[Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles

[David Riceman]

I fear that this post may be superfluous since I don't subscribe to 
Areivim, and all of these points may have been made before the thread 
moved to Avodah.

Micha Berger wrote:
> One of the facets of our encounter with modernity is how we respond to
> modern values. As Jews in the modern world, we have to decide, hopefully
> consciously and willfully, which of those values to absorb, and which
> we need to take efforts to eschew.
>   
I think one of the problems here is, in the mythical saying of Tonto, 
"Who do you mean by we, paleface?" In the mythical past all Jews in one 
small town followed the same customs and consulted the same Rabbi.  Ever 
since 19th century Warsaw, if not earlier, and certainly nowadays in the 
US and Israel, we live cheek by jowl with lots of different types of 
Jews as well as non-Jews.  Expecting conformity beyond halachic norms 
strikes me, in our context, as both unjust and absurd.

As a tangent, I sometimes wonder if "Yerushalayim lo nitnah l'shvatim" 
implies that it is impermissable to have a "minhag Yerushalayim".
> Once dealing with these three questions, the rav has to render pesaq. As
> I wrote a while ago on this thread, this can mean what RYBS would call
> prohibiting something for "political" reasons. And although I don't like
> the word "political" to describe it, as "doing something for political
> reasons" sounds less-than-idealistic, I am in full agreement with the
> notion that some ideas may be mutar in perat, but assur because of where
> they take us. Actually halachically assur, even though we're applying
> the law to something non-legalistic.
>   
But something may be assur for one person and muttar for another (see 
Hovoth HaLevavoth part 3 chapter 4, p. 216 in Hyamson's edition).  If a 
rav does "render pesaq" in a case like this he has to delineate exactly 
whom he is paskening for, and whom he isn't paskening for.  A lot of the 
problems of "our encounter with modernity" exist because psak has leaky 
boundaries.
> As for the first question, the specific halakhos: I think it could be
> argued that there is nothing about being a Maharat that is inherently
> different than being a yoetzet, or just being a knowledgable neighbor
> who I call when I am stuck on something.
But don't you give the same kavod to your knowledgeable neighbor whether 
or not she is titled? If kavod is the problem, shouldn't having a 
knowledgeable neighbor be troubling regardless (though, in your defense, 
see Rashi on this week's parsha 11:13 s.v. "L'ahavah es hashem").

I think this partly depends on whether you consider "assur l'lamed es 
bito Torah" an expression of an ideal or a concession to unfortunate 
reality (and don't forget that the halacha itself is a machlokes 
Tannaim).  I suspect that contemporary Jews differ on this question.  If 
you think it is an ideal, and your knowledgeable neighbor doesn't, do 
you still respect her scholarship? More leaky boundaries.
> Change is inherently dangerous. We are a society that transmits many
> truths culturally, and if we tamper with that culture, we weaken the
> vehicle of mesorah.
The move to big cities and the transition to a modern economy have 
profoundly changed cultural transmission, so that it depends much less 
on "community" and much more on family and formal institutions.  If 
you're afraid of change you need to invent a time machine very quickly.
> The western worldview has an entire constellation of values based
> on something I consider a fallacy; the confusion of promin[e]nce with
> importance.
>   
Take another look at that Rashi.  Admittedly he was a westerner, but, as 
usual, he's quoting Hazal (Sifrei ad. loc., Piska 41, p. 87 ed. 
Horowitz/Finkelstein).  This attitude is as old as the hills, and your 
contention that it can be prohibited institutionally is very difficult 
to take seriously.
> WRT gender differences, the assymetry is created by chiyuvim. Men are
> mechuyavim in mitzvos asei shehazman gerama and in talmud Torah. These
> reflect a different prioritzation of tzeni'us in relation to other values,
> and HQBH thereby forces us to act on a different prioritzation.
>   
This strikes me as weak apologetics.  There are plenty of forms of kavod 
not at all related to mitzot, and plenty more related to mitzvot which 
are applicable to men and women (like tzedaka), and I have never heard 
of anyone prohibiting them.  Have you? When you start telling me that 
it's assur to have fund drives honoring particular people, and that your 
shul and your children's schools have prohibited them, I may begin to 
take you seriously.
> In order to say that these pros outweigh the cons, you have to demonstrate
> that these are actually pros, rather than giving up an essential element
> of traditional avodas Hashem as a Jewish woman before that battle is
> actually lost?
>   
Just because some woman is knowledgeable doesn't imply that every woman 
has been forced to abandon her traditional role.  It merely means that 
now she has a choice.  It's one thing to argue that she should choose 
not to become knowlegeable (and I know you haven't said that, but it 
does follow inevitably from your treatment of kavod), and quite another 
to argue that she shouldn't even have that choice.
> To summarize: My biggest complaint is that I do not see anyone exploring
> whether the change is forced upon us, and if so questioning if it's
> a positive value. I don't see the active conscious confrontation with
> modernity, the whole thing RYBS describes in terms of the tension of
> the dialectic.
>   
But wouldn't doing that publicly be a negation of tznius? How do you 
know it's not being done privately?

David Riceman