[Avodah] kosher stores, rechovi

[Chana Sassoon]

R' menucha writes:

> Rn TK is cholek on the meshane Halachot, but my original question (and
> the reason this post was bounced by the moderators from areivim to
> avodah) is whether this is found anywhere in psak.

Maybe you are looking in the wrong place.

As I said on a previous posting to Areivim:

>there are (at least) two definitions of tznius:
 
>a) the avoidance of sexual arousal; and
>b) the avoidance of drawing attention to oneself.

What I didn't say there, but will say here is that while these two
definitions seem to be the two main definitions in common parlance, and I
actually think they are both wrong in using the term tznius to characterise
them.

The first to my mind is really and fundamentally lifnei iver.  The issue is
that there is somebody else out there (nazir, man) who is forbidden
something, and one is forbidden to assist them in sinning.  That is what the
root of the issue is with (a).  The primary issur is on the nazir or man,
but were one to assist by giving the nazir the wine in circumstances where
he would otherwise not touch it then one is over on lifnei iver.  This is
why a situation can be problematic even if there is absolutely no intention
on the part of the woman.  To take the example that has been batted around
here recently, a woman teaching late primary school children, I am confident
that there is absolutely no inappropriate motivation or actions on behalf of
the woman teacher.  But, given what pubescent boys are like, and that
puberty is occurring younger and younger, that does not mean that there
might not be aspects of lifnei iver if such boys are forced by the schooling
system to be taught by a woman.  I can therefore see both sides.  But
labelling it an issue of tzniut or pritzut to my mind is not accurately
catching the dynamic.

Now that is not to say that there are not women out there (think at the
extreme a prostitute) who deliberately attempt to place a stumbling block
(what I think would more accurately be called pritzus), but the question is
more an objective one, is an unrealistic stumbling block being placed (or is
in fact this the kind of hole in the road or obstruction that everybody has
to learn to negotiate, and for which one cannot expect others to be liable).

The reason I suspect that what is fundamentally a question of lifnei iver is
called tznius is that on the one hand we are all so desperate for women to
have positive mitzvos that they can call their own in an all consuming
fashion, that it is more attractive if packaged this way, and on the other
hand, it shifts the responsibility away from men to women, a true packaging
puts the emphasis on the real primary mitzva obligation, that of men.  But
if you think about it, a dead woman lying on the road (eg if she was well
preserved and the men in question did not know she was dead) might cause a
stumbling block just as well, and hence a breach of "tznius" showing how
little the intention and motivation of the woman counts in all of this.  It
seems to me hard to consider something that operates in the fashion as
having the quality of a mida, which I think everybody would agree tznius is.

The second category (b), is also called tznius when applied to women, but
the way it is articulated is really about conformity.  In that guise, it is
actually more heavily promulgated amongst men than women.  For men,
particularly in the charedi community, it is unacceptable to wear anything
other than a black suit, a white shirt and a black hat.  The equivalent
restrictions may be called tznius vis a vis women, but it seems to have the
same driving force.

Now (b) has a much more interesting halachic history than (a), because
throughout history there is a tension between allowing a level of
individuality versus the risk of such individuality following non Jewish
trends and a stress on the value of conformity and community.  The
discussion generally centres around the nature of minhag yisrael/das yehudis
with concern for chukkas hagoyim not to mention at times darchei emori
thrown in. 

If, for example as many meforshim say, das yehudis is about what Jewish
women (or men) do in a particular locale, and Jewish women (or men) in one's
particular group (and remember today minhagim are no longer defined by a
particular locale, many different minhagim sharing the same locality such as
Bnei Brak) all wear skirts above the ankles, or stremiels that go likes so
and socks that go like so, then arguably it is daas yehudis to do as they
do, if one follows that particular minhag, no different to whether one eats
rice on pesach or does not.

So if R' Menucha is looking for sources, I would start with the "if they tie
their shoelaces to the left ..." etc sources, as well as the daas yehudis
ones and look at the idea of conformity with community in halacha, not
particularly on the women's side (although all the daas yehudis literature
can be very useful) but also vis a vis male dress and actions.

So when the Mishna Halachos says that he wishes that all women wore ankle
length skirts, he may well be talking about a chumra in (a), and he could be
expressing the wish a bit like Rav Yakov Emden regarding rice on pesach (ie
where he wished Ashkenazim ate rice on pesach, so that they would eat less
matza, and hence have less chashash of real chometz) without necessarily
saying that in a locality where it is accepted that a certain type of dress
is pas nisht (or socks under trousers rather than over them) should not
continue to follow what is effectively their minhag.  

Not that does not get one into the whole question as to whether this level
of conformity is healthy or really intended by the halachic literature, or
whether the way that one group living cheek by jowl with another group
maintains different minhagim whether of dress or otherwise is right, or
whether it is in fact divisive, rather than unifying and not the way these
concepts were ever expected to be used.

Nor does it get into the question as to whether the philosophy so widely
taught (whether called untznius vis a vis the girls, or other bad things vis
a vis the boys) about an objective standing out and being individualistic is
in itself problematic.

But it seems to me regardless that, to try and claim back the term tzanua a
bit, that if you understand the correct use of the term tznius as deriving
from tzanua laleches im haElokim, you struggle to get to a position where
your way of walking with Hashem has to be exactly the same as everybody
else's, or else you are not tzanua.  There may be problems if the rationale
for the standing out is because you want everybody to look at you as it
gives you some feeling of power or what not, and this is also where possible
questions of yehura come in, but that is different from it not being
"tzanua" for one to stand out.  It is however, a common use of the term.

> menucha

Kind Regards

Heather