[Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 08:42am EDT, R Dr Meir Shinnar wrote:
: In my discussion with RMB, the issue has not been whether one could  
: formulate a theoretical basis of opposition between tzniut and being a  
: public servant - clearly one can - nor whether there is a literature  
: on the dangers of public service.  The issue of conflicting values of  
: the individual needs and communal needs can be easilty stated.  The  
: question is whether that theoretical basis of opposition has actually  
: been expressed into the form that RMB and RHS have expressed - and I  
: (and others) have argued that it hasn't, and that RMB and RHS's  
: formulation is an innovation with dangerous consequences, and against  
: the traditional literature.

: One could formulate an opposition to public roles for women on the  
: basis of tzniut as representing the pritzut category - which would be  
: more of what RAY Kook is doing - but then the issue becomes the  
: general social role of the woman in the MO community.

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 08:29am EDT, R Dr Meir Shinnar wrote:
: 1.  The discussion started with a discussion of RHS's psak (not mussar  
: schmooz) that a public role inherently required a violation of  
: tzeniut, and required a mattir in the form that someone had to to do  
: it - and only someone obligated could violate his tzeniut.  We are now  
: told that we shouldn't focus on halacha - this is hyperlegalism - this  
: is a matter of mussar.  I take it that you are not willing to defend  
: the halachic nature of this psak any more.

Well, I think to better articulate what I'm saying, let's break it into
two levels.

I see the mussar effect of the activity as the metzi'us about which RHS
is pasqening. Not that there are dinei tzeni'us, but that the existence
of a fundamental mussar concept of tzeni'us causes halachic outcome.

Thus one shouldn't be trying to analyze tzeni'us on a halachic level. As I
wrote, being a shocheit does make one more capable of dealing with blood,
whether the shechitah is a qiyum asei or not. That was the point I was
centering on. Hutrah vs dechuyah isn't the right discussion, because
we're still discussing psychology on "what do we expect will happen
to our personalities" terms.

After the mussar is resolved, then on can ask what that reality demands
in terms of a halachic response. The halakhah involved is either the
Ramban's qedoshim tihyu "bemah shemutar lakh" or the Rambam's lehidamos
bidrakhav (quoting the list of mitzvos asei preceding Hil' Dei'os).

: 2.  WRT mussar - there are different values.  Yes, there is a large  
: mussar literature on the danger of being seduced by honor and power -  
: and the need to train oneself against them.  What there isn't in  
: mainstream Jewish literature is the implication that public service is  
: something to be avoided unless there is a particular requirement...

Except RHS holds that being asked to be chazan etc... is a precedent
for that very thing. That accepting being chazan is only something you
should do when the minyan would otherwise be stuck.

: Your approach, which places individual self fulfillment ahead of the  
: needs of the community, is problematic - and without precedent...

But it doesn't! It says that personal need bows to the needs of the
community. What it doesn't allow is violating personal need without
proving that the community gains from the violation.

When the minyhan needs a chazan, go, be a chazan.

I think this entire self vs community dichotomy is off target. It's
about self refinement as a halachic end. In the case of tzeni'us, that's
vs the community, but that's only one instance of a more general idea.
But since the community "wins" even in my model, it isn't placing the
individual first.

: 3.  You emphasize that the issue is the accomodation of the individual  
: women's desire for religiosity, and focus on the maharat as violating  
: kadesh et atzmech bema shemutar lakh - viewing it as a form of self  
: expression and realization.  This reflects (IMHO) a complete  
: misunderstanding of the issue - and reflects, again a bias for the  
: individual self perfection over the community.  The issue is quite  
: different - and is intrinsically a communal issue - and one of tzorche  
: tzibbur (properly understood).  The issue is that we are now dealing  
: with a community (which reflects all of its members) which has  
: undergone major structural changes - and the issue is of addressing  
: the spiritual/religious/halachic needs of that community - where many  
: of the women today routinely live, outside the shul, a very public  
: life....

And again, the question is whether that should be a given.

Do we accomodate this structural change or resist it? Isn't that the
entire question? You're assuming the change, and then asking "Now what?"

I wouldn't.

Which brings me to RnCL's post.

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 9:53am BST, Rn Chana Luntz wrote:
:> Is the benefit a Maharat over a Yoetzet bring to the table 
:> the public's or in her opportunity to serve G-d in the way the
:> contemporary world
:> told her was more valuable? Or the benefit of being at the amud for
:> Pesuqei Dezimara rather than behind the mechitzah that of the 
: > community?

: See I am sure that R' Avi Weiss would answer you and say - it is the
: public's.  He would tell you that looking around at the community he serves,
: he sees too many girls and women who are alienated from  Yiddishkeit, and
: reluctant to engage or ask shialas, and that by having a Maharat holding a
: public position in the community, it is possible to re-engage with those
: women.

But these are other women for whom we should be asking the very same
question. Are we supposed to be reengaging them on these terms, or are
they compromised terms? To assume the former is to presuppose the
conclusion.

Which path costs us more? Do we lose more by not even trying to preserve
the value of tzni'us, particularly among women who are not given as
many reasons to violate it? Or do we lose more because there is simply
no way to produce a society of female professionals (or women who have
such among their friends and role models) who can be kol qevudah at home?

(This also is an aspect of why it's not about self vs community.)

: With your thesis, you will struggle to disagree with him. Because while
: maybe in your community you do not see this need, you have identified that
: you do not really consider yourself MO, and maybe you are just mixing in
: different circles.  
: ...

That could very well be. Part of my lack of MO-ness is that I feel such
a community needs correcting, not accomodating. My whole take-off on
RHS's theme is to justify that conclusion.

Actually, that's not 100% correct, but I couldn't figure out how to make
the next point without that stawman.

My objection is that the community isn't thinking in these terms.
Modernity is such a given, the idea of questioning a new value doesn't
come up. What I think requires a real cheshbon hanefesh (in the mussar
sense) to know if such a societal change is mutar (in the halachic
sense), is simply being skipped.

To quote my blog on why I don't see myself as MO or yeshivish
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/06/modern-orthodoxy-chareidism-and-mussar.shtml
    To simplify, let's phrase the difference between Modern Orthodoxy
    and Chareidim as basically whether (1) chol is an opportunity whose
    risks must be mitigated or (2) it is a set of risks that ought to be
    avoided and only then we can look to see what opportunities remain
    of what's left. ... Both are relatively remedial ways of addressing
    personal challenge. Methods usable for setting communal policy or
    for someone who doesn't really know himself. However, in a community
    of people who strive to know themselves and judge each situation
    accordingly, there is no need to rely on such blanket statements...

    ... Modern Orthodoxy sadly collapses into Orthodoxy-Lite for so
    many of those who affiliate with that community because there is no
    such introspection. Without that self-awareness, the dangerous gets
    embraced long enough for the risks to blind the victim to themselves
    before anyone even thinks to ask the question of mitigating them.

    Alternatively, I could say to a yeshivish person that what they
    need is a different kind of yeshivish, one in which tiqun hamidos
    tools are used to know when and how to protect oneself from today's
    degenerating society without missing out on its opportunities....
    But the resulting "yeshivish" would be something that is too new to
    simply fit within the current movement's umbrella.

    And in fact, both this new Modern Orthodoxy and new Yeshivish would
    be identical.

    The solution, in my humble opinion, is orthogonal to that whole
    axis. (Or perhaps I'm just one of the "newly converted" who just
    got a shiny new hammer and sees everying as nails...)

: > In short, I would argue that the Maharat as an insitution violates qadeish
: es atzmekha bema shemutar lakh (cast into lashon 
: > neqeivah). It's not assur by the letter of the law, but it's not stepping
: back from
: > something whose middos negatives far outweigh the benefit.

: But why, according to you?  Let us analyse what are the possibilities.  What
: are her functions: - teaching Torah and poskening shialas, presumably...

And counseling, and communal leadership. Running a shul. There is a
reason why neither Rn Jungreis, nor a yoetzet nor lbch"l Rn Prof
Nechamah Lebowitz is a Maharat.

You're casting her role into the halachic categories, which skips over
those elements of her role which wouldn't fit those categories. Your
reductionism fails to identify the full set of elements to reduce things
to.

: if the community learns some Torah from her that they would otherwise not be
: learnt, then is that a positive or a negative for the rabbim?  And who is
: going to be asking her shialas?  Is it going to be somebody who has a good
: relationship with their existing Rav? ...

What existing rav? The goal is, to quote Maharat Sarah Hurwitz a woman
who functions in the same capacity as a rabbi." She, not a rabbi, is in
charge of the shul and the kehillah. To give another example from her
interview with The Jewish Week, "If you're calling the funeral director
and he asks, 'Well, who are you?' If you say, 'I'm the rabbi here,'
the tone totally changes."

That's the major societal change I believe is assur to undertake without
a real cheshbon hanefesh. If it's made and they reach a different
conclusion than I currently hold, it would bother me far less.

: So, according to you, if the congregation will learn torah that they will
: not learn elsewhere, and shialas would be asked that would not otherwise be
: asked, then it would seem, at least according to you, incumbant on a woman
: who can (because lets face it, for a whole host of reasons, there is not a
: huge pool of women around who can) to push aside any reservations she might
: have and step up to the plate, as it were.  That is what public service
: means does it not?

You said nothing that requires going beyond the models that already
exist.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha at aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507