[Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:52:45 GMT, RAM wrote <kennethgmiller at juno.com>:
: 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?

I would argue that they're a product of men having more conflicts that
override tzeni'us. And going beyond the ideal into the real, the number
of conflicts created so many exceptions in men's lives that we developed
a tendency to ignore tzeni'us overly often even in other contexts.

: 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...

It's not just "outgoing", it's "outgoing achar ha'ishah". WADR to your
teacher, it sounds more like "guys are more likely to initiate flirting
than women".

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:30:55 GMT he continues:
: This halacha, that when a man is asked to be chazan, he should initially
: decline, is well-known. But the reason for it is not so clear, and I'd
: like to suggest that it is NOT because of tznius.

: This halacha is in the Mechaber, Orach Chayim 53:16 - "One who is
: not the Shatz Kavua (regular chazan) has to decline somewhat before
: going to the amud..." The Be'er Hagolah gives the source as Brachos 34,
: which seems to be a reference to the very first lines of the new gemara
: near the top of 34a: "A braisa: One who goes to the amud has to refuse;
: and if he does not refuse, he is domeh l'tavshil she'ain bo melach (he
: is like a cooked food which has no salt)." I don't recall hearing this
: phrase ("l'tavshil she'ain bo melach") before; perhaps it means that he
: has acted in poor taste?

Actually, the Orchos Tzadiqim uses the metaphor of meat vs melakh vs
other tavlin as a means of illustrating the balance between middos.
Some, like anavah, are like meat. Others are better in smaller amounts.
It's a more nuanced metaphor than placing everything on the middah
habeinonis (Hil' Dei'os 1:4).

Simiilarly the AhS, which RAM translated as:
: Aruch Hashulchan OC 53:15 ... adds this interesting point: "But for
: something which involves sh'rirus (leadership), then one should decline a
: bit even when a gadol is doing the asking, since the declining will give
: the impression (d'hasiruv hu mipnei she'yisraeh) that perhaps he is not
: fit for the task (d'oolai aino ra'ui l'kach), and this is good manners
: (v'hu haderech eretz)."

Very much a navigation of conflicting goals, the proper middah of
tzeni'us (or anavah, see below) vs. other needs. As per the mashal of
tavshil she'ein bo melakh. I actually see these as MAKING my point
(really: my understanding of RHS's point), not refuting it.

: Thus, I'd like to suggest that when a person declines the honor of
: being offered the amud, it is NOT because of tznius, but because of
: simple humility. Humility (anavah) and modesty (tznius) are very similar,
: but they are not identical.

The line is subtle, and probably the subject of machloqes. My own opinion
is that tzeni'us is not drawing attention to oneself, more of a mode of
interaction with others, whereas anavah is realizing that one is part
of Hashem's bigger plan rather than thinking I'm in charge. (Thus the
connection to other ayin-nun words like answering, reacting, etc...)

But the line isn't my point. Whether it's an issue of tzeni'us or of
anavah, it would still mean that accomodating feminist aspirations in
the synagogue is actually enabling the further spread of middos that
don't fit the Torah's ideal.

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 23:52:49 EDT, R Joseph Kaplan <jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com>
replied to my earlier post:
:> "Again (although I think RJK submitted this before seeing my recent post),
:> I think you're conflating the real with the ideal."

: Not conflation; I don't believe it's the ideal.  If it were really
: the ideal, then you'd see it in practice somewhere...

Similarly, on Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:16:43 EDT, R Dr Meir Shinnar
<chidekel at gmail.com> wrote:
: The issue is not that we do something wrong - but that our practice
: suggests that we do not hold by that shitta.

You mean like when the CC published the book that gave him his nickname
anonymously? Or the Bahir, or the Chinukh, or the numerous other
anonymously published sefarim that were written before the author was
known for other reasons...
(<http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/11/8/Anonymous-Sefarim>
has an interesting topic on anonymous works, acrostics, leaving the name
implied, etc...)

I think the burden of proof is actually on the suggestion that there is
another definition of tzeni'us (or anavah) that fits common practice. I
don't even know if there is a different shitah to claim we follow.

I think it's simpler to simply note that people are people, and middos
are often more neglected than chiyuvim. I don't think that actually
carries a burden of proof, being such common human nature.

....
: 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...

(Again, we're really tlaking about my understanding of RHS's vision.)

And I think we should at least consider it.

But here we're talking about the opposite -- a set of innovations that
overturn major fundamental mimetic issues (significant change to our
lifestyle). To invoke burden of proof again, it's one thing to say we
could be doing more; it's another to say that we should take major steps
AWAY.

...
: 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.

Actually, I say that exactly -- that the lifestyle halakhah and history
pushed men into gives us many conflicts between tzeni'us and other
responsibilities (many of them, like leading a minyan, are chiyuvim) and
therefore tzeni'us often loses.

Now, justify changing women's lives to embed the same decision.

RnTK <T613K at aol.com> wrote on Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:14:42 EDT:
: I totally agree with you and I don't think that R' Micha is correct that it
: is a breach of tznius for a man to accept an aliyah, be  a shaliach
: tzibbur, be a rosh yeshiva and the like ("but nebach men are forced
: to do these unpleasant jobs because /somebody/ has to do them")

There is no baiss to this position. You're just asserting it.

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 21:18:46 GMT RRW asked:
: There is a fellow who comes to shul on hoshana rabba with
: Hoshanas about 8-9 feet tall
: Another fellow put on tallis and Tefillin on the last 17th of Tammuz
: at mincha.
: Are these cases of lack of tznius, too?

Aren't they textbook cases of yuhara? So I would think the answer is
"definitely".

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:42:49 -0400, R Yitzhak Grossman <celejar at gmail.com>
werites:
: On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:32:22 EDT Zeliglaw at aol.com wrote:
: ...
:> Kelim lists ten separate levels of Kedushah. There are many Psulei Edus for men
:> in addition to women, who are granted a separate and special kulah in cases
:> of  Agunos. Like it or not, separate but equal roles between the genders

: Which leniency in the area of Agunah is exclusive to women?

RSBrizel wrote of leniencies in eidus that are only invoked lehatir agunos.
See Hil' Geirushin 13:29, which among other things includes eidus ishah.

(Aren't all leniencies in Agunah exclusive to women, as the entire din
only applies to them?)

Rn Chana Luntz <chana at kolsassoon.org.uk> asked on Sun, 12 Jul 2009
00:03:15 +0100 about my post:
:> An scjm regular, a Breslover fellow named R' Moshe Schorr,
:> has a signature that includes the line, "The home and family
:> are the center of Judaism,
:> *not* the synagogue." Judaism doesn't inhere in the
:> forefront, but in day to day life. That attitude is the
:> difference between viewing these innovations as empowering or
:> enabling.

: I think this is a non sequiter - ie you are raising a completely different
: topic here, that of the home and the synagogue, something which has little
: to do with our other topic regarding the definition of tznius.

I'm not as sure. I think at least one element that makes davening in a
WTG more tempting than behind the mechitzah or at home, and why being
a Maharat is a calling for someone who wants more than being an eim
habanim semeichah is this notion of the synagogue centered avodas Hashem.

And I think that too is intimately tied to confusing the role in the
limelight and the quiet service of the home. Shul worship has the
disproportionate place it does in our psyche at least in part because
it's showier.

I don't know if I'm succeeding, but I'm trying to illustrate an attitude
rather than a logical flow of argument. An attitude that emphasizes
shul worship because it's public thoroughfare worship. That some of the
spiritual dissatisfaction a woman has being on the distaff side of the
mechitzah is very much about it not having any possibilities of worship
other than besoch ami.

I think I also was lumping in the workplace and everything but the "house
of worship" with "home and family", and thus meant something different
by my citation of R' Moshe Schorr's quote line than you took it to mean.

: But let us leave that topic and get back to tznius.  You write:

...
:> I also think that Rn Jungreis should continue teaching ad
:> mei'ah ve'esrim. That was the point I was making that I think
:> got us onto the topic, so I want to reiterate it and the
:> explanation: The pros outweigh the cons -- she is very good
:> at what she does. But it IS a violation of tzeni'us. We're
:> talking about conflicting values. There is no hutrah only
:> dechuyah when it comes to mussar, since values don't
:> evaporate when in conflict like a chiyuv might.

: But you see, by defining tznius the way you do - you are not just saying
: that what Rn Jungreis does a violation of tznius (even if the pros outweigh
: the cons) you are also saying that what Moshe Rabbanu did was also a
: violation of tznius - after all, it is impossible to think of anybody who
: was more "out front" than he was....

Yes. Dechuyah.

...
: It is probably barely necessary for me to say that I think this
: understanding is dead wrong.  That is, it is not necessarily the case that a
: public role is a breach of tznius/anava etc.  That is not to say that taking
: a public role does not carry with it the *risk* that it may lead to ga'avah,
: or that it can amount to a violation of tznius, but that is precisely what
: the Torah tells us Moshe was able to avoid....

I think you're conflating tzeni'us and anavah. Someone who violates
tzeni'us for the right reason coild still be anav mikol adam, but MRAH
certainly did NOT live with an attitude of besokh amo hu yosheiv, or
vehatznei'ah lekhes im E-lokav! There was nothing betzin'ah about it!
(Even his sex life became millennia of public discourse!)

...
: Which is why I think the issue is not whether one is public or not, but
: whether one is l'shem shamayim or not.  One can do exactly the same thing
: and take exactly the same role, and if one is doing it for the kovod he or
: she will garner, then it is not l'shem shamayim and it is not tzanua
: laleches and it is all about ga'ava.  And if one is fulfilling the public
: role l'shem shamayim then one can be doing exactly the same action, and
: indeed it will be tzanua laleches.

I don't see it. Betzin'ah means "in private", and doesn't address
lishmah.

Once can say that if it's lesheim Shamayim, then the breach of tzeni'us
is justifiable, but I do not see how you can say it doesn't exist.

Again, I ask you as well to propose your definition of tzeni'us as "the
other shitah", the one we do follow, in contrast to RHS simply running
with the literal translation of the word and buttressed by other
sources.


My point here is not to raise a halachic objection to feminist
aspirations. Naniach huge swaths of territory can be halachically
finessed.

I'm asking whether it should be. Do the pros outweigh the cons?

To my mind, RRW's mashal of women and men both wearing teifllin as little
as halachically required is very apt.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
micha at aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar