[Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles

[Chana Luntz]

RMB writes:

>     `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice
>     objected.
> 
>     `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a 
> scornful tone,
>     `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
> 
>     `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so
>     many different things.'
> 
>     `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master --
>     that's all.' 
> 			    - Alice in Wonderland, ch. 6

> Saying a word means how it is translated to mean isn't the same thing.

Are you arguing for or against Humpty Dumpty here?

> However, I did along the way give contrary sources to your 
> "no [one] understood", and will list 5 as this post proceeds.

I think this gets to the heart of it.  In another post you make a comment
about there being a mequor for your understanding that goes all the way back
to the trei asar.  But what you are doing is, Humpty Dumpty like, stating
that tzenius means what you understand it to mean, and then saying, well you
see the word tznius used ergo, this is the concept used.  The rest of us
can't see any source for your understanding of the word tznius.

So I agree, I think it is a very good idea to do a reasonable search of the
sources and they way they use the term tznius, and particularly the pasuk
tznei laleches.

So lets start with your five:

I think your first is:
 
A) As for the history of the word "tzeni'us"... I already 
> mentioned my namesake's famous pasuq "vehatzneiah lekhes im 
> E-lokekha" 

As mentioned above, the problem is that you are understanding it to mean
something different from the way the rest of us on this list are
understanding it.

So let us look at some sources.  Well the only times it comes up in the
Shulchan Aruch the wording is as follows:

Orech Chaim siman 240 si'if 4: Assur ll'histakel b'oso makom shekol mistakel
sham ain lo bushes panim v'avar al v'hatzanua laleches" - hopefully I don't
have to translate that - but as you can see, that it about tznius being the
opposite of pritzus. It clearly has nothing to say about public roles.

Other uses of tznius in the halachic literature relate to being private when
one uses the bathroom and in eating - see eg Brochos 62b, Avodah Zara 47b, 
And attributes of checking when one has relations - see Nida 12a.  While
these are, at least up to a point, gender neutral (the reference above is
not), they are about how one is to behave in private, to behave differently
would unquestionably fall under the category of pritzus.  But yes, indeed
they are about privacy.  

The other reference to hatanua laleches is in the Rema in Orech Chaim 1
si'if 1.  There he links it to knowing even when one lies down before whom
one lies. This I understand to be about dedication of the heart towards
HaShem even in private - which then links in to how one behaves in private,
when there are no people to be embarressed in front of.  Again, nothing
about public roles.

So let us go back to the pasuk and look at some of the classic commentators
say on the pasuk.  You can look at Rashi if you like, but I don't think you
will find anything there that will help your understanding.  On the other
hand Radak brings: "v'amar hatzanua ki davar zer musar l'levav" and
similarly the Ibn Ezra says  - "v'tzanu laleches im Hashem l'vado shetelech
b'darchav b'tam levav hefech kishui orech".   This is where I get the idea
that the pasuk taznua laleches is all about dedication of the heart towards
HaShem, it is about doing things lishma. Nothing about where this is being
done.  It does indeed link to the Rema's comment, but only that one should
have this attitude  *even* when one is lying down in private, not that one
should not be in public.

Now there is indeed one reference that seems to talk about public activities
(and indeed the Radak also brings it) which is to be found in Sukkah 49b
v'tzanua laleches im elokecha" - zu hotzias ha mes v'haneses hakala l'chupa
- this refers to taking out the dead and bringing the bride to the chupah,
and this is a kal v'chomer - ma devarim shedarkan l'asos b'farhesia amra
hatorah, tzanua l'leches devearim she darkan l'asos b'tzinua al achas kama
v'kama.

Rashi explains this reference in Sukkah - that one is to behave nicely and
not act with kalos rosh in these circumstances (ie when with the dead of a
kala) - and he also brings an alternative explanation which is that if it is
necessary to take out the dead who was a poor person, or to provide for a
poor kala, one should do that privately, so it should not be generally
known.

This latter is about as close as you get to what you are saying, it is about
diminishing public knowledge of roles, but the rationale is surely to
protect the dignity of the poor, and their receipt of charity, nothing about
general public roles.  And the earlier explanation about lightheaded
behaviour, if anything has links to the tznius which is the opposite of
pritzus.

as well as the Shunamit's "besoch ami". (Although 
> the latter proves the main point, that the value exists, 
> without the minor issue of whether it's what we call "tzeni'us".)

Your use of this pasuk is a bit odd, in my view, given that it does not seem
to figure much as a value to be emulated throughout the literature.  And
what seems to have been on offer was not a public position (she was already
know as an isha gadola), but being spoken for to the king or the head of the
army.  Which at the time she didn't need - but she did indeed avail herself
of later when she needed it to get her property back (Melachim beis 8:6).
Thus this would suggest that if anything what was on offer was wealth rather
than public position from the king or army head.  

And even if you were to say that it conveys a major value from which we are
to learn throughout the generations and somehow this has to do with refusing
public position, you haven't shown that it is gender neutral either.

> See also the Yalqut Balaq 771, which defines tzeni'us as 
> acting in privacy.

The issue here is being able to see into other people's tents and see their
wives.  Again, fully in accordance with a definition of tzinus as the
opposite of pritzus. 

 To the Rambam (Deiso 1:4), it's dressing 
> as neither a bum nor in ostentacious clothes.

Well it is generally following the golden mean, and not going to extremes on
anything.  Not very far from the concept that all one's actions must be
dedicated l'shem shamayim, but little to do with public roles (one should
dress appropriately in the privacy of one's house, especially in front of
HaShem).  I actually suspect that the Rambam's source is not tzanua
laleches, but Mishle 11:2 - tznuim chachma, but it probably doesn't matter.
 
> So, I would reiterate my conclusion that tzeni'us is a shared 
> value across both genders.

I never said that it was not a shared value across both genders.  Or rather,
that there are at least two definitions, and at least one of them is shared,
being about dedicating the heart.  The second, while shared, often plays
differently because pritzus behaviour can differ between the sexes, and so
does its opposite.  Private things are meant to be kept private, and not
brought out into public, but what is private and public for a woman and mand
differ.    But that does not mean that the private realm is supposed to take
over the public realm and diminish it.

> The refinement of that subset of the Gra's teachings into the 
> theory of the Mussar movement was largely developed by R' 
> Zundel Salanter.
> But he went into hiding in the woods, and had no interest in 
> letting others know he was trying to be a tzadiq and a 
> chassid (lower case ches).

It is interesting, though to note that the R' Pinchas  ben Yair in his
summary of what leads to what which tends to be the basis of a lot of the
musar movement (zehirus l'zrisus etc) - certainly Mesilas Yesharim - does
not mention tznius as one of the values.  There indeed are zehirus and
prishus and it is these that lead to chassidus (or lead to anava).  If
tznius, as opposed to these others, was such a fundamental virtue, you would
have expected whole chapters on it in the mussar books.

Not that it does not come into it.  Sharei Teshuva for example has a
discussion of tznua laleches in sha'ar rishon 25.  I am going to use the
English translation here by Shraga Silverstein, as my edition comes with it
- but you are welcome to have another go at it.  What he says is:

"V'taznua laleches im elokecha - and to walk humbly with thy G-d.  The
essential factor in your humility and abasement is serving G-d humbly.  It
is this which defines your humility, indicating that you desire no honor for
your honorable deeds, especially for those attainments which the Creator
does not desire from His creations and which one should therefore take no
pride in, such as wealth, strength and the various wisdoms: this, as opposed
to the knowing and understanding of the Blessed One, as it is said "Let not
the wise man glory in his wisdom .." 

As you can see from this passage, if you look at the original Hebrew, Sharei
Teshuva clearly links tznius with humility, which is a translation you
rejected.  And your understanding is not that one should take no honour for
honourable deeds, but that one should diminish the honourable deeds, and
have less of them, because that may lead people to take honour where they
shouldn't.
 
> And R' Zundel wasn't the only tzadiq nistar. It's an entire 
> genre of Chassidic story, and discussed more than once in the 
> Besh"t's letters.

Agreed.  And the various prishus chapters spend a lot of time dealing with
going off and being a hermit for the betterment of one's soul.  There is no
question that there is a tension between that and mainstream halachic
thought which mandates involvement in the community.  Usually the resolution
is that we let the tzadik nistar go off and do his thing in the woods, and
do not demand that his particular level of prishus is imposed on the rest of
the community.  In fact the community would fall apart if everybody did this
- which again begs the question why halacha would mandate so much public
involvement if it did not have a  value.  The most straightforward way to
resolve this tension is that people may, as part of their development, need
periods of prishus so as to bring themselves to the level where they can
take part publically with the correct motivations, not that this is the
ultimate ideal.  It is clearly not the only way of resolving the matter, but
it does solve the problem.

Thus even when R' Salanter felt that it should be more publically taught, he
was never suggesting going as far as you appear to be going - and seeking to
demand prishus as a value of the community, nor was any of this prescribed
for anybody unless they themselves recognised that they had a midos problem
with kavod and the like, and sought to avoid it or elevate themselves.

Perhaps the best thing to finish up with, is in fact, your sig.

> A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
> man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
> about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
>        - Rav Yisrael Salanter

But here are you not indeed worrying about your fellow man's soul and how he
(or she) reacts to public roles?

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
> 
> -- 
> Micha Berger   

Regards

Chana