Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Understanding Tzniut by Rav Y Henkin - review in JPost

JPost   Understanding Tzniut: Modern Controversies in the Jewish Community, written by Yehuda Henkin, former rabbi of the Beit She'an Valley and author of the Bnei Banim compilation of halachic responsa, provides a framework for understanding religious communities' attempts to bundle up, segregate and generally desexualize the public sphere. The book, a series of articles published previously in modern Orthodox journals of Jewish law such as Tradition and Hakirah lacks a single cohesive theme. It even includes chapters that have nothing whatsoever to do with tzniut (roughly translated as modest and chaste behavior and dress), such as one titled "After Gush Katif: May One Oppose Israel's Government?" and "A Memorial Day for European Jewry - Did its Rabbis Err?" But the bulk of the book is a discussion of Jewish legal sources dealing with women's dress codes and the mingling of the sexes and how they are implemented by contemporary halachic authorities. Henkin might get too technical and bogged down by the intricacies of Jewish law for the taste of the general reader. But it is precisely here, amid the legalistic nitty-gritty of the centuries-old halachic discourse among rabbis, where Henkin stages his argument against extreme trends in Orthodoxy. His most central argument against the religious community's obsessive preoccupation with tzniut is habituation. Quoting extensive halachic sources, Henkin shows that sexual arousal is culturally dependent. Centuries ago the rabbis understood that in cultures that condoned the free mingling of the sexes, dress codes and strictures against socializing with the opposite sex could be loosened. "Where women walk around in halter tops or less, a short sleeved blouse is minimally provocative and when pornography is rampant, viewing a woman's face is not titillating." Henkin never explains why this is so. Perhaps it is a type of conditioning. If a man is bombarded with sexuality, he gradually loses his sensitivity. His threshold rises. He becomes numbed. Another possibility is that in cultures where speaking with a woman, shaking her hand, seeing her hair is the norm there is no reason to read into these encounters a sexual connotation. The range of platonic relations between men and women widens. Women's dress or behavior is not given a lascivious interpretation by men. Whatever the reason, rabbis have cited habituation as a justification for permitting a number of practices which some halachic sources prohibit. For instance walking behind a woman, inquiring about a married woman's welfare, mixed seating at weddings and being exposed to women's hair during prayer. For Henkin, habituation is a force for potential leniencies in Judaism. In communities and cultures where men and women mingle freely, certain strictures can be abandoned. He is careful to point out that it is forbidden to introduce the mingling of the sexes in communities where it does not already exist. Rather Halacha can only legitimize an existing practice. But Henkin never fully examines the possibility of how habituation could work in the opposite direction to introduce ever more stringent behavior - a phenomenon that exists today.

32 comments :

  1. are't married men allowed to do certain things that single ones can't. it's the same logic... by the way isn't r' henkin the grandson of the gadol and posek who headed esras torah for many years

    ReplyDelete
  2. "are't married men allowed to do certain things that single ones can't."

    Like what? Other than "certain things" with their husbands, I cannot think of any offhand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. check out orach chaim siman 3 seif 14 and mishan berurah 27

      Delete
  3. Married men have husbands?

    ReplyDelete
  4. This younger R. Henkin has a "teshuva" on mixed dancing, see what he allows and decide if this is a person you want to quote. Or the funniest "teshuvah" he has is about - and I promise I am not making this up - whether you are permitted (yes, permitted!) to say "Zatzal" on the Satmar Rebbe ztv'l, or is it prohibited to say Zatzal on him, since Zatzal would imply that he was a Tzadik. I am not kidding. He really has a lengthy discussion about this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He allows woman to dance in front of men (Bnei Banim, vol. 1 no. 37 part 9.) because Henkin believes (this unbelievably is a direct quote) "since the men don't look anyways."

      He isn't taken seriously and is an embarrassment to his illustrious grandfather. (His father is Dr. Hillel Henkin.)

      Delete
    2. Ben Torah,

      Would you be as equally amused by a teshuva discussing whether or not to add Zatzal after Rav Kook's name?

      Whether or not the Satmar Rebbe was a tzaddik is a serious question and one can come down on either side. Lets remember that he encouraged his followers NOT to escape Hungary assuring them that things would be OK. From a Mizrachi standpoint, the question of his tzidkus is not poshut.

      Abe,
      You are partially correct. In some circles, he is not taken seriously. But in his circles, your gedolim are not taken seriously.

      Delete

    3. He has a very long discussion of dancing in the teshuva. I didn't see where he said what you claims he said.Please tell me exactly where he says it. I didn't have time to read the whole teshuva But rather he said the following. .

      http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20021&st=&pgnum=128

      על כל פנים מבואר בהרבה מקומות שרקודים אינם
      עצם האיסור אלא נאסרו למיגדר מילתא. כן
      משמע בספר חסידים סימן קס"ח שכתב אל תערב
      בנים ובנות פן יחטיאו אז תשמח בתולה במחול
      לבדה אבל בהורים וזקנים יחדיו וכו' עכ" ל, הרי
      שאיסור רקודים הוא שמא יחטיאו ואינו עצם החטא.
      אבל אין לאמר שכוונתו היא שאם יתערבו בנים ובנות
      יבואו לידי רקודים ושהם עצם האיסור ונלמד האיסור
      מקרא דירמיה פרק ל"א שהקפיד שלא ירקדו ביחד,
      זה אינו, שהרי דרש עוד מפסוק בזכריה פרק ח'
      ילדים וילדות משחקים ברחובותיה ילדים לבד וילדות
      לבד עכ"ל והוא בודאי דוגמה להפרדה ולא דוגמה
      לעצם האיסור ולכן גם הפסוק על רקודים הוא דוגמה
      להפרדה כלומר שאין להרשות לרקוד או לרוחק * ביחד
      פן יחטיאו בענין אחר.

      Delete
    4. Didn't see anything funny in the teshuva or any other teshuva I looked at. Where is the teshuva regarding the Satmar Rebbe?

      Delete
    5. James:

      Many communities don't accept Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik and don't think highly of him. But if you saw a so-called teshuva discussing that Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik was not a tzadik and whether it is "prohibited" to call R. J.B. Soloveitchik "zatzal" since he is not a tzadik, would you appreciate it? Would you be amused? Would you take the author of that shailos and teshuvos sefer seriously on other matters?

      Delete
    6. RDE:

      Perhaps the above reference to Henkin's writings about the Satmar Rebbe are from this book of Henkin you are discussion - Understanding Tzniut. See pages 120-122.

      Don't know if that was what the previous commenter was referencing. But Yehuda Henkin made up something he put in his grandfather's name. Yehuda Henkin also falsely writes that the Satmar Rebbe believed that all the rabbis associated with Agudath Israel (and the Mizrachi) "were heretics and doomed to hell for not sharing his implacable opposition to any ties whatever to the State of Israel" (p. 120). This unwarranted attack on the Satmar Rebbe also includes a misrepresentation of R. Henkin's grandfather's views on the State of Israel (p. 121) so as to align them more closely with his own views, a fact that any reader can verify by simply examining the essay written by the elder R. Henkin which his grandson cites (note 2) to support his own view. This attack on the Satmar Rebbe is a disgrace.

      Delete
    7. Where is the essay which proves that he falsified his grandfather's views?

      Delete
    8. RDE: See note 2 that I mentioned above and then lookup his granfather's actual writing.

      Delete
    9. what do you do with the following:
      http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/about/visitorcomments/comment_details.cfm?ItemNo=1247

      R. Yosef Eliyahu Henkin was adamantly opposed to the position of the Satmar Rav. He wrote:
      I was shocked to read in Chomoteinu of Cheshvan 5719 the slanderous notion that we are required to give our lives (limsor nefesh) to frustrate and resist the efforts of the State of Israel in its struggle against those who would rise up against them. This was stated as a p'sak din based on what we learn that Israel is restricted from rebelling against the nations (Ketubot 111a)...

      Now all the rabbis who were opposed to Zionism and the establishment of a state took up that position until the time that it was officially founded. Once the state was declared, anyone who plays into the hands of the nations of the world even where there is no imminent danger, is clearly a moseir and rodeif. All the more when there is danger to destruction of life in so doing... Surely, those who recently emigrated must be very weary of the state's efforts to strip them of their Torah way of life, but to proclaim that anyone who aids the state is a rodeif, well such talk is the severest form of redifa.
      If I'm not mistaken, this is Rav Henkin calling the Satmar Rav a rodef (pursuer)!



      Delete
    10. Gil Student (a zionist) wrote that above quote. The site answered as follows:

      Yes, but in the same breath he [Rabbi Henkin] says that up until the founding of the state, many rabbis were against it, and he leaves the impression that he agrees, or could agree with that view. It is merely on the issue of pikuach nefesh that he disagrees with the Satmar Rav. This is a view held by some rabbis and certainly deserves to be one of Rabbi Student s categories: the Pikuach Nefesh view.

      Delete
    11. Drudge are you the author of this review in Amazon or did you just cut and paste it?

      http://www.amazon.com/review/R35KMWBHVAM25/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R35KMWBHVAM25

      "What is unjustified is his three page (pp. 120-122) gratuitous attack on the Satmar Rebbe, R. Yoel Teitelbaum (who is unnamed but is obviously the subject of the essay). He cites his grandfather, R. Yosef Eliyahu Henkin's private statement about R. Teitelbaum as a basis to discourage readers from according honor to the latter when his name is mentioned. But this is preposterous because all Torah sages who were contemporaries of R. Teitelbaum accorded him the utmost respect, including those whose views on Zionism he attacked. R. Henkin is simply mistaken in claiming that R. Teitelbaum believed that all the rabbis associated with Agudath Israel--and certainly the Mizrachi--"were heretics and doomed to hell for not sharing his implacable opposition to any ties whatever to the State of Israel" (p. 120). A mere glance at R. Teitelbaum's biography, including the recent article by R. Hertz Frankel in Hamodiah Magazine (Vol. XI, Issue 522, August 20, 2008) makes it abundantly clear that R. Teitelbaum had great respect for those gedolim (Torah leaders) with whom he disagreed. This unwarranted attack on R. Teitelbaum also includes a misrepresentation of R. Henkin's grandfather's views on the State of Israel (p. 121) so as to align them more closely with his own views, a fact that any reader can verify by simply examining the essay written by the elder R. Henkin which his grandson cites (note 2) to support his own view. This attack on the Satmar Rebbe did not have to be included in this book.

      Otherwise, this thoughtful book should serve as a useful corrective to some of the tendencies toward extremism as well as laxity (in modesty standards) in Orthodox circles even while preserving the reverence for halakhah that is at the heart of Jewish modesty norms. "

      Delete
    12. I found that on Amazon. I quoted the portion I found relevant to this discussion.

      Delete
    13. Abe,
      You want to know if I can take someone seriously who disrespects Rabbi JB Soloveitchik assuming that I am a follower of his. I am not.

      I went to yeshivas in which it was repeated many times in the name of Rav Aharon Kotler that "JB" was Avi Avos Hatuma. I dont believe he said that but the mindset in the yeshiva (standard litvish haredi) was certainly so. At the time, I was able to respect those Rabanim while convincing myself that they were just a bit overzealous. I know longer think so.

      I have been privileged to know great men. Real Tzadikim. None of them would ever refer to other Talmidei Hachamim in the manner in which Rav Shach, the Satmar Rebbe, or my rabbanim did. Tzidkus requires more than Talmudic genius. It requires a refined character.

      Delete
  5. The Tzaddik issue is a very interesting debate, although not a pleasant one.
    One must first divorce oneself from attachment to a particular Rebbe or Rav, and try to look at the matter without personal or ideological bias.

    Let us look at some cases, and I am not attacking or supporting any of the Gedolim I use as examples:

    None of R' Shach's followers would say that the Lubavitcher rebbe was a tzaddik, and vice versa. Sometimes they actually demonise each other.

    Abe mentions Rav Soloveitchik, but infamously, the Jewish Observer wrote a z.l. in their eulogy for him denying him Tzaddik status. this was the organ of the Agudah in USA. Again his opponents, and his cousins in Brisk would deny him Tzaddik status, or even worse.

    As for r' Goren, only his Tzioni follwors attribute him with Tzaddik status, whilst they may or may not say that R @ Shach and R' Elyashiv "desreved" such status (they were instrumental in disapprbation of R' Goren).

    To be "objective", all of the above are examples of Gedolim b'Torah, who were involved in controversies. Dep[ending on which side of the fence you are, you are likely to favour some and not others.

    It is therefore an interesting question as to the halachic ramifications of saying someone was /not a tzaddik.

    I doubt very much if satmar would refer to rav Kook as a tzaddik. For that matter, anyone associated with Mizrachi. I believe that Satmar considered religious zionists to be atatched to idolatry, and most likely so did the Brisker rav ztl (no pun intended!).


    ReplyDelete
  6. 1) always interesting to see how a discussion about piskei halacha very quickly turns into "who does that guy think he is, yada, yada, yada". so instead of discussing skirt length or proper behavior of men in mixed company, we argue about Rav Henkin's kashrut.

    2) "I doubt very much if satmar would refer to rav Kook as a tzaddik." this one is waaaaayyyyyy too soft! that the SR (Tz"l) did not use Tz"l when referring to Rav Kook (Tz"l) is the least of the former's attacks on Rav Kook.

    just have a look at the SR psak on RK:

    http://rygb.blogspot.co.il/2012/01/why-i-cannot-respect-satmer-rebbe-zl.html

    any questions?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "makes it abundantly clear that R. Teitelbaum had great respect for those gedolim (Torah leaders) with whom he disagreed."

    I'd like someone to read the link provided about the SR's view on RK and then tell me that he had great respect for those gedolim with whom he disagreed. of course maybe the SR could skirt that issue by claiming that RK wasn't a gadol.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Ben, Thanks for the link. I had seen this before but as rule I don't like to look up NK/Satmar/neo-nazi sites.

      BTW, it is also instructive that the follwoers of Satmar and even R Sonenfeld end up in Tehran conference denying the holocaust, and sitting on the same platform as nazis, islamo fascists, and generally all the representatives of Amalek.

      That perhaps proves the fraud of the Satmar ideology, and that Amalek was not the Zionist, but himself.

      Delete
    2. The Gedolei Yisroel all considered the Satmar Rebbe as one of the top Gedolim of his time. Rav Ahron Kotler, the Satmar Rebbe and Rav Moshe Feinstein were considered the top gedolim (by their peers) who rebuilt Jewry postwar.

      Delete
    3. Eddie: Why do you prefer KKK/MO sites?

      Delete
    4. I heard from Rosh Yeshiva of Ohr Sameach that the Satmar rebbe was extremely abusive towards RAK. But, the story goes, at Rav Kotler's funeral , the Satmarer was weeping like a baby.

      However, this doesnt excuse such harsh abuse of the Gadol hador.

      Now it is interesting, that R Kotler was originally amongst the hardcore of Lithuanian Gedolim including R Wasserman and R Grozesnki who opposed using certifiactes provided by Zionist organisations, to save themselves and their talmidim from the Nazis.

      When R Kotler finally realised that these certificated were not actualyl "asher yatzar" paper, it was too late, and thousands had been massacred.

      It is with this background that we should look at R Kotler's overcomepnsation in Vaad hatzolah, even being mechalel shabbes to save lives, which he and his peers, who were Gedolei Hador may have saved earlier, had they listened to evidence of the not so kosher zionist witnesses.

      And r' Kotler was attacked for breaking shabbes to save lives, notably by the previous Lubavitcher Rebbe.

      So it is very difficult to maintain that being a Gadol gives you 20/20 vision, whether into the present or future, and sometimes even the past.

      Delete
  8. @Eddie that particular site is from someone who is a great rav and anything BUT a NK/Satmar . .

    ReplyDelete
  9. 1) the satmar rebbe's חספד on rav aaron is ledgendery...this teachs that aaron did not change
    2) also famous is the letter wherethe CI refers to r kook with out even. זל

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. so should opponents of R Kotler ztl drop the T since he was mechalel shabbos?

      Delete
  10. The photo of the letter is printed in פאר הדור

    ReplyDelete

  11. BTW, it is also instructive that the follwoers of Satmar and even R Sonenfeld end up in Tehran conference denying the holocaust, and sitting on the same platform as nazis, islamo fascists, and generally all the representatives of Amalek.


    Yes, Those are the fruits !

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.