[Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles

[Meir Shinnar]

>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 08:29am EDT, R Dr Meir Shinnar wrote:
> : 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.
> RMB
> Well, I think to better articulate what I'm saying, let's break it  
> into
> two levels.
>
> I see the mussar effect of the activity as the metzi'us about which  
> RHS
> is pasqening. Not that there are dinei tzeni'us, but that the  
> existence
> of a fundamental mussar concept of tzeni'us causes halachic outcome.
>
> Thus one shouldn't be trying to analyze tzeni'us on a halachic  
> level. As I
> wrote, being a shocheit does make one more capable of dealing with  
> blood,
> whether the shechitah is a qiyum asei or not. That was the point I was
> centering on. Hutrah vs dechuyah isn't the right discussion, because
> we're still discussing psychology on "what do we expect will happen
> to our personalities" terms.
>
> After the mussar is resolved, then on can ask what that reality  
> demands
> in terms of a halachic response. The halakhah involved is either the
> Ramban's qedoshim tihyu "bemah shemutar lakh" or the Rambam's  
> lehidamos
> bidrakhav (quoting the list of mitzvos asei preceding Hil' Dei'os).

The issue with this formulation is as follows
1)  I am not sure what you mean with your statement about not  
analyzing tzeniut on a halachic level.  The issue wasn't trying to  
apply some novel halachic hakira - or even standard halachic  
terminology (hutra or dechuya was suggested by others)- but to subject  
the concept to a rigorous analysis - both conceptually, as well as in  
terms of our understanding of what communal and Jewish norms have been  
- both been on a practical level, as well as on an ideal level.  This  
analysis concluded that the notion of tzeniut suggested by RHB and  
defended by you, while having precursors in, say, Christian and Stoic  
ideology, has no basis in Judaism - which has rejected the denigration  
of public service at its core.

2) the issue of the ramban's kedoshim tihyu or lehidamot bidrachav -  
there are issues where the application of that standard is quite clear  
(naval bireshut hatorah). THere are others where it is quite difficult  
and subjective - I would argue that a woman engaged in public teaching  
of torah, chaplaincy, etc - is engaged in lehidamot bidrachav, and is  
actaully part of kedoshim tihyu bemah shemutar lach ( as she doesn't  
go into alternate, higher paying jobs using her skills (see RM  
Broyde's article in the Jewish Week, republished on Hirhurim, where he  
talks about he used to counsel intelligent women who were intstead in  
serious learning to go into secular law...)  The issue that needs to  
be answered is why this violates those parameters - and this is not  
clear at all...


> : 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...
>
> Except RHS holds that being asked to be chazan etc... is a precedent
> for that very thing. That accepting being chazan is only something you
> should do when the minyan would otherwise be stuck.
>

The problem is that this halahca of a chazan is something we don't  
follow in general - and even you don't follow it.  This is on two  
levels.
1) In terms of kibbudim, most shuls are not makpid on this issue of a  
hazan (and it was suggested, with good evidence, that the issue is not  
one of tzeniut, but derech eretz).  We don't also follow it in most  
other issues - as has been pointed out, at a wedding, we would not be  
stuck if we only had two other people under the huppa as edim, mesader  
kisddushin etc- but we call other rabbanim as well, even though we  
wouldn't be stuck without them.....If this is a real halacha of  
tzeniut, we need to be consistent - as it would apply far more broadly.

2) In terms of public policy, we do want to encourage people to do  
things for the community - not just when the community is stuck.  No  
organization would survive or be founded if the response of everyone  
was call me if you really need me, and would be other wise stuck.    
Nothing new would ever be done.  Eg, you admitted that you support R  
Jungreis, because of the good that she does.  When she started out,  
how did we (or she) know that she would have a good effect?   She  
wasn't fulfilling a role that the community recognized as needing, nor  
did it recognize her as the one that it needed.   If today someone  
wants to go and emulate her, how does she know that she would be  
successful and that the community would otherwise be stuck? That is  
why the traditional response has been to encourage involvement in the  
public sphere - including areas where we didn't know whether there was  
a real need.  It is a model that is not viable for the Jewish or other  
community - and has never been followed - and never should be followed.
> : Your approach, which places individual self fulfillment ahead of the
> : needs of the community, is problematic - and without precedent...
>
> But it doesn't! It says that personal need bows to the needs of the
> community. What it doesn't allow is violating personal need without
> proving that the community gains from the violation.
>

> When the minyhan needs a chazan, go, be a chazan.
>
the issue is determining what the community needs..  You are viewing  
maharat etc as a means of personal fulfilment of the individual - and  
I (and RCL had a similar response) view it as a response to the needs  
of the community - which was initiated by the Mara D'atra of that  
community in response to those needs.
But in general, as above, this is a view that is against traditional  
jewish thought.  If I have a new idea to start a hesed organization,  
do we say we don't know whether we need it, so don't start it??  We  
encourage people to become publicly involved.


> I think this entire self vs community dichotomy is off target. It's
> about self refinement as a halachic end. In the case of tzeni'us,  
> that's
> vs the community, but that's only one instance of a more general idea.
> But since the community "wins" even in my model, it isn't placing the
> individual first.
>

It is precisely that you place self refinement as the fundamental goal  
and sole measure that is problematic, rather than communal needs.    
Furthermore,  the community does not win in your model, because the  
initiative to identify new needs and solutions is stifled.




> : 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....
>
> And again, the question is whether that should be a given.
>
> Do we accomodate this structural change or resist it? Isn't that the
> entire question? You're assuming the change, and then asking "Now  
> what?"
>
> I wouldn't.
> W
WADR, you misunderstand the issue.  The structural change has  
occured.  Yes the question is to accomodate or resist it.  However,  
resisting it has to be systemic - one has to oppose the change in  
social roles for women.   If you want to be consistent, you have to  
oppose the role of women in the workplace, be against women lawyers,  
etc.   that suggests a consistent vision.  (It has its own problems,  
but at at least it is consistent).   I have not seen that approach in  
the MO community, and very little in the American haredi community.   
The question therefore is, if the structural change has occured, and  
we are accomodating it (perhaps even encouraging it, but the norm is  
at least to accomodate it), what is the proper religious and halachic  
response?  One can argue about the details of any proposed solution,   
but to resist religious and halachic accomodation while being  
comfortable with social accomodation is, ultimately, to argue that  
halahca and religion are and should be irrelevant.  You can't  
accomodate the social and economic sphere, and just resist on the  
religious sphere.

RMB and I have disagreed on many issues - but his opposition has  
normally been cogent.  For the first time, I confess that I am truly  
puzzled by his dedication to this model of tzeniut - which seems  
(IMHO) to be so profoundly immoral and without basis.   I understand  
opposition to some of the innovations, but do not understand his  
support of this issue.

Meir Shinnar

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090724/84481b19/attachment-0002.htm>