<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br><br>On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 7:04pm EDT, R Dr Meir Shinnar wrote:<br>: me<br>:> FWIW, I think the practical implication on men is far greater. Because<br>:> it implies that men, who already occupy leadership positions, are called<br>:> upon to make sure that their leadership is really warranted. Do they<br>:> bring something to the table that others can't or aren't, or is much of<br>:> it a pursuit of kibud?<br><br>: I understand the desire to preserve Jewish norms...<br><br>Your phrasing is skewed toward your response. I'm talking about the<br>desire to preserve Jewish values, whether or not they are norms. What I<br>(following RHS) and calling zeni'us is one such value. The fact that<br>it's not the norm speaks ill of the norm, not the value.<br><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div>1. What intrinsic values were represented by the traditional roles of women.</div><div>2. What values are enhanced by the proposed new roles.</div><div><br></div><div>RMB proposes for the first analysis his definition of tzeniut - which is a broad criteria applicable to both men and women.</div><div>My problem is two fold with this analysis.</div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font><br>Not really. You are the motzi meichaveiro, not the people who say that<br>the rabbinate should stay in the hands of men. You need to show the<br>ability to make taqanos; not prove an inability to make gezeiros.<br><br></div></blockquote><div>The oid issue of whether what is not directly permitted is forbidden, or whether what is not specifically forbidden is permitted..</div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>: But the second is that the Jewish norms involved have to be authentic<br>: Jewish norms. I understand the novelty in pulbic roles for women -<br>: but you are basing your opposition on a norm that is not a Jweish<br>: norm, and even created out of whole cloth. TO<br><br>Again, translating back from norm to value, of course it's a Jewish<br>value that predates my inventing anyting from whole cloth. "R' Eliezez<br>haQapar omeir: ... vehakavod, motzi'in as ha'adam min ha'olam." (Avos<br>4:21 sometimes numbered 4:27)<br><br>See the Keli Yaqar Shemos 30:<br> ... ein kaparah zu meshameshes ki im bizman shekol echad yosheiv<br> besokh ami kemo she'amerah haShunamis...<br>Or the Tzitz Eliezer XVI:35, who uses besokh ami to argue that it's better<br>(yeish to'eles yoseir) to make one tefillah for numerous neshamos rather<br>than single out one at a time.<br><br>(Aside from the Radaq on the pasuq in Melakhim II itself, the same idea<br>made by the Chovos haLvavos, Cheshbon haNefesh 3, and other rishonim<br>ad loc.)<br><br>None of these sources are gender-specific, even those based on the<br>Shunamis's words.<br><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>...<br>: This is not an oversimplicfication. In pubilic policy terms, it it is<br>: the actual, practical implication of your policy.<br><br>Then why aren't I actually reaching that conclusion WRT toanot?<br><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Because you recognize the utility of them, and not of Maharat.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div>:><br><br>: It is not a con for tzedaka dinners, it is not a con at weddings, it<br>: is not a con for any other aspect of Jewish life ...<br><br>Of course it is! However, we need as much tzedaqah as we can raise, to<br>honor mothers at weddings, etc... The presence of a con doesn't deny the<br>presence of a pro. That's the oversimplification of my position that I<br>wrote about -- you write as though my setting a threashold to justify<br>a change (that it must compete with the additional kavod threatening to<br>take a person out of the world) means an outright ban<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>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.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Rather, in cases where I see the advantages, I agree with the change.<br><br>In cases where the advantage is framed circularly, I don't. Such as<br>justifying promoting the Maharat concept rather than teaching women how<br>to fulfill their religious needs without being/turning to one being<br>based on the argument that it fulfills those needs. (Which in turn<br>was backed by the accusation that I didn't assess that as an honest<br>religious need, which is both wrong and less nuanced than what I really<br>said.)<br><br>Here's an example of that circularity:<br>: You find this new value compelling - and if everyone were like you, it<br>: might not be destructive of public enterprise - but our history, and<br>: nature of public practice<br>...<br>: The issue is not women who feel that they belong in the role - but a<br>: community that thinks that they need women in the role. That is the<br>: major distinction. Again, one can argue against hthe changes - but<br>: you are again focusing on the individual rather than the community.<br><br>So you justify going ahead with the Maharat idea because there are<br>people not like me who find the idea more compelling than a warning in<br>Avos. But it's the correctness of the worldview of those people that's<br>our very question!<br></div></blockquote><div>You completely misunderstand my statements. </div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div>a) The change in social roles is problematic and should be combated. As noted in past go rounds, few are seriously making this claim.</div><div>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 </div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>As a rabbi in all but name. We're not talking about taking down the<br>mechitzah, are we?<br></div></blockquote>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.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font><br>And why is participation as part of the community in the beis kenesses<br>valued so much that women want change in this domain so badly? Is it<br>not because of the prominence of such participation rather than those<br>mitzvos that Yahadus is /really/ about? (Particularly for people not<br>mechuyavos in tefillah betzibbur?)<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>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......</div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Meir Shinnar</div><br></body></html>