Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 133

Sun, 12 Jul 2009

• 1. Women's Intentions (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Kana'ut (yirmey...@juno.com)
• 3. Re: [Areivim] Orthodox Exercise (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: R Tzadok-TSBP (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 5. (no subject) (Joseph Kaplan)
• 6. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Meir Shinnar)
• 7. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 8. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 9. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Meir Shinnar)
• 10. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

I came across the following footnote in a tshuva in Bmareh habzak-volume
5:5 (from Eretz Chemdah)  in a question dated in 1999 concerning whether a
minyan would say tachanun if a kallah was there but not the chatan. 
"Nashim  tzeirot habaot lhitpallel bkviut bminyan hen tofaah chadasha,
sheyisoda brighshei kodesh vyirat shamayim. All kein yesh lchapes drachim
al pi hahalacha loded et hakesher beinan lbein beit haknesset, chayei
hakihila, limud torah vkiyum mitzvot. Ubvadai sheyesh lhizaher shelo lfgoa
brigshei kodesh eileh."

I was struck on 2 accounts. The first being the difference between the read
of women's motivations between this source and other contemporary
authorities (dai lchakimah brimiza).  The second that Rabbi Sperber in
Minhagei Yisrael Volume 7:5 brings a number of sources which seem to imply
that women attending shul regularly as far back as the 1300's (and
certainly in the 1800's) was not unheard of.

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/20090711/a1dcc0ae/attachment-0001.htm>

"Beautiful thought from the Sanz-Klausenberger deleted. BTW, is that the same generation as the rebbe quoted in this signature? (No "coincidence"
of the randomizer, I manually selected it from my collection.)"

I thought you might like it. :) Yes, the quote is from Rabbi Yekusiel
Yehudah Halberstam zt'l, the same as your quote. Incidentally I found
another piece in the Shefa Chaim on parshas Pinchas which seemed to more
directly address the issue of being on the right "level" for kana'us which
explained that there are those who criticized Pinchas for acting when he
wasn't on the right level to do so, and if I understand correctly Hashem's
brachah was His haskama that Pinchas acted l'shem shamayim. Sorry I can't
elaborate more but the language is a struggle for me.

Gut Shabbos
Yirmeyahu
 

 Seems to have moved to Avodah - so I am sending this there:

Starting with the last part of your comment first you state:

> An scjm regular, a Breslover fellow named R' Moshe Schorr, 
> has a signature that includes the line, "The home and family 
> are the center of Judaism,
> *not* the synagogue." Judaism doesn't inhere in the 
> forefront, but in day to day life. That attitude is the 
> difference between viewing these innovations as empowering or 
> enabling.

I think this is a non sequiter - ie you are raising a completely different
topic here, that of the home and the synagogue, something which has little
to do with our other topic regarding the definition of tznius.

To briefly discuss this completely separate topic - I do not at all disagree
that the "the home and the family are the center of Judaism" - the
identifiable problem is that the home and the family, in what we might call
"western culture" for want of a better term, are not what they were.  The
Western model for family is that of a nuclear family living in a detached
house.  The father, in general, leaves the home quite early in the morning,
and returns lateish at night tired out by his work.  The children, once they
are of school age, do similarly leaving for increasingly longer periods of
time - that leaves, at most, a single adult woman and a few small children
in the home (and often that woman also leaves to go to work coming back
exhausted at the end of the day).  Even in a Jewish home of this nature,
everybody exhausts themselves to get home in time for shabbas and do the
necessary preparation, and then collapses as soon as they can on Friday
night. The only time people are freshish and together as a family is Shabbas
day - and, guess what, they spend a very large chunk of that in synagogue
(well at least if there is an eruv, otherwise the older children and the
father do, and the mother is at home with the small children, as per the
rest of the week).  Hence during most of the week that home is an incredibly
lonely, isolating place to spend significant time.

It is even worse for the growing groups of young singles who do not live
with their parents, and who are yet to really establish a home and who
work/study and hence live in a mixed environment.  It would not be
appropriate - I would have said it it would not be tznius - but you have
appropriated (I would say misappropriated) that term to mean something else,
so I can't say that - for them to be in and out of each other's houses, and
hence need somewhere public to be the focus of their interaction with
others.

Now contrast that with the traditional form of Jewish home - which was
usually built on a courtyard of similar homes, where people live cheek by
jowl with their neighbours, relatives, extended families etc.  The girls at
least were not in school, so there was a community of females, ranging from
the very little ones, through the girls, young women, older women,
grandmothers etc, who were in and out of each other's houses, and pretty
much had very little reason to leave their local female communities for any
significant periods of time, except to do things together - like the washing
at the river on Mondays, which was generally done as a group.  Such women
had very little need for an alternative social hub - which is why they had
very little need for a shul.  The men may have, to provide "male space"
where they could get away from all these females - but the women tended to
be "three day a year" Jews, needing the shul primarily for the extra
spiritual boost of the Yomim Noraim.

While the full fledged female community as described above no longer exists,
it has a pretty close cousin in the typical Israeli charedi appartment
block.  Which is why the allegiance to and the need for shuls is so greatly
diminished there.  The problem with those who live more of the "western"
lifestyle, whether in Israel or in chutz l'aretz, is that without a
community centred on and made up of the home and others nearby, the
synagogue keeps on being called upon to step into that breach and create as
sense of community (similar to the way schools also keep being called upon
to make up for deficits to be found in the modern home) - something it is
ill equipped to do.  That is why I think any discussion of the role of the
synagogue is misplaced if the underlying dynamics are not understood.

But let us leave that topic and get back to tznius.  You write:

>     When we're conversing with someone, what are we doing 
> while they are talking? Do we spend the whole time searching for launching
points
>     for what we want to say? Or, do we actually listen to appreciate to
>     what they are trying to relate? The former stance is that of ga'avah,
>     of the hubris of believing that what we have to say and contribute
>     is primary; certainly my insight is brighter, my chiddush (novellum)
>     more inspiring, and my perspective more valuable. When when the anav
>     speaks, he responds.

and

> I also think that Rn Jungreis should continue teaching ad 
> mei'ah ve'esrim. That was the point I was making that I think 
> got us onto the topic, so I want to reiterate it and the 
> explanation: The pros outweigh the cons -- she is very good 
> at what she does. But it IS a violation of tzeni'us. We're 
> talking about conflicting values. There is no hutrah only 
> dechuyah when it comes to mussar, since values don't 
> evaporate when in conflict like a chiyuv might.

But you see, by defining tznius the way you do - you are not just saying
that what Rn Jungreis does a violation of tznius (even if the pros outweigh
the cons) you are also saying that what Moshe Rabbanu did was also a
violation of tznius - after all, it is impossible to think of anybody who
was more "out front" than he was.  Ie what you are saying is that Moshe
Rabbanu would have been a better person had he not had to have such a public
role -and although, (presumably) the pros outweighed the cons, still it by
definition came at a personal cost.

.. And we worry about people criticising Pinchas and saying he was less than
perfect!!!

It is probably barely necessary for me to say that I think this
understanding is dead wrong.  That is, it is not necessarily the case that a
public role is a breach of tznius/anava etc.  That is not to say that taking
a public role does not carry with it the *risk* that it may lead to ga'avah,
or that it can amount to a violation of tznius, but that is precisely what
the Torah tells us Moshe was able to avoid.  Similarly the debate about what
is tznius was at the heart of the dispute between Dovid HaMelech and Michal
-and it seems clear that the Torah view is with Dovid Hamelech - and yet
according to you, Michal was pretty on target.

Which is why I think the issue is not whether one is public or not, but
whether one is l'shem shamayim or not.  One can do exactly the same thing
and take exactly the same role, and if one is doing it for the kovod he or
she will garner, then it is not l'shem shamayim and it is not tzanua
laleches and it is all about ga'ava.  And if one is fulfilling the public
role l'shem shamayim then one can be doing exactly the same action, and
indeed it will be tzanua laleches.

My impression is that Rn Yungreis is l'shem shamayim, and hence to my mind,
what she does is completely tznius. The reality check that the halacha
regarding refusing aliyos is supposed to engender is precisely the question,
am I responding l'shem shamayim or not - not that getting an aliyah is
inherently not tznius (which, by the way, would result in the halacha being
that what eg the Sephardim do when there are more people the baal simcha
wants to honour than aliyos, ie creating extra aliyos, is in fact assur as a
derogation in tznius).  True, and this is why your critique has a certain
ring of truth about it, because it is half right - the more public the role,
and hence the more public aclaim available, the harder it is to ignore this
and to genuinely act l'shem shamayim - you have to be Moshe Rabbanu to have
a role like Moshe Rabbanu's and handle it like Moshe Rabbanu - but that does
not mean that a public role is necessarily and inherently in and of itself
untznius.
 
>:-)BBii!
>-Micha

Shavuah tov

Chana

> 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.
> -Micha

As Micha has posted elsewhere tofasta merubah lo tofasto

Certain rabbanim used induction for a unified field theory and then
tried to fit square pegs into round holes to make the theory work across
the board.

No one is denying certain recurring themes but one size won't fit all

Lemashal look at rachamim, kan tzippor etc. Where applying a meta middah
of rachamim can be mamash assur!

Hinuch shows how the Torah teaches us compassion and sensitivity, but
then when he has to deal with wiping out Amaleik and the shiva ammim -
frankly wadr - the rationalizations fall short of the mark.

Why not punt and say the Torah at times demands Chessed and at other
times demands Gevurah (a Qabbalistic approach)

Or there is a time for everything - an Ecclesistical (pun) approach

Those who say it's all about X are distilling the Torah too far.

Even Hillel's one-legged statement ends with the caveat - "Zil Gmor!" Iow
any encapsulation does not do the Torah Justice w/o further learning!

GS
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

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

Not conflation; I don't believe it's the ideal.  If it were really  
the ideal, then you'd see it in practice somewhere; you'd see RY turn  
down sidur kidushin or reading the ketuvah or getting shlishi or  
maftir to teach us that that's the ideal.  You'd see some rabbi  
saying it's not important for him to introduce a speaker or make  
remarks at a dinner to teach us that that's the ideal.  You'd see  
SOMETHING to indicate that it's truly the ideal.  I see NOTHING  
except some words used not to tell MEN how to behave and teach us  
what's the ideal but to tell women not to do what halacha says they  
may technically do. You teach by example, not by mouthing pieties.   
When all you have is the latter then the pieties are not the ideal.   
I'll seriously consider it when I see our leadership actually  
practicing it. Until then, the real = the ideal for me.

Joseph Kaplan

>
>
> 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)
> RMB
> 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?
>


The issue is not that we do something wrong - but that our practice  
suggests that we do not hold by that shitta.

eg (to answer also RJR's objection), WRT RHS bringing down the Magen  
Avraham for women hearing kriat hatora as against Women Tefilla -  
women hearing kriat hatora applies ( and has applied) very broadly -  
far beyond the context of WTG. I have yet to hear a drasha or psak  
urging women who do not have family obligations (eg, single, young  
married without kids, grown kids or widowed...) that they need to  
appear in shul for kriat hatora - not just shabbat morning, but  
shabbat mincha and Monday and Thursday.  That is not the norm - but   
the fact that the community and rabbanim are not doing it does not  
that they are doing something wrong - (which is being motzi la'az  
essentially against the entire Orthodox community) - but a statement  
that WRT this psak, kvodo shel haMagen Avraham bikhvodo munach, but we  
do not follow it - we follow a different psak.  Therefore using this  
psak to say that a particular action is against it is problematic -  
because the actions of the entire community are against it.



> me
> : 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.
> RMB
> 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.
>

Similar to above.  RMB enunciates an eloquent vision of zniut.  There  
are halachot that prescribe a far less stringent version of zniut for  
kibudim - eg, as RJR describes, one could easily design a system for  
the shul that would be far closer to RMB's vision - and be easy to  
implement.  In reality, (and this applies not just to MO shuls but to  
most shuls) - not only is the enhanced system not followed, but even  
the minimal system that is halachically enhsrined is ignored - for  
issues of practicality and shul governance.  The whole system of  
priority in kibbudim (and the term itself tells us that getting them  
is not viewed as tzanua) is in place precisely because it is realized  
that it is natural for people to want the kavod- and this can't be  
eliminated - all that can be done is to make the community function  
smoother.

One could argue that this is a fault in us - but, given how this is  
widespread and adhered to by gdole yisrael mdorot,  this argument is  
problematic (again, it is essentially being motzi la'az on much of  
klal yisrael) - instead, it argues that the overarching vision of  
tzniut articulated by RMB may, after all, not be enodrsed by halacha  
(we learn hashkafa from halacha...) - and that there are competing  
principles - including the smooth running of the community - that are  
more important than zniut.

If that is the case, then, in a new situaiton, not applying this broad  
principle is not problematic - it does n't take even further from a  
principle we are insufficiently following - we are following it  
sufficiently, and therefore there is no reason to extend it..

Meir Shinnar




> : 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:10:25 -0400
> From: "Rich, Joel" <JR...@sibson.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
> To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
> Message-ID:
>     
> <E0F39F1E5D787144B56F532B726FF4420760E...@NYCEXCL03.segal.segalco.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>
>
> 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/pipe
> rmail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090710/4e833582/attachment-0001
> .htm 
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:12:54 -0400
> From: Joseph Kaplan <jkap...@tenzerlunin.com>
> Subject: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
> To: avodah <avo...@aishdas.org>
> Cc: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
> Message-ID: <46E51329-8A3F-4467-9E3B-2AA9B9EF5...@tenzerlunin.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:18:47 -0400
> From: "Dov Weinstock" <dov.weinst...@nycadvantage.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] tznius and gender roles
> To: <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
> Message-ID: <21B4090A07BA45B2BFBB6527FD3DD0EE@Advantage01Dov>
> Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="us-ascii"
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:52:21 -0400
> From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
> To: avodah <avo...@aishdas.org>
> Message-ID: <20090710195221.GA10...@aishdas.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:09:26 -0400
> From: "Dov Weinstock" <dov.weinst...@nycadvantage.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Is Body Paint Halakhically Clothing?
> To: <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
> Message-ID: <EC52DB24775A4D13898401A95253D7C5@Advantage01Dov>
> Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="us-ascii"
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:08:02 -0400
> From: "Rich, Joel" <JR...@sibson.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Categorical imperative
> To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
> Message-ID:
>     
> <E0F39F1E5D787144B56F532B726FF4420760E...@NYCEXCL03.segal.segalco.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>
>
> 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/pipe
> rmail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090710/ed4f8771/attachment-0001
> .htm 
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:06:17 -0400
> From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] rmf/eruvin
> To: avo...@aishdas.org
> Message-ID: <20090710200617.GB10...@aishdas.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:12:46 -0400
> From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Rambam on Metaphors
> To: avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> Message-ID: <20090710201246.GC10...@aishdas.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:28:46 -0400
> From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] R Tzadok-TSBP
> To: avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> Message-ID: <20090710202846.GD10...@aishdas.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:25:56 -0700
> From: Ilana Sober Elzufon <ilanaso...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Is Body Paint Halakhically Clothing?
> To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
> Message-ID:
>    <cd378f30907101525l2029b5b9jf5e10d1b3bd9a...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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/pipe
> rmail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090710/a4c12959/attachment-0001
> .htm 
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:52:45 GMT
> From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles
> To: avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> Message-ID: <20090710.185245.754...@webmail02.vgs.untd.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> 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/TGL2131/fc/BLSrjnsJ3RZDLffsaGd9sZvR0Qj5vpV6rrueGOVeCDMEc3OPpz8nWE
> CPam8/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
>
> End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 132
> ***************************************

(This is a continuation of my earlier post from Avodah Digest 26:132.

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> ... taking the podium is to my mind is a textbook violation of
> tzeni'us. ... 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.

This halacha, that when a man is asked to be chazan, he should initially
decline, is well-known. But the reason for it is not so clear, and I'd like
to suggest that it is NOT because of tznius.

This halacha is in the Mechaber, Orach Chayim 53:16 - "One who is not the
Shatz Kavua (regular chazan) has to decline somewhat before going to the
amud..." The Be'er Hagolah gives the source as Brachos 34, which seems to
be a reference to the very first lines of the new gemara near the top of
34a: "A braisa: One who goes to the amud has to refuse; and if he does not
refuse, he is domeh l'tavshil she'ain bo melach (he is like a cooked food
which has no salt)." I don't recall hearing this phrase ("l'tavshil she'ain
bo melach") before; perhaps it means that he has acted in poor taste?

Aruch Hashulchan OC 53:15 says pretty much the same thing as the Mechaber
did, including that if the person asking is an "adam gadol", then one
should not decline at all, but should go right away, because one does not
turn down a gadol. But the Aruch Hashulchan adds this interesting point:
"But for something which involves sh'rirus (leadership), then one should
decline a bit even when a gadol is doing the asking, since the declining
will give the impression (d'hasiruv hu mipnei she'yisraeh) that perhaps he
is not fit for the task (d'oolai aino ra'ui l'kach), and this is good
manners (v'hu haderech eretz)."

Thus, I'd like to suggest that when a person declines the honor of being
offered the amud, it is NOT because of tznius, but because of simple
humility. Humility (anavah) and modesty (tznius) are very similar, but they
are not identical.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Compete with the big boys.  Click here to find products to benefit your business.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsHcQXed5Nz3BTTsV8jhJjuX2nTNDe0c6tTk47dviCthr0kiIzOGG0/

I omitted this from my recent post:

Rashi (Brachos 34a) offers this comment on how and why one should decline the amud:

> Y'sarev (he should refuse/decline): When they tell him, "Go", he
> should make himself act (yaaseh atzmo) as if he is unwilling (k'lo
> rotzeh), as if to say (k'lomar), "I am inappropriate (aynee k'dai)."

(I am a bit perplexed by Rashi's saying "as if" twice. Is he endorsing a
false humility as the goal? If he had meant a true humility, or if he had
meant a temporary false humility as a means towards a more sincere goal,
wouldn't he have phrased this more forcefully?)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Find great deals and choose from hundreds of model airplane designs. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsFKaB30kfSz2mM2960kX2DfkVnOTxg9s4UBwzLf2wjXGj94IYuXMs/

>
> 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)
> RMB
> 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?
>


The issue is not that we do something wrong - but that our practice  
suggests that we do not hold by that shitta.

eg (to answer also RJR's objection), WRT RHS bringing down the Magen  
Avraham for women hearing kriat hatora as against Women Tefilla -  
women hearing kriat hatora applies ( and has applied) very broadly -  
far beyond the context of WTG. I have yet to hear a drasha or psak  
urging women who do not have family obligations (eg, single, young  
married without kids, grown kids or widowed...) that they need to  
appear in shul for kriat hatora - not just shabbat morning, but  
shabbat mincha and Monday and Thursday. That is not the norm - but   
the fact that the community and rabbanim are not doing it does not  
that they are doing something wrong - (which is being motzi la'az  
essentially against the entire Orthodox community) - but a statement  
that WRT this psak, kvodo shel haMagen Avraham bikhvodo munach, but we  
do not follow it - we follow a different psak.  Therefore using this  
psak to say that a particular action is against it is problematic -  
because the actions of the entire community are against it.



> me
> : 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.
> RMB
> 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.
>

Similar to above.  RMB enunciates an eloquent vision of zniut.  There  
are halachot that prescribe a far less stringent version of zniut for  
kibudim - eg, as RJR describes, one could easily design a system for  
the shul that would be far closer to RMB's vision - and be easy to  
implement.  In reality, (and this applies not just to MO shuls but to  
most shuls) - not only is the enhanced system not followed, but even  
the minimal system that is halachically enhsrined is ignored - for  
issues of practicality and shul governance.  The whole system of  
priority in kibbudim (and the term itself tells us that getting them  
is not viewed as tzanua) is in place precisely because it is realized  
that it is natural for people to want the kavod- and this can't be  
eliminated - all that can be done is to make the community function  
smoother.

One could argue that this is a fault in us - but, given how this is  
widespread and adhered to by gdole yisrael mdorot,  this argument is  
problematic (again, it is essentially being motzi la'az on much of  
klal yisrael) - instead, it argues that the overarching vision of  
tzniut articulated by RMB may, after all, not be enodrsed by halacha  
(we learn hashkafa from halacha...) - and that there are competing  
principles - including the smooth running of the community - that are  
more important than zniut.

If that is the case, then, in a new situaiton, not applying this broad  
principle is not problematic - it does n't take even further from a  
principle we are insufficiently following - we are following it  
sufficiently, and therefore there is no reason to extend it..

Meir Shinnar

> 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

There is a fellow who comes to shul on hoshana rabba with
Hoshanas about 8-9 feet tall

Another fellow put on tallis and Tefillin on the last 17th of Tammuz
at mincha.

Are these cases of lack of tznius, too?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 133
***************************************

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..."