Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 155

Saturday, February 6 1999

• Re: Hair covering
• GR"A on tefillah b'tzibbur
• Topics, not People
• Re: Topics, not People
• Re: Topics, not People
• Acherim not from Acher
• Re: Topics, not People
• Torah Umadah
• Tefillo Betziubbur vs. Tefillo bizmano
• Hair covering - Pnuyos
• Re: Hair covering - Pnuyos
• Hair covering
• Re: Hair covering
• Comparative Religions Curiousity
• Re: Hair covering
• Re: Hair covering
• Re: Hair covering

On Thu, 4 Feb 1999 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> Interesting-does marit ayin only apply to orthodox impressions. also how

As far as I know!

> then did the first shaitel wearers do it? What about shaitel's covered

Again, you are assuming a gezeira of mar'is ayin - mei'heicha teisei?

BTW, I heard from my former Mahsgiach, R' Tzuriel of Sha'alvim, that the
first several hunderd/thousand *men* to wear short jackets transgressed
chukkos ha'goyim - this is because there is a ma'alah, objectively, in
wearing long garments because pisuk raglayim is not tzanu'a even for men.
But, eventually, the chukkos ha'goyim problem waned, as the short jackets
became well nigh universal.

(One is still encouraged to wear frocks/tisch bekeshes on Shabbos :-)! )

> by hats-does this create a marit ayin problem.  This is all l'shitatcha-
> I'm still unconvinced of your earlier reconciliation of ervah as not
> having its something akin to its usual meaning. 

I am sorry you are not convinced, but that is unconvincing!

You must refute my arguments! (Sorry!)

> But certainly this was the exception for health reasons, not the rule
> for everyday life? 
> 

Of course - who would want to wear a toupee everyday?! (Especially if you
have your own hair!)

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

>>>BTW I understand that the GRO held tefillo bizmano supercedes Tefillo
betzibbur.
Many NYC kehillos daven maariv in the summer following Plag.  Some daven
Mincho 
following sunset.  I know that GROnicks would prefer daveing bi'yechidus than 
attending these minyonim even thought they are someich on other poskim. <<<

You are conflating different issues.  According to *almost* all Rishonim
davening mincha after plag and ma'ariv before shkiya is a tartei d'sasrei -
you are relying simultaneously on R' Yehudah that paskens zman ma'ariv begins
at plag and Chachamim who say zman mincha extends to shkiya, taking the kullos
of both opinions.   Aderaba - you will be hard pressed to find textual sources
to backup what has become the 'minhag' (and I use the term very loosely!) in
many shuls.    

The shittas HaGR"A is famous for saying that keriyas shema *U'birchoseah*,
including semichas geulah l'tefillah, must all be done before sof zman K"Sh
even at the expense of tefillah b'tzibbur. If you start shacharis on Shabbos
morning at 9:00 you won't make it many weeks.  Acc. to GR"A rather than say
K'SH early by itself and daven b'tzibbur, it is better to complete all of
shacharis b'yechidus.  I have heard R' Chaim held this way as well.  

-Chaim

Most of the regular posters have heard me on this subject in personal email,
but I want to go on record.

I have no problem discussing agunos and solutions to the problem, both real
and flawed.

I would like to draw the line at discussing the people involved. IOW, if you
think someone is doing something that is b'feirush rishus, perhaps you should
refrain from naming names. Or at least phrase your post as though you assume
the person is wrong, not evil.

Read and reread such posts before hitting the send key.

Remember, you probably WON'T be the one to get the last word. So, try
not to put people on the defensive -- that's what generates the downward
spirals we keep on getting into.

Last, please realize that we are losing numerous readers who expected more
from this group. If nothing else, please cooperate for the longevity and
success of our list.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6081 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 4-Feb-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Please do not ignore my request. Please ask about LH/MSR by your local
Poskim. I am not arguing what you say below.  I really do not care at this
point, as I have done my part so in that in the Olamos Elyonim they shpuld
have no ta'anos on me for not protesting osei avla when avla was done.
Whatever your personal cheshbon with the Almighty, is your personal chesbon.
But I am convinced there is no LH/MSR here, and I am curious to hear someone
reliable say elsewise! 

> 
> Most of the regular posters have heard me on this subject in personal email,
> but I want to go on record.
> 
> I have no problem discussing agunos and solutions to the problem, both real
> and flawed.
> 
> I would like to draw the line at discussing the people involved. IOW, if you
> think someone is doing something that is b'feirush rishus, perhaps you should
> refrain from naming names. Or at least phrase your post as though you assume
> the person is wrong, not evil.
> 
> Read and reread such posts before hitting the send key.
> 
> Remember, you probably WON'T be the one to get the last word. So, try
> not to put people on the defensive -- that's what generates the downward
> spirals we keep on getting into.
> 
> Last, please realize that we are losing numerous readers who expected more
> from this group. If nothing else, please cooperate for the longevity and
> success of our list.
> 
> -mi
> 
> -- 
> Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6081 days!
> micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 4-Feb-99)
> For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
> http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
> 

On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Shoshanah Bechhofer wrote:

> Please do not ignore my request. Please ask about LH/MSR by your local
> Poskim. I am not arguing what you say below. I really do not care at
> this point, as I have done my part so in that in the Olamos Elyonim they
> ould have no ta'anos on me for not protesting osei avla when avla was
> done.  Whatever your personal cheshbon with the Almighty, is your
> personal chesbon.  But I am convinced there is no LH/MSR here, and I am
> curious to hear someone reliable say elsewise! 
> 

Actually, contrary to what the "editor" says, that was me, not my wife!

I would like to take this idea a tad further. I would like to suggest that
the list have an "official" Posek or Poskim. It would probably be easier
for Micha to find one in Passaic than elsewhere, but I am sure wherever he
finds one it will be a reliable one.

Thus, for example, in the area of discussion that I felt and continue to
feel passionately about, yet others, it seems, are equally adamant that it
constitues LH/MSR, while I cannot agree, but if the List Posek or Poskim
ruled accordingly, as he would be the "Mara d'Asra," I would abide by his
ruling.

A less workable solution would be, I believe, to appoint a council of
Avodah subscribers to decide these matters. The problem is appointing a
representative group in a representative manner.

A word about subscribers dropping out: While, as all lists, Avodah is
composed primarily of lurkers, the nature of the list is that we all must
put in in order for it to work. This is a free-wheeling forum, and topics
can and do change constantly. If you do not like a topic, please do not
leave: Change to single message mode, so you can delete what does not
interest you (as I myself do), and spark conversation on topics that you
find meaningful for your or all of Am Yisroel's Avodas Hashem and Kiddush
Shem Shomayim!

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

In TB Horayot, last chapter, I think, the reason
given for calling Meir "Acherim" is not his
association with Acher, but his rebellion
against R. Shimon ben Gamlial, haNasi.

At the same time, R. Natan was called "Yesh Omrim."

__Bob Werman
Jerusalem

Micha Berger wrote:
> 
> Most of the regular posters have heard me on this subject in personal email,
> but I want to go on record.
> 
> I have no problem discussing agunos and solutions to the problem, both real
> and flawed.
> 
> I would like to draw the line at discussing the people involved. IOW, if you
> think someone is doing something that is b'feirush rishus, perhaps you should
> refrain from naming names. Or at least phrase your post as though you assume
> the person is wrong, not evil.
> 
> Read and reread such posts before hitting the send key.
> 
> Remember, you probably WON'T be the one to get the last word. So, try
> not to put people on the defensive -- that's what generates the downward
> spirals we keep on getting into.
> 
> Last, please realize that we are losing numerous readers who expected more
> from this group. If nothing else, please cooperate for the longevity and
> success of our list.
> 
> -mi


Of course this will take half the fun out of posting and/or reading the 
posts! :) 

On a more sreious note, I feel that the members of this list are of a 
very high calibre and name calling has been kept to a minimum.  For the 
most part it probably stems from ones Kavod Shomyim and zealously 
passionate  beliefs about a particular individual or group. If one takes 
the passion out of a post it very often becomes uninteresting and 
boring.  This does not mean that there has to be an abandonment of the 
principles of Darcei Noam we so often refer to.  I just hope we don't 
water down the passion and personally believe that invective has been 
kept to an acceptable mimimum.

HM

I too am bothered with the idea of a _synthesis_ of Torah uMada, as that
would mean that the result is a new beryah, neither thesis or antithesis,
neither mada or, ch"v, Torah.

My assumption is that R' Lamm doesn't mean "synthesis" in its technical
Hegelian sense. I'm not sure the Rav, though, who was precise in terminology
(and who probably couldn't hear the word synthesis without connotations of
Kant vs Hegel) would ever have been comfortable standing behind the expression.
Perhaps that's why he never addressed the slogan "Torah uMadda".

The concept, though, the Rav addressed often. As another chaver has already
wrote (in very different words), the Rav taught that the Homo Halachicus
knew the balance of Adam I (pinacle of creation) and Adam II (covenental
partner). He also identified Western civilization as overly Adam I focussed,
and Homo Religiosus as overly Adam II.

Not that Adam I = mada, and Adam II = Torah, but that Adam I's perfection
"p'ru urvu umil'u es ha'aretz VIKIVSHUHA" requires madda, and our ability
to understand our environment is what makes the Adam I in us. Torah is a
covenant, made at Sinai. Adam II seeks redemption through covenant. But
Torah is also about the dialectic as a whole -- reading this post which
includes addressing "what is the role of Adam I" is (hopefully) limud Torah.

The Rav believed the dialectic was Kantian, ie unresolvable. Man will
always live in tention between the two. There is no Hegelian synthesis 
of Adam I and Adam II and therefore there can be no synthesis of Torah
uMaddah.

Another philosophy was expounded by the S'ridei Eish, in his explanation of
R' SR Hirsch's "Torah im Derech Eretz" (cut and pasted from previous email):
      The Torah, according to Rav Hirsch, is the force that gives form. Form,
      to Aristotle's thought, means a thing's essential nature in distinction
      to the substance from which it is embodied. Derekh Eretz is merely the
      matter on which Torah works. (Essay in "Shimshon Rephael Hirsch:
      Mishnaso Vishitaso")

What exactly is meant here requires knowing how he understood chomer v'tzurah
(Aristotilian hylomorphism) better than I do. However, I'd like to note that
this is not a Hegelian synthesis: the result is fully Torah and yet in a
different way fully D"E. Yet it is a resolution not an ungoing tension.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6081 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 5-Feb-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

>>From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
Subject: Tefillah be-Tzibbur and R. Soloveitchik and Religious Zionism

Regarding tefillah be-tzibbur vs tefillah bi-zmanah, it was my sense
that the consensus of posekim (not just the Gra) considers the latter to
be primary.  In many communities this is a basic issue in December and
January for people whose occupations require them to attend early
morning minyanim.<<

BTW the point I was making is that GRAniks will be mevatel tefillo betzibbur 
based upon the GRA's shitos of zmanim, and despite the fact that other poskim 
hold that you CAN daven maariv after plag and mincho after sunset...

IOW, even in the case of a machlokes as to the correct zman they would prefer 
the more lechatichilo zman.

I personally would prefer to daven Mincho after sunset be'tzibbr rather than 
before sunset biyechidus because many poskim hold shkio is after sunset.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

RYGB writes:>>Clearly the enticing nature of hair does not change mystically 
from before
to after the Chuppa.
Therefore, Ervah here is not a term of allurement at all.<<

Good point.

Question:
1) Isn't/Wasn't there a minhog in some Eidot haMizrach to cover unmarried gilr's
hair?

2) What is the criteria?  If it is simply a function of being Eeishes Ish, 
wouldn't Gerushos and Almonos be peturos just as much as besulos? 

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

On Fri, 5 Feb 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> RYGB writes:>>Clearly the enticing nature of hair does not change
> mystically from before to after the Chuppa.  Therefore, Ervah here is
> not a term of allurement at all.<<
> 
> Good point.
> 

Thanks!

> Question:  1) Isn't/Wasn't there a minhog in some Eidot haMizrach to
> cover unmarried gilr's hair? 
> 

As far as I know, only in Yemen, and not full covering, only, a loose
hood.

> 2) What is the criteria?  If it is simply a function of being Eeishes
> Ish, wouldn't Gerushos and Almonos be peturos just as much as besulos? 
> 

This is a very complicated question. As you know, R' Moshe holds the
requirment for an ex-Eishes Ish to cover her hair is eased, although not
eliminated. There is also, clearly, although I am not up on it offhand, a
leniency for non-married be'ulos, which Ba'alos Teshuva rely on. Perhaps
someone more immediately conversant with the sources can fill us in!

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

RYGB writes:

>I am disappointed in my usually erudite friend, R' Eli! I will be dan
>l'kaf zechus, that writing midday has its limitations.

Sad but true.

>But, in fact, the
>Poskim - including the MB - who rule that shok includes the area of the
>calf beneath the knee - still, overwhelmingly - permit form fitting
>stockings as a valid form of covering for that region of the body!

Yes they do.  But in the Orthodox communities which which I am familiar
(and I assume Chicago is not substantially different), it would be
considered a serious breach of the laws of tzeniut for a woman to wear
form fitting garments above the knee and on the torso.

I have never stopped to consider why the calf is treated differently by
those who view the calf as part of the shok.  It is an interesting
question.  But I think it is very strange at least.  Why are the calf
and hair different from other parts of the body?  I think the question
must be answered from your perspective as well as from mine.

>> Moreover, there are significant halakhic differences.  We hold the
>> covering of hair applies only to a married woman.  According to the
>> Gemara, Rishonim, and every Aharon I know until the Bah, the
>> hair-covering requirement does not apply in the woman's own hatzer.

>Hey! That was my ra'ayah!

Yes, but you used it as a proof (I think) that we are lenient with hair,
and I used it as a proof that the underlying issues with rspect to wigs
and dresses are different.

> I think flesh colored stockings are approved for beneath the knee.

Again, we have an interesting rule for the calf, which seems an
exception to the general rule.  But I assume we agree that a flesh
colored body stocking is not permissible dress.

>> At a
>> minimum, there would seem to be a huge marit ayin problem.

>To whom? All Orthodox women know about sheitels. Also, since when are we
>gozeir our own maris ayin decrees.

Well, now, I think we have a new thread.  Are you saying that marit ayin
is a din limited to Orthodox Jews?  This is a thoroughly new hiddush (to
me).  Could I trouble you for some sources please?

>There is an explicit tradition that many Rebbes and Rabbonim
> - - including the Maharash of Lubavitch, I believe - wore toupees at
>Marienbad and other spas where heads had to be uncovered, as their kisui
>rosh.

Sure.  But do you know a single person who wears a toupe in shul --
where kisui rosh is of course a hiyyuv for tefillah -- without a kippah
on top?  I know of no such tradition.


Kol tuv and Shabbat shalom,

Eli Clark

On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:

> Yes they do.  But in the Orthodox communities which which I am familiar
> (and I assume Chicago is not substantially different), it would be
> considered a serious breach of the laws of tzeniut for a woman to wear
> form fitting garments above the knee and on the torso. 
> 

True, true, but not relevant! My contention is simple: The halacha of hair
covering is no more stringent than the halacha of the calf beneath the
knee - (which is not why a bathing cap would be considered ample covering,
but the analogy sure is tempting!). If anything it is less stringent, as
it applies not at all to besulos, while gilui shok does.

> I have never stopped to consider why the calf is treated differently by
> those who view the calf as part of the shok.  It is an interesting
> question.  But I think it is very strange at least.  Why are the calf
> and hair different from other parts of the body?  I think the question
> must be answered from your perspective as well as from mine. 
> 

But I have answered it! These are technical "ervos."

They are not necessarily me'orer ta'ava, but it is considered - d'orysa or
d'rabbanan - proper for a woman to cover everything but her hands, feet
and face, and, for married women, also her hair. 

As R' David Riceman has pointed out to me in the past, there are Rishonim
that state that even males should always be fully attired, similarly -
save for the hair - even to the extent that they say a man's palms should
be covered (he may be so kind as to provide chapter and verse for us). By
women, somewhere - I do not want to go back to Das Moshe, Das Yehudis and
all that today - it became enshrined in Halacha, formally, than women
*must* adhere to these standards.

Of course, my understanding may be wrong - but my evidence remains
strong!

> Well, now, I think we have a new thread.  Are you saying that marit ayin
> is a din limited to Orthodox Jews?  This is a thoroughly new hiddush (to
> me).  Could I trouble you for some sources please? 
> 

I have none offhand, although we could go hunting. I maintain it is
irrelevant, as we are not mechadesh maris ayin gezeiros me'da'ateinu.

> Sure.  But do you know a single person who wears a toupe in shul --
> where kisui rosh is of course a hiyyuv for tefillah -- without a kippah
> on top?  I know of no such tradition. 
> 
>

I don't see why that is relevant. Surely a man wearing a toupee for any
number of reasons would be uncomfortable davening in Shul without a
yarmulke. Does that prove he cannot do so?
 
> Kol tuv and Shabbat shalom,
> 
> Eli Clark
> 

Likewise!
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

I would like to pose a query to our learned Olam:

The Torah is full of "Vadebar Hashem el Moshe Leimor." Is there any
parallel statement in the Christian or Moslem scriptures?

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

In a message dated 2/5/99 2:43:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< 
 But I have answered it! These are technical "ervos."
 
 They are not necessarily me'orer ta'ava, but it is considered - d'orysa or
 d'rabbanan - proper for a woman to cover everything but her hands, feet
 and face, and, for married women, also her hair. 
 
 As R' David Riceman has pointed out to me in the past, there are Rishonim
 that state that even males should always be fully attired, similarly -
 save for the hair - even to the extent that they say a man's palms should
 be covered (he may be so kind as to provide chapter and verse for us). By
 women, somewhere - I do not want to go back to Das Moshe, Das Yehudis and
 all that today - it became enshrined in Halacha, formally, than women
 *must* adhere to these standards.
 
 Of course, my understanding may be wrong - but my evidence remains
 strong!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

As I understand your proof, there is a stira between the plain language of the
gemora(ervah) and the fact that single girls don't have to cover their hair,
based on that stira you reconcile by saying erva has a different meaning.
Where else does this meaning apply(eg kol bisha erva?).  It's somewhat
difficult to accept that the gemora used this language for a process issur
versus a result issur. Perhaps single girls are allowed to be somewhat
attractive.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
 > Well, now, I think we have a new thread.  Are you saying that marit ayin
 > is a din limited to Orthodox Jews?  This is a thoroughly new hiddush (to
 > me).  Could I trouble you for some sources please? 
 > 
 
 I have none offhand, although we could go hunting. I maintain it is
 irrelevant, as we are not mechadesh maris ayin gezeiros me'da'ateinu.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
sources? especially when "nishtaneh hateva"(ie we can make wigs not
discernable as such) 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
 > Sure.  But do you know a single person who wears a toupe in shul --
 > where kisui rosh is of course a hiyyuv for tefillah -- without a kippah
 > on top?  I know of no such tradition. 
 > 
 >
 
 I don't see why that is relevant. Surely a man wearing a toupee for any
 number of reasons would be uncomfortable davening in Shul without a
 yarmulke. Does that prove he cannot do so?
  
 > Kol tuv and Shabbat shalom,
 > 
 > Eli Clark
 > 
 
 Likewise!
 YGB
  >>
and I as well 
Joel Rich

PS Your comment about the first people who wore jackets being over chukat
hagoyim until later the problem waned. Does it bother you that something
became mutar by way of enough people doing an aveira. I've thought about this
from time to time in this case as well as the somewhat related concept as to
whether a takana was accepted by klal yisrael.  Any insights appreciated

On Fri, 5 Feb 1999 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

 
> As I understand your proof, there is a stira between the plain language
> of the gemora(ervah) and the fact that single girls don't have to cover
> their hair, based on that stira you reconcile by saying erva has a
> different meaning.  Where else does this meaning apply(eg kol bisha
> erva?).  It's somewhat difficult to accept that the gemora used this
> language for a process issur versus a result issur. Perhaps single girls
> are allowed to be somewhat attractive..... 

I already explained that the parameters of erva are not ass monolithic as
you seem to believe. And, concerning the example of Kol Isha, you are
doubtless aware that that is a prime example of an area where, not unlike
hair-coverin, there are significant exceptions to the "ervah" appelation -
i.e., where you do not see the woman singing nor know what she looks like.

> sources? especially when "nishtaneh hateva"(ie we can make wigs not
> discernable as such)
> 

I have no idea what you want!

> PS Your comment about the first people who wore jackets being over
> chukat hagoyim until later the problem waned. Does it bother you that
> something became mutar by way of enough people doing an aveira. I've
> thought about this from time to time in this case as well as the
> somewhat related concept as to whether a takana was accepted by klal
> yisrael.  Any insights appreciated
> 

This issue applies uniqely to Chukkos Akum, although some one here may coe
up with a similar hallacha elsewhere!

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

In a message dated 2/5/99 5:49:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< 
 > PS Your comment about the first people who wore jackets being over
 > chukat hagoyim until later the problem waned. Does it bother you that
 > something became mutar by way of enough people doing an aveira. I've
 > thought about this from time to time in this case as well as the
 > somewhat related concept as to whether a takana was accepted by klal
 > yisrael.  Any insights appreciated
 > 
 
 This issue applies uniqely to Chukkos Akum, although some one here may coe
 up with a similar hallacha elsewhere!
 
 YGB
  >>
How about things that were assur because they were generally considered to be
dangerous and then many engaged in them and thus were no longer considered
dangerous?

Shavua tov
Joel Rich

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]