Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 160

Wednesday, February 10 1999

• Re: missing data and palms
• Re: t'filla b'tzibbur and chazoras ha'SHaTZ
• Re: Avodah V2 #159
• Synthesis
• (no subject)
• Ervah, criteria and hirhur
• keruvim
• Sheitlach for unmarrieds
• Pisuk raglaim
• Re: Sheitlach for unmarrieds
• Tefillah b'tzibbur by davening with the Shatz
• Re: Sheitlach for unmarrieds
• Hair Covering with a Wig
• Re: Hair Covering with a Wig
• Re: Tur

In a message dated 2/9/99 1:56:08 PM EST, R' E.G. writes:

> I remember the speech vaguely however I can't remember who the speaker
>  was, can you remind me (even privetly, because if I ever see him I can ask
>  where his mkor for capital punishment comes from) Furthermore, as it has
>  become less socially acceptable for me to wear sweaters which I would
>  pull the sleeves over my hands,(I teach so I find myself wearing a suit
>  jacket more often) I want to know if I can be somech on the
>  fact that the halacha doesn't apply to non Talmedei Chachamim. Also, why
>  was I the only safe one, I remember you also wearing a sweater which
>  covered your palms.
>  Elie Ginsparg 
>  
PMFJI - 2 points 

1) I fail to see in that Rambam prohibition to reveal palms of hand, the
discussion is proper lentgh of clothes, is a Taalmid chochom required to wear
rubberbands around his hand to make sure that his palm does not show when for
example he is Mareh Taamei Torah?

2) I would assume the issue of capital punishment is based on the issue of
Chilul Hashem, (Kol Msanai Ohavu Moves) Hil. Yesodei Hatorah 5:1, 11, compare
end of Hil Yesodei Hatorah 5 and end of Hil. Deios 5.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

RWolpoe responded:
> Yehivos Ner Yirsroel and Yitzchok Elchonon regularly davened mincho with
a
"heicho kedusho".  R. Parness at YU had a full chazoras hashsatz. <
If it wasn't apparent before, your and Joel's responses reveal that
different minyonim have different reasons for not insisting on the
normative-Halacha practice of chazoras haSHaTZ.  Rav Parnes SHLYTA hammered
all that represents the "Halachic universe" into us grasshoppers, and it is
likely that he saw no reason in our departing from said Halacha.

> At our IBI minyan, I suggested a heicho kedusho.  Why?  Mostly because
the
problem with insuring 9 "shom'im".  A Heicho kedusho does not require the
wait
for 9 people to finish and listen to Chazoras haShatz.  I also suggest that
when
we start late (say more than 5 mintues), we do heicho kedusho so as not to
abuse
the time. ... One sevoro for heicho kedusho is that mincho minyonim at
work, or in the "shiur"
room are ad hoc minyonim and not ke'vuo the way they are in a shul or BM.
In
regular shuls, the only heicho kedushos I've seen are when the minyan
starts
late - and they might miss the zman, etc. <
For the vast majority, davening with a mincha minyan that didn't have
chazoras haSHaTZ would definitely be better than davening bi'chi'dus, and,
as I suggested, it probably wouldn't be worse in any case for the special
minority, e.g. Rav Soloveitchik.  My implied, general question was whether
"sha'as ha'd'chak" was meant to be subjectively defined in terms of whether
people would attend at all or whether they had other, non-mitzva-related
matters to attend to during the remainder of the afternoon/evening...and I
don't recall the chazoras-haSHaTZ-related halachos distinguishing between
minyanim that were kavu'ah in a BK or BM and minyanim that were held in
locations without a "ner tamid" or aron, aside from the fact that the
latter (at least, re the examples we're bringing up) are "kavu'ah" in the
sense of occurring on a regular basis in the same location.

JIRich responded:
> I don't think anyone would argue that in the abstract tfila btzibur is a
worthwhile thing...<
You, no doubt, meant to add a "not" somewhere within that phrase's mix of
words :-).
> As is usually the case, the hard questions come when
you have competing goods- eg prayer and learning. Then each of us, or each
minyan as the case may be, has to decide its relative values....I have been
at minyanim where a
'half' kedusha was made so that the participants could get back to the
smorgasbord.  WRT work minyanim I guess each one is making a similar value
judgment of work or lunch or learning versus tfila [or perhaps in order to
attract more participants(kiruv?)] <
Again, I question whether the vast majority of us are qualified to make
such judgements absent objectively-defined "sha'as ha'd'chak" (i.e. missing
the z'man), as well as how we can compare "work or lunch" to "learning"
(esp. learning as it occurred on the Rav ZTZL's level).

Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

> 
> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 08:48:49 -0500
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Re: t'filla b'tzibbur and chazoras ha'SHaTZ
> 
> In response to R. Michael Poppers query:
> 
> Yehivos Ner Yirsroel and Yitzchok Elchonon regularly davened mincho with a 
> "heicho kedusho".  R. Parness at YU had a full chazoras hashsatz.
> 
> Artus corp. has a heicho kedusho
> 
> At our IBI minyan, I suggested a heicho kedusho.  Why?  Mostly because the 
> problem with insuring 9 "shom'im".  A Heicho kedusho does not require the wait 
> for 9 people to finish and listen to Chazoras haShatz.  I also suggest that when
> we start late (say more than 5 mintues), we do heicho kedusho so as not to abuse
> the time.

So far I have seen discussion of doing a Heicho Kedusah at Mincha.  At 
the shul I daven at on weekdays, they also do a HK at Mussaf on Rosh 
Chodesh and Chal Hamoed - the only solution to keep a minyan - if we 
start early (forgetting about zman problems) there is a problem with a 
minyan at the beginning - if we finish late people (usually including 
myself) have to to leave.

Since Mussaf  has no issue of smichas geula ltfilah there should 
probablly be no difference between Mincha and Mussaf except for lack of 
ability to say Amen to all of the berachos for a good month.

Eli Clark wrote: >>
For what it is worth, my rebbe R. Lichtenstein, the Rav's son-in-law, 
dislikes the term "synthesis" and has stated so publicly.<<

I am curious for what reason?

To repeat a historical footnote,, The Rav did not coin Torah uMada, I believe 
Dr. Belkin did, (ort perhaps his predecessor Dr. Revel).  I don't think he 
promoted synthesis either...

BTW I believe that R. Dr. Moshe Tendler went on the record to say that Torah 
uMada applied ONLY to natural sciences, (i.e. biology, chemistry, etc.).

IMHO the concept of synthesis is much more common than you would think.  E.G. a 
Talmid Chochom who goes from the gemoro and the poskim and then is asked a 
practical sh'eilo that includes factors of everyday life, must engage in some 
form of synthesis to give a  teshuvo.  Electricity, life-support, kashrus of 
chemical compounds, all require a form of synthesis.  Syntheis in this sense 
implies we take theorietical Torah principles and apply them to the practical 
side of life.

Doesn't the TB state that each member of Sanhedrin had to know shi'vim 
leshonos, in order to interrogate witnesses, etc.?  Dr. MS Fedlblum 
"modernized" this to mean 70 disciplines, such as chemistry, electricity, 
anatomy, astronomy, etc.  Poskim must synthesize many disciplines in order to 
apply Torah Principles.

Synthesis need not be some obsure philosophical construct.  Rather it can be a 
practical hands-on day-to-day, mundane way of life. 

Understanding how bor birshus horabbim might apply to removal of ice from one's 
sidewalk is a form of synthesis.

Rich W

Here is your answer:

> Ha-Maayan 1964 or 1965 -- The last paragraph of R. Weiberg's
> teshuvah on the subject
>

> > 9 Feb 1999 12:29:51 -0600 (CST)
> >Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 12:29:51 -0600 (CST)
> >From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
> <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> >Subject: Re: (no subject)
> >In-reply-to: <36C052C6.A296979A@lsr.nei.nih.gov>
> >To: avodah@aishdas.org
> >Cc: "Ari Z. Zivotofsky - FAM" <azz@lsr.nei.nih.gov>
> >
> >On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Ari Z. Zivotofsky wrote:
> >
> >> In response to the "challenge" below, I was informed of the
> following.
> >>
> >> "This section originally appeared in
> >> Ha-Maayan when R. Weinberg's essay on hair covering was
> >> published. For some reason it was not reprinted in Seride
> Esh."
> >>
> >>
> >> Ari
> >
> >Could we please get a date and volume so we can look up the
> "HaMa'ayan" if
> >necessary?
> >
> >Now that it would seem that this letter is not "forbidden
> fruit" as R'
> >Meir aptly put it, let me state that I never had any qualms
> about the SE's
> >hashkofo as expressed - but reiterate that we are dealing in
> the halachic
> >plane.
> >
> >YGB
> >
> >Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> >Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
> >ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
> >
>

Eli Clark wrote:>> I think that Halakhah assumes that ervah is 
intrinsically related to hirhur.<< 

Question, what about an infant's erva?

To be a bit Brisk about this, I always assuemd there were (at least) 2 dinim WRT
to erva,

Objective Erva.  This is fixed, static and not dependent upon minhog hakakom.

Subjective Erva, Those areas of a woman that are customarily covered; when 
uncovered they could trigger hirhur.  This could vary according to time and 
place.  This is in line with the Aruch haShulchan's kulo. This seems to be based
upon the fact that since we have been de-sensitised to uncovered hair, therefore
there is no problem of hirhur.  Therefore, according to my construct, hair falls
under the subjective heading. (see below).

However, there are certain obejctive erva's that de-sensistization does not 
apply. EG, a gynecologist might be totally de-sesnsitized to a woman's erva, yet
he cannot read shma next to a women's erva despite a lack of hirhur.  Devorim 
shebikdusho are unfit in the prsense of certain erva regardless of the hirhur 
factor.  This is similar to tzoah.

My earlier point re: HEAD vs. HAIR was that since "ufora es Rosho" is based upon
a possuk, it wouldn'tt fall udner the objective category and be a problem 
regardless of hirhur.  (Unless ufaro is an asmachto be'almo.)  My intuitive 
guess is thatthe orignal erva of the head was based upon the possuk, and later 
got extended by minhog Bnos Yisroel to include all of the hair; hence seior 
beisho erva.  But we could peel it back a bit (bizman hazeh) to allow for 
showing hair as long as the woman was not begillui rosh.  That's because the 
possuk suggests that woman had to have kissui rosh. 

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

Rashi (shmos, perek 20 pasuk 20) quotes a Mechilta which says that it is
Assur to add to the two cherubim that HAshem commanded Moshe/Betzalel to
make. If so how did Shlomo make two additional cherubim in the Beis
Hamikdash. Even if this was done al pi Nevuah,  can it overide an issur
in the Torah?? Does anyone know how to explain the MEchilta to avoid this
problem. The only answer I've been able to come up with is that the Issur
only applied to the Mishkan and not The BEis Hamikdash, but I have no
proof for that. In fact the end of this Rashi seems to refute this answer. 
Elie Ginsparg

My father just told me that HaRav Ovadiah Yosef is campaining for head
covering for girls. (I have no idea to what extent, or other details) and
has no idea why Batei Yaakov don't require it. After all, "kol ishah ervah"
is in the same sentence, and isn't limited to married women.

Would this mean that he /does/ define ervah as "sexually provocative" as
opposed to whatever defninition R' YGB feels is more correct?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6086 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 9-Feb-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

>I assume he is referring to Rashi in Psochim 3a Loshon Nkiyoh, by the 
>ramp the issue is not Pisuk Raglayim rather Harchovas Hapsios, a Kapote
would not have helped.
	Thank you both for identifying the Rashi (that is the one I meant) and
for asking the question on the kevesh which I would have!
Gershon

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Micha Berger wrote:

> My father just told me that HaRav Ovadiah Yosef is campaining for head
> covering for girls. (I have no idea to what extent, or other details)
> and has no idea why Batei Yaakov don't require it. After all, "kol ishah
> ervah"  is in the same sentence, and isn't limited to married women. 
> 
> Would this mean that he /does/ define ervah as "sexually provocative" as
> opposed to whatever defninition R' YGB feels is more correct? 
> 

Could we get some verification of this? While I do not own a Yabia Omer, I
believe he has a teshuva explicitly dealing with this issue and rejecting
it. Those who own a YO are requested to check it out for us.

YGB

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

>>>There is a minhag when one has come late to daven one's private Amido along
with the Shatz.  Question: What is the origin of this minhog?  IOW which
poseik FIRTS suggested it?<<<

See Tos. Berachos 21 'ain hayachid' that a yachid davening simultaneously with
the Shatz can answer kedusha 'd'ain zeh karuei yachid'.  See Shut Igros Moshe
O.C. chelek 3 #9 who discusses this at length; he quotes Likutei Chasam Sofer
as suggesting that davening along with the Shatz is the ikkar mitzva of
tefillah b'tzibbur.  R' Moshe disagrees and has a different pshat in Tos.
(Derech agav - the tshuvas haRambam he quotes is interesting because it seems
to go against the lomdus suggested by the Rav that chazaras hashatz is
tefillas HAtzibbur, i.e. a seperate chovah on the tzibbur as a whole.  The
tshuvah presents chazaras hashatz as simply to be moitzi the aino baki.)

-Chaim

I have not looked it up recently, but if I recall correctly his issue was not
ervah, but kisuei rosh as men do.
He believes that girls should cover their heads (not hair) for davening, learning,
brachas, etc.

Ari Zivotofsky



Micha Berger wrote:

> My father just told me that HaRav Ovadiah Yosef is campaining for head
> covering for girls. (I have no idea to what extent, or other details) and
> has no idea why Batei Yaakov don't require it. After all, "kol ishah ervah"
> is in the same sentence, and isn't limited to married women.
>
> Would this mean that he /does/ define ervah as "sexually provocative" as
> opposed to whatever defninition R' YGB feels is more correct?
>
> -mi
>
> --
> Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6086 days!
> micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 9-Feb-99)
> For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
> http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

In my previous posting, I set out to demonstrate that the halakhah
requiring married women to cover their hair in the shuk was not
originally related to the laws of ervah.  I also noted a mahloket
Aharonim whether married women's hair is now considered makom mekhuseh.
(I remain perplexed about the apparent setirah in R. Moshe.  Where is R.
Eidensohn when we need him?)

Responding to this, RYGB writes:

>I see no defecit in sheitels from this perspective.

True.  My post was oriented toward understanding Torah la-amitah, rather
than winning an argument.  Indeed, my previous did not address the
sheitel at all.  Let's do so now.

We should start with the obvious: the majority of posekim -- certainly
in the Ashkenazic world -- permit wigs.

It seems, though I have not researched this sufficiently, that wigs were
first introduced in Western Europe toward the end of the 15th century or
beginning of the sixteenth.  In any case, one of the first to address
the issue is the Shiltei Gibborim (Rif, Shabbat,  no. 375).  The Gemara
in Shabbat (64b) discusses the permissibility of wearing a wig on
Shabbat in either reshut ha-rabbim or a hatzer.  The Shiltei Gibborim
(R. Yehoshua Boaz) writes that this Gemara is a proof that it is married
women are permitted to cover their hair with wigs -- whether made of
human hair or their own hair.

Opponents of wigs have explained that Gemara as referring either to a
woman with a hat on the wig (She'elot u-Teshuvot Be'er Sheva no. 18), or
wearing a wig in a private hatzer where haircovering is not required
(She'elat Ya'avetz I, no. 9; Tiferet Yisrael, Shabbat, ad loc.).  Both
Tiferet Yisrael and the Mishnah Berurah (OH 75:15) mention the problem
of marit ayin.

Among Sefardim, the issue does not appear to have arisen until the 19th
century, as wigs are not generally part of the costume in Arab lands.
Of course, the opposition of R. Ovdaya is well known.  See Yabbi'a Omer
V, EH no. 5.  Also the Sedei Hemed, Asifat Dinim 4:3.  As RYGB noted,
the Yaskil Avidi permits wigs.

The Rema seems to view wigs as permissible; see OH 21:2.  As do Magen
Avraham and Peri Megadim (OH 75:5).  R. Moshe (Iggerot Moshe EH II, no.
12) notes that rov posekim permit and rejects the concern for marit
ayin.  Why?  "In most cases it is evident that the hair is actually a
wig, and even if it is not evident to men, among women it is definitely
evident in virtually all cases.  For those infrequent situations where
it is not evident, they (i.e. the posekim) do not prohibit.  There is
another major reason not to prohibit becuase of marit ayin: because it
is known to all that one should wear a wig and such assumption would
apply to a proper woman."

This merits some analysis.  If the issue of peri'at rosh relates to
ervah, it should not matter whether a woman can identify a wig; what
matters is hirhur, which presumably depends on men, not women.  But, as
noted in my previous post, R. Moshe holds that peri'at rosh is not a
matter of ervah.  Thus, he seems willing to rely on women's ability to
identify wigs.  My only concern with his argument is that  times have
changed.  First, many wigs are much better looking than those available
in 195_, when this teshuvah was written.  From what I understand, in
some cases, women are spending more than a thousand dollars on wigs that
look better than their real hair!   The entire goal of such wigs is to
look no different from real hair.  And, if my wife is a reliable guide,
it is no longer true that women can almost always identify wigs.

R. Moshe's second argument is that the use of wigs is by now well-known
and therefore no one would suspect a frum woman.  This is a solid
argument, but limited to the reality of an insular yeshivish community.
In any diverse community or gathering, it is simply untrue.  For
example, in a shul where only half the women cover their hair, a
realistic wig may be easily mistaken for hair.  Similarly, at a family
simhah, where yeshivish and modern elements mix, confusion is likely.
My wife has collected much anecdotal evidence regarding real-life
situations of marit ayin created by realistic wigs.

I think it indisputable that a heter exists for wigs.  But we live in an
age where many people are encouraged to be yotze kol ha-de'ot.  This
approach has swept the laws of Shabbat and kashrut.  I find it telling
that it has made few inroads against the sheitel.  More, one finds in
yeshivish circles that many women keep their hair covered at all times,
even in the privacy of their own homes.  This humra has little halakhic
basis (except according to Bah; see also Hatam Sofer), and is generally
attributed to an aggadah about Kimhit (Yoma 47a).  [Footnote: My rebbe,
R. Lichtenstein, holds that women have no obligation to cover their hair
in the home.]  In short, I find it striking that one hair covering humra
has become an absolute norm, while another hair covering humra (which I
think has a stronger halakhic basis) is virtually ignored.

Kol tuv,

Eli

A new book on hilchos Ztnius recently came out from Feldheim ,
The title
slips my mind right now-I can look up detailed sources later if you want,
which clearly says that there are serious problems with Custom Sheitels
and
specially styled Sheitals for the vary reasons you have mentioned. I think
RYGB has made reference to these problems as well in his earliar posts. My
point is that no one is debating that there might be problems with certain
sheteils, but the Heter as a whole shouldn't be viewed as a Kulla, rather
is mikur hadin--just that one should use their sense of tzinus when
choosing a sheital.
Elie Ginsparg

<<
>> By co-incidence, last Shabbos while learning the Tur, I said to my chavrusa
as
>> as we started the BY "Now we'll REALLY learn this stuff." And he seriously
>> objected to my slighting the Tur's kovod etc. (BTW I asked the Tur for 
>> mechilo).What my point was The Sefer haTur, while written by a big gadol, 
>> does not provide the same challenge (and reward) as learning the BY.
>>

I remember a story about a person who challenged the greatness of R. Akiva
Eiger's comments on the g'mara, saying he could figure out whatever it was
that was bothering R. Eiger whenever he saw one of the marks in the g'mara.
The response was the R. Eiger's greatness was in seeing the difficulties
without the asterisks to point them out.

Most nos'ey keylim will be more challenging than the works they address, for
they raise difficulties in the text.  The real challenge, and to me the
greater reward, is to justify the original text.  I think you still owe the
Tur an apology.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

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


[ 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 ]