Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 142

Wed, 22 Jul 2009

• 1. Re: Lo Ra'inu Eino Raya ==> Blanket Heter (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 2. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Meir Shinnar)
• 3. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Micha Berger)
• 4. kitniyot (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: Lo Ra'inu Eino Raya ==> Blanket Heter (Chana Luntz)
• 6. Re: Lo Ra'inu Eino Raya ==> Blanket Heter (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 7. Re: eisav (T6...@aol.com)
• 8. Re: eisav (T6...@aol.com)
• 9. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Chana Luntz)
• 10. Apologetic Responses to Egalitarianism (Michael Makovi)
• 11. Re: eisav (Rich, Joel)

R' Rich Wolpoe asked:
> Please follow this logic and try to isolate the precise flaw - if any.
> Given:  anything not prohibitted by Shas
> Is therefore permitted by Shas
> Therefore, when one adds a prohibition not found in Shas - one is ipso
> facto disputing Shas

As far as I can tell, there is no flaw in this logic.

However, this logic can be -- and often is -- applied in a flawed manner.

I agree that if one takes an activity which Shas doesn't prohibit, and then
he prohibits it, that is against Shas. However, if one takes an activity
which Shas *doesn't* prohibit, and he recommends avoiding that activity,
that is NOT against Shas. Avoiding that activity might even be a good
thing.

For example, to the best of my knowledge, nowhere in Shas does it say, or
even suggest, that it is assur to get married today (Erev Rosh Chodesh Av).
Yet it certainly is avoided (at least among Ashkenazim; I'm not familiar
with others).

But referring to this avoidance as an issur does confuse people, and I think it is wrong, and probably counts as the "disputing Shas" that RRW asks about.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
SS Disability Attorney
Dallas, North & East Texas. Free consult with Dallas attorney Denman.

http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=Bvl_K4HXmGjqlk3N0EZeyQAAJz3ze
K-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAUAAAAAAAAAAIV8wD7JZxLHTZ5vDBdmZ9jZ9SGVAAAAAA==

>
> Saying a word means how it is translated to mean isn't the same thing.
> However, I did along the way give contrary sources to your "no [one]
> understood", and will list 5 as this post proceeds.
>
> : There is another definition of zniut and hatznea lechet - which was actually
> : cited by RMB - namely, RYBS;s discusion of it, as cited by RHS in Nefesh
> : Harav...
>
> He doesn't discuss it there, he mentions an application. You're deducing
> that his one case is the only case. Obviously, RHS wrote wrote the
> citation in question didn't think he meant it such a limited way, since
> he used the quote as though it bolstered his point.
I don't know how RHS reads it.  I can only read pshat.   RYBS is
talking about the meaning of hatznea lechet - how it applies to public
figures - and he never says that being a public figure is an intrinsic
violation of hatznea lechet  - but rather that gdole yisrael who were
public figures were also makpid on hatznea lechet ..

> Also, RYBS writes about retreat and the imitation of tzimtzum frequently
> enough. (He has a beautiful vort on it, the seneh, and the link between
> Mosheh's anavah and his nevu'ah. I used it in a speech at my son's bar
> mitzvah, blogged at
> <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/01/fire-within-bush.shtml>.)
yes, tzimzum, anava, all are relevant aspects to the rav's position.
What he has never said is that being a public person necessarily
violates those standards - perhaps as a necessary sacrifice, but still
violates it.  (eg, vehaish moshe anav me'od even though Moshe was a
very public figure in a leadership position means that his being a
leader did not mean that he sacrificed the value of anava or tzeniut -
leadership does not necessarily entail that sacrifice.  Being anav may
mean a sense of unworthiness and reluctance to thrust oneself forward
- but that is quite different than saying that becoming a leader means
that one's sacrifices his tzeniut.).  The rav's use of those terms is
actually proof positive that, unlike RHS, for himbeing a public or
even leadership figure is not a violation of anava, tzimtzum, tzeniut,
etc..
.
> As for the history of the word "tzeni'us"... I already mentioned my
> namesake's famous pasuq "vehatzneiah lekhes im E-lokekha" as well as
> the Shunamit's "besoch ami". (Although the latter proves the main point,
> that the value exists, without the minor issue of whether it's what we
> call "tzeni'us".)
see above
> See also the Yalqut Balaq 771, which defines tzeni'us as acting in
> privacy. To the Rambam (Deiso 1:4), it's dressing as neither a bum nor
> in ostentacious clothes.
Neither of which is relevant to the central claim of RHS - that being
a public or leadership  figureintrinsically  violates hatznea lechet
or tzeniut...
> So, I would reiterate my conclusion that tzeni'us is a shared value
> across both genders. Where we differ, such that ko kevudah bas melekh
> (or is that bas Melekh?) penimah is only said of women is in the relative
> rarity of conflicting goals that force the sacrifice of tzenius.
an unsubstantiated claim
> The refinement of that subset of the Gra's teachings into the theory
> of the Mussar movement was largely developed by R' Zundel Salanter.
> But he went into hiding in the woods, and had no interest in letting
> others know he was trying to be a tzadiq and a chassid (lower case ches).

The notion of a tzaddik nistar is well known in many areas - but it is
a wild, unsubstantiated leap to argue that the reason they remain
nistar is because to become public is a necessary violation of
tzeniut.  Yes, advertising see how big a tzaddik I am becoming is
problematic with tzeniut - but that is quite a different issue than
saying that becoming a public leader/figure necessarily sacrifices
tzeniut.  I would agree that iIf someone does not wish a leadership
role, then just advertising one's greatness is a violation of tzeniut
- because it has no purpose excpet to proclaim one's greatness  - but
not that everyone who becomes public does violate his tzeniut.

Again, you have a model with one source - RHS - without any earlier
source.  You therefore read every reference to tzeniut, hatznea
lechet, anava, withdrawl, etc - as proof for  this model - without any
evidence that those terms and values (and no one disputes that th ose
terms and values exist0 actually agree with RHS's model.
 The rest of the posters have a different model - which seems far
more in line with the facts and how things are commontly understood.
RHS' model has the defect (as pointed out by RCL)  iof being motzi
la'az on every public figure (including moshe rabbenu).

Again,before RHS, who understands being a public figure as being an
intrinsic violation of tzeniut??(as distinct from that becoming public
may lead to ga;ava, may lead to other challenges, and a tzanua person
may feel unworthy- but that being public means sacrificing tzeniut???
Meir Shinnar

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 04:25:24PM -0400, Meir Shinnar wrote:
: > He doesn't discuss it there, he mentions an application. You're deducing
: > that his one case is the only case. Obviously, RHS wrote wrote the
: > citation in question didn't think he meant it such a limited way, since
: > he used the quote as though it bolstered his point.

: I don't know how RHS reads it.  I can only read pshat.   RYBS is
: talking about the meaning of hatznea lechet - how it applies to public
: figures - and he never says that being a public figure is an intrinsic
: violation of hatznea lechet  - but rather that gdole yisrael who were
: public figures were also makpid on hatznea lechet ..

RHS writes that RYBS says that if someone is in the public eye, he still
must obey hatzneiah leches, and says how. (1) That implies the *men*
in question are expected to observe tzeni'us. (2) It doesn't say it
was RYBS's sole and complete definition of what that is. He gives one
thing that must be done for this reason; not a definition.

: > Also, RYBS writes about retreat and the imitation of tzimtzum frequently
: > enough. (He has a beautiful vort on it, the seneh, and the link between
: > Mosheh's anavah and his nevu'ah. I used it in a speech at my son's bar
: > mitzvah, blogged at
: > <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/01/fire-within-bush.shtml>.)

: yes, tzimzum, anava, all are relevant aspects to the rav's position.

Fine, then you just said that the value RHS calls "tzeni'us" (as I
understood him) IS part of RYBS's worldview. You may be arguing with the
naming, but that really doesn't have lemaaseh impact.

: What he has never said is that being a public person necessarily
: violates those standards - perhaps as a necessary sacrifice, but still
: violates it...

Isn't that logically compelled? If being private is a value, then being
a public person is a violation of that value. And if one is called upon
to do so, one is making a necessary sacrifice. I don't see how you can
accept that postulate and not *deduce* the conclusion, even if RHS didn't
spell it out.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
mi...@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar

Out f season, but  went this week to the Marzipan museum in the Galil.
Found out that almonds are made into a bread (marzipan is Italian and
the pan means
bread) which is then made into marzipan.

For those who avoid kitniyot because they can be made into a bread almonds
should also be prohibited (need a new recipe for charoses)

On another issue we walked a kilometer to a stream to find it all
dried up and no waterfall.
This after spending 18 days in Norway seeing hundreds of waterfalls
and fjords most days.
Absolutely beautiful country (got to say seh Maaseh bereshit several times).
Sorry on a purely physical level the Galillee is not in the same league as fjord
country especially Gerianger fjord

-- 
Eli Turkel

RRW writes:
 
> > Q: Can anyone explain to me this line of reasoning that lo 
> >ra'inu eino raya implies all is muttar unless explicitly forbidden?
> 

And RYZ replies:

> Since the Halacha of Shas is it is muttor, Lo Roi'nu women 
> Shechting cannot create an Issur.

That is the BY on shechita, but RRW is asking about an extrapolation from
the BY. I cannot explain it to RRW because it does not make sense - it is
rather that lo ra'inu eino raya means that we cannot learn out that
something is mutar or assur from what we see or do not see being done, it
does not mean something is necessarily mutar.  In fact, if you go back to
the original source of lo ra'inu eino raya it is dealing with a case where
the situation in question was rendered assur, not mutar.  Because the
original use of this is in Zevachim 103b, and the case is that of a bechor
who was found to be treif after slaughter, and whether one could give the
hide to the cohanim or whether it needed to be taken out for sreifa.  And R'
Chanina said, in all of my days I never saw a hide taken out for burning -
and R' Akiva derives from this that if one skins a bechor and it is found to
be treif the cohanim can benefit from the hide.  But the Chachamim, whom we
posken like say, lo ra'inu eino raya - the fact that R Chanina never saw it
(even though he would have known about any case that would have occurred in
his days) does not mean that this is the din, but indeed the din is that the
hide of such a bechor needs to be taken out for srefa.

Now, this is a case where the hide is in fact rendered assur, not mutar by
the application of the principle.  Ie what the Chachamim are saying is that
we go back to what one would derive to be the general rule - which is the
skin is assur - ie we cannot use as a proof the fact that we have never seen
it being rendered assur implies it is mutar.

RRW goes on:

> Please follow this logic and try to isolate the precise flaw - if any.
> 
> Given:  anything not prohibitted by Shas
> Is therefore permitted by Shas

Not necessarily, the shechita case is, as RYZ says, something specifically
permited by Shas, not an omission from which we are deriving what Shas might
have said.   There are clearly going to be many things in heaven and earth
that were never considered in Shas, and about which Shas says nothing.  Lo
ra'ainu eino raya is about behaviour of people (women shechting or not
shechting, skins being taken out to be burnt or being given to the cohanim),
not about what is or is not contained in a book.

> Therefore, when one adds a prohibition not found in Shas - 
> one is ipso facto disputing Shas

Again not necessarily, even if you did not accept the above, because Shas
may allow for future prohibitions to be enacted - as gezeros or takanos
despite them being mutar originally.  Or for minhagim to arise that make
previously mutar things assur.  Shas itself is full of these.  The fact that
there is many a sugya which effectively says "there is no maklokus, this was
before the takana and this was after the takana" shows that.  There is
nothing in Shas that would prohibit (here we go again) that process
continuing after the closure of Shas.
 
> Since it if were halachically prohibitted
> Shas itself would have said so.

This assumes that Shas deals with everything.  Lo ra'inu aino raya does not
have any bearing on this.  The flaw is that the person is understanding the
"ra'inu" as "ra'inu b'Shas" but obviously that is a qualification that does
not exist. If anything, the qualification as per the BY is in what people do
- just because we haven't seen any people do something doesn't mean that the
something is not the correct or permitted or right thing to do. 

> And therefore from Shas's silence on any matter - A heter may 
> be legitmatley constructed.

> Corrolary Regarding YD 1:1
> 
> Axiom: 
> BY must be correct 
> Proof:
> since Shas explicitly permits women to do Shechita
> 
> Therefore it must be halachically permitted
> 
> And therefore Agur, Rema, and Shach must be wrong.

The argument of the Shach is that that while we hold lo ra'ainu aino raya
when it comes to halacha (as per Zevachim, ie that the halacha applies that
the skins must be burnt, even if we have never seen anybody do that), we
hold lo ra'ainu raya when it comes to minhagim - so the fact that we have
not seen women shect means that there is a minhag for women not to shect.
Not that it is a Torah or rabbinic issur, but that there is now a minhag and
since minhag Torah hu, then women shouldn't shect.  One of the consequences
though is that if a woman did shect, - the meat would be kosher - because
nobody is saying that women cannot do effective shechita on the level of
halacha, just that a minhag has grown up that has the force of Torah.

What is arguably inovative about this logic is that they are talking about
what one might call a negative minhag, ie a minhag for people not to do
something - which if extrapolated to an extreme, does end up forbidding most
everything that is not done.  That would preclude any form of modern
innovation.  If we have not seen people talking on the telephone (before the
telephone was invented) then talking on the telephone must be assur.  Same
with electric lights, etc etc.  The Shach clearly got a fair bit of flak for
this, and ended up having to define it a lot more narrowly.  And it does
lead to a lot of problems.  But the logic above does not work.

> KT
> RRW

Regards

Chana

Akiva:
> I agree that if one takes an activity which Shas doesn't prohibit,
> and then he prohibits it, that is against Shas. However, if one takes
> an activity which Shas *doesn't* prohibit, and he recommends avoiding
> that activity, that is NOT against Shas....
> For example, to the best of my knowledge, nowhere in Shas does it say,
> or even suggest, that it is assur to get married today... Yet it
> certainly is avoided...
> But referring to this avoidance as an issur does confuse people, and I
> think it is wrong, and probably counts as the "disputing Shas" that RRW
> asks about.

Correct me if necessary but as I understand you:

No halachic issur can be issued after Shas
But
    a minhag or
    a gezeira
    a hanhagah or
    a harchaka or
    a policy
MAY be enacted after shas. Correct?

If so you can explain the Agur/Rema/Shach vs. BY
BY is correct WRT the Halachah
But Rema-Shach can still keep women from shechita as a matter of "policy".

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

 
From: harveyben...@yahoo.com

1. eisav soneh es yaakov: i have  oftern heard that this is a >> halacha??? 
q: what does that mean?? that  they must hate us??? they have "no choice" 
in the matter??? [are they allowed to  go agianst the halacha? and Not hate 
us???]

 
 
>>>>>
In this case, "halacha" means something like "a  law of nature."  There are 
non-Jews who are philo-Semitic -- some of them  amazingly so -- but the 
vast majority either mildly dislike Jews or hate us  intensely.  Sadly, this 
"halacha" has never been repealed, and genteel  anti-Semitism is on daily 
display in the pages of the NY Times, in the faculty  club at Harvard and all 
over the world.  In re the opposite extreme --  philo-Semitism -- I will say 
that the phenomenon of the  scholarly  non-Jew who writes movingly and 
sympathetically about the sufferings of the Jews  has always intrigued me, and I 
wonder where in Jewish tradition we find a source  for /them/?  I am thinking 
of people like Malcolm Hays, Conor Cruise  O'Brien, Paul Johnson, George 
Eliot, Lord Balfour.
 
 
 
--Toby  Katz
==========



_____________________

**************Dell Deals: Treat yourself to a sweet deal on popular 
laptops! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1223096155x1201715982/aol?
redir=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.mediaplex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629
%2D6)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090722/8b2b0970/attachment-0001.htm>

 
From: _harveybenton@yahoo.com_ (mailto:harveyben...@yahoo.com) 


>> 2. yaakov was called an "ish tam..." ; does an ish tam steal a  
brother's brachos and/or deceive his father (if not outright lie to him??]  ...
4: was it directly yaakov's fault that b/cause of his deception and the  
resultant tears that eisav (acc 2 the medrash) shed (2 out of 3 actually  
dropped) led to our lengthened (and perhaps more arduous exile). 
4a. if so,  what should yaakov's punishment be? if any??? <<

 
 
>>>>>
This issue has been discussed before on Avodah.  See the archives,  Avodah 
V12 numbers 64 and 65, in December 2003.
 
In no 12:64 I wrote: 
 
 
_http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n064.shtml#13_ 
(http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n064.shtml#13) 
 

Hirsch says that Rivka, the daughter and

sister of duplicitous men, was able to see through Esav all along, whereas

Yitzchak, the son of tzaddikim and an ish tam, was not. The pasuk itself

says about Esav, "Tzayid befiv," which means, according to Rashi, that

Esav deceived Yitzchak--not once, but all his life. Rivka was forever

telling her husband, "I'm TELLING you, the boy's no good," but he just

didn't believe her.



She came up with a scheme that was transparently simple--that would

be seen through right away, as soon as Esav showed up--and her purpose

was two-fold. She wanted Yakov to get the brachos that went along with

the bechora. [And don't forget, she had received a nevua before the

boys were even born, "Rav ya'avod tza'ir" AND the pasuk testifies that

Esav had despised the bechora.] And her second purpose, she wanted to

show Yitzchak how easily he COULD be fooled.



When he realized what had happened, he trembled exceedingly because in one

flash, the scales fell from his eyes. He suddenly realized that Rivka

had been right all along--that he WAS easily deceived, and that Esav

WAS no good. Therefore, in the very SAME pasuk, without hesitation,

right after he told Esav that he had given the bracha to Yakov, he

immediately added, "Gam baruch yi'heyeh." THE BRACHA STANDS.



....The motive behind Rivka's ruse, which Yakov of course shared, was to

reveal the TRUTH. Her whole plan was to lay bare the truth--about

Yitzchak's vulnerability, about Esav's real nature.





....There is a coda to this incident of the bracha, which perhaps deserves 
an

essay of its own, and that is the very poignance and pathos of Esav's cry,

"Abba, don't you have one bracha left for me?"



....What does it mean that a rasha is given a line of such unmistakeable

poignance? I take it to mean that there is one grain of genuine

grievance, that Esav does have one nekuda of justice on his side.



And that one nekuda is played out cosmically the way Rashi understands

the bracha Yakov ended up giving Esav by default: your brother Yakov

is deserving of the bracha only when he is clearly your moral superior.

But when his behavior descends to the level of Esav, then his right to

the bracha is tenuous, and Esav then acquires the power to throw off

the yoke of Yakov.



Throughout the long course of Jewish history, this is the principle: Esav

gets to state his case, and take power back, when we do not behave on the

high moral plane that gave us the right to the bracha in the first place.
 
---
In the next issue, no 65, I discussed the question of why Yitzchak couldn't 
just give Esav the bracha he had meant to give to Yakov -- why not just 
swap them around?
  
 
_http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n065.shtml#05_ 
(http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n065.shtml#05) 

 


 -Toby Katz







**************Dell Deals: Treat yourself to a sweet deal on popular 
laptops! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1223096155x1201715982/aol?
redir=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.mediaplex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629
%2D6)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090722/89f7156a/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB writes:

>     `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice
>     objected.
> 
>     `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a 
> scornful tone,
>     `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
> 
>     `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so
>     many different things.'
> 
>     `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master --
>     that's all.' 
>                        - Alice in Wonderland, ch. 6

> Saying a word means how it is translated to mean isn't the same thing.

Are you arguing for or against Humpty Dumpty here?

> However, I did along the way give contrary sources to your 
> "no [one] understood", and will list 5 as this post proceeds.

I think this gets to the heart of it.  In another post you make a comment
about there being a mequor for your understanding that goes all the way back
to the trei asar.  But what you are doing is, Humpty Dumpty like, stating
that tzenius means what you understand it to mean, and then saying, well you
see the word tznius used ergo, this is the concept used.  The rest of us
can't see any source for your understanding of the word tznius.

So I agree, I think it is a very good idea to do a reasonable search of the
sources and they way they use the term tznius, and particularly the pasuk
tznei laleches.

So lets start with your five:

I think your first is:
 
A) As for the history of the word "tzeni'us"... I already 
> mentioned my namesake's famous pasuq "vehatzneiah lekhes im 
> E-lokekha" 

As mentioned above, the problem is that you are understanding it to mean
something different from the way the rest of us on this list are
understanding it.

So let us look at some sources.  Well the only times it comes up in the
Shulchan Aruch the wording is as follows:

Orech Chaim siman 240 si'if 4: Assur ll'histakel b'oso makom shekol mistakel
sham ain lo bushes panim v'avar al v'hatzanua laleches" - hopefully I don't
have to translate that - but as you can see, that it about tznius being the
opposite of pritzus. It clearly has nothing to say about public roles.

Other uses of tznius in the halachic literature relate to being private when
one uses the bathroom and in eating - see eg Brochos 62b, Avodah Zara 47b, 
And attributes of checking when one has relations - see Nida 12a.  While
these are, at least up to a point, gender neutral (the reference above is
not), they are about how one is to behave in private, to behave differently
would unquestionably fall under the category of pritzus.  But yes, indeed
they are about privacy.  

The other reference to hatanua laleches is in the Rema in Orech Chaim 1
si'if 1.  There he links it to knowing even when one lies down before whom
one lies. This I understand to be about dedication of the heart towards
HaShem even in private - which then links in to how one behaves in private,
when there are no people to be embarressed in front of.  Again, nothing
about public roles.

So let us go back to the pasuk and look at some of the classic commentators
say on the pasuk.  You can look at Rashi if you like, but I don't think you
will find anything there that will help your understanding.  On the other
hand Radak brings: "v'amar hatzanua ki davar zer musar l'levav" and
similarly the Ibn Ezra says  - "v'tzanu laleches im Hashem l'vado shetelech
b'darchav b'tam levav hefech kishui orech".   This is where I get the idea
that the pasuk taznua laleches is all about dedication of the heart towards
HaShem, it is about doing things lishma. Nothing about where this is being
done.  It does indeed link to the Rema's comment, but only that one should
have this attitude  *even* when one is lying down in private, not that one
should not be in public.

Now there is indeed one reference that seems to talk about public activities
(and indeed the Radak also brings it) which is to be found in Sukkah 49b
v'tzanua laleches im elokecha" - zu hotzias ha mes v'haneses hakala l'chupa
- this refers to taking out the dead and bringing the bride to the chupah,
and this is a kal v'chomer - ma devarim shedarkan l'asos b'farhesia amra
hatorah, tzanua l'leches devearim she darkan l'asos b'tzinua al achas kama
v'kama.

Rashi explains this reference in Sukkah - that one is to behave nicely and
not act with kalos rosh in these circumstances (ie when with the dead of a
kala) - and he also brings an alternative explanation which is that if it is
necessary to take out the dead who was a poor person, or to provide for a
poor kala, one should do that privately, so it should not be generally
known.

This latter is about as close as you get to what you are saying, it is about
diminishing public knowledge of roles, but the rationale is surely to
protect the dignity of the poor, and their receipt of charity, nothing about
general public roles.  And the earlier explanation about lightheaded
behaviour, if anything has links to the tznius which is the opposite of
pritzus.

as well as the Shunamit's "besoch ami". (Although 
> the latter proves the main point, that the value exists, 
> without the minor issue of whether it's what we call "tzeni'us".)

Your use of this pasuk is a bit odd, in my view, given that it does not seem
to figure much as a value to be emulated throughout the literature.  And
what seems to have been on offer was not a public position (she was already
know as an isha gadola), but being spoken for to the king or the head of the
army.  Which at the time she didn't need - but she did indeed avail herself
of later when she needed it to get her property back (Melachim beis 8:6).
Thus this would suggest that if anything what was on offer was wealth rather
than public position from the king or army head.  

And even if you were to say that it conveys a major value from which we are
to learn throughout the generations and somehow this has to do with refusing
public position, you haven't shown that it is gender neutral either.

> See also the Yalqut Balaq 771, which defines tzeni'us as 
> acting in privacy.

The issue here is being able to see into other people's tents and see their
wives.  Again, fully in accordance with a definition of tzinus as the
opposite of pritzus. 

 To the Rambam (Deiso 1:4), it's dressing 
> as neither a bum nor in ostentacious clothes.

Well it is generally following the golden mean, and not going to extremes on
anything.  Not very far from the concept that all one's actions must be
dedicated l'shem shamayim, but little to do with public roles (one should
dress appropriately in the privacy of one's house, especially in front of
HaShem).  I actually suspect that the Rambam's source is not tzanua
laleches, but Mishle 11:2 - tznuim chachma, but it probably doesn't matter.
 
> So, I would reiterate my conclusion that tzeni'us is a shared 
> value across both genders.

I never said that it was not a shared value across both genders.  Or rather,
that there are at least two definitions, and at least one of them is shared,
being about dedicating the heart.  The second, while shared, often plays
differently because pritzus behaviour can differ between the sexes, and so
does its opposite.  Private things are meant to be kept private, and not
brought out into public, but what is private and public for a woman and mand
differ.    But that does not mean that the private realm is supposed to take
over the public realm and diminish it.

> The refinement of that subset of the Gra's teachings into the 
> theory of the Mussar movement was largely developed by R' 
> Zundel Salanter.
> But he went into hiding in the woods, and had no interest in 
> letting others know he was trying to be a tzadiq and a 
> chassid (lower case ches).

It is interesting, though to note that the R' Pinchas  ben Yair in his
summary of what leads to what which tends to be the basis of a lot of the
musar movement (zehirus l'zrisus etc) - certainly Mesilas Yesharim - does
not mention tznius as one of the values.  There indeed are zehirus and
prishus and it is these that lead to chassidus (or lead to anava).  If
tznius, as opposed to these others, was such a fundamental virtue, you would
have expected whole chapters on it in the mussar books.

Not that it does not come into it.  Sharei Teshuva for example has a
discussion of tznua laleches in sha'ar rishon 25.  I am going to use the
English translation here by Shraga Silverstein, as my edition comes with it
- but you are welcome to have another go at it.  What he says is:

"V'taznua laleches im elokecha - and to walk humbly with thy G-d.  The
essential factor in your humility and abasement is serving G-d humbly.  It
is this which defines your humility, indicating that you desire no honor for
your honorable deeds, especially for those attainments which the Creator
does not desire from His creations and which one should therefore take no
pride in, such as wealth, strength and the various wisdoms: this, as opposed
to the knowing and understanding of the Blessed One, as it is said "Let not
the wise man glory in his wisdom .." 

As you can see from this passage, if you look at the original Hebrew, Sharei
Teshuva clearly links tznius with humility, which is a translation you
rejected.  And your understanding is not that one should take no honour for
honourable deeds, but that one should diminish the honourable deeds, and
have less of them, because that may lead people to take honour where they
shouldn't.
 
> And R' Zundel wasn't the only tzadiq nistar. It's an entire 
> genre of Chassidic story, and discussed more than once in the 
> Besh"t's letters.

Agreed.  And the various prishus chapters spend a lot of time dealing with
going off and being a hermit for the betterment of one's soul.  There is no
question that there is a tension between that and mainstream halachic
thought which mandates involvement in the community.  Usually the resolution
is that we let the tzadik nistar go off and do his thing in the woods, and
do not demand that his particular level of prishus is imposed on the rest of
the community.  In fact the community would fall apart if everybody did this
- which again begs the question why halacha would mandate so much public
involvement if it did not have a  value.  The most straightforward way to
resolve this tension is that people may, as part of their development, need
periods of prishus so as to bring themselves to the level where they can
take part publically with the correct motivations, not that this is the
ultimate ideal.  It is clearly not the only way of resolving the matter, but
it does solve the problem.

Thus even when R' Salanter felt that it should be more publically taught, he
was never suggesting going as far as you appear to be going - and seeking to
demand prishus as a value of the community, nor was any of this prescribed
for anybody unless they themselves recognised that they had a midos problem
with kavod and the like, and sought to avoid it or elevate themselves.

Perhaps the best thing to finish up with, is in fact, your sig.

> A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
> man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
> about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
>        - Rav Yisrael Salanter

But here are you not indeed worrying about your fellow man's soul and how he
(or she) reacts to public roles?

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
> 
> -- 
> Micha Berger   

Regards

Chana          

Professor Berel Dov Lerner claims/attempts to debunk the ordinary
apologetic response to
egalitarianism (viz. that the home is of prime importance, and
therefore women are as well, notwithstanding their disadvantages in
the public sphere):
http://jewishbible.blogspot.com/2005/10/ten-curses-of-eve-unpublis
hable.html

Professor Lerner concludes, "One might say that full respect for the
role of women is a truth of the Torah which has remained hidden from
the eyes of earlier generations, waiting for us to be its discoverers.
However, we cannot pretend that those earlier generations had already
made this discovery. That would be a fabrication of history and a sin
against intellectual honesty."

I respond (mostly summarizing, with only a very few contributions of
my own, of negligible importance) at
http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com/2009/07/ten-curses-of-eve-
disingenunity-of.html.
Among thing, I note Rabbi Joseph Telushkin's response to apologia: if
it wouldn't satisfy a man, it won't satisfy a woman either.

Michael Makovi

From: harveyben...@yahoo.com

1. eisav soneh es yaakov: i have oftern heard that this is a >>
halacha??? q: what does that mean?? that they must hate us??? they have "no
choice" in the matter??? [are they allowed to go agianst the halacha? and
Not hate us???]


>>>>>
 If you look at the original source, it is clear that it is speaking about the historical person named eisav..

She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu

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/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090722/ae45eaa4/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 142
***************************************

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..."