[Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles

[Meir Shinnar]

>
> R' Dr Shinnar writes:
>> What I (and I think others) - do not see the dichotomy as public
>> versus private - but as a mode of being and behavior - hatznea lechet
>> and anavut are fully compatible with being a public figure  - and
>> therefore there isn't the necessary tension.
>
> The two sides of being vs behavior don't exist independently of eachother.
> Haadam nif'al lefi pe'ulaso, as the Chinukh reiterates and reiterates.
> There is no way to act without middos being involved. This unity of being
> and behavior underlies Yahadus. It's how "heyei tamim" or "qedoshim tihyu"
> translates to masei mitzvah rather than navel contemplation in some
> cloistered meditative setting.
>
> (It also underlies a point of Hebrew grammer -- is "boneh" a builder,
> or the present tense verb?)
>
> And is also why there is no parallel to "hutrah" for middos. E.g. Someone
> who kills in a milkhemes mitzvah is still more able to kill than I am
> and a shocheit is less queasy at the sight of blood than when he started.
>
While being and behavior do not exist independently, what I (and
others) are saying that being a public figure is not the mode of being
or behavior that is the problem - one can be be and act in completely
tzanua fashion while being a public leader - they have not been the
opposites of public/private - because the meaning of tzanua as private
is not in not being in the public arena.  (again, vehaish moshe anav
meod - anivut, tzniut etc coexist in being and action with being the
leader of klal yisrael.) One can be private public figure - that is
the essence of hatznea lechet according to RYBS.  You have brought no
support for the position that being a public figure is something that
is intrinsically bad - because it violates tzeniut - that therefore
requires something to be mattir it.

I disagree with RJK's analysis, because the conflict is not between
two competing values.
Howeverr, RJK's analysis, and your response - heighten the issue.
Shabbat and pikuach nefesh are not necessarily in conflict - most
cases of pikuach nefesh do not occur on shabbat, and the question
therefore arises what to do when they are in conflict.

Your (and RJK's)  analysis would put public service, rather than as an
intrinsic good, as an evil  that is intrinsically in conflict with
tzeniut - - which is then only mitigated by the good that the
particular public service brings.   This is the problematic part -
which has no support in the literature.  vekhol mi sheoskim betzorche
tzibbur - the only requirement is that it is be'emunah.

I would add one thing - that RHS's and your analysis reflect a growing
trend - the emphasis on the importance of personal perfection rather
than the needs of the community - which has many other manifestations
in current haredi society (and reflects RHS"s haredi bent),  What is
unique about this analysis that it is the first that I know off  that,
in viewing the conflict between the needs of the community and that of
personal perfection - views communal service as intrinsically
detrimental to the individual - even if, under some circumstances, it
becomes muttar - rather than potentially posing dangers, depending on
the invididual and the nature of the service.  It is therefore highly
morally problematic.

Meir Shinnar