[Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
Meir Shinnar
chidekel at gmail.com
Tue Aug 11 20:40:04 PDT 2009
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 7:04pm EDT, R Dr Meir Shinnar wrote:
> : me
> :> FWIW, I think the practical implication on men is far greater.
> Because
> :> it implies that men, who already occupy leadership positions, are
> called
> :> upon to make sure that their leadership is really warranted. Do
> they
> :> bring something to the table that others can't or aren't, or is
> much of
> :> it a pursuit of kibud?
>
> : I understand the desire to preserve Jewish norms...
>
> Your phrasing is skewed toward your response. I'm talking about the
> desire to preserve Jewish values, whether or not they are norms.
> What I
> (following RHS) and calling zeni'us is one such value. The fact that
> it's not the norm speaks ill of the norm, not the value.
>
RMB misunderstands (which affects much of the answer). I was using
norms from normative - descriptive of ought rather than is - the same
as his values.
However, even with his understanding, it is problematic. I think that
we both agree that the proposed new roles for women - from high school
tanach teachers to maharat and beyond - are a break in the
traditional roles of women and mimetic tradition. The question is
how to judge that break - and that requires two separate analyses.
1. What intrinsic values were represented by the traditional roles of
women.
2. What values are enhanced by the proposed new roles.
RMB proposes for the first analysis his definition of tzeniut - which
is a broad criteria applicable to both men and women.
My problem is two fold with this analysis.
1. As a description of social mores (what he calls norms), it seems
that current and classical social mores do not reflect this value.
Therefore, a solution that violates this social more is not a break
with the past and the mimetic tradition - and therefore, this can't be
the basis for opposing such a change. One can't argue that something
is a radical break with the past because it violates a social more
that has never existed.
2. As a description of a norm, or a value - we can differ about
whether his definiton of tzeniut has textual support - somehting I and
others (including people on the other side such as RTK) disagree with
RMB. What, however, is clear, is, that even if one believes that it
is a value with some textual support - it is one that has, in general,
not been embraced by the community - not just the amcha, but even the
rabbinic leaders, who have not tried in any meaningful sense to
implement this value - even in areas where it would be quite
feasible. To me, this suggests that even if one can find isolated
texts that might be interpreted as supporting this value, it is
clearly not that the halakhic community and leaders have endorsed.
Therefore, it is difficult to make that value the basis for
traditional women's roles, and against innovation - the mimetic
tradition does not know of that value.....The issue has to be
something else.
As an aside, part of the question has been the extent that one can
learn ought from is - to what extent does communal practice reflect
values, and to what extent does one say that if communal practice does
not reflect a practice, it speaks poorly of the communal practice.
There are a variety of mitzvot that have traditionally been neglected
(one thinks of the issue of lashon hara before the chafetz chaim) -
but what is clear is that there is a fairly general recognition that
there is a problem, just that it is not feasible to correct at this
time. What is clearly lacking is a large literature of people who not
only talk about inappropriate redifat kavod (classical musar), but
that one should limit public roles and activity unless necessary -
even if they can't actually implement it. This, to me, suggests that
this is not a real value.
>
>
> Not really. You are the motzi meichaveiro, not the people who say that
> the rabbinate should stay in the hands of men. You need to show the
> ability to make taqanos; not prove an inability to make gezeiros.
>
The oid issue of whether what is not directly permitted is forbidden,
or whether what is not specifically forbidden is permitted..
> : But the second is that the Jewish norms involved have to be
> authentic
> : Jewish norms. I understand the novelty in pulbic roles for women -
> : but you are basing your opposition on a norm that is not a Jweish
> : norm, and even created out of whole cloth. TO
>
> Again, translating back from norm to value, of course it's a Jewish
> value that predates my inventing anyting from whole cloth. "R' Eliezez
> haQapar omeir: ... vehakavod, motzi'in as ha'adam min ha'olam." (Avos
> 4:21 sometimes numbered 4:27)
>
> See the Keli Yaqar Shemos 30:
> ... ein kaparah zu meshameshes ki im bizman shekol echad yosheiv
> besokh ami kemo she'amerah haShunamis...
> Or the Tzitz Eliezer XVI:35, who uses besokh ami to argue that it's
> better
> (yeish to'eles yoseir) to make one tefillah for numerous neshamos
> rather
> than single out one at a time.
>
> (Aside from the Radaq on the pasuq in Melakhim II itself, the same
> idea
> made by the Chovos haLvavos, Cheshbon haNefesh 3, and other rishonim
> ad loc.)
>
> None of these sources are gender-specific, even those based on the
> Shunamis's words.
>
Again, you misunderstand. Issue of kavod is a classic mussar issue.
The problem is the extension that you make out of it. Kol harodeph
achare hakavod hakaovd borech mimenuis a classical Jewish issue. The
question is the identification of being in public positions as
intrinically violating this issue of kavod - and that is invented out
of whole cloth.
The tzitz eliezer I have to look up, but the use that he seems to make
out of it is that it is better to be part of a community than as an
individual - and the modern revolution has been precisely now that
women are part of the community - rather than merely the family unit.
> ...
> : This is not an oversimplicfication. In pubilic policy terms, it
> it is
> : the actual, practical implication of your policy.
>
> Then why aren't I actually reaching that conclusion WRT toanot?
>
Because you recognize the utility of them, and not of Maharat.
> :>
>
> : It is not a con for tzedaka dinners, it is not a con at weddings, it
> : is not a con for any other aspect of Jewish life ...
>
> Of course it is! However, we need as much tzedaqah as we can raise, to
> honor mothers at weddings, etc... The presence of a con doesn't deny
> the
> presence of a pro. That's the oversimplification of my position that I
> wrote about -- you write as though my setting a threashold to justify
> a change (that it must compete with the additional kavod threatening
> to
> take a person out of the world) means an outright ban
No, it is an extra barrier - which will therefore limit public
engagement. That is the practical reality - which is why it has not
been implemented.
> Rather, in cases where I see the advantages, I agree with the change.
>
> In cases where the advantage is framed circularly, I don't. Such as
> justifying promoting the Maharat concept rather than teaching women
> how
> to fulfill their religious needs without being/turning to one being
> based on the argument that it fulfills those needs. (Which in turn
> was backed by the accusation that I didn't assess that as an honest
> religious need, which is both wrong and less nuanced than what I
> really
> said.)
>
> Here's an example of that circularity:
> : You find this new value compelling - and if everyone were like
> you, it
> : might not be destructive of public enterprise - but our history, and
> : nature of public practice
> ...
> : The issue is not women who feel that they belong in the role -
> but a
> : community that thinks that they need women in the role. That is the
> : major distinction. Again, one can argue against hthe changes - but
> : you are again focusing on the individual rather than the community.
>
> So you justify going ahead with the Maharat idea because there are
> people not like me who find the idea more compelling than a warning in
> Avos. But it's the correctness of the worldview of those people that's
> our very question!
You completely misunderstand my statements.
First, about the general value that you propose: If people were like
you, who is invovled in mussar in the real sense - putting an extra
road block of honest self examination before public activity would be
reasonable - because people would still do public activity. In the
real world, putting the extra road block would limit public activity -
which is why it has not been proposed and has not been a value.
Second, there is no warning in avot (except for efo she'en ish
hishtadel lihyot ish) My point was not that there are people who find
it more compelling - but that the focus is not on the individual
maharat and her kavod and perceived lack of tzeniut - but that there
is a community that feels that this satisfies a religious need. The
focusing on the tzeniut is a red herring - even if one accepts your
definition, the level of communal need here is easily above what is
used in many other circumstances.
There is a real issue that you identify, but I think , because you are
focusing on this value, you don't appropriately focus on it. The
level of religious change that is proposed (and we both agree that it
is a change) is reflective of changes in the roles of women in the
general community thaqt are far reaching - and not at all consonant
with the traditional role of women. The prime issue is what the
appropriate religious response to that should be. One can argue for
several different models.
a) The change in social roles is problematic and should be combated.
As noted in past go rounds, few are seriously making this claim.
b) The change in social roles is good/acceptable, but it should not
have any/minimal impact on religious models. This is probably more
mainstream position - but it then begs the issue of a discordance
between the social and religious - tzeniut and betoch ami (in your
sense) apply only to the religious sphere
c) There has to be a change in religious roles that in some way
reflects current social realities . What that change should be can
then be debatged, and whether the proposed current changes are
appropriate or misleading can be debated - but then the debate is
different.
The debate aboutyour model of tzeniut, is, IMHO, a red herring.
Furthermore, because it is a value that even though it is gender
neutral, it is not practiced or imposed in any other context,
regardless of the integrity of those who propose it, sounds (and I am
not the only one who feels this,as per the discussion) as a dishonest
attempt to justify traditional social roles
>
> As a rabbi in all but name. We're not talking about taking down the
> mechitzah, are we?
Again, your model of tezniut does not explain why being a rabbi is
fundamentally different than being a high school tanach teacher or
giving shiurim a la Nechama Leibowitz. We both understand that they
are different - but your model of tzeniut should ban all 3 - or merely
be an issue of communal need. Your model is not one that explains the
issues that we should focus on - and is a red herring.
>
>
> And why is participation as part of the community in the beis kenesses
> valued so much that women want change in this domain so badly? Is it
> not because of the prominence of such participation rather than those
> mitzvos that Yahadus is /really/ about? (Particularly for people not
> mechuyavos in tefillah betzibbur?)
Because we do not have a better model of being part of the community -
rather than merely of the family unit. I understand that other models
could be developed - but those would be far more radical. This is
actually an attempt to be traditional......
Again, this is an attempt to deal with a real phenomenon. Criticism
and discussion is legitimate and necessary. However, we have to
understand both what the basis for the old was - and what problems the
new is trying to solve.
Meir Shinnar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090811/5f92749d/attachment-0002.htm>
More information about the Avodah
mailing list