[Avodah] Tznius and Gender Roles

[Meir Shinnar]

> m betzorche
> : tzibbur - the only requirement is that it is be'emunah.
>
> And that it be tzorkhei tzibbur, which is a "good that the particular
> public service brings".
>
> Is the benefit a Maharat over a Yoetzet bring to the table the  
> public's
> or in her opportunity to serve G-d in the way the contemporary world
> told her was more valuable? Or the benefit of being at the amud for
> Pesuqei Dezimara rather than behind the mechitzah that of the  
> community?
>
> : I would add one thing - that RHS's and your analysis reflect a  
> growing
> : trend - the emphasis on the importance of personal perfection rather
> : than the needs of the community...
>
> Think of how ironic your description is. If I came in to the  
> conversation
> at this point, I would think that you're saying I want to accomodate  
> the
> individual women's desire for religiosity, and you're the one trying  
> to
> preserve the social structure.
>
>
> I'm objecting to your choosing one over the other, as though having a
> good reason to be in the public eye means that one isn't workiing  
> against
> one's own hatznei'ah lekhes. Therefore you are advocating going ahead
> with this change without needing to make a real argument that the  
> change
> is worth the cost.
>
> All halachic or mussar terms aside, the Maharat who gets a rabbi-like
> role leading a shul and its congregation will have a harder time  
> walking
> privately with G-d. It's straight psychology, if not the Chinukh's
> constant refrain.
>
> I would also argue (as R Dr Haym Soloveitchik did) that the growing  
> trend,
> outside various forms of neo-Chassidus (be they Carlebachite or Aish
> Kodesh in Woodmere) is toward hyperlegalism and an ignoring of values
> or personal development. You appear to be describing a world so  
> overrun
> with erev Shabbos Jews, they want to ban melakhah on Friday afternoon.
>
> It's not that public service is detrimental even if sometimes muttar,
> it's that it is detrimental in one way even if it can be more  
> constructive
> in another. You are casting a mussar argument into halachic terms. I
> apologized for doing so, and returned to the hutrah-dechuyah  
> distinction
> only to show why it doesn't apply to mussar.
>
> In short, I would argue that the Maharat as an insitution violates
> qadeish es atzmekha bema shemutar lakh (cast into lashon neqeivah).  
> It's
> not assur by the letter of the law, but it's not stepping back from
> something whose middos negatives far outweigh the benefit.
>
1.  The discussion started with a discussion of RHS's psak (not mussar  
schmooz) that a public role inherently required a violation of  
tzeniut, and required a mattir in the form that someone had to to do  
it - and only someone obligated could violate his tzeniut.  We are now  
told that we shouldn't focus on halacha - this is hyperlegalism - this  
is a matter of mussar.  I take it that you are not willing to defend  
the halachic nature of this psak any more.

2.  WRT mussar - there are different values.  Yes, there is a large  
mussar literature on the danger of being seduced by honor and power -  
and the need to train oneself against them.  What there isn't in  
mainstream Jewish literature is the implication that public service is  
something to be avoided unless there is a particular requirement.  The  
danger in this approach is that many aspects of public service - the  
need, and whether one is truly the one who is obligated or only able  
to fulfill that, are not so clear at the beginning - only when it is  
accomplished do we realize how necessary that aspect is, and what a  
loss it would have been if the individual had not stepped forward.   
Your approach, which places individual self fulfillment ahead of the  
needs of the community, is problematic - and without precedent.  I  
would add that while there may be halachot for mussar, the issue of  
who is the appropriate posek for those is not that simple- and the  
rules of psak are not so clear.

3.  You emphasize that the issue is the accomodation of the individual  
women's desire for religiosity, and focus on the maharat as violating  
kadesh et atzmech bema shemutar lakh - viewing it as a form of self  
expression and realization.  This reflects (IMHO) a complete  
misunderstanding of the issue - and reflects, again a bias for the  
individual self perfection over the community.  The issue is quite  
different - and is intrinsically a communal issue - and one of tzorche  
tzibbur (properly understood).  The issue is that we are now dealing  
with a community (which reflects all of its members) which has  
undergone major structural changes - and the issue is of addressing  
the spiritual/religious/halachic needs of that community - where many  
of the women today routinely live, outside the shul, a very public  
life.  Again, what the appropriate response to this may be argued, and  
there are legitimate halachic issues with many of the proposed  
solutions - but not the ones that you are pushing.  The issue of the  
maharat is not the religious expression of the maharat - but giving  
voice to the religious needs of her community.

Meir Shinnar