<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7036.0">
<TITLE>Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">RMB writes:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> This is a shift of topic. "In accordance with common practice" and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> "in common understanding" are two different things. What I asked for</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> was a justification for the claim that common practice indicates there</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> is a different shitah in tzenius, and it's that shitah which we are</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> following.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">I am not quite sure what exactly you are getting at here. The point has been reiterated by many posters that nowhere in common practice do we see any evidence of an understanding of tznius leading us to diminish the availability of public roles or indeed the creation of new ones - at least as it applies to men. We do see some indication of men trying to avoid the kavod that goes along with such roles, but the roles themselves tend to be multiplied rather than diminished.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">We do see a tendency to diminish public roles for women. And we do periodically here explanations of this being based on tznius. But the usual definition of tznius used here is not the tzanua laleches one, but the one that is the opposite of pritzus. That is, because sight/hearing of a woman by a man will cause hirhurim and the like, this is a form of pritzus, and tznius dictates that this not occur.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> Common understanding is blurry and doesn't really make the point.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> Removing common understanding to just talk about nidon didan,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> the following:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> : (A) as the opposite of pritzus. Pritzus is inappropriate </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> sexuality, and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> : tznius is the opposite of that.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> is not relevent.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">Ah but it is highly relevant. If you asked the halachic man on the equivalent of the clapham omnibus (ie the halachic everyman) what was the reason women could not get aliyos, chances are the explanation you would get back is because it is not tznius for men to see/hear a woman (maybe even kol isha perhaps). No, it is not written anywhere authoritative (and ROY, for example, repeatedly rebuts that kol isha has anything to do with women not getting aliyos) - (perhaps the closest I have seen is the Matne Ephraim and similar on why women shouldn't say kaddish) but it certainly crops up in the common understanding.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">There is no question that RHS is playing on this understanding when he comes in with his thesis. What he is saying is - yes halachic everyman, it is about tznius, but you are not fully understanding tznius. Ie he is trying to keep the explanation and make it gender neutral by sliding from my A) definition to B).</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> He says noting about anti-peritzus / tzenius type A. Neither in accord</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> with the Western mind nor in opposition.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> FWIW, I personally would propose a unifying definition -- peritzus is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> the ultimate in drawing attention to oneself for a non-productive (in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> fact counterproductive) purpose. But that's tangential since only</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> one end of the linkage is relevent.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">You can only understand RHS like that if you think he is talking in a vacuum. I find that completely impossible to believe. Rather I believe that your unifying definition is precisely his unifying definition. That is his starting point. There is no reason to assume that tzanua laleches has any connection to aliyos or public roles if you don't go through this pritzus linkage that is already in the common understanding. Walking with G-d is something that does carry with it a sense of privateness - but the exclusion is of the public altogether - ie the hermit communing with G-d in his cave. The part of the public yes but out front of public no - which is the radical bit of the explanation, existed previously linked to the term tznius, but only in relation to women, with the problematic part of being in front being labelled pritzus.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> I'm arguing that even if that is what I concluded, with no </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> specific issur</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> involved there are reasons that have the force of halakhah not to make</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> such changes.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">Yes, and one of these is - it is not the way women's roles have traditionally been - it is not tznius, it is pritzus. Women being up front and in men's faces leads to greater possibilities of hirhurim etc.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">A second is that minhag is torah, if we have the minhag that women don't do things, then that works as as a bar to doing them (think shechita).</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">A third is to explain kovod hatzibbur in some way - that it is insulting to the community if women do things that men could do.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">I am sure there are others.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">You may not like any of these, but these run far deeper in the sources than what is being proposed. And while one might not like the consequences of these, they do not lead to the other negative consequences that would come about by applying your thesis generally.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">I then wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> : But synagogue is not supposed to be quiet worship, and </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> quiet worship is only</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> : one of a number of idealised forms of worship...</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> Isn't the idea of tefillah betzibbur to be part of the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> corporate entity</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> of the tzibur rather than only being an individual (which you could do</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> without the tzibbur)?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">Yes, but that is not necessarily quiet worship (in many communities it can involve people chanting things together, and in others people screaming, what sounds at the top of their voice, their own individual prayer oblivious to the other). Chana is a certain kind of an ideal, but it is not the only ideal. And even tefillah betzibbur is arguably only a substitute for the ultimate form of avodah, which takes place in the beis hamikdash and was very ritualised and involved very public roles.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> RnCL objected in this later email because:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> : The attitude is a problem. But you are then going on to confuse the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> : attitude with the object. It is the classic alcoholics attitude...</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> Not really, because the burden of proof rests on the innovator. I'm</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> saying that the status quo has advantages, and am not suggesting new</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> bans.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">But you see you can't do this. If you propose that the reason why one cannot change the status quo is because the torah goal is X, in this case a diminishing of public roles, then the next and logical step is to follow through and diminish those public roles that currently exist, ie refusing innovation in one place on a certain ground is likely to set you on a path towards innovation somewhere else.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">But in this case, we don't even need to go so far. There are already views (non mainstream, non halachic views) which say that one shouldn't be praying for the restoration of the beis hamikdash (the Reform movement has traditionally been big on this). Now after all, that is a form of prayer to change the status quo. Your argument gives strength to that kind of thinking, because, as I have mentioned, the beis hamikdash is just rife with the kind of public role that you find such an anathema, and which you argue is against the Torah goals. Restart the avodah and the beis hamikdash and you will have a whole load more of these "tznius" issues that you identify as a problem. That is, you have just created a con to a form of davening where one never previously existed, and something which might cause people to draw back from a whole hearted prayer that they might otherwise offer. That is a necessary innovation of your thesis.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">The burden on proof as to why we should make a change does indeed rest on the innovator - but when one proposes a novel theory as to why the status quo is as it is, then you are in fact the innovator, because it will without question lead to innovation, in a whole range of subtle and less subtle ways.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> I'm saying his tzni'us would have been greater, and perhaps that means</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> that even the anav mikol adam would have been even more of an anav.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">Ie Moshe the flawed hero. And, as I said, there have been objections on this list to people viewing Pinchas and Avraham and Yitzchak as flawed heros - especially using non chazal sources to come up with this flaws. This is a not dissimilar form of reasoning, it being a consequence of your analysis. Moshe is less of person that he could have been. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> :-)BBii!</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">> -Micha</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">Regards</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">Chana</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>