<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Rabbi Meir Rabi wrote:<br>> Is it not correct to explain that Tznius is the Hashkafa of<br>
> not shouting to the world - Look At ME?<br><br>Dr Isaac Balbin responded:<br>> I do not think that one can draw that conclusion in general.<br>> It cannot, for example be argued that someone who wears a<br>> tefach above their elbow is shouting "look at me!" for example<br>
> ... however I use this example as I assume RMR contends in<br>> should extend at least to the end of the elbow. He can correct<br>> me if I am wrong in that assumption. Reasons for Halachos are<br>> something that can almost always be shown to be incomplete.<br>
<br></font></blockquote>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">And RAM further responded:</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </font></div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">I think that RMR and DIB are talking about two different things, and thus might not really be disagreeing. RMR is talking about the general hashkafa of tznius, also known as "the spirit of the law". DIB is focusing on one particular detail of the halacha, also known as "the letter of the law"<br>
</font></blockquote>
<div><br><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">And RMYG gave yet another example:</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">>That may not be incorrect but it's certainly not complete, as tznius is an<br>>obligation "afilu b'chadrei chadorim."</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">I agree with RAM that RMR and DIB are talking about two different things (and I would add that RMYG is talking about a third thing), but I would go further than RAM. I think that a lot of the problem we have with the concept of tznius is that we have at least three (and possibly four) different halachos that are grouped under the general heading of tznius - and they are actually not the same thing at all. It is not just a matter of letter and spirit of the law, they are really quite different concepts.<br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">I believe they are as follows:</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">1. The concept derived from the pasuk of tzanua l'leches im haElokim (Micha 6:5). This is a midah (it may be an all encompassing mida as per the Gemora in Makos 24a, which understands Micha as having come and reduced the entire Torah to three basic principles, of which this is one), but it is a matter of all encompassing principle. As the gemora there in Makos and in Sukkah 49b learns out of this pasuk:<br>
<br> </font><span style="FONT-FAMILY:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT:115%">What is it written "and he will tell to you man what is good and what HaShem desires of you: that you do justice and love chesed and walk modestly with your G-d."<span> </span>To do justice:<span> </span>-this is the din, to love chesed: - this is gimlut chasidim, and to go modestly with your G-d this is to go out with the dead and to cause the bride to enter the chuppah .<span> </span>And behold these things are a kal v’chomer:<span> </span>just as things that it is the way to do publically, the Torah says to go modestly, things that it is the way to do privately how much more so.</span><br>
</font></span></div>
<div><span style="FONT-FAMILY:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">This applies equally to men and women, and it very much about not shouting "Look at me" as per RMR. And just consider the examples used - ie the classic examples of doing chessed - and the caution is, even when you are doing chessed, don't do chessed in a "look at me" way, even the most public forms of chessed, and all the more so the more private forms.</font></span></div>
<div><span style="FONT-FAMILY:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></span> </div><span style="FONT-FAMILY:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></span>
<div><span style="FONT-FAMILY:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </font></span><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">2. The halacha of not exposing ervah, afilu b'chadrei chadarim. At least one of the sources for this obligation can be found from Shemos 28:42 and the obligation to give the kohanim trousers and the obligation to build a ramp, not steps, to the mizbeach Shemot 20:21. It applies to both men and women, but less so to women than men, as women can make a bracha when naked (so long as sitting down) (Rema Orech Chaim 74:4) and a man cannot. It is the basis for the dinnim at the beginning of Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim relating to the appropriate behaviour in the bathroom. It is very hard to characterise this as having anything to do with "look at me", nor would it seem to be related very easily to the pasuk in Micha - the one place one is not "going with Hashem you G-d" is in the bathroom, and while there might be disturbed people who go naked as a means of shouting "look at me", it would seem to miss the point to apply that as the rationale here. </font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">3. The covering of ervah (Torah or rabbinic) in the presence of others who might respond in a sexually inappropriate manner to such exposure. This applies more to women than to men, because it would seem that the rabbis extended the areas deemed ervah in women in a way they did not in men. The reason I am stating that these extensions are rabbinic, is that (a) the basis for these extensions tend to be drashos from Shir HaShirim (see Brachos 24a) - so they cannot be of Torah origin, and (b) the concept of das Yehudis, as found in Kesubos 72a seems from the subsequent gemora discussion to be understood by the gemora to be at most rabbinic (and that seems to be the view of the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch when discussing das yehudis).</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">There is (as previously mentioned on this list) a view that such covering is actually a torah matter of lifnei iver, but the problem with applying lifnei iver, as I articulated in my previous post is:</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">- it would not apply if it is a same side of the river case. If a man is going to walk down the street and have his eyes assulted anyway, it would seem that the obligation on any particular woman would fall away;</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">- it would apply far wider than the accepted limits if this was the only woman around, given that it is known that men can and do respond inappropriately to even the little finger of a woman. ie burkas would seem to be mandatory a priori.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Note in addition that if this was a Torah obligation of lifnei iver, you would expect similar obligations on men given the existence of men who find other men attractive - again possibly without limit (ie anything that a homosexual might find attractive).</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">An alternative view is that these are rabbinic fences to distance people from the Torah prohibitions of arayos. Hilchos yichud is generally understood to be a case of this (and the extent to which it applies men to men depends on the machlokus between the Shulchan Aruch and the Bach) and one can (as the Meiri articulates) understand these obligations in this manner. In which case the rabbinic fences are what they are, and whether or not the rabbis might have considered placing similar restrictions on men is irrelevant, the gezeros were in fact only placed on women.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">This can in certain circumstances be linked to "look at me", if the "look at me" is of a sexual nature, but, as DIB pointed out, there is very often no such intention by the person looked at all, only a (potential) inappropriate response by the onlooker. And the fact that most people will differentiate between the kinds of clothing worn by women when they can be seen by men, and when they can only be seen by other women (such as when at all women swimming) illustrates the point that it is fundamentally about sexual response. Not about loudness and showiness, which can be done equally well in front of only women.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The fourth category (but which mayreally be part of the third) is that of not following the ways of the non Jews when they involve pritzus. The cases discussed make it clear that the pritzus they are referring is related to sexual matters - and in fact this might be where two of the definitions above actually clash. Because if the overwhelming dress code is one that is oversexualised (violation of tznius definition 3), one is is probably making a "look at me" statement (violation of tznius definition 1) by dressing in what would loosely be called a "tzniusdik manner". An Orthodox Jewish woman or man can stand out like a sore thumb in certain environments because of the way they dress, and indeed what they are then engaged in is clearly an exercise in walking in a "look at me" way with HaShem your G-d. Proudly and "in your face" in advertising the rejection of the mores underlying the generally worn clothing. As always when there are competing halachos, a decision needs to be made which one to prioritise, but it is easier and more straightforward to understand these as genuinely conflicting halachos, rather than as elements of the same halacha that somehow seems to double back on itself.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">So I don't agree with RAM that it is about a conflict between the spirit and the letter of the law. Rather to my mind it is about three completely different concepts that get grouped under the same (and hence misleading) heading. I suspect that at least some of the grouping is a deliberate attempt to make the whole idea of tznius no 3 more palatable (or even explainable) to schoolgirls, by blurring it with concept no 1. But in reality they are not the same type of animal at all, even if we use the same word and that is why there is confusion. RY Hoffman's article that started this whole discussion is clearly one about the halachic bases of tznius concept 3, and I responded in like vein. And because of the fundamental differences in their theoretical underpinnings and underlying sources I do not think that bringing in tznius concept 2 or tznius concept 1 actually assists in understanding the nature of tznius concept no 3 in any way.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">>Akiva Miller</font></div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></font></div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></font> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Regards</font></div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></font> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Chana</font></div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br></div></div>