Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 137

Wednesday, April 2 2003

• Re: Re: Sheitlach
• Makdim Kana L'Veshet
• Re: Brisk
• RE: gilgul
• Re: TSBP
• Re: NOT BEING A NUDNIK BEFORE G-D
• Re: Zachor - Standing for Laining
• Re: Of Tzitzis and Techeles
• Birkas Hallel on Rosh Chodesh
• RE: [Areivim] Re: Sheitel vs. hat which leaves some hair out
• Re: [Areivim] Re: Sheitlach
• re: Sheitels
• Re: P' shmimi - onen and talmud torah
• Re: Mixed seating
• Re: Rav Saadia Gaon
• RE: Oral and written traditions
• Re: P' shmimi - onen and talmud torah
• RE: P' shmini - onen and talmud torah
• Re: Sheitel vs. hat which leaves some hair out

On 1 Apr 2003 at 11:17, Seth Mandel wrote:
> I am just pointing out that those who
> forbid sheitels, based on their reasoning, should pasken like the
> Rambam with regard to unmarried girls.  And in some places they did:
> all unmarried girls in those places wore pigtails, which certainly is
> not rosh parua' according to the g'moro, although might not be
> suitable for a married women...

I believe that you have just described the minhagim of the Toldos 
Aharon community in Meah Shearim.

-- Carl

I recently reviewed the Halachos of reclining on pesach and was wondering
how anatomically accurate the fear of makdim kanah liveshet is. I spoke to
a Gastroenterologist(sp?)/Talmid Chacham and he said he never understood
the Chazal. He said the trachea and esophagus are positioned front &
back in the neck area and then the esophagus veers off to the person's
LEFT. The Sh"A with the M"B writes the exact opposite - that the esophagus
is on the RIGHT and the trachea on the left. When we lean on the right,
it says, the "hat" (I guess this is the epiglotis(sp?)) pops open and
the trachea is then the first stop after the throat - increasing the
risk of choking. The trachea is the closest to the throat only because
it is on the LEFT. A problem.

Is this just another instance of chazal working with their limited
scientific knowledge? I have no problem with that approach - especially
if we say that they only used this as a mashal for deeper concepts so the
accuracy is inconsequential as some say (although this is for a halacha
limaaseh so that's a bit shver. There's the other reason of Left-Leaning
- to eat with your right hand - but still... ). The problem with this
approach is that this metzius should have been easy to clarify. If
autopsies were (and are) assur at least the gentiles had done a few and
could testify to, or even show the Rabbis, what the facts were.

KT,
Mordechai Dixler

I did post some of my thoughts on avoda. Briefly, I think that R. Krumbein
takes a little slice of the Brisker world, especially narrowed by reliance
on printed Chiddushei R. Chaim, which we know, R. Chaim was very selective
and conservative with. He does not take into account the mpi hashmua
collections, the Telz versions, Birchas Sh'muel, R. Shimon Shkop etc,
and most importantly, the family mesora through RMS and RYBS. When I
was in Lakewood 20+ years ago, I heard that RAK family has booklets
with chiddushim form RAK that combine RCS derech and isodos with RAK
bekius. Thes were permitted to be viewed by selected individuals only. A
wider view, I think, disproves his thesis.

M. Levin

I would like to contribute to this topic that many ancients, people with
impeccable credentials as thinkers, believed in gilgul. So did Pythagoras,
so did Plato. Plate actually mentions gilgul into animals.

Source. Dov Ber Pinson, Reincarnation and Judaism: The Journey of the
Soul; Meditation and Judaism, Jason Aronson

M. Levin

In a message dated 3/31/2003 1:28:32 PM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
writes:
> The statement turns the entire process of Torah she'b'al peh as redirected
> by Rabbeinu Ha'Kaddosh - R' Yehuda ha'Nasi - and the editors of the
> Yerushalmi and the Bavli - on its head and diminishes the rigor of Torah
> scholarship and analysis.

Check out the Rema in Choshen Mishpat 25 re: a private Maroahs from one's
rebbe. I'm not sure it is on target or just tangential... nevertheless
I used such logic to defend those who did not sit in a Sukkah on Shmini
Ztzers when they had a family minhag not to do so....

This is simlar to holding like the MB. EVen if you always hold like the
MB's writing, you might make an exception when your family or poseik
has ALREADY exstablished such an exception. THEN, you see the MB as
not the HIGHEST authority, but rather as the DEFAULT authority in the
absence of any over-ruling norm.

Similarly, the Mishnah contains the Halacha by default, UNLESS a
Gamra/Tosefta/Braisso modifies or overrules it.

Simlarly the Gmara contins the Halachah by default unless someon -such
as tosafos - brings about an alternate traditoin.

And to many the Gmara is over-ridden by Zohar, too, in many cases.

Bottom line, Authoritaive texts are not 100% the last word, but rather
they are the last word in a vacuum, or IOW the default last word unless
you know otherwise.

This answers the famous question on the Beis Yosef, how come he does
not stick to his rule of using his hypothetical BD of Rif/Rambam/Rosh?
The simple answer is he only takes his sha'alos to the BD in the case
of doubt. When he has no doubt what to do he does not even ask his BD
what to do!

Illustration: if I know my family Minhag is to wear Tefillin on Chol
Hamoed, I am in no need to research what the texts say. The texts are
of course useful in the absence of such a minhag, or even more so for
academic purposes. Now of course if I was the only one in the world left
still putting on Tefilin on Chol Hamoed I might need to re-consider, but
so long as the nahara nhara u'pashtei is alive and well I need not worry.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

In a message dated 3/25/2003 10:29:29 PM EST, carmy@ymail.yu.edu writes:
>>There is a related theme - Not bothering G-d with our personal requests.
>>This seems to have been a major theme of the Magid of Mezerich but
>>Rav Chaim Voloshner Ruach Chaim 3:2 has a similar point of view. We
>>are only to be concerned with the suffering of the Shechina - not our
>>petty complaints.

> 1. The Rav's understanding of halakhic Tefilla is that G-d does welcome
> our "petty" requests. That is the implication of the nusah of prayer
> that we recite.

FWIW when I was in Ner Yisrael, one of the Mechina mussar shuezzen
metnioned in passing the "bittul zman" of baseball. Then the Maggid shiur
said {something like}: "But if the person at bat were to aske Hashem for
a hit, then it would make the whole game worthwhile..." It is either
my memory or my imagination {IOW faulty memory} that attributed that
idea of requesting even the most humble of needs to Rav Nachman of Breslov

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

In a message dated 3/31/2003 5:56:06 PM EST, Joelirich@aol.com writes:
> The gemora in Sotah says "vamdu haam" means they were quiet but I've
> never understood why we wouldn't also follow the simple pshat of vamdu
> and stand. Could the gemora have meant that vamdu actually means they
> were silent to the exclusion of that they stood?

 This is not a case of drash "going outside the box" of pshat 

La'amod means

To Stand {Still}

It can refer to "Standing UP" after sitting
OR
to "Standing still" {IOW stopping} after walking. {See the Mishna re:
saying Amod! in order to avoid a collision}

Bepashtus both meanings are quite common and the TSBP certainly has the
authority and the responsibility for pointing out WHICH meaning is the
authoritative one.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

In a message dated 3/31/2003 1:28:45 PM EST, hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:
> That's a good question and B'Pashtus the Gra's Talis was also made of
> wool, although it is told that he purposely wore a Begged of cotton for
> his Talis Katan because of the Chashash of the Shitas Baal HaMeor about
> Techeiles Being MeAkev Es HaLavan.

FWIW, I once heard a different pshat in this GRA 
I.E. that he wanted to be yotzei both the d'oraisso of wool and also davka
the derabbonon {at least according to some rishonim} of cotton. I believe
I saw this in Rav Sternbuch's writings on the GRA but I am not quite sure.

IIRC the GRA was a bit of a "kanai" in keeping derabbanons, and this
would fit

Kol Tuv - Best Regards Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com> The
above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom Gertrude Wolpoe OBM,
Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

More on why we do the things we do do --smile--

Many/Most of us on this list will say Hallel with a Brachah on this
coming Rosh Chodesh. Think about this, it is by no means clear in the
Halachah that this Brachah should be recited, albeit it is the "norm"
amongst Ashkenazim.

Assuming you DO say Hallel with a Brachah, think about WHY!

Here is a list of possible motivators:

A)  That's what the Artscroll Siddur says to do

B)  That's what my zeide did.

C)  That's what the MB says to do, and the CI says I should follow
    davka the MB.

D)  My own Poseik told me to do it that way.

E)  The Minhag Hamakom where I daven does it this way.

F)  Peer Pressure, I don't want to assert my individuality so I follow the
    crowd and they do it. {similar to E, but more out of convenience
    and less out of conviction)

G)  The Ashkenazic Tradition is to say Blessings on certain Minhaggim,
    even when they are not an absolute chova, and this is such a case.

H)  I personally researched the issue in the Gmara and Poskim and I 
    intellectually discerned that this is the proper thing to do al
    pi svara.

H)  I personally researched the issue in the Gmara and Poskim and I am
    following the decision of ROV poskim - at least the majority that
    I came across in my research.

J)  Habit

K)  I am clueless that there is an alternative, therefore I say it.

L)  Other  - Feel free to add another reason or 2.

Your selection will probably reflect your own underlying hashkafa re:
Psak Halachah in general

If any of you cannot guess my primary choice by now, and are curious to
know, email me privately and I will tell you, bli neder.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

From: Moshe Shulman [mailto:mshulman@ix.netcom.com] on Areivim
> Two things:
> 1. You are arguing that  a sheitel, which looks like real 
> hair, is worse then real hair, which is real hair. I doubt that can be 
> supported anywhere in halacha.

No. According to those who forbid a sheitel, it's not worse than real
hair, just either (1) equal to real hair or (2) slightly better than
real hair.

What I did argue is that a head which is mostly covered is considered by
the Rashba (quoted by all the subsequent poskim) as complying completely
with the halacha of kisui rosh even though there is some hair which
does stick out. Consequently, a woman who wears such a hat is better
off than a woman who wears a sheitel.

> 2. A sheitel is referred to as 'peah nachris' in the poskim, and does 
> appear in the talmud.

But it doesn't appear in the context of kisui rosh for women. The gemara
in Shabbos, which talks about use of a pe'ah nochris, is referring to
a situation of a chatzer, where according to the gemara Ksubos 72b,
a woman may walk w/o any headcovering whatsoever. Rashi in Shabbos
in Perek ba'meh ha'isha yotzah (I don't have the cite in front of me)
talks about the use of pe'ah nochris to add volume to thinning hair,
and in fact implies that the real hair was *mixed* with the fake, not
that the fake *covered* the real.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On 1 Apr 2003 at 20:26, Moshe Shulman wrote:
> Erva is technically any place which is 'customarily' or required to be 
> covered.  (I recall seeing in the Rav's Shulchan Aruch that this is one of 
> the reasons for men going with a yarmulke.)

A MAN'S head is erva? On what basis? 

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

R' Harry Maryles wrote <<< ... There is a tremendous illogic to the
mitzvah of covering the hair of married women and not single women...
Another piece is that no matter how attractive an adult unmarried woman's
hair is, there is absolutely no Issur for that hair to be uncovered and
fashionable (according to most Poskim)... >>>

and then went on to say <<< It is one thing to say something is a Chok,
like the Halachos of Para Adumah. Perhaps we weren't meant as human
beings to understand this Godly command. That is how Chukkim are defined.
But hair covering, especially Daas Moshe, and not Daas Yehudis is not
a Chok. It is in fact a derivation, learned out from Psukim. >>>

Something strikes me odd here. Just because this halacha is "learned out
from psukim", does that define it as not being a chok? Those psukim speak
quite matter-of-factly about how an accused sotah is normally expected
to have her head covered, and says nothing blatant about *why*.

Rather, as I see it, the exemption for unmarried women is not just a
little detail, but a main component of this mitzvah, and therefore its
illogic *does* define it as a chok. Then, having defined it as such,
it is totally unrelated to tznius, and there's no problem with a sheitel.

I grant that the phrase "saar b'isha ervah" is used, but it can be seen
as a mere soundbite, a catchphrase to remind us of the halacha, and which
has nothing to do with the logic behind the halacha, or its rules. This
is similar to women being paturos from mitzvos aseh shehazman graman,
which similarly has a zillion exceptions unrelated to the concept of
"zman grama".

Akiva Miller

From: "Brown, Charles.F" <charlesf.brown@gs.com>
>Question: Ahron was an onen, albeit a kh"g, but what is the
> heter to engage in a theoretical discussion of talmud torah?

Moshe was asking after the fact because he found out that the chatas
had been burnt and not eaten. This would have to be the next day, since
you can burn the chatas until it became nosar. Which would not be until
the following morning. At this point Ahron was an aveil not an onen.
Since they were discusing the chatas of Rosh Chodesh it was not just
theoretical question. It was aprctical question for the next time it
would occur. I may be wrong, but I believe an aveil may learn the laws
relating to aveilus even if they are not directly affecting them.

Kol Tov
Ezriel

On 1 Apr 2003 at 20:22, Moshe Shulman wrote:
> Are you arguing that something that 'looks like' hair is WORSE then
> real hair? 

Nope. I'm arguing that something that looks like real hair is only
slightly better than real hair because it can still cause hirhurim just
like real hair does (and especially if you don't know it's a wig). With
a tichel, most of the hair is covered even if some small amount is
showing. Don't get me wrong - I'm not arguing that wearing a sheitel
is assur (although there are poskim who argue just that). But I don't
think it's a foregone conclusion that a sheitel is a "better covering
than what they use" with respect to most of our women.

-- Carl

On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 11:00:17PM +1000, SBA forwarded from his friend
R' Shmuel from England:
: My sole point was that when we take a line-up of poskim today, he is
: not one of them - despite his massive influence in his own generation
: and on our history.

Actually, and on our halachah. Ge'onim don't get cited much, but they're a
critical link in the mesorah. I would therefore not confuse RSG's lack of
citations with a lack of influence on the rishonim we do end up quoting.

But that's tangential.

All of this presumes that we hold like the Maharlbach that the concept
of emunas chachamim turns belief in something that otherwise wouldn't
be an ikkar emunah into one.

Do we hold this lehalachah? Anyone know a candidate for geirus or a
vintner whose treatment in halachah was determined by anything other
than belief in some version of the Rambam's 13?

And last, all of which may be moot, since the Rosh does fit in the
category of major Ashkenazi poseqim and (according to the citation given
by RGStudent) not only doesn't believe in it, holds (like R' Saadia)
that such belief is assur.

To revive an old conversation, this would mean there is no "tzad chumrah"
by which you could believe something appropriate according to everyone
even if you hold people have that level of bechirah WRT beliefs.

R' Shmuel should also be aware that a significant part of the audience
does not believe that the relevent Zohar at the begining of parashas
Mishpatim was from RSbY. A number of posters to this conversation do
not believe any of the Zohar is; some hold (as per RYE!) that much
of the Zohar is accretion on top of the original text.

One major philisophical point I want to raise:
: How does this individual understand the soul? what does it do? why do
: we need one? why do Jews have a different soul to others (this is also
: asserted in the qabboloh)?

People don't /have/ souls, people /are/ souls. The "I", my self-awareness,
is necessary to the concept of bechirah chafshi, and therefore must
reside in the soul. In the nefesh, according to the Gra, the ru'ach
according to the Ramchal.

In fact, this in itself is a philosophical problem with applying the
concept of gilgul to that aspect of Naran. After all, we are not aware
(ve'ein tzarich lomar self-aware) of any memories of the former life.

Could it be that gilgul neshamos refers to neshamah bedavka, and not
these "lower" aspects? After all, not many people (if any, short of
nevi'im) are consciously aware of the activity of their neshamos.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

From: "Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
>>> heter (mostly privately, but much halacha is oral - the requirement for
>>> written psakim inverts the whole issue of the torah shebealpe on its head)

>> I heard the same statement by R. Reisman on one of his tapes and I
>> wholeheartedly agree.

> The statement turns the entire process of Torah she'b'al peh as redirected
> by Rabbeinu Ha'Kaddosh - R' Yehuda ha'Nasi - and the editors of the
> Yerushalmi and the Bavli - on its head and diminishes the rigor of Torah
> scholarship and analysis.

RYGB is mixing up several different issues.
1) Question: Is the heter of writing torah shebe'alpe a general heter
or limited?
IIRC, RYGB cited a rav Zadok arguing that it was general. However,
as I am sure that he is aware, this is a matter of machloket. R Kafih,
in his perush on the rambam, argues that the rambam held that the heter
was limited to what was strictly necessary, and even sometimes (IIRC)
interpretes pshat in the rambam on the basis of this principle.

2) Even if there exists a general heter, what is the status of oral
psakim and traditions?
Here is where I find RYGB's position confusing, at best. The heter to
write down torah shebealpe is so that it is not forgotten. Furthermore,
one can argue that written justifications allow for greater detail and
understanding of the rationale. However, there is no inherent requirement
for a written psak - writing it down may make it more accessible to the
general public, easier to document, etc - but the lack of such writing
does not invalidate it, and the rejection by some of all oral traditions
which are not written down is tremendously against the entire spirit of
the torah she'belape, and turns the "entire process of Torah she'b'al pe
as redirected by Rabbeinu Hakaddosh - R Yehuda HaNasi - and the editors
of the Yerushalmi and the bavli " on its head. The issue of lest it
being reforgotten is quite different than the issue of diminishing the
rigor of Torah scholarship and analysis - a quite breathtaking hiddush
(Hillel and rabbi Akiva had less rigor??). Do you have any sources that
rabbeinu hakaddosh and the editors of the yerushalmi and bavli intended
such a redirection? After all, what is the difference between the oral
hiddushim of the gra and those brought down in the ma'ase rav? The ones
in the ma'ase rav are now accessible to the general public, while the oral
ones may not be, but, if there is a reliable oral tradition of the gra,
does it have any less validity just because some talmid did not write
it down in a sefer?? This fundamentally misconstrues the entire notion
of a torah she'bealpe.

Thus, while the public writings of an individual may sometimes be
preferred for accuracy, the notion that oral traditions may be safely
ignored and are of inherently less value than wrtten traditions is a
highly radical one, without any basis, and yes, stands the entire notion
of the torah shebealpe on its head.

Meir Shinnar

On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 02:52:32PM -0500, Brown, Charles.F wrote:
: When Moshe asked Ahron why he didn't eat his korban, "hein lo huvah es
: damah pnima", Ramban says Ahron could have answered strictly based on
: the facts - Nadav and Avihu died after zerika. Ahron instead chose to
: discuss the theoretical issue (chiluk between kodshei sha'ah and doros)
: and engage in a "masah u'matan shel halacha". Question: Ahron was an
: onen, albeit a kh"g, but what is the heter to engage in a theoretical
: discussion of talmud torah?

Pardon the morbidity, but was there anything left of Nadav va'Avihu
to bury?

Your question is valid according to the Ramban (Toras haAdam) that aninus
de'Oraisa is the entire first day. Rashi holds that aninus de'Oraisa
even on the day of misah is only while there is a chiyuv qevurah.

As for aninus deRabban, yeish ko'ach beyad BD, but until the BD actually
is oqeir davar, Aharon would have to follow the chiyuv.

(BTW, our old discussion of what is an asmachta is raised by the rishonim
on Sanhedrin 83a. Aninus is mentioned on 83b, I noticed it in passing.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

Question: Ahron was an onen, albeit a kh"g, but what is the heter to
engage in a theoretical discussion of talmud torah?

>>> Moshe was asking after the fact... This would have to be the next
day<<<

"Hein HAYOM hikrivu...."

>>>Since they were discusing the chatas of Rosh Chodesh it was not
just theoretical question... I may be wrong, but I believe an aveil
may learn the laws relating to aveilus even if they are not directly
affecting them.<<<

As Ramban writes, the practical question could be resolved by simply
saying the korbanos had been offered before the deaths of Nadav v"Avihu
w/o engaging in a pilpul, or "masa u'matan shel halacha". Even if you
classify this as a sheila in dinei aveilus, b'pashtus there is no heter
for an aveil to learn in-depth.

Someone wrote to me off-list that Ahron was an onein and not aveil and
maybe the issur of T"T applies only to aveilus. There is a machlokes
Ramban and Rit"z Geyus whether the issurei aveilus apply during aninus,
though I double-checked the Ramban in Toras haAdam and interestingly he
does not explicitely refer to T"T when discussing this. My assumption
was even if you hold the issur of T"T does not apply to an onein, there
is still the general ptur mitzvos every onein has (b'dochak you could
say it is a ptur and not an issur, tos. brachos 17).

Perhaps you could argue that this was different because the tipul with
the meis was assigned to Eltzafan and Uziel and removed from Ahron.
Second possibility (already hinted at in Ramban) would be to treat Nadav
and Avihu like harugei b"d and no aveilus applies.

After looking further, maybe kushya m'ikara leisa. Moed Kattan 14 tries
to being a ra'aya that tzara'as applies during regel from the fact that
tzara'as applies to a KH"G, for whom "kol ha-shana k'regel l'kulei alma".
Some Rishonim prove from here that a KH"G is mufka from the whole parsha
of aveilus - just like regel which cancels aveilus, none of the dinei
aveilus are chal on him.

An aside: Rambam (Aveil 7:6), however, holds that all dinei aveilus apply
to KH"G, except he has a heter of achilas kodshim and staying in mikdash.
Minchas Chinuch asks how Rambam read the gemara in M"K - how is regel
for a regular person comparable to a limited kodshim heter for kh"g?
In Shiurim l"Zecher Aba Mari in the shiur on inyanei aveilus/aninus,
RYBS answers this kashe. The Rav says that simchas haregel is not the
sibah being doche aveilus b'regel, but simchas haregel is a result of
being lifnei Hashem - u'semachtem lifnei Hashem - and that is the mafkiya
of aveilus. The heter of staying in mikdash and eating kodshim for KH"G
also creates a state of being "lifnei Hashem". The gemara is saying
that if tzara'as applies to the kohein who always (even in aveilus)
is in a regel-like state of being lifnei Hashem, the same should apply
to all people on actual regel when they find themselves "lifnei Hashem".

-Chaim

At 09:05 PM 4/1/03 -0500, Feldman, Mark wrote:
>> 1. You are arguing that  a sheitel, which looks like real
>> hair, is worse then real hair, which is real hair. I doubt that can be
>> supported anywhere in halacha.

>No.  According to those who forbid a sheitel, it's not worse than real hair,
>just either (1) equal to real hair or (2) slightly better than real hair.

(1) is impossible because at best it is a gezera.

>What I did argue is that a head which is mostly covered is considered by the
>Rashba (quoted by all the subsequent poskim) as complying completely with the
>halacha of kisui rosh even though there is some hair which does stick out.

Then according to this, a sheitel is kol v'chomer better.

>Consequently, a woman who wears such a hat is better off than a woman who
>wears a sheitel.

??? Same problem. If x amount of hair is allowed then no hair is allowed.

>> 2. A sheitel is referred to as 'peah nachris' in the poskim, and does
>> appear in the talmud.

>But it doesn't appear in the context of kisui rosh for women.  The gemara in
>Shabbos, which talks about use of a pe'ah nochris, is referring to a
>situation of a chatzer, where according to the gemara Ksubos 72b, a woman may
>walk w/o any headcovering whatsoever.  Rashi in Shabbos in Perek ba'meh
>ha'isha yotzah (I don't have the cite in front of me) talks about the use of
>pe'ah nochris to add volume to thinning hair, and in fact implies that the
>real hair was *mixed* with the fake, not that the fake *covered* the real.

Then I supposed you need to take this up with all the poskim who called a 
sheitel 'peah nochrus' (especially those that prohibit it.)

[Email #2. -mi]

At 09:37 AM 4/2/03 +0300, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
>On 1 Apr 2003 at 20:26, Moshe Shulman wrote:
> > Erva is technically any place which is 'customarily' or required to be
> > covered.  (I recall seeing in the Rav's Shulchan Aruch that this is one of
> > the reasons for men going with a yarmulke.)
>A MAN'S head is erva? On what basis?

Because it is a place that is customarily covered.

[Email #3. -mi]

At 09:37 AM 4/2/03 +0300, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
>On 1 Apr 2003 at 20:22, Moshe Shulman wrote:
> > >On what are you basing that? On the amount of hair showing? I would
> > >think that going with a snood or tichel would be better than going
> > >with a wig that looks so real that you cannot tell that the woman is
> > Are you arguing that something that 'looks like' hair is WORSE then
> > real hair?
>Nope. I'm arguing that something that looks like real hair is only
>slightly better than real hair because it can still cause hirhurim

I am not aware that 'hirhur' the reason for the issur. I have never seen 
that cited.

>wig). With a tichel, most of the hair is covered even if some small
>amount is showing. Don't get me wrong - I'm not arguing that wearing
>a sheitel is assur (although there are poskim who argue just that).

What I am saying is that for those women who do not shave or cut their 
hair, then a sheitel, where no hair is showing, is better then something 
where hair does show.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Shulman   outreach@messiahtruth.com 718-436-7705
Messiah Truth/Judaism's Answer:  http://www.messiahtruth.com/
Outreach Judaism:   http://www.outreachjudaism.org/
CHASSIDUS.NET - Yoshav Rosh       http://www.chassidus.net
Chassidus discussion list:        chassidus-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]