Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 141

Monday, April 7 2003

• Sof Zman Chometz
• Re: Sheitels
• sheitel
• Re: Mixed seating
• Re: On the Matter of Masorah
• Fw: Re chamira sakant am'issura
• Kallah in mens section for Sheva Brochos
• Mendelsohn Redux
• Re: Written vs. oral
• Re: Oral and written traditions
• Re: Oral and written traditions
• Ikkarim
• Re: Gilgul
• Re: Karaim
• RE: ora and written traditions
• Re: On the Matter of Masorah
• Re: Kallah in mens section for Sheva Brochos
• Kol Isha for unmarried girls
• Re: Atifas HaRosh( Talis )
• Re: Re: Atifas HaRosh( Talis )

As I understand it, the Chiyuv Kares for eating chometz applies only by
night, and not on Erev Pesach; on Erev Pesach after Chatzos, all eating
usage or ownership of chometz is "merely" a lav.

If that is true, then why were the Rabanan more concerned about someone
who (on a cloudy day) would accidentally eat chometz after Chatzos
(which is why they set the zman for two hours before chatzos), and only
moderately concerned about one who would accidentally *use* his chometz
after Chatzos (which is why they set the zman for only a single hour
before chatzos)?

Akiva Miller

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). Yet, for that same woman, once she is married
that same hair is considered Ervah.>>>

And R' M. Levin commented <<< But isn't being attracted to a married
woman much more objectionable than to a single woman who is theoretically
available for marriage?>>>

Yes, I'll concede the truth of RML's point, but I don't think that it
has much effect on RHM's feeling that the exemption for single women
is illogical.

There's no difference between married and single women regarding how
much of the arm must be covered. There's no difference between married
and single women regarding how much of the leg must be covered. There's
no difference between married and single women regarding how much of
other body parts must be covered. Why is there suddenly a difference
between married and single women regarding the hair covering?

Another relevant data point: I had long thought (based on an Igros Moshe,
I think) that the exemption for Kol Isha was for girls who are not yet
nidos, but a few weeks ago Rav Elazar Teitz corrected me and said that
the Kol Isha exemption is for all unmarried girls, even if they are
nidos. I didn't ask for much detail on the reasoning, but his point was
that both kol isha and hair covering are learned from the same gemara,
and apply to the same women.

Back to RML's point, it has been my observation that most (all?)
d'Oraisas operate on a yes/no basis, and pay little regard for situations
of greater or lesser severity. For example, eating Chometz on Pesach is
more serious than mere hanaah, and that is why the Rabanan established
an earlier deadline for eating than for hanaah. But the Torah has no
problem using the same deadline for both.

These are some of the reasons why I tend to regard hair covering in
the "illogical chok" category. It just strikes me as having too many
differences than other tznius-related mitzvos.

Akiva Miller

RRW
> FWIW a little history lesson Professor Grinstein {I don't even know how
> to spell it!} taught us in several classes that when the wig first came
> out the Poskim opposed it (circa 1820) but under pressure they gave in.

See Shut Be'er Sheva (I think the first on the subject) that starts out
in favor and then concludes against.

Shlomo Goldstein

From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> It should be obvious what the nafka mina is. The unmarried girl is
> not an aishes ish.

Any other female body parts where 'ervah' or hirhur depends upon her
marital status??

SBA

Joel Rich wrote:
>Separate question - Why per R'HS's well stated position that tzniut
>applies to men (eg don't jump to the amud) do we see (or maybe I'm
>missing it) little public effort to convince men of this?

We do.  It is called mussar and has not had much success.

Gil Student

[In reply to RSMandel's post. -mi]

----- Original Message -----
From: "shmuel" To: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 5:50 AM
Subject: Re: Re chamira sakant am'issura

I did grasp the main point of your argument. I just asked where you got
the shitta about a revi'is from.

As far as I can see, none of the nois'e kelim to the Rambam mention
this diyuk, neither does anyone to the Tur 181. Is this your own thing
or did you see/hear it somewhere?

I also asked a neighbour, born in the Yemen, living here about five
years, and a scholar of some standing, what their custom is with regard
to mayim achronim. He had never heard of anyone in the Yemen following
your diyuk in Rambam and they use only very little (ie following the
kabbalistic custom).

Although the stories of snakes in Jerusalem are totally away from the
point - I only cited the story with the Hazon Ish as an interesting aside.
Hazal say the no snake ever killed anyone in Jerusalem, mashma that
there were plenty around. I also recall several really scary stories
from old Jerusalem people, the point of all of which is that they were
well aware of this very fact. So: No it's not a 'rayah listor' just an
intresting story, and Yes: there is a significant difference in this
respect between BB and Jerusalem..

With regard to your dismissal of those who first cite a minhog then find
a hetter. I would like to comment that this was actually the way Remo
paskened. Secondly, for those communities/ familes who still posses
an unbroken tradition, it is that tradition that sets the standards,
because those standards were set by earlier and reliable people. It is
only the book-knowledge-only types that would dare to criticise this
approach. Maybe I should clarify this a little. When the first yeshivah
(in the modern sense) opened in Volozhin, it was bitterly opposed by the
hassidic gedoilim both in Lithuania/White Russia and in Galicia (as was
the yeshivah-model of the Hasam Sofer incidentally). It's not the place
at this point to delve into the why's and wherefore's of this opposition,
but merely to bring out a point: from my research I discovered (to my
initial surprise, I should admit) that the Lithuanian communities were
identical in hashkofoh and general behaviour to those in the rest of
Europe (making allowance for regional differences etc, of course). In
short, somebody from deep Galicia, for example, would quickly adapt to
life in a Lithuanian town or village. But the yeshivos quickly created
a totally artificial environment - the ivory tower par excellence -
that forced the boys who went there to abandon what they'd learned and
seen at home and to adopt the mores of the yeshiva. No wonder that
in many many instances this went further - to the point that the big
yeshivos actually became hotbeds of haskoloh. Nowadays, the same problem
works almost in reverse: boys come to yeshivos from very materialist and
secular homes and anything that they know is learned from the yeshiva -
anything that the yeshiva doesn't teach them they will not know. However
positive this may be from one aspect, the same problem pervades both:
book-knowledge was the criterion, not transmission of tradition. This
factor was central to the life of the bais ha-medrash that was central
to Jewish life in Poland and Galicia. I've heard this many times from
people who have experienced both, and as I wrote above, my own research
from texts supports this.

Re: the 'problems' wth the yeled-pele. (a) The claim that most (rubom)
accept gilgul is explicit in Maharlbach. (b) The Steipler was in Eretz
Yisroel at the time that this case became publicised (earliy 1950's)
and may (I believe at least) be relied upon to have gone into it if he
bothered to quote it. Moreover, it is not definitve proof of gilgul,
because Hazal say that a child learns everything in the womb - apparently
mashma 'relearns' from the begining, if so, how did he forget it if he's
a gilgul.

I notice an ominous silence with regard to the case of the dybbuk that was
taken before the Hofetz Hayim. Now he is claimed to be one of 'their's'
and here he goes with all that old-fashioned Eastern European hocus
pocus - and after all they've done to refashion him. Oh dear. They'll
have to find some else now with better credentials. Sarcasm aside,
there was a similar story with the Shinover Ruv around te same time,
I would estimate. R Itzikl from Antwerpen (d circa 1978, and otherwise
known a Pshevorsker Rebbe) was a child at the time and remembered it,
and would mention it from time to time. I would also invite disbelievers
to have a look in Nish'al Dovid (R Dovid Oppenheim) Page 192 in the most
recent editions (Addenda to addenda chapter 5) a very long and detailed
account of a dybbuk that was dealt with by RDO and his Beis Din.

Dybbukim and gilgul go hand in hand, of course. You can't have one
without the other.

I would like to share a story that I actually experienced (ie I know
the family concerned) of a lady in EI who suddenly after a childbirth
started quite involuntarily to describe in great detail gehinnom and
all sorts of otherworldly matters. Her husband, a hossid, asked his
rebbe, who suggested consulting a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist (not
religious) stated that this was definitely not an internal problem, but
external. A brother-in-law realised that it may be a dybbuk and after
lengthy researth found and consulted a mekubbal (a sefardi shochet in
a small town) who confirmed that indeed, the same dybbuk had already
bothered someone else, who had consulted a mekubbal who had not done a
very good job of getting rid of it, and it had thus returned to pester
this lady. He asked for a few days to contact a colleague and returned
with the assurance that after a certain time it would begin to lose
its grip and then go away completely. The family actually consulted
the Steipler during this time, who advised them to keep the matter very
quiet in order that the mekubbal's work be effective.

In a discussion on Areivim (which I'm now bringing to Avodah), R' Eli
Turkel wrote <<< Personally, I have never understood sheva berachot
without the kallah.>>>

R' Shlomo Abeles added and asked <<< When I got married, the minhag
here was that the kallah sat - in a side - in the mens section for the
saying of the Sheva Brochos. Lately this is not happening here [unless
one of us oldies remembers]. Is there a halocho somewhere that the kallah
should be there - and being in the womens section doesn't count?>>>

The Aruch Hashulchan, Even Haezer 62:37 describes where the people
invited to the Sheva Brachos are eating in several different rooms or
buildings. (I leave it as an exercise to the reader, to investigate
whether this is for reasons of tznius, lack of space, some other reason,
or combination thereof.)

At the end there, he writes "They're all considered as one for saying
Birkas Chasanim because they're all eating from the meal that was made
for the chupah. And since they're not all able to hear the brachos from
the one saying them at the chasan's table, therefore they must all say
the Sheva Brachos themselves. And even though the chasan and kallah won't
hear those brachos, that's irrelevant, because even the minhag to bring
the kallah in to hear the brachos is not me'akev, but is merely a nice
minhag due to the brachos being for the success of the couple, so it's
proper for them to be there to hear the brachos, but it's not me'akev."

Note: This issue (whether or not the kallah has to hear the Sheva Brachos
and/or be in the same room as the chasan) is an entirely different issue
from her presence at the seudah at all, which I understand *is* me'akev,
but I won't bother looking up unless challenged.

Akiva Miller

I can't remember what was claimed about the Malbim z'l position in the
recent pro and con Mendelsohn discussion [or if he was mentioned at all].
However, my son showed me what he writes in his peirush on Shir Hashirim
which isn't exactly complimentary.

In a maamar at the end of the sefer he writes re those who translate
it literally:
"...nosach Hashem ruach tardemoh va'yaatzem es einei hamevaarim [obviously
a referral to "Biur"] vehametargemim bechumoshei Ashkenaz, vayelchi
biNesivos lo Sholom [referrring to M's Nesivos Sholom], bechallelom
kedushas hashir hazeh...vayehi lohem keshiras hazonah..."

ayen shom divrei kodshoy...

SBA

R. M. Shinar wrote:
> I would say that the erosion of the halachic method in our day and
> age is reflected in the rejection of the torat chaim of the oral psak,
> creating a new type of halacha, unimagined by rav ashi.

A heorah: There is another perhaps more sociological explanation of this
phenomena. There has occurrred an unprecedented democratization of psak,
aided by accessability of Poskim via the telephone and the information
revolution. We now have many seforim focused on specific areas of
chalacha, extensively researched and documented with footnotes. As a
result, a posek, becomes less willing to analogise because he may be
proven "wrong" from one of these collections.

As an example, this Shabbos I was asked if completely wrapping a pot
in silver foil before shabbos is permitted. Although I reasoned that
it should be because it is a substance that is not mosif hevel before
shabbos, I found myself needing to look it up, just to be sure. So
I posponed giving an answer until I could research it. In fact,
the balabosta who sked, beat me to it by finding a psak in a book on
Shabbos kitches- one layer is OK but two layers would be asur bse that
is mosif hevel.

This illustrates the aforementioned point.

M. Levin

"Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" wrote:
> When Rebbe began compiling mishnayos and Ravina and Rav Ashi redacted
> Shas, the legislative period in Klal Yisroel terminated (until the
> Sanhedrin is reinstitued). The corpus was there, and was carefully
> edited, to present positions and arguments sufficient to serve as a
> springboard for subsequent rigorous and scholarly analysis, subject to
> peer and future review. This new phase is extrapolative and requires and
> interpretive. IT must be based on coherent and cogent argument which is
> then subject to dispute. Thus, the entire vista of responsa literature.

1. Historical problems: R. Yaakov Pollack and R. Shalom Shachna,
the founders of Poilisher lomdus, refused to publish (see Tshuvos
haRama #25). There are other more recent examples of non-publishers
who have retained their status as essential links in psak and/or lomdus
(e.g. R. Chaim Soloveitchik).

2. Logical problems: the decree of eis laasos was to preserve conclusions,
hence the abbreviated style of the mishna. I know that you follow the
opinion that it was a heter gamur rather than a ptur (I do too, when
push comes to shove), but it is a machlokes acharonim, and the other
side surely would not agree to the above. In any case, you have turned
the reason for the ptur on its head.

> Oral traditions can play only secondary, perhaps only tertiary, roles
> in this process. The erosion of the halachic method in our day and age
> is in inverse proportion to the spread of oral psak.

On the contrary, the erosion of the halachic process is closely related to
modern communications methods and the change in methodology of advanced
education to accomodate the great unwashed. Certain novel halachic
opinions, like the opinion that psak without explanation has more force
than psak with explanation play a part as well.

David Riceman

At 10:54 AM 4/7/03 -0400, David Riceman wrote:
> 1. Historical problems: R. Yaakov Pollack and R. Shalom Shachna,
> the founders of Poilisher lomdus, refused to publish (see Tshuvos
> haRama #25). There are other more recent examples of non-publishers
> who have retained their status as essential links in psak and/or lomdus
> (e.g. R. Chaim Soloveitchik).

I covered this in my response to Dr. Shinnar - certain traditions that are 
preserved in writing by students are then part of the corpus - but, 
interestingly, primarily validated by the standing of the student, not the 
master!

2. Logical problems: the decree of eis laasos was to preserve conclusions,
hence the abbreviated style of the mishna.  I know that you follow the opinion
that it was a heter gamur rather than a ptur (I do too, when push comes to
shove), but it is a machlokes acharonim, and the other side surely would not
agree to the above.  In any case, you have turned the reason for the ptur on
its head.

I do not think so - I imagine that Reb Nosson Adler, for example, would 
have published psakim, and only refrained from committing chiddushim to 
writing.

>> Oral traditions can play only secondary, perhaps only tertiary, roles
>> in this process. The erosion of the halachic method in our day and age
>> is in inverse proportion to the spread of oral psak.

> On the contrary, the erosion of the halachic process is closely related to
> modern communications methods and the change in methodology of advanced
> education to accomodate the great unwashed. Certain novel halachic
> opinions, like the opinion that psak without explanation has more force
> than psak with explanation play a part as well.

Modern communication methods, coupled with mass illiteracy, have done
the Halachic process in.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerushalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

Rabbi Wolpoe wrote:
> Bottom line: The 13 still comprise a litmus test because they are the
> ones that comprise the list of specific heresies that are associated
> with viable heretical sects, namely Islam, Xtianity, Karaism, etc.
> I am about 99.44% certain that this is the "Ikkar" of what the Rambam
> was addressing with his Ikkarim.

This is a big sugya. Personally I do not agree with this at all but the
argument was presented by M. Kellner in Dogma... The Rambam is Hilchos
Isurei Biah where geirus is presented (think Ch 13)does not seem like
this. His words in Peirush Hmishnayos Sanhedrin 11 also do not seem to
bear out the contention that 13 Ikkarim are klapei chutz. Still, this
contention has been made by greater scholars than myself and it is a
serious contender for a good explanation of this difficult issue.

M> Levin

Yitzchok Zlochower wrote:
>.... The statement that R' Chasdai
>Crescas was forced to accept gilgul despite his philosophic
>objections is unfounded. The statement, " im kabala hi, nekabel"
>is not an admission - just a way of saying that if you can prove
>the antiquity of the idea in Jewish sources, then he would accept it...

Micha wrote:
>If anything, a rejection! RCC did not know of a mesorah for it,
>and wasn't going to accept the notion of gilgul unless someone
>would provide one.

I read RCC's statement as meaning that has no philosophical objections
to it and therefore accepts it because it is an ancient tradition.

Gil Student

Rich Wolpoe wrote:
>To restate how Rambam used this it is my humble opinion that
>the 13 ikkarim were davka klapei chutz

>IOW they dealt with a definite list of heresies that were prevalent
>at his time to wit:
>Karraism {and Tzadukkism in a way}
>Islam
>Xtianity

RYBS has an interesting take on this in an essay on Mesiras Nefesh in
Divrei Hashkafah. He says that the gentiles have this way of finding
the essence of Judaism. While Rambam was only responding to gentile
criticisms, the criticisms were right on target.

Gil Student

RYGB
> That the end of the legislative period is Chasimas Ha'Talmud is the Hakdama 
> to Mishneh Torah. Nothing new in that.

The notion that the shakla vetarya of the amoraim is radically different
in methodology (rather than in authority) than ours (legislative versus
interpretive, as RYGB writes) would be unknown to the rambam, who holds
for a seamless transition - the mere difference is that post talmudic
authorities have only local relevance, and have accepted the corpus
of the talmud - but the methodology remains the same. The legislative
period is that of the sanhedrin. The chasimas hatalmud is not the end
of the legislative period, but the end of universally accepted hora'ot -
quite a different animal.

Do you have a source for this amazing hiddush?

>> Second, the issue is the nature of the extrapolation. Even if one accepts
>> the above position about the redirection, the primary sources for the
>> interpretation and extrapolation is the gmara and mishna - which are sof
>> hora'a, and therefore, whose accurate preservation is therefore essential.
>> The halachic status of post gmara texts is itself subject to dispute,
>> especially among the rishonim - eg, the rambam's position about the
>> fact that bate dinim inherently have to consider primarily the gmara is
>> well known.

RYGB
> I do not know what your point is above.

If one holds by the rambam's official position about the value of post gmara
precedent, then the accurate preservation of the tradition of what rav Hai
gaon, say, actually held and said is irrelevant - as the issue is whether
his arguments are convincing, rather than that rav Hai gaon said them.
Whether or not they actually reproduce precisely his arguments is
irrelevant, as what is important is not who said the position, but whether
it is intrinsicaly valid and convincing.  By this position, oral and written
traditions have equal weight, as their sole value is conveying an approach -
but whether we accept it or not depends on whether we are convinced by the
approach.

>> However, even if one accepts the halachic status of post gmara positions
>> (which seems mainstream), that validity is not because they are written
>> down. Indeed, as you are probably aware, what one may write down today
>> is a matter of dispute - and those who hold that it is limited clearly
>> do not view that the oral traditions are worthless.

> I still do not understand your point. Were there a mesorah be'al peh with 
> ra'ayos and shakla v'tarya that could be tested by logic and debate, then, 
> yes, in theory, it would have the same validity as responsa that are 
> written. In practice, however, that does not happen.

As this point may be too subtle, let me explain with reference to a real
case, although the facts have been changed somewhat.

I know that the Noda Biyehuda permitted sturgeon as a kosher fish (which
he did). There are several ways that I may know this, and several reasons
why I may accept (or reject) this psak.

1) This may be on the basis of an authenticated oral tradition that the
Noda Biyehuda clearly ate the fish which was sturgeo, knowing it was
sturgeon, and that he knew about the issues with the fish

2) It may be a stam written psak to another rav, saying that the fish
called sturgeon is kosher

3) it may be (the real facts) that there is a detailed written tshuva
explaining precisely why he paskened that way.

4) it may be that one of his talmidim who wrote that he had an oral
discussion with the noda biyehuda (or one of the talmide talmidim who
records that he had a discussion with his teacher about a discussion
the teacher had with the NY, or ....)

Question: What is the halachic status of each of these cases, and does
the fact that it is the NY have any impact?

I would argue that to the extent that one bases one's psak on the
authority of the NY, whether it is an oral tradition, a stam written
psak, a detailed written tshuva, or a record of an oral tradition in
a later book is moot, as long as the oral traditions are reliable.
If one is basing one's psak purely on the "ra'ayos and shakla v'tarya
that could be tested by logic and debate", then the fact that it was
the NY rather than an anomynous sefer or psak should be irrelevant,
and the question then isn't whether the tradition is written or oral,
but merely how convincing the arguments are.

> I am not aware of any major Posek who is willing to accept oral
> traditions, except for those psakim he specifically received - validated
> - from the indivdual that he cites. Most Poskim of repute *do* limit
> their sources to validated publications. A classic example of the mesh
> of validated written sources with validated oral sources is the Shemiras
> Shabos K'Hilchasa.

I don't have the time to research this now, but (from recollection)
think that many poskim do use oral traditions (off hand, RH Schachter
uses oral traditions from RYBS, the bne banim uses oral traditions from
his grandfather, and many poskim cite experience and tradition conveyed
from their teachers) (although, of course, once written down, they become
written - but the written tradition is one of writing down previous oral
traditions). Od hazon lemo'ed, but this statement is extraordinary

>> One classic example that we discussed before is the Seride Esh's famous
>> tshuva on mixed groups, where he mentions the oral tshuva by rav
>> Hildesheimer and rav Hoffman allowing women to sing zmirot on Friday
>> night even with strange males present...
...
> 1. The SE did not rely on those psakim, but validated them and accepted
> them because of his applied lomdus PLUS puk chazei - which is in itself
> an halachic benchmark.

The SE viewed the oral tradition of those psakim as legitimate. Whether to
accept for himself the psak of RDZH and R Hildesheimer required applied
lomdus - but the oral tradition was accepted.

> 2. The MR is not a relied-upon source of halachic practice.

> 3. Rishonim transmit - in writing!

Rishonim transmit in writing oral traditions from the past. The power
and validity of the statement is not from the compiler, but from the
original author of the oral tradition.

Clearly, given the time gap, few oral traditions have survived as pure
oral traditions, and writing down oral traditions may be necessary to
preserve them for distant posterity, but their authority does not derive
from them being written down.

If I were to write down all my oral traditions, it would suddenly achieve
a new status jsut because it was published??

Again, this is quite novel.

Meir Shinnar

Rich Wolpoe wrote:
>E.G. How would Rav Schachter view the Maharm Mirothenbug's
>suggestions that in an Ir Shekullo Kohanim a woman SHOULD
>be called.

>2) the Maharam did not break with Tradition, but in extenuating
>circumstances allowed an exception to the kavod hatzibbur rule
>to be made

I hate to speak for someone else, especially someone so much greater
than I, but I think it is a davar pashut that RHS will answer #2.

Joel Rich wrote:
>What about that kavod hatzibbur is a time and place (or here just
>place) bound concept which needs to be clarified in each situation.

That might actually work as a Maharam leshitaso. It depends on how you
read the Maharam, or rather the citations of the Maharam by his talmidim.
I think there is a setirah in Mordechais about this.

Gil Student

On 7 Apr 2003 at 8:48, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> Note: This issue (whether or not the kallah has to hear the Sheva
> Brachos and/or be in the same room as the chasan) is an entirely
> different issue from her presence at the seudah at all, which I
> understand *is* me'akev, but I won't bother looking up unless
> challenged.

But the implication from the AhS that you cite is that her presence
at the same seudah in a different room is sufficient for purposes
of bringing about the requirement of reciting Sheva Brachos. The only
question might be if she is not there at all, a situation no one posited
in the Areivim discussion.

-- Carl

> Another relevant data point: I had long thought (based on an Igros Moshe,
> I think) that the exemption for Kol Isha was for girls who are not yet
> nidos, but a few weeks ago Rav Elazar Teitz corrected me and said that
> the Kol Isha exemption is for all unmarried girls, even if they are
> nidos. I didn't ask for much detail on the reasoning, but his point was
> that both kol isha and hair covering are learned from the same gemara,
> and apply to the same women.

Igros Moshe OC I #26 page 68. "The Baer Shmuel clearly states that the
voice of an unmarried girl is permitted except for the time of prayer. A
similar view is stated by the Magen Avraham - that only the voice of a
married woman is prohibited. It is obvious that the intent is to also
include all ervah and chayvei lavvim....If so this that an unmarried
woman's voice is permitted is only when she is not a nidah. This is also
found in the Pri Megadim"

He concludes on page 70: "Therefore lmaaseh since in the situation
being asked about it is impossible to be stricter than the absolute
din for anshei maaseh - It is permitted for the girls to sing up till
the age of 11. Older than 11 even though it is known that they hadn't
seen blood...one should still be machmir since it still reasonable
that someone at this age would see blood a distinction should not be
made. Without pressing need it shouldn't be permitted at all since one
who is machmir in these matters is kadosh.

                 Daniel Eidensohn

Over the years, I have seen the following minhagim with respect to
covering one's head with a talis:
1) Hodu-end-Nussach Sefard
2) Barchu-SE/Chazaras HaShatz
3)SE-Chazaras HaShatz

Mkoros anyone?

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

On 7 Apr 2003 at 15:24, Zeliglaw@aol.com wrote:
> Over the years, I have seen the following minhagim with respect to
> covering one's head with a talis:
> 1) Hodu-end-Nussach Sefard
> 2) > Barchu-SE/Chazaras HaShatz
> 3)SE-Chazaras HaShatz
...

See MB 8:4 who brings in the name of the Bach to have the tallis over 
your head the entire davening. 

-- Carl

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

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


[ 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         ]