Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 132

Sat, 11 Jul 2009

• 1. Re: Mephivoshes (Ilana Sober Elzufon)
• 2. Re: Is Body Paint Halakhically Clothing? (Harry Maryles)
• 3. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Meir Shinnar)
• 4. Re: Is Body Paint Halakhically Clothing? (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Rich, Joel)
• 7. Tzeni'us and gender roles (Joseph Kaplan)
• 8. Re: tznius and gender roles (Dov Weinstock)
• 9. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Is Body Paint Halakhically Clothing? (Dov Weinstock)
• 11. Re: Categorical imperative (Rich, Joel)
• 12. Re: rmf/eruvin (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Rambam on Metaphors (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: R Tzadok-TSBP (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Is Body Paint Halakhically Clothing? (Ilana Sober Elzufon)
• 16. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (kennethgmil...@juno.com)

RGD: Could someone clarify for me if the son of Yehonasan, named Mephivoshes
and described in Shemuel II 4, is the same as that described in the same
sefer, Perek 9?.....Why then are they discussed in separate perakim?

Yes, they are the same person.

Perek 4 recounts the assassination of Shaul's son Ish-boshet, leaving the
young, crippled, and apparently obscure (see perek 9) Mephivoshet as the
only survivor of beit Shaul and setting the stage for David to become king
over all the tribes.

Perek 9 describes David's discovery of Mephivoshet, the restoration of
Shau'ls fields to him, and David's chessed to beit Shaul (and to Yonatan) in
in making him one of those who eat at the king's table.

He appears again in the story of mered Avshalom.

- Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090710/f205bcfc/attachment-0001.htm>

--- On Thu, 7/9/09, T6...@aol.com <T6...@aol.com> wrote:



Right after I wrote that a picture of a person in body paint is OK but the actual person would not be, I read RMB's post:?


>>The only reason why the video is of interest is that it taps into
prurient thoughts. Intentionally causing these kinds of hirhurim is
assur, regardless of whether deft camera placement avoids actually
showing ervah. <<
?
I?saw immediately that RMB was right and was surprised at myself for not
having realized something so obvious.? It could be that what is prurient to
a man might be merely amusing to a woman, so maybe women could watch the
safety video and then tell their husbands the safety instructions.
--------------------------------------------------------
?
I think your original instinct was right. 
?
It would seem to me to depend on the actual visuals and not the intent of? causing hirhurim assurim.? 
?
For one thing I don't even think the intent was meant to provoke erotic thoughts. It was meant as a gimmick?to spur attention to an important message. 
?
Secondly if the paint on a 2 dimensional screen looks like clothing and
there is no hint of any erotica (by cleverly covering up actual genitalia)
I see no problem with viewing it. If one looks at such a picture w/o
knowing that the people are actually naked they may not even realize they
are naked. The painted clothing looks cartoonish -?not erotic. 
?
The only reason we are even having this discussion is because those who
view it already know (via promotion by the airline) that these people were
naked with paint substituted for clothing.
?
I do not believe that is enough to Assur seeing it, especially if the message is important.? 
?
Would I advocate making this video L'Chatchila? No. Why not??Precisely
because we are having a discussion like this and because it is?was produced
?in an? immoral way. But certainly B'dieved, I would think it is OK.
?
HM
?

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/




      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090710/e857c8cd/attachment-0001.htm>

Re:the quote from RHS of zniut
This essay reflects a methodological approach of RHS that I have seen in
other contexts tghat, BMKVT i find problematic - the use of a legitimate
source, that argues a position that supports his desired conclusion - but
that the original position cited is in general ignored (or minimized) in
practice. (eg, in talking about women's tefillot, the Magen Avraham's
position about women reading kriat hatorah)

Here too, the positon about zniut for ba'ale tefilla and aliyot is in
general ignored (even someone like Micha admitted it..) I remember, as a
member of the shul's committee planning tefillot for yamim noraim,
suggesting that anyone who asked to (and for sure pushed for the right to)
daven showed himself unfit - and while everyone admitted the existence of
this halacha, they were puzzled (this included 2 rabbanim with YU smicha
(and of the recent RW variety) that anyone would actually apply it, as it
was clearly not the norm.
If something is in practice ignored, it is difficult to make it the basis
for a wide ranging principe and for a new situation - (we don't care about
it for us, but you....),especially, as the new situation (public position
for women), the issue is in general not the kavod and public position for an
individual (where a lack of zniut can be argued) but the possibility of
inclusion of a group - a very different issue.

BTW, in some communities. the exclusion of an entire group is actually a
very public statement - the opposite of tnziut - and their inclusion is
therefore an act of zniut...

Meir Shinnar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090710/f1c300c5/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 06:16:00AM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: It would seem to me to depend on the actual visuals and not the intent
: of causing hirhurim assurim.?

: For one thing I don't even think the intent was meant to provoke
: erotic thoughts. It was meant as a gimmick?to spur attention to an
: important message.

And why does it spur attention? Because of the concept of them really
being nude. I think your distinction fails -- it's a hirhurim based
gimick.

My point wasn't that the issur of arvah is or isn't violated. I left
that question open. Rather, I feel there is no nafqa mina, since the
whole thing is a gimick to attract attention based on our hormonal
responses to nudity and thus assur anyway as hirhurim causing.

...
: I do not believe that is enough to Assur seeing it, especially if the
: message is important.?

I also raised the piquach nefesh issue -- if one really needs the
reminder and won't be so distracted by the gimick as to forget the
content.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 12:27:33PM -0400, Meir Shinnar wrote:
: This essay reflects a methodological approach of RHS that I have seen in
: other contexts tghat, BMKVT i find problematic - the use of a legitimate
: source, that argues a position that supports his desired conclusion - but
: that the original position cited is in general ignored (or minimized) in
: practice. (eg, in talking about women's tefillot, the Magen Avraham's
: position about women reading kriat hatorah)

If the norm in practice is to do something wrong, is it improper to
note that we're behaving in a non-ideal way? And when discussing MAJOR
changes to how we practice our Judaism (or even not so major), should
we not avoid a path that brings us further from the ideal?

I don't see how your objection holds, presuming one agrees with his
basic notion that there is value for someone of either gender in avoiding
the limelight.

: If something is in practice ignored, it is difficult to make it the basis
: for a wide ranging principe and for a new situation - (we don't care about
: it for us, but you....),especially, as the new situation (public position
: for women), the issue is in general not the kavod and public position for an
: individual (where a lack of zniut can be argued) but the possibility of
: inclusion of a group - a very different issue.

I guess the difference between our posiitons is that you see applying an
ignored principle in a new situation, whereas I see it as instituting a
change that takes us even further from a principle we're already
insufficiently following.

: BTW, in some communities. the exclusion of an entire group is actually a
: very public statement - the opposite of tnziut - and their inclusion is
: therefore an act of zniut...

A violation of whose tzeni'us? The poseiq who is going to answer the
question either way? I don't think an abstract communal "public
statement" really qualifies as the opposite of tzeni'us since it doesn't
thrust anyone into the limelight.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
mi...@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Re:the quote from RHS of zniut
This essay reflects a methodological approach of RHS that I have seen in
other contexts tghat, BMKVT i find problematic - the use of a legitimate
source, that argues a position that supports his desired conclusion - but
that the original position cited is in general ignored (or minimized) in
practice. (eg, in talking about women's tefillot, the Magen Avraham's
position about women reading kriat hatorah)

Meir Shinnar

==============
IIUC R'HS would say that we should follow the original position/practice
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090710/4e833582/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB's analysis of tzni'ut is very interesting but I believe it has  
absolutely nothing to do with the real world.  Sure, men have the  
same obligation of tzni'ut that women have, but men are "forced" to  
participate publicly because someone has to daven for the amud etc.  
Really?  The rabbi of a shul "has" to have maftir on Shabbat Shuva  
and Shabbat hagadol.  And a man  "has" to have maftir on his  
yahrtzeit or auf ruf or sheva brachot?  A regular aliyah wouldn't be  
sufficient? Why not parcel all haftorot out among all shul members  
Shabbat by Shabbat so everyone will has an equal, and lesser, burden  
of reluctantly accepting public roles.  Same for reading the ketubah  
under the chupah. Why should RY take upon themselves this "violation"  
of tzni'ut.  Let's parcel it out among all.  Or better yet, let's  
have a tape recording of the reading of the ketubah (which, I  
believe, RHS said was okay).  I could go on and on, and you can come  
up with your own examples.  Quite frankly, I think this is something  
people say (or some people say) but simply do not really believe.  If  
they really believed it, Jewish practice and communal life would look  
very different. Almost NOBODY acts this way; not the regular folk and  
not their leaders.

Joseph Kaplan

RHS in the article Micha linked to states:

>>>Part of our obligation of v'holachto b'drachav, to imitate G-d, i.e. to
preserve and maintain those divine attributes that were implanted within us,
requires of us to lead private lives; not to be seeking the limelight; not
to be loud in speech, in dress, or in action. Hakadosh Baruch Hu is
described by the Navi Yehsaya as a "kel mistater".<<<

Bemichalat kvodo, God is also described as 'el nekamot'. Why choose one over
the other?
It seems to me that we should stick with the actual maaamar chazal on
veholachto bidrachav - mah hu rachum...ma hu chanun...
The very fact that halacha requires us to do certain things publicly
mitigates against the idea that our 'world view' prefers everything to be
done in private. I think a more subtle understanding of tzniut would be more
accurate.

Dov Weinstock   

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 03:12:54PM -0400, Joseph Kaplan wrote:
: RMB's analysis of tzni'ut is very interesting but I believe it has  
: absolutely nothing to do with the real world.  Sure, men have the  
: same obligation of tzni'ut that women have, but men are "forced" to  
: participate publicly because someone has to daven for the amud etc.  

Again (although I think RJK submitted this before seeing my recent post),
I think you're conflating the real with the ideal.

The fact is that in the way our society is structured, men are encouraged
to ignore tzeni'us in our pursuit of other goals. That doesn't change
the ideal, that tzeni'us is a central element in imitatio dei. However,
it reflects a compromise we already made.

The question before us now is whether the right decision is to further
compromise the value of tzeni'us, or to resist an innovation that would
nearly entirely eliminate it from our daily lives. There would be no
reminder that service of G-d is supposed to be from a position of "besokh
ami anokhi yosheves" and that being seated on the duchan is supposed
to be a source of embarassment, that the quiet service of the Almighty
outside the shul is more fundamental than being a functionary within it.

IOW, yes you're right, what I said has nothing to do with the real
world. It's about the future world and do we want it to be further from
the role of tzeni'us in the ideal world than we are already, or not?

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 03:18:47PM -0400, Dov Weinstock wrote:
: RHS in the article Micha linked to states:
:> Part of our obligation of v'holachto b'drachav, to imitate G-d, i.e. to
:> preserve and maintain those divine attributes that were implanted
:> within us, requires of us to lead private lives; not to be seeking
:> the limelight; not to be loud in speech, in dress, or in
:> action. Hakadosh Baruch Hu is described by the Navi Yehsaya as a
:> "kel mistater".

: Bemichalat kvodo, God is also described as 'el nekamot'. Why choose
: one over the other?

This week's parashah "beqan'o es qin'asi"... Twould seem neqamah lesheim
Shamayim is to be emulated.

In any case and FWIW, RYBS defines anavah as the imitatio dei of tzimtzum,
and would probably answer that a conflict of competing values is the
very dialectic that human nature is based upon. Not a proof of falsity,
but very typical for how HQBH set up the moral landscape.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Rescue me from the desire to win every
mi...@aishdas.org        argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org              - Rav Nassan of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   Likutei Tefilos 94:964

RTK:
.....
It could be that what is  prurient to 
a man might be merely amusing to a woman, so maybe women could watch  the 
safety video and then tell their husbands the safety instructions.
<<<<<<


Ah, but that itself is likely to cause the husband to think about what is on
the video...I suppose it would be better if the wife flew on the plane and
told her husband about the trip afterwards.

Dov Weinstock   

Another case in point is the heter mechira/yevul nochri dispute.  If I
alone purchase yevul nochri rather than rely on heter mechira, I have not
really contributed to foreign ownership of the Land of Israel, not connived
in the issur of lo sechonem, and, on the contrary, have avoided a number of
real halachic problems.  However, if a whole community adopts the same
course, lo sechonem and contributing to terrorism become real issues.  (Of
course, we can argue about the metzius, but that is the argument.)  A
narrow halachic approach, if I can call it that, would focus on the classic
halachic issues.  A broader halachic approach would admit the broader,
communal consequences in the decision-making process.

However, halacha certainly does endorse the notion that some modes of
conduct are for the elite (the baalei nefesh, medakdekim, or however else
it is sometimes phrased in halachic literature).  Clearly, the intention
was never that such conduct be copied by the masses (lo kol harotzeh litol
es hashem...).	Wouldn't the categorical imperative, as I have
(mis)understood it, dismiss this approach, insisting that if the conduct
cannot be generalised, it should be not be followed?

Kol tuv
Dov Kaiser
Rehovot, Israel


 ========================================================
The issues of the tzibbur vs.. the individual (fallacy of composition comes
to mind) is one that R'YBS talked about in terms of how we are judged . 
The proper weight to give each element is key but when I have sought
guidance I felt there was no real algorithm-much more a kfi hamakon vhzman
veinei hamoreh.
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090710/ed4f8771/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 02:25:32PM -0700, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
: on whether  RMF  would  have  protested others  making eruvin where he 
: assured....

R' Dovid Cohen is leshitaso. He feels that "da'as Torah" isn't a
psychological statement (Torah honed the way they think to be more in
line with HQBH's thought) or a metaphysical one, but a halachic dictate.
In the absence of a melekh, Sanhedrin absorbs his authority in addition
to their own. And in the absence of Sanhedrin, the rabbanim.

RJR already gave sources last year, to quote v25n279:
> See R' Algred Cohen's paper on Daat Torah at
> <http://jlaw.com/Articles/cohen_DaatTorah.pdf> (RJJ, Spring 2003) and R'
> Yitzchak Kasdan's response at
> <http://jlaw.com/Articles/observ-on-daat.html>.

> RDC is in "Maaseh Avos, Siman Labanim" I, which Artscroll had translated
> in "Templates for Ages" at page 33: "The Crown of Torah and the Crown of
> Kingship; the Hasmoneans and the Concept of Daas Torah". (That's from
> RYK's fn 14.)

> RYK also points out:
>>                                              For example, in Gitin 62a
>> the gemara calls rabbanim, "melachim." See also "Harrirai Kedem"
>> (R. Michal Shurkin's sefer based on the Torah of Rabbi Joseph B.
>> Soloveitchk, the "Rav") at page reish samach hei (265), where (as my 
>> brother pointed out to me) the Rav zt'l compares a mara d'aatra to a 
>> melech. Finally, see"Keser Torah: Based on the Words of Rav Hutner zt'l"
>> found at http://www.countryyossi.com/dec98/torah3.htm (anonymous author).

Thus, I am unsurprised that once someone turned to RMF and asked for his
pesaq on the eruv, even if he refused to phrase it as a pesaq (his words
included noting that his issur was based on his own da'as yachid), it
was wrong to ask anyone else. Leshitaso, it would border on lese majeste!

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 09:35:26PM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: Now other people would peer at that same law, "a vase instead of a vase"  
: and could quite logically understand it to mean, "He broke your vase and now 
: he  has to give you another vase, and if he broke an irreplaceable 14th 
: century Ming  vase, or a Faberge egg, then he has to do the next best thing, 
: which is--pay you  the monetary worth of the article that he destroyed."

Yes, that is quite logical. And I also thought ayin tachas ayin was
peshat. However, the gemara says it's a derashah, and numerous rishonim
tell us that the halakhah is the derashah and the moral import is in
the peshat.

Which is why I formulated the notion that derashah is another way of
saying formialized rules for determining idiom. After all, halakhah is a
legal system, so having rules for what can be taken idiomatically makes
sense.

I am posting more to embellish my earlier idea.

R' Aqiva's system of 19 rules of derashah are pretty syntatic. "Akh" is
a mi'ut, "es" is a ribui. Kelal uperat etc... are the product of R'
Yishma'el who said "diberah Torah belashon benei adam". A kelal is
defined by what the phrase means, not by the choice of words. But lashon
benei adam includes idiom.

I'm now thinking that R' Aqiva understood derashah as a system of
textual queues. That it's only R' Yishma'el in particular, because he
opened the door to something being "just idiomatic", who understood
derashah to tell us when there is a nafqa mina in the presence or
absence of the idiom or turn of phrase.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
mi...@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 06:45:17PM +0300, Michael Makovi wrote:
: One thing that has troubled me: In theory, Rav Hirsch's proposal to
: derive hashkafah from halakhah - note his criticism of Rambam, that he
: had ta'amei mitzvot that ignored the halakhah - sounds perfectly
: logical and reasonable. But we know that certain laws are concessions
: to human nature - yafet toar, milhemet reshut, go'el ha'dam, etc.

I don't see the connection. Halakhah defines the hashkafah, and the
hashkafah includes tafasta meruba lo tafasta. Making a concession
that is known to be a concession means identifying the ideal and why
HQBH couldn't assume that the typical Jew could accomplish it. And
that too is an existential statement.

Second, the Rambam doesn't simply ignore the details, he said beshitah
that one must ignore the details. That to the question "why an esrog and
not a pepper?" one must realize that otherwise we would be asking "why a
pepper and not an esrog?" It had to be /something/.

This is consistent in the Rambam with his notion of hashgachah. Nature
runs on hashgachah minis, not HP. The overall plan and rules take care
of the overall picture, details are left to miqreh. The pepper vs the
esrog is like saying HQBH set up teva so that lion population would vary
thus and thus. But teva didn't mandate it be this lion and not that lion
who would die in the population decline.

: Also, I remember a rav... the following very real question: how do we know
: "thou shalt not murder" / "ze sefer toldot adam" (etc.) is the rule
: and "kill the Amalekites" is the exception? In other words, the Torah
: is not always easy to fit into one seemless whole, so how do we know
: which halakhot and hashkafot to reinterpret to fit with the others, or
: to put in a box on the side marked "exceptions"? ...

Wouldn't it be self evident that the rarer things are the exceptions?

We also have a mesorah, agadita, etc... Saying that hashkafah derives
form halakhah doesn't mean we have a clean slate. Or else what are the
narratives in chumah, all of Nach, and much of shas about? (And for
that matter, then halakhah follows derashah, even the peshat of the
halachic parts of chumash is aggadita.)

On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 04:59:46PM +0000, RWW replied:
: Perhaps that is the nature of humans - ki lo machshevosai
: machshevosaichem...

: In order to portray torah accurately one would needed a "higher" birds-eye
: view to encompass the whole; and as high as Rambam and Hirsch were they
: were not high enough to formulate a system that encompassed it all!
...
: Perhaps if either one had ascended higher they could have refined their
: systems to encompass more -
: Or more likely - no human gets that high!

: And even if Moshe Rabbeinu knew all the correct prattim, even he may
: not have been able for formulate a unifying theory.

One doesn't need a theory of everything, but if one wants to gain the
most possible from the performance of mitzvos means a theory that
(1) gives meaning to as much of what I do as possible (measured in hours
and effort, not number of dinim) and (2) gives me a mission statement I
can actually encompass.

It's that that makes me believe that HQBH made it possible for us to get
pretty close to a Grand Unified Pi'el Theory.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

PS: Sorry for the pun, doubly so to those who didn't even get the
reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507

The reason they need to make the video exciting is because most passengers
have flown on so many planes that they know all the safety information
already anyway and will not bother watching the video without the gimmick.

I seriously doubt that there is any information on the video that is not
printed on the card in the seat pocket in front of each passenger. Or that
would be difficult for an even slightly experienced flyer to understand if
he closed his eyes and just listened to the narrator. So I am not sure what
one would lose by not watching this video.

Are we looking for a heter to be amused by this clever presentation of
information we probably know already? I don't think one can plausibly claim
that the video will contribute appreciably, or at all, to one's chances of
surviving the flight.

- Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090710/a4c12959/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> ... Tzeni'us is more about avoiding the spotlight than sexuality.
> Someone may have overriding reasons, such as an ability to
> motivate people. But taking the podium is to my mind is textbook
> a violation of tzeni'us. Whether a woman, a rav giving his
> Shabbos morning derashah, or a chazan. ... A woman shouldn't
> want to be chazan. For that matter, a man shouldn't either,
> which is why we're supposed to decline the first couple of times
> the gabbai asked.

On first reading, I found myself in total agreement. But if so, then what are the gender role differences mentioned in the subject line of this thread?

If I'm not mistaken, Chazal say somewhere that "derech haish lachzor achar
haishah", and specifically not the other way around. What I've learned from
my Torah teachers is that it is normal for men to be on the outgoing side,
and for women to be more inward. And we are not using "normal" here in the
sense of it being a common Yetzer Hara (as in "some steal but everyone says
lashon hara"). Rather, these traits are normal in the same sense as it is
normal for birds to fly and for fish to swim.

(Please don't write back angrily. I know that there are some women who are
outgoing, there are some men who are inward, and there are some fish which
can fly short distances. I'm speaking here in very general terms.)

My point is that it is not only out of necessity that men take certain
public roles, but that it is their nature to do so. I concede that if a man
is reluctant to take these public roles, then Chazal praise him, and I also
concede that this reluctance will be a kiyum of last week's haftara:
"V'hatznea leches im Elokecha."

Nevertheless, I can't help but believe that this tznius is defined
differently for men than for women. This is NOT to say that tznius relates
only to sexuality. But still, *IF* (and I stress the "if" because I'm not
totally sure how I personally feel about it), *IF* we believe that "derech
haish lachzor achar haishah" and not the other way around, then there has
to be some sort of difference in what tznius is for men and what it is for
women.

Perhaps an analogy might be drawn to sewing on Chol Hamoed. As I recall,
when a woman sews it is generally of high quality and to be avoided on
ChH"M, but a man's sewing is of lower quality and now such a big deal.
Similarly, perhaps, when a man speaks in public, in many situations it does
not draw an undue amount of attention and therefore is still within tznius.
But when a woman speaks in public, in many situations it *does* draw an
undue amount of attention, and that is why it is a violation of tznius.

I'd like to suggest that the criterion is this: Tznius is not violated when
someone attracts attention, but when he/she attracts an above-average
amount of attention.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Get your dream car or truck. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsJ3RZDLffsaGd9sZvR0Qj5vpV6rrueGOVeCDMEc3OPpz8nWECPam8/


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 132
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."