The reactions to Rabbi Weiss allowing a woman to daven kabbalas Shabbos are perhaps typical of the jblogsphere. I saw someone write that he doesn’t know if it’s a halachic problem of kol isha or not, but it’s definitely not Orthodox (maybe more on that in another post), while others offered their own sevaros as to why kol isha is irrelevant without any regard to the sources. I don’t know where the discussion ends, but, like any other halachic issue, I don’t see how the discussion can even begin without looking at the sugya.
The Ba’al haIttur is quoted as saying that a women may not read megillah for men because of kol isha. Were that all there is to say, this would be a very short discussion. I don’t think there is much wiggle room to distinguish between reading megillah and davening kabbalas shabbos.
However, not only do the other major Rishonim not mention a concern of kol isha (in fact, according to Rashi women may read the megillah for men), but there also seems to be an open gemara that proves kol isha is not a problem in this context. Chazal tell us (Meg 23a) that a woman could theoretically get an aliya on Shabbos -- and in the days of Chazal the one who got an aliya would read the parsha – if not for concern for kavod hatzibur (which Rishonim define in different ways and is a separate discussion). If reading megillah or reading the Torah with the trop / tune constituted kol isha, why would the gemara invoke the principle of kavod tzibur and not the categorical issur of kol isha? With a little thought one can even come up with potential nafka minos where kavod hatzibur is not a problem (can a tzibur be mochel their kavod?) but the prohibition of kol isha would remain in force – so why not mention the more encompassing issur?
The reason to exclude Torah reading from the prohibition of kol isha is easy to understand if one assumes that the issur of kol isha is a safeguard to prevent a man from being tempted to immorality by the seductive voice of a woman. The singing of Torah pesukim in the context of davening is unlikely to be the sort of seductive singing that would lead to sin. Along these same lines, the Sdei Chemed quotes the Divrei Cheifetz that singing “zemiros kodesh” is not a problem of kol isha.
In a nutshell, that’s how the battle lines shape up (of course, with more detail and nuance found in the sources). On the one hand: the Ba’al haIttur. On the other hand, a sevara to the contrary rooted in logic advanced by earlier and bolstered by a question from an open gemara against the contrary position. Whether that's enough to convince you is the question.
Again, the same rules that apply to other issues apply here. The discussion starts with the sources, but discretion and good judgment are the final arbiters of what should be done in practice.
What support does the Ba’al haIttur offer for his position?
ReplyDeleteDo you mean does he bring a gemara to prove that the din of megillah it is based on kol isha? No, it's his sevara.
ReplyDeletewow, he matirs zemiros from women? is that the accepted approach? confused...
ReplyDeleteSuch was the minhag in Ashkenaz. For the most famous source of that statement, see Sridei Eish (old print, Chelek Daled Siman 77)
DeleteThose who like to permit kol isha often invoke the Seridei Eish but his teshuva on the subject is quite clear: women can sing as part of a group of people singing zemiros (and one might presume tefillos) together. The context of his teshuva is also important: he was asked about a youth group in France that, from his description, sounds like a NCSY type of group. The fear was that if a woman whose ties to Judaism aren't that strong to beging with is told she must keep silent when the men are singing it will turn her off from Judaism and this is more important to avoid.
ReplyDeleteFrom the various other teshuvos, it seems a lone woman singing a tune is problematic. The question then is whether tefillos are different. From the Seridei Eish's teshuva it would suggest that it's not otherwise he would have permitted it based on that, not other reasons.
As for the Torah reading, who says the women would have lained with trop? They might have been asked to simply read the text.
>>> The singing of Torah pesukim in the context of davening is unlikely to be the sort of seductive singing that would lead to sin
ReplyDeleteI don't know how you get to this idea from the othe Rishonim. One could be mechaleik between trop and singing during davening. Of course you can then be mechaleik between types of singing. L'mashel, chanting kedusha or keil adon teh way it is done in some yeshivos is not the same as a Carlebach style kabbala shabbos.
>but discretion and good judgment are the final arbiters of what should be done in practice.
Why only discretion and judgement? What happeend to mesorah? And whose judgement? Is Avi Weiss' judgement equal to Rav Shachter's judgement? Are all judgements created equal?
>>>is that the accepted approach?
ReplyDeleteDepends who you ask, like everything else.
>>>As for the Torah reading, who says the women would have lained with trop?
Certainly possible -- question is whether it is plausible. When the gemara says "oleh l'minyan shiva" by kri'as hatorah it sounds like she is just like anyone else reading.
>>>From the Seridei Eish's teshuva it would suggest that it's not
The Sridei Eish I believe quotes the Sdei Chemed I referred to. He is metzref the additional factor of trei kolei lo mishtama'ei which does not apply in the case of a lone woman, but whether or not that is a make-or-break, I'm not sure. Other factors you may want to weigh: 1) is the nusach of davening a song? 2) does the fact that tefilah takes place in a shul mitigate the chashah hirhur?
All these issues are debated by poskim.
>>>I don't know how you get to this idea from the othe Rishonim.
ReplyDeleteBecause if they don't take kol isha to be an issue, you need to offer some explanation of why. I'm just piggybacking on the Sdei Chemed. All your chilukim are good, but first you need to prove that not every kol is assur -- that's what I was trying to do. Then you can get into the fuzzy question of where to draw the line.
>>>What happeend to mesorah?
Whose mesorah? In German communities women sing zemiros at the Shabbos table; in Chassidic communities not. Is the mesorah in Riverdale the same as the mesorah in Passaic?
Does mesorah mean any change of the status quo is prohibited, irrespective of the sources? So, for example, something like introducing electricity (for use during the week) in a shul, which Rabbi Sperber quotes the Chofetz Chaim as disapproving of because 'chadash asur min hatorah,' is a violation of mesorah because all shuls built in the 1800's did not have electricity? We have an anti-electricity mesorah?
>>>Is Avi Weiss' judgement equal to Rav Shachter's judgement? Are all judgements created equal?
ReplyDeleteWho am I to judge ; )
Rav Ovadiah Yosef has repeated paskened that kol isha is not an issue. I am not at home, so I can't give any exact references, but see here note 27 for a discussion of this question and citations of relevant sources.
ReplyDelete>>>Because if they don't take kol isha to be an issue, you need to offer some explanation of why. I'm just piggybacking on the Sdei Chemed.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the Sdei Chemed. On teh surface, I don't see the Roshonim in Megilla and Sdei Chemed coming from the same angle. All you see from the Rishonim in Megilla is that kol isha is not a problem by trop. The Sdei Chemed seems to be taking it a step further and applying it to zemiros. Where does he get it from. You are implyng the Rishonim and Sdei Chemed are the same. On this perat I disagree.
>>>Is Avi Weiss' judgement equal to Rav Shachter's judgement? Are all judgements created equal?
>>Who am I to judge ; )
That's a cop out. At some point you need to say Rabbi X crossed a line.
Your equation of electricity to a woman davening for the amud is ridiculous. Electricity did not exist 100-200 years ago. As far as I can tell, women did exist 100-200 years ago and people davened kabbalas shabbos in shul 100-200 years ago. DO we ever find that a woman got up to daven kabbalas shabbos?
If you were a Rav in a shul and your ba'alei batim said we really want to have a woman daven kabbalas shabbos, what would you tell them and why?
Chaim B. said...
ReplyDelete"Do you mean does he bring a gemara to prove that the din of megillah it is based on kol isha? No, it's his sevara."
No, I mean does he bring any support. Explaining one's sevara is also support.
The discussion here is good and important, but in practice, the issue seems simple, IMO. I think that many(most?) men would be distracted by a woman baal tefilah(one can take a survey in each schul, perhaps :) )
ReplyDeleteI've also seen some say that Kabbolas Shabbos issue is typical of some of the Left's approach to halacha; pick an agenda, and then dig up a sources for it, while ignoring any meta-halachic concerns. There were even some complaints in HIR, as reported in the Jewish Week, that the members weren't consulted on the issue.
On the other hand, I have no problem with your appproach, and appreciate your bringing the sources, as such a source-grounded discussion is important as well.
OK, so the Sdei Chemed stands on its own if that makes you happy. I would lump nusach together with trop anyway.
ReplyDelete>>>As far as I can tell, women did exist 100-200 years ago and people davened kabbalas shabbos in shul 100-200 years ago.
Women for the most part were uneducated and did not attend shul. Women also existed 200 years ago without any formal Jewish education. How could the Chofetz Chaim permit Beis Ya'akov? How could the Rav have taught them Torah sheBa'al Peh when it was never done before?
>>>At some point you need to say Rabbi X crossed a line.
Why is it necessary to judge others' actions? If you don't like it, don't daven in his shul. You don't need to stand outside and hurl verbal stones.
I don't like hypotheticals, so I'll skip the last question, which you know the answer to anyway.
>> I would lump nusach together with trop anyway
ReplyDeleteNusach maybe but not singing or chazzunus (although chazzunus I could hear both sides)
>How could the Chofetz Chaim permit Beis Ya'akov? How could the Rav have taught them Torah sheBa'al Peh when it was never done before?
Last I checked Avi Wiess is not the Chofetz Chaim or the Rav
>>I don't like hypotheticals, so I'll skip the last question, which you know the answer to anyway
I don't know. You alway sseem to surprise me. :)
>>>No, I mean does he bring any support. Explaining one's sevara is also support.
ReplyDeleteWhat I quoted is about it. The Ittur is cited by the Orchos Chaim and the Kol Bo, but is actually not in the Ba'al haIttur itself.
>>>I think that many(most?) men would be distracted by a woman baal tefilah
You would have to control to see if they were distracted by the newness of it or the voice. In any case, that type of concern -- not introducing something new because the distraction would offset any other gain -- is what I mean by showing good judgment.
>>>an agenda, and then dig up a sources for it
I hope my post does not suggest that! The only agenda should be how best to be mekayeim ratzon Hashem.
One other point in response to a few of the comments: as I wrote, this is where I think the discussion should start, not where it ends. Now that we have some sources you can say chilukim, see what poskim say about similar cases, and think about what works practically. My point is l'afukei either accepting or rejecting what is being done based on some vague notion about what "orthodoxy" is or isn't that has nothing to do with halacha.
I wasn't referring to you about an "agenda", rather what's been quoted elsewhere about the Left and these issues :)
ReplyDeleteActually, there is an approach of, davka, not quoting sources, which might be sometimes appropriate, but most of the times I like to see the sources.
See(speaking of sources *about* not quoting sources) RYBS response to Ben Gurion, as quoted by R. Feitman.
http://serandez.blogspot.com/2009/03/r-feitman-on-yoatzot-halacha-second.html
back to zemiros for a second...
ReplyDeleteis the divrei chefetz alone on this? is there a long list of osrim?
why do no women in the frum community (or whatever politically correct term that should be used) sing at the table?
clarify...
In a time when when the concept of kol kvuda is, even among yeshivaleit, mostly a quaint irrelevancy, when what used to be considered terrible pritzus is practically tzanuah, when more children are born out of wedlock than in, when kids who think of themselves as Orthodox have to decide whether they choose to be "Shomer Negiah", is this the right time to institute female baalei tefilla for kabalas shabbos?
ReplyDeleteThere's Kiddushin 12b where Rav gave malkos, perhaps even worse, for what was technically muttar, and Sanhedrin 46a for a similar story and also the story of a guy riding a horse on Shabbos getting a lesson he would never forget, and there's BB 91b where R Yochanan told of an innocent time when boys and girls of sixteen and seventeen would play in the market.
So how about our days? Is it the time for reliance on minority shittos lekula, or is it a time for syagim and harchakos? I don't understand the issue. Maybe AW has issues and needs in his community that require crazy kulos, like R Shimon's Muttav she'yechallelu in Yoma 85 or Rebbi's eis la'asos. Fine. But don't act like it's not a terrible avleh and a krumkeit.
wow barzilai that was very well said. im with you 100 percent. awesome. keep it up.
ReplyDeletei think your statements belong as well in a post here a few weeks ago about trying to find the problem with appointing a woman in a position and many attempted to find what the problem is. your words hit the core of the problem precisely.
Crazy kulos, sounds like it would be a good title. What I find quaint, or rather somewhat absurd, is that tznius gets waved to keep women from greater religious involvement, while no one cares about the women who walk into Orthodox shuls in short dress that reveal all of their arms. That doesn't seem to bother people too much because tznius in dress is only preached to those who are already in the camp that officially espouses it.
ReplyDeleteYou're right: Krazy Kulos.
ReplyDeleteTznius sure is a minefield. I mentioned at the table that burkas are called "re'alot" in Israel. My son laughed and said that it comes from a passuk in Yeshaya 3:19. Amazingly, Rashi there says that they used to wear the burkas davka to ignite ta'ava in the men- "so they should be inflamed with a desire to see their faces."
And worse- some women rail about how tznius is not about avoiding inflaming men's desires, but rather because of kol kvuda, like the famously demure Queen Elizabeth getting out of cars carefully. Some find ways to be technically tzanuah but actually the opposite. So if you want to talk about tznius, you're dead in the water- unless, as you say, you're just preaching to the choir about how OTHER people should be tzanuah.
>>>why do no women in the frum community sing at the table?
ReplyDeleteLoaded question -- are all those who do sing not frum? Yekke women sing; R' Hirsch was matir long before modern orthodoxy came on the scene.
>>>Is it the time for reliance on minority shittos lekula, or is it a time for syagim and harchakos?
I'm with you 100%, but wonder why there is not equal rancor directed towards those shules that turn a blind eye to the women who show up with tight skirts and Shabbos makeup (a pretty tenuous kula), who wear long sheitels but would never think of starting their own zimun or even davening more than a bakasha lest they be perceived as feminists, clearly a far worse fate than being perceived as a zonah (ha'levei they should even be perceived as such -- in many places what I am describing passes for normal.) Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds like mine.
Despite the hard-line chumra approach taken by books like "Oz v'Hadar Levusha," the standards continue to fall even in the yeshiva world. The issue is real, but I doubt that throwing a tzniyusly clad woman who wants to say kabbalas shabbos off the bimah or branding the synagogue she worships in as Conservadox is the best or only answer to the problem.
I like to give the benefit of the doubt, but I would be disingenuous if I did not say I thought there was an agenda in play for some (many?) on the left. By the same token, I would be disingenuous if I did not say I think many on the right crying tzniyus only when women are granted more authority and not at other times also have an agenda outside the professed concern for modesty.
It's a tough question: when does tznius become a means of repression? I agree that it sometimes does, but drawing the line is extremely difficult.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, my wife hates the Wizard of Oz Ve'Hadar. Thinks he ought to be strung up for driving people away from normalcy and for engendering (good word for the topic) feelings of guilt.
agreed. ban the tight skirts. what is it-do women now feel more the need to look good in public then before?
ReplyDelete"By the same token, I would be disingenuous if I did not say I think many on the right crying tzniyus only when women are granted more authority and not at other times also have an agenda outside the professed concern for modesty."
ReplyDeleteI think some are consistent. In the charedi world, there is certainly a sustained effort towards tzniyus. Whether it's totally effective, is one thing, but they are certainly consistent.
I'm not familiar with the Centrist world, but RMW recently wrote about Tzniyus on Torah Web(see link).
http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2010/parsha/rwil_bamidbar.html
I recently re-posted a piece on tznius that offered the translation for the tznius standards that were left in Hebrew in an English book. See http://kallahmagazine.blogspot.com/2010/08/tznius-legacy-not-fit-for-translation.html
ReplyDeleteI want to analyze what Anonymous said, " agreed. ban the tight skirts. what is it-do women now feel more the need to look good in public then before?" If you note what your own language, you've come up with the answer. Women believe that they have to look good. If tight skirts are how they learn define looking good, they want the tight skirts. On top of that they feel deprived that other clothes that are considered necessary to looking good are verboten in their circles. So they try to approximate as best they can, hence, the tank tops worn over shells that almost every woman was sporting this past season. Another fashion oddity of the frum woman is the mini-dress worn over another skirt to give more coverage; sometimes that skirt still does not cover the knee, though it would be a standard length in the world-at-large.
ReplyDeleteFor women for whom the highest imperative is "looking good," tznius is a major struggle. That is why the representative of the new seminary opening in the area could report with no sense of the absurd that tznius is the #1 struggle for young women today. She herself had included as her definition of the aspirations for the graduate to correspond to that of the Eshes Chayil, among whose virtues she included being "well-dressed."
For myself tznius is not at the forefront of everything; it is a halacha that must be observed, just like all the others. I don't see that defining a woman's entire existence on the basis of tznius is a positive thing. The sad thing is that those who swallow the Kool-Aid maintain that if The Oz Wizard says that "What Torah does for a man, tznius does for a woman," it is absolutely true. I heard one young woman say, "He must have gotten it from the Gemara." Ah, so we come to why men want to keep the Gemara out of women's reach. You can then tell them anything, and they'll have to accept it if you say it is from the Gemara. They would never be the wiser.
"I don't see that defining a woman's entire existence on the basis of tznius is a positive thing."
ReplyDeleteThe approach may work for some, and not for others. It's based on a letter of the Gra, which says that "tzniyus is a woman's k'neged kulam, like Torah for a man"(I recall hearing that there are two version of the letter which give a different meaning).
But the point is not whether the Gra said it, but whether it's motivating. I don't see what's wrong with saying that tzniyus is a sine qua non, for a man, and more so for a woman(RHS made a perhaps lesser distinction than what's quoted from the Gra based on the idea of "Kel Mistater"), but saying that's it's a woman's "k'neged kulam" is perhaps a matter of hashkafa.
I'm not passeling such a hashkfa, but if it's not motivating for some(for some it apparently is), I wonder why it's necessary?
Chaim B said:
ReplyDelete"I'm with you 100%, but wonder why there is not equal rancor directed towards those shules that turn a blind eye to the women who show up with tight skirts and Shabbos makeup (a pretty tenuous kula), who wear long sheitels but would never think of starting their own zimun or even davening more than a bakasha lest they be perceived as feminists, clearly a far worse fate than being perceived as a zonah (ha'levei they should even be perceived as such -- in many places what I am describing passes for normal.) Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds like mine. "
Well, let's see. You are talking about something people do for themselves personally. This day and age we do not force people to do what we want. I can not go over to a woman who calls herself orthodox and throw a tznius skirt on her. However, Rabbis, like AW, can choose not to have female baalei tefila. Get the difference?
Rabbi AW feels he is right -- why should he speak out or choose to act differently? The question is why Rabbis in other communities feel no qualms about voicing an opinion about what is done in Riverdale but seem to lack the courage to say boo about much that goes on in their own backyard. We can't coerce people, but that doesn't mean we should sit back in passive acquiecense to the status quo.
ReplyDelete@Shadesof, I really find it hard to believe that the GRA said that. It is dangerous to extrapolate a sweeping generalization of anything being keneged kulam other than what Chazal said explicitly. In any case, think about it, many religious groups (Muslims, LDS, Mennonites, etc) call for modesty in dress, would you say that, but their religious outlook differs from ours. So, clearly, tznius cannot be equated with Torah.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, it doesn't make sense that it would have been made into such a big issue back in the 18th Century. The reason people make such an issue of it now is because it clashes with prevailing styles of dress, and women who want to be in fashion find themselves conflicted.
The more I think of it, the more preposterous it grows. Being extra makpid on tznius alone will not make you a better person all around. For example, last year, I partnered with a mother of my daughter's classmate to carpool to the camp. This mother was always late, double-bucked the kids in a car (even though she had a mini-van), didn't bother to call to tell me if her kids were not coming to camp, took it for granted that she could always drive the morning route that was more convenient for her even when I called her in advance to switch it, didn't bother to return my calls because she said her phone wasn't working properly, and just left me high and dry on the last day because she had decided her kids wouldn't be coming in then -- again no prior call about it. But she dressed in a perfectly tzanua manner and would have considered herself one of the frumest in the class. Contrast to this summer: I am carpooling with women who are less to the right and who don't dress in as yeshivish a style. Their girls go to a Hebrew Academy. But their middos, consideration, and sense of responsibility are a thousand times better. Let's put it this way: I'd much rather deal with MO leaning people who may leave out more hair than I would than the RWingers who couldn't care less about how their actions affect others.
ReplyDeleteSomeone here, I won't say who, needs to take a deep breath and purge that anger. Count to ten while inhaling, hold it in for ten, and slowly exhale. Feel better? It works for me. If not, I use a similar air-related tension reliever. I let the air out of one of their tires, tell myself it has a din of hezek she'eino nikkar, and leave a note that's sufficiently clear to get the message across, but sufficiently ambiguous so that I don't implicate myself.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, the lesson I learned from hard-earned experience is to never say "there's no such Chazal" or "there's no such minhag." Good luck out there on your limb.
Ariella wrote above, "I'd much rather deal with MO leaning people who may leave out more hair than I would than the RWingers who couldn't care less about how their actions affect others."
ReplyDeleteDon't we understand that observance is a complete package? Tznius and Mentschlichkeit are not mutually exclusive; they're both mandatory. We shouldn't be reduced to saying that one group's pet aveirah is more OK than another's. Better that we should all correct ourselves as needed.
B., the yesurim of carpooling with people such as the woman I described should effect a great number of kaporos, so there, certainly, is an upside that would be lost by taking revenge.
ReplyDeleteI am puzzled by what you say in the second paragraph. Great as the GRA was, he does not count as Chazal. That is a simple fact. And we have yet to establish his exact words and exact context, other than the fact that it had to be in the 18th Century in Eastern Europe. My feet are planted firmly on the ground of reality.
The Gemara actually says a lot about women, including "ayn chachmata ela bapelach," though, that, too, has a context and was intended as a descriptive rather than prescriptive statement.
RAM, you miss my point, which was that tznius, clearly, is not the be-all-and-end-all for women. A woman who can consider herself perfectly tzniusdik may still need a lot of improvement in her middos. My example illustrates my point that telling women that all they have to concentrate on is tznius, and, moreover, that it is as effective for them as Torah learning is for a man in theory is patently false in practice.
ReplyDeleteDon't think of it as revenge. Think of it as free mussar.
ReplyDeleteChazal, of course, refers to tanaim and amoraim. But in my opinion, if the Gaon says it, it's canon. Not necessarily that I would have to follow it, but that it is eilu ve'eilu. And you're gambling in the dark if you bet that Chazal do or don't say something. A n y t h i n g is possible on Torah Avenue.
Rabosai, doesn't anyone have an Iggeres haGR"A to check what it says?
ReplyDeleteI don't have seforim with me, but a quick google search gave me the Iggeres in English and no such line that tzniyus = talmud Torah appears.
The people who do make this equation (again, google) seem to derive it from the last paragraph of the Iggeres, where the GR"A writes to his mother:
אהובתי אמי, ידעתי שאינך צריכה למוסר שלי כי ידעתי כי צנועה את
They infer from here that if you have tzniyus you don't need the rest of the Iggeres, meaning the exhortations to talmud torah, yiras shamayim, learning mussar, etc. If you have tzniyus you have it all already.
B'mechilas kvodam of those who read the Iggeres this way, I don't think it makes any sense. What the Iggeres means is that tzniyus, here referring to modesty as a character trait (I don't even see how you can have a hava amina that the GR"A was talking about his mother's skirt length), is indicative of already possessing other fine character traits, hence additional musar is superfluous. You don't need to remind a modest person not to speak lashon hara, not to aimlessly wander the marketplace, etc.
Also, don't forget the context. This is not a line of gemara or a pasuk - it's a letter and the GR"A is addressing his mother.
Ariella,
ReplyDeleteI have not detected anyone "telling women that all they have to concentrate on is tznius", only that it's very important, as it is. Necessary, but clearly not sufficient.
RAM, those who preach "what Torah does for a man, tznius does for a woman," which you will find quoted in a number of RW publications, focus on tznius above all things. And I can tell you as someone who came through BY and has girls enrolled in a school of that sort that it gets the most emphasis as THE definitive quality of a BY girl.
ReplyDeleteAs Chaim points out, the middah of tznius, as in the goal of hatzneh leches urged by Malachi goes far beyond a preoccupation with one's style of dress.
"B'mechilas kvodam of those who read the Iggeres this way, I don't think it makes any sense."
ReplyDelete"Shadesof, I really find it hard to believe that the GRA said that"
My source is a tape of R. Shmuel Kametesky, shlita, speaking at the men's tzniyus gathering at Lakewood; I belive he said that there were two different nusch'chaos in the Gra's letter(which might make a significant difference), but my memory may be off.
The issues which may bother people, are as follows:
(1) Even for men, the "kneged kulam" of Torah may be over-emphasized. There are 612 Mitzvos as well, 48 way to acquire Torah, etc.
(2) I question whether this may be seen by some as, in a way, objectifying women. If a women's raison d'etre(rather than sine qua non) is tzniyus, is that not ultimately reduceable, to the nature of body, ie, attracting male attention, while a man's sine qua non is Torah, ie, the mind?
Even if we say that tzniyus is a middah of the neshamah for men and for women(which it is), and assert that, Kabbalistically, women are different on the neshama level, still, on a simple level, tzniyus also relates to the body, and thus, some(not everyone) may feel the "k'neged kulam" is objectifying.
Ultimately, if is not motivating for some, why make the Gra into a hashkafah, and thus, tzniyus might be perceived by some as a separate religion?
(3) A separate subject, which I've argued on a different blog, is that for some demographics, (eg, teenagers of both genders), one might need to deal more with personal feelings(not necessarily the same as mussar, though those such as Alei Shur deal with both; again, a separate subject) in terms of developmental issues(eg, other-gender attraction). I wonder if the tzniyus movement(which is certainly good, to an extent) deals with any of the latter, and if not, this could be what is holding back some younger people.
Barzilai, with all due respect, you really are grasping at straws there. There is a clear category for Chazal that ended at a distinct point. The GRA is not in that category, which is not to diminish his stature but to stick to facts that delineate our mesorah. I never said that no one says such a thing but that the girl was quite wrong in assuming that what R' Falk says came directly from the Gemara. That I am correct about that and her assumption was based on a naive ignorance is an indisputable fact.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, as Chaim pointed out, the only context he could find did not really say what people want it to say. I am very medakdek about paraphrases that misrepresent the meaning of the original quote. (I recently beat up someone on just such a point in misrepresenting the findings of Nature magazine.)
>>>there were two different nusch'chaos in the Gra's letter
ReplyDeleteRabbi Falk in "Oz v'Hadar Levusha" p. 38 quotes an alternate text of the letter which was discovered that contains the words (regarding the yetzer ha'ra), "Tavlin she'lo l'zecharim eisek hatorah, ul'nekeivos ha'tzeniyus." I'm guessing that is what you are thinking of.
Were everything else the GR"A actually did write in the Iggeres taken as gospel the way this non-existent line is, I have no doubt the world would be a much better place.
"Tavlin she'lo l'zecharim eisek hatorah, ul'nekeivos ha'tzeniyus."
ReplyDeleteThat's what I recall, and I think it is more palatable. Ultimately, women's Torah might be different that men's, and as far as the yetzer hara, one might say that women don't have the same style of Torah, even if Yeshivat Maharat gets off the ground :) ; RY Salanter discusses two aspects of Torah-- segulah vs actual halachos of a particular topic-- both which might be more appplicable to women, though apparently not enough according to the Gra to be a complete protection.
Another source I recall R. Kamenetesky mentioning is the Midrash re Shlomo Hamelech telling boys from girls by the way they picked up a certain food(I forget the details of the Midrash). I think his point was that tzniyus is inborn to women from a young age.
As I said in the above comment, I can understand that men and woman's natures are different from a young age , as was the point of the Midrash. But the version of the Gra of k'neged kulam, ie, raison detre, is a step further than the Midrash.
"Were everything else the GR"A actually did write in the Iggeres taken as gospel the way this non-existent line is, I have no doubt the world would be a much better place."
Indeed :)
Just to follow up, the entire quote has become distorted and pulled out of context. For example, this (http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2010/02/book-review-6-diaries.html) review of "Six Diaries -- Six Teens Take a Look at Tznius" quotes the following dialogue from the book --
ReplyDelete"The Vilna Gaon says that what Torah is to a man, tznius is to a woman. The girls were unimpressed. I wasn't worried, and continued developing this thought. This means, I told them, that if Torah is the fuel that feeds the man's neshamah, then tznius is the fuel that feeds the woman's neshamah."
Tavlin is not the fuel that feeds the neshoma. Yet, this is what is being passed off as Truth in our girls' schools.
Just google around and you can find other examples.
I think what Ariella finds so disconcerting is that for those (myself included) who do consider the GR"A to be canonical, for those whom Sha'ar 4 of Nefesh haChaim is close to heart, talmud Torah is not just another mitzvah, but it is the raison d'etra of all mitzvos. It is the framework without which all else lacks meaning; it defines one's purpose and one's identity. And R' Chaim Volozhiner brings mekoros to back up his intellectual elitism. Aside from the pontifications of a few contemporary authors I don't know of sources that would lead you to think of tzniyus in the same way.
I commented the same on the "Curious Jew" post re the Gra, as I did above.
ReplyDeleteThere is also a recent shiur on Torah Web from R. Willig titled "You're Looking for WHAT!" . He says that he gives both boys and girls the same advice as to what to look for in a spouse: "tzniyus and chesed".
Here's someone quoting the Gr'a- Reb Yakov Sofer, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva Kaf Hachaim.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=13044&hilite=2a4b1da3-fa61-4232-8e40-a22a0cc324b3&st=%D7%9C%D7%96%D7%9B%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D+%D7%A2%D7%A1%D7%A7
The way he uses it is very simple, that for women, tznius achieves the goal that for men learning mussar does, whatever that may be. Only an old style Navardoker would say that learning mussar is the tachlis for which we were created.
Your link brings me to the title page of some Stoliner journal -- where's the quote?
ReplyDeletePretty lame equation you are making. I'm disappointed. The GR"A was not an old time Navardoker -- just look at what his talmid R' Chaim writes about the tavlin of musar in Nefesh haChaim. Necessary in small doses, but not the essence of what we live for.
I think you are going to have to admit to Ariella that the equation "tzniyus k'neged kulam" is neither found in Chazal nor GR"A until some of contemporary authors decided to put the words in the GR"A's mouth.
Sorry about the link. It's on page 124 of that journal.
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean that the Gaon was a Novardoker. No no no no. What I meant was that even postulating the equation of women-tzniyus/men-mussar, it only means that tzniyus is like mussar, and mussar is just mussar.
ReplyDeleteBut as far as admitting anything, I would like to, and she's probably right. But I've been bushwhacked with obscure and odd Chazals too many times to be confident as to what's there, kal vachomer what's not.
But if you'd like to make it interesting, I'd be willing to make a wager. Say three to two; she pays two if it's there, I pay three if it's not. I'm giving you good odds here, since she's probably right, and I'm sure you trust Ariella's good judgment, hmmm???
Thanks for the page. same stuff as quoted earlier in the comments.
ReplyDeleteKind of makes you wonder, though, if the GR"A said his mother was tzanu'a and therefore didn't need his musar, what did he think of his wife to whom much of the Iggeres is directed to? And if tzniyus here means (as some take it) proper dress, does that mean Mrs. GR"A had a too low hemline? I find it hard to believe...
As for your wager, I'll let Ariella reply, but I don't see how you can prove a quote doesn't exist. As to proving it does, you can theoretically search for it forever without ever saying mercy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI only said, categorically, that it does not exist in the Gemara. I also said I had my doubts about the GRA making that wholesale equation of tznius keneged kulam, as well.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, as I believe in checking what sources say rather than speculating on them as possibilities, I did crack open the Wizard of Oz's tome (we got it from a neighbor who thought it was not for her) to the pages that Chaim told me was missing from the text available online.
On p. 36, Falk begins a section C. entitled "What Torah Does for men, tznius does for women."
1.Tznius is an antidote to theyetzer horah. On p. 37, he says, "a woman, whose function is to establish and manage a home and family, does not have Torah learning to counteract her yetzer horah." He goes on to claim the power of tznius is such that "when kept properly is all encompassing. It gives so much kedusha and strength to the woman that she is capable of outwitting the yetzer horah and withstanding its relentless pressure. "
On p. 37 he refers to the GRA and quotes the same close to the letter to his mother that Chaim quoted above, "My dear mother, I know that you do not rquire my mussar, for I am aware that you ara a tzanua." It is Falk's own huge leap of logic that brings him to conclude from that phrase alone, " He was convinced, that just as being steeped in Torah enables a man to combat his 'lower self', so too, being steeped in tznius enables a woman to be victorious in the same way."
It is proven, thus, that the GRA never said what people say he did, and that people confuse what Falk argues for with what the GRA actually said.
He does have a bit more to hang his hat on when quoting the Chazon Ish, but that relies on a secondary source:
Falk p.42: "It is appropriate in this context to quote from the life story of Rebbetzin Karelitz a.h. the mother of Hagaon Harav Nissim Karelitz shlita ('Silence is Thy Praise' p. 106)
"'How much the Chazon Ish valued the modesty of a Jewish woman as perhaps best evident in the response he once gave when asked, 'What can a young lady do to match the merit of young man's learning?'
"'Let her work on her tznius!' he answered."
Even that, though, does not exactly equate the effectiveness of tznius with that of Torah but merely suggests it as something women could occupy themselves with. I wonder a bit at this, though, because Chazal clearly said that women earn Olam Haba through the Torah learning of their husbands and sons -- not through their tznius. Perhaps this was a suggestion for a woman who was unmarried and childless.
So what do we win, Barzilai?
Watch your mail next week.
ReplyDeleteTo look at this from another standpoint:
ReplyDeleteDoes any Torah authority claim that 100% tznius EXEMPTS its possessor from any other Torah obligation that person would otherwise have?
For example, Would practicing chessed become optional? Would being a proper parent or spouse become optional? Loving all Jews? Saying berachos?
RAM I doubt that they say that. But Falk's argument clearly is that EVERYTHING will follow if a woman focuses on her tznius, as I quoted above. As I said, I know the RW educational emphasis on tznius for girls, and it is not a wholly positive thing. Generally, it is pushed as something that makes our groups -- that is BY girls -- better than the other group --MO girls. The standard of dress becomes a core part of the group identity. While I comply with the standards, I don't regard them as the be-all-and-end-all of Jewessness (that's deliberate).
ReplyDeleteThat question mis-frames the issue. Talmud Torah does not exempt one from other mitzvos. Nonetheless, it is ia categorically different mitzvah from all others. R' Chaim Volozhiner writes (Nefesh haChaim 4:30), "Even if a person were to fulfill all 613 commandments with true perfection as required... nonetheless, there is no comparison at all between the light and holiness of mitzvos and the light and holiness of Torah which manifests itself upon a person who studies it properly."
ReplyDeleteRC"V offers numerous sources in Chazal, Midrash, kabbalah, to support this contention. This is Lithuanian intellectual elitism in its purest form.
The issue is whether tzeniyus really provides this same type of same spiritual uplift, as is claimed by those who misquote the GR"A. That would be a pretty hefty claim to make and would require a solid basis of proof -- which so far seems non-existant. The question you post from "another standpoint" is completely different.
"Nonetheless, it is ia categorically different mitzvah from all others"
ReplyDeleteEven in Torah, "k'neged kulam" can be over-emphasized.
Of course, this has to do with the classic Chasdic-Misnagdic divide as well as the Mussar controversey. Nevertheless, even classic Litvacks will admit that there are 48 ways of acquiring Torah and "yiras Hashem he otzaro" as per Nefesh Hachaim, even if Torah study is viewed as the center of the picture, with everything else only surrounding it.
So too with tzniyus. Even if, for the sake of the argument, one wants to say that Tzniyus plays a somewhat *greater* role in a woman's spirtual existence, there are still other things which are important.
Moreover, I can imagine placing Tzniyus at the *center* can be perceived by some(everyone is different),ironically, as objectifying and even sexualizing. Even if tzniyus is a middah of the neshamah, on this world, it plays out on a level of the here and now, which reduces a woman's role and raison detere to being hidden from men, or to be hidden in the presence of God("hatznea leches") in every which way, than as a person with a brain.
I imagine making the Gra into a hashkafa is used to motivate; but in cases where it's not motivating, I see no reason why not to use a different approach.
Chaim B wrote, "The question you post from 'another standpoint' is completely different."
ReplyDeleteMy question related to Ariella's earlier implication that, to some, tznius is considered women's be-all and end-all (as opposed to a really good, necessary basis). I know of no poskim who have taken a position that extreme.
"Be all and end all" in the sense of identity, much the way T"T defines a man's identity.
ReplyDelete(That T"T fills that roll the way other mitzvos do not is the thrust of the entire last section of Nefesh haChaim).
It's a philosophical question, so looking at what poskim say is barking up the wrong tree.
RAM, outside of psak, the hashkafic extermes to which the pseudo-GR"A is taken are pretty remarkable. Tzniyus in modern parlance means appropriate dress.
ReplyDeleteA R"Y says that tzniyus absolves one from learning mussar (B's mareh makom http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=13044&st=%u05dc%u05d6%u05db%u05e8%u05d9%u05dd+%u05e2%u05e1%u05e7&pgnum=124).
An Orthodox shul dvar Torah explains that when a woman faces temptation like finding "...it hard to say the words of a brocha properly and with clear pronunciation, especially when it comes to the after-brocha “Al Hamichyah” and Bircas Hamazon," the "innoculation" against this yetzer hara is... tznius. It is literally the panacea for all ills. Tznius, "when kept properly, is all encompassing." (http://www.toraschaimdallas.org/2008/10/tznius-is-a-womans-torah/)
Do you really think that, for example, a teenager who wears a longer skirt than her peers has less problems concentrating on her Al haMichya? That she no longer needs the musar of her parents or teachers? And since the GR"A did address musar to his wife in his Iggeres, you mean to say that she did not dress properly?
What the GR"A obviously had in mind was the Navi exhortation of "hatzneya leches," applicable both to men and to women, and referring to refinement of character, not sleeve or skirt length. Unfortunately, that real form of tzniyus is a lost value.
"Be all and end all" in the sense of identity
ReplyDelete??
No, in the sense of just do this.
I dislike the overemphasis on tzniyus, but the kavanah aspect might be able to be defended.
ReplyDeleteI once asked, separately, Litvish and Chasdish rabbonim the question of "how to concentrate in tefilah", and received two different answers.
The Litvishe rav gave practical suggestions, while the Chasidisher rav quoted the Zohar about "one who slays the dragon, gets the kings daughter, which is prayer"; the dragon being, IIRC, the yetzer hara.
The issue as I see it(others, including apparently many women, have no trouble with it), is the way tzniyus is over-emphasized and the prominence given, as a way to motivate people. Yes, tzniyus might bring more kedusha, and therefore help in kavanah as per the Zohar, but there is a limit to how much you emphasize it.
I sometimes wonder if some of the tzniyus hashkafah is being apologetic and getting away from the issue of attraction. Ie, the Ramban in Bershis, IIRC, explains why after the Etz Hadaas bodies needed to be covered, and not before. Therefore, with all of the explanations-- that Tzniyus applies to cats, as I saw in one tzniyus article(and to men) as well, and that "hatzneya leches" is a relationship with Hashem and is about more than covering knees and elbows, if you say it applies to woman more, and emphasize it so much, it *is* about attraction, otherwise why not say the same for men? The next step is that it's a raison d'etre, and if so, that can be perceieved, by some at least, as objectifying woman, that their role in life is not to attract male attention!
If you teach tzniyus in a more balanced way, without trying to "sell" it, you simply say, yes, to an extent it's about not attracting male attention, but more importantly, it's about a relationship with Hashem(which would apply to men, and, perhaps, even to cats !), but there is no need to "market" it, and make it so all-encompassing, and therefore, it's not objectifying.
RAM, what I am saying is that Ariella means that tznius has become not just another mitzvah to keep, but THE mitzvah which is the raison d'etra and identity of a bas yisrael, just as talmud Torah is THE pinnacle of observance for a man, surpassing in value all other mitzvos combined. Shadesof last comment hits the nail on its head regarding the same. It is a philosphical notion, not a halachic one, and I've given you concrete illustrations which I don't think are defensible, unless you would like to surprise me and say they are.
ReplyDeleteJust a minor comment: if tzniyus is primarily to prevent onlookers from having lewd thoughts, then great tzniyus would not make the person any better, it would just make her safe to go outdoors, it might make her safe from arayos related sins. But it wouldn't make her a great person. From the the gaon's words we see tzniyus involves refinement of character, dignity, self-respect. Why these things are so important I don't know, but evidently they are.
ReplyDeleteB, we don't say those qualities are not important -- they are why hatzne leches is mentioned specifically as one of the things Hashem want -- but they apply to all Jews, not only the female population. Rashi also mentions ayn lecha yafe min hatznius in connection to the second luchos, which were given with far less fanfare than the first. The concept is not even limited to human interactions.
ReplyDelete1. As long as refinement is expected of women and not men, a fundamental modern problem is going unsolved. I've seen a lot of coarse behavior, and, believe me, men were often involved.
ReplyDelete2. If rabbonim want to wax philosphical about the total importance of self-restraint, dignity, etc., they need to put this in terms that all Jews can relate to, not only one segment that is being held out as "the problem".
Sources against women singing even for megilah or leading davening or even reading from the Torah:
ReplyDeleteBased on Berakhot 24a. This reason is attributed to R. Isaac ben Aba Mari, Asseret
haDibrot, cited by: R. Meir haMe’ili of Narvonna, Sefer haMe’orot, Megilla 19b; R.
Aaron ben Jacob of Lunel, Orhot Hayyim, Hilkhot Megilla uPurim, sec. 2; Kol Bo,
Megilla 103; R. David ben Levi of Narvonna, Sefer haMikhtam, Megilla 4a. This reason
is also given in Auerbach’s edition of R. Abraham Av Bet-Din, Sefer haEshkol, Hilkhot
Hanukka u-Purim, sec. 9. Various aharonim concur with the stringent view of Asseret
haDibrot, invoking “kol be-isha erva” in regard to the question of women chanting the
Torah or Megilla; see: R. Hayyim Palagi, Ruah Hayyim, O.H., sec. 75, no. 2; R. Hayyim
Palagi, Yefeh Lev, VI, O.H., sec. 282; Resp. Atsei Hayyim, I, sec. 7 (cited in R. Abraham
Yaffe Schlesinger, Resp. Be’er Sarim, sec. 55); R. Shlomo Yosef Elyashiv, cited in R.
Abraham-Sofer Abraham, Nishmat Avraham, V, Y.D., sec. 195, p. 76-77; R. Shlomo
Zalman Auerbach, cited in R. Abraham-Sofer Abraham, Nishmat Avraham, V, Y.D., sec.
195, p. 76-77 – see also Halikhot Shlomo, I, Hilkhot Tefilla, Chap. 20, sec. 11, note 20;
R. Eliezer Waldenberg, Resp. Tsits Eliezer, sec. 36, nos. 2 and 3; R. Nathan Gestetner,
Resp. leHorot Natan, I, E.H., sec. 60 and V, O.H., sec 5; R. Efraim Greenblatt, Resp.
Rivevot Efrayyim, I, sec. 449. See also R. Azriel Hildesheimer, Resp. R. Azriel, O.H., sec.
128.
Allowing continued:
ReplyDeleteRabbeinu Ovadiah Yosef Shelita, I, Gilyon 19, va-Yeira 5756, sec. 2, p. 73. R. Isaac
Yosef, Yalkut Yosef, V, Dinei Keriat Megilla, sec. 12 and notes 19 and 22, and VII, sec.
23, no. 11, end of note 16; R. Isaac Yosef, Yalkut Yosef, Otsar Dinim la-Isha ve-laBat,
sec. 24, no. 6; R. Simeon Hirari, “Kol be-Isha Erva ve-Nashim bi-Keriat Megilla”, Or
Torah, Adar 5731, sec 123, pp. 289-292 and Nisan 5731, sec. 148, pp. 339-343 – see
especially p. 341 s.v. “u-le-Or;” and R. Yehuda Herzl Henkin, Resp. Bnai Vanim, II, sec.
10 and III, sec. 1; Yehuda Herzl Henkin, unpublished responsum to R. Abraham-Sofer
Abraham, 24 Menahem Av 5761 (regarding Nishmat Avraham, V, Y.D., sec. 195, p. 76-
77).
First part of the allowing sources which didn't post:
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, many posekim maintain that the position of the Asseret haDibrot
(Ba’al haIttur) does not reflect normative halakha. More specifically, women chanting
the Torah or Megilla with the appropriate notes (ta’amei ha-mikra) is not included in the
prohibition of kol be-isha erva. See: R. Jacob Hayyim Sofer, Kaf haHayyim, sec. 689,
no. 2; Resp. Divrei Heifets, cited by Sdei Hemed, Klalim, Ma’arekhet kuf, klal 42; R.
Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, Resp. Seridei Eish, II, sec. 8; R. Nahum Tsvi Kornmehl, Resp.
Tiferet Tsvi, II, sec. 7; R. Samuel haLevi Wosner, Resp. Shevet haLevi, III, sec. 14 – who
indicates that most rishonim are lenient by keriah de-mitsvah; R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yehave
Da’at, III, sec. 51, note, and IV, sec. 15, end of note; R. Ovadiah Yosef, Resp. Yabia
Omer, VIII, O.H., sec. 22, no. 10 and IX, O.H., sec. 98, no. 9, and sec. 108, no. 74; R.
And second part of allowing sources:
ReplyDeleteOvadiah Yosef, Me’or Yisrael, I, Megilla 4a, s.v. “beTosfot d”h Nashim,” p. 251, and
Megilla 23a, s.v. “Tanu Rabbanan, haKol,” p. 279; R. Ovadiah Yosef, Halikhot Olam, II,
Ekev, sec. 2, note 2, p. 74; R. Ovadiah Yosef, MeShiurei Maran haRishon leTsiyyon,
16