<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote">I wrote:<br>>> But if you hold that it is forbidden for women to wear tzitzis, then<br>>> why is it not loeg l'rash to wear them out in a woman's presence just<br>
>> as much as it is in the presence of the dead? Of course in shul, no<br>>> men are by definition "in a woman's presence" given that the<br>>> fundamental requirement of mechitza is to create a separate reshus.<br>
>> However in a modern eg working environment, where's the heter?<br><br></blockquote>
<div>And RBW replied:</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote">>But if someone isn't "in the inyan" than what is the problem? A cohen<br>>does the work in the Beit HaMiqdash in front of all those non-cohanim<br>
>who are forbidden to do those tasks.</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Well first of all, fundamentally they don't. The areas that the cohanim primarily do the avodah in are areas where it is forbidden for Yisraelim to go. The Mamidim stand outside the main area, in the places designated for Yisrael (and did not the chachamim even put up a fence according to at least some opinions)? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>But secondly, the Beis HaMikdash is the place for the Avodah, and a Yisrael who goes there is placing himself in cohanic territory (like going to shul). And what are the requirements for a Yisrael to be at any given time in the Beis Hamikdash? He is required to bring eg korbanos, including the korban pesach, and the korban reiya, and in many cases required to do smicha (which should be close to the shechita), but in the normative case he then hands the animal over to the kohanim and the korban is not strictly speaking offered in his presence, but up on the mitzbeach, where he cannot go. .</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This is in contrast to the dead, where (because they are incapable of moving), you are the one going into their territory, either into a cemetery, or within the immediate area they have been koneh. Kohanim rarely have loeg l'rash issues vis a vis the dead, because unless it is a very close relative, they are never in the presence of the dead.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> >What could be the problem? If someone can't, they can't.<br></div>
<div>True of the dead too, who can't. And what's more, they now have access to the olam haemes, isn't that better? so what could the issue be?</div>
<div><br>And yet the normative halacha is that it is insulting to the dead to perform mitzvos in front of them that they can no longer do. And this is despite the fact that there is at least a machlokus, if it is not the dominant opinion, that the dead do not know (Brachos 18a-b).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It reminds me of the famous story of the Chafetz Chaim and the uncovered challa. The teaching from that story is that the reason to cover the challa to prevent its embarressment is fundamentally not because a challa gets embarressed, but because it teaches the importance of sensitivity to those people who may get embarressed on being passed over.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In this case,we have a machlokus as to whether or not the dead even know whether you are doing mitzvos in front of them, and yet it is held important to be sensitive enough to not deliberately go in front of them and flaunt your mitzvah observance, then kal v'chomer it should be wrong to do this in front of women, who do unquestionably know. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>R' Menucha wrote:</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote">>According to the Pri Megadim (OC EA 23:2) it wouldn't even be loeg larash<br>>in front of a kever of a woman.<br>
<br></blockquote>
<div>Yes precisely, and the Mishna Brura rules this way as well, although the Ttzlach disagreed (I brought the relevant sources, if you recal,l in <a href="http://lists.aishdas.org/htdig.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/2013q2/026474.html">http://lists.aishdas.org/htdig.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/2013q2/026474.html</a>)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But that poistion would make sense since it is now two steps removed. If a woman can't during her lifetime wear tzitzis, then it may be insulting to her to wear them in front of her while she is alive, but once she is dead, and two steps removed, it would seem extreme to worry about loeg l'rash in the specific case of tzitzis. I tis very common in halacha for one step removed to be assur, but two steps, mutar. For example: lifnei (iver) is assur, lifnei d'lifnei is mutar. A safek may be assur, a sfek sfeka is mutar. This position is consistant with that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Then RZS replied:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>>AIUI, the issue of loeg larash is not that one is (literally) dangling<br>>this specific mitzvah in their faces, but that one is figuratively rubbing<br>>their noses in the fact that they no longer have *any* mitzvos (especially<br>
>now that they're in a place where they appreciate how precious mitzvos are<br>>and wish they had done more while they were subject to them). </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I can't see any source for this assertion. Indeed, the discussion about whether a man needs to tuck his tzitzis in in front of a female meis indicates to the contrary. If it was just about doing *any* mitzvos, and not the specific one, then the Pri Megadim and the Mishna Brura would say that a man needs to tuck for a female meis, even if this happened to be a mitzvah that she didn't keep. And the Meharitz should have said this, as one of his reasons one way or the other.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> >Perhaps there is an issue of loeg larash in another case: While acharonim<br>>struggle to find reasons to that a deaf-mute who is intelligent and aware<br>>is chayav in mitzvos, the pashtus of the gemara and all rishonim is that<br>
>he is not, and that a normal person whose eardrums and vocal cords are<br>>injured so he is now completely deaf-mute is patur from mitzvos, even if<br>>he communicates fluently in writing and it's obvious that his intelligence<br>
>has not been affected at all. Perhaps doing mitzvos in front of such a<br>>person is loeg larash. I have never seen this anywhere, but it makes sense.<br></div>
<div>I would agree with you, except that normative psak today in these cases, despite what you say about the gemora and the rishonim, is to encourage (not discourage) such a person to do mitzvos and act as though this is perfectly permissible (and I certainly would be reluctant to set myself up against those who have ruled this way and allowed it). If we followed what seems to be the pshat position of the gemora and rishonim in such a case, I would say that you were right.</div>
<div><br>Regards</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Chana</div></div>