[Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 07:09:46PM +0100, Rn Chana Luntz wrote:
: RMB writes:
: > 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...)

: You ask me to further define tznius in accordance with common practice.

: I think that part of the issue is that there are two distinct meanings of
: tznius in common understanding:

This is a shift of topic. "In accordance with common practice" and
"in common understanding" are two different things. What I asked for
was a justification for the claim that common practice indicates there
is a different shitah in tzenius, and it's that shitah which we are
following.

Common understanding is blurry and doesn't really make the point.
Removing common understanding to just talk about nidon didan,
the following:
: (A) as the opposite of pritzus.  Pritzus is inappropriate sexuality, and
: tznius is the opposite of that.

is not relevent.

: (B) the use of tznius in tzanua laleches - which is a lot closer to anavah -
: in fact this is often translated as walking humbly with one's G-d.  The
: b'tzina, the privacy part of this, is not the public action, but the
: dedication of the heart toward G-dliness, rather than towards external
: reward.

: I can understand the desire by RHS (and others, Getzel Ellinson tries to do
: the same thing) to unite these two separate definitions...

But he doesn't touch (A) at all! He is saying that hatzneiach lekhes is
gender neutral, it's "just" that men have far more occasions where our
pursuit of anti-farhesia (tzenius-B) is overriden by something else.

(A note only the Mesorah crowd would appreciate: Since "anti-" ends in
a vowel, the word is "farhesia", not "parhesia".)

I therefore don't see how the rest of your paragraph applies:
:                           While RHS's formulation may appeal to the Western
: mind, which sometimes struggles with the idea that there is inappropriate
: sexuality - or at least inappropriate expression of sexuality, I don't think
: it is right or true to source....

He says noting about anti-peritzus / tzenius type A. Neither in accord
with the Western mind nor in opposition.

FWIW, I personally would propose a unifying definition -- peritzus is
the ultimate in drawing attention to oneself for a non-productive (in
fact counterproductive) purpose. But that's tangential since only
one end of the linkage is relevent.

:> 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.

: Again, I have a basic problem with the whole thesis that the ban on women
: having aliyos has anything to do with tznius or anavah.  The gemora says
: quite straightforwardly that the reason why women cannot have aliyos is
: because of kovod hatzibbur....

And now we reach what was obviously a basic inability for me to make
my point clearly.

So, a step back.

There are two levels of issue: halachic and sociological.

The halachic issues can well rule out women having aliyos, or being
dayanim, or whatever else. (And do.) I'm not addressing that.

Say one believes that there is no concept of "rabbi" today, and therefore
a woman should be able to call herself "rabbi" as much as a man. It's
just a statement about knowledge and ability, and not different in kind
than my relying on my wife's kashrus decisions in the kitchen (only in
degree).

I'm arguing that even if that is what I concluded, with no specific issur
involved there are reasons that have the force of halakhah not to make
such changes.

When making a change in how we worship, one has to decide if it's a
step forward or a step away from the Torah's goals, do we accomodate or
resist? Because this is an innovation, sociological and aggadic issues
actually effectively become halachic prohibitions. RYBS would call this
prohibiting for political reasons. Although that usage I think abuses
the word "political" and puts an unnecessarily negative sound to it.

I am only dealing with these beyind-the-specifically prohibited issues.
And my argument is that it's a step away from the Torah's ideal, and
therefore we lack the permission to make the innovation.

So RMS doesn't have to worry that by my giving a weak argument I may be
giving away the farm to someone who can dismiss it. My argument is in
addition to the halachic one, not instead of it.

I think part of the confusion was that I used the words hutrah and
dechuyah, putting people in a halachic mindset. I think another part is
that at least on of the other participants in the conversation doesn't
really believe in the idea of values that need to be addressed beyond
halakhah. The issue I'm raising may be outside of his worldview, or
perhaps on the very borders.

Given that, now I can discuss the specific element of that ideal that I
am raising, that of tzeni'us in the (B) anti-farhesia sense of the word.

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:45:23AM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: But synagogue is not supposed to be quiet worship, and quiet worship is only
: one of a number of idealised forms of worship...

Isn't the idea of tefillah betzibbur to be part of the corporate entity
of the tzibur rather than only being an individual (which you could do
without the tzibbur)?

...
: The problem with the person pushing for a place at the bimah or the rabbi's
: shtender is not because these do not involve quiet worship.  The problem
: with the person pushing is because *pushing* is generally all about *I*, not
: about HaShem - and, worship, is supposed to be, to state the obvious, all
: about Hashem.

I think the problem has subtle nuances between the extremes you give. And
this touches upon R"Dr Meir Shinnar's point about others second-guessing
motives.

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 02:44:47PM -0400, R' Meir Shinnar wrote:
: I would argue that the problem of tzeniut is one of seeking the limelight
: for the sake of being in the limelight - not of getting or being in the
: limelight....

By saying that there is an element of X in the decision, one isn't
excluding elements of Y. A person who is used to confusion "really
accomplishing something" with activities that get more attention will
want to serve HQBH in a more blatant way. Not because they are thinking
about themselves rather than Hashem. But because of a misconception
about what work is important.

She's a conceptual daughter of the woman who chose a career because being
at home wasn't fulfilling. Okay, the work could be more frustrating,
or the company not taxing your intellect might get to you. But this
notion that you aren't accomplishing as much being a stay-at-home mom
is both common in the general population (beyond the eiruv) and false.

Given that she internalized elements of that error, she wants to serve
HQBH in important -- ie more recognizable by others -- ways.

And what I'm arguing about tzeni'us is that this error brings us away
from where the Torah wants us to go. It is a definition of value that
reflects not knowing the internalizing the whole anavah-tzenius axis
of values.

Yes, this already happened in her workplace. And for that matter,
between man's "bezei'as apekha tokhal lekhem" and his numerous mitzvos
asei shehazman gerama, man has so many cases where he puts aside his
pursuit of tzenius that many of us lose sight of it altogether.

Until now, women have been able to maintain kol kevudah bas melekh
penimah. Do we have reshus to create more situations that defy that?

Nu, so I see the argument that yoatzot create greater shemiras taharas
hamishpachah, so that particular modification has more pros than cons.
And having the power of a Rn Jungreis on the kiruv scene also has more
pros than cons. (What I meant by saying "dechuyah", but am now phrasing
differently.) The loss on the tzeni'us front is more than offset by
something else.

RnCL objected in this later email because:
: The attitude is a problem.  But you are then going on to confuse the
: attitude with the object. It is the classic alcoholics  attitude...

Not really, because the burden of proof rests on the innovator. I'm
saying that the status quo has advantages, and am not suggesting new
bans.

We're talking about having sufficient pro vs con to justify the
construction of new religious insitutions. Saying that other violations
of that con exist in situations reasons beyond our control doesn't
change that.

Returning to RnCL's first email:
: The issue is much more fundamental than that.  "Lo kum b'yisroel k'Moshe
: od."  Reasonably fundamental principle could we say?  But you are
: disagreeing with that. You are saying that Moshe would have been greater if
: he had not had to have a public role...

I'm saying his tzni'us would have been greater, and perhaps that means
that even the anav mikol adam would have been even more of an anav.

Pro-vs-con assessment meant that at times you pay the price because
you're getting something far more valuable in exchange.

Returning to RMS's email, he quoted me and replied:
:> Mah beinaihu? Is not tzeni'us one middah among the set we call "having
:> good manners"?

: it isn't that zniut isn't good manners, it is that the focus is on manners
: rather than zniut....(and the proof is that we don't enforce zniut in the
: ways that RJR has suggested or in multiple other ways)  - it just isn't a
: value in communal life..

I wasn't trying to set up tzeni'us vs manners, but middos vs manners. I
don't think "manners" exists in the Jewish worldview. They are an
artificial subdivision of middos.

Notice that all this means that if someone can show that the payoff
exceeds the price in tzeni'us, my adaptation of RHS's argument has no
pragmatic outcome.

But saying they're acting lishmah doesn't accomplish that, if their
lishmah is based on a perception of the world that we're supposed to
discourage.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

(Off-topic PS: while I tend to write "haShabbos", I write "Hashem"
rather than RnCL's "HaShem". To my mind, "haSham" would be a reference
to G-d's name. The modern qinui is a word bifnei atzmah whose etymology
is the+name and I don't want to draw attention to the original pieces of
the word. Doesn't 100% work, since there are binyanim like "Lashem". I
mention this because it has to do with the topic of when does a qinui
get promoted into a sheim.)

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
micha at aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter