[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