Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 068

Tuesday, October 26 1999

• Re: Dor Haflaga
• Re: to ask a shaila or to take advice?
• Re: Paskening Maros (was Re: Yoatzos Neeman or Female Rabbis)
• off topic: Rabbi Yaakov Spivak's hechsher on Vege Vege
• Re: what else (fwd)
• Re: to ask a shaila or to take advice?
• Bnei Torah and Tolerance
• Re: Fair wages
• Re[2]: Paskening Maros (was Re: Yoatzos Neeman or Female Rab
• Teacher's salaries/the future of schools
• Re: what else (fwd)
• Re: Fair wages
• Re: what else (fwd)

In v4n57, RYGB <ygb@aishdas.org> writes:
: Perhaps lashon, meaning tongue, is different than safah, meaning lips. The
: lashon is indicative of the inner speech, i.e., the culture - and that was
: differentiated already before Migdal Bavel "l'lshonasom l'artzosam
: b'goyeihem" (and we are "v'rommamtonu me'kol ha'leshons"). At Migadl Bavel
: their "devarim achadim" was their common talk - i.e., plan of action. Their
: safah was their actual spoken language. By confusing their safos, HKBH
: undermined their devarim.

From someone with a name like Bechhofer, I should be unsurprised that you
hit upon Hirsch's peshat.

I saw his commentary after posting my opinion. The problem I have is that
the line about "lilshonosam" is after Peleg and the aside that he was named
(binvuah -Rashi) after the haflagah that would happen in his lifetime. It's
therefore unclear to me that the splitting into lishonos, which is part of
the closure of the geneology list, necessarily happened before the splitting
into safos.

My original take, that it's a prelude to the Bavel story which then explains
the process in detail -- which would put the separation of leshonos as a
consequence of the entire story, not a prelude -- still seems more natural
to me. However, I find it hard to argue against RSRH. I'll stick with a
tzarich iyun.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 26-Oct-99: Shelishi, Vayera
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 59a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

In message , Mrs. Gila Atwood <gatwood@netvision.net.il> writes
> At the risk of
>sounding pompous and dogmatic- any learning should not be done at the
>expense of family, husband and house.  If these women- or any women- find
>themselves constantly hiring babysitters and housecleaners,  I think a
>cheshbon hanefesh is in order.  Women who are grandmothers or who cannot
>have children could be very good yoetzot in many areas.

Don't worry, I am not about to give up my high flying career (corporate
lawyer, Banking and Finance, International Projects) which enables me to
pay for the housecleaners, and (P"G) the babysitters in order to go and
learn (as a yoetzet or otherwise).

Rather, this isn't a question of women learning, it is a question of
should women be limited to being housewives, and no doubt the debate
goes back to the time of Shlomo Hamelech, as I am sure there were those
who tut-tutted that the eishes chayil had (gasp) maidservants and didn't
do it all herself.

The Shulchan Aruch seems rather to side with the view that if you can
afford maidservants gazuntaheit.  So, for example in Even Haezer Siman
80 si'if 6 it discusses what a woman needs to do for her husband if they
are poor, in si'if 7 what she can give up if they have one maidservant,
in s'if 8 if they have two (and the Rema there discusses three).

So, I'm afraid, besides a certain limited number of matters set out in
si'if  4 (none of which relate to children and there is only one item
that would generally be classified as housework), the only thing that
seems to be obligatory (so long as some work is being done and there is
no idleness) is that a wife should spin her own wool (si'if 1).

I am, I suspect, one of the few women on this list who was ever taught
to use a spindle (see what happens when you have a mother who works, and
needs to keep you occupied in day camps during school holidays, you
might end up learning such essential skills along with all the positive
role modelling that is increasingly being demonstrated to be so
valuable).

>
>Mrs. Gila Atwood.

Kind Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

In message , Carl M. Sherer <csherer@netvision.net.il> writes
>My problem is with a pasuk at the beginning of Parshas Shoftim 
>and with Rashi there (and I'm kind of surprised that no one has 
>raised it until now). The pasuk there (Dvarim 17:8) says, "ki yipoleh 
>mimcha davar lamishpat bein dom l'dom ubein din l'din ubein nega 
>lonega... v''kamta v'oliso el hamakom asher yivchar Hashem 
>Elokecha bo." If I recall correctly, Rashi there associates "bein 
>dom l'dom" with different types of dmei nida and dmei ziva (forgive 
>me, but I don't even have a Chumash with Rashi in the office). This 
>would seem to imply that paskening maros is DIN, and therefore it 
>could be that only someone who is qualified to be a DAYAN (which 
>we all agree is limited to men) can pasken maros. 

But today nobody judges bein dam ziva and dam nida.

That is, we cannot even distinguish between the tamei and tahor
colours of red, we are certainly not on a level to tell between one type
of tamei stain and another, and even futher, we don't distinguish
between yamei nida and yamei ziva either (we are machmir to wait the
period as if it was what tipped the balance to making the woman a ziva
gedola, regardless of whether it is actually dam nida or dam ziva, or
whether it should really only render the woman a ziva katana).

Of course, dayanus min hatorah "shoftim v'shotrim" we also don't have
(see eg the first Ma'aris anayim on Choshen Mishpat - have to have real
smicha (no longer exists) and be in Eretz Yisroel) but that is another
story.

However this re-raises something that bothered me very much when I was
doing my kalla classes.  My kalla teacher knew I had been through
maseches nida with the daf yomi, and one session we stopped in the
middle and I gave her a run down on the d'orisa obligation - the
difference between yamei nida and yamei ziva, the concept of ziva gadola
and ziva katana, shomeres yom kneged yom etc (all of which of course
something she knew nothing about).

But what really struck me from this discussion was how incompatible
what we do today and the d'orisa structure is.  That is, let's say the
beis hamikdash comes down from the sky as per Rashi today or tomorrow.

Well it struck me that there were major problems - most of which source
from the fact that a ziva gadola is required to bring a korban (but a
nida is not).  This leads to a whole range of problems - 

a) unmarried women would need to immediately start watching their
cycle to see whether they become a ziva gadola and hence chayav a
korban;

b) married women would have two completely different counts to keep 
- the d'orisa, so she would know whether she could go to mikvah to
bring her korban pesach, or whether she needed to bring a korban due
to zivus, as well as the independant count we do today.  (That raises a
further question as to whether, if you are tamei purely because you have
not done tevilla, or mechuser kapara because you have not brought your
korban, - where there was in fact time to do these things but you did
not bother, are you chayav kares if you do not do these things and
thereby prevent yourself from being able to bring the korban pesach).

c)  what about korbanus for the past.  Maybe it is considered b'mazid
because the reason we don't know if we have ever been a ziva gadola is
because we deliberately haven't kept count - but even so, I would think
the korban would be necessary as a matir.

 If it is considered a genuine safek, can you bring one korban for each
occasion, even if you cannot even tell how many occasions there are? 
The Rambam addresses this question (hilchos mechusrei kapara perek 1
halacha 10) and allows the bringing of one bird for multiple sfakos but
appears to assume you know how many different occasions of safek you
have.  

This of course is all assuming that we posken against the Rambam in
relation to what are the yamei nida and the yamei ziva and how they are
calculated, and hence hold that it is possible to work out, at a later
stage, what precisely is a woman's yamei nida and yamei ziva (but the
Rambam is a daas yachid here, so that is probably a safe assumption).


>- -- Carl

Kind Regards

Chana

If you have any information as to the trustworthiness of this
hashgacha, could you please write me off-line?

Thanks.
Moshe




=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

This will stir the pot here (and not the cholent one), but since this
is the topic that will not end, I am throwing in this anonymous forward.

In one respect I differ from the anonymous correspondent writing this
epistle (at least). I believe there is a distinct disruption of Tzenius in
the RW camp as well. Otherwise we would not be subject to such ludicrously
detailed works like the new one on tzenius by Dayan Falk of Gateshead.

Otherwise, I also do not know how he derived his statistics on Negi'ah. I
hope he is wrong and that someone here corrects him!

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:49:28 +0200
To: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
     <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: what else

I wouldn't post any of this if I were you but to mention a few points that
might not have been made... 
  
The real reason that the vast majority of niddah questions are not asked
is that many people simply don't care about niddah overmuch.

The vast proportion of American Orthodox youth have had at the very least
niddah negiah contact before marriage.  A large percentage continue that
practice with their husbands and men other their husbands after marriage.
(Witness the hugs and kisses by non-family members at the average wedding
to see what I mean.) The presence of women yoatzot is not going to change
that. This is not to say that most of our list members chas v'shalom would
be included in this group -- but I suspect that most of them are also
asking their shailas.

The most insidious aspect of this is not necessarily relevant to whether
there should or shouldn't be yoatzot. It is the lie that the need and the
reluctance to ask stem from tznius.

Hemlines and sleeves have climbed way up, necklines have come down, and
people who proclaim high regard for tznius speak, even on this list, in a
fashion that would have made their grandmothers cringe -- yet because of
tznius they don't want to speak to a Rov about their questions. What a
disgraceful distortion of tznius. The baalei Torah shebaal peh from the
time of the Gemara spoke about it with women, Dovid HaMelech was osek in
it but the Pepsi generation are all more highly attuned to tznius than
they were. (I wonder how many people on this holy list can state honestly
that they never watched a rated R movie) I don't deny the reluctance of
people to ask questions and that something needs doing, but to invoke
tznius is disgraceful. 

Bottom line, those who don't take halacha seriously regardless of which
side of the plate they bat from don't ask questions, those who do,
regardless of which side of the plate they bat from, do ask questions. The
'tweeners who ask only reluctantly and sometimes don't ask at all "might"
now ask women instead of men are not likely to make a very significant
impact on the niddah problem. 

In a message dated 10/26/99 5:44:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk writes:

<< 
 Rather, this isn't a question of women learning, it is a question of
 should women be limited to being housewives, and no doubt the debate
 goes back to the time of Shlomo Hamelech, as I am sure there were those
 who tut-tutted that the eishes chayil had (gasp) maidservants and didn't
 do it all herself.
 
 The Shulchan Aruch seems rather to side with the view that if you can
 afford maidservants gazuntaheit.  So, for example in Even Haezer Siman
 80 si'if 6 it discusses what a woman needs to do for her husband if they
 are poor, in si'if 7 what she can give up if they have one maidservant,
 in s'if 8 if they have two (and the Rema there discusses three).
 
 So, I'm afraid, besides a certain limited number of matters set out in
 si'if  4 (none of which relate to children and there is only one item
 that would generally be classified as housework), the only thing that
 seems to be obligatory (so long as some work is being done and there is
 no idleness) is that a wife should spin her own wool (si'if 1). >>

Without prejudice as to who, what, when and where the responsibility lies - I 
have seen too many "frum" children being raised by housekeepers who don't 
share our goals or methods.  At the risk of sounding old fashioned - short 
spurts of "quality time" are no substitute for a mimetic role model - and 
this goes for both parents if a child is so blessed. I don't know what seif 
this is in but I suspect it's an important rule nonetheless.

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

--- "Mrs. Gila Atwood" <gatwood@netvision.net.il>
wrote:
 
> Ultimately, we're all in the same boat. We all want
> avodah and kedushah.  I
> think we're all sensitive to "holier than thou"
> attitudes.
> Assigning labels only leads to some degree of
> demonisation of people who
> don't think quite the same way as oneself.  We're
> all individuals in clal
> Israel. I suggest the best way to rid ourselves of
> the RW/MO tension is to
> simply abandon the "definitions", express ahavas
> Israel and get on with our
> real avodah.

You have here an expression of a personal dream of my
own: The concept of mutual respect by people with
differing points of view.

But this just ain't gonna happen! ..."Holier than
thou" Rules!

You're right there should be no labels. We should all
have the right to follow different Hashkafos without
being labeled negatively. But this is precisely what
happens all the time.  Perhaps I am somewhat biased
but I generally find that it's the Right acting
"holier than Thou" and dissing their fellow Jew. 

Just to cite a few examples:

1. When I was inviolved in a principal search for
(Hanna Sacks Bais Yaakov many years ago we finally
found a canidate who was both acceptable to the board
and Vaad HaChinuch.  He was a Musmach of Chaim Berlin,
did not go to college himself, but had a tolerant
attitude to those girls who wanted to go to college. 
There was a grudging acceptance by the Vaad HaChinuch
with the comment  "Er Is Nisht Fun Unzera".  Meaning,
He is not one of us. Tranaslation: He Doesn't quite
measure up to our standards but this is the best we
can do.(The Vaad was at that time led by one of the
Telsher Rosh Yeshivos.) BTW that pricipal paid a very
high price for his tolerance.

2. R. Elia Svei calling Dr. Lamm a Soneh HaShem.

3. The Telsher Rosh Yehivos identify those learning in
Telshe or Telshe type Yeshivos as Bnei Torah... to the
exclusion of the rest of us.

4. The unbelievably scurolous obituary of the Rav by
the JO. (which they have never apologized for.

5. Several years ago The Rosh Kollel of The CCK, Rabbi
Moshe Francis, a man whom I admire and respect, asked
me for some advice on who I thought woud be a good
draw for a mini-Yarchei Kallah weekend retreat.  When
I reccomended R. Herschel Schachter he said that even
though on a personal level he would love to have him
he would never get the approval of Headquarters (as he
pu it) i.e. Lakewood.  He would be in danger of losing
the Lakewood charter, so to speak.  The fear was that
certain members of Agudah would be very upset.  

This last one really bothered me. But the attitude
prevails even today, as the only speakers that are
ever invited to scholar-in-residence type events are
other Agudah types. As a matter of fact there is one
such Agudah event taking place here in Chicago in
November where the Scholar in Residence is R.
Matisyahu Solomon, the Mashgiach of Lakewood.

These are just some examples that come to mind. The
problem is that this attitude filters down to the
bochurim in every RW Yeshiva and the RW is producing a
veritable army of Bnei Torah that totally discounts
any point of view other than then one to which they've
been indoctrinated.  The attitude is: there is us (the
mainstream) and there is them (meaning anyone who
doesn't follow the party line (nebech) and is out of
the mainstream. And there is nothing being done to
reverse the tide. 

I suppose they can say in their own defense that one
does not compromise an ideology. Therefore, to be
tolerant means giving tacit approval to a hashkafa
that is different (and therefore wrong) from ones own.


But Judaism has never been monolithic.  There have
always been legitimate differing points of view
throughout history. It is, therefore, wrong for the
right to disrespect Centrist Haskafa or any Hashkafa
as long as there is no violation of Halacha and it is
Lishmah.

But they do disrespect and look down upon anyone whose
Hashkafa is not identical to their own.

And that's the way it is.

HM



 
 


=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

There seems to be a misconception on the part of a few individuals who have
posted  on this topic. To the best of my recollection, onaah does not apply
to labor. There is no issur of setting up any wage with the agreement of
the other party.

On the other hand, so many mitzvos implicitely carry the message that we
must not do things which impair our fellow human being's self-sufficiency.
The Neviim becry the fact that orphans and widows are taken advantage of;
in some instances it may be understood that this condemnation applies even
when they formerly agree to the conditions.

Its worth reviewing the shorshei hamitzvos of the many bein adam
lachaveiros in parashas kedoshim (a project assigned by my sixth grade
teacher). While maybe not "binding" as halacha, it's at least as beneficial
as a musar sefer and is a refreshing reprieve from the cold economic
theories which frequently see the victims of discrimination as nothing more
than a dot plotted on a graph.

It would appear that while there is no issur for an individual to set up
any wage with the agreement of the other party, it would however be a
positive step or perhaps even a "collective mitzva" to pressure the market
into adopting, or at least reflecting to a certain extent, the values and
ethics of Torah.

Something not quite clear to me: what is the meaning of "lechitza" in the
pasuk v'ger lo tilchatz...? What exactly is lechitza b'mamon as understood
by chazal?

Avraham

>>

But today nobody judges bein dam ziva and dam nida.

<snip>

But what really struck me from this discussion was how incompatible 
what we do today and the d'orisa structure is.  That is, let's say the 
beis hamikdash comes down from the sky as per Rashi today or tomorrow.
<snip>
Chana<<

As I see it, a new BhM with a lishka will bring a brand new re-constituted 
Sanhedrin which - guided by Eliyohu hanovi - will be able to resolve all kinds 
of doubtful and disputed issues ESPECIALLY metzius issues.

And - as I see it - that Sanhedrin will NOT be bound by Mesorah as we have been,
becaue as the Rambam says, Beis Din Hagadol Heim ikkar divrei Torah sheb'al peh,
etc.  Sanhedrin will have the lattitude to ignore precedent and to roll back 
halocho to the period of the Bayis Sheini (or more!).

While a Sandhedrin may not choose to exercise ALL of its authority; 
nevertheless, A bona fide Snahedrin certainly could deal with these issues and 
not feel restricted by the  Rishonim if it chose to.  I would think it could 
repeal Beis Hillel and pasken like Beis Shammai (isn't that the case leossid 
lovo?).

Rich Wolpoe

I don't think one will ever see a return to public schooling, at least on 
any large scale.  What I can see happening, especially as even frum yidden 
(not just BT's) are better educated in "secular" subjects is a move for 
these subjects increasingly being taught in the home, either one's own home 
or in the home of neighbors [especially considering that the content of 
secular studies in yeshivos tends to be at least as political if not more 
political than the content of limudei kodesh).

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

From: Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
To: Highlevel Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: what else (fwd)


>
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
> ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:49:28 +0200
> To: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
>      <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> Subject: Re: what else
>

>
> The vast proportion of American Orthodox youth have had at the very least
> niddah negiah contact before marriage.  A large percentage continue that
> practice with their husbands and men other their husbands after marriage.
> (Witness the hugs and kisses by non-family members at the average wedding
> to see what I mean.)

    Indeed many people have been reared in a more relaxed enviornment when
it comes to various forms of "platonic" phsysical contact.  It's a sign of
the times and a cultural thing.  But I don't think that simply because a
couple held hands or even kissed eachother before marriage, they would
engage in sexual contact or activity during a wifes' menses after marriage.
(Remember that old Yetzre Hara is had to totally overcome, but can be
limited in it's scope of influence)  In fact I know that to be the case in
more marriages than I can count.

The presence of women yoatzot is not going to change
> that. This is not to say that most of our list members chas v'shalom would
> be included in this group -- but I suspect that most of them are also
> asking their shailas.

    How does the author know that?  If even a small minority of people
increase their TH observances as a result of this program, and if Othodoxy
is not plagued by revolution as  a result of it (which I believe it will
not), is not the program worthwhile?

> Hemlines and sleeves have climbed way up, necklines have come down,

    They rise and fall like the tide.

 and
> people who proclaim high regard for tznius speak, even on this list, in a
> fashion that would have made their grandmothers cringe

    methinks the author assumeth too much

-- yet because of
> tznius they don't want to speak to a Rov about their questions.

    What if the issue is not tznius, but rather comfort?  I can imagine many
women who are willing to speak to a rav, but would be more comfortable,
perhaps more open when speaking to a woman about these issues.  By way of
analogy, in my schul in Passaic we have a very fine and kosher mechitza.
There is a group of mmebers that wants to change it.  They do not claim a
halachik need for the change, but merely say they would be more comfortable
with a different mechitza.  Should I as a vice president of the schul simply
ignore them?  IIRC there is a Halachik mandate to build as luxirious a
mikveh as possible so as to make TH more appealing to women.  But de-facto a
spartan mikveh is adequate.  Why does this issue not fall into that
requirement in some way as well?

 What a
> disgraceful distortion of tznius. The baalei Torah shebaal peh from the
> time of the Gemara spoke about it with women, Dovid HaMelech was osek in
> it but the Pepsi generation are all more highly attuned to tznius than
> they were.
    Perhaps the "baalei Torah" and King David had certain other qualities
that contemporary rabbis lack?  (remember "nitkatnu hadorot?")

 (I wonder how many people on this holy list can state honestly
> that they never watched a rated R movie)

    What has that to do with anything?


> Bottom line, those who don't take halacha seriously regardless of which
> side of the plate they bat from don't ask questions, those who do,
> regardless of which side of the plate they bat from, do ask questions. The
> 'tweeners who ask only reluctantly and sometimes don't ask at all "might"
> now ask women instead of men are not likely to make a very significant
> impact on the niddah problem.

    Why write the "tweeners" off so cavalierly?

>
>

I do not believe the issue was Ona'as Mammon. I believe it is the issue of
Ona'as Devarim. That is the prohibition, the general category of which, I
believe, includes the prohibition of Lechitzas Almono v'Yasom.


Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org


----- Original Message -----
From: Allswang <aswang@netvision.net.il>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>; <avodah-digest@aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: Fair wages


> There seems to be a misconception on the part of a few individuals who
have
> posted  on this topic. To the best of my recollection, onaah does not
apply
> to labor. There is no issur of setting up any wage with the agreement of
> the other party.
>
> On the other hand, so many mitzvos implicitely carry the message that we
> must not do things which impair our fellow human being's self-sufficiency.
> The Neviim becry the fact that orphans and widows are taken advantage of;
> in some instances it may be understood that this condemnation applies even
> when they formerly agree to the conditions.
>
> Its worth reviewing the shorshei hamitzvos of the many bein adam
> lachaveiros in parashas kedoshim (a project assigned by my sixth grade
> teacher). While maybe not "binding" as halacha, it's at least as
beneficial
> as a musar sefer and is a refreshing reprieve from the cold economic
> theories which frequently see the victims of discrimination as nothing
more
> than a dot plotted on a graph.
>
> It would appear that while there is no issur for an individual to set up
> any wage with the agreement of the other party, it would however be a
> positive step or perhaps even a "collective mitzva" to pressure the market
> into adopting, or at least reflecting to a certain extent, the values and
> ethics of Torah.
>
> Something not quite clear to me: what is the meaning of "lechitza" in the
> pasuk v'ger lo tilchatz...? What exactly is lechitza b'mamon as understood
> by chazal?
>
> Avraham
>

--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" quoted an anonymous
correspondent:
> The real reason that the vast majority of niddah questions are not
> asked is that many people simply don't care about niddah overmuch.
> The vast proportion of American Orthodox youth have had at the very
> least
> niddah negiah contact before marriage.  A large percentage continue
> that
> practice with their husbands and men other their husbands after
> marriage.
> (Witness the hugs and kisses by non-family members at the average
> wedding
> to see what I mean.) 

I wouldn't bring any proof from the hugs & kisses at weddings to the
proposition that such people are not shomer taharat hamishpacha. 
Rambam, Issurei Bi'a 21:1 based on the pasuk of "lo tikrivu l'galot
erva" forbids chibbuk v'nishook *derech ta'avah*.  While I do not
advocate social kissing, it is not clear to me that this violates the
d'oraita issur, since it is generally not derech ta'avah.  (And, of
course, not everyone paskens like the Rambam that it's deoraita.) 
Therefore, one cannot generalize that one who engages in social
kissing is willing to violate an issur de'oraita.  And there is an
inyan of being melamed z'chut.

You may be correct as an empirical fact that those people who are not
careful about the intricacies of non-deoraita issurim are the sort of
people who wantonly violate deoraita issurim.  But without a
sociological study, that's difficult to prove.


<snip>
> The most insidious aspect of this is not necessarily relevant to
> whether
> there should or shouldn't be yoatzot. It is the lie that the need
> and the
> reluctance to ask stem from tznius.
> 
> Hemlines and sleeves have climbed way up, necklines have come down,
> and
> people who proclaim high regard for tznius speak, even on this
> list, in a
> fashion that would have made their grandmothers cringe -- yet
> because of
> tznius they don't want to speak to a Rov about their questions.
> What a
> disgraceful distortion of tznius. The baalei Torah shebaal peh from
> the
> time of the Gemara spoke about it with women, Dovid HaMelech was
> osek in
> it but the Pepsi generation are all more highly attuned to tznius
> than
> they were. 

I believe that our anonymous correspondent has confused the issue. 
Those woman who prefer to speak to females rather than males do so
because of embarrassment, not tzniut.  Even non-tzanua people can be
embarrassed: a non-religious woman who wears a bikini on the beach
would still be embarrassed if I walked in and found her in her
underwear.

AFAIK, no one has suggested that it is a legitimate function of
tzniut for a woman to avoid asking a shailah to a male rabbi.  My own
opinion is that if something is halachically appropriate, it is
automatically tzanua (this is an "Ish HaHalacha" sort of view).  But
not everyone can bring themselves to that madreigah.

Kol tuv,
Moshe


=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]