[Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles

[Meir Shinnar]

>
> Saying a word means how it is translated to mean isn't the same thing.
> However, I did along the way give contrary sources to your "no [one]
> understood", and will list 5 as this post proceeds.
>
> : There is another definition of zniut and hatznea lechet - which was actually
> : cited by RMB - namely, RYBS;s discusion of it, as cited by RHS in Nefesh
> : Harav...
>
> He doesn't discuss it there, he mentions an application. You're deducing
> that his one case is the only case. Obviously, RHS wrote wrote the
> citation in question didn't think he meant it such a limited way, since
> he used the quote as though it bolstered his point.
I don't know how RHS reads it.  I can only read pshat.   RYBS is
talking about the meaning of hatznea lechet - how it applies to public
figures - and he never says that being a public figure is an intrinsic
violation of hatznea lechet  - but rather that gdole yisrael who were
public figures were also makpid on hatznea lechet ..

> Also, RYBS writes about retreat and the imitation of tzimtzum frequently
> enough. (He has a beautiful vort on it, the seneh, and the link between
> Mosheh's anavah and his nevu'ah. I used it in a speech at my son's bar
> mitzvah, blogged at
> <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/01/fire-within-bush.shtml>.)
yes, tzimzum, anava, all are relevant aspects to the rav's position.
What he has never said is that being a public person necessarily
violates those standards - perhaps as a necessary sacrifice, but still
violates it.  (eg, vehaish moshe anav me'od even though Moshe was a
very public figure in a leadership position means that his being a
leader did not mean that he sacrificed the value of anava or tzeniut -
leadership does not necessarily entail that sacrifice.  Being anav may
mean a sense of unworthiness and reluctance to thrust oneself forward
- but that is quite different than saying that becoming a leader means
that one's sacrifices his tzeniut.).  The rav's use of those terms is
actually proof positive that, unlike RHS, for himbeing a public or
even leadership figure is not a violation of anava, tzimtzum, tzeniut,
etc..
.
> As for the history of the word "tzeni'us"... I already mentioned my
> namesake's famous pasuq "vehatzneiah lekhes im E-lokekha" as well as
> the Shunamit's "besoch ami". (Although the latter proves the main point,
> that the value exists, without the minor issue of whether it's what we
> call "tzeni'us".)
see above
> See also the Yalqut Balaq 771, which defines tzeni'us as acting in
> privacy. To the Rambam (Deiso 1:4), it's dressing as neither a bum nor
> in ostentacious clothes.
Neither of which is relevant to the central claim of RHS - that being
a public or leadership  figureintrinsically  violates hatznea lechet
or tzeniut...
> So, I would reiterate my conclusion that tzeni'us is a shared value
> across both genders. Where we differ, such that ko kevudah bas melekh
> (or is that bas Melekh?) penimah is only said of women is in the relative
> rarity of conflicting goals that force the sacrifice of tzenius.
an unsubstantiated claim
> The refinement of that subset of the Gra's teachings into the theory
> of the Mussar movement was largely developed by R' Zundel Salanter.
> But he went into hiding in the woods, and had no interest in letting
> others know he was trying to be a tzadiq and a chassid (lower case ches).

The notion of a tzaddik nistar is well known in many areas - but it is
a wild, unsubstantiated leap to argue that the reason they remain
nistar is because to become public is a necessary violation of
tzeniut.  Yes, advertising see how big a tzaddik I am becoming is
problematic with tzeniut - but that is quite a different issue than
saying that becoming a public leader/figure necessarily sacrifices
tzeniut.  I would agree that iIf someone does not wish a leadership
role, then just advertising one's greatness is a violation of tzeniut
- because it has no purpose excpet to proclaim one's greatness  - but
not that everyone who becomes public does violate his tzeniut.

Again, you have a model with one source - RHS - without any earlier
source.  You therefore read every reference to tzeniut, hatznea
lechet, anava, withdrawl, etc - as proof for  this model - without any
evidence that those terms and values (and no one disputes that th ose
terms and values exist0 actually agree with RHS's model.
 The rest of the posters have a different model - which seems far
more in line with the facts and how things are commontly understood.
RHS' model has the defect (as pointed out by RCL)  iof being motzi
la'az on every public figure (including moshe rabbenu).

Again,before RHS, who understands being a public figure as being an
intrinsic violation of tzeniut??(as distinct from that becoming public
may lead to ga;ava, may lead to other challenges, and a tzanua person
may feel unworthy- but that being public means sacrificing tzeniut???
Meir Shinnar