<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><DIV>--- On <B>Fri, 1/2/09, Micha Berger <I><micha@aishdas.org></I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid"><PRE>On Thu, Jan 01, 2009 at 01:37:16PM -0800, Harry Maryles wrote:
: I agree. But why should this definition of modesty apply any less to
: aman that to a woman? Shouldn't we apply Tzne Halaches be the both?
RHS, when discussing tzeni'us, points to the halkhah that a man who is
offered to be sha"tz should initially decline. Standing as Chazan is a
breach of tzeni'us. Nu, someone has to do it for the minyan to function,
so eventually someone better agree. But it's a sacrifice for the sake
of the tzibbur.
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>==============================</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have read his Sevarah on this. But I'm not sure I agree with it. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I do not see the Shaliach Tzibur in any way as violating the concept of Tznius. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It is true that when one is asked to daven for the Amud, tyat he should at first decline as a sign of Tznius. But Not because being a ST is in any way not Tznius. It is because one must not run after Kibbudim and being offered the Amud is a Kibud. Declining one or two times ibefire finally accepting is a sign that one does not run after Kavod. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That is a different kind of Tznius than what RHS suggests. He seems to be saying that davening as a ST is in an of itself a necessary violation of Tznius. I don't think one can say that a Mitzvah mandated by Chazal to lead the Tzibur in Teffila could in any way be construed as a form of Tznius violation.<BR></DIV>
<DIV>HM</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Want Emes and Emunah in your life? <BR><BR>Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/<BR><BR></DIV></td></tr></table><br>