[Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles

[Meir Shinnar]

>
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 12:27:33PM -0400, Meir Shinnar wrote:
> : This essay reflects a methodological approach of RHS that I have  
> seen in
> : other contexts tghat, BMKVT i find problematic - the use of a  
> legitimate
> : source, that argues a position that supports his desired  
> conclusion - but
> : that the original position cited is in general ignored (or  
> minimized) in
> : practice. (eg, in talking about women's tefillot, the Magen  
> Avraham's
> : position about women reading kriat hatorah)
> RMB
> If the norm in practice is to do something wrong, is it improper to
> note that we're behaving in a non-ideal way? And when discussing MAJOR
> changes to how we practice our Judaism (or even not so major), should
> we not avoid a path that brings us further from the ideal?
>


The issue is not that we do something wrong - but that our practice  
suggests that we do not hold by that shitta.

eg (to answer also RJR's objection), WRT RHS bringing down the Magen  
Avraham for women hearing kriat hatora as against Women Tefilla -  
women hearing kriat hatora applies ( and has applied) very broadly -  
far beyond the context of WTG. I have yet to hear a drasha or psak  
urging women who do not have family obligations (eg, single, young  
married without kids, grown kids or widowed...) that they need to  
appear in shul for kriat hatora - not just shabbat morning, but  
shabbat mincha and Monday and Thursday.  That is not the norm - but   
the fact that the community and rabbanim are not doing it does not  
that they are doing something wrong - (which is being motzi la'az  
essentially against the entire Orthodox community) - but a statement  
that WRT this psak, kvodo shel haMagen Avraham bikhvodo munach, but we  
do not follow it - we follow a different psak.  Therefore using this  
psak to say that a particular action is against it is problematic -  
because the actions of the entire community are against it.



> me
> : If something is in practice ignored, it is difficult to make it  
> the basis
> : for a wide ranging principe and for a new situation - (we don't  
> care about
> : it for us, but you....),especially, as the new situation (public  
> position
> : for women), the issue is in general not the kavod and public  
> position for an
> : individual (where a lack of zniut can be argued) but the  
> possibility of
> : inclusion of a group - a very different issue.
> RMB
> I guess the difference between our posiitons is that you see  
> applying an
> ignored principle in a new situation, whereas I see it as  
> instituting a
> change that takes us even further from a principle we're already
> insufficiently following.
>

Similar to above.  RMB enunciates an eloquent vision of zniut.  There  
are halachot that prescribe a far less stringent version of zniut for  
kibudim - eg, as RJR describes, one could easily design a system for  
the shul that would be far closer to RMB's vision - and be easy to  
implement.  In reality, (and this applies not just to MO shuls but to  
most shuls) - not only is the enhanced system not followed, but even  
the minimal system that is halachically enhsrined is ignored - for  
issues of practicality and shul governance.  The whole system of  
priority in kibbudim (and the term itself tells us that getting them  
is not viewed as tzanua) is in place precisely because it is realized  
that it is natural for people to want the kavod- and this can't be  
eliminated - all that can be done is to make the community function  
smoother.

One could argue that this is a fault in us - but, given how this is  
widespread and adhered to by gdole yisrael mdorot,  this argument is  
problematic (again, it is essentially being motzi la'az on much of  
klal yisrael) - instead, it argues that the overarching vision of  
tzniut articulated by RMB may, after all, not be enodrsed by halacha  
(we learn hashkafa from halacha...) - and that there are competing  
principles - including the smooth running of the community - that are  
more important than zniut.

If that is the case, then, in a new situaiton, not applying this broad  
principle is not problematic - it does n't take even further from a  
principle we are insufficiently following - we are following it  
sufficiently, and therefore there is no reason to extend it..

Meir Shinnar




> : BTW, in some communities. the exclusion of an entire group is  
> actually a
> : very public statement - the opposite of tnziut - and their  
> inclusion is
> : therefore an act of zniut...
>
> A violation of whose tzeni'us? The poseiq who is going to answer the
> question either way? I don't think an abstract communal "public
> statement" really qualifies as the opposite of tzeni'us since it  
> doesn't
> thrust anyone into the limelight.
>
> :-)BBii!
> -Micha
>
> -- 
> Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
> micha at aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your  
> grip,
> http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
> Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:10:25 -0400
> From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich at sibson.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
> To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	 
> <E0F39F1E5D787144B56F532B726FF4420760ED11 at NYCEXCL03.segal.segalco.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>
>
> Re:the quote from RHS of zniut
> This essay reflects a methodological approach of RHS that I have  
> seen in other contexts tghat, BMKVT i find problematic - the use of  
> a legitimate source, that argues a position that supports his  
> desired conclusion - but that the original position cited is in  
> general ignored (or minimized) in practice. (eg, in talking about  
> women's tefillot, the Magen Avraham's position about women reading  
> kriat hatorah)
>
> Meir Shinnar
>
> ==============
> IIUC R'HS would say that we should follow the original position/ 
> practice
> KT
> Joel Rich
> THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE
> ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL
> INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination,
> distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the  
> addressee is
> strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please  
> notify us
> immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.
> Thank you.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090710/4e833582/attachment-0001.htm 
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:12:54 -0400
> From: Joseph Kaplan <jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com>
> Subject: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
> To: avodah <avodah at aishdas.org>
> Cc: Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org>
> Message-ID: <46E51329-8A3F-4467-9E3B-2AA9B9EF5CFA at tenzerlunin.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> RMB's analysis of tzni'ut is very interesting but I believe it has
> absolutely nothing to do with the real world.  Sure, men have the
> same obligation of tzni'ut that women have, but men are "forced" to
> participate publicly because someone has to daven for the amud etc.
> Really?  The rabbi of a shul "has" to have maftir on Shabbat Shuva
> and Shabbat hagadol.  And a man  "has" to have maftir on his
> yahrtzeit or auf ruf or sheva brachot?  A regular aliyah wouldn't be
> sufficient? Why not parcel all haftorot out among all shul members
> Shabbat by Shabbat so everyone will has an equal, and lesser, burden
> of reluctantly accepting public roles.  Same for reading the ketubah
> under the chupah. Why should RY take upon themselves this "violation"
> of tzni'ut.  Let's parcel it out among all.  Or better yet, let's
> have a tape recording of the reading of the ketubah (which, I
> believe, RHS said was okay).  I could go on and on, and you can come
> up with your own examples.  Quite frankly, I think this is something
> people say (or some people say) but simply do not really believe.  If
> they really believed it, Jewish practice and communal life would look
> very different. Almost NOBODY acts this way; not the regular folk and
> not their leaders.
>
> Joseph Kaplan
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:18:47 -0400
> From: "Dov Weinstock" <dov.weinstock at nycadvantage.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] tznius and gender roles
> To: <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
> Message-ID: <21B4090A07BA45B2BFBB6527FD3DD0EE at Advantage01Dov>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
>
> RHS in the article Micha linked to states:
>
>>>> Part of our obligation of v'holachto b'drachav, to imitate G-d,  
>>>> i.e. to
> preserve and maintain those divine attributes that were implanted  
> within us,
> requires of us to lead private lives; not to be seeking the  
> limelight; not
> to be loud in speech, in dress, or in action. Hakadosh Baruch Hu is
> described by the Navi Yehsaya as a "kel mistater".<<<
>
> Bemichalat kvodo, God is also described as 'el nekamot'. Why choose  
> one over
> the other?
> It seems to me that we should stick with the actual maaamar chazal on
> veholachto bidrachav - mah hu rachum...ma hu chanun...
> The very fact that halacha requires us to do certain things publicly
> mitigates against the idea that our 'world view' prefers everything  
> to be
> done in private. I think a more subtle understanding of tzniut would  
> be more
> accurate.
>
> Dov Weinstock
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:52:21 -0400
> From: Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
> To: avodah <avodah at aishdas.org>
> Message-ID: <20090710195221.GA10110 at aishdas.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 03:12:54PM -0400, Joseph Kaplan wrote:
> : RMB's analysis of tzni'ut is very interesting but I believe it has
> : absolutely nothing to do with the real world.  Sure, men have the
> : same obligation of tzni'ut that women have, but men are "forced" to
> : participate publicly because someone has to daven for the amud etc.
>
> Again (although I think RJK submitted this before seeing my recent  
> post),
> I think you're conflating the real with the ideal.
>
> The fact is that in the way our society is structured, men are  
> encouraged
> to ignore tzeni'us in our pursuit of other goals. That doesn't change
> the ideal, that tzeni'us is a central element in imitatio dei.  
> However,
> it reflects a compromise we already made.
>
> The question before us now is whether the right decision is to further
> compromise the value of tzeni'us, or to resist an innovation that  
> would
> nearly entirely eliminate it from our daily lives. There would be no
> reminder that service of G-d is supposed to be from a position of  
> "besokh
> ami anokhi yosheves" and that being seated on the duchan is supposed
> to be a source of embarassment, that the quiet service of the Almighty
> outside the shul is more fundamental than being a functionary within  
> it.
>
> IOW, yes you're right, what I said has nothing to do with the real
> world. It's about the future world and do we want it to be further  
> from
> the role of tzeni'us in the ideal world than we are already, or not?
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 03:18:47PM -0400, Dov Weinstock wrote:
> : RHS in the article Micha linked to states:
> :> Part of our obligation of v'holachto b'drachav, to imitate G-d,  
> i.e. to
> :> preserve and maintain those divine attributes that were implanted
> :> within us, requires of us to lead private lives; not to be seeking
> :> the limelight; not to be loud in speech, in dress, or in
> :> action. Hakadosh Baruch Hu is described by the Navi Yehsaya as a
> :> "kel mistater".
>
> : Bemichalat kvodo, God is also described as 'el nekamot'. Why choose
> : one over the other?
>
> This week's parashah "beqan'o es qin'asi"... Twould seem neqamah  
> lesheim
> Shamayim is to be emulated.
>
> In any case and FWIW, RYBS defines anavah as the imitatio dei of  
> tzimtzum,
> and would probably answer that a conflict of competing values is the
> very dialectic that human nature is based upon. Not a proof of  
> falsity,
> but very typical for how HQBH set up the moral landscape.
>
> :-)BBii!
> -Micha
>
> -- 
> Micha Berger             Rescue me from the desire to win every
> micha at aishdas.org        argument and to always be right.
> http://www.aishdas.org              - Rav Nassan of Breslav
> Fax: (270) 514-1507                   Likutei Tefilos 94:964
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:09:26 -0400
> From: "Dov Weinstock" <dov.weinstock at nycadvantage.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Is Body Paint Halakhically Clothing?
> To: <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
> Message-ID: <EC52DB24775A4D13898401A95253D7C5 at Advantage01Dov>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
>
> RTK:
> .....
> It could be that what is  prurient to
> a man might be merely amusing to a woman, so maybe women could  
> watch  the
> safety video and then tell their husbands the safety instructions.
> <<<<<<
>
>
> Ah, but that itself is likely to cause the husband to think about  
> what is on
> the video...I suppose it would be better if the wife flew on the  
> plane and
> told her husband about the trip afterwards.
>
> Dov Weinstock
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:08:02 -0400
> From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich at sibson.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Categorical imperative
> To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	 
> <E0F39F1E5D787144B56F532B726FF4420760ED0C at NYCEXCL03.segal.segalco.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>
>
> Another case in point is the heter mechira/yevul nochri dispute.  If  
> I alone purchase yevul nochri rather than rely on heter mechira, I  
> have not really contributed to foreign ownership of the Land of  
> Israel, not connived in the issur of lo sechonem, and, on the  
> contrary, have avoided a number of real halachic problems.  However,  
> if a whole community adopts the same course, lo sechonem and  
> contributing to terrorism become real issues.  (Of course, we can  
> argue about the metzius, but that is the argument.)  A narrow  
> halachic approach, if I can call it that, would focus on the classic  
> halachic issues.  A broader halachic approach would admit the  
> broader, communal consequences in the decision-making process.
>
> 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?
>
> Kol tuv
> Dov Kaiser
> Rehovot, Israel
>
>
> ========================================================
> The issues of the tzibbur vs.. the individual (fallacy of  
> composition comes to mind) is one that R'YBS talked about in terms  
> of how we are judged .  The proper weight to give each element is  
> key but when I have sought guidance I felt there was no real  
> algorithm-much more a kfi hamakon vhzman veinei hamoreh.
> KT
> Joel Rich
> THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE
> ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL
> INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination,
> distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the  
> addressee is
> strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please  
> notify us
> immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.
> Thank you.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090710/ed4f8771/attachment-0001.htm 
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:06:17 -0400
> From: Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] rmf/eruvin
> To: avodah at aishdas.org
> Message-ID: <20090710200617.GB10110 at aishdas.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 02:25:32PM -0700, Saul.Z.Newman at kp.org wrote:
> : on whether  RMF  would  have  protested others  making eruvin  
> where he
> : assured....
>
> R' Dovid Cohen is leshitaso. He feels that "da'as Torah" isn't a
> psychological statement (Torah honed the way they think to be more in
> line with HQBH's thought) or a metaphysical one, but a halachic  
> dictate.
> In the absence of a melekh, Sanhedrin absorbs his authority in  
> addition
> to their own. And in the absence of Sanhedrin, the rabbanim.
>
> RJR already gave sources last year, to quote v25n279:
>> See R' Algred Cohen's paper on Daat Torah at
>> <http://jlaw.com/Articles/cohen_DaatTorah.pdf> (RJJ, Spring 2003)  
>> and R'
>> Yitzchak Kasdan's response at
>> <http://jlaw.com/Articles/observ-on-daat.html>.
>
>> RDC is in "Maaseh Avos, Siman Labanim" I, which Artscroll had  
>> translated
>> in "Templates for Ages" at page 33: "The Crown of Torah and the  
>> Crown of
>> Kingship; the Hasmoneans and the Concept of Daas Torah". (That's from
>> RYK's fn 14.)
>
>> RYK also points out:
>>>                                             For example, in Gitin  
>>> 62a
>>> the gemara calls rabbanim, "melachim." See also "Harrirai Kedem"
>>> (R. Michal Shurkin's sefer based on the Torah of Rabbi Joseph B.
>>> Soloveitchk, the "Rav") at page reish samach hei (265), where (as my
>>> brother pointed out to me) the Rav zt'l compares a mara d'aatra to a
>>> melech. Finally, see"Keser Torah: Based on the Words of Rav Hutner  
>>> zt'l"
>>> found at http://www.countryyossi.com/dec98/torah3.htm (anonymous  
>>> author).
>
> Thus, I am unsurprised that once someone turned to RMF and asked for  
> his
> pesaq on the eruv, even if he refused to phrase it as a pesaq (his  
> words
> included noting that his issur was based on his own da'as yachid), it
> was wrong to ask anyone else. Leshitaso, it would border on lese  
> majeste!
>
> :-)BBii!
> -Micha
>
> -- 
> Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
> micha at aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
> http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
> Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:12:46 -0400
> From: Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Rambam on Metaphors
> To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org
> Message-ID: <20090710201246.GC10110 at aishdas.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 09:35:26PM -0400, T613K at aol.com wrote:
> : Now other people would peer at that same law, "a vase instead of a  
> vase"
> : and could quite logically understand it to mean, "He broke your  
> vase and now
> : he  has to give you another vase, and if he broke an irreplaceable  
> 14th
> : century Ming  vase, or a Faberge egg, then he has to do the next  
> best thing,
> : which is--pay you  the monetary worth of the article that he  
> destroyed."
>
> Yes, that is quite logical. And I also thought ayin tachas ayin was
> peshat. However, the gemara says it's a derashah, and numerous  
> rishonim
> tell us that the halakhah is the derashah and the moral import is in
> the peshat.
>
> Which is why I formulated the notion that derashah is another way of
> saying formialized rules for determining idiom. After all, halakhah  
> is a
> legal system, so having rules for what can be taken idiomatically  
> makes
> sense.
>
> I am posting more to embellish my earlier idea.
>
> R' Aqiva's system of 19 rules of derashah are pretty syntatic. "Akh"  
> is
> a mi'ut, "es" is a ribui. Kelal uperat etc... are the product of R'
> Yishma'el who said "diberah Torah belashon benei adam". A kelal is
> defined by what the phrase means, not by the choice of words. But  
> lashon
> benei adam includes idiom.
>
> I'm now thinking that R' Aqiva understood derashah as a system of
> textual queues. That it's only R' Yishma'el in particular, because he
> opened the door to something being "just idiomatic", who understood
> derashah to tell us when there is a nafqa mina in the presence or
> absence of the idiom or turn of phrase.
>
> :-)BBii!
> -Micha
>
> -- 
> Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the  
> seder]
> micha at 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:28:46 -0400
> From: Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] R Tzadok-TSBP
> To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org
> Message-ID: <20090710202846.GD10110 at aishdas.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 06:45:17PM +0300, Michael Makovi wrote:
> : One thing that has troubled me: In theory, Rav Hirsch's proposal to
> : derive hashkafah from halakhah - note his criticism of Rambam,  
> that he
> : had ta'amei mitzvot that ignored the halakhah - sounds perfectly
> : logical and reasonable. But we know that certain laws are  
> concessions
> : to human nature - yafet toar, milhemet reshut, go'el ha'dam, etc.
>
> I don't see the connection. Halakhah defines the hashkafah, and the
> hashkafah includes tafasta meruba lo tafasta. Making a concession
> that is known to be a concession means identifying the ideal and why
> HQBH couldn't assume that the typical Jew could accomplish it. And
> that too is an existential statement.
>
> Second, the Rambam doesn't simply ignore the details, he said beshitah
> that one must ignore the details. That to the question "why an esrog  
> and
> not a pepper?" one must realize that otherwise we would be asking  
> "why a
> pepper and not an esrog?" It had to be /something/.
>
> This is consistent in the Rambam with his notion of hashgachah. Nature
> runs on hashgachah minis, not HP. The overall plan and rules take care
> of the overall picture, details are left to miqreh. The pepper vs the
> esrog is like saying HQBH set up teva so that lion population would  
> vary
> thus and thus. But teva didn't mandate it be this lion and not that  
> lion
> who would die in the population decline.
>
> : Also, I remember a rav... the following very real question: how do  
> we know
> : "thou shalt not murder" / "ze sefer toldot adam" (etc.) is the rule
> : and "kill the Amalekites" is the exception? In other words, the  
> Torah
> : is not always easy to fit into one seemless whole, so how do we know
> : which halakhot and hashkafot to reinterpret to fit with the  
> others, or
> : to put in a box on the side marked "exceptions"? ...
>
> Wouldn't it be self evident that the rarer things are the exceptions?
>
> We also have a mesorah, agadita, etc... Saying that hashkafah derives
> form halakhah doesn't mean we have a clean slate. Or else what are the
> narratives in chumah, all of Nach, and much of shas about? (And for
> that matter, then halakhah follows derashah, even the peshat of the
> halachic parts of chumash is aggadita.)
>
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 04:59:46PM +0000, RWW replied:
> : Perhaps that is the nature of humans - ki lo machshevosai
> : machshevosaichem...
>
> : In order to portray torah accurately one would needed a "higher"  
> birds-eye
> : view to encompass the whole; and as high as Rambam and Hirsch were  
> they
> : were not high enough to formulate a system that encompassed it all!
> ...
> : Perhaps if either one had ascended higher they could have refined  
> their
> : systems to encompass more -
> : Or more likely - no human gets that high!
>
> : And even if Moshe Rabbeinu knew all the correct prattim, even he may
> : not have been able for formulate a unifying theory.
>
> One doesn't need a theory of everything, but if one wants to gain the
> most possible from the performance of mitzvos means a theory that
> (1) gives meaning to as much of what I do as possible (measured in  
> hours
> and effort, not number of dinim) and (2) gives me a mission  
> statement I
> can actually encompass.
>
> It's that that makes me believe that HQBH made it possible for us to  
> get
> pretty close to a Grand Unified Pi'el Theory.
>
> :-)BBii!
> -Micha
>
> PS: Sorry for the pun, doubly so to those who didn't even get the
> reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory
>
> -- 
> Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
> micha at aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
> http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
> Fax: (270) 514-1507
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:25:56 -0700
> From: Ilana Sober Elzufon <ilanasober at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Is Body Paint Halakhically Clothing?
> To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<cd378f30907101525l2029b5b9jf5e10d1b3bd9a88e at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> The reason they need to make the video exciting is because most  
> passengers
> have flown on so many planes that they know all the safety information
> already anyway and will not bother watching the video without the  
> gimmick.
>
> I seriously doubt that there is any information on the video that is  
> not
> printed on the card in the seat pocket in front of each passenger.  
> Or that
> would be difficult for an even slightly experienced flyer to  
> understand if
> he closed his eyes and just listened to the narrator. So I am not  
> sure what
> one would lose by not watching this video.
>
> Are we looking for a heter to be amused by this clever presentation of
> information we probably know already? I don't think one can  
> plausibly claim
> that the video will contribute appreciably, or at all, to one's  
> chances of
> surviving the flight.
>
> - Ilana
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090710/a4c12959/attachment-0001.htm 
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:52:45 GMT
> From: "kennethgmiller at juno.com" <kennethgmiller at juno.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
> To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org
> Message-ID: <20090710.185245.7546.0 at webmail02.vgs.untd.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> R' Micha Berger wrote:
>> ... Tzeni'us is more about avoiding the spotlight than sexuality.
>> Someone may have overriding reasons, such as an ability to
>> motivate people. But taking the podium is to my mind is textbook
>> a violation of tzeni'us. Whether a woman, a rav giving his
>> Shabbos morning derashah, or a chazan. ... A woman shouldn't
>> want to be chazan. For that matter, a man shouldn't either,
>> which is why we're supposed to decline the first couple of times
>> the gabbai asked.
>
> On first reading, I found myself in total agreement. But if so, then  
> what are the gender role differences mentioned in the subject line  
> of this thread?
>
> If I'm not mistaken, Chazal say somewhere that "derech haish lachzor  
> achar haishah", and specifically not the other way around. What I've  
> learned from my Torah teachers is that it is normal for men to be on  
> the outgoing side, and for women to be more inward. And we are not  
> using "normal" here in the sense of it being a common Yetzer Hara  
> (as in "some steal but everyone says lashon hara"). Rather, these  
> traits are normal in the same sense as it is normal for birds to fly  
> and for fish to swim.
>
> (Please don't write back angrily. I know that there are some women  
> who are outgoing, there are some men who are inward, and there are  
> some fish which can fly short distances. I'm speaking here in very  
> general terms.)
>
> My point is that it is not only out of necessity that men take  
> certain public roles, but that it is their nature to do so. I  
> concede that if a man is reluctant to take these public roles, then  
> Chazal praise him, and I also concede that this reluctance will be a  
> kiyum of last week's haftara: "V'hatznea leches im Elokecha."
>
> Nevertheless, I can't help but believe that this tznius is defined  
> differently for men than for women. This is NOT to say that tznius  
> relates only to sexuality. But still, *IF* (and I stress the "if"  
> because I'm not totally sure how I personally feel about it), *IF*  
> we believe that "derech haish lachzor achar haishah" and not the  
> other way around, then there has to be some sort of difference in  
> what tznius is for men and what it is for women.
>
> Perhaps an analogy might be drawn to sewing on Chol Hamoed. As I  
> recall, when a woman sews it is generally of high quality and to be  
> avoided on ChH"M, but a man's sewing is of lower quality and now  
> such a big deal. Similarly, perhaps, when a man speaks in public, in  
> many situations it does not draw an undue amount of attention and  
> therefore is still within tznius. But when a woman speaks in public,  
> in many situations it *does* draw an undue amount of attention, and  
> that is why it is a violation of tznius.
>
> I'd like to suggest that the criterion is this: Tznius is not  
> violated when someone attracts attention, but when he/she attracts  
> an above-average amount of attention.
>
> Akiva Miller
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Get your dream car or truck. Click here.
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/BLSrjnsJ3RZDLffsaGd9sZvR0Qj5vpV6rrueGOVeCDMEc3OPpz8nWECPam8/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avodah at lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
>
> End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 132
> ***************************************