius).  True, and this is why your critique has a certain
ring of truth about it, because it is half right - the more public the role,
and hence the more public aclaim available, the harder it is to ignore this
and to genuinely act l'shem shamayim - you have to be Moshe Rabbanu to have
a role like Moshe Rabbanu's and handle it like Moshe Rabbanu - but that does
not mean that a public role is necessarily and inherently in and of itself
untznius.
 
>:-)BBii!
>-Micha

Shavuah tov

Chana